Jeff K. Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Depends on which spirit is guiding me I suppose, and how that spirit is helping me implement the objective of the lesson.
Lamanite Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Depends on which spirit is guiding me I suppose, and how that spirit is helping me implement the objective of the lesson.Can you ever assume that someone's motives are good?Your pessimism just leaked out onto my computer desk...Big UP!Lamanite
ttribe Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Can you ever assume that someone's motives are good?Your pessimism just leaked out onto my computer desk...Big UP!LamaniteThat was funny.
LeSellers Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Maybe we should go back to having a teaching development coordinator so that the quality and type of instruction is reviewed and corrected when needed. The only problem with the teaching development courses is that those who need it most never show. I know, I've taught it.I believe a Sunday School president could call (with the Bishop's permission) a Teaching Development teacher/co-ordinator, and call people to attend the Sunday School Class. After a while, there would be a pool of "developed" teachers and, since callings rotate anyway, these teachers would be "in the classroom" (or trenches), as the saying goes. If it were a (semi-) permanent situation, the whole ward would have this development in a couple of years, et viol
Jeff K. Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Can you ever assume that someone's motives are good?Your pessimism just leaked out onto my computer desk...Big UP!LamaniteMotives do not define the spirit that influences you. And the objective caveat being "how does this help meet the objectives for the class.
consiglieri Posted March 30, 2010 Author Posted March 30, 2010 Motives do not define the spirit that influences you. And the objective caveat being "how does this help meet the objectives for the class.Do you honestly think that the manual is brought down from the mountaintop by President Monson, and that somehow the "objectives for the class" are what is needed by every single member of every single class on that particular week throughout the Church?This is one of the fundamental problems with horoscopes, and yet you seem to have no problem with the horomanual. Or should that be horcrux?Mischief Managed.All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jeff K. Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Do you honestly think that the manual is brought down from the mountaintop by President Monson, and that somehow the "objectives for the class" are what is needed by every single member of every single class on that particular week throughout the Church?I do honestly support the First Presidency and the manual they produced for us with the said objectives. Can you say the same? Honestly that is?I suggest that perhaps honesty be the core issue at play when you raise your hand to sustain and support President Monson and the Apostles this weekend.
consiglieri Posted March 30, 2010 Author Posted March 30, 2010 I suggest that perhaps honesty be the core issue at play when you raise your hand to sustain and support President Monson and the Apostles this weekend.Is it okay with you if I don't shut my eyes when I do so?
Deborah Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I believe a Sunday School president could call (with the Bishop's permission) a Teaching Development teacher/co-ordinator, and call people to attend the Sunday School Class.We actually did this in one of my wards but it didn't last long. Once again the ones who really needed it didn't show up. And then the ward split and it all just dissolved anyway. I think it would be a good idea for the SS presidency to visit each class on a rotation and make suggestions where needed. As long as they are there to observe only. We had a stake SS rep who came into our youth SS class every ward conference and we dreaded it. He would put in his 10 cents and the kids would immediately go out into space. He would preach and go on and on. It was very irritating because I'd have the class going and he would have to interject some thought and I'd lose them.
Jeff K. Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Is it okay with you if I don't shut my eyes when I do so?Avoidance is always an issue with some now isn't it.
Tango Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 I submit the following proposition for debate in this thread.What are your thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriMy experience is that people who have left the LDS church do so simply because they have proved to themselves that it is a fraud.
Lightbearer Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 My experience is that people who have left the LDS church do so simply because they have proved to themselves that it is a fraud.Or rather deluded themselves into thinking it is...
Eric Blob Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 My experience is that people who have left the LDS church do so simply because they have proved to themselves that it is a fraud.Yes, I think a lot of people leave the church because of this. They find out something, and then that, somehow, makes them realize the church isn't true.I don't understand it personally, but I just let them be.
ttribe Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 My experience is that people who have left the LDS church do so simply because they have proved to themselves that it is a fraud."proved"? Reaching a conclusion individually is not the same as "proving" anything.
zeezrom Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 "proved"? Reaching a conclusion individually is not the same as "proving" anything.just like you can't prove to yourself the church is true. Or, if you can prove to yourself the church is true, then you can equally prove to yourself it isn't.
ttribe Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 just like you can't prove to yourself the church is true. Or, if you can prove to yourself the church is true, then you can equally prove to yourself it isn't.Did I EVER say I had proven such a thing?
zeezrom Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 Did I EVER say I had proven such a thing?no, just clarifying things and wondering if you agree.
Eric Blob Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 "proved"? Reaching a conclusion individually is not the same as "proving" anything.You can disprove the church to yourself in the sense that you can convince yourself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the church isn't true. I suppose this wouldn't be "disproof" though; there's probably some other word to describe that scenario. I suppose if people 'disprove' the church to themselves, then that's perhaps why they can't understand our reasoning, because in their mind the church has been 'disproven', so nothing can convince them otherwize.I suppose it's kind of the other way around with us mormons though. We believe so strongly that the church is true, that we find it ridiculous that some people manage to disprove it to themselves.
ttribe Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 no, just clarifying things and wondering if you agree.If I didn't agree I would have said so.
Lamanite Posted March 30, 2010 Posted March 30, 2010 There are a few of you who remind of this excerpt from Faith of an Observer:"Brother Nibley I've never heard that before", "Of course, that's why your here because you've never heard that before" But no they just want to be told the same standard routine testimony and so forth.Big UP!Lamanite
danieljbelk Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 My experience is that people who have left the LDS church do so simply because they have proved to themselves that it is a fraud.Or perhaps they never fully believed in the first place?You're dealing with people who have a wide range of emotions and situations, you can't just classify them all into the same group.There's lazy people, some who don't want to pay tithing. There's those who never had a testimony, or some who think being a part of the church is too much work.There's people who feel too guilty and therefore leave the church.There's people who dislike the church or it's practices.There's people who try to fit in with other people, who aren't LDS.There's some who prove to themselves that it's wrong.And there's probably a lot more reasons.Unless the church keeps statistics (and releases them) on such, we won't know how many fall into any particular category.
Darth J Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 If this is the level of apologetics to be published by the Church, then I would recommend adopting a strict policy of disengagement and just go back to pretending things happened the way we wish they had.I was under the impression that this already was church policy. CFR: the 36 years that I have been alive and attending the LDS Church.
jwhitlock Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 I was under the impression that this already was church policy. CFR: the 36 years that I have been alive and attending the LDS Church.So many years attending.So little understanding as a result.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.