Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[smac97]

On 12/5/2016 at 1:00 PM, 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?

I don't think it's "policy" as much as "common sense."  

Thanksgiving Dinner is not the appropriate time for family members to argue politics.

Disneyland is not the the appropriate place for a married couple to air their conflicts with each other.

And Sunday School is not the appropriate venue to "discuss" controversial/difficult issues (except, I suppose, to the extent the instructor and the SS president and the bishop deem appropriate).  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Earlier this year our ward's bishop gave a Fifth Sunday lesson about how to deal with controversies and difficulties in the Church.  He did not delve into any of the particulars, but he referenced a litany of them (Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, Women and the Priesthood, Polygamy, and many more).  He did so wit the intention of helping the members of our ward figure out appropriate ways to address these challenging and difficult topics.  He also extended an open invitation to to members of the ward who had questions or concerns about these topics to come and discuss them with him.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Similarly, last fall the bishop invited the young men and women in the ward to anonymously submit any question they had about any topic under the sun (except to matters about sexuality), after which he conducted a fireside in which he offered guidance about addressing difficult issues in the Church, after which gave each youth a handout which his researched responses to the anonymous questions, and he then went over these responses in detail.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

There are ways to study and learn about controversial aspects of the Church and its history and practices and beliefs.  There is no need to hijack Sunday School to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, lostindc said:

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.  

No one will stop you from asking.  The responses may be less than helpful though.  And it's possible someone might tag you as a problem (a wolf is sheep's clothing or something), particularly if you ask a follow up or two. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, lostindc said:

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?  

In the abstract, I don't see a problem with that.  However, I would suspect that the teacher would not have anticipated those questions, and hence may not be prepared to address them substantively.  Which kinda makes you wonder why "one" would ask such "gotcha" questions in Sunday School.  

Again, intent and motive matter.  What would be the purpose of raising these issues in Sunday School?  What questions do you have in mind?

11 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Just a simple question from someone in the Sunday School class.  

What "simple question{s}" do you have in mind?

I guess I don't understand your fixation with Sunday School.  What is it about that venue that makes using it to present sensitive/difficult "questions" to others so essential?  Are they really "questions"?  Or are they more along the lines of what Jeremy Runnells did in his "Letter to a CES Director?"

To be frank, it sounds like you really, really want to appropriate Sunday School and use it as a platform to discuss not the substance of the curriculum for which Sunday School is intended, but to discuss controversies which interest you personally.  Am I wrong?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it's "policy" as much as "common sense."  

Thanksgiving Dinner is not the appropriate time for family members to argue politics.

Disneyland is the the appropriate place for a married couple to air their conflicts with each other.

I'd say the opposite on both of these counts.  T giving is a fine enough place to discuss politics.  Airing conflicts at Disneyland?  That's just silly if you ask me. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Sunday School is not the appropriate venue to "discuss" controversial/difficult issues (except, I suppose, to the extent the instructor and the SS president and the bishop deem appropriate).  Time.  Place.  Manner.

I'd say a member of the class is as much a part of this as anyone.  That's why we ask questions of each other.  If someone in the class feels the need to bring up Joseph's seer stone in class, I see no problem with it.  In fact to clear up any misunderstandings, it'd wildly appropriate. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Earlier this year our ward's bishop gave a Fifth Sunday lesson about how to deal with controversies and difficulties in the Church.  He did not delve into any of the particulars, but he referenced a litany of them (Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, Women and the Priesthood, Polygamy, and many more).  He did so wit the intention of helping the members of our ward figure out appropriate ways to address these challenging and difficult topics.  He also extended an open invitation to to members of the ward who had questions or concerns about these topics to come and discuss them with him.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

I'd say that's part of the problem with Church.  The bishop is no more qualified than anyone to address these difficult topics.  So it'd be a great idea to get as many people involved as possible.  The bishop, in my experience, might handle it terribly. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Similarly, last fall the bishop invited the young men and women in the ward to anonymously submit any question they had about any topic under the sun (except to matters about sexuality), after which he conducted a fireside in which he offered guidance about addressing difficult issues in the Church, after which gave each youth a handout which his researched responses to the anonymous questions, and he then went over these responses in detail.  Time.  Place.  Manner.

That's great for your bishop.  But in my experience most bishops could not do this, or at least have not given any of these difficult issues much consideration at all. 

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

There are ways to study and learn about controversial aspects of the Church and its history and practices and beliefs.  There is no need to hijack Sunday School to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Asking questions that are troubling any particular audience member as it pertains to the discussion or lesson is not hijacking SS. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Here's the counsel being given to members:

 

So, good luck with that.

Ah!  I love the smell of decontextualization in the morning!

Let's take a look at what Elder Clayton said . . . in context:

Quote

The word “connect” comes from the Latin word “connectere”, meaning, “to bind”. As I watched that smartphone advertisement about connecting with friends, my recurring thought was that the connection, the binding, that matters most, is the one we have with God. We connect with God most securely when we do so by covenant. When we are baptised, we covenant to keep the commandments, to take upon us the name of Christ, and to always remember Him. We are promised that if we do so, we will always have his spirit to be with us. We renew and recommit ourselves to this covenant every Sunday when we partake of the sacrament. Additional covenants made in receiving the priesthood and in the temples of God bind us ever more closely to him. These covenantal connections to him become the guideposts for our lives. They help us measure where we are on the straight and narrow path. They lead us to the fruit of the atonement. Forgiveness, peace of conscious, and love. They help us stay worthy to help us enjoy the blessings of the holy spirit. Whatever we do that may tend to weaken our connection, our binding with Heaven, should be assessed with {wariness}. Everything that we do that tends to reinforce faith and promotes keeping our covenants should be embraced. Our connection with Heaven is the most valuable blessing we have, and the most important one we can secure. It strengthens every other worthy connection is our lives.

Pertaining to this theme, Elder Clayton presents "a few thoughts about connections" (emphases added):

Quote

First, nearly all of you who graduate today are intimately connected to people who, over a lifetime, helped you to qualify to attend BYU. These connections include your parents, grandparents, and family. ... Your life-long faithfulness and devotion to the savior and his restored church will be the highest demonstration of gratitude that you can offer to your parents.

Second, a number of you have formed your own families while you have been at BYU, connecting profoundly and eternally with each other. Nothing else that you did while you were here, no matter what degrees or academic distinctions you achieved, is more valuable to you than this eternal connection. 

...

Third, some of you became parents during your time here at BYU. Your children are connected to you and you to them in ways parents have to experience to understand. As the years go by, your connection to your progeny will become ever more precious and meaningful.
...

Fourth, you have also consciously, or perhaps unconsciously become more closely connected to the church and it’s members worldwide.

...

Fifth, I believe you know have a duty to stay connected to BYU. The alumni association’s motto is “connected for good”. Your education enables you to help BYU go forward in good ways

These five points all seem good and unobjectionable.  Here is his sixth point (emphases added):

Quote

Sixth, I hope as well that you will stay connected in appropriate ways with friends, classmates, and professors from BYU. The world is small, especially in the church, and your friendships can be perpetuated and enhanced as the years go by. Those connections will circle around over the years to bless and help you in happy, righteous ways. For example, some of my present quorum associates in church service met each other as roommates at BYU, and have friendships that extend back for decades. In these regards, however, 3 brief reminders seem important:

• Just as there are connections that should be strengthened, there are others that should be relegated to history.  Some of you have had dating connections during your years here that did not result in marriage, and either you or your former interest married someone else. If so, wisdom suggests that you disconnect from that association. Staying in touch with each other electronically or otherwise after eternal covenants or connections have been made is spiritually unwise, and unfortunately all too often dangerous by permitting or encouraging familiarity to exist when such closeness is no longer appropriate. Don’t do anything that exposes your own or someone else’s eternal connection to a spouse to hazards in any way. In matters of such consequence, there is no room for error. 
• A similar warning should be sounded about the perils of pornography. Though church leaders continually fire off warning flares about the seriousness of this selfish and gullible sin, too many still fail to make the lasting behavioral change required. The transgression is serious enough by itself, and the risk of greater evil it entails is real. Any closeness to this temptation should be abruptly disconnected, and effort focused on seeking help from church leaders and through the atonement of Jesus Christ.  
• A few of you may have run into some who cease to hold fast to the iron rod {and} wandered off the straight and narrow path, and have become lost. They started sometimes with online tours of the territory of the faithless. This indiscretion is often accompanied by failing to earnestly study The Book of Mormon everyday, and by the companion problem of gradually becoming lax in keeping other commandments. This sometimes leads to listening and then hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history. The faithless often promote themselves as the wise who can rescue the rest of us from our naivete. One does not need to listen to assertive apostates for long to see the parallels between them and the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon. 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. The adversary sees spiritual apathy and half-hearted obedience as opportunities to encircle us with his chains and bind us, and he hopes to destroy us. We escape his chains as we voluntarily chose to bind ourselves instead to God. In what at first may seem ironic, our choosing to bind or connect with Heaven frees and empowers us to become all that we possibly can in this life and the next through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

To clarify:

Elder Clayton was not speaking of people who, broadly speaking, are struggling with their faith, but rather of people who have "cease{d} to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path," who are "hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history," and who have become "assertive apostates" akin to "the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon" who are actively proselytizing the Saints to reject the Restored Gospel in favor of their self-aggrandizing, apostate worldview.

Rather, Elder Clayton was recommending that Latter-day Saints "disconnect" from and not "listen" to the "proselytizing efforts" of heavy-duty apostates, and to instead "reconnect ... with the Holy Spirit," to "bind ourselves to God," and to "become all that we possibly can . . . through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Context matters, does it not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2016 by smac97

[lostindc]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it's "policy" as much as "common sense."  

Thanksgiving Dinner is not the appropriate time for family members to argue politics.

Disneyland is the the appropriate place for a married couple to air their conflicts with each other.

And Sunday School is not the appropriate venue to "discuss" controversial/difficult issues (except, I suppose, to the extent the instructor and the SS president and the bishop deem appropriate).  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Earlier this year our ward's bishop gave a Fifth Sunday lesson about how to deal with controversies and difficulties in the Church.  He did not delve into any of the particulars, but he referenced a litany of them (Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, Women and the Priesthood, Polygamy, and many more).  He did so wit the intention of helping the members of our ward figure out appropriate ways to address these challenging and difficult topics.  He also extended an open invitation to to members of the ward who had questions or concerns about these topics to come and discuss them with him.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Similarly, last fall the bishop invited the young men and women in the ward to anonymously submit any question they had about any topic under the sun (except to matters about sexuality), after which he conducted a fireside in which he offered guidance about addressing difficult issues in the Church, after which gave each youth a handout which his researched responses to the anonymous questions, and he then went over these responses in detail.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

There are ways to study and learn about controversial aspects of the Church and its history and practices and beliefs.  There is no need to hijack Sunday School to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

How is Sunday School when discussing the translation of plates not the perfect time to discuss seer stones and potential anachronisms?  The examples you provided in the first part of your post are not apples to apples.

[lostindc]

double post

Edited December 5, 2016 by lostindc

[lostindc]

32 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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. 

I believe it is vital to the Church to allow members to ask questions pertaining to Sunday School topics even if difficult.  We are learning the hard way that hiding from difficult subjects has caused quite a stir.  I am hoping there is a place for dialogue within the Church instead of random message boards.  Givens and Bushman are correct that inoculation needs to occur because access to information is greater than ever before.   

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it's "policy" as much as "common sense."  

Thanksgiving Dinner is not the appropriate time for family members to argue politics.

Disneyland is the the appropriate place for a married couple to air their conflicts with each other.

And Sunday School is not the appropriate venue to "discuss" controversial/difficult issues (except, I suppose, to the extent the instructor and the SS president and the bishop deem appropriate).  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Earlier this year our ward's bishop gave a Fifth Sunday lesson about how to deal with controversies and difficulties in the Church.  He did not delve into any of the particulars, but he referenced a litany of them (Mountain Meadows, Blacks and the Priesthood, Women and the Priesthood, Polygamy, and many more).  He did so wit the intention of helping the members of our ward figure out appropriate ways to address these challenging and difficult topics.  He also extended an open invitation to to members of the ward who had questions or concerns about these topics to come and discuss them with him.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

Similarly, last fall the bishop invited the young men and women in the ward to anonymously submit any question they had about any topic under the sun (except to matters about sexuality), after which he conducted a fireside in which he offered guidance about addressing difficult issues in the Church, after which gave each youth a handout which his researched responses to the anonymous questions, and he then went over these responses in detail.  Time.  Place.  Manner.  

There are ways to study and learn about controversial aspects of the Church and its history and practices and beliefs.  There is no need to hijack Sunday School to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really commend this Bishop.  A small but great step to be open to helping others with pertinent questions.  I would have loved the opportunity to submit a question or two.

[lostindc]

double post

Edited December 5, 2016 by lostindc

[cinepro]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah!  I love the smell of decontextualization in the morning!

Let's take a look at what Elder Clayton said . . . in context:

Pertaining to this theme, Elder Clayton presents "a few thoughts about connections" (emphases added):

These five points all seem good and unobjectionable.  Here is his sixth point (emphases added):

To clarify:

Elder Clayton was not speaking of people who, broadly speaking, are struggling with their faith, but rather of people who have "cease{d} to hold fast to the iron rod wandered off the straight and narrow path," who are "hearkening to those who mock the church, its leaders, or its history," and who have become "assertive apostates" akin to "the Korihors and Nehors and Sharems of The Book of Mormon" who are actively proselytizing the Saints to reject the Restored Gospel in favor of their self-aggrandizing, apostate worldview.

Rather, Elder Clayton was recommending that Latter-day Saints "disconnect" from and not "listen" to the "proselytizing efforts" of heavy-duty apostates, and to instead "reconnect ... with the Holy Spirit," to "bind ourselves to God," and to "become all that we possibly can . . . through the atonement of Jesus Christ."

Context matters, does it not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Read the OP again.  He asked:

Quote

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters?

The last time we studied the OT (two years ago?), during the lesson on the creation, I raised my hand towards the end of the lesson and asked "So...what about evolution?"  The teacher is a friend of mine, so he chuckled and said, "I don't know, Brother Cinepro, what do you think?" 

I chuckled back and said, "Oh, I'm just here to lob hand grenades."

That being said, the OP sounded more like someone lobbing hand grenades of a different sort.  And Elder Clayton's remarks seemed to be addressing those people.

Edited December 5, 2016 by cinepro

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour 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."

Funny you mention this. The fact is, it is no more/less disingenuous than what the scriptures approved by any given denomination.

So far none of those scriptures fulfilled their promises. Maybe this is exactly what the "Scripture" does; "lying in wait to deceive.".         I never have received a physical witness all my life long. I'm sorry to appear so harsh but the facts are the facts. Sadly it starts from the top, from Jesus, who promises to move the mountains, raise dead.....

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say the opposite on both of these counts.  T giving is a fine enough place to discuss politics. 

I said "argue politics."

Quote

Airing conflicts at Disneyland?  That's just silly if you ask me. 

Then you see my point.  

Quote

I'd say a member of the class is as much a part of this as anyone.  That's why we ask questions of each other.  If someone in the class feels the need to bring up Joseph's seer stone in class, I see no problem with it. 

Again, intent and motive matter.  Time, place, and manner matter.

Quote

In fact to clear up any misunderstandings, it'd wildly appropriate. 

I would agree.  If that were the motive.  I suspect it ain't.

I'm having a hard time discerning a legitimate, good faith motive for such things.  Let me illustrate: Let's say that Jeff has studied quite a bit about Martin Luther King, Jr.  He hears that there will be a public service honoring Dr. King's contributions to the Civil Rights Movement.  Jeff decides to attend and is part of the audience.  There are a few speakers at the event, one of whom invites members of the audience to share their thoughts about Dr. King.

Now, what would you think of Jeff walking up to the microphone and outlining his negative assessment of Dr. King vis-à-vis allegations against him of serial philandering, and also substantial plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation?  In your heart of hearts, would it be "wildly appropriate" to offer such remarks in such a time, place and manner?

More to the point, would anyone at the event buy Jeff's explanation that he is only bringing these controversies up "to clear up any misunderstandings?"

Here's another example: On Saturday I attended a funeral.  The decedent was the adult daughter of a member of our ward.  A number of her siblings spoke, mostly about their recollections of their deceased sister, her character, and so on.  What would you think if one of those siblings had gone up to the stand and spent 15 minutes riffing about or "roasting" the deceased sister?  Even if that sibling's complaints and criticisms against the deceased women were grounded in fact, would you - in your heart of hearts - think it "wildly appropriate" to offer such remarks in such a time, place and manner?

Quote

I'd say that's part of the problem with Church.  The bishop is no more qualified than anyone to address these difficult topics. 

Then it does not seem appropriate to preempt a lesson intended to instruct and edify by injecting controversies into the discussion, particularly when the motive to do so is not good.

In any event, the bishop is tasked with managing the content of materials presented during the Church's services.  I think that would necessarily include supervision to minimize disruptions to Church services brought about by intentionally injecting controversies or other inflammatory remarks or behaviors into those services.

Quote

So it'd be a great idea to get as many people involved as possible. 

No, it wouldn't.  It is the role of the Sunday School instructor (supervised by the Sunday School President, and also by the bishop) to manage the contours and content of Sunday School lessons.  It would not be appropriate for some self-appointed yahoo to disrupt and distract from those lessons, particularly if the motive to do so is not good.

Quote

The bishop, in my experience, might handle it terribly. 

So too might the self-appointed yahoo who has decided that he/she should determine the content of the Sunday School lesson (rather than those who have been appointed to do so).

Quote

That's great for your bishop.  But in my experience most bishops could not do this, or at least have not given any of these difficult issues much consideration at all. 

Which does not justify self-appointed yahoos in usurping the role of the bishop (or the Sunday School President, or the Sunday School teacher).

Quote

Asking questions that are troubling any particular audience member as it pertains to the discussion or lesson is not hijacking SS. 

In the abstract, that may or may not be correct.  Hence my previous request for clarification as to what sorts of "questions" lostindc has in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2016 by smac97

[Boanerges]

55 minutes ago, lostindc said:

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.  

I think you can. There's a great article (reprint of a CES presentation) by Elder Ballard in this month's Ensign. By Study and by Faith

It's worth the read (or re-read for some of us). A few applicable quotes:

Quote

Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, “Don’t worry about it!” Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.

Quote

Gospel teachers should be among the first—outside students’ own families—to introduce authoritative sources on topics that may be less well-known or controversial so that students will measure whatever they hear or read later against what they have already been taught.

Quote

Church leaders today are fully conscious of the unlimited access to information, and we are making extraordinary efforts to provide accurate context and understanding of the teachings of the Restoration. A prime example of this effort is the 11 Gospel Topics essays on LDS.org⁷ that provide balanced and reliable interpretations of the facts for controversial and unfamiliar Church-related subjects.

It is important that you know the content of these essays. If you have questions about them, please ask someone who has studied them and understands them. In other words, “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118) as you master the content of these essays.

You should also become familiar with the Joseph Smith Papers website,⁸ the Church history section on LDS.org, and other resources by faithful LDS scholars.

 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, lostindc said:

How is Sunday School when discussing the translation of plates not the perfect time to discuss seer stones and potential anachronisms?  

Again: 

Quote

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?

Thanks!

30 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The examples you provided in the first part of your post are not apples to apples.

They are examples of a general principle, referenced in Ecclesiastes 3:

Quote

 1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

 2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

 3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

 4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

 5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

 6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

 7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

 8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Put another way: There is a time and place and manner in which controversial or difficult topics can and should be addressed.  Sunday school is, in the main, not the time or place.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

5 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?

I would say the best method is to approach the question in a spirit of friendship, with as much good faith and charity that one can muster. Ask a trusted friend and if he refers you to someone else, pursue that.

It is good to recognize that "negative phenomenon" is often in the eye of the beholder. I think it is better to formulate a good question from what you have read than to have a friend read something you have read; that narrows down the issue to the most important element for you (and if he feels the need, it will read whatever material he feels he needs to). Unless everyone in Sunday School is a trusted friend, it makes no sense an is rude to broadcast questions or share criticism about sensitive subjects in that setting.

[strappinglad]

I have found that there is a time and place for such discussions. It's called the ' foyer' , at least that is where most ' off manual ' discussions happen. One can learn all about the latest politics, the way to fix a car, the most recent change in the price of cattle, etc. why not bring up seer stones !

[Jane_Doe]

5 hours ago, lostindc said:

What is the best method to carry out some sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers/doubters?  

One where both people are willing to listen and respect.  It is usually best in small groups and especially 1-on-1 where two people know and respect each other.  This is no different than approaching conversation about any other sensitive subject.

5 hours ago, lostindc said:

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?

Again, with respect and listening, same with every other sensitive subject.  If something is particularly sensitive, it is best to pick a confident carefully.

5 hours ago, lostindc said:

Nowadays, is it taboo to ask a member to read less than faith promoting texts focused on Church history or doctrine?  

As a be-all-end-all rule, no.  But there is a time and place.

Is it okay for members to read texts that are less than faith promoting.

Depends on the material and the person.  

5 hours ago, lostindc said:

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?

Sunday School is not the time and place.  Again, you got to get the right time and place.

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I think you can. There's a great article (reprint of a CES presentation) by Elder Ballard in this month's Ensign. By Study and by Faith

It's worth the read (or re-read for some of us). A few applicable quotes:

 

Oh wow, so some of the leadership is divided over how to approach these difficult subjects?  It looks like Elder Ballard is telling leadership and teachers to approach these difficult subjects in Sunday School and in general.  This is in direct conflict to what others are saying on this board.  I wonder why we have such differing views between leadership and members?

[The Nehor]

Talk politely and respectfully to lull them into a false sense of security. Then hit them over the head with a glint object and drop them off at your nearest Danite safe house for indoctrination. When next you see them they should agree happily with our views. If they do not report them immediately. Hope this helps.

[Traela]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

Oh wow, so some of the leadership is divided over how to approach these difficult subjects?  It looks like Elder Ballard is telling leadership and teachers to approach these difficult subjects in Sunday School and in general.  This is in direct conflict to what others are saying on this board.  I wonder why we have such differing views between leadership and members?

Maybe it depends on the ward.  I have no doubt that if such questions were raised in mine, the teacher would know exactly who to turn them over to, and would happily do so. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

Oh wow, so some of the leadership is divided over how to approach these difficult subjects?  

I don't think so.  Where are you getting this idea?

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

It looks like Elder Ballard is telling leadership and teachers to approach these difficult subjects in Sunday School and in general.  This is in direct conflict to what others are saying on this board.  

How so?  Who has made remarks which conflict with Elder Ballard's?

1 hour ago, lostindc said:

I wonder why we have such differing views between leadership and members?

Let's first establish that such differing views exist.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, Traela said:

Maybe it depends on the ward.  I have no doubt that if such questions were raised in mine, the teacher would know exactly who to turn them over to, and would happily do so. 

 

So you have someone in the ward assigned to answer difficult questions?  If so, where does the person get the answers to deal with these difficult questions? 

[Danzo]

12 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?

We usually talk about that stuff at home in family discussions. Often during family home evenings.  I have found it to be better one on one or in small groups than in big formal settings. Big settings often turn into taking sides.

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Even if you do something at your own home, that will be labeled a "study group". 

We do something at our home every Monday night.  This is encouraged by the Church