Rational Christianity

[orrinjelo]

I was using my Stumble! in StumbleUpon, and came across this site:

Rational Christianity

It's not often that I come across something like this that really draws my attention. The overall message it gives is that Christian youth all over the country are falling away because they can't stand up to the "rational" arguments of those who do not believe in God--and we must help these youth construct a sort-of rational basis in order to defend their faith.

Also in the Church, we see several of our young adults going inactive about this time because of different reasons--either they don't feel the support of friends and colleges or they haven't received a strong enough witness of God, Christ, the Church, etc.

Now, I don't think just arming our youth with some "rational thought" will help them in the least. They need that spiritual experience to give them a strong enough testimony, and then that will construct the rationality of it all. No, it may not sound rational, but -I KNOW.- I felt His Spirit. He told me the scriptures are true. He IS there. I know it.

We're not the only people that can get these revelations. You have to admit, there is something significant between the person that believes in God and knows there is a God, and one that doesn't believe.

Anyway, look the site over, what do you think?

[a-train]

Although I think the spirit of this site is great and it has something to offer, it is not a new phenomenon that youngsters fall away from the teachings given them from their parents. It is actually necessary that they question God and try all spirits.

I love the fact that this site has an article bashing the ill-advised practice of 'legislating morality'. The article on the over-commitment to the Bible has at least a good spirit to it, although I think the mark is somewhat missed. The real trouble there is the fact that philosophies of men are created and put forth as the definitions for scriptural principles and teachings. When these philosophies are shown to be faulty, the scriptures are thus considered to be faulty also.

The real issue facing many individuals is social acceptance. In a society that ridicules faith in God, many stumble. 'Rational' arguments are really just packaging designed to make the subject 'cool' again. This tactic is not only lacking integrity and purpose, but it most often backfires. Although many churches make their services fun and cool with a rock band and a flashy stage presence, the lasting effects on the audience is virtually null.

There is a competition for cool that is unceasingly pushed on us all. Everybody is looking for our adoration. A dialogue opens between Christian and Atheist and bystanders sit looking to see who can zing their opponent the best and come off the smoothest.

If we look at those instances wherein the LORD was pressed to enter this debate we do not see Him winning the multitudes with a suave coolness. Perhaps many went away thinking he lost the debate. Certainly enough thought He was worthy of crucifixion.

If our current political process is any indication at all, it is proof that honesty, integrity, and good sense is unpopular. What we all need is a true understanding of God, our relationship to Him, and to our fellow man. With that, we no longer worry about the social status or the rationale of our faith.

-a-train

[Guest Malcolm]

My son is 12 and every week he comes with something or other that "the teacher says." I am lucky, I guess, that he thinks I am way smarter than the teacher. but beyond that I stick to grandma's dictum "Believe nothing you hear, half of what you see and only some of what is discussed. As soon as they stop talking go yourself and find out...and don't come back until you do."

They need to learn to take nothing at face value regardless of where it comes from.

[Arosophos]

Church leaders, and particularly Joseph Smith, have taught that knowledge and reason, as well as science, are complements to inspiration and faith. If we don't use these tools, provided by God, we're foolish. Our children do need to be trained, both spiritually and rationally, for the challenges of life. We do them a disservice otherwise.

[Traveler]

What is it that makes youth strong? I think that sometimes parents want to protect children to the point that children do not have the chance to develop spiritual survival skills. Sometimes it is little things. I know of youth that even for their mission farewell, their mothers wrote the talk. Many parents are afraid of their children failing. I think this is one of the reasons that many youth are prescribed Riddlin.

I believe another problem is the “us against them” attitude instilled in many minority youth. Instead of teaching children how to seek truth, enlightenment and noble character we tend to embattle them against the world. I also wonder about parents that have children and forget how to love the children’s other parent. Just one note concerning this problem of loving your spouse – you are incapable of true and lasting love if you cannot sustain your love through difficulty.

We will always lose a few, as regrettable as that sounds. It is not always the fault of how they were taught. But when a few turns into most; then we must realize there is something wrong with the lesson and the example.

The Traveler

[cgrantreed]

I believe another problem is the “us against them” attitude instilled in many minority youth. Instead of teaching children how to seek truth, enlightenment and noble character we tend to embattle them against the world. I also wonder about parents that have children and forget how to love the children’s other parent. Just one note concerning this problem of loving your spouse – you are incapable of true and lasting love if you cannot sustain your love through difficulty.

I can't tell you how HARD that hit the wall for me. I'm going through an UGLY divorce and that is the exact basis of my troubles. Its a battle for our kids as to what they choose to fight for and when we turn them into drones for the cause they fail to actually get the tools to survive against the adversary. My wife focused so hard on the kids "welfare" even though it meant hovering and molly coddling them to death that she failed to teach them the skills required to KNOW what God wants for them in their lives. I tried to teach the important stuff but most of the time I was deflected by my wife. Our marriage failed because when the times got tough... mom blamed dad instead of putting it in Gods hands. What did the kids learn for this example? Beats me. They can't tell me because they are not sure what the original point was.

Teach your kids to seek truth and enlightenment. Teach them the importance of character and honor. Teach them to have open minds and test EVERYTHING. Nothing is doctrine until its been tried and proven by God. Otherwise its here-say and prone to deception. I have always said that there is ONLY ONE FLAVOR OF TRUTH.

[VoluntaryPrison]

My son is 12 and every week he comes with something or other that "the teacher says."

This is a frightening thing to me. I see it in many forms including "My Young Men's/Young Women's Leader said" to "My seminary Teacher said" to "My EFY Councilor said" and even what may be most frightening, "My Mission President said." The thing that frightens me about these phrases is that it puts the authority of what follows on some person that I likely don't know and have no idea if I should trust. It also fails to help the person receiving the message know where the doctrine comes from.

Sadly, I'm fully guilty of this as well. I have yet to quote a source on these boards, so I guess I'll commit myself to do better. What we all need to do better is when we teach, cite the source of the doctrine. If we learned something from our EFY councilor, we should find the scriptures and talks that back it up. Then, if we want to make the point in the future, we cite the scriptures and not the councilor.

So when your kids comes home and says, "my teacher says," challenge him and say, do you know where in the scriptures it teaches that, etc...help him find the answers there, and that will have a much more lasting impact on his long term spiritual growth.

As a tangent, I knew a guy who worked at EFY for a little bit. His last piece of advice to his youth before the end of the week was, "You should never start a sentence with the words, my EFY councilor said...' unless it's the sentence, my EFY councilor said I should never start a sentence with the words my EFY councilor said."

[Traveler]

I can't tell you how HARD that hit the wall for me. I'm going through an UGLY divorce and that is the exact basis of my troubles. Its a battle for our kids as to what they choose to fight for and when we turn them into drones for the cause they fail to actually get the tools to survive against the adversary. My wife focused so hard on the kids "welfare" even though it meant hovering and molly coddling them to death that she failed to teach them the skills required to KNOW what God wants for them in their lives. I tried to teach the important stuff but most of the time I was deflected by my wife. Our marriage failed because when the times got tough... mom blamed dad instead of putting it in Gods hands. What did the kids learn for this example? Beats me. They can't tell me because they are not sure what the original point was.

Teach your kids to seek truth and enlightenment. Teach them the importance of character and honor. Teach them to have open minds and test EVERYTHING. Nothing is doctrine until its been tried and proven by God. Otherwise its here-say and prone to deception. I have always said that there is ONLY ONE FLAVOR OF TRUTH.

I am very sorry you are going through an ugly divorce. Please understand I do not intend to give advice because I have no idea what is happening. However, the main point still remains and is even more important. Despite the difficulty there is nothing to be gained - only lost by allowing your love to be turned to anger against their mother.

The Traveler

[ztodd]

This is a frightening thing to me. I see it in many forms including "My Young Men's/Young Women's Leader said" to "My seminary Teacher said" to "My EFY Councilor said" and even what may be most frightening, "My Mission President said." The thing that frightens me about these phrases is that it puts the authority of what follows on some person that I likely don't know and have no idea if I should trust. It also fails to help the person receiving the message know where the doctrine comes from.

Sadly, I'm fully guilty of this as well. I have yet to quote a source on these boards, so I guess I'll commit myself to do better. What we all need to do better is when we teach, cite the source of the doctrine. If we learned something from our EFY councilor, we should find the scriptures and talks that back it up. Then, if we want to make the point in the future, we cite the scriptures and not the councilor.

So when your kids comes home and says, "my teacher says," challenge him and say, do you know where in the scriptures it teaches that, etc...help him find the answers there, and that will have a much more lasting impact on his long term spiritual growth.

As a tangent, I knew a guy who worked at EFY for a little bit. His last piece of advice to his youth before the end of the week was, "You should never start a sentence with the words, my EFY councilor said...' unless it's the sentence, my EFY councilor said I should never start a sentence with the words my EFY councilor said."

All sorts of people have influence in our lives. You can't avoid having others influence you.. the truth is, we wouldn't have any ideas of our own if it weren't for the influence of others. The scriptures themselves were written by prophets who also happened to be human and have weaknesses despite the fact that they were led by God. Don't get me wrong, I know there's a difference in the level of confidence you can have in scripture vs. your teacher at school.

I think I see what point you're making, but technically I don't think it's wrong to repeat something you heard your EFY councilor or your mission president or you teacher said- not if it's something that made an impression on you and you believe it and can defend it. Even if it's not, what's wrong with bringing up something you heard someone say once, as long as you don't just take it for truth automatically but just bring it up as a point of discussion or to make a point.

[VoluntaryPrison]

Because bringing up 'something somebody once said' is how we get things like, "the youth were generals in the war in heaven." Passing on such hearsay tends to catalyze the growth of false doctrine (like the three year old trapped by a garage door who had a vision to 'free the birdies'). You teach doctrine from the scriptures.

[ztodd]

Because bringing up 'something somebody once said' is how we get things like, "the youth were generals in the war in heaven." Passing on such hearsay tends to catalyze the growth of false doctrine (like the three year old trapped by a garage door who had a vision to 'free the birdies'). You teach doctrine from the scriptures.

Hmm. Let me repeat the points you seem to have missed.

...I know there's a difference in the level of confidence you can have in scripture vs. your teacher at school.

...technically I don't think it's wrong to repeat something... if... you... can defend it...

...as long as you don't just take it for truth automatically but just bring it up as a point of discussion or to make a point (or I would add, just in the interest of making conversation).

So you see I'm not talking about teaching doctrine that you can't back up with the scriptures.

Sorry, I take words a little too technical sometimes.

[VoluntaryPrison]

...technically I don't think it's wrong to repeat something... if... you... can defend it...

And what do you intend to defend it with? I sure hope you don't intend to defend it with anything other than the scriptures/Conference talks. And if you can defend it with those, what's the point of bringing up what someone else said?

[Elphaba]

Hmm. Let me repeat the points you seem to have missed.

...I know there's a difference in the level of confidence you can have in scripture vs. your teacher at school.

...technically I don't think it's wrong to repeat something... if... you... can defend it...

...as long as you don't just take it for truth automatically but just bring it up as a point of discussion or to make a point (or I would add, just in the interest of making conversation).

So you see I'm not talking about teaching doctrine that you can't back up with the scriptures.

VP was extremely clear about his concerns and you are the one missing his point.

I know when I grew up in the Church during the early '60s through mid-'80s, I was taught many things as if they were doctrine, but they were not. What astonishes me today is not that these things were not doctrine, but that I hear over and over again that these things were never taught!

But they were, by members with good intentions who had no idea what they were talking about other than what they had heard from someone else with good intentions, who had read it in Mormon Doctrine, or heard it at a Fireside, or had lunch with the First Counselor to the Bishopric, etc.

I applaud VP's concern that his children learn true doctrine, and actually asks them to make sure they are. I guarantee that SOMEONE is teaching his children, your children, or someone's children something that is not doctrinal. Not on purpose, but only because he/she THINKS it is. Faith-promoting rumors abound in the lobby, and end up in little one's ears.

And I am weary of people telling me that what I was taught was never taught. And yet I ask a family member about these things, and it is believed to still be doctrine. VP doesn't want that to happen with his children. And you mock him for this?

Sorry, I take words a little too technical sometimes.

Nonsense. You were rude.

Elphaba

[ztodd]

I didn't mean to be. Sorry.

I see your point- You have to be careful who you're repeating things to, and make sure they don't take it as doctrine. That was actually the point I was making- that if you do repeat something that's not doctrine, you just have to make sure to qualify it as such, and make sure to say it's just something you heard from your teacher or whoever it was. And perhaps you shouldn't be repeating anything to little children other than scripture stories.

[VoluntaryPrison]

if you do repeat something that's not doctrine, you just have to make sure to qualify it as such, and make sure to say it's just something you heard from your teacher or whoever it was.

This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing because eventually somebody does take it as doctrine, or our faulty memories start assigning these statements incorrect value. To further clarify, let me submit the following:

Be careful that you teach not for the word of God the commandments of men, nor the doctrines of men, nor the ordinances of men, inasmuch as you are God's messengers. Study the word of God, and preach it and not your opinions, for no man's opinion is worth a straw. Advance no principle but what you can prove, for one scriptural proof is worth ten thousand opinions.... (HC 3:395-396, emphasis added)

The above is from a letter written by the Quorum of the Twelve in July of 1830 and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and George A. Smith. The letter was addressed to "the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to the Churches Scattered Abroad and to All the Saints."

[Andrew777]

Church leaders, and particularly Joseph Smith, have taught that knowledge and reason, as well as science, are complements to inspiration and faith. If we don't use these tools, provided by God, we're foolish. Our children do need to be trained, both spiritually and rationally, for the challenges of life. We do them a disservice otherwise.

It's odd that I've read such things by church leaders and Joseph Smith but I rarely see it in practice. People are told that questioning is wrong or if debate is opened up between people of other faiths that line about the spirit and contention is usually used to shut down any conversation. Why do you think this is?

Hey Christ did have a few zingers two of my favourites - with the coins and giving to Ceaser what is Ceaser's, the other is he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[lilered]

Sometimes in my view what gets lost in this type of discussion over the youth and their questioning of authority or acting out is the fact that we live here on earth. As such, this earth is being ruled by Satan and his followers. The prize at stake are souls, especially those tender souls of our youth. This is why, as practicing Christians and Church members we need to be actively engaged in good work, doing everything we can in a positive way to persuade all souls to come to God.

[Maureen]

This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing because eventually somebody does take it as doctrine, or our faulty memories start assigning these statements incorrect value. To further clarify, let me submit the following:

The above is from a letter written by the Quorum of the Twelve in July of 1830 and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and George A. Smith. The letter was addressed to "the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to the Churches Scattered Abroad and to All the Saints."

Are you sure about that year? Brigham Young didn't join the LDS church until 1832 and John Taylor didn't come in contact with the church until 1836.

M.

[rameumptom]

I think that parents need to first arm themselves with knowledge and spiritual preparation, and then they will be able to assist their children. Too many kids, including in the LDS Church, are given a litany of teachings that may or may not be the "gospel truth." I know LDS that teach that the earth is only 6000 years old - what are their kids going to do when they go off to a college and the professors show them positive proof of the world being 4 billion years old? Suddenly, the gospel seems like a nice fairy tale or myth, and they lose faith in it.

I had the opportunity last spring to sit with my 12 year old son and see two different videos on succeeding days. The first video was the Testaments, by the Church. I asked him to think about the thoughts and emotions he would feel during the movie. The next day, we watched the anti-Mormon video Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ. I asked him which one felt more correct and brought the Spirit more into his heart. Because I wasn't hiding anti-Mormon things away from him, but giving him a chance to compare, he saw the difference between the two videos.

We then discussed the things that I felt were wrong in the second video, and how facts and the "truth" can be distorted or manipulated to make something else seem wrong.

[ztodd]

...

I know LDS that teach that the earth is only 6000 years old - what are their kids going to do when they go off to a college and the professors show them positive proof of the world being 4 billion years old?

There is no positive proof of the world being 4 billion year old. There is what seems to be pretty solid evidence, but it's not 100% positive proof. Especially not if you believe in a God of miracles.

I do believe that the earth as we know it is about 6000 years old - I believe there was a change made in the state of the earth about 6000 years ago. The material the earth was created from, or maybe even the entire earth structure might be much older than that. That depends on what all was involved in the change of the state of the earth 6000 years ago.

We learned something interesting from the DVD from BookofMormonEvidence.org - the study of mitochondrial DNA showed that the first woman who is the ancestor of all other women lived about 6000 years ago. Now that doesn't mean the earth is also that old, but it's good evidence that the first woman Eve really did live 6000 years ago.

[WillowTheWhisp]

This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing because eventually somebody does take it as doctrine, or our faulty memories start assigning these statements incorrect value. To further clarify, let me submit the following:

Be careful that you teach not for the word of God the commandments of men, nor the doctrines of men, nor the ordinances of men, inasmuch as you are God's messengers. Study the word of God, and preach it and not your opinions, for no man's opinion is worth a straw. Advance no principle but what you can prove, for one scriptural proof is worth ten thousand opinions.... (HC 3:395-396, emphasis added)

The above is from a letter written by the Quorum of the Twelve in July of 1830 and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John E. Page, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, and George A. Smith. The letter was addressed to "the Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to the Churches Scattered Abroad and to All the Saints."

Are you sure about that year? Brigham Young didn't join the LDS church until 1832 and John Taylor didn't come in contact with the church until 1836.

M.

Haven't you actually fallen into the trap of doing that which you advise others not to do VP?

Although we do need to be careful that what we pass on in our teaching is not contradictory to the Gospel surely there are many times when quoting what someone said, providing we have the original source, is not wrong - I am thinking of Ensign articles for example.

However, I have noticed that there are people on this forum who have said that they do not accept things which have been spoken by General Authorities. I find that very puzzling. What is the point of any conference talk if we then deny the right to quote from those people? What is the point of lesson manuals if we are only to teach from the scriptures?

[a-train]

I have little doubt that there exists common perceptions among the LDS people that will be understood as false doctrine at some future date.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

Are you able to tell us what those are? I'm genuinely curious as I am coming across a few things on this forum which confuse me when compared to what I am being/have been taught at Ward level.

[Elphaba]

We learned something interesting from the DVD from

BookofMormonEvidence.org - the study of mitochondrial DNA showed that the first woman who is the ancestor of all other women lived about 6000 years ago

I went to the website you referenced, and I have to say it reminded me of the religious zealot who starts writing books that stray from doctrine, such as archeological evidence that is really the author's opinion, but has never been sanctioned by the Church.

I find these types of "evidences" very concerning, because a number of members will be persuaded, and in my opinion, exploited. Although I have not seen the DVD, this is a very good example of what I am talking about.

On the other hand, it is their choice to buy, or not buy, into the products. They are adults, and can do what they want.

I'm am confused as to whether you are saying this women is the ancestor of "all" the women who lived at the same time as she, which would be about 4000 bce, or that she is the ancestor of all women, period.

One very serious problem is that human women had been on the planet for approximately 150,000 years. Therefore, there is no way this woman was the ancestor of “all” the women who lived at the same time as she.

I realize people like to dismiss the archeological record, but there is no denying the skeletons, etc., exist.

Elphaba

[WANDERER]

Chiming in with my total state of ignorance on almost all things, but as a 'living' church, growth and change seem to be an integral part of that concept in some ways, I would think.