"the Church Has Never Been Stronger" -- Elder Cook

[Scott Lloyd]

And influenced him so greatly that it rattled Elder Jensen and influenced his response?  That's your theory?

A lot of people have been influenced or misled to one degree or another by Dehlin. That's in part why he was excommunicated.

A more kind-hearted soul than Elder Jensen I've never met. It would not be out of character for him to give a guy like Dehlin the benefit of the doubt in the absence of better information.

If he were to express himself on the matter today, do you think he would say the Church was undergoing the most intense period of mass apostasy since Kirtland?

 

 

Not true.  I have said repeatedly that I believe Elder Cook was being honest,  And only stated that I did not believe that Elder Jensen was rattled at the time he made his statement about apostacy.  Both statements can be true.

What I see that you've done is not to question his honesty but, rather, to imply with your anecdotal information that you have a better handle on conditions in the Church than he does.

 

Again, show me where I have pitted Elder Jensen's words against Elder Cook's.

Asked and answered. Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

With people being offended because the soil of faith in their souls wasn't deep enough for the gospel seed to take substantial root? That was happening before the advent of the essays.

And why do you say "supposed goals"? Do you think there have been bogus goals given? What are they, and why do you think they're bogus?

 

I don't know of anyone who was "offended" by the essays.  Your conclusion that their faith just wasn't deep enough is offensive, however.  Remember the words of Pres. Uchtdorf:

 

“Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.”

 

“Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended, or lazy, or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question of whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly that it was restored by a young man that had questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.”

 

I have lost count of the number of faithful members who have told me that the gospel topics essays started their faith challenges.

 

I said "supposed" goals because we don't actually know what their goals were, not because I think they were bogus.  I guess "presumed goals" might have been a better word choice.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know of anyone who was "offended" by the essays.  Your conclusion that their faith just wasn't deep enough is offensive, however.  Remember the words of Pres. Uchtdorf:

“Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.”

“Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended, or lazy, or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question of whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly that it was restored by a young man that had questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.”

 

I have lost count of the number of faithful members who have told me that the gospel topics essays started their faith challenges.

 

I said "supposed" goals because we don't actually know what their goals were, not because I think they were bogus.  I guess "presumed goals" might have been a better word choice.

Perhaps I should have used a different word than "offended"; "swayed," perhaps, or "disillusioned."

Perhaps you didn't recognize that I was alluding to the Savor's parable of the sower which he applies to one who "has no root in himself but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended" (Matthew 13:21). I believe this has application to those who forsake their faith after they hear something that is new and troubling to them.

I used "offended" because that's the word that was used in the scriptural passage. I think the word as used there has a bit of a different meaning than we are used to today or than the one that pushed your button and caused you to bring out the Uchtdorf quote to slap me down with it.

Furthermore, I don't concede that President Uchtdorf would deny the verity of the parable of the sower nor that he would reproach me for my application of it.

Goodness knows there are countless Latter-day Saints who have remained faithful after learning information such as that in the Gospel Topics essays. How better to explain the difference in reaction than to say the word has taken deeper root in some than in others?

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

I have lost count of the number of faithful members who have told me that the gospel topics essays started their faith challenges.

I haven't lost count, and still go after them.

 

People react to the gospel topics essays like they do to a light coming into a dark room -- some welcome it (confirms or increases faith), and some find it distracting (challenges their faith).

 

We are going to be challenged in many ways but in any and all these ways we are always counseled to endure in faith.

[rockpond]

I haven't lost count, and still go after them.

 

People react to the gospel topics essays like they do to a light coming into a dark room -- some welcome it (confirms or increases faith), and some find it distracting (challenges their faith).

 

We are going to be challenged in many ways but in any and all these ways we are always counseled to endure in faith.

 

I completely agree.  And I wasn't suggesting that I don't care for them and go after them... just that there are many who have been thrust into faith challenges by the very content of the essays.

[ALarson]

Asked and answered.

So, your accusation was false.  I have not pitted Elder Jensen's words against Elder Cook's and you cannot show anywhere on this thread where I've done so.

Edited April 8, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I completely agree.  And I wasn't suggesting that I don't care for them and go after them... just that there are many who have been thrust into faith challenges by the very content of the essays.

This is what I've seen too.  With the first several essays, there was a group in our ward that started discussing them.  It started as an informal thing at church right after the first essay was released and then just grew and continued.  We had some great discussions and some have had their testimonies strengthened over the essays.  But, several of them have struggled since the essays have come out and one entire family is now inactive.  All really good people, but just different reactions to what was in the essays.  Of course we hope the one family will come back too.

[rockpond]

Perhaps I should have used a different word than "offended"; "swayed," perhaps, or "disillusioned."

Perhaps you didn't recognize that I was alluding to the Savor's parable of the sower which he applies to one who "has no root in himself but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended" (Matthew 13:21). I believe this has application to those who forsake their faith after they hear something that is new and troubling to them.

I used "offended" because that's the word that was used in the scriptural passage. I think the word as used there has a bit of a different meaning than we are used to today or than the one that pushed your button and caused you to bring out the Uchtdorf quote to slap me down with it.

Furthermore, I don't concede that President Uchtdorf would deny the verity of the parable of the sower nor that he would reproach me for my application of it.

Goodness knows there are countless Latter-day Saints who have remained faithful after learning information such as that in the Gospel Topics essays. How better to explain the difference in reaction than to say the word has taken deeper root in some than in others?

 

Neither you nor I are in a place to judge where other church members are in the parable of the sower and with respect to their faith.  As indicated by the President Uchtdorf quotes I provided, there are a variety of reasons why members might struggle with something.  I think we're better off to follow his pastoral approach rather than concluding that they were all just weak of faith.  That response given to me was completely false and entirely counterproductive when I was in the midst of my faith crisis.

[Duncan]

LDS.ORG has the transcripts up now. I couldn't even tell who I know at Church here who even knows about the essays

[teddyaware]

Neither you nor I are in a place to judge where other church members are in the parable of the sower and with respect to their faith.  As indicated by the President Uchtdorf quotes I provided, there are a variety of reasons why members might struggle with something.  I think we're better off to follow his pastoral approach rather than concluding that they were all just weak of faith.  That response given to me was completely false and entirely counterproductive when I was in the midst of my faith crisis.

 

One thing many of the doubters and those caught up in faith crises will eventually have to come to terms with -- either in this world or the world to come -- is that Lord quite deliberately allowed the Restored Church to unfold and settle in the way it has so that the members of the Church, and the people of the world in general, could be tried by a challenging and fully rigorous test of faith. The Lords has allowed just enough spiritual evidence in favor of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel to remain so that those who learn to rely upon and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation can gain a true testimony and obtain the wherewithal to inherit eternal life. But He has also allowed just enough troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence to persuade those who don't learn how to hear and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation to lose faith and thereby find themselves mired in faith destroying and spiritually debilitating doubt.

 

Because He has made us free agents through the atonement of Christ, it is absolutely imperative that we be placed squarely in exact middle of the forces that minister either to faith and salvation on the one side and to unbelief and spiritual loss on the other, so that we have the opportunity to develop a fulness of spiritual talents that could not otherwise be developed without a truly challenging and highly risk-laden test of faith. In other words, the law of opposition in all things is also fully operational when it comes to gaining a testimony because a testimony of the Restored Gospel would be of little worth unless the children of men are exposed to powerful but not overwhelming countervailing forces that can adequately tempt them to draw either near to God's light of walk  away from it.

 

For those who have succumbed or are in the process of succumbing to the seemingly convincing array of evidences (or lack thereof) that undermine belief in the Restored Church and Gospel, such a test may seem as unnecessary as it is unfair; but it is extremely important to God that His people learn to clearly hear and diligently heed the voice of His Spirit of revelation in spite of the strong signals of interference that swirl around and encroach upon the voice of the Spirit at every side.

 

Lucifer and his beguiled host rebelled against the implementation of this great earthly trial of faith because they thought it was too risky and too unfair. But even God has no right to abridge the fullest expression of free agency, either unto goodness or unto evil. The greater and more risk-laden the trial of faith, the greater the potential for eternal reward. And since all but the sons of perdition are saved and made happy in the end, the institution of God's great and wisely-designed earthly trial of faith will prove to be just, fair and right after all.

 

So in spite of the fervent quest of the doubters to obtain convincing earthly signs and convincing earthly evidences that the Restored Church is true and it's leaders, past and present, were and are in harmony with the will of God, the only  divinely appointed way to arrive at the real gospel truth is to act upon Moroni's challenge with real sincerity and great faith. Any other course of action will inevitably lead to endless perplexities, endless frustrations and the loss of spiritual blessings that might have otherwise been obtained. 

Edited April 8, 2015 by teddyaware

[rockpond]

One thing many of the doubters and those caught up in faith crises will eventually have to come to terms with -- either in this world or the world to come -- is that Lord quite deliberately allowed the Restored Church to unfold and settle in the way it has so that the members of the Church, and the people of the world in general, could be tried by a challenging and fully rigorous test of faith. The Lords has allowed just enough spiritual evidence in favor of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel to remain so that those who learn to rely upon and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation can gain a true testimony and obtain the wherewithal to inherit eternal life. But He has also allowed just enough troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence to persuade those who don't learn how to hear and heed the voice of the Spirit of revelation to lose faith and thereby find themselves mired in faith destroying and spiritually debilitating doubt.

Because He has made us free agents through the atonement of Christ, it is absolutely imperative that we be placed squarely in exact middle of the forces that minister either to faith and salvation on the one side and to unbelief and spiritual loss on the other, so that we have the opportunity to develop a fulness of spiritual talents that could not otherwise be developed without a truly challenging and highly risk-laden test of faith. In other words, the law of opposition in all things is also fully operational when it comes to gaining a testimony because a testimony of the Restored Gospel would be of little worth unless the children of men are exposed to powerful but not overwhelming countervailing forces that can adequately tempt them to draw either near to God's light of walk away from it.

For those who have succumbed or are in the process of succumbing to the seemingly convincing array of evidences (or lack thereof) that undermine belief in the Restored Church and Gospel, such a test may seem as unnecessary as it is unfair; but it is extremely important to God that His people learn to clearly hear and diligently heed the voice of His Spirit of revelation in spite of the strong signals of interference that swirl around and encroach upon the voice of the Spirit at every side.

Lucifer and his beguiled host rebelled against the implementation of this great earthly trial of faith because they thought it was too risky and too unfair. But even God has no right to abridge the fullest expression of free agency, either unto goodness or unto evil. The greater and more risk-laden the trial of faith, the greater the potential for eternal reward. And since all but the sons of perdition are saved and made happy in the end, the institution of God's great and wisely-designed earthly trial of faith will prove to be just, fair and right after all.

So in spite of the fervent quest of the doubters to obtain convincing earthly signs and convincing earthly evidences that the Restored Church is true and it's leaders, past and present, were and are in harmony with the will of God, the only divinely appointed way arrive at the real gospel truth is to act upon Moroni's challenge with real sincerity and great faith. Any other course of action will inevitably lead to endless perplexities, endless frustrations and the loss of spiritual blessings that might have otherwise been obtained.

I agree with what you are saying here. It's something I have taught on occasion. But I disagree with your conclusion about the "doubters' fervent quest". First, because I don't see that expressed by doubters and second because "doubters" are not a homogeneous group whose desire can be summed up in a single sentence.

[Scott Lloyd]

Neither you nor I are in a place to judge where other church members are in the parable of the sower and with respect to their faith.  As indicated by the President Uchtdorf quotes I provided, there are a variety of reasons why members might struggle with something.  I think we're better off to follow his pastoral approach rather than concluding that they were all just weak of faith.  That response given to me was completely false and entirely counterproductive when I was in the midst of my faith crisis.

For one thing, I was not judging any specific individual. Rather, I was speaking in theoretical terms of a category. It is every bit as wrong for you to insist that a lack of depth of faith is never a cause of doubts and questioning as it is for someone else to contend that such lack of depth of faith is always the cause.

 

For another thing, it is not inconsistent with a pastoral approach to recognize that someone's faith needs to be strengthened and deepened. A man who asked the Savior to cast an evil spirit out of his son, in response to Jesus's question, said he believed Jesus had power to do so but then humbly added, "Help thou mine unbelief" (see Mark 9:24).

 

On another occasion, Christ firmly admonished one of his disciples "Be not faithless but believing" (see John 20:26-29).

 

Finally, your harsh reaction to my pointing these things out, and your pulling the Uchtdorf card, to coin a phrase, strikes me as unrighteous judgment on your part.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

For one thing, I was not judging any specific individual. Rather, I was speaking in theoretical terms of a category. It is every bit as wrong for you to insist that a lack of depth of faith is never a cause of doubts and questioning as it is for someone else to contend that such lack of depth of faith is always the cause.

 

For another thing, it is not inconsistent with a pastoral approach to recognize that someone's faith needs to be strengthened and deepened. A man who asked the Savior to cast an evil spirit out of his son, in response to Jesus's question, said he believed Jesus had power to do so but then humbly added, "Help thou mine unbelief" (see Mark 9:24).

 

On another occasion, Christ firmly admonished one of his disciples "Be not faithless but believing" (see John 20:26-29).

 

Finally, your harsh reaction to my pointing these things out, and your pulling the Uchtdorf card, to coin a phrase, strikes me as unrighteous judgment on your part.

 

Harsh reaction?  I think you misread my tone.  I apologize if it came off as a harsh reaction.  It didn't feel that way on my end.

 

I don't think that quoting an apostle should be characterized as "pulling the Uchtdorf card"... his quote seemed very relevant to what we were discussing.

 

And, as I noted when I responded to you, there are a variety of reasons for the faith challenges that some church members have.  While we all need to constantly be working to strengthen and deepen our faith, as you eloquently explained, I believe it is counterproductive to make broad-brush conclusions that those who struggle with some of these issues covered in the gospel topics essays were just weak of faith.  For me, that was the message President Uchtdorf was communicating which is why I quoted him.

[Scott Lloyd]

Harsh reaction?  I think you misread my tone.  I apologize if it came off as a harsh reaction.  It didn't feel that way on my end.

 

I don't think that quoting an apostle should be characterized as "pulling the Uchtdorf card"... his quote seemed very relevant to what we were discussing.

 

And, as I noted when I responded to you, there are a variety of reasons for the faith challenges that some church members have.  While we all need to constantly be working to strengthen and deepen our faith, as you eloquently explained, I believe it is counterproductive to make broad-brush conclusions that those who struggle with some of these issues covered in the gospel topics essays were just weak of faith.  For me, that was the message President Uchtdorf was communicating which is why I quoted him.

You speak of "faith challenges that some Church members have," yet you upbraid me for suggesting that some (all of us, for that matter) need a deepening of faith and that some have deeper faith than do others.

 

This seems to be an issue of semantics with you. You see nothing wrong with the term faith challenges yet any talk of depth of faith sets you off into a sermon about judging others. What is a "faith challenge" if it is not a need for deeper faith?

[CV75]

I completely agree.  And I wasn't suggesting that I don't care for them and go after them... just that there are many who have been thrust into faith challenges by the very content of the essays.

Let's not eradicate challenges; challenges are why we are here.

[CV75]

What is a "faith challenge" if it is not a need for deeper faith?

I would say it is an invitation to exercise greater faith and obtain more correct knowledge in becoming more like the Master. When someone reads a Church essay, no matter how they take it, it would be well to consider, "How can I use this information to become more like Jesus?"

[rockpond]

You speak of "faith challenges that some Church members have," yet you upbraid me for suggesting that some (all of us, for that matter) need a deepening of faith and that some have deeper faith than do others.

 

This seems to be an issue of semantics with you. You see nothing wrong with the term faith challenges yet any talk of depth of faith sets you off into a sermon about judging others. What is a "faith challenge" if it is not a need for deeper faith?

 

I think it is unfair and counterproductive to say that the cause of someone's faith challenge or crisis was a lack of faith.  That's all.

 

As Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf have both said... mistakes have been made.  When someone comes across those mistakes and struggles with them, it doesn't help to say:  "Well, your faith just isn't deep enough.  Look, here's where you are in the parable of the sower."  I have first-hand experience watching members' reactions to that kind of counsel.  It's not helpful.

[ALarson]

Finally, your harsh reaction to my pointing these things out, and your pulling the Uchtdorf card, to coin a phrase, strikes me as unrighteous judgment on your part.

I think if you read over this thread again, you'll see who is the one having harsh reactions to others.  

 

From reading rockpond's posts, he comes across as anything but harsh or having any unrighteous judgment.  

[rockpond]

Let's not eradicate challenges; challenges are why we are here.

 

It's impossible to eradicate the challenges.  Certainly not part of the plan.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it is unfair and counterproductive to say that the cause of someone's faith challenge or crisis was a lack of faith.  That's all.

 

The cause or a cause. There's a difference.

 

All other things being equal, if a Gospel Topics essay sends one person into a tailspin and another takes it in stride, the compelling conclusion is that one has a greater depth of faith than the other.

 

As Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf have both said... mistakes have been made.  When someone comes across those mistakes and struggles with them, it doesn't help to say:  "Well, your faith just isn't deep enough.  Look, here's where you are in the parable of the sower."  I have first-hand experience watching members' reactions to that kind of counsel.  It's not helpful.

 

I would think it depends upon the individual and the circumstances.

 

The scriptures do not record that Thomas went off in a huff when the Savior told him to "be not faithless but believing."

 

Sometimes a firm approach is what is called for and is what works best.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think if you read over this thread again, you'll see who is the one having harsh reactions to others.  

 

From reading rockpond's posts, he comes across as anything but harsh or having any unrighteous judgment.  

Well, just as rockpond avers that people don't like having their depth of faith questioned, I don't care to have that Uchtdorf quote waved in my face as though I were responsible for driving people out of the Church (consistent with emotional blackmail, by the way).

[ALarson]

Well, just as rockpond avers that people don't like having their depth of faith questioned, I don't care to have that Uchtdorf quote waved in my face as though I were responsible for driving people out of the Church (consistent with emotional blackmail, by the way).

I saw no "waving" in your face of anything.  And, I love that Uchtdorf quote as I would imagine you do too.  You seem to take everything anyone says on this thread as a personal affront and from what I've seen, no one is doing that.  

Edited April 8, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

The cause or a cause.

 

I would think it depends upon the individual and the circumstances.

 

The scriptures do not record that Thomas went off in a huff when the Savior told him to "be not faithless but believing."

 

Sometimes a firm approach is what is called for and is what works best.

 

Yes, it certainly depends on the individual and the circumstances.

[Scott Lloyd]

I saw no "waving" in your face of anything.  And, I love that Uchtdorf quote as I would imagine you do too.  You seem to take everything anyone says on this thread as a personal affront and from what I've seen, no one is doing that.  

I think some have taken the quote and read too much into it.

 

For example an acknowledgment that mistakes have been made in the past is wrongly taken as basis for rationalization for all manner of unwise criticism of the Church and its leaders. Or worse, to conclude that something the Church is doing now (i.e. upholding the traditional definition of marriage) is in fact wrong and it is only a matter of time before the leaders either come to that realization or die off, clearing the way for others to swoop in and clean things up.

 

I have no way to know for certain without asking him, but I have a hunch that it would sadden President Uchtdorf to see such use being made of his words.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

This is on the lds.org page (I think this is the right thread…my apologies if not):

 

1. 24. Over the last 25 years, the actual number of members leaving the Church has decreased and the Church has almost doubled in size. The percentage leaving is greatly reduced.

   https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-lord-is-my-light?lang=eng