Back to the Basics... ummm... again...

[rubondfan2]

So, I apparently didn't pay attention to the curriculum changes for 2011 and am only now finding it interesting that we're covering Gospel Principles again this year as our curriculum for the third hour Priesthood & Relief Society classes. Does anyone else see a message in that? I mean, it's been several years now since the "Teachings of the Prophets" manuals started coming out, and I could have sworn that the message given to us back then was that the Church was going to go through all the prophets to the present day with this curriculum approach.

Well, we didn't even come close to covering all the modern day prophets and now we're starting year two of Gospel Principles. Personally, I think this may not be the best of signs for us members. Don't get me wrong... studying the principles of the Gospel, in my opinion is a super good thing. Heck, if given the choice, I often attend the gospel principles class over gospel doctrine during Sunday School. But I think it says something about the membership as a whole that we're not embracing the basics; the fundamentals; the true heart and soul of the Gospel. And because we are not, our leaders have put them right in front of us again this year.

A callout to the forum... what are some of your thoughts around the third hour curriculum choice for 2011?

[hordak]

So, I apparently didn't pay attention to the curriculum changes for 2011 and am only now finding it interesting that we're covering Gospel Principles again this year as our curriculum for the third hour Priesthood & Relief Society classes. Does anyone else see a message in that? I mean, it's been several years now since the "Teachings of the Prophets" manuals started coming out, and I could have sworn that the message given to us back then was that the Church was going to go through all the prophets to the present day with this curriculum approach.

Well, we didn't even come close to covering all the modern day prophets and now we're starting year two of Gospel Principles. Personally, I think this may not be the best of signs for us members. Don't get me wrong... studying the principles of the Gospel, in my opinion is a super good thing. Heck, if given the choice, I often attend the gospel principles class over gospel doctrine during Sunday School. But I think it says something about the membership as a whole that we're not embracing the basics; the fundamentals; the true heart and soul of the Gospel. And because we are not, our leaders have put them right in front of us again this year.

A callout to the forum... what are some of your thoughts around the third hour curriculum choice for 2011?

I don't want to sound like i'm downplaying the importance of the Prophets, but i don't think there is enough to cover. Kind of like US Presidents , we really study the founding, and the current, along with important things along the way, but anyone know what Millard Fillmore did during his presidency?

Prophets teach and elaborate on the basics, for the time period in which they are in (IMO) so Joseph Smiths teaching, like the founding fathers teachings are more important to use then George Alberts Smith or US President Fillmore. Like wise President Monson's teachings and US President Obama's views/teachings will shape our world more then John Taylor or Martin Van Buren. Much of what was gone through, Edmonton tucker act with John Taylor and dealing with the Native Americans for Van Buren, has "little" relevance to today's Saint or US Citizen.

[dahlia]

"I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord." Elder Oaks

I love this! Maybe this kind of thinking is why I'm attracted to the LDS.

[MarginOfError]

I don't want to sound like i'm downplaying the importance of the Prophets, but i don't think there is enough to cover. Kind of like US Presidents , we really study the founding, and the current, along with important things along the way, but anyone know what Millard Fillmore did during his presidency?

Prophets teach and elaborate on the basics, for the time period in which they are in (IMO) so Joseph Smiths teaching, like the founding fathers teachings are more important to use then George Alberts Smith or US President Fillmore. Like wise President Monson's teachings and US President Obama's views/teachings will shape our world more then John Taylor or Martin Van Buren. Much of what was gone through, Edmonton tucker act with John Taylor and dealing with the Native Americans for Van Buren, has "little" relevance to today's Saint or US Citizen.

Another thing about the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church series is that they don't do historical context very well. There's a lot of insight to be had from some of their teachings if you look at what the big questions of the time were and why there was a need to teach what they were teaching, and why they were choosing to inquire of the Lord the topics that they were. But the series waters down the historical context into a single page to get to the lesson material. By the time you've been through the lesson, you've essentially been through Gospel Principles, but under a different name.

[rameumptom]

One of the reasons they assigned the Gospel Principles for two years was to give the Church Education program a chance to develop future manuals. It takes lots of work to develop these manuals, and using the GP for two years gives them time to prepare more of them.

However, what I would like to see is a manual that teaches on topics, like the GP, but covers a core doctrine for a month or two before moving on. Imagine spending a couple months on scripture and GA quotes discussing the many facets of "Faith in Christ" or "Repentance" or "Learning the Mysteries of Godliness through the Ordinances" or "the Gifts of the Holy Ghost."

No more than 12 topics for the year, and study each over one or two months. THAT would help us truly understand the gospel as we should!

[Wingnut]

One of the reasons they assigned the Gospel Principles for two years was to give the Church Education program a chance to develop future manuals. It takes lots of work to develop these manuals, and using the GP for two years gives them time to prepare more of them.

I wish they'd focus on developing new manuals for Young Women. We have three that we rotate through, one a year, and they were published in 1992, 1993, and 1994. In other words, I'm now teaching young women out of the same manual I was taught out of, and I just turned 30. Yet Relief Society and Priesthood get new manuals every year or every other year.

[Backroads]

I see church as more of a place of worship than of studying deep doctrine. They can teach what they like. Right now I"m in temple prep, so it doesn't affect me for another month.

[NeuroTypical]

I love the gospel principles book. It helps keep me grounded and away from flying into left field fringe-doctrineville.

[Suzie]

Another thing about the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church series is that they don't do historical context very well. There's a lot of insight to be had from some of their teachings if you look at what the big questions of the time were and why there was a need to teach what they were teaching, and why they were choosing to inquire of the Lord the topics that they were. But the series waters down the historical context into a single page to get to the lesson material. By the time you've been through the lesson, you've essentially been through Gospel Principles, but under a different name.

I think the Brigham Young one illustrates your points very well.

[MarginOfError]

I love the gospel principles book. It helps keep me grounded and away from flying into left field fringe-doctrineville.

Hey! Don't post my address on the internet!

[captmoroniRM]

To be honest, it is brilliant that the Church chose to go back to the basics for two years. Just look at how far some of the discussions on this site stray from the core of the Gospel's teachings. So many members in general try and be their own Bruce R. McConkie or Hugh Nibley, wielding History of the Church and the Journal of Discourses (among many other books) in debates on things that hold no importance in regards to our eternal salvation. So many members of the Church live their live son the fringes of the Gospel, where true safety lies in the basics such as faith, repentance, baptism, the commandments, and the atonement.

[Suzie]

Sometimes we are uncomfortable with those things that we do not know or understand (IMO)

Having said that, this is really an internet forum, not a Gospel Principles Class.

[bytebear]

I remember on my mission, we were teaching a family and they were bilingual but more fluent in Spanish, but we were English language only, so we were giving them various books in Spanish so they could read on their own. But after several lessons, they were still lost on the gospel and what it was all about, then we finally gave them the Gospel Principals manual, and the next time they were so excited. "Why didn't you give this sooner."

It's not just that the manual covers the basics, but it covers it in a very straightforward and understandable way. I truly believe that this manual is an inspired work.

[captmoroniRM]

Why should one be uncomfortable with the things we do not know or understand? Yes, we should seek to find the answers, but from the proper source. The Scriptures, and the words of the prophet are the most authorative source we have. We can sit here and debate the 'mysteries' of the gospel but we will come no closer to learning the truth than Laman and Lemuel did trying to understand Lehi's dream. They refused to seek out the Lord for answers. The Lord has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation, and it is found in the holy scriptures and in the words of the living prophets.

Being uncomfortable with the things of the gospel we don't know shows a lack of faith in the Lord. Heavenly Father has promised that if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it will be given. It is one of the key principles this Church is founded upon. If we ask with faith, nothing wavering, we will be given an answer.

Even if the answer is "not yet." One of the most profound scriptures is Alma 37:11 where Alma is explaining to his son the need to keep the plates clean and shiny and preserve them. Sure he gives some speculation as to why, but ultimately shows his wisdom in saying "Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. And it may suffice if I only say they are preserved for a wise purpose, which purpose is known unto God; for he doth counsel in wisdom over all his works, and his paths are straight, and his course is cone eternal round."

Alma was not uncomfortable with a lack of understanding as to why the plates needed to be kept shiny. The Lord had simply told him it was important, and Alma trusted the Lord would provide an answer if one was required.

Instead too many people, especially on this forum, dig for a few obscure quotes or scriptures and take the missing puzzle pieces and add their own opinion and insight into the mix. They seek out some "answer" to the things that make them uncomfortable. They need some logical explanation other than "that has not yet been revealed" or "I don't know."

And you are exactly right. This is an online forum and not a gospel principles class. That is the danger so many people ignore. In a gospel doctrine class, the Bishop and his appointed sunday school leaders are responsible for moderating the classes and ensuring that pure gospel is taught. Sure some discussion is encouraged but there is a reason it hardly leaves the core principles. Living and understanding those core principles will bring us safety. Like wolves feeding on the edges of the flock, those who wander away from the safe and sure core are often lost.

In an online forum, there is nobody with priesthood keys or authority to maintain the purity of the doctrine. Pam and the other moderators do their best, but they are not authorities on doctrine. That leaves too many people free to mingle the opinions of man with the teachings of the gospel. It leads to pointless debates like the real date of Christ's birth or if the sacrament is technically a saving ordinance.

In such an environment, how much more ought we return to the basic teachings of Christ?

[Suzie]

This is an online forum and not a gospel principles class. That is the danger so many people ignore. In a gospel doctrine class, the Bishop and his appointed sunday school leaders are responsible for moderating the classes and ensuring that pure gospel is taught. Sure some discussion is encouraged but there is a reason it hardly leaves the core principles. Living and understanding those core principles will bring us safety. Like wolves feeding on the edges of the flock, those who wander away from the safe and sure core are often lost.

In an online forum, there is nobody with priesthood keys or authority to maintain the purity of the doctrine. Pam and the other moderators do their best, but they are not authorities on doctrine. That leaves too many people free to mingle the opinions of man with the teachings of the gospel. It leads to pointless debates like the real date of Christ's birth or if the sacrament is technically a saving ordinance.

In such an environment, how much more ought we return to the basic teachings of Christ?

Interesting. So taking into consideration your thoughts about this type of internet forums, the kind of discussions that take place, the dangers that you talk about, the fact that there is no "authority" that can moderate these type of discussions, I have only one question:

What are you doing on a site like this one?

Edited January 5, 2011 by Suzie

[rameumptom]

I wish they'd focus on developing new manuals for Young Women. We have three that we rotate through, one a year, and they were published in 1992, 1993, and 1994. In other words, I'm now teaching young women out of the same manual I was taught out of, and I just turned 30. Yet Relief Society and Priesthood get new manuals every year or every other year.

Except that for the Young Women in the program, all these are new manuals for them. Meanwhile, once in PH/RS, you are pretty much stuck there. Since YW will soon rotate into RS, and YM do the same in MP, there's no reason to keep reinventing the wheel.

[rameumptom]

I see church as more of a place of worship than of studying deep doctrine. They can teach what they like. Right now I"m in temple prep, so it doesn't affect me for another month.

It is a place of worship. But it is also supposed to be a place where people can go to learn doctrine. For me, "deep doctrine" is a term for studying the core doctrines in-depth. This is what we're supposed to do. We do not have to spend time speculating on whether the 2nd Coming will be in 2012, or if the Pearly Gates swing or slide open.

Our salvation depends upon us understanding the key doctrine of the Church. And for many members, Church is the only place they have to go and learn about those doctrines.

[MarginOfError]

Why should one be uncomfortable with the things we do not know or understand? Yes, we should seek to find the answers, but from the proper source. The Scriptures, and the words of the prophet are the most authorative source we have. We can sit here and debate the 'mysteries' of the gospel but we will come no closer to learning the truth than Laman and Lemuel did trying to understand Lehi's dream. They refused to seek out the Lord for answers. The Lord has revealed all that is necessary for our salvation, and it is found in the holy scriptures and in the words of the living prophets.

This is an attitude that we just discussed in our ward council meeting a few days ago. Our Sunday School president characterized it as "the Church's inability to meet people where they are at."

In other words, we tend to shrug off how other people feel because we have determined that they don't need to feel the way they do when it "isn't important for our salvation."

The attitude fails to display empathy, and fails to acknowledge that it doesn't matter if a person's feelings are rational; those feelings are still very real.

Being uncomfortable with the things of the gospel we don't know shows a lack of faith in the Lord. Heavenly Father has promised that if any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it will be given. It is one of the key principles this Church is founded upon. If we ask with faith, nothing wavering, we will be given an answer.

I have to firmly disagree here. Inherent in the very definition of faith is also its cousin doubt. To have faith in something requires that acknowledge the possibility that said something isn't true/real/reliable.

What's more, showing discomfort with the things we don't know or understand is often times an illustration of faith, not the lack of it. It's pretty hard to question the faith of individuals who are uncomfortable with certain parts of Church history and teachings and how they fit together while they continue to be active participants in the Church.

Even if the answer is "not yet." One of the most profound scriptures is Alma 37:11 where Alma is explaining to his son the need to keep the plates clean and shiny and preserve them. Sure he gives some speculation as to why, but ultimately shows his wisdom in saying "Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. And it may suffice if I only say they are preserved for a wise purpose, which purpose is known unto God; for he doth counsel in wisdom over all his works, and his paths are straight, and his course is cone eternal round."

Alma was not uncomfortable with a lack of understanding as to why the plates needed to be kept shiny. The Lord had simply told him it was important, and Alma trusted the Lord would provide an answer if one was required.

You don't know that Alma wasn't uncomfortable with not knowing. He may have been uncomfortable, but he did it anyway. The great tests of our faith don't involve gaining a perfect understanding. They involve our actions when we haven't been allowed a perfect understanding.

Instead too many people, especially on this forum, dig for a few obscure quotes or scriptures and take the missing puzzle pieces and add their own opinion and insight into the mix. They seek out some "answer" to the things that make them uncomfortable. They need some logical explanation other than "that has not yet been revealed" or "I don't know."

The only danger I see is the people who will look for a few obscure quotes and scriptures in order to justify a conclusion that they have already made, and then refusing to search further.

But there are also many here that seek any and all information that can enlighten the mind and the soul. You say that people should be happy to accept the answer, "that has not yet been revealed." But at the same time, there are many things that have been revealed but aren't readily available to the average person (ie, Patriarchal Priesthood).

What's more, you say that we should be ready to accept the answer, "I don't know." Many people doing the searching are very open to saying so. Using the discussion of the date of Christ's birth, for example; a great many of the people you are criticizing of looking for obscure quotes are the ones that were actually making the point that we don't know--and we were all okay with that.

And you are exactly right. This is an online forum and not a gospel principles class. That is the danger so many people ignore. In a gospel doctrine class, the Bishop and his appointed sunday school leaders are responsible for moderating the classes and ensuring that pure gospel is taught. Sure some discussion is encouraged but there is a reason it hardly leaves the core principles. Living and understanding those core principles will bring us safety. Like wolves feeding on the edges of the flock, those who wander away from the safe and sure core are often lost.

In an online forum, there is nobody with priesthood keys or authority to maintain the purity of the doctrine. Pam and the other moderators do their best, but they are not authorities on doctrine. That leaves too many people free to mingle the opinions of man with the teachings of the gospel. It leads to pointless debates like the real date of Christ's birth or if the sacrament is technically a saving ordinance.

In such an environment, how much more ought we return to the basic teachings of Christ?

This is perhaps the most entertaining part of your post. You say that no one here has priesthood keys or authority to maintain the purity of doctrine--but you're wrong. Many of the regular posters here and in the site's history have held such keys. Many have served in Church leadership positions and have had such responsibilities. They also tend to be very good at it. But we also tend to recognize where our stewardship ends.

Consider also that all of these individuals share something in common: they do not rely on their authority, but challenge those who make extraordinary claims to justify them from the scriptures and teachings of Church leaders. A great many of the "fringe discussions" on this site are very well documented because we understand that we hold no authority over each other.

Lastly, I'll point out that I have yet to see a person come to this site and leave the Church because of the "fringe discussions" held here. But I have known a number of individuals who have come here with concerns and worries about the "fringe discussions" that has left the questioning their commitment to the gospel. They came here because discussion of the things that bothered them generally isn't permitted in Sunday School classes. And I personally know people that have had their faith steadied by the discussions that took place here--often times after we helped them see a broader picture and accept that, "we don't know."

It's perfectly okay to be uncomfortable with aspects of Church doctrine, history, policy, or culture. It is okay to express doubt, because without doubt, we cannot have faith. It is okay to discuss these things and to learn. It's okay to accept that humans are nuanced and complicated, and that spills over into our temporal organizations.

"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118)

"But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." (D&C 9:8)

"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." (D&C 8:2)

[Backroads]

It is a place of worship. But it is also supposed to be a place where people can go to learn doctrine. For me, "deep doctrine" is a term for studying the core doctrines in-depth. This is what we're supposed to do. We do not have to spend time speculating on whether the 2nd Coming will be in 2012, or if the Pearly Gates swing or slide open.

Our salvation depends upon us understanding the key doctrine of the Church. And for many members, Church is the only place they have to go and learn about those doctrines.

Emphasis on key doctrine, not random thoughts and musings of apostles over the years. Which is why I have no problem with going back to the Gospel Doctrine book.

Are we really supposed to be using church as a place to discuss obscure ideas that may not be actual, essential, and legitimate doctrine?

[Backroads]

Lastly, I'll point out that I have yet to see a person come to this site and leave the Church because of the "fringe discussions" held here. But I have known a number of individuals who have come here with concerns and worries about the "fringe discussions" that has left the questioning their commitment to the gospel. They came here because discussion of the things that bothered them generally isn't permitted in Sunday School classes. And I personally know people that have had their faith steadied by the discussions that took place here--often times after we helped them see a broader picture and accept that, "we don't know."

I think a forum like this for "faith steadying", as you put it, is a great thing.

I still hold the opinion we shouldn't place our testimonies in church history or weird semi-doctrine, but it can scare people.

I think there is a reason those things are not discussed in Sunday School and I completely support that reason.

But it's nice to have an unofficial place of sorts to turn to that helps one get perspective.

[captmoroniRM]

Interesting. So taking into consideration your thoughts about this type of internet forums, the kind of discussions that take place, the dangers that you talk about, the fact that there is no "authority" that can moderate these type of discussions, I have only one question:

What are you doing on a site like this one?

To be completely honest, these discussions are a catalyst that gets my nose into the scriptures. I have a hard time just sitting down and reading them cover to cover, but responding to a particular argument or question gives me something to focus on. I am also here to bear testimony of Christ's church and his gospel, even if it is to other members who may need to be reminded of the "basics" even if they don't like it.

This is an attitude that we just discussed in our ward council meeting a few days ago. Our Sunday School president characterized it as "the Church's inability to meet people where they are at." In other words, we tend to shrug off how other people feel because we have determined that they don't need to feel the way they do when it "isn't important for our salvation." The attitude fails to display empathy, and fails to acknowledge that it doesn't matter if a person's feelings are rational; those feelings are still very real.

Isn't the best way to meet someone where they are at is to focus on the basics and build them a solid foundation? The Church is constantly reiterating the same things over and over and over and over again: faith, repentence, obedience, tithing, fasting, etc. Additionally, with a constant influx of new membership, to put everyone on the same level. It elevates those who are ready for the Gospel milk, and humbles those who think they don't need it anymore. The new members get wisdom from the older members and vice versa. Thus everyone progresses at the same base level. It provides everyone to find the answer someone else may have already found. With that sure foundation, one can properly dive deeper into the gospel, and know for sure if something we find is in harmony with the doctrines of the gospel or not. That foundation makes it easier for us to teach our nonmember friends because

I have to firmly disagree here. Inherent in the very definition of faith is also its cousin doubt. To have faith in something requires that acknowledge the possibility that said something isn't true/real/reliable. What's more, showing discomfort with the things we don't know or understand is often times an illustration of faith, not the lack of it. It's pretty hard to question the faith of individuals who are uncomfortable with certain parts of Church history and teachings and how they fit together while they continue to be active participants in the Church.

Since when is doubt an inherent part of faith? Doubt is the antethesis of faith. Faith, by definition is a belief or hope in things which are not seen, but are true. It is the confidence that even though we may not have all the answers, we believe it is true. By your definition of faith means if we have faith in Christ that we acknowledge the possibility that Christ isn't true/real/reliable. James teaches us to ask with "nothing wavering." (James 1:5) Mormon tells us "Doubt not, but be believing...and come unto the Lord with all your heart." (Mormon 9:27) The faith of the stripling warriors so strong they "did not doubt, God would deliver them." (Alma 56:47). The Lord himself tells us "Look unto me in every thought' doubt not, fear not. I have faith in Christ. I know beyond any doubt that he is real, that he truly is the Son of God, and that I can rely on him in my darkest hour.

You don't know that Alma wasn't uncomfortable with not knowing. He may have been uncomfortable, but he did it anyway. The great tests of our faith don't involve gaining a perfect understanding. They involve our actions when we haven't been allowed a perfect understanding.

Let me repost the verse with added emphasis on part of it. "Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. And it may suffice if I only say they are preserved for a wise purpose, which purpose is known unto God; for he doth counsel in wisdom over all his works, and his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

Suffice is defined as "to be adequate or satisfactory." It indicates no discomfort. Alma trusted the Lord, doubting not that his paths are straight, and if the plates needed to be kept shiny, the Lord had a good reason, even if it wasn't revealed to him.

You say that no one here has priesthood keys or authority to maintain the purity of doctrine--but you're wrong. Many of the regular posters here and in the site's history have held such keys. Many have served in Church leadership positions and have had such responsibilities. They also tend to be very good at it. But we also tend to recognize where our stewardship ends.

You misunderstood what I meant. Is there a forum president called by priesthood authority to preside over this board? Is there a board bishop? The site itself says it is not offically a website of the ChurchJust because many of men on here hold the priesthood and serve/have served in positions of leadership, does not mean any of them have the final word on doctrine. (I've heard bishops in Church teach some crazy things that are not doctrinally sound). In such an environment it is all the more important that we try and stick to the basics of what has been revealed as doctrine.

We are all at different levels here. Some are more knowledgable about the Gospel than others. These forums are impersonal and it is hard to know where each person stands. While one user is off posting about whether or not God is an exalted man and how he became God, you may have some user who still needs to grasp the principle that God is our Father. It creates a huge disconnect, which does more harm than good.

It's perfectly okay to be uncomfortable with aspects of Church doctrine, history, policy, or culture. It is okay to express doubt, because without doubt, we cannot have faith. It is okay to discuss these things and to learn. It's okay to accept that humans are nuanced and complicated, and that spills over into our temporal organizations.

I disagree. Any degree of uncomfortability with the Doctrine or policy of the Church should drive us to find the answers and exercise faith that we will find them, and be willing to accept the answer "It has not been revealed" because often times, that is the answer the Lord gives us.

[Suzie]

Thus everyone progresses at the same base level. It provides everyone to find the answer someone else may have already found. With that sure foundation, one can properly dive deeper into the gospel, and know for sure if something we find is in harmony with the doctrines of the gospel or not.

How exactly does everyone progresses at the same base level when you have a group whose needs are different?. It's illogical to me to take French lessons and as you complete Level 1 and you would like to pass to Level 2, they tell you that you cannot do that because you need to continue revising Level 1 and even though you may learn a few things by revising again, at some point you need more...However, you still not able to pass to Level 2. New students are being added to your class and they don't know any French so there you are, stuck in Level 1 French, possibly for good. Makes sense? Not in my opinion.

In such an environment it is all the more important that we try and stick to the basics of what has been revealed as doctrine.

Don't we have that in Gospel Principles Class? What would be the purpose of this forum if all that we do is discuss only the same things that you hear in Church? The reason sites like this one are popular is because members can ask and answer questions they do not normally hear at Church or things they would never dream in discussing during a Sunday School class.

[rameumptom]

Emphasis on key doctrine, not random thoughts and musings of apostles over the years. Which is why I have no problem with going back to the Gospel Doctrine book.

Are we really supposed to be using church as a place to discuss obscure ideas that may not be actual, essential, and legitimate doctrine?

Which is why much of what I write here or on my blog I would not bring up in Church. It doesn't belong there. There is a place for everything. The Internet is the place for the free flowing exchange of ideas. Gospel Doctrine class is not. It is the place for discussing doctrine.

[MarginOfError]

This is an attitude that we just discussed in our ward council meeting a few days ago. Our Sunday School president characterized it as "the Church's inability to meet people where they are at."

In other words, we tend to shrug off how other people feel because we have determined that they don't need to feel the way they do when it "isn't important for our salvation."

The attitude fails to display empathy, and fails to acknowledge that it doesn't matter if a person's feelings are rational; those feelings are still very real.

Isn't the best way to meet someone where they are at is to focus on the basics and build them a solid foundation? The Church is constantly reiterating the same things over and over and over and over again: faith, repentence, obedience, tithing, fasting, etc. Additionally, with a constant influx of new membership, to put everyone on the same level. It elevates those who are ready for the Gospel milk, and humbles those who think they don't need it anymore. The new members get wisdom from the older members and vice versa. Thus everyone progresses at the same base level. It provides everyone to find the answer someone else may have already found. With that sure foundation, one can properly dive deeper into the gospel, and know for sure if something we find is in harmony with the doctrines of the gospel or not. That foundation makes it easier for us to teach our nonmember friends because

Thank you for illustrating my point so well! You've essentially just said that the best way to meet somewhere where they are at is to tell them what we're willing to talk about and that we'll talk about it when they agree to talk about what we are willing to talk about. That doesn't sound like meeting them where they're at so much as it sounds like telling them to come here.

Since when is doubt an inherent part of faith? Doubt is the antethesis of faith. Faith, by definition is a belief or hope in things which are not seen, but are true. It is the confidence that even though we may not have all the answers, we believe it is true. By your definition of faith means if we have faith in Christ that we acknowledge the possibility that Christ isn't true/real/reliable. James teaches us to ask with "nothing wavering." (James 1:5) Mormon tells us "Doubt not, but be believing...and come unto the Lord with all your heart." (Mormon 9:27) The faith of the stripling warriors so strong they "did not doubt, God would deliver them." (Alma 56:47). The Lord himself tells us "Look unto me in every thought' doubt not, fear not. I have faith in Christ. I know beyond any doubt that he is real, that he truly is the Son of God, and that I can rely on him in my darkest hour.

doubt is the yin to faith's yang. They coexist. The only way to dispel doubt permanently is to turn faith/belief into knowledge. That's something that comparatively few people are accomplish in life.

But you are on the right track when you put faith in terms of confidence. Faith and doubt are dependent variables in the sense that as one increases, the other decreases. But faith also can vary by topic. A person can have great faith in the atonement, but lessfaith in organizational structure. When such happens, cognitive dissonance occurs and such dissonance needs to be addressed.

Let me repost the verse with added emphasis on part of it. "Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear. And it may suffice if I only say they are preserved for a wise purpose, which purpose is known unto God; for he doth counsel in wisdom over all his works, and his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

Suffice is defined as "to be adequate or satisfactory." It indicates no discomfort. Alma trusted the Lord, doubting not that his paths are straight, and if the plates needed to be kept shiny, the Lord had a good reason, even if it wasn't revealed to him.

That's quite the extrapolation. Frequently in my work, I'm asked by reviewers to make adjustments to my analyses, or add extra components that I don't think are necessary and sometimes they're inappropriate for the data. But the reviewer won't allow the valuable parts of the research to be published unless it also includes the garbage he or she feels is important. In such situations, I frequently bend the to review, making adequate research that I have some discomfort about. "sufficient" does not imply "comfort."

You misunderstood what I meant. Is there a forum president called by priesthood authority to preside over this board? Is there a board bishop? The site itself says it is not offically a website of the ChurchJust because many of men on here hold the priesthood and serve/have served in positions of leadership, does not mean any of them have the final word on doctrine. (I've heard bishops in Church teach some crazy things that are not doctrinally sound). In such an environment it is all the more important that we try and stick to the basics of what has been revealed as doctrine.

I knew perfectly well what you meant. I also addressed the fact that the majority of us here understand that and demand references for the claims and teachings that are presented. IE, none of us presume to have the final word on doctrine...we leave it to the scriptures and to the individual to determine doctrine with the help of the Spirit. Is there something wrong with that process?

We are all at different levels here. Some are more knowledgable about the Gospel than others. These forums are impersonal and it is hard to know where each person stands. While one user is off posting about whether or not God is an exalted man and how he became God, you may have some user who still needs to grasp the principle that God is our Father. It creates a huge disconnect, which does more harm than good.

I don't see much harm in it. I've seen a lot more benefit from it, because there's a feedback loop and a community that can verify or discredit claims for people who don't have the experience or the resources to do so for themselves.

Something that has been discovered with the internet is that communities have incredible power to weed out the whackos and develop coherent, reasonable, and attainable explanations for difficult subjects. And it doesn't take long as a member here to figure out who is credible and who isn't. To say that the average user can't determine this is pretty insulting to them.

I disagree. Any degree of uncomfortability with the Doctrine or policy of the Church should drive us to find the answers and exercise faith that we will find them, and be willing to accept the answer "It has not been revealed" because often times, that is the answer the Lord gives us.

Discomfort with doctrine and policy is what drives people to ask questions and seek answers. Which is why it is okay to be uncomfortable and express that discomfort. That's the only way you can begin to find answers. And you're right, sometimes the answer is "it has not been revealed." But not always. Sometimes, the answer has been revealed, but it isn't in the standard works. Other times, the answer has been revealed but isn't recorded. sometimes, the answer is available to those willing to seek out an answer and get confirmation through the Spirit. And sometimes, the best you can do is search out plausible explanations.

The problem with the phrase "It has not been revealed" is that we are part of a church found on continuing revelation. So the phrase has to be modified to "it has not been revealed yet." And that last word makes a huge difference into whether or not you seek out additional information. The better informed you are, the better able you are to receive revelation.

[Backroads]

How exactly does everyone progresses at the same base level when you have a group whose needs are different?. It's illogical to me to take French lessons and as you complete Level 1 and you would like to pass to Level 2, they tell you that you cannot do that because you need to continue revising Level 1 and even though you may learn a few things by revising again, at some point you need more...However, you still not able to pass to Level 2. New students are being added to your class and they don't know any French so there you are, stuck in Level 1 French, possibly for good. Makes sense? Not in my opinion.

Don't we have that in Gospel Principles Class? What would be the purpose of this forum if all that we do is discuss only the same things that you hear in Church? The reason sites like this one are popular is because members can ask and answer questions they do not normally hear at Church or things they would never dream in discussing during a Sunday School class.

I guess I'm confused about what you want. Do you want to have a separate class at church for discussing things that aren't even doctrine? How will individuals decide they are ready for that? I see this as opening a whole big can of worms. People will want to join Level 2 French when they aren't ready for it and don't have a strong testimony of basic doctrine just so they can be hanging with the big boys.

Let church do its thing. Extra studies should be on your own time, for your own progression.