Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

lostindc · December 5, 2016

Hey all,

Long time! I hope everyone is well. Happy holidays!

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters? When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine? Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

It appears that bringing up sensitive subjects in Sunday school or sharing a text one encountered that is critical of something Church related is frowned upon. How do we open this dialogue?

bluebell · December 5, 2016

I think that mutual respect is important (not necessarily respect for the belief but for the sincerity of the believer, maybe is a better way to put it).

Also, knowing your audience. SS probably isn't a good place to talk about doubt-promoting or critical issues but that doesn't mean they can't be talked about anywhere. I think a lot depends on the people in the group and the goal of the person trying to bring it up.

And knowing the person you are trying to talk with will use the information as a stepping off point in their own study looking for truth. It's probably not appropriate to try to introduce meat to someone who's happy to stick with milk for the moment. They might not know what to do with the new info or where to go to find out more from pro-LDS (or at least not anti-LDS truth claims) sources.

Just some thoughts...

Scott Lloyd · December 5, 2016

On December 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM, lostindc said:

Hey all,

Long time! I hope everyone is well. Happy holidays!

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters? When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine? Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

I think it is disingenuous to ask a member to read a text that is specious or unreliable, unless that member is given the proper background and shown how the item uses fallacious argumentation or out-of-context quotation or other forms of sophistry. To that I would apply the scriptural phrase "lying in wait to deceive."

Quote

It appears that bringing up sensitive subjects in Sunday school or sharing a text one encountered that is critical of something Church related is frowned upon. How do we open this dialogue?

I have said here recently and I reiterate now that Sunday School or other Church venues are not appropriate settings for debates or for advocacy of false doctrines or opposition to the Church or its doctrines, principles and beliefs. Those are settings for nurturing faith and for learning how to apply true gospel principles in one's day-to-day living.

If one must bring up material that is in opposition to the Church, one should do it on his own time and turf.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

Oliver_Cowdery · December 5, 2016

I given this topic a lot of thought over the years. And I don't know the answer. Unfortunately there are very few avenues to engage family and friends.

Even if you do something at your own home, that will be labeled a "study group". And we know how the church deals with those.

If your friends and family are average "Chapel Mormons" you may find that almost every avenue for discussion is closed.

I know this will come across as defeatist or even cynical. I don't mean it that way, but I find that online discussion groups are just about the only way to engage with believers. The problem with that is that apologists and "Chapel Mormons" are different in enough ways that they each sees the other as less faithful.

I like to understand where people's views coming from. I think I understand exmormons and online apologists pretty well because both groups are open and vocal. However, I have a huge gap in my understanding of chapel Mormons. I don't know how they deal with the issues, because they almost never do so openly. I've asked a few families members to read the book "Rough Stone Rolling". My request caused a stir. They have outright refused to do so. Without reading it they claimed the book is just historians trying to "read minds" and spread "Satan's anti-mormon lies".

"Whatever the issues are they are old issues, that have already been addressed."

"That's not true!"

"Well, I already knew that."

"It's not important."

"I don't want to know. But we always taught that."

"Because when the prophet has spoken the debate is over."

"If the church was not true my life would be wasted and meaningless."

"I will not even read it."

As a missionary I spent day in and day out listening to people who would tell me they knew exactly what the Book of Mormon was without needing to read it. Its hard for me to not see the irony of members having the same reaction to church history. Some things never change.

It's a terrible situation. The cycle of silence will continue on and on until someone finds a way to speak to groups of chapel Mormons without triggering the backfire effect.

The best we can do is to talk to people one on one when they are ready to learn more. I hate how elitist that sounds, but there seems to be no other way.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

Benjamin Seeker · December 5, 2016

I engage with my family members in meaningful conversations by sharing primary sources and being up front that it has led me to questions regarding a specific issue. If there is a secondary source that has good arguments but would make a member uncomfortable because of the of the author or secular framing of the arguments, I just share the primary source and share that such and such author suggested such and such interpretation.

One easy place to start discussions are the Gospel Topics essays. These should provide common discussion ground even in settings like SS or third hour.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

lostindc · December 5, 2016

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that mutual respect is important (not necessarily respect for the belief but for the sincerity of the believer, maybe is a better way to put it).

Also, knowing your audience. SS probably isn't a good place to talk about doubt-promoting or critical issues but that doesn't mean they can't be talked about anywhere. I think a lot depends on the people in the group and the goal of the person trying to bring it up.

And knowing the person you are trying to talk with will use the information as a stepping off point in their own study looking for truth. It's probably not appropriate to try to introduce meat to someone who's happy to stick with milk for the moment. They might not know what to do with the new info or where to go to find out more from pro-LDS (or at least not anti-LDS truth claims) sources.

Just some thoughts...

Thanks bluebell,

Lately, with the easy access to information, some have encountered stuff related to the Church that is not necessarily faith promoting yet no place to discuss openly and in-person with their fellow members in the ward/branch.

It would be nice if Sunday School provided a venue to discuss faith doubts, especially since Church history is so integral to Sunday School lessons. In the wards I attended, it is frowned upon to discuss, for instance, the possibility that Joseph Smith may have used a seer stone for the majority of the BOM "translation." It is unsettling, because topics tend to be avoided.

bluebell · December 5, 2016

1 minute ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I given this topic a lot of thought over the years. And I don't know the answer. Unfortunately there are very few avenues to engage family and friends.

If your friends and family are average "Chapel Mormons" you may find that almost every avenue for discussion is closed.

I know this will come across as defeatist or even cynical. I don't mean it that way, but I find that online discussion groups are just about the only way to engage with believers. The problem with that is that apologist and "Chapel Mormons" are different in enough ways that they each see the other as less faithful.

I like to understand where people views coming from. I think I understand exmormons and online apologist pretty well because both groups are open and vocal. However, I have a huge gap in my understanding of chapel Mormons. I don't how they deal with the issues, because they almost never do so openly. I've asked a few families members to read the book "Rough Stone Rolling". My request caused a stir. They have outright refused to so. Without reading it they claimed the book is just historian trying to read minds and spread "Satan's anti-mormon lies".

As a missionary I spent day in and day out listening to people who would tell me they knew exactly what the Book of Mormon was without needing to read it. Its hard for me to not see the irony of members having the same reaction to church history.

I've found that a lot of times it depends on the belief system of the person making the requests. Where someone who doesn't believe the truth claims of the church (or has doubts and non-traditional beliefs) probably won't be able to convince 'chapel mormons' to read a less known book, if someone who they know has a testimony asks them to read it, it tends to go over better.

Not much that the individual person can do about that though.

bluebell · December 5, 2016

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I engage with my family members in meaningful conversations by sharing primary sources and being up front that it has led me to questions regarding a specific issue. If there is a secondary source that has good arguments but would make a member uncomfortable because of the of the author or secular framing of the arguments, I just share the primary source and share that such and such author suggested such and such interpretation.

One easy place to start discussions are the Gospel Topics essays. These should provide common discussion ground even in settings like SS or third hour.

I've found this to be the case as well.

Sticking with pro-lds sources is a big key and the essays are perfect.

lostindc · December 5, 2016

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it is disingenuous to ask a member to read a text that is specious or unreliable, unless that member is given the proper background and shown how the item uses fallacious argumentation or out-of-context quotation or other forms of sophistry. To that I would apply the scriptural phrase "lying in wait to deceive."

I have said here recently and I reiterate now that Sunday School or other Church venues are not appropriate settings for debates or for advocacy of false doctrines or opposition to the Church or its doctrines, principles and beliefs. Those are settings for nurturing faith and for learning how to apply true gospel principles in one's day-to-day living.

If one must bring up material that in opposition to the Church, one should do it on his own time and turf.

If one is a member and is at Church and brings up potentially negative historical elements regarding the Church is that not the member's turf too? I am confused.

Is it okay to bring up the Seer Stones and some of the complications regarding plural marriage in the early Church or is that "false doctrine?"

10 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I given this topic a lot of thought over the years. And I don't know the answer. Unfortunately there are very few avenues to engage family and friends.

If your friends and family are average "Chapel Mormons" you may find that almost every avenue for discussion is closed.

I am afraid much is black and white in the Church. Either one is willing to listen and discuss or one is completely cut off from the idea of approaching a subject with something other than a faith promoting source. This is completely counter to the inoculation of the saints.

Scott Lloyd · December 5, 2016

4 minutes ago, lostindc said:

If one is a member and is at Church and brings up potentially negative historical elements regarding the Church is that not the member's turf too? I am confused.

The turf belongs to Jesus Christ. If the member sets himself in opposition to Christ's gospel or any of the principles and doctrines pertaining to it, and intends to advocate such opposition, he is trespassing.

Quote

Is it okay to bring up the Seer Stones and some of the complications regarding plural marriage in the early Church or is that "false doctrine?"

If one has questions about such things, the mechanism is now in place with the online "Gospel Topics" essays to answer them in a Church setting. Such instruction should not be allowed to deteriorate into a quarrel or debate. As I said, that is inappropriate for a church setting.

Quote

I am afraid much is black and white in the Church. Either one is willing to listen and discuss or one is completely cut off from the idea of approaching a subject with something other than a faith promoting source. This is completely counter to the inoculation of the saints.

Especially today, there is sufficient opportunity and means for such "inoculation" without giving free rein to the enemies of the Church.

lostindc · December 5, 2016

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The turf belongs to Jesus Christ. If the member sets himself in opposition to Christ's gospel or any of the principles and doctrines pertaining to it, and intends to advocate such opposition, he is trespassing.

If one has questions about such things, the mechanism is now in place with the online "Gospel Topics" essays to answer them in a Church setting. Such instruction should not be allowed to deteriorate into a quarrel or debate. As I said, that is inappropriate for a church setting.

Especially today, there is sufficient opportunity and means for such "inoculation" without giving free rein to the enemies of the Church.

Interesting, that explains the lack of discussion in Sunday School regarding many of the tough issues. So, this is policy in the Church when it comes to what can be discussed in Sunday School?

Tacenda · December 5, 2016

31 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I engage with my family members in meaningful conversations by sharing primary sources and being up front that it has led me to questions regarding a specific issue. If there is a secondary source that has good arguments but would make a member uncomfortable because of the of the author or secular framing of the arguments, I just share the primary source and share that such and such author suggested such and such interpretation.

One easy place to start discussions are the Gospel Topics essays. These should provide common discussion ground even in settings like SS or third hour.

12. Sunday School

The Sunday School is an auxiliary to the priesthood. All auxiliaries exist to help Church members grow in their testimonies of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel. Through the work of the auxiliaries, members receive instruction, encouragement, and support as they strive to live according to gospel principles.

12.1 Purposes of Sunday School

All Church members ages 12 and older are members of Sunday School. Those of other faiths are also welcome to attend and participate in Sunday School classes. The purposes of the Sunday School organization are to:

1.
Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping.
2.
Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.

Oliver_Cowdery · December 5, 2016

30 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Interesting, that explains the lack of discussion in Sunday School regarding many of the tough issues. So, this is policy in the Church when it comes to what can be discussed in Sunday School?

Its not so much policy as it is human nature. As a general rule people don't want to have their ideas challenged. When faced with the possibility of having to learn about an idea contrary to what one believes many people will look for ways to not listen, not read, not understand, and look for ways to attack the messenger.

People often refuse to admit mistakes too, they prefer justifications even if those justifications are transparently bad to an outside observer. When this happens in a group you get group think.

It's a problem that is actually far bigger than Mormonism. It's everywhere. I highly recommend this book.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

I also highly recommend this entire wikipedia page.

Quote

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Read the whole wikipedia page. There is a lot there to think about. The way Churches are organized promotes group think.

While I count a lot of the problem up to human nature, I don't let the organizational church off the hook too easily. Correlation also wasn't doing the members any favors.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

Oliver_Cowdery · December 5, 2016

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If one has questions about such things, the mechanism is now in place with the online "Gospel Topics" essays to answer them in a Church setting.

A few years ago I used the translation essay to teach my 7 year old primary class about the seer stone. I demonstrated how the rock and the hat thing worked and gave each of my students their own seer stone. I then taught the kids about skepticism by explaining how James Randi debunked the claims of people who had claimed to have the ability to use a divining rod. I then challenged the class to think about how one would verify or debunk the claims of someone who claimed to use a seer stone.

It was an excellent lesson, I still use that lesson in other contexts. But it did not go over well. My co-teacher didn't believe the bit about Joseph Smith using seer stones (even though it was from lds.org). And at least one parent flipped out. You can lead a horse (or tapir) to water but you can't make them drink.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

stemelbow · December 5, 2016

I don't know that's there's one given method. People are so varied, even among members! (much to everyone's surprise).

smac97 · December 5, 2016

As I am a "believer," I will offer some thoughts from that perspective as to discussions on this board. I will not presume to speak on behalf of "doubters," except to say that I am sure they have some valuable thoughts on this matter, and I look forward to reading them.

Here are my thoughts:

Guideline No. 1: Bilateral Allowance for Principled Disagreement

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things. I think we all need to allow for the "other guy" to have a substantially different perspective on a given "Mormon" issue, while still giving that person the benefit of the doubt. A presumption that he/she is speaking/acting in good faith. That he/she can be a reasonably-informed and intelligent and decent person, even if he/she harbors opinions quite different from your own.

Guideline No. 2: Generalized Respect for the Subject Matter

Nothing will build up walls faster between believers and critics than treating the sincerely- and deeply-held religious beliefs of the Latter-day Saints with contempt, disrespect, mockery, slurs, etc. Consider this clip from Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (the first 20 seconds):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg05yMkldKc

We have seen many instances of critics (including some who are disaffected and/or nominal members of the Church) coming to this board, heavily populated as it is with observant Mormons, and proceeding to mete out text-based equivalents of the slaps in the above video clip.

(Sadly, I have, on occasion, responded in kind to such things. I've been working on that for quite a while now. Part of the process has been to materially limit time spend on this board.)

My personal theory is that many Latter-day Saints adopt that category as the "top-tier" identity for themselves. There are all sorts of ways we can divvy up our attributes and our roles in society. For some people, their gender is at or near the top of their self-identity. For others, it is their racial/ethnic group. Or their nationality. Or their sexual orientation. Or their political affiliation. Or their profession/career. Or their artistic endeavors and expressions. Or their marital/familial role. And on and on and on.

For many observant Latter-day Saints, however, the "top tier" identity, the principal and most important role they play in life, is inextricably linked to their Mormonism. That identity is . . . that they are each a "child of God." That is what they have come to believe and accept. It is an identity that transcends all others. And it is a core concept of the teachings of the LDS Church. So to sneer at that, to gratuitously demean and insult it, is to sneer and demean and insult the most valuable thing about them.

All this does not mean critics cannot critique and criticize our faith and practices and whatnot. Rather . . . it's a plea to treat our faith with some measure of decorum and dignity, even if you do not share it (or like it).

Guideline No. 3: Be Open to Correction / Give Correction Nicely

There are vast amounts of data about the LDS Church and its history, practices, beliefs, leaders, members, and so on. None of us have mastered it all. So we should all be open to correction as to matters of fact (as distinguished from matters of opinion).

On the flipside, when a person on "the other side" of the argument presents a factually incorrect statement, we can and should offer clarification/correction with respect, patience, and perhaps even kindness.

Guideline No. 4: Be Ready to Apologize / Walk Away

Online conversations about certain topics, like politics or religion, can become heated. I have found value in owning up to remarks I have made in the heat of the moment, in retracting them where appropriate, in apologizing for them, and so on. I have also found value in periodically limiting participation in online discussions. There is so very much more to life than these largely ephemeral discussions. There are so many additional worthwhile things to do.

Guideline No. 5: "WWCD?"

When all else fails and you are not sure how to participate in a particular discussion about Mormonism, just ask yourself . . . WWCD? "What would Calm do?" Read Calm's posts and follow her generalized pattern of behavior. Because she's awesome.

Now, as to your specific questions:

Quote

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters? When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?

I suppose that would depend on your overall objective. If your intention is to "proselytize" in reverse, to persuade members of the LDS Church to turn away from or otherwise reject the tenets of their faith, then I'm not sure what to tell you. I lack a sufficient frame of reference to provide assistance on such an effort.

However, if you have some other objective(s) in mind, here are a few suggestions:

Don't offer unsolicited criticisms of LDS belief and practice to those who take such things seriously. The key word here is "unsolicited." By way of analogy: My wife is a remarkably good and intelligent and spiritual (and fine looking!) woman. She does, however, have some flaws here and there in her character/behavior. Nevertheless, I would probably not appreciate some family member or acquaintance approaching me and offering unsolicited criticisms about my wife. I think a lot of people could understand that sentiment, right? If so, then take it and apply it to unsolicited criticisms of other people's most sacred and cherished religious beliefs. The validity of the criticisms pretty much become irrelevant when the criticisms are unsolicited.

Do not resort to false pretenses when presenting your perspective on a given "negative phenomenon." I am thinking here of the approach taken by Jeremy Runnels, whose "Letter to a CES Director" simply reeked of bad faith. He was not asking questions. He was couching accusations and criticisms as questions. He was not looking for information. He was looking for argument. He was looking to attack.

Approach such things with an open mind. The "phenomenon" you have in mind may only have a patina of "negativity" painted on it due to limited information, or because the phenomenon in culturally/sociologically unfamiliar, and hence weird. Or it may be a genuine "negative phenomenon" but not a dealkiller from the LDS perspective. Or it may be an unequivocally bad thing (Mountain Meadows springs to mind), and we just have to lump it.

Quote

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine? Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

I have read plenty of other-than-faith-promoting scholarship about the LDS Church. I have also read considerable quantities of "anti-Mormon" materials. As to the former, I think most members of the Church would consider reading such materials if they have the time and the inclination. As to the latter, not so much.

Again, intent and motive matter. I have a friend whose sister has been "encouraging" her to read materials critical of the Church. My friend knows that her sister is doing this as part of an overall strategy to tear down her (my friend's) faith in and relationship with the teachings of the LDS Church. So the sister's ongoing efforts have had a souring effect between siblings.

Quote

It appears that bringing up sensitive subjects in Sunday school or sharing a text one encountered that is critical of something Church related is frowned upon. How do we open this dialogue?

In Sunday School? I don't think we should "open this dialogue." Sunday School is part of a very small block of time each week during which the Church gets to provide formal instruction to its members about the faith and its constituent precepts. It is not an appropriate venue for argument, or for discussing controversies or tangential topics.

Again, intent and motive matter. Many (most?) Mormons are, at this point, rather acclimated to the idea that a critic approaching them with unsolicited reading recommendations is probably intending to tear down or otherwise malign the LDS Church and its teachings. I think many Mormons are then understandably not super-duper inclined to go along with such unsolicited suggestions, particularly when there are false pretenses in play.

Thanks,

-Smac

cinepro · December 5, 2016

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

Hey all,

Long time! I hope everyone is well. Happy holidays!

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters? When one confronts some sort of negative phenomenon regarding the Church and desires to discuss this phenomenon with believers (such as family or members in the ward) how would one approach this discussion?

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine? Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

It appears that bringing up sensitive subjects in Sunday school or sharing a text one encountered that is critical of something Church related is frowned upon. How do we open this dialogue?

Here's the counsel being given to members:

Quote

We should disconnect, immediately and completely, from listening to the proselytizing efforts of those who have lost their faith and instead reconnect promptly with the Holy Spirit.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/stay-connected-to-god-elder-l-whitney-clayton-tells-byu-graduates?lang=eng

So, good luck with that.

Edited December 5, 2016 by cinepro

December 5, 2016

1. Never Lie...good advice regardless.

2. Never speculate on matters where you are unsure.

3. Always show respect.

4. Be prayerful...the nature of prayer is that you can speak with others while praying for guidance.

5. Use humor, it always works.

6. Bear testimony of things you know to be true, and admit that you walk by faith on other things.

7. Focus on that which unites you, rather than focus on that which devides.

8. Love those with whom you speak..."Unconditionally".

9. When tempers flare...return to step one and repeat.

10. "...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which dispitfully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which art in heaven:"... Matthew 5: 44-45

Edited December 6, 2016 by Bill "Papa" Lee

lostindc · December 5, 2016

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From Handbook 2:

12. Sunday School

The Sunday School is an auxiliary to the priesthood. All auxiliaries exist to help Church members grow in their testimonies of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel. Through the work of the auxiliaries, members receive instruction, encouragement, and support as they strive to live according to gospel principles.

12.1 Purposes of Sunday School

All Church members ages 12 and older are members of Sunday School. Those of other faiths are also welcome to attend and participate in Sunday School classes. The purposes of the Sunday School organization are to:

1.
Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping.

2.
Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.

This doesn't seem to apply at all to your claims that one cannot discuss difficult subjects in Sunday School. You went as far as to call it trespassing. Can you please clarify? I am a bit lost at times so perhaps I missed the point.

lostindc · December 5, 2016

47 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Its not so much policy as it is human nature. As a general rule people don't want to have their ideas challenged. When faced with the possibility of having to learn about an idea contrary to what one believes many people will look for ways to not listen, not read, not understand, and look for ways to attack the messenger.

People often refuse to admit mistakes too, they prefer justifications even if those justifications are transparently bad to an outside observer. When this happens in a group you get group think.

It's a problem that is actually far bigger than Mormonism. It's everywhere. I highly recommend this book.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

I also highly recommend this entire wikipedia page.

Read the whole wikipedia page. There is a lot there to think about. The way Churches are organized promotes group think.

While I count a lot of the problem up to human nature, I don't let the organizational church off the hook too easily. Correlation also wasn't doing the members any favors.

I believe you might be onto something. I think it can be very tough to accept responsibility or justify one's beliefs. I like the book you linked!

lostindc · December 5, 2016

24 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Here's the counsel being given to members:

So, good luck with that.

So it is policy to no longer listen to those that waiver in belief or no longer believe?!? How do they define proselytizing efforts? Does it mean asking questions that are not faith promoting are to be immediately cut off?

smac97 · December 5, 2016

53 minutes ago, lostindc said:

If one is a member and is at Church and brings up potentially negative historical elements regarding the Church is that not the member's turf too? I am confused.

Is it okay to bring up the Seer Stones and some of the complications regarding plural marriage in the early Church or is that "false doctrine?"

I would request that you clarify your inquiries in terms of three considerations: Time, Place and Manner.

When are you suggesting that these topics be raised?

Where?

In what manner?

Let me illustrate: This last Saturday I took my family to the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City. I was surprised and pleased to see a display about Joseph Smith's seerstone. I specifically gathered my wife and children around it, read the display's text about it (there were large photos of the stone, but not the stone itself), and also explained/summarized my own understanding of the role that the stone played in Joseph's life (principally in the translation process). My kids were very interested in it, and a little surprised. But the time and place and manner in which the information was presented was, in my view, quite good and appropriate.

The Museum also had a display about polygamy, including some of its complexities and challenges. There was a page of the original text of D&C 132 on display, and also a video screen of several actresses dressed in 19th century clothing who reenacted statements of women who entered into polygamy. The main text of the display read: "A Test of Faith: The Saints and Plural Marriage / Accepting and living the principle of plural marriage was an Abrahamic trial of faith for those Nauvoo Saints to whom the principle was taught. Personal revelation and spiritual confirmation strengthened them to obey a commandment that was contrary to their customs and sentiments." We did not spend as much time looking at this, probably because we have had several discussions in our home about polygamy over the years. Both I and my wife descend from polygamists. We also have three families that just moved into our ward who left a polygamist group and joined the Church. We have started to become friends with them and have performed several service projects for them.

So the topics you mention here have been "brought up" and discussed in our family. There have been many other difficult topics raised as well. Mountain Meadows. The Hoffman forgeries. Blacks and the priesthood. Women and the priesthood. And so on.

Last week my oldest son started his mission as a Church Service Missionary. He lives at home, but spends his days at the Provo MTC in the Referral Center, where he takes calls and text messages regarding the Church. In the 7-8 days he has been there he has already encountered a number of communications about controversial topics, including several which have plainly been presented to him for their "shock value." I have been pleased to hear my son report about these incidents, which have not phased him. I think they have not phased him because he has a strong testimony, because my wife and I have spent the last many years teaching our son and our other children the Restored Gospel, because we have emphasized the important and core components of it, because we have also freely addressed the difficult/controversial aspects of our history and practices and beliefs, and because we have addressed these aspects in the appropriate time, place and manner.

53 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I am afraid much is black and white in the Church.

Yes, there is. But there is also plenty of "gray."

Why is the Priesthood restricted to men?

Was the Priesthood Ban revelatory?

Why were the 19th-century Saints commanded to practice polygamy?

We could go on all day. There are plenty of secondary issues about which the Mormons have to admit they lack sufficient light and knowledge. There are even elements of primary issues (of doctrine, of practice, of past behaviors by leaders of the Church, etc.) which we have to own.

53 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Either one is willing to listen and discuss or one is completely cut off from the idea of approaching a subject with something other than a faith promoting source.

I don't think you will find this accusation will find much traction. Not on this board. There are oodles of Latter-day Saints here who are ready, willing, and able to discuss our faith with people who do not share it, even with people who do not like it.

As for other venues, I keep coming back to two points: First, intent and motive matter. If there is "black and white" thinking in the LDS people you are approaching to discuss difficult issues with the Church, it may be that they suspect your motive is not to learn about their faith, but to tear it down.

Second, "time" and "place" and "manner" are all important considerations when discussing sensitive/difficult/controversial topics.

Thanks,

-Smac

lostindc · December 5, 2016

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would request that you clarify your inquiries in terms of three considerations: Time, Place and Manner.

When are you suggesting that these topics be raised?

Where?

In what manner?

-Smac

Say we discuss the translation of the BOM. Can one ask about the seer stones in a hat or potential BOM anachronisms during Sunday School? Just a simple question from someone in the Sunday School class.

Benjamin Seeker · December 5, 2016

11 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So it is policy to no longer listen to those that waiver in belief or no longer believe?!? How do they define proselytizing efforts? Does it mean asking questions that are not faith promoting are to be immediately cut off?

I think the two sides of the conversation are talking past each other here. First, the church has long steered its members away from anti-material, or sources that suggest JS was something else besides a true prophet of God. That is still in effect today. We consistently here advice to be cautious of which sources we listen, read, etc.

However, there is room within the church to give voice to our concerns. For example, "I heard JS practiced polygamy with other men's wives. Who else knows about this and what do you think about it?" might be a fine question when section 132 is covered. Bringing up troubling topics for conversation, if your intent is for sincere dialogue, inoculation, or other approved church purpose, should be safe to do within standard church settings. I think you still might get push back, but the church is opening the doors for this kind of discussion. The recent push for Seminary teachers to address student's questions head on, the inclusion of difficult material in the seminary lessons, the new historical supplement for D&C SS (thanks for linking to that, Tacenda), and the gospel topics essays are all examples of the church opening up floor for these topics to be addressed within its precincts.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

Sign In

Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

Recommended Posts

lostindc

bluebell

Scott Lloyd

Oliver_Cowdery

Benjamin Seeker

lostindc

bluebell

bluebell

lostindc

Scott Lloyd

lostindc

Tacenda

Scott Lloyd

12. Sunday School

12.1 Purposes of Sunday School

Oliver_Cowdery

Oliver_Cowdery

stemelbow

smac97

cinepro

Guest

lostindc

12. Sunday School

12.1 Purposes of Sunday School

lostindc

lostindc

smac97

lostindc

Benjamin Seeker

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse