Regiional Conference: Apolgetic Moment

[Scott Lloyd]

Wrong thread.

No, I intended it for this thread.

 

Just a quick note about a rather common grammatical error. If it bothers you, feel free to ignore it.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Actually, it seems the default position is to immediately question the sincerity of the doubter.  That's a rather harmful approach, IMO.

I'm not sure that this is the "default position." I agree that we should "give questioners the benefit of the doubt that they are already being sincere." I am less clear on the bit about "no need to unnecessarily emphasize sincerity when it comes to questions about faith and religion." I think it is possible for a person to be motivated to question the doctrines / practices / history of the Church more by a desire to nitpick or find fault rather than by "sincerity." Nevertheless, such a motive should not, I think, be presumed. A presumption of good faith and sincerity should prevail.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2015 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Sorry, but this is another pet peeve of mine.

 

Unless you have a defect in your sense of touch, it should be "I feel bad for the bishops ...."

 

Feel is what is known as a linking verb. It links the subject I to its predicate adjective bad. Since bad in this instance modifies a noun and not a verb, it needs to take the adjective form bad, not the adverb form badly.

 

Here is some information on linking verbs.

 

And here is a list of linking verbs in addition to feel.

I don't care. Way to hone in on the important stuff

[Scott Lloyd]

 

I don't care. Way to hone in on the important stuff

To say you don't care about using proper grammar is as much as to say you don't care about presenting a good impression and thus being more powerfully persuasive in your writing.

 

Your choice, I guess. But others may benefit from this example and explanation.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Wow, this is an encouraging step in the right direction!  Two comments about the statement that I have: 

 

1.       The idea that answers actually exist for these complex questions about life and religion.   My experience has been very different, and false certainty can be much more damaging and stunts the growth of an individual. 

 

2.       Answers are available to the “sincere”.  The implication that I've heard in many discussions with doubters, this idea that perhaps they aren’t sincerely questioning, that they may have some ulterior nefarious motive at play.  This can be shaming and judgmental.  Lets give questioners the benefit of the doubt that they are already being sincere, no need to unnecessarily emphasize sincerity when it comes to questions about faith and religion.

 

I agree that it's an encouraging step.

By qualifying the kinds of questions/questioners who are good by saying they must be "honest" and "sincere" judgement is still left up to the individual receiving the question. The bishop or SP will judge whether the person is honest and sincere, possibly based on the tone of the individual but the judgement could also be based partially on whether or not the Bishop or SP has a "good answer". If he doesn't, it may feel like a gotcha kind of question which couldn't possibly be honest or sincere.

Reference to questioners or non-believers as dead stumps isn't terribly compassionate language but it is wonderful that he is calling for understanding even if he doesn't completely understand himself. I expect we'll see more of this in conference in a few weeks.

[Calm]

 

Your choice, I guess. But others may benefit from this example and explanation.

It is my thread and I enjoy having reminders of common errors so as to help me avoid them.

It is a bit annoying when complaining about corrections begins to dominate my thread though.

If you don't feel the same way and feel such posts are worthlesss, feel free to ignore and not respond as would be appropriate for a worthless post.

[hope_for_things]

With respect, I think that answers do actually exist. Often it seems that we are simply not comfortable with the answers, or with the gaps in our understanding, or with the presuppositions that (should) underlie such inquiries. 

 

I’m willing to grant that answers might actually exist somewhere out there, I just haven’t found that these answers actually represent any kind of landing place.  They represent more of a journey that continues to grow in length the further along the road I go.   It’s a difference of perspective as well, kind of like the liahona vs. iron rod perspectives that Richard Poll wrote about.  

[smac97]

I agree that it's an encouraging step.

By qualifying the kinds of questions/questioners who are good by saying they must be "honest" and "sincere" judgement is still left up to the individual receiving the question. The bishop or SP will judge whether the person is honest and sincere, possibly based on the tone of the individual but the judgement could also be based partially on whether or not the Bishop or SP has a "good answer". If he doesn't, it may feel like a gotcha kind of question which couldn't possibly be honest or sincere.

I think a bishop or stake president can consider the demeanor of the individual, the tone and tenor of the "questions," etc., and also guidance of the Spirit to determine whether the presumption of good faith and sincerity should be retained and built upon.

Reference to questioners or non-believers as dead stumps isn't terribly compassionate language but it is wonderful that he is calling for understanding even if he doesn't completely understand himself. I expect we'll see more of this in conference in a few weeks.

I took his remarks as a reference to a person's testimony being a "dead stump," rather than the person.

The presumption of good faith under discussion should go both ways, don't you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It is my thread and I enjoy having reminders of common errors so as to help me avoid them.

It is a bit annoying when complaining about corrections begins to dominate my thread though.

If you don't feel the same way and feel such posts are worthlesss, feel free to ignore and not respond as would be appropriate for a worthless post.

 

As an example, I could point out that "Regional", in the thread topic, is mispelled, but correcting someone's grammar and spelling seems condescending, rude, and doesn't really add to the discussion. (I sure hope my commas were all placed properly- If not I'll eagerly await Scott's correction)

Once or twice isn't a huge deal but Scott seems to think he's the grammar prophesor of MDDB. Again, condescending and rude.

[smac97]

I’m willing to grant that answers might actually exist somewhere out there, I just haven’t found that these answers actually represent any kind of landing place.

Okay. I have found these answers to be profoundly instructive and comforting. A wonderful "landing place." Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, it seems.

 

They represent more of a journey that continues to grow in length the further along the road I go.   It’s a difference of perspective as well, kind of like the liahona vs. iron rod perspectives that Richard Poll wrote about.

I disagree with the dichotomy presented in Poll's article ("There are two distinct types of active and dedicated Latter-day Saints...").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 15, 2015 by smac97

[Calm]

Wouldn't bother me if you pointed it out at all. Normally I would alter it but it requires mods to do so and I am saving my next imposition for changing my name again when I decide I can't stand the current version any more.

There is enough variety in what Scott points out I find it enjoyable.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Calm

[stemelbow]

I'm all for giving folks the benefit of the doubt, but I quite disagree that sincerity should not be emphasized. Sincerity is, in fact, quite important as it can mean the difference between an honest quest for knowledge and the use of controversy as a club with which to beat up the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

And in some instances, there can be little or no doubt to give one the benefit of.

Emphasizing sincerity over the question is an enormous mistake that happens way too often and is okayed way too much in the Church. Sincerity should never be emphasized, not at all. Perhaps in very extreme cases it is appropriate to bring up sincerity. But, that is more rare than finding an active Mormon in a random sampling of people on this earth. Answers and discussion need not involve the intents of another. That is weakness all around. If you have a good answer, a thoughtful approach it should matter not at all if the question was asked insincerely, because in talking about it, the important matters are uncovered. To change the subject from the topic raised to questioning the person is just dishonorable, in my view.

[stemelbow]

I'm a little confused when he suggests to not brush off questions or treat questioners as if they are less faithful then shares an example wherein questions were raised by someone who was being less faithful. It seemed to defeat his own point.

I'd say it is worse for the church for a member to treat questioners as if they are lesser for questioning, then it is for the member to admit the questioner and concern-raiser has a good point and their is no good answer or response. I doubt there are any exceptions to that, even though I grant there could be.

[smac97]

Emphasizing sincerity over the question is an enormous mistake that happens way too often and is okayed way too much in the Church. Sincerity should never be emphasized, not at all. Perhaps in very extreme cases it is appropriate to bring up sincerity. But, that is more rare than finding an active Mormon in a random sampling of people on this earth. Answers and discussion need not involve the intents of another. That is weakness all around. If you have a good answer, a thoughtful approach it should matter not at all if the question was asked insincerely, because in talking about it, the important matters are uncovered. To change the subject from the topic raised to questioning the person is just dishonorable, in my view.

I disagree. Motives can matter. A lot. Sincerity and good faith matter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

I don't concede that it is the default position, particularly in a setting such as Elder Ballard implies here, where someone approaches a bishop or other priesthood leader in private. I simply don't believe most bishops are that cynical (as "default position" would denote), though some might be, hence Elder Ballard's caution.

 

 

I'm not sure that this is the "default position." I agree that we should "give questioners the benefit of the doubt that they are already being sincere." I am less clear on the bit about "no need to unnecessarily emphasize sincerity when it comes to questions about faith and religion." I think it is possible for a person to be motivated to question the doctrines / practices / history of the Church more by a desire to nitpick or find fault rather than by "sincerity." Nevertheless, such a motive should not, I think, be presumed. A presumption of good faith and sincerity should prevail.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I should have been more clear.  I didn't mean the default position among the Church's Bishops; I don't have enough data to make such a statement.  I was referring more to my observation of frequent online interactions.  I appreciate Smac's final statement on the issue, though (emphasis mine).

[Teancum]

Actually, it seems the default position is to immediately question the sincerity of the doubter.  That's a rather harmful approach, IMO.

 

 

At least on this board.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

As an example, I could point out that "Regional", in the thread topic, is mispelled, but correcting someone's grammar and spelling seems condescending, rude, and doesn't really add to the discussion. (I sure hope my commas were all placed properly- If not I'll eagerly await Scott's correction)

Once or twice isn't a huge deal but Scott seems to think he's the grammar prophesor of MDDB. Again, condescending and rude.

You've made your point. Please take my comment for what it's worth and cease to derail calm's thread further on this matter.

[Teancum]

I don't concede that it is the default position, particularly in a setting such as Elder Ballard implies here, where someone approaches a bishop or other priesthood leader in private. I simply don't believe most bishops are that cynical (as "default position" would denote), though some might be, hence Elder Ballard's caution.

 

 

Why do questions in the LDS Church have to be dealt with in private?  Is there some special rule for the Church that requires this?  Most people are quite comfortable in may religions or other settings and asking and discussing respectfully controversial issues in an open way.  Why not so for the Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

At least on this board.

Whether or not that be the case, message boards were not what Elder Ballard was referring to, as far as I can tell.

[ttribe]

At least on this board.

 

Well...[ahem]...I didn't want to be too specific.

[ttribe]

Whether or not that be the case, message boards were not what Elder Ballard was referring to, as far as I can tell.

 

Wait, are you suggesting his counsel doesn't apply here?

[Teancum]

To say you don't care about using proper grammar is as much as to say you don't care about presenting a good impression and thus being more powerfully persuasive in your writing.

 

Your choice, I guess. But others may benefit from this example and explanation.

 

 

Everyone has their own expertise and strengths and weaknesses.  Are you as conversant to protocol in an area outside your own profession?  

[KevinG]

Why do questions in the LDS Church have to be dealt with in private?  Is there some special rule for the Church that requires this?  Most people are quite comfortable in may religions or other settings and asking and discussing respectfully controversial issues in an open way.  Why not so for the Church?

 

No - it is not required, and I've seen many controversial issues, and questions brought up and responded to politely in open classes.  My guess is that in advising the Bishops to handle questions respectfully the assumption was they are the most likely to field questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why do questions in the LDS Church have to be dealt with in private?  Is there some special rule for the Church that requires this?  Most people are quite comfortable in may religions or other settings and asking and discussing respectfully controversial issues in an open way.  Why not so for the Church?

I'm only saying that questions about the Church appear more in keeping with a sincere quest for knowledge and help when expressed in a setting other than standing on a soapbox engaged in public faultfinding, making an argument or trying to score debating points.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

At least on this board.

 

As long as I've been discussing religion on line, there has been a dedicated and persistent cadre of posters telling me I'm going to hell for my Mormon beliefs.  Despite that I really do try to answer questions genuinely.  However if I feel I've been trolled, I do troll back.

 

My attitude towards genuine seekers and questioners in the meat world tends to default towards believing their questions are genuine.