Lectures On Faith-

[Scott Lloyd]

I think people are happy that there is a place where they can come and ask questions and discuss some of their doubts and issues.

 

From what I've seen, they are met here with both reactions that you described above (defense against and an upholding or sustaining...or at least an understanding from many).

I would agree with that.

 

Do you object to there being defense here?

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

I would agree with that.

 

Do you object to there defense here?

Not at all.  I think the diversity of posters here is great.

 

Do you object to having those with doubts and questions here?  How about those who no longer believe?

Edited April 20, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

Classy. Who's adversarial?

Quite a number here, actually.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not at all.  I think the diversity of posters here is great.

Good.

 

ttribe seems to object to there being anything by way of defense. That it makes the board "useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis."

 

I take it you don't agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

This part was added later:

 

Do you object to having those with doubts and questions here?  How about those who no longer believe?

No, I don't object, so long as those who have answers and defenses are reasonably free to rebut, refute, challenge and respond without being being branded as not "classy" or without having that inclination sarcastically referred to as "lovely."

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Good.

 

ttribe seems to object to there being anything by way of defense. That it makes the board "useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis."

 

I take it you don't agree.

 

What is it with you and taking the most extreme interpretation of something I've said and putting back on me as if it were a direct quote?  I never said anything about there being no place for any type of defense.  Ever.  Nor did I ever say that there weren't some antagonistic posters who's motives shouldn't be questioned. 

 

The problem I see is that it's the default position for certain prominent posters here and that encourages such behaviors from others.  If/when a sincerely confused member of the Church comes here (which is almost inevitable, thanks to Google) it's a gamble as to which reaction they will receive.  Many of these people are frustrated and emotionally worn out.  Their initial posts could come across as angry.  Instead of - "Wait.  We get it.  We can see your confusion; let's talk about this."  They get - "What's your agenda?  You are obviously just another axe-grinding Anti-Mormon!"

Edited April 20, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

What is it with you and taking the most extreme interpretation of something I've said and putting back on me as if it were a direct quote?  I never said anything about there being no place for any type of defense.  Ever.  Nor did I ever say that there weren't some antagonistic posters who's motives shouldn't be questioned. 

 

The problem I see is that it's the default position for certain prominent posters here and that encourages such behaviors from others.  If/when a sincerely confused member of the Church comes here (which is almost inevitable, thanks to Google) it's a gamble as to which reaction they will receive.  Many of these people are frustrated and emotionally worn out.  Their initial posts could come across as angry.  Instead of - "Wait.  We get it.  We can see your confusion; let's talk about this."  They get - "What's your agenda?  You are obviously just another axe-grinding Anti-Mormon!"

Well, approach makes a great deal of difference, doesn't it?

 

Someone who comes in with guns blazing could hardly expect to generate a pacific response.

 

But from what I've seen, a sincere and focused question (not a shotgun attack) is apt to be met here with a patient and reasonable answer.

 

That is Common Sense 101.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Well, approach makes a great deal of difference, doesn't it?

 

Someone who comes in with guns blazing could hardly expect to generate a pacific response.

 

But from what I've seen, a sincere and focused question (not a shotgun attack) is apt to be met here with a patient and reasonable answer.

 

That is Common Sense 101.

It may be common sense but it doesn't seem to be common practice.

[ALarson]

This part was added later:

No, I don't object, so long as those who have answers and defenses are reasonably free to rebut, refute, challenge and respond without being being branded as not "classy" or without having that inclination sarcastically referred to as "lovely."

That's not what those responses were referring to, from what I could tell.

Edited April 20, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

If/when a sincerely confused member of the Church comes here (which is almost inevitable, thanks to Google) it's a gamble as to which reaction they will receive.  Many of these people are frustrated and emotionally worn out.  Their initial posts could come across as angry.  Instead of - "Wait.  We get it.  We can see your confusion; let's talk about this."  They get - "What's your agenda?  You are obviously just another axe-grinding Anti-Mormon!"

 

In any conversation both sides are responsible for their approach to the conversation.  I know I come on defensive and strong sometimes.

 

When someone has a "faith crisis" and is sincerely seeking answers I hope I really try to provide them  But when someone experiencing a faith crisis starts spewing anger (even when its understandable) it's hard to want to reason with that.

 

Take Joseph and polygamy.  If someone wants to discuss how Joseph practiced polygamy and to look at the history and revelations I am happy to do it.

If they want to post "I just found out Joseph married 14 year olds and other mens wives and I don't believe that came from God so he was a bad man and I am furious about it and want to tell everyone how bad it is" that is not a faith crisis looking for guidance, that IS an attack on the gospel.

 

Both sides are accountable for the approach taken to conversation and neither side has any right to expect a gentle response to an attack.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not what those responses were referring to, from what I could tell.

Well, then maybe the authors of those responses would like to clarify.

[ALarson]

Well, then maybe the authors of those responses would like to clarify.

If that's what you need, but it was fairly obvious.

[Scott Lloyd]

If that's what you need, but it was fairly obvious.

I thought so too, and responded accordingly.

[CCRW]

Well, approach makes a great deal of difference, doesn't it?

 

Someone who comes in with guns blazing could hardly expect to generate a pacific response.

 

Scott, did I come in with guns blazing?  Have I offended you?  Who here did I offend?  Did they address that offensiveness with me?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, did I come in with guns blazing?  Have I offended you?  Who here did I offend?  Did they address that offensiveness with me?

Um, no.

 

Did I mention you somewhere here?

[CCRW]

Just wondering, seems I offended someone

[Scott Lloyd]

Just wondering, seems I offended someone

Not to my knowledge. But I haven't followed your posts or responses.

[Tacenda]

Well then maybe people ought not come here to deal with their faith crises, especially if they are going to take an adversarial stance, which they can expect to be met with a defense against rather than an upholding or sustaining in affirmation of their doubts and criticisms.

Heard something today I really liked and will adopt. It's not I've had a faith crisis, it's... the church has had a truth crisis!

I've never desired more faith as much as I do now, how can that be a faith crisis I wonder.

Going to refrain from saying I'm in a FC.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Heard something today I really liked and will adopt. It's not I've had a faith crisis, it's... the church has had a truth crisis!

I've never desired more faith as much as I do now, how can that be a faith crisis I wonder.

Going to refrain from saying I'm in a FC.

 

The Church and its teachings are as true as they ever were.  The Church didn't change its history/origins either.

 

So if the Church didn't change but your faith in the Church did, I don't think the "truth crisis" label against the Church fits.

[Thinking]

Fine. This is not inconsistent with what was stated in retrospect in 1921: that the lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons."

 

Actually it is inconsistent. The Lectures (together with the revelations) were presented and the brethren "accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote."

 

Do you have anything else?

 

Yes. It's too bad the 1835 Church didn't know the 1921 standards that would be applied to non-revelatory doctrine. The Lectures certainly were presented to and accepted by the Church. However, since they weren't presented as revelations, a loophole was created to remove them from the D&C.

[CCRW]

The Church and its teachings are as true as they ever were.  The Church didn't change its history/origins either.

 

So if the Church didn't change but your faith in the Church did, I don't think the "truth crisis" label against the Church fits.

 

I'm all hung up on the Church thing verses the Restored Gospel.  I've got a pretty good feeling one could make a substantial list of things that have changed in the Church, not affecting the Restored Gospel.  Is it offensive of me to say I have a hard time seeing anything but the Corporation side and it offends me? 

 

In going to Church yesterday, I realized it might be possible for me, if I can view the Church as the members (which it is), some whom I have not seen for years ... with several genuine hugs and tears, getting a feel of that underlying Gospel.

 

Note to self, when you hear “the Church is true” interpret as the Gospel is true, the members are wonderful, the Corp is temporary quit wrapping yourself around the axle.  Maybe a thread on "What is the Church" would be nice?

[JLHPROF]

I'm all hung up on the Church thing verses the Restored Gospel.  I've got a pretty good feeling one could make a substantial list of things that have changed in the Church, not affecting the Restored Gospel.  Is it offensive of me to say I have a hard time seeing anything but the Corporation side and it offends me? 

 

In going to Church yesterday, I realized it might be possible for me, if I can view the Church as the members (which it is), some whom I have not seen for years ... with several genuine hugs and tears, getting a feel of that underlying Gospel.

 

Note to self, when you hear “the Church is true” interpret as the Gospel is true, the members are wonderful, the Corp is temporary quit wrapping yourself around the axle.  Maybe a thread on "What is the Church" would be nice?

 

No, it's not offensive, at least to me.  I personally make a large distinction between the Church and its administrative function as compared to the gospel and priesthood.

When I hear "the Church is true" I also auto translate it to mean the doctrines of the restored gospel.  The Church is an entirely different thing.

[Russell C McGregor]

The prevalence of this attitude is exactly why this board is so useless for people enduring an actual faith crisis; their questions are all too often met with suspicion and thinly-veiled accusation.

Okay then, Ttribe.

Absolutely nobody who bangs on about the fallibility of the prophets and apostles is ever trying to persuade us to accept their opinions instead of the teachings of the brethren.

Not one. Not ever.

There, is that good enough for you?

[CCRW]

Russell (I hope that is ok),

 

Would you share your thoughts with me on my post 146 above?

 

mark?

Edited April 21, 2015 by CCRW

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm all hung up on the Church thing verses the Restored Gospel.  I've got a pretty good feeling one could make a substantial list of things that have changed in the Church, not affecting the Restored Gospel.  Is it offensive of me to say I have a hard time seeing anything but the Corporation side and it offends me? 

 

In going to Church yesterday, I realized it might be possible for me, if I can view the Church as the members (which it is), some whom I have not seen for years ... with several genuine hugs and tears, getting a feel of that underlying Gospel.

 

Note to self, when you hear “the Church is true” interpret as the Gospel is true, the members are wonderful, the Corp is temporary quit wrapping yourself around the axle.  Maybe a thread on "What is the Church" would be nice?

Even for the Evangelical Christian Church (the moniker for the Campbellite Restoration movement) there is a need for some degree of legal incorporation (http://drgbarkman.tripod.com/id43.html ), despite the feeling that maybe it denigrates the Gospel.  So, one might indeed be uncomfortable with the LDS Corporation of the President and all of its subsidiaries.  However, as a practical matter, it could not be otherwise, domain names, auditors, lawyers, and all.  It requires a CEO and Board of Directors as does any other huge corporation.  To do otherwise would be madness, and God's House is a house of order.