Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes, definitely.  I think in some ways the essays will serve as that.

A lot of times though people are trying to explain 'deep mysteries' and I think that mysteries are meant to be discovered thru study, prayer and faith on an individual basis and not hand fed to us in a group.  

The essays are good to start with..for some, the essays will simply blow them away.    That being said..it is time for the wind to blow....I hope that those who are my age and older will be able to digest the meat.  They can..and they will..at least to know of the Church's stance today can put them on equal footing with their posterity.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

So if the material is included with the lesson materials, is it then derailing the lesson? There is not much of this stuff in the online manual yet, it is apparently a work in progress. But if and when it is there, isn't it there to be used in the lesson?

No, if it's part of the lesson materials, it is not derailing the lesson. That should go without saying.

That said, I've  had many years of experience teaching Sunday School, and what was abundantly clear to me from the very first was that it is not possible to cover every single thing in the lesson manual within the allotted time. There is some leeway given to the teacher, as guided by the Holy Spirit, to determine sometimes "in the very moment" what should be given attention and how much time should be allotted to a given element in the lesson.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Just another reason I am very happy living far outside the Corridor.

 

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think perhaps you know less about "the Corridor" than you think you do.

 

 

43 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

And what makes you think that? You seem to be assuming quite a bit.

Your remark about "the Corridor" struck me as a blanket generalization that doesn't square with my personal experience as one who has lived in and served in the Church in the Salt Lake Valley virtually his entire life.

I agree very much with Smac's response to this. It is consistent with my own experience:

 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I live in "the Corridor."  Provo.  About a mile from BYU.  The dire circumstances being described by Oliver are unknown to me.  And I have never heard any of the huge numbers of Mormons of my acquaintance give any indication that they think those circumstances exist, either (or if they do, that they are systemic/widespread).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[lostindc]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

CFRs are not supposed to be optional.  You said: "If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School..."

I responded: "CFR.  Who is saying this?  Which leaders in the LDS Church?  Which participants in this thread?  Chapter and verse, please."

You made the assertion.  Please substantiate it.

You seem like a good poster but I am daft and get lost in all the points you're conveying, so I will focus on a few. 

So are you saying that Church, in modern times, is very much okay with discussing tough subjects such as Heavenly Mother, seer stones, plural wives, different versions of the first vision in Sunday School?  I need clarification so I can understand and respond.

 

The questions quoted seem to be the points you continue to revisit.  

In a post above, Scott already clarified that his position is not that difficult subjects shouldn't be discussed just that if these subjects are brought up in a negative manner or that the teacher cannot answer these questions then the topics shouldn't be discussed.  So it seems like posters are now saying that difficult subjects can be discussed if done in a very controlled manner if done in Sunday School.  We had a mixed bag in terms of these subjects should be discussed in Sunday School.

I hope that we can now discuss difficult topics in Sunday School.  We know the September 6 and others that discussed controversial topics ended up getting excommunicated so I can understand a reluctance to discuss anything controversial IRL at Sunday School.

 

I submit Packer's talk on less flattering issues surrounding the Church and how to approach.  A highlight is Packer stating, There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

I believe the Church is turning away from the Packer school of thought and find that white-washing is a bad idea in today's world http://religionnews.com/2016/03/03/mormon-apostle-urges-teachers-address-controversial-topics-like-polygamy-seer-stones-class/.

An article regarding a Sunday School teacher released for discussing difficult issues,

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using.

We know Consig. from this board had something similar happen in terms of a fallout between leadership and his Sunday School discussions.

 

 

 

[lostindc]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, if it's part of the lesson materials, it is not derailing the lesson. That should go without saying.

That said, I've  had many years of experience teaching Sunday School, and what was abundantly clear to me from the very first was that it is not possible to cover every single thing in the lesson manual within the allotted time. There is some leeway given to the teacher, as guided by the Holy Spirit, to determine sometimes "in the very moment" what should be given attention and how much time should be allotted to a given element in the lesson.

Are the lesson materials ever white-washed?  If so, can a member ask questions pertinent to the subject that are not answered in the materials?

[mfbukowski]

I have not read much of this thread because I have posted so much on historicity on this board.

Historicity has no relevance whatsoever to the truths of the gospel.  You could go back in a time machine and see the crucified Christ with your own eyes and witness the entire passion and still not know that these events saved you from YOUR personal sins.

We could have perfect evidence of the existence of Zarahemla and that would not prove that the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon are "true"

Evangelicals who "know" they are "saved" know by the power of the spirit- the existence of Jerusalem and all the archaeology of the bible are basically no more than placebos which give some false appearances that they are "proof" while they are actually worthless in proving the spirit is real.

I posted this on another topic on the board and thought it would be relevant here too

 

"Religious change often happens through re-contextualization of existing elements in a new way.

One model is Jesus himself who re-contextualized Judaism into a new paradigm, in Christianity.  Islam can be seen as a re-contextualization of Judaism as well, as a re-interpretation of the Old Testament.

The Baha'i faith is a re-contextualization of Islam and Judaism and Buddhism grew out of Hinduism.  And so it goes

The fact that Joseph's revelations used elements both ancient and modern is to be expected.

The importance is the way his revelations can be seen as a restoration of the ancient along with a creation of a something entirely new and relevant to the latter days. Seeing the historical antecedents may prove interesting but is irrelevant to doctrine or the beliefs which come out of the liturgical context of the temple.  The arguments generally parallel those questioning Book of Mormon history and miss the importance of the creation an entirely new paradigm.  

Just as the location of the hill Cumorah it is irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon, the sources of inspiration which prompted Joseph's revelations about the temple are also irrelevant to the brilliance of those revelations"

The Bible is not "true" because it is old or historical, it is true because it still applies in our lives after all these thousands of years.

The Book of Mormon is just as true for the same reasons even if the alleged, and in the final analysis, irrelevant ,"evidence" is not as strong.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Are the lesson materials ever white-washed?  If so, can a member ask questions pertinent to the subject that are not answered in the materials?

A term like "white-washed" is loaded.

I have already mentioned that a teacher cannot possibly cover in the allotted time all of the content that is in the manual for a typical lesson and must of necessity be selective as guided by the Holy Spirit in best meeting the needs of the class.

I suppose someone who didn't like it that a certain subject was left out of a lesson or not dealt with extensively enough might accuse the teacher of "white-washing" the lesson, when in reality, the teacher was intent on focusing on subjects that she felt best met the needs of the class members.

So I am wary about such an accusation.

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, lostindc said:

You seem like a good poster but I am daft and get lost in all the points you're conveying, so I will focus on a few. 

So are you saying that Church, in modern times, is very much okay with discussing tough subjects such as Heavenly Mother, seer stones, plural wives, different versions of the first vision in Sunday School?  I need clarification so I can understand and respond.

 

The questions quoted seem to be the points you continue to revisit.  

In a post above, Scott already clarified that his position is not that difficult subjects shouldn't be discussed just that if these subjects are brought up in a negative manner or that the teacher cannot answer these questions then the topics shouldn't be discussed.  So it seems like posters are now saying that difficult subjects can be discussed if done in a very controlled manner if done in Sunday School.  We had a mixed bag in terms of these subjects should be discussed in Sunday School.

I hope that we can now discuss difficult topics in Sunday School.  We know the September 6 and others that discussed controversial topics ended up getting excommunicated so I can understand a reluctance to discuss anything controversial IRL at Sunday School.

 

I submit Packer's talk on less flattering issues surrounding the Church and how to approach.  A highlight is Packer stating, There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

I believe the Church is turning away from the Packer school of thought and find that white-washing is a bad idea in today's world http://religionnews.com/2016/03/03/mormon-apostle-urges-teachers-address-controversial-topics-like-polygamy-seer-stones-class/.

An article regarding a Sunday School teacher released for discussing difficult issues,

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using.

We know Consig. from this board had something similar happen in terms of a fallout between leadership and his Sunday School discussions.

 

 

 

What I remember about consiglieri is that he with regularity came on this board to boast about his lack of orthodoxy in his lessons, and pretty much ignoring what was in the lesson manual, in the end, not even using it at all but rather coming up with his own topics. It was quite clear that he was using the Sunday School class as his own personal forum. It was a wonder to me that he lasted as long as he did, but I think the matter was more complicated than merely his daring to bring up difficult issues. I got the impression from what he posted either here or over on your favorite board that there had been complaints from some members of the class.

 

[lostindc]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have not read much of this thread because I have posted so much on historicity on this board.

Historicity has no relevance whatsoever to the truths of the gospel.  You could go back in a time machine and see the crucified Christ with your own eyes and witness the entire passion and still not know that these events saved you from YOUR personal sins.

We could have perfect evidence of the existence of Zarahemla and that would not prove that the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon are "true"

Evangelicals who "know" they are "saved" know by the power of the spirit- the existence of Jerusalem and all the archaeology of the bible are basically no more than placebos which give some false appearances that they are "proof" while they are actually worthless in proving the spirit is real.

I posted this on another topic on the board and thought it would be relevant here too

 

"Religious change often happens through re-contextualization of existing elements in a new way.

One model is Jesus himself who re-contextualized Judaism into a new paradigm, in Christianity.  Islam can be seen as a re-contextualization of Judaism as well, as a re-interpretation of the Old Testament.

The Baha'i faith is a re-contextualization of Islam and Judaism and Buddhism grew out of Hinduism.  And so it goes

The fact that Joseph's revelations used elements both ancient and modern is to be expected.

The importance is the way his revelations can be seen as a restoration of the ancient along with a creation of a something entirely new and relevant to the latter days. Seeing the historical antecedents may prove interesting but is irrelevant to doctrine or the beliefs which come out of the liturgical context of the temple.  The arguments generally parallel those questioning Book of Mormon history and miss the importance of the creation an entirely new paradigm.  

Just as the location of the hill Cumorah it is irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon, the sources of inspiration which prompted Joseph's revelations about the temple are also irrelevant to the brilliance of those revelations"

The Bible is not "true" because it is old or historical, it is true because it still applies in our lives after all these thousands of years.

The Book of Mormon is just as true for the same reasons even if the alleged, and in the final analysis, irrelevant ,"evidence" is not as strong.

So you don't believe a historical BOM is necessary or that first vision needs to be true?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

You seem like a good poster but I am daft and get lost in all the points you're conveying, so I will focus on a few. 

So are you saying that Church, in modern times, is very much okay with discussing tough subjects such as Heavenly Mother, seer stones, plural wives, different versions of the first vision in Sunday School?  I need clarification so I can understand and respond.

I am saying that the Church is in a transitionary phase, one in which "hard topics" are being addressed with increasing frequency.  And I think that's great.

Consider the Gospel Topics Essays.  And Elder Ballard's remarks quotes previously in this thread.  And consider this item (published on December 2):

Quote

In 2017, adult and youth members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will study the Doctrine and Covenants as part of the Church’s Sunday School curriculum. Stories behind sections of the Doctrine and Covenants have been released by the Church as a resource for the study of a book that Mormons regard as scripture. “Revelations in Context,” a series of narratives written by the Church History Department, includes insights behind the revelations, mostly given to Church founder Joseph Smith.

Elder J. Devn Cornish of the Seventy said, “Gone are the days when the history of the Church is just interesting. Gone are the days when it is only important. In our day, the history of the Church is urgent.”

“Our history can either be used as a weapon against the faith of our members or as a bulwark to build and protect their faith,” continued Elder Cornish, who serves as assistant executive director of the Church History Department.

“It is important to have a solid foundation of knowledge about the key aspects of Mormon history,” explained Matthew McBride, an editor for the Church History Department. “It helps us understand scripture, respond to questions, appreciate the experiences and perspectives of others, and sort out the information we find online and elsewhere.”

The “Revelations in Context” series is available online on the Church history website, in the Gospel Library app and in print in English, Spanish and Portuguese.
...
Publication of the series is part of a larger effort by the Church to improve transparency about its history, which includes the Joseph Smith Papers, the Church history website and the Gospel Topics essays.

What are your thoughts about these developments?

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The questions quoted seem to be the points you continue to revisit.  

In a post above, Scott already clarified that his position is not that difficult subjects shouldn't be discussed just that if these subjects are brought up in a negative manner or that the teacher cannot answer these questions then the topics shouldn't be discussed.  So it seems like posters are now saying that difficult subjects can be discussed if done in a very controlled manner if done in Sunday School.  We had a mixed bag in terms of these subjects should be discussed in Sunday School.

I hope that we can now discuss difficult topics in Sunday School.  We know the September 6 and others that discussed controversial topics ended up getting excommunicated so I can understand a reluctance to discuss anything controversial IRL at Sunday School.

I think we can, provided we do it the right way.  Time, place and manner matter.  A lot.

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I submit Packer's talk on less flattering issues surrounding the Church and how to approach.  A highlight is Packer stating, There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

I think Elder Packer's talk has often been unfairly maligned or misconstrued.  But that's a discussion for another day, I think.

Meanwhile, you are quoting a talk given 35 years ago during a CES symposium at BYU, seemingly instead of paying attention to the Gospel Topics essays, Elder Ballard's very recent remarks, the above news item about the Church's 2017 curriculum, and so on.  May I ask why?  

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

I believe the Church is turning away from the Packer school of thought and find that white-washing is a bad idea in today's world http://religionnews.com/2016/03/03/mormon-apostle-urges-teachers-address-controversial-topics-like-polygamy-seer-stones-class/.

Putting aside your continued use of inflammatory and pejorative rhetoric ("white-washing" - again, are you trying to offend?), yes, the Church is becoming more open about its doctrines and history and practices.  And yet here you are, quoting a 35-year-old talk by Elder Packer and seeming ignoring Elder Ballard, the Gospel Topics essays, the above news item, and so on.  Again, why are you doing this?

Let's take a look at the quotes from Elder Cornish of the Seventy and Bro. McBride (quoted above):

Quote

Elder J. Devn Cornish of the Seventy said, “Gone are the days when the history of the Church is just interesting. Gone are the days when it is only important. In our day, the history of the Church is urgent.”

“Our history can either be used as a weapon against the faith of our members or as a bulwark to build and protect their faith,” continued Elder Cornish, who serves as assistant executive director of the Church History Department.

“It is important to have a solid foundation of knowledge about the key aspects of Mormon history,” explained Matthew McBride, an editor for the Church History Department. “It helps us understand scripture, respond to questions, appreciate the experiences and perspectives of others, and sort out the information we find online and elsewhere.”

These seem like great steps forward.  Improvements.  Progression.  And yet you continue to find fault (by, inter alia, referencing and disparaging remarks made 35 years ago).  Why is that?

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

An article regarding a Sunday School teacher released for discussing difficult issues,

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using.

Yes, I read it.  It happened a year and a half ago.  It appears to have been an isolated incident (unless you are suggesting that such incidents have been widespread, in which case . . . CFR).  Meanwhile, last year in my ward the bishop devoted an entire Fifth Sunday lesson to introducing the ward to the Gospel Topics essays and encouraged everyone to read and study and think about and become familiar with them.  

Nevertheless, it appears that one bishop erred 18 months ago (possibly - I'm not altogether inclined to trust that the Trib gavee us the whole story).  Are you seriously going to use this as some sort of indictment against the Church as a whole?  Particularly given the recent developments evidenced by Elder Ballard's remarks, the announcement about the 2017 curriculum, etc.?

Why are you continuing to find fault?  

7 minutes ago, lostindc said:

We know Consig. from this board had something similar happen in terms of a fallout between leadership and his Sunday School discussions.

I'm not inclined to give much credence or pay much attention to unsubstantiated stories from anonymous online posters (particularly from Consig, who I have found to be extremely hostile to the LDS Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, etc.).

I am flummoxed at your approach to these issues.  I really do not understand your position.

-Smac

[lostindc]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I remember about consiglieri is that he with regularity came on this board to boast about his lack of orthodoxy in his lessons, and pretty much ignoring what was in the lesson manual, in the end, not even using it at all but rather coming up with his own topics. It was quite clear that he was using the Sunday School class as his own personal forum. It was a wonder to me that he lasted as long as he did, but I think the matter was more complicated than merely his daring to bring up difficult issues. I got the impression from what he posted either here or over on your favorite board that there had been complaints from some members of the class.

 

I don't remember that at all.  I remember him discussing the tough parts of the history surrounding the gospel lesson of the week.  He definitely didn't seem to be a fan of the correlated fluff lessons.  He gave so much of his heart and time to the Church.  Sad he just didn't fit in anymore.

 

 

[lostindc]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am saying that the Church is in a transitionary phase, one in which "hard topics" are being addressed with increasing frequency.  And I think that's great.

Consider the Gospel Topics Essays.  And Elder Ballard's remarks quotes previously in this thread.  And consider this item (published on December 2):

What are your thoughts about these developments?

I think we can, provided we do it the right way.  Time, place and manner matter.  A lot.

I think Elder Packer's talk has often been unfairly maligned or misconstrued.  But that's a discussion for another day, I think.

Meanwhile, you are quoting a talk given 35 years ago during a CES symposium at BYU, seemingly instead of paying attention to the Gospel Topics essays, Elder Ballard's very recent remarks, the above news item about the Church's 2017 curriculum, and so on.  May I ask why?  

Putting aside your continued use of inflammatory and pejorative rhetoric ("white-washing" - again, are you trying to offend?), yes, the Church is becoming more open about its doctrines and history and practices.  And yet here you are, quoting a 35-year-old talk by Elder Packer and seeming ignoring Elder Ballard, the Gospel Topics essays, the above news item, and so on.  Again, why are you doing this?

Let's take a look at the quotes from Elder Cornish of the Seventy and Bro. McBride (quoted above):

These seem like great steps forward.  Improvements.  Progression.  And yet you continue to find fault (by, inter alia, referencing and disparaging remarks made 35 years ago).  Why is that?

Yes, I read it.  It happened a year and a half ago.  It appears to have been an isolated incident (unless you are suggesting that such incidents have been widespread, in which case . . . CFR).  Meanwhile, last year in my ward the bishop devoted an entire Fifth Sunday lesson to introducing the ward to the Gospel Topics essays and encouraged everyone to read and study and think about and become familiar with them.  

Nevertheless, it appears that one bishop erred 18 months ago (possibly - I'm not altogether inclined to trust that the Trib gavee us the whole story).  Are you seriously going to use this as some sort of indictment against the Church as a whole?  Particularly given the recent developments evidenced by Elder Ballard's remarks, the announcement about the 2017 curriculum, etc.?

Why are you continuing to find fault?  

I'm not inclined to give much credence or pay much attention to unsubstantiated stories from anonymous online posters (particularly from Consig, who I have found to be extremely hostile to the LDS Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, etc.).

I am flummoxed at your approach to these issues.  I really do not understand your position.

-Smac

Funny, your words are the "...yes, the Church is becoming more open about its doctrines and history and practices.  And yet here you are, quoting a 35-year-old talk by Elder Packer and seeming ignoring Elder Ballard, the Gospel Topics essays, the above news item, and so on.  Again, why are you doing this?"

 

Why would the Church need to become more "open" regarding "doctrines and history?"  According the you, the Church was less open previously, why?  

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Funny, your words are the "...yes, the Church is becoming more open about its doctrines and history and practices.  And yet here you are, quoting a 35-year-old talk by Elder Packer and seeming ignoring Elder Ballard, the Gospel Topics essays, the above news item, and so on.  Again, why are you doing this?"

And you are not responding to my inquiry (except to ask another question).

Quote

Why would the Church need to become more "open" regarding "doctrines and history?"  

Apparently so.  I have provided quotes about this from Elder Ballard, and a news release which quoted Elder Cornish of the Seventy, and Bro. McBride (an editor in the Church History Department).

What is the point of this question (apart from the patently obvious subtext of faultfinding)?  Of course the Church can improve.  More to the point, it is improving.  And yet here you are, ignoring those improvements and continuing to find fault.  Why are you doing this?

Quote

According the you, the Church was less open previously, why?  

I think there have been a myriad of reasons, some reasonable, some less so.  In any event, the Church is improving itself and becoming more open now about its doctrines, history, etc., and in response you want to . . . discuss why the Church was "less open" previously.  In other words, endless and relentless faultfinding appears to be the order of the day.  And you are also ignoring most of my questions, while apparently expecting me to continue to respond to yours.  I'll take a pass on such a discussion.  

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I live in "the Corridor."  Provo.  About a mile from BYU.  The dire circumstances being described by Oliver are unknown to me.  And I have never heard any of the huge numbers of Mormons of my acquaintance give any indication that they think those circumstances exist, either (or if they do, that they are systemic/widespread).

Thanks,

-Smac

Been here 13 years.  We have had study groups in the one ward since it started.  Never heard any report of study groups causing problems here.

[lostindc]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And you are not responding to my inquiry (except to ask another question).

Apparently so.  I have provided quotes about this from Elder Ballard, and a news release which quoted Elder Cornish of the Seventy, and Bro. McBride (an editor in the Church History Department).

What is the point of this question (apart from the patently obvious subtext of faultfinding)?  Of course the Church can improve.  More to the point, it is improving.  And yet here you are, ignoring those improvements and continuing to find fault.  Why are you doing this?

I think there have been a myriad of reasons, some reasonable, some less so.  In any event, the Church is improving itself and becoming more open now about its doctrines, history, etc., and in response you want to . . . discuss why the Church was "less open" previously.  In other words, endless and relentless faultfinding appears to be the order of the day.  I'll take a pass on such a discussion.  

-Smac

So you're saying the Church was not open about it's doctrine and history for a "myriad of reasons."  I agree.

 

You're saying that Ballard is asking for CES instructors to answer the tough questions.  I agree

 

So back to the point of my thread, is Sunday School not the place to discuss these tough questions?  If you can't ask tough questions about the Church in their own school, then where do we go?

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So you're saying the Church was not open about it's doctrine and history for a "myriad of reasons."  I agree.

No need to paraphrase.  Please just ask me straight up.

And let's dispense with the overwrought absurdities like the Church previously "was" or "was not" open about its history.  That the Church is more "open" now does not mean that it was never previously "open" at all.

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

You're saying that Ballard is asking for CES instructors to answer the tough questions.  I agree

It is the most basic of courtesies to refer to him as "Elder Ballard."  Again, are you trying to offend?

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So back to the point of my thread, is Sunday School not the place to discuss these tough questions?  

Asked and answered.  Ad nauseam.

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

If you can't ask tough questions about the Church in their own school, then where do we go?

Again, asked and answered.  I have previously provided a large number of additional resources available to Latter-day Saints.

And my questions to you continue to be ignored, while you continue to ask and re-ask questions with the expectation of receiving responses.  A bit more reciprocity on your part would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is the most basic of courtesies to refer to him as "Elder Ballard."  Again, are you trying to offend?

Can't we just get along? Is that one really an offense? Are you or anyone on the board offended if someone doesn't use the title "Elder"?  Is it offensive to not to use the middle initial? 

Smac, for your benefit I'll try and remember to use the correct titles on this board.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Can't we just get along? Is that one really an offense? Are you or anyone on the board offend if someone doesn't use the title "Elder"?  Is it offensive not to use the middle initial?

I suppose you're right.  I guess I got tired of the stream of potshots ("chapel Mormons," "white-washing," etc.).

I'll back off.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

I sympathize with those of you wanting to take about the issues at church. But I think you'd be better off asking on boards like this than at church. Sunday School has many unwritten rules that make it less than ideal for questions.  At about 7:00 mark this video makes a few good observations about how the unwritten rules work and how social pressure and group think affects a typical Sunday School environment.

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Can't we just get along? Is that one really an offense? Are you or anyone on the board offended if someone doesn't use the title "Elder"?  Is it offensive to not to use the middle initial? 

Smac, for your benefit I'll try and remember to use the correct titles on this board.

 

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suppose you're right.  I guess I got tired of the stream of potshots ("chapel Mormons," "white-washing," etc.).

I'll back off.

Thanks,

-Smac

I too find it jarring, in a setting frequented by devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ, not to use ecclesiastical titles for those with high and sacred callings.

As a professional writer, I have occasion from time to time to refer to high leaders of other religious faiths. As a matter of courtesy, I use the ecclesiastical title, be it "Reverend," "Bishop," "Pope," "Rabbi" or whatever. I do this as a matter of courtesy and consideration, for potential readers if for no one else.

Maybe I'm old fashioned in this respect, and it's not a huge issue with me. I don't bring it up very frequently. But I'll say again, for the record, I do find it jarring.

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, lostindc said:

I don't remember that at all.  I remember him discussing the tough parts of the history surrounding the gospel lesson of the week.  He definitely didn't seem to be a fan of the correlated fluff lessons.  He gave so much of his heart and time to the Church.  Sad he just didn't fit in anymore.

 

 

My recollection as I have reported it here is quite clear in my memory, as it happened incessantly and frequently over a fairly lengthy period of time.

Alas, it was long enough ago and the board has undergone enough upgrades that I'm afraid it would be very difficult to document it now, if indeed the posts still exist on the internet.

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

No need to paraphrase.  Please just ask me straight up.

And let's dispense with the overwrought absurdities like the Church previously "was" or "was not" open about its history.  That the Church is more "open" now does not mean that it was never previously "open" at all.

It is the most basic of courtesies to refer to him as "Elder Ballard."  Again, are you trying to offend?

Asked and answered.  Ad nauseam.

Again, asked and answered.  I have previously provided a large number of additional resources available to Latter-day Saints.

And my questions to you continue to be ignored, while you continue to ask and re-ask questions with the expectation of receiving responses.  A bit more reciprocity on your part would be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

What do you want me to answer?  Please pick one thing, I can't read these super long run on posts with my phone.

 

Also, what do you mean about the Church is now more open?  

Edited December 6, 2016 by lostindc

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have not read much of this thread because I have posted so much on historicity on this board.

Historicity has no relevance whatsoever to the truths of the gospel.  You could go back in a time machine and see the crucified Christ with your own eyes and witness the entire passion and still not know that these events saved you from YOUR personal sins.

We could have perfect evidence of the existence of Zarahemla and that would not prove that the spiritual truths of the Book of Mormon are "true"

Evangelicals who "know" they are "saved" know by the power of the spirit- the existence of Jerusalem and all the archaeology of the bible are basically no more than placebos which give some false appearances that they are "proof" while they are actually worthless in proving the spirit is real.

I posted this on another topic on the board and thought it would be relevant here too

 

"Religious change often happens through re-contextualization of existing elements in a new way.

One model is Jesus himself who re-contextualized Judaism into a new paradigm, in Christianity.  Islam can be seen as a re-contextualization of Judaism as well, as a re-interpretation of the Old Testament.

The Baha'i faith is a re-contextualization of Islam and Judaism and Buddhism grew out of Hinduism.  And so it goes

The fact that Joseph's revelations used elements both ancient and modern is to be expected.

The importance is the way his revelations can be seen as a restoration of the ancient along with a creation of a something entirely new and relevant to the latter days. Seeing the historical antecedents may prove interesting but is irrelevant to doctrine or the beliefs which come out of the liturgical context of the temple.  The arguments generally parallel those questioning Book of Mormon history and miss the importance of the creation an entirely new paradigm.  

Just as the location of the hill Cumorah it is irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon, the sources of inspiration which prompted Joseph's revelations about the temple are also irrelevant to the brilliance of those revelations"

The Bible is not "true" because it is old or historical, it is true because it still applies in our lives after all these thousands of years.

The Book of Mormon is just as true for the same reasons even if the alleged, and in the final analysis, irrelevant ,"evidence" is not as strong.

Great points, this is true and I completely agree.  

This is also not how the vast majority of Mormons think or how the leaders of the faith speak or how the institution positions the missionary message.  Perhaps I shouldn't care what the leaders of the church think about historicity, or how the majority of the members in my ward and family think about the church, but unfortunately I do care.  

Leaders frequently warn about the kind of perspective that you just espoused, and find this perspective threatening and dangerous.  Some commenters in this very thread would not welcome this perspective being shared in a Sunday School setting.  

I on the other hand would be overjoyed to hear this shared in Sunday School!  :-) 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, lostindc said:

You seem like a good poster but I am daft and get lost in all the points you're conveying, so I will focus on a few. 

So are you saying that Church, in modern times, is very much okay with discussing tough subjects such as Heavenly Mother, seer stones, plural wives, different versions of the first vision in Sunday School?  I need clarification so I can understand and respond.

 

The questions quoted seem to be the points you continue to revisit.  

In a post above, Scott already clarified that his position is not that difficult subjects shouldn't be discussed just that if these subjects are brought up in a negative manner or that the teacher cannot answer these questions then the topics shouldn't be discussed.  So it seems like posters are now saying that difficult subjects can be discussed if done in a very controlled manner if done in Sunday School.  We had a mixed bag in terms of these subjects should be discussed in Sunday School.

I hope that we can now discuss difficult topics in Sunday School.  We know the September 6 and others that discussed controversial topics ended up getting excommunicated so I can understand a reluctance to discuss anything controversial IRL at Sunday School.

 

I submit Packer's talk on less flattering issues surrounding the Church and how to approach.  A highlight is Packer stating, There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/library/talks/ces-symposium-addresses/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect_eng.pdf

I believe the Church is turning away from the Packer school of thought and find that white-washing is a bad idea in today's world http://religionnews.com/2016/03/03/mormon-apostle-urges-teachers-address-controversial-topics-like-polygamy-seer-stones-class/.

An article regarding a Sunday School teacher released for discussing difficult issues,

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using.

We know Consig. from this board had something similar happen in terms of a fallout between leadership and his Sunday School discussions.

 

 

 

Times they are a changing! I'm excited to go to Gospel Doctrine, weird for me, for the topic of study will be LDS history. It'll be interesting if the teacher will have looked up the essays and if any discussion will come of it.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Times they are a changing! I'm excited to go to Gospel Doctrine, weird for me, for the topic of study will be LDS history. It'll be interesting if the teacher will have looked up the essays and if any discussion will come of it.

Would love to know about your classes.  I always enjoyed Gospel Doctrine Classes...real good instructors and prepared.  Would love to know if they will incorporate the essays and open dialogue with all of you.  Please..please..ask your questions if on topic...you have good questions.