Ten Questions - Interview with the Stake Presidency

[_Blixa]

Jason:

… why are they entertaining your ten questions anyway? For what reason are you and they doing this?

They don’t yet know that they are going to be asked to “entertain” my questions. This is their first week on the job. I thought I made my intent clear: I want to expose them, right now, to the kinds of questions they may get from troubled members who come into their offices over the course of the next nine years.

Are you really saying these are "your" questions? I thought you were asking for our questions..

This was clear in the very beginning of thread where WS said he'd be choosing the questions to presented himself. Also, he made it clear what kind of thing he was looking for:

Will Schryver:

I acknowledge that those are very good questions. However, I kind of have something a little different in mind. But perhaps we are all a little jaded to the kinds of questions I have in mind, since we have all been discussing them for so long they just seem boring at this point in time. Still, you have to understand that most members of the church, including stake presidencies, are completely unaware of the kinds of questions that make the rounds on LDS-related message boards; the kinds of questions that have factored into the equation when members have become disillusioned with the church and left it, or lost their faith in it. So, just as an example of a question I will almost certainly include in my list:

Why does the church often use an illustration of Joseph Smith wearing a breastplate and some kind of spectacles, and looking intently at an open set of gold plates, when in reality the Book of Mormon was dictated while he looked at a rock in the bottom of hat?

I'm pretty nonplussed that that old chestnut is what he needs help coming up with.

I don't know why anyone here, believer or not, would want to ask a Stake President anything, unless the specific SP had some specific expertise in an area of common interest. I can't imagine an SP that would have any special insight into any questions I have about Mormon history---in other words, an SP who can tell me more about things I've studied for several years now and have compiled a reserach bibliography of more than 30 pages about.

But that's not the point, of course, though at first glance the OP looked like it was offering posters some special audience with the Answer Men. WS seems to not so much be interested in getting our questions answered as using such questions to help the SP deal more effectively with doubters. Well, fine. He just doesn't need my help with that and I could hardly be useful in such an endeavor.

And since he already seems to know what questions he wants (and what the answers to them are) I'm left wondering what the real point is here.

[_Blixa]

By the way, I haven’t seen John on the boards for the past day or so. If you’re out there John, PM me here or on MAD. I would like to make a lunch date. I’m buying.

Are you trying to sound creepy or is it beyond your control?

No kidding.

[_Pokatator]

I'm pretty nonplussed that that old chestnut is what he needs help coming up with.

I don't know why anyone here, believer or not, would want to ask a Stake President anything, unless the specific SP had some specific expertise in an area of common interest. I can't imagine an SP that would have any special insight into any questions I have about Mormon history---in other words, an SP who can tell me more about things I've studied for several years now and have compiled a reserach bibliography of more than 30 pages about.

But that's not the point, of course, though at first glance the OP looked like it was offering posters some special audience with the Answer Men. WS seems to not so much be interested in getting our questions answered as using such questions to help the SP deal more effectively with doubters. Well, fine. He just doesn't need my help with that and I could hardly be useful in such an endeavor.

And since he already seems to know what questions he wants (and what the answers to them are) I'm left wondering what the real point is here.

That's why I posted earlier that I don't understand his motive for this little skit. Will knows the questions, he even knows the answers, he's playing some kind of game. It can't be a secret that I don't trust him.

[_moksha]

I don't understand his motive for this little skit. Will knows the questions, he even knows the answers, he's playing some kind of game. It can't be a secret that I don't trust him.

Between here and the questions at MAD, he will have quite a list to choose from. Are you saying this is a ruse and he will not actually do any asking? He has already told us he will not be relaying any answers. It would be interesting if he shares what questions he deemed worthy.

[_Pokatator]

I don't understand his motive for this little skit. Will knows the questions, he even knows the answers, he's playing some kind of game. It can't be a secret that I don't trust him.

Between here and the questions at MAD, he will have quite a list to choose from. Are you saying this is a ruse and he will not actually do any asking? He has already told us he will not be relaying any answers. It would be interesting if he shares what questions he deemed worthy.

Then what can be the purpose of all this if he is not going relay the answers and it is a "if" he shares the ten questions he chooses. Thus it seems like some kind of a game he is playing to me.

[_Blixa]

I don't understand his motive for this little skit. Will knows the questions, he even knows the answers, he's playing some kind of game. It can't be a secret that I don't trust him.

Between here and the questions at MAD, he will have quite a list to choose from. Are you saying this is a ruse and he will not actually do any asking? He has already told us he will not be relaying any answers. It would be interesting if he shares what questions he deemed worthy.

I'm just seconding Pokatator here, but, yeah....absent of answers why would the questions be that interesting? First, we've seen one example of what WS thinks is a "good" or "useful" question--something we all already have our own, varying, answers to. At this point the only thing that could possibly make it interesting is an unusual answer to it (because we all have our own, varying, answers to it). And since no answers are forthcoming, then...

I think that WS wants input from those he thinks are critics, but he's got a pretty limited notion of who they might be, or what "criticism" amounts to. Is there anyone here---in any camp---who would benefit from this "questioning?" Possibly someone, but I can't think of who or how. And coming on the heels of the Countenance Detector--even if a highly lame "joke"--the whole thing is, ironically, a big question. Maybe he can ask that one? Or even........answer it?

[_Scottie]

Will,

I'm curious why you're limiting it to 10 questions?? Surely they will be faced with dozens of faith trying questions, right??

10 questions barely scratches the surface.
However, my questions...

1. Why did Joseph Smith have women sealed to himself when their husbands had other women sealed to them. These husbands obviously had the authority to have women sealed to them...why not their own wife?
2. Why were these other women sealed to these other men? Why weren't they sealed to Joseph Smith?
3. If God was having near daily conversations with Joseph Smith and chastising other members of the flock, why did God allow Joseph Smith to continue to improperly practice the sealing ordnances? Why didn't God correct him to seal members the way we do now, as husband and wife, not to the prophet?
4. Do you believe that God would approve of lavish LDS temples, conf centers, malls, etc. while billions suffer from easily treatable maladies such as starvation and childhood immunizations?
5. How do you reconcile that FLDS take Moroni's promise just as seriously as LDS do, and are firm believers that the spirit has borne witness that are in the one true church and the LDS church has fallen into apostasy? After all, as I would expect a true church fo God to do, they don't succumb to government pressure and change major doctrines because of it.
6. Does Joseph Smith the treasure seeker, who used the exact same method of looking at a rock in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, cause you any concern?

[_beastie]

Well, of course Will has ulterior motives. He is Will.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly didn't ask my questions so Will could ask them of his SP. I had an ulterior motive as well. :O

[_truth dancer]

Can I be a prophetess (smile) and give a few responses? :-)

1. We just don't know much about it.

2. It doesn't really matter.

3. God's ways are not man's ways.

4. When we need that information, God will give it to us.

5. Things were different back then.

6. Critics are not spiritually in tune enough to understand the truth.

7. God gives us new light and knowledge as we need it.

8. It is not important to one's salvation.

9. God has more important things to worry about.

10. God must work with imperfect men, they are not perfect, they make mistakes, they are fallible, they share their opinions.


;-)

~dancer~

[_Scottie]

Can I be a prophetess (smile) and give a few responses? :-)

1. We just don't know much about it.

2. It doesn't really matter.

3. God's ways are not man's ways.

4. When we need that information, God will give it to us.

5. Things were different back then.

6. Critics are not spiritually in tune enough to understand the truth.

7. God gives us new light and knowledge as we need it.

8. It is not important to one's salvation.

9. God has more important things to worry about.

10. God must work with imperfect men, they are not perfect, they make mistakes, they are fallible, they share their opinions.


;-)

~dancer~

I've seen the light!! I'll be back in church this Sun!!

Thanks TD, it all makes so much sense now!! ;) <---(stupid smilie...Shades sux!!)