Runtu wrote:It's a losing proposition. Whatever you teach them at home, the church is the center of their social universe. It's incredibly hard to "unteach" the stuff that will be pounded into their heads.
Run, Luke, run! ;)
No, its not their social universe. Most our children's friends are outside the church. Most of their time they spend with non-LDS individuals. We are not your typical Mormons, and we do not subscribe to the typical Mormon lifestyle. In a few weeks, we are traveling to Murfreesboro to spend the night w/some friends up there. My children will be hanging out with their children while the adults drink beer and play poker (a few of us will go into the other room to puff down). Sound like your typical Mormon homelife?
Runtu wrote:It's a losing proposition. Whatever you teach them at home, the church is the center of their social universe. It's incredibly hard to "unteach" the stuff that will be pounded into their heads.
Run, Luke, run! ;)
No, its not their social universe. Most our children's friends are outside the church. Most of their time they spend with non-LDS individuals. We are not your typical Mormons, and we do not subscribe to the typical Mormon lifestyle. In a few weeks, we are traveling to Murfreesboro to spend the night w/some friends up there. My children will be hanging out with their children while the adults drink beer and play poker (a few of us will go into the other room to puff down). Sound like your typical Mormon homelife?
I am sorry if you have already explained all this several times, and of course you have a perfect right to do what you want, so long as it is neither illegal nor harmful to others - but why are you a member of the CoJCoLDS? Which of its doctrines do you believe to be true, if any?
Inconceivable wrote:One official doctrine has never changed: It is all or nothing.
Maybe so, but I never bought that doctrine when joining the church, and never will. Such a doctrine is only their to keep the luke warm people from looking and questioning.
Luke warm? Not really. As I look back I see myself as what I term a nazi Mormon. A literalist. I took everything the prophets/leaders said as revelation. It was all true.. somehow. Every bit of it. What I did not understand was because I had a finite (mortal) mind. It would all come together in the afterlife. All or nothing was a way of life. I would have made great leadership material, huh?
I viewed guys like you as being the luke warm, lazy, rebelious and unconvicted, bordering on or even being a wolf in sheep's clothing. I was wary of people like you for the sake of those I had stewardship over. Is Nazi Mormon the correct definition of myself?
Now this view is gone. It was twisted like so many things. You're pretty much just a dude with a philosophy that works for you. I don't particularly agree with it, but I think my situation runs pretty close to parallel from a literallist's POV.
Runtu wrote:It's a losing proposition. Whatever you teach them at home, the church is the center of their social universe. It's incredibly hard to "unteach" the stuff that will be pounded into their heads.
Run, Luke, run! ;)
No, its not their social universe. Most our children's friends are outside the church. Most of their time they spend with non-LDS individuals. We are not your typical Mormons, and we do not subscribe to the typical Mormon lifestyle. In a few weeks, we are traveling to Murfreesboro to spend the night w/some friends up there. My children will be hanging out with their children while the adults drink beer and play poker (a few of us will go into the other room to puff down). Sound like your typical Mormon homelife?
I am sorry if you have already explained all this several times, and of course you have a perfect right to do what you want, so long as it is neither illegal nor harmful to others - but why are you a member of the CoJCoLDS? Which of its doctrines do you believe to be true, if any?
There is no church which I agree with 100%. There never has been, and (probably) never will be. I do believe in the ideas of Christ as taught by the church, the plan of salvation is fairly close to what I believe is true, the idea that we are all priesthood holders and have the ability to do God's work here on Earth, the idea that self sacrafice can lead to positive outcomes, and many of the other teachings I do agree with.
A church is but a tool and nothing more. If Mr. Ronco wants to tell me this tool can be used to slice, dice, mince, and chop tomatoes, that it can clean my car, my living room, my dog, and my cat, and that it will leave my toilet bowl sparkling clean without any stains, that doesn't mean I use the tool for all those functions. Hell, maybe I know a better way to clean my dog and cat which doesn't require Mr. Ronco's product; this doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Ronco's product is a bad product.
Thus I read and listen to discussions about this topic. The podcasts I link to above are right on point to this topic. The varying views are interesting. All agree that members can feel betrayed and lied to when they discover things that are sticky and troublesome. Some feel that the Church is already open and not hiding things, others may back peddle a bit but none would out right say the Church lies about things. Though a few questioners in the panel discussion implied that the Church does in fact misrepresent things. I am surprised that Blake Ostler, while all for figuring out ways to present a more open history and "inoculate" the saints, is also vigorous about a few points I disagree with.
First, there seems to be this idea that the Church cannot present the more difficult issues in Sunday school, priesthood or relief society manuals because there is not enough time to do it justice and because SS and PR and Relief Society are not for that but for learning to apply the gospel, be better and get closer to God by worship.
The first issue may have some validity. Time is limited in our Sunday worship. On the other hand we manage quite fine to cover each standard work once every four years. It seems to me a year could be devoted to a more focused course on.
The other issue, on what we focus on seems like a hollow argument. We can talk about whatever the Church wants on Sunday. They were able to carve out time for a teacher development course. Our ward frequently runs a family history course during SS time and interested members attend that rather then GD class. Same for marriage and family courses. There is nothing that says we have to have simple basis plain vanilla teaching every Sunday that focuses on testimony and practical application of the scriptures in our lives. Until correlation came along and dumbed the lessons down there were many years where the instruction manuals focused and a variaty of interesting topics. That could be done again if the Church wants to.
Next Ostler argues that the Church hides nothing, that there are lots of sources that the interested member can go to to read and study. He notes that in high school he ran into Book of Abraham problems, researched it, even tried to learn some Egyption. If he could do it in High School anyone can find out things if they out in the effort.
A few comments. First, I submit that Blake Ostler was not the average high school student. Second, yes I agree that one can go to BYU studies, some books that Deseret Book carry (I got Mormon Enigma there) Signature Books, Dialogue and Sunstone (None of which get positive reviews by most solid LDS leaders-I always thought Sunstone was a bunch of apostates) to get information. So it is out there. How available it is or how aware many members are that it it there, especially for those away from the center of teh Church I am skeptical about.
That said though the greater issues it that the Church DOES NOT provide much on this in readily available resourced that are sanctioned as the official view and literature of the Church. Institute manuals do not address these issues. But for a handful of Ensign articles over a 30 year period this church publication does not address the difficult issues. In fact the Church intentionally does not focus on the tough issues that cause major questions. Argue if you want that it is a sin of omission, and that is debatable, but the fact is the Church almost entirely writes and promotes a more faithful view of its foundations and leaves out attention to tough and hard issues.
Now last of all the conundrum is this. Blake Ostler, like other LDS apologist, seems to think that members are really responsible for learning and finding out the details of what they believe. And in a sense I agree. But as I have noted elsewhere, this is what so many are doing when they find troubling issues. Some may do it early in life, others later. But they are reading and researching and lo, they find out stuff that the Church has for whatever reason, really not disclosed much or anything about. So some take it in stride and work through it. Some though become disaffected and leave.
Did the Church lie? Is omission a lie? I do not think I would call it a blatant lie. But it certainly is far from full disclosure and thus many rightly feel angry and betrayed. It seems to me that God's Church needs to be open and forthright. Some argue that the Church is not in the history business, that its mission is to lead people to Christ. That is true as well. But the LDS Church has a unique position in Christianity as claiming to have the authority of God and be a restoration of Christ's Church. through Joseph Smith being called as God's Prophet to this dispensation. Thus the history is crucial to its truth claims. It cannot bring people to Christ in the way it does without teaching about its founding and indeed it does this when missionaries teach about Joseph's vision, the Book of Mormon and priesthood restoration. Because of this it seems to me that there is an obligation to teach and disclose more then just the more positive things.
Jason wrote:The other issue, on what we focus on seems like a hollow argument. We can talk about whatever the Church wants on Sunday. They were able to carve out time for a teacher development course. Our ward frequently runs a family history course during SS time and interested members attend that rather then GD class. Same for marriage and family courses. There is nothing that says we have to have simple basis plain vanilla teaching every Sunday that focuses on testimony and practical application of the scriptures in our lives. Until correlation came along and dumbed the lessons down there were many years where the instruction manuals focused and a variaty of interesting topics. That could be done again if the Church wants to.
I agree. When the Teacher Development class came about, they had certain individuals assigned to take the class. They have people who are prepping for the temple take the Temple Preparedness class. They have investigators take the Gospel Essentials class. What would be wrong with a more advanced Church History class?
by the way, Jason, your post was spot-on. I agree with everything you stated.
Jason Bourne wrote: ..Thus the history is crucial to its truth claims. It cannot bring people to Christ in the way it does without teaching about its founding and indeed it does this when missionaries teach about Joseph's vision, the Book of Mormon and priesthood restoration. Because of this it seems to me that there is an obligation to teach and disclose more then just the more positive things.
To me, this is honesty. I concur. Exactly.
Now to make a judgement: The harsh reality is that your opinion falls upon the deaf ears of the hierarchy. The church is not that.
Wishing, hoping, praying that it be otherwise, will that really make a difference?
Full disclosure is what is practiced by organizations that seek to avoid the appearance of evil. The church is not that.
Of course the apologist argument here is, "Exactly WHERE do you teach the warts of church histoy? Sunday meeting blocks are certainly not the place."
However, it's interesting that everyone knows how Joseph Smith refused alcohol when he had his leg operated on? So it's ok to teach the faith promoting history, but just not the warts?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Scottie wrote:Of course the apologist argument here is, "Exactly WHERE do you teach the warts of church histoy? Sunday meeting blocks are certainly not the place."
However, it's interesting that everyone knows how Joseph Smith refused alcohol when he had his leg operated on? So it's ok to teach the faith promoting history, but just not the warts?
I dislike when this story is used to teach the Word of Wisdom, I don't think his refusal of alcohol had anything to do with that, I think he was afraid and just trusted his dad.
I personally believe many Church members are preoccupied getting food on the table, having kids, going to school or working full time, etc. and just being engaged in other distractions. People who spend a lot of time on this board are interested in talking about these issues. Are there apathetic critics of the Church? Sure. Are the critics not doing a good enough job of getting the "real story" out there? ;)
LifeOnaPlate wrote:I dislike when this story is used to teach the Word of Wisdom, I don't think his refusal of alcohol had anything to do with that...
Uh, yeah. Nevermind the fact that the WoW wasn't 'revealed' yet. Nevermind the fact that Joseph Smith drank as an adult. Nevermind the fact that Joseph Smith's dad was an alcoholic.
lol.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...