History Of The Lds Church

[sdc999]

I have never seen a faithful saint without ulterior motives try to form such a group. The most innocent want to show off their knowledge. Some are deliberately trying to undermine faith or are trying to contest against local or global church leaders. I encourage people to study if they have an interest but I have never seen a group like this not go bad. I watched a "Gospel Intellectuals" class form in one of my wards once where they grabbed an empty room during Sunday School hour. I attended once and left halfway through. They just wanted to argue and share quotes of dubious historicity to shock each other or prop up pet theories.

I see this in other informal gatherings. I went to a SA FHE and 90% of what was said by both the guy presenting the lesson was unambiguously false. I cannot complain too much. The girl I was sitting next to and I compared notes on their craziness and I got a date out of it. I stopped going to that after the next week when they started showing clips from a megachurch preacher who wrested the Bible beyond all recognition to justify some weird ideas and the lesson giver pointed out how much truth was in it.

But would some not just be wanting to get away from the 'formal' gatherings? When the EQ teacher comes in for the 3rd week in a row and begins to read the lesson straight out of the book, AGAIN, because he was too lazy to put in effort to prepare a lesson. How about the GP teacher who regularly spouts off her pure and everlasting knowledge, which is far superior to everyone else's, because she can tell you what style of sandals Jesus was wearing.

Sometimes the information coming from the 'formal' meetings is just as unabiguously false but because it's a 'formal' meeting, everyone just sits there and the falsity goes without challange and, thus, another folklore is born and passed along.

[The Nehor]

But would some not just be wanting to get away from the 'formal' gatherings? When the EQ teacher comes in for the 3rd week in a row and begins to read the lesson straight out of the book, AGAIN, because he was too lazy to put in effort to prepare a lesson. How about the GP teacher who regularly spouts off her pure and everlasting knowledge, which is far superior to everyone else's, because she can tell you what style of sandals Jesus was wearing.

Sometimes the information coming from the 'formal' meetings is just as unabiguously false but because it's a 'formal' meeting, everyone just sits there and the falsity goes without challange and, thus, another folklore is born and passed along.

Then the person with keys needs to take steps.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Then the person with keys needs to take steps.

Which is why, as the bishopric member responsible for Sunday school, I divide my weeks between our two gospel doctrine classes and also drop in on our youth classes.

[The Nehor]

Which is why, as the bishopric member responsible for Sunday school, I divide my weeks between our two gospel doctrine classes and also drop in on our youth classes.

Pretty much what I meant, when I was Sunday School President in a YSA ward I jumped between all the classes when I was not teaching myself to make sure everything was going okay. If anything went wrong I would go to the Bishop.

[sdc999]

Then the person with keys needs to take steps.

You and I are in violent agreement, but, people without keys shouldn't hold back from correcting inaccuracies - But they do because of political correctness. I never had a problem with that though.. good and bad I guess. But it did allow me to hold to some very inaccurate truths for a very long time (and even defended to some staunch critics - my parents) because I absorbed, taking for granted the position of the individual (EQ presidents, bishops, etc), that they themselves had the absolute correct knowledge.

[why me]

Because the facts alone can be dangerous and need to be respun by a well-read apologist?

I think that if a group of people got together to discuss a book and if they have no knowledge of other viewpoints outside that book there may be a problem. I good discussion group is a group that is open minded, not easily influenced by opinions or interpreted facts, and is willing to discuss to learn and not to be persuaded until more information is known. And where the focus is on questioning.

If a group of people are capable of doing this, I see no problem.

[canard78]

I think that if a group of people got together to discuss a book and if they have no knowledge of other viewpoints outside that book there may be a problem. I good discussion group is a group that is open minded, not easily influenced by opinions or interpreted facts, and is willing to discuss to learn and not to be persuaded until more information is known. And where the focus is on questioning.

If a group of people are capable of doing this, I see no problem.

I agree with you. However much I'd enjoy a class/group like that, there'd always be the risk of assumptions or limited information.

If I meet anyone in the future who wants to discuss church history I'd send them here in the first instance.

In small groups you're less likely to have the range of opinions and the rigour to answer CFRs.

I like that here. I know I can't get away with an unreferenced assertion. It keeps me on my toes and avoids "I read somewhere that Elder Anonymous once said..."