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

[MarginOfError]

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.

That isn't what Suzie is implying at all. She's objecting to the suggestion that all discussions should focus only on the basics of the gospel; even those taking place outside of Church classes.

She'd be the first to agree that teaching at church should remain near the core. People can pace themselves outside of church as needed.

[Suzie]

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.

I would like that some members can understand that not everyone is at the same level and that this group also needs to have their needs met and they shouldn't be expected to stay in the basics for good.

I would also like that members don't think you are either a Mormon Critic or an Anti-Mormon just because you are asking or commenting on Church history. I have a passion for Church history, studied it a lot and I continue researching and studying it. It doesn't make me a troublemaker, a Mormon apologist or whatever goes in some people's minds. Questions that may be considered "controversial" or facts that happen in history doesn't equal lack of testimony or anti-mormon sentiment. I think for some, these two are mutually inclusive.

I agree that the things that are taught in Church should remain within the doctrine realm (and even that is arguable, but I mean the basics). Having said that, I completely object to the the idea that places such as this forum should only deal with the basics, that's what we already hear in Church. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Backroads]

Oh! Okay, I understand now what you're saying and I completely agree. I think I said earlier that I love places like these where "fringe discussions" can be held. Kind of why I'm here.

Apologies for the vicious attack.

[Suzie]

I forgot to add that Institute should also be a place where people can feel "free" to ask these sort of questions. As an example, many years ago I was in Institute and we were visited by the Temple President, we were allowed to ask questions after the class. I waited until everyone left to ask him a question and I asked how come the Church discontinued the practice of prayer circles at ward and stake levels (later on I found out why) as well as prayer altars at home. He looked at me in complete shock, absolutely horrified and said:

"Where did you get that from, I don't know anything about it and I find the question very disturbing!".

He left with a frown on his face. I didn't know if cry or laugh. I opted for "Nevermind".

[Backroads]

I agree with Institute/seminary. I had teachers that always said we could ask whatever we wanted and they would do their best with their knowledge--though they always said it was just their understanding, which helped avoid the stereotype of the false doctrine-teaching CES teacher.