Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

'll state for the record that the reason they demand long answers is because in general, no good answers exist.

Do you apply this to every question in life or are questions about the Church in a special category in your view?

There are, in my experience, many people who think there is one simple answer to obesity and that is telling the individual to eat less.  Sometimes exercise more is added.

I don't know of one sufferer of obesity who having been given that answer was able to go and lose weight and maintain that weight loss.  So if not an effective answer even if 'true', does this mean to you there are no "good" answers for obesity or are you opened to longer answers being good answers as well in this category?

And if true in this category, why not true in other categories?  What is it about church related questions that leads you to assume that longer answers are only a result of there being no good answers out there?

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Some sincere, informed people think there are good reasons to believe the church. Other sincere, informed people think there are good reasons not to believe it. If somebody wants to make an informed decision about which side is right, shouldn't both sides get a fair hearing?

Applying your original argument to this analogy, imagine an employee faithfully working at a company for 20 years. He then goes on the Internet and reads about how it isn't a good place to work. He then quits. At that point, the employer laments the loss of the employee and complains that he wasn't given a fair hearing to explain why it really is a great company to work for.

Responding to your analogy, if your employer wants to make a good decision, he should give all sides a fair hearing about whether you would be a good hire. That means he is free to look at your credit rating, hearing what your creditor friends and creditor enemies have to say. And he is free to call up all past employers, including the ones that liked you and the ones that didn't. If he wants to make a good decision, he should do his homework and look at all sides. Presumably it would be dishonest to omit from your application the past employers who fired you.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to constantly give all sides a fair hearing and live their lives without bias. Bias fundamentally serves us too well for the most part. At some point we weigh what they know and move on. I think everyone generally approaches life believing we are giving that which merits a fair hearing a fair hearing, and hopefully recognize that biases can change (for better or worse, hence the value of humility). I think the priority that the Gospel teaches us is to treat people fairly regardless of how and what they hear, hearken to and heed. That includes treating them to charity, the Gospel message, etc.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Contrary to tradition I suppose, I don’t take the “hot” and “cold” of Revelations 3:16 to be “for” or “against” the Gospel, but to approach the Lord (and by extension, presenting His message to his children) in a manner suitable for the occasion. For example, milk is cold, meat is hot. Comfort (and the Comforter) is sometimes warm and sometimes cool – it depends on the malady being alleviated (Matthew 10:42, Ecclesiastes 4:11, Job 37:17).

The lukewarm are those who have need of nothing, and do not recognize their fallen state, no matter how active and self-congratulatory they may be, whether in the Church (Revelation 3:17, the lord is speaking to the saints) or out of it. Self-righteousness is neither hot nor cold, and so is not palatable to the Lord.

Those who leave the Church may or may not be lukewarm in the sense of Revelation 6;16-17. They may leave for other reasons. “It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

For this reason I do not see hot and cold as analogous to the negative connotations given to black or white or all or nothing.

Interesting, so you are suggesting that being cold, depending on the context, is actually desirable to the Lord and is not code for being "against' the gospel?  I like it!  It makes sense I guess, the Lord only spewed out the lukewarm but retained both the cold and hot in his mouth which suggests they are both desirable to him.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Interesting, so you are suggesting that being cold, depending on the context, is actually desirable to the Lord and is not code for being "against' the gospel?  I like it!  It makes sense I guess, the Lord only spewed out the lukewarm but retained both the cold and hot in his mouth which suggests they are both desirable to him.  

Given the context it was likely given in, I agree with CV.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/06/what-lukewarm-in-laodicea-really-means/

Quote

To the north of Laodicea, Hierapolis had healthy hot springs, and to the south, Colossae had cold springs that were clean and refreshing to drink from. But Laodicea had perpetual problems with its water supply, which was brought by aqueduct six miles from the south. By the time the water reached Laodicea, it had become lukewarm. It was tepid, unclean, and undrinkable, the kind of water that makes you sick, that you might spit or vomit out of your mouth, as Jesus is said to do, metaphorically speaking, with the entire Laodicean church.

One could take the analogy as those who do nothing much and let the gospel be delivered to them by the efforts of others to the point it is pretty mechanical (the aqueducts being what carried the water most of the way, not people) are not nourished by it, since at that point it has lost the pure characteristics that make it desirable, either the heat that was healing when in immediate contact or the cold that was refreshing as it was drawn from the earth and consumed....IOW, the closer and more intimate one is with the source of the Gospel, the stronger the benefits.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[Analytics]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

How do you explain lack of knowledge reported by some longtime members of the existence of JS's polygamy (not suggesting the Church encouraged digging into the details, including the disturbing ones) when it is mentioned in section 132, verse 3 for example.  Is that not something the Church told people to study?

If a subject is in a church manual or text it publishes such as scriptures, I assume you would agree that means the Church as an institution wants its members to study it.  Am I wrong?

D&C 132 commands Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, but doesn't say whether or not he complied. Of course it raises some difficult questions. If somebody grows up in the church utterly unaware of Joseph Smith's polygamy, it is fair to say they weren't the most studious of Saints.

 

 

[Analytics]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you apply this to every question in life or are questions about the Church in a special category in your view?

There are, in my experience, many people who think there is one simple answer to obesity and that is telling the individual to eat less.  Sometimes exercise more is added.

I don't know of one sufferer of obesity who having been given that answer was able to go and lose weight and maintain that weight loss.  So if not an effective answer even if 'true', does this mean to you there are no "good" answers for obesity or are you opened to longer answers being good answers as well in this category?

And if true in this category, why not true in other categories?  What is it about church related questions that leads you to assume that longer answers are only a result of there being no good answers out there?

Yes, there are questions that require long answers. But for other questions, the short answer really is the best one.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Interesting, so you are suggesting that being cold, depending on the context, is actually desirable to the Lord and is not code for being "against' the gospel?  I like it!  It makes sense I guess, the Lord only spewed out the lukewarm but retained both the cold and hot in his mouth which suggests they are both desirable to him.  

Yes. I know that may be unique, but I'm trying to think like a first century Judaean...

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the context it was likely given in, I agree with CV.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2017/06/what-lukewarm-in-laodicea-really-means/

One could take the analogy as those who do nothing much and let the gospel be delivered to them by the efforts of others to the point it is pretty mechanical (the aqueducts being what carried the water most of the way, not people) are not nourished by it, since at that point it has lost the pure characteristics that make it desirable, either the heat that was healing when in immediate contact or the cold that was refreshing as it was drawn from the earth and consumed....IOW, the closer and more intimate one is with the source of the Gospel, the stronger the benefits.

Thank you for finding a source that "agrees" with me! And I find your analogy very insightful!

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, there are questions that require long answers. But for other questions, the short answer really is the best one.

And how do you make the decision the short answer is the best?

[Analytics]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  The Church has long encouraged its members to study the Gospel on their own, and to not rely on just what they receive during the three-hour block (and, I suppose, seminary/institute).

I've been a lawyer for 15 years.  I graduated from law school in 2004.  Doing my job well necessarily requires me to continually study and update and expand my familiarity with and understanding of the law.  I cannot stand still.  I cannot rely on the lessons I received 15+ years ago.  It would be wrong for any attorney to stop his/her study of the law at graduation.

Presumably, if you went to 2-hours of class every week, you could comply with your Continuing Legal Education requirements. But in the Mormon context, if you go to 2-hours of church every week, you will hear the same remedial-level material from the manual over and over and over. Instructors of the education are forbidden from going beyond the manual.

I'm all in favor of studying deeply. From my perspective, this usually leads people out of the church. Of course there are exceptions, but it tends to be the intellects who join the feminists and homosexuals on the way out of orthodoxy, not the simpletons. 

 

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what you are saying here.

My point is simply that John Q did pretty-much everything he was supposed to in order to have a spirt-based testimony. He read about the Book of Mormon. Over and over and over. He prayed about it. He went on a mission. He got married in the temple. But that wasn't enough.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the judge makes his decision based on A) summarily disregarding the 10,000 hours of material proffered by the plaintiff, and B) uncritically accepting the entirety of the 10 hours of cheap shots, then I think the answer was "No, the plaintiff (the Church) was not given a fair hearing."

Right. But if somebody looked at the judge's background, you'd see somebody with family relations and a personal background that makes him extremely biased in favor of the plaintiff, to the point where he should clearly recuse himself. But if he makes the judgment anyway, rules in favor of the defendant, and bets his soul on the proposition that he is right in that judgment, it is laughable to say he didn't give the plaintiff a fair hearing.

[CA Steve]

On my mission it was the policy to baptize people as soon as possible. We would challenge some people to be baptized the first time we met them. Many times baptism happened within weeks or less of our first contact. I am pretty sure most, if not all of those people are no longer active. Should it take more time to study your way out of the church than it does to get in?

 

There is one inherent problem with this whole conversation. As long as information is classified as faithful or critical in conversations with those struggling, neither side is going to agree. When a member is reading material that leads him out of the church, it is assumed that is critical information and the same is true for information that leads one to conversion, it is assumed it is faithful information. The problem is members who encounter information that contradicts their view of what Mormonism entails and many times that information is accurate. So if we are really interested in having productive conversations with struggling members we might want to start out avoiding labels that convey judgement about what they are reading or hearing.

[Analytics]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how do you make the decision the short answer is the best?

By carefully following the advice in The Art of Thinking Clearly, or in any of hundreds of other books about how to avoid being a victim of natural cognitive biases in our thinking.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Instructors of the education are forbidden from going beyond the manual.

Not really.  "Primary" does not mean "only".  Nor is saying "sufficient" implying that no other resources can be used.

The below is pretty typical of instruction iirc (been a few years since I checked out several manuals to see what was instructed).

Quote

The Church has produced sufficient resources to help you teach true doctrines and principles about marriage and the family. Please refrain from using commercially produced materials in your preparation or your teaching. Your primary resources for teaching the course are the scriptures, this manual, and the Marriage and Family Relations Participant’s Study Guide. Great thought and prayer have gone into the preparation of the materials for this course.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-instructors-manual/introduction?lang=eng

Quote

Please refrain from using commercially produced materials in your preparation or your teaching.

This instruction always made me laugh as a perfect example of the fallibility of the Church as an institution in that the majority of commercially prepared materials I have seen used in Primary classes over the decades were sold through Deseretbook.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

By carefully following the advice in The Art of Thinking Clearly, or in any of hundreds of other books about how to avoid being a victim of natural cognitive biases in our thinking.

Which means?....I need a longer answer to satisfy here.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

. I am pretty sure most, if not all of those people are no longer active. Should it take more time to study your way out of the church than it does to get in?

The decision to go to shorter instruction and quick challenges to baptize was based on studies taken in the 50s and 60s iirc (I read this in the David O McKay bio by Prince).  They questions converts who had maintained activity for years to see when they had made the decision to join, etc.

It is possible that even longer term studying would not yield much longer rates of activity if one measured such against missionary hours of teaching.

It is also possible that the current environment of learning and experiencing religion is sufficiently different than what happened almost 100 years ago that a different approach should be taken.  

However, my bet is that every since that first study, the Church has continued surveys on what approaches yield the best results and therefore those who stick around longest are those who have a life changing spiritual experience relatively early in their encounter...IOW, the harvest is ready.  There are just a number of those who will not stay converted whether long study (perhaps leading to no conversion ever) or quick (leading to initial enthusiasm but not long term commitment).  Nor do I see this as a bad thing or suggesting these people are not as good as those who convert.  I think everyone has a time and season for conversion and it looks to me that most people's time is not mortality (if it was, God would have ensure it present over all the earth from the earliest appearance of it imo).

Quote

Should it take more time to study your way out of the church than it does to get in?

Lasting conversion to me is a process, so yes...if one is truly desiring a conversion, it should take as long, which is imo, a lifetime of study and practice.

However, on a more practical level, for those who leaving the Church will create a significant disruption, I do believe a significant time of study should occur.  

Also to be considered is if a parallel experience to the Spirit confirming the truth of the Gospel when joining is experienced, not just doubt in whether that experience was as it is remembered or a strong emotional negative reaction.  Conversion is/was a positive experience; I would hope people leave for a similar reason, there is a positive experience they are seeking as opposed to rejecting something.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really interested in allocating "blame."  If I were, we'd probably also need to be candid about the lack of sufficient individual study by members of the Church, who thereafter were surprised by controversies and issues for which information has been publicly available for a long time, and which has been the subject of much scholarship and commentary.....................

Your response to Thinking is correct, Spencer, but the burden thereby placed on everyone is immense.  Even just getting through your opening post is a lot of work.  Shouldn't it be possible for ordinary members to happily and successfully "feel their way" through this time of trial here below?  Must everyone become a scholar?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Presumably, if you went to 2-hours of class every week, you could comply with your Continuing Legal Education requirements.

Yes.  But CLEs constitute only the bare minimum of what I am obligated to do.  No competent attorney limits his/her study of the law to 24 hours of CLE instruction every two years.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But in the Mormon context, if you go to 2-hours of church every week, you will hear the same remedial-level material from the manual over and over and over. Instructors of the education are forbidden from going beyond the manual.

What's with this "2-hours of church every week"?  How is it you think we are constrained from studying the Gospel outside the 2-hour block?

More to the point, the Church has long encouraged its members to make personal study a priority.  That necessarily relates to study other than the Sunday block.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm all in favor of studying deeply. From my perspective, this usually leads people out of the church.

Funny, that.  My experience has been quite the opposite.  My father is one of the most well-informed people I know in relation to the Church's doctrines and history.  I also have a number of siblings and siblings-in-law who are well-informed.

From my perspective, those who spend a lot of time and effort in studying the Gospel and continue in faithful observances do quite well in becoming more appreciative of and devoted to the Gospel.

Also from my perspective, following John Q's progression described in the OP "usually leads people out of the church."  Hence my concern about allowing "Big List-type compilations to supplant "studying deeply."  I think no ideology could withstand an approach where critics and opponents of that ideology are the prevailing and dominant sources of information and commentary.  Not surprising, really.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course there are exceptions, but it tends to be the intellects who join the feminists and homosexuals on the way out of orthodoxy, not the simpletons. 

Again, this has not been my example.  Those of my acquaintance who have worked hard to study the Gospel on their own have become more receptive to and appreciative of it, not less.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is simply that John Q did pretty-much everything he was supposed to in order to have a spirt-based testimony. He read about the Book of Mormon. Over and over and over. He prayed about it. He went on a mission. He got married in the temple. But that wasn't enough.

I don't think that's right.  "He was supposed" to do a lot more study of the Restored Gospel than just the lessons received during the block.  "He was supposed" to apply D&C 9, which I don't think entails letting critical and faithless perspectives carry the day.  "He was supposed" to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118, D&C 109:7, 14).

Never in the history of the world has John Q been so well-situated to give the Church's claims a "fair hearing."  The Church's website is a treasure trove of information.  The Maxwell Institute has huge amounts of content.  The Intepreter Foundation.  FAIR.  FARMS.  Book of Mormon Central.  Pearl of Great Price Central.  Jeff Lindsay.  Daniel Peterson.  John Welch.  Hugh Nibley.  Matthew Roper.  Matthew Brown.  Brant Gardner.  Terryl Givens.  Richard Bushman.  Don Bradley.  John Tvedtnes.  Lou Midgley.  Bill Hamblin.  John Gee.  Kerry Muehlstein.  Armand Mauss.  Royal Skousen.  Richard Turley.  Michael Ash.  Kevin Barney.  Barry Bickmore. S. Kent Brown.  Brian Hales.   Dozens, even hundreds, of books exploring the doctrines and history of the Church.

And yet stuff like Jeremy Runnells' copied-and-pasted Gish Gallop (the CES Letter) is somehow more informed and substantive?  I really don't think so.  

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Right. But if somebody looked at the judge's background, you'd see somebody with family relations and a personal background that makes him extremely biased in favor of the plaintiff, to the point where he should clearly recuse himself. But if he makes the judgment anyway, rules in favor of the defendant, and bets his soul on the proposition that he is right in that judgment, it is laughable to say he didn't give the plaintiff a fair hearing.

Oi.  It was your analogy.  I'm not interested in shoring it up.

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Shouldn't it be possible for ordinary members to happily and successfully "feel their way" through this time of trial here below?  Must everyone become a scholar?

Surely not.  But they shouldn't assume their knowledge is equal to that of a scholar and judge their efforts as on par, imo.  Just as a scholar shouldn't judge their spiritual efforts as on par with someone who has been heavily leaning on the Spirit while the scholar has been using a more intellectual path.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your response to Thinking is correct, Spencer, but the burden thereby placed on everyone is immense. 

I'm not so sure.  Much of the "burden" is well within our capacity to bear. 

Most of us have plenty of free time, at least some of which can and should be utilized in studying the Restoration. 

Most of us have access to the Internet, and hence have access to huge amounts of freely available scholarship and commentary about the Church.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even just getting through your opening post is a lot of work.  Shouldn't it be possible for ordinary members to happily and successfully "feel their way" through this time of trial here below? 

In an ideal world, sure.  But what happens when "ordinary members" encounter a "Big List" compilation that is designed to instill doubt, fear, mistrust, anger, etc.?

I have acquaintances who have left the Church, and who have left it because they were not equipped or prepared to respond to challenges to their beliefs.  To be sure, this is often a key feature of exit narratives ("Why didn't I know this?  Why didn't the Church teach me this", etc.).

Quote

Must everyone become a scholar?

Broadly speaking, I think the answer is "yes."  We need to prepare ourselves.  We need to have a strong and grounded perspective on the Restored Gospel.  We need to educate ourselves.

Jack Welch addressed this topic quite well here: Toward Becoming a Gospel Scholar.  Some excerpts:

Quote

LONG AGO, a friend came up to me after church and asked, “What should I read to become a scripture scholar? What books should I buy? What would you recommend?”  He was sincere in his question, willing to actually put in some work and spend not only time but money.  Ideas immediately began jumping into my head. But after an initial surge of exuberance, I calmed down to the sober task and asked myself, “What do I really recommend?”

Here is an attempt at a rough, but hopefully gentle and useful answer. This is not a dissertation, and these suggestions are not based on any empirical research or scientific theory of education. Here are just a few of the things that have worked for me.

Of course, if anyone is looking for a quick fax in becoming a gospel-scholar, think again. How does one become a great musician? How does one become a scratch golfer? Doing anything well in life requires lots of love, work, dedication, and consistent attention to the task. It helps to have some native talents, but more important is a love for the subject matter. It is always this way in life. No one will ever do really well at something that they do not love doing.

Becoming a gospel-scholar is more than just knowing things in your head. It’s becoming a part of the subject, and letting the subject become part of you. It’s a different process than straight acade­mic scholarship, with its detachment and impersonal nature. Gospel-scholarship requires both a good mind and a good heart.

I know many people who are good scholars, and I know many people who are great at understanding the gospel. Several are actually great at both. But obviously the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, it can be quite dif­ficult to get head and heart together. To me, it is like trying to play the violin. It takes two hands, one to finger the strings and the other to draw the bow. Either hand alone can do a little, but only when each contributes and works harmoniously together is it possible to produce violin music. This is not, however, to say that all good music is violin music.

As the editor of BYU Studies over the past seven years, I have thought long and hard and almost daily about the character­istics of good LDS scholarship. In my view, all of the following characteristics are equally essential in the sphere of gospel-scholarship: competence, thor­oughness, honesty, accuracy, harmony, unity, charity, fairness, humility, and ded­ication. The objective of gospel-scholar­ship is to embrace as a whole the fullness of all that we may know, through the use of all of our faculties, both spiritual and intellectual.

To a gospel-scholar, truth is like any other tool: it can either be used to build up or to tear down. Thus, truth alone is not the objective of a gospel-scholar, because knowledge and truth—until put to some purposeful use—remain morally inert. At the same time, a gospel—scholar knows that, no matter how well intended or motivated, building on a sandy foun­dation will ultimately lead to collapse.

He goes on at some length, and does a good job of suggesting some starting points (though since he wrote this in 1998, parts of it need to be updated).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2019 by smac97

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Those of my acquaintance who have worked hard to study the Gospel on their own have become more receptive to and appreciative of it, not less.

In my extended family, out of 20 or 25 who I considered as equally committed to study as service, only one has left and that is a very, very complicated story.

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In an ideal world, sure.  But what happens when "ordinary members" encounter a "Big List" compilation that is designed to instill doubt, fear, mistrust, anger, etc.?

I have acquaintances who have left the Church, and who have left it because they were not equipped or prepared to respond to challenges to their beliefs.  To be sure, this is often a key feature of exit narratives ("Why didn't I know this?  Why didn't the Church teach me this", etc.).

Broadly speaking, I think the answer is "yes."  We need to prepare ourselves.  We need to have a strong and grounded perspective on the Restored Gospel.  We need to educate ourselves.........................................

So there is no place for the hayseed who needs to work the north forty and who doesn't really have time for all that scholarly folderol, and there is no place for the person who wants to live a primarily contemplative or spiritual life?

What happens to the mother who bakes cookies for her brood, and who never got a college degree, and certainly doesn't have time?  Why must we always be preparing for, or engaging in religious warfare?

Is it easier just to exit traditional religion entirely and to breathe free?  So that no controversies ever intrude on one's peaceful lifestyle?  And spend Sundays in the park with George?

Why can't we have that "ideal world"?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Surely not.  But they shouldn't assume their knowledge is equal to that of a scholar and judge their efforts as on par, imo.  Just as a scholar shouldn't judge their spiritual efforts as on par with someone who has been heavily leaning on the Spirit while the scholar has been using a more intellectual path.

Sure.  But that's not what Spencer is saying.  I met an Arabic Roman Catholic woman once a long time ago, and her comment on religion was that she left all that to her priest.  She was busy living her life.  There needs to be a place for that.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your response to Thinking is correct, Spencer, but the burden thereby placed on everyone is immense.  Even just getting through your opening post is a lot of work.  Shouldn't it be possible for ordinary members to happily and successfully "feel their way" through this time of trial here below?  Must everyone become a scholar?

In our day and age, I think the answer is 'yes.' All of us, our children, our friends, our ward members are being confronted by 'big lists.' They think they are the only ones who are and are shocked by the well written CES letter or Bill Reel. It is incumbent for all of us to understand the issues and work through them in order to help others...and ourselves. But, the scholarship will not save testimonies. It is the spiritual experiences that can save those where logic and reason are leading them out the door. There really are a million reasons to leave if you want to leave and only one, spiritually based reason to stay. (Outside of community, family pressure or other external factors.)

[bsjkki]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure.  But that's not what Spencer is saying.  I met an Arabic Roman Catholic woman once a long time ago, and her comment on religion was that she left all that to her priest.  She was busy living her life.  There needs to be a place for that.

I do know those who feel they have no need to know more because their testimony is solid and they don't want to deal with the 'controversies.' It works for them. In my opinion, this attitude was encouraged until the information age developed and we are now dealing with the fall out of excessive amounts of information that was, in general, unknown to most members. I don't think it should be taught in church because that is not the purpose of church. I think the gospel topics essays are a good start to having an official church position on controversial topics that are available. When appropriate, these are helpful resources that even could be used in Sunday School if they were topical to the lesson.

It really is tough out there to discern, 'what is true' anymore. I mean really, look at the media...even judges can't agree on basic points of law. So, maybe we all turn into reluctant scholars who are seeking basic facts about church history/controversies. The truth is, the more I've delved into the 'scholarship' the more unimportant it became to my overall testimony. But, I am kind of happy, when I have friends/family leave the church, that there really isn't anything new they ever share with me that I haven't already read about. That usually surprises them and gives me a lot more credibility in their eyes.

Edited December 16, 2019 by bsjkki

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

In an ideal world, sure.  But what happens when "ordinary members" encounter a "Big List" compilation that is designed to instill doubt, fear, mistrust, anger, etc.?

I have acquaintances who have left the Church, and who have left it because they were not equipped or prepared to respond to challenges to their beliefs.  To be sure, this is often a key feature of exit narratives ("Why didn't I know this?  Why didn't the Church teach me this", etc.).

Broadly speaking, I think the answer is "yes."  We need to prepare ourselves.  We need to have a strong and grounded perspective on the Restored Gospel.  We need to educate ourselves.........................................

So there is no place for the hayseed who needs to work the north forty and who doesn't really have time for all that scholarly folderol, and there is no place for the person who wants to live a primarily contemplative or spiritual life?

Sure there is.  The "Gifts of the Spirit" are several and differentiated.  Hence we have scriptures like D&C 46 ("To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.  To others it is given to believe on their words."), and 1 Corinthians 12 and its description of the differentiated "Body of Christ."

But surely study of the Gospel is not an all-or-nothing proposition?  Surely we would be better off, both individually and in the aggregate, in spending more time studying the doctrines and history of the Restoration?

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What happens to the mother who bakes cookies for her brood, and who never got a college degree, and certainly doesn't have time? 

No time?  Ever?  

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why must we always be preparing for, or engaging in religious warfare?

I think there are many uses for increased and improved study of the Restored Gospel, and none of it pertains to "religious warfare."  

Again, we need to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."  (1 Peter 3:15.)  We need to be able to explain and defend the tenets of our faith, particularly in an era in which critics and dissidents are all too eager to step in and speak for us, and not to our benefit.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is it easier just to exit traditional religion entirely and to breathe free? 

I suppose.  But if we want to keep our covenants, and endure to the end, and help others do so, we need to be prepared to explain and defend and advocate for the Restoration.

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So that no controversies ever intrude on one's peaceful lifestyle?  And spend Sundays in the park with George?

Why can't we have that "ideal world"?

I just don't see an either/or scenario here.  Why can't we, as Latter-day Saints, enjoy a "peaceful lifestyle" and study and defend the Gospel?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure.  But that's not what Spencer is saying.  I met an Arabic Roman Catholic woman once a long time ago, and her comment on religion was that she left all that to her priest.  She was busy living her life.  There needs to be a place for that.

I'm not sure your characterization is correct.

I have spent a lot of time studying and discussing/debating controversies about the Church.  My wife has not.  She is a very gentle soul, and loves the Gospel, and studies it quite a bit.  But she studies it in different ways, and with different emphases, than I do.  She often shares her thoughts and insights and experiences with me.

We have recently had some loved ones leave the Church, which in turn has led to some increased interest by her in better understanding some of the controversies that led to these departures.  So I have been sharing some of my thoughts and conclusions on some of these issues.

I think I could spend more time immersing myself in the scriptures, as exemplified by my wife.  But my wife is becoming increasingly aware of, and familiar with, controversial and difficult aspects of the Restoration (mostly historical issues, as compared to doctrinal).  This is helping her.

I think we all need to study the Gospel more.  This is particularly so where we have the time and resources available to do so effectively.

Thanks,

-Smac