Criticism Of Institute Program

[stemelbow]

Well wait... That would be part of the repentance process, wouldn't it?  If the Church made errors that led to faith crises contributing to dissolution of marriages, we would need to acknowledge that as part of the repentance process.

But the Church didn't make errors that led to faith crisis. I wouldn't even say people in the Church are to blame. Faith crisis occurs whether the Church teaches advanced courses or not.

 

Trying to tie back in to the OP... My point with the suggestion that institute curriculum be changed is that merely teaching the correct version of things now isn't repentance and likely won't resolve many of the problems that have been created.  I think the entire repentance process needs to be followed if we really want to try to handle on the current loss of faith and membership that we're facing.

I'd be all for Institute openly addressing difficult issues. Correct version is too tough a thing to demand in some cases. Sometimes many versions of things can all be wrong.

[rockpond]

I did, and I'll repeat that answer after answering my own question first: if God has misrepresented anything, I see no need for Him to repent of that, which is consistent with my earlier answer: “For my sake, and as far as I am concerned, there is no need for anyone to repent for anything... I believe godly repentance is a true and faithful principle, though."

 

See? As for "obfuscation" and "speaking volumes,I answered more honestly than you. The most honest way to answer is to do so from our own perspective (sake, concern), and I didn't have to qualify anything like you did (twice!).

 

You keep allowing your extremism to sabotage you.

 

No extremism here.

 

How is there "no need for anyone to repent for anything"?  I guess you've lost me with that statement since you said you believe in the principle of repentance.

[rockpond]

But the Church didn't make errors that led to faith crisis. 

 

Well, you're wrong there.  Unless I am misunderstanding your definition of "Church".  Or of "faith crisis".

[stemelbow]

Well, you're wrong there.  Unless I am misunderstanding your definition of "Church".  Or of "faith crisis".

What I'm saying is you haven't established the cause and effect relationship. I ask, what did the Church do to cause faith crisis. You listed a couple of things. I responded and it didn't seem you disagreed with me.

[rockpond]

What I'm saying is you haven't established the cause and effect relationship. I ask, what did the Church do to cause faith crisis. You listed a couple of things. I responded and it didn't seem you disagreed with me.

I thought I covered that in post #161 and our discussion of that post. I have no way to "CFR" it but it's true for me and many others I've dealth with. Jeanne and Tacenda also offered to be case studies.

[bcuzbcuz]

Additional light and knowledge, when delivered and received as divinely intended, cannot plunge anyone into “doubt, betrayal, and a loss of faith in the ordained leaders they followed.”

 

The Church offers additional light and knowledge; that is its responsibility and it fulfills it dutifully. When mistakes are made: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

 

Why do you keep overlooking these agency-expanding principles? From the link:

 

“Mistakes of Imperfect People

 

“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

 

“I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

“In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

 

“This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

 

“It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.”

 

I think acknowledging this one good thing the Church does puts anything one might otherwise criticize into perspective.

 

“This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.”

We hand a rather large manual distributed to us, as missionaries, that looked at various aspects of other religions. (Anyone else remember the red cover, plastic ring comb-bind, manual??) The most common approach/attack/perspective offered about other religions was to review a scripture, then compare the implied purpose or reason or raison d'etre for the scripture TO The actual practices of the clergy or lay personnel of that faith. It showed a detailed exposé of Roman Catholic popes, their intrigues, politics, including illegitimate children, murders, greed and lusts. It told of Martin Luther´s anti-semitism, his views about peasants and good works. It laid out details about early reformers to Christianity, pointing out each perceived inappropriate action. It was especially harsh in detailing Jehovah Witness' beliefs and conducts. Seventh Day Adventists were given their share of criticism.

The underlying concept, both stated and implied, was that failures in behaviour were evidence of failure in Christianity. The fruits are products of the tree.

Isn't it dishonest now to seek comfort in a rather tired mantra, that our beliefs are perfect but we have imperfect leaders and members?

[Mystery Meat]

We hand a rather large manual distributed to us, as missionaries, that looked at various aspects of other religions. (Anyone else remember the red cover, plastic ring comb-bind, manual??) The most common approach/attack/perspective offered about other religions was to review a scripture, then compare the implied purpose or reason or raison d'etre for the scripture TO The actual practices of the clergy or lay personnel of that faith. It showed a detailed exposé of Roman Catholic popes, their intrigues, politics, including illegitimate children, murders, greed and lusts. It told of Martin Luther´s anti-semitism, his views about peasants and good works. It laid out details about early reformers to Christianity, pointing out each perceived inappropriate action. It was especially harsh in detailing Jehovah Witness' beliefs and conducts. Seventh Day Adventists were given their share of criticism.

The underlying concept, both stated and implied, was that failures in behaviour were evidence of failure in Christianity. The fruits are products of the tree.

Isn't it dishonest now to seek comfort in a rather tired mantra, that our beliefs are perfect but we have imperfect leaders and members?

 

No. Our leaders aren't perfect after all.

[ERayR]

I thought I covered that in post #161 and our discussion of that post. I have no way to "CFR" it but it's true for me and many others I've dealth with. Jeanne and Tacenda also offered to be case studies.

 

I know it is convenient to have someone or something other than ones self for a faith crisis but when all is said and done it was personal decisions that caused it and it will be personal decisions that heal it.

 

I do not know about Jeanie but I have watched Tacenda, on this board constantly going to anti-Mormon literature and coming back to the board with a mini faith crisis.  Time and again it has been her choices that have affected her.  It has been painful to watch.  It is also been painful to to watch someone search for a scape goat. 

 

Personal experience:  I was attending a branch and a member of the branch presidency made some remarks of a personal nature about me that was uncalled for.  I spent a couple of weeks of inactivity until I got this sorted out.  I finally realized I could let it affect me negatively and lead to walking away from the Church and lay the blame at his feet.  I realized the choice was mine.  How I let it affect me was my choice.  My offender had his own repenting to do but that was nothing to do with me and not for me to worry and fret over.  

[ERayR]

No. Our leaders aren't perfect after all.

 

And it is not a surprise to most of us.

[bcuzbcuz]

No. Our leaders aren't perfect after all.

No, they aren´t. The more the fool am I for thinking, or expecting, a higher standard for them than for anyone else.

[Mystery Meat]

No, they aren´t. The more the fool am I for thinking, or expecting, a higher standard for them than for anyone else.

 

Agreed.

[Tacenda]

I thought I covered that in post #161 and our discussion of that post. I have no way to "CFR" it but it's true for me and many others I've dealth with. Jeanne and Tacenda also offered to be case studies.

I could c/p some cases I've read, or maybe link podcasts if he's interested. Or maybe one just needs to go to 'faceseast' and read struggles there. It's a support board for couples with one spouse having a FC. I'll link to it in a few moments, when I get home to my PC.  ETA:  http://www.faceseast.org/viewforum.php?f=3

Edited December 10, 2014 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

Agreed.

But aren't you disappointed, even in the slightest, that those from whom we would expect leadership and outstanding qualities and a defining moral code, merely fall in line with a sinners, "me too" and "what did you expect?" position of excuse?

 

Shouldn't those who have their "calling and election made sure" be able to live to a better standard than those of us not so chosen?

 

Where much is given, much is required, Is it not?

 

When the US president, Clinton,  was questioned about his immoral actions, unfaithfulness to his wife, and his shameful peek-a-boo charade of excuses was paraded for the world to observe, I didn't read any notices, from preachers or from Mormon leaders calling for a "give the guy some slack, after all, he's only human". Did you?

[CV75]

No extremism here.

 

How is there "no need for anyone to repent for anything"?  I guess you've lost me with that statement since you said you believe in the principle of repentance.

As anyone who has genuinely overcome a faith crisis will tell you, he had to repent or make a correction in his spiritual perception, thinking, analysis, etc. of the matter at hand. There was no externally-imposed need to repent; it was his decision, just as there was no externally-imposed cause for his crisis and his need to repent. For such people, there is no need for anyone (but himself) to repent of anything.

 

So anyone who has genuinely overcome a faith crisis will tell you that his repentance was not conditional on anyone else repenting, including cases where he once accused others of misdeeds. People who overcome a faith crisis freely forgive others, often pre-emptively and always as a requirement for their own forgiveness (the object of repentance). When others apologize to them, they accept it graciously, but never demand or expect it. They know that with limited knowledge, they cannot rightly judge others as imposing upon them the cause for their faith crisis. For such people there is no need for others to repent.

[CV75]

We hand a rather large manual distributed to us, as missionaries, that looked at various aspects of other religions. (Anyone else remember the red cover, plastic ring comb-bind, manual??) The most common approach/attack/perspective offered about other religions was to review a scripture, then compare the implied purpose or reason or raison d'etre for the scripture TO The actual practices of the clergy or lay personnel of that faith. It showed a detailed exposé of Roman Catholic popes, their intrigues, politics, including illegitimate children, murders, greed and lusts. It told of Martin Luther´s anti-semitism, his views about peasants and good works. It laid out details about early reformers to Christianity, pointing out each perceived inappropriate action. It was especially harsh in detailing Jehovah Witness' beliefs and conducts. Seventh Day Adventists were given their share of criticism.

The underlying concept, both stated and implied, was that failures in behaviour were evidence of failure in Christianity. The fruits are products of the tree.

Isn't it dishonest now to seek comfort in a rather tired mantra, that our beliefs are perfect but we have imperfect leaders and members?

Failure in behavior can arise from a failure in beliefs that have been corrupted and perpetuated by those who failed to abide in and profess correct beliefs. I’m not sure how Christianity as a whole accommodates that. But if a saint believes in the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is looking "to" God and not just "at" those who lead to Him. I think it helps to remember that no matter what an LDS leader does or says, the keys are intact, the covenants are valid, and the resulting godly attributes and salvation are real. Faith and repentance are constantly rewarded. The baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, priesthood and temple covenants, etc. lead directly to God. This exercise of the keys is the leadership that cannot fail.

[Mystery Meat]

But aren't you disappointed, even in the slightest, that those from whom we would expect leadership and outstanding qualities and a defining moral code, merely fall in line with a sinners, "me too" and "what did you expect?" position of excuse?

 

Not particularly, no. These brothers (and sisters) aren't necessarily called because they are the most righteous. They are called because they are the ones the Lord wants to lead and serve. I believe they are good men (and women), but it doesn't disappoint me that they aren't celestial beings yet.

 

 

 

Shouldn't those who have their "calling and election made sure" be able to live to a better standard than those of us not so chosen?

 

I am not qualified to speak on this. 

 

 

 

Where much is given, much is required, Is it not?

 

Yes. If you are in any way implying that they have not given a lot (more than just about any other member in service to the Lord) then you have not spent any time around these men. I have. They (NOT TO MENTION THEIR FAMILIES) have given much. More than many (most) members would be willing to give. Joseph Smith gave his life. Many of the current leaders have as well.

 

 

 

When the US president, Clinton,  was questioned about his immoral actions, unfaithfulness to his wife, and his shameful peek-a-boo charade of excuses was paraded for the world to observe, I didn't read any notices, from preachers or from Mormon leaders calling for a "give the guy some slack, after all, he's only human". Did you?

 

First of all, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. With the exception of Joseph Smith and possible Brigham Young, immorality isn't really an accusation against the Church leadership, and even then I don't think they are guilty of immoral behavior as I believe they were (for the most part) doing what the Lord had commanded them to do.

 

Second of all, yes I did hear the type of notices you refer to. I remember it distinctly as I was a teenage boy at the time and President Hinckley went on national TV and said he had forgiven the President and thought everybody else should too.

[rockpond]

As anyone who has genuinely overcome a faith crisis will tell you, he had to repent or make a correction in his spiritual perception, thinking, analysis, etc. of the matter at hand. There was no externally-imposed need to repent; it was his decision, just as there was no externally-imposed cause for his crisis and his need to repent. For such people, there is no need for anyone (but himself) to repent of anything.

 

So anyone who has genuinely overcome a faith crisis will tell you that his repentance was not conditional on anyone else repenting, including cases where he once accused others of misdeeds. People who overcome a faith crisis freely forgive others, often pre-emptively and always as a requirement for their own forgiveness (the object of repentance). When others apologize to them, they accept it graciously, but never demand or expect it. They know that with limited knowledge, they cannot rightly judge others as imposing upon them the cause for their faith crisis. For such people there is no need for others to repent.

 

You said that there is "no need for anyone to repent of anything" and yet here you explain why repentance is necessary.  Forgive me for thinking that you are obfuscating to avoid answering my question.

[rockpond]

I know it is convenient to have someone or something other than ones self for a faith crisis but when all is said and done it was personal decisions that caused it and it will be personal decisions that heal it.

 

I took my share of the blame for my faith crisis and made the necessary personal decisions to recover from it.  All I'm suggesting here is that the Church leaders accept their role in creating faith crises and work to remedy (the repentance process).

[CV75]

You said that there is "no need for anyone to repent of anything" and yet here you explain why repentance is necessary.  Forgive me for thinking that you are obfuscating to avoid answering my question.

Maybe you're just not able to pay attention. No one needs to repent of wrongdoing as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent. No one needs to repent of wrongdoing if they choose not to. No one needs to repent as far as I am concerned or for my salvation's sake. Those are just a few examples of how no one needs to repent.

[rockpond]

No one needs to repent of wrongdoing as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent. No one needs to repent of wrongdoing if they choose not to. No one needs to repent as far as I am concerned or for my salvation's sake. Those are just a few examples of how no one needs to repent.

 

All true statements.  But not relevant to my question which was this:

 

If prophets and apostles have repeatedly and systematically taught false doctrine or misrepresented facts of our religious history, do you think there is a need to repent of that?

[CV75]

I took my share of the blame for my faith crisis and made the necessary personal decisions to recover from it.  All I'm suggesting here is that the Church leaders accept their role in creating faith crises and work to remedy (the repentance process).

LOL @ "share of the blame." Repentance requires we take all the blame. If someone blames anyone else for his crisis, he needs to forgive the person/persons and the offense (real or imagined), and he will realize they had nothing to do with his crisis after all, except his focus for blame (and anger, etc.). The Lord clears up the perspective quite a bit. The Church has offered the remedy for faith crisis from the start.

[CV75]

All true statements.  But not relevant to my question which was this:

 

If prophets and apostles have repeatedly and systematically taught false doctrine or misrepresented facts of our religious history, do you think there is a need to repent of that?

Not as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent, which is the context of your question. Not if they choose not to. Not as far as I tam concerned or for my salvation's sake. Those are just a few examples of how they do not need to repent.

I keep answering your question. Even you do not have to repent!

Why do you choose an if / is format instead of if / would or if / then? I know you want a particular answer, but you're not asking the questions open-mindedly. I guess you can try and back-pedal.

[rockpond]

LOL @ "share of the blame." Repentance requires we take all the blame. If someone blames anyone else for his crisis, he needs to forgive the person/persons and the offense (real or imagined), and he will realize they had nothing to do with his crisis after all, except his focus for blame (and anger, etc.). The Lord clears up the perspective quite a bit. The Church has offered the remedy for faith crisis from the start.

 

I can only shoulder the blame and repent of that which I did or failed to do.

 

Your perspective on faith crises tells me that you don't quite understand what many have passed through.

[rockpond]

Not as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent, which is the context of your question. Not if they choose not to. Not as far as I tam concerned or for my salvation's sake. Those are just a few examples of how they do not need to repent.

I keep answering your question. Even you do not have to repent!

Why do you choose an if / is format instead of if / would or if / then? I know you want a particular answer, but you're not asking the questions open-mindedly. I guess you can try and back-pedal.

 

The context was NOT as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent.  The context was this:  If we are going to move forward as a church do you think that the leaders ought to follow the repentance process (as an organization) to correct the wrongs that have been done.  Thus the question:  "If prophets and apostles have repeatedly and systematically taught false doctrine or misrepresented facts of our religious history, do you think there is a need to repent of that?"

 

I re-worded the question to keep it open by putting the "if" in front of it for your sake so that you could answer without committing to any other stipulations.  But I know that the prophets and apostles have taught things that were false, accepting that was part of getting through my faith crisis.

 

You are trying to add conditions that don't exist in my questions so that you can avoid direct answers.  

Edited December 11, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

I can only shoulder the blame and repent of that which I did or failed to do.

 

Your perspective on faith crises tells me that you don't quite understand what many have passed through.

And this continues to confirm to me that you put forth positions in contradiction to the principles of faith and repentance.

The context was NOT as a requirement or condition for someone else to repent.  The context was this:  If we are going to move forward as a church do you think that the leaders ought to follow the repentance process (as an organization) to correct the wrongs that have been done.  Thus the question:  "If prophets and apostles have repeatedly and systematically taught false doctrine or misrepresented facts of our religious history, do you think there is a need to repent of that?"

 

I re-worded the question to keep it open by putting the "if" in front of it for your sake so that you could answer without committing to any other stipulations.  But I know that the prophets and apostles have taught things that were false, accepting that was part of getting through my faith crisis.

 

You are trying to add conditions that don't exist in my questions so that you can avoid direct answers.

You've said too much to back-pedal (peddle?)...

You've represented yourself as a Church leader that cannot effectively minister to those in faith crisis because the prophets and apostles are not doing what they ought to do.

I’ve been saying in various ways that accepting truth helps people get through a faith crisis, not the Church (or anyone) moving any differently. Your faith crisis entailed concluding that prophets and apostles have taught things that are false. You still suggest they haven’t repented, yet here you are, with your faith crisis resolved anyway.