Rough Stone Rolling

[An Investigator]

Oh I had no idea sorry 

[Jane_Doe]

48 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

You mean something like @prisonchaplain's boss?

LOL!

44 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

Haha no.. There isn't really a LDS equivalent, but this is it.. I counted all the donations after mass too..

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchwarden

Thanks for the explanation!

[An Investigator]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

LOL!

Thanks for the explanation!

Your welcome

[zil]

45 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

Oh I had no idea sorry 

He's a chaplain ministering to inmates in a prison.  In the US, the person "in charge" of a prison is usually called a warden (who would not be the chaplain's boss, at least, I assume not, but it makes for a good joke).

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, An Investigator said:

Thank you also for your concern but I'm a grown women with a degree who is getting a little annoyed at everyone in the Church treating me like a child.   Ive been an active Church attender all my life and been a church Warden.   I also read quite a bit about Church history before I got baptised and some was from anti sources..  Still got baptised,  i think a book like this will strengthen my testimony tbh.. We shall see I suppose lol. 

I don't blame you, but assure you this "treating you like a child" is not personal.  People see the world through the lens of their own experiences.  Most people know others who have fallen away from the church because the other person "learned something they weren't comfortable with" like about polyandry or something.  And some people respond to that by trying to keep young people and new members away from that sort of information.  Some of us (I am in this category) believe that it is better to hear from your own.  I mean, I would rather my kids, or a friend who is a new member, learn about the "difficult history bits" from me or someone else in the church rather than from someone else how has a very different agenda.  

So I say read it.  We have nothing to hide.  Bushman has no ax to grind.  As you said, you have a testimony of Joseph Smith and I agree that it will strengthen your testimony.  

Remember those people who treat you like a child mean well, they just approach the world differently, again it's not personal, they'd give any new member the same kid gloves. 

[An Investigator]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't blame you, but assure you this "treating you like a child" is not personal.  People see the world through the lens of their own experiences.  Most people know others who have fallen away from the church because the other person "learned something they weren't comfortable with" like about polyandry or something.  And some people respond to that by trying to keep young people and new members away from that sort of information.  Some of us (I am in this category) believe that it is better to hear from your own.  I mean, I would rather my kids, or a friend who is a new member, learn about the "difficult history bits" from me or someone else in the church rather than from someone else how has a very different agenda.  

So I say read it.  We have nothing to hide.  Bushman has no ax to grind.  As you said, you have a testimony of Joseph Smith and I agree that it will strengthen your testimony.  

Remember those people who treat you like a child mean well, they just approach the world differently, again it's not personal, they'd give any new member the same kid gloves. 

Yeah I understand they think they are doing what is best but all it does is facilitate this atmosphere where you feel you can't ask questions which is why I come on line so often.  I find it quite sad that I have no one i can talk about spiritual matters with in the flesh.. In my old Church, debate was encouraged to strengthen ones faith.  Still I go to Church to worship God. I can study at home.  

[zil]

7 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

Yeah I understand they think they are doing what is best but all it does is facilitate this atmosphere where you feel you can't ask questions which is why I come on line so often.  I find it quite sad that I have no one i can talk about spiritual matters with in the flesh.. In my old Church, debate was encouraged to strengthen ones faith.  Still I go to Church to worship God. I can study at home.  

Over the course of time, people will get to know you, get comfortable around you, recognize the strength of your faith, and then they'll be comfortable with speculative or difficult topics (well, some of them - some people prefer to just stick to the Sunday School answers and avoid the rest, whatever works for them).

I sometimes wonder if this doesn't all boil down to time.  Relatively few are willing to take the time to delve deeply into a topic, and they tend not to be in the same place at the same time, so those who want to do this, do it online while all the people physically near them, who "don't have time" for it, are off doing something else...  I could be wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

As FYI, the Warden would be my boss's boss. The Associate Warden is my boss...which in church terms would be similar perhaps to an Executive Pastor (they are usually in charge of administration and finance, releasing the Lead Pastor to preach/teach and vision-cast).

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

As FYI, the Warden would be my boss's boss. The Associate Warden is my boss...which in church terms would be similar perhaps to an Executive Pastor (they are usually in charge of administration and finance, releasing the Lead Pastor to preach/teach and vision-cast).

Psst, LDS don't have Executive or Lead Pastor's either.  But I think we could figure it out from your explanation   

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

Yeah I understand they think they are doing what is best but all it does is facilitate this atmosphere where you feel you can't ask questions which is why I come on line so often.  I find it quite sad that I have no one i can talk about spiritual matters with in the flesh.. In my old Church, debate was encouraged to strengthen ones faith.  Still I go to Church to worship God. I can study at home.  

One reason I have a strong testimony is that while growing up I had an anti-Mormon "friend" who decided to use me as the sounding board for all his anti-Mormon material, arguments, ideas, etc.  It forced me to really consider what I believed and why.  The important thing was that I really considered it and continually prayed about it.  One major thing was that I had to find enough good sources to help me with the other side of the argument.  Unfortunately, I didn't have many.  But I made it a point to ask a lot of questions of the few who were pretty knowledgeable and were people whom I had a great spiritual respect for.

I think more people enjoy debate than they realize.

9 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

As FYI, the Warden would be my boss's boss. The Associate Warden is my boss...which in church terms would be similar perhaps to an Executive Pastor (they are usually in charge of administration and finance, releasing the Lead Pastor to preach/teach and vision-cast).

The "heirarchy" of the church is like this:

Bishop: The head of the ward (congregation)

• Wards ideally are between 200 to 400 people.  But reality stretches this range to about 100 to 700.  In fact, 700 is a semi official number for max ward size.  But more than 400 with a high activity rate really becomes difficult for one bishop to manage.
• Smaller congregations are led by a "Branch President".
• The Bishop is assisted by two counselors and the leaders of various priesthood and auxiliary organizations.
• He also has secretaries and clerks who help with scheduling, record keeping, and counting the donations each week.

Stake Leadership:

• Anywhere from 4 to 10 wards (or so) make up a "Stake"
• The stake is led by the stake president, counselors, and a "stake high council".
• There are also stake-level priesthood and auxiliary leaders.
• The stake structure is a microcosm of the church heirarchy in Salt Lake.  And for the most part, the stake runs autonomously.

Regional Representative:

• This is the intermediate level between "General" authorities and Stake level authorities.
• This office is not in the "line of authority".  They are usually in charge of training stake level officers and carrying special communications from the Twelve to the stakes within their region.

General Authorities:

• These are what would be known as the "Church heirarchy".
• They are based in Salt Lake and are largely full-time positions.
• Those in the "line of authority" are divided into three tiers:  The First Presidency, The Quorum/Council of the Twelve, and the Quorums/Councils of the Seventy.
  • Some Seventies are considered "general authorities".  Some are considered "Area seventies" or "Area representatives".  An "Area" is composed of several regions.
• All other auxiliaries are also paralleled at the general level as the stake and ward levels are.

[prisonchaplain]

57 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Psst, LDS don't have Executive or Lead Pastor's either.  But I think we could figure it out from your explanation   

I thought bishops were like executive pastors.  And, if you don't have lead pastors who preach and vision-cast, who's Glenn Beck? 

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I thought bishops were like executive pastors.  

In some ways yes, in some ways no.

They are the head of administration and the head of local finance, but the "leg work" of finance managing is done by the financial secretary(s) and other positions.  Administration should also be delegated as much as possible.   The most important part of their role is counseling members, especially those whom are struggling (whether spiritually, financially, etc).

Is counseling members a part of the Executive Pastor's job, or does that go to... I think my friend called that person a Wellness Pastor??  I don't really know...

 

I thought bishops were like executive pastors.  And, if you don't have lead pastors who preach and vision-cast, who's Glenn Beck? 

 

 

[prisonchaplain]

Big churches may have wellness pastors, but in medium and smaller ones, it would be the lead pastor who usually offers spiritual advice. We used to give pastoral counseling, but now the word "counseling" has legal ramifications (read -- churches got sued for 'failed counseling' but non-licensed practioners ... sick world), so we offer "soul care," etc.  It is becoming common for pastor's wives to get degrees is Christian counseling, and for them to offer services as part of the church ministry.

[tesuji]

5 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Thanks for the advice, I have bought the book anyway, so I will let you know what I think when I have read it.    

Thank you also for your concern but I'm a grown women with a degree who is getting a little annoyed at everyone in the Church treating me like a child.   Ive been an active Church attender all my life and been a church Warden.   I also read quite a bit about Church history before I got baptised and some was from anti sources..  Still got baptised,  i think a book like this will strengthen my testimony tbh.. We shall see I suppose lol. 

From what you have said, I think you will find the book valuable.

Many new Mormons do not have a background in religion like you do. So recommending RSR to them is like telling a French 101 student to read Moliere or Proust. Also, faith can easily be snuffed out when it's new. Spiritual knowledge is not like academic knowledge.

I certainly didn't mean to treat you like a child. Mormons should definitely ask questions. Just try to be ready to hear the answers. Some things in church history and doctrine are hard to understand. I'm not saying don't ask questions. I'm just saying people shouldn't try to run before they can walk. We have given you enough info here for you to choose, I think.

If you have a little seedling barely sprouting, you would destroy it by dumping too much water and fertilizer on it, until it had grown and had big enough roots. Or, for another analogy, if you wanted someone to enjoy learning calculus and appreciate what a great tool it is, you would tell them to spend a few years on algebra first.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, An Investigator said:

Yeah I understand they think they are doing what is best but all it does is facilitate this atmosphere where you feel you can't ask questions which is why I come on line so often.  I find it quite sad that I have no one i can talk about spiritual matters with in the flesh.. In my old Church, debate was encouraged to strengthen ones faith.  Still I go to Church to worship God. I can study at home.  

Be the change you want to see in the world...er...ward.  I'm teasing.  I agree with you.  But really I think it is about their fears, so we need to be patient with them.  They're doing the best they can.  

[tesuji]

Someone here mentioned the book about Joseph Smith titled No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie. This book is anti-Mormon and I do not recommend it to anyone.

Here is a detailed list of point by point rebuttals of Brodie's claims in that book:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith

I think people should read and learn and become informed. But you need to also know the quality and trustworthiness of what you read. 

Joseph Smith is a prophet. A testimony of this comes from the Holy Ghost. Not from listening to lies and distortions written about him. Sure, read Brodie. But don't automatically trust what she says.

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Someone here mentioned the book about Joseph Smith titled No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie. This book is anti-Mormon and I do not recommend it to anyone.

Here is a detailed list of point by point rebuttals of Brodie's claims in that book:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/No_Man_Knows_My_History:_The_Life_of_Joseph_Smith

I think people should read and learn and become informed. But you need to also know the quality and trustworthiness of what you read. 

Joseph Smith is a prophet. A testimony of this comes from the Holy Ghost. Not from listening to lies and distortions written about him. Sure, read Brodie. But don't automatically trust what she says.

Yes, I mentioned it and yes, I know it's "anti-Mormon". So does basically everyone. 

However you forgot my second part. Bushman himself read it (several times, actually) and he turned out fine. He admired it and :: gasp :: I do as well. Doesn't mean I agree with much of it, but a well written book is a well written book. The other awkward truth is that Brodies Smith Jr is presented in a better light than he was ever before. 

You should not just read things you agree with. A thinking person reads both sides and makes up their own mind. 

Edited July 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yes, I mentioned it and yes, I know it's "anti-Mormon". So does basically everyone. 

However you forgot my second part. Bushman himself read it (several times, actually) and he turned out fine. You should not just read things you agree with. A thinking person reads both sides and makes up their own mind. 

This can really be taken both ways.  And it is at the heart of why some are taken in by these things and others are not.

One way to take it is that a person who only listens to one's own side may never really survive a trial of faith.  And you can't really make a "choice" to believe truth if you've never known any error.  There's some truth to that.

The other way to take it is comparable to one who only eats junk food.  Sure, some small amounts of junk food now and then won't really cause anything serious.  But if that's all you eat, without enough wholesome food, you're just asking for trouble.  We don't just always seek out anti-Mormon stuff "knowing" our faith is strong enough.  That's like saying "my body is so strong that I can subsist on junk food alone."  Not quite.

I figure I get enough of anti-Mormon stuff just by tripping over it.  It's like breathing polluted air in the city.  I don't need to seek it out.  It's everywhere.  Why would I want to pick up smoking to get even more polluted air?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This can really be taken both ways.  And it is at the heart of why some are taken in by these things and others are not.

One way to take it is that a person who only listens to one's own side may never really survive a trial of faith.  And you can't really make a "choice" to believe truth if you've never known any error.  There's some truth to that.

The other way to take it is comparable to one who only eats junk food.  Sure, some small amounts of junk food now and then won't really cause anything serious.  But if that's all you eat, without enough wholesome food, you're just asking for trouble.  We don't just always seek out anti-Mormon stuff "knowing" our faith is strong enough.  That's like saying "my body is so strong that I can subsist on junk food alone."  Not quite.

I figure I get enough of anti-Mormon stuff just by tripping over it.  It's like breathing polluted air in the city.  I don't need to seek it out.  It's everywhere.  Why would I want to pick up smoking to get even more polluted air?

 

You have to think like a non-LDS.

A non-member will ask "Well have you read anything that isn't church sanctioned?" "No" The non-LDS is totally within their rights to say "I question the source." 

 

Again, it should be obvious that I'm a believing LDS (heck, I just took the missionaries out today to Chili's). 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You have to think like a non-LDS.

A non-member will ask "Well have you read anything that isn't church sanctioned?" "No" The non-LDS is totally within their rights to say "I question the source." 

 

Again, it should be obvious that I'm a believing LDS (heck, I just took the missionaries out today to Chili's). 

I was including this in my statements.  Yes, I have read much that is not church sanctioned.  But as I also said, I didn't have to seek it out.  It just came to me and I've stumbled across it because I am prominently a Mormon in all the circles I run in.  And there are various apologetics activities I'm involved in where such is always brought to my attention.  

So, maybe I should say, for me, there is no need because a steady dose of it comes to me anyway without me wondering if I should read yet another book or paper or website or pamphlet or video or...  I'm really tired of it.  And it keeps coming at me anyway.

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You have to think like a non-LDS.

A non-member will ask "Well have you read anything that isn't church sanctioned?" "No" The non-LDS is totally within their rights to say "I question the source." 

You have to remember the church is still relatively young. The church passed 1 million members in only 1947. Until recently it was hard to find good stuff that was pro-Mormon that was not published by the church. (Partly because of Brodie's abuse of the church opening it's archives to her, the church became guarded about that afterwards.)

This is happily changing now with new Mormon scholarship being produced, and a more open attitude by the church.

I rarely see things about Mormonism that I consider objective or neutral.  However, Wikipedia is actually pretty accurate from what I've seen, and seems pretty neutral to me.

Bushman's book RSR is honest and he tries to be objective. Even though he is a believing member, he was also a first rate professor of history at Columbia U. I trust this book.

There is plenty of stuff on the anti-Mormon side. Some is not overly anti-Mormon, but they rely on anti-Mormon sources too much, such as the American Crucifixion book.  The author of that book naïvely tried to get info from all sides, but he ended up serving a drink mixed with anti-Mormon sewage. It's important to consider all sides but not all sources are of equal value or trustworthiness.

Most of the overtly anti-Mormon stuff is not worth the paper it's printed on, as far as getting to an objective and honest understanding of the facts.

Brody's book is well-written and is the most popular biography "out in the world", but it is full of very questionable statements and the author was antagonistic toward the church. She had an agenda. For a scholarly book it is not very forthcoming about the sources for the statements it makes. Overall, it amounts to an anti-Mormon book, not because the author is overtly anti-Mormon, but because the author is not being honest and distorts or even apparently invents many things.

Some non-Mormons honestly try to explain Mormonism but they get it wrong, because it's so different in many ways. You see this in the newspapers a lot.

Edited July 29, 2016 by tesuji

[An Investigator]

7 hours ago, zil said:

Sorry no idea how to get rid of this lol ? 

Edited July 29, 2016 by An Investigator

[An Investigator]

Ok.. Some interesting points, thanks for the replies guys..

1, I am taking the advice and taking the rains in the Gp classes,  we are doing charity this week, I come up with questions about philanthropy, what it means in the Bible to have a pure heart and if a pure heart is applicable only to LDS/ Christians. If advertising your humanitarian work is following not letting your right hand know what your left is doing. How can people focus on spiritual matters if their basic needs arnt already met and if using the power of decernment is judging others.  This is making the class much more interesting ? 

 

I understand totally what Gator saying however I don't agree! I came to ask about this book in a faith promoting capacity,  If I wasn't bothered about what I was looking at I wouldnt have asked.  fair play if you can be that impartial though,  I'm not sure I could 

Edited July 29, 2016 by An Investigator

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, An Investigator said:

I understand totally what Gator saying

Thank you my friend. To me, that's all that matters. If we agreed on everything none of us would be here. 

[askandanswer]

On 7/27/2016 at 7:16 AM, MormonGator said:

 If you can :: gasp :: understand that he was a mortal man complete with flaws you will love the book. 

                                                                             I wonder if this ^^ would have been true if Joseph Smith had been born in Australia? I think not.