President Oaks Receives Criticism After Suggesting “Research is not the answer”

[Just_A_Guy]

I think @Anddenex hits the nail on the head.  I know that in my work of trying to persuade . . . subpar . . . parents to accept court and state intervention, I often find myself letting a lot of malarkey pass, and even speaking some malarkey myself, for the sake of building rapport.  And frankly, in that context . . . I’m pretty good at it, and it usually works.  Without having any specialized insider knowledge, it seems to me that MGF has been experimenting with this as an approach to apologetics.  I don’t personally love that approach insofar as it besmirches individual Church leaders who I hold in high esteem and affection, but I suppose the fundamental question is:  does it work?  Or does it just give our enemies more ammunition?

[Midwest LDS]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Just a word of caution-the perfect forum doesn't exist. I'm sure you (generic!) will be able to find something wrong with any forum out there. From it not being orthodox enough to not liking the some posters to getting bored with it. Welcome to reality, where the Rolling Stones said it best. You can't always get what you want. 

Agreed. While I certainly disagree with some posts here, I still have not found an LDS forum that even attempts to uphold the standards of the church like this one does. I'm not saying one does not exist, but I haven't found it. I also appreciate interacting with others who do think differently from me. I find it helps me develop my own thought processes and faith when I have an honest discussion with someone I disagree with.

[NeuroTypical]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Heh - Nauvoo is full of active believing LDS.  I fall on the "you're not being disciple-ey enough" side with them, more often than I do here.  If you spend ten minutes interacting with them, I'm sure your doubts could be put to rest.  

[Iggy]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

The curelom (/kʊəˈriːləm/) and the cumom (/ˈkuːməm/) are "useful" animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon. According to adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement, these animals are thought to have existed in North and/or South America.

And Vort is a cuddly LDS creature????? Vort is Yiddish for “word.” In its simplest sense, it means just that: an element of speech.

[Iggy]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

Heh - Nauvoo is full of active believing LDS.  I fall on the "you're not being disciple-ey enough" side with them, more often than I do here.  If you spend ten minutes interacting with them, I'm sure your doubts could be put to rest.  

Might I add Adult, mature acting and thinking to your active believing. Also, it is chock full of LDS from around the globe.

[NeuroTypical]

44 minutes ago, beefche said:

I had someone very, very close to me accuse me of being a sheep when it comes to the church.

The scriptural analogy of Christ as shepherd and His disciples as sheep, is beautiful and satisfying.  Leaving the ninety and nine for the one?  Defending against the wolves? Very comforting analogy.

The world takes the analogy and twists it.  In their mind, the shepherd is a bad guy - pretending to care for his flock, but really he only values the meat he gets after butchering.  The sheep trust him because they don't think enough.  If they did think enough, they'd rebel from the mercenary shepherd and go hang out on the beach smoking joints (or whatever).    The world's take is stupid.  It doesn't understand the realities of sheep life, or shepherds.  

 

[beefche]

55 minutes ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong. (that was fun! I, too, am on that forum and the anti line is very clear and cleaned up quickly). 

[beefche]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The scriptural analogy of Christ as shepherd and His disciples as sheep, is beautiful and satisfying.  Leaving the ninety and nine for the one?  Defending against the wolves? Very comforting analogy.

The world takes the analogy and twists it.  In their mind, the shepherd is a bad guy - pretending to care for his flock, but really he only values the meat he gets after butchering.  The sheep trust him because they don't think enough.  If they did think enough, they'd rebel from the mercenary shepherd and go hang out on the beach smoking joints (or whatever).    The world's take is stupid.  It doesn't understand the realities of sheep life, or shepherds.  

 

Yep. This person leveled this as an insult and while I did take it as such, it wasn't because of the words. I was insulted because it came from a dark emotion from a loved one. 

It really saddens me to see the world view of commandments and following the commandments to be a weakness or even detrimental. As if following the Lord's commandments makes me a thoughtless robot. 

[The Folk Prophet]

56 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

does it work?

Have you ever known any individual, ever, who was brought closer to Christ and His gospel through the joining in with their criticisms of the Lord's anointed?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

I remember a “curelom” on a different forum—must be 15+ years ago—who was a very faithful member.  

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Have you ever known any individual, ever, who was brought closer to Christ and His gospel through the joining in with their criticisms of the Lord's anointed?

No.  

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Just a word of caution (for everyone, not just @Vort) the perfect forum doesn't exist. I'm sure you (generic!) will be able to find something wrong with any forum out there. From it not being orthodox enough to not liking the some posters to getting bored with it. Welcome to reality, where the Rolling Stones said it best. You can't always get what you want. 

It does if you create your own and moderate it.  Just like this forum is acceptable to some, a forum can be created that is acceptable to others.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

It does if you create your own and moderate it.  Just like this forum is acceptable to some, a forum can be created that is acceptable to others.  

Great! If that's the road you want to go down, I seriously hope it works for you-or anyone else who chooses to do it.

But I'm not optimistic. I think eventually there will be some doctrinal issue/theological issue that people disagree about and someone will throw a temper tantrum, take their ball and bat and go home. But I'm sure I'm wrong.

Edited February 8, 2019 by MormonGator

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Great! If that's the road you want to go down, I seriously hope it works for you-or anyone else who chooses to do it.

But I'm not optimistic. I think eventually there will be some doctrinal issue/theological issue that people disagree about and someone will throw a tantrum, take their ball and bad and go home. But I'm sure I'm wrong.

As long as the forum has s following the Prophet, then anyone who disagrees with doctrine should take their ball and go home.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

As long as the forum has s following the Prophet, then anyone who disagrees with doctrine should take their ball and go home.  

Yeah, they should leave their 'bad' at home. I meant bat. lol. 

Can be a moderator on your new forum? Come on, we'd get along great! 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I confess I'm hesitant about joining a discussion group where a prominently featured contributor calls himself "Curelom". Looks very much like soft anti-Mormonism. Please tell me I'm wrong.

Note: The total posts there for the entire board is showing 11209 -- as compared to Vort alone's 12455 posts on this board (which doesn't even count all the posts prior to certain forum changes that started things over).

[gale]

It's really interesting to read this thread, and I much appreciate the calming comment from the moderator. Not many people who have been commenting have read the entire article. This article had sound and timely advice on what to do when a spouse loses his or her faith, which is an earth-shaking event. 

Please know that ThirdHour is staffed by people who want nothing more than to help Christ's work progress according to His eternal plan and that everyone there makes sacrifices so that will happen. They are careful. They are not "progressive" but they are aware that many Latter-day Saints are going through hard things that can ruffle the feathers of people whose "box" in the Church is carefully defined. They want to help, so they need to address these things in the best way possible. Please give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Guest Godless]

43 minutes ago, gale said:

It's really interesting to read this thread, and I much appreciate the calming comment from the moderator. Not many people who have been commenting have read the entire article. This article had sound and timely advice on what to do when a spouse loses his or her faith, which is an earth-shaking event. 

Please know that ThirdHour is staffed by people who want nothing more than to help Christ's work progress according to His eternal plan and that everyone there makes sacrifices so that will happen. They are careful. They are not "progressive" but they are aware that many Latter-day Saints are going through hard things that can ruffle the feathers of people whose "box" in the Church is carefully defined. They want to help, so they need to address these things in the best way possible. Please give them the benefit of the doubt.

I fully understand and appreciate that. I think the biggest critique here is to be mindful of what your audience sees first. On this forum, that's usually the title and first couple of paragraphs. I think most people here that read the article (I did) are fine with the overall direction in which it went, but that first impression was understandably off-putting for some. I'd imagine there's probably a middle ground between rigid, unquestioning obedience and validation of peoples' criticism of church leadership. This article ultimately arrived at that middle ground, but probably could have done better at starting there as well. 

[MrShorty]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

I have to wonder very seriously if I belong on this site at all. I'm thinking maybe not.

I have been thinking in recent months that this might be one of the challenges we as members of the body of Christ are going to face in the near future -- how to make members with vastly different opinions feel "comfortable" so that they will stay engaged with the body. On another of Heather's recent essays, I commented and asked if we thought (as an example) if Joseph Fielding Smith and Stephen Peck could sit comfortably together in the same class discussing Genesis. I don't know. I'd like to think it is possible to share pews with those who disagree with me (and I know they disagree with me), but it is not always easy. It sometimes seems to me that the natural course would be for us to segregate. "Conservative Mormons -- Lo here" and "Liberal Mormons -- Lo there" and "Mormons who dislike green jello elsewhere" and so on.

Until we come to a unity of faith, I wonder if part of our challenge is how to keep the wheat and the tares together until the final harvest, because we still cannot tell which is which. How should we deal with all of our differences of opinions and beliefs and such so that we can all feel like a part of the body of Christ? What opinions and beliefs should legitimately make one feel outside of the body of Christ?

[pam]

39 minutes ago, Godless said:

I fully understand and appreciate that. I think the biggest critique here is to be mindful of what your audience sees first. On this forum, that's usually the title and first couple of paragraphs. I think most people here that read the article (I did) are fine with the overall direction in which it went, but that first impression was understandably off-putting for some. I'd imagine there's probably a middle ground between rigid, unquestioning obedience and validation of peoples' criticism of church leadership. This article ultimately arrived at that middle ground, but probably could have done better at starting there as well. 

I just adore you.    

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, gale said:

so they need to address these things in the best way possible.

Being the best way possible, I wonder then why they don't post articles on lds.org that begin with how much they dislike this apostle or that prophet.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I fully understand and appreciate that. I think the biggest critique here is to be mindful of what your audience sees first. On this forum, that's usually the title and first couple of paragraphs. I think most people here that read the article (I did) are fine with the overall direction in which it went, but that first impression was understandably off-putting for some. I'd imagine there's probably a middle ground between rigid, unquestioning obedience and validation of peoples' criticism of church leadership. This article ultimately arrived at that middle ground, but probably could have done better at starting there as well. 

Case in point...  The blurb is suppose to make a person want to read more... When I read this blurb I was ready to Ban the poster.  I had (and still have) no interest in reading further.  This was a failure  in cross advertising (even if the article eventually redeemed itself)

[Just_A_Guy]

To be fair, @The Folk Prophet, part of MGF’s raison d’etre is that it can do things the institutional Church can’t or won’t do.  Like I said, I have deep skepticism that starting out with wink and a conspiratorial “Oh, that nutty Dallin!” is the best way to bring wavering Saints back onto safe ground.  Frankly, I think a lot of the recent discourse  about reaching out to doubters assumes that a significant portion of vocal doubters sincerely want those doubts resolved in a way that brings them back into solid orthodoxy/orthopraxy.  I am personally unconvinced that that’s a warranted assumption to make.

At the same time, I’m not sure I need to be too up-in-arms about the idea of giving other sincerely well-intentioned Mormons space in which to test that assumption.  Probably it won’t work.  Probably Ammon and Aaron and Omner and Himni will spend the rest of their days rotting in some Lamanite prison—and by thunder, when that happens, they won’t be able to say I didn’t warn them!  

But then again, maybe . . . Maybe . . .

 

 I’m not sure exactly why, but I keep thinking I should post a link to Elder Holland’s recent talk to the Maxwell Institute; so here it is:

Make of it what you will.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

 

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I fully understand and appreciate that. I think the biggest critique here is to be mindful of what your audience sees first. On this forum, that's usually the title and first couple of paragraphs. I think most people here that read the article (I did) are fine with the overall direction in which it went, but that first impression was understandably off-putting for some. I'd imagine there's probably a middle ground between rigid, unquestioning obedience and validation of peoples' criticism of church leadership. This article ultimately arrived at that middle ground, but probably could have done better at starting there as well. 

This probably isn't a question for you, but is there a middle ground?  Aren't we SUPPOSED to follow God's chosen?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To be fair, @The Folk Prophet, part of MGF’s raison d’etre is that it can do things the institutional Church can’t or won’t do.

So...MGF exists to abandon the wisdom the church employs?

Great.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

At the same time, I’m not sure I need to be too up-in-arms about the idea of giving other sincerely well-intentioned Mormons space in which to test that assumption.  Probably it won’t work.  Probably Ammon and Aaron and Omner and Himni will spend the rest of their days rotting in some Lamanite prison—and by thunder, when that happens, they won’t be able to say I didn’t warn them!  

But then again, maybe . . . Maybe . . .

I think (strong emphasis) I understand what you're getting after, and I don't believe it tracks.

If the idea was, say....preaching in China when the church "can't or won't" then I'd buy the reasoning, though it would involve other concerns...

When the idea is, say...cussing more so members that cuss feel more comfortable...um... sure...let's all go get tattoos and extreme piercings and drop F-bombs here, there, and everywhere. That'll bring more people to Christ for sure.

Edited February 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet