What to do with the crappy members?

[Guest]

This is the same reason women don't masturbate, right?

Women obviously don't masturbate. The title of Packers 1976 masturbation talk was "To Young Men Only".

http://www.LDS.org/bc/content/shared/co ... f?lang=eng

Why would Packer address his talk to young men only if women do it too? Women don't have "little factories". Women don't have naughty feelings. They are righteous.

If, by chance you are a woman with those naughty feelings, then you are very unusual and atypical. You are extra EXTRA naughty and it is most shocking that any woman would do such a thing! Your shame should be double fold!

[_BartBurk]

Being a good Mormon is more than just believing what you are taught. It is also being a willing participant in throwing old, discredited teachings down the memory hole. When bspace says old teachings were never officially taught, so the church was never wrong, he's simply participating in this proud tradition.

My parents do this brilliantly. It's like my dad enjoys learning that something he understood and believed his whole life has just been a huge misunderstanding on his part.

The crappy members are those that insist on remembering the "wrong" teachings they learned. They're missing the whole point.

It's almost as if shifting the doctrine around every so often is a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff, of seeing which way people face. Are you loyal to the doctrine, or the church?

One of the jobs I had at the BYU Library in the mid-70s was going through old conference talks and BYU talks made by General Authorities going back to the 19th century. Those included talks by Brigham Young and many other early church leaders. My job was to copy down quotes from these talks for a librarian who was creating a file of quotes from General Authorities through the years. It became obvious that General Authorities would often contradict each other during the same time period so any idea their talks were all inspired from the Holy Ghost disintegrated in my mind. For example one would seem to approve Adam-God while another said something completely different. I think we assume the GAs always are in lockstep, but it became clear to me these were all human beings who sometimes saw things very differently. It would have been easy to cherry pick one General Authority's quote and claim the LDS Church taught a certain thing it really wasn't teaching. Even the King Follett discourse was frowned upon in some circles:

http://contrarianmormon.wordpress.com/2 ... obscurity/

I think there is good reason to be suspicious of those who would ascribe certain doctrines to the LDS based on statements from General Authorities and from lesson manuals when there is freedom to accept or reject them to a degree I didn't realize before I resigned from the LDS Church. I think the rule of thumb of limiting actual doctrine to the scriptures themselves is a wise course.

[_DarkHelmet]

I think there is good reason to be suspicious of those who would ascribe certain doctrines to the LDS based on statements from General Authorities and from lesson manuals when there is freedom to accept or reject them to a degree I didn't realize before I resigned from the LDS Church. I think the rule of thumb of limiting actual doctrine to the scriptures themselves is a wise course.

That's understandable, but when the leaders are united in teaching certain doctrines, including issuing official proclamations, then we can assume those things are/were official doctrines. I also think it is problematic to say the teachings from official lesson manuals are not doctrinal. The manuals went through a correlation process to ensure members are receiving correct teachings. In fact, I remember back in the 90s there was concern that teachers were using their own sources, which included things like The Work and the Glory. Teachers were counseled to stick to the manuals for the very reason that the manuals went through correlation and were approved by the brethren. I don't understand how the things the church teaches on Sundays from official manuals approved by the highest leadership of the church cannot be accepted as "this is what the church teaches to it's members."

For example, if a teacher at the school taught my child that 2+2=5, and I approached the school about this and they denied it by showing me the official text books that say 2+2=4, and bringing in all the other math teachers who teach 2+2=4, and the students from other classes say they were taught 2+2=4, then I can be confident that my kid either misunderstood, or had a rogue teacher. But if I approach the school and they tell me that they teach 2+2=4, but their textbook teaches 2+2=5, and all the other math teachers teach 2+2=5, and all the students say they were taught 2+2=5, then I have a hard time believing the school doesn't officially teach 2+2=5.

[_BartBurk]

That's understandable, but when the leaders are united in teaching certain doctrines, including issuing official proclamations, then we can assume those things are/were official doctrines. I also think it is problematic to say the teachings from official lesson manuals are not doctrinal. The manuals went through a correlation process to ensure members are receiving correct teachings. In fact, I remember back in the 90s there was concern that teachers were using their own sources, which included things like The Work and the Glory. Teachers were counseled to stick to the manuals for the very reason that the manuals went through correlation and were approved by the brethren. I don't understand how the things the church teaches on Sundays from official manuals approved by the highest leadership of the church cannot be accepted as "this is what the church teaches to it's members."

For example, if a teacher at the school taught my child that 2+2=5, and I approached the school about this and they denied it by showing me the official text books that say 2+2=4, and bringing in all the other math teachers who teach 2+2=4, and the students from other classes say they were taught 2+2=4, then I can be confident that my kid either misunderstood, or had a rogue teacher. But if I approach the school and they tell me that they teach 2+2=4, but their textbook teaches 2+2=5, and all the other math teachers teach 2+2=5, and all the students say they were taught 2+2=5, then I have a hard time believing the school doesn't officially teach 2+2=5.

It would be interesting to know to what extent the lesson manuals are reviewed by the First Presidency as opposed to being reviewed by a correlation committee composed of General Authorities like McConkie. I suspect McConkie's hand was overly present in some of these correlation meetings.

[_Jason Bourne]

But you know exactly what I already do with crappy members. I question their desire to gain or increase testimony and if such a desire is not there, I question their honesty and their membership. I usually see a significant and sustained increase in activity after it's come down to that.

Oh my what YOU DO? How appointed you to do such things? Are you in a position now to question anyone's desire to incraese their testimony? If they don't meet YOUR expectations then you automatically question their honesty? My what compassion and love the gospel you claim to be has nourished in your heart.

I really do hope you are not in any positoin of authority in your ward or stake. Really.

All those people they taught wrongly.

There aren't any. There are those who lie to excuse their sins though.

Sure there are those who are taught errorr. You know this is true because you constantly talk about official doctrine and you know there are lots of things going around in the Church that do not meet such criteria (such as your theory on evolution, creation, Adam and Eve...).

[_DarkHelmet]

It would be interesting to know to what extent the lesson manuals are reviewed by the First Presidency as opposed to being reviewed by a correlation committee composed of General Authorities like McConkie. I suspect McConkie's hand was overly present in some of these correlation meetings.

Maybe so. But who cares? It doesn't matter if some random kid wrote the manuals himself. The church has placed their stamp of approval on the manuals. The manuals are what teachers are supposed to use. The vast majority of what a member learns happens every Sunday in class. If the manuals are inaccurate, they should be sent back for corrections. Are you suggesting the First Presidency doesn't put much thought into what the members are taught every sunday?

[_BartBurk]

Maybe so. But who cares? It doesn't matter if some random kid wrote the manuals himself. The church has placed their stamp of approval on the manuals. The manuals are what teachers are supposed to use. The vast majority of what a member learns happens every Sunday in class. If the manuals are inaccurate, they should be sent back for corrections. Are you suggesting the First Presidency doesn't put much thought into what the members are taught every sunday?

I have no idea how much thought or oversight they exercise about lesson manuals.

[_Nightlion]

I never thought MLK was a Communist. His predecessors, by and large, are though.

But you know exactly what I already do with crappy members. I question their desire to gain or increase testimony and if such a desire is not there, I question their honesty and their membership. I usually see a significant and sustained increase in activity after it's come down to that.

All those people they taught wrongly.

There aren't any. There are those who lie to excuse their sins though.

I know, I know, but I cannot resist, yet again. bcspace: Please show me ONE instance in our lifetime of ANYONE high or low teaching the basic gospel of Jesus Christ NOT wrongly, such that those taught received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.............now, it's got to be the real deal with no fudgin'

Just one, if you dare venture. I will smash that sucker flatter than a johnny cake, and prove it incompetent, incomplete, erroneous, bogus, arrogant sophistry, hypocrisy, priestcraft, diabolical rascallity and so forth.

If HIS church cannot teach "rightly" the gospel what else matters?

I say every living member of the LDS Church is a crappy member, without exception, worldwide. Get over it and prove me to have wrongly spoken. eh? Bring all the hoards from the East camp if you like. All the better.

[_why me]

Who cares what was "official" or not? If seminary kids couldn't trust the church for the truth to be taught them, then it's the fault of the people running the joint, not the kids.

I suppose that seminary should be a history class, a class where a teenager studies a 700 page book and is given a SAT exam about it. However seminary is about teaching doctrine and having LDS teenagers get together and enjoy wholesome activities. And learning how to live a god centered life.

Much better than what many teenagers are now experiencing.

[_why me]

Maybe so. But who cares? It doesn't matter if some random kid wrote the manuals himself. The church has placed their stamp of approval on the manuals. The manuals are what teachers are supposed to use. The vast majority of what a member learns happens every Sunday in class. If the manuals are inaccurate, they should be sent back for corrections. Are you suggesting the First Presidency doesn't put much thought into what the members are taught every sunday?

I have no idea how much thought or oversight they exercise about lesson manuals.

This is a favorite bedbug of antimormons, exmormons etc. No matter what the manuals contain, they would still find fault that something was overlooked or being taught the wrong way.

What they want is for members to study a 700 page hardcover book, written by a critic, constantly expanded by a critic so that members can learn what a critic wants them to learn. And for seminary, have a 700 page book written by a critic at a level that the teenager can understand.

As a young catholic, attending catechism, I was never learning in depth catholic history. I was learning those things that would make me a devout or good catholic.