Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Richard Bushman made the comment that the children of intellectuals don’t fare so well…. I think it is in part because we are at peace wherever they end up, as long as they are good people, as Silent Dawning pointed out. I think this can be a good approach. Personally I feel a paradigm shift is needed in religion today. We need to transcend the old ways of doing things. I think the most joy comes from maintaining every good thing from our heritage, laying aside the hurtful or extraneous, and add the new good we discover.
Orson, I agree on the personality issue. Of course, ideally logic AND emotions should be respected. Meaning transcends explanation.
The intersection of myth and experience creates its own truth.
I made this at this site. You will appreciate it cwald. 
I think this approach is highly flawed. I think that by taking an overly conservative oatmeal approach, the Church can feel better and say, “Well, it was his own damn fault that apostate thought himself out of the Church”. Whereas if the Church was a bit more proactive and presented things that might be challenging to some but would teach the challenging information by safe sources, we could help more people stay in the Church. But you are correct, Orson… Stake Leaders would first need to confirm that the helper/guide is a “safe” source.
This reminds me of my friend’s tongue-in-cheek name for the Apostate Witch hunt Committee… he calls it “For the Happiness of the Saints” committee because the real name sounds so innocuous (real name was “Strenthening the Members Committee) I felt I should do my part… you are right though, I should have avoided the “Stake Disaffection Specialist” terminology at all. I said it was problematic, but I should have framed it in a way that could go over as is. I feel that my wording is helpful, that if revelation is going to be bottom to top, this is how to do it… say “it is my feeling I could help here, so could you pray about it and it will be up to you and the Lord?”
That strikes a good balance of initiative but also respecting the order of revelation/priesthood etc.
I also wrote my EQP and told him to pray about me visiting a specific family I know is struggling.
I felt I should send a follow up email, so sent this: Dear President ****,
I really enjoyed speaking with you when you visited my home. I have been thinking about what you said about using me on a Stake level, and that is something I think would be helpful.
It might be difficult to implement something like a “Stake Disaffection Specialist”, but I think that my experiences and training would fit me very well for such a role. I would also be happy to speak to youth or other members of the Stake about the relationship between faith and knowledge, how to maintain our faith in this internet, information-saturated era, and related topics.
Yesterday on facebook I shared the idea “Meaning transcends explanation.” I feel this is such a vital message to share in our day… facts and theories are only a google search away, but far too many, as they get lost in the details, lose the sense of meaning, purpose, and community so important to religion.
I feel so strongly about helping people maintain their relationship to God and maximizing the chance people will feel at home and fulfilled within the LDS Church. I am trying to do that in my calling in the ward Sunday School Presidency. I would also welcome the opportunity to continue this endeavor on a Stake level, should the Presidency feel that beneficial.
I submit completely to the Stake Presidency’s discernment as to how I best could serve, were you to take such an idea to the Lord. I just wanted to let you know that I remain willing.
Sincerely,
Enoch
P.S. I have cc’d President **** on this note.
And I got the following response back:
Hi,
It was good to speak with you a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your kind offer, we will keep you in mind.
We will see what comes of it. I feel good having done what I can to help God do his job though.
DA, I am trying to work out a “it has power either way” approach building on the reality you express, that we really can’t know for sure what is true, as we cannot perceive anything beyond ourselves. The intersection of myth and experience creates its own truth. Ooh, I like that.
I am thinking for Searching Mormonism a lecture format, even video with images and other media inserted strategically will be better than continuing the interview/conversation format. We will have to play with it. Brian, would you maybe want to post the 12 hours already recorded on here in the meantime?
Orson wrote:I don’t think that is a serious criticism of the BoM either, it simply illuminates part of the process of its revelation.
I agree with you Orson. It is helpful to understand the relationship of scripture and history to better illuminate the nature of revelation.
f4h1, Here is the brief version: 3 Nephi has Jesus giving a speech VERY close to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. This necessitates that the form of the Sermon on the Matthew is pretty much exactly the way Jesus gave it.
But when you read the Sermon on the Mount really closely, that doesn’t seem to be the case. There seem to be decades of oral transmission before it was put into writing. Then other features of the Sermon seem to match Matthew’s agenda more than Jesus’ (as the podcast mentions, Matthew was written in about 85 using Mark as a source).
If you read Matthew 7, for example, you will notice that Jesus’ sayings sound like distinct fragments of tradition rather than part of a coherent sermon.
Let me know if you have further questions.
Enoch
Doug, you could write your own scripture, and it could be very worth reading. I am not accountable for wherever your mind goes when you contemplate “deep and squishy”
f4h1, I don’t remember a connection between 3 Nephi and the ending of Luke. Did you mean Matthew/the Sermon on the Mount and 3 Nephi?
Mormonheretic you are using iTunes right? I have heard from several people things have been slow. Keep trying! Love Mormon Stories, such an amazing resource.
