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

[blueglass]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

true, i'm sure he worked in as much work as possible during the visit, and I have no idea what his itinerary looked like.  Working on a quality talk for young adults was not a top priority?   He's a sharp guy, this talk isn't his best unfortunately. 

[hope_for_things]

12 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.

I saw a couple of these graphics on the internet yesterday.  They come across as very condescending to doubters.  But I also think they seem sophomoric for a college audience, almost like they were made for 10 year olds instead of college students.  I'm not at all impressed.  

I really liked what Jana Reiss had to say about these talks.  

https://religionnews.com/2019/01/15/how-mormons-handle-doubt-blame-the-victim/

 

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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)

There are a few things Sister Renlund removed and reworked from her previous talk to the CES instructors and faculty.  In this latest talk to all the young adults she removed the story about the lady in the DRC who found racist teachings in a book written by a church leader, 

"This was a very different situation for a woman we met in Lubumbashi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her name is Angelique. She was a faithful returned missionary. She had a strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She loved the Book of Mormon. She loved everything about the Church.

When we met her, she was reading a book written by one of the Church’s leaders before he became the President of the Church. The book was written before the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 and suggested that, because of some things done in the premortal existence, those of African descent would not be exalted. Angelique asked for some help to understand why this would be the case. She was told by a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve that this former leader of the Church was wrong, plain and simple, and that he had simply stated his opinion, an opinion that was incorrect. Angelique was satisfied with the explanation. She acted in faith by remaining on the covenant path and trusting God."  CES 2018 talk

In this latest talk Sister Renlund emphasizes that we don't need to study a lot to be prepared, that what we know is enough.  "While further intellectual information may temporarily resolve an intellectual concern, further intellectual information is not the complete solution, for as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 1Cor 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Elder Anderson's quote before entering the mission field, "you don't know everything but you know enough".  Sister Renlund, "We will never know the meaning of all things but we know enough."  "Our destinies depend on exercising embryonic faith that will grow when we act on faith."   Any thoughts on Sister Renlund's reworked thoughts?  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There are a few things Sister Renlund removed and reworked from her previous talk to the CES instructors and faculty.  In this latest talk to all the young adults she removed the story about the lady in the DRC who found racist teachings in a book written by a church leader, 

"This was a very different situation for a woman we met in Lubumbashi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her name is Angelique. She was a faithful returned missionary. She had a strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She loved the Book of Mormon. She loved everything about the Church.

When we met her, she was reading a book written by one of the Church’s leaders before he became the President of the Church. The book was written before the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 and suggested that, because of some things done in the premortal existence, those of African descent would not be exalted. Angelique asked for some help to understand why this would be the case. She was told by a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve that this former leader of the Church was wrong, plain and simple, and that he had simply stated his opinion, an opinion that was incorrect. Angelique was satisfied with the explanation. She acted in faith by remaining on the covenant path and trusting God."  CES 2018 talk

In this latest talk Sister Renlund emphasizes that we don't need to study a lot to be prepared, that what we know is enough.  "While further intellectual information may temporarily resolve an intellectual concern, further intellectual information is not the complete solution, for as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 1Cor 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Elder Anderson's quote before entering the mission field, "you don't know everything but you know enough".  Sister Renlund, "We will never know the meaning of all things but we know enough."  "Our destinies depend on exercising embryonic faith that will grow when we act on faith."   Any thoughts on Sister Renlund's reworked thoughts?  

 

 

The kind of faith that they are promoting is extremely shallow.  Faith is distilled down to being about conformity to the norms that certain leaders define as acceptable.  What do they mean when they say someone needs to "stay on the covenant path"?  The implication is that people with concerns about the church's current practices and/or history are not following the covenant path.  

Everything in these talks is all about labeling certain behaviors as good or bad in relationship to the church.  Its not about having a relationship with God or learning and growing as a person.  I read these perspectives as demonstrating a very immature approach to religion.  

[blueglass]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I saw a couple of these graphics on the internet yesterday.  They come across as very condescending to doubters.  But I also think they seem sophomoric for a college audience, almost like they were made for 10 year olds instead of college students.  I'm not at all impressed.  

I really liked what Jana Reiss had to say about these talks.  

https://religionnews.com/2019/01/15/how-mormons-handle-doubt-blame-the-victim/

 

A few quotes from Reiss' article, "I’ve never seen a case where a doubter successfully returned to the Church through shaming tactics such as these. Not once."  "Doubt is not a path that people embark upon because they’re selfish, lazy, or somehow perverse—all of which are reasons hinted at here. Rather, doubt occurs because it’s a natural part of faith formation."

Coincidentally, when Elder Renlund says, "doubt is not and will never will be the precursor of faith any more than light depends on darkness for its creation."   Here is an article in cosmology which shows evidence that dark matter produced the earliest first stars. 

As the universe initially was only helium and hydrogen, dark matter was critical in providing the gravitational force to pull these elements together to form stars. Now that there are other objects in the galaxy, dark matter is not needed to form stars.

“Stars today form in giant clouds of molecular gas and dust embedded in the disks of large galaxies like our Milky Way, whereas the first stars emerged inside ‘minihalos’, agglomerates of primordial gas and dark matter with a total mass of a million times that of the Sun,” Volker Bromm of the University of Texas  Early Dark matter

Edited January 16, 2019 by blueglass

[blueglass]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The kind of faith that they are promoting is extremely shallow.  Faith is distilled down to being about conformity to the norms that certain leaders define as acceptable.  What do they mean when they say someone needs to "stay on the covenant path"?  The implication is that people with concerns about the church's current practices and/or history are not following the covenant path.  

Everything in these talks is all about labeling certain behaviors as good or bad in relationship to the church.  Its not about having a relationship with God or learning and growing as a person.  I read these perspectives as demonstrating a very immature approach to religion.  

Should we send the Renlund's a copy of Richard Rohr, "falling upward"?  I think it's time.   It's time to "discharge our loyal soldier"  for this second half of life spirituality. 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, blueglass said:

A few quotes from Reiss' article, "I’ve never seen a case where a doubter successfully returned to the Church through shaming tactics such as these. Not once."  "Doubt is not a path that people embark upon because they’re selfish, lazy, or somehow perverse—all of which are reasons hinted at here. Rather, doubt occurs because it’s a natural part of faith formation."

Coincidentally, when Elder Renlund says, "doubt is not and will never will be the precursor of faith any more than light depends on darkness for its creation."   Here is an article in cosmology which shows evidence that dark matter produced the earliest first stars. 

As the universe initially was only helium and hydrogen, dark matter was critical in providing the gravitational force to pull these elements together to form stars. Now that there are other objects in the galaxy, dark matter is not needed to form stars.

“Stars today form in giant clouds of molecular gas and dust embedded in the disks of large galaxies like our Milky Way, whereas the first stars emerged inside ‘minihalos’, agglomerates of primordial gas and dark matter with a total mass of a million times that of the Sun,” Volker Bromm of the University of Texas  Early Dark matter

Yes, I just read Neil Degrasse Tyson's book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, and light was not the first thing in the early stages of the developing universe. Interesting point, although I'm sure Elder Renlund probably just isn't that familiar with the science on this topic.  

As for doubt and faith, I think a binary view of those two things as opposing forces is also a big problem with his logic.  The Given's book about the Crucible of doubt shares an important alternative approach to this idea of doubt.  There are many important thinkers who've talked about how you can't have a robust faith without also having doubt as part of that equation.  

It seems to me that the tactic being promoted here is just a fear tactic.  Avoid wrestling with questions at all.  How is that mature approach to anything in life?  

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Should we send the Renlund's a copy of Richard Rohr, "falling upward"?  I think it's time.   It's time to "discharge our loyal soldier"  for this second half of life spirituality. 

Probably a good idea.  Its still hard for me to fathom how someone who's so well educated in the field of Medicine like he is, can be so immature and ignorant on other topics.  

[Tacenda]

I have a feeling this talk wasn't for doubters. It was for those faithful members out there to get the message to never get close to doubting like these doubters have done.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

There are a few things Sister Renlund removed and reworked from her previous talk to the CES instructors and faculty.  In this latest talk to all the young adults she removed the story about the lady in the DRC who found racist teachings in a book written by a church leader, 

"This was a very different situation for a woman we met in Lubumbashi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her name is Angelique. She was a faithful returned missionary. She had a strong testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. She loved the Book of Mormon. She loved everything about the Church.

When we met her, she was reading a book written by one of the Church’s leaders before he became the President of the Church. The book was written before the revelation on the priesthood in 1978 and suggested that, because of some things done in the premortal existence, those of African descent would not be exalted. Angelique asked for some help to understand why this would be the case. She was told by a current member of the Quorum of the Twelve that this former leader of the Church was wrong, plain and simple, and that he had simply stated his opinion, an opinion that was incorrect. Angelique was satisfied with the explanation. She acted in faith by remaining on the covenant path and trusting God."  CES 2018 talk

In this latest talk Sister Renlund emphasizes that we don't need to study a lot to be prepared, that what we know is enough.  "While further intellectual information may temporarily resolve an intellectual concern, further intellectual information is not the complete solution, for as Paul wrote to the Corinthians 1Cor 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Elder Anderson's quote before entering the mission field, "you don't know everything but you know enough".  Sister Renlund, "We will never know the meaning of all things but we know enough."  "Our destinies depend on exercising embryonic faith that will grow when we act on faith."   Any thoughts on Sister Renlund's reworked thoughts?  

 

 

"We know enough."

Wow. What an incredible statement. I actually did a quick rewind and listened again, certain I had misheard. But I heard correctly. There's no need to study. We know enough. There's no need to seek answers to perplexing questions. We know enough.

Q- Are you going to church on Sunday?

A- Nah...I know enough.

Q- Are you going to listen to General Conference?

A- Nah...I know enough.

Q- But you're going to go to the temple right?

A- Why? I know enough.

Q- College?

A-  

This talk is unconscionably bad. It may be pro-church but it's anti-gospel of Jesus Christ.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I have a feeling this talk wasn't for doubters. It was for those faithful members out there to get the message to never get close to doubting like these doubters have done.

Sister Renlund leaves a window of opportunity unexplored, "many who have questions who already have doubt in their mind have difficulty finding their spiritual footing.  They have nonetheless stayed faithful and remained on the covenant path."  Would it be appropriate for a church leader to say - "yeah I remember first hearing about seer stones - and it threw me for a loop as a strange way to receive revelation!"  Or if sister Renlund could explore in her own personal life some other faith challenge where doubt was over come by trying something new, researching and learning, or putting the matter aside until better answers came.  Just a little empathy goes a long way. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by blueglass

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"We know enough."

Wow. What an incredible statement. I actually did a quick rewind and listened again, certain I had misheard. But I heard correctly. There's no need to study. We know enough. There's no need to seek answers to perplexing questions. We know enough.

Q- Are you going to church on Sunday?

A- Nah...I know enough.

Q- Are you going to listen to General Conference?

A- Nah...I know enough.

Q- But you're going to go to the temple right?

A- Why? I know enough.

Q- College?

A-  

This talk is unconscionably bad. It may be pro-church but it's anti-gospel of Jesus Christ.

Good catch.  When you compare this line of thinking to the way people are converted through our missionary program.  In my mission, someone knew enough to be baptized if they had listened to all six discussions and made the commitments to follow principles in those discussions.  They also had to have attended at least one sacrament meeting and passed a baptismal interview. 

By comparison, I've been studying church history and religion and theology quite incessantly over the past 5-6 years of my faith journey.  The cumulative study that I've done in the past 5-6 years would easily eclipse multiple lifetimes of the amount of study on church related topics that I did prior to my faith crisis.  

Some of these people really have no clue about what they are discussing and it should be embarrassing to them to speak with such ignorance on such an important topic.  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Sister Renlund leaves a window of opportunity unexplored, "many who have questions who already have doubt in their mind have difficulty finding their spiritual footing.  They have nonetheless stayed faithful and remained on the covenant path."  Would it be appropriate for a church leader to say - "yeah I remember first hearing about seer stones - and it threw me for a loop as a strange way to receive revelation!"  Or if sister Renlund could explore in her own personal life some other faith challenge where doubt was over come by trying something new, researching and learning, or putting the matter aside until new answers came.  Just a little empathy goes a long way. 

When leaders say things like "I've read every page of the Joseph Smith Papers and nothing caused me concern" I think there are a few possibilities.

1- The person didn't pay close attention to what he was reading

2- The person is intellectually lazy (either not knowing what the church previously taught or too uncaring to note the differences)

3- the person isn't being completely honest in an effort to protect the institution or himself personally

4- There is absolutely nothing in the JS Papers that contradicts church teachings (past or present) or the narrative of church history taught so widely in the church.

5- The person is apathetic about any inconsistencies because they don't matter since the church is true.

Are there other possibilities? Perhaps. But those are the first that come to my mind.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When leaders say things like "I've read every page of the Joseph Smith Papers and nothing caused me concern" I think there are a few possibilities.

1- The person didn't pay close attention to what he was reading

2- The person is intellectually lazy (either not knowing what the church previously taught or too uncaring to note the differences)

3- the person isn't being completely honest in an effort to protect the institution or himself personally

4- There is absolutely nothing in the JS Papers that contradicts church teachings (past or present) or the narrative of church history taught so widely in the church.

5- The person is apathetic about any inconsistencies because they don't matter since the church is true.

Are there other possibilities? Perhaps. But those are the first that come to my mind.

The other possibility is that reading every page of the Joseph Smith papers, is code for "the entirety of church history, theology, doctrine, science" gives me no problems whatsoever - unlike my other swedish bro Hans Mattsson.  There is a larger ongoing battle between those who were inducted into the anointed quorum (received the second anointing - and seal of exaltation) and those who continued asking questions and researching.  Ballard, Renlund vs. Hans Mattsson and Tom Phillips.  Like the cute Spielberg movie Ready Player One after receiving all the keys, there is this last game or shiboleth test (sign the contract - or back away).  In this case, a snide tempter or serpent on legs approaches and proposes playing church history Whack a Mole.  The correct answer is to refuse to play.  Unfortunately Mattsson and Phillips felt they had super powers and got lost in the game.  

Edited January 16, 2019 by blueglass

[cinepro]

9 hours 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.

 

I agree.  While I do think it's a good thing that they are finally acknowledging how severe the problem is, it's extremely disappointing if this is the best way they can deal with it.

The better boat analogy is the scene in Jaws where the happy shark-hunters are confidently searching for the shark so they can kill it.  But after a brief sighting of the beast, Chief Brody realizes the situation they are in and can only say "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

Well Elder Renlund, if that talk is indicative of the quality of the "boat", then I can only say (speaking on behalf of the doubters), you're gonna need a better boat.

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by cinepro

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have a feeling this talk wasn't for doubters. It was for those faithful members out there to get the message to never get close to doubting like these doubters have done.

You nailed it.  This talk was directed at members who aren't (yet) doubting that those who doubt are lazy and sinful.

[rockpond]

My takeaways from this talk

1. These historical issues (they mention are few) are becoming increasingly problematic for the church.  We're seeing an increase in talks on the subject and here we have an apostle and his wife repeating the same message they gave to CES, now to the YSA's.  (Attention CES:  You aren't fixing the problem on your own!)
2. The Brethren still don't have good answers so they choose to criticize and mock those who have doubts.

Edited January 17, 2019 by rockpond

[changed]

On 7/9/2018 at 11:51 AM, blueglass said:

"The strong man is not afraid to say, “I do not know”; the weak man simpers and answers, “I doubt.” 

 

The strong man is not afraid of researching the truth.  The Book of Abraham?? JS getting married to teenagers, to other people's wives?? Abuse in the church by those called to authority?? - this is not a "doubt", this is truth that many refuse to look at.

https://janariess.religionnews.com/2019/01/15/how-mormons-handle-doubt-blame-the-victim/?fbclid=IwAR0CTyhCnLJNFAZ7fPGGzyhaCRo3VIoh3cbwHYRGGZIYAtKAcj5_6OARSBU

Blame the victim, rather than look at truths people have found through scholarly research, and personal experience.

Is there any "doubt" about who JS married?

Is there any "doubt" of the legitimacy of the book of Abraham?

This is not about doubt.

[changed]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The better boat analogy 

 

 

Here is the better boat analogy:

https://karlijo.wixsite.com/beautyinthebreaking/home/i-got-off-the-boat?fbclid=IwAR0hBbmlp-BDLrYE_PVN_qonvPlNgDKpvPmphmispZvN2YP60iCLcn4VrU4

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The Brethren still don't have good answers ...

It would appear from the New Testament accounts that Jesus likewise had trouble providing answers that satisfied many of his frequent questioners.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, changed said:

The strong man is not afraid of researching the truth.  The Book of Abraham?? JS getting married to teenagers, to other people's wives?? Abuse in the church by those called to authority?? - this is not a "doubt", this is truth that many refuse to look at.

Is there any "doubt" about who JS married?

Is there any "doubt" of the legitimacy of the book of Abraham?

No, it's about how we respond to things that trouble us.

The things you mention...do you think those of us that believe haven't done the research?  Haven't read the same things you have?

The "truth" isn't the issue as much as the lens you see it through.  I don't think there is a single member of this board doesn't know who Joseph married.  Some are troubled by it,  some are not.  The truth and facts remain the same.  The varying responses are far more interesting.

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours 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? 

What it means for us is that we decide for ourselves what bothers us and what does not.  When I was young, my mom was sort of a perfectionist and stressed over things that really were not that big of a deal.  If a small dent or scrap happened to the car, her day was ruined.  She let things that were small to the rest of us be a big deal to her.   The overall point is we all see things differently.  What is a mountain to one person is a molehill to another.  To him there is nothing in those 6000 pages that bother him.  To others there might be many things that bother them.  I have not read the JS papers so I can't comment but I have seen many issues that bother people in LDS history that simply are not big of a deal to me.  Some people would rather focus their attention on the flaws than take a step back and look at the whole picture.  Perhaps the picture has flaws and is not perfect but its still a beautiful picture aside from the flaws.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

The things you mention...do you think those of us that believe haven't done the research?  Haven't read the same things you have?

I genuinely get the impression many of the disaffected do think this way. One sees it in their questions. It's all through Happy Jack's list above.

I recently caught up with an LDS housemate of mine from way back. He's joined the disaffected. He kept assuring me he wouldn't tell me what he knows because he didn't want me to lose my faith since it's such an awful experience. I laughed out loud the third of fourth time he said it. I honestly couldn't convince him that 'what he knows' isn't going to be anything new or unfamiliar to me.

I told him he was being demeaning and patronising, that it was offensive. He didn't get it. At all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

Some people would rather focus their attention on the flaws than take a step back and look at the whole picture.

And in many cases, people see things as flaws that aren't flaws. I have a PhD in history and spent nearly five years as the editor of a AAA-rated history journal. I've lost track of the number of times that people on this very forum have raised 'historical' concerns that wouldn't generate a raised eyebrow from someone well trained in the historical discipline.

[Duncan]

Um, is it my fault that someone else has doubts? I find it strange that Jana Reiss uses the word, "victim" when exmormons are saying how happy they are they left the Church, how deluded members of the Church are, how racist etc. the leaders are, yadda yadda yadda- What are we to believe about exmormons? Are they happy victims? how many actual victims of something consider themselves happy? I was victimized twice in my life, happy isn't what I would consider myself at that time