Jump to content
blueglass

“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's about how we respond to things that trouble us.

The things you mention...do you think those of us that believe haven't done the research?  Haven't read the same things you have?

The "truth" isn't the issue as much as the lens you see it through.  I don't think there is a single member of this board doesn't know who Joseph married.  Some are troubled by it,  some are not.  The truth and facts remain the same.  The varying responses are far more interesting.

Yes - for me it comes down to theory vs. experience.  I too once justified it all "in theory".  It takes the actual experience - experiencing adultery, experiencing abuse - experiencing watching a high priest abuse your child - it takes the experience before you realize the true horror of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, changed said:

Yes - for me it comes down to theory vs. experience.  I too once justified it all "in theory".

I'm genuinely sorry for what you've gone through, but my personal experiences are no more theoretical than yours.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm genuinely sorry for what you've gone through, but my personal experiences are no more theoretical than yours.

 

So, could you justify a heaven - living eternally with adultery?  That is what polygamy is.  Living eternally watching your children abused?  Older men praying on teenagers?  This is heaven?

Let's hear one story of someone who loved adultery - loved it so much, that they want that for eternity?

This is not about "doubts"... it is about defining what heaven is, and what hell is.

Edited by changed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, changed said:

This is not about "doubts"... 

I can agree with this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, changed said:

Yes - for me it comes down to theory vs. experience.  I too once justified it all "in theory".  It takes the actual experience - experiencing adultery, experiencing abuse - experiencing watching a high priest abuse your child - it takes the experience before you realize the true horror of it.

I have no frame of reference for your experiences, but I find your application of them an overextension.  I see how given the experiences you had how easily they could be transferred to things in Church history.  I see how your viewpoint came to be.  There's that lens again.

I am truly sorry you experienced what you did.  But I am far sorrier for how it clouded the lens through which you view the gospel. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It would appear from the New Testament accounts that Jesus likewise had trouble providing answers that satisfied many of his frequent questioners.

Jesus always provided answers. 

Some weren’t satisfied. 

But there is a difference between providing answers that don’t satisfy some and mocking those who ask the questions while still not providing answer (which is what occurred in this adddess). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But there is a difference between providing answers that don’t satisfy some and mocking those who ask the questions while still not providing answer (which is what occurred in this adddess). 

I have a feeling you heard something very different to what I heard.

That also seems to have occurred frequently in the New Testament accounts.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another video that comes to mind when I hear Church leaders implore us to "stay in the boat":

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a feeling you heard something very different to what I heard.

That also seems to have occurred frequently in the New Testament accounts.

I’m curious what you see in the NT as Jesus mocking his followers. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

So, could you justify a heaven - living eternally with adultery?  That is what polygamy is.  Living eternally watching your children abused?  Older men praying on teenagers?  This is heaven?

No, polygamy is not adultery.  It in no way meets the definition.

And there is no evidence that biological or chronological ages extend into eternity.

So I fail to see why either would be a concern in speaking of heaven.  You're overextending your experiences to a new arena.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I’m curious what you see in the NT as Jesus mocking his followers. 

I don't, with very rare exceptions, though it appears that people sometimes took his words as mocking.

What I meant specifically is that the New Testament is filled with examples of people who listened to Jesus and walked away having heard very different things.

Here's one of my favourites from John 10 (abbreviated for posting, emphasis added):

Quote

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil ...

And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not ...

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ...

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him ... but he escaped out of their hand, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode ...

And many resorted unto him ... And many believed on him there.

Note that the people blamed their doubts on Jesus and specifically on his unsatisfactory answers to previous questions. Jesus's response? I already gave you an answer, but you didn't like it.

I'm not sure the Jews felt mocked by this response (and other elided ones), but they certainly felt offended and angry.

It's clear that both the sermon that led some of the Jews to accuse Jesus of being both mad and possessed and His answers that followed it were comprehended very differently depending on the listeners. Some who heard Him actually followed Him beyond Jordan.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't, with very rare exceptions, though it appears that people sometimes took his words as mocking.

What I meant specifically is that the New Testament is filled with examples of people who listened to Jesus and walked away having heard very different things.

Okay.  I certainly agree that different people will take away different messages from Elder and Sister Renlund's address.

For me, it mocked the very real pain and anguish being felt by many good church members without even attempting to understand or provide answers to the concerns that cause the pain and anguish.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  I certainly agree that different people will take away different messages from Elder and Sister Renlund's address.

For me, it mocked the very real pain and anguish being felt by many good church members without even attempting to understand or provide answers to the concerns that cause the pain and anguish.

Alright, what could they have said that would’ve changed minds?  What could they have said that would’ve erased all your doubts?  What are these “answers” that seem to be so readily available, but they’re just refusing to say out loud in public?

I’m dead serious.  What should he have said that would’ve made people who have left the church come back?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SteveO said:

Alright, what could they have said that would’ve changed minds?  What could they have said that would’ve erased all your doubts?  What are these “answers” that seem to be so readily available, but they’re just refusing to say out loud in public?

I’m dead serious.  What should he have said that would’ve made people who have left the church come back?

First, he wasn't addressing those who have left the church.  So that isn't really a topic here.

As for answers to the issues they mentioned in the address.  I have found my own answers.  I'd think it would be beneficial to hear how an apostle answers the concerns rather than suggesting that they shouldn't be raised.  Whether or not his answers can erase doubts is not known to me.  (Your reply to me seems to imply that I believe the Brethren have answers readily available and are refusing to share, I don't believe that, my belief is that the Brethren do not have satisfactory answers thus we get the message given in this address.)

What I don't think the church needs is to have those who struggle be treated in this way.  I'm not sure who this talk helps.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, SteveO said:

What are these “answers” that seem to be so readily available, but they’re just refusing to say out loud in public?

Rockpond can certainly answer for himself, but it appears that many of the disaffected have determined that the only satisfactory answer is to admit that Joseph Smith was a fraudulent pervert, that the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scriptures are works of fiction, that what prophets claim to be revelation isn't, etc. -- and then to apologise for all of the above. When Church leaders and Church members don't answer in this way -- since we can't without being dishonest! -- then there are no good answers.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Rockpond can certainly answer for himself, but it appears that many of the disaffected have determined that the only satisfactory answer is to admit that Joseph smith was a fraudulent pervert, that the Book of Mormon and other Restoration scriptures are works of fiction, that what prophets claim to be revelation isn't, etc. -- and then to apologise for all of the above. When Church leaders and Church members don't answer in this way -- since we can't without being dishonest! -- then there are no good answers.

Thankfully I did answer for myself because this tripe does not represent my viewpoint.  I doubt it represents the viewpoint of many members, even those with serious doubts and concerns.  However, with this attitude, I can see why you and I had different reactions to Elder and Sister Renlund.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps the picture has flaws and is not perfect but its still a beautiful picture aside from the flaws.

Many of the flaws are what make it so interesting and approachable.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow. What an incredible statement. I actually did a quick rewind and listened again, certain I had misheard. But I heard correctly. There's no need to study. We know enough. There's no need to seek answers to perplexing questions. We know enough.

Could it not be more along the lines of knowing enough to commit rather than forever wandering in a no man's land?  You can't get a guaranteed answer for the future whether it's a job, marriage, what family will be like.  Making significant changes because you anticipate they will allow you and loved ones to develop in desirable ways takes a leap of faith.  If you won't act until you know for certain the outcomes of your choice, you will never come to act.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, polygamy is not adultery.  It in no way meets the definition.

And there is no evidence that biological or chronological ages extend into eternity.

So I fail to see why either would be a concern in speaking of heaven.  You're overextending your experiences to a new arena.

JS going behind Emma's back, (she was #23 to be sealed to him in the temple) absolutely is adultery.  JS taking other men's wives, JS praying on young daughters...  Yes, some people were married young back then but it was a YOUNG man and and YOUNG girl that was normal, not old man + young girl.  132 - the new and everlasting covenant - polygamy, polyandry - that is hell, not heaven.  

What is the closest thing to polygamy/polyandry you have actually experienced? What is the closest thing to having one of your young children taken away by an old HP have you experienced?  If you have not experienced it, you cannot understand what it really means.  

sure sure - everyone believes adulterous pedophiles are rewarded with the highest degree of glory, while those who refuse to be eternally victimized are condemned to outer darkness - if that is who God is, I do not want to spend eternity with that.  I choose outer darkness over eternal abuse/disloyalty/adultery/hypocrisy/patriarchal horror.  I'll have none of it.

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, changed said:

JS going behind Emma's back, (she was #23 to be sealed to him in the temple) absolutely is adultery.  JS taking other men's wives, JS praying on young daughters...  Yes, some people were married young back then but it was a YOUNG man and and YOUNG girl that was normal, not old man + young girl.  132 - the new and everlasting covenant - polygamy, polyandry - that is hell, not heaven.  

What is the closest thing to polygamy/polyandry you have actually experienced? What is the closest thing to having one of your young children taken away by an old HP have you experienced?  If you have not experienced it, you cannot understand what it really means.  

sure sure - everyone believes adulterous pedophiles are rewarded with the highest degree of glory, while those who refuse to be eternally victimized are condemned to outer darkness - if that is who God is, I do not want to spend eternity with that.  I choose outer darkness over eternal abuse/disloyalty/adultery/hypocrisy/.

Agreed.  To say Joseph didn't practice adultery while marrying women behind Emma's back?  Well that's just not a very good idea of what humanity is about.  the deception, the type that Joseph engaged in, is a very unfaithful approach to marriage.  It betrayed Emma's trust.  And he did it in multiple ways and multiple times.   What it seems people are saying, or seem to want to be saying, is they refuse to see Joseph as committing adultery because God commanded him to deceive Emma and be unfaithful to her and the covenant they entered with each other.  But make no mistake, what Joseph did was nothing but adultery.  

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, changed said:

JS going behind Emma's back, (she was #23 to be sealed to him in the temple) absolutely is adultery. 

 

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  To say Joseph didn't practice adultery while marrying women behind Emma's back?  But make no mistake, what Joseph did was nothing but adultery.  

Adultery is defined as having sex with someone other than your spouse.  Joseph didn't do that.  They were all married to him.  They were all his wives.  You cannot commit adultery by having a relationship with a spouse.

Share this post


Link to post

It would have been nice if the Renlunds accented to the type of view Elder, or President at the time, Uchtdorf expressed in the April 2017 conference wherein he denounced fear as a means of motivating.

Quote

My message has two purposes today: The first is to urge us to contemplate and consider the extent to which we use fear to motivate others—including ourselves. The second is to suggest a better way.

I'm not sure this drowning outside the boat thing is anything but attempting to use fear to motivate others.  

says Uchtdorf:

Quote

Fear rarely has the power to change our hearts, and it will never transform us into people who love what is right and who want to obey Heavenly Father.

People who are fearful may say and do the right things, but they do not feel the right things. They often feel helpless and resentful, even angry. Over time these feelings lead to mistrust, defiance, even rebellion.

rebellion.

Unfortunately, this misguided approach to life and leadership is not limited to the secular world. It grieves me to hear of Church members who exercise unrighteous dominion—whether in their homes, in their Church callings, at work, or in their daily interactions with others.

Often, people may condemn bullying in others, yet they cannot see it in themselves. They demand compliance with their own arbitrary rules, but when others don’t follow these random rules, they chasten them verbally, emotionally, and sometimes even physically.

I admit I wish Uchtdorf was more explicit in his condemnation and mentioned that not only Church members do this but the general leadership does it all the time.  After considering Uchtdorf's words, the Renlunds approach feels icky, and proves completely useless.  Anyway, in this discussion I felt we were missing this aspect, even though I appreciate plenty that has been said by various posters to this point.  

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/perfect-love-casteth-out-fear?lang=eng

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Adultery is defined as having sex with someone other than your spouse.  Joseph didn't do that.  They were all married to him.  They were all his wives.  You cannot commit adultery by having a relationship with a spouse.

Joseph clearly disregarded the vows of marriage with Emma by breaking the covenant he made with her and married other women behind her back.  Such deception is the same deception as adultery, at the very least, and I would continue to argue amounts to adultery.    The problem with your view is Joseph married other women in name only.  They weren't legally married.  I suppose in any case of adultery the two covenant breakers could, as well, say they were in essence married to each other.  They could claim they agreed to such before they engaged in infidelity.  But that is really just a stretch.  That is basically what Joseph did.  He "married" other women and had sex with at least some of them, without his wife, whom he previously covenanted with, knowing.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Thankfully I did answer for myself because this tripe does not represent my viewpoint.  I doubt it represents the viewpoint of many members, even those with serious doubts and concerns.  However, with this attitude, I can see why you and I had different reactions to Elder and Sister Renlund.

Man, some of the above comments didn’t really back you up here did they?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Could it not be more along the lines of knowing enough to commit rather than forever wandering in a no man's land?  You can't get a guaranteed answer for the future whether it's a job, marriage, what family will be like.  Making significant changes because you anticipate they will allow you and loved ones to develop in desirable ways takes a leap of faith.  If you won't act until you know for certain the outcomes of your choice, you will never come to act.

Perhaps. But it's in context of people studying church history having doubts or concerns, and then playing whack-a-mole as more areas of concern are uncovered. It is used in the talk as a discouragement for people studying to try to understand difficult issues. I really think they'd prefer that people simple turn a blind eye, not study it, and go on their way, content that they know enough.

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×