Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

LDS believers and ex-mos


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Discussing and healing are not akin to placing error on an equal footing with truth in a contentious debating environment, which I perceive is what is being advocated here.

Wow, I'm shocked that you could interpret what I'm calling for as contentious debating environment, when I explicitly said "People can learn to discuss topics in respectful ways, and teachers can learn to facilitate difficult topics and creating an environment where respect is given to various differing views."

I'm calling for a respectful dialogue, and I know from personal experience that it can happen, and I believe this is exactly the type of sharing that President Uchtdorf is calling for.   

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I completely understand where you are coming from on this, and certainly agree the Church has every right to control the narrative in its meetings to be faith promoting.  I guess my one word of caution (to anyone) is that having a significantly negative reaction to people who are struggling through these issues, even openly at a Sunday meeting, will only drive them further under ground and out of attendance.  There needs to be a more compassionate way to respond than simply shutting down the discussion or stomping out in an angry huff.

I will up-vote you on this post so long as it is recognized that the Church must be allowed to control its own venue.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I just don't accept this argument.  I hear it all the time as an excuse, but until someone tries the experiment and can prove to me that it doesn't work, I reject this as an unfounded fear to change.  

You may not accept the argument, but you have a lot of people who do accept the argument to convince otherwise. 

Change to what? But it is not an excuse. I have been in classes where people introduced topics or ideas that were not on topic and keenly remember the types of discussions that ensued. In every one that I remember, both as an instructor and a class participant, there never was any type of consensus the instructor was not able to complete the lesson. People are not afraid to discuss alternate view points. This board is evidence of that, and is an appropriate forum for doing so. What you consider to be apathy on the part of some others just may be a desire to not discuss such material or viewpoints in a Sunday School or priesthood class setting.

And yes, when a person brings up ideas that the Book of Mormon may be or probably is really fiction, maybe inspired fiction, but really fiction after all, a person that has obtained a testimony of the Book of Mormon via the Holy Ghost will see such as an attack on his or her faith and belief in its authenticity. You may not see it that way, but you are on the other end of the stick.

How would you propose to discuss something like a fictionalized Book of Mormon to such a person? You are proposing a clash between faith and human reasoning in a faith based reasoning forum.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

.............................................

 Personally, I would love to see some more recent books written on BoM historicity arguments.  From a more critical perspective New Approaches to the BoM as well as American Apocrypha are two important collections of essays, but getting a little dated.  

Not so much dated as lacking in rigor.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought you were originally saying that a more serious study of the BoM is necessary to make a conclusion about its historicity, but after reading your response I'm not sure that's what you're saying.  I have heard that before from many defenders of BoM historicity, they want to set the bar so high for someone disbelieving in it, that you'd have to dedicate years of your life before making a credible argument against it in their mind.  

I don't find that kind of standard to be fair because we don't require a high standard for belief in BoM historicity, so why should we require that kind of high standard for belief against BoM historicity.  If someone can merely pray to have a respected belief in BoM historicity, then someone else's belief against BoM historicity should be likewise respected as valid regardless how much they have studied about the subject.   

A lot of people confuse the two modes of thought on such matters, as you seem to here.  Religious faith need have nothing to do with scholarship.  I do not consider faith as automatically weak and lacking respectability, though that is the tack taken by many atheists.  Inspiration of the Holy Spirit needs no other justification.  Such a basis of belief is rock solid, and that is the case for most Mormons -- at least those who do not live on "borrowed light."  Does that obviate scholarship?  Of course not.  Scholarship, though hard won, is a fully legitimate pursuit, and can be used to explore many very complex matters in all fields of endeavor.

When in the pursuit of scholarship on religious matters, I always recommend that the scholar temporarily bracket his belief or disbelief long enough to allow the evidence to speak for itself.  Many of us do that when watching a feature film.  It is far more enjoyable to understand the film from within rather than constantly muttering throughout that the whole premise is absurd and preposterous  - when the objective was to entertain, not to obtain faith or belief.  Similarly, in scholarly examination of any issue, I say "Let the chips fall where they may."

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will up-vote you on this post so long as it is recognized that the Church must be allowed to control its own venue.

Again, I totally agree the Church should be able to control it own venue.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, I'm shocked that you could interpret what I'm calling for as contentious debating environment, when I explicitly said "People can learn to discuss topics in respectful ways, and teachers can learn to facilitate difficult topics and creating an environment where respect is given to various differing views."

I'm calling for a respectful dialogue, and I know from personal experience that it can happen, and I believe this is exactly the type of sharing that President Uchtdorf is calling for.   

In a Church venue it's not enough to have respectful dialogue.** There must be a clear message of truth being upheld and error put down. If at the end of the day, there has been "respectful dialogue" in which revealed truth has not prevailed in a Church setting, I have to think that cannot have been pleasing to Him Whose name this Church bears.

Furthermore, I don't believe that's what President Uchtdorf would want either.

**There can be a contentious environment even where the dialogue is respectful.

 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Change to what? But it is not an excuse. I have been in classes where people introduced topics or ideas that were not on topic and keenly remember the types of discussions that ensued. In every one that I remember, both as an instructor and a class participant, there never was any type of consensus the instructor was not able to complete the lesson. People are not afraid to discuss alternate view points. This board is evidence of that, and is an appropriate forum for doing so. What you consider to be apathy on the part of some others just may be a desire to not discuss such material or viewpoints in a Sunday School or priesthood class setting.

And yes, when a person brings up ideas that the Book of Mormon may be or probably is really fiction, maybe inspired fiction, but really fiction after all, a person that has obtained a testimony of the Book of Mormon via the Holy Ghost will see such as an attack on his or her faith and belief in its authenticity. You may not see it that way, but you are on the other end of the stick.

Glenn

I didn't use the word fiction.  I think it requires a level of respectful engagement, and setting some ground rules for how to have dialogue between class members.  

Just because it hasn't worked when you've observed it in the past, doesn't mean it can't work.  Do you have any other ideas about how to implement Uchtdorf's call to not hide our problems at church, to be vulnerable about questions and concerns and hurt and pain.  He's not instructing people to share their problems with their bishop in confidence, that's still hiding them.  How would you recommend doing what he's talking about with respect to being genuine?  

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I'm obliged to acknowledge that Church leaders are not infallible and, on occasion, can err, then I must be allowed to affirm in the same breath that Church functionaries, whose employee positions are not ecclesiastical callings, are at least as fallible as the ordained Church leaders whom they serve.

And yes, I'm sure. The idea that someone may appropriately turn a Church class into a debating tournament flies in the face of what I've heard in a lifetime of experience in the Church of Jesus Christ.

You were wise to back off when you did, and that is to your credit. But if I had been the instructor or the elders quorum president, and you had tried to press your point, I wouldn't have allowed it to continue.

If I were an attendee in the class and it had been allowed, I would at some point have walked out in protest.

 

 

saying she's wrong is a much better response then saying she misspoke as a Church spokesperson. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recognize it happens every day. I'm saying let us have those three hours on Sunday as a sanctuary from worldly error and opposition, where revealed truth can be discussed without contradiction, where the devil can be shut out for a while.

 

 

I cant' disagree with this view of what Church should be more.  We are there to help each other as much as anything.  It should be far less about structure and dogma and more about a service to each other and to God, or and thus to God.  That is worship, I'd say.  But, according to you we shouldn't even have room to disagree on that at Church.  Your view, if it continues to win out makes Church rather useless. 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In scripture, the “welfare of our souls” is a uniquely Book of Mormon reference, and is used in the following contexts:

Redemption and agency (2 Nephi 2); the ministry of Christ, the restoration, the Lord’s atonement, the gathering of the Jews, the resurrection and judgement, latter day prophecies and their fulfillment (2 Nephi 6-10); consecration (2 Nephi 32:9); persuading to believe in Christ, proper attitude toward material things, chastity, more on the previously mentioned subjects (Jacob 1-6); avoiding sin and pollution (Mosiah 25:11); and knowing God (Alma 6:6).

So when Moroni 6:5 speaks of how “the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls,” I think it has more to do with these matters covered in the Book Mormon than it does with accommodating various individual’s nuanced beliefs and discussing and sharing varying, dissenting, and unique points of view.

I'm not sure how the issues we as members deal with is not included in all that you mention, and thus pertaining to the welfare of our souls.  Seems rather short-sighted to try and exclude that which is paramount to the welfare of certain members souls from being part of the welfare of their souls. 

Edited by stemelbow
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not so much dated as lacking in rigor.

I disagree, I feel the same way about many of the Interpreter's essays and other apologetic approaches.  

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of people confuse the two modes of thought on such matters, as you seem to here.  Religious faith need have nothing to do with scholarship.  I do not consider faith as automatically weak and lacking respectability, though that is the tack taken by many atheists.  Inspiration of the Holy Spirit needs no other justification.  Such a basis of belief is rock solid, and that is the case for most Mormons -- at least those who do not live on "borrowed light."  Does that obviate scholarship?  Of course not.  Scholarship, though hard won, is a fully legitimate pursuit, and can be used to explore many very complex matters in all fields of endeavor.

Could you expound on this, because I want to make sure I understand your distinction.  It sounds to me like you're saying that inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a legitimate means of establishing a belief.  A person can feel inspired that something is not true and that "needs no other justification".  But this has to go both ways.  If a belief in historicity requires no justification other than a faith proposition, then the opposite position is also true, a belief against historicity MUST require no justification other than the simple faith proposition.  

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When in the pursuit of scholarship on religious matters, I always recommend that the scholar temporarily bracket his belief or disbelief long enough to allow the evidence to speak for itself.  Many of us do that when watching a feature film.  It is far more enjoyable to understand the film from within rather than constantly muttering throughout that the whole premise is absurd and preposterous  - when the objective was to entertain, not to obtain faith or belief.  Similarly, in scholarly examination of any issue, I say "Let the chips fall where they may."

I completely agree with this, and this is exactly why things are so challenging and why I don't like many of the anti church and pro church arguments.  I see a lot of bias creeping into arguments as people are rooting for their invested paradigm, and I attempt to look at many different sides of issues for this very reason.  This is not only confirmation bias at play, but they've done some additional research on another kind of bias that is related, called the Desirability Bias.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I completely understand where you are coming from on this, and certainly agree the Church has every right to control the narrative in its meetings to be faith promoting.  I guess my one word of caution (to anyone) is that having a significantly negative reaction to people who are struggling through these issues, even openly at a Sunday meeting, will only drive them further under ground and out of attendance.  There needs to be a more compassionate way to respond than simply shutting down the discussion or stomping out in an angry huff.

I think "Teaching in the Savior's Way" https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-in-the-saviors-way?lang=eng engenders compassion in responding to people who are struggling with whatever they bring up. I think it would be helpful for those who have general concerns with how they or other struggling class participants are treated to refer to this manual and work with the priesthood or auxiliary leader if negative incidents arise.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a Church venue it's not enough to have respectful dialogue. There must be a clear message of truth being upheld and error put down. If at the end of the day, there has been "respectful dialogue" in which revealed truth has not prevailed in a Church setting, I have think that cannot have been pleasing to Him Whose name this Church bears.

Furthermore, I don't believe that's what President Uchtdorf would want either.

I think you're missing the whole point of what Uchtdorf is saying.  I also think you're interpreting this "clear message of truth" in a particular way and its a very narrow definition.  I think we find truth in the messy discussions, we find truth as we break down the facades that everyone creates, we find truth as we share the complexity.  There are possibilities for making church more true, more real, more living, and I have a hope and vision for that kind of a future that can be created and can be a great benefit for many people. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You were wise to back off when you did, and that is to your credit. But if I had been the instructor or the elders quorum president, and you had tried to press your point, I wouldn't have allowed it to continue.

 

What do you mean you woudnl't have allowed?  Do you shout someone out?  Physically remove them?  I'm curious what you mean.  If someone is intent on making a point, how do you stop them? 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a Church venue it's not enough to have respectful dialogue.** There must be a clear message of truth being upheld and error put down.

 

 

calling something a truth does not make it a truth.  The Church having teachers teach the simplified story of the milk Strippings story is not truth.  It's oversimplification, at best, of what happened to demean the very people whom we are to love.  Seriously you'd have a point if revealed truth meant messages came unadulterated from God and we had no flowery language or stories added.  But, that's simply not what Church is.  It's repeating dogma, and platitudes through the manual and selected scripture passages.  Sure there's a form of godliness to it.  But...

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure how the issues we as members deal with is not included in all that you mention, and thus pertaining to the welfare of our souls.  Seems rather short-sighted to try and exclude that which is paramount to the welfare of certain members souls from being part of the welfare of their souls. 

It depends on the issue. If the Lord is saying “redemption (and the rest of the list)” is paramount to the welfare of our souls and a member is saying no, it’s "[item(s) from my list]” then the member isn’t really listening as he would be listened to, especially if he considers the Book of Mormon “good.” I think he needs to avail himself to what the Book of Mormon actually says is good for the welfare of his soul. And if he determines that "historicity" is paramount anyway, then at least he's made an informed choice.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If a belief in historicity requires no justification other than a faith proposition, then the opposite position is also true, a belief against historicity MUST require no justification other than the simple faith proposition.

This is how I see it. But historicity is not one of the truths supporting the welfare of our souls, at least according to the Book or Mormon, which is accepted as containing truth by both those who hold it to be historical and those who do not. So discussions in classes and quorums rightly focus on those truths, the common denominator defining the community. Those with special interest can find special venues in either direction but come together on the Lord's day.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're missing the whole point of what Uchtdorf is saying.  I also think you're interpreting this "clear message of truth" in a particular way and its a very narrow definition.  I think we find truth in the messy discussions, we find truth as we break down the facades that everyone creates, we find truth as we share the complexity.  

I don't believe I am missing President Uchtdorf's point.

And I very much dislike the buzzword messy that seems to have entered the modern vernacular with the connotation that "messiness" is something to be cherished for its own sake, even sought for or upheld. It's my belief that we are placed into mortality to learn how to emulate the God-like characteristics of drawing order out of chaos, of eliminating mess and replacing it with cleanliness and purity.

Quote

There are possibilities for making church more true, more real, more living, and I have a hope and vision for that kind of a future that can be created and can be a great benefit for many people. 

As is so often the case, the devil is in the details here.

I think I've seen you advocate before what stemelbow is advocating in this thread, and that is that the heretical notion that the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be, but rather, is  "inspired fiction," be given a respected place in our Church discourse. I can't abide that.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean you woudn't have allowed?  Do you shout someone out?  Physically remove them?  I'm curious what you mean.  If someone is intent on making a point, how do you stop them? 

In virtually every classroom situation I have attended, the instructor has ultimate control over the discussion. It is she who decides whom to call on, how much time to devote to a particular point, how much time a class member may take to make a point, etc.

If it's a matter of someone in the class being deliberately disruptive or refusing to yield the floor, then it's an unusually serious matter, something for the bishop himself to address, I suppose.

But asi I said, I don't think I have ever seen such a thing happen in any class I have been a part of.

 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

calling something a truth does not make it a truth.  The Church having teachers teach the simplified story of the milk Strippings story is not truth.  It's oversimplification, at best, of what happened to demean the very people whom we are to love. 

We had the lesson with the milk strippings story a couple of weeks ago. I listened carefully, because I know a lot of people have a burr under their saddle over this, and I wanted to see how the teacher would handle it.

I can't honestly say I would object to the way she presented it. At no time did she say the incident was the sole reason for Thomas B. Marsh's apostasy. She only said it contributed to the eventual outcome, which I believe is a fair conclusion. And it didn't overshadow the bottom line which is that it is an example of the all-too-human tendency to let minutia corrode our conviction of the truthfulness of the restored gospel.

She even introduced some nuance I hadn't heard before. A part-time institute instructor in the past, she mentioned that there was some evidence Marsh had belonged to the Reorganized Church at some point before his death.

Anyway, the point of this is I don't believe this is the oversimplified rendition that some have made it out to be. And even if it is, it is not the same thing as propounding theories that are in direct contradiction to the authoritative teachings and narrative of the Church.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In virtually every classroom situation I have attended, the instructor has ultimate control over the discussion. It is she who decides whom to call on, how much time to devote to a particular point, how much time a class member may take to make a point, etc.

If it's a matter of someone in the class being deliberately disruptive or refusing to yield the floor, then it's an unusually serious matter, something for the bishop himself to address, I suppose.

But asi I said, I don't think I have ever seen such a thing happen in any class I have been a part of.

 

me neither.  just curious what kind of thing you were thinking. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We had the lesson with the milk strippings story a couple of weeks ago. I listened carefully, because I know a lot of people have a burr under their saddle over this, and I wanted to see how the teacher would handle it.

I can't honestly say I would object to the way she presented it. At no time did she say the incident was the sole reason for Thomas B. Marsh's apostasy. She only said it contributed to the eventual outcome, which I believe is a fair conclusion. And it didn't overshadow the bottom line which is that it is an example of the all-too-human tendency to let minutia corrode our conviction of the truthfulness of the restored gospel.

She even introduced some nuance I hadn't heard before. A part-time instute instructor in the past, she mentioned that there was some evidence Marsh had belonged to the Reorganized Church at some point before his death.

Anyway, the point is this is I don't believe this is the oversimplified rendition that some have made it out to be. And even if it is, it is not the same thing as propounding theories that are in direct contradiction to the authoritative teachings and narrative of the Church.

well good.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't hold your breath.

And why did you put "nuggets" in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

I love it when the hidden English nanny in Scott rears its head...but point taken...in the future I will try to use either italics, bold, or underlining for emphasis instead of quotations marks.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This is how I see it. But historicity is not one of the truths supporting the welfare of our souls, at least according to the Book or Mormon, which is accepted as containing truth by both those who hold it to be historical and those who do not. So discussions in classes and quorums rightly focus on those truths, the common denominator defining the community. Those with special interest can find special venues in either direction but come together on the Lord's day.

I agree with you that historicity shouldn't be the underlying important value that we agree or disagree about.  I think there is great value in discussing the BoM and its principles as literature, as history, as metaphor, as ethical dilemma, and many other perspectives.  Its when we get stuck in a box, when we think the scriptures have one right or wrong message, that is when we limit God and limit our ability to learn from them.  

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I love it when the hidden English nanny in Scott rears its head...but point taken...in the future I will try to use either italics, bold, or underlining for emphasis instead of quotations marks.

The English nannies in my life have had substantial influence on me. God bless them.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...