Let us evolve

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

The purpose should be to support a free market place of ideas, but as of now it certainly fights that in many ways, as if there is fear.  But that's silly and counter-productive, if you ask me.  As per your question about false doctrine (which seems wholly unrelated to me), no, the scripture cited does not say anything about false doctrine, as I've suggested.  yet, in Church false doctrine is often advocated without much room for people to oppose, disagree or share otherwise. 

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The purpose should be to support a free market place of ideas, but as of now it certainly fights that in many ways, as if there is fear.  But that's silly and counter-productive, if you ask me.  As per your question about false doctrine (which seems wholly unrelated to me), no, the scripture cited does not say anything about false doctrine, as I've suggested.  yet, in Church false doctrine is often advocated without much room for people to oppose, disagree or share otherwise. 

Um no. I disagree. The purpose of SS is not to support a free market place of ideas. It is to teach and be edified in the scriptures.

If you want to pursue a free market place of ideas, do it here, as I see you doing somewhat routinely.

That is not for a SS setting, so we apparently disagree. If the majority ever adopts your viewpoint, then maybe SS will conform more to your taste. I hope it never does.

[Calm]

Would this free market of ideas also including discussing someone's idea that certain members were sinners in this person's opinion and s/he believed they were harming others by teaching false doctrine?

[bluebell]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The purpose should be to support a free market place of ideas, 

Why should that be the purpose?  Where does the idea come from that church should be a free market place of ideas?

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Would this free market of ideas also including discussing someone's idea that certain members were sinners in this person's opinion and s/he believed they were harming others by teaching false doctrine?

That's how it goes now, but I suppose so.  The positive of this approach is that which works sticks.  That which does not, does not. 

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why should that be the purpose?  Where does the idea come from that church should be a free market place of ideas?

Why should it not be? 

IT should be for the better of humanity, as explained.  We'd be better off allowing people to express themselves, allowing people to share what they truly are going through as it pertains the welfare of their souls.  Of course only error need fear free expression of ideas. 

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why should it not be? 

IT should be for the better of humanity, as explained.  We'd be better off allowing people to express themselves, allowing people to share what they truly are going through as it pertains the welfare of their souls.  Of course only error need fear free expression of ideas. 

God gives each of us a mind and special talents..we are to use them ..or lose them.  The exchange of ideas and learning is part of our own progression..We can't progress if we can't make things better..again..with those God given talents and our ability to exchange thoughts .Listening is the greatest gift and should be shared..IMO.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Jeanne

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Why should it not be? 

IT should be for the better of humanity, as explained.  We'd be better off allowing people to express themselves, allowing people to share what they truly are going through as it pertains the welfare of their souls.  Of course only error need fear free expression of ideas. 

Reasonable people disagree though.  Not about people being able to express what they are going thru (that's not the topic I've been discussing) but about making all ideas/beliefs equal at church.

Maybe it's better to say that you personally feel that church should be a free market place of ideas.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's how it goes now, but I suppose so.  The positive of this approach is that which works sticks.  That which does not, does not. 

Not really, IMO.  I think it is more like that which is most pushy/vocal/respected for stuff that has nothing to do with the topic is what sticks.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Reasonable people disagree though.  Not about people being able to express what they are going thru (that's not the topic I've been discussing) but about making all ideas/beliefs equal at church.

Maybe it's better to say that you personally feel that church should be a free market place of ideas.

I don't know that it's about making all ideas/beliefs equal but rather about opening up discussion so that true ideas can stand out against false ones. But as long as there is a perceived need to fit every member into the same box of orthodoxy open discussion will never work. Unorthodox ideas will always be met with fear and defensiveness. But IF members recognize that different people thrive in slightly different boxes of belief, and that there is more than just the one box of orthodoxy, then it could be an opportunity for people to thrive as they are introduced to new ideas to be considered and prayed about.

It becomes an opportunity for the members to stop being children, spoon fed what they should believe by authority figures, and become adults able to review information and exercise their agency in belief and action.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know that it's about making all ideas/beliefs equal but rather about opening up discussion so that true ideas can stand out against false ones. But as long as there is a perceived need to fit every member into the same box of orthodoxy open discussion will never work. Unorthodox ideas will always be met with fear and defensiveness. But IF members recognize that different people thrive in slightly different boxes of belief, and that there is more than just the one box of orthodoxy, then it could be an opportunity for people to thrive as they are introduced to new ideas to be considered and prayed about.

It becomes an opportunity for the members to stop being children, spoon fed what they should believe by authority figures, and become adults able to review information and exercise their agency in belief and action.

 

Stemelbow says that church should be a free market place of ideas.  By definition, that means that church should be a place where "ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population."

I disagree that that's what church should be, or that that kind of environment needs to be provided so that members can stop being children.

[Kenngo1969]

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. 

Perhaps we belong to, respectively, different churches, but the welfare of souls has been discussed in every single leadership meeting I have ever attended.  When I was a counselor in an Elders Quorum Presidency, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was a Stake Sunday School Secretary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was a ward Sunday School Secretary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was an Executive Secretary to two different bishops, it was discussed in each Bishopric Meeting, in each Ward Council meeting, and in each Priesthood Executive Committee meeting.  As a Home Teacher, I have discussed the welfare of souls in every visit I have ever made to any family.  When I was a District Leader as a missionary, and when I went to District and Zone Meetings as a rank-and-file missionary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  And so on, ad infinitum.

And, while such discussion may, of necessity out of a need for circumspection, occur less directly in general Sacrament meetings, in general Sunday School meetings, and in general Priesthood and Relief Society meetings (that is to say, such discussion isn't preceded by the declaration and the question, "Brother Jones has Problem [X].  Who has ideas about how we can address Brother Jones's problem?") unless Brother Jones himself brings it up and asks for feedback from the class, it occurs (at least indirectly) in those meetings, as well.  I think one's motive for desiring to foster discussion on certain topics is a huge factor in deciding in what meetings certain topics should be discussed, as well.  If one's motive is to receive feedback as to how one might approach a personal problem, one shouldn't be surprised if one receives the much-derided "Sunday School Answers" in ... Sunday School. Perhaps, though, one's motive has less to do with seeking genuine guidance for himself, and less to do with the welfare of any particular soul, than it does with wanting to guide the class in his preferred direction: perhaps one is less concerned with being taught than with using his "genuine," "sincere" question as a vehicle for attempting to "enlighten" the benighted teacher and the benighted class about, e.g., the purported non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps we belong to, respectively, different churches, but the welfare of souls has been discussed in every single leadership meeting I have ever attended.  When I was a counselor in an Elders Quorum Presidency, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was a Stake Sunday School Secretary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was a ward Sunday School Secretary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  When I was an Executive Secretary to two different bishops, it was discussed in each Bishopric Meeting, in each Ward Council meeting, and in each Priesthood Executive Committee meeting.  As a Home Teacher, I have discussed the welfare of souls in every visit I have ever made to any family.  When I was a District Leader as a missionary, and when I went to District and Zone Meetings as a rank-and-file missionary, it was discussed in each of those meetings.  And so on, ad infinitum.

And, while such discussion may, of necessity out of a need for circumspection, occur less directly in general Sacrament meetings, in general Sunday School meetings, and in general Priesthood and Relief Society meetings (that is to say, such discussion isn't preceded by the declaration and the question, "Brother Jones has Problem [X].  Who has ideas about how we can address Brother Jones's problem?") unless Brother Jones himself brings it up and asks for feedback from the class, it occurs (at least indirectly) in those meetings, as well.  I think one's motive for desiring to foster discussion on certain topics is a huge factor in deciding in what meetings certain topics should be discussed, as well.  If one's motive is to receive feedback as to how one might approach a personal problem, one shouldn't be surprised if one receives the much-derided "Sunday School Answers" in ... Sunday School. Perhaps, though, one's motive has less to do with seeking genuine guidance for himself, and less to do with the welfare of any particular soul, than it does with wanting to guide the class in his preferred direction: perhaps one is less concerned with being taught than with using his "genuine," "sincere" question as a vehicle for attempting to "enlighten" the benighted teacher and the benighted class about, e.g., the purported non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. 

I think there is a specific need Stemelbow is referring to. It's a need that doesn't seem to be addressed very well in church services. For those who doubt and need an outlet of expression and questioning; for those who need to feel validated that they aren't crazy for having concerns over history and doctrine, where can they turn? Who can they talk to? The bishop? A home teacher? Those resources may be ok for a one on one approach if the individual is prepared to have a meaningful discussion and not automatically label a person or relegate them to one of the few categories of faithless people who leave the church. But how do you nurture community if you only have a one on one conversation with a bishop?

I don't know the answer, but like you I've sat in many councils where needs of members have been discussed and plans formulated. I have yet to see a useful response to this particular need.

I think addressing the "needs" that aren't being addressed by the church as "problems" of the individual is a symptom of the organization that still doesn't know how to address the real problem.

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 I think there is a specific need Stemelbow is referring to. It's a need that doesn't seem to be addressed very well in church services. For those who doubt and need an outlet of expression and questioning; for those who need to feel validated that they aren't crazy for having concerns over history and doctrine, where can they turn? Who can they talk to? The bishop? A home teacher? 

I don't know the answer, but like you I've sat in many councils where needs of members have been discussed and plans formulated. I have yet to see a useful response to this particular need.

 

I think this is an important question that needs an answer. I just disagree that the answer should be gospel doctrine class.  I don't think that the typical gospel doctrine class is any more capable of addressing doubts and be an outlet for questioning than any of the outlets that now exist (church leaders, home teachers, friends, etc.).

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... I don't know the answer, but like you I've sat in many councils where needs of members have been discussed and plans formulated. I have yet to see a useful response to this particular need.

I think addressing the "needs" that aren't being addressed by the church as "problems" of the individual is a symptom of the organization that still doesn't know how to address the real problem.

I wasn't intending anything pejorative in my choice of words; if that's how it came across, I apologize.  If one is willing to be proactive, however, one can do much to address one's own needs even within what one/some/many might see as the "confining framework" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As a perhaps-inapposite example, as someone who has spent more than a miniscule amount of time attempting to keep his behavioral health demons at bay, in any particular instance, if I find that the dogs of clinical depression, rather than simply nipping at my heels, as they usually do, are, instead, threatening to devour me whole, I can either: (1) bemoan the fact that, if only he were more cognizant of/sensitive to my plight, someone might reach out, proactively, to me; or (2) develop a game plan for addressing my own problem.  As a part of the second option, if I'm not currently in counseling but feel that I might benefit from it, I can reach out to my Bishop's Executive Secretary and request a meeting with the Bishop so he can provide me with a referral to LDS Social Services; if, upon consideration of the matter, I find that I've lapsed into thought patterns which seem to indicate that the problem has less to do with how things really are than it has to do with how I perceive them, I can choose to reframe whatever issue is under consideration; and so on.

Reframing is not only a useful tool when it comes to maintaining sound behavioral health.  It is useful in any number of contexts, including in the faith context.  In any number of contexts, often, it is useful for someone to be able to ask, "Am I seeing this particular challenge as it is, or am I seeing it less as it is and more as I am?"  If the answer to that question more likely is the latter than it is the former, then perhaps one can examine his assumptions, consider more fully his alternatives, and so on.  As beings which were created to act rather than to be acted upon, we must, when confronted with any particular set of circumstances, decide, "OK, I have this particular challenge.  Ergo, what?"  And it's not as though I have no faith challenges or questions: I simply have decided that if God loves me, and I'm convinced He does (and He doesn't love me because I'm perfect or because I'm even all that good at doing what He asks me to do; rather, He loves me for the same reason my earthly father does: Because I'm His son and because that's simply what He does; it's His nature), then, whatever questions remain, they cease to matter as much as they would if I weren't convinced He loves me.   (Your mileage may vary.)

The long and the short of it is, the more I realize I was created more to act than to be acted upon, the more I realize that "the power is in [me] whereby I am [an] agent[ ] unto [myself]" and that I can be "anxiously engaged" and "do much of my own free will and choice to bring to pass much righteousness," the less likely I am to look at any external source, whether that be another person, a Church leader, or the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole to do for me what I can (and probably should) do for myself.  (Again, your mileage may vary.)  I wish you well.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think this is an important question that needs an answer. I just disagree that the answer should be gospel doctrine class.  I don't think that the typical gospel doctrine class is any more capable of addressing doubts and be an outlet for questioning than any of the outlets that now exist (church leaders, home teachers, friends, etc.).

I don't disagree.

Having these discussions in GD class could be an absolute fiasco, but will we know if we don't try? I hear a lot of people saying things like "members aren't ready to" have these discussions, or dig deep into doctrine, or disagree with each other in productive ways. Maybe they're right but maybe we don't give members enough credit. Maybe we don't expect enough of them so we keep things dumbed down to a level where it's easy and peaceful on the surface. I don't think that approach is working anymore. I think it's time to expect adults to act like adults and its time to treat them like it. If we are required to baby the adults because they can't handle "tough issues" then how weak is the church?

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wasn't intending anything pejorative in my choice of words; if that's how it came across, I apologize. 

 

I don't think you were trying to be pejorative. No apology necessary. I mentioned it because I think it illustrates the assumption in the church that if someone has a need it is because of a problem they have. I think that mentality has a tendency to keep us quiet because we don't want to look like we have a problem, or are a problem. If we can't lean and depend on our church community, is it really a community or is just a Potemkin village like Pres. Uchtdorf described.

Quote

It is said that Potemkin had assembled pasteboard facades of shops and homes. He had even positioned busy-looking peasants to create the impression of a prosperous economy. Once the party disappeared around the bend of the river, Potemkin’s men packed up the fake village and rushed it downstream in preparation for Catherine’s next pass.

Although modern historians have questioned the truthfulness of this story, the term “Potemkin village” has entered the world’s vocabulary. It now refers to any attempt to make others believe we are better than we really are.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/on-being-genuine?lang=eng

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't disagree.

Having these discussions in GD class could be an absolute fiasco, but will we know if we don't try? I hear a lot of people saying things like "members aren't ready to" have these discussions, or dig deep into doctrine, or disagree with each other in productive ways. Maybe they're right but maybe we don't give members enough credit. Maybe we don't expect enough of them so we keep things dumbed down to a level where it's easy and peaceful on the surface. I don't think that approach is working anymore. I think it's time to expect adults to act like adults and its time to treat them like it. If we are required to baby the adults because they can't handle "tough issues" then how weak is the church?

I've heard that the Community of Christ is able to have such frank discussions in their Sunday school meetings without everyone falling to pieces, but I have no personal experience there. 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't disagree.

Having these discussions in GD class could be an absolute fiasco, but will we know if we don't try? I hear a lot of people saying things like "members aren't ready to" have these discussions, or dig deep into doctrine, or disagree with each other in productive ways. Maybe they're right but maybe we don't give members enough credit. Maybe we don't expect enough of them so we keep things dumbed down to a level where it's easy and peaceful on the surface. I don't think that approach is working anymore. I think it's time to expect adults to act like adults and its time to treat them like it. If we are required to baby the adults because they can't handle "tough issues" then how weak is the church?

We adults are notorious for our inability to act like adults, regardless of expectations.  

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 6:25 PM, bluebell said:

Reasonable people disagree though.  Not about people being able to express what they are going thru (that's not the topic I've been discussing) but about making all ideas/beliefs equal at church.

Maybe it's better to say that you personally feel that church should be a free market place of ideas.

That is what I said.  I'm not sure it'll be useful to get caught up in talking about what reasonable people will do from time to time.  Reasonable people will think and do all sorts of crazy stuff. 

[Kenngo1969]

With due respect, as they are my brothers and sisters just as my fellow Latter-day Saints are, and as God is just as pleased with their efforts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with my efforts to do that as a Latter-day Saint, there isn't as much at stake for the Community of Christ: its leadership long ago ceded the high ground in, e.g., the Book of Mormon historicity debate (along with other unique Restoration truth claims) to become, essentially, simply another Protestant sect. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On December 8, 2016 at 7:52 AM, stemelbow said:

That is what I said.  I'm not sure it'll be useful to get caught up in talking about what reasonable people will do from time to time.  Reasonable people will think and do all sorts of crazy stuff. 

I detect a contradiction in terms. A reasonable person, by definition, is one who is <not> apt to do "all sorts of crazy stuff."

Edited December 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I detect a contradiction in terms. A reasonable person, by definition, is one who is <not> apt to do "all sorts of crazy stuff."

The problem for me is I'd wager every single person is apt at some point to do or say something crazy.  Even the most reasonable have their moments. 

[RevTestament]

On 12/7/2016 at 10:58 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I think there is a specific need Stemelbow is referring to. It's a need that doesn't seem to be addressed very well in church services. For those who doubt and need an outlet of expression and questioning; for those who need to feel validated that they aren't crazy for having concerns over history and doctrine, where can they turn? Who can they talk to? The bishop? A home teacher? Those resources may be ok for a one on one approach if the individual is prepared to have a meaningful discussion and not automatically label a person or relegate them to one of the few categories of faithless people who leave the church. But how do you nurture community if you only have a one on one conversation with a bishop?

I don't know the answer, but like you I've sat in many councils where needs of members have been discussed and plans formulated. I have yet to see a useful response to this particular need.

I think addressing the "needs" that aren't being addressed by the church as "problems" of the individual is a symptom of the organization that still doesn't know how to address the real problem.

I think some people just have a need to be "right." It is a common need in our society. Speaking up in SS to address this need is just not the time nor place for it. It is not designed to be a debate hour for everyone's personal opinions to get aired. For people who have that need there are forums like this. I frequent here because I feel free to air my "differences," but also because this is a friendly ground for new ideas, and exploring speculative areas. These types of things just don't fit into a SS format. Some people such as myself enjoy these activities, and some people don't. Some people are disturbed by them. They feel it rocks their "truth boat." I have also been invited to a "discussion group" but I turned this invitation down. I believe the church also frowns on these types of groups, but I have other reasons for turning down the invitation. Nevertheless, they offer an outlet for people with such needs. 

On 12/7/2016 at 1:33 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't disagree.

Having these discussions in GD class could be an absolute fiasco, but will we know if we don't try?

I think we do know. Look at the Community of Christ. They are an example of what will happen if we allow SS to become an open forum. 

Quote

I hear a lot of people saying things like "members aren't ready to" have these discussions, or dig deep into doctrine, or disagree with each other in productive ways. Maybe they're right but maybe we don't give members enough credit. Maybe we don't expect enough of them so we keep things dumbed down to a level where it's easy and peaceful on the surface. I don't think that approach is working anymore. I think it's time to expect adults to act like adults and its time to treat them like it. If we are required to baby the adults because they can't handle "tough issues" then how weak is the church?

Allowing these types of discussions in SS defeats the purpose of SS which is to be edified in the scriptures and learn how to serve Christ in the gospel, imho. For those who want to forge new frontiers, delve into speculative areas, challenge existing doctrine, etc, there are forums like this one, "private" discussion groups, picking up one's own pen, and other outlets. Even JHLPROF complains about the "tired" SS lessons, and he tows a very conservative line. The way to "untire" lessons I believe is to contribute in a positive manner - for the class to offer personal experiences of the gospel in action, etc. I don't believe it should be turned into "challenge the accepted teachings of the church hour." That can be done with books, etc. If new principles are to take hold, one must have faith truth will prevail. It is a founding tenet of our church. 

On 12/8/2016 at 9:01 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, as they are my brothers and sisters just as my fellow Latter-day Saints are, and as God is just as pleased with their efforts to do what they believe He asks of them as he is with my efforts to do that as a Latter-day Saint, there isn't as much at stake for the Community of Christ: its leadership long ago ceded the high ground in, e.g., the Book of Mormon historicity debate (along with other unique Restoration truth claims) to become, essentially, simply another Protestant sect. 

I have made certain promises to Christ which I intend to keep. Rather than abandon the true gospel and my covenants, I will work how I can to bring change to those things I believe need changing. If they truly do, I believe Christ will eventually work through me and others to bring that change about.  

Running off to the Community of Christ so I can air my every difference and gospel belief, is just not an option. The only reason I would attend there is to let them know they don't have the true gospel and priesthood, and are missing the boat. I believe the time is soon at hand when the Community of Christ will convert to the complete truth for the Book of Mormon will convict them of this truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The problem for me is I'd wager every single person is apt at some point to do or say something crazy.  Even the most reasonable have their moments. 

Of course.

But the occasional lapse in judgment is not quite the same thing as doing all manner of crazy things. When a person gets to be like that, he ceases to be reasonable.