How do we ask questions at church?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

How so?

 

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Church isnt really the ideal place to get into deep doctrine matters.

Church is exactly the place to get into deep doctrine matters. See Vort's post on what constitutes "deep" doctrine for further clarification.

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its pretty much just your typical seminary question and answer style of teaching where you teach and explain the basics of the doctrine.

Church lessons (and seminary lessons) "style" are determined by the teacher. The manuals clearly express a different method than question/answer explanations of basics of doctrine, the primary focus always being the Spirit's participation.

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Of interest though, the smaller "Gospel Essentials" class is actually the best class to learn the deep doctrines.

The ONLY difference in "Gospel Essentials" is that it's typically smaller and therefore more intimate. The doctrines, messages and principles are EXACTLY THE SAME. Always have been, always will be. The lesson manual's approach might be somewhat simplified for them, because, as pointed out, the class exists for new members and the like, but the content is the same. The intimate nature created by the smaller class size might lead those attending to be more confident in asking questions, but a disruptive question is still a disruptive question, matters that shouldn't be discussed in church still shouldn't be discussed, and the key important objective is for the Spirit to attend, the same as in gospel doctrine.

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You cant be afraid to speak up, ask questions, question doctrine, and at times debate openly doctrines that you disagree with or dont understand.

Of course one should ask questions and seek clarification. But you can be afraid to speak up, you don't need to ask questions, and debating doctrine with which you disagree is a sure way to drive the Spirit out.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Church is exactly the place to get into deep doctrine matters. See Vort's post on what constitutes "deep" doctrine for further clarification.

Church lessons (and seminary lessons) "style" are determined by the teacher. The manuals clearly express a different method than question/answer explanations of basics of doctrine, the primary focus always being the Spirit's participation.

The ONLY difference in "Gospel Essentials" is that it's typically smaller and therefore more intimate. The doctrines, messages and principles are EXACTLY THE SAME. Always have been, always will be. The lesson manual's approach might be somewhat simplified for them, because, as pointed out, the class exists for new members and the like, but the content is the same. The intimate nature created by the smaller class size might lead those attending to be more confident in asking questions, but a disruptive question is still a disruptive question, matters that shouldn't be discussed in church still shouldn't be discussed, and the key important objective is for the Spirit to attend, the same as in gospel doctrine.

Of course one should ask questions and seek clarification. But you can be afraid to speak up, you don't need to ask questions, and debating doctrine with which you disagree is a sure way to drive the Spirit out.

I guess Im right then. Thanks for the reply.

[Sunday21]

I think that there are some topics that should not be brought up in Sunday school class. For example:

Where did the Book of Mormon take place? (We don't know. Join an online discussion group).

Why has God ruined my life?  (Please speak to the bishop. You need counselling)

Why does the Book of Mormon's grammar not match correct English Usage? (It's a translation)

Long discussions of who is attacking who,  and where the Isrealites are being carried off to, this week and how many prophets are around at the time, may be interesting to specific groups of people. Please go online to find those specific groups and stop annoying everyone else. Thank you! 

I appreciate when the class sticks to subject of the lesson. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by Sunday21

[Rob Osborn]

Heres a short list of 10 things you wont get into deep discussions at church

1. Location of the ten lost tribes

2. What do the three kingdoms or degrees of glory really mean and who goes where, progression, etc

3. Polygamy

4. Details regarding the identity of the Holy Ghost

5. The omnipotence of God

6. Patriarchal oder/ what it means to preside

7. Location of BoM events

8. What constitutes doctrine, truth, and opinion.

9. BoM translation process

10. Homosexuality/SSA

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Heres a short list of 10 things you wont get into deep discussions at church

1. Location of the ten lost tribes

Impossible to get into a "deep" discussion about such a shallow topic.

2. What do the three kingdoms or degrees of glory really mean and who goes where, progression, etc

This is well discussed in a Sunday School class where Section 76 is being examined, seeing as how Section 76 contains basically everything that has been publicly revealed on the topic.

3. Polygamy

The important point of this is often discussed, which is that we are commanded not to live it. The historical aspects of polygamy are indeed discussed, however. Not sure what else you want.

4. Details regarding the identity of the Holy Ghost

How does utterly baseless speculation count as "deep"?

5. The omnipotence of God

Often discussed.

6. Patriarchal oder/ what it means to preside

Often discussed, especially in Priesthood meetings.

7. Location of BoM events

Baseless speculation. Waste of time. Thank heavens such idiocy is not discussed during your meetings. You should learn from this.

8. What constitutes doctrine, truth, and opinion.

Discussed only by those with an axe to grind.

9. BoM translation process

Often discussed.

10. Homosexuality/SSA

What are you talking about? This is discussed as needed. How much discussion on this topic do you want, anyway?

Methinks someone wants more hobby horse riding.

[Rob Osborn]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

Impossible to get into a "deep" discussion about such a shallow topic.

This is well discussed in a Sunday School class where Section 76 is being examined, seeing as how Section 76 contains basically everything that has been publicly revealed on the topic.

The important point of this is often discussed, which is that we are commanded not to live it. The historical aspects of polygamy are indeed discussed, however. Not sure what else you want.

How does utterly baseless speculation count as "deep"?

Often discussed.

Often discussed, especially in Priesthood meetings.

Baseless speculation. Waste of time. Thank heavens such idiocy is not discussed during your meetings. You should learn from this.

Discussed only by those with an axe to grind.

Often discussed.

What are you talking about? This is discussed as needed. How much discussion on this topic do you want, anyway?

Methinks someone wants more hobby horse riding.

Like casting pearls before...well, nevermind!

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Like casting pearls before...well, nevermind!

Finally, we agree.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Finally, we agree.

Why is it that sometimes you are so antagonistic?

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Why is it that sometimes you are so antagonistic?

Agreeing with you is antagonistic?

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Agreeing with you is antagonistic?

You were intentionally being hostile to my previous post of my list. Its like you just want to be hostile towards anything I say.

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You were intentionally being hostile to my previous post of my list. Its like you just want to be hostile towards anything I say.

I realize that's what it seems like, Rob. But that's not how it is. I have agreed with your posts before, too. When I disagree with you, I feel free to point out why. It's not a personal vendetta.

In this particular case, you seem to be harboring a lot of emotion about not discussing "deep" doctrine at Church. I have already expressed to you that I think you're wrong, and also why I think you're wrong. Discussing polygamy or ancient American airfields or Peru as Zarahemla or the specific nature or identity of the Holy Ghost or our premortal/mortal/postmortal relationship with Heavenly Mother -- such things are not "deep doctrine". There is nothing "deep" about them. They are childish infatuations, at best. (You don't want to know what they are at worst.) The true depth of the gospel lies in things like the atonement of Christ, the efficacy of prayer, the nuts and bolts of repentance, the nature and nurture of faith. We never, ever outgrow these things. If anything, they are more important to us at sixty than they were at sixteen.

I understand that teenage seminary students, new members, and sometimes even young adults tend to get carried away by the so-called "mysteries". But a mature man or woman in the Church ought to understand the futility and even danger of spending time worrying about and -- especially -- discussing such topics. No good can come of it, and much harm might be done. At very absolute best, such things are a waste of time and energy.

So I was trying to point out the futility of such nonsense in replying to you, and simultaneously pointing out that, in my experience, the items on your list that really do qualify as "deep" get discussed all the time at Church. That was my whole intent, with no thought of hostility toward you personally. You seem like a nice enough guy; I expect we might get along well enough IRL. And if you want to consider me a swine before whom you've been casting your pearls...whatever. If those "pearls" you share really are wisdom, then you're right about me, because I don't recognize or value them as pearls of wisdom.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I realize that's what it seems like, Rob. But that's not how it is. I have agreed with your posts before, too. When I disagree with you, I feel free to point out why. It's not a personal vendetta.

In this particular case, you seem to be harboring a lot of emotion about not discussing "deep" doctrine at Church. I have already expressed to you that I think you're wrong, and also why I think you're wrong. Discussing polygamy or ancient American airfields or Peru as Zarahemla or the specific nature or identity of the Holy Ghost or our premortal/mortal/postmortal relationship with Heavenly Mother -- such things are not "deep doctrine". There is nothing "deep" about them. They are childish infatuations, at best. (You don't want to know what they are at worst.) The true depth of the gospel lies in things like the atonement of Christ, the efficacy of prayer, the nuts and bolts of repentance, the nature and nurture of faith. We never, ever outgrow these things. If anything, they are more important to us at sixty than they were at sixteen.

I understand that teenage seminary students, new members, and sometimes even young adults tend to get carried away by the so-called "mysteries". But a mature man or woman in the Church ought to understand the futility and even danger of spending time worrying about and -- especially -- discussing such topics. No good can come of it, and much harm might be done. At very absolute best, such things are a waste of time and energy.

So I was trying to point out the futility of such nonsense in replying to you, and simultaneously pointing out that, in my experience, the items on your list that really do qualify as "deep" get discussed all the time at Church. That was my whole intent, with no thought of hostility toward you personally. You seem like a nice enough guy; I expect we might get along well enough IRL. And if you want to consider me a swine before whom you've been casting your pearls...whatever. If those "pearls" you share really are wisdom, then you're right about me, because I don't recognize or value them as pearls of wisdom.

And thats why I wont share them with you. As one gets older they get wiser and keep those gems to themselves. And Im content not sharing them with you.

[Vort]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

And thats why I wont share them with you. As one gets older they get wiser and keep those gems to themselves. And Im content not sharing them with you.

Probably wise.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, changed said:

I had this conversation just the other day with someone - they were teaching a lesson and wanted advice on how to get good participation and a good discussion going.  I told them if they wanted a good discussion, they needed to ask a genuine question.  

genuine question - one that you honestly do not know the answer to, asked in order to gain increased understanding, generates discussion.

rhetorical question - something meant to make a point, response is not about generating discussion and learning something new, response is just so everyone can confirm that they agree with some point being made.  

All the questions in the manual are rhetorical in nature.  

I don't think I agree with this break down at all.  

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

1. Location of the ten lost tribes

The ten tribes are being gathered as we speak.

[Guest]

On 7/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

my basic point is that gospel discussion at church sometimes isn't organic.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?  "Organic"?  Like we didn't put weed killer into the mix?  Isn't that exactly what you're proposing?  

When doing organic gardening, we don't put any man-made substances in the compost or fertilizer.  It is all just the stuff that God intended.  Isn't revelation supposed to come through His appointed messengers, then confirmed by the Holy Ghost?  Instead, you're proposing that your source of truth supersedes that indicated by His prophets.

On 7/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

sure there are parts of the manual that ask questions, but what are the answers- preformed standard Mormon answers, which I'm not a fan of because we say them without conviction and with little thought.

You're right.  When I say that 2+2 = 4, I really say that with little conviction or thought.

On 7/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

For example, how foolish is it for us to say that the restored gospel stands or falls on the first vision. The gospel was always the same. The first vision changed nothing in this respect. The first vision stands as a confirmation and witness of revealed truth. 

You're taking a structural fact and condemning it from an architectural perspective.

ARCHITECT (what I believe you are saying):

Fact: "The gospel" means the good news of the saving role of Jesus Christ.  His perfect life, His teachings, His Atonement.
Fact: That role of the Savior never changes no matter who does or does not believe or even know or understand.

STRUCTURE (what is meant by the statement):

Fact: If Joseph Smith never had the First Vision, then he was not a prophet of God.
Fact: If Joseph was a false prophet, then all the revealed word that came through him is all false.  At best it came from man; at worst, the devil.  But it did not come from God.
Fact: If none of this came from God, then there is no priesthood, nor ordinances, no sealing power.

WHAT YOU MISUNDERSTAND.

Fact: Different people with different knowledge will have a different understanding of His role, and therefore his Gospel.
Fact: One cannot be saved in ignorance.
Fact: Without the restored truths given through Joseph Smith and his successors, mankind's salvation in this dispensation would be limited.
Fact: Without knowledge of the full gospel, we would be limited in our salvation.  How would we have exaltation without the sealing power?

But that must just be pure foolishness.

On 7/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

We see prophets as the source of truth rather than revealers of truths that already exists.

I don't agree that we do.  But what are you going to do?  Take a poll? 

On 7/3/2017 at 11:44 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

When we see truth as separate from people and organizations, ...

all truth exists independently in the sphere in which God created it, then I think we can be more sincere in our convictions.

Now, we finally get to it.  The bottom line is that you don't believe many members of the Church really have a real conviction.  They've just been indoctrinated.  They've never taken the time to think outside the box.  Therefore, they're simply mindless automatons just going through the motions.

...implying that you've somehow risen above these ranks and have superior ideas and thoughts?  Do you see a problem with that?

Even if you are correct, I'd rather be a sheep following the Lord than a wolf who has chosen to follow the devil.  Beware of pride, my friend.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

1. Location of the ten lost tribes

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-42-the-gathering-of-the-house-of-israel?lang=eng

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

2. What do the three kingdoms or degrees of glory really mean and who goes where, progression, etc

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

3. Polygamy

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-20-plural-marriage?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/official-declarations/official-declaration-1-manifesto?lang=eng

etc...

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

4. Details regarding the identity of the Holy Ghost

True. This hasn't been revealed so...what is there to discuss? I'm not sure this discussion would ever be appropriate and always, without a doubt, the discussion would be filled with nothing but nonsense.

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

5. The omnipotence of God

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-13?lang=eng

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

6. Patriarchal oder/ what it means to preside

https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-2/lesson-22-patriarchal-leadership-in-the-home?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-1/lesson-14-patriarchal-leadership-in-the-home?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual/joseph-f-smith-sixth-president-of-the-church?lang=eng&query=patriarchal+order

etc....

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

7. Location of BoM events

True. Unrevealed. No point in discussing.

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

8. What constitutes doctrine, truth, and opinion.

Every lesson discusses this inherently. They are all based on doctrine and truth.

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

9. BoM translation process

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-3-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng&query=translation+in+a+hat

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

10. Homosexuality/SSA

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=homosexuality

 

This was just a cursory search of the church manuals. There were many, many other results. Obviously there will not be lessons on things that haven't been revealed because they haven't been revealed. You're not going to find much on the specifics of our Heavenly Mother, and no lessons on the exact time of Jesus's second coming either. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Like casting pearls before...well, nevermind!

If these are your pearls you need to do some serious treasure hunting.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Fact: Without the restored truths given through Joseph Smith and his successors, mankind's salvation in this dispensation would be limited.

That's putting it mildly.

[Rob Osborn]

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The ten tribes are being gathered as we speak.

The lost portion of the ten tribes are a separate group of people than those scattered around the earth. Speculation runs wild and deep as to where they are currently located. Latter day revelation tells us they have their own prophets and that their return will be a miraculous event.

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-42-the-gathering-of-the-house-of-israel?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-46-the-final-judgment?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-20-plural-marriage?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/official-declarations/official-declaration-1-manifesto?lang=eng

etc...

True. This hasn't been revealed so...what is there to discuss? I'm not sure this discussion would ever be appropriate and always, without a doubt, the discussion would be filled with nothing but nonsense.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-john-taylor/chapter-13?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-2/lesson-22-patriarchal-leadership-in-the-home?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-1/lesson-14-patriarchal-leadership-in-the-home?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual/joseph-f-smith-sixth-president-of-the-church?lang=eng&query=patriarchal+order

etc....

True. Unrevealed. No point in discussing.

Every lesson discusses this inherently. They are all based on doctrine and truth.

https://www.lds.org/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-manual/lesson-3-the-coming-forth-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng&query=translation+in+a+hat

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=homosexuality

 

This was just a cursory search of the church manuals. There were many, many other results. Obviously there will not be lessons on things that haven't been revealed because they haven't been revealed. You're not going to find much on the specifics of our Heavenly Mother, and no lessons on the exact time of Jesus's second coming either. 

A superficial glossing over of the topics will get your typical glossing over answer. These topics I actually picked from observance of both in church and on the forums that are highly debated, long discussed, and somewhat unclear with many points of deep thought and discussion. These are things you wont typically solve or do much more than scratch the surface on in church. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The lost portion of the ten tribes are a separate group of people than those scattered around the earth. Speculation runs wild and deep as to where they are currently located. Latter day revelation tells us they have their own prophets and that their return will be a miraculous event.

From where do you get this information?

[pam]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The lost portion of the ten tribes are a separate group of people than those scattered around the earth. Speculation runs wild and deep as to where they are currently located. Latter day revelation tells us they have their own prophets and that their return will be a miraculous event.

That is not my understanding at all.  I would like references please.  

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A superficial glossing over of the topics will get your typical glossing over answer.

Well, as your view of what constitutes "deep" and "superficial" don't align with mine I expect we won't agree on the matter.

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

These are things you wont typically solve [...] in church. 

I suppose that depends on what one means when they think to "solve" something.

Edited July 5, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

On 7/3/2017 at 7:39 PM, Jwrenf02 said:

A few days ago. I posted a question on ask Gramps. I'm very grateful for the site because at church you're really not allowed to ask questions. I feel shared belief should be a dialogue between people, but at church beliefs are somewhat forced on you without discussion. This is because of our teach from the manual system. It doesn't anticipate deviation, and our knee jerk reaction is to view deviation as apostasy or disruptive. I feel we are too scripted. Early mormons surprisingly allowed for unscripted flow. It was quenching the Holy Ghost to speak from a script. How can we create an open forum at church to build our faith?

I haven't followed the thread, but I understand your OP. Sometimes the questioner needs to put what others think aside and just ask the question. It doesn't matter if someone else might be upset or think it's a silly question. Who cares? Just ask the question.