Robert F. Smith Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 So we bear no responsibility for how we teach one another? We don't need to be concerned for the anguish being caused by some of these issues? Sorry, the reality of my life, family, church stewardship, etc leads me away from such a laissez faire attitude. I see us as duty bound to face the problems and work to resolve them.I'm speaking about reality, rockpond. Naturally you will be filled with anguish over such matters, which is reminiscent of the anguish of parents of their first child. After a time they relax and realize that kids will be kids, that there are natural phases they go through, whether we are good parents or not. And, sub specie aeternitatis, we give more gravity to them than they deserve. Or, as Rick says it in "Casablanca," "I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that."
CV75 Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) We don't have to teach anything. I approach this from a pastoral view of how we teach to prevent and/or alleviate problems that our members are facing as a result of the issues that impact doctrine and faith. Right now it's tough to deal with at our level because, for many, the church produced essays aren't really providing any useful answers. Sorry, the reality of my life, family, church stewardship, etc leads me away from such a laissez faire attitude. I see us as duty bound to face the problems and work to resolve them.Then I recommend you use the December Ensign, pp. 16-19 [ETA: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/12/young-adults/the-answer-to-all-the-hard-questions?lang=eng] for yourself and to teach those you are worried about (by teaching from it directly, or by referring it to others to read, or as a 5th Sunday lesson topic, or in how you counsel others). It might even give you a greater appreciation for the Church-produced essays! Edited December 2, 2014 by CV75
cinepro Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Then I recommend you use the December Ensign, pp. 16-19 [ETA: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/12/young-adults/the-answer-to-all-the-hard-questions?lang=eng] for yourself and to teach those you are worried about (by teaching from it directly, or by referring it to others to read, or as a 5th Sunday lesson topic, or in how you counsel others). It might even give you a greater appreciation for the Church-produced essays! That article has perhaps the most misleading title of any Ensign article, ever. This article too. It should have been titled "Hans Who?" or "What Swedish Rescue?" Edited December 2, 2014 by cinepro
rockpond Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 I'm speaking about reality, rockpond. Naturally you will be filled with anguish over such matters, which is reminiscent of the anguish of parents of their first child. After a time they relax and realize that kids will be kids, that there are natural phases they go through, whether we are good parents or not. And, sub specie aeternitatis, we give more gravity to them than they deserve. Or, as Rick says it in "Casablanca," "I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that." Such a dismissive attitude offers no help. Why even publish those essays if this is how we should think? Why do I spend so much time in my calling if "kids will be kids". I assume I've failed to communicate the gravity of the situation. And that's fine -- it's probably not likely to be understood when you aren't in the midst of it.
rockpond Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 That article has perhaps the most misleading title of any Ensign article, ever. This article too. It should have been titled "Hans Who?" or "What Swedish Rescue?" So your answer is just to deny that there was/is a problem? Okay.
rockpond Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Then I recommend you use the December Ensign, pp. 16-19 [ETA: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/12/young-adults/the-answer-to-all-the-hard-questions?lang=eng] for yourself and to teach those you are worried about (by teaching from it directly, or by referring it to others to read, or as a 5th Sunday lesson topic, or in how you counsel others). It might even give you a greater appreciation for the Church-produced essays! The doctrine taught in that article is great. And necessary. And I do believe it is worth teaching and repeating. But even the article contains some of the contradictions that are causing problems.
CV75 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 The doctrine taught in that article is great. And necessary. And I do believe it is worth teaching and repeating. But even the article contains some of the contradictions that are causing problems.If you perceive problematic contradictions, then I recommend using the doctrine in the article to better manage both the diction and the problems.
rockpond Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 If you perceive problematic contradictions, then I recommend using the doctrine in the article to better manage both the diction and the problems. So you're saying that when someone has a problem with "Principle 2" because of all the times that the prophets & apostles have taught things that were incorrect, we should just instruct the person to focus on Principles 3, 4, & 5?
CV75 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 So you're saying that when someone has a problem with "Principle 2" because of all the times that the prophets & apostles have taught things that were incorrect, we should just instruct the person to focus on Principles 3, 4, & 5?It doesn’t really matter why one might have a problem with one or more of the principles, or to what he attributes his problem to; all the principles are true. And wherever one principle is a corollary of another, I would think if someone has a problem with it, he can rely on the originating principle to guide him. It is interesting to me that the section under Principle 2 describes a cooperative relationship between ourselves, the scriptures, the Holy Ghost and the inspired doctrine and collective guidance of living prophets and apostles in our “diligent study” (always) and “honest scholarship” (where scholarship is a tool in so doing). In any case, I think any of the principles support the others. I find the quote by President Monson very helpful in tying them all together in those cases where we have challenges applying a principle.
rockpond Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It doesn’t really matter why one might have a problem with one or more of the principles, or to what he attributes his problem to; all the principles are true. And wherever one principle is a corollary of another, I would think if someone has a problem with it, he can rely on the originating principle to guide him. It is interesting to me that the section under Principle 2 describes a cooperative relationship between ourselves, the scriptures, the Holy Ghost and the inspired doctrine and collective guidance of living prophets and apostles in our “diligent study” (always) and “honest scholarship” (where scholarship is a tool in so doing). In any case, I think any of the principles support the others. I find the quote by President Monson very helpful in tying them all together in those cases where we have challenges applying a principle. I doesn't feel like you really understand these challenges that we're dealing with. Nor would I expect you too. And I'm not really sure how to effectively communicate them because I think you are more interested in defending a position. 1
CV75 Posted December 4, 2014 Posted December 4, 2014 I doesn't feel like you really understand these challenges that we're dealing with. Nor would I expect you too. And I'm not really sure how to effectively communicate them because I think you are more interested in defending a position.It seems you are dealing with the challenge of applying "Principle 2" [fill in the reason]. Granted there is a lot included there, but that gives us a good number of options and a great deal of flexibility in how we apply our faith to the principle. No matter how one views the prophets and apostles, he can still apply the Principle 2 in many ways. If he lacks the capacity for scholarship (or honest scholarship) as well, or if the information is simply not available, he can still apply it because God does share some of His knowledge as He is ready to. And if all else fails, Principle 2 is a corollary of Principle 1, which can always be applied. And of course the other principles should be applied as well. I think the foundational “spiritual experiences that have formed our faith” trump our “doctrinal or historical foundations,” which will inevitably prove to be “not as solid as we may have thought” and so may tempt us “to question the truths we’ve taken for granted.” The principles in the article seem to deal with a few truths we’ve taken for granted, as well as the means to bolster our spiritual experience.
carbon dioxide Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 My point is just that these historical issues will continue to haunt us in the form of challenges to testimony, criticisms, negative press coverage, member disaffection, etc as long as they are not condemned by church leadership. You are welcome to believe that they should not be condemned but it doesn't change my point: we'll have to live with the unfortunate consequences. The proposed CES classes (in the OP video) won't do anything to solve the problem if they are similar in tone and content to the recent gospel topic essays.Receiving negative press, criticism, and the rest all comes with the package of being in the Church. The devil will always oppose the Church and stir up people against it. If we are worried about pacifying those in the great and spacious building, we have our focus on the wrong thing. The mockers will never be happy. Appease them on one point they will find another point to complain about. Individuals have made mistakes in the past but the Church itself has nothing to be ashamed about in our history. If outsiders don't like it, that is their problem. They can give all the drama they want to the Lord at judgment day. We should not be haunted about anything. It is not our problem. 1
rockpond Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Receiving negative press, criticism, and the rest all comes with the package of being in the Church. The devil will always oppose the Church and stir up people against it. If we are worried about pacifying those in the great and spacious building, we have our focus on the wrong thing. The mockers will never be happy. Appease them on one point they will find another point to complain about. Individuals have made mistakes in the past but the Church itself has nothing to be ashamed about in our history. If outsiders don't like it, that is their problem. They can give all the drama they want to the Lord at judgment day. We should not be haunted about anything. It is not our problem. To the extent that we want to keep our existing member and bring in new ones, these issues do matter. I haven't suggested that we strive to appease those who mock. We ought to faithfully and publicly deal with the issues, condemn past mistakes, and not try to hide the blemishes (the days when we could successfully do that have ended).
rockpond Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 It seems you are dealing with the challenge of applying "Principle 2" [fill in the reason]. Granted there is a lot included there, but that gives us a good number of options and a great deal of flexibility in how we apply our faith to the principle. No matter how one views the prophets and apostles, he can still apply the Principle 2 in many ways. If he lacks the capacity for scholarship (or honest scholarship) as well, or if the information is simply not available, he can still apply it because God does share some of His knowledge as He is ready to. And if all else fails, Principle 2 is a corollary of Principle 1, which can always be applied. And of course the other principles should be applied as well. I think the foundational “spiritual experiences that have formed our faith” trump our “doctrinal or historical foundations,” which will inevitably prove to be “not as solid as we may have thought” and so may tempt us “to question the truths we’ve taken for granted.” The principles in the article seem to deal with a few truths we’ve taken for granted, as well as the means to bolster our spiritual experience. As I said, your responses indicate that you don't understand the challenges being faced. And I am not able to adequately communicate them through this medium. Though I appreciate your valiant attempts at providing solutions.
Tacenda Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) Yep Rockpond, agreed!And I now see how a once TBM can become an anti. I fight everyday not to become one. The reason I've gotten close or maybe I am one, is because it ruined my life. Had the church been forthright with information, I and thousands of others wouldn't be in our situations. The devil must be in the details, because he sure ain't in us! And unless you've been there, you'll never know what it's like to be in hiding. It feels like I'm a freak everyday of the past 8 years. I can't pass a church w/o becoming angry now.Not only that, the biggest shame of the church not disclosing early on, is that many are Atheist or Agnostic now, and I'm scarely close. That may be another reason we have anti Mormons who once were members. ETA: http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/12/special-episode-our-bad-days/ Just started listening to DB, I guess maybe he might put in perspective what disillusioned/disaffected LDS go through. It's already sounding very close to home. Edited December 5, 2014 by Tacenda 1
rockpond Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) Not only that, the biggest shame of the church not disclosing early on, is that many are Atheist or Agnostic now... Yes, it is very sad and tragic when that becomes the result of a faith crisis. I've seen it time and time again. Edited December 5, 2014 by rockpond
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 Not only that, the biggest shame of the church not disclosing early on, is that many are Atheist or Agnostic now...Yes, it is very sad and tragic when that becomes the result of a faith crisis. I've seen it time and time again. I'm not sure what's so sad about it. Atheism and agnosticism are viable options. People aren't miserable because they hold to those ideas. And, this is important to clarify, most atheists and agnostics were never LDS. They may have been some other religion or none at all. It will always be that people will leave faith for one of the two. I don't know we can blame the Church for that. Whether they knew information twenty years prior or not, they may very well have left the faith and settled into atheism sooner.
pogi Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 it ruined my life How is your life ruined? Do you not like your life? Did you not like your life as a TBM? When you play the victim, life sucks! If I ever become disillusioned, I will NEVER claim that the church "ruined" my life. No, no, no...it made me who I am in many, many ways. Whether I stay in the church or leave, I like who I am and must give some credit to the church for that.
rockpond Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 How is your life ruined? Do you not like your life? Did you not like your life as a TBM? When you play the victim, life sucks! If I ever become disillusioned, I will NEVER claim that the church "ruined" my life. No, no, no...it made me who I am in many, many ways. Whether I stay in the church or leave, I like who I am and must give some credit to the church for that. If you ever have the misfortune of watching a marriage crumble and a family break apart as the result of a faith crisis, let's come back and revisit your response here. *I'm not suggesting anyone play the victim. Everyone must accept responsibility for their own actions. But we can also not ignore the role of faith and the church in our lives. And in doing so, the Church must also accept responsibility for its actions.
rockpond Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 I'm not sure what's so sad about it. Atheism and agnosticism are viable options. People aren't miserable because they hold to those ideas. And, this is important to clarify, most atheists and agnostics were never LDS. They may have been some other religion or none at all. It will always be that people will leave faith for one of the two. I don't know we can blame the Church for that. Whether they knew information twenty years prior or not, they may very well have left the faith and settled into atheism sooner. If atheism and agnosticism are perfectly viable options then why do we work so hard to get and keep people in our church?
pogi Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) If you ever have the misfortune of watching a marriage crumble and a family break apart as the result of a faith crisis, let's come back and revisit your response here. To blame the church for a broken marriage is wrong. If a person becomes disilussioned, it is his/her choice how to react to it. My brother-in-law has become disillusioned and left the church about two years ago. While he is angry at the church for certain things, he is still happily married to his active wife. If this scenario is different for others, it is because of personal reasons. Does the church teach us to leave our spouse if they leave the church? Edited December 5, 2014 by pogi 1
CV75 Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) As I said, your responses indicate that you don't understand the challenges being faced. And I am not able to adequately communicate them through this medium. Though I appreciate your valiant attempts at providing solutions.I would say that throwing out “Principle 2” (or “Principle 1”) because of issues with the prophets and apostles is missing the richness of the rest of the principle and the overarching power of all the principles combined. It reminds me of this talk by Elder Bednar: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng “Let me make sure I understand what has happened to you. Because someone at church offended you, you have not been blessed by the ordinance of the sacrament. You have withdrawn yourself from the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Because someone at church offended you, you have cut yourself off from priesthood ordinances and the holy temple. You have discontinued your opportunity to serve others and to learn and grow. And you are leaving barriers that will impede the spiritual progress of your children, your children’s children, and the generations that will follow.” Many times people would think for a moment and then respond: “I have never thought about it that way.” In the context of principle, the prophets and apostles are only one piece if the application. Edited December 5, 2014 by CV75
Jeanne Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 You can blame the church for a marriage/family breakup. It happens everyday! Separation of families in Temple weddings, the spouse wnating only a believer..it hurts..it does affect and if the church always comes first..where is the family in this family church?
pogi Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 You can blame the church for a marriage/family breakup. It happens everyday! Separation of families in Temple weddings, the spouse wnating only a believer..it hurts..it does affect and if the church always comes first..where is the family in this family church? Take special note of the bold and underline statement. That is about all that I agree with here. Again, the church does not condone divorse simply because a spouse leaves the church.
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2014 Posted December 5, 2014 (edited) If atheism and agnosticism are perfectly viable options then why do we work so hard to get and keep people in our church? Because we think the Church presents a pretty good option too. Do we really consider anything less than LDS to be unviable (meaning isn't practical or doesn't work)? Seems like a terrible perspective to go from, seeing as more than 99 percent of the world is not LDS. Edited December 5, 2014 by stemelbow
Recommended Posts