Best method for dialogue between believers and doubters regarding Mormon history

[lostindc]

So based on this thread we have varying views even within the leadership of the Church.  Some leaders go as far as to state that we never hide from these topics and we need our leaders and educators to answer these questions.

 

If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School then where does one go to discuss besides internet forums and LDS oriented conferences like Sunstone and FAIR?  

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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.

This is why i usually prefer silence in Sunday school when the hard topics come up.  It's not because i don't want to discuss the issue or learn more.  It's because it's exhausting trying to discuss or learn more in an environment where you have two or three people who believe they are scholars on every topic and yet usually just say weird stuff that no one knows what to do with.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

"tear down" is all in the eye of the beholder.  

To an extent, I suppose.  But not really.  Anyone who has substantive experience teaching in pretty much any venue will attest that it's not that hard to detect the difference between A) questions that are sincere and calculated to advance the discussion and obtain information, and B) questions that are intended to distract, disrupt, or otherwise detract from the teacher's efforts to present the subject matter.

Quote

As a missionary and as a member missionary I had many people who were ferrous with me for converting one of their family members.  

Those people had an iron-willed opposition to your efforts, eh? 

Quote

From there perspective it was the LDS church who was tear down things.  

So the missionaries accomplished these things by injecting themselves into the local Catholic and Protestant and whatever services, disrupting those services, and instead using those services to "tear down" Catholicism (or Protestantism, or whatever), and to proclaim Mormonism?

Surely not.

Quote

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.  

Nobody has spoken of or advocated Latter-day Saints (I generally avoid using the obviously pejorative "chapel Mormon" label) being in a "bubble."  Are you trying to offend?  Or is this just an inadvertent thing?

Numerous participants in this thread (including myself) have spoken approvingly of Sunday School teachings addressing difficult/controversial topics.  For pete's sake, I just quoted Elder Ballard's "gone are the days" remarks.  Whence, then, comes the unnecessarily snide jab about "the chapel Mormon's bubble?"

Quote

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 the is the best option.

I do not understand the above statements.

Quote

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.

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

As for whether "chapel Mormons" (whatever that means) should be "challenged," I don't know what you mean by that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2016 by smac97

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So based on this thread we have varying views even within the leadership of the Church.  Some leaders go as far as to state that we never hide from these topics and we need our leaders and educators to answer these questions.

 

If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School then where does one go to discuss besides internet forums and LDS oriented conferences like Sunstone and FAIR?  

Why don't you start by talking to members of the ward.  I would start with your home teachers.  They probably love and care about you enough to listen to your concerns.  If that doesn't work, try your elders quorum president, or your bishop.  You could also talk to your sunday school teacher as well. I have always found institute teachers to be a wealth of knowledge.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, lostindc said:

So based on this thread we have varying views even within the leadership of the Church.  

I don't think so.

10 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Some leaders go as far as to state that we never hide from these topics and we need our leaders and educators to answer these questions.

I assume you are referring here to Elder Ballard, yes?  So which leaders within the upper leadership echelons of the Church have expressed viewpoints at odds with that of Elder Ballard?

10 minutes ago, lostindc said:

If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Those people had an iron-willed opposition to your efforts, eh? 

Yes.  In many cases I had to deal with an angry parent who worried that they would now be in poverty in the after life because their converted Mormon children would no longer offer sacrifices to them after they died.  Those concerns varied in degree.  Most were just concerned that Mormonism had damaged their family closeness, culture and traditions (which they held in high regard).

However there is another case where I fear that a may have inadvertently contributed to a family with three children getting divorced.  Obviously there is always more to the story than the missionary knows.  But the husband converted and the wife did not.  The wife hate my guts the entire time I taught this family. About five months after baptism I talked that husband again.  He put a lot of pressure on his wife to join (he wanted the temple sealing).  The wive's family put a lot of pressure on her to not convert.  The husband threatened to divorce and a went through with it.  It's not entirely my fault.  But I do loose some sleep over it just wondering if things would have been different if I would have just stayed in bed that day instead of knocking on doors.

I also caused some contention in other homes over the teaching of the great apostasy, but fortunately I don't think anything bad came of it.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So the missionaries accomplished these things by injecting themselves into the local Catholic and Protestant and whatever services, disrupting those services, and instead using those services to "tear down" Catholicism (or Protestantism, or whatever), and to proclaim Mormonism?

From a believing perspective, why not?  They did that kind of thing in the Book of Mormon.  Early LDS missionaries also walked into churches and started teaching too.

I did it once too. It took some courage, but I'm glad I did it. On my mission, there was a church called the "Church of Antioch" that had set up a large tent over a soccer field with bleachers.  I went in and starting teaching the first discussion to a large group of people.  By the time I got to the 5th principle one of the leader took me aside to talk.  I asked if I could then address the larger crowd in the tent.  But I was told I could not.  But I ended up teaching a group of about 10 leaders the first discussion.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody has spoken of or advocated Latter-day Saints (I generally avoid using the obviously pejorative "chapel Mormon" label) being in a "bubble."  Are you trying to offend?  Or is this just an inadvertent thing?

Good point.  I don't mean to offend.  I would have referred to myself as a chapel Mormon and being in a bubble.  I did not see that as pejorative. I saw that quality as being a good thing at one time.  My current position of not engaging believers is kind of elitist.  And I struggle with that.  I can definitely see how it comes off as offensive, but unengaged church going members would take more offense if I engage with them.  They are not ready to know.

Basically I see chapel Mormons as the vast majority of the church.  The only member I don't think of as chapel Mormons are the Internet apologist that cropped up in the last 20 years or so.  The two groups believe so differently that I think a distinction is warranted.  

 

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[smac97]

1 hour 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.  

Or you might not.

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Study groups got a bad rap. I've had many bishops who have spoken with some hostility against study groups.  

And I have never had a bishop speak with any hostility about study groups.

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

There was a First Presidency statement on study groups that was pretty reasonable.  

Then there's not much of a "bad rap" for study groups.  See here:

Quote

From the LDS First Presidency in 2001 (excerpts):

The First Presidency directed that the following letter be read in sacrament meeting… We repeat the counsel set forth in the Church Handbook of Instruction, page 157:  “Church members should not participate in groups that… Challenge religious and moral values… Imitate sacred rites or ceremonies… Meet late into the evening or in the early-morning hours… We strongly counsel against affiliation with any such group…

Again, I have never had a bishop who has been hostile to the generalized concept of study groups.  I have also never heard anyone in my acquaintance express this as a concern.  I live in Provo and work in Utah and Salt Lake Counties, so I know oodles and oodles of Mormons.  I think if widespread aversion to innocuous study groups were a thing, that would be more readily apparent.

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

There is also something about study groups in the handbook of instructions.

Yep.  See above.

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

But there are some in church that think that study groups are the gateway to polygamy or apostasy.

I doubt this sentiment is as broad as that.  Study groups which are formed and conducted along the lines of what is cautioned against in the above statement from the First Presidency may be be problematic, but study groups in general?  Nah.  

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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.

If "doubting members" are organizing and conducting "study groups" along the lines of what is cautioned against in the above statement from the First Presidency, then I think you would have a point.  Otherwise, probably not.

I think I may see your underlying point, though.  "Doubting members" may feel that they do not have sufficient "safe spaces" to say what they really want to say.  There is probably some justification for that sentiment in many circumstances.  That is an issue to be worked on, by both the "doubting members" and their families, close friends, and priesthood leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lostindc]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is why i usually prefer silence in Sunday school when the hard topics come up.  It's not because i don't want to discuss the issue or learn more.  It's because it's exhausting trying to discuss or learn more in an environment where you have two or three people who believe they are scholars on every topic and yet usually just say weird stuff that no one knows what to do with.

Would it be easier if the Church provided standard answers or positions on difficult issues and then members could be referred to these answers?  Something like FAIR in terms of having topics easily searched and some sort of answer, position/critique is included?

[churchistrue]

38 minutes ago, lostindc said:

If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School then where does one go to discuss besides internet forums and LDS oriented conferences like Sunstone and FAIR?  

I think hard topics should be broached in SS, but I think it should be the teacher that leads not the class members.  If the teacher doesn't bring it up, then probably they're not prepared or capable to discuss it, so class members probably shouldn't go there.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, lostindc said:

Would it be easier if the Church provided standard answers or positions on difficult issues and then members could be referred to these answers?  Something like FAIR in terms of having topics easily searched and some sort of answer, position/critique is included?

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.  

[lostindc]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Scott Lloyd and others implied that the difficult subjects should not be discussed because these topics would derail the lesson.  He could come back and reply that if the discussion is conducted in a non-contentious manner then the discussion can occur in Sunday School.  I don't know.  That is my interpretation.  Please feel free to clarify.  

 

In terms of leaders, I don't believe we really need to dig into the topics such as milk before meat and the many trappings of Packer and similar mindsets.  I am not sure that would do any good, especially in this thread. It would probably bring this thread to a crash.

 

Back to my point, where can a member turn to in order to discuss the difficult questions that may coincide with a Sunday School lesson.  For instance, in Sunday School, if we are discussing how the BOM came to be, can one pose the questions regarding seer stones, Anachronisms, and similarities to the book The Late War?  If not, where can one go besides a message board or a Mormon conference such as Sunstone or FAIR?

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Would it be easier if the Church provided standard answers or positions on difficult issues and then members could be referred to these answers?  Something like FAIR in terms of having topics easily searched and some sort of answer, position/critique is included?

That is the point and purpose of the Gospel Topics essays:

Quote

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

The Church places great emphasis on knowledge and on the importance of being well informed about Church history, doctrine, and practices. Ongoing historical research, revisions of the Church’s curriculum, and the use of new technologies allowing a more systematic and thorough study of scriptures have all been pursued by the Church to that end. We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links to the right as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

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.

 

If it is (theoretically) someone you know and love, and the question is sincere and not just an attempt to hijack and introduce rancor into the discussion, an authoritative and accurate response can ordinarily these days be given from one or more of the "Gospel Topics" essays. This should take only a few minutes and should not become a long and drawn-out back-and-forth that monopolizes the lesson period.

If that is not sufficient for the one posing the question, it should be deferred until later, perhaps in a private discussion with the teacher or an interview with the bishop.

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[lostindc]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is the point and purpose of the Gospel Topics essays:

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Gospel essays are YUGE in terms of facing the difficult questions the younger generations are now asking.  The Church has sat on the sideline and let orgs like FARMs now the MI and lately the Mormon Interpreter to handle some of the difficult questions, mostly questions focused on the happenings in early Mormonism and issues surrounding scriptures.  I am glad the Church is willing to take a public stand on many of these subjects even if the position is We don't know the answer to this question.

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Agreed.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Scott Lloyd and others implied that the difficult subjects should not be discussed because these topics would derail the lesson.  He could come back and reply that if the discussion is conducted in a non-contentious manner then the discussion can occur in Sunday School.  I don't know.  That is my interpretation.  Please feel free to clarify.  

 

I never said that they should not be discussed lest they would derail the lesson, only that they should not be allowed derail the lesson. If they can be taken up without derailing the lesson, I'm all for it.

Please see what I just posted to Danzo if you need further clarification.

What Smac97 has said here regarding proper time, place and manner for such discussions and topics makes a lot of sense. I endorse it.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

2 hours 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 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.

 

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

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Scott Lloyd and others implied that the difficult subjects should not be discussed because these topics would derail the lesson.  

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Please provide links and quotes for these "implied" statements.

Quote

He could come back and reply that if the discussion is conducted in a non-contentious manner then the discussion can occur in Sunday School.  I don't know.  That is my interpretation.  Please feel free to clarify.  

Scott can certainly speak for himself, but I think he was taking issue not with "difficult subjects" being discussed at all in Sunday School, but rather self-appointed participants essentially hijacking the lesson to inject those "difficult subjects" in a confrontational, "gotcha" kind of way.

Quote

In terms of leaders, I don't believe we really need to dig into the topics such as milk before meat and the many trappings of Packer and similar mindsets.  I am not sure that would do any good, especially in this thread. It would probably bring this thread to a crash.

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.

Quote

Back to my point,

You are attempting to create what I think is a false dichotomy.  That Elder Ballard is saying X (what we should be discussing "difficult topics" in Sunday School), but that other General Authorities are saying not X ("If we take the side of not discussing these types of topics in Sunday School...").

That was your "point."  I take issue with it.  Hence my CFR.

Quote

where can a member turn to in order to discuss the difficult questions that may coincide with a Sunday School lesson.  

All sorts of places.  Do your own research.  There are books and articles and websites galore which address "difficult questions" in the Restored Gospel.  This board is one small resource.  There are others:

• LDS.org generally (and the "Gospel Topics" essays in particular)
• The Maxwell Institute's website
• Institute courses
• The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies
• The Encyclopedia of Mormonism
• FAIR (the site, the materials available in their bookstore, their symposia, etc.)
• Mormon Interpreter (website and publications)
• Jeff Lindsay's website
• Books by Hugh Nibley, Dan Peterson, Matthew Roper, Matthew Brown, Richard L. Bushman, Terryl and Fiona Givens, William Hamblin, John Tvedtnes, John Gee, Jack Welch, Patrick Mason, and on and on and on...

As for individuals who can help, you may have family members, friends, priesthood leaders, and learned individuals who may be open to responding to inquiries (some of whom are listed above).

Quote

For instance, in Sunday School, if we are discussing how the BOM came to be, can one pose the questions regarding seer stones, Anachronisms, and similarities to the book The Late War?  If not, where can one go besides a message board or a Mormon conference such as Sunstone or FAIR?

See above.

With respect, I do not understand your concern here.  You seem to be suggesting that there is a paucity of resources for Latter-day Saints to study their faith in detail.  I tend to have quite the opposite perspective, namely, that there are an embarrassment of resources available, far too many for me to consume given my limited free time.

Put another way, what questions do you have about "seer stones, Anachronisms, and similarities to the book The Late War," that are not susceptible to further review and study by using resources which are already available to you (some of which are listed above)?

To be more particular, FAIR's article about comparisons between The Book of Mormon and The Late War seems to be at least a good starting point.  It addresses this issue extensively.  It also includes a link to a Mormon Interpreter article about this issue by G. Bruce Schaalje.

Have you read these materials?  If not, why not?  

If yes, then what remaining questions/concerns do you have about that issue, and what additional study have you undertaken to address those questions/concerns?  

Have you presented any of those residual questions/concerns here on this board?  

Have you contacted FAIR or Mr. Schaalje to request further information, references, etc.?  

Have you compared these two books for yourself (rather than relying strictly on the Johnsons)?

Have you evaluated the evidence and assumptions underlying the Johnsons' treatment of this issue?

Have you contacted, say, Dan Peterson or other well-known and well-informed scholars of Mormonism to request help in pointing you to resources which might be useful in studying this issue?

Have you spoken with family members or friends who may also be aware of and have studied this issue?

Have you spoken with your bishop or other home teachers or other priesthood leaders about this issue?

Have you prayed and fasted and sought revelatory guidance about this issue?

I hope these questions are not offensive to your or unduly intrusive.  Again, I just do not understand your apparent premise (that "doubting members" are presently lacking in resources to study about and address their concerns).  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

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

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

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

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

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

[Boanerges]

14 minutes ago, lostindc said:

The Gospel essays are YUGE in terms of facing the difficult questions the younger generations are now asking.  The Church has sat on the sideline and let orgs like FARMs now the MI and lately the Mormon Interpreter to handle some of the difficult questions, mostly questions focused on the happenings in early Mormonism and issues surrounding scriptures.  I am glad the Church is willing to take a public stand on many of these subjects even if the position is We don't know the answer to this question.

I agree with this. I think an unwillingness in the past to say "we don't know" has partly led us to where we are.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Scott can certainly speak for himself, but I think he was taking issue not with "difficult subjects" being discussed at all in Sunday School, but rather self-appointed participants essentially hijacking the lesson to inject those "difficult subjects" in a confrontational, "gotcha" kind of way.

 

I just spoke for myself, and yes, that is exactly what I was doing. You have characterized my intent and meaning with precision.

[Boanerges]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said that they should not be discussed or that they would derail the lesson, only that they should not be allowed derail the lesson. Please see what I just posted to Danzo if you need further clarification.

What Smac97 has said here regarding proper time, place and manner for such discussions and topics makes a lot of sense. I endorse it.

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?

[Boanerges]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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

[Boanerges]

16 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

Certainly every ward and stake is different. I may have taken a more limited understanding of what Oliver was trying to say that you, I didn't interpret it as widespread, just that it can and does happen. It is clear, as Oliver stated, that study groups are discouraged and probably for some of the reasons he gave. Those same objectives can be accomplished without study groups though. Outside the Corridor there simply are not the same dynamics at work if only because our numbers are fewer. There are no polygamists or Mormon fundamentalists in my state nor are there any Denver Snuffers.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Boanerges