Where Did All The Pioneers Go?

[Give It Time]

Being a member of the church in the early days could not have been an easy thing. It took a boldness. It took a firm conviction what they were doing was right.

My current experience of members is they are very afraid. Now, I don't hold a high opinion of Joseph Smith, but I'm the early days of the church, they actually voted and the man wasn't afraid to ask questions and seek creative solutions. Now, just for this thread, I'd like to leave all the hanky-panky in the past and give this a latter-day application.

Do you know what happens when I say something to a member like Jesus wouldn't have us clucking our tongues sympathetically at people in difficult circumstances and assuage our guilt at not helping them by saying things will be better for them in the next life? The person in front of me either starts crying or comes just short of calling me an apostate. When I say that the real indicator of a disciple of Christ is how they treat people (Sheri Dew said this and she was quoting a seventy), I get people treating me like I have leprosy.

Now, neither of those two statements is against doctrine. Not even remotely so. If I were to say similar to an apostle, he would concur. I have heard Oaks--Oaks, mind you--say similar things. Yet, to say that how we treat each other--not a temple recommend--is the mark of a true disciple is considered among the general membership to be blasphemy.

Every now and then, we float some great ideas for how the church could be more Christlike without changing any doctrine. Yet, if I were to share any of these ideas with a member, they would start avoiding me. This pioneering and visionary (good ideas) spirit are what built this church. This spirit was essential in the earlier members.

Now, I see people actively afraid of implementing good ideas. People afraid of asking their leaders to ask questions. I know the timeline is long and I know Packer and Benson are the culprits behind a lot of this, but I am sitting here thinking what it took to pioneer this religion in the early days. I wonder if our ancestors would look at the current membership and be a little appalled at how fearful they have become, that the church is no longer dynamic​.

I wonder where all the pioneers have gone.

[Bloodhound98]

I have felt that people in the Church are good people because of fear of consequences. They get excuses to be idiots when apostates cross their path and the can judge them. The question I have proposed to myself is "Am I a good person because I try to be? Or am I a good person because I want to be?" Big difference one requires you are probably guilted into your good actions and they are about as deep as a kiddy pool. The other is your true nature and if you let your true nature shine the world can benefit.
Am I a good person because I did all my home teaching? Am I a good person because I smile at anyone? I have tried to be a good person and really do it the way I know best and not the way the Church tells me too.
I have seen too many EQ Presidents ignore their family to check in mine. I have seen people dying to serve the Ward members, but barely serve their own wives. The Church has it backwards and fear is the only way to keep the faith alive. I want to be a good person because that is my true nature and not in some Sunday School manual.

[Give It Time]

When my testimony first fell, these two thoughts ran through my head. 1 ) What if I go off the deep end and become an alcoholic, addicted, murdering prostitute? 2) How will I be a kind person if I don't believe the church is true?

Then reason settled in. If I have to have the church to keep me in line or keep me kind, it doesn't say much for my character, now does it?

[Palerider]

This was one of my great understandings that came with realizing that the "true" church didn't exist on the earth.
It meant that from a believing Christian point of view, the Biblical scriptures were the only tangible guide for good behavior and that after that, my reliance on God's Spirit working in me would be the measure by which I was judged and also the prime motivating factor in my desire to be a good person.

No more reliance on an institution or it's leaders. No more fear of not attaining worthiness via a temple recommend. No more kneeling before men to be measured against their phony yardstick.
Total liberty to choose righteousness as an outgrowth of my heart's desire to be close to God.

Thus all glory goes directly to Him. No possibility for a man made "church" to step in and say, "We saved you with our dead ordinances; give us the glory."

A works based church that is founded on worshipping the arm of flesh will eventually suffocate all pioneers who have the audacity to think independently.

[Give It Time]

I really like this statement.

A works based church that is founded on worshipping the arm of flesh will eventually suffocate all pioneers who have the audacity to think independently.

Jesus was not a works-based kind of guy. The early history of the church indicates the church didn't seem to start out works-based. The works-based aspect seemed to work its way in over time. The Law of Consecration was works-based. As was the Word of Wisdom. However, LofC fell by the wayside and, for a time WofW did, too. Polygamy, actually, is works-based in that it dictates a certain lifestyle. The three degrees of glory is something that I think might be the root of much of the unkindness in the church. It's set up in a manner very similar to our grading system. Outer Darkness is for the people who've earned "D's" and "F's". The telestial kingdom is for people who've earned "C's". The terrestrial kingdom is for those who've earned "B's". The celestial kingdom is for the "A" students with all the people who are a above handmaid status being part of God's Honor Society having earned the eternal "A+".

I think that "celestial" people are afraid to associate with those not getting as high an eternal gpa as they are. That somehow we'll bring them down. However, it's abundantly clear in the New Testament, Jesus didn't operate that way. As I write this, I think the system was put in place to destroy this spiritual pioneering by Joseph Smith. Even though that pioneering was the hallmark of his tenure. Brigham Young started introducing the control in a more heavy-handed way. I do see a certain amount of it as necessary to getting the pioneers across the plains and getting Zion established. However, the isolation coupled with the increased regime of power and control is something that started to kill that pioneering spirit.

I think as the power was shifted from the people to the church, bit by bit that pioneering spirit started to fade. I see the pre-discipline period of the September Six as pioneering spirit within them. Bit-by-bit, the ones who've dared to think differently--who are the true spiritual descendants of their forebears--are the ones who have ended up being disciplined. When that desire to break out of the pharisaical paradigm rears its ugly head, that person is treated in a manner that makes it clear that following the dictates of your conscience is not acceptable behavior.

[fh451]

Eric Hoffer talks about the phases that "mass movements" go through in their life cycle in his book "The True Believer". The LDS church is following the same pattern and is long past the innovative, pioneering spirit phase when things are exciting and big changes are welcomed and embraced. Once bureaucracies are created to run an effetive organization, they develop their own inertia and self-preservation instincts. Change is no longer welcome, and is in fact discouraged or squashed if possible. It is ironic that a church founded on radical ideas of personal revelation and direct contact with the divine has become so stagnant and entrenched.

fh451

[Give It Time]

Eric Hoffer talks about the phases that "mass movements" go through in their life cycle in his book "The True Believer". The LDS church is following the same pattern and is long past the innovative, pioneering spirit phase when things are exciting and big changes are welcomed and embraced. Once bureaucracies are created to run an effetive organization, they develop their own inertia and self-preservation instincts. Change is no longer welcome, and is in fact discouraged or squashed if possible. It is ironic that a church founded on radical ideas of personal revelation and direct contact with the divine has become so stagnant and entrenched.

fh451

Thank you for this. As I've been writing this thread, it seemed to me this was probably a normal evolution. It may seem an odd comparison, but I see the same thing happen in mutual funds and companies. When a fund or company is small, it can be nimble, creative and move quickly. As that company or fund grows, it no longer needs to scrounge for money to stay alive. It enters a comfortable growth phase, however, as it gets larger, it becomes a bit of an 800 lb. gorilla and it can't move with the ease it once did.

There is a saying in business, though: change or die. Will this church be a Kodak or a Coca-Cola? We'll see.

What I think is interesting about this, though, is funds are money. Companies are people, but the pool of people change drastically over the years. In a church, in this church, many of those people afraid of change are the direct descendants of those pioneers. It seems that those direct descendants would have similar inherited personality traits as their forebears, but culture seems to have trumped breeding.

[Corsair]

I had a chance to speak with an executive at Intel Corporation when I worked there years ago. She mentioned an interesting balance that must take place in the executive staff of a corporation. If you exclusively hire executives from outside the corporation you do get a lot of new ideas, but the culture that made the company successful does not continue and good mid level managers and important employees leave since promotion is obviously limited.

On the other hand, if a company only promotes from within they certainly preserve corporate culture and loyalty, but innovation and fostering new ideas will absolutely suffer. As a result, a good company must do both. Promoting new executives from within preserves culture and fosters loyalty while hiring some new executives from outside provides some innovation and new ideas. Balancing these ideas creates a healthy corporation.

But the LDS church can only promote from within. It's not like a senior theologian from Liberty University would ever be asked to join the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and be a viewpoint of new and challenging ideas. This would be seen as madness. The Q12 strictly promotes people from within who have demonstrated decades of loyalty and effectiveness as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, and Seventies.

Joseph Smith had the option to both promote from within and hire new talent. It built a robust organization and Joseph Smith was objectively a religious genius. It was revolutionary fire that created generations of resilient pioneers, speculative theology, plural marriage, and temple ordinances. That revolutionary fire burned out long ago. We now have only a well-funded corporate structure that relies on faith and loyalty and the demographic trends do not indicate a growing future.

[Give It Time]

I had a chance to speak with an executive at Intel Corporation when I worked there years ago. She mentioned an interesting balance that must take place in the executive staff of a corporation. If you exclusively hire executives from outside the corporation you do get a lot of new ideas, but the culture that made the company successful does not continue and good mid level managers and important employees leave since promotion is obviously limited.

On the other hand, if a company only promotes from within they certainly preserve corporate culture and loyalty, but innovation and fostering new ideas will absolutely suffer. As a result, a good company must do both. Promoting new executives from within preserves culture and fosters loyalty while hiring some new executives from outside provides some innovation and new ideas. Balancing these ideas creates a healthy corporation.

But the LDS church can only promote from within. It's not like a senior theologian from Liberty University would ever be asked to join the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and be a viewpoint of new and challenging ideas. This would be seen as madness. The Q12 strictly promotes people from within who have demonstrated decades of loyalty and effectiveness as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, and Seventies.

Joseph Smith had the option to both promote from within and hire new talent. It built a robust organization and Joseph Smith was objectively a religious genius. It was revolutionary fire that created generations of resilient pioneers, speculative theology, plural marriage, and temple ordinances. That revolutionary fire burned out long ago. We now have only a well-funded corporate structure that relies on faith and loyalty and the demographic trends do not indicate a growing future.

This is very true. As I read this, I thought of Pope Francis. I don't know how he happened, but I'm glad he did.

I think our church is in need of a Francis, otherwise it's going to stagnate and then go into attrition.

[Corsair]

This is very true. As I read this, I thought of Pope Francis. I don't know how he happened, but I'm glad he did.

I think our church is in need of a Francis, otherwise it's going to stagnate and then go into attrition.

I have some devout Catholic friends who think that Pope Francis is a big liberal weenie. "He's not my pope", has been a quietly uttered phrase. They are quietly and faithfully waiting for the appearance of another Benedict XVI. I find this a more refreshing way to look at church leadership than the outright hero worship the Mormons inflict upon themselves.

I have been thinking about this hilarious problem of having a progressive thinker become prophet and president of the LDS church. If somehow we have a Pope Francis show up then things will get easier for me to remain as the undercover unbeliever as I watch the more conservative elements in my family experience their own small slice of cognitive dissonance. A liberal might lighten up on some of the more doctrinaire positions that I try to avoid in my quest to not leave my wife as a church widow.

On the other hand, perhaps Dallin Oaks will embrace the conservative Sith Lord presidency that we assume he wants. This will be endlessly entertaining to me as his new outward requirements for virtue signalling come into LDS culture. I would enjoy flaunting my rebellion against some new restriction in conservative dress or religious practice. Making it harder to be a Mormon will also cause cognitive dissonance in my conservative friends and family although they will see it as a test of faith. I will see it as another reason ignore Sabbath day restrictions.

More likely is the bland middle ground of successive LDS church presidents who can only try to preserve an LDS culture that reached zenith in 1988. That year was the last height of convert baptisms and church growth followed by a long, slow decline. The Book of Mormon was still fully historical, gays were still in the closet, and the internet was only used by a few academic researchers. The most likely result of new LDS leadership is boring irrelevance cloaked in obedience and some acknowledgement of Jesus Christ.

[Nonny]

But the LDS church can only promote from within. It's not like a senior theologian from Liberty University would ever be asked to join the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and be a viewpoint of new and challenging ideas. This would be seen as madness. The Q12 strictly promotes people from within who have demonstrated decades of loyalty and effectiveness as bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, and Seventies.

This.

The reason we don't have dynamic leadership in the church is because the current leaders are caretakers. Joseph Smith was, or claimed to have been, called directly by God. After that, BY proclaimed himself the president and a procedure was put in place. Now the president is the one who survives the longest. The last time he was "called" was decades ago, and that was by a then current president not by a vision from God. Their mission was and has continued to be to grow the church and not let all Joseph's work go down the drain.

As Hoffer and fh451 point out, radical change is risky. These men are conservative through and through and maintaining the status quo is better than the risk of failure. Perhaps they lack the faith that the Lord really is directing this work. Therefore, they won't even ask the tough questions like should women be ordained or gays allowed to marry. No one wants his legacy to be that he let the church fail as an organization on his watch.

[Give It Time]

You both make interesting points. I've heard that the more conservative Catholics don't like Francis. It's interesting they choose to just grumble and complain rather than leave. I wonder if they have a Francis-NOM. Would members leave if we got a more dynamic--either liberal or conservative--prophet in there? Going by Catholic behavior, it looks like not. Right now, this latter prophets undoing the work of previous prophets reminds me quite a bit of what's going on in our nation. This ability within our church to do this has been criticised a lot, but Joseph Smith seemed to be okay with it. In fact, that kind of seems to be the point of continuing revelation.

I just remembered while I was writing this. I'm pretty sure both my parents didn't have testimonies when they died. They said that phrase that seems to be a good NOM indicator, "the church is a great place to raise kids" when I was about fourteen. This would have been around the time of lifting the priesthood ban. So, major changes could cause losses of testimony, but due to the way the church is designed with the whole eternal family thing, I think people would just flock to places like this and remain complacently in the pews.

Nonny, what your statement about not wanting to have the church fail on his watch reminds me of House Of Cards. The moment when Frank is temporarily discouraged because he thinks he won't be re-elected. Claire comes home to find him distressed and the reason he is upset is because he doesn't want to be a placeholder president. This willingness to just be placeholders, if you'll excuse me, just seems very un-manly. They can and do call it a sacred trust, but it reminds me of the parable of the talents and the servant who buried his and I just finally understood that parable.

Know what? I think that's right. I think that parable is telling us to be bold. Mistakes would be made, but at least y they'd be doing something. Maybe the point isn't to lead this church perfectly, but to lead it in a manner that truly reflects Christ's teachings.

[Emower]

I can't believe I am saying this, but Mormonism is way more dogmatic then Catholicism. It would be easy to remain a Catholic under Francis if you were conservative, or a conservative pope if you were a liberal. Mormonism just doesn't have that option. If we got a Francis, Bednar would murder him in his sleep, and plunge us into a pit of despair.

[No Tof]

This was one of my great understandings that came with realizing that the "true" church didn't exist on the earth.
It meant that from a believing Christian point of view, the Biblical scriptures were the only tangible guide for good behavior and that after that, my reliance on God's Spirit working in me would be the measure by which I was judged and also the prime motivating factor in my desire to be a good person.

No more reliance on an institution or it's leaders. No more fear of not attaining worthiness via a temple recommend. No more kneeling before men to be measured against their phony yardstick.
Total liberty to choose righteousness as an outgrowth of my heart's desire to be close to God.

Thus all glory goes directly to Him. No possibility for a man made "church" to step in and say, "We saved you with our dead ordinances; give us the glory."

A works based church that is founded on worshipping the arm of flesh will eventually suffocate all pioneers who have the audacity to think independently.

I think these were my thoughts for a while Palerider.
Now I am finding it hard to distinguish the arm of flesh influence in our church from the possibility that the stories in our scriptures could very well be older arms of flesh manipulating earlier congregations.

To the OP question of where the pioneers have gone, I would say they are still amongst us. They are the ten families in each ward who truly believe in the miraculous world view of the church and feel good about doing everything they can to build up the kingdom.

I was one of them.

[achilles]

It's is interesting to me that many members argue that this is the One True church because it's living. Living! Have you been to a sacrament meeting lately? We are commanded in all things, and must be threatened with the fires of hell to do good? I always thought that all the strict obedience rhetoric was ironic coming from a church that claims we can have personal revelation. What good is the "gift" of the Holy Ghost if we must be told what to do and how to do it by men. The most damaging thing about the church for me was the thought control. I was afraid to even have a thought that wasn't authorized by what was said in the last GC. I am giving myself permission to be a pioneer, and I refuse to be afraid any longer. I love that E Uchtdorf blasted the fear based rhetoric. a few weeks ago.

[nibbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15SIu84TDSQ&t=0m5s

[nibbler]

Here's a quote I dust off from time to time:

A genuine first-hand religious experience like this is bound to be a heterodoxy to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely madman. If his doctrine prove contagious enough to spread to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and when a religion has become an orthodoxy, its day of inwardness is over: the spring is dry; the faithful live at second hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their turn. The new church, in spite of whatever human goodness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the fountain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration.

Time for another restoration if you ask me (no one did).

I've heard that the more conservative Catholics don't like Francis. It's interesting they choose to just grumble and complain rather than leave.

Catholicism is a much more mature faith than Mormonism.

What do Catholics that use birth control do when the Pope tells them not to use birth control? Some obey, many have a good chuckle and thumb their nose at the Pope. More conservative Catholics are "allowed" to not like Francis and they can even say as much openly, without fear of reprisal.

Could you imagine that happening in the current climate of the LDS church? "The November policy, [chuckles] that's horse crap." "I don't like Bednar." You'd be disciplined, reprimanded, shunned, etc. It's an immature faith with a thin skin, and we're talking Old Testament god thin skinned. People aren't "allowed" to think the top leaders are off the mark. It brands you as being outside the tribe.

There are other factors to consider though. Many people that go to Mass a few times a year or less still self-identify as Catholic. Maybe it's mostly those types that are critical of top leadership of their church so they aren't in a position to lose social standing. Here's another thing, the culture allows for people to be "less active" without hounding them or calling into question their motives. Meanwhile the less active Mormon is lazy or in need of some type of rescue.

We've got an immature religion, but the Catholics have a 1000+ year head start.

[Give It Time]

Here's a quote I dust off from time to time:

A genuine first-hand religious experience like this is bound to be a heterodoxy to its witnesses, the prophet appearing as a mere lonely madman. If his doctrine prove contagious enough to spread to any others, it becomes a definite and labeled heresy. But if it then still prove contagious enough to triumph over persecution, it becomes itself an orthodoxy; and when a religion has become an orthodoxy, its day of inwardness is over: the spring is dry; the faithful live at second hand exclusively and stone the prophets in their turn. The new church, in spite of whatever human goodness it may foster, can be henceforth counted on as a staunch ally in every attempt to stifle the spontaneous religious spirit, and to stop all later bubblings of the fountain from which in purer days it drew its own supply of inspiration.

Time for another restoration if you ask me (no one did).

I've heard that the more conservative Catholics don't like Francis. It's interesting they choose to just grumble and complain rather than leave.

Catholicism is a much more mature faith than Mormonism.

What do Catholics that use birth control do when the Pope tells them not to use birth control? Some obey, many have a good chuckle and thumb their nose at the Pope. More conservative Catholics are "allowed" to not like Francis and they can even say as much openly, without fear of reprisal.

Could you imagine that happening in the current climate of the LDS church? "The November policy, [chuckles] that's horse crap." "I don't like Bednar." You'd be disciplined, reprimanded, shunned, etc. It's an immature faith with a thin skin, and we're talking Old Testament god thin skinned. People aren't "allowed" to think the top leaders are off the mark. It brands you as being outside the tribe.

There are other factors to consider though. Many people that go to Mass a few times a year or less still self-identify as Catholic. Maybe it's mostly those types that are critical of top leadership of their church so they aren't in a position to lose social standing. Here's another thing, the culture allows for people to be "less active" without hounding them or calling into question their motives. Meanwhile the less active Mormon is lazy or in need of some type of rescue.

We've got an immature religion, but the Catholics have a 1000+ year head start.

I've been trying to imagine how Catholicism's age would be a factor. I think you've done a pretty good analysis, here. Catholicism is old. It went through a time when it was very powerful. I doubt we'll ever be as powerful. That surely will be a factor as the church ages. What you say about the church being younger and thin-skinned is true. I think this church has always been thin-skinned and probably always will be. Instead of maturing and developing the grace the Catholic church has (using this term just for comparison's sake), I think our church will always be the Jan Brady to Catholicism's Marsha.

What you say about the barely active Catholic being critical of the sitting pope, whoever that may be, is probably very true.

[Random]

The most damaging thing about the church for me was the thought control. I was afraid to even have a thought that wasn't authorized by what was said in the last GC. I am giving myself permission to be a pioneer, and I refuse to be afraid any longer.

Here! Here! [gives standing ovation]

I've got nothing to add to this thread, except that I really wish there was a "like" button for the posts in it.

[Palerider]

I think these were my thoughts for a while Palerider.
Now I am finding it hard to distinguish the arm of flesh influence in our church from the possibility that the stories in our scriptures could very well be older arms of flesh manipulating earlier congregations.

By "our scriptures" you are referring to Biblical or so called "modern day" scriptures?