Danzo Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: It's the material. You can't feed people 8th grade educational material their whole lives and expect to produce college professors. I wouldn't consider the scriptures to be 8th grade educational material. 1
Gray Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 31 minutes ago, Danzo said: I wouldn't consider the scriptures to be 8th grade educational material. I agree. But the way we engage with them in church is at about that level.
Danzo Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: I agree. But the way we engage with them in church is at about that level. Seems like your ward needs to engage at a higher level. Fortunately, I haven't had your experience. I have had the privilege to be instructed by and with professional educators, attorneys, accountants, college professors, engineers, migrant farm workers, contractors, accountants, and others to experience deep discussions in three different languages over the years on the scriptures. It is a a deeply satisfying experience on an intellectual as well as a spiritual level. 1
Gray Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 19 minutes ago, Danzo said: Seems like your ward needs to engage at a higher level. Fortunately, I haven't had your experience. I have had the privilege to be instructed by and with professional educators, attorneys, accountants, college professors, engineers, migrant farm workers, contractors, accountants, and others to experience deep discussions in three different languages over the years on the scriptures. It is a a deeply satisfying experience on an intellectual as well as a spiritual level. That sounds amazing. I've never seen that anywhere in the modern church, including general conference.
Danzo Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 23 minutes ago, Gray said: That sounds amazing. I've never seen that anywhere in the modern church, including general conference. well, in general conference I do remember instruction by a couple of attorneys, a former airline pilot and executive, a publisher and university president. The son of a famous chemist also gave some instruction. there was also a couple of medical doctors as well. In the past I do remember that there was some instruction by an nuclear engineer, as well as a former chairman of the Utah State Democratic party. Overall, I have been satisfied. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't have a problem with accountability to God. We'll all be accountable to God. I'm merely suggesting cutting out the fallible middle man. Does that mean we remove any need for Moses, Jeremiah, or Jesus? Even though the final one is purportedly not fallible. 1
thatjimguy Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) After thinking about it today, even though I still don't agree with the process this Bishop went with this, I want to retract a good bit of vinegar. He did say he had problems with his neighbors kid back in the day in his hometown. Forgot the circumstances, but I can see why he would personally put a little more emphasis on the subject. I still do not see why the parents are not informed about these things being brought up at all before sending their kid in. If they were teachers instead of Bishops, heads would be rolling. Even if the church is worried about abuse in the home, what are the percentages that would justify any sort of this behind the back stuff? It should be up front. Adding to which, who in the church's PR department wasn't notified? I'm all for job security and the potential backlash is HUGE. I would stop this before it began. Edited October 8, 2016 by thatjimguy 1
Tacenda Posted October 8, 2016 Author Posted October 8, 2016 16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Does that mean we remove any need for Moses, Jeremiah, or Jesus? Even though the final one is purportedly not fallible. I wouldn't count Jesus as a middle man, to most he was God incarnate. 'In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined by those Churches that adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, the divine nature of the Son was united but not mixed with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians." 1
ksfisher Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 29 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I wouldn't count Jesus as a middle man, to most he was God incarnate. I believe that Robert Smith was refering to Christ's role as our mediator with the Father in his post. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 20 hours ago, rongo said: I've been sending people to counselors for years now (LDS and secular). Sorry, but my experience is my experience. I'm a Social Worker(retired) and LDS. Please disabuse yourself of the idea that those that have mental health issues are somehow weak. It is not helpful and does considerable damage that I had work against. For well over a hundred years we've been working against such idea's. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I wouldn't count Jesus as a middle man, to most he was God incarnate. 'In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined by those Churches that adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, the divine nature of the Son was united but not mixed with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians." Not too sure the LDS should be held to what most Christians believe. Edited October 8, 2016 by thesometimesaint 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: I wouldn't count Jesus as a middle man, to most he was God incarnate. 'In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined by those Churches that adhere to the Council of Chalcedon, the divine nature of the Son was united but not mixed with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians." Jesus could well be considered a middle man since he is spoken of by his Father at his baptism, he speaks in prayer to his Father repeatedly, etc. As to the faith central to most Christians, we know that most Christians have no knowledge of such theological nuances: Eric Metaxas, “Americans & Evangelicals Misunderstand Basic Christian Doctrines – Fail Theology 101,” cnsnews.com, October 6, 2016, online at http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp , Quote . . . according to the results of a survey released late last month by LifeWay Research. The survey, commissioned by Ligonier Ministries, asked 3,000 participants a set of 47 questions about foundational Christian beliefs. Many of the answers revealed a mishmash of heresy and confusion about Christianity’s most basic doctrines. Seventy percent of Americans agree there’s only one true God—one in essence, three in person: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet almost the same number believe God accepts the worship of all other religions, even those that deny the Trinity or worship other deities. Sixty-one percent correctly say Jesus is both human and divine, but half think that He’s also “the first and greatest being created by God,” rather than existing eternally, as Scripture and the ancient creeds of the faith teach. Edited October 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith
cdowis Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Jesus could well be considered a middle man since he is spoken of by his Father at his baptism, he speaks in prayer to his Father repeatedly, etc. As to the faith central to most Christians, we know that most Christians have no knowledge of such theological nuances: Eric Metaxas, “Americans & Evangelicals Misunderstand Basic Christian Doctrines – Fail Theology 101,” cnsnews.com, October 6, 2016, online at http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp , .Apparently you think that Eric Metaxas is the gold standard for basic Christian doctrines. We have an inerrant Bible, and now we have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible, n the form of Eric Metaxas.
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Jesus could well be considered a middle man since he is spoken of by his Father at his baptism, he speaks in prayer to his Father repeatedly, etc. As to the faith central to most Christians, we know that most Christians have no knowledge of such theological nuances: Eric Metaxas, “Americans & Evangelicals Misunderstand Basic Christian Doctrines – Fail Theology 101,” cnsnews.com, October 6, 2016, online at http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp , Interesting article for a couple of reasons- number one is that it presumes there IS a "correct" Christian view, and the other is showing the conflicting beliefs "most Christians" have which are resolved in LDS beliefs. One could easily deduce that yes, there IS a "correct" Christian view- and it is found in LDS beliefs!! They only "fail" Evangelical theology but not true Christian theology, which they get perfectly right based on what is naturally inside them- the light of Christ! The first alleged confusion is around whether or not Christ is "created" and his dichotomy supposedly in his "dual nature". It appears that uninformed Evangelicals, people who are untutored in Evangelical theology, yet professing Christians, adopt something like the LDS view, that these alleged dichotomies are not real. They seem to know instinctively that these are incorrect doctrines which we hold to be apostate, even though they do not have the theology to be able to point them out as errors. These Evangelicals also, the article says, seem to instinctively know that the Bible is NOT inerrant, yet believe that God cannot err. This sounds quite like the LDS notion that the Bible is true insofar as it is translated (and transmitted) correctly.The same folks believe on one hand that one must "accept Jesus" and yet also claim that all will eventually be in "heaven". Those are essentially simple statements of our beliefs that all will eventually, if even after death, have a chance to understand the true gospel and that eventually "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" that Jesus is the Christ. Regarding the Holy Ghost, Quote Fifty-six percent say the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, “is a divine force but not a personal being.” which we easily resolve with the understanding that He is a Spirit Being- personal, yet spiritually able to influence all, as a spirit. Quote Evangelicals, by definition, believe trusting in Jesus is the only way of salvation. Yet two-thirds of evangelicals—more than Americans as a whole—claim Heaven is a place where all people will ultimately be reunited with loved ones. Again, the uninformed Evangelical gets it right on the money- yes Jesus is the only way to salvation AND families can be together forever, because all will eventually hear the gospel we preach and accept it!! The dismayed author, an Evangelical professor of theology tells us Quote It’s not just the departures from these historic doctrines that should concern us, but the contradictory answers. It shows not only that Americans in general and evangelicals in particular have the wrong answers on basic Christian doctrines, but that they don’t really understand the concept of doctrine itself. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology?ref=yfp Not at all!! Uninformed Evangelicals just instinctively know the truth of LDS doctrine! Why aren't we doing a better job of reaching these people?? Edited October 8, 2016 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) I am starting a new thread on the above article so as not to derail this thread http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68204-theologically-uninformed-evangelicals-and-lds-beliefs/ Edited October 8, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, cdowis said: .Apparently you think that Eric Metaxas is the gold standard for basic Christian doctrines. We have an inerrant Bible, and now we have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible, n the form of Eric Metaxas. Metaxas was merely reporting the results of research which he did not conduct. This was "a survey released late last month by LifeWay Research. The survey, commissioned by Ligonier Ministries." Do you always shoot the messenger for unwelcome news? And there is plenty more unwelcome news: Denver Nicks, “Read more: Godless Cities: Bible Lovers Debate Which City is Most Bible-Minded,” TIME.com, Jan 29, 2014, online at http://nation.time.com/2014/01/29/godless-cities-america-debate-bible/#ixzz2rzaji8eR . Among the comments on this article we find the following: Quote Daniel Dinnell, “Protestants, Catholics and Mormons Reflect Diverse Levels of Religious Activity” - - July 9, 2001 study released by the Barna Research Group of Ventura, California. The study found Mormons are more likely to read the Bible during a week than are Protestants. The Barna institute for religious studies identified that outside of Sunday church sermons (meaning in the home), Mormons were more likely to have read the bible (not the Book of Mormon, but the Bible) than any other religion polled. A national 2010 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey aimed to test a broad range of religious knowledge, including understanding of the Bible, core teachings of different faiths and major figures in religious history: on just the questions about Christianity and the Bible, Mormons scored the highest. They also scored second only to Jews in knowledge of Judaism. [Overall, Mormons understand their own doctrines and the Bible better than other Christian denominations.] http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/ Edited October 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
rongo Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm a Social Worker(retired) and LDS. Please disabuse yourself of the idea that those that have mental health issues are somehow weak. It is not helpful and does considerable damage that I had work against. For well over a hundred years we've been working against such idea's. Nowhere have I ever said that those who have mental health issues are somehow weak. I said that counseling and therapy don't really seem to help them, which is quite another thing (i.e., not their fault). I'm also not castigating people in your field --- they do the best that they can and do a lot of good. In many cases, as has been said, really all that can be done is to give people a listening and empathetic ear and good counsel and advice. And even with that, many people's issues remain. I have referred and continue to refer people to counselors. What I bristle at is the notion that bishops should immediately send almost all comers to professionals for "counseling" or "therapy."
Tacenda Posted October 9, 2016 Author Posted October 9, 2016 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Not too sure the LDS should be held to what most Christians believe. I wasn't.
Calm Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 3:09 AM, thatjimguy said: After thinking about it today, even though I still don't agree with the process this Bishop went with this, I want to retract a good bit of vinegar. He did say he had problems with his neighbors kid back in the day in his hometown. Forgot the circumstances, but I can see why he would personally put a little more emphasis on the subject. I still do not see why the parents are not informed about these things being brought up at all before sending their kid in. If they were teachers instead of Bishops, heads would be rolling. I got the impression the parents were informed by the bishop, that is why they went into talk to him before their kid did.
cdowis Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Calm said: I got the impression the parents were informed by the bishop, that is why they went into talk to him before their kid did. You are correct. They received a list of the questions, and they expressed their concern so the bishop invited them to meet with him. Only the father came to the meeting. The bishop explained specifically what questions he would ask, and the father AGREED that they were age appropriate for their son. The bishop then taught the father their responsibility in teaching their son. He told him that these were questions that the PARENTS should be discussing with their son. Edited October 9, 2016 by cdowis
sdc999 Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 10/5/2016 at 11:07 PM, Tacenda said: This bishop got it from the top down, I can't fault him because he is doing what he is told I guess. WHAT? WHAT? Yes, you can fault him if he's doing something stupid and wrong. If you would hold that a man is worthy to be a bishop but too stupid to understand right and wrong, there is a much bigger problem. Blind obedience is beyond ignorant. 2
cdowis Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, sdc999 said: WHAT? WHAT? Yes, you can fault him if he's doing something stupid and wrong. If you would hold that a man is worthy to be a bishop but too stupid to understand right and wrong, there is a much bigger problem. Blind obedience is beyond ignorant. Tell us EXACTLY what he said that was "blind obedience" stupid. You need to give us the quote and the minute:second on the video so we can learn from you. I think we will be teaching you, but let's see what you got.
thatjimguy Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 2 hours ago, cdowis said: Tell us EXACTLY what he said that was "blind obedience" stupid. You need to give us the quote and the minute:second on the video so we can learn from you. I think we will be teaching you, but let's see what you got. I don't think he was talking this specific example, just a generalization of the idea. If you think something is wrong, you don't do it, even if it comes from up the line. Given the context of this discussion, it is not to say "wrong" as in a disagreement of something logistical or anything light, but something ethical. Even if it turned out to be a misunderstanding, it would be better to have egg on my face than to do something harmful.
Tacenda Posted October 10, 2016 Author Posted October 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, thatjimguy said: I don't think he was talking this specific example, just a generalization of the idea. If you think something is wrong, you don't do it, even if it comes from up the line. Given the context of this discussion, it is not to say "wrong" as in a disagreement of something logistical or anything light, but something ethical. Even if it turned out to be a misunderstanding, it would be better to have egg on my face than to do something harmful. True, I guess I shouldn't have been so forgiving. He should know better.
sdc999 Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 On 10/9/2016 at 7:54 PM, cdowis said: Tell us EXACTLY what he said that was "blind obedience" stupid. You need to give us the quote and the minute:second on the video so we can learn from you. I think we will be teaching you, but let's see what you got. I'll be glad to answer. My reference is that anyone, especially a bishop, should be adaptable to the situation that is in front of them. They should be able to divert from script if warranted; else, you could just have someone sitting in front of a computer typing in answers to the questions.( no need for a bishop) If you pass the test, you get a little card spit out at you. From the original post of "the bishop was told to..... so he was only following direct orders" is the equivalent of two elders praying in their apartment before leaving in the morning. The apartment catches on fire and one elder says, 'let's get out of here' while the other responds, 'no, we were instructed to pray for 30 minutes before leaving every morning - no exceptions'. Yes, a silly example but if you want to claim a bishop has the 'keys' to lead the ward, then he should have the 'keys' to discern what is really needed, and amend those needs, while staying within the scope of his duties. 1
Recommended Posts