ERayR Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 There has been much discussion on inoculating our members against the so called ""hard questions". I ran across this article from December 1996 by Elder M. Russell Ballard. I Think Elder Ballard gives us the best inoculation possible.“President,” he said, “that isn’t going to be necessary.” Then he explained: “I know that the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.”“Well, that’s great,” I said. “But you’re going to get answers to your questions anyway. I worked a long time on this, so you just sit there and listen.”And so I answered all his questions and then asked, “Elder, what have you learned from this?”And he said, “Give the Lord equal time.”The article can be found here. I think it is well worth the read.http://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/12/when-shall-these-things-be?lang=eng
Avatar4321 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 I agree. Give the Lord equal time and you wont have any doubts
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 I agree. Give the Lord equal time and you wont have any doubtsThat is a statement I can't agree with. It presumes doubt is inherently bad. It assumes belief and doubt can't coexist. And it's an excuse not to do your homework. 2
oremites Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 And it's an excuse not to do your homework.He said give the Lord equal time, not all the time. Equal time presumes giving time to other sides as well.
TruthSeeker2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 That is a statement I can't agree with. It presumes doubt is inherently bad. It assumes belief and doubt can't coexist. And it's an excuse not to do your homework.I think (and hope) it was sarcasm.On another note, this closely follows a June New Era article entitled, "Balancing Church History" which does NOT dissuade members from reading "anti-mormon" (a term I don't like, by the way) literature, but simply encourages them to balance it with the study of the scriptures.Link: http://www.lds.org/new-era/2013/06/balancing-church-history?lang=engSome quotes:"Some young people are surprised and shocked by anti-Mormon material on the Internet because they haven’t fortified themselves against it. They may not have spent enough time on the spiritual side to prepare and strengthen themselves for whatever may come."This is exactly why there should be inoculation.If you’re spending time on websites that criticize the Church and its history but aren’t spending time in the scriptures, you’re going to be out of balance, and those negative things may have an unduly strong effect on you. If you were in proper balance, they wouldn’t.So we're encouraged to seek balance, not to avoid critical sources altogether, which I find comforting.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) There has been much discussion on inoculating our members against the so called ""hard questions". I ran across this article from December 1996 by Elder M. Russell Ballard. I Think Elder Ballard gives us the best inoculation possible.“President,” he said, “that isn’t going to be necessary.” Then he explained: “I know that the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.”“Well, that’s great,” I said. “But you’re going to get answers to your questions anyway. I worked a long time on this, so you just sit there and listen.”And so I answered all his questions and then asked, “Elder, what have you learned from this?”And he said, “Give the Lord equal time.”The article can be found here. I think it is well worth the read.http://www.lds.org/e...ngs-be?lang=engSeriously? That’s your suggestion for inoculating the members against knowledge that conflicts with church claims? A lot has changed since that address was given. There is so much more information available to the average member at the click of a mouse so much information that conflicts with what the church has been teaching its members to cause the cognitive dissonance the disaffected struggle with. The best thing for the church to do is to merely come clean with the truth…teach an honest forthright narrative of its foundational stories…its amazing what alittle truth will do to help make members trust the organization. This I believe is the only path forward...why is it so difficult to just tell the truth and let the consequence follow?Most of the disaffected that I know…were hurt the most by discovering that they had been misinformed by those in the church whom they trusted. Yes yes I know that no one here seems to accept the reality of that statement…and yes I know that you all have your pat answers to explain this reality away…but the reality is whether these disaffected were lazy, trusted too much in their teachers, perhaps even fell asleep during the lesson when the difficulties were taught or failed to read the Ensigns they subscribed to…whatever the excuse…these people feel that they were lied to by a church they had given complete trust to and believed were telling them everything.It never amazes me that the church often asked members to become as children…and then when they do become children by placing their complete trust in this organization and become trusting like children…that somehow it is still the fault of these children when they discover that those that they trusted to be honest and tell them the truth are exposed as having been less than forthright.I would love to talk with the Elder whom this talk is about to see if he is still in the church....I'd wager that the bennifits of reading the Book of Mormon were short lived...and didn't see him through in the long run...funny how physical evidence that conflicts with spiritual evidence tends to win in the long run... Edited June 13, 2013 by Johnnie Cake 1
CV75 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 That is a statement I can't agree with. It presumes doubt is inherently bad. It assumes belief and doubt can't coexist. And it's an excuse not to do your homework.Here is a case where how the participants agree on which definitions to use for “belief” and “doubt” is key to the value of the discussion. In any case, while doubt and faith can be either good or bad, depending on the definition and application, faith is never bad and is always good.
CV75 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) He said give the Lord equal time, not all the time. Equal time presumes giving time to other sides as well.When oriented toward anti-Lord stuff, it is of course best to give the Lord at least equal time because what He does with that time is much better. When already oriented toward the Lord, giving the anti-Lord stuff equal time is generally unecessary. It usually just shows up on its own. Edited June 13, 2013 by CV75
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 He said give the Lord equal time, not all the time. Equal time presumes giving time to other sides as well.How about rather giving the Lord full time, even as you are doing the homework? "By study and by faith." 1
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 I think (and hope) it was sarcasm.No, I'm actually quite serious. What I do is to do what I do and trust the Lord will pull me around if I head in the wrong direction. For me, belief and doubt go hand-in-hand. I don't give the Lord "equal time," I assume he is with me all the time. 2
guerreiro9 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 …whatever the excuse…these people feel that they were lied to by a church they had given complete trust to and believed were telling them everything.Why do we ever think that we have been told everything? I think it is human nature to do so, but it really is irrational to believe that you know everything about a subject. I do it as well, and not just about religious matters. I think we like to feel that we have an understanding of a subject, and so we fill in the cracks with our own interpretations until the subject has been completely defined. It then becomes difficult to broaden our understanding later as we learn new information, because it makes us feel insecure about even the little we knew previously.I think the Church could do a better job of teaching some of its historical aspects, and I think it is making progress in this area. I think the critics of the Church could do a better job of admitting that no they were not lied to, they simply did not and will not ever have all the information on any given subject. I am confident in the former, I have less confidence in the latter. -guerreiro9 1
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 When oriented toward anti-Lord stuff, it is of course best to give the Lord at least equal time because what He does with that time is much better. When already oriented toward the Lord, giving the anti-Lord stuff equal time is generally unecessary. It usually just shows up on its own.Again, I disagree. For me, there is no equal time of the Lord and the anti-Lord stuff. It is going through the anti-Lord stuff with the Lord. Is there anything I can learn here? Yes--don't be so certain of yourself. How does this work? Figure it out. Am I on the right track? No, but keep looking, you will find something. 1
Mark Beesley Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 ...funny how physical evidence that conflicts with spiritual evidence tends to win in the long run...CFRThe witnesses I have received through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (spiritual evidence) will trump any and every negative report (physical evidence) you can lay on me regarding Church history, doctrine, policies or practices. Every person I have ever known who has maintained a solid spiritual practice (study, prayer and service) has withstood the barbs of what you like to tout as "physical evidence."Giving the Lord equal time may seem trite to you. Simple things tend to confound the arrogant. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Why do we ever think that we have been told everything? I think it is human nature to do so, but it really is irrational to believe that you know everything about a subject. I do it as well, and not just about religious matters. I think we like to feel that we have an understanding of a subject, and so we fill in the cracks with our own interpretations until the subject has been completely defined. It then becomes difficult to broaden our understanding later as we learn new information, because it makes us feel insecure about even the little we knew previously.I think the Church could do a better job of teaching some of its historical aspects, and I think it is making progress in this area. I think the critics of the Church could do a better job of admitting that no they were not lied to, they simply did not and will not ever have all the information on any given subject. I am confident in the former, I have less confidence in the latter.-guerreiro9bad choice of words on my part...of course I agree with your point...no one should ever think that they have been taught everything...better stated would be to say that the disaffected feel betrayed when they learn that what they were taught is not an accurate portrayal of how historical events actually occurred. When they discover that these faith promoting versions don’t sync with reality they feel deceived.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 CFRThe witnesses I have received through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost (spiritual evidence) will trump any and every negative report (physical evidence) you can lay on me regarding Church history, doctrine, policies or practices. Every person I have ever known who has maintained a solid spiritual practice (study, prayer and service) has withstood the barbs of what you like to tout as "physical evidence."Giving the Lord equal time may seem trite to you. Simple things tend to confound the arrogant.Mark the list of scientific evidences that conflict with LDS scriptural claims is lengthy...but if you wish to rely on your spiritual confirmations rather than accept scientific facts...you are welcome to do so. I think I'll stick with the physical evidence
Popular Post guerreiro9 Posted June 13, 2013 Popular Post Posted June 13, 2013 the list of scientific evidences that conflict with LDS scriptural claims is lengthy...If you rephrase it as "certain interpretations of scientific evidence conflict with certain assumptions about LDS scriptural claims" I will agree with you -guerreiro9 5
Mark Beesley Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Mark the list of scientific evidences that conflict with LDS scriptural claims is lengthy...Just for fun, name one.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) If you rephrase it as "certain interpretations of scientific evidence conflict with certain assumptions about LDS scriptural claims" I will agree with you -guerreiro9I'm fine with that interpretation... [EDITED]...I understand the need to massage, nudge, fudge and nuance scriptural interpretations to fit within scientific evidence Edited June 13, 2013 by Johnnie Cake
Mark Beesley Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 I'm fine with that interpretation...Given your agreement with guerreiro9 restatement, no need for you to "name one."I have to leave anyway.Have a nice day.
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Just for fun, name one.Ugggg...One: Adam was first man
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Given your agreement with guerreiro9 restatement, no need for you to "name one."I have to leave anyway.Have a nice day.As do I...
CV75 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Again, I disagree. For me, there is no equal time of the Lord and the anti-Lord stuff. It is going through the anti-Lord stuff with the Lord. Is there anything I can learn here? Yes--don't be so certain of yourself. How does this work? Figure it out. Am I on the right track? No, but keep looking, you will find something.Evidently you misundestand my post. Going through the anti-Lord stuff with the Lord is faith and nothing bad can come of it as long as one keeps the faith. With such an approach, the individual is directed or guided by the Lord in his pursuits. That is how it works, from my experiience. I do not know if you are on the right track, except that in princple going through anything with the Lord is taking the right rack. So in that sense i don't have to keep looking (not that I was looking for anything off the right track in the first place).
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Least we forget..."The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer Edited June 13, 2013 by Johnnie Cake
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Just for fun, name one.Just for fun. Genesis 1 describes the earth as basically flat and fitted with a dome to keep the upper waters out. Obviously this conflicts with physical evidence the earth is round, space vehicles don't bang against the dome, and said space vehicles do not get shorted out by the water above the atmosphere. Edited June 13, 2013 by tagriffy
tagriffy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 Evidently you misundestand my post. Going through the anti-Lord stuff with the Lord is faith and nothing bad can come of it as long as one keeps the faith. With such an approach, the individual is directed or guided by the Lord in his pursuits. That is how it works, from my experiience. I do not know if you are on the right track, except that in princple going through anything with the Lord is taking the right rack. So in that sense i don't have to keep looking (not that I was looking for anything off the right track in the first place)."As long as one keeps the faith?" Define that.
Recommended Posts