churchistrue Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: The church (ie. the manuals the church gives the teachers to use) should be the final authority. You keep talking about this final authority, but I don't think it exists. What is the final authority on the details of theosis/deification doctrine? What is the final authority on grace and works? What is the final authority on the details of how the atonement works? You could create two opposing views on each of these and find plenty of support on lds.org to support them all. What is the final authority to determine how to properly interpret scripture XYZ which is in this week's gospel doctrine lesson? It doesn't exist. The manual encourages discussion of points it has no final authority for. You think BOM historicity is off limits because you deem it heretic. But you're not the final authority. What about other scripture historicity? Do you have a position on every single book, chapter, and verse in the Bible? Does the church? Does the manual? Final authority doesn't exist on 95% of the questions that come up in the typical GD class. Elder Ballard encouraged us to turn to the church's best scholars to help answer difficult questions. That opens a can of worms, doesn't it. If you think we have a final authority on things. Our SS President taught in that monthly class for teachers they just started about the importance of teaching pure doctrine and not speculative doctrine. Then the next week in GD class, he raised his hand to comment on a controversial question, and cited an obscure reference from church history, someone's journal, I forget exactly. In his mind, he was teaching pure doctrine. But in someone else's mind, it was speculative. As Joseph intended, we don't have a set of creeds. A long list of final, authoritative doctrinal statements. 3
bluebell Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 1 minute ago, churchistrue said: You keep talking about this final authority, but I don't think it exists. What is the final authority on the details of theosis/deification doctrine? What is the final authority on grace and works? What is the final authority on the details of how the atonement works? You could create two opposing views on each of these and find plenty of support on lds.org to support them all. What is the final authority to determine how to properly interpret scripture XYZ which is in this week's gospel doctrine lesson? It doesn't exist. The manual encourages discussion of points it has no final authority for. Not every topic has a final authority answer. Sometimes the final authoritative answer is "We don't know." That doesn't mean that some don't though. Quote You think BOM historicity is off limits because you deem it heretic. But you're not the final authority. The church is the final authority on the church's doctrine and teachings. It is also the final authority on what get's taught as true or false in the church's SS classes. That's what I'm saying. I'm sorry if i haven't been clear. Quote Elder Ballard encouraged us to turn to the church's best scholars to help answer difficult questions. That opens a can of worms, doesn't it. If you think we have a final authority on things. And we definitely should. Personal study is a hugely important thing. Gospel discussions are awesome and they should't only occur in SS class. Quote Our SS President taught in that monthly class for teachers they just started about the importance of teaching pure doctrine and not speculative doctrine. Then the next week in GD class, he raised his hand to comment on a controversial question, and cited an obscure reference from church history, someone's journal, I forget exactly. In his mind, he was teaching pure doctrine. But in someone else's mind, it was speculative. As Joseph intended, we don't have a set of creeds. A long list of final, authoritative doctrinal statements. Great. In my previous post i stated that sharing our thoughts, opinions, and feelings about different things in SS is not bad. But when those thoughts, opinions, and feelings disagree with the church's teachings on the matter we shouldn't try to put our beliefs on equal footing. Beliefs that contradict church teachings should not have equal voice in a church class. 1
churchistrue Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 20 minutes ago, bluebell said: Great. In my previous post i stated that sharing our thoughts, opinions, and feelings about different things in SS is not bad. But when those thoughts, opinions, and feelings disagree with the church's teachings on the matter we shouldn't try to put our beliefs on equal footing. Beliefs that contradict church teachings should not have equal voice in a church class. Fine, no problem. So, it's just a matter of clarifying when an opinion is official or not official or when it should be considered "equal voice" as what the manual states officially.
stemelbow Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 21 hours ago, bluebell said: You said you agreed with Pres. Brown who said that only error needs to fear freedom of expression. I'm sorry if i misunderstood but i read that as saying that the free expression of error should be feared. That's not the meaning of the phrase.
bluebell Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's not the meaning of the phrase. Ok.
bluebell Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, churchistrue said: Fine, no problem. So, it's just a matter of clarifying when an opinion is official or not official or when it should be considered "equal voice" as what the manual states officially. Yes. SS class is not a 'free market place of ideas." It's a place where the church's ideas (teachings and doctrines) are taught. That is why the manual should be the final authority. 1
stemelbow Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes. SS class is not a 'free market place of ideas." It's a place where the church's ideas (teachings and doctrines) are taught. That is why the manual should be the final authority. It's too bad too, because our scriptures speak of Church being needed as a place for people to come and talk about the welfare of their souls (which would require we speak openly about issues and not feel obliged to hit certain talking points). They don't speak of it as a place to forward codified dogma.
bluebell Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: It's too bad too, because our scriptures speak of Church being needed as a place for people to come and talk about the welfare of their souls (which would require we speak openly about issues and not feel obliged to hit certain talking points). They don't speak of it as a place to forward codified dogma. Could you provide the verses you are referring to so we are both looking at the same reference? Allowing the teaching of false doctrines as if they were true would not benefit anyone's soul. I think the scriptures are clear in that church is a place to forward the doctrines of Christ and true teachings, not personal interpretations or false beliefs. That's not always cut and dried of course or easy to accomplish even when it is the goal.
stemelbow Posted December 2, 2016 Author Posted December 2, 2016 56 minutes ago, bluebell said: Could you provide the verses you are referring to so we are both looking at the same reference? Allowing the teaching of false doctrines as if they were true would not benefit anyone's soul. I think the scriptures are clear in that church is a place to forward the doctrines of Christ and true teachings, not personal interpretations or false beliefs. That's not always cut and dried of course or easy to accomplish even when it is the goal. 5 And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. 6 And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. Moroni 6, I believe.
Calm Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Duncan said: I think that a lot of this evolving just depends on who is in your stake and access to materials and someone who reads and studies. My Mom is a GD teacher and she has people in class who can barely read or don't speak english well and don't feel comfortable even speaking in class. Something i've noticed is people believe experts and so they can say something without much fanfare. So, par example if the late Truman Madsen said something shocking or something most people never even heard of who'd argue with him? whereas if I said the same thing they let the air out the car tires Established reasons for trust is not a bad way of approaching life as we do not have resources to personally research everything. The vast majority of our knowledge is from taking the words of experts. The effectiveness of this approach is confirmed for us when 'life' works. It is very important to be careful therefore in who we accept as experts (for example, with Truman Madsen there is good reason to rely on him, IMO; much less in the case of Julie Rowe and more not to rely on her...again, IMO). 1
bluebell Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 5 And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. 6 And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus. Moroni 6, I believe. Thank you. Do you believe that allowing the teachings of false doctrine (if someone in the class sincerely believes it's true) is what the verse in Moroni is advocating?
Calm Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: talk about the welfare of their souls (which would require we speak openly about issues and not feel obliged to hit certain talking points). I think this being a requirement or even beneficial (talking about any issue a person has in any way if I understand you correctly) is a major assumption and honestly a dangerous one if you are making it without any limits as opposed to including limits, but just not identifying them at this point. I have seen where encouraging someone to air his concerns was actually damaging as it only reinforced what were unrealistic ideas to the point they became an unhealthy obsession. I am not suggesting that most concerns about the Church fall into the psychologically unhealthy category if dwelt upon; just making the point that total openness/airing of concerns isn't automatically healthy so boundaries need to be in place. Where those boundaries are best placed to maximize the welfare of members' souls is what I see being debated (and rightly so). Edited December 2, 2016 by Calm 2
The Nehor Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 As Meldrum taught us evolution is an evil lie taught by a vast conspiracy of scientists seeking to deceive us I would suggest we should not evolve as the very concept is satanic. 3
Duncan Posted December 2, 2016 Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) Just now, The Nehor said: As Meldrum taught us evolution is an evil lie taught by a vast conspiracy of scientists seeking to deceive us I would suggest we should not evolve as the very concept is satanic. Were those scientists Chinese ?! Edited December 2, 2016 by Duncan
carbon dioxide Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 8 hours ago, churchistrue said: You keep talking about this final authority, but I don't think it exists. What is the final authority on the details of theosis/deification doctrine? What is the final authority on grace and works? What is the final authority on the details of how the atonement works? You could create two opposing views on each of these and find plenty of support on lds.org to support them all. What is the final authority to determine how to properly interpret scripture XYZ which is in this week's gospel doctrine lesson? It doesn't exist. The manual encourages discussion of points it has no final authority for. You think BOM historicity is off limits because you deem it heretic. But you're not the final authority. What about other scripture historicity? Do you have a position on every single book, chapter, and verse in the Bible? Does the church? Does the manual? Final authority doesn't exist on 95% of the questions that come up in the typical GD class. Elder Ballard encouraged us to turn to the church's best scholars to help answer difficult questions. That opens a can of worms, doesn't it. If you think we have a final authority on things. Our SS President taught in that monthly class for teachers they just started about the importance of teaching pure doctrine and not speculative doctrine. Then the next week in GD class, he raised his hand to comment on a controversial question, and cited an obscure reference from church history, someone's journal, I forget exactly. In his mind, he was teaching pure doctrine. But in someone else's mind, it was speculative. As Joseph intended, we don't have a set of creeds. A long list of final, authoritative doctrinal statements. Perhaps "final authority" it too strong a term but in regards to the guidelines regarding Sunday School, there are clear boundaries the teachers are supposed to be on while in class. Sometimes it can be frustrating as so many good things can't be put on the table to discuss but the Church does want the teachers to follow the lessons fairly closely with not many tangents.
Kenngo1969 Posted December 3, 2016 Posted December 3, 2016 On 12/1/2016 at 1:24 PM, bluebell said: First, thank you for showing me how to spell that! I knew i wasn't spelling it right but could not figure out what actually was. Our Sunday school class is definitely in the doldrums. And i'm one of those people that usually loves Sunday school. Teachers make all the difference though and when you get one that's not great at it, it can be brutal. This isn't a criticism of you, but, ultimately, what I do or do not get out of a class, lesson, or talk isn't necessarily dependent upon the teacher, the speaker, or the material. Yes, teachers and speakers should be prepared. Yes, they should strive earnestly to implement the ideas in Teaching: No Greater Call. Yes, they should seek to have the Spirit in their classes and other meetings. And so on and so forth. All of that having been said, one of the adventures of having a lay ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that teachers and leaders are not immune from the same vicissitudes of mortality that bedevil the rest of us: while, ideally, yes, they should rise above them in order to bring (and to give) their best each Sunday, success at doing that in a fallen world varies from week to week and from individual to individual. This also might be relevant. https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2016/07/16/do-they-know-how-much-you-care/ 3
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2016 Author Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/2/2016 at 1:47 PM, bluebell said: Thank you. Do you believe that allowing the teachings of false doctrine (if someone in the class sincerely believes it's true) is what the verse in Moroni is advocating? It says nothing about false doctrine. Its likely false doctrine is taught to some degree or another in every LDS class setting, I'd wager though. So that's a non starter.
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2016 Author Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/2/2016 at 1:55 PM, Calm said: I think this being a requirement or even beneficial (talking about any issue a person has in any way if I understand you correctly) is a major assumption and honestly a dangerous one if you are making it without any limits as opposed to including limits, but just not identifying them at this point. I have seen where encouraging someone to air his concerns was actually damaging as it only reinforced what were unrealistic ideas to the point they became an unhealthy obsession. I am not suggesting that most concerns about the Church fall into the psychologically unhealthy category if dwelt upon; just making the point that total openness/airing of concerns isn't automatically healthy so boundaries need to be in place. Where those boundaries are best placed to maximize the welfare of members' souls is what I see being debated (and rightly so). I may need an example of something to get an idea of what you mean.
RevTestament Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/1/2016 at 0:36 PM, stemelbow said: no room for a member in the ward to think the Boom of Mormon is fictional while also acknowledging the rest of the ward, most likely, disagrees? Say someone might teach from the material but also offer a note that his/her personal belief is "these things likely didn't happen" just so people are clear. Do you likewise object if someone offers their personal opinion about something making clear it's his/her opinion? I know this was directed to Scott, but I want to weigh in on this subject. I am glad the Church is taking a more open stance on Church history, but when it comes to scriptural interpretation, I think it important we don't allow Sunday school to become an Aristotelian debate hour, and allow open season on every scripture verse being studied or entertain every idea. So it is going to be somewhat of a balancing act. That said, I believe it very important that those who do choose to question an interpretation or introduce a different interpretation not be automatically closed down or treated negatively. If a teacher judges the topic is going too far astray or is becoming contentious, it is the teachers right to acknowledge those who raise an opposing view, but say the church does not presently teach that view, and in the interest of covering all the material we need to move on or something to that effect. Allowing someone to spout all their views concerning the "fiction" of the chapters being studied is not the purpose of Sunday School. Those people can be wrong, as I believe they are. While it may be ok to acknowledge some have differing opinions, people don't go to Sunday School to listen to someone say all the reasons they don't believe the Book of Mormon. If they do not believe it factually, perhaps they should reevaluate the damage their opinions can cause. I believe it is fine for them to hold their opinions, but I believe it would be much better and constructive for them to try to add constructive comments in class than to constantly try to air their own opposing opinions lest they find themselves fighting against God and the lamb about things they really don't know, and which are in the end their PERSONAL opinion. Everyone in that class has their personal opinions, and the purpose of the class is not for the teacher to play as a talk show host allowing everyone to air their personal opinions. The purpose is to teach, edify and expound on the scriptures. Can we agree on this much?
RevTestament Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 On 12/2/2016 at 0:26 PM, stemelbow said: It's too bad too, because our scriptures speak of Church being needed as a place for people to come and talk about the welfare of their souls (which would require we speak openly about issues and not feel obliged to hit certain talking points). They don't speak of it as a place to forward codified dogma. cfa on that - our scriptures don't say the church should act as a psychoanalyst for the welfare of everyone's soul. They do say that the elders should be given opportunities to be heard that all may be edified. This assumes that the participants are trying to edify the group and not lead them astray after someone seeking to lead them astray into new fields. The thing is we really don't know the thoughts or intents of everyone's hearts. But I believe a good rule of thumb is if none of their comments are constructive, then the teacher should probably limit their input - hopefully politely. Those holding differing views or opinions than those being taught are essentially always going to look at the teaching concerning various scripture as "codified dogma." I hold my interpretation and you hold yours. That doesn't make my opinion "codified dogma."
bluebell Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: It says nothing about false doctrine. Its likely false doctrine is taught to some degree or another in every LDS class setting, I'd wager though. So that's a non starter. It doesn't have to say anything about false doctrine specifically for my question to still be answerable though. And i agree that false doctrine is probably taught to some degree, but allowing the teaching of sincere but false doctrine is not the goal. It may happen, but that's in spite of the reasons for gathering and not because of them.
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2016 Author Posted December 5, 2016 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: It doesn't have to say anything about false doctrine specifically for my question to still be answerable though. And i agree that false doctrine is probably taught to some degree, but allowing the teaching of sincere but false doctrine is not the goal. It may happen, but that's in spite of the reasons for gathering and not because of them. Hey Bluebell, I answered the question. There is nothing in that verse about false doctrine.
bluebell Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Hey Bluebell, I answered the question. There is nothing in that verse about false doctrine. You didn't answer the question because i didn't ask what the verse said, i asked what you thought Moroni meant. But maybe you've forgotten the context in which the question came to be asked and that's why you're not understanding me. Our whole conversation has been about whether or not the church should make SS class a market place of free ideas where truth and error can be espoused equally if it's sincerely believed by the person espousing it. The context of our discussion has been whether or not it's good for church to be a place where false doctrines are openly discussed and allowed to be embraced as long as the person doing so sincerely believes they are true. It was in that context that i said that that's not the purpose of church. It was in that context that you responded- "It's too bad too, because our scriptures speak of Church being needed as a place for people to come and talk about the welfare of their souls" You used the verses in Moroni as evidence to support your assertion that the scriptures speak of church as being a place where discussing all doctrines--true and false--openly is a part of coming together and talking about the welfare of our souls. My question is, do you believe that the above bolded part is what Moroni meant in those verses you quoted about what should be doing at church? 2
stemelbow Posted December 5, 2016 Author Posted December 5, 2016 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: You didn't answer the question because i didn't ask what the verse said, i asked what you thought Moroni meant. But maybe you've forgotten the context in which the question came to be asked and that's why you're not understanding me. Our whole conversation has been about whether or not the church should make SS class a market place of free ideas where truth and error can be espoused equally if it's sincerely believed by the person espousing it. The context of our discussion has been whether or not it's good for church to be a place where false doctrines are openly discussed and allowed to be embraced as long as the person doing so sincerely believes they are true. It was in that context that i said that that's not the purpose of church. It was in that context that you responded- "It's too bad too, because our scriptures speak of Church being needed as a place for people to come and talk about the welfare of their souls" You used the verses in Moroni as evidence to support your assertion that the scriptures speak of church as being a place where discussing all doctrines--true and false--openly is a part of coming together and talking about the welfare of our souls. My question is, do you believe that the above bolded part is what Moroni meant in those verses you quoted about what should be doing at church? I don't know Moroni's mind. I'm going with what was said. the scripture tells us they met together to discuss the welfare of their souls. The scripture does not say anything about a purpose of the Church is making sure the organization is in control of what is taught and talked out in Church. If the latter than the former seems impossible to me. We'll never really get there. Whether Moroni intended his message to speak to us in 2016 is anyone's guess. But we're supposed to suppose his message was meant for us, so it works for me. And if it didn't it wouldn't matter to me. I'd still believe Church is meant for us to openly discuss what we're truly dealing with and going through.
bluebell Posted December 5, 2016 Posted December 5, 2016 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't know Moroni's mind. I'm going with what was said. the scripture tells us they met together to discuss the welfare of their souls. The scripture does not say anything about a purpose of the Church is making sure the organization is in control of what is taught and talked out in Church. If the latter than the former seems impossible to me. We'll never really get there. Whether Moroni intended his message to speak to us in 2016 is anyone's guess. But we're supposed to suppose his message was meant for us, so it works for me. And if it didn't it wouldn't matter to me. I'd still believe Church is meant for us to openly discuss what we're truly dealing with and going through. So we're in agreement that the scriptures do not support the assertion that the purpose of church is to provide a free market place of ideas.
Recommended Posts