Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I believed this for many years. It never happened.

I would gladly get rid of my medication if the cause for taking it wasn’t driving me to despair. As it is living without “dope” emphatically is not better than living with it.

I am planning to repeat an attempt to get off them again in a few months and see if I can endure without them. It is not the addiction that drives me back. Withdrawal is horrible but endurable. It is going back to the dark places I lived in that scares me. Maybe they won’t be there this time. I doubt it though.

What I want to be I probably can’t have. The things I want and could have that raise me up are largely forbidden.

I appreciate you trying to help though. It is very kind of you.

I am very sorry, I was not aware that you are on meds-

I was simply using "dope" as a metaphor for earthly behaviors that pull us in.

No idea what a bad pick of wording that was

Honestly, all my best to you!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Only when you get to the top.

Yes, that's what I meant, but that's not likely to happen in these dang bodies, though I'm glad I have one.

Still.

Jesus pulled it off BUT... he was a little different

 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"Just constructs of men" obviously means just men and not God. 

I am not so sure.  It is my goal to stop thinking that way.

You can't pull that off by concentrating on the vast canyon between God and us

At the moment that is my whole raison 'd'etre

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Trying to get back to the original topic of this thread (which seems to have diverted off into LBGT issues and whether or not the church has answers for people who don't fit the Church requirement of a heterosexual norm for their sex and emotional intimate relationship), this seems like a well meaning effort

I agree (that it is "a well meaning effort").  I appreciate the acknowledgment.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

though likely doomed to failure over the long term. 

I think it will be a mixed bag.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think if believers approach non believers this way more will find their own testimony challenges. It is inevitable IMO. But that is just my opinion.

I am reminded of this book I discussed back in 2018:

Quote

Interesting:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

So we have:

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.

I think the Church used to view Stage 2 as something to navigate around, whereas the resources in the OP signal - to me, anyway - that the Church is realizing that we need to navigate through Stage 2.

In any event, I am not sure how much the resources are intended to help "non believers," as I think they are intended to help those who have some measure of faith, but are struggling with it in one way or another.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

My main criticism of the effort are two fold.  First it make a priori assumptions of truth claims.  I guess that is to be expected.

In preparing resources for people who are struggling with their faith, I think it makes sense to presuppose/assume that some measure of faith in the truth claims of the Church is already in place. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Second I think the more recent ideas of primary and secondary issues specious. 

I respectfully disagree.  Virtually every decision requires the individual to adopt a hierarchy of, to prioritize, issues.  "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are but appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 121).

I commented on this previously here:

Quote

Some years later I graduated from high school and joined the Army.  During my training I had a series of written communications with my dad in which I asked him about all sorts of things about the Church, the Gospel, and so on.  I asked him what had happened to the Sword of Laban.  I asked him about polygamy.  I asked him about how women felt about polygamy (those who actually experienced it).  I asked him about blacks and the priesthood.  I asked him about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I asked about the Liahona.  Anything that piqued my interest.

My dad, who had a large library of church history books (and also, IIRC, a set of "Infobase" CD-ROMS with additional materials), and who was our ward's Gospel Doctrine teacher at the time, wrote me long, detailed responses to my inquiries, with references and everything.  It was an amazing experience.  I was exhilarated at finding out that there were deep and complex and nuanced details about the simple Gospel stories I had been taught as a child (mostly by my mom, who created a series of illustrated church history lessons she kept in a looseleaf binder, which she used to teach lessons to us every Sunday).  And that the beautiful and profound truths of the Gospel can be accepted as true despite the many flaws and errors of the Saints (even terrible things like the MMM).  He closed most of his letters with an exhortation that I continue to study and be curious about the Gospel, but that I retain in focus what he called the "planks" of a testimony, which were, IIRC, that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Priesthood is His Power, and The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.  Everything else, he said, is "parsley on the side of the plate" (or some such similar metaphor).

I will always be grateful to my parents.  To my mother, who through sheer force of will taught her children many lessons about Church history and the scriptures.  And to my father, who helped me in a time of cognitive dissonance, who taught me that faith and knowledge are complimentary to each other, that studying scholarship pertaining to the Church and to the Gospel can and should augment faith in the Gospel, even though such efforts have required me to move beyond the simplified and idyllic version I was taught as a child.  But that is, I think, as it should be.  As Paul put it: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

My parents "inoculated" me by teaching me to study through reading and prayer, and to seek to understand difficult truths in measured and circumspect and faithful ways.

This year marks my 20th anniversary on this board.  I have seen countless discussions of both "primary" and "secondary" issues.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Who gets to decide what is primary and secondary?

Ultimately, the individual.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And so called "secondary" issues certainly have bearing on what the church wants one to believe are the primary issues.  They bear strongly on the credibility of the founder of Mormonism as well as the reliability of its leaders as givers of truth.

And yet the secondary issues are still, well, "secondary."  

Simon Peter made any number of mistakes in his life, yet these were still "'secondary' issues" relative to his testimony of, and work on behalf of, Jesus Christ.  The same can be said for pretty much all prophets and apostles, including Joseph Smith.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I guess I would add a third. Who decides what are reliable sources? 

Ultimately, the individual.  Are you suggesting that there are no metrics or mechanisms in place whereby a student of this or that topic can differentiate reliable from less-reliable and not-reliable sources?  From the link in the OP:

Quote

Learning to assess the quality of our sources of information involves both spiritual and intellectual work. Here are some tips for evaluating information:

• Evaluate the reliability of sources. Not all sources are of equal value on all topics. The best sources will have direct knowledge of a topic instead of relying on hearsay, rumor, or innuendo. They will speak from a position of direct knowledge or expertise. They will refer to other reputable sources so you can check their claims. Reliable sources will not always affirm what you already think. They may challenge your views. If you have questions about official Church teachings, look first at what current Church leaders have and have not said. This will help you evaluate other, earlier statements.

• Learn to recognize bias. Almost all sources have some bias. This does not automatically make them unreliable, but it is important to take the source creator’s perspective into account. Examine your source’s motives and background. Be wary of sources that claim to be unbiased or that express views in inflammatory ways.

• Corroborate what you learn. It is significant when multiple reliable sources agree or speak with clarity on a topic. This is especially true when studying sources discussing Church history and teachings. Though it is not always possible to find this kind of agreement among sources, it is helpful to compare information from different sources so you can better assess their quality.

• Distinguish facts from interpretation. Some pieces of information are facts. But much of what we encounter on the internet and in other publications consists of someone’s interpretation of the facts. The best interpretations try to account for all the facts. They consider specific details or facts in broader context and give them proper weight. They don’t simply dismiss information that doesn’t agree with a particular point of view. Check the sources used to make a particular interpretation to ensure they support the claims being made and are not taken out of context.

• Become familiar with Church resources. In matters of doctrine and Church policy, the best sources are the scriptures, the teachings of the living prophets, and the General Handbook. The Church has also published additional resources to help you better understand some of the most common questions Latter-day Saints have about Church history and culture. You may find these to be useful starting points as you investigate your questions.

• Seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost. New information can sometimes feel disorienting. That feeling doesn’t necessarily mean the information isn’t true. Along with the skills mentioned above, seek the influence of the Holy Ghost. He can help you discern truth. He will “enlighten your mind” and help you reorient your perspective in light of new truths. Pray for help. Live in such a way that the Spirit can speak to you. Be open to spiritual promptings as you work to resolve your concerns.

This seems pretty reasonable.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Of course the church provided resources are likely considered the most reliable

Actually, the resources in the OP seem to go out of their way to not do this.  It does not provide a list of expressly-approved books, authors, etc.  Instead, it provides stuff like the foregoing guidelines ("Evaluate the reliability of sources," etc.).

Our Catholic brothers and sisters have nihil obstat, imprimi potest, and imprimatur designations.  The Church does not really take this approach (though as our Robert F. Smith has noted: "This sort of thing does take place implicitly -- through comments on the back jacket, sales in the Church bookstore chain (Deseret Book), and the like").

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

but in my experience they can be some of the least objective sources.

In law school, students are taught extensively about "objective writing" and "persuasive writing."  Both are necessary skills, and are used in different ways in different contexts.  An attorney uses an "objective" writing approach for internal memoranda, communications with the client, etc.  It's a "warts and all" approach, written with no intention of persuading the reader except to explain what the facts are, what the situation is, what the law has to say, and what the likely outcome will be.  In contrast, "persuasive" writing takes a "best foot forward" approach, and does attempt to persuade the reader toward a particular set of conclusions.  The sorts of persuasive writing that have the most potency are those which include efforts to contextualize and address weaker areas of the litigant's legal and/or factual position (as opposed to sidestepping, mischaracterizing, summarily dismissing, etc. such things).

I think it is unreasonable to expect the Church to, in outward facing communications, feign objectivity or impartiality or neutrality regarding its truth claims.  That's not its mandate, and those on the outside would either be confused or reject such a stance.  That said, I think the Church has made great strides in recent years to contextualize and address weaker areas of its history, the flaws and mistakes of its leaders and members, etc. (as opposed to sidestepping, mischaracterizing, summarily dismissing, etc. such things).  This is, I think, the "reconstructed narrative" that Richard L. Bushman has had in mind for years, and which he has said the Church is doing (see, e.g., here).

In any event, while the Church has been more candid and "objective" relative to its treatment of its own history, it's kind of hard for me to envision what "objectivity" would look like regarding the religious truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Anyway good luck with all of this.  The church needs it.

Indeed.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am very sorry, I was not aware that you are on meds-

I was simply using "dope" as a metaphor for earthly behaviors that pull us in.

No idea what a bad pick of wording that was

Honestly, all my best to you!

I was trying to be funny there. I wasn’t offended at all. 😉

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

First it make a priori assumptions of truth claims.  I guess that is to be expected.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that a resource by the church will make assumptions about the church's truth claims. Someone recently showed me a reddit post by someone who wrote a long piece with their observations about LDS in faith crisis. (I doubt I could find that reddit post again) The thing that really stood out to me was what this redditor called the "point of no return" in this context. He described this "point of no return" as the point where the person seriously entertains the possibility that the church isn't true. No matter what outcome (stays active in the church or leaves the church), once a person has seriously considered the possibility that the church isn't "true," they never return to the same "faith status" as before the faith crisis.

I think this is significant because I feel like, as long as the church wants to stick with these a priori assumptions about its truth claims, it will be helpful for this in "simple" faith crises, but will be less helpful for those in these deeper faith crises. I agree with the redditor that something significant happens when a person seriously questions the truth of the church, and I feel like the church will not be as helpful to such people. I suppose it is up to the church to decide if it wants to consider possible ways it might help such people.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that a resource by the church will make assumptions about the church's truth claims. Someone recently showed me a reddit post by someone who wrote a long piece with their observations about LDS in faith crisis. (I doubt I could find that reddit post again) The thing that really stood out to me was what this redditor called the "point of no return" in this context. He described this "point of no return" as the point where the person seriously entertains the possibility that the church isn't true. No matter what outcome (stays active in the church or leaves the church), once a person has seriously considered the possibility that the church isn't "true," they never return to the same "faith status" as before the faith crisis.

That's sort of true.  From my previous post (regarding the Hafens' "Faith is Not Blind") :

Quote

Quote

 

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

 

So we have:

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.

So "Stage 3" faith reaches the same conclusions as "Stage 1" faith, but on different grounds.  And part of "Stage 2" will often involve a re-evaluation of the fundamental truth claims of the Church, including the possibility that they are not "true."  I don't know that this can be characterized as a "point of no return," since all sorts of people go to that point and "return" from it.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is significant because I feel like, as long as the church wants to stick with these a priori assumptions about its truth claims, it will be helpful for this in "simple" faith crises, but will be less helpful for those in these deeper faith crises.

Would you elaborate on how you differentiate "simple" from "deeper" crises?

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with the redditor that something significant happens when a person seriously questions the truth of the church, and I feel like the church will not be as helpful to such people.

I don't understand.  All sort of people struggle with the Church's truth claims and come away with a conviction that they are substantively true.  Some do, some don't.

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I suppose it is up to the church to decide if it wants to consider possible ways it might help such people.

"Such people" being whom?  People who reject the truth claims of the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2024 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that a resource by the church will make assumptions about the church's truth claims. Someone recently showed me a reddit post by someone who wrote a long piece with their observations about LDS in faith crisis. (I doubt I could find that reddit post again) The thing that really stood out to me was what this redditor called the "point of no return" in this context. He described this "point of no return" as the point where the person seriously entertains the possibility that the church isn't true. No matter what outcome (stays active in the church or leaves the church), once a person has seriously considered the possibility that the church isn't "true," they never return to the same "faith status" as before the faith crisis.

I think this is significant because I feel like, as long as the church wants to stick with these a priori assumptions about its truth claims, it will be helpful for this in "simple" faith crises, but will be less helpful for those in these deeper faith crises. I agree with the redditor that something significant happens when a person seriously questions the truth of the church, and I feel like the church will not be as helpful to such people. I suppose it is up to the church to decide if it wants to consider possible ways it might help such people.

When it became clear to me that the connection to God Church leaders claimed they had was not true, then I lost a lot of faith about trusting any of the narratives the Church had claimed.  When I started investigating non-Church narratives, and looked into other sources, I found them to actually be more truthful and more reliable than Church resources.  Just one example was Fawn Brodi's "No Man Knows My History" book.  I remember it being around and everyone calling her anti-Mormon with her sole goal of leading people away from the Gospel.  Turns out, she had way more right about Church history and Joseph Smith than the narrative that the Church has taught for years.  Much of what she told even the Church has now had to agree to that truth.  Guess she wasn't so anti-Mormon after all, just more truthful and objective.  Looking at those "anti-Mormon" labeled people now, seems a whole lot less damning than how they were originally labeled.  Because I can no long trust Church resources, I am not so willing to assume they are truthful any more.  I think this is true with a LOT of people who are having a faith crisis and those who have left the Church.  

A while back I had lunch with a woman who had recently left the Church and has terrible guilt for bringing her children into the Church.  Most of her children have also left the Church, but she is troubled by the ones still active.  She feels like she let them down and feels so dumb (her words) for just swallowing everthing the Church told her was true.  I have a different point of view.  The Church may not be what it claims to be, but it is still a good organization to raise some families in.  I don't think my son still believes in the Church, but I do think he is grateful for the values he learned growing up and hopes his children adopt those same values.  He just ignores those teachings and policies that he feels are wrong.

[MrShorty]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

All sort of people struggle with the Church's truth claims and come away with a conviction that they are substantively true.  Some do, some don't.

Correct. I think my point is that the church's resources have always felt to me like they are geared towards those "all-in" who will take a brief detour away from "all-in" but then come back to "all-in" status. I don't see (and it could just be my perception and not reality) the church trying to minister to "cafeteria Mormons" (like @california boy's son) or others who stay constructively engaged with the church but do not return to full "all-in" status.

And, of course, that's fine. The church can choose what resources it offers and what it doesn't offer. It just seems to me that, if the church wanted to be serious about these faith crisis issues, it would consider what to do with those who reject bits and pieces of the church's truth claims.

(Of course, if my perception is off, I would be glad to have people show resources from the church for the "less than all-in" members of the church.)

[Teancum]

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

I agree (that it is "a well meaning effort").  I appreciate the acknowledgment.

Yes and I think it good the church is trying to do more in this space.  

I also failed to note that I see in this a continued effort to downplay the importance of apostles and prophets.  This has been in process I think by quite sometime, first from apologists leading this out, and now seemingly it is being adopted by the leadership.  A heavy emphasis on Jesus Christ seems penultimate. @smac97likes to quote Joseph Smith about the atonement of Christ being central to our doctrine and all things are appendages to it. I used to do that as well.  And that is fine.  I wonder where I might be had this been more of a thing in the past.

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

 

I think the Church used to view Stage 2 as something to navigate around, whereas the resources in the OP signal - to me, anyway - that the Church is realizing that we need to navigate through Stage 2.

In any event, I am not sure how much the resources are intended to help "non believers," as I think they are intended to help those who have some measure of faith, but are struggling with it in one way or another.

 

Well sure. I would say they won't be effective on me at this point. They may have been 15 years ago.

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

In preparing resources for people who are struggling with their faith, I think it makes sense to presuppose/assume that some measure of faith in the truth claims of the Church is already in place. 

Yes I agree.

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

I respectfully disagree.  Virtually every decision requires the individual to adopt a hierarchy of, to prioritize, issues.  "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are but appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 121).

We will have to disagree on that. The quite above has become more in use over the past maybe between 10-20 years.  Before I doubt one rarely heard that.  And even now a testimony consists of declaring some sort of knowledge about God the Father, Jesus, THe BoM. Joseph Smith and the current LDS prophet and apostles.  Things like polygamy, the priesthood ban, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the changes to the D&C, the evolving doctrine about God and so on all bear on whether one can trust the truth claims of those claiming God speaks through 

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

 

And yet the secondary issues are still, well, "secondary."  

Yes.  And they have bearing on the claims that are primary.  

 

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

Simon Peter made any number of mistakes in his life, yet these were still "'secondary' issues" relative to his testimony of, and work on behalf of, Jesus Christ.  The same can be said for pretty much all prophets and apostles, including Joseph Smith.

Depends on the mistakes.  If BY was mistaken about who god is that has pretty heavy bearing on his prophetic claim and his prophetic authority.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

Ultimately, the individual.  Are you suggesting that there are no metrics or mechanisms in place whereby a student of this or that topic can differentiate reliable from less-reliable and not-reliable sources?  From the link in the OP:

No I think I agree with you on this. Some sources are better than others.  Both from those who write favorably about the CHurch and those who don't.

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

 

Actually, the resources in the OP seem to go out of their way to not do this.  It does not provide a list of expressly-approved books, authors, etc.  Instead, it provides stuff like the foregoing guidelines ("Evaluate the reliability of sources," etc.).

Great!

On 1/12/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

Our Catholic brothers and sisters have nihil obstat, imprimi potest, and imprimatur designations.  The Church does not really take this approach (though as our Robert F. Smith has noted: "This sort of thing does take place implicitly -- through comments on the back jacket, sales in the Church bookstore chain (Deseret Book), and the like").

In law school, students are taught extensively about "objective writing" and "persuasive writing."  Both are necessary skills, and are used in different ways in different contexts.  An attorney uses an "objective" writing approach for internal memoranda, communications with the client, etc.  It's a "warts and all" approach, written with no intention of persuading the reader except to explain what the facts are, what the situation is, what the law has to say, and what the likely outcome will be.  In contrast, "persuasive" writing takes a "best foot forward" approach, and does attempt to persuade the reader toward a particular set of conclusions.  The sorts of persuasive writing that have the most potency are those which include efforts to contextualize and address weaker areas of the litigant's legal and/or factual position (as opposed to sidestepping, mischaracterizing, summarily dismissing, etc. such things).

I think it is unreasonable to expect the Church to, in outward facing communications, feign objectivity or impartiality or neutrality regarding its truth claims.  That's not its mandate, and those on the outside would either be confused or reject such a stance.  That said, I think the Church has made great strides in recent years to contextualize and address weaker areas of its history, the flaws and mistakes of its leaders and members, etc. (as opposed to sidestepping, mischaracterizing, summarily dismissing, etc. such things).  This is, I think, the "reconstructed narrative" that Richard L. Bushman has had in mind for years, and which he has said the Church is doing (see, e.g., here).

In any event, while the Church has been more candid and "objective" relative to its treatment of its own history, it's kind of hard for me to envision what "objectivity" would look like regarding the religious truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Indeed.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Again I do  not think I disagree with the above. Most organizations are going to promote their positions in a positive way.

[Tacenda]

edit: I feel bad that this topic is on the Faith Crisis topic because it'd be a great one to put elsewhere if I could find one closer. I cannot post topics under my "limited" status. So apologies about that. Into the youtube further and they are speaking about the LGBTQ topic and it's actually very enlightening to see both sides come together and either learn or inform each other. I didn't know that Cardon Ellis had leukemia.  

 

This is such a good meeting of minds between exLDS and LDS. I like how each side answered the questions. I'm not finished watching, but got too excited to share before finishing. It has John Dehlin on the ex side and Kwaku on the other. This appears to be recent, JD has his beard. 

 

Edited February 4, 2024 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Tacenda, I can give you rep points! Your sweet patience has been rewarded.

Now just don’t start too many threads…no more than one a day, maybe less for a time.   

Edited February 5, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Tacenda, I can give you rep points! Your sweet patience has been rewarded.

Now just don’t start too many threads…no more than one a day, maybe less for a time.   

Okay, you have my word! I'll take note of this stupendous day! And appreciate the new status, haha! I hope to not louse it up again! ❤️