“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

This helps clarify what you were talking about. Thanks.  But I think many have thrown out religion all together.  Like you, I don't think they are going around to each congregation trying to find something that more fits their historical views.  Like I said perviously, I don't think they see value for them in any religion.  I am curious what you would say to someone in their position that would convince them that they should look more closely into religion.

That's basically my argument though. There's no value for them in religion. Which means some of the stated reasons (theology conflicts with politics) almost certainly aren't the real issue.

As for how to reach them, I'll confess I'm not sure how. The so-called "neo-apologetics" emphasizes meaning rather than theology or history. (I have a post coming out later today on that at T&S) I don't think that'll be successful even if it is how some intellectual skeptics of historicity reconcile staying in Mormonism. However if the view of religion is purely utilitarian "what does it do for me now" then that's problematic - especially for the masses who aren't intellectual. Even for intellectuals one has to explain why literary criticism for meaning in The Book of Mormon is better than The Brothers Karamazov let alone whether it justifies the high costs of Mormonism. (Tithing, callings, service, word of wisdom, etc.)

To my eyes the only way to ultimately reach people is to convince them that short term utilitarian views of religion are wrong. But how to do that in a convincing way? No idea. Seems to me this is a broad cultural change that's arguably been underway since I was in college and has been reaching critical mass the last decade. I suspect only broad cultural change away from this will really move people back to religion. And that may not happen.

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The faith emphasis is a slight twist from the way I understood what Elder Jensen said,  My memory is of him saying aligning with the LDS church and trusting its leaders is the #1 most important thing a person can do. 

Obedience is important but only in a functional way. It's a means to the end rather than the end in itself. 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The faith emphasis is a slight twist from the way I understood what Elder Jensen said,  My memory is of him saying aligning with the LDS church and trusting its leaders is the #1 most important thing a person can do. 

Obedience is important but only in a functional way. It's a means to the end rather than the end in itself. 

Thanks Clark.  Yes, I agree with that, makes a lot of sense.  

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like to think I'm a glass half full optimist by nature.  But I have darker thoughts.  You only see what I choose to share on the message board.  I don't know why you think I'm scared to let go of something.  What terrible consequences are you referring to?  I don't really understand this.  Sounds like you're trying to psychoanalyze me here through a message board.  

What is there to be optimistic about in a world devoid of meaning, morals, value, right, and wrong?

I am not psychoanalyzing you, that is not my intent so sorry if I am coming off that way.  I am only going off of what you have already shared about yourself - you obviously find meaning in life, you have values, you have faith in goodness, you have faith in the concept truth, and right and wrong, morality...  Are you not afraid to let those things go?  Do you not think the consequences would be terrible?

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think a person can feel like there are no values to the universe, no eternal truths, and feel surrounded by a world of meaningless suffering, and yet can still get up and operate in the world in a way that they are trying to create their own meaning.  That is what I'm trying to do now.  For others, the realization of these things could lead them to deep depression or suicide.

Nihilism is not just a world of "meaningless suffering" only, it is a world of total and absolute meaninglessness.  period.  Good is meaningless.  Bad is meaningless.  There is no point to anything.  There is no beauty. There is no reality.  It is a world where NOTHING MATTERS, not family, not friends, not good, not bad, not right, not truth, not life, nothing to aspire for, nothing to work towards, nothing to live for, etc.  

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you suggesting that to truly understand nihilism a person has to break down mentally and no longer be able to function?  

No, I think someone can comprehend the idea of it, what it would look like, without actually embracing it completely.  I think it is an exceptionally rare human being who has actually tasted it.  A person can function in nihilism, there is simply no point to it. 

Quote

 

Camus was fully aware of the pitfalls of defining existence without meaning, and in his philosophical essay The Rebel (1951) he faces the problem of nihilism head-on. In it, he describes at length how metaphysical collapse often ends in total negation and the victory of nihilism, characterized by profound hatred, pathological destruction, and incalculable violence and death.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

 

 

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If God = goodness and God wants us to become like him, then we should have goodness as our #1 goal. 

You don't see it yet, but you are essentially saying the same thing I am.  "Goodness as our #1 goal" IS allegiance and devotion to God/goodness.  

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Allegiance and devotion are not goodness, in this context they strike me as a form of narcissism.  

How is allegiance and devotion to goodness not good?  How is that narcissism?  I really don't understand your aversion to allegiance and devotion.  If you uphold principles, values, and morals, then you too have allegiances and devotion.  That is a good thing!  Why are you trying to make allegiance and devotion a bad thing?

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Orson Pratt talked about how we should worship God because of the attributes that God has, and those attributes are what makes God worthy of worship.  So how are we to worship attributes?  Through emulation of those attributes.  Emulating goodness is how we worship a good God.  

I agree.  How does this contradict what I am saying?  Emulating goodness IS allegiance, devotion, and worship of God. 

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No offense to you personally, but this is warped heresy from my vantage point.  Sounds much more like the plan of Satan, give me your power and glory kind of idea and I'll save everyone.  The servant is the greatest of all, not the king.  All that kingly and war leader imagery that infested Christianity is garbage.  

I don't know where you are coming from with this whole "kingly and war leader imagery" stuff.  I am simply saying that being/doing good is devotion to God.  Resisting our natural man tendencies towards selfishness, etc. is putting God's will above our own.  Choosing (agency) to follow God and sacrifice our natural man tendencies to become one with him is a far cry from the plan of Satan.   

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Clark.  Yes, I agree with that, makes a lot of sense.  

I agree too.  So where are we talking past each other?

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The faith emphasis is a slight twist from the way I understood what Elder Jensen said,  My memory is of him saying aligning with the LDS church and trusting its leaders is the #1 most important thing a person can do. 

And that is your conclusion given your understanding of your description, but I've given some explanation based on what I understand he and others to have said, both in your description and elsewhere.

It is interesting that you would conclude that he is teaching something that is "not the core idea of Christianity or the Mormon tradition." Do you consider the road you are on to be the core idea of these systems?

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's basically my argument though. There's no value for them in religion. Which means some of the stated reasons (theology conflicts with politics) almost certainly aren't the real issue.

As for how to reach them, I'll confess I'm not sure how. The so-called "neo-apologetics" emphasizes meaning rather than theology or history. (I have a post coming out later today on that at T&S) I don't think that'll be successful even if it is how some intellectual skeptics of historicity reconcile staying in Mormonism. However if the view of religion is purely utilitarian "what does it do for me now" then that's problematic - especially for the masses who aren't intellectual. Even for intellectuals one has to explain why literary criticism for meaning in The Book of Mormon is better than The Brothers Karamazov let alone whether it justifies the high costs of Mormonism. (Tithing, callings, service, word of wisdom, etc.)

To my eyes the only way to ultimately reach people is to convince them that short term utilitarian views of religion are wrong. But how to do that in a convincing way? No idea. Seems to me this is a broad cultural change that's arguably been underway since I was in college and has been reaching critical mass the last decade. I suspect only broad cultural change away from this will really move people back to religion. And that may not happen.

Obedience is important but only in a functional way. It's a means to the end rather than the end in itself. 

 

 

 

Thanks.  It seems we have both arrived at an agreement coming from two different directions.

[Calm]

 

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Allegiance to authority is just as problematic from my perspective.  If God is a being that desires allegiance then God is a shallow warlord not a deity worthy of worship and of descriptions like all-powerful and all-knowing.  This kind of a God is the kind of petty God envisioned by tribes pitting their Gods against each other.  

That would depend, imo, on why he desired allegiance.

If it was for a boost to his own ego, that would be shallow.  But if it is because allegiance helps sustain a person through enduring hard things that in the end in some way known to God will help them become more the person they want to be, that is a worthy desire.

Think of an oncologist who wants people to trust him (another way to speak of allegiance)...he might be wanting it because he likes how it makes him feel or he may want it because he knows that means people will more likely stick with radiation and other treatments he prescribes that seem to make them sicker than the cancer.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

We humans seem to be good at putting a lot of layers in between ourselves and God. It really is love that matters the most (I see service as a manifestation of love).

And what is love if not allegiance?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

And what is love if not allegiance?

Depends on to what or to whom the allegiance is given. If it's not love and allegiance to God, it is a layer between us and God.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Depends on to what or to whom the allegiance is given. If it's not love and allegiance to God, it is a layer between us and God.

Not sure how your comment is an answer to my question.  You appear to be talking about the value of allegiance, not whether or not love is a form of allegiance.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure how your comment is an answer to my question.  You appear to be talking about the value of allegiance, not whether or not love is a form of allegiance.

I thought you were commenting on my point about layers between us and God. We can love/give allegiance to other things and people besides God, and the scriptures are pretty clear we shouldn't do that if it distracts us from our relationship with God.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought you were commenting on my point about layers between us and God. We can love/give allegiance to other things and people besides God, and the scriptures are pretty clear we shouldn't do that if it distracts us from our relationship with God.

No, I was commenting on "it is really love that matters".

To me, that is also saying "it is really allegiance that matters" though I would add that love is a form of allegiance, there are other types of allegiance that do not include love.  However, I believe that while allegiance to God may begin in a lower form such as out of fear, overtime it must turn into an allegiance of love in order to achieve its purpose of helping us become who we desire to be, which in turn brings us home to our Eternal Family, God's family.

afterthought:  I don't have a problem if some wish to caution about some types of allegiances, as I believe there are forms that are unhealthy....just as there are forms of love that are unhealthy.  However, a global dismissal of allegiance is as inappropriate to my view as a global dismissal of love.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Depends on to what or to whom the allegiance is given. If it's not love and allegiance to God, it is a layer between us and God.

"A prophet does not stand between you and the Savior. Rather, he stands beside you and points the way to the Savior. A prophet’s greatest responsibility and most precious gift to us is his sure witness, his certain knowledge, that Jesus is the Christ. Like Peter of old, our prophet declares, “[He is] the Christ, the Son of the living God.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng

Loving God and giving heed to the words and ordinances that He calls His prophets to deliver are not mutually exclusive. Given how "allegiance" was introduced and represented in this thread from a particular account of Brother Jensen's remarks , it certainly does depend on how the concept is understood in context.

Edited July 13, 2018 by CV75

[pogi]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what is love if not allegiance?

Dang!  That is the perfect response, and full of Confucius like wisdom! 

 

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"A prophet does not stand between you and the Savior. Rather, he stands beside you and points the way to the Savior. A prophet’s greatest responsibility and most precious gift to us is his sure witness, his certain knowledge, that Jesus is the Christ. Like Peter of old, our prophet declares, “[He is] the Christ, the Son of the living God.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng

Loving God and giving heed to the words and ordinances that He calls His prophets to deliver are not mutually exclusive. Given how "allegiance" was introduced and represented in this thread from a particular account of Brother Jensen's remarks , it certainly does depend on how the concept is understood in context.

Maybe the prophet of old did that, but sometimes our prophets in the LDS get a different status IMO. I've read quotes that before being accepted into a kingdom that members have to go through Joseph Smith, and also that he and BY are Gods of their own kingdoms. That's why they were sealing everyone or many to them. So I wonder if the thought that our prophets are like God/Gods, if that is more a middle guy between God. But prove me wrong, many on the board often do.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Maybe the prophet of old did that, but sometimes our prophets in the LDS get a different status IMO. I've read quotes that before being accepted into a kingdom that members have to go through Joseph Smith, and also that he and BY are Gods of their own kingdoms. That's why they were sealing everyone or many to them. So I wonder if the thought that our prophets are like God/Gods, if that is more a middle guy between God. But prove me wrong, many on the board often do.

Good point.

[Exiled]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe the prophet of old did that, but sometimes our prophets in the LDS get a different status IMO. I've read quotes that before being accepted into a kingdom that members have to go through Joseph Smith, and also that he and BY are Gods of their own kingdoms. That's why they were sealing everyone or many to them. So I wonder if the thought that our prophets are like God/Gods, if that is more a middle guy between God. But prove me wrong, many on the board often do.

This reminds me of when I became active again after leaving for years. My Bishop called me to be the gospel doctrine teacher and some made the comment that I was teaching from a 1980's/1990's perspective because I used a lot of McConkie quotes. Mormonism had moved on from McConkie in the middle 2000's and was about to put Mormon Doctrine to sleep. Perhaps you are from the late 1800's mormonism of adam god and the like? 😉

Edited July 13, 2018 by Exiled

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe the prophet of old did that, but sometimes our prophets in the LDS get a different status IMO. I've read quotes that before being accepted into a kingdom that members have to go through Joseph Smith, and also that he and BY are Gods of their own kingdoms. That's why they were sealing everyone or many to them. So I wonder if the thought that our prophets are like God/Gods, if that is more a middle guy between God. But prove me wrong, many on the board often do.

What did the prophets of old do that is different from what prophets do today exactly?  I am not sure I understand.  Prophets today really do point us to the Savior.  Is that what you are refuting? 

The idea that we have to pass through a prophet before entering a kingdom of glory is not new or unique to Mormonism.  Christ taught that it would be so in Matt 19:28:

Quote

 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Joseph Smith simply expounded on that idea about how the apostles/prophets will be at the judgment seat judging their respective dispensations.

Quote

The original Twelve Apostles in this dispensation have testified and will yet testify of Christ, [2] and we will be accountable for hearing their testimonies at the judgment bar of Christ. Those apostles who have succeeded them and have testified to us will also be at the judgment bar to testify either for or against us. If we will heed their testimonies and the testimonies of the Jerusalem and Nephite Twelve, we may come under the class of people described by Nephi: “I have charity for my people, and great faith in Christ that I shall meet many souls spotless at his judgment-seat” (2 Nephi 33:7).
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-fourth-nephi-through-moroni-zion-destruction/16-judgment-seat-christ

 

I have never heard that Joseph and Brigham are God's of their own kingdom.  That could only happen after final judgment, it seems to me.  I don't understand what is so weird about that though, when we all have been promised the same potential.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe the prophet of old did that, but sometimes our prophets in the LDS get a different status IMO. I've read quotes that before being accepted into a kingdom that members have to go through Joseph Smith, and also that he and BY are Gods of their own kingdoms. That's why they were sealing everyone or many to them. So I wonder if the thought that our prophets are like God/Gods, if that is more a middle guy between God. But prove me wrong, many on the board often do.

I'd have to see the actual quotes before commenting; people say and remember hearing and reading all sorts of things.

I do know that whatever the prophets do is by delegated authority, with the aim of bringing us back into the presence of God. Sealing is a means to do that as a human family, being one with all the children; ideally one heart and one mind. Any hierarchy one might perceive by virtue of the priesthood order (the priesthood offices, quorums and councils) has checks and balances (see D&C 107 about "equal in authority" and how controversies are handled), and is temporary, there only to coordinate the law of heaven in this world until we all become the Church of the Firstborn.

[blueglass]

I don't think it was worth the tithing money to fly out Elder and Sister Renlund first class to Hawaii for a week to stay at a resort to press recycle and repeat on the same talk from last year to CES.  Renlund Talk  Our young adults deserve more of an effort than that.  With the addition of a few graphics to laugh and chuckle at people who have doubts over topics of church history?   Why did Elder Renlund have to say that he's read all 6000 pages of the joseph smith papers books and never found a single sentence which bothered him?  What is that supposed to mean for the rest of us?  

The best part of his talk was about his father's dream of the Savior.  Wish we heard more around this topic of discipleship.

Edited January 16, 2019 by blueglass

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Why did Elder Renlund have to say that he's read all 6000 pages of the joseph smith papers books and never found a single sentence which bothered him?  What is that supposed to mean for the rest of us?  

Well, it means that that's an option.

[Duncan]

57 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I don't think it was worth the tithing money to fly out Elder and Sister Renlund first class to Hawaii for a week to stay at a resort to press recycle and repeat on the same talk from last year to CES.  Renlund Talk  Our young adults deserve more of an effort than that.  With the addition of a few graphics to laugh and chuckle at people who have doubts over topics of church history?   Why did Elder Renlund have to say that he's read all 6000 pages of the joseph smith papers books and never found a single sentence which bothered him?  What is that supposed to mean for the rest of us?  

The best part of his talk was about his father's dream of the Savior.  Wish we heard more around this topic of discipleship.

I'm sure he was doing other things while there, more bang for the buck! I don't know his schedule but he probably did one or two stake conferences or meetings, Temples (two in Hawaii) and he probably toured the mission. I just listened to Elder Holland for the Urdaneta Phillipines Temple groundbreaking and he mentioned he was there on sunday for a stake conference. I'm sure they try to fit in as many things are humanely possible

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, blueglass said:

I don't think it was worth the tithing money to fly out Elder and Sister Renlund first class to Hawaii for a week to stay at a resort to press recycle and repeat on the same talk from last year to CES.  Renlund Talk  Our young adults deserve more of an effort than that.  With the addition of a few graphics to laugh and chuckle at people who have doubts over topics of church history?   Why did Elder Renlund have to say that he's read all 6000 pages of the joseph smith papers books and never found a single sentence which bothered him?  What is that supposed to mean for the rest of us?  

The best part of his talk was about his father's dream of the Savior.  Wish we heard more around this topic of discipleship.

This presentation at BYU-H is horrible. I totally missed the talk the first time around but I agree, they can do better than this...at least I sure hope so. If this is their best, it's pretty sad. Seriously, this talk is B.A.D.

Aside from the whole "whack-a-mole" mockery which seems to think that if a person has a question, and it is answered, it is somehow dishonorable and lazy to have other questions on other issues. The only thing lazy about this is Renlund's mockery. This is seriously a sad state of affairs for the church when a prophet, seer, and revelator belittles those who doubt.

But before it even came to the issue of whack-a-mole, the talk starts with the parable of the boy who is on a boat. It capsizes so he gets off. He's in the water. He knows land is in a certain direction about 20 miles away and doesn't have the strength to swim the whole way. The kindly old fisherman in a rickety boat, full of dents, holes, chipped paint, and a rudder that isn't reliable picks him up, saving him from the ocean. The old man feeds him stale water and crackers. The boy starts to ask the man about the seeming problems with the boat, wondering if it's sea worthy. The boy asks about the rudder and steering. The old man doesn't seem to know how the steering works. All he knows is it's gotten him to where he needs to go for many years. The ungrateful boy then asks to get off the boat.

This story is used to show how little faith the boy had and how he foolishly focused on insignificant things. Such a foolish boy!

But think about this. In Elder Renlund's parable the church is an old tattered boat with holes, dents, chipped paint, and an unreliable rudder. The old sea captain (church leader) is kindly but a bit clueless and is said to be "hard of hearing". The sustenance the church and the church leaders offer is old and stale. Is Renlund trying to sell us the virtue and goodness of the church with these descriptions?

On the other hand, this boy has just been through a traumatic experience, ending up in the ocean after his boat capsizes. Is it reasonable that such a boy might wonder about the sea-worthiness of the next boat he climbs into? Or is he just a fool? Is it reasonable for the boy to question the captain about his skill and ability to steer the boat? Would we not be just as concerned if the boat captain told us that despite the unreliable rudder and his lack of understanding of how the boat gets him to where he needs to be? Of course we'd be concerned.

This analogy, combined with Elder Ballard's "Stay in the Boat" talks, just doesn't work. 1- If the boy stayed in his first boat when it capsized, he'd be dead. Wisely, he got off the boat even if he didn't have a plan for what to do next. He was surviving. 2-This analogy presumes there is only 1 boat in the ocean that can take the boy to shore. 3- MOST IMPORTANT- In talking about faith and doubt in the church's truth claims, history, and present management, Church leaders continue to incorrectly teach an incorrect object of faith. Members should NOT be placing faith in the boat or the captain. As noted by Elder Renlund the boat has many problems and is sometimes unreliable. The captain doesn't fully understand what it means to captain a boat and is "hard of hearing". Instead of placing faith in the boat and the captain, members should be encouraged to maintain faith in the true and reliable object of their faith: the Land (which is God). The boy has faith the land is out there. He even knows the direction. The boat is a vehicle to get him there. It is not, and should not be the object of the faith.

As long as leaders teach faith in church and leaders, people will always become disillusioned when they are only fed stale water and crackers on a rust-bucket boat with a clueless captain who is hard of hearing.

Frankly, IF I were Pres. Nelson, I think I'd be wanting these boat analogies to die a sudden death and find something much more suitable and meaningful. And for heavens sake, stop mocking people with doubts.

 

 

...that's all I have to say about that.  (Forrest Gump)

Edited January 16, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This presentation at BYU-H is horrible. I totally missed the talk the first time around but I agree, they can do better than this...at least I sure hope so. If this is their best, it's pretty sad. Seriously, this talk is B.A.D.

Aside from the whole "whack-a-mole" mockery which seems to think that if a person has a question, and it is answered, it is somehow dishonorable and lazy to have other questions on other issues. The only thing lazy about this is Renlund's mockery. This is seriously a sad state of affairs for the church when a prophet, seer, and revelator belittles those who doubt.

But before it even came to the issue of whack-a-mole, the talk starts with the parable of the boy who is on a boat. It capsizes so he gets off. He's in the water. He knows land is in a certain direction about 20 miles away and doesn't have the strength to swim the whole way. The kindly old fisherman in a rickety boat, full of dents, holes, chipped paint, and a rudder that isn't reliable picks him up, saving him from the ocean. The old man feeds him stale water and crackers. The boy starts to ask the man about the seeming problems with the boat, wondering if it's sea worthy. The boy asks about the rudder and steering. The old man doesn't seem to know how the steering works. All he knows is it's gotten him to where he needs to go for many years. The ungrateful boy then asks to get off the boat.

This story is used to show how little faith the boy had and how he foolishly focused on insignificant things. Such a foolish boy!

But think about this. In Elder Renlund's parable the church is an old tattered boat with holes, dents, chipped paint, and an unreliable rudder. The old sea captain (church leader) is kindly but a bit clueless and is said to be "hard of hearing". The sustenance the church and the church leaders offer is old and stale. Is Renlund trying to sell us the virtue and goodness of the church with these descriptions?

On the other hand, this boy has just been through a traumatic experience, ending up in the ocean after his boat capsizes. Is it reasonable that such a boy might wonder about the sea-worthiness of the next boat he climbs into? Or is he just a fool? Is it reasonable for the boy to question the captain about his skill and ability to steer the boat? Would we not be just as concerned if the boat captain told us that despite the unreliable rudder and his lack of understanding of how the boat gets him to where he needs to be? Of course we'd be concerned.

This analogy, combined with Elder Ballard's "Stay in the Boat" talks, just doesn't work. 1- If the boy stayed in his first boat when it capsized, he'd be dead. Wisely, he got off the boat even if he didn't have a plan for what to do next. He was surviving. 2-This analogy presumes there is only 1 boat in the ocean that can take the boy to shore. 3- MOST IMPORTANT- In talking about faith and doubt in the church's truth claims, history, and present management, Church leaders continue to incorrectly teach an incorrect object of faith. Members should NOT be placing faith in the boat or the captain. As noted by Elder Renlund the boat has many problems and is sometimes unreliable. The captain doesn't fully understand what it means to captain a boat and is "hard of hearing". Instead of placing faith in the boat and the captain, members should be encouraged to maintain faith in the true and reliable object of their faith: the Land (which is God). The boy has faith the land is out there. He even knows the direction. The boat is a vehicle to get him there. It is not, and should not be the object of the faith.

As long as leaders teach faith in church and leaders, people will always become disillusioned when they are only fed stale water and crackers on a rust-bucket boat with a clueless captain who is hard of hearing.

Frankly, IF I were Pres. Nelson, I think I'd be wanting these boat analogies to die a sudden death and find something much more suitable and meaningful. And for heavens sake, stop mocking people with doubts.

 

 

...that's all I have to say about that.  (Forrest Gump)

Thanks Forrest!  You're spot on. I like what you say about leaders not being at the helm. It's Jesus that is at the helm! So these talks should be geared towards wishing those with doubts well, and even congratulating them on their journey of searching. And the analogy of the beat up man/boat is so opposite of making the church look safe at all! In many cases the church isn't safe, and that is when members believe the head of the church is a prophet and not the Saviour. If the Saviour is at the helm of this church there would have not been all of the many changes, either for the good or the bad. Because He would not have gotten it wrong.