Is this possible? How?

[_wenglund]

Wade, do you agree with crocket that it is up to the members to educate themselves when it comes to the Church? I would think that might not be too wise from just a cursory glance at the angst of some ex-LDS here that completely lost their faith when confronted with the history. Should the Church be more proactive?

I like to examine your general question in light of standards of professional educators in terms of effective instruction, which suggest that the learning experience be guided by clear and concrete objectives, and carefully planned out to best meet the learning styles and needs of the students. These principles should govern the manner and level of involvement of the educational institution.

In terms of the Church, the learning experience may rightly have as its ultimate objective the fulfillment of the three-fold mission of the Church. And, the lesson plans should be designed to eventually meet that objective, and tailored to the level of development (spiritual and intellectual) of the students.

This means that for children, prospective members, or new converts, there will understandably be greater responsibility and pro-active involvement on the part of the teacher regarding instruction on the basics of the gospel; whereas, as the students continue to develop in belief and knowledge, and grow spiritually, there will reasonably be a shift in responsibility and involvement to the student for learning the non-basic aspects of the gospel--and this, so as to fascilitate the students eventually becoming educated enough to warrant teaching themselves as well as others.

So, the short answer to your question is: "it depends on the developmental status of the student in light of the Church's threefold mission".

What do you think might happen when an individual has been told that certain things are "anti-mormon lies" and then finds out that the "anti-mormon liars" were not the ones deceiving?

For those who come to that opinion, I think it quite likely that they will be moved to examine what that specific opinion means in relation to their faith in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

I don't know if it increases my faith in the Gospel but it increases faith in my ability to succeed in it. When in my late teens I stopped trying to divide the world into good and bad guys the scriptures started coming alive.

Nephi could be a bully, Captain Moroni had a temper, both Almas were naïve, Mormon was rash, Jacob favored one wife over the other, Moses could be impatient, Elijah liked to jeer, Jeremiah tried to quit, Hezekiah feared death too much, Joseph Smith was easily offended and overly confident in his plans, Brigham Young was overly authoritarian, and down the line till today.

Are you able to criticize current leaders in the same way, such as "Hinckley is overly concerned about PR in his media comments?" I'm not saying you must. It just appears to me that fallibility only seems to apply to previous prophets, not the current one.

I see several flaws in our current Prophet. I don't criticize him for it though. He has a hard job and the last thing he needs is for me to kick him around. I have my own beam to deal with.

[_The Nehor]

I like this, and I think I can understand it (maybe not...).

For me, learning that Joseph did all of what he did helped me to understand that (most likely) ALL churches are built on fabrications, or at least exaggerations of some small truth, and it led me out of the stratified social community where a few people are almost deified by the members as having a more direct line to God than I do. I believe we all have equal access and authority to whatever "source" there is, without the need for man-made ordinances or "priesthood."

Knowing this helps me to understand I don't have anything that needs to be forgiven.

I should point out also that despite all the flaws I've seen I haven't found one in God yet. A more direct line to God? They teach that there? I think I at least have the opportunity to have a line that matches and even exceeds the Prophets. I just shouldn't take that as license to lead.

[_wenglund]

But the point I bolded above I can't wrap my head around, and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. For Joseph to be caught in so many lies, inconsistencies, sexcapades, etc...all behaviors one would think are grossly against principles and morals of Christianity...how can anybody know these things about him and have their testimony strengthened?????? I would guess that most people today lead more honest and integrous lives than Joseph -- whether "religious" or not!"

It is not so much that you are misinterpreting things, it is just that the way you framed your question inadvertantly ignores your prior acknowledgement about members seeing things different. Your question presupposes things that are open to question and differences of opinion. For example, your question presuppose that Joseph was "caught in so many lies". Whereas, I see him on certain occasions being wisely and appropriately discrete. Your question presupposes Joseph as having been caught in "sexcapades", whereas I see the evidence pointing to mere "sealings". Your question presupposes that Joseph's behaviors were "grossly against the principles and morals of Christianity", and while I see some measure of humanity in the man, on balance, I consider him of to be of high and respedctable moral character, and an admirable example of Christianity. Your question presupposes that your personal perceptions of these things are facts (I.e. things than are "known"), whereas they are actually your opinion and belief (which you are entitled to).

Granted, were members to interpret the historical data the way you have, it would make sense were they to draw the same conclusions you have--though even your own interpretations of the data don't necessitate the conclusions you have come to.

Okay, so far I'm with you....and even though I strongly disagree that the evidence doesn't point to "my interpretations," I better understand your comments.

I don't know that we disagree. The evidence does point to your interpretation, just as it points to a broad range of other interpretations. Such is the nature of non-definitive data.

Others can interpret the evidence the way you do, and still consider Joseph to have been a prophet of God, and the restored gospel of Christ as true.

This is where I really get lost. I really don't see how a man that lies to his wife about his "other wives," sends men on missions and hooks up with their wives (and lies about it), claims to have abilities to translate things, then is caught in a trap of claims of antiquity (Kinderhook plates), etc., can be viewed by ANYBODY as a prophet of God. After all, these are the exact same behavioral traits and claims that the known false prophets like Koresh and Jones had, and not many still believe they are prophets after learning the truth about them.

With all due respect, your comments are somewhat suggestive of the kind of solipsism that affects various members and non-members alike. They presume that since they reasonably see things a certain way, then that is the only reasonable way to view it--when in truth there are multiple reasonable ways to weight, relate, and interprete the data, and multiple reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the varied reasonable interpretations.

Again, you are using terms like "lie", "caught in trap", and "prophet" (in relation to Koresh and Jones) in ways that are open to question and reasonable differences of opinion. The same is true for your comparison between Joseph and Koresh and Jones. There are others of us who reasonably see little meaningful similarities between these men (at least in regards to the verity of prophetic calling of Joseph and the verity of the restored gospel of Christ).

Were you to rightly understanding these reasonable difference, that should enable you to grasp that quite a few of the "ANYBODY" can rationally view Joseph as a prophet of God.

I suppose I lean towards the concept of members and apologists "wanting it all to be true," and this desire clouds their otherwise good judgment. It's the only way I can figure this whole thing out

But I could be wrong.

I understand, just as I understand members who view former believers as clouded in their otherwise good judgement. It is just that this kind of solipsism may not serve either party well (in terms of fostering edifying relations), and is an impediment to mutual respect and understanding--which I think can exist even where there is a differing of opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

More of the same finger pointing.

Perhaps, wade, when you start to practice what you preach (don't blame, but look inwardly at yourself), then people might take you more seriously.

But I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something...

This smacks of rich irony in light of your previous post to me. ;-)

But, I do value your suggestion, and would hope that you would lead by example.

Anyway, as perhaps expected, to correct you yet again, my intent wasn't to "point fingers" or "blame", but rather to accurately define the communication problem and offer desired solutions, and this after having looked inward at myself (as explicitly mentioned).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You are mistakenly projecting a universal application onto my explicitly qualified statement. Please stop it. I haven't dismissed the relevance of the listed items for people like you. In fact I explicitly acknowledged the relevance multiple times on this thread (by way of correcting the repeated misperceptions). Please understand that not all faithful members think the same way you do or did. I certainly don't. So, while you may view the listed items as relevant and compelling ("h*ll ya") to your way of viewing things, others don't. For me to acknowledge this is not dismissive, but descriptive of a pluralistic reality. It may serve you well to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sometimes, Wade, you just need to admit you goofed and you're wrong. This is one of them.

For me to do so may serve to further cement you in your false perception (not that your perception isn't already dysfunctionally cemented). I care to much about you to pay you that disservice. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Anyway, as perhaps expected, to correct you yet again, my intent wasn't to "point fingers" or "blame", but rather to accurately define the communication problem and offer desired solutions, and this after having looked inward at myself (as explicitly mentioned).

The fact that you said it was I who misunderstood, pointed the finger at ME. When in reality, I understood what you wrote. The problem was that you didn't sufficiently write what you were thinking. Thus, when you read what I wrote, you thought I was the one misunderstanding your text, when in reality, you perceived that I wasn't understanding what you thought (which is impossible - i can only understand the text you type).

If that wasn't your intent, great. But I perceive that as your intent based on what you wrote.

[_BishopRic]

Man, there are just too many words on this thread!

(wink smilie)

[_Who Knows]

For me to do so may serve to further cement you in your false perception (not that your perception isn't already dysfunctionally cemented). I care to much about you to pay you that disservice. ;-)

There, you did it again. Pointing the finger, while espousing the 'look inward/don't blame' philosophy.

Like I said, almost every post...

[_wenglund]

Anyway, as perhaps expected, to correct you yet again, my intent wasn't to "point fingers" or "blame", but rather to accurately define the communication problem and offer desired solutions, and this after having looked inward at myself (as explicitly mentioned).

The fact that you said it was I who misunderstood, pointed the finger at ME. When in reality, I understood what you wrote. The problem was that you didn't sufficiently write what you were thinking. Thus, when you read what I wrote, you thought I was the one misunderstanding your text, when in reality, you perceived that I wasn't understanding what you thought (which is impossible - I can only understand the text you type).

If that wasn't your intent, great. But I perceive that as your intent based on what you wrote.

As long as you now understand my real intent, rather than what you perceived, that is what matters to me. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-