What Is The Solution?

[BishopRic]

The important people involved, 1) God, 2) The couple, 3) The person performing the sealing.

Those there should be reverent is a given, but you have to be a member to be there. The ones I feel sorry for are non-member parents. Showing love and support shouldn't be an exclusive thing for members only. Why wouldn't I be reverent at a daughter's sealing? Since I MUST convert to be present is not showing Christian love for others IMO.

I agree with the sentiment here. To my knowledge most other religions allow family members to attend wedding ceremonies -- even if they have differing beliefs. I know this concept is a stretch to Iron-rod LDSers, but the rule to not allow a loving parent, that might be equally convinced in his/her faith, but is certainly wanting to revel in the joy of their child on the special occasion for them, is quite unChrist-like, IMO. As I said on another thread, if the emphasis on family togetherness is conditional on mutual beliefs, then it is actually family divisiveness, IMO.

[The Nehor]

Reading only the title of the thread I will give you my advice regarding most problems:

"There is no problem so complex or difficult that it can't be solved by murdering everyone even remotely involved."

You're welcome.

[cinepro]

Let me make sure I understand you as well. Are you suggeting that in order to resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologist, you need LDS to change some of their fundamental beliefs and practices?

Do you think your suggestion fair, let alone feasible/realistic? And, if not, do you have a suggestion that would be fair/feasible/realistic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

After reading Kathleen Flake's book on the Church's transition from practicing polygamy to monogamy, I would never underestimate the Church's capacity for change, even in those things contemporary LDS would consider "fundamental" to the Church. The Church has changed before, and it can change again.

This isn't to say that I think it will, just that I don't think it is fair to rule something out just because our modern LDS sensibilities think it is essential. The eternal view might be more flexible; we're always only one or two generations away from any possibility. Tomorrow's Apostles and Prophets are among us today. Who knows, this thread might even plant seeds that bear fruit decades from now.

[wenglund]

I find it interesting that many of the suggestions thus far for resolving the animus between critics and apologist, entail having the other party change their beliefs and practices rather than about their changing their approach when interacting between critics and apologists.

In other words, for some of you, the animus isn't a function of how the other party treats you or percieves you or interacts with you, but a function of who the other party is and what they personally believe and practice.

Is that right?

I ask because I want to correctly understand what exactly is causing the animus--whether it be intollerance for differing beliefs and practices, or people's dysfunctional approach; whether it be a matter of prejudice or style.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

These are a few of the things about the church that turned me off and didn't seem reasonable to me. I am only one person, but I know a lot of representative people like myself who are also turned off by these tenets of LDS living. So I would suggest that yes, if the church would like to survive, they will need to adapt to make its fundamental beliefs and practices more palatable and spiritually inviting to the average primate.

This is laughable. The church has survived great persecution. Why on earth do you think it won't survive standing up for it's principles. If we turn away from those principle tenets then we will not survive.

[Son]

Again, I am unclear how this will resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologists. It is even less clear whether your suggestion is the least bit fair/feasible/realistic or not. Could you expound?

It is within your question, if the label is removed, the reality of belief will surface.

Live Christ or Don't live Christ. One thing is clear. Jesus spoke in simple terms.

Fairness, Feasability, and reality are all choices. Live the law and you will know......That is the directive.

How can one know unless they live it....

Whatever the question Love is the answer. I believe the let your light so shine, that others seeing your good works shall glorify your Father in heaven, works better in the 3D world, and not so well on a computer screen.

Also, while the discussion between you and Paul Ray is interesting, it is running far afield of the topic. May I kindly suggest that the two of you take that particular discussion to its own thread where it has pertinance. I would appreciate it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My sincere apologies, I may need to start threads that allow for randomness now and again. I am single subject focus challenged...

[Oracle]

This is laughable. The church has survived great persecution. Why on earth do you think it won't survive standing up for it's principles. If we turn away from those principle tenets then we will not survive.

The principles HAVE changed before, Deborah. That is how it survived, particularly in the case with polygamy.

[Son]

First of all, I would like to state that I remain a member on record, but have been unbelieving for a decade and inactive for the past four years.

Here is my list of what I think it would take to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers.

1. Must drop the "One True Church" nonsense. It serves to alienate everyone outside of it, and make those inside it arrogant and proud. It also gives birth to the less benign, polemic culture that encourages shunning if one chooses to leave this one true environment.

2. It must stop focusing so heavily on the afterlife. It is really difficult to enjoy the here and now if one is fixated on the hereafter. And hereafters that are heavily conditional upon certain works will drive any perfectionist-oriented person into the hospital with white rooms and padded walls.

3. The whole "redeeming the dead" purpose of the church. Drop it. From where I am standing, work that is being spent on the dead is NOT work spent on the living. This whole concept is limiting God. If these people die without being exposed to LDS doctrine (and less than .01% of all humanity have been exposed to it) surely God can take that into consideration without another human being having to sit and watch a movie.

4. Temples. They are so beautiful on both inside and outside. I enjoy the ambiance. They bring peace. So do the cathedrals I have visited, and the krishna temples and the buddhist temples. Why be exclusive? If one wants to experience peace and calm, why must there be a ticket price?

5. Patriarchal environment. I just can't believe that one's mortal and eternal role is incumbent upon gender. I think that all people are powerful, and should not have to defer to another in order to access greater light and knowledge. It doesn't make things organized. It makes it insulting. And it makes more sense that gender would not be recognized in any hereafter before it makes sense that a female must spend her eternities birthing babies.

There's a start.

Wade, this is some of what I was trying to say.....thanks Oracle for doing the heavy lifting....

[The Nehor]

First of all, I would like to state that I remain a member on record, but have been unbelieving for a decade and inactive for the past four years.

Here is my list of what I think it would take to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers.

1. Must drop the "One True Church" nonsense. It serves to alienate everyone outside of it, and make those inside it arrogant and proud. It also gives birth to the less benign, polemic culture that encourages shunning if one chooses to leave this one true environment.

2. It must stop focusing so heavily on the afterlife. It is really difficult to enjoy the here and now if one is fixated on the hereafter. And hereafters that are heavily conditional upon certain works will drive any perfectionist-oriented person into the hospital with white rooms and padded walls.

3. The whole "redeeming the dead" purpose of the church. Drop it. From where I am standing, work that is being spent on the dead is NOT work spent on the living. This whole concept is limiting God. If these people die without being exposed to LDS doctrine (and less than .01% of all humanity have been exposed to it) surely God can take that into consideration without another human being having to sit and watch a movie.

4. Temples. They are so beautiful on both inside and outside. I enjoy the ambiance. They bring peace. So do the cathedrals I have visited, and the krishna temples and the buddhist temples. Why be exclusive? If one wants to experience peace and calm, why must there be a ticket price?

5. Patriarchal environment. I just can't believe that one's mortal and eternal role is incumbent upon gender. I think that all people are powerful, and should not have to defer to another in order to access greater light and knowledge. It doesn't make things organized. It makes it insulting. And it makes more sense that gender would not be recognized in any hereafter before it makes sense that a female must spend her eternities birthing babies.

There's a start.

My thoughts on your points.

1. Teach more that if those outside the 'One True Church' are doing much better than you despite all your advantages....you might want to pause and consider that you're an arrogant git. If what you think is true you should be humble.....you have every advantage......are you REALLY doing better than everyone else? If not there may be a nice spot in hell waiting for you.

2. Can't agree with this. In fact I think the Church talks too little about the hereafter and when they do discuss it they discuss it in such insipid terms that I don't want to go there. Our artwork predicts it will be families having an eternal family picnic with inane conversation while wearing white robes. UTTER CRAP!!!! I'm still planning to surf around a whole planet on one wave in the hereafter and you're all invited. Then we'll have a dance party in a supernova with a diverting game of Populous or Billiards using real planets.

3. I think that God could scrap the whole temple work for the dead thing but he wants us to help. It makes us better people for it and exposes us to more of the Temple Teachings.

4. Slip the Front Desk Guy a twenty once and you never have to pay to get in again.

5. I think we can expect some changes here in the next 1-30 years in regards to women and Priesthood. Something is coming.

[Paul Ray]

Marriage doesn't end at death.

Do you believe everybody who is marreid on Earth will also be married eternally in heaven?

What is your basis for believing that, other than your own belief on that issue?

Sounds like you think God wil honor your marriage simply because you think it is honorable.

The 'til death do you part' is for the surviving spouse so that they do not need to be alone in this life.

Says who else besides you?

... or more to the point, who says God will honor a marriage that the priest or judge only authorized until "death do you part"

... or even more to the point, who says God will honor a marriage in heaven, eternally, simply because someone else says so?

The covenant is between the couple and God.

Where does God say what his part of the covenant is?

Before God will keep a promise he made, he first has to make a promise.

The priest (for me) is just a special witness. So....Yep

For you, huh. Okay.

I see the priest, or judge, as the person who has the authority to perform the marriage.

Okay....We have a disagreement of the role of the priesthood.

And that disagreement is what is keeping you from entering the temple.

You seem to want to make the rules for God's church, because of what you want, instead of asking and understanding what God wants.

[Deborah]

The principles HAVE changed before, Deborah. That is how it survived, particularly in the case with polygamy.

You are mistaking a principle with a practice. The principle of Celestial marriage, which involves sealing in the temples, has not changed. A practice of living multiple wives has changed but not the practice of deceased multiple wives being sealed. Yes the practice changed, partly so that the church could survive but more so I believe because we were entering an era where as we became more involved in the outside world and what was to come with the world's morality, it would have become impossible to live the practice righteously.

[wenglund]

It is within your question, if the label is removed, the reality of belief will surface.

Live Christ or Don't live Christ. One thing is clear. Jesus spoke in simple terms.

Fairness, Feasability, and reality are all choices. Live the law and you will know......That is the directive.

How can one know unless they live it....

Whatever the question Love is the answer. I believe the let your light so shine, that others seeing your good works shall glorify your Father in heaven, works better in the 3D world, and not so well on a computer screen.

Those are some wonderful, abstract ideals/platitudes, and I appreciate you sharing them with us.

However, what I am looking for are concrete and practical suggestions for thriving amicably given the reality of a pluralistic world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Since I haven't received any responses to this post (see below), and because I think it vital to the topic, I thought it wise to repost it:

I find it interesting that many of the suggestions thus far for resolving the animus between critics and apologist, entail having the other party change their beliefs and practices rather than about their changing their approach when interacting between critics and apologists.

In other words, for some of you, the animus isn't a function of how the other party treats you or percieves you or interacts with you, but a function of who the other party is and what they personally believe and practice.

Is that right?

I ask because I want to correctly understand what exactly is causing the animus--whether it be intollerance for differing beliefs and practices, or people's dysfunctional approach; whether it be a matter of prejudice or style.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Those are some wonderful, abstract ideals/platitudes, and I appreciate you sharing them with us.

However, what I am looking for are concrete and practical suggestions for thriving amicably given the reality of a pluralistic world.

This is an interesting exercise in mediation, Wade. If you succeed here, then you might move on to Hamas / Fatah, and then to the mother of all mediation exercises, Palestinian / Israeli.

On the other hand, you may find that the divide is just too wide and too entrenched to conquer. Though there is some compromise that could be done by both sides, I think that such potential minor compromise is generally so dwarfed by the remaining conflict on basic issues as to be almost a non-starter. That divide on basic issues has been demonstrated in this thread.

Then again, being the typically arrogant, iron-rod, TBM that I evidently am, perhaps I'm being a bit too skeptical about my willingness to change just about every basic precept I hold dear in the Church as demanded. Floyd McElveen, in the late celebrated DVD love dropping, took this to the ultimate end when he demanded that the leaders of the Church admit that the whole foundation of the restored Church is a fraud.

The divide is wide, indeed.

[BishopRic]

Since I haven't received any responses to this post (see below), and because I think it vital to the topic, I thought it wise to repost it:

I find it interesting that many of the suggestions thus far for resolving the animus between critics and apologist, entail having the other party change their beliefs and practices rather than about their changing their approach when interacting between critics and apologists.

In other words, for some of you, the animus isn't a function of how the other party treats you or percieves you or interacts with you, but a function of who the other party is and what they personally believe and practice.

Is that right?

I ask because I want to correctly understand what exactly is causing the animus--whether it be intollerance for differing beliefs and practices, or people's dysfunctional approach; whether it be a matter of prejudice or style.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To a degree, I think it IS right. I am not interested in another changing their "beliefs," but if their beliefs affect the manner they interact with me and others, that is one cause of the "animus."

For example, while I was still active LDS (in a very active Sandy LDS neighborhood), a neighbor made it a point to let us know that he was not letting the non-member "Smith's" daughter play with his kids (he told us that because our kids were good friends with the "Smith's," and he wanted to make sure we knew not to allow his kids to be over when the Smith's were over....

The funny thing was that this girl was more "Mormon" (in behavior) than his kids were. My kids were confused by the situation, and it served as one area that led my oldest daughter to inactivity.

Point is that actions like this do affect others. I live in Sugarhouse now where there is much more acceptance of diversity. Of course it is/was not taught by "the brethren" to do such things, but I think most would agree that the culture sets up some of the judgments like this.

[solomarineris]

wenglund:

Good feelings are always good. But my question is to what end? At least here at MADB the Apologists and Critics know the issues, and the arguments for both sides. Do we just agree to disagree or do we actively and passionately advocate for our side of the issues? Or maybe I just do not understanding your question.

So, we don't need Moroni anymore to make up our minds, since we have this board and Internet?

Is there any need to pray, when all the answers we seek are readily awailable?

[caudicus]

"what would bring you peace and happiness"?

Is it okay to believe something is true, when it is not, just because it provides you with peace and happiness?

There is no amicable end for any side that claims to have access to knowledge that others do not, especially when it can not be verified by any reasonable means.

[BarrelO'Mangoes]

I haven't read the entire thread.

What is it about the temple or the sealings specifically that might not be "uplifting" to me as a non-member?

The comments regarding the sealing actually make me wonder what in the world is going on and if it is something that would indeed startle me! I've never before even considered such a thing.

Why would I need to be protected from this ceremony? How is it that not witnessing the temple and sealing would be for my own good?

[Pahoran]

First of all, I would like to state that I remain a member on record, but have been unbelieving for a decade and inactive for the past four years.

Here is my list of what I think it would take to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers.

1. Must drop the "One True Church" nonsense.

That's right. Never mind that it is a revealed truth--it's not PC, so it has to go.

It serves to alienate everyone outside of it, and make those inside it arrogant and proud.

And you, having left the Church, are now a paragon of humility; see my sig.

It also gives birth to the less benign, polemic culture that encourages shunning if one chooses to leave this one true environment.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not practice "shunning" and has never been credibly accused of so doing.

2. It must stop focusing so heavily on the afterlife. It is really difficult to enjoy the here and now if one is fixated on the hereafter. And hereafters that are heavily conditional upon certain works will drive any perfectionist-oriented person into the hospital with white rooms and padded walls.

So we should just be a social club. Got it.

3. The whole "redeeming the dead" purpose of the church. Drop it. From where I am standing, work that is being spent on the dead is NOT work spent on the living. This whole concept is limiting God. If these people die without being exposed to LDS doctrine (and less than .01% of all humanity have been exposed to it) surely God can take that into consideration without another human being having to sit and watch a movie.

Thank you for demonstrating the validity of Novak's Law. You are exactly wrong, of course. The fact is that the work for the dead actually demonstrates that God's love does embrace everyone.

And the fact that you see the sacred ordinances of the House of the Lord as nothing more than "to sit and watch a movie" demonstrates that you never got it in the first place.

Unless of course you were merely being derisive and dismissive, as usual.

4. Temples. They are so beautiful on both inside and outside. I enjoy the ambiance. They bring peace. So do the cathedrals I have visited, and the krishna temples and the buddhist temples. Why be exclusive? If one wants to experience peace and calm, why must there be a ticket price?

There is no "ticket price." And if all you ever got from the Temple is the same as what you experienced in other places of worship, then what exactly are you missing out on?

5. Patriarchal environment. I just can't believe that one's mortal and eternal role is incumbent upon gender. I think that all people are powerful, and should not have to defer to another in order to access greater light and knowledge. It doesn't make things organized. It makes it insulting. And it makes more sense that gender would not be recognized in any hereafter before it makes sense that a female must spend her eternities birthing babies.

So you prefer matriarchy. Quite so. I shall pass over the rest in silence, since none of it plausibly resembles any LDS view of the afterlife, although it does resemble certain spiteful caricatures thereof, such as The God Makers.

There's a start.

No it's not. Wade's question was not "where does the Church have to surrender to satisfy your demands," but "what can we [in this cyber-community] do to get along better? Your"one and only suggestion "to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers" amounts to all the believers being eliminated from the discussion by joining you in unbelief. This is your idea of a fair compromise, is it?

A real start from you would be to make an effort to write three connected sentences without saying something inflammatory, spiteful, derisive, or mocking of sacred matters.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Since I haven't received any responses to this post (see below), and because I think it vital to the topic, I thought it wise to repost it:

I find it interesting that many of the suggestions thus far for resolving the animus between critics and apologist, entail having the other party change their beliefs and practices rather than about their changing their approach when interacting between critics and apologists.

In other words, for some of you, the animus isn't a function of how the other party treats you or percieves you or interacts with you, but a function of who the other party is and what they personally believe and practice.

Is that right?

I ask because I want to correctly understand what exactly is causing the animus--whether it be intollerance for differing beliefs and practices, or people's dysfunctional approach; whether it be a matter of prejudice or style.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, it isn't a "battle" or conflict between critics and apologists. Critics have problems with the Church, not the apologists.

As a critic, the only "animus" I have towards apologists is inversely proportional to the quality of their arguments in defense of the Church. Those who generally favor reasoned arguments and a courteous approach (Brant Gardner coming to mind, for one) don't bother me at all. Those who rely on shaky arguments and stretched evidence exasperate me (I won't name any names, because everyone already knows who they are except for themselves).

But I would never consider myself a critic of apologists, because I really don't care about them. Heck, apologists don't even represent the Church, so they're largely irrelevant at the end of the day.

[Son]

Those are some wonderful, abstract ideals/platitudes, and I appreciate you sharing them with us.

However, what I am looking for are concrete and practical suggestions for thriving amicably given the reality of a pluralistic world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why thankyou,

Concrete and Spiritual are opposing matters.

Practically speaking amicable discussion involves those discussing wanting to listen and share in an honest exchange. So if that is not present, then futility will reign.

Sealed minds have damned mans progress since time began. As well as hard hearts.

Critics and Apologists have positions that are diametrically opposed unless Wisdom and Understanding are invited in.

Fear destroys the ability to reason and discuss, pride is a cancer that blocks the chance of learning.

The ego corrupts knowledge and keeps truth from being assimilated.

son"the Platitude"wielder

[Deborah]

Sealed minds have damned mans progress since time began. As well as hard hearts.

I agree with this, but get the feeling from you that anyone has a firm conviction of faith and chooses not to move from it that his mind is sealed. In actuality anyone who has reached that point in their faith has probably pretty much explored the alternatives, weighed the evidence and made the choice of what part of the availalble and often contradictory evidence they choose to follow. And at least for most of us in the LDS faith that does pretty much involve a lot of study, prayer and personal revelation.

[Hammer]

Why thankyou,

Concrete and Spiritual are opposing matters.

Practically speaking amicable discussion involves those discussing wanting to listen and share in an honest exchange. So if that is not present, then futility will reign.

Sealed minds have damned mans progress since time began. As well as hard hearts.

Critics and Apologists have positions that are diametrically opposed unless Wisdom and Understanding are invited in.

Fear destroys the ability to reason and discuss, pride is a cancer that blocks the chance of learning.

The ego corrupts knowledge and keeps truth from being assimilated.

son"the Platitude"wielder

All of these statements are truest when applied to one's self and not to another. Otherwise they just become empty judgments which only bars the progress of the one making them.

[Son]

I agree with this, but get the feeling from you that anyone has a firm conviction of faith and chooses not to move from it that his mind is sealed. In actuality anyone who has reached that point in their faith has probably pretty much explored the alternatives, weighed the evidence and made the choice of what part of the availalble and often contradictory evidence they choose to follow. And at least for most of us in the LDS faith that does pretty much involve a lot of study, prayer and personal revelation.

A firm conviction could be in error, Faith should remain fluid or a continueing hope of substance.

Whenever we think we have received all, our progress is halted.

I don't associate seeking God through a religious construct the only or best way to approach the pursuit of righteousness.

Certainly one can seek God while being a member of a church, but I think we need to be aware that the fruit of religion is not making this a better world, nor creating more godly people on a whole.

It may be slowing the degeneration, but in others ways it misses the mark, and can hold people back if they are relying on the teachings of man and not having a one on one relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.

All of these statements are truest when applied to one's self and not to another. Otherwise they just become empty judgments which only bars the progress of the one making them.

Let our light so shine.

[wenglund]

To a degree, I think it IS right. I am not interested in another changing their "beliefs," but if their beliefs affect the manner they interact with me and others, that is one cause of the "animus."

For example, while I was still active LDS (in a very active Sandy LDS neighborhood), a neighbor made it a point to let us know that he was not letting the non-member "Smith's" daughter play with his kids (he told us that because our kids were good friends with the "Smith's," and he wanted to make sure we knew not to allow his kids to be over when the Smith's were over....

The funny thing was that this girl was more "Mormon" (in behavior) than his kids were. My kids were confused by the situation, and it served as one area that led my oldest daughter to inactivity.

Point is that actions like this do affect others. I live in Sugarhouse now where there is much more acceptance of diversity. Of course it is/was not taught by "the brethren" to do such things, but I think most would agree that the culture sets up some of the judgments like this.

This is certainly a worthy matter to consider, though I happen to view it a little differently. I have found it useful to be very cautious in coming to conclusions about cultural or community beliefs so as not to mistakenly stereotype (not that you necessarily did).

I mention this because, coincidentally, I used to live in Sugar House and now live in Sandy, and I have found that for the post part my LDS neighbors are open in both areas to having their kids play with non-members. Granted, there are a few members whereever I have lived (even when I lived in Washington State) who were selective in who they let their kids play with, though in some locals it seemed to have more to do with class or economic distinction (living in the valley vs on the benches, etc.) than with religious distinction. Throughout my life I have found myself not infrequently on the outside of various "clicks" (both LDS and non-LDS), not that it bothered me much except during junior high, and I tend to strike it all up to diverse human behavior rather than cultural or religious beliefs (and this because I happened to have been a part of the culture and at times shared the same religious beliefs).

In a way, though, I can see what you are saying. Beliefs can lead to actions that may cause animus, and thus there is an indirect causal connection. This is true whether the belief is held by LDS or critics.

However, when it comes to working out amicable resolutions, I have found the chances of success are far greater when dealing with simple behaviors than dealing with the complexities of beliefs. In fact, if the civil rights movement is any indicator, then addressing behaviors is the only viable way to go, and one may take solice that addressing behaviors may eventually lead to a change in beliefs and attitudes.

But, I can respect that others may see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-