Mission service: Culture, or canon?

[Windseeker]

I'm not sure why we would pretend that it is when it's A) posted on Mormon Feminist Housewives, B) posted by someone who is obviously bitter and angry, C) reported to that person by someone who has, essentially left the church, and D) can you really imagine any church leader singling out a youth and proclaiming to the entire congregation at hand that said youth was following Satan?

 

The entire thing is fishy, fishy, fishy!

 

Moreover, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that we take the literal story as factual and the SP did just this -- Are we to presume that he was not acting under guidance of the Spirit? Is it not just as likely that several others in the congregation were bolstered, uplifted, strengthened, and inspired by his words, and that perhaps the reality is that the kid who was offended was on his way out no matter what who said, and the Spirit, knowing all things, knew what was going to be more effective for more souls, etc., and guided the SP accordingly?

 

Well I think we both agree it's a possibility. We can also consider whether or not the SP was following the Spirit. The SP is human and I've seen many examples in my life of people in Church leadership being human when both their efforts and intentions were good.

 

Anyway, it hardly sounds like leaving the ninety and nine to save the straying one. I doubt anyone is bolstered, uplifted, strengthened and inspired when an individual is singled out, publicly shamed and castigated for not choosing to hand over two years of his life in service.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well I think we both agree it's a possibility. We can also consider whether or not the SP was following the Spirit. The SP is human and I've seen many examples in my life of people in Church leadership being human when both their efforts and intentions were good.

 

Is it appropriate to judge others and declare that Satan's methods were being used based on unsubstantiated possibilities?

 

Anyway, it hardly sounds like leaving the ninety and nine to save the straying one.

 

I don't see the connect. You're implying that going to save the one cannot include reprimands or hard truths? Scriptural example upon scriptural example would not support such an idea. Often preaching is harsh to the lost sheep being gone after. I mean, seriously...could there be a better example of the guilty taking the truth hard?

 

I'm not saying (if the story is accurate) that I believe the SP was in the right (nor am I saying he was in the wrong). But I don't see it relative to whether he was leaving the 99 or not.

 

I doubt anyone is bolstered, uplifted, strengthened and inspired when an individual is singled out, publicly shamed and castigated for not choosing to hand over two years of his life in service.

 

The only thing we know is that one person perceived that they were being singled out, publicly shamed and castigated (actually, all we know is that one person's mother claims they perceived such). We have no idea what was said, the tone of voice, the surrounding dialog(s), or anything of the sort. Presumption that no one could have been uplifted by what was actually said has very little validity to my thinking.

 

And, I have to say again, there are plenty of scriptural examples of people being publicly shamed and castigated when being preached to. I'm just not so certain it's valid to take a "this is always wrong" point of view.

[Windseeker]

I don't think of public shaming when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as outreach. In all my experience with the Church I have never witnessed a public shaming or someone being called out for following Satan. As a tool, it certainly has done little to endear me toward Evangelicals (if you happen to be following those threads). We are not talking about a Prophet crying repentance to a Nation or People here but public shaming an indvidual. 

 

Interesting to note, even those feminist who actively worked against the Church were lovingly dealt with by the Church, and it's THEY who have gone public and attempted to Shame the Church...NOT the other way around.

 

 I have no problem with reproving or reprimanding someone in private. 

 

"lest he esteem thee to be thine enemy"  ...seems even Heavenly Father wants us to avoid planting seeds of bitterness.

 

...Unfortunately I don't have time to play with hypotheticals but I certainly share your concern when it comes to whether this article is truthful. (depending on your mood you might ignore this line of agreement and continue on...oh well)

Edited June 8, 2015 by Windseeker

[Jane_Doe]

But our call to share the gospel does not end at the end of formal full-time missionary service.  To quote the last General Conference (I don't recall the speaker): "RM does NOT stand for 'retired Mormon'!! " 

 

You're right. But how many of those who balk at official missionary service actively share the gospel?

 

If the Spirit tells you to go on a full-time mission, then it is wise to go.  

 

If the Spirit tells you not to go on a full-time mission, then it is foolish to go on one.

 

If you're not going to listen to the Spirit, and what He says, then you should be focusing first and foremost on your own testimony building. 

[Vort]

If the Spirit tells you to go on a full-time mission, then it is wise to go.  

 

If the Spirit tells you not to go on a full-time mission, then it is foolish to go on one.

 

If you're not going to listen to the Spirit, and what He says, then you should be focusing first and foremost on your own testimony building. 

 

The way this is put, it seems very hard to disagree with. But I think it's a bit like saying, "If the Spirit tells you to take a second wife, then it is foolish not to do so." I mean, yeah, it's true as written, but...I don't think so.

 

We have been told that full-time missionary work is a Priesthood duty -- not a mere suggestion or good idea. We have also been told, repeatedly, for decades now, that every young man should prepare to serve a full-time mission. Whether that full-time missionary opportunity comes about is up to the bishop, stake president, and General Authorities.

 

Now of course, we all have our agency. A young man doesn't "have to" serve a full-time mission, any more than he "has to" get married, be faithful to his wife, treat his children with love, or inherit celestial glory. No one is compelled to do these things; that's the meaning of "agency". But the fact that we are not compelled to do them does not mean they are optional.

 

I do not believe that the Spirit will instruct an individual young man, "You are not to serve a mission, so don't talk to your bishop." I believe that revelation will come to the leaders, and will be confirmed to the young man. In other words, I do not think it is the purview of the young man to decide how he serves the kingdom of God as a missionary; I think that's the leader's job. God will not short-circuit his own system.

[estradling75]

Matthew 16

 21 ¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be ^araised again the third day.

 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou ^asavourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Lets see this was Christ addressing Peter, while Christ was teaching the disciples (in public)...  I think this scripture makes it very hard to claim that rebuking someone else in public as Satan is not a Christ-like thing to do.  Of course we are not as wise or as all knowing as Christ, which is what the Holy Spirit is for.  And if anyone would be authorized to do so one would expect it to be someone God had called and set apart with a divinely given stewardship over those they are addressing.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think of public shaming when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as outreach. In all my experience with the Church I have never witnessed a public shaming or someone being called out for following Satan. As a tool, it certainly has done little to endear me toward Evangelicals (if you happen to be following those threads). We are not talking about a Prophet crying repentance to a Nation or People here but public shaming an indvidual. 

 

As a general rule I don't disagree. Generally speaking, publicly shaming someone is, obviously, inappropriate. What I have a problem with is the "I know better" attitude that automatically gets applied to the stake president (and/or bishop or any other) in situations like these. As I've said, there are distinct scriptural examples of public shaming, like Amulek and Zeezrom (See Alma chapter 11) and many of Christ's interactions with the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. In the case of Zeezrom it actually worked and Zeezrom converted. Who would guess that Amulek calling him a child of hell would have had that effect?

 

But don't misunderstand my response to be an advocacy for public shaming or harsh treatment. What I am advocating is not judging a situation based on a sob story by way of disaffected hearsay.

 

...Unfortunately I don't have time to play with hypotheticals...

 

Please apply a lighthearted tongue-in-cheek tone --> I have to wonder about anyone claiming they don't have time for discussion as they participate in a discussion thread... 

 

...but I certainly share your concern when it comes to whether this article is truthful. (depending on your mood you might ignore this line of agreement and continue on...oh well)

 

I am familiar enough with your attitudes, posts, thinking, etc., to know that you are not anti-church-leadership or anything like unto it. Hopefully you know me and my posts, attitudes, thinking, etc., to understand that I am addressing principles rather than attacking you as an individual or just trying to argue.

[Windseeker]

Matthew 16

 21 ¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be ^araised again the third day.

 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou ^asavourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Lets see this was Christ addressing Peter, while Christ was teaching the disciples (in public)...  I think this scripture makes it very hard to claim that rebuking someone else in public as Satan is not a Christ-like thing to do.  Of course we are not as wise or as all knowing as Christ, which is what the Holy Spirit is for.  And if anyone would be authorized to do so one would expect it to be someone God had called and set apart with a divinely given stewardship over those they are addressing.

 

I still see the Savior amongst his disciples as a fairly intimate setting but in this case I definitely think Peter started it first  .

 

The Savior didn't even rebuke the women caught in adultery till all the would be stone casters had left.

 

I do think there is a place in society for public shaming (dead beat dads, pedophiles) but it's mostly a tactic utilized by the occupants of the "Great and Spacious Building". Social, Peer Pressure, or "Be Cool or Be Cast Out"...to invoke the lesser holy trinity of Neil Peart, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Matthew 16

 21 ¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be ^araised again the third day.

 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou ^asavourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Lets see this was Christ addressing Peter, while Christ was teaching the disciples (in public)...  I think this scripture makes it very hard to claim that rebuking someone else in public as Satan is not a Christ-like thing to do.  Of course we are not as wise or as all knowing as Christ, which is what the Holy Spirit is for.  And if anyone would be authorized to do so one would expect it to be someone God had called and set apart with a divinely given stewardship over those they are addressing.

Clearly Jesus was not subtle in his rebuke of Peter, what in not mentioned is that Peter is/was and Apostle! He can take that chastisement and move forward. 

 

That level of chastisement for an individual who was/is struggling with his testimony/desire to go on a mission is not justified. A good leader knows his audience and how to address them to get the desired results.

[Vort]

That level of chastisement for an individual who was/is struggling with his testimony/desire to go on a mission is not justified.

 

How do you know this, omegaseamaster75? Did God reveal to you that the actions of this unnamed stake president as reported on a basically anti-Mormon website by an anonymous mom with an obvious axe to grind were evil? If not (and the answer is obviously no), by what authority do you make this proclamation?

[omegaseamaster75]

How do you know this, omegaseamaster75? Did God reveal to you that the actions of this unnamed stake president as reported on a basically anti-Mormon website by an anonymous mom with an obvious axe to grind were evil? If not (and the answer is obviously no), by what authority do you make this proclamation?

I don't know.

 

I'm making a statement about how to address individuals, and that levels of chastisement should be metered out appropriately.

 

I do not know the kid in question or his SP or anything about the veracity of the source of this story. I am simply stating that as leaders you should know your audience as clearly Christ knew his. If we take that "claimed" statement made by the SP at face value I would say that he was mistaken. CLEARLY we are getting a biased view point from the article in question.

[estradling75]

I don't know.

 

I'm making a statement about how to address individuals, and that levels of chastisement should be metered out appropriately.

 

I do not know the kid in question or his SP or anything about the veracity of the source of this story. I am simply stating that as leaders you should know your audience as clearly Christ knew his. If we take that "claimed" statement made by the SP at face value I would say that he was mistaken. CLEARLY we are getting a biased view point from the article in question.

 

Indeed bias...

 

It says alot about a person on with side of the bias they come down and support/defend.  

 

Do you support/defend those called of God to handle individuals under their stewardship?

 

Or do you support/defend those whom have a history/showing signs of rebellion?

 

The choice is yours,,,  But I know whose side I choose.

[Vort]

 

I don't know.

 

I'm making a statement about how to address individuals, and that levels of chastisement should be metered out appropriately.

 

I do not know the kid in question or his SP or anything about the veracity of the source of this story. I am simply stating that as leaders you should know your audience as clearly Christ knew his.

 

I doubt anyone reading this thread disagrees with this part of what you wrote. I suspect most of us had the same or similar thoughts while reading the story and the examples given.

 

If we take that "claimed" statement made by the SP at face value I would say that he was mistaken. CLEARLY we are getting a biased view point from the article in question.

 

Yes, the bias is clear. But your judgment on the supposed situation (that the stake president was mistaken in his reported actions) is still unwarranted.

 

If we take the story purely at face value -- which I certainly do not -- it does appear as if the stake president is overstepping the bounds of good judgment at the expense of the young man. But as TFP has pointed out repeatedly, that appearance may be false. In other words, even if the history given is 100% accurate, the stake president might still have been justified in his words to the young man.

 

The fact that the story originated on fmh decreases any credibility it might have had. It does not change the fact that in any case, the accusation of "spiritual abuse", in this case comprising a stake president talking sternly to a young man in a public setting, may be completely wrong. The site being fmh does not change or even engender the suspicion that the condemnation of the stake president is wrong, but merely makes it a near-certainty.

[omegaseamaster75]

 

 

 

I doubt anyone reading this thread disagrees with this part of what you wrote. I suspect most of us had the same or similar thoughts while reading the story and the examples given.

 

Yes, the bias is clear. But your judgment on the supposed situation (that the stake president was mistaken in his reported actions) is still unwarranted.

 

I

My judgement is not any less unwarranted then the judgement of the individual who claims that the SP was 100% justified For this reason: We do not have both sides of the story, we are making assumptions based off of a biased view point. 

 

 

 

The fact that the story originated on fmh decreases any credibility it might have had. It does not change the fact that in any case, the accusation of "spiritual abuse", in this case comprising a stake president talking sternly to a young man in a public setting, may be completely wrong. The site being fmh does not change or even engender the suspicion that the condemnation of the stake president is wrong, but merely makes it a near-certainty.

 

You said it this story has no credibility. we only have one side of the story therefore my judgement is no less or more valuable than anyone else. It is my judgement based on the facts that we do have nothing more nothing less. For all I know the SP was justified in what he said but I guess we will never know..........

[Vort]

My judgement is not any less unwarranted then the judgement of the individual who claims that the SP was 100% justified For this reason: We do not have both sides of the story, we are making assumptions based off of a biased view point.

 

I don't think anyone ever made that claim here, omega. Scanning back through the replies, I can't find anyone who did.

[omegaseamaster75]

Indeed bias...

 

It says alot about a person on with side of the bias they come down and support/defend.  

 

What does it say about them?

 

 

Do you support/defend those called of God to handle individuals under their stewardship?

 

 

Of course I do when it is done in righteousness. 

 

Or do you support/defend those whom have a history/showing signs of rebellion?

 

Why would I support someone who is rebellious against the church?

[omegaseamaster75]

I don't think anyone ever made that claim here, omega. Scanning back through the replies, I can't find anyone who did.

OK maybe not those exact words....

[The Folk Prophet]

OK maybe not those exact words....

 

Or even those exact implications. No one has even hinted such.

[estradling75]

What does it say about them?

 

 

It shows where their heart lies...  

 

 

 

Why would I support someone who is rebellious against the church?

 

So you are saying that you also don't believe the reports?  Given the clearly rebellious nature of the site that reported it?

[Windseeker]

 

As a general rule I don't disagree. Generally speaking, publicly shaming someone is, obviously, inappropriate. What I have a problem with is the "I know better" attitude that automatically gets applied to the stake president (and/or bishop or any other) in situations like these. As I've said, there are distinct scriptural examples of public shaming, like Amulek and Zeezrom (See Alma chapter 11) and many of Christ's interactions with the Scribes and Pharisees, etc. In the case of Zeezrom it actually worked and Zeezrom converted. Who would guess that Amulek calling him a child of hell would have had that effect?

 

But don't misunderstand my response to be an advocacy for public shaming or harsh treatment. What I am advocating is not judging a situation based on a sob story by way of disaffected hearsay.

 

 

Please apply a lighthearted tongue-in-cheek tone --> I have to wonder about anyone claiming they don't have time for discussion as they participate in a discussion thread...  

 

 

I am familiar enough with your attitudes, posts, thinking, etc., to know that you are not anti-church-leadership or anything like unto it. Hopefully you know me and my posts, attitudes, thinking, etc., to understand that I am addressing principles rather than attacking you as an individual or just trying to argue. 

 

 

Zeezrom?.....this is a guy who was actively lying, deceiving the people and trying to turn people against the Church not someone who decided not to go on a mission. 

 

Anyway..I gotcha. 

 

I just think if this actually ever occurred as described most of us would be shocked. 

 

Having two kids who ought to be on missions under my roof perhaps colors my view, but I just hope and pray that the option is not between serving a mission and going inactive till your old enough that people assume you are past a mission.

Some may feel the Church ought to be an uncomfortable place for those who are of age and choose not to go on a mission. But I myself have never felt it necessary to approach kids I barely know, put my arm around them and ask them why they are not on missions. If a mission is between a young man and the Lord then for heavens sake, let's not all take it upon ourselves to wedge ourselves between them...and yeah I know the Lord works thru others as well but common!.  I expect the Parents, Stake President, Bishop, and perhaps Elders Quorum Presidents to encourage young men on a personal level and others ought to tread carefully when reaching so far out of their jurisdiction and area of influence.

 

My older brother whose two sons are on a mission provided some comfort by telling me we are not alone. This is after all the Lords Work. If it's really vital he will send a Whale....and remember..that was for a Prophet.

 

So in my opinion we work within the framework the Lord has Provided to encourage people to keep the commandments, which is:

 

 

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile. 

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 

[Vort]

OK maybe not those exact words....

 

Look, I don't want to pick at words. (Seriously. I don't.) I'm not out to prove you wrong, or anyone else.

 

Here's my beef:

 

Someone tells a completely unverifiable story about a stake president supposedly "shaming" her son in public. That story is told on a known anti-Mormon web site (yes, for all reasonable intents and purposes, fmh is very much anti-Mormon). Then everyone is supposed to unite in appalled condemnation of the stake president who so horribly abused his position.

 

I think it's all nonsense. I don't believe the story for a moment, especially given where it was told. But even if every word were true, the conclusion that the stake president was wrong or out of line is still nonsense.

 

We should be very slow indeed to condemn our leaders, which is exactly what this sob story is trying to get us to do. That is what I disagree with -- the overall agenda of the anecdote.

[The Folk Prophet]

Zeezrom?.....this is a guy who was actively lying, deceiving the people and trying to turn people against the Church not someone who decided not to go on a mission. 

 

Anyway..I gotcha. 

 

I just think if this actually ever occurred as described most of us would be shocked. 

 

Having two kids who ought to be on missions under my roof perhaps colors my view, but I just hope and pray that the option is not between serving a mission and going inactive till your old enough that people assume you are past a mission.

Some may feel the Church ought to be an uncomfortable place for those who are of age and choose not to go on a mission. But I myself have never felt it necessary to approach kids I barely know, put my arm around them and ask them why they are not on missions. If a mission is between a young man and the Lord then for heavens sake, let's not all take it upon ourselves to wedge ourselves between them...and yeah I know the Lord works thru others as well but common!.  I expect the Parents, Stake President, Bishop, and perhaps Elders Quorum Presidents to encourage young men on a personal level and others ought to tread carefully when reaching so far out of their jurisdiction and area of influence.

 

My older brother whose two sons are on a mission provided some comfort by telling me we are not alone. This is after all the Lords Work. If it's really vital he will send a Whale....and remember..that was for a Prophet.

 

So in my opinion we work within the framework the Lord has Provided to encourage people to keep the commandments, which is:

 

I'm not sure that Zeezrom's intent changes anything. I don't recall any "unless they're like this" exceptions to the rules of how we are to persuade others. But...perhaps.

 

For the most part I agree with you. My bias may lean a bit differently not having the kids who ought to be on missions under my roof (though, knowing myself, it would likely sway my bias even more the way I tend to lean rather than less) but in principle, I accept that a lot of people tend to stick their noses in where they don't belong. Maybe. But it's also quite innocent, I believe. Moreso. It's actually done with good and just reasoning -- in a sincere effort to build the kingdom, uplift and encourage others, etc.

 

So I have to ask (and understand, please, this is a generic asking, not implying or accusing you of anything), why is it wrong to judge someone for imperfectly choosing to not serve a mission, but it's somehow acceptable to judge someone for putting their arm around them and asking them why they aren't on a mission.

 

Is it, as omega seems to suggest, okay to judge someone because they're able to take it?

 

As to D&C 121, let's look a bit closer just for discussion's sake.

 

Here are the attributes. I'll address each in terms of this particular blog in question:

 

• persuasion

-Is teaching someone that they cannot serve both God and Mammon, that they are either on Christ's side or Satan's side not within the bounds of an effort to persuade?

• long-suffering

-Same question as above as applicable to long-suffering.

• gentleness

-Can this teaching not be given gently? Does the concept, itself, define what is and isn't gentle? Or does the tone and intent play into gentleness as well?

• meekness

-Is not true meekness absolute deference to God's truth as defined by His word, which clearly teaches that we cannot serve God and Satan?

• love unfeigned;

-If someone truly and honestly loves someone, would not that person's eternal welfare take precedence over even their potential hurt feelings? Does love unfeigned lead us to accept wrong-headedness in the name of "love", or does it lead us to embrace eternal truths?

• kindness

-Same question as gentleness.

• pure knowledge

-Is not truth truth? Should we speak something other than the things we know to be true because those truths might hurt someone?

• without hypocrisy, and without guile—

-We cannot know if there was hypocrisy or guile involved. If there was, shame on the SP, of course. But the natural implication of the story, even as told by the disaffected, is that the SP was sincere.

• Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost

-We're not really sure how "sharp" (whatever that means exactly) the actual moment was, but let's be clear. Betimes means "quickly". And sharpness, although ambiguous to an extent, pretty much sums up all of the Lord's words. His words are sharp. They are clear, and they cut to the very soul.

• and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

-As we don't really have the full story, we don't really know if any effort was made in this regard.

 

My point?

 

Does D&C 121 teach that all blunt discourse is wrong? Or is it, perhaps, oft times used as an excuse to condemn anything we don't like to hear, and an excuse for the disaffected to criticize church leaders and justify their pride?

Edited June 8, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[priesthoodpower]

Can you give any reason why we should accept this lady's account as accurate?

 

Does the stake president breath air and drink water? ..then he is human and has potential to offend and disappoint....and it happens in our wards/stakes more often then we want to acknowledge. So yes I can believe that it happened.

 

Earlier this year my 10 yr old daughter was sitting in her primary class. Her male teacher (Husband/wife combination who are in their 60's and husband served in the bishopric many years ago) told them "Every church except for the LDS church is the devils church". 

 

I dont disagree with that statement but there is a time and place to have that discussion and in a 10yr old primary class is not the time nor place.

 

I know this brethern and he is genuinely a good person that loves the ward and does a lot of service, but what he thought was a teaching moment ended up scaring my daughters perception of how us mormons view the rest of the world, she came away very upset that our LDS church would think of her best friends at school and on her soccer team whom go to other churches as evil people.  I had to tell my daughter what President Hinkley said about other churches....that they are all good people and all have truth to them but only our church has the keys to administer eternal ordinances and the priesthood. Can anyone say damage control?

 

In Business Sales and Marketing the brand of your company is not controlled by what you say in your advertising messages, it is controlled by the customers who tell it. The customer controls your brand. How do you make them feel? ..How do our church leaders make us feel? If they are acting in righteousness then the spirit would be present and the person receiving the message would know that there are good intentions behind that message regardless of how awkward it might have sounded.

 

I can remember back in the 90's how the national media would always refer to us as "mormons", and the brethern in SLC tried very hard to explain that we would like to be known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints", there was even efforts put out in our Ensign magazines instructing us members to take every opportunity available to explain to our non-member friends that we are LDS not mormons. As hard as we tried to control our own brand, the snowball effect was out of control and so eventually in the early 2000's our church embraced the term and now we officially accept the title of "mormon".

 

All these storys of how members are being offended and eventually going in-active by what our leaders are saying and how they say it will eventually be the subject of our church leaders meetings (if it already has not), and things will change for the better.

Edited June 8, 2015 by priesthoodpower

[The Folk Prophet]

 

Does the stake president breath air and drink water? ..then he is human and has potential to offend and disappoint....

 

A. No one's debating the point that the kid (or at least his mother) was offended and disappointed. and B. It doesn't take a weak mortal to do so. There were many who were offended and disappointed in Christ. They crucified him for it. So I'm not sure I'm convinced by the "if you offended you're in the wrong" argument.

 

 

Earlier this year my 10 yr old daughter was sitting in her primary class. Her male teacher (Husband/wife combination who are in their 60's and husband served in the bishopric many years ago) told them "Every church except for the LDS church is the devils church". 

 

I dont disagree with that statement but there is a time and place to have that discussion and in a 10yr old primary class is not the time nor place.

 

I know this brethern and he is genuinely a good person that loves the ward and does a lot of service, but what he thought was a teaching moment ended up scaring my daughters perception of how us mormons view the rest of the world, she came away very upset that our LDS church would think of her best friends at school and on her soccer team whom go to other churches as evil people.  I had to tell my daughter what President Hinkley said about other churches....that they are all good people and all have truth to them but only our church has the keys to administer eternal ordinances and the priesthood. Can anyone say damage control?

 

Yes. People do say stupid things when they shouldn't. But can we show as much compassion and understanding for them as we do for those offended? And can we not blame the church because people are people?

 

In Business Sales and Marketing the brand of your company is not controlled by what you say in your advertising messages, it is controlled by the customers who tell it. The customer controls your brand. How do you make them feel? ..How do our church leaders make us feel? If they are acting in righteousness then the spirit would be present and the person receiving the message would know that there are good intentions behind that message regardless of how awkward it might have sounded.

 

I can remember back in the 90's how the national media would always refer to us as "mormons", and the brethern in SLC tried very hard to explain that we would like to be known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints", there was even efforts put out in our Ensign magazines instructing us members to take every opportunity available to explain to our non-member friends that we are LDS not mormons. As hard as we tried to control our own brand, the snowball effect was out of control and so eventually in the early 2000's our church embraced the term and now we officially accept the title of "mormon".

 

I'm not sure your point. Yes, the "branding" of the church plays into it's missionary efforts and the like. Does this extend to the relinquishing of eternal truths, principles, or doctrines to please those who are offended by such though? Are we meant to only say things that are pleasing to "the world" so as to strengthen our brand?

 

Within reason, yes, we should work to put our best selves forward and build on common ground, etc. But if we don't actually warn our neighbor then it won't much matter how well the church is branded in the end. It behooves us to warn our neighbor. We have, in fact, been commanded to.

 

Sure, the "how" is somewhat in question. But I'm not sure we can get away with no offense and still warn our neighbor. The warning, after all, is offensive. Repent or be damned...and all that.

 

 

All these storys of how members are being offended and eventually going in-active by what our leaders are saying and how they say it will eventually be the subject of our church leaders meetings (if it already has not), and things will change for the better.

 

I don't doubt there is always improvement to make. But the advent of the internet and the ability for every sour-puss to proclaim injustice to the world doesn't exactly define reality. I believe it was just this most recent conference where we were assured that the church wasn't actually experiencing some huge exponential decline its numbers.

 

People don't go inactive because of truth spoken over the pulpit. No way. No how.

 

There is only one reason this lady and her son have a problem and were offended and were complaining, and it's not because of what the stake president did or did not say. It cuts through every word she writes as plain as day. 

 

Pride.

[Backroads]

If the Spirit tells you to go on a full-time mission, then it is wise to go.

If the Spirit tells you not to go on a full-time mission, then it is foolish to go on one.

If you're not going to listen to the Spirit, and what He says, then you should be focusing first and foremost on your own testimony building.

With all due respect, this is neither here nor there in regards to my question.