Missionary finding his lost brother & avoiding dogs

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

I've unintentionally wielded it at that way at times, as a means to shift blame instead of simply apologize and try to make things right. 

His message is instead intended to help some.

Not intended to be foisted upon others.

My apologies if, for you, I've instead done the latter.  

You're fine, thanks for the apology, I wasn't hurt by it at all, and I think its a relevant piece of the discussion, but should be critiqued for its strengths and weaknesses, and I think in this case Bednar's message can be helpful to some, but hurt others depending on the personality type.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

If the Mission presidents who heard the story were offended, we should let them speak for themselves.

I think it can be rather annoying when other people start feeling offended for me (especially when I am not actually offended)

Know any mission presidents who were present at the talk that might be willing to weigh in here on the board?  That would be interesting, but personally I don't know any.  

Since the talk is public, and articles are written in the DNews and other places, I think its up for public discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

And it is often quite annoying.

PR firms are often good at stripping all meaning from their messages.

Trying to be sensitive to different audiences = stripping meaning from messages.  Interesting....  

[hagoth7]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're fine, thanks for the apology, I wasn't hurt by it at all, and I think its a relevant piece of the discussion, but should be critiqued for its strengths and weaknesses, and I think in this case Bednar's message can be helpful to some, but hurt others depending on the personality type.  

You're welcome. It wasn't until you objected that I realized I occasionally reach for it for the wrong reasons.

Hmm.

(I might grow up some day.)

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

So if I mention my wife someone without a spouse may feel hurt.

If I mention my job someone who is struggling to find employment may feel hurt.

If I mention my testimony of the Book of Mormon someone who has prayed for, but not yet received a testimony may feel hurt.

If I mention my children a couple without children may feel hurt.

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

I can tell you're sounding snarky, but actually you're on to something.  

It would be good to remember the singles, the unemployed, those struggling with a testimony of the BoM, the childless couples.  Yes yes yes, all those groups are at times marginalized and hurt because of insensitive stories that are told.  We really need to do a much better job being conscientious of them in all our discourse. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who says he didn't do that in this instance?

If he did think it through, he didn't do a very good job of it in my opinion.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the unintended hurt and consequences of hearing that “We are sent by God to invite His children home.... We do that through the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, on the strength of the Atonement of Jesus Christ," and, "Welcome to the divine companionship”? What is the struggle that makes this message offensive (and who are you saying are offended, TBMs or BTMs, or both)?

Are you suggesting that some miss this message and so struggle in their faith (or their feelings of self-worth, belonging, etc.) because it reminds them that the lost soul they love hasn't come back to enjoy membership according to the struggling person's brand of commitment (whether at a TBM or BTM level), and so on one hand, not to use stories with messages, and on the other, to tell more stories of lost souls not coming back or coming back on the potentially struggling person's terms (and not as Elder Holland described)?

I have multiple problems with the message.  I'll mention a couple.  When we assume the Hell's Angel guy is the lost soul and the missionary is bringing him back home, we are missing an important truth about the prodigal story.  We are all lost souls, the missionary is lost, the Hell's Angel guy is lost, and we are all in need to returning home.  We are also all welcome back with open arms by God whenever and however we choose to seek him.  To say that returning to the LDS fold is equal to returning home is a gross simplification that misses the depth of the message in my opinion.  

This story doesn't do anything for me other than purport to be a institutional strengthening message to say, look at missionary work and look at Mormonism and see how this is proof that missionary work is God's divine work because look at this story as evidence to support the work as divine.  I don't like it on multiple levels, I don't think it helps anything other than to pat people on the back for supporting the LDS missionary program.  Its an in-group supporting narrative, or in political speak its a message to strengthen the base but has no appeal to anyone on the margins, the gospel message should be focused around "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable".  

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

You're welcome. It wasn't until you objected that I realized I occasionally reach for it for the wrong reasons.

Hmm.

(I might grow up some day.)

I'm still waiting to grow up, but the older I get the more immature I feel.  

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If he did think it through, he didn't do a very good job of it in my opinion.  

So Elder Holland is telling a story about how miracles can happen to missionaries, and he's speaking to a group of mission presidents, and you think he didn't think it through?  Are you presuming to know Elder Holland audience better than Elder Holland himself?  Please present your credentials and experience in dealing with missionaries, mission presidents, and the administration of missions.  I'd really be interested in hearing how you know better what Elder Holland should or should not  have said better than Elder Holland himself. 

[hagoth7]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...the older I get the more immature I feel.  

Ditto.  

The more I *think* I know, the more I instead realize how out of priority I sometimes put things, and especially how much more fun stuff there is yet to discover.

Reminds me of what someone said, who had a pretty good bead on things...

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30297.html

Edited July 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So Elder Holland is telling a story about how miracles can happen to missionaries, and he's speaking to a group of mission presidents, and you think he didn't think it through?  Are you presuming to know Elder Holland audience better than Elder Holland himself?  Please present your credentials and experience in dealing with missionaries, mission presidents, and the administration of missions.  I'd really be interested in hearing how you know better what Elder Holland should or should not  have said better than Elder Holland himself. 

Somewhat of a strawman here because I'm not saying I'm more qualified to speak to missionaries, I just said he didn't do a good job at his message.  Extremely qualified people do poor work all the time, and they shouldn't be above criticism.  Unfortunately for the religiously dogmatic, just questioning an authority figure is unfathomable.  Seems like a constant fight just to have some critical thinking about a topic sometimes.  

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Trying to be sensitive to different audiences = stripping meaning from messages.  Interesting....  

And unfortunate as well when it happens. Things that need to be said go unsaid. Untold Millions of people missing out on truth, held hostage to the possibility of someone not being able to handle it.

It can be sad.  Although presentation is important, when presentation becomes more important than the message it self, truth suffers.

[Danzo]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

. . . I just said he didn't do a good job at his message. . .

I thought he did a great job with his message.

Would you rather he keep his mouth shut?

Keep the story a secret?

 

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Danzo said:

And unfortunate as well when it happens. Things that need to be said go unsaid. Untold Millions of people missing out on truth, held hostage to the possibility of someone not being able to handle it.

It can be sad.  Although presentation is important, when presentation becomes more important than the message it self, truth suffers.

Hmm... Interesting.  You're equating PR messaging to something shallow and stripped of its truths.  And I'm saying that PR messaging is more sensitive to different groups that could be negatively impacted.  Perhaps we there is some value in both of our perspectives.  

I was thinking that the truth is probably less miraculous than the Holland account, and that real life is more messy, and Holland's account sounds more crafted and packaged as a fairy tale and less real and true to me.  

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I thought he did a great job with his message.

Would you rather he keep his mouth shut?

Keep the story a secret?

 

I've answered this question multiple times now.  No, I'm not calling for a silencing of the story.  

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Somewhat of a strawman here because I'm not saying I'm more qualified to speak to missionaries, I just said he didn't do a good job at his message.  Extremely qualified people do poor work all the time, and they shouldn't be above criticism.  Unfortunately for the religiously dogmatic, just questioning an authority figure is unfathomable.  Seems like a constant fight just to have some critical thinking about a topic sometimes.  

So how do you know he didn't do a good job?  Have you asked anyone who was part of the audience?  The only person who you really know if the message resonated with is yourself.  And unless you are a new mission president yourself then you're not part of the audience that Elder Holland addressed his message to.  That doesn't mean you can't benefit from it, just that you shouldn't expect it to address your needs, which from what you've written here is much different than a new mission president. 

Edited July 11, 2017 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So how do you know he didn't do a good job?  Have you asked anyone who was part of the audience?  The only person who you really know if the message resonated with is yourself.  And unless you are a new mission president yourself then you're not part of the audience that Elder Holland addressed his message to.  That doesn't mean you can't benefit from it, just that you shouldn't expect it to address your needs, which from what you've written here is much different than a new mission president. 

Just like you read my messages on this thread and are critiquing them, I'm doing the same to Elder Holland's talk.  The story was printed in a newspaper and therefore I became a member of the audience via the Dnews.  I'm discussing a public talk by a leader of the LDS faith in a public discussion board, and critiquing the content based on my perspective in life.   I have high expectations of the leaders of a large worldwide organization.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I have multiple problems with the message.  I'll mention a couple.  When we assume the Hell's Angel guy is the lost soul and the missionary is bringing him back home, we are missing an important truth about the prodigal story.  We are all lost souls, the missionary is lost, the Hell's Angel guy is lost, and we are all in need to returning home.  We are also all welcome back with open arms by God whenever and however we choose to seek him.  To say that returning to the LDS fold is equal to returning home is a gross simplification that misses the depth of the message in my opinion.  

This story doesn't do anything for me other than purport to be a institutional strengthening message to say, look at missionary work and look at Mormonism and see how this is proof that missionary work is God's divine work because look at this story as evidence to support the work as divine.  I don't like it on multiple levels, I don't think it helps anything other than to pat people on the back for supporting the LDS missionary program.  Its an in-group supporting narrative, or in political speak its a message to strengthen the base but has no appeal to anyone on the margins, the gospel message should be focused around "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable".  

I think it’s good you have a personal take-away from the message. It think it captures the spirit of Elder Holland’s concluding message. I think in the spirit of BTM you can share it without making a negative comparison with other take-aways. But I can see how a negative comparison can be used to justify your suggestion that Elder Holland hire a PR guy and Elder Bednar take a Meyers-Briggs course.

I see many Gospel messages in the big tent / big top, each suited for everyone’s particular need. But you have to admit, what Elder Holland concluded from this story can apply to any of the Church’s missions that support the Lord’s plan of salvation, not just missionary work: “We are sent by God to invite His children home.... We do that through the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, on the strength of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Welcome to the divine companionship.” “Home” can refer to membership, family, friends, heaven, roots, freedom from “whatever” spiritual or material problem, etc.

Inasmuch as you see yourself in the tent, this message is for you, too. Inasmuch as you see yourself outside of the tent, it is for you too. I’m sure you can share a way that you can find comfort from your afflictions in this message, and find affliction in your comfort. Share!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I was thinking that the truth is probably less miraculous than the Holland account, and that real life is more messy, and Holland's account sounds more crafted and packaged as a fairy tale and less real and true to me.  

Would you share what you consider to be the true miracles in your life, as messy as they might seem?

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  

I was thinking that the truth is probably less miraculous than the Holland account, and that real life is more messy, and Holland's account sounds more crafted and packaged as a fairy tale and less real and true to me.  

Did you stop to think before you wrote this that calling Elder Holland's message "crafted and packaged" and a "fairy tale" that you might be offending and hurting some of your audience.  You seem very concerned that about Elder Holland offending people.  Perhaps you could apply that to your own comments.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Would you share what you consider to be the true miracles in your life, as messy as they might seem?

I have many things I consider to be miracles.  The fact that I'm alive today as I had many health problems in my childhood, I see as a miracle.  The births of my three kids, my marriage to my wonderful wife, my health today, my life in this great country, the experiences that have shaped me many of these church related, I consider all these things miraculous on some level.  Some of them more than others.  I don't think of miracles as supernatural phenomena anymore as I lost that belief and consider myself a naturalist.  

That doesn't mean that science has all the answers, or that currently unobservable natural causes aren't at work that connect us with nature or the universe or God in ways we don't comprehend today.  (just thinking about this idea its really quite compatible with Mormonism if you think about it, as Joseph was speculating about matter and spirit and the forces of the universe.)  

Whats messy to me are the ways that religion and people throughout history have tried to explain phenomena that we call miracles, but not the miracles themselves.  For example, a couple hundred years ago it was considered a heresy for Galileo to show that the earth revolved around the sun, and now pretty much all Christian religions accept this as fact.  Today, many think its a heresy to say that God is a function in our brain that has evolved to have a God experience.  But the neuroscience on this subject is getting more compelling every day and I imagine a future where people will totally accept this as fact, just like how Galileo's ideas are now incorporated into religious paradigms.  Does this make sense?  

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Did you stop to think before you wrote this that calling Elder Holland's message "crafted and packaged" and a "fairy tale" that you might be offending and hurting some of your audience.  You seem very concerned that about Elder Holland offending people.  Perhaps you could apply that to your own comments.

I was talking about the style of the message and said that it has a crafted and packaged feel, with a fairy tale style to it.  And I think it does.  Doesn't mean the main story isn't factually accurate, I've said many times that I believe it is.  I think you're trying to take a few words out of the context of this entire thread.   

[Bob Crockett]

On my mission in Illinois I tracted out a 21-year-old woman who said her name was -- and it was the name of an obscure figure in the D&C.  I commented at the door that that name appeared as an early Mormon Seventy in our D&C  She said that she had been waiting for a Mormon Elder to recognize that.  She was baptized and went to BYU.  Coincidence.  Maybe.  I don't know.  It's a good story.

As a bishop I was working with an investigator with a hard head.  I took his family to hear Dr. Peterson speak at a fireside in Westwood.  Dr. Peterson answered the precise question my investigator had, which he hadn't asked me.  He joined the church.  Coincidence?  

Edited July 12, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

On my mission in Illinois I tracted out a 21-year-old woman who said her name was -- and it was the name of an obscure figure in the D&C.  I commented at the door that that name appeared as an early Mormon Seventy. in our D&C  She said that she had been waiting for a Mormon Elder to recognize that.  She was baptized and went to BYU.  Coincidence.  Maybe.  I don't know.  Its a good story.

As a bishop I was working with an investigator with a hard head.  I took his family to hear Dr. Peterson speak at a fireside in Westwood.  Dr. Peterson answered the precise question my investigator had, which he hadn't asked me.  He joined the church.  Coincidence?  

I was never able as a missionary to take my investigators to hear Dr. Peterson. Nor did I ever tract into anyone who had a Doctrine and Covenants name.

I feel offended and hurt that you brought this up.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was talking about the style of the message and said that it has a crafted and packaged feel, with a fairy tale style to it.  And I think it does.  Doesn't mean the main story isn't factually accurate, I've said many times that I believe it is.  I think you're trying to take a few words out of the context of this entire thread.   

You're just so concerned that the things Elder Holland said to mission presidents are hurting people but you're not applying the same thinking to what you say.