New Book by Hafens: "Faith is Not Blind"

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/26/2018 at 8:33 AM, smac97 said:

.............................

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up...........................

Erik Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development, online at https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html , 

Quote

Erikson maintained that personality develops in a predetermined order through eight stages of psychosocial development, from infancy to adulthood. During each stage, the person experiences a psychosocial crisis which could have a positive or negative outcome for personality development.

For Erikson (1958, 1963), these crises are of a psychosocial nature because they involve psychological needs of the individual (i.e., psycho) conflicting with the needs of society (i.e., social).
 
According to the theory, successful completion of each stage results in a healthy personality and the acquisition of basic virtues. Basic virtues are characteristic strengths which the ego can use to resolve subsequent crises.

Failure to successfully complete a stage can result in a reduced ability to complete further stages and therefore a more unhealthy personality and sense of self.  These stages, however, can be resolved successfully at a later time.

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[cinepro]

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Why would sincere prayer ever be considered bothersome?

It can be considered bothersome if the person doing the praying asks a question and receives an answer that is at odds with what the Church teaches.

[cinepro]

DP

Edited November 27, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

TP

Edited November 27, 2018 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It can be considered bothersome if the person doing the praying asks a question and receives an answer that is at odds with what the Church teaches.

Do you mean the institutional church or the cultural church? Because if it is the latter that happens to me fairly often and it is not bothersome. It is actually great fun.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

TP

There are some more rolls in the cabinet under the sink.

[Palerider]

10 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I understand you pose it as a rhetorical question, hopefully I won’t offend by responding rhetorically.

Why would sincere prayer ever be considered bothersome?

Warm regards.

 

Sincere prayer is never bothersome. But is it really sincere when we already know what the answer is and must be?

The Lord would see this for what it is.

That His will was not a true concern for the person asking. If we will only accept what is correlated with the arm of flesh, how can the Lord tell us of our error?

Rather, he permits us what we have already decided must be correct.

[let’s roll]

35 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It can be considered bothersome if the person doing the praying asks a question and receives an answer that is at odds with what the Church teaches.

Bothersome to whom?  If certain an answer is from God, why would it be bothersome, rather than joyous, to the receiver?  The entire purpose of prayer is to align ourselves with God.  

If the Church has any purpose other than helping us align ourselves with God and come to know him (which is the definition of eternal life) I’m not aware of, or interested in, it.  

If there’s a conflict, real or perceived, wouldn’t everyone choose to follow God ala Nephi when instructed to slay Laban.  In a real sense there can’t be a true conflict because both God and the Church are aligned on the First Commandment which is to love God.  If one is truly following direction from God they would be keeping that commandment.

Edited November 27, 2018 by let’s roll

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Erik Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development, online at https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html , 

 

Should be noted though that Erickson did not require completion of each stage prior to moving to the next plus each stage 'conclusion' can be in flux and altered by later experiences.  Just wanted to comment that the theory allows for more fluidity, flexibility than the way it is described in the quote.

[let’s roll]

7 minutes ago, Palerider said:

 

Sincere prayer is never bothersome. But is it really sincere when we already know what the answer is and must be?

The Lord would see this for what it is.

That His will was not a true concern for the person asking. If we will only accept what is correlated with the arm of flesh, how can the Lord tell us of our error?

Rather, he permits us what we have already decided must be correct.

A prayer that the giver has already deemed trite and perfunctory, e.g. the essence of the prayer is “I’m supposed to pray and get a confirmation so can you rubber stamp this for me,” given to check a box rather than commune with God.  That doesn’t seem like a prayer at all.

Contrast that with a sincere plea to grow in love towards God and our brothers and sisters, to be led to those whom we can serve, to be given wisdom and insight on how to apply the principle or teaching to bless others, to feel at peace that our actions are aligned with His will” i.e., sincere and open ended.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Many a choice is just a cop out.

Or perhaps the cop out is the claim that former LDS are copping out. Admitting that they are sincere would add legitimacy to their doubts. Can't have that.

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Or perhaps the cop out is the claim that former LDS are copping out. Admitting that they are sincere would add legitimacy to their doubts. Can't have that.

Most people are sincere.  Even those who are sincerely wrong.  All of us need the grace to accept one another's free choices.  Yet we are equally obligated to hear out Mama's critique of our choice.  She just may have a perspective we hadn't considered.  By that time, of course, it might  be well for us to have learned to listen to each other.  It has little to do with who is ultimately right or wrong, and a great deal to do with a willingness to communicate effectively.  A brittle and unhealthy relationship is already lost to issues of right and wrong anyhow.

When I saw the very high stats on the acceptance of their gay children by LDS parents (not at all in accord with the lies about it), I realized that LDS parents are not the hypocrites they are so often declared to be.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Should be noted though that Erickson did not require completion of each stage prior to moving to the next plus each stage 'conclusion' can be in flux and altered by later experiences.  Just wanted to comment that the theory allows for more fluidity, flexibility than the way it is described in the quote.

Yes, and even after Erickson's final stage one can return to and complete an earlier stage.  Something that actually happens in real life.

[cinepro]

On 11/27/2018 at 11:41 AM, let’s roll said:

Bothersome to whom?  If certain an answer is from God, why would it be bothersome, rather than joyous, to the receiver?  The entire purpose of prayer is to align ourselves with God.  

If the Church has any purpose other than helping us align ourselves with God and come to know him (which is the definition of eternal life) I’m not aware of, or interested in, it.  

If there’s a conflict, real or perceived, wouldn’t everyone choose to follow God ala Nephi when instructed to slay Laban.  In a real sense there can’t be a true conflict because both God and the Church are aligned on the First Commandment which is to love God.  If one is truly following direction from God they would be keeping that commandment.

That's a pleasant idea in theory, but it's never been taught that way by LDS Church leaders.

For example, if the leaders of the Church are imperfect and make mistakes, then it would be possible for them to say or do something that is in error, and for a Church member to be told by God that the leaders have done something in error.

But if you search the teachings of the Church, you'll find that it is never acknowledged that this could happen.  For example, with fallible leaders, the principle of "obedience" would have to have a provision for when to be disobedient if the leaders are in error.  But if you search decades of LDS teachings on the subject, not once has any leader ever acknowledged that it could be okay to be disobedient if they are in error and God has confirmed this with you through revelation.  According to LDS teachings, such a situation just isn't possible.

Likewise, you can't find a single instance where it is taught that we might have an answer to our prayer that tells us to go against a Church leader.  If such an answer is received, it is the devil trying to trick us.

Edited November 28, 2018 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a pleasant idea in theory, but it's never been taught that way by LDS Church leaders.

For example, if the leaders of the Church are imperfect and make mistakes, then it would be possible for them to say or do something that is in error, and for a Church member to be told by God that the leaders have done something in error.

But if you search the teachings of the Church, you'll find that it is never acknowledged that this could happen.  For example, with fallible leaders, the principle of "obedience" would have to have a provision for when to be disobedient if the leaders are in error.  But if you search decades of LDS teachings on the subject, not once has any leader ever acknowledged that it could be okay to be disobedient if they are in error and God has confirmed this with you through revelation.  According to LDS teachings, such a situation just isn't possible.

Pssst......I did it anyways.......

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's a pleasant idea in theory, but it's never been taught that way by LDS Church leaders.

For example, if the leaders of the Church are imperfect and make mistakes, then it would be possible for them to say or do something that is in error, and for a Church member to be told by God that the leaders have done something in error.

But if you search the teachings of the Church, you'll find that it is never acknowledged that this could happen.  For example, with fallible leaders, the principle of "obedience" would have to have a provision for when to be disobedient if the leaders are in error.  But if you search decades of LDS teachings on the subject, not once has any leader ever acknowledged that it could be okay to be disobedient if they are in error and God has confirmed this with you through revelation.  According to LDS teachings, such a situation just isn't possible.

Likewise, you can't find a single instance where it is taught that we might have an answer to our prayer that tells us to go against a Church leader.  If such an answer is received, it is the devil trying to trick us.

Maybe it’s just me but I find it odd that someone would look for permission from Church leaders to follow direction given that person by God.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Maybe it’s just me but I find it odd that someone would look for permission from Church leaders to follow direction given that person by God.

I agree. Just follow it. Be sure though before proceeding.

I find it odder that they think they get a revelation and expect church leaders to roll over and give them a pulpit when they contradict the Church. They want to be the next Joseph Smith without all the hard stuff of actually building a church from scratch. So lazy......

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 12:01 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, there is free choice in all this, and that is central to the Gospel.  Real life is hard, and giving up is a response to difficulties.  One can rationalize it and make excuses.  I have known nice people who chose to go another way, rejecting this or that belief in favor of modernism.  Seems perfectly acceptable to me.  I prefer a world in which there is a great deal of diversity, which makes free choice all the more meaningful.  That does not mean, however, that every choice is equal to every other choice.  Ultimate truth may not fit every choice.  Many a choice is just a cop out.

I suspect that Thinking was suggesting that "giving up" isn't an appropriate phrase because it characterizes the decision in the worst possible way. Sure, some people "give up" but suggesting that all people who choose a different path do so because the other path was just too hard, or they were lazy, really misses the real experience of many people.

For example... If I'm walking on Faithful Rd. and it comes to a fork where Faithful Rd. continues to the left and Holy Rd. veers to the right, would you characterize everyone who takes Holy Rd. to the right as having "given up" on Faithful Rd? Just because a person's journey diverges doesn't mean that person has "given up" because Faithful Rd. was too difficult. In fact, there may be many reasons why Holy Rd. was chosen instead of continuing on Faithful Rd.  How strange would it be to expect every traveler to remain on Faithful Rd. simply because that is the name of the road they started on? Wouldn't we expect the traveler to choose the road that is best for them in reaching their destination? I think so.

So saying that someone is "giving up" on one path simply because they choose another suggests that the traveler just couldn't hack it, when in fact, the 2nd path may simply be a better path for them. It's not about giving up. It's about making informed decisions.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

.....................  How strange would it be to expect every traveler to remain on Faithful Rd. simply because that is the name of the road they started on? Wouldn't we expect the traveler to choose the road that is best for them in reaching their destination? I think so.

So saying that someone is "giving up" on one path simply because they choose another suggests that the traveler just couldn't hack it, when in fact, the 2nd path may simply be a better path for them. It's not about giving up. It's about making informed decisions.

"The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

 

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

 

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

 

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

 

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Are you quoting this for the irony? That is Frost says both roads look just about the same, there is no way to travel both, but sometimes big life swings come from small choices. And then we go back and dramatize our decision into something it wasn’t: “

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

[Glenn101]

13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suspect that Thinking was suggesting that "giving up" isn't an appropriate phrase because it characterizes the decision in the worst possible way. Sure, some people "give up" but suggesting that all people who choose a different path do so because the other path was just too hard, or they were lazy, really misses the real experience of many people.

For example... If I'm walking on Faithful Rd. and it comes to a fork where Faithful Rd. continues to the left and Holy Rd. veers to the right, would you characterize everyone who takes Holy Rd. to the right as having "given up" on Faithful Rd? Just because a person's journey diverges doesn't mean that person has "given up" because Faithful Rd. was too difficult. In fact, there may be many reasons why Holy Rd. was chosen instead of continuing on Faithful Rd.  How strange would it be to expect every traveler to remain on Faithful Rd. simply because that is the name of the road they started on? Wouldn't we expect the traveler to choose the road that is best for them in reaching their destination? I think so.

So saying that someone is "giving up" on one path simply because they choose another suggests that the traveler just couldn't hack it, when in fact, the 2nd path may simply be a better path for them. It's not about giving up. It's about making informed decisions.

There should be no divergence between "Faithful Road" and "Holy Road" in the Doctrines of Jesus Christ. They are one and the same path. The scriptures do not tell us there are many paths to eternal life. Christ laid out that path and set up His organization to help us effect that journey during His mortal ministry. He restored that organization which includes all of the offices, doctrines, and ordinances required to get through the gate and stay on the narrow way. The only pertinent question, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that organization headed up by Christ and the leaders of this church called of God. If it is, there is no other way, no other organization that will get one back to Christ. Any other path will diverge from that narrow way. So, if a person takes another way, such an one get somewhere, but not to the destination of exaltation. But that is their choice. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the restoration of the organization, offices, doctrines, ordinances, etc. that Christ established, then we are all wasting our time.

Glenn

[let’s roll]

I wouldn’t  take the one path concept too literally. What of the billions who will inherit Celestial glory based on their actions in our premortal life. What of the countless number who will accept the gospel after their mortal life (without ever having set foot in an LDS Church.  No doubt the common denominator is Jesus Christ but there are a number of paths.

[changed]

On 11/26/2018 at 9:33 AM, smac97 said:

Interesting:

 

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

 

 

I prefer models such as: 

http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/stages_of_faith.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3Ibp4vBryi-Yfpbk_1m1UlcpDTN8h6xKwoSQOorxLMImJl0Fb7V08-uhA

or https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Journey-Stages-Faith-Second/dp/1879215497 

↑ account of hitting the dark night of the soul, after which some people become atheist, others go back to where they were comfortable (go back to their previous beliefs), and the select few progress to a new and higher level of understanding.  

short version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler

The higher levels of faith are universal - not denomination specific, so are unreachable by those who get stuck in one particular faith over another.  The higher levels also require individual accountability and reflection, rather than relying on outer authority figures.

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by changed

[changed]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There should be no divergence between "Faithful Road" and "Holy Road" in the Doctrines of Jesus Christ. They are one and the same path. The scriptures do not tell us there are many paths to eternal life. Christ laid out that path and set up His organization to help us effect that journey during His mortal ministry. He restored that organization which includes all of the offices, doctrines, and ordinances required to get through the gate and stay on the narrow way. The only pertinent question, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that organization headed up by Christ and the leaders of this church called of God. If it is, there is no other way, no other organization that will get one back to Christ. Any other path will diverge from that narrow way. So, if a person takes another way, such an one get somewhere, but not to the destination of exaltation. But that is their choice. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the restoration of the organization, offices, doctrines, ordinances, etc. that Christ established, then we are all wasting our time.

Glenn

 

I do not believe the true church is built on flesh and blood - not built on earthly prophets - but is built on personal revelation.  

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church

Edited November 30, 2018 by changed

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you quoting this for the irony? That is Frost says both roads look just about the same, there is no way to travel both, but sometimes big life swings come from small choices. And then we go back and dramatize our decision into something it wasn’t: “

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

I bolded his brave statements about making an informed decision, in the best interest of the one deciding, etc., but I have my doubts, having taken a road from time to time which was not actually the best choice for me.  What sort of positive or negative difference Frost may have had in mind, small decisions can indeed make a great deal of difference.  Sometimes we may even learn something from our odd, random choices.  C'est la vie.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Robert F. Smith