Wishing for answers

[Calm]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

Coming back this last time, by invitation at MDB....

Sal, I am not sure why a poster who is not connected in any way with moderation (hagoth7) suggesting you (and others?) might post here has anything to do with how moderators should treat you.  Moderators have responded pretty much the same way since the beginning of the board.  Posters should probably just assume that won't change to avoid frustration due to false expectations.  Updated Guidelines do not suggested any fundamental change.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/8/2016 at 1:03 AM, DBMormon said:

Your welcome to answer them but I wish the Brethren would answer these directly.

"God’s kingdom, where questions are honored" - Elder Oaks

HERE ARE MY 21 SINCERE QUESTIONS I HOPE THE BRETHREN WOULD HONOR BY ANSWERING EACH OF THEM AS THEY ARE.

These are sincere questions I have that would go a long way to resolve my doubt and even more my frustration.  It doesn't even matter what the answers are, only that my leaders be vulnerable enough to answer them without changing the questions or avoiding them.  I realize that it may seem as though some questions are duplicated but I assure you they are different to me.  Please honor that.  Brethren, I need you to answer these, please.  Gone are the days where you can change my question or deflect it to apologists or scholars, or avoid them altogether.  Even an "I don't know" would go really far to help me.

.....................................................................

These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine.  Just don't try to disguise them as questions.  In other cases, the issues are those which are regularly discussed on this board and elsewhere.  There are plenty of scholarly discussions available in books and articles.  Indeed, you should bring guests onto your radio interviews who can adequately summarize the nature of some of those discussions.  You would be performing a real service for those who don't understand the issues.

It is silly and intemperate of you to imagine that the Brethren would allow you to hold their feet to the fire on these or any other issues.  However, now that you have a list, deal with them one at a time.  Twenty-one questions is just a game.  Get serious.  Get Reel.

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM, consiglieri said:

If you are talking about Bill Reel, my experience has been that he is a reasonable sort who can be dealt with most effectively by engaging him honestly.

Like me, Bill has already been down the apologetic road.

He knows the pat-answers and side-stepping that so frequently parade as "answers."

All he wants is honesty.

The question is whether we will be able to be as honest with Bill as he is with us.

Thank you.  And yes what the church's answers are to these matter little.  What matters is that they actually take them on and are vunerable in answering them.  Thank you for your kind words

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 2:47 PM, consiglieri said:

Do you ever tire of telepathically declaring others are not asking questions in good faith as an excuse for dodging the actual issues?

I don't think so, his energy seems never ending

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 3:39 PM, pogi said:

You keep saying that your questions are sincere, and I generally give people the benefit of the doubt.  I have no problems with sincere and honest questions that have no ulterior motive other than faithful inquiry.  But how do you expect your questions to be perceived as "sincere", when you claim to already have the answers to most of them?   

You said:

Again, to me, this does not sound like sincere and honest inquiry, it sounds more like finger pointing.  In essence you are saying to the brethren, rather, about the brethren (publicly, while they are unable to defend or explain themselves) that they have created an expectation and are failing to meet it.  In other words, you think they have intentionally created the expectation that anyone can ask any question at any time, and the brethren should be willing to respond transparently to any and all personal questions - but you would prefer over the pulpit, or in some public and official way.  If you were sincere, I think you would recognize that is not what they were really saying. If you were sincere, I think you would know that is not realistic in the least. 

As I have already said, it doesn't appear that you are looking for a private answer to your personal questions.  Even if your answers were given privately, it seems your intent would be to broadcast it to the world.  Your motive seems to be spelled out here:

 These are not a sincere questions of private inquiry.  It appears to be a manipulative attempt at a paradigm shift.

In essence you are saying, "answer my questions.  If you don't, then you are liars and are brushing me off.  If you do, then I win, and there will be a major paradigm shift in the church, wether that is what you feel is right or not."  

Even if your questions are sincere, surely you can see that they will not be perceived that way when they are framed like that.

 

 You're over analyzing. Please hear me and please  assume my intentions are sincere. I have worked out the answers for my own interpretation of the Gospel in these questions. What I mean by that is if someone asked me these questions I could give them my two cents on what I think.    What I'm wanting is the church to be willing to take these questions on it to show their vulnerability and willingness to except the consequences of the truth and he answers to these by putting themselves out there and answering them. Even if the answer is I don't know or if the answer is what leads to more faith or even if the answer diminishes faith.  

Edited April 10, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 4:21 PM, pogi said:

Anyone who buys into what he is saying.  Yes, he has something to say.

If I am wrong, and I have been wrong before, DBMormon can explain exactly what he meant here:

In other words, "they are liars."  He made it abundantly clear that his intent is not to get answers to sincere questions, but his "issue" and intent is to publicly defame them.  When I perceive that happening, you bet I will get involved in a thread, especially when I question their intention.

Here are some more clues to his intent:

He is pushing for a paradigm shift, not looking for private answers to personal questions.

Not liars... That is too strong and not something I push as an accusation.  Rather I think they hide from the repercussions of our theology and history.  They want membership to hold certain stances but refuse to walk the logic of those things back.   I think by them choosing to engage the questions I have lined out forces the church to acknowledge the repercussions of its claims when they are sat side-by-side with the facts which in turn I believe would help us as a faith put off some of the nonsense and grow up a little

 

for example we have leaders in the past who have said you can know of a surety that someone is teaching  false doctrine when they receive revelation outside their stewardship.  When at the same time Nephi received revelation on the mountain to build the ship while Lehi who is the prophet and had stewardship for revelation to his family as well as his people being one in the same was alive and well.  In Mormonism we say a lot of things, in those things don't always stand up to scrutiny. If leaders were to answer questions like the ones I have lined out, some of the nonsense would have to go away

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Mystery Meat said:

I agree with you. I like Bill, but I think his approach has always been that he is trying to force or create a space within Mormon Theology and Mormon Culture for a type of faith that I do not think is compatible. I think you captured it perfectly here. That is what he is really after. He is trying to make everyone else's faith look like his.

 In some ways you're right and so is the post you were responding to. My cognitive dissonance is connected to the fact of all the pieces don't fit because often Mormon leaders are trying to force a round peg into a square hole. If we are forced to let go of the things that don't fit our faith will be more inclusive and more  expansive.   In the end that would allow  The tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Latter Day Saints like me who want to stay in the church who cannot make it work as currently constituted, the room to stay in the faith 

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 5:01 PM, strappinglad said:

I have no training in the Law, but I have been told that a good lawyer should never ask a question in court that he does not already know the answer to. DBMormon has indicated that he has answers to many of his questions , so now he wants his preferable answers  stated by the Brethren so that he can claim that the Church is now much more transparent. 

 Absolutely not. This is wrong. I'm not looking for them to give the answers that I currently would give to the questions. I don't need their answers to mess with mine. What I need is them to be vulnerable and show me they're , Regardless of the repercussions of the stand they take, take that stand and stated the claiman, Regardless of the repercussions of the stand they take, take that stand,  state it,  claim it,  and own.   That would go miles to help me in my faith journey. To present it feels like when the questions get sticky they prefer to avoid them. That they realize answer the questions watc that would go miles to help me in my faith journey. To present it feels like when the questions get sticky they prefer to avoid them. That they realize answer the questions walks them  into the illogical mess so they steer clear of it. And by doing so they come off as not vunerable.

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 5:08 PM, CountryBoy said:

Frankly asking anyone about how much they make or do not make shows a distinct lack of class

So do a lot of other things

[DBMormon]

On April 8, 2016 at 5:10 PM, consiglieri said:

I think I see what you are saying, here.

My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).

My take is that he is juxtaposing questions that LDS leaders refuse to answer (or even acknowledge) with their recent pronouncement that "gone are the days" when any questions should be disregarded.

On the one hand, the LDS Church is making a big deal about the new transparency and how no questions are off the table and should all be answered.

On the other hand, Bill has provided a list of questions that the LDS Church considers off the table and refuses to answer.

How did I do, Bill?

Exactly

[DBMormon]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine.  Just don't try to disguise them as questions.  In other cases, the issues are those which are regularly discussed on this board and elsewhere.  There are plenty of scholarly discussions available in books and articles.  Indeed, you should bring guests onto your radio interviews who can adequately summarize the nature of some of those discussions.  You would be performing a real service for those who don't understand the issues.

It is silly and intemperate of you to imagine that the Brethren would allow you to hold their feet to the fire on these or any other issues.  However, now that you have a list, deal with them one at a time.  Twenty-one questions is just a game.  Get serious.  Get Reel.

Your being rude and making assumptions which are wrong which I expect from others here but not you.  These are questions.  They are sincere.  They are meaningful to me.  Not that the answers inform me of the questions, rather they inform me where the church wants to stand on these issues, avoid the logic of, or even answer "we don't know" which would also be helpful.  Is the church mature enough walk with me down the logic of where these questions lead holding the ground they want to hold.  Is the church mature enough to answer these questions or not.  I don't think it is but hope someday it might.  

[smac97]

Quote

There is no good faith in these inquiries.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why?  Can you see into DB's mind and heart? 

Nope  But I can read his posts and make reasonable inferences therefrom.

Quote

Are they lacking good faith simply because you personally don't have an issue with the questions he asks?

How do you know I 'don't have an issue with the questions he asks?"  Can you see into my mind and heart?

Or did you read my post and make an inference?  (It happens to be an incorrect inference, BTW.)

Quote

The LDS Church really is a narrow institution isn't it.  And really let's be honest, open inquiry is not welcome.

The Church has made great strides in being more "open."  And there has long been large amounts of quality, faithful scholarship for those who are willing to crack open a book now and then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Quote

I think I see what you are saying, here.

My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).

My take is that he is juxtaposing questions that LDS leaders refuse to answer (or even acknowledge) with their recent pronouncement that "gone are the days" when any questions should be disregarded.

On the one hand, the LDS Church is making a big deal about the new transparency and how no questions are off the table and should all be answered.

On the other hand, Bill has provided a list of questions that the LDS Church considers off the table and refuses to answer.

How did I do, Bill?

23 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Exactly

Well, I feel rather vindicated in my assessment of the questions in the OP.  Your "questions" were not really intended as such (in that you have admitted that you aren't "so much ... seeking for answers" to them).  There were ulterior motives in play.  That seemed rather obvious from the tone and content of the OP, but I'm glad you've fessed up.

This is why I have declined to address the substance of these "questions."  They were not posed in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[DBMormon]

Let me give an example.  The Race and Priesthood Essay

1.) the Church uses ambiguous language so that both camps (those who think the ban was a racist error and those who think the ban came from God) can both walk away from the essay thinking they are right.

2.) At the same time the Church seems uncomfortable tackling this question head on and stating one way or the other.  Which is fine if we assume they don't know and simply don't want to be guessing.

3.) Except they also seem uncomfortable saying "we don't know" .  

There are repercussions from this.  

A,) If they admit it was a racist error, membership has to come to grips with prophets being dead wrong and not just one prophet but prophet after prophet after prophet.  And not just prophets but 14 other prophets seers and revelators one after the other.  Do we want want membership gauging how much faith and trust to put into these men knowing they can make serious errors that marginalized and hurt others in a serious way.

B.) If they state clearly the ban was from God it would be a PR nightmare and they seem as a group to have moved past wanting to ever go there.

C.) If they say "We don't know" then this results in the same result as A.) except to a lesser extent.

The Church seems like it simply doesn't want to go there.  It seems to me they are still too immature to tolerate the repercussions of our theology and history.  That in essence they want it both ways.  They want to distance themselves from the race ban as a racist mistake from years ago but they also want the average member today to not comprehend that leaders are capable of these kinds of serious errors.  If they ever take the question head on they would be compelled to reconcile this paradox.  when we as individuals or groups come face to face with paradoxes we become better at putting ourselves in the shoes of others and thinking beyond what is best for me.

Each of these questions presents a paradox that I feel the Church is still too immature to want to come face to face with.  It shows me the Church is still an unsafe place for me and others on the margins or in the borderlands.  I pray the Church becomes more willing to step into this space.  Once they can answer these questions and own and claim the answers publicly, regardless of the answers, it will become a safer space.

 

EDITED TO ADD:  If anyone wants me to dissect any of the other questions in this way, let me know.  I can't do them all but happy to provide a few other explanations.

 

Lastly my intentions are not to hurt or destroy but rather to create a safe space for those who feel an increasing distance between themselves and the institution.

Edited April 10, 2016 by DBMormon

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Nope  But I can read his posts and make reasonable inferences therefrom.

How do you know I 'don't have an issue with the questions he asks?"  Can you see into my mind and heart?

Or did you read my post and make an inference?  (It happens to be an incorrect inference, BTW.)

The Church has made great strides in being more "open."  And there has long been large amounts of quality, faithful scholarship for those who are willing to crack open a book now and then.

Thanks,

-Smac

1:  Ok.   But your inferences certainly may be incorrect.

2:. I made no inference.  I asked you a question.  I asked you if you thought that his questions lacked good faith becUse you don't have an issue with them.   

3:  I have cracked open many books an LDS subjects.  My guess is DB had as well.

 

 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Quote

These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine.  Just don't try to disguise them as questions.  In other cases, the issues are those which are regularly discussed on this board and elsewhere.  There are plenty of scholarly discussions available in books and articles.  Indeed, you should bring guests onto your radio interviews who can adequately summarize the nature of some of those discussions.  You would be performing a real service for those who don't understand the issues.

It is silly and intemperate of you to imagine that the Brethren would allow you to hold their feet to the fire on these or any other issues.  However, now that you have a list, deal with them one at a time.  Twenty-one questions is just a game.  Get serious.  Get Reel.

Your being rude and making assumptions which are wrong which I expect from others here but not you.  

His assumption was that what you presented in the OP was "not so much questions you want answered."  You just barely admitted responded to Consig's comment ("My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).") with "exactly."  But when Robert makes a nearly identical observation ("These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine."), you accuse him of being "rude and making assumptions which are wrong."

You can't have it both ways, brah.  You can't admit to your fellow critic that he is "exactly" right when he makes an observation, but that Robert is "rude and making assumptions" when he makes that same observation."

Given the tone and content of the OP, it's rather apparent that both Consig and Robert (and myself) have accurately surmised that your "questions" (or at least a sizable portion of them) were not "questions" at all.

Quote

These are questions.  They are sincere.  

Most of your "questions" are not "questions."  They are opinions / accusations / slurs / criticisms presented as a guise / pretext / pretense of being "questions."  Questions presented in such circumstances are axiomatically not "sincere."

Quote

They are meaningful to me.  

As you like.  But don't expect us to go along with the charade that they are questions being asked in good faith.

Quote

Not that the answers inform me of the questions, rather they inform me where the church wants to stand on these issues, avoid the logic of, or even answer "we don't know" which would also be helpful.  Is the church mature enough walk with me down the logic of where these questions lead holding the ground they want to hold.  Is the church mature enough to answer these questions or not.  I don't think it is but hope someday it might.  

Codswallop.  This "is the church mature enough" is just silliness.  You sound like a bully issuing a schoolyard taunt: "Are you man enough to meet me at the flagpole after school?"

Get reel.

-Smac

[DBMormon]

Just now, Teancum said:

1:  Ok.   But your inferences certainly may be incorrect.

2:. I made no inference.  I asked you a question.  I asked you if you thought that his questions lacked good faith becUse you don't have an issue with them.   

3:  I have cracked open many books an LDS subjects.  My guess is DB had as well.

 

 

I am well read, less read than some, more read than most.  But people who agree and disagree with me have read more and read less.  it is sad to see LDS who aspire to be better attack in ways that can only be done by making assumptions of my motives or purpose.  That says more of them then me.  If you notice I am hardly resorting to said behavior I am am making an effort to let their behavior speak for them rather than get into the fray.  I had not always done that.  And for that I am sorry.  I feel I have made a lot of steps in self improvement in the last few months.  I pray I don't fall here and am trying not to.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  Ok.   But your inferences certainly may be incorrect.

My inference has been echoed by Consig (certainly no friend to the Church) and Robert, and confirmed by DB.

Thanks,

-Smac

[flameburns623]

7 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Your being rude and making assumptions which are wrong which I expect from others here but not you.  These are questions.  They are sincere.  They are meaningful to me.  Not that the answers inform me of the questions, rather they inform me where the church wants to stand on these issues, avoid the logic of, or even answer "we don't know" which would also be helpful.  Is the church mature enough walk with me down the logic of where these questions lead holding the ground they want to hold.  Is the church mature enough to answer these questions or not.  I don't think it is but hope someday it might.  

DBMormon fits the description of the Chaim Potok quote I have used here one or two times. 

To paraphrase: "I like his questions. I don't like his answers. But I like his questions, very much". I believe that's from The Promise, sequel to The Chosen.

Constitutionally and ideologically, Bill and I are very different folk, to judge from what I have seen of him via his podcasts and on Facebook. I'm socially conservative, even traditionalist, he is far more progressive. 

I felt, several years back, that LDS apologetics often felt a little too 'pat', offered solutions whose answers were a little bit too easy, sometimes involved a lot of sleight of hand. It was one of a few things--and not even the most important of those things--which led to my decision to move on. 

I've changed only in this respect: I've realized that a lot of Catholic and Evangelical apologetics have similar problems and issues. If LDS history and theology are messy, the same can be said, if one allows for one's biases and predispositions, in mainstream Christianity. 

Compare Eastern Orthodox patristics to RCC patristics and you realize: it isn't clear, at all, that the Universal Church recognized the primacy of the Roman Patriarchate as head over all othet Patriarchs.

Take a closer look at contemporary archaeology and you realize that the  Biblical books of Samuel look quite like the Israel of the 6th Century BC but not so much like the Palestine of Saul, David, and Solomon. 

Realizing that fair questions can be asked even about things I once took for granted in mainstream Christianity has been one factor leading me to reconsider my departure from the LDS Church.

And Bill's podcasts, some of them, have been/are being helpful signposts for directions to apprehend a way back.

Not an "iron rod", but instead more of a Liahona.

Not a passenger train on a fixed route and fixed rails, but an all-terrain vehicle with gps.

Thanks, Bill.

[DBMormon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His assumption was that what you presented in the OP was "not so much questions you want answered."  You just barely admitted responded to Consig's comment ("My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).") with "exactly."  But when Robert makes a nearly identical observation ("These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine."), you accuse him of being "rude and making assumptions which are wrong."

You can't have it both ways, brah.  You can't admit to your fellow critic that he is "exactly" right when he makes an observation, but that Robert is "rude and making assumptions" when he makes that same observation."

Given the tone and content of the OP, it's rather apparent that both Consig and Robert (and myself) have accurately surmised that your "questions" (or at least a sizable portion of them) were not "questions" at all.

Most of your "questions" are not "questions."  They are opinions / accusations / slurs / criticisms presented as a guise / pretext / pretense of being "questions."  Questions presented in such circumstances are axiomatically not "sincere."

As you like.  But don't expect us to go along with the charade that they are questions being asked in good faith.

Codswallop.  This "is the church mature enough" is just silliness.  You sound like a bully issuing a schoolyard taunt: "Are you man enough to meet me at the flagpole after school?"

Get reel.

-Smac

your missing the nuance that stands between the two.  I asked these questions as the answers to them matter.  Not because I simply need an answer to these questions.  I already have personal answers to them.  Rather I need to hear the Church's answers to these questions.  Again what their answer is matters little but rather I need to see if the Church is mature enough to be willing.  We stress humility, willingness, and Charity in our faith and if the Church would ever be willing to answer the questions head on, it would demonstrate to me all three of these sufficient enough for me to regain trust in the Church as a safe space for me and tens of thousands of others like me who want to stay in the Church but feel the Church is not a safe space.  

I agreed with the poster who understood this and insinuated my motives were upright and I called out the poster who wrote me off because he used language that indicated he judged my motives as insincere.

[DBMormon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His assumption was that what you presented in the OP was "not so much questions you want answered."  You just barely admitted responded to Consig's comment ("My take on the questions wasn't so much that Bill is seeking for answers to these questions (although some of them I am sure he is).") with "exactly."  But when Robert makes a nearly identical observation ("These are not so much questions you want answered, Bill (many are already well answered and nothing further need be said), as that they are opinions you want to express -- which is fine."), you accuse him of being "rude and making assumptions which are wrong."

You can't have it both ways, brah.  You can't admit to your fellow critic that he is "exactly" right when he makes an observation, but that Robert is "rude and making assumptions" when he makes that same observation."

Given the tone and content of the OP, it's rather apparent that both Consig and Robert (and myself) have accurately surmised that your "questions" (or at least a sizable portion of them) were not "questions" at all.

Most of your "questions" are not "questions."  They are opinions / accusations / slurs / criticisms presented as a guise / pretext / pretense of being "questions."  Questions presented in such circumstances are axiomatically not "sincere."

As you like.  But don't expect us to go along with the charade that they are questions being asked in good faith.

Codswallop.  This "is the church mature enough" is just silliness.  You sound like a bully issuing a schoolyard taunt: "Are you man enough to meet me at the flagpole after school?"

Get reel.

-Smac

you too are rude.  but again that speaks more of you.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

you too are rude.  but again that speaks more of you.

Baloney.  Calling a spade a spade isn't "rude."  Recognizing that questions are not being asked in good faith isn't "rude."

-Smac

[DBMormon]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Baloney.  Calling a spade a spade isn't "rude."  Recognizing that questions are not being asked in good faith isn't "rude."

-Smac

May he warm your shoulders.  GBY

[UtahTexan]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Most people with training in the law know answers are "elicited," not "solicited."

I pick my words for a reason....

 

\I did not realize you would need explanations

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

But what happens if I don't pay tithing or donations to the church...I am wrong again. 

then you are not paying anything .....so......