hope_for_things Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And I very much dislike the buzzword messy that seems to have entered the modern vernacular with the connotation that "messiness" is something to be cherished for its own sake, even sought for or upheld. It's my belief that we are placed into mortality to learn how to emulate the God-like characteristics of drawing order out of chaos, of eliminating mess and replacing it with cleanliness. Yes, I can agree with you here that there is value in seeking to draw order out of chaos, and I love that kind of an ethic. Eliminating the mess has its place and is a worthy goal, especially when applied introspectively. It runs into trouble sometimes when we try to apply our personal ethics of mess elimination to others too aggressively as we can hurt them, or minimize their pain or not understand them and alienate them. But I see value in what you're saying here for sure. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I've seen you advocate before what stemelbow is advocating in this thread, and that is that the heretical notion that the Book of Mormon is not what it purports to be, but rather, is "inspired fiction," be given a respected place in our Church discourse. I can't abide that. You don't have to abide it for your own beliefs, I'm not promoting it as the only way to think about the BoM, or even the best way or the preferred way. I claim it for myself, and you can call my position a heresy, but I will continue to believe it as long as it feels to me like the most reasonable explanation for BoM origins. Ultimately, I assert "the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled." 1
Calm Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 6 hours ago, stemelbow said: 5 to 11 year olds listen to sacrament talks? Well, that's news to me. Talks in my experience are geared toward adults. I certainly did. What else is there to do for an hour? 2
CV75 Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I agree with you that historicity shouldn't be the underlying important value that we agree or disagree about. I think there is great value in discussing the BoM and its principles as literature, as history, as metaphor, as ethical dilemma, and many other perspectives. Its when we get stuck in a box, when we think the scriptures have one right or wrong message, that is when we limit God and limit our ability to learn from them. I think Teaching in the Lord's Way helps people not get stuck in the box(es) you describe, no matter the perspective, and places the principles at the forefront. That way, everyone has something to contribute if they are willing. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith ...that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege. See that ye love one another; cease to be covetous; learn to impart one to another as the gospel requires. Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated. And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.” (D&C 88: 118, 122-125). I invite you to get a copy of that manual and study it with the above counsel in mind, and bring what you've gained to the classes so that you can effectively discuss Book of Mormon principles from the perspective you feel is most edifying. 2
hope_for_things Posted July 18, 2017 Posted July 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think Teaching in the Lord's Way helps people not get stuck in the box(es) you describe, no matter the perspective, and places the principles at the forefront. That way, everyone has something to contribute if they are willing. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith ...that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege. See that ye love one another; cease to be covetous; learn to impart one to another as the gospel requires. Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated. And above all things, clothe yourselves with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.” (D&C 88: 118, 122-125). I invite you to get a copy of that manual and study it with the above counsel in mind, and bring what you've gained to the classes so that you can effectively discuss Book of Mormon principles from the perspective you feel is most edifying. I've read the manual and I think it has some good things, I actually shared part of it with the Bishop because it has some nice language around using the new materials and not shaming people who have challenges to their faith. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with you that there are some good things. I don't automatically assume that everything in the manual is "The Lord's Way" of teaching, just because they use that title, doesn't make it so. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation.
CV75 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I've read the manual and I think it has some good things, I actually shared part of it with the Bishop because it has some nice language around using the new materials and not shaming people who have challenges to their faith. I don't agree with all of it, but I agree with you that there are some good things. I don't automatically assume that everything in the manual is "The Lord's Way" of teaching, just because they use that title, doesn't make it so. Anyway, thanks for the interesting conversation. But I'm sure you agree with D&C 88: 118, 122-125 which dovetails with the key principles taught in the manual is a great pace to start in relating well with others in the classes and quorums. The very basic counsel in these verses might help avoid selective attention in discovering what the manual has to offer. From the Preface, I think it is good to recognize that "The goal of every gospel teacher—every parent, every formally called teacher, every home teacher and visiting teacher, and every follower of Christ—is to teach the pure doctrine of the gospel, by the Spirit, in order to help God’s children build their faith in the Savior and become more like Him." I think students share that responsibility in how they share to edify each other. I see this when substituting "teach" with "learn" in the principles described in the manual. From the Introduction, "When you think about the Savior’s way of teaching, what comes to mind?" Edited July 19, 2017 by CV75
Meerkat Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm going to push back against this. Why can't church be a place for more messy faith? People can learn to discuss topics in respectful ways, and teachers can learn to facilitate difficult topics and creating an environment where respect is given to various differing views. I do this all the time in a school setting when we go over and talk about controversial current events. It takes a little ground work, and guidance by a good facilitator, but the rewards for authenticity and the learning from the perspectives of others outweigh all the risks that you mention. Think of these Uchtdorf quotes and how they can be applied to this discussion: I think many people going through faith challenges do "hide their problems" at church, precisely because of the environmental issues you express concern about. How can a person who's questioning God, questioning the church's dominant narrative, not hide their problems at church. I think Uchtdorf is calling us to a greater vulnerability, to a community where we discuss the problems, not where we hide them. Learning how to discuss topics in respectful ways is the challenge. It's a difficult thing to do, if it is a dicey question we are dealing with and the questioner is convinced that the Church is not true. How do you keep contention out of it? This is how messy faith works, in my opinion: Korihor... (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying: O ye that are bound down under a foolish and vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. That seems like a reasonable question. After all, where is the proof. Show me the proof, so I may believe. "prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. " .... "Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. ... Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. Sounds like a fervent discussion of doctrines. When Korihor tried to carry on this discussion over in Jershon, and into the land of Gideon, the high priest said unto him: Why do ye go about perverting the ways of the lord? Why do ye teach this people that there shall be no Christ, to interrupt their rejoicings?" That is also my question. Why involve everyone in a class when someone else may be more helpful and knowledgable answering a sincere question. Sacrament meeting and Gospel Doctrine class are not places for us to expound on our doubts. They are places to strengthen our faith in my opinion. There are other places outside of Church meetings to get answers to sincere questions from Church leaders, missionaries, personal research, Mormon Dialogue, etc. The problem with Korihors I have met is that they have an ax to grind. We may resolve one item, then on to the next doubt. Then the next, and the next. Before you know it, doubts have been strengthened and faith flies out the window. That's not why I go to Church. Those who do, in my opinion, should spend time in sincere discussions with their Home Teachers, Quorum, Relief Society or other leaders and allow the general membership to be edified in peace. May I close with reference to 3 Ne. 11:29, 30 "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." 4
Robert F. Smith Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I disagree, I feel the same way about many of the Interpreter's essays and other apologetic approaches. It becomes a partisan matter for some, who overlook the strong lack of rigor. I personally have known some of those contributing to those books you recommend, and they haven't the foggiest idea what scholarship might be. They did not abide by true canons of scholarship. One side in the partisan divide speaks of apologetics, while the other side speaks of anti-Mormon attacks. Wouldn't it be better if we could practice disinterested scholarship? Shouldn't all contributions to the debate be judged according to their adherence to real scholarship? I don't see you able to discern the importance of that.. 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Could you expound on this, because I want to make sure I understand your distinction. It sounds to me like you're saying that inspiration from the Holy Spirit is a legitimate means of establishing a belief. A person can feel inspired that something is not true and that "needs no other justification". But this has to go both ways. If a belief in historicity requires no justification other than a faith proposition, then the opposite position is also true, a belief against historicity MUST require no justification other than the simple faith proposition. Does this mean that some will now announce that the BofM is untrue and non-historical only because the Holy Spirit said so? Because I have yet to hear that. Certainly the evangelicals don't say that. However, if they did make such a claim, how could anyone make an argument against them? Such subjective claims are certainly admissible as personal testimony, but they are not matters of forensic evidence. That is not the basis employed by Brant Gardner in his scholarship. Nor is it the basis of my writings. Surely you understand the difference. 8 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I completely agree with this, and this is exactly why things are so challenging and why I don't like many of the anti church and pro church arguments. I see a lot of bias creeping into arguments as people are rooting for their invested paradigm, and I attempt to look at many different sides of issues for this very reason. This is not only confirmation bias at play, but they've done some additional research on another kind of bias that is related, called the Desirability Bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_desirability_bias Rather than pointing fingers and denouncing this or that belief, I find it helpful to actually deal with the hard, factual questions. The community of scholars engages in a self-correcting exercise in that they write, publish, and are reviewed, and only the hard facts and logic seem to survive over time. Scholarship is a very dynamic program, with no certainty as to where it will eventually take us.
Glenn101 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I didn't use the word fiction. I think it requires a level of respectful engagement, and setting some ground rules for how to have dialogue between class members. I was referring back to stemelbow's original post where he said "Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical. " So his ground rules would seemingly be different from his. Who gets to set the ground rules? Who gets to decide which topics need to be discussed and expounded on? Would this be a coordinated set of topics throughout the church? Or would it be determined at the stake or ward level? How often and how long? 9 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Do you have any other ideas about how to implement Uchtdorf's call to not hide our problems at church, to be vulnerable about questions and concerns and hurt and pain. I see it being played out on the church's web sites, on internet forums, just about every where. Just evidently not the way you want it to play out. But it evidently is how most of the LDS would rather it play out if stemelbow's experience is any indicator. Glenn
stemelbow Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 16 hours ago, Calm said: I certainly did. What else is there to do for an hour? I'm sure they catch some things and I probably did too. It was about when I was 11, as I recall, when a stake leader came to our ward and in really dramatic and dogmatic fashion complained about science and how bad it was. Mocked evolution and all that. I remember thinking something like, "uh...this guy sounds upset but doesn't seem to know what the heck he's talking about". Later that day my dad approached me and said, "I saw you during bro. So and So's talk. You looked pretty concerned. You ok?" He then went on to tell me how "the Church is filled with those who have various ideas. That it's likely the Church is going on less light and knowledge on these topics and often speaks presumptuously just as the Church does. It's important to hear people and understand where they are coming from though." Anyway, I like my dad's approach. Not sure I care for this we're afraid of ideas being shared approach.
stemelbow Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: Learning how to discuss topics in respectful ways is the challenge. It's a difficult thing to do, if it is a dicey question we are dealing with and the questioner is convinced that the Church is not true. How do you keep contention out of it? It's easier when you don't take things personally. A year or so ago I was out with a missionary on splits. We ran into a young gentleman, newly married, who had done everything but left the Church officially. He was adamant the Church was wrong, in contrast to the Church is true mantra. I had an enjoyable discussion with him, as he was fairly well informed. I think we left feeling pretty well appreciative of each other as we acknowledged the basis of his concerns noting how we simply had different conclusions here or there along the way, which gave us our differing perspectives. On the other hand, during the same time he and I were getting along, he and the missionary were not. The missionary challenged his every idea, as if his ideas were not valid or thoughtful. The missionary denied things in his ignorance. The young guy understood where the missionary was coming because he too had served a mission, but there was no progress in the conversation. Luckily a week or two before that we had stake conference and we had a visiting 70 come and speak. The visiting 70 said in his speech that we should readily acknowledge the messiness of our history and the difficulty of our doctrine, when members and others express their concerns. Denying, and getting defensive did not help. The larger point from which this was drawn, as I recall, was that it's hard to accept the truthfulness claims of the Church. That there was likely some in the crowd that day who weren't all that willing to just say the Church is true. It was one of the finer talks I've heard in a long time. But I reminded the missionary of that talk when we left our new friend. He was still seething a bit about how it transpired. I feared what would happen to this young missionary when he came to the realization that much of what our new friend had said about his problems with the Church had validity. 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: This is how messy faith works, in my opinion: Korihor... (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying: O ye that are bound down under a foolish and vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. That seems like a reasonable question. After all, where is the proof. Show me the proof, so I may believe. "prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. " .... "Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. ... Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. Sounds like a fervent discussion of doctrines. When Korihor tried to carry on this discussion over in Jershon, and into the land of Gideon, the high priest said unto him: Why do ye go about perverting the ways of the lord? Why do ye teach this people that there shall be no Christ, to interrupt their rejoicings?" That is also my question. Why involve everyone in a class when someone else may be more helpful and knowledgable answering a sincere question. Sacrament meeting and Gospel Doctrine class are not places for us to expound on our doubts. They are places to strengthen our faith in my opinion. I'd just say, doubts and faith are two sides of the same coin. To build faith we sometimes have to explore our ideas, let our imagination in and accept that we have plenty to learn. 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: There are other places outside of Church meetings to get answers to sincere questions from Church leaders, missionaries, personal research, Mormon Dialogue, etc. No. Not answers. It's not helpful or thoughtful to treat any response as an answer or some sort of resolution to issues, question, or concerns. To explore our ideas we have to accept that in many cases, there are no answers. That's the nature of our humanity. There are only ideas, possibilities and all that. 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: The problem with Korihors I have met is that they have an ax to grind. We may resolve one item, then on to the next doubt. Then the next, and the next. Before you know it, doubts have been strengthened and faith flies out the window. That's not why I go to Church. Those who do, in my opinion, should spend time in sincere discussions with their Home Teachers, Quorum, Relief Society or other leaders and allow the general membership to be edified in peace. That simply doesn't work as a solution. Discussing issues with the bishop, or Home Teachers only works if they are open and informed to discuss it. They simply won't be open and informed if they treat Church like a place wherein the wrong narrative dominates and the assumption of we ought to fear freedom of expression for the sake of keeping a composed and shallow meeting in place. 11 hours ago, Meerkat said: May I close with reference to 3 Ne. 11:29, 30 "For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." It's far more contentious to shut down those who have differing views then to allow them to express themselves as we all try to work our way through the welfare of our souls. 1
CV75 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It's far more contentious to shut down those who have differing views then to allow them to express themselves as we all try to work our way through the welfare of our souls. I think it depends on one’s definition of “welfare of our souls.” If the Lord is saying “redemption (and the rest of the list Posted 22 hours ago (edited)” is paramount to the welfare of our souls (per the Book of Mormon) and a member is saying no, it’s "[item(s) from my list]” then there may be a rub, especially if he considers the Book of Mormon “good.” How do you define “welfare of our souls”? Do you see a difference between “working our way through the welfare of our souls” and the phrasing, “working out our salvation”? Edited July 19, 2017 by CV75
hope_for_things Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 14 hours ago, CV75 said: But I'm sure you agree with D&C 88: 118, 122-125 which dovetails with the key principles taught in the manual is a great pace to start in relating well with others in the classes and quorums. The very basic counsel in these verses might help avoid selective attention in discovering what the manual has to offer. From the Preface, I think it is good to recognize that "The goal of every gospel teacher—every parent, every formally called teacher, every home teacher and visiting teacher, and every follower of Christ—is to teach the pure doctrine of the gospel, by the Spirit, in order to help God’s children build their faith in the Savior and become more like Him." I think students share that responsibility in how they share to edify each other. I see this when substituting "teach" with "learn" in the principles described in the manual. From the Introduction, "When you think about the Savior’s way of teaching, what comes to mind?" Yes, those scriptures explain well some of the key principles of teaching. As for the "pure doctrine of the gospel", I agree with that, but it will be defined very differently by each individual. When I think about the Savior's teachings, I think about a call to love others, to look for the marginalized individuals of society, to break down ethnic, political, racial, gender, sexual preference and social barriers and to care for people. To strive to bring the ideal God like kingdom to earth through service. As far as teaching like the Savior, I'm thinking teaching in story/parable form, teaching things that turn some of the current traditions on their head, and teaching things that comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
hope_for_things Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 12 hours ago, Meerkat said: Learning how to discuss topics in respectful ways is the challenge. It's a difficult thing to do, if it is a dicey question we are dealing with and the questioner is convinced that the Church is not true. How do you keep contention out of it? I'm convinced the church is not true (in an objective, exclusive way), and I have productive comments every week in church which add to the discussion in thoughtful ways. 12 hours ago, Meerkat said: That seems like a reasonable question. After all, where is the proof. Show me the proof, so I may believe. "prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers. " .... "Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ. ... Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so. For me, the truths of the gospel are not in prophecies of the future, or supernatural miraculous events. The truth of the gospel for me is in the loving relationships, and becoming free from the guilt and self doubts that plague our world through serving others and recognizing that God loves us all and wants the best for us. Its a call to a transformation, this is my understanding of what salvation means. I'm not great at articulating these beliefs as they are still young and developing, but I'm inspired by the possibilities of a living gospel message of feeding and being fed by God's sheep. 12 hours ago, Meerkat said: Sacrament meeting and Gospel Doctrine class are not places for us to expound on our doubts. They are places to strengthen our faith in my opinion. There are other places outside of Church meetings to get answers to sincere questions from Church leaders, missionaries, personal research, Mormon Dialogue, etc. The problem with Korihors I have met is that they have an ax to grind. We may resolve one item, then on to the next doubt. Then the next, and the next. Before you know it, doubts have been strengthened and faith flies out the window. That's not why I go to Church. Those who do, in my opinion, should spend time in sincere discussions with their Home Teachers, Quorum, Relief Society or other leaders and allow the general membership to be edified in peace. Doubt is the opposite of certainty, not faith. Doubt is ever present in all our lives, it is something to be acknowledged honestly, that is what Uchtdorf is talking about. Lets not hide our doubts, we all have them, and they are a healthy part of the human experience. You are essentially disagreeing with the Uchtdorf message that I quoted earlier, thats fine, you don't have to agree with him, but he's calling us to authenticity and sharing our real selves at church. Yes this is radical and different than the traditional approach, but its so desperately needed. 1
stemelbow Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 25 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think it depends on one’s definition of “welfare of our souls.” If the Lord is saying “redemption (and the rest of the list Posted 22 hours ago (edited)” is paramount to the welfare of our souls (per the Book of Mormon) and a member is saying no, it’s "[item(s) from my list]” then there may be a rub, especially if he considers the Book of Mormon “good.” How do you define “welfare of our souls”? Do you see a difference between “working our way through the welfare of our souls” and the phrasing, “working out our salvation”? I'm not sure what your hang up here is. Welfare of one's souls would include anything associated with one's soul in general. Everything you listed, as the context demands of the BoM, as you suggested, would include anything a person feels or thinks and sees as important to his/her salvation, as I see it. to your last question: Not really.
hope_for_things Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: It becomes a partisan matter for some, who overlook the strong lack of rigor. I personally have known some of those contributing to those books you recommend, and they haven't the foggiest idea what scholarship might be. They did not abide by true canons of scholarship. One side in the partisan divide speaks of apologetics, while the other side speaks of anti-Mormon attacks. Wouldn't it be better if we could practice disinterested scholarship? Shouldn't all contributions to the debate be judged according to their adherence to real scholarship? I don't see you able to discern the importance of that.. There is wisdom here in what you're saying. I agree completely with the disinterested scholarship perspective. I'm a huge fan of the what Blair Hodges and the Maxwell institute are doing, and think this is the direction that they are employing. I also read MHA, Sunstone, Dialogue, BYU studies and others. I try to discern for myself which arguments are less biased towards one side or the other. I've found historians and scholars that I think walk the middle ground very well, but they aren't perfect. Perhaps I'm leaning in one direction today and I may lean other direction tomorrow. I'm going to strive for the middle ground, as I think thats a worthy goal to seek after. 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Does this mean that some will now announce that the BofM is untrue and non-historical only because the Holy Spirit said so? Because I have yet to hear that. Certainly the evangelicals don't say that. However, if they did make such a claim, how could anyone make an argument against them? Such subjective claims are certainly admissible as personal testimony, but they are not matters of forensic evidence. That is not the basis employed by Brant Gardner in his scholarship. Nor is it the basis of my writings. Surely you understand the difference. I think the difference is the language of the believer in historicity and comparing that to the language of the disbeliever. They are essentially saying the same thing. The disbeliever might not use the word "Holy Ghost" when describing their claim for disbelief in historicity. I think its important to accept belief claims for or against something as equally valid first and foremost. Secondly, I agree that this is different than the scholarship argument, and I try to keep these concepts separate, but I also recognize there are degrees with which scholarship informs the faith claims of individuals both for and against the historicity argument. 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Rather than pointing fingers and denouncing this or that belief, I find it helpful to actually deal with the hard, factual questions. The community of scholars engages in a self-correcting exercise in that they write, publish, and are reviewed, and only the hard facts and logic seem to survive over time. Scholarship is a very dynamic program, with no certainty as to where it will eventually take us. Ideally, this is true, but I think you'll agree that the communities of scholarship sometimes are sheltered from the broader scholarship taking place, especially with religious scholarship. This is true for Christianity as much as it is true in the Mormon scholarship circles. There are entire universities that are completely isolated from broader biblical scholarship because of their theological investment in specific claims about the bible and this happens in Mormon scholarship as well with pockets of work that are closed off. This is why I appreciate what Brant is doing, and others like him who are willing to try and reach across some of those barriers at times. We need more of that happening from all sides and perspectives.
Meerkat Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: It's easier when you don't take things personally. A year or so ago I was out with a missionary on splits. We ran into a young gentleman, newly married, who had done everything but left the Church officially. He was adamant the Church was wrong, in contrast to the Church is true mantra. I had an enjoyable discussion with him, as he was fairly well informed. I think we left feeling pretty well appreciative of each other as we acknowledged the basis of his concerns noting how we simply had different conclusions here or there along the way, which gave us our differing perspectives. On the other hand, during the same time he and I were getting along, he and the missionary were not. The missionary challenged his every idea, as if his ideas were not valid or thoughtful. The missionary denied things in his ignorance. The young guy understood where the missionary was coming because he too had served a mission, but there was no progress in the conversation. Luckily a week or two before that we had stake conference and we had a visiting 70 come and speak. The visiting 70 said in his speech that we should readily acknowledge the messiness of our history and the difficulty of our doctrine, when members and others express their concerns. Denying, and getting defensive did not help. The larger point from which this was drawn, as I recall, was that it's hard to accept the truthfulness claims of the Church. That there was likely some in the crowd that day who weren't all that willing to just say the Church is true. It was one of the finer talks I've heard in a long time. But I reminded the missionary of that talk when we left our new friend. He was still seething a bit about how it transpired. I feared what would happen to this young missionary when he came to the realization that much of what our new friend had said about his problems with the Church had validity. I'd just say, doubts and faith are two sides of the same coin. To build faith we sometimes have to explore our ideas, let our imagination in and accept that we have plenty to learn. No. Not answers. It's not helpful or thoughtful to treat any response as an answer or some sort of resolution to issues, question, or concerns. To explore our ideas we have to accept that in many cases, there are no answers. That's the nature of our humanity. There are only ideas, possibilities and all that. That simply doesn't work as a solution. Discussing issues with the bishop, or Home Teachers only works if they are open and informed to discuss it. They simply won't be open and informed if they treat Church like a place wherein the wrong narrative dominates and the assumption of we ought to fear freedom of expression for the sake of keeping a composed and shallow meeting in place. It's far more contentious to shut down those who have differing views then to allow them to express themselves as we all try to work our way through the welfare of our souls. I appreciate your thoughtful responses to my post and agree with most of them. I agree with how you related with the person leaving the Church, with kindness and acknowledging his thought process as reasonable and valid. I am in complete agreement with the 70's that we acknowledge problems with our history quickly. "I don't know" can be an appropriate answer. Some things about our history are hard to explain. The point of my post was not to ignore sincere questions, but to take the Korihors who pop up every now and then to another venue. Korihor was not a sincere seeker. His goal was to disrupt. We sometimes have those in our midst who enjoy stirring the pot. They may not be Korihors, but they can be as effective chasing away the Spirit with displays of their research and ample intelligence. Those are the ones I'm talking about. Of course we should always respond to sincere questions directly and with the Spirit. That is how the Savior taught. And that is not disruptive. My objection to hope_for_things comment was that he or she proposed training facilitators to teach classes on the problems in Church history. That is not why most of us come to Church. Hope_for_things further clarified "I'm convinced the church is not true (in an objective, exclusive way), and I have productive comments every week in church which add to the discussion in thoughtful ways." That statement makes my point. Hopefully those "productive comments" add to the lessons being taught rather than distract from them. Teryl Givens wrote a very helpful book on this subject, The Crucible of Doubt. It is okay to doubt. In fact, it is often important to doubt. Much of the Reformation came about due to doubting the prevailing understanding. I also agree with their idea that Joseph Smith was a free thinker who experimented with concepts, kept some and disgarded some as he wrestled with the Restoration of the Gospel. Ancient prophets, mortal men handicapped by mortality as we all are, also made mistakes during the time they were called to oversee God's plan on earth. The intoxicated Noah cursing his son, Jonah running from Nineveh then getting upset with God when the people repented, King David, Solomon, etc. come to mind. There is much to complain about if we disregard the fact that God works with human beings to accomplish His purposes. Edited July 19, 2017 by Meerkat 1
hope_for_things Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 11 hours ago, Glenn101 said: I was referring back to stemelbow's original post where he said "Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical. " So his ground rules would seemingly be different from his. Who gets to set the ground rules? Who gets to decide which topics need to be discussed and expounded on? Would this be a coordinated set of topics throughout the church? Or would it be determined at the stake or ward level? How often and how long? Probably the same way anything else works, guidelines from HQ and local leadership administration, I don't see this as overly complicated. 11 hours ago, Glenn101 said: I see it being played out on the church's web sites, on internet forums, just about every where. Just evidently not the way you want it to play out. But it evidently is how most of the LDS would rather it play out if stemelbow's experience is any indicator. Yes, its happening online, but thats not what Uchtdorf called for. He said we should bring this to church. Thats the missing component, local support and engagement in our ward and stake communities.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 Evidently being transgender = apostasy now. A new Mormon stories podcast has just been release. The interview is with a former 20 year church architect who oversaw temple construction and design. She also severed as a bishop and stake president in Tooele. She continued to work at the COB with the full blessing of church authorities for 4 years after disclosing that she only projected a man while at work and resumed her gender away from the COB both in public and at home. Now she's been excommunicated this is a very sad but spirituality uplifting interview with Laurie Lee. She is very respectful towards her former stake councilor and the church who moved forward with her church court despite her only sin was self identifing as a female. She remains in her 34 year committed marriage to her wife i recommend this to members of this board because she remains a believer is respectful to the church and the GAs she worked closely with. I believe this is an important interview
CV75 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, those scriptures explain well some of the key principles of teaching. As for the "pure doctrine of the gospel", I agree with that, but it will be defined very differently by each individual. When I think about the Savior's teachings, I think about a call to love others, to look for the marginalized individuals of society, to break down ethnic, political, racial, gender, sexual preference and social barriers and to care for people. To strive to bring the ideal God like kingdom to earth through service. As far as teaching like the Savior, I'm thinking teaching in story/parable form, teaching things that turn some of the current traditions on their head, and teaching things that comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. The Savior did teach many things, that’s for sure. While not everyone is interested in or believes in every teaching, I think He publicly taught in a way that granted every one of His teachings fair play and encouraged His followers to bear with Him and their fellow disciples in the process. I think Part 2 in the manual captures how we can best emulate Him in that regard. The manual also touches on using parables (p. 22); the priorities of what topics to teach (p. 20 and Part 3); and how to introduce a ministering component into the class setting (the whole of Parts 1 and 4) so that those who need comfort are encouraged and taught how to obtain it, and those who need to repent are invited to do so. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: There is wisdom here in what you're saying. I agree completely with the disinterested scholarship perspective. I'm a huge fan of the what Blair Hodges and the Maxwell institute are doing, and think this is the direction that they are employing. I also read MHA, Sunstone, Dialogue, BYU studies and others. I try to discern for myself which arguments are less biased towards one side or the other. I've found historians and scholars that I think walk the middle ground very well, but they aren't perfect. Perhaps I'm leaning in one direction today and I may lean other direction tomorrow. I'm going to strive for the middle ground, as I think thats a worthy goal to seek after. Excellent, although a lot of that is designed for popular consumption rather than what one might encounter in more specialized conferences and journals. And, yes, Blair is a great guy and I love his podcasts. I smile whenever I see him at MI. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I think the difference is the language of the believer in historicity and comparing that to the language of the disbeliever. They are essentially saying the same thing. The disbeliever might not use the word "Holy Ghost" when describing their claim for disbelief in historicity. I think its important to accept belief claims for or against something as equally valid first and foremost. Well, such individual testimonies are only valid for that individual, based as they are on a fully subjective notions. They are non-transferrable, unlike evidence-based claims -- about which we might have a meaningful conversation. Such personal, subjective testimonies as you describe are not equally valid with evidence-based arguments because they take place within a different category of thought and discourse. It doesn't matter to me which sort of subjective belief someone has, as long as they don't confuse that notion with science and logic. Otherwise we get the murky and untenable situation in which some believer or disbeliever equates assertion with evidence, and begins to believe (in his enthusiasm) that such testimony is objective and transferrable. 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Secondly, I agree that this is different than the scholarship argument, and I try to keep these concepts separate, but I also recognize there are degrees with which scholarship informs the faith claims of individuals both for and against the historicity argument. Ideally, this is true, but I think you'll agree that the communities of scholarship sometimes are sheltered from the broader scholarship taking place, especially with religious scholarship. This is true for Christianity as much as it is true in the Mormon scholarship circles. There are entire universities that are completely isolated from broader biblical scholarship because of their theological investment in specific claims about the bible and this happens in Mormon scholarship as well with pockets of work that are closed off. This is why I appreciate what Brant is doing, and others like him who are willing to try and reach across some of those barriers at times. We need more of that happening from all sides and perspectives. I was speaking of authentic scholarship, not the phony variety.
CV75 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure what your hang up here is. Welfare of one's souls would include anything associated with one's soul in general. Everything you listed, as the context demands of the BoM, as you suggested, would include anything a person feels or thinks and sees as important to his/her salvation, as I see it. to your last question: Not really. Hang up? Is that code for you don’t want to be bothered with a messy issue? If the Book of Mormon prophets have uniquely defined and addressed that which does pertain to "the welfare of our souls" (a phrase you seem to have appropriated as a mantra) and not just “anything a person feels or thinks and sees as important to his/her salvation,” doesn’t that ease one’s expectation that his view of scripture as “myth, metaphor, or not historical” be validated, to the point of pinning his salvation on it?
hope_for_things Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, such individual testimonies are only valid for that individual, based as they are on a fully subjective notions. They are non-transferrable, unlike evidence-based claims -- about which we might have a meaningful conversation. Such personal, subjective testimonies as you describe are not equally valid with evidence-based arguments because they take place within a different category of thought and discourse. It doesn't matter to me which sort of subjective belief someone has, as long as they don't confuse that notion with science and logic. Otherwise we get the murky and untenable situation in which some believer or disbeliever equates assertion with evidence, and begins to believe (in his enthusiasm) that such testimony is objective and transferrable. I agree with you that these sort of claims aren't the same kind of claims as evidence based arguments, but I don't agree that the believer's perspective should be considered more believable because they describe their belief in religious terms, while the unbeliever will typically describe their beliefs using different language. Both believers and unbelievers are making subjective judgments with various degrees of evidence intertwined into their paradigms. 35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I was speaking of authentic scholarship, not the phony variety. I agree, but there are various shades of gray about what is authentic and what is phony, and often the distinction is in the eye of the beholder. 1
stemelbow Posted July 19, 2017 Author Posted July 19, 2017 53 minutes ago, CV75 said: Hang up? Is that code for you don’t want to be bothered with a messy issue? If the Book of Mormon prophets have uniquely defined and addressed that which does pertain to "the welfare of our souls" They didn't. I've already rejected your effort to wrest from scriptures a unique application of what is meant by welfare of our souls. The passages you site do not suggest in any way, that difficult issues of faith do not pertain to the concept of the welfare of one's soul. your explanation did not convince at all.
CV75 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 49 minutes ago, stemelbow said: They didn't. I've already rejected your effort to wrest from scriptures a unique application of what is meant by welfare of our souls. The passages you site do not suggest in any way, that difficult issues of faith do not pertain to the concept of the welfare of one's soul. your explanation did not convince at all. It's not a matter of convincing; that is clearly a personal choice. But show me where, in the scriptures, the term "welfare of our souls" is used in connection with the prophets expounding on the "difficult issues of faith," especially since the Book of Mormon was was written for our day, Moroni saw our doings, etc.
USU78 Posted July 19, 2017 Posted July 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Evidently being transgender = apostasy now. A new Mormon stories podcast has just been release. The interview is with a former 20 year church architect who oversaw temple construction and design. She also severed as a bishop and stake president in Tooele. She continued to work at the COB with the full blessing of church authorities for 4 years after disclosing that she only projected a man while at work and resumed her gender away from the COB both in public and at home. Now she's been excommunicated this is a very sad but spirituality uplifting interview with Laurie Lee. She is very respectful towards her former stake councilor and the church who moved forward with her church court despite her only sin was self identifing as a female. She remains in her 34 year committed marriage to her wife i recommend this to members of this board because she remains a believer is respectful to the church and the GAs she worked closely with. I believe this is an important interview Does he disclose why he went public?
Recommended Posts