Regiional Conference: Apolgetic Moment

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I'm saying his counsel seems to have had reference to a one-on-one counseling situation as opposed to an online debate. Perhaps my perception is wrong; feel free to show me, if so.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think I agree with what you say here.

 

But what is "the meat world." Is that a case of an over-eager auto-correct function?

[Teancum]

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

 

 

In my personal experience my bishop, SP and close friends have been very understanding of my concerns.

[KevinG]

I think I agree with what you say here.

 

But what is "the meat world." Is that a case of an over-eager auto-correct function?

 

Real world - people are made of meat

 

vs.

 

Virtual world - people are represented by pixelated images

[Scott Lloyd]

Real world - people are made of meat

 

vs.

 

Virtual world - people are represented by pixelated images

Got it.

 

Must be a new meme that I'm unacquainted with.

[ttribe]

I'm saying his counsel seems to have been given in the context of a one-on-one counseling situation as opposed to an online debate. Perhaps my perception is wrong; feel free to show me, if so.

 

I guess I just don't see the need to interpret the counsel as being restricted to such a situation.  Can you help me understand why it wouldn't be applied generally?

Edited September 15, 2015 by ttribe

[Scott Lloyd]

In my personal experience my bishop, SP and close friends have been very understanding of my concerns.

I would hope that's the rule rather than the exception. But so long as there are exceptions there would be a need for counsel such as that from Elder Ballard.

[KevinG]

Wait!  Wait!  Are we about to engage in a conversation about how people who come to the Mormon Discussion and Dialogue board to tell Mormon's they are full of it, need to be treated with the same respect and deference as a faithful member entering his Bishop's office and voicing a concern about his religion?

 

Pass the popcorn!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess I just don't see the need to interpret the counsel as being restricted to such a situation.  Can you help me understood why it wouldn't be applied generally?

I think that's already been done here.

 

There are certain situations in the public arena where the intent is clearly and obviously to find fault, hinder or destroy the faith of others and strike a blow at the Church of Jesus Christ. In such cases, the truth needs to be vigorously defended for the sake of innocent but uninformed individuals who might be looking on.

 

I commend to you Smac's post, which I can't copy and paste from just now because it's on a prior page. I'll get it for you.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here it is. And it's in direct response to a post from you. Did you miss it?

 

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.

(emphasis mine)

 

This was good too:

 

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.

 

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

Wait!  Wait!  Are we about to engage in a conversation about how people who come to the Mormon Discussion and Dialogue board to tell Mormon's they are full of it, need to be treated with the same respect and deference as a faithful member entering his Bishop's office and voicing a concern about his religion?

 

Pass the popcorn!

 

 

While I don't doubt there are many who come to this board, and others, "to tell Mormon's (sic) they are full of it..." there are certainly plenty with genuine concerns who seem to be lumped in with the former rather than given their own category to which respect is applied.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I think that's already been done here.

 

There are certain situations in the public arena where the intent is clearly and obviously to find fault, hinder or destroy the faith of others and strike a blow at the Church of Jesus Christ. In such cases, the truth needs to be vigorously defended for the sake of innocent but uninformed individuals who might be looking on.

 

I commend to you Smac's post, which I can't copy and paste from just now because it's on a prior page. I'll get it for you.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here it is. And it's in direct response to a post from you. Did you miss it?

 

(emphasis mine)

 

This was good too:

 

Should it be a situation "when" as opposed to "where" since you are describing the situation and not the public arena?

[ttribe]

Here it is. And it's in direct response to a post from you. Did you miss it?

 

Obviously not: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537425

 

However, it wasn't obvious that I should assume he speaks for you and I was asking you what you meant.  Should I assume he speaks for you going forward?

Edited September 15, 2015 by ttribe

[KevinG]

While I don't doubt there are many who come to this board, and others, "to tell Mormon's (sic) they are full of it..." there are certainly plenty with genuine concerns who seem to be lumped in with the former rather than given their own category to which respect is applied.

 

There are also those who genuinely want to prove that their decision to leave the church can be validated.  And those who seek to bolster their faith by showing up critics in a contest of wits...  

 

In fact there are almost every type of poster imaginable.

 

However- bullies are often the first to object to how they are treated in return.

[ttribe]

There are also those who genuinely want to prove that their decision to leave the church can be validated.  And those who seek to bolster their faith by showing up critics in a contest of wits...  

 

In fact there are almost every type of poster imaginable.

 

However- bullies are often the first to object to how they are treated in return.

 

Do you have someone specific mind here?

[KevinG]

Do you have someone specific mind here?

 

No.

 

But I could find plenty of examples among critics and apologists on this board.  

 

Having said that this is one of the more civilized boards in existence, and about the only one I frequent at all.

[ttribe]

No.

 

But I could find plenty of examples among critics and apologists on this board.  

 

Having said that this is one of the more civilized boards in existence, and about the only one I frequent at all.

 

Gotcha.  I agree with your statement I put in bold above.

[KevinG]

Gotcha.  I agree with your statement I put in bold above.

 

I do see a difference between how questions, genuine or loaded, get treated in a pubic forum vs. a church meeting vs. a Bishop's office.

 

In a more virtuous world perhaps there wouldn't be such distinctions?

[stemelbow]

I think that's already been done here.

 

There are certain situations in the public arena where the intent is clearly and obviously to find fault, hinder or destroy the faith of others and strike a blow at the Church of Jesus Christ. In such cases, the truth needs to be vigorously defended for the sake of innocent but uninformed individuals who might be looking on.

 

I commend to you Smac's post, which I can't copy and paste from just now because it's on a prior page. I'll get it for you.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here it is. And it's in direct response to a post from you. Did you miss it?

 

(emphasis mine)

 

This was good too:

Not sure why it is helpful to question sincerity and the faith of another in such situations. if you have you've already lost, in my mind. Best to just answer as best you can and leave the motivations factor be on the judgment of any reader. By reacting as if it's good and helpful to complain about the faith or intent of the questioner is probably more problematic for any lurking member than not, I'd think. it either teaches them to react inappropriate to people is ok, or they see the member's attacks as the problem.

I think the position itself should be in consideration rather than the person who is asking, question, provoking or explaining a concern.

[ttribe]

I do see a difference between how questions, genuine or loaded, get treated in a pubic forum vs. a church meeting vs. a Bishop's office.

 

In a more virtuous world perhaps there wouldn't be such distinctions?

 

Yep.

 

Not sure why it is helpful to question sincerity and the faith of another in such situations. if you have you've already lost, in my mind. Best to just answer as best you can and leave the motivations factor be on the judgment of any reader. By reacting as if it's good and helpful to complain about the faith or intent of the questioner is probably more problematic for any lurking member than not, I'd think. it either teaches them to react inappropriate to people is ok, or they see the member's attacks as the problem.

I think the position itself should be in consideration rather than the person who is asking, question, provoking or explaining a concern.

 

Because mind reading is so much more interesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously not: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537425

 

However, it wasn't obvious that I should assume he speaks for you and I was asking you what you meant.  Should I assume he speaks for you going forward?

You asked:

 

Can you help me understood why it wouldn't be applied generally?

 

Did Smac not do a good enough job helping you understand that? If he did, why would you see the need to put the question to me?

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

You asked:

 

Did Smac not do a good enough job helping you understand that? If he did, why would you see the need to put the question to me?

 

Because you specifically stated:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537433

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537442

 

I was corresponding with you at that point.

[Scott Lloyd]

Because you specifically stated:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537433

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66049-regiional-conference-apolgetic-moment/?p=1209537442

 

I was corresponding with you at that point.

I still don't see why you have a need to put a question to me that had been adequately answered by Smac, saying that you needed me to "help [you] understand," -- unless you don't believe Smac's responses were adequate.

 

In any event, I do believe Smac gave good responses -- which is why I included his responses in my own by reference. I really don't see a problem with doing that.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

I still don't see why you have a need to put a question to me that had been adequately answered by Smac, saying that you needed me to "help [you] understand," -- unless you don't believe Smac's responses were adequate.

 

Good grief, I was just trying to better understand your opinion.

Edited September 15, 2015 by ttribe

[smac97]

Not sure why it is helpful to question sincerity and the faith of another in such situations. If you have you've already lost, in my mind.

I don't think priesthood leaders should ignore things. When a bishop is working with someone who is struggling with doubts, I think he should proceed on the assumption that the individual has a sincere, straightforward, good faith basis for expressing such doubts. But I think it's possible for a person to not vent concerns altogether in good faith, and that a bishop may be able to perceive that through the course of various discussions, through the individual's responses to the bishop's counsel, and through the Spirit. If, at that point, the bishop feels that good faith and sincerity is not fully present, it may be appropriate to address that. It does not seem to make sense at all for a bishop to disregard information and signals that the person is not sincere.

Best to just answer as best you can and leave the motivations factor be on the judgment of any reader.

I have been speaking of a person expressing concerns to a bishop. Not online discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

I feel badly for the Bishops who are faced with answering questions they're not equipped to answer. They may not even be equipped to hear the question.

That's where the Holy Spirit enters in.  Each bishop has special powers of discernment and should exercise them.