NOM

This could be one for the ages...

1. Get a five gallon bucket.
2. Insert head.
3. Fill bucket with sand.

Or

1. Get headphones.
2. Put on.
3. Play and singalong with "Roxanne" by the Police.

Listen very closely, take it all in, then vomit repeatedly!!!!!

Is it possibble that all this Doubt talk is really alerting folks to the problems and making things worse?

Any guesses about what kinds of questions they will select and what the answers will be? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

We're having a 'special' stake conference with a GA in addition to our regular SC. I suspect it's going to be something like this. I find these things incredibly annoying and so ignorantly dismissive of sincere inquiry. The basic message is "if you weren't broken you would love everything about the church." What someone needs to stand up and shout at these guys is that their tactics only work on those who ALREADY BELIEVE, and they are USELESS for people who have taken the box off their head.

Q: The time given is 6:00 MST. Is that Mormon Standard Time, signifying that it's ok to tune in 10-15 minutes late?

Brent wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:40 am

Is it possibble that all this Doubt talk is really alerting folks to the problems and making things worse?

I doubt it. These fireside are so vague and generic that they are now presenting "doubts" as meaning "lack of faith" or "undeveloped testimony?"

Doubts in their mind means "Did Joseph Smith really see God and Jesus Christ?" Their answer is yes, of course he did! Look at the different versions that supplement his vision and isn't it wonderful? God lives! We have a true prophet! 2 hour church rocks! Yippee Kiyaaaaaay!!

Doubts in the true doubter's mind means "Did Joseph Smith really see God and Jesus Christ? Why wouldn't his own handwritten version match the narrative I've been taught my whole life? Did he really marry 14 year olds, did he really dig for treasure? There's no way that rock in a hat is real? This guy made it up for the power, prestige, pussy, and fame!" This sucks, it's a fraud, I love coffee!!! Booze? Garments suck! Wow? Now I'm atheist and love reddit exmormon!!!!

Just look at the Quentin Cook "face-to-face" where they promised to discuss the difficult church history topics.

They went over I think 7 questions and 3 of them were complete fluff. The ones they didn't just gloss over they bounced off the apologists to kind of do that "Yeah I had some issues with this too but then I prayed and got confirmation" type stuff.

I highly doubt they will go into any issues here in detail, but will discuss how they have these resources that people can read when they have questions like Saints, and that they need to be more in tune with the spirit and not give time to "so-called scholars" and internet sources.

Just a guess, of course.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:48 am

These fireside are so vague and generic that they are now presenting "doubts" as meaning "lack of faith" or "undeveloped testimony?"

This is exactly how my parents and sister to whom I have told about my disbelief see it. They are just waiting for me to "progress back into full faith and fix my broken testimony". They keep dropping little hints to help "fix" me.

Sister and I were having a chat on Christmas about universalism (she brought it up). I think she was trolling, acting like she appreciated what I was saying then hit me with: "you see, if God tailors his message to fit other cultures, it makes sense that things were different in the early church, because the culture was different then. So none of the issues need to bother us."

My next line was supposed to be: "Oh yeah! your right, silly me! All those doubts have just dissolved!" but I politely ended the conversation and left the room.

slavereeno wrote:

Red Ryder wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:48 am

These fireside are so vague and generic that they are now presenting "doubts" as meaning "lack of faith" or "undeveloped testimony?"

This is exactly how my parents and sister to whom I have told about my disbelief see it. They are just waiting for me to "progress back into full faith and fix my broken testimony". They keep dropping little hints to help "fix" me.

Sister and I were having a chat on Christmas about universalism (she brought it up). I think she was trolling, acting like she appreciated what I was saying then hit me with: "you see, if God tailors his message to fit other cultures, it makes sense that things were different in the early church, because the culture was different then. So none of the issues need to bother us."

My next line was supposed to be: "Oh yeah! your right, silly me! All those doubts have just dissolved!" but I politely ended the conversation and left the room.

Then you could shift the argument from those things we aren't supposed to be bothered about to the white washing and dishonesty about those things. "Why would the church need to hide from those things if they are merely an acceptable cultural artifact of the time?"

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:33 am

Q: The time given is 6:00 MST. Is that Mormon Standard Time, signifying that it's ok to tune in 10-15 minutes late?

Dude, there are no Mormons anymore - remember? It's now Temple Square Standard Time.

Phil Lurkerman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:14 pm

Dude, there are no Mormons anymore - remember? It's now Temple Square Standard Time.

We're having a 'special' stake conference with a GA in addition to our regular SC. I suspect it's going to be something like this. I find these things incredibly annoying and so ignorantly dismissive of sincere inquiry. The basic message is "if you weren't broken you would love everything about the church." What someone needs to stand up and shout at these guys is that their tactics only work on those who ALREADY BELIEVE, and they are USELESS for people who have taken the box off their head.

Agreed. It IS dismissive and quite condescending. Because the tactics work only on those who already believe, they are indeed useless for those in a faith transition.
It's almost impossible to sit down with a church official and have a thoughtful, reflective conversation of sincere skepticism and sincere inquiry about doctrine, without the official lapsing into a patronizing reply about "brokenness" -- or at least politely alluding to it. JMO

Wonderment wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:00 pm

Agreed. It IS dismissive and quite condescending.

To be fair, the guys they send out to do this stuff only have this option. The other option would be to tell the whole truth and say, "someone please turn out the lights on your way out." They can't/won't tell the whole truth because they either a) don't know it, b) don't believe it, or c) are church broke in the same way as Gee and Muhlstein (i.e. they know they're distorting the truth but they have somehow convinced themselves that it's best for everyone that way.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:56 pm

Wonderment wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:00 pm

Agreed. It IS dismissive and quite condescending.

To be fair, the guys they send out to do this stuff only have this option. The other option would be to tell the whole truth and say, "someone please turn out the lights on your way out." They can't/won't tell the whole truth because they either a) don't know it, b) don't believe it, or c) are church broke in the same way as Gee and Muhlstein (i.e. they know they're distorting the truth but they have somehow convinced themselves that it's best for everyone that way.

Someone over on reddit compared the church's current position with the RLDS 50 years ago. If someone who knows the history better than I can chime in, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I think the church survives even if it gives up the impossible truth claims. It will rely more on the business side to bring in money. There won't be the expectation of explosive growth. The report that an apostle said that the church is no longer competing with other christian churches seems huge to me. It feels like the younger leaders know that things are going to change. I'm not getting my hopes up, but someone has to realize that a period of retrenchment won't make the church more palatable to large numbers of younger people.

The church isn't going away anytime soon. The system is too strong and will always ensnare "believers" who can't think for themselves to see the machine stamping out religious robots.

Doubt is the latest ailment and sickness the church is peddling the cure for. Remember when they created spiritual sickness out of porn? Then sold the cute? Porn became over saturated so they've moved on to Doubt!

Welcome Doubt, you've replaced Porn!

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:33 am

Any guesses about what kinds of questions they will select and what the answers will be? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

I listened to it. If you expecting head on confrontation of real issues.. forget it. Standard fluff...

Here are my notes so you get the gist of it in just a few minutes and spare yourselves the time investment...

Really bad parable about being stranded in the ocean and rescued by a boat that is in bad shape, serves bad tasting water and food. So you are not very sure that this being on the boat is a good idea so you get thrown back in the ocean… which of course is not good either.

The church is like the people on the boat… not perfect but essential.

Everyone needs their own testimony to avoid focusing on the bad
Stories about getting their testimonies
Faith is a choice
Obedience
Doubt never leads to faith
Story about someone (Stephen) who had been faithful, but began to have doubts. 4 versions of the first vision. Put him in contact with a researcher that understood these issues. Stephen felt like questions answered, but now worried about polygamy. Stephen was put in touch with another expert who resolved his concerns. Now he was worried about blacks and the priesthood. Stephen was choosing to be a perpetual doubter. He was focusing on the dents in the boat and instead of the necessity of the boat.

Further information is not always the answer - faith and a witness from the Spirit are what is necessary. You already know enough of the answers… you won’t have all the answers in this life.

More about doubt versus faith. Doubts make faith weak. Must have faith to be heirs with God/Christ. Doubt makes you weak and destroys faith.

To have questions about the church is normal… we should be asking of God like Joseph Smith did. But we have to ask in faith, not doubting. (James 1:5 discussion).

John Widstoe quote about doubt… Doubt, unless changed to inquiry, has no worth. “Stagnant doubt”... bad. Compares doubt to a blind mole and lazy scholars. Doubt is evil.

We can know truthfulness of latter-day work. Must have faith; not doubt.

Various analogies about who you should go to for advice… for advice about your eternal welfare, do not go to those who are spiritually bankrupt (i.e., those who doubt and have forsaken Christ).

The blogosphere cannot replace scripture study and reading words of apostles and prophets.

Prophet Mormon - pattern to lean truth. That which is good is from God; evil from the devil… You can know good from evil; light from darkness… ect.

If a choice leads you to do good, it is from God; to do evil - it is from the devil. You will miss spiritually important experiences if you choose doubt.

Back to parable.. Boat can save you from drowning despite its dents. You must endure to the end.

Story about his father and a dream that he had - basically highlighting his father’s faith.

Story about calculus professor and how we acquire knowledge through learning and practice - tied back to the work that must be put into finding faith.

I’ve read all the volumes of the Joseph Smith papers and the new book Saints… this has strengthened testimony of JS. More gushing about JS. Gold plates.. Revelation… priesthood authority… I know… this is more powerful than anything my senses can tell me… RMN testimony.

More about the boat parable. The dents and bad paint job are part of the Lord’ purposes.

More about blessings of faith…

More testimonies and exhortations to faith; not doubt….

I will grant that the story of "Stephen" introduces a few softball subjects, but there are basically dismissed without any real detail.

I have to admit, I like Renlund's boat analogy better than I do Ballard's "Good Ship Zion."

At least Renlund's version of the boat illustrates how unbelievably crappy it is to be forced to board this leaking tub. I can get on board that analogy.

Is this circus the new standard?

Apostolic dual talks with the wife by your side?

Is this supposed to influence the young single adults to get married or just placate the believing Mormon feminists to prove that women do have worth in the church?

And why is the message to the people IN the church sound more like an attack on the people OUT of the church?

wakarusa wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:19 am

More about the boat parable. The dents and bad paint job are part of the Lord’ purposes.

It astonishes me how apostles are no longer a group of scriptorians. I vainly thought that they had learned their lesson from Ballard's famous "Stay in the Boat" talk from October 2014. Has it been so long since any apostle read Matthew chapter 14? I'm the apostate surprised at seeing these boat analogies show up. No one within the institutional LDS leadership seems to remember the story from Primary where Jesus walks on the water and invites Peter to get out of the boat and exercise faith.

Gospel Doctrine class is centerd on the New Testament this year. I have no faith that anyone will notice the glaring contrast of Ballard's and Renlund's "Stay in the Boat" against this pair of verses:

In Chapter 14, Matthew wrote:28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.

29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

It is a clear logical fallacy to try and "prove" something by way of analogy. Will the biblical literalists in my Gospel Doctrine class cling to these flimsy apostolic boat analogies, or will they follow the Savior?

Congrats Elder Renlund. You've successfully demonstrated that the Brethren are afraid to discuss the issues head on, and would rather disparage doubters than confront the issues that make them doubt. Tell me why I should accept a man as Prophet who is getting it on with foster daughters, maids, orphans, and married women. Nope, you're too chicken to try that, you'll just try and make doubters look dumb and unfaithful instead. What kind of prophet, seer, and revelator are you, anyway?

Freakin' coward.