Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[Danzo]

9 hours 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 this is an entirely acceptable topic for discussion in Sunday school.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I think this is an entirely acceptable topic for discussion in Sunday school.

Depends on whether it's a gotcha question intended to turn the  class period into a debate. If the question can be answered from the "Gospel Topics" essays and the class can move forward from there, fine. Otherwise it's an effort to hijack the Sunday School class. Not cool. 

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Depends on whether it's a gotcha question intended to turn the  class period into a debate. If the question can be answered from the "Gospel Topics" essays and the class can move forward from there, fine. Otherwise it's an effort to hijack the Sunday School class. Not cool. 

Even if it is a gotcha question, a good instructor can turn it into a teaching opportunity.  Someone asking a question about that topic usually has much deeper questions. Such a person could benefit greatly from the testimony and experiences of the others in the class. It probably would be better to address the issues in the classroom with the spirit present.

[canard78]

15 hours 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.

I really agree with Scott on this one. 

I am happily post-Mormon, but I don't make the assumption that the same status would bring the same happiness to my Mormon friends. I don't usually describe myself as "post-Mormon" either. If asked, I'd call myself a universalist. I try to focus on looking forward rather than backward. 

I wouldn't open a conversation with an Anglican about Henry VIII and his motives or with a Catholic about the warring popes. So why would I approach a Mormon about Joseph's polyandry. 

I remind myself of the reality that most Mormons are not interested in Mormon history because they are not interested in any history at all. It's not a personally relevant topic. I also don't make the assumption that "if only they knew, they'd leave." Because they might not. More than that, they might not want to even consider it, so why is it something that should be pushed on them?

So... if you want to discuss Mormon history, wait to be asked or go and find other people who want to discuss it. Like this forum right here. 

[Boanerges]

We visited the redone church history museum this summer, having previously visited just before it closed for renovation. There was a stark difference, it almost two different experiences. There is now much less about pioneers, and much more about other major historical events. The section on the Book of Mormon translation has a display about the seer stones. There is no actual stone there, but there are photos and detailed descriptions about how the process worked. Very informative for the interested person.

We happened to have been in the room with the martyrdom display alone except for a museum volunteer (with a missionary nametag, I'm not sure if she was a full time missionary, a church service missionary, or something else). She gave us some detail about some of the items of clothing and other things on display. She specifically mentioned John Taylor's watch, which is on display. For many years it has been taught that the watch was struck by a bullet (ball) and saved Elder Taylor's life. Modern historians have concluded that it is unlikely that actually happened and the the damage to the watch is not consistent with being struck by a ball but may be consistent with being damaged by a fall or in some other way. This very nice older sister did make that point. However, she followed it up with a statement that she thought that since it had been taught for so many years that the watched had saved Taylor's life that it should continue to be taught that way because many people believed that and it was a faith promoting story. I was actually a bit incredulous but did manage to make a statement that I thought we should teach the truth as much as we know it.

While I don't disagree that we shouldn't be asking  "gotcha" questions to sidetrack Sunday School or show we're more knowledgeable than the teacher or someone else in the class, I do disagree that we should not discuss sensitive topics, most especially those discussed in the gospel topics essays. For example, It's true that some people don't care about Joseph Smith's polygamy, and I am one of those who couldn't care less. I don't recall not knowing that Joseph was a polygamist, although I admit I did not know the young ages of some of his plural wives and the polyandry. Still, it makes no difference to me or my testimony. But it is important to others who can come across the information legitimately (it is on LDS.org, after all) or not and some people struggle with it. I at times struggle with other things. Not being able or willing to discuss these things people struggle with in a faithful context with legitimate church approved resources does way more harm than good. I don't believe, as seems to be implied by some here, that the stuff in the gospel topics essays is in opposition to the church or its teachings - I believe the essays to be official church teachings and I believe we are encouraged to be familiar with them (as Elder Ballard seems to indicate). I believe they are much more appropriate for discussion than speculative topics such as the actual date of the birth of Christ or evolution on which the church has no official statements.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Boanerges

[sdc999]

Two circumstances I have witnessed:

1.  Individual joins the LDS church from another faith:

     -Mormon reaction:  I am so thankful you have come to know your heavenly father better.  You will be blessed for your decision.  You have made the right choice.  DO NOT listen to those you left behind.

     -Non Mormon:  They are joining a cult, they are brainwashed.  They don't have a full understanding of Christ.

2.  Individual leaves the LDS church:

     -Mormon reaction:  They have succumbed to Satan's power and desire.  They are leaving Christ.  They have made the wrong choice.  Happiness - they just think they're happy.

     -Non Mormon:  They are free.  They can now realize Christ's love for them.  They have now seen the light. 

It's all perspective from whom is looking at the situation.  

Now, as far as communication goes about hard topics.  As far as the individual that is leaving/left, you don't have to worry about discussing hard topics with them because most LDS members will not speak to that person. Yes, they will want to speak to you but, it's as if they do not exist anymore or they may have a contagious disease. 

The individual that joins the church will not ask hard questions right after joining.  They may ask before and they may ask way later after they learn something that was explained differently prior to their commitment. 

I believe the hard topics do not come from  learning something new but they arise primarily from learning something contradictory.  Folklore has be tolerated for so long that it is now forced the church to address some of these issues head on.  

 

[canard78]

15 hours 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.

I really agree with Scott on this one. 

I am happily post-Mormon, but I don't make the assumption that the same status would bring the same happiness to my Mormon friends. I don't usually describe myself as "post-Mormon" either. If asked, I'd call myself a universalist. I try to focus on looking forward rather than backward. 

I wouldn't open a conversation with an Anglican about Henry VIII and his motives or with a Catholic about the warring popes. So why would I approach a Mormon about Joseph's polyandry. 

I remind myself of the reality that most Mormons are not interested in Mormon history because they are not interested in any history at all. It's not a personally relevant topic. I also don't make the assumption that "if only they knew, they'd leave." Because they might not. More than that, they might not want to even consider it, so why is it something that should be pushed on them?

So... if you want to discuss Mormon history, wait to be asked or go and find other people who want to discuss it. Like this forum right here. 

[churchistrue]

To answer the question, first I'd like to know the context and the motive.  Are you pretty sure the church is not "true" and you just want to complain about it or shove it in the face of a believing member?  Or are you an honest hearted doubter, seeking truth and truly wanting some answers.  

If the former, the answer is probably never.  I'd rather that you never come to me prepared with accusatory questions and a long conversation about why I am ugly, fat, uninteresting, and altogether a big jerk.  Just let me be.  If you come to believe that about me, please keep it to yourself.  There are forums on the internet and people that have put a sign up on the door that they are interested in these conversations where you can go to have that dialogue/argument.  But for the most part, if you're interacting with believing Mormons in your life, there might not be an appropriate time for you to attack like that.

If it's the latter, I think you start with private conversations with trusted people.  Spouse, friend, sibling, parent, mentor.  Maybe a bishop.  Online forums.  Sunday school and church meetings might be OK to ask some questions if the motive and context are appropriate, but also be prepared for answers like "let's not get into that right now"  and be OK with that answer.  Keep in mind that there may be no good answers for your questions or that the people you're asking might not have them.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

Even if it is a gotcha question, a good instructor can turn it into a teaching opportunity.  Someone asking a question about that topic usually has much deeper questions. Such a person could benefit greatly from the testimony and experiences of the others in the class. It probably would be better to address the issues in the classroom with the spirit present.

Even with a skilled teacher, someone determined to disrupt the class with an ambush can wreak havoc by bringing in contention. 

Thsts what the protesters outside of General Cinference try to do with their vile signs and insults. They are trying to ruin the reverence of the occasion by provoking fights. They're not trying to save souls. 

[rpn]

We are going to find a way to discuss hard topics this next year in Sunday School.  It is the church history year and the teachers manual has been supplemented by the new material in the essays and "revelations in context" and other things.    But this isn't just someone bringing it up.  It is specific direction of the church to not be afraid to use the material, and to make sure SS is teaching accurate history to the extent we know it.

As for how to bring up challenging topics with believers if you are a non-believer, the answer is that you ought never to to that if your intent is to teach the believer something.    Not your stewardship to teach.   More importantly, one has to be at a higher level in order to help others.   One can have more knowledge about something, without having the broader purpose of encouraging people to get closer to God, so that the work/effort can be called Good.

If a non-believer or believer brings it up to understand more about it, to learn, then the way to do is to present it that way.   How do you reconcile this?    What have you read to prepare you to do that?   What do I need to look for to make sure you have all the facts, and that you are interpreting those facts correctly?    Why do critics call JS condemnation of Law's "spiritual wifery" lies?

[sdc999]

14 minutes ago, rpn said:

 

As for how to bring up challenging topics with believers if you are a non-believer, the answer is that you ought never to to that if your intent is to teach the believer something.    Not your stewardship to teach.   More importantly, one has to be at a higher level in order to help others.   One can have more knowledge about something, without having the broader purpose of encouraging people to get closer to God, so that the work/effort can be called Good.

 

I could be wrong on this but I rarely see non believers trying to sway LDS believers.  What I do see is believers not in the Church trying to sway believers within the church.  And also the other way around.   It's the old 'my way is best' syndrome.  And people really do feel strongly about their faith in God and Jesus from both sides.  

I do disagree with your higher level statement.  I have learned and seen people learn from those that are less studious than they or I am.    Else, would you not have to take a test to see who is the smartest in order to teach Sunday School?  Wouldn't you want only your best and brightest speakers to stand before the congregation?  You can learn from anyone if you are humble.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

While I don't disagree that we shouldn't be asking  "gotcha" questions to sidetrack Sunday School or show we're more knowledgeable than the teacher or someone else in the class, I do disagree that we should not discuss sensitive topics, most especially those discussed in the gospel topics essays.

I think this is a fair statement.  I appreciate you phrasing it this way.

I guess it comes down to the Sunday School (read: Gospel Doctrine) teacher addressing and incorporating, to some extent, "sensitive topics."  I think that is an important development in the Church.

However, my interpretation of the OP and subsequent posts was that there are people who are advocating that individual participants in the class (not the teacher) inject "'gotcha' questions to sidetrack Sunday School".  That is what I find problematic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

To answer the question, first I'd like to know the context and the motive.  Are you pretty sure the church is not "true" and you just want to complain about it or shove it in the face of a believing member?  

That is the vibe I'm getting, which is why I too have asked for clarification about context and motive.  No response yet.

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

Or are you an honest hearted doubter, seeking truth and truly wanting some answers.  

I strongly commend such a person.  But I don't see that motive in the OP.  There is apparently a strong fixation on Sunday School, as if that is the only place where such topics can be studied and discussed.  That is simply not so.

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

If it's the latter, I think you start with private conversations with trusted people.  Spouse, friend, sibling, parent, mentor.  Maybe a bishop.  Online forums.  Sunday school and church meetings might be OK to ask some questions if the motive and context are appropriate, but also be prepared for answers like "let's not get into that right now"  and be OK with that answer.  Keep in mind that there may be no good answers for your questions or that the people you're asking might not have them.

Well said!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 hours ago, Danzo said:

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

Right, but if you started inviting your church friends over to discuss the Journal of Discourses or start the "In Sacred Loneliness" book club you may find that you'd get less support from your Bishop.   Study groups got a bad rap. I've had many bishops who have spoken with some hostility against study groups.  There was a First Presidency statement on study groups that was pretty reasonable.  There is also something about study groups in the handbook of instructions.

But there are some in church that think that study groups are the gateway to polygamy or apostasy. There have been plenty of church courts convened just to deal with complaints about study groups. A lot of people worry that attending a study group with a few unorthodox members would violate temple recommend question #7 too.  As a result it is not uncommon for members to tattle about a study group to the bishop.  As a result doubting members can find themselves in a position where they are discouraged from talking about issues both at church and even with their own friends in their own home.

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

As for how to bring up challenging topics with believers if you are a non-believer, the answer is that you ought never to to that if your intent is to teach the believer something.

I am more and more coming into agreement with that position.  And yet... that position feels really elitist and hypocritical.  If a non-believer shouldn't seek to teach a believer shouldn't it work the other way too?

The LDS church sends 70 something thousand missionaries going door to door to with the intent of teaching non-believers something they may not know. And yet the members can't handle a non-believer may have something to teach them about their history? Is it only okay for believers to share information? 

Like my other comment suggested, the way the church handles these issues leads to group think.

And yet at the end of the day I agree with you. It is generally a bad idea to discuss just about any religious topic with most firm believers in any religion.  Most of them can't handle it and probably ought to remain ignorant.

And that goes against everything I belived as a missionary.

Joseph Smith said:

"Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation." (Quoted by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, reporting a discourse given by Joseph Smith on May 21, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois; Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, Notebook, Church Archives.)

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[hope_for_things]

21 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?

My personal experience is that the doubter/non-believer needs to initiate the discussion.  Since my journey started, I can only think of one friend that has honestly asked me probing questions about my experience to try and understand my changing beliefs at a deeper level.  My spouse would be the other one.  Otherwise, from my extended family and friends including, parents, siblings, in-laws, all of them know that I don't believe the same way anymore, and I'm not active in the church, but none of them have tried to understand why.  

I've given books and had conversations with them to try and open up the doors to further discussion, but what I've found is that they are generally unable or unwilling to engage in thoughtful discussion on these topics.  

I think this has to do with an underlying insecurity on their part.  I don't like to say this because I ultimately don't think my beliefs are superior to anyone else, and I have a level of humility about my limitations and my biases.  However, I've found that people really don't want to ask deep probing questions about their existential foundation.  They crave holding onto the myth, and are fearful of stepping out into the unknown.  A familiar fabrication is much more comfortable than unfamiliar chaos.  

Hence, they stick to the old tropes that you wouldn't go to a Ford dealer to learn about a Chevy, and I'm now a Chevy dealer so learning from me when it comes to church history or spiritual insight is automatically looked at with skepticism.  Its sad, they might listen to what I have to say, but their guard is up and they really are only open to things that I say that are in a perceived harmony with today's Mormon culture.  Anything that brings authoritative interpretations into question is discounted or rejected outright.  Mormons have been trained very well to separate teachings of men from teachings of God.  Teachings of men is anything that they perceive as in conflict with their underlying beliefs, and rather than wrestling with the conflict, its much easier to just reject it and not engage in the wrestle.  Hence, we have a lot of Fowler stage 3 thinkers in the church.  

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even with a skilled teacher, someone determined to disrupt the class with an ambush can wreak havoc by bringing in contention. 

Thsts what the protesters outside of General Cinference try to do with their vile signs and insults. They are trying to ruin the reverence of the occasion by provoking fights. They're not trying to save souls. 

We are not talking about temple protesters, we are talking about a member of the Sunday school class. Someone you would know and love, someone who might have a genuine issue.  

In any dialogue, the relationship is much more important than the issue.

 

[Traela]

11 hours ago, lostindc said:

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? 

Not so much assigned, but there are a few people who are known for being very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters, while also being totally faithful.

 

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Quote

As for how to bring up challenging topics with believers if you are a non-believer, the answer is that you ought never to to that if your intent is to teach the believer something.

I am more and more coming into agreement with that position.  And yet... that position feels really hypocritical.  If a non-believer shouldn't seek to teach a believer shouldn't it work the other way too?

I don't think there is hypocrisy here.  I do not accept that there is parity or moral equivalency between 1) Person A attempting to share his religious beliefs with Person B, and 2) Person B attempting to tear down or otherwise malign Person A's religious beliefs.

The vibe I am getting is that some folks want to justify/rationalize injecting "gotcha" questions into Sunday School, not because they are sincerely seeking information and clarification about troubling/controversial issues, but because they want to disrupt.  Sow seeds of doubt and discord.  Foment anxiety and argument.  That just ain't cool.

Quote

The LDS church sends 70 something thousand missionaries going door to door to with the intent of teaching non-believers something they may not know.

You are attempting to create moral equivalency where none exists.  Missionaries sharing their religious beliefs with others is noble and admirable.  That is their core objective.  They are specifically instructed to not contend or criticize the religious beliefs of others.

In contrast, there are those who would seek to disrupt LDS services, Sunday School lessons, for the ulterior purpose of tearing down or otherwise harming the faith of the other participants in the class.

These two efforts are not morally comparable.

Quote

And yet the members can't handle a non-believer may have something to teach them about their history? Is it only okay for believers to share their beliefs? 

"Can't handle?"  You're resorting to taunts now?

Quote

Like my other comment suggested, the way the church handles these issues leads to group think.

And yet at the end of the day I agree with you.  It is generally a bad idea to discuss just about any religious topic with most believers.

Mormons share their faith with others.  Constantly.  It is a major component of our religion.  You seem to be faulting us because we resist the notion of some self-appointed yahoo (mis)appropriating our Sunday services to sow seeds of doubt and contention amongst us.  As if that is somehow morally comparable to LDS missionary work?

I don't think so.  Surely even the most virulent critics of Mormonism can grant that we should be able to have some space to call our own, to teach what we believe to be true without interference?  And if that space is not the three-hour block on Sundays, I don't know what is.

To be clear, I am quite open to the bishop, the Sunday School President, and the Gospel Doctrine teacher coordinating so that "difficult" topics are addressed to some extend in Sunday School.  I think that is great.  I think that is what Elder Ballard had in mind here:

Quote

“As Church education moves forward in the 21st century, each of you needs to consider any changes you should make in the way you prepare to teach, how you teach, and what you teach if you are to build unwavering faith in the lives of our precious youth,” Elder Ballard said. “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.”

But the vibe in this thread seems to be proposing that self-appointed participants in the class should disrupt Sunday School lessons with what appear to be "gotcha" questions (which are more likely to be accusations and criticisms dressed up as questions, rather than actual questions).  If that is so, that just ain't cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

46 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Right, but if you started inviting your church friends over to discuss the Journal of Discourses or start the "In Sacred Loneliness" book club you may find that you'd get less support from your Bishop.   Study groups got a bad rap. I've had many bishops who have spoken with some hostility against study groups.  There was a First Presidency statement on study groups that was pretty reasonable.  There is also something about study groups in the handbook of instructions.

But there are some in church that think that study groups are the gateway to polygamy or apostasy. There have been plenty of church courts convened just to deal with complaints about study groups. A lot of people worry that attending a study group with a few unorthodox members would violate temple recommend question #7 too.  As a result doubting members can find themselves in a position where they are discouraged from talking about issues both at church and even with their own friends in their own home.

 

We often invite other families over for family home evening. We often engage in conversation about gospel topics.  We have only received encouragement.

In fact we have reserved the second Monday of every month for people to come over for fellowship and to answer gospel questions and to discuss the gospel.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 minutes ago, Traela said:

Not so much assigned, but there are a few people who are known for being very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters, while also being totally faithful.

The problem with those people is that in my experience they tend to give the worst answers.  An objectively wrong answer is so much worse than no answer at all.

A big part of my faith crisis was figuring out just how wrong those Sunday School know-it-alls really were. The weird High Priest in Sunday school who self identifies as a "Mormon Scholar" is often kind of nuts and tends to gravitate to the Rodney Meldrum school of apologetics.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, canard78 said:

I really agree with Scott on this one. 

I am happily post-Mormon, but I don't make the assumption that the same status would bring the same happiness to my Mormon friends. I don't usually describe myself as "post-Mormon" either. If asked, I'd call myself a universalist. I try to focus on looking forward rather than backward. 

I wouldn't open a conversation with an Anglican about Henry VIII and his motives or with a Catholic about the warring popes. So why would I approach a Mormon about Joseph's polyandry. 

I remind myself of the reality that most Mormons are not interested in Mormon history because they are not interested in any history at all. It's not a personally relevant topic. I also don't make the assumption that "if only they knew, they'd leave." Because they might not. More than that, they might not want to even consider it, so why is it something that should be pushed on them?

So... if you want to discuss Mormon history, wait to be asked or go and find other people who want to discuss it. Like this forum right here. 

Spot on!

[Oliver_Cowdery]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think there is hypocrisy here.  I do not accept that there is parity or moral equivalency between 1) Person A attempting to share his religious beliefs with Person B, and 2) Person B attempting to tear down or otherwise malign Person A's religious beliefs.

"tear down" is all in the eye of the beholder.  As a missionary and as a member missionary I had many people who were ferrous with me for converting one of their family members.  From their perspective it was the LDS church who was tear down things.  From my nonbelieving perspective I do not feel that my beleifs were tore down I just learned more.  

The only way to really discuss religion is to be able to put your self in someone else's shoes for a moment. 

I don't think you understood my post, please re-read it. I think we agree on more than we disagree here. I did not intended for my post to be read sarcastically. 

I agree that nobody ought to attempt to break the chapel Mormon's bubble.  I wasn't proposing that anyone should. I don't think church is the appropriate place to talk about church history or anything difficult.  I do however lament the consequences of doing nothing, but I still conclude that that is the best option.

I never was the guy to derail a gospel doctrine class, but I was the gospel doctrine instructor.  Even as the gospel doctrine instructor I figured out that chapel Mormons shouldn't be challenged.  Many of them are simply not ready.  The silence on hard topics in Sunday School is deafening, and that's the way many members like it.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Quote

Not so much assigned, but there are a few people who are known for being very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters, while also being totally faithful.

The problem with those people is that in my experience they tend to give the worst answers.  

I don't understand.  Why are answers from people who have studied the subject matter in some depth ("have delved into such matters") the "worst" answers?

11 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

An objectively wrong answer is so much worse than no answer at all.

So a learned, considered, studied response from a faithful Latter-day Saint who is also "very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters" are more likely than others to give "{a}n objectively wrong answer?"

I really do not understand your position.

11 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

A big part of my faith crisis was figuring out just how wrong those Sunday School know-it-alls really were.

So are you equating Latter-day Saints who are "very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters" with Latter-day Saints who are "Sunday School know-it-alls?"

I previously lived in a ward in the "Tree Streets" of Provo.  A substantial portion of our ward, perhaps even a majority, were employed at BYU in various capacities, mostly teaching.  Hence we had a raft of PhDs in various disciplines, including many that were relevant to studying the Gospel (ancient languages, history, etc.).  The Gospel Doctrine lessons there were nothing short of thrilling.  We had no discernible "Sunday School know-it-alls" (whom I would think are better characterized as people who were more interested in showing off than in substantively contributing to the discussion), but we had oodles of bona fide scholars, peoplle who "{had} delved into such matters."

My current ward is on the other side of Provo.  Very few PhDs.  Our Gospel Doctrine instructors are, respectively, an elementary school teacher and a call center employee.  The lessons taught every week are uniformly well-prepared, thoughtful, informative, and uplifting.

I am sorry you have previously had negative experiences along these lines.  But I submit that there are many, many faithful Latter-day Saints who are "very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters", and who are not "Sunday School know-it-alls".

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry you have previously had negative experiences along these lines.  But I submit that there are many, many faithful Latter-day Saints who are "very scholarly and likely to have delved into such matters", and who are not "Sunday School know-it-alls".

Yes, I'll validate that. We all didn't go to the same ward. Everyone had different experiences.