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

[changed]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

If there's really some variety of free will (here meaning simply God doesn't control choices) then that means there can't be equality. I'm not sure it's fair to blame God for that beyond allowing the basic biological propensity towards violence.

Now of course the reason people care about this is because life in particular seems so unfair. That's the real practical problem of evil which leads many to doubt the existence of any God worthy of the name. I think the Mormon approach to evil and this life as probationary gets us part way to the answer, but can't answer everything. That is it can answer why there must be some evils. It can't answer why there is this level of suffering or why the suffering has to be so unequally distributed. At best we have the theology that Christ's atonement can eventually heal all equally. Of course as J K mentioned above, I'm not sure the "it's all random chance" is exactly a whole lot more satisfying.

 

 

The free will argument does not really work for victims... If you are going to protect someone's free will, why not protect the victim's free will rather than the abusers?

Yes, even the mighty C.S.Lewis became an atheist after experiencing a bit of evil...

I have told others "If it works out well for everyone, it will work out well for me too... if it does not work out well for everyone, if people were not taught/supported/loved - if the test was unfair - if the Teacher did not teach -  then count me out.  I only want to be with G-d if He is actually just and loving.  If He is not just and loving - I'll have nothing to do with him.  

[CV75]

10 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

While faith cannot exist with doubt, it is binary to say that the story’s message does not apply to “what’s really happening.” That's a mighty broad claim. The story applies to a significant slice of “what’s really happening,” and those with whom the story may not resonate needn’t resort to denigrating it when they can envision how it does apply for others. In that sense I'm sure you can agree with the message of the story.

[california boy]

So how big of problem has this become?  Since I no longer attend church, I have no idea.  Is it more a Utah thing?  Or is it happening all over the place?  Is it a few people from each ward leaving?  Or is it much more noticeable?  Is it a continuous problem?  Or have most of the ones bothered by this stuff already left.

I am just kind of surprised that these two would be so frank about trying to get people to stay in the church even when they see obvious flaws.

[CV75]

9 hours 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. 

Funny how people hear that when "trivial" isn't mentioned at all. I think the message offers perspective for what people see as impossible problems in light of other unseen or unconsidered angles for solutions (balancing the nails), and how any imperfection pales when viewed in light of the Atonement of Christ (dents and a functioning boat).

[CV75]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

So how big of problem has this become?  Since I no longer attend church, I have no idea.  Is it more a Utah thing?  Or is it happening all over the place?  Is it a few people from each ward leaving?  Or is it much more noticeable?  Is it a continuous problem?  Or have most of the ones bothered by this stuff already left.

I am just kind of surprised that these two would be so frank about trying to get people to stay in the church even when they see obvious flaws.

Not a new message as far as I can tell, but each generation needs to have it taught in terms applicable to the changing circumstances.

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Funny how people hear that when "trivial" isn't mentioned at all. I think the message offers perspective for what people see as impossible problems in light of other unseen or unconsidered angles for solutions (balancing the nails), and how any imperfection pales when viewed in light of the Atonement of Christ (dents and a functioning boat).

Which still applies to them even if they choose to leave.  The Atonement of Christ is not something that only active members of the church believe in and receive.

[jkwilliams]

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

While faith cannot exist with doubt, it is binary to say that the story’s message does not apply to “what’s really happening.” That's a mighty broad claim. The story applies to a significant slice of “what’s really happening,” and those with whom the story may not resonate needn’t resort to denigrating it when they can envision how it does apply for others. In that sense I'm sure you can agree with the message of the story.

Again, I have not seen that significant slice. I'm not denigrating the story, just explaining what I see in it. 

[jkwilliams]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Funny how people hear that when "trivial" isn't mentioned at all. I think the message offers perspective for what people see as impossible problems in light of other unseen or unconsidered angles for solutions (balancing the nails), and how any imperfection pales when viewed in light of the Atonement of Christ (dents and a functioning boat).

As Steve mentioned, there are many other boats in the water, quite a number of them offering the Atonement of Christ.

[SouthernMo]

10 hours 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.

About a year or two ago, Renlund gave a talk in which he explained how he understood the atonement because of the ‘sin’ he once committed by lighting fireworks in a church building.

I felt exactly as you just described; his story only conveyed how little he understands those who have gone through more serious repentance. 

[CA Steve]

53 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As Steve mentioned, there are many other boats in the water, quite a number of them offering the Atonement of Christ.

Sometimes I think we forget who talks like this are designed to impact. It's Elder Renlund's analogy and he can set it up anyway he wants. Given the audience, I think the intent here is not to help his audience understand better how doubters actually think but to make his audience feel better about staying in a boat that has nothing more than a few dents and paint chips and a slightly out of wack rudder. Nothing to be concerned about. Those that are leaving are doing so for insignificant reasons and are foolishly leaving the only option there is. That is clearly not a message one wants to give out to anyone who is questioning their own belief, but it works greats as a pat on the back to those who are staying. The only problem is, such messages trickle down to people with legitimate doubts and serve to build walls between those with doubts and those that are staying in the boat. 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Sometimes I think we forget who talks like this are designed to impact. It's Elder Renlund's analogy and he can set it up anyway he wants. Given the audience, I think the intent here is not to help his audience understand better how doubters actually think but to make his audience feel better about staying in a boat that has nothing more than a few dents and paint chips and a slightly out of wack rudder. Nothing to be concerned about. Those that are leaving are doing so for insignificant reasons and are foolishly leaving the only option there is. That is clearly not a message one wants to give out to anyone who is questioning their own belief, but it works greats as a pat on the back to those who are staying. The only problem is, such messages trickle down to people with legitimate doubts and serve to build walls between those with doubts and those that are staying in the boat. 

That's how I see it, too. A few years ago, my wife saw my mission president at Costco, and he asked how I was doing. She told him I wasn't active in the church, and he asked why. She told him a few of my issues with the church, and he said, "Oh, that's just silly. You tell him to call me, and I'll straighten him out!" How are you supposed to have a conversation with someone who dismisses your struggles as "silly"?

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Sometimes I think we forget who talks like this are designed to impact. It's Elder Renlund's analogy and he can set it up anyway he wants. Given the audience, I think the intent here is not to help his audience understand better how doubters actually think but to make his audience feel better about staying in a boat that has nothing more than a few dents and paint chips and a slightly out of wack rudder. Nothing to be concerned about. Those that are leaving are doing so for insignificant reasons and are foolishly leaving the only option there is. That is clearly not a message one wants to give out to anyone who is questioning their own belief, but it works greats as a pat on the back to those who are staying. The only problem is, such messages trickle down to people with legitimate doubts and serve to build walls between those with doubts and those that are staying in the boat. 

Admitting to a "slightly out of wack rudder" is a huge issue. The rudder has a dramatic impact on the direction of the boat/church. If it's out of wack, not working properly, then who knows where the boat will end up. I'm reminded of one of Uchtdorf's flying analogies where he talks about being just 1 degree of course and what a huge difference that makes in trying to reach a destination.

IF the church's rudder is out of wack, that's a gigantic problem. If people recognize that the boat isn't going in the right direction it would make sense for them to get off the boat and onto another boat that is heading on a better course.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Which still applies to them even if they choose to leave.  The Atonement of Christ is not something that only active members of the church believe in and receive.

Interesting perspective came up this sunday in Gospel Principles.  The topic was the atonement of Jesus Christ.  We went through the lesson, and then watched "The Mediator" with the script written by Boyd K. Packer.  At the end a new convert as of 1 year had some questions (he's a former baptist).  He asked why the guy in debt, never really accepts Jesus Christ as his savior.  His point was that we deal with unjust systems in life, but what about eternal salvation?  He also was confused who the mediator or friend who pays off his debt, refinances the loan, and renegotiates payment terms is paying the debt to?  i.e. who is the creditor?   I raised my hand, and said that theologians have answered this question differently over the centuries.  According to penal substitution, the payment is made to God.  According to ransom theory, the payment is made to the Devil.  According to satisfaction theory, the payment is made to God so he can pay the eternal system of justice laws which he is subjected to.  According to moral influence theory, it doesn't really matter who he's paying the enormous debt to, the saving atonement in this respect is to see a humble loving friend pay an enormous price and make such sacrifice to help someone, and this is why his example motivates us to do good.  The teacher and a former bishop in the ward who was sitting in was very frustrated with my response.  By now over the last few months, I think i'll be kicked out of class.  THe former bishop said that none of us understand the atonement completely, what matters is that we believe in Christ's role in performing it.  The teacher responded more  boldly, that we know exactly who the creditor is - it's the eternal laws of the universe.  If God did not obey these laws exactly he would cease to be God.  For him there was no question.  

Here's a quote from Callister from his book Infinite Atonement, pg 121, "The Savior's blood acts as the cleansing agent by which our "garments are made white" (1Ne 12:10), We even learn that the land of America was "redeemed" by "the shedding of blood" (D&C101:80) Thus, somehow, blood acts as a cleansing, redeeming agent.  how it is done we do not know.  John taylor taught:  "Why it was necessary that his blood should be shed is an apparent mystery".  pg 150, "As much as we weigh and sift and analyze, we must admit that we do not know with certainty how the savior encompassed man's entire gamut of woes.  Perhaps future revelation will tell;" 

 

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

About a year or two ago, Renlund gave a talk in which he explained how he understood the atonement because of the ‘sin’ he once committed by lighting fireworks in a church building.

I felt exactly as you just described; his story only conveyed how little he understands those who have gone through more serious repentance. 

I've seen this too, where an analogy brought up is a humorous example of the need for repentance, but some are in serious anguish over scarlet sins, and not sure how to find a way out, relief and final peace, reconciliation for those hurt.  I think it was good for Elder Holland to open up about his fights with depression over the years.  It's in this vulnerable state that we can relate to people.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So how big of problem has this become?  Since I no longer attend church, I have no idea.  Is it more a Utah thing?  Or is it happening all over the place?  Is it a few people from each ward leaving?  Or is it much more noticeable?  Is it a continuous problem?  Or have most of the ones bothered by this stuff already left.

I am just kind of surprised that these two would be so frank about trying to get people to stay in the church even when they see obvious flaws.

I see it everywhere. I've mentioned this before but I know a couple in my previous ward that were my home teachers, and I worked with her in a RS presidency. This couple for anniversaries would visit temples all over the US. Then one day I found out they weren't active anymore. I'd sure like to find out what happened. But the story is usually the same and it's like my story, finding things out they didn't know before, or feeling like the church lied. And then the rabbit hole of finding more at every turn. I'm still learning things, thought that I was pretty much at the end of the trail and then more comes up.

But I can't deny one thing, without the church I wonder where I'd have ended up. But then again, I remember trying so hard to do what is right I may have lost part of myself. I needed to check the boxes and live the life my husband's family expected. My in-laws should be translated, I kid though.

But that was my existance for all those years because before I met my husband I was in with a pretty rowdy crowd and then was called to team teach Primary and then became active again and then met my husband on a blind date. And then married him in the temple after repenting of the party life. Not that I was that bad. But I really wanted to redeem myself by being the perfect LDS. So in a way I lost the real me, trying to be something else. So I don't know who I am really. And then a faith crisis leaves me so bewildered. And I lost my social circle which has been those in my ward and neighborhood. 

Falling off the boat or bailing out or falling into a deep abyss is no fun. You lose the life you've known for 40 years and have to start over. But thank heavens for the board or I probably might be in a nut house. Sorry for the long response, but being on the outside more than the inside, I read boards and I think there is a huge underground of members that have suffered the same thing.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I see it everywhere. I've mentioned this before but I know a couple in my previous ward that were my home teachers, and I worked with her in a RS presidency. This couple for anniversaries would visit temples all over the US. Then one day I found out they weren't active anymore. I'd sure like to find out what happened. But the story is usually the same and it's like my story, finding things out they didn't know before, or feeling like the church lied. And then the rabbit hole of finding more at every turn. I'm still learning things, thought that I was pretty much at the end of the trail and then more comes up.

But I can't deny one thing, without the church I wonder where I'd have ended up. But then again, I remember trying so hard to do what is right I may have lost part of myself. I needed to check the boxes and live the life my husband's family expected. My in-laws should be translated, I kid though.

But that was my existance for all those years because before I met my husband I was in with a pretty rowdy crowd and then was called to team teach Primary and then became active again and then met my husband on a blind date. And then married him in the temple after repenting of the party life. Not that I was that bad. But I really wanted to redeem myself by being the perfect LDS. So in a way I lost the real me, trying to be something else. So I don't know who I am really. And then a faith crisis leaves me so bewildered. And I lost my social circle which has been those in my ward and neighborhood. 

Falling off the boat or bailing out or falling into a deep abyss is no fun. You lose the life you've known for 40 years and have to start over. But thank heavens for the board or I probably might be in a nut house. Sorry for the long response, but being on the outside more than the inside, I read boards and I think there is a huge underground of members that have suffered the same thing.

I hear this a lot. The loss of the church in the life of an extremely devout person can feel like an identity crisis. I felt this personally. My entire identity was wrapped up in the church and then suddenly it wasn't but it has taken effort and time to redefine who I am, trying to take the good in the church and leaving the bad, trying to take the good in society while leaving the bad. In many ways I'm a different person than I was 5 years ago. Some things are better, some aren't. But for me it has been useful to recognize that I don't have it all figured out and that I'm a work in progress instead of a finished person.

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hear this a lot. The loss of the church in the life of an extremely devout person can feel like an identity crisis. I felt this personally. My entire identity was wrapped up in the church and then suddenly it wasn't but it has taken effort and time to redefine who I am, trying to take the good in the church and leaving the bad, trying to take the good in society while leaving the bad. In many ways I'm a different person than I was 5 years ago. Some things are better, some aren't. But for me it has been useful to recognize that I don't have it all figured out and that I'm a work in progress instead of a finished person.

Yes, losing your faith can make you feel like you don't know who or what you are anymore. The good news is that it forces you dig inside and figure out who you are and who you want to be. That's never a worthless activity.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

So how big of problem has this become?  Since I no longer attend church, I have no idea.  Is it more a Utah thing?  Or is it happening all over the place?  Is it a few people from each ward leaving?  Or is it much more noticeable?  Is it a continuous problem?  Or have most of the ones bothered by this stuff already left.

I am just kind of surprised that these two would be so frank about trying to get people to stay in the church even when they see obvious flaws.

These are my questions too.  I hope we can get an up to date answer inside and outside Utah.

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I see it everywhere. I've mentioned this before but I know a couple in my previous ward that were my home teachers, and I worked with her in a RS presidency. This couple for anniversaries would visit temples all over the US. Then one day I found out they weren't active anymore. I'd sure like to find out what happened. But the story is usually the same and it's like my story, finding things out they didn't know before, or feeling like the church lied. And then the rabbit hole of finding more at every turn. I'm still learning things, thought that I was pretty much at the end of the trail and then more comes up.

But I can't deny one thing, without the church I wonder where I'd have ended up. But then again, I remember trying so hard to do what is right I may have lost part of myself. I needed to check the boxes and live the life my husband's family expected. My in-laws should be translated, I kid though.

But that was my existance for all those years because before I met my husband I was in with a pretty rowdy crowd and then was called to team teach Primary and then became active again and then met my husband on a blind date. And then married him in the temple after repenting of the party life. Not that I was that bad. But I really wanted to redeem myself by being the perfect LDS. So in a way I lost the real me, trying to be something else. So I don't know who I am really. And then a faith crisis leaves me so bewildered. And I lost my social circle which has been those in my ward and neighborhood. 

Falling off the boat or bailing out or falling into a deep abyss is no fun. You lose the life you've known for 40 years and have to start over. But thank heavens for the board or I probably might be in a nut house. Sorry for the long response, but being on the outside more than the inside, I read boards and I think there is a huge underground of members that have suffered the same thing.

I can certainly emphasize with you.  While my issues may be different than yours, the result is the same.  I guess for me, I knew for a long that that eventually I would have to leave the church.  When the time actually came, it was not that difficult for me.  I accepted all the shaming and disappointment that went with it quite easily, because staying in the church was worse.  We only have one life.  And each of us has to discover who they are as a person and then work to make that person better.  For some, the church can help in that process.  For others, the distrust and distortion of truth can never be resolved.  If you can not trust a church that claims to be the church of Christ, then you have to find something that you can completely trust in.  For me, it was relying and listening closer to what God wanted from me rather than leaders of the Church.  When you believe those are two different things, then you only have one choice as far as I am concerned.  Trust God.

I wish you well on your journey.  And yeah, it is a journey.

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

So how big of problem has this become?  Since I no longer attend church, I have no idea.  Is it more a Utah thing?  Or is it happening all over the place?  Is it a few people from each ward leaving?  Or is it much more noticeable?  Is it a continuous problem?  Or have most of the ones bothered by this stuff already left.

I am just kind of surprised that these two would be so frank about trying to get people to stay in the church even when they see obvious flaws.

A good friend of mine and I went through our "crises of faith" at the same time about 12 years ago. One day we were talking about the fantasy that a lot of exmos have that the church is collapsing from within, that it will implode and vanish soon. We both thought that was ridiculous because the number of people leaving is, relatively speaking, just a trickle, and the church continues to grow. But we started talking about when we would know the trickle was reaching "critical mass," meaning that it was becoming a big enough problem that it had to be dealt with. We decided that we would know when this critical mass had been reached when the church started talking about leave-takers in conference, in church magazines and lesson manuals, and in leadership training. We would also see the church trying to deal with the issues that were causing people to question and leave. At the time (circa 2006), none of that was happening, and we both said we'd be surprised to see that happen in our lifetime. Around the time of the Swedish Rescue and the gospel topic essays, my friend called me up and said, "Have you noticed that the church is doing exactly what we thought it would do if things reached a critical state? I never thought we'd see that, but here it is." I had to agree with him.

So, IMO, it's still not a massive number of people leaving, but it is significant enough that the church is taking concrete steps to deal with it. As for Renlund being frank, I don't think it's hard to be frank when you believe the issues are analogous to chipped paint and dings.

Edited July 10, 2018 by jkwilliams

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, changed said:

The free will argument does not really work for victims... If you are going to protect someone's free will, why not protect the victim's free will rather than the abusers?

Yes, even the mighty C.S.Lewis became an atheist after experiencing a bit of evil...

I have told others "If it works out well for everyone, it will work out well for me too... if it does not work out well for everyone, if people were not taught/supported/loved - if the test was unfair - if the Teacher did not teach -  then count me out.  I only want to be with G-d if He is actually just and loving.  If He is not just and loving - I'll have nothing to do with him.  

It's not really protecting free will so much as providing a place where it's possible. That is the theology is that we all freely chose to come here knowing the risks and knowing people would be free. But as you note that tends to be of little comfort when someone experiences significant suffering.

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Yes, even the mighty C.S.Lewis became an atheist after experiencing a bit of evil...

I don't know if Lewis returned to atheism?  Could you elaborate more?  He did write that book under the pseudonym  NW Clerk after experiencing the grief and loss of his wife.   Here's a quote on doubt from this book he wrote which is startling but true in my life in many ways.  "My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters it Himself."

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Sometimes I think we forget who talks like this are designed to impact. It's Elder Renlund's analogy and he can set it up anyway he wants. Given the audience, I think the intent here is not to help his audience understand better how doubters actually think but to make his audience feel better about staying in a boat that has nothing more than a few dents and paint chips and a slightly out of wack rudder. Nothing to be concerned about. Those that are leaving are doing so for insignificant reasons and are foolishly leaving the only option there is. That is clearly not a message one wants to give out to anyone who is questioning their own belief, but it works greats as a pat on the back to those who are staying. The only problem is, such messages trickle down to people with legitimate doubts and serve to build walls between those with doubts and those that are staying in the boat. 

I think this may potentially confuse the outcomes with causes. It's true that some individuals may interpret Elder Renlund's message as being inadequate or insensitive or inapplicable to them. However, the scriptures are full of examples where prophets delivered a message to the people, and instead of building a bridge the message seemed to build a wall. So we can ask ourselves, was the negative response to the message a fault of the message or the fault of the hearer? 

In this case, it seems that everything depends on basic assumptions about the validity of the message. If Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, if he is truly leading the LDS Church through prophetic leaders that he appoints through inspiration, if the priesthood ordinances and covenant relationships offered through the Church are the only way to eternal life, if the power of the Holy Ghost is truly available to help all who are accountable for their sins, and if the Holy Ghost has sufficient ability to help individuals resolve all legitimate doubts and concerns about essential spiritual truths, then it seems Elder Renlund's message is not building walls but instead offering a bridge of truth.

Those who reject the above assumptions obviously will have problems with Elder Renlund's analogy. The issue isn't with the analogy, though; it is with the assumptions upon which the analogy is built. 

Is a perplexing question or concern a legitimate reason for disbelief if the gospel message has a perfectly suitable solution for it? If the Holy Ghost really will help individuals who sincerely and humbly search for the truth, does that not transform what may seem to be an insoluble flaw in the ship into a mere dent or ding?

I think that is what it really all comes down to. Either the power of the Holy Ghost is a perfectly suitable and available method of discerning the truth of spiritual things or it is not. If it is, and if the LDS Church is fundamentally true, then those who distance themselves from the Church have flaws or weaknesses that preclude their ability to discern truths that would otherwise be discernible to them. If the Holy Ghost can't be relied upon to convey essential truths, then the Plan of Salvation has serious fundamental flaws in it that potentially compromise the validity of the Church and its core teachings.

This is why the message of the gospel often offends those who reject it. It ascribes their lack of discernment of spiritual truths to a lack of sincerity, humility, diligence, patience, faith, obedience, or some other attribute or combination of attributes. In other words, it says that it is their fault and that if they would change (i.e. repent), they would be able to see things more clearly. This is why Elder Renlund's message offends. It unabashedly assumes that the Good Ship Zion is a structurally sound ship with the capacity to get its passengers safely to harbor. And the implication is that those abandoning it are doing so because they cannot spiritually discern between scratches in the paint and major structural or mechanical problems. And the implication behind that is that there is something wrong with them, not with the ship. And people generally don't like to hear that something is their fault.

But that is exactly what the message of the gospel is about. It is about preaching repentance. It is about helping us see what human limitations are preventing us from experiencing the fullness of joy and happiness that God experiences. This message always has and always will be offensive to the natural man. It will always result in walls as well as bridges, depending on how it is received.

[blueglass]

13 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This message always has and always will be offensive to the natural man. 

Who is this "natural man"?  I'm looking for more than a Hobbes vs. Locke argument.  Do you have a synthesis of the beautiful science of evolution with the fall, atonement, plan of salvation?   - i'm all ears.   

Edited July 10, 2018 by blueglass

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think this may potentially confuse the outcomes with causes. It's true that some individuals may interpret Elder Renlund's message as being inadequate or insensitive or inapplicable to them. However, the scriptures are full of examples where prophets delivered a message to the people, and instead of building a bridge the message seemed to build a wall. So we can ask ourselves, was the negative response to the message a fault of the message or the fault of the hearer? 

In this case, it seems that everything depends on basic assumptions about the validity of the message. If Jesus Christ is the Savior of mankind, if he is truly leading the LDS Church through prophetic leaders that he appoints through inspiration, if the priesthood ordinances and covenant relationships offered through the Church are the only way to eternal life, if the power of the Holy Ghost is truly available to help all who are accountable for their sins, and if the Holy Ghost has sufficient ability to help individuals resolve all legitimate doubts and concerns about essential spiritual truths, then it seems Elder Renlund's message is not building walls but instead offering a bridge of truth.

Those who reject the above assumptions obviously will have problems with Elder Renlund's analogy. The issue isn't with the analogy, though; it is with the assumptions upon which the analogy is built. 

Is a perplexing question or concern a legitimate reason for disbelief if the gospel message has a perfectly suitable solution for it? If the Holy Ghost really will help individuals who sincerely and humbly search for the truth, does that not transform what may seem to be an insoluble flaw in the ship into a mere dent or ding?

I think that is what it really all comes down to. Either the power of the Holy Ghost is a perfectly suitable and available method of discerning the truth of spiritual things or it is not. If it is, and if the LDS Church is fundamentally true, then those who distance themselves from the Church have flaws or weaknesses that preclude their ability to discern truths that would otherwise be discernible to them. If the Holy Ghost can't be relied upon to convey essential truths, then the Plan of Salvation has serious fundamental flaws in it that potentially compromise the validity of the Church and its core teachings.

This is why the message of the gospel often offends those who reject it. It ascribes their lack of discernment of spiritual truths to a lack of sincerity, humility, diligence, patience, faith, obedience, or some other attribute or combination of attributes. In other words, it says that it is their fault and that if they would change (i.e. repent), they would be able to see things more clearly. This is why Elder Renlund's message offends. It unabashedly assumes that the Good Ship Zion is a structurally sound ship with the capacity to get its passengers safely to harbor. And the implication is that those abandoning it are doing so because they cannot spiritually discern between scratches in the paint and major structural or mechanical problems. And the implication behind that is that there is something wrong with them, not with the ship. And people generally don't like to hear that something is their fault.

But that is exactly what the message of the gospel is about. It is about preaching repentance. It is about helping us see what human limitations are preventing us from experiencing the fullness of joy and happiness that God experiences. This message always has and always will be offensive to the natural man. It will always result in walls as well as bridges, depending on how it is received.

I would be careful about saying people are offended. Finding something unhelpful, as I do, is not the same as being offended. It is kind of strange, however, to say that conclusions one reaches through study and prayer, humility and faith, require repentance.