Criticism Of Institute Program

[CV75]

 

I've been trying to find a time when I could go through the article in detail here in a post to help you understand my perspective but I just can't seem to block out the time.  So, I thought I would try going one principle at a time.  Here's my take on the first.  I'll paste in the actual text from the article and insert my commentary...

 

Principle 1: God Knows Infinitely More Than We Do. When faced with questions—whether personal, social, or doctrinal—we can rely on the fact that the Creator of the universe knows far more than we do. If He has addressed a topic (and sometimes He hasn’t), we can trust that His views are clearer than ours.

 

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

 

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8–9).

 

I agree with this principle.  The problem here is knowing which topics He has actually addressed and which He hasn't.  For me, I believe that he addressed racism and decries it in that all His children should be treated equally.  I don't believe that He had anything to do with the priesthood/temple ban.  Nothing at all other than His respect for agency and letting it happen within the Church.  Is that an acceptable answer to the hard question?

 

I also don't believe that He has addressed the issue of loving, committed relationships for homosexuals.  We don't have His view on marriage for His homosexual children.  What we have so far is the best understanding of men but not God's view.  Is that an acceptable answer to the hard question?

I understand that you agree with “God Knows Infinitely More Than We Do” and at the same time have a problem knowing what He has addressed and not. I can see how you reconcile the two by reconstructing this principle for the Church leaders (and presumably for yourself, though that isn’t nearly as evident!) into something like, “We Know Infinitely Less Than God Does,” and in such a way as to develop acceptable answers for yourself, which include the views and expectations you’ve expressed in this thread that lean on human fallibility as the basic argument.

 

But I don’t think a problem with knowing what God has addressed or not and knowing infinitely less than He equate to the same thing. I’m not comparing you to Korihor, but a “no man can know” type of argument is very similar and we all know how well received that was.

[rockpond]

I understand that you agree with “God Knows Infinitely More Than We Do” and at the same time have a problem knowing what He has addressed and not. I can see how you reconcile the two by reconstructing this principle for the Church leaders (and presumably for yourself, though that isn’t nearly as evident!) into something like, “We Know Infinitely Less Than God Does,” and in such a way as to develop acceptable answers for yourself, which include the views and expectations you’ve expressed in this thread that lean on human fallibility as the basic argument.

 

But I don’t think a problem with knowing what God has addressed or not and knowing infinitely less than He equate to the same thing. I’m not comparing you to Korihor, but a “no man can know” type of argument is very similar and we all know how well received that was.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are seemingly trying to make here.

 

I'm demonstrating for you why I don't find the article particularly helpful to some people in a faith crisis.  Did it make sense?  Care to answer the questions I asked?

[CV75]

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are seemingly trying to make here.

 

I'm demonstrating for you why I don't find the article particularly helpful to some people in a faith crisis.  Did it make sense?  Care to answer the questions I asked?

There are any number of reasons not to find the article (or the principles listed in it) helpful, and I did answer your questions by acknowledging that you have developed "acceptable answers for yourself." But once unhelpful does not mean never helpful, and once unhelpful through one approach does not mean always unhelpful under any approach. Something might click for the person in faith crisis, that is how / why the Lord's arm is always extended in mercy.

What doesn't make sense* is equating a problem with knowing what God has addressed or not with knowing infinitely less than He. That is a departure from the article's explanation of Principle 1, which is what someone who doesn't find the article helpful (that is, supportive of his current approach and conclusions he has drawn) might be expected to do. He has to try the principles, not resist them or substitute them for others.

*What does make sense to me is that we can still know some things while not knowing everything (for example, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/power-in-the-priesthood?lang=eng).

[rockpond]

There are any number of reasons not to find the article (or the principles listed in it) helpful, and I did answer your questions by acknowledging that you have developed "acceptable answers for yourself." But once unhelpful does not mean never helpful, and once unhelpful through one approach does not mean always unhelpful under any approach. Something might click for the person in faith crisis, that is how / why the Lord's arm is always extended in mercy.

What doesn't make sense* is equating a problem with knowing what God has addressed or not with knowing infinitely less than He. That is a departure from the article's explanation of Principle 1, which is what someone who doesn't find the article helpful (that is, supportive of his current approach and conclusions he has drawn) might be expected to do. He has to try the principles, not resist them or substitute them for others.

*What does make sense to me is that we can still know some things while not knowing everything (for example, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/power-in-the-priesthood?lang=eng).

 

The problem is that those answer that are acceptable to me, are not generally acceptable for someone wanting to be active and faithful within the Mormon faith community.  Do you understand that the comfort I find in those statements in the article puts me at odds with the broader church?  Do you see how it may help resolve a faith crisis but at the risk of leading the individual so far outside of the current mainstream church that they no longer feel welcome?  This is why I don't see the article as a proper solution to provide to members of my ward.  Too many of them could take the advice and come to the very reasonable conclusion that the answer is to walk out of the church.  Which, of course, is not the answer I wish for them.

[CV75]

The problem is that those answer that are acceptable to me, are not generally acceptable for someone wanting to be active and faithful within the Mormon faith community.  Do you understand that the comfort I find in those statements in the article puts me at odds with the broader church?  Do you see how it may help resolve a faith crisis but at the risk of leading the individual so far outside of the current mainstream church that they no longer feel welcome?  This is why I don't see the article as a proper solution to provide to members of my ward.  Too many of them could take the advice and come to the very reasonable conclusion that the answer is to walk out of the church.  Which, of course, is not the answer I wish for them.

Someone wanting to be active and faithful within the Mormon faith community obviously needs to find answers that are acceptable to him as well. I recognize that this desire can be driven by principles other than faith (a fear of family rejection or loss, for example), so someone might retain membership regardless. I don’t believe rationalization is a genuine resolution to a faith crisis, but it could satisfy the other influences that contribute to the desire to otherwise be active and faithful in the Mormon faith community, or even to the decision to leave.

 

I’m thinking that what you mean by the comfort you find in the statements in the article being different than that of the broader membership is that leaders’ fallibility plays out significantly in the positions you accept as resolutions. While I don’t see leaders’ fallibility as the primary message of the article (though their role is qualified and included with other sources of answers), I do think that whenever a member disagrees on a Church policy or doctrine, he often figures leaderships’ fallibility into the equation. So I think it would be more helpful to stick to the actual principles in the article... but that of course is up to the individual and anyone trying to help him. Sometimes the best way to help is to model the principles and their results so that others want to try them.

[rockpond]

Someone wanting to be active and faithful within the Mormon faith community obviously needs to find answers that are acceptable to him as well. I recognize that this desire can be driven by principles other than faith (a fear of family rejection or loss, for example), so someone might retain membership regardless. I don’t believe rationalization is a genuine resolution to a faith crisis, but it could satisfy the other influences that contribute to the desire to otherwise be active and faithful in the Mormon faith community, or even to the decision to leave.

 

I’m thinking that what you mean by the comfort you find in the statements in the article being different than that of the broader membership is that leaders’ fallibility plays out significantly in the positions you accept as resolutions. While I don’t see leaders’ fallibility as the primary message of the article (though their role is qualified and included with other sources of answers), I do think that whenever a member disagrees on a Church policy or doctrine, he often figures leaderships’ fallibility into the equation. So I think it would be more helpful to stick to the actual principles in the article... but that of course is up to the individual and anyone trying to help him. Sometimes the best way to help is to model the principles and their results so that others want to try them.

 

Yes, I think leader fallibility has to be there as a primary message but I don't see a willingness in the article or in the church (generally speaking) to acknowledge that.  That's why I asked the questions I did relating to the text of Principle 1 in the article you cited...

 

Is believing that God had nothing to do with the priesthood/temple ban an acceptable answer?

Is believing that we have no revelation on the matter of gay marriage an acceptable answer?

Is believing that the early practice of polygamy was not divinely guided or approved an acceptable answer?

 

At face value, Principle 1, in the article would have us believe that the answer to those two questions is "yes".  But in the church (and here on these boards) it certainly doesn't feel that way.  So as I read Principle 1 and apply it to my situation, it only really helps to a certain degree.

 

So... Principle 1 is saying "not all has been revealed".  Great.  But do we really accept that?  Or does the "not lead us astray" doctrine trump it?

Edited December 18, 2014 by rockpond

[CV75]

Yes, I think leader fallibility has to be there as a primary message but I don't see a willingness in the article or in the church (generally speaking) to acknowledge that.  That's why I asked the questions I did relating to the text of Principle 1 in the article you cited...

 

Is believing that God had nothing to do with the priesthood/temple ban an acceptable answer?

Is believing that we have no revelation on the matter of gay marriage an acceptable answer?

Is believing that the early practice of polygamy was not divinely guided or approved an acceptable answer?

 

At face value, Principle 1, in the article would have us believe that the answer to those two questions is "yes".  But in the church (and here on these boards) it certainly doesn't feel that way.  So as I read Principle 1 and apply it to my situation, it only really helps to a certain degree.

 

So... Principle 1 is saying "not all has been revealed".  Great.  But do we really accept that?  Or does the "not lead us astray" doctrine trump it?

The article obviously doesn’t lead with leaders’ fallibility and with what has not been revealed, but with the principles that speak to God. In discussing Him, the conditional role of leaders is presented in its proper relationship to God and His other sources of revealed truth.

The article won’t answer your three questions directly. It does provide the means by which we can answer them when they are tainted with doubt or pain, by helping us answer the very fundamental question, “Do I trust God above everyone else?” When that question is answered in the affirmative, the resulting sense of trust opens us up to the Spirit, and He removes doubt and pain so that a crisis of doubt or pain is averted.

At face value, Principle 1 is simply a lead-in to trusting in God, acting on that trust, and letting the consequence follow (per Alma 32). I don’t see it as leading people to a foregone conclusion on specific issues such as those you’ve listed. Where the Church’s involvement with priesthood ban, gay marriage and polygamy create doubt or pain for someone, applying Principle 1 only encourages him to trust in God, who will give him spiritual strength and perspective. This may lead to personal revelation on these matters, or to comfort with ambiguity concerning them.

But with spiritual strength and perspective or not, people will believe whatever answers they find acceptable, and there is no crime in that. The best validation for their religious and spiritual beliefs and actions would come from God, which is a key LDS tenet. A priority to seek and garner validation from peers would eventually tend to feed doubt and pain (because peers are fallible!), and when there is no validation from God, enmity is sure to follow, along with the contention, isolation and other behaviors that undermine a sense of community.

[rockpond]

The article obviously doesn’t lead with leaders’ fallibility and with what has not been revealed, but with the principles that speak to God. In discussing Him, the conditional role of leaders is presented in its proper relationship to God and His other sources of revealed truth.

The article won’t answer your three questions directly. It does provide the means by which we can answer them when they are tainted with doubt or pain, by helping us answer the very fundamental question, “Do I trust God above everyone else?” When that question is answered in the affirmative, the resulting sense of trust opens us up to the Spirit, and He removes doubt and pain so that a crisis of doubt or pain is averted.

At face value, Principle 1 is simply a lead-in to trusting in God, acting on that trust, and letting the consequence follow (per Alma 32). I don’t see it as leading people to a foregone conclusion on specific issues such as those you’ve listed. Where the Church’s involvement with priesthood ban, gay marriage and polygamy create doubt or pain for someone, applying Principle 1 only encourages him to trust in God, who will give him spiritual strength and perspective. This may lead to personal revelation on these matters, or to comfort with ambiguity concerning them.

But with spiritual strength and perspective or not, people will believe whatever answers they find acceptable, and there is no crime in that. The best validation for their religious and spiritual beliefs and actions would come from God, which is a key LDS tenet. A priority to seek and garner validation from peers would eventually tend to feed doubt and pain (because peers are fallible!), and when there is no validation from God, enmity is sure to follow, along with the contention, isolation and other behaviors that undermine a sense of community.

 

The questions were to you, not questions I have of the article.  I understand what the article is teaching.  I'm trying to help you understand why I don't find it particularly useful for many people who are in the midst of a faith crisis.  Do you wish to discuss that?  If not, we don't need to continue.  I don't really disagree with the points you are making here, I'm trying to delve into your proposal of using the article to help those in my ward who are struggling with faith crises.

[CV75]

The questions were to you, not questions I have of the article.  I understand what the article is teaching.  I'm trying to help you understand why I don't find it particularly useful for many people who are in the midst of a faith crisis.  Do you wish to discuss that?  If not, we don't need to continue.  I don't really disagree with the points you are making here, I'm trying to delve into your proposal of using the article to help those in my ward who are struggling with faith crises.

I understand that you don’t find the article helpful for those you don’t think would be receptive to it. Instead of pointing them to the article directly, I would infuse my stewardship with the principles therein so that I can help others consider and apply that which will resolve their crisis. For example, the article speaks of God’s love and personal regard for and nurture of each of us, which you can convey and exemplify to them. But granted, some may not be receptive to that either and may reject you personally. But typically, charity and friendship help people feel a certain sense of community regardless of what they believe and this can tide them over until they can apply other principles to a resolution.

[rockpond]

Instead of pointing them to the article directly, I would infuse my stewardship with the principles therein...

I do. At least with those principles that I believe will be helpful for them.

But I think we're currently losing... I'm hearing and seeing more and more of the members of my stake either walk away or become "social" Mormons.

[CV75]

I do. At least with those principles that I believe will be helpful for them.

But I think we're currently losing... I'm hearing and seeing more and more of the members of my stake either walk away or become "social" Mormons.

You've been saying from the start that you think you're "losing" and that the LDS leaders' apology/repentance  is needed before you can "win." Since that expectation hasn't proven realistic, I'd do what it takes to answer your own hard question(s), take what the Lord gives you to work with, and discover effective ways to help given the particulars of your stewardship and the agency of others.

[rockpond]

You've been saying from the start that you think you're "losing" and that the LDS leaders' apology/repentance  is needed before you can "win." Since that expectation hasn't proven realistic, I'd do what it takes to answer your own hard question(s), take what the Lord gives you to work with, and discover effective ways to help given the particulars of your stewardship and the agency of others.

 

Again, you've misinterpreted...

 

It isn't about "me" winning.  It's about us losing... losing people.

 

I've answered my hard questions.  And I am working with what we've got.  My point is that all I can do and all the Spirit can do won't be enough to reverse current trends if the Church (capital C) keeps doubling down on past mistakes rather than repenting (collectively, I'm not asking for any particular brethren to apologize for anything).

 

Cue the "ark steadying" commentary.  I'm not suggesting that I have all the answers.  It'll be a tough path to trod, I don't envy the Brethren and it seems there are those among them trying to make the slow turn.  I will keep hoping and praying (and advocating) that we see it happen.

[CV75]

Again, you've misinterpreted...

 

It isn't about "me" winning.  It's about us losing... losing people.

 

I've answered my hard questions.  And I am working with what we've got.  My point is that all I can do and all the Spirit can do won't be enough to reverse current trends if the Church (capital C) keeps doubling down on past mistakes rather than repenting (collectively, I'm not asking for any particular brethren to apologize for anything).

 

Cue the "ark steadying" commentary.  I'm not suggesting that I have all the answers.  It'll be a tough path to trod, I don't envy the Brethren and it seems there are those among them trying to make the slow turn.  I will keep hoping and praying (and advocating) that we see it happen.

Why "cue" me to do something unseemly, especially that which I haven’t shown a disposition to do before? You may be too ready to contend.

Your point lacks merit simply because it oversimplifies current trends and mischaracterizes the Church’s approach to developing essays and curricula, and--perhaps most problematically--depends on a false premise that the saints are to view others’ need to repent as a condition of their willingness to keep their own testimonies and covenants. Human nature is naturally to blame others and quit, but this is not what the Lord caves in to nor what the faithful are discouraged by, and which is why, from a certain perspective, integrity and doing the right thing seem risky (if "risky" is what you mean by “doubling down”).

[rockpond]

Why "cue" me to do something unseemly, especially that which I haven’t shown a disposition to do before? You may be too ready to contend.

 

No.  I wasn't cuing you.  That was a general comment because that has been the response I have received in the past.  I didn't mean that to be taken as directed to you.

 

 

Your point lacks merit simply because it oversimplifies current trends and mischaracterizes the Church’s approach to developing essays and curricula

 

How have I oversimplified current trends?

 

How have I mis-characterized the Church's approach to essays?

 

 

and--perhaps most problematically--depends on a false premise that the saints are to view others’ need to repent as a condition of their willingness to keep their own testimonies and covenants.

 

I have established no such premise.  You continue to try to insert it but it is not a part of my suggestion here.  If we are doing things wrong as a church, is there not a need to repent?  (Serious question, not rhetorical.)

 

 

Human nature is naturally to blame others and quit, but this is not what the Lord caves in to nor what the faithful are discouraged by, and which is why, from a certain perspective, integrity and doing the right thing seem risky (if "risky" is what you mean by “doubling down”).

 

I'm not recommending that anyone "blame others and quit".

 

Risky is not what I meant when I said doubling down.  I was referring to publishing essays that work to re-establish untenable positions.

[CV75]

No.  I wasn't cuing you.  That was a general comment because that has been the response I have received in the past.  I didn't mean that to be taken as directed to you.

 

How have I oversimplified current trends?

 

How have I mis-characterized the Church's approach to essays?

 

I have established no such premise.  You continue to try to insert it but it is not a part of my suggestion here.  If we are doing things wrong as a church, is there not a need to repent?  (Serious question, not rhetorical.)

 

I'm not recommending that anyone "blame others and quit".

 

Risky is not what I meant when I said doubling down.  I was referring to publishing essays that work to re-establish untenable positions.

OK, your “cue” is a general response based on what you expect to get based on personal experience, which says a lot about your general approach to the subject. And even though I have not exhorted you against “ark-steadying,” why keep asking me the same “unrhetorical” question and not expect the same response I’ve been giving to the oft-repeated question, or if the same response is expected of me, why keep asking me the same question? Suggested answer: Perseveration is a simpler preoccupation, as opposed to innovation.

And because of your experience and expectation without changing tack, it can easily be suggested that you are doubling down on untenable positions in lieu of helping people in faith crisis or stay in the Church.

You oversimplify and mischaracterize by saying (1) that the Church is a) “doubling down” in “publishing essays that work to re-establish untenable positions” and thus causes b) faith crises and/or people leaving the Church, and (2) that the Church needs to repent of a) to prevent b).

[rockpond]

You oversimplify and mischaracterize by saying (1) that the Church is a) “doubling down” in “publishing essays that work to re-establish untenable positions” and thus causes b) faith crises and/or people leaving the Church, and (2) that the Church needs to repent of a) to prevent b).

 

All you've done here is repeat what I've said.  The Church HAS doubled down with those essays and re-established untenable positions.  Which part of that statement do you think is false?  The essays ARE causing faith crises.  Do you think that is false?

 

And my question all along (independent of everyone's individual responsibilities to repent) is if the Church is making mistakes in the way we teach doctrine, do we not have the collective need to repent (and change) rather than, as the OP suggested, just keep trying to teach a more detailed history?