Flunking the test of faith?

[_Aristotle Smith]

In the original context in which this post appeared, it was just a particularly egregious case of special pleading.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=special+pleading

[_Runtu]

In the original context in which this post appeared, it was just a particularly egregious case of special pleading.

Yes, it was.

[_Themis]

I don't view it as a priori true, but rather I have faith that it is true. And, I wasn't speaking so much about achieving the goal, but rather about continued growth in LDS faith towards that goal.

Think of it as analogous to the public education system. From the perspective of the public school system, it is the best way to continue learning and progressing towards graduation (a certified level of education). Those who discontinue their public education, and drop out, may rightly be considered as having failed in terms of their public education. This seem quite uncontroversial to me, so I am not sure why people are struggling to see it, and think it hateful to view it that way.

I have six children. One of my kids went to the regular public school from kindergarten to grade 9. In ninth grade, he received what I considered (and still do) a substandard education experience with large classes, poor facilities, and apathetic teachers. For tenth grade, we moved him to a charter school, where he has excelled. The teachers there know him, care about him, and are helping him in ways the high school never could have done.

By your standards, my son not only 'flunked' out of public school, but he also is not to be listened to by those who have succeeded in graduating from the public high school.

In a similar way, those of us who did not find joy and fulfilment in the LDS Church cannot be said to have failed at faith. This seems quite uncontroversial to me.

More to the point, would it make sense for those who failed the public education system, and for whom the public education system didn't work, to presume to better understand and know the public education system than those who continue to progress through that system and for whom the system works?

It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't presume to understand or know the gospel better than you do, but I do understand it and know it, just as my son understands public education. Choosing a better way does not mean you forget about what you were doing before.

Now, others may presume to have found what they believe to be a better and more workable way to learn or to achieve their own personal objectives. But, that is a separate issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, it's not a separate issue. Choosing a better way for ourselves is not failure at faith, nor does it mean that we have forgotten what it was like to have faith in Mormonism.

I was thinking about participating in this thread but Runtu again pretty well sums it up such that I see no need to add anything to it.

[_wenglund]

I have six children. One of my kids went to the regular public school from kindergarten to grade 9. In ninth grade, he received what I considered (and still do) a substandard education experience with large classes, poor facilities, and apathetic teachers. For tenth grade, we moved him to a charter school, where he has excelled. The teachers there know him, care about him, and are helping him in ways the high school never could have done.

By your standards, my son not only 'flunked' out of public school, but he also is not to be listened to by those who have succeeded in graduating from the public high school.

Yes and no. From the perspective of the public school, yes, he flunked out, in large part because the public school system didn't work for him. However, no, this doesn't mean he isn't to be listened to, per se, but rather he isn't in a postion to know better about the public schools system, particularly in terms of how the public school system works, than those for whom the public school system did work.

It does make sense for him to presume speak about the workability of Charter schools. But, that is a separate issue.

No, it's not a separate issue. Choosing a better way for ourselves is not failure at faith, nor does it mean that we have forgotten what it was like to have faith in Mormonism.

Yes, comparing the respective workability of two different school systems is clearly a separate issue from whether a person may rightly be considered as having "fllunked" one of the given school systems, and/or whether a student who flunks out of one of the school systems is in a position to better know the workability of that one school system.

At least in terms of what I said and meant, it is a separate issue.

I do not object to former members believing they have found a spiritual or non-spiritual path that works better for them. And, nonthing in my comment could reasonably be viewed as suggesting otherwise. I wasn't speaking to that. Rather, what I objected to was former members for whom the Church didn't work, presuming to lecture me, for whom the Church does work, about the Church and its workability.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Baker]

I failed the Santa Claus test. I believe I understand the Santa myth better now.

[_wenglund]

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=special+pleading

I am familiar with the notion of special pleading. I just don't see how it supposedly applies to me in the context of the previous thread (actually, I am quite confident that ellusion is incorrect in his assertion, but I wanted to give him, or anyone else who agrees with him, a chance to both explain and defend the assertion.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Yes and no. From the perspective of the public school, yes, he flunked out, in large part because the public school system didn't work for him. However, no, this doesn't mean he isn't to be listened to, per se, but rather he isn't in a postion to know better about the public schools system, particularly in terms of how the public school system works, than those for whom the public school system did work.

Except he has never failed a class or even come close. How can he be said to have flunked in any sense?

It does make sense for him to presume speak about the workability of Charter schools. But, that is a separate issue.

So, if something doesn't work well for you, you are unqualified to speak about it? That's a strange approach.

Yes, comparing the respective workability of two different school systems is clearly a separate issue from whether a person may rightly be considered as having "fllunked" one of the given school systems, and/or whether a student who flunks out of one of the school systems is in a position to better know the workability of that one school system.

At least in terms of what I said and meant, it is a separate issue.

Except my son didn't flunk, and neither did those of us who chose a better path. Ironically, he thought high school was working just fine, and he resisted switching schools. So, he is now able to better evaluate which system works better, having had experience in both.

I do not object to former members believing they have found a spiritual or non-spiritual path that works better for them. And, nonthing in my comment could reasonably be viewed as suggesting otherwise. I wasn't speaking to that. Rather, what I objected to was former members for whom the Church didn't work, presuming to lecture me, for whom the Church does work, about the Church and its workability.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who is lecturing you about the church? Not me, and not anyone here. But we have experience in the church, we know how and why it does what it does, and we know how it is supposed to work. And since most of us have found a path that does work, we can compare how it works to how Mormonism works, and if it works better, we are qualified to say why it does and why Mormonism didn't work for us. And discussing is different from lecturing.

[_wenglund]

I failed the Santa Claus test. I believe I understand the Santa myth better now.

Is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed the Santa Claus test?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed the Santa Claus test?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe not as hateful as your post, but not very nice.

[_Buffalo]

Jesus wouldn't recognize the family centric teachings of the LDS church as being true or useful. However, I have to side with the church on this issue.

Awesome Buffalo, you are the first atheist I know who believes in eternal families.

I don't believe in them, but I wish that aspect of Mormon doctrine were true. Certainly my family is the most import thing to me in the world.

Early Mormonism wasn't really family centric. It was sex and power-centric, the focus was on amassing large numbers of plural wives, sealed to you for eternity. You couldn't have a close-nit family. Your wives were property and you had too many children to ever be able to be a good father to them. The modern church has adapted the sealing doctrine into an affirmation of good social values - family unity and harmony. That's a good thing. They took something very harmful like polygamy and turned it around into something good.

Well, mostly good. It's good when they don't use it as a stick to beat gay people over the head with.