Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[ksfisher]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

   I have to believe that HJW's explanation is more accurate and makes a lot more sense. 

I believe that Happy Jack agreed with me. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

What you've described in your 7 points is how he grew.  He gained spiritual maturity through his obedience as well as experiences.  Would you not agree that Joseph Smith at the time of his death was more mature than say, when he began the translation of the Book of Mormon, or even when he organized the church?

Of course.  I don't think anyone is denying the growth.  But that's not what HJW anecdote had reference to.

To say "In the early days of the church, when the leaders were more spiritually immature that kind of revelation was necessary but now the still, small promptings from the HG are all that is needed." isn't a reference to the 14 year old boy coming out of the grove.

While I am sure this isn't a direct quote from Elder Nelson, even implying that the early church leaders were less spiritually mature than our leaders today is a false idea.

Early leaders can only be referring to the revelations, visions, and visitations received by Joseph Smith as President of the Church.
And that our leaders today are more spiritually mature than those leaders so no longer need the visions and visitations because they are more in tune with the spiritual promptings is just utterly wrong.

[HappyJackWagon]

I didn't mean to derail the discussion with my brief story. Sorry about that.

The only point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that even among church leaders, there seems to be a recognition that revelation in todays world is very different than revelation in the days of the early restoration. Meanwhile, I think many members continue to assume that the miraculous visitations of yesteryear as well as personal guidance from Jesus as if He's sitting at the head of the conference room table is the standard for modern revelation. I think this could be set straight pretty easily but for whatever reasons I think church leadership is content with the misperception.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

And that our leaders today are more spiritually mature than those leaders so no longer need the visions and visitations because they are more in tune with the spiritual promptings is just utterly wrong.

Why? (again for the sake of discussion)  Why must leaders today be more spiritually immature than leaders in the past? 

Would it not be expected that church leaders, some of whom have spent 50+ years in leadership callings, have a degree of spiritual maturity that perhaps early church leaders (many of whom were new converts) did not have?  And I don't think that we need to limit President Nelson's remark (quoted correctly or not) to only applying to Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why? (again for the sake of discussion)  Why must leaders today be more spiritually immature than leaders in the past? 

 I don't think that we need to limit President Nelson's remark (quoted correctly or not) to only applying to Joseph Smith.

For many of the same reasons I applied to Joseph Smith.

Quote

Would it not be expected that church leaders, some of whom have spent 50+ years in leadership callings, have a degree of spiritual maturity that perhaps early church leaders (many of whom were new converts) did not have?  And

I am perfectly willing to concede that some experienced church leaders today are almost certain to have more spiritual maturity than some church leaders in the early days.
But I still reject the idea that they don't get visions and visitations because they are more in tune with the spirit than their early predecessors who needed visions and visitations and were less in tune with the spirit.  There is no evidence of this.

I also fundamentally reject the notion that a vision or visitation is a form of revelation given to someone who hasn't gained the spiritual maturity to operate on the promptings of the spirit alone.  The story of the Brother of Jared shows such a doctrine to be completely false.  The greater the faith the more easily and completely the veil is parted.
 

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why? (again for the sake of discussion)  Why must leaders today be more spiritually immature than leaders in the past? 

Would it not be expected that church leaders, some of whom have spent 50+ years in leadership callings, have a degree of spiritual maturity that perhaps early church leaders (many of whom were new converts) did not have?  And I don't think that we need to limit President Nelson's remark (quoted correctly or not) to only applying to Joseph Smith.

I think Teryl Givens' observation from a few years ago is pertinent:

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those BoM episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

(15:18)

FAIR Podcast Interview

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The story of the Brother of Jared shows such a doctrine to be completely false.  The greater the faith the more easily and completely the veil is parted.

 

Do you know that leaders today are not having similar experiences?  What if they are but they are just not telling you about it?  Who did the Brother of Jared tell about his experience?  There is no indication in the scriptures that he told anyone.  There are a number of examples in the scriptures of prophets being told to seal up a vision or revelation or experience until a certain time had passed. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Why? (again for the sake of discussion)  Why must leaders today be more spiritually immature than leaders in the past? 

Would it not be expected that church leaders, some of whom have spent 50+ years in leadership callings, have a degree of spiritual maturity that perhaps early church leaders (many of whom were new converts) did not have?  And I don't think that we need to limit President Nelson's remark (quoted correctly or not) to only applying to Joseph Smith.

I really don't have any way of knowing if they are more or less spiritually mature. But tenure in an organization doesn't necessarily translate into spiritual maturity. It means they know how to work within the strictures of the organization, giving talks, administrating, presiding etc. But are those necessarily the same thing as spiritual maturity or simply the ability to conform within a system? I don't know.

Edited September 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone is struggling with the racism of the church's past they are going to have to figure out a way to accept the fallibility of the church.

If someone is struggling with the racism of the Church's past, I think anyone trying to help them would use the "progressive" approach (the ban and the Brethren were "racist," but the Church is still true because ______ ).

But what about someone who believes that the ban was inspired but is troubled by policy/doctrinal changes? Racism! isn't going to help a person like that. I get the feeling that "progressives" don't really care about people like that. They just need to get on board with "progressive" updating, or sorry, you're out of luck, pal. It's like if they can't get "right thinking" on this issue, then they're not worth trying to help (unless they fall in line). 

 If they choose to believe the ban was from God as a way of keeping faith in the church (which is not the same as keeping faith in God BTW) the individual has to understand how/why the church was racist but ALSO how/why God is racist without any supporting doctrines. Remember, those racist doctrines that supported the ban are disavowed. So the racist ban stands alone.

I love your turning "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past" into "Remember, those racist doctrines that supported the ban are disavowed. So the racist ban stands alone." I don't think you're appropriately restating the spirit or the letter.

In helping someone like I described above, I don't agree with you that "the individual has to understand how/why the church was racist but ALSO how/why God is racist without any supporting doctrines." And while you say that there are no supporting doctrines, and the essay says that past theories have been disavowed, the plain language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price (where the Brethren got their ideas from) remains. That's scriptural support that the essay doesn't even address (and which "progressives" would love to have removed from the scriptures altogether).

If there is a revelation from God that harms a group of people by excluding them from eternal saving ordinances, then the responsibility is on the church to show evidence of that revelation.

By extension, this would include the b/millions who are apparently "excluded from eternal saving ordinances" because they never received the gospel. If one mentions temple work in response, this response also applies to those who were temporarily/temporally "excluded" from ordinances because of the ban. In other words, within an LDS perspective, this isn't a valid criticism because no one is excluded under the doctrine of work for the dead and temple work. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Do you know that leaders today are not having similar experiences?  What if they are but they are just not telling you about it?  Who did the Brother of Jared tell about his experience?  There is no indication in the scriptures that he told anyone.  There are a number of examples in the scriptures of prophets being told to seal up a vision or revelation or experience until a certain time had passed. 

Except we all know about it so it wasn't a secret, right? He had to have told someone who then wrote it down in the record. Sorry, but that's not a very good example.

How do we know that Pres. Monson hasn't secretly parted the Red Sea? How do we know he hasn't been transported to Kolob for a face to face? We don't know that any more than we know there isn't a flying spaghetti monster. But that hardly makes a strong case.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

If someone is struggling with the racism of the Church's past, I think anyone trying to help them would use the "progressive" approach (the ban and the Brethren were "racist," but the Church is still true because ______ ).

But what about someone who believes that the ban was inspired but is troubled by policy/doctrinal changes? Racism! isn't going to help a person like that. I get the feeling that "progressives" don't really care about people like that. They just need to get on board with "progressive" updating, or sorry, you're out of luck, pal. It's like if they can't get "right thinking" on this issue, then they're not worth trying to help (unless they fall in line). 

If someone believes the ban was inspired I think they should be able to evaluate the evidence and answer the question, "Why do you feel it was inspired?" Do they believe it is inspired because there's a revelation stating such? No. Do they believe it is inspired because it's what was taught in church for over a century? Maybe. Do they believe the modern prophets can't be trusted when they disavow past racist teachings that were used to justify the ban? Why do they believe it? Why do they hold on to it? What is the benefit of the ban? Why did it exist?

I think there are some tough questions they'll need to ask themselves. The "progressive" approach is asking questions and being open to the answers, despite preconceived bias. It's a given that no progressive does this perfectly but it is a good ideal. In fact, IMO it's a better ideal than sticking with past knowledge based on false doctrines that have been disavowed by the church.

 

I love your turning "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past" into "Remember, those racist doctrines that supported the ban are disavowed. So the racist ban stands alone." I don't think you're appropriately restating the spirit or the letter.

You mean the theories of racial curse as a sign of divine disfavor? If there's not a racial curse either because of Cain, or Ham or unrighteous pre-earth life, then what is the reason for the racial ban? I'm open to a good answer but I haven't heard one. Can you answer for me? Why did the church ban people of black African descent from receiving the priesthood and temple covenants? If you're going to support the ban I think it's reasonable expectation that a person can answer that question.

In helping someone like I described above, I don't agree with you that "the individual has to understand how/why the church was racist but ALSO how/why God is racist without any supporting doctrines." And while you say that there are no supporting doctrines, and the essay says that past theories have been disavowed, the plain language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price (where the Brethren got their ideas from) remains. That's scriptural support that the essay doesn't even address (and which "progressives" would love to have removed from the scriptures altogether).

You're right. It's very confusing to have the church disavow doctrines based on scriptures in the LDS canon. But they have. How do we make sense of that? Perhaps the inclusion of racist language and teachings in the BoM, for example, was evidence of the pride cycle and was included as an example of their evil. Just because racism was socially accepted in Bible or BoM times doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. Maybe we are meant to learn from that?

But this leaves us with a challenge. Do we accept the scriptures and the standard interpretations of approved racism or do we accept the Q12/FP approved essay condemning the doctrines? Again, if I have to make that decision I'm going to go with the version that does the least harm, ie the disavowal of all racism, past and present, and be happy to shed that racism and the need to defend it.

 

By extension, this would include the b/millions who are apparently "excluded from eternal saving ordinances" because they never received the gospel. If one mentions temple work in response, this response also applies to those who were temporarily/temporally "excluded" from ordinances because of the ban. In other words, within an LDS perspective, this isn't a valid criticism because no one is excluded under the doctrine of work for the dead and temple work. 

Major difference is scriptures and prophets have explained the plan for those people. It's called temple work and a path for salvation for all of God's children. With the priesthood ban there is no reason given, only disavowed false doctrines. Regarding the ban of children of SSM parents, it hasn't been addressed at all. So your example makes my point.

 

 

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except we all know about it so it wasn't a secret, right? He had to have told someone who then wrote it down in the record. Sorry, but that's not a very good example.

 

We know about it now, but my question was did any of his contemporaries know?  There have been examples of Christ telling prophets or disciples not to reveal something until later.

[rongo]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

For me, I think Elder Ballard is right.  You should never dismiss.  You should first acknowledge the difficulty.  All of our explanations about the ban from the past have been nothing but racist.  That's an ugly thing. 

I absolutely agree that we should never dismiss concerns and should acknowledge difficulties. 

You understand, I think, that the answer of "the ban and all explanations in the past (including canonized scripture) were all racist" contains difficulties of its own. For some, these difficulties are worse than the difficulty of the ban and past explanations offending modern sensibilities. 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't mean to derail the discussion with my brief story. Sorry about that.

The only point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that even among church leaders, there seems to be a recognition that revelation in todays world is very different than revelation in the days of the early restoration. Meanwhile, I think many members continue to assume that the miraculous visitations of yesteryear as well as personal guidance from Jesus as if He's sitting at the head of the conference room table is the standard for modern revelation. I think this could be set straight pretty easily but for whatever reasons I think church leadership is content with the misperception.

I don't know about Church leaders, but I do sense an overall deemphasis on the supernatural and "the weird" from the PR handlers and spokespeople. My sense is that most rank-and-file Mormons are fine with angelic ministry and miracles safely in the past, but are skeptical about it in the present in practice. That's sad, to me. I'm a believer, and my family are believers. I especially don't like the view that "these things were necessary with the Restoration, but are not needed now."

I think this trend exactly follows what we are gleefully critical of in sectarian Christianity:

Quote

 

I apprehend that this Christian belief respecting the discontinuance of revelation came into existence as an excuse for the absence of revelation. Ministers of apostate churches found themselves without communication from God, either through the visitation of angels or direct revelation. Finding themselves without these powers so abundantly possessed by the servants of God in the early age of the church, they attempted a defense of their own powerless state by saying these things were no longer needed. They were extraordinary powers only to be employed at the commencement of the work of God, in order to establish it in the earth, and afterwards to be put aside as childish things. 

B.H. Roberts, "New Witnesses for God 1:136-137

He makes a good point in volume 2:357-358 (I don't have the book, and only have the description below in my notes):

"Ministration of angels in times past, ministration of angels in times to come a given. Why not now?"

I think people in general, and the Church as a whole, are blessed with a fullness of spiritual gifts in measure with how much they are expected and desired. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by rongo

[rongo]

14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If someone believes the ban was inspired I think they should be able to evaluate the evidence and answer the question, "Why do you feel it was inspired?" Do they believe it is inspired because there's a revelation stating such? No. Do they believe it is inspired because it's what was taught in church for over a century? Maybe. Do they believe the modern prophets can't be trusted when they disavow past racist teachings that were used to justify the ban? Why do they believe it? Why do they hold on to it? What is the benefit of the ban? Why did it exist?

I think there are some tough questions they'll need to ask themselves. The "progressive" approach is asking questions and being open to the answers, despite preconceived bias. It's a given that no progressive does this perfectly but it is a good ideal. In fact, IMO it's a better ideal than sticking with past knowledge based on false doctrines that have been disavowed by the church.

"Progressives" dismiss out of hand things like Zebedee Coltrin's/Abraham Smoot's account of Joseph Smith seeking and giving revelation  (albeit, not presented to the Church and canonized) on this very thing, so it isn't just "hardliners" who need to ask themselves some tough questions. I don't think that it is nearly as neat and clean as you make it out to be, with the "hardliners" being totally out to sea as to why, when, how, and what, while the "progressives" simply "ask questions and [are] open to the answers, despite preconceived bias. Not even close.

Quote

 

You mean the theories of racial curse as a sign of divine disfavor? If there's not a racial curse either because of Cain, or Ham or unrighteous pre-earth life, then what is the reason for the racial ban? I'm open to a good answer but I haven't heard one. Can you answer for me? Why did the church ban people of black African descent from receiving the priesthood and temple covenants? If you're going to support the ban I think it's reasonable expectation that a person can answer that question.

I think the answer clearly lies in the pre-existence, and how our pre-existence profoundly impacts "our turn on earth." Race isn't even the most important factor here. The era we were born in and geographic location. Talents, abilities, limitations, and flaws. Contact and exposure to the Church and the fullness of the gospel. Family we are born or adopted into. Those of us with kids know that they come to us in infancy as completely different people. Why, and how if the pre-existence has nothing to do with any of this? And I'm not talking solely in terms of "punishment;" there are a lot of positives that affect the above conditions and others. To me, none of the timing or placement makes sense without the pre-existence heavily affecting mortality. The disavowed theories and explanations to me are that there was neutrality, or that race is a punishment from the pre-existence. It seems clear to me that all of the above conditions are what each individual needs for his/her eternal development. And let's not forget the elephant in the room: according to the restored gospel, zillions of "black" people throughout history are heirs to the celestial kingdom because of the timing and placement (infant mortality or death before 8). That doesn't seem like a curse to me from the "long view."

Edited September 22, 2016 by rongo

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

I absolutely agree that we should never dismiss concerns and should acknowledge difficulties. 

You understand, I think, that the answer of "the ban and all explanations in the past (including canonized scripture) were all racist" contains difficulties of its own. For some, these difficulties are worse than the difficulty of the ban and past explanations offending modern sensibilities. 

I would like to understand that.  What are the difficulties that are worse?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I would like to understand that.  What are the difficulties that are worse?

The title quote in my paper on teachings about infallibility comes from this B.H. Roberts quote:

“It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their sins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate the influence of God from human affairs. I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be the worse.” — B. H. Roberts, A Defense of the Faith and the Saints(Provo: Maasai, 2002), p. 346

I think what makes this issue in particular a difficult one is that resolving it pushes people in one of these two extremes. In my view, the "progressive" resolution to the priesthood ban issue is unsatisfactory to a large number of members (and the converse is also true, going the other way, for the "hardliner" view). For people of a "conservative" mindset (the majority of the Church in my opinion), the "progressive" cure is worse than the "hardliner" problem. "Progressives" in the Church labor under the difficulty of swimming against the cultural and traditional current in the Church. I have counseled and am counseling people from both ends of the spectrum. 

My point earlier about reciprocity was that, in my experience, "progressives" are so passionate about changing the Church culture and tradition that they have little empathy for those of a traditional mindset. Whereas, I find "traditional" people (like myself) more easily able to empathize with people whose issue is really that their "progressive" mindset is at odds with Church culture, tradition, and demographics. 

Does that make sense?

[stemelbow]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

The title quote in my paper on teachings about infallibility comes from this B.H. Roberts quote:

 

 

I think what makes this issue in particular a difficult one is that resolving it pushes people in one of these two extremes. In my view, the "progressive" resolution to the priesthood ban issue is unsatisfactory to a large number of members (and the converse is also true, going the other way, for the "hardliner" view). For people of a "conservative" mindset (the majority of the Church in my opinion), the "progressive" cure is worse than the "hardliner" problem. "Progressives" in the Church labor under the difficulty of swimming against the cultural and traditional current in the Church. I have counseled and am counseling people from both ends of the spectrum. 

My point earlier about reciprocity was that, in my experience, "progressives" are so passionate about changing the Church culture and tradition that they have little empathy for those of a traditional mindset. Whereas, I find "traditional" people (like myself) more easily able to empathize with people whose issue is really that their "progressive" mindset is at odds with Church culture, tradition, and demographics. 

Does that make sense?

I must be misunderstanding you.  I had asked what difficulties caused by those saying there should not have been a ban are worse than the ban and it's explanations?  Are you saying the disagreement between what you call "progressives" and "hardliners" is worse than the ban itself?  Or that "progressives" show less empathy to "traditional" people than "traditional" people show to "progressives"?  That last point is pretty debatable but to me hardly shows anything worse than the ban and it's subsequent explanations itself even if true. 

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

The title quote in my paper on teachings about infallibility comes from this B.H. Roberts quote:

Quote

“It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God in the affairs of men as it is to claim too little. By the first men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their sins to God; and by the second they are apt to altogether eliminate the influence of God from human affairs. I pause in doubt as to which extreme would be the worse.” — B. H. Roberts, A Defense of the Faith and the Saints(Provo: Maasai, 2002), p. 346

I think what makes this issue in particular a difficult one is that resolving it pushes people in one of these two extremes. In my view, the "progressive" resolution to the priesthood ban issue is unsatisfactory to a large number of members (and the converse is also true, going the other way, for the "hardliner" view). For people of a "conservative" mindset (the majority of the Church in my opinion), the "progressive" cure is worse than the "hardliner" problem. "Progressives" in the Church labor under the difficulty of swimming against the cultural and traditional current in the Church. I have counseled and am counseling people from both ends of the spectrum. 

My point earlier about reciprocity was that, in my experience, "progressives" are so passionate about changing the Church culture and tradition that they have little empathy for those of a traditional mindset. Whereas, I find "traditional" people (like myself) more easily able to empathize with people whose issue is really that their "progressive" mindset is at odds with Church culture, tradition, and demographics. 

Does that make sense?

That BH Roberts quote is awesome! Thanks for sharing.

I think it's human nature to defend one's beliefs and I don't know that I would see any difference in the level of defense between "progressives" or "hardliners".

But I do empathize with those of a traditional mindset. I can empathize because I understand it. I was there. I lived it the vast majority of my life. I was a hardliner so I understand how they think and how defensive they can feel when they believe they, or their beliefs, are under attack. But now that I'm in the progressive camp I feel regret and guilt for some of my past hardline behavior. At the time I couldn't see how it hurt people but now I do. At the time I thought that a tough love, hardline way was God's way so if people had a hard time they needed to get over it. I honestly felt less empathy as a hardliner.

I know my experience doesn't translate into anyone else's experience, but that's how I understand it.

Edited September 22, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I must be misunderstanding you.  I had asked what difficulties caused by those saying there should not have been a ban are worse than the ban and it's explanations?  Are you saying the disagreement between what you call "progressives" and "hardliners" is worse than the ban itself? 

I don't think I'm communicating clearly. No, I'm not saying that those saying there should not have been a ban are worse than the ban and its explanations, or that the disagreement between approaches is worse than the ban itself. What I meant was that the different approaches can be really bad for certain people (in both directions). For people who really hate the idea of the ban, insisting that it was God's will and trying to defend it as such are going to be worse than the ban itself. On the other hand, for others, insisting that the whole thing was a colossal and horrific mistake that should never have happened can be worse than no explanation at all. Especially when it undermines faith in prophets God's dealings with them. 

Or that "progressives" show less empathy to "traditional" people than "traditional" people show to "progressives"?  That last point is pretty debatable but to me hardly shows anything worse than the ban and it's subsequent explanations itself even if true.

That last part is my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all 50 states. While supplies last.  

Explanations (including the progressive ones) can be very harmful to some, depending on their make-up. It would behoove people helping them to keep that in mind, i think. My experience with most progressives is that they would rather die than help someone come to terms with the ban by fostering faith that it was divinely inspired, even if that is what will actually help the person. On the other hand, I have pointed out the progressive approach to people for whom that is a better approach, even though it isn't what I personally believe. Progressives reciprocating hasn't been my experience . . . 

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But I do empathize with those of a traditional mindset. I can empathize because I understand it. I was there. I lived it the vast majority of my life. I was a hardliner so I understand how they think and how defensive they can feel when they believe they, or their beliefs, are under attack. But now that I'm in the progressive camp I feel regret and guilt for some of my past hardline behavior. At the time I couldn't see how it hurt people but now I do. At the time I thought that a tough love, hardline way was God's way so if people had a hard time they needed to get over it. I honestly felt less empathy as a hardliner.

More real, genuine empathy all around would be best on all sides, I think. I do think you have an advantage having been in the other camp before, and that allows you to express empathy borne of experience. I think it's perfectly all right to tell someone, "Look, I don't see it this way, but there are some good people who do, and here's what they say." I've done that myself.

I personally don't believe in "evolution" (by which I mean all life developing from amino acids and one-celled organisms into the life that is currently extant. Of course there is observable adaptation and change), even though I have been a high school and middle school science teacher. There are students who are militantly against learning the concepts because of religious reasons (most of these are not Mormon), and I have used this approach in talking about this with them. They want to know what I believe, and I tell them that my beliefs are similar to theirs --- and I also make it clear that the concepts of evolution in biology should not be a threat to their beliefst, and that they don't need to be afraid of learning or discussing them. When dealing with believing LDS who are very anti-evolution, I can empathize with them because of my beliefs and experience, but I also try to help them see that there are other believing, smart LDS who fully accept all of it. How they resolve it doesn't work for me (and them), but it's okay that other people can make it work.

I have found Paul's "being all things to all people" approach to be effective, especially with some of these difficult issues. 

[HappyJackWagon]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

More real, genuine empathy all around would be best on all sides, I think. I do think you have an advantage having been in the other camp before, and that allows you to express empathy borne of experience. I think it's perfectly all right to tell someone, "Look, I don't see it this way, but there are some good people who do, and here's what they say." I've done that myself.

I personally don't believe in "evolution" (by which I mean all life developing from amino acids and one-celled organisms into the life that is currently extant. Of course there is observable adaptation and change), even though I have been a high school and middle school science teacher. There are students who are militantly against learning the concepts because of religious reasons (most of these are not Mormon), and I have used this approach in talking about this with them. They want to know what I believe, and I tell them that my beliefs are similar to theirs --- and I also make it clear that the concepts of evolution in biology should not be a threat to their beliefst, and that they don't need to be afraid of learning or discussing them. When dealing with believing LDS who are very anti-evolution, I can empathize with them because of my beliefs and experience, but I also try to help them see that there are other believing, smart LDS who fully accept all of it. How they resolve it doesn't work for me (and them), but it's okay that other people can make it work.

I have found Paul's "being all things to all people" approach to be effective, especially with some of these difficult issues. 

Rongo, I appreciate the thoughtful conversation. Thanks.