Internet Mormon Vs Chapel Mormons

[Yep]

I tend to balk at the Pharisees and Sadducees characterization for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the inflammatory nature of those terms and the false dichotomy that those terms present vis-a-vis the Saints

While I concede there are some (faint) thematic similarities, the Pharisees and Sadducees were separate sects or groups within Jewish society and were (largely) the antithesis of one another. No such division actually exists within the Church.

One is not either a "Chapel Mormon" or an "Internet Mormon" because there is no clear dividing line, nor even a preponderance of belief that separates the two alleged categories, as even the most flatulent of those endorsing the categories are forced to admit.

Mormon belief is not a dichotomy nor (truly) even a spectrum of belief. Rather, we are tasked to assess each belief both on its own merits and in context of our faith as a whole- and one must decide for oneself (in cooperation with the Holy Ghost) what one believes on any particular topic.

To pretend that Latter-day Saints can be pigeon holed on one side or another of a great mythical divide is to misunderstand the very nature of being a Latter-day Saint.

To use a Hasbro metaphor, this isn't a game of Connect-Four, where all the pieces line up in neat little rows, but is rather like battleship, where victory is determined by confluences scattered all over the playing field.

Hence my statement that the Church (Church here referencing the membership body of the Church), has not had time to grow into defined groups of thought.

There is in fact a severe difference in view between members of the Church. As seen in LGT theories, etc. I have seen that various theories are held to strongly by a specific population of the Church. Given that these theories are aspects have not been supported or denounced by the Church authorities they continue to exist. Many of these I would state I oppose. I would put some of the individuals that hold strongly to these theories in a group of members that I am not a part of. It is possible that such could eventually lead to a pharisee/sadducee type grouping. The Pharisees and Saducees of the Bible were not evil and were not denounced except for stereotypically and as individuals exemplified the stereotype. There were Pharisees and Saducees that followed Christ.

[selek1]

Hence my statement that the Church (Church here referencing the membership body of the Church), has not had time to grow into defined groups of thought.

More manifestly, there is no evidence even for a trend towards such a division (which was the stated rationale of the categories to begin with).

I don't think its a matter of "not having had enough time for the differences to develop" so much as that such differences are alien to the Latter-day Saint experience.

There is in fact a severe difference in view between members of the Church.

Between individual members, most certainly. Do those individual differences amount to a dividing line between the Saints as a whole? Not hardly.

As seen in LGT theories, etc. I have seen that various theories are held to strongly by a specific population of the Church.

Really? Which specific populations and how are they defined?

Given that these theories are aspects have not been supported or denounced by the Church authorities they continue to exist.

I agree that these aspects exists as individual preferences and opinions, but not as separate sects or categories among the Latter-day Saints.

Many of these I would state I oppose. I would put some of the individuals that hold strongly to these theories in a group of members that I am not a part of.

This is an explicit admission that such categories are both arbitrary and personal. You are doing the grouping according to your own preferences.

There is (as yet) no evidence that such a practice extends to the membership at large.

It is possible that such could eventually lead to a pharisee/sadducee type grouping.

It is also possible that the Second Coming of Christ will occur before any such schism develops. It is also possible that an asteroid will smash into the Earth and render us all extinct.

"Possible" isn't proof. It's guesswork (whether or not such guesses are educated is another matter entirely).

The Pharisees and Saducees of the Bible were not evil and were not denounced except for stereotypically and as individuals exemplified the stereotype. There were Pharisees and Saducees that followed Christ.

Agreed- but since the purposes of both words and stereotypes is to convey specific ideas and concepts, it would be imprudent to ignore the meanings (yes, and stereotypes) with which those words are already laden.

For that reason, I remain convinced that "Pharisee" and "Sadducee" are ill-considered choices for a schism which has not yet been proven to exist.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

I know I am breaking my comment not to speak on here. Just got back from surgery putting my fibula back to gether.... going to be out of commission for a while and this brings me joy and takes my mind off the pain. so I ask all of you for forgivenss

The "Internet/Chapel Mormon" dichotomy is a test of critical thinking skills. If one views the dichotomy as sound and valid , they have failed the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I must admit I do find some truth to this dichotomy, lol so I failed. I will say I am not using this exactly as other have in the past. I do not see two separate churches or mormon faiths. Just my way of taking this oft used label and using it the way I see it apply. That we have a large group of LDS who do not seek out extra information (I never said this was bad for them in regards to their own faith) and a group that does seek out new info and finds all the peripheral info. I hope some of you understand the definition of (Infantile, immature, naive) not to be me saying folks are stupid, just not aware of these issues. I had a brother who served a mission, lifetime LDS, counselor in Bishopric who heard me give a talk on BOM translation and he came up to me afterward and said he had never heard until my talk that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat. While I realize all of you on here are informed, and yes there are likely many others in my ward who know this but say nothing, there are a whole bunch who do not.

While it does sound negative, I am aware of many LDS who simply do not value learning in the gospel and do not place importance on it. Not saying they are bad for that, perhaps I would be better off valuing what they do but just saying it is a fact.

I think some of you take me the wrong way. I am sorry for any hard feelings I have caused, but I am begging you folks to try better to see me as your brother in Christ and not your opponent in a debate club match.

[DBMormon]

From here on out I will refer to the two groups as the highly informed and the very little informed also recognizing there are shades of gray in between as well

[Pahoran]

Some of us recall when The Shades came up with a ten-question survey to try to quantify his "Chapel" and "Internet" Mormon categories.

The trouble was that this survey did not produce the predicted results. The so-called "Internet Mormons" who took it fell well inside the supposed "Chapel Mormon" range of answers.

Cinepro has subsequently tried to help Shades out by defining this imaginary divide around one single question: was the flood of Noah geographically universal, or local?

This approach has the advantage of producing a largely binary solution set. The trouble, however, is that the flood of Noah is hardly a core, defining doctrine, and as such it is a remarkably arbitrary line to draw.

The "Chapel/Internet" dichotomy is an explanation looking for a phenomenon to explain.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited June 1, 2012 by Pahoran

[DBMormon]

I also suspect it has something to do with Correlation, which teaches us that there is one "pure doctrine", and the Correlated version is it.

unfortunately, it is Correlation that has brought me my cognitive dissonance in the past. Correlation in and of itself isn't bad. But couple correlation with what it choose to tell and what it chose not to. Obviously from all of your comments through the various threads, it is not a negative for many.... but is has been for me. I use to be a fielding/mcconkie mormon and now I am appalled by the type

Edited June 1, 2012 by reelmormon

[selek1]

I know I am breaking my comment not to speak on here. Just got back from surgery putting my fibula back to gether.... going to be out of commission for a while and this brings me joy and takes my mind off the pain. so I ask all of you for forgivenss

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

That we have a large group of LDS who do not seek out extra information (I never said this was bad for them in regards to their own faith) and a group that does seek out new info and finds all the peripheral info.

Our problem- then and now- is that the Latter-day Saints cannot be neatly boxed into either of these categories. Some Latter-day Saints will throw themselves obsessively into the historical minutia while others will only dabble. Other Saints will throw themselves deeply into the theological/philosophical underpinnings and give scant interest to who Fanny Alger spent the night with on October 23rd 1841. Others still will content themselves with attending their meetings on Sunday and never give another thought to their faith.

There are simply too many variables (as Pahoran explains above) to support a black-and-white dichotomy or binary solution set. Any attempt to pigeon Latter-day Saints on either side of the proposed dividing lines either oversimplifies the reality to the point of inanity or misrepresents the Latter-day Saints almost to the point of insult.

I hope some of you understand the definition of (Infantile, immature, naive) not to be me saying folks are stupid, just not aware of these issues.

And yet the very application of such terms based on an arbitrary (and questionable) measurement (whether or not they match your interest in history) is to beg the question.

While I realize all of you on here are informed, and yes there are likely many others in my ward who know this but say nothing, there are a whole bunch who do not.

And yet this single (highly subjective) sample does not (by itself) support your purported dichotomy. There are simply too many other variables for which you are not controlling to make this a sound distinction.

While it does sound negative, I am aware of many LDS who simply do not value learning in the gospel and do not place importance on it. Not saying they are bad for that, perhaps I would be better off valuing what they do but just saying it is a fact.

You're right- this generalization is both negative and offensive- even if it wasn't intended that way.

That many Latter-day Saints do not share your fixation on historical issues does not mean they "do not value learning in the Gospel." Frankly, the very suggestion smacks of the sort of hubris Alma 31 warns us against.

This is especially true when one considers that Latter-day Saint populations as a whole tend to be both well-educated, with a broad spectrum of interests, and industrious.

From here on out I will refer to the two groups as the highly informed and the very little informed also recognizing there are shades of gray in between as well

Your argument fails on two fatal flaws: first, an interest in or awareness of the historical minutia has never been established as the measure of a person's intellectual or spiritual maturity. To attempt to impose it as such is nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary and subjective demagoguery.

Second, even if we were to accept your measure as a standard, the Latter-day Saint people cannot be arbitrarily lumped into one category or another. There is simply no logical, objective data to permit such a division.

It's not a question of the "ignorant" at one end, the "enlightened" at the other and a few "outliers" in between. Given the general level of education and commitment of most Latter-day Saints, most will be "right in the fuzzy middle" rather than at either extreme.

I bear you no hostility or ill-will, but your proposed classifications remain highly arbitrary and more than a little condescending, and your methodology for deciding who falls where remains fatally flawed.

[DBMormon]

Your argument fails on two fatal flaws: first, an interest in or awareness of the historical minutia has never been established as the measure of a person's intellectual or spiritual maturity.

I agree this is in no way a measure of faith or righteousness just peripheral knowledge. Many who I would call the little informed are better children of then I am. So on this we agree 100%

I bear you no hostility or ill-will, but your proposed classifications remain highly arbitrary and more than a little condescending, and your methodology for deciding who falls where remains fatally flawed.

As long as you and others disagree with what I say, I respect you and hold no grudge but I hope you can see that some on here seem to find joy in personal attacks and for me at least that crosses the line.

I am tired of people telling me I can't possible be serving in such and such a calling, or I must be a awful institute teacher (which by the way I have never taught), or I am a bad member of the church. That has occured since thread one I participated in and it has no place here

Edited June 1, 2012 by reelmormon

[selek1]

As long as you and others disagree with what I say, I respect you and hold no grudge but I hope you can see that some on here seem to find joy in personal attacks and for me at least that crosses the line. I am tired of people telling me I can't possible be serving in such and such a calling, or I must be a awful institute teacher (which by the way I have never taught), or I am a bad member of the church.

You and I have had our differences (and the cuts and scrapes to prove it), but after Log's intervention, I am convinced (provisionally ) of your bona fides.

I suspect you might be an excellent Institute teacher (though of the irritating/fascinating/frustrating hit-em-with-a-brick variety). I always learned more from the teachers with whom I disagreed violently but made me think about why I believed as I did.

Where we disagree, I will tell you plainly- and (usually) offer an incisive explanation as to why.

My primary complaints with you (at least the most recent one) are either outlined above or relate to what I perceive is "an innocent pose". You have, on several occasions, referrred to the semi-skeptical and then hostile reception you initially received while seemingly glossing over your own contributions to the contention and controversy.

As a parent (and sibling), it reminds me of incidents where one kids would tormet her sister until she retaliated and then scream bloody murder trying to get her sister in trouble.

I have found that (both online and in real life) that tactic tends to engender more contempt than compassion. I don't know that you're aware of it, let alone that it's deliberate, but it has been grit under my hooves on at least two occasions.

That has occured since thread one I participated in and it has no place here

As a general rule, I agree- but there are some notable and worthy exceptions to that rule.

[cinepro]

Cinepro has subsequently tried to help Shades out by defining this imaginary divide around one single question: was the flood of Noah geographically universal, or local?

This approach has the advantage of producing a largely binary solution set. The trouble, however, is that the flood of Noah is hardly a core, defining doctrine, and as such it is a remarkably arbitrary line to draw.

The reason Noah's flood is such a great indicator is because it isn't a "core, defining doctrine". If it were, Internet Mormons wouldn't have such freedom to disregard it. While at the same time, the teachings on the subject are scriptural, consistent, clear and official.

It's a very, very good litmus test to see how someone approaches the scriptures and words of the Prophets and Apostles.

Edited June 1, 2012 by cinepro

[DBMormon]

As a general rule, I agree- but there are some notable and worthy exceptions to that rule.

I agree as well that at times some personal statement may be needed and deserved... but it must be true Ex: exposing Dr. Walter Martin). In my case it hasn't been. Do I think differently then many on this board. yes. I see areas to me that deserve honest discussion and in my eyes valid cause for repair and I feel adament about my point of view. Also I don't mind at all when you and others disagree with me. I may dig in further on my position but I will never ridicule or call you out on a personal level. I enjoy the counter views of others. Several times already it has helped me progress in my position towards a better framework to understand all sides and change where needed. Unlike Walter Martin, people here have done what could be called defamation of charachter. I am not saying you have done that, just pointing out it has happened. I would have to go back through all the threads and take notes on who the half dozen are who spread false analysis of me and called me a liar. There are two folks who have done it repeatedly and not even apoligized and them I know by name. As far as I am solely concerned, that crosses the line of what I consider a good decent human being. Also the first thread I was in, I can understand why, I was new, and looked just like the last 100 trolls to come through with a beef against the church. Difference was though that I was/am an active member with a testimony, who never lied on any level about who I am. In fact on my profile is my reel name, general area of home. any member of the church from my stake on here will recognize me in a heartbeat. My user name is also the first part of my email address. I have put a lot of risk in sharing my thoughts and story, becasue I genuinely needed help, and I also wanted others after me to find this discussion in their searches as they look for answers. My hope was the folks here would see the pain and apply the balm of Gilead and the Grace of God, but instead many here see themselves in a debate. That is likely what goes on here but when someone with the pain I had comes in they get shot in the crossfire.

Let me say this. If I think I have a point to make I may be sarcastic at times, I may say someone's point is foolish in my eyes. But I will not say anything about them on a personal level. I don't know what people here are like in everyday life. And to judge them without evidence is morally wrong.

you have my respect and it is ok to agree to disagree. I just wish more people on here spoke up when this kind of behavior happens. Everyone here has no problem pointing out when the single atagonist has crossed the line, I think it is time that we do that when the group of them in the majority do it as well.

May I ask on what two points in these discussions did I really upset you? I would like to be aware and perhaps consider what I said and if I still feel that way or If I don't, to apoligize and clarify.

sincerely

your brother from another mother

Edited June 1, 2012 by reelmormon

[selek1]

ReelMormon,

I believe we are generally on the same page, and I am more than happy to clash with you (amiably) over matters of doctrine and opinion in order to seek out a better understanding.

I also believe we've established the ground rules necessary to keep the dialogue cordial (if not necessarily civil*).

If I had two pieces of advice to give you, the first would be to remember that your reception here did not occur in a vacuum. The posters here have hard-won reasons for their suspicions (which you've already alluded to with the "last hundred trolls" line).

A dog that has been kicked too many times will flinch everytime somebody's foot twitches. As much as I sometimes wish we might set aside some of the old reflexes and flinches, they are there for a reason.

The second would be to remember that these boards are a subset of reality with their own rules. It is a place intended for the venting of hard opinions and speaking uncomfortable truth. This place is much less the sedate, gentrified stereotype of a stereotypical English gentleman's club and much more the rough and tumble floor of the New York Stock Exchange (with a little bit of Street Fighter mixed in for flavor).

Don't take it personally. The situation is highly fluid. Just because I (or others) are in full-throated cry against your argument doesn't mean that I am your enemy or that I hold you in lesser regard.

Yes, you've alienated some folks here- and vice/versa. The best remedy for that is to simply be who you are and let the chips fall where they may. You do not polish a diamond with one swipe of a soft cloth- you polish it by tossing it in with other rocks and let them tumble and abrade.

There are dear friends here with whom I've clashed hammer and tongs and emerged bloody, but unbowed. By the same token, there are people here whom I think are complete idiots to whom I've never said an unkind word.

Perhaps it might do you well to think about in terms of physical therapy: a physical therapist will push you to the breaking point in order to help you become stronger, so too will the posters (friend and foe alike).

Ultimately, you will need to come to terms with the fact that this board is not real life. Nothing said or done here will last beyond the moment you log off- unless you allow it too. The ability to say, "Okay, that person is an idiot" and simply walk away will be crucial to your tenure here.

These boards exist to sift ideas: the good, the bad, and the ugly. What little truth is to be gleaned here will be hard-fought and well-earned.

Your penultimate source for the truth will not be me, nor Pahoran, nor Juliann, nor CynicPro, nor the man in the shaving mirror- but will, rather, be the Spirit and the Scriptures.

*My dearest friend is a gay liberal Democrat living in the L.A. area. We served together in both war and peace. I love him like a brother and would lay down my life for him. But I also can't tell you how many times one or the other of us has hung up during a contentious debate and let the matter stew for a day or a month.

Edited June 1, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

curious Selek, what are the two times you felt I acted entirely innapropriate? I would like to revisit those and see where I amy have overstepped my bounds.

[selek1]

I am not certain that I used the phrase, "entirely inappropriate", but I'll go back and review just to be sure.

As stated, my complaints primarily dealt with what I consider your "innocent" pose and with what I believe to be an arbitrary and potentially insulting classification of your fellow Saints.

Having talked with you at some length (both in this thread and by PM), I feel better about both counts, and feel no need to revisit them.

[DBMormon]

So back to the subject. Is there a way for us to help the church in terms of members move forward in not seeing the gospel through often narrow incorrect lens. For the members "large or small" who have false perceptions of the events that happened and the doctrine espoused by the church?

By itself, it really isn't a spiritual issue in that their incomplete awareness of the gospel facts will not prohibit them from exhaltaion. The issue comes in when they hold other members to a rigidness and false standard. That bothers me a lot, right or wrong it does. And I see progression towards more truth both in Doctrine and History as benefiscial to testimonie and also reducing the risk of one feeling betrayal and loss of trust when they encounter a seperate more factual history and doctrine with their present framework.

So what can be done?

Selek - thank you for your kind words. hope you have an awesome day.

Edited June 1, 2012 by reelmormon

[cinepro]

So back to the subject. Is there a way for us to help the church in terms of members move forward in not seeing the gospel through often narrow incorrect lens. For the members "large or small" who have false perceptions of the events that happened and the doctrine espoused by the church?

By itself, it really isn't a spiritual issue in that their incomplete awareness of the gospel facts will not prohibit them from exhaltaion. The issue comes in when they hold other members to a rigidness and false standard. That bothers me a lot, right or wrong it does. And I see progression towards more truth both in Doctrine and History as benefiscial to testimonie and also reducing the risk of one feeling betrayal and loss of trust when they encounter a seperate more factual history and doctrine with their present framework.

So what can be done?

Until the Church is comfortable publishing alternate views in magazines and curriculum, the situation will not improve.

Again, let's use Noah's flood as an example. It's not a "core" doctrine, it's not "important", as Internet Mormons are so eager to point out. So, someone should write a respectful, well-researched, faith-promoting article for the Ensign explaining that it was probably a local flood (limited to a region in the Middle East), not a global one.

What do you think the odds of something like that getting published are?

Unless it comes from inside the Church, Chapel Mormons will just continue to think the Internet Mormons are off their rockers. There's nothing you can do to change a Chapel Mormon's mind if the Church is teaching (and publishing) something different.

[DBMormon]

cinepro I agree with your point about the flood. I wish someone would write an article of the flood and at least comment that we do not know for sure if it was local or the whole earth. I think it is time for some growth in these issues. We can not be gospel infants forever.

in regards to your quote

Until the Church is comfortable publishing alternate views in magazines and curriculum, the situation will not improve.

Even with all my issues with moving forward in historical disclosure I can admit that the church has put this info in a magazine from time to time. Perhaps not the flood or polyandry for that matter, but Book of abraham issues, seer stones, polygamy, ect.. Too few times for me but still there. Also I will say that I don't think the church hides info, I do think they are very selective about how often and how concentrated they want it. While I wish there was a way to bring all members up to speed on historical and doctrinal accuracy, listen on this board and thinking it over I now see that if you unload it all at once, you may hurt as many testimonies as you protected. catch 22. My preference would be to find a way to do it in a faster more substantive way then currently but probably not as "full on frontal" as I earlier subscribed to.

Cinepro, I realize your not a member, at least not anymore, and I know you see a lot of negative in the church's conduct. I just wanted to say I respect your thoughts and comments as I have felt at times the things you say.

I have been trying to assign Sacrament talks in my ward from time to time on some of these issues just so we get just a little of this mixed in with the majority of the basics. We have had lessons and training recently on what is Doctrine and what it isn't, seer stones and their role in the translation of the BOM, allowing members to hold differing views on age of the earth, evolution and still be considered just as faithful as another with a another view.

I wish there was some way leaders in Salt Lake might try to revisit hurtful comments on race, origin of man, great and abominable church, and from time to time speak out against false doctrines that prevail in the church. The epistles in the new testament did this from time to time, we need to clean a little house.

Just out of High School, I was working a job where a wonderful African American Lady worked. She caught wind that African lineage could not have the Priesthood in our church till 78' and me why. I answered here with many of the urban legend answers that I had been taught. I was dumb and insensitive. I know better now, but too late. The goal was to bring all unto Christ and instead I was driving wedges becasue it was my right to share all truth as I knew it holding back no punches. Ohh how wrong I was. We all have some repenting to do.... Repentance is to confess, and forsake, and make restitution. I believe the church as a whole must do that too when false ideas that offend or divide unessacarily are still carried from one generation to another because of something the church taught from a podium or it's leader spoke thinking he knew better then the others. I know this sounds harsh and some of my LDS brothers and Sisters are offended when this is said, but it is how I feel.

I do think we are doing better, but for me, not enough, not fast enough.

I had before used a list from Open Stories' survey and proposed we work it into the material. I am not in the curriculum department but I still think this could be easy enough to work in without it dominating the material. Also while we can and should cover this in institute or college BYU classes, I am speaking of Sunday curriculum where all would be partakers.

Book of Abraham - simply explain somewhere what the remnants we have left represent and yet within that material and some that may be missing God revealed a wonderful revelation to the church. older youth and definitely by adulthood

Polygamy/Polyandry - Polygamy early on and by highschool kids need to know that their prophet practised polyandry or they are in for a huge trial of faith when they find out about it.

Past church positions on science, age of the earth, Adam-god theory , racist remarks, evolution, etc. - lesson about prophets only prophets when acting as such. We can briefly in two minutes mention some of the misstatements and also on some of these clarify that while some leaders mispoke the church had not taken that position doctrinally. Could easily be combined with Elder Christopherson's recent talk on doctrine and a lesson on what is and isn't. too me when we have had these disussions in my ward they have been uplifting and a breath of fresh air.

DNA and the Book of Mormon - we don't need to have a lesson on DNA, but we do need to be better about allowing members to know that an alternate possible framework is that of Limited Geography. DNA is an issue only when one sees all Native Americans as Lamanites. Obviously you can't teach LGT as true, only stating their are multiple theories and memebrs are not limited to one way of seeing things but see more flexibility in forming their own opinion rather then feeling there was one set in stone for them.

Masonic influences in the temple ceremony - stop with the Mason stuff goes back to temple of Solomon, we need to find a way to flat out say either Joseph saw value in the Masonic methods to teach the endowment, or God did. just like Brother of Jared was permitted to find the way to have light on the barge. He picked the tool to deliver god's light

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (e.g. horses, steel, etc.) - perhaps in youth classes a lesson on how we recieve revealtion and God's light is shaped by our language and culture. mention joseph corrected previous revelations at times as new light and knowledge came forth. mention many things are yet to come forth and also that Joseph was limited by his language and culture at times.

Changes in the temple ceremony - mention in a lesson on modern revelationa and how the Lord adapts the methods to what his people need at a given time. The facts don't change, but the way to deliver them can and does. also could mix this in with God will not be mocked.

Mountain meadows massacre - LDS church history manuals - institute, "Our Heritage", Truth Restored" Church history in the Fullness of Times"

Joseph Smith's history cyphering with seer stones - primary kids would love this

just some thoughts

[The Nehor]

Until the Church is comfortable publishing alternate views in magazines and curriculum, the situation will not improve.

Tell me about it. After I gave what I suspect to be the first sacrament meeting talk ever that included a text message being sent as part of the talk I asked my friend who works at the Ensign if she thought there was an article here. She checked....and no.

Close-minded Ensign staffers..............(sigh)

[cinepro]

Cinepro, I realize your not a member, at least not anymore, and I know you see a lot of negative in the church's conduct. I just wanted to say I respect your thoughts and comments as I have felt at times the things you say.

Does this mean I don't have to teach my Sunday School class on Sunday?

[mfbukowski]

Cinepro, I realize your not a member, at least not anymore, and I know you see a lot of negative in the church's conduct.

Does this mean I don't have to teach my Sunday School class on Sunday?

Yes, reelmormon.

This just gives us all the warm fuzzies.

[DBMormon]

Cinepro

Does this mean I don't have to teach my Sunday School class on Sunday?

Cinepro... if that is the case I am really sorry. I have been trying to gauge each person's place by their comments and I am trying to do that with about 50 of you who seem to comment more often.

I will have to go back and look but it was in my head that you are always jumping in on the critic side. And because I seemed to remeber that I assumed you were not a member. If that is not the case I am sorry. truly sorry, becasue I just did to you what I don't want others doing to me. My deepest apoligies.

Edited June 2, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Cinepro - As a Sunday School Teacher and having the critical view of the church as you do (went back and looked at the posts again) how do you approach teaching it. D you stay on the Church approved teach the basics, or do you try to share better historical info and spend time correcting non doctrinal statements by previous leaders?

[zerinus]

Cinepro - As a Sunday School Teacher and having the critical view of the church as you do (went back and looked at the posts again) how do you approach teaching it. D you stay on the Church approved teach the basics, or do you try to share better historical info and spend time correcting non doctrinal statements by previous leaders?

The purpose of the Sunday School is to do none of those things. The purpose of the Sunday School is to teach the curriculum, which is the standard works. The Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual is designed to assist the teacher do just that.

Edited June 2, 2012 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

... or do you try to share better historical info and spend time correcting non doctrinal statements by previous leaders?

(shudder- fingernails on the blackboard)

[Lightbearer]

That's nice in theory, but unfortunately, the problem becomes WHICH of the FP or Q of 12, or which of the statements they have collectively expressed in the past, since they themselves at times do not appear unified, especially not over a period of time, hence the whole question of "doctrine" as addressed by Elder Christofferson in this last conference. He cited two different statements by Brigham Young, one of which Bro Brigham reversed himself on in a matter of hours.

Ultimately, I would say that the unity we need to have, is being one with the Spirit, and that was indeed the overall theme of the talk

I agree that being one with the Spirit is the only way to the truth. As for which First Presidency and Quorm of the Twelve, I would say when in doubt the CURRENT leadership, because that is the one we will be judged by. Although I do not believe there are any contradictions which you imply with past presidencies. But the most recent would be that which applies to us today. For example I would not follow the teaching on the doctrine of plural marriage from Brigham Young's presidency because in light of President Woodruff's revelation the original teaching does not apply. It is what President Monson teaches today that counts not what dead prophets taught (only in where they agree with what God reveals to the Prophet TODAY). So I think the "theory" is rather practicalbe and no one need be confused and pit the prophets of the past against those of our day.