The Departed

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

#1. The problem is you come across as angry, both in tone and style.

Take it from one of the masters of pissing people off with his over aggressive tone at times. The louder you yell and the more incendiary you deliberately try to be,,,,,the less people hear and want to hear.

As a former victim of abuse I'm personally offended that someone like you who claims to be so politically correct and sensitive towards others, so flippantly and casually throws the word abuse around when it comes to the church. I'm kindly asking you to re-think before you make those statements again.

You are not a victim.

#2. Given your consistent history of baiting others and carefully worded plans of attacking the church, its policies, its leaders, its doctrine, its members, you've really lost any right to continue your charade as a victim.

Change your tone and approach some and you might be taken more seriously.

Wow Rocky. Starting a campaign to actively resist staying where I have you pegged are you? Nice post.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't think they tried Protestant-lite. What they did was change their stance on modernity; they became more accepting of the broader culture on issues like social and economic justice.

Interestingly, a similar stance has worked very well for black churches.

It has not worked for the Protestants. Are you from Utah (I find that Utahns tend to not know what is going on in churches around the country)?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It has not worked for the Protestants. Are you from Utah (I find that Utahns tend to not know what is going on in churches around the country)?

I'm definitely not from Utah and I visit various churches fairly regularly. I was at a mainline protestant church this last Sunday, actually.

More importantly, I'm not sure what you are referring to with "it."

If you're referring to being more welcoming of social and economic causes, I'd mostly agree. That hasn't been a great "draw." The black churches are a big exception, though. They've thrived doing that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm definitely not from Utah.

More importantly, I'm not sure what you are referring to with "it."

If you're referring to being more welcoming of social and economic causes, I'd mostly agree. The black churches are a big exception, though. They've thrived with that emphasis.

Doctrines and practices shifting away from tradition, demanding less, expecting less, permissiveness in all moral aspects. "Feel good" Christianity.

The traditional protestant churches are diminishing in strength, numbers and cohesion.

Look at the percent in the younger ages among mainline protestants: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/co...Traditions.pdf

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The black churches are a big exception, though. They've thrived doing that.

They have, but Islam has been even more successful than Protestants in fighting social problems in the black community like drug use. As Rodney Stark would say, those who become mainline are headed for the sidelines.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Doctrines and practices shifting away from tradition, demanding less, expecting less, permissiveness in all moral aspects. "Feel good" Christianity.

The traditional protestant churches are diminishing in strength, numbers and cohesion.

Look at the percent in the younger ages among mainline protestants: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/co...Traditions.pdf

They do have their troubles, but they get plenty done too. The Presbyterian Church that let me join their bible study last year has been doing a ton for Katrina clean up. They send youth groups down to Haiti (a little dangerous, if you ask me), to help out in a hospital.

I don't think the comparison to Mormon-lite is valid, though. I don't think anyone is asking the LDS Church to go all social gospel, or ecumenical or anything like that.

I also don't think the mainline protestants' difficulties are irreversible. The United Methodists are showing signs of life. Some Presbyterians are talking about doing old style proselyting. The Episcopalians might be a lost cause, but then they are trying to figure things out.

I attended a mainline protestant church on Sunday because it was stake conference and I'd had enough on Saturday (4 hours) and this particular church had really come out in support of the Mormons during the Ed Decker film mess a couple of weeks ago. It was very high class of them.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

They have, but Islam has been even more successful than Protestants in fighting social problems in the black community like drug use. As Rodney Stark would say, those who become mainline are headed for the sidelines.

There's some truth to this. There are opportunities for these churches, though, that aren't so "mainline."

[MikeWaters]

SIEQ, what is the rosy optimistic picture for the mainline protestants?

Because they have a study group, because they send youth to Haiti, that doesn't speak to their viability. After all, there are so many non-profits that do more, that have no religious/Christian component.

Their membership is steadily declining. Steady decline means less churches, less community presence, and increasingly, less relevance.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SIEQ, what is the rosy optimistic picture for the mainline protestants?

Because they have a study group, because they send youth to Haiti, that doesn't speak to their viability. After all, there are so many non-profits that do more, that have no religious/Christian component.

Their membership is steadily declining. Steady decline means less churches, less community presence, and increasingly, less relevance.

I don't think their picture is rosy, but I do think there are ways to improve it. Proselyting is a must. Converting feel good-ism into substantive love- thy-neighbor sermonizing and regular, organized action will help. Robert Putnam and others have noted a vacuum for a real sense of community in the U.S. and these churches could step into that space. This is part of what the black mainline churches have tapped into, I think.

What they need to not do is try to appeal to everyone. Their old boundaries developed over doctrinal impasses that most people today don't understand or care about. They'll need to make their peculiarities distinctive markers, and will need to sharpen their brands, as it were. In other words, they'll have to rearticulate themselves.

I have ideas about how some of the mainlines may attempt this, but I need to evaluate a student on the radio in 15 minutes, so it'll have to wait!

[Solon]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

What methods of inquiry do you use aside from hypothesis testing?

I don't know the scientific terms, but I'll give it a shot. Many archaeologists and most historians use conclusions rather than hypotheses. I know they're related, and there must always exist some type of framework for a theoretical model or idea, but they're usually kept bare bones. Keep an open mind. Dig the site (or read the text). Analyze what you found. You can't go into Mesoamerica thinking "I have a hypothesis that Lamanites lived here." Rather, you go into Mesoamerica with a question like, "how did the people living here in the past organize their societies, trade, travel, etc?" With the data in hand, you formulate a hypothesis/theory/model until the next person's findings become available and the model is adjusted. It therefore often becomes more a matter of explanation and understanding rather than proof/disproof of a particular theory (although this happens as the amount of information grows larger).

There's a saying in Greek archaeology, "you can't excavate Homer," meaning you can't start with an idea of what you want or think you'll find. You dig and then interpret the results.

I know there's a lot of murky area between hypothesis-testing and what I'm trying to explain, but I think the gist of my point is to find the evidence before formulating any hypothesis. Since there's no hard evidence of this kind for the Book of Mormon, it's stalled from the get-go. There does remain what we call negative evidence, such as claims that DNA testing misses huge gaps, or that people from Asia could have arrived by boat in 600 BCE, but there is no positive evidence, such as a pot sherd with Nephi's name scratched on it in Egyptian or Hebrew letters.

Splitting hairs, perhaps, but I see it as a difference.