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

[theplains]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but as inquirers we should recognize that such emotional responses can block us from doing inquiry. I may not trust say a significant other who cheats on me. But if I automatically dismiss anything they say simply because they say it, then chances are I'm just screwing myself over. It's the sort of thing I see in my kids when they're first hitting adolescence but hope they grow out of soon. However you're completely right in that it is a natural psychological response particularly when the relationship wasn't already balanced and healthy.

It seems the message is "don't leave the LDS Church if the Spirit gives you a testimony that some teaching
that you heard is wrong ... we know better than your testimony (witness) where things differ."

Unfortunately this kind of thinking keeps you in the boat while it sinks (where false teachings represents the
holes. For if Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God like Joseph Smith taught, then people will be
worshipping a false god).

Jim

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I appreciate the acknowledgement of chips and peeling paint, but what if the damage is worse than that and these two simply don't have eyes to see?  That is more of my concern. 

My mother when she was alive had a bad issue of looking at trivial things and blowing them into major tragedies.  To her, she was honest.  If the car got a dent, it ruined the whole day for her.  For us, it was something not to cheer about but dents happen in cars. It is part of life.  Move on and try to be a little more careful but its not a big deal to stress about. The point I am making is that we each see things differently.  What you may see as damage worse than chips and peeling paint to others is still chips and peeling paint.  The Church will never be able to satisfy everyone.  There will always be people that will complain about something.  The Church can and should do better but there are some people that regardless what happens will never be happy. They grasp on to the problems far tighter than the things that are good.   They may accept 10 truths about the gospel but its that one issue that they get wrapped up in that they ignore the truths and focus on the problem and it consumes them.

[carbon dioxide]

15 minutes ago, theplains said:

It seems the message is "don't leave the LDS Church if the Spirit gives you a testimony that some teaching
that you heard is wrong ... we know better than your testimony (witness) where things differ."

Unfortunately this kind of thinking keeps you in the boat while it sinks (where false teachings represents the
holes. For if Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God like Joseph Smith taught, then people will be
worshipping a false god).

Jim

That assumes that the wrong teaching will sink the boat.  Not all teachings are the same.  I have heard some false stuff in church from time to time.  So what.  Usually the issue is not that important in the grand scheme of things.  Some people also should remember that when they think the church is wrong, perhaps in reality the Church is right and they are wrong.  People don't like to admit they don't have all the answers.  That pride thing comes up and it is hard for them to be willing to change their views towards things. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Well the problem is, the whole analogy hinges on there just being one ship. I suppose if there were someone there at the talk who was able to offer a doubters actual perspective, that person might suggest that he wasn't jumping back into the water, he was transferring to another ship that was better maintained.

I suppose that those African migrants that are drowning as they try to reach Europe will take anything if it will save them.  In the story presented, the guy is in the ocean.  Even if there are other boats in the area, the odds of them seeing the guy in the ocean are very small.  The smart play is to get in the boat and ignore the flaws or just die.

The whole point of the story is the Church is not perfect.  It has flaws and those that run the church has flaws.  If one demands a nice boat and well dressed sailors first and if it is not provided they will stay in the water,  perhaps they deserve to drown.  If people are looking for the perfect or near perfect church before they believe,  life will pass them by and they will have wasted their lives rather than accepting what God offered them.  One thing is clear.  The man driving the boat is safe.  The man in the water is in trouble.  If the man leaves the boat, he is in trouble again.  Perhaps the guy in the boat might find someone else who appreciates be saved and not nitpick at the flaws.  If I saved the guy, I would not go out of my way to find a nicer boat to this guy.  I probably would put him right back in the water for being ungrateful. 

Edited July 9, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I suppose that those African migrants that are drowning as they try to reach Europe will take anything if it will save them.  In the story presented, the guy is in the ocean.  Even if there are other boats in the area, the odds of them seeing the guy in the ocean are very small.  The smart play is to get in the boat and ignore the flaws or just die.

The whole point of the story is the Church is not perfect.  It has flaws and those that run the church has flaws.  If one demands a nice boat and well dressed sailors first and if it is not provided they will stay in the water,  perhaps they deserve to drown.  If people are looking for the perfect or near perfect church before they believe,  life will pass them by and they will have wasted their lives rather than accepting what God offered them.

The problem of course is that people aren’t looking for a perfect or near perfect church. Passing off legitimate concerns as an unreasonable intolerance for minor flaws isn’t going to help anyone. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. If a boat approaches that is on fire or sinking, I think I'll take my chances waiting for another boat to come along.

I remember watching a documentary about Pearl Harbour and the US and one survivor said it was either jump into water that is burning with oil or stay on a ship that is also burning and eventually will sink, not many options! but you have to do something . I guess in all our lives we will eventually have to confront that something

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, blueglass said:

Do dents and peeling paint on the Church change its ability to provide authorized saving and exalting ordinances to help us become like our Father in Heaven?

Dents and peeling paint have nothing to do with the direction the ship is headed.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Pretty much. Either way, they're going to be waiting for the Toybota.

But the story says the people in trouble see a fishing boat, and later demand to get off the same fishing boat (not a Buick, a Toybota or a Vanagon), not because it isn't a fishing boat, but because they became more fussy and anxious about form than composed and confident about function. I suppose a Toybota and a Vanagon could get them back to shore as well, but those means of transport were never part of the story.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But the story says the people in trouble see a fishing boat, and later demand to get off the same fishing boat (not a Buick, a Toybota or a Vanagon), not because it isn't a fishing boat, but because they became more fussy and anxious about form than composed and confident about function. I suppose a Toybota and a Vanagon could get them back to shore as well, but those means of transport were never part of the story.

I know that’s the story, but it doesn’t reflect what’s really happening. It’s an attempt to minimize the issues and label those who are troubled by them as “perpetual doubters” and whiny-butts. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

It seems the message is "don't leave the LDS Church if the Spirit gives you a testimony that some teaching
that you heard is wrong ... we know better than your testimony (witness) where things differ."

Unfortunately this kind of thinking keeps you in the boat while it sinks (where false teachings represents the
holes. For if Heavenly Father is not a man who became a God like Joseph Smith taught, then people will be
worshipping a false god).

Jim

So now the boat in the story has holes?

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem of course is that people aren’t looking for a perfect or near perfect church. Passing off legitimate concerns as an unreasonable intolerance for minor flaws isn’t going to help anyone. 

But the point of the story is that some expectations do turn out to be less legitimate than others, for example getting back on a marooned boat when a fishing boat has offered you a ride back to shore. These are the excessive expectations alluded to in the story.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So now the boat in the story has holes?

But the point of the story is that some expectations do turn out to be less legitimate than others, for example getting back on a marooned boat when a fishing boat has offered you a ride back to shore. These are the excessive expectations alluded to in the story.

Finding out your religion isn’t what you thought it was is a legitimate reason to “get off the boat.” I just find it unhelpful to pretend the issues are as trivial as chipped paint and dings. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I know that’s the story, but it doesn’t reflect what’s really happening. It’s an attempt to minimize the issues and label those who are troubled by them as “perpetual doubters” and whiny-butts. 

It certainly does reflect what is happening in enough instances to provide a worthwhile lesson, and to insist otherwise is quite a binary approach. Are you suggesting there are no perpetual doubters who have lost sight of their better priorities? I'm not sure where the whiny-butts reference came from, but are you suggesting ether are none of those either? Are you suggesting there is no one who cannot relate to this story, or acted like the people in the capsized boat, or even might have come to their senses after sincere self-examination and introspection?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

It certainly does reflect what is happening in enough instances to provide a worthwhile lesson, and to insist otherwise is quite a binary approach. Are you suggesting there are no perpetual doubters who have lost sight of their better priorities? I'm not sure where the whiny-butts reference came from, but are you suggesting ether are none of those either? Are you suggesting there is no one who cannot relate to this story, or acted like the people in the capsized boat, or even might have come to their senses after sincere self-examination and introspection?

Maybe there are people leaving for trivial reasons. I haven’t seen much of that. What I’m saying is that he’s suggesting that there are no legitimate issues, just chipped paint and dings, so people are leaving for trivial reasons. 

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Finding out your religion isn’t what you thought it was is a legitimate reason to “get off the boat.” I just find it unhelpful to pretend the issues are as trivial as chipped paint and dings. 

According to the story they had every right to get off the boat, and felt every justification to do so. But the fishing boat was still a fishing boat heading to shore, the fisherman was a willing help, nothing more or less. They knew that, they just let it get overshadowed by considerations and attitudes less relevant to survival and preservation of life and limb (bottled water over canteen water, crackers over chocolate, imagined propriety over dents, capsized boat over floating boat), no matter how significant they took those considerations to be. Don't you agree that is a good principle to remember, whether you stay on the boat or not?

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe there are people leaving for trivial reasons. I haven’t seen much of that. What I’m saying is that he’s suggesting that there are no legitimate issues, just chipped paint and dings, so people are leaving for trivial reasons. 

I don't see him saying there are no legitimate issues, only that there are some illegitimate issues in relation to the most legitimate issues.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

According to the story they had every right to get off the boat, and felt every justification to do so. But the fishing boat was still a fishing boat heading to shore, the fisherman was a willing help, nothing more or less. They knew that, they just let it get overshadowed by considerations and attitudes less relevant to survival and preservation of life and limb (bottled water over canteen water, crackers over chocolate, imagined propriety over dents, capsized boat over floating boat), no matter how significant they took those considerations to be. Don't you agree that is a good principle to remember, whether you stay on the boat or not?

As a general rule, don’t get hung up on trivia is a good principle. My point is that the issues aren’t trivial, and insisting they are doesn’t help anyone. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't see him saying there are no legitimate issues, only that there are some illegitimate issues in relation to the most legitimate issues.

Well, we simply disagree. In the analogy, there is no legitimate reason for not staying on the boat. It’s pretty clear. 

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As a general rule, don’t get hung up on trivia is a good principle. My point is that the issues aren’t trivial, and insisting they are doesn’t help anyone. 

Well, the story conveys a general rule for a particular setting. Taken in context of the other principles taught by the couples (having a testimony, realizing problems can be solved in unexpected ways, etc.), some things are relatively trivial. Each has to decide that for himself (see below).

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, we simply disagree. In the analogy, there is no legitimate reason for not staying on the boat. It’s pretty clear. 

There is no legitimate reason for the rescued party, that is. Faith and doubt deny legitimacy to each other, so we pick our paradigm. For a faith paradigm, there is legitimate reason to stay on the boat and distractions are comparatively trivial. For a doubt paradigm, there is no legitimate reason to stay on, and the distractions are comparatively significant. For a crisis paradigm, getting / staying on is as legitimate as staying / getting off, but eventually a choice gets made with faith or doubt because either of these inevitably provide a greater sense of stability than crisis.

And so as seen in this thread, some will make holes of dents, call a seaworthy ship a sinking ship, or deny that it is a ship at all—anything to avoid finding and acknowledging any value to faith in what the story actually says it is, since one has to take what the story says it is a face value, and not doubt.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Well, the story conveys a general rule for a particular setting. Taken in context of the other principles taught by the couples (having a testimony, realizing problems can be solved in unexpected ways, etc.), some things are relatively trivial. Each has to decide that for himself (see below).

There is no legitimate reason for the rescued party, that is. Faith and doubt deny legitimacy to each other, so we pick our paradigm. For a faith paradigm, there is legitimate reason to stay on the boat and distractions are comparatively trivial. For a doubt paradigm, there is no legitimate reason to stay on, and the distractions are comparatively significant. For a crisis paradigm, getting / staying on is as legitimate as staying / getting off, but eventually a choice gets made with faith or doubt because either of these inevitably provide a greater sense of stability than crisis.

And so as seen in this thread, some will make holes of dents, call a seaworthy ship a sinking ship, or deny that it is a ship at all—anything to avoid finding and acknowledging any value to faith in what the story actually says it is, since one has to take what the story says it is a face value, and not doubt.

I don’t see it as that binary. Faith cannot exist with doubt. 

I suppose we will continue to disagree as to the message of the story. 

[cinepro]

Talks like that make me sad, because it's obvious how deeply they care and believe, but equally obvious how little they understand. 

But based on the replies in this thread,  I suspect that analogy isn't helpful to those who doubt.  It only serves to cast those who doubt and leave as being willful doubters who chose to leave.  It serves to reinforce the worldview of those trying to understand why their friends and family members are resigning.

Edited July 10, 2018 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Talks like that make me sad, because it's obvious how deeply they care and believe, but equally obvious how little they understand. 

But based on the replies in this thread,  I suspect that analogy isn't helpful to those who doubt.  It only serves to cast those who doubt and leave as being willful doubters who chose to leave.  It serves to reinforce the worldview of those trying to understand why their friends and family members are resigning.

Yup. If you’re struggling, the last thing you need to hear is that your concerns are trivial and reflect your stubborn desire to doubt. 

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem of course is that people aren’t looking for a perfect or near perfect church. Passing off legitimate concerns as an unreasonable intolerance for minor flaws isn’t going to help anyone. 

There are legitimate concerns.  I would not categorize those with legit concerns with those that are called the 'perpetual doubter".  The perpetual doubter in the talk is one who never seems to learn or take the hint.  They have a concern.  They eventually to get it resolved.  The then has another concern. They gets it resolved.  Then the cycle repeats over and over again without figuring out that perhaps a lot of their concerns don't need or should not require the  Church History Department to resolve it. Perhaps they should start having some faith that there are answers to issues he can find on his own.  Perhaps he should start recognizing that fixating on singular issues is blinding him from the larger picture.  The "perpetual doubter" is somebody who will always find an new excuse to find a negative to justify not believing or having faith.  This is different than having legitimate concerns.  Even a faithful members can still move forward in the gospel while dealing and working on these concerns.  If I go to a dinner at somebody house and some of the food to be bad. I don't just leave the dinner because all the food is not good.  I still hang around and eat the food that is good. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are legitimate concerns.  I would not categorize those with legit concerns with those that are called the 'perpetual doubter".  The perpetual doubter in the talk is one who never seems to learn or take the hint.  They have a concern.  They eventually to get it resolved.  The then has another concern. They gets it resolved.  Then the cycle repeats over and over again without figuring out that perhaps a lot of their concerns don't need or should not require the  Church History Department to resolve it. Perhaps they should start having some faith that there are answers to issues he can find on his own.  Perhaps he should start recognizing that fixating on singular issues is blinding him from the larger picture.  The "perpetual doubter" is somebody who will always find an new excuse to find a negative to justify not believing or having faith.  This is different than having legitimate concerns.  Even a faithful members can still move forward in the gospel while dealing and working on these concerns.  If I go to a dinner at somebody house and some of the food to be bad. I don't just leave the dinner because all the food is not good.  I still hang around and eat the food that is good. 

If nothing else, this thread has really shown how people who leave are seen. I think there’s a genuine desire to help, but as cinepro said, little understanding. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yup. If you’re struggling, the last thing you need to hear is that your concerns are trivial and reflect your stubborn desire to doubt. 

I agree with this as even in the case where the concerns would be trivial to others, it is not trivial to the individual. 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree with this as even in the case where the concerns would be trivial to others, it is not trivial to the individual.