hagoth7 Posted August 30, 2017 Posted August 30, 2017 On 8/29/2017 at 1:26 PM, stemelbow said: ...It's too bad we don't have such a place. Yet we do have such a place. This forum is such a place. And we can be grateful for that.
Rain Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) On 8/29/2017 at 11:56 AM, stemelbow said: I agree. We can avoid disaster if all sides try and understand. I don't think that happens in the Church well, which is too bad. The Church might be the best place for us to actually engage each other. It might be wise to one on one ask them and really listen to what they have to say. Perhaps they have communicated badly how they were reacting. Perhaps you were picking something up that wasn't there. If you really want to understand them though you will have to find out from them what they really meant. Edited August 31, 2017 by Rain 2
Calm Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) My biggest fear at this time is my daughter will just go deeper and deeper into depression. It has nothing to do with Church or faith for that matter, but just seeing her suffer day after day without relief. My other fears are my own health issues and being stuck in bed when needed by my daughter or another family member or too old to enjoy life with my husband in the things he wants to do by the time they come up with a cure. The Church helps greatly with this fear because of both the promise of happiness to eventually come, but also with the confidence of the support system it provides. I know if I can't get over to Mom's, I can call a total stranger, her RS president and in a short time...maybe even sooner than I can drive to her house, someone will be there to care for her. I can't think of one thing that the Church in its culture or teachings that causes fear in me at this point in my life and understanding of doctrine. My daughter is out of the Church and no one treats her differently, they still ask how they can help and if there was some way they could become friends (there isn't right now, but that is her issue, not them). Edited August 31, 2017 by Calm 4
Sine Saw Square Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 What would have been your desired outcome of the lesson?
juliann Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 On 8/29/2017 at 8:32 AM, stemelbow said: Ironically it seems they were fearful of, admittedly, simple ideas that may challenge their comfortable place. I guess all I can do is plant seeds. What seeds do you think your behavior planted? From what you have said, it is obvious that you have little respect for these people. When one teaches in church, the most important thing is to understand the audience and their needs. That is teaching "by the spirit" and it requires that the lesson be modified in mid-stream if necessary. But that can only be done if there is concern about the people listening. Why do you think their fears are any greater or worse than yours? I see fear in your refusal to consider any insights or suggestions by those responding with insights as to why you unsurprisingly met with resistance when demeaning your listeners. You are question begging. You assume that what you are addressing is fear or that it is a bad thing. That you had to label such a complicated matter as "fear" to make it bad is telling. You get the same reaction here, why did you have an expectation it would different in real life? Were you counting on Mormon avoidance of contention? The first thing that is required in any group, especially if one has no particular expertise, is social capital. You must first gain trust. You do not build trust by being oppositional. In a Mormon setting, you gain social capital by joining in group activities, respecting the rules and beliefs that bind the group, and following through on commitments, among other things. That EQ's President gave you a gift that I doubt few would do. He reached out to you. And you hurt him. 2
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 1 hour ago, juliann said: What seeds do you think your behavior planted? Tasty and good ones. At least now they are more apt to think through some of the assumptions that seemed to be troubling them. I don't know it's going to be a quick process but hopefully a good one. 1 hour ago, juliann said: From what you have said, it is obvious that you have little respect for these people. Then I invite you to settle down and realize I provided a brief summary. There was far more to it. And they all know me. 1 hour ago, juliann said: When one teaches in church, the most important thing is to understand the audience and their needs. That is teaching "by the spirit" and it requires that the lesson be modified in mid-stream if necessary. But that can only be done if there is concern about the people listening. Well, then, I admit I haven't seen a person in Church do anything near that for near 10 years. But I felt like in all of this I did consider their needs. 1 hour ago, juliann said: Why do you think their fears are any greater or worse than yours? I don't. Not at all. 1 hour ago, juliann said: I see fear in your refusal to consider any insights or suggestions by those responding with insights as to why you unsurprisingly met with resistance when demeaning your listeners. I didn't demean anyone, even if there was some demeaning of me. I felt I responded with love, encouragement and patience--as best I can. 1 hour ago, juliann said: You are question begging. You assume that what you are addressing is fear or that it is a bad thing. That you had to label such a complicated matter as "fear" to make it bad is telling. You get the same reaction here, why did you have an expectation it would different in real life? Were you counting on Mormon avoidance of contention? I do think there was some effort to introduce contention into the meeting by some participants but in the end I felt that was pretty quickly terminated. Interesting you mentioned the complication of the matter. We spent a good portion discussing that. 1 hour ago, juliann said: The first thing that is required in any group, especially if one has no particular expertise, is social capital. You must first gain trust. You do not build trust by being oppositional. In a Mormon setting, you gain social capital by joining in group activities, respecting the rules and beliefs that bind the group, and following through on commitments, among other things. That EQ's President gave you a gift that I doubt few would do. He reached out to you. And you hurt him. We've spoken since. I said I would report back, but I might not considering the nature of our discussion that came as a result. In the end, you are way off. You have simply made tons of assumptions that do nothing more than paint a picture different then what I experienced. But I appreciate your reflexive effort to tell me I'm wrong. You weren't the first to try it in this thread.
juliann Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 57 minutes ago, stemelbow said: We've spoken since. I said I would report back, but I might not considering the nature of our discussion that came as a result. In the end, you are way off. You have simply made tons of assumptions that do nothing more than paint a picture different then what I experienced. But I appreciate your reflexive effort to tell me I'm wrong. You weren't the first to try it in this thread. I can only discuss what you provided. And if that reflects the truth, you were wrong to do what you did. Your refusal to accept differing viewpoints and opinions even on a message board also provides background information as to what went wrong. The only thing that seems to be driving this description of disrespectful behavior is that it was done in a church setting, thus, making it an "oh those Mormons" matter. It is a universal matter that applies to all groups who meet with a common interest and goal only to be told they are living in fear because of it. You have yet to show a shred of concern for these people, BTW. 1
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, juliann said: I can only discuss what you provided. And if that reflects the truth, you were wrong to do what you did. Your refusal to accept differing viewpoints and opinions even on a message board also provides background information as to what went wrong. The only thing that seems to be driving this description of disrespectful behavior is that it was done in a church setting, thus, making it an "oh those Mormons" matter. It is a universal matter that applies to all groups who meet with a common interest and goal only to be told they are living in fear because of it. You have yet to show a shred of concern for these people, BTW. Do not fret. I expect some to over-react and tell me what I did wrong. I would agree that I was in no way perfect in how I handled things, but I tried my best in a good faith kind of way. You can remain cynical about it. I don't fault that. I certainly can be cynical myself. My whole energy before as it pertained to this lesson was in consideration of them. I certainly can't help now that what I felt impressed to say, ask, and present, was not what was expected nor was appreciated. But in the end, hopefully, something good comes out of it. Maybe in the long run that is what was expected by He who sees all. Every time I post here I'm happily accepting differing viewpoints from all sorts of participants. I don't know what you're talking about. It's true, at times I challenge, but I normally end any disagreement with a "thanks for your input" or "I appreciate your perspective". I feel you're just upset. And that's a shame. But I certainly appreciate your input. 1
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 16 hours ago, Sine Saw Square said: What would have been your desired outcome of the lesson? I'm not sure. I did expect a little more openness during it. There were certainly a few walls that flew up and stayed up. But maybe that had to happen for walls to come down at some future time.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 That is an amazing talk. One of Uchtdorf's best, and that's saying something. I love the idea of identifying and addressing real fears so that they can be conquered. I love this scene from the Replacements https://youtu.be/i3O-kYwM8qY
SamIam Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) On 8/29/2017 at 9:32 AM, stemelbow said: Last week I started a thread asking about fear in the Church and referenced President Uchtdorf's talk. I got some good responses which helped me this past Sunday in Elder's Quorum. It's been a couple of years but not too long ago I was a counselor in the EQP, which had me teaching EQ at times. Each time I taught, it seems, difficult topics were broached. Well fast forward a couple of years and it feels like we have a whole new crop of elder's, which is only partly true. I was a little nervous about Sunday. Some of you might remember that I've been asked, by a bishop and SP, to keep quiet in Church, basically. It's been interesting, definitely making me feel unwelcome. Some of you might also remember me describing the level of gossip about me and my wife which has in some measure made it back to our ears. All of this made me feel nervous. I was surprised last week when a counselor in the EQP asked me to teach. I said yes, particularly since I've always enjoyed President Uchtdorf's thoughts as much as any of the our general leaders. This talk I was not a particular fan of. I started the lesson by asking the brethren to imagine a future day. Imagine in this future day that you learn that the Church is not necessarily all that it claims. That in the process of learning this, you also come to the conclusion that your testimony as you know it carries many assumptions that you start to question. That all of this process leads you to conclude you are better off outside the Church and you become for all intents and purposes an apostate. So I asked them what feelings they might feel, right now, about that future prospect. If they knew somehow this was going to happen down the road, what feelings might they have now thinking that this was coming. It was interesting. The unanimous response seemed to be, "that won't happen to me, so there's no point imagining it." with one responded saying, I'd have to be a really hateful and angry person to get there, and while possible, I just don't think it'll happen. I thanked them for their thoughts and asked them to hold on to it a minute. We'll get back to the idea. Ironically it seems they were fearful of, admittedly, simple ideas that may challenge their comfortable place. I guess all I can do is plant seeds. Please allow me to be the "over reaction" you anticipate. I have to be honest, they should have asked you to sit down within the first five minutes of when you made your direction known. It would seem to me that you did not put the effort into teaching about Christ, or the gospel but you made the lesson entirely about you and your journey of doubt and fear. I do believe you can address the material you feel to discuss but certainly not in the doubt inducing fashion it appears that you choose. Reading your linked to thread, I can see that your observations tend towards the natural man. In the church people who have limited spiritual experience may see and use the tactics you describe. It surely is true that some look at the motivation as fear based and create states of fear to motivate. However that is contrary to the Gospel, but is simply the manner of men. Consider D & C 121 the final statement of Godhood being that your kingdom will flow unto you without compulsory means. Induced fear is a form of compulsory activity - you are driven by fear to behave in certain ways. This is a guaranteed means of motivation that if it is what someone requires they will never achieve the highest opportunities. As well sometimes we confuse certain natural responses and class them as fear. Elder Bednar describes some of the natural responses that are not the ones which destroy faith. Please consider: Quote The natural man and the natural woman says, "There is no way I'm taking this step. There's no way I'm moving into the darkness until the light moves and I can see where I'm going." The requirement is that we take this step anticipating that when our foot hits the ground, the light will move. Now, the first time we do that, it's not doubt. But there's a little bit of uncertainty, even a little bit of apprehension, which is quite normal. So it works almost like a helix, where we take that first step based on the substance of things hoped for. There comes the evidence of things not seen. It's not a perfect cycle that's never interrupted or that is totally smooth, but line upon line, that increases incrementally and gradually. (David A. Bednar, Unity in Diversity, Transcript from comment from link 08/28/2017 Most of us class the natural response to the unknown of uncertainty and apprehension as fear due to the discomfort it engenders. Even more significant is there is a state of fear which is not the fear that causes the absence of faith. In the Book of Moses when confronted by the devil it states: "And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly ". What prevented the destruction of him at the moment was he had sufficient faith in God that he knew he could be delivered and so he commanded Satan depart by the power of God. The Brother of Jared claims that he : "fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear" "and I feared lest he should smite me" After Christ gets these answers to his questions he doesn't even acknowledge the fear but states: " Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast." Again Christ acknowledges the power of the faith that the Brother of Jared has in the Savior and that was what mattered and allowed him moments later to be brought in His presence. The point is that as long as the nature of the fear is not such to destroy faith in Christ then faith can provide the solution. In other words the natural state of man to fear the unknown or that which is thrust upon him is a natural mortal reaction, more often than not circumstances may arise that cause this natural reaction but all is not lost. We must overcome by our faith in Jesus Christ. Now you could take everything I have said here and make a fine Elder's Quorum presentation out of it. However if I understand what you have written that you taught, it was just the opposite. Yours was about the fear that people succumb to, that overwhelms the testimony of Christ, that creates states of doubt - Can the Savior deliver me or is this all a sham and bogus. It is no wonder they rejected your message and I certainly hope that any seeds you sowed are on gravel where they never germinate. Edited September 1, 2017 by SamIam add material 3
stemelbow Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Please allow me to be the "over reaction" you anticipate. No probs. It appears one main reason for this thread is to throw out hasty condemnations of me. Might as well, I mean you did heard a summary, after all. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: I have to be honest, they should have asked you to sit down within the first five minutes of when you made your direction known. THat would have been interesting. "How dare you ask us a question." "I'm reporting you to the authorities." I'm curious if it's a good idea to try and shut each other down when a question gets asked. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: It would seem to me that you did not put the effort into teaching about Christ, Interesting stipulation. I'm curious how many times teachers would be shut down in the first 5 minutes if this were at issue. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: or the gospel but you made the lesson entirely about you and your journey of doubt and fear. Why do you say that? Some time into the lesson I expressed a couple of fears. But that doesn't seem to make the whole lesson about me. I'm curious where you got that impression. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: I do believe you can address the material you feel to discuss but certainly not in the doubt inducing fashion it appears that you choose. Doubt inducing? How's that? I'd like to explore that. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Reading your linked to thread, I can see that your observations tend towards the natural man. NOt sure how to take this. My observations in life? Sure. I'm a man. I guess there's something natural about me. It seems like the men I see walking around are pretty natural. So it's bad to note any observations I make? Ok. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: In the church people who have limited spiritual experience may see and use the tactics you describe. What about us who have had a lifetime of these spiritual experiences? "we must eschew thought, and open discussion at all costs" it seems. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: It surely is true that some look at the motivation as fear based and create states of fear to motivate. However that is contrary to the Gospel, but is simply the manner of men. Interesting. We discussed some scriptures in which fear tactics were used. Are they simply the manner of men? If so what does that say about our scriptures? What would it say about our leaders? 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Consider D & C 121 the final statement of Godhood being that your kingdom will flow unto you without compulsory means. Thanks for the allusion to scripture. The passage says, "The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever." Do dominions flow to people? I thought dominion was that which is under your control. Godhood? Interesting take. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Induced fear is a form of compulsory activity - you are driven by fear to behave in certain ways. This is a guaranteed means of motivation that if it is what someone requires they will never achieve the highest opportunities. So any attempt by scripture or leaders to play into our fears is a compulsory activity? Interesting take. I don't think I'd go that far down this road of doubt inducing that you are heading. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: As well sometimes we confuse certain natural responses and class them as fear. Elder Bednar describes some of the natural responses that are not the ones which destroy faith. Please consider: I don't see him taking some "natural responses that are not the ones which destroy faith". 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Most of us class the natural response to the unknown of uncertainty and apprehension as fear due to the discomfort it engenders. Even more significant is there is a state of fear which is not the fear that causes the absence of faith. I see so some fears do cause an absence of faith? 9 hours ago, SamIam said: In the Book of Moses when confronted by the devil it states: "And it came to pass that Moses began to fear exceedingly ". What prevented the destruction of him at the moment was he had sufficient faith in God that he knew he could be delivered and so he commanded Satan depart by the power of God. The Brother of Jared claims that he : "fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear" "and I feared lest he should smite me" After Christ gets these answers to his questions he doesn't even acknowledge the fear but states: " Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast." Again Christ acknowledges the power of the faith that the Brother of Jared has in the Savior and that was what mattered and allowed him moments later to be brought in His presence. Yes we discussed something very similar. Fear is not always necessarily a bad thing. In most cases it's a natural response that often helps us. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: The point is that as long as the nature of the fear is not such to destroy faith in Christ then faith can provide the solution. You've been pretty vague on some of this. When you mention nature of a fear and not being the type that destroys faith, what do you mean? What fear destroys faith in Christ? 9 hours ago, SamIam said: In other words the natural state of man to fear the unknown or that which is thrust upon him is a natural mortal reaction, more often than not circumstances may arise that cause this natural reaction but all is not lost. We must overcome by our faith in Jesus Christ. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: Now you could take everything I have said here and make a fine Elder's Quorum presentation out of it. Oh....very fond of yourself. I think much of what you expressed was included, so I'll take this as your endorsement. Thanks. All the other stuff was mostly due to your ignorance and what seems to be fear. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: However if I understand what you have written that you taught, it was just the opposite. Yours was about the fear that people succumb to, huh? No...not really. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: that overwhelms the testimony of Christ, huh? What? Not at all. No wonder why you are so quick to judge and condemn. You have misunderstood. Which is good news in a sense. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: that creates states of doubt What's a state of doubt? 9 hours ago, SamIam said: - Can the Savior deliver me or is this all a sham and bogus. We didn't ask that, but it seems like you might say to ask such a question would be to appeal to a certain fear that somehow overwhelms the testimony of Christ and destroys faith in Christ. Seems overly dramatic to me. I personally appreciate the questioning spirit. 9 hours ago, SamIam said: It is no wonder they rejected your message and I certainly hope that any seeds you sowed are on gravel where they never germinate. "May a thousand plagues pour upon your household"....Interesting wish.
SamIam Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: 15 hours ago, SamIam said: Please allow me to be the "over reaction" you anticipate. No probs. It appears one main reason for this thread is to throw out hasty condemnations of me. Might as well, I mean you did heard a summary, after all. My mistake if you took my comments as hasty condemnations of you. I presumed you wished honest feed back. I simply made efforts to comply. I do note that several of us read the OP the same way and yet you insist we are off only because we only received a summary of what occurred. IT is all we had to go on and since several read it the same then perhaps you might consider your presentation. In many ways the essence of your reply is that I misunderstood the nature of what you actually did teach, which of course is going to be in some measure the case for each of us who were not present. Yet we also hope that you were able to encapsulate a reasonable proximity of what occurred and so I based my comments on the texture of your OP and to be honest, I have read your material for years and have a reasonable feel for your gospel demeanor. You ask: 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: Quote or the gospel but you made the lesson entirely about you and your journey of doubt and fear. Why do you say that? Some time into the lesson I expressed a couple of fears. But that doesn't seem to make the whole lesson about me. I'm curious where you got that impression. First off to be perfectly honest I have been you, in my younger years. I see your questions as my own before my testimony matured. Until the Gospel was truly real to me I had no trouble disrespecting the group by making my questions and my perspective the points of disruption in a Gospel doctrine class or High priests group. I'm not sure whether you can own this or not but I understand well what would cause a Bishop to seek to reduce your input. In my past, I deluded myself into believing I was simply showing greater eclecticism and insight. I'm not beyond slipping back into this behavior on occasion now. When I read this statement of yours, " Quote This talk I was not a particular fan of. I started the lesson by asking the brethren to imagine a future day. Imagine in this future day that you learn that the Church is not necessarily all that it claims" This also speaks to where I got the impression that you made the talk all about you. Your sub-conscientious turn signals are flashing and it is clear that the material you are given to discuss is going to take a left turn onto sternelbow drive to the left of President Uctdorf's material. I know the talk and what's more I understand the message having lived my life raising my family with the effort of not using induced fear or anger to manage the processes of my families interactions. What you presented was a self-styled interpretation that missed the spirit of Elder Uctodorf's talk in every way but of course you weren't a fan... Additionally, the points of your OP that lend themselves to my perspective are your characterization that you have been censured in your own ward. That would indicate a certain rejection of a message, or the spirit of that message, that seems to be consistent with commentary that you are the source of. Characterizing your OP under that umbrella certainly provides and immediate sense of a contrary or controversial mentality that you have not been inclined to control enough to retain a voice in your community. In fact I wonder if in part that is what drives your vocal state on this forum. You need somewhere to freely speak your ongoing conflict lest it tear you apart. Your statement of "how dare you" is clear that you are not catching why it is that you should be censured or why in the past this has been the case. Further more you have beat the drum of your disappointment with the church long and loud enough around here. I think this is a point that if it is not recognized by you then we have an entirely different problem than just you feigning innocence at me pointing out the obvious. I would think that it would be of more value to you, instead of avoiding reconciliation with your congregation by venting here, asking yourself honestly why are things this way. I realize that I led with vinegar and not honey, not maliciously but simply as an honest response to what I would have done (and have done) had I of been in leadership in your class that day. Quote everlasting dominion An "everlasting dominion" is typically classed as rulership which can be extended, based on LDS, theology as kingdom or kingdoms and you know that. I suspect that the motivation for the majority of your reply we can determine is a response against me and not really what you think or know. Thus I am at even greater risk now because I have to try to read between the lines of your refutation of candor to see if I can salvage some points to actually speak to in a nondefense of your defensiveness. You must realize that my candor is not an attack on you but is designed to remove any ambiguity. You yourself are very free with your brand of directness and I do not think it is motivated by a need to personally attack those who disagree with you. 4 hours ago, stemelbow said: Yes we discussed something very similar. Fear is not always necessarily a bad thing. In most cases it's a natural response that often helps us. Quote The point is that as long as the nature of the fear is not such to destroy faith in Christ then faith can provide the solution. You've been pretty vague on some of this. When you mention nature of a fear and not being the type that destroys faith, what do you mean? What fear destroys faith in Christ? You poked a bit of fun at me for my paraphrase of D & C 121, something I have learned to do here on MDDB as most are not inclined to appreciate scriptural based responses. However, I'll try to be more exacting with you. Moroni 7 is the clearest instruction ever given concerning an approach that undermines Jesus Christ and God the Father. Towards the end of the chapter is provided a verse that for me has been the answer to your question of what fear destroys faith: Please consider: Quote Moroni 7: 41 41 And what is it that ye shall hope for? Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise. At whatever point fear begins to undermine the sense that Christ can do all things that provide for eternal life, at whatever point our faith in the promise wanes then fear has conquered the faith required for your personal salvation. Your brand of message that the church is not all it is cracked up to be is an assault on multiple scriptural standards that one must hold dearly too or see one's faith weakened to sub-eternal life standards. The realities of a telestial placement of the church and it's leaders should never dominate the perspective that D & C 1 lends to trusting the servants, apostles and prophets, of God as the the voice of the Lord. The observations of Ephesians 4 that he provides these and other positions in the gospel to bring man into a unity with the being of Christ should not be emphasized as a priori to the faith to know that Christ leads his church in spite of its telestial state of existence. Voices such as yours are hell-bent on misdirected emphasis of the telestial influences that we must tolerate for the moment of this life. We all know the implications of a telestial existence; we try to overcome them daily in our own lives. The miracle and what should be extolled and venerated by all is that the perfections of Christ are sufficient to overcome any and all such limitations. Before the Brother of Jared enters into Christ's presence he is queried "believest thou though the words that I shall speak?" Do you believe? Or must it forever be the obscuring tree in your forest that the realities of a telestial experience appear to block the view of everything Christ has done to enable you to be at peace in spite of the frailties of men. Your brand of "honest" is the type that say's see this, and this, and what about that, in a majority of cases actual events and carries the implied sense of distrust in the words of Christ that he has it all under control and that even all of the expected and supposed weaknesses of men cannot stop his work. Sure you can go back to the "quick to condemn" response you put forth earlier but I hope you won't discredit the voices of at least 6 of us that took your message in similar fashion. Are the lot of us to be considered obsequious servants blinded by our loyalties? I'm sure in part because we have heard your message for years and years and whether by intent or no, your OP seemed to convey much of your world view of the church as a perspective of your lesson. We responded to that message. Quote It is no wonder they rejected your message and I certainly hope that any seeds you sowed are on gravel where they never germinate. "May a thousand plagues pour upon your household"....Interesting wish. Hyperbole is a wonderful literary device but for you and its use in this instance it underscores a primary problem. The context of my post could have been read to convey that I am protective of the testimonies of those in the church who might be lead astray to yonder undesirable realms if they were to take hold of your message. It is of paramount importance that even if you could grasp the dangerous ground upon which you walk I would be pleased. However, true to form, you ignore the overall context and subtitles of inference of my response and see it as picking on you. Why else would I hope the seeds you planted do not germinate - just to prove you are a lousy gardener? Or maybe because I hope no one begins to fear and question the gospel in the fashion that your OP seems to imply. Instead you chose to invert my message as a condemnation of you, instead of your message - that's they way you view life but it is not reflective of my intent in replying to your OP. Edited September 1, 2017 by SamIam correction 2
stemelbow Posted September 1, 2017 Author Posted September 1, 2017 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: My mistake if you took my comments as hasty condemnations of you. I presumed you wished honest feed back. I simply made efforts to comply. I do note that several of us read the OP the same way and yet you insist we are off only because we only received a summary of what occurred. IT is all we had to go on and since several read it the same then perhaps you might consider your presentation. As I said previously, I was more interested in discussing the issues presented, rather than have people discuss me. But, I'm happy to get feedback. I'd like honest feedback. But thoughtful feedback too. The problem here is the feedback has presumed too much to be helpful, in most cases. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: In many ways the essence of your reply is that I misunderstood the nature of what you actually did teach, which of course is going to be in some measure the case for each of us who were not present. Yet we also hope that you were able to encapsulate a reasonable proximity of what occurred and so I based my comments on the texture of your OP and to be honest, I have read your material for years and have a reasonable feel for your gospel demeanor. You ask: First off to be perfectly honest I have been you, in my younger years. I see your questions as my own before my testimony matured. I'm guessing you are wise enough to realize that no two people are the same. It's quite possible I was like you, in terms of a mature testimony, in the past. THis feels more like you are trying to talk to your old self rather than me. That doesn't feel like a good faith effort nor honest at all. It's empty and comes from a place of malice. Something I hope you reconsider--for your sake, you figure out. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: Until the Gospel was truly real to me I had no trouble disrespecting the group by making my questions and my perspective the points of disruption in a Gospel doctrine class or High priests group. I'm not sure whether you can own this or not but I understand well what would cause a Bishop to seek to reduce your input. In my past, I deluded myself into believing I was simply showing greater eclecticism and insight. I'm not beyond slipping back into this behavior on occasion now. When I read this statement of yours, " This also speaks to where I got the impression that you made the talk all about you. The question didn't involve me. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: Your sub-conscientious turn signals are flashing and it is clear that the material you are given to discuss is going to take a left turn onto sternelbow drive to the left of President Uctdorf's material. I know the talk and what's more I understand the message having lived my life raising my family with the effort of not using induced fear or anger to manage the processes of my families interactions. What you presented was a self-styled interpretation that missed the spirit of Elder Uctodorf's talk in every way but of course you weren't a fan... I intended to uncover our own fears--those that sat in the classroom. I think that happened to a large extent. And its too bad there was fear involved in keeping us from speaking openly. While the lesson involved me, of course, it was an effort to discuss openly--something that is really not appreciated nor happens in our ward. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: Additionally, the points of your OP that lend themselves to my perspective are your characterization that you have been censured in your own ward. That would indicate a certain rejection of a message, or the spirit of that message, that seems to be consistent with commentary that you are the source of. Characterizing your OP under that umbrella certainly provides and immediate sense of a contrary or controversial mentality that you have not been inclined to control enough to retain a voice in your community. In fact I wonder if in part that is what drives your vocal state on this forum. You need somewhere to freely speak your ongoing conflict lest it tear you apart. Your statement of "how dare you" is clear that you are not catching why it is that you should be censured or why in the past this has been the case. Further more you have beat the drum of your disappointment with the church long and loud enough around here. I think this is a point that if it is not recognized by you then we have an entirely different problem than just you feigning innocence at me pointing out the obvious. I would think that it would be of more value to you, instead of avoiding reconciliation with your congregation by venting here, asking yourself honestly why are things this way. I realize that I led with vinegar and not honey, not maliciously but simply as an honest response to what I would have done (and have done) had I of been in leadership in your class that day. No problem. I think you're off, for the most part. But, again, that's ok. I didn't expect you to give a very good, accurate accounting of me. That's just something you wanted to do on your own, unsolicited. You might not generally be an officious person, but in this case that description seems to work. It sounds to me like you feel like you need to do so, so you feel better about how you view things. I haven't tried to make this about me quite like you have. Hopefully you get to resolving whatever it is that is driving this. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: An "everlasting dominion" is typically classed as rulership which can be extended, based on LDS, theology as kingdom or kingdoms and you know that. I suspect that the motivation for the majority of your reply we can determine is a response against me and not really what you think or know. Thus I am at even greater risk now because I have to try to read between the lines of your refutation of candor to see if I can salvage some points to actually speak to in a nondefense of your defensiveness. You must realize that my candor is not an attack on you but is designed to remove any ambiguity. You yourself are very free with your brand of directness and I do not think it is motivated by a need to personally attack those who disagree with you. You poked a bit of fun at me for my paraphrase of D & C 121, something I have learned to do here on MDDB as most are not inclined to appreciate scriptural based responses. However, I'll try to be more exacting with you. Moroni 7 is the clearest instruction ever given concerning an approach that undermines Jesus Christ and God the Father. Towards the end of the chapter is provided a verse that for me has been the answer to your question of what fear destroys faith: Please consider: At whatever point fear begins to undermine the sense that Christ can do all things that provide for eternal life, at whatever point our faith in the promise wanes then fear has conquered the faith required for your personal salvation. Your brand of message that the church is not all it is cracked up to be is an assault on multiple scriptural standards that one must hold dearly too or see one's faith weakened to sub-eternal life standards. The realities of a telestial placement of the church and it's leaders should never dominate the perspective that D & C 1 lends to trusting the servants, apostles and prophets, of God as the the voice of the Lord. The observations of Ephesians 4 that he provides these and other positions in the gospel to bring man into a unity with the being of Christ should not be emphasized as a priori to the faith to know that Christ leads his church in spite of its telestial state of existence. Well it certainly sounds like you've convinced your old self of something. Perhaps someday you'll mature a little in your understanding and faith and move beyond this place too. I wish you well on your journey. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: Voices such as yours are hell-bent on misdirected emphasis of the telestial influences that we must tolerate for the moment of this life. We all know the implications of a telestial existence; we try to overcome them daily in our own lives. The miracle and what should be extolled and venerated by all is that the perfections of Christ are sufficient to overcome any and all such limitations. Before the Brother of Jared enters into Christ's presence he is queried "believest thou though the words that I shall speak?" Do you believe? Or must it forever be the obscuring tree in your forest that the realities of a telestial experience appear to block the view of everything Christ has done to enable you to be at peace in spite of the frailties of men. Your brand of "honest" is the type that say's see this, and this, and what about that, in a majority of cases actual events and carries the implied sense of distrust in the words of Christ that he has it all under control and that even all of the expected and supposed weaknesses of men cannot stop his work. Sure you can go back to the "quick to condemn" response you put forth earlier but I hope you won't discredit the voices of at least 6 of us that took your message in similar fashion. Are the lot of us to be considered obsequious servants blinded by our loyalties? I'm sure in part because we have heard your message for years and years and whether by intent or no, your OP seemed to convey much of your world view of the church as a perspective of your lesson. We responded to that message. Yeah, it remains interesting to see how much you have read into this. I'm fine with you going on. It sounds therapeutic for you. Seriously I hope it's helping. 32 minutes ago, SamIam said: "May a thousand plagues pour upon your household"....Interesting wish. Hyperbole is a wonderful literary device but for you and its use in this instance it underscores a primary problem. The context of my post could have been read to convey that I am protective of the testimonies of those in the church who might be lead astray to yonder undesirable realms if they were to take hold of your message. It is of paramount importance that even if you could grasp the dangerous ground upon which you walk I would be pleased. However, true to form, you ignore the overall context and subtitles of inference of my response and see it as picking on you. Why else would I hope the seeds you planted do not germinate - just to prove you are a lousy gardener? Or maybe because I hope no one begins to fear and question the gospel in the fashion that your OP seems to imply. Instead you chose to invert my message as a condemnation of you, instead of your message - that's they way you view life but it is not reflective of my intent in replying to your OP. I think it true, just as you expressed, that people do fear that world of exploration when it comes to church. You do hope that no one begins to fear and question the gospel. Your hope sounds like fear, to these ears. Nothing more. You hope that ideas don't resonate with others because if they do then we fear that someone will lose their faith, it seems. Another effort to employ fear on your part and others. Why is fear such a prominent tool to manage and inforce? Are we all too small to deal with the ramifications? We're much better off being more open with each other, and allowing people to embrace the concepts of faith which are there to build us. With that said, I don't mean to shut you down. I think you have some good and useful ideas. SOme of it is pretty off topic, but that's ok. I've never been a stickler of staying on topic. MOst of it, though, presumes to peer into my heart and mind and suggest things that are foreign to me. I realize it's mostly about making you feel better about something. That's fine, so I mostly left your words alone with some minor clarifications on my part. Peace to you.
SamIam Posted September 1, 2017 Posted September 1, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: With that said, I don't mean to shut you down. I think you have some good and useful ideas. SOme of it is pretty off topic, but that's ok. I've never been a stickler of staying on topic. MOst of it, though, presumes to peer into my heart and mind and suggest things that are foreign to me. I realize it's mostly about making you feel better about something. That's fine, so I mostly left your words alone with some minor clarifications on my part. Peace to you. Well, then take from the good ideas which I wasn't clear on in your response, but what err they be let them be useful to you.
Recommended Posts