Elder M. Russell Ballard: "To Whom Shall We Go"

[canard78]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder M. Russell Ballard, one of my favorite people, in his conference sermon is returning to the "Old Ship Zion" theme.

Good counsel, both for those who are faltering in the faith and for the rest of us who are commanded to embrace them.

It's a good talk, and a good, reasonable, question. I'm glad that he presented a range of reasons why people choose to leave. 

Quote

Some disciples struggle to understand a specific Church policy or teaching. Others find concerns in our history or in the imperfections of some members and leaders, past and present. Still others find it difficult to live a religion that requires so much. Finally, some have become “weary in well-doing” 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-sunday-morning?lang=eng
I also think he asks a reasonable question:

Quote

If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do?

 

I rarely discuss Mormonism among my personal, "real life," social circle, but in this instance, I plan to answer his question. 

Leaving Mormonism has been wonderfully positive for me. I've found new joys, delights and have personally developed in a meaningful way. I was not "weary in well doing" and I didn't find it difficult to live the religion's requirements... though I recognise that's the reason for some people in some cases. For me, it was entirely about disagreement with current and past practices as well as historical events that convinced me that Mormon prophets are no more inspired than any other person in the world.

One might reasonably ask why I still comment on Mormonism, if I've so happily left it. Here's my best explanation:

Imagine you were born in USA but, aged 3 months, moved to Australia with your parents. Over time, you get an Australian passport, pick up the accent, go through their schools and immerse yourself in Australian culture. You love being in Australia and consider yourself Australian. Next imagine that in your mid-30s, the political and cultural situation in Australia means that you no longer want to live there. You consider staying, to be a voice against the dominant voices that you disagree with but, eventually, you return to USA and, after some time, rescind your Australian passport. 

Would it be reasonable for you to continue watching/reading the news about Australian politics, sports or culture? Would you still feel it reasonable to comment on those events and chat about it, both with people still living in Australia and, perhaps, with others who have moved back to USA from Australia. Sometimes you might even talk about it with people who have always lived in USA... even though they will have a lot less interest in the topic.

This is what post mormonism feels like. I love living in my new "country." I've given up my previous passport and am happy to have my new one. I spend most of my time reading about my new culture and community, but still find time to check in on what the old one is doing.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's a good talk, and a good, reasonable, question. I'm glad that he presented a range of reasons why people choose to leave. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-sunday-morning?lang=eng
I also think he asks a reasonable question:

Quote

If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do?

 

I found the talk condescending. "Where will you go?" sounds an awful lot like an abusive husband talking to his battered wife. Go ahead leave, but what will you do? How will you support yourself? etc etc. The questions presume that leaving the church also means leaving God. It presumes that leaving the church means one stops being a Christian. It presumes that, no matter how bad things, there is nothing better for any person. It presumes a person would need to be an idiot to leave. It presumes "the church" is the most important thing, regardless of whether or not it is having a negative impact on a person's personal relationship with God.

The talk presumes a lot and seems to gloat over those who have left.

Also, a couple of questions- If the church is the Good ship zion, AKA as the one true church of God, and IF Christ is at the helm during this storm, when will Jesus calm the storm? Why hasn't it happened yet? Is Jesus sleeping and needs to be awakened? 

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No looking back? So why are you here?

Don't parse my words...I'm merely saying that Elder Ballard's premise is misguided...that we leave to gain a more happy state...because the church does not make us happy...that we are happier out of the church than in... When he asks were shall we go...He seems not to understand how amazing life is out side of the Mormon paradigm

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Here's my best explanation:

Imagine you were born in USA but, aged 3 months, moved to Australia with your parents. Over time, you get an Australian passport, pick up the accent, go through their schools and immerse yourself in Australian culture. You love being in Australia and consider yourself Australian. Next imagine that in your mid-30s, the political and cultural situation in Australia means that you no longer want to live there. You consider staying, to be a voice against the dominant voices that you disagree with but, eventually, you return to USA and, after some time, rescind your Australian passport. 

Would it be reasonable for you to continue watching/reading the news about Australian politics, sports or culture? Would you still feel it reasonable to comment on those events and chat about it, both with people still living in Australia and, perhaps, with others who have moved back to USA from Australia. Sometimes you might even talk about it with people who have always lived in USA... even though they will have a lot less interest in the topic.

This is what post mormonism feels like. I love living in my new "country." I've given up my previous passport and am happy to have my new one. I spend most of my time reading about my new culture and community, but still find time to check in on what the old one is doing.

Brilliant...nailed it...  It would be stranger still if you left Australia and never showed interest in Australia again given its influence in your life...

Edited October 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you believed that a church had the authority of God and the doctrine of truth, and you want that, the choice to leave isn't a silly thing.  It's a really big deal.

Obviously if I believe it were what it claims to be I would still be part of it...and yes I fully understand that from the point of view of a believer then it would be a big deal...

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Obviously if I believe it were what it claims to be I would still be part of it...and yes I fully understand that from the point of view of a believer then it would be a big deal...

So you agree that from the point of view of a believer (in God and His authority, not in the church) it's not a silly question at all?

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Don't parse my words...I'm merely saying that Elder Ballard's premise is misguided...that we leave to gain a more happy state...because the church does not make us happy...that we are happier out of the church than in... When he asks were shall we go...He seems not to understand how amazing life is out side of the Mormon paradigm

Hey don't speak them if you really don't mean them.

[theplains]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God?

Yes.  Jesus Christ is God. There never was a moment when he was not God.  

This is unlike the other version of Jesus - "By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained
that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in
his pre-existent state" (Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, 2004,
page 10.

Some teachings about Heavenly Father:

"God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme" (page 17).

"Through a continual course of progression, our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and
glory; and He points us out the same path ... we shall eventually come in possession ... of
everything that heart can desire" (page 92).

Other teachings about Christ: 

"Christ, who is the firstborn in the Spirit of the children of God, was elevated to Godhood ... 
(LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith, The Progress of Man, chapter 6, page 74).

"Jesus was appointed to Godhood. In the Meridian of Time Christ came into the world, in 
fulfillment of the promise and appointment" (The Progress of Man, chapter 43, pages 511-512).

Do you believe in Jesus who has always been God or in the Jesus-who-become-God version
as depicted in those other teachings?

Thanks,
Jim

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So you agree that from the point of view of a believer (in God and His authority, not in the church) it's not a silly question at all?

I understand why a member might ask this question or hold to this false belief.  But Elder Ballard is speaking from his position as a member of the 12.  His words have much greater consequences that yours would.  When a member hears Elder Ballard say these words it reconfirms the false premises that people leave the church for less than honorable or healthy reasons...and that is just not being honest.  Elder Ballard own granddaughter recently resigned her membership in the church...she did so #1 she didn't believe in it #2 remaining was mentally unhealthy. 

I agree with HappyJackwagon's comment posted above...His comments come off as arrogant and condescending.  They are not based in reality as to why people are leaving the church. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I understand why a member might ask this question or hold to this false belief.  But Elder Ballard is speaking from his position as a member of the 12.  His words have much greater consequences that yours would.  When a member hears Elder Ballard say these words it reconfirms the false premises that people leave the church for less than honorable or healthy reasons...and that is just not being honest.  Elder Ballard own granddaughter recently resigned her membership in the church...she did so #1 she didn't believe in it #2 remaining was mentally unhealthy. 

I agree with HappyJackwagon's comment posted above...His comments come off as arrogant and condescending.  They are not based in reality as to why people are leaving the church. 

Maybe from his perspective they are based in reality though.  I'm guessing from his perspective, your comments come off arrogant and not based in reality.  Does that stop you from saying them?  Should it?  

If it's silly for him to speak from his perspective, doesn't that mean it's also silly for you (and HJW) to speak from your's?

Also, did you mean imply that Elder Ballard is lying?

[Johnnie Cake]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe from his perspective they are based in reality though.  I'm guessing from his perspective, your comments come off arrogant and not based in reality.  Does that stop you from saying them?  Should it?  

If it's silly for him to speak from his perspective, doesn't that mean it's also silly for you (and HJW) to speak from your's?

Also, did you mean imply that Elder Ballard is lying?

I was not implying Ballard was lying...I accept that from his perspective he was saying what he believes to be true...BUT...he is not your run of mill member...He's a member of the 12, with access to more information...and the personal experience of even having one of his own family resign...is it unreasonable to expect a higher standard from him?  His comments expose a very misinformed worldview...I would not expect this given his position

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's a good talk, and a good, reasonable, question. I'm glad that he presented a range of reasons why people choose to leave. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-sunday-morning?lang=eng
I also think he asks a reasonable question:

I rarely discuss Mormonism among my personal, "real life," social circle, but in this instance, I plan to answer his question. 

Leaving Mormonism has been wonderfully positive for me. I've found new joys, delights and have personally developed in a meaningful way. I was not "weary in well doing" and I didn't find it difficult to live the religion's requirements... though I recognise that's the reason for some people in some cases. For me, it was entirely about disagreement with current and past practices as well as historical events that convinced me that Mormon prophets are no more inspired than any other person in the world.

One might reasonably ask why I still comment on Mormonism, if I've so happily left it. Here's my best explanation:

Imagine you were born in USA but, aged 3 months, moved to Australia with your parents. Over time, you get an Australian passport, pick up the accent, go through their schools and immerse yourself in Australian culture. You love being in Australia and consider yourself Australian. Next imagine that in your mid-30s, the political and cultural situation in Australia means that you no longer want to live there. You consider staying, to be a voice against the dominant voices that you disagree with but, eventually, you return to USA and, after some time, rescind your Australian passport. 

Would it be reasonable for you to continue watching/reading the news about Australian politics, sports or culture? Would you still feel it reasonable to comment on those events and chat about it, both with people still living in Australia and, perhaps, with others who have moved back to USA from Australia. Sometimes you might even talk about it with people who have always lived in USA... even though they will have a lot less interest in the topic.

This is what post mormonism feels like. I love living in my new "country." I've given up my previous passport and am happy to have my new one. I spend most of my time reading about my new culture and community, but still find time to check in on what the old one is doing.

canard, through our interactions on this board, I have come to like you, and I'm glad you are happy. I mean that sincerely.

In a theoretical vein, though, when I read accounts such as this, I have to weigh them against other accounts such as those that have been given on this board by Don Bradley, an erstwhile contributor here and now a published Church history scholar, and Country Boy/Utah Texan, a current contributor whose experience was briefly chronicled by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf Saturday night in his address at the priesthood session of general conference. Each has been in a place that seems similar to where you are now, each has returned to "the Old Ship Zion," and each has attested to the joy he has felt in doing so.

I'll say I wish you well, but I have to own up to the fact that my fondest wish for you would be that you, too, would come home.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was not implying Ballard was lying...I accept that from his perspective he was saying what he believes to be true...BUT...he is not your run of mill member...He's a member of the 12, with access to more information...and the personal experience of even having one of his own family resign...is it unreasonable to expect a higher standard from him?  His comments expose a very misinformed worldview...I would not expect this given his position

I think it's probably a difference of perspective.  If i had to guess (and I do) i'd suggest that even with all the information and his own family that he still does not see his world view as misinformed.

It seems like you believe you are only trying to hold him to the facts, but from my point of view, you are actually trying to hold him to your opinion of the facts, which is a very different thing.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was not implying Ballard was lying...I accept that from his perspective he was saying what he believes to be true...BUT...he is not your run of mill member...He's a member of the 12, with access to more information...and the personal experience of even having one of his own family resign...is it unreasonable to expect a higher standard from him?  His comments expose a very misinformed worldview...I would not expect this given his position

To say in effect that because of what you think he knows he should be expected to agree with you reflects its own brand of arrogance.

And I know for a fact -- because I've heard him tell the story on at least three occasions -- that Elder Ballard's personal experience includes bringing a returned missionary back from the brink of apostasy by committing  him to resume the practice of daily individual scripture study, this after Elder Ballard had agreed to research and provide answers to questions that the young man was struggling with.

After a specified period, the young man returned and said he didn't need to have the questions answered; the daily scripture study had already rekindled the fire of his testimony. Elder Ballard replied, "That's fine, but you're going to get the answers anyway; I spent a lot of time on this."

It may be that Elder Ballard knows even more than you think he does.

 

[canard78]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

canard, through our interactions on this board, I have come to like you, and I'm glad you are happy. I mean that sincerely.

In a theoretical vein, though, when I read accounts such as this, I have to weigh them against other accounts such as those that have been given on this board by Don Bradley, an erstwhile contributor here and now a published Church history scholar, and Country Boy, a current contributor whose experience was briefly chronicled by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf Saturday night in his address at the priesthood session of general conference. Each has been in a place that seems similar to where you are now, each has returned to "the Old Ship Zion," and each has attested to the joy he has felt in doing so.

I'll say I wish you well, but I have to own up to the fact that my fondest wish for you would be that you, too, would come home.

Thanks Scott. I understand why you say so and I'm not at all offended by that wish. I know that many of my closest family and "IRL" friends feel the same way. 

I have my own perspectives on why people like Don or others return to Mormonism after a gap. 

I don't want to speak specifically of Don, but speaking more generally I think that often people don't replace the good aspects of Mormonism with new sources or joy. 

Leaving Mormonism means a risk of throwing the proverbial baby out with bathwater. If people don't hold on to the "baby" or find new sources for good, then there will inevitably be a vacuum where Mormonism used to meet the need to have community, purpose, definition of identity and opportunies to develop. 

I don't say "never" for Mormonism because 4-5 years ago I could never imagine being out. But... having found lots of new positive sources of joy and meaning, without the "baggage" of practices and doctrines I can't support, I feel peace and purpose. 

Some days I am frustrated by some of the teachings of Mormonism and their perpetuation, but most days I am sincerely happy that it similarly brings peace and purpose to both "virtual" and nearby friends. 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Thanks Scott. I understand why you say so and I'm not at all offended by that wish. I know that many of my closest family and "IRL" friends feel the same way. 

I have my own perspectives on why people like Don or others return to Mormonism after a gap. 

I don't want to speak specifically of Don, but speaking more generally I think that often people don't replace the good aspects of Mormonism with new sources or joy. 

Leaving Mormonism means a risk of throwing the proverbial baby out with bathwater. If people don't hold on to the "baby" or find new sources for good, then there will inevitably be a vacuum where Mormonism used to meet the need to have community, purpose, definition of identity and opportunies to develop. 

I don't say "never" for Mormonism because 4-5 years ago I could never imagine being out. But... having found lots of new positive sources of joy and meaning, without the "baggage" of practices and doctrines I can't support, I feel peace and purpose. 

Some days I am frustrated by some of the teachings of Mormonism and their perpetuation, but most days I am sincerely happy that it similarly brings peace and purpose to both "virtual" and nearby friends. 

That's fine, but things might not always go so swimmingly.

Adversity happens to everybody, whether Mormon or not. I personally have had the experience of having my faith steady me through rough waters.

Not saying I expect this will happen to you, but for some people, encountering a period of hardship after having things go well for a while is the catalyst that causes them to seek and regain the faith they had abandoned.

Edited to add:

It occurs to me that this could be one application of the parable of the prodigal son.

Edited further to add:

If I'm remembering correctly, one of the ways in which Don changed is that he gained added perspective on some things that he had issues with before. You might, at some point in time, find that happening to you.

For my part, I have found over the years that plural marriage is not nearly as troubling for me as it once was, this because of added perspective I feel I have gained on that subject.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

18 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Well it's a pretty darn good ship

Yeah it is.  I'm happy being on the ship.  But there are a lot of other ships in the sea.  

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Rivers

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's a good talk, and a good, reasonable, question. I'm glad that he presented a range of reasons why people choose to leave. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/talk-summaries-sunday-morning?lang=eng
I also think he asks a reasonable question:

I rarely discuss Mormonism among my personal, "real life," social circle, but in this instance, I plan to answer his question. 

Leaving Mormonism has been wonderfully positive for me. I've found new joys, delights and have personally developed in a meaningful way. I was not "weary in well doing" and I didn't find it difficult to live the religion's requirements... though I recognise that's the reason for some people in some cases. For me, it was entirely about disagreement with current and past practices as well as historical events that convinced me that Mormon prophets are no more inspired than any other person in the world.

One might reasonably ask why I still comment on Mormonism, if I've so happily left it. Here's my best explanation:

Imagine you were born in USA but, aged 3 months, moved to Australia with your parents. Over time, you get an Australian passport, pick up the accent, go through their schools and immerse yourself in Australian culture. You love being in Australia and consider yourself Australian. Next imagine that in your mid-30s, the political and cultural situation in Australia means that you no longer want to live there. You consider staying, to be a voice against the dominant voices that you disagree with but, eventually, you return to USA and, after some time, rescind your Australian passport. 

Would it be reasonable for you to continue watching/reading the news about Australian politics, sports or culture? Would you still feel it reasonable to comment on those events and chat about it, both with people still living in Australia and, perhaps, with others who have moved back to USA from Australia. Sometimes you might even talk about it with people who have always lived in USA... even though they will have a lot less interest in the topic.

This is what post mormonism feels like. I love living in my new "country." I've given up my previous passport and am happy to have my new one. I spend most of my time reading about my new culture and community, but still find time to check in on what the old one is doing.

This is what works for you but it is a but moment in your life. Things may change for you down the road. I take it from your analogy that you were born into the Church at 3 months old? My old country was protestant and I didn't move to my new country until I was 28 so my experiences will be different than yours. I have no desire to check in with my old country.

[canard78]

17 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

This is what works for you but it is a but moment in your life. Things may change for you down the road. I take it from your analogy that you were born into the Church at 3 months old? My old country was protestant and I didn't move to my new country until I was 28 so my experiences will be different than yours. I have no desire to check in with my old country.

No, born to parents who were Mormon, baby blessing was 1-2 months or so after I was born. 

I don't think anyone is "born" a Mormon, Muslim or Atheist. That is generally something handed to them by their parents. 

I wasn't really thinking in super specifics of when I became Mormon... more that I was born with no religious imprint at all and inherited one due to the choices of my parents to raise me in this particular faith tradition. 

[canard78]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's fine, but things might not always go so swimmingly.

Adversity happens to everybody, whether Mormon or not. I personally have had the experience of having my faith steady me through rough waters.

Not saying I expect this will happen to you, but for some people, encountering a period of hardship after having things go well for a while is the catalyst that causes them to seek and regain the faith they had abandoned.

Edited to add:

It occurs to me that this could be one application of the parable of the prodigal son.

I don't see it as a question of things going swimmingly or not. The last 2-3 years have had plenty of personal challenges and tragedies that I've needed to deal with. None have given me any inclination to return to Mormonism for answers or meaning. 

Having spent time investigating and understanding what emotional needs are met by Mormonism, and how it does it, means I've found new groups and structures that do the job but without the dogma that I don't agree with. 

"When troubles come, they come not single spies, but in battalions" (Shakespeare).

When post-Mormons are faced with those troubles and if they haven't created a new fleet of supporting vessels, it's easy to understand why they might navigate back to old harbours or, indeed, Mormonism's "good ship Zion" because it is familiar and proven from past experiences. 

For me, today, I feel I have spent the time building new sails and navigated new waters. 

Like I said, I understand why you might feel that for I, and others, the prodigal son story might apply, but I don't. I've sold no birthright and I've not replaced family security with riotous living. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I don't see it as a question of things going swimmingly or not. The last 2-3 years have had plenty of personal challenges and tragedies that I've needed to deal with. None have given me any inclination to return to Mormonism for answers or meaning. 

Having spent time investigating and understanding what emotional needs are met by Mormonism, and how it does it, means I've found new groups and structures that do the job but without the dogma that I don't agree with. 

"When troubles come, they come not single spies, but in battalions" (Shakespeare).

When post-Mormons are faced with those troubles and if they haven't created a new fleet of supporting vessels, it's easy to understand why they might navigate back to old harbours or, indeed, Mormonism's "good ship Zion" because it is familiar and proven from past experiences. 

For me, today, I feel I have spent the time building new sails and navigated new waters. 

Like I said, I understand why you might feel that for I, and others, the prodigal son story might apply, but I don't. I've sold no birthright and I've not replaced family security with riotous living. 

The thing about analogies is they apply in only limited respects. I didn't mean to imply that you had sold your birthright or done any of those other nasty things you name. The comparison I meant to draw is of one who goes away for apparently greener pastures, then suffers a downturn in fortunes and learns belatedly to treasure what he had foresaken. Nothing more.

Also, note that I added yet again to my post and made the point about possibly gaining added perspective that influences one's future course. I'm guessing you wrote the above before you had seen the added content.

 

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I found the talk condescending. "Where will you go?" sounds an awful lot like an abusive husband talking to his battered wife. Go ahead leave, but what will you do? How will you support yourself? etc etc. The questions presume that leaving the church also means leaving God. It presumes that leaving the church means one stops being a Christian. It presumes that, no matter how bad things, there is nothing better for any person. It presumes a person would need to be an idiot to leave. It presumes "the church" is the most important thing, regardless of whether or not it is having a negative impact on a person's personal relationship with God.

The talk presumes a lot and seems to gloat over those who have left.

Also, a couple of questions- If the church is the Good ship zion, AKA as the one true church of God, and IF Christ is at the helm during this storm, when will Jesus calm the storm? Why hasn't it happened yet? Is Jesus sleeping and needs to be awakened?

There is the story of the farm hand  that could sleep during a storm.

SEE

 

[canard78]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The thing about analogies is they apply in only limited respects. I didn't mean to imply that you had sold your birthright or done any of those other nasty things you name. The comparison I meant to draw is of one who goes away for apparently greener pastures, then suffers a downturn in fortunes and learns belatedly to treasure what he had foresaken. Nothing more.

Also, note that I added yet again to my post and made the point about possibly gaining added perspective that influences one's future course. I'm guessing you wrote the above before you had seen the added content.

I've just gone back and read your extra comments about further perspective. 

Yes, it's entirely possible, but I consider it very unlikely that I'd find myself drawn back to Mormonism. 

I live in a town where there are no Mormons. The only Mormons I interact with now are my extended family and you chaps online. I was part of a small branch and most of my peers have either stopped attending too (three other youngish families have stopped attending since we have and a couple already had when we left) or moved away. 

Since then I've joined a local drama group, a community choir, a football club and (most significantly) a "circle council."

Like you say, never say never... but then I might say the same of you. It's possible that one day your perspectives will also change and you'll leave Mormonism for pastures new. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is the story of the farm hand  that could sleep during a storm.

 

 

I love this story.

But I have always heard it as having he title "I Can Sleep When the Wind Blows." I like that better.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I found the talk condescending. "Where will you go?" sounds an awful lot like an abusive husband talking to his battered wife.

 

 

This strikes me as a distortion of his message and a contrived reason to find fault.

The question is not "Where will you go?" but "To whom shall we go?".

Besides shifting the voice from first-person to second-person, you are ignoring the background. It is, of course, taken from the account where some of Christ's followers were offended and he asked his disciples, "Will ye also go away." Peter's response, "To whom shall we go?" was a rhetorical question communicating dedication to the Master, commitment, understanding, faith, testimony.

This is what I see in Elder Ballard's talk theme.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd