TheSkepticChristian Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: To defend the Church. WHy is that important? Shouldn't the Holy Ghost be enough?
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Wrong again, Scott. Everybody on this board already knows that what I am saying is true. Whether they admit it or not. I will say it again. Elder Ballard has no intention of exposing the young adults to Church history sufficiently to answer any question. Elder Ballard is sending the YSA out in rowboats to meet the Spanish Armada. Pure nonsense. But then you are the person who has convinced himself that two mutually exclusive statements can be true
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: WHy is that important? Shouldn't the Holy Ghost be enough? I've always heard that ... "truth needs no defending". It speaks for itself. Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 47 minutes ago, consiglieri said: What was occupying Elder Ballard's time and energy Tuesday night was telling members to prepare to defend him. To defend the Church. You really do make a hobby of twisting people's meanings. From Elder Ballards quote You yourself used: Quote We need to not hesitate preparing ourselves to face the world and anyone in it that might like to criticize the leadership of the Church. Sounds to me like consig was right on Scott. It is you who is mincing words. Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 31 minutes ago, CA Steve said: Would being able to give an explanation of Fanny Alger's place in Mormon history be part of what leadership might expect from an young adult in the basic church history requirements? According to Elder Ballard, yes. Except the reality is something a wee bit different.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: He said it in the context of answering criticisms of the Church and its doctrines. Much of the criticism directed at the Brethren is because of what they say and do when acting under the direction of Jesus Christ. Ergo, an attack on them in such an instance is tantamount to an attack on the Church and the faith of the Latter-day Saints. And an attack on Jesus. You forgot to say that an attack on the Brethren is tantamount to an attack on Jesus. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To defend the Church. You really do make a hobby of twisting people's meanings. I'm just taking his words at face value. No twisting necessary. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: WHy is that important? Shouldn't the Holy Ghost be enough? No kidding! And why can't the Church leaders just defend themselves? Why do they want other people to do it for them? A friendly warning: You are wearing out your welcome. You need to go elsewhere to disrespect religious leaders.
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: No kidding! And why can't the Church leaders just defend themselves? Why do they want other people to do it for them? Church leaders have always had over zealous self appointed "defenders" from the time of Adam. Of course JS also had an armed Body guard. Do the security Guards on temple square and in the GA's appartments carry? Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
salgare Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) Google search has advanced SO far in even the last three years or so. Dynamic HTLM pages with powerful yet simple services provided by google for even the smallest business or webpage enthusiast to put content on your non-related pages just because you have used a phrase on a search somewhere else. Maybe you have started noticing this as you use the web and you are getting advertisements via dhtml updates verses popups of totally non-related, but previously searched information. A sign of this is when the page first comes up and what you are trying to read keeps scrolling for awhile (google search services delay). The continued advancement of web technologies is the Church's worst enemy and there is no end in sight. Greg Prince talked about the conflicting categories of converts and "cradle Mormons" with the whole age spectrum of BIC from young teens through us older folks being equaling hit hard with this information age. The problem handling both of these two differing categories calls for different approaches. The Church has a tough balance to try and maintain in getting these youth inoculated without tipping the balance of exposure too far. Greg Prince also talked about the basic mentality differences between the Millennials and newer generations from their predecessors. Where the things that attract them as new converts and will hold them as current members are different from the past. This really is a comprehensive interview covering several issues these "defenders of the faith" are facing. http://athoughtfulfaith.org/greg-prince-analyzing-this-mormon-moment/ Scott has suggested that exposure to FairMormon as well as the essays will mostly cover what is needed for these youth to develop a shield of strength from what they are likely to encounter in the world. The following thread had some conversation of how a question pops up in a members mind and how they go to FairMormon and that single question may bring up three or four more. All of which the questioner is encouraged to continue to study out, presumably at FairMormon (or the essays). This is great for a single questioner, but when they are put out into the world they will need to have been exposed to the whole of the FairMormon question tree to truly be exposed to the issues they will face. By this time they are hopefully hardened enough to handle any site, they have progressed from being Chapel Mormons to inoculated Internet Mormons. As also noted in the following thread, this is also a slippy slope. Some are going to slip and fall, possibly knocking down family and friends with them. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66678-fairmormon-board-chairman-on-its-purpose-mission/ But what other Choice does the Church really have? Edited January 8, 2016 by salgare
carbon dioxide Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: And an attack on Jesus. You forgot to say that an attack on the Brethren is tantamount to an attack on Jesus. An attack on the brethren is not an attack on Jesus unless the brethren are representing a position that Jesus has. Then an attack on the brethren is an attack on Jesus. As it says in the scriptures whether it be by my voice of the voice of my servants it is the same. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: And an attack on Jesus. You forgot to say that an attack on the Brethren is tantamount to an attack on Jesus. No one here needs to say that. Jesus already did that for us when He commissioned the Seventy: Quote He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. 1
Ahab Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: You have to realize that Church leaders like to talk about themselves in the third person. Elder Ballard is a Church leader. So when he says he wants the members to prepare to face anyone that might like to criticize the leadership of the Church, he is referring to himself. He is saying to the YSA, "I want you to prepare yourselves to defend me." When you get to the heart of the message, it isn't very flattering. Not just him but yes he is one of our Church leaders, and the best reason I can think of for why we (those who follow them) need to prepare ourselves to face (he said face and not the word you used, face as in the opposite of turn away or falter in front of) those who like to criticize our Lord (who is also one of our Church leaders, the main one) and our other Church leaders is so that we can stand firm in our faith in the face of criticism from those who mainly just like to criticize. We (as those who follow our Church leaders) need to be as firm in our faith as our leaders, themselves, otherwise... well, we just won't be firm and confident about what we stand for. 1
oremites Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 hours ago, consiglieri said: He has no intention of actually allowing the young adults to be formally educated on Church history such that they can answer any question. And how exactly is Elder Ballard planning to not allow that? Excommunicating anyone attempting to get a formal education in Church history? Sending in the Danites? 6 hours ago, consiglieri said: Elder Ballard has no intention of exposing the young adults to Church history sufficiently to answer any question. Let's talk about how the church actually works. Here's his quote again with emphasis added. “YOU have to be strengthened to know how to answer some of the criticisms that people are thrusting at the Church. YOU need to know YOUR Church history well enough that YOU can answer any questions that anybody asks YOU about the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon or the restoration of the priesthood or any other basic doctrinal, plan-of-salvation question. Why? Because YOU lead the way. We need to not hesitate PREPARING OURSELVES to face the world and anyone in it that might like to criticize the leadership of the Church.” I only have this quote, so I'm making some assumptions here about the rest of the talk. Elder Ballard just told the young adults to prepare themselves and he didn't give any approved list of church-correlated study aids or programs. He gave them an assignment and then (here's the shocking part) left it entirely up to them to figure out what and how much to study. He had the unmitigated gall to put all the burden on them. And why is that? Because the church isn't about providing all the answers and a comfy cocoon where we can be protected from all strife and hardship. The church is about personal growth. We keep getting told that we're the children of God with infinite potential. Well, we're not going to reach any of that potential if we don't get up off our couches and start doing something ourselves. Sure, Elder Ballard can defend himself and the church, but why should he have all the fun? So, getting back to what you said, Elder Ballard's nefarious plot for exposing young adults to church history appears to be to tell them it's important and letting them take it from there. In other words, he's treating them like adults instead of helpless children requiring the brethren to spoon-feed them. 4
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 hours ago, Zakuska said: I've always heard that ... "truth needs no defending". It speaks for itself. What a beautiful lie....that truth will always win out. 1
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: No kidding! And why can't the Church leaders just defend themselves? Why do they want other people to do it for them? So you are suggesting that if someone in my area speaks badly about Church leaders in my area falsely that the best course of action would be to call an apostle and have them come talk to the guy? 1
halconero Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 13 hours ago, consiglieri said: Elder Ballard is blowing smoke with this one. He has no intention of actually allowing the young adults to be formally educated on Church history such that they can answer any question. Maybe he is really putting emphasis on the word "basic" in this sentence. And why does it always come down to the concern about Church leaders being criticized? That is the cardinal sin in Mormonism. Criticizing the leaders. They're a touchy lot. This is silly. I've been in three different institute programs across two countries this year, each of which had a Gospel topics class which addressed issues ranging from the priesthood restriction to multiple accounts of the First Vision. Sure, they have what others might call a bias towards faithfulness, but what would you call this other than the formal education of young adults? 3
CV75 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 14 hours ago, consiglieri said: So basically Elder Ballard was just saying to answer the question that should have been asked. No, he’s saying the tools of the faithful apply to and operate within certain bounds and conditions (see D&C 88:38-40, notably 40). When the questions are bound and conditioned on destroying faith, there is no good answer but to “turn away” until the one asking is ready to ask better questions (the same principle as James 4:3). “Turning away” may simply involve changing the conversation to a more edifying direction; it is not necessarily abandonment. This is how the Lord works in personal revelation (D&C 8:9-11), and how He teaches us to work in revealing the truth in personal communications. He's saying don't bother tackling questions that are designed (whether by the questioner or by those influencing the questioner) to direct away from faith, legitimate "Church history, the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon or the restoration of the priesthood or any other basic doctrinal, plan-of-salvation question." These have to be kept in proper perspective, and the questioner helped to do the same. If someone has a scholarly interest in the human and secular behaviors and aspects of the LDS they would know better than to ask such questions.
Rain Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 15 hours ago, consiglieri said: Wrong again, Scott. Everybody on this board already knows that what I am saying is true. Whether they admit it or not. I will say it again. Elder Ballard has no intention of exposing the young adults to Church history sufficiently to answer any question. Elder Ballard is sending the YSA out in rowboats to meet the Spanish Armada. If so, I am reminded of Gideon and Midianites. 2 hours ago, halconero said: This is silly. I've been in three different institute programs across two countries this year, each of which had a Gospel topics class which addressed issues ranging from the priesthood restriction to multiple accounts of the First Vision. Sure, they have what others might call a bias towards faithfulness, but what would you call this other than the formal education of young adults? Strangely, I heard some of these things in institute 25-30 years ago. My children hear about them at home and in seminary. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: An attack on the brethren is not an attack on Jesus unless the brethren are representing a position that Jesus has. Then an attack on the brethren is an attack on Jesus. As it says in the scriptures whether it be by my voice of the voice of my servants it is the same. You just denied my statement and then agreed with it. In just three sentences.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: No one here needs to say that. Jesus already did that for us when He commissioned the Seventy: And Hamba rushes in to cement my case. Thanks!
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 11 hours ago, Ahab said: those who like to criticize our Lord (who is also one of our Church leaders, the main one) and our other Church leaders is so that we can stand firm in our faith in the face of criticism from those who mainly just like to criticize. And Ahab makes it unanimous!
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 9 hours ago, oremites said: Because the church isn't about providing all the answers and a comfy cocoon where we can be protected from all strife and hardship. What church are you talking about? Because this is exactly what the LDS Church has been about for the past half-decade.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: So you are suggesting that if someone in my area speaks badly about Church leaders in my area falsely that the best course of action would be to call an apostle and have them come talk to the guy? LOL! The problem with that plan is you can't call an apostle. You can't even contact an apostle. If you write a letter to an apostle, it gets sent back to your stake president. If you shoot the "apostle-signal" into the night sky, nobody shows up at Commissioner Gordon's office. You get the point. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: When the questions are bound and conditioned on destroying faith, there is no good answer but to “turn away” until the one asking is ready to ask better questions (the same principle as James 4:3). “ Like I said, answering the question that "should" have been asked. You know. The "better questions" to which you refer. 1
Recommended Posts