Thanks man. i dont know that i can really identify a spiritual truth from a spiritual untruth, especially as it applies to another person. what feels true to you, may not feel the same to me. i long ago gave up on telling people what is a true spiritual sensation for them. now you have piqued my interest and i feel like maybe i should go back and listen to the podcasts.

i dont recall being part of a discussion, or commenting on a discussion, that was based on spiritual truths. rather, i thought the inoculation topic was related to actual events and historical records and how they were presented to members.

Doc, what pain are you referring to in your final sentence?

I dont think it is possible to really love and serve others when one is limited to one model of person and one outcome, that is my issue with the mormons – they are not all alike and should be loved in their diversity. there are people sitting on those benches that believe as i believe but they cant really speak about their feelings, cuz its not allowed and they are just trying to keep the peace. there a people like dehlin. there are people like my mother who was a single parent for much of my childhood. there are all sorts of people that believe all sorts of things. do you see a forum for them to speak to their beliefs in your meetings? gosh, they cant even mingle and dialog with believing mormons online, they dang sure cant open up some of these topics at church.

Would that great spiritual truths were as simple as addition, but not really, that would be dull. I have the feeling that though I agree there are some tough truths and some counterproductive approaches taught in Church, we are coming from a different set of assumptions. I don’t see any of these truths as obvious as 1+1=48, and certainly I have a certain amount of comfort in 24 billion divided by the square root of seven equals I don’t know. I have of feeling many of the things you label as “false” I would simply label as “true but…” There is a utility in line upon line, milk before meat, and yes, we do need to get to the meat somehow. I think growth by its very nature is painful and uncomfortable. I am not sure throwing that pain in before one can really start to know Christ, Love, Charity, service and the other REAL foundations of the gospel helps anyone.

there is an enormous fondness indeed. and yes, if and when the day comes to part with her, it will be a sad and prolonged separation.

I couldnt agree with you more about building on foundations where the foundation may be basic principles. no contention there. where the issue lies, and what led to the topic of ‘inoculation’, is where the foundation was built with unsound or untrue pieces. i dont hear anyone claiming that the deepest and darkest subject matter needs to be the starting point, rather, that the starting point should be accurate and true.

doc, i picked up my kindergarten-age son today and he was busy in the cafeteria. he had an audience of adults and children surrounding him. when i arrived i was worried that something was wrong. but, when i walked up to the table and looked over the other adults and kids i could see my son laughing and commanding everyones attention. there was a teacher turning flashcards for my son, and he was firing off the answers without any mistakes. they had never seen a kid in kindergarten doing this addition level, and multiplication so accurately. they were shocked. and quite frankly, i was too.

just as he is learning math by starting with basic addition, we all can do the same with other things. where it goes wrong, is when we teach kindergarteners that 1 +1 = 48, and then consider what is the best inoculation for telling them the truth later in life.

human growth and development is much more efficient with good info. knowhatimean, doc?

hey, are you still upset that eric and i were on the podcast? did you listen to it yet?

I don’t hear anyone saying converts are dumb, just that you have to naturally work your way from one “naivete” to the next, and Blake Ostler would say.. Oh, and Mayan, I am glad to hear somewhere in your heart exists a fondness for your old jalopy. I suppose if it didn’t you would never have any trouble letting it go.

Ann Porter did a great job of responding to that point on the podcast. Apply her comment regarding converts to ALL converts.

Whether or not it is your intention, you should know that at least for me, and I am aware that it is the case for others, the rationalization that the facts need to be simplified into neatly packaged snippets for converts, because they cant handle the truth, implies that converts are too dumb for the truth.

This would be a great question for Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Jeffery R. Holland, both members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Did Chile and the Philippines fall into near catastrophic levels of inactivity because the converts and members knew too much about the church, or because they didnt know enough?

If John Dehlin’s very first podcast is still available, I would recommend it for anyone interested in this topic.

but I do have to say that we view this whole issue from the viewpoint of the US, where the church was founded. Corey and Eirc attribute the “simplification of the Church history” to the leaders trying to hide it. But, I think that it is really to help the International Church and the newest members gain a grasp of gospel and what happened to the Church throughout the years.

Many of us in the US feel compeled to know every detail of every event, action, speech given in and about the church. Not sure the newest members think that way. They are imbracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the history of the church.

Hay, they were the best I could do at the time…..

I would agree on the mall, to some extent, but I understand why they are doing it. The pamphlet, mean and hateful? I think not. Just not the answer some want to hear. Larry King? Wait I have it: Milk before meat, or is it Casting pearls before swine? I am sure there is a faithful explaination somewhere? :0) Actually, that is a nit to me.

Like I said, we probably never know his real three biggest mistakes unless he tells us sometime.

Lawyer: Robert, if released, would you pose any threat to one Bart Simpson?

Sideshow Bob: [barely in control] Bart Simpson? Ha! The spirited little scamp who twice foiled my evil schemes and [maliciously] sent me to this dank, urine-soaked hellhole?

Officer: Uh, we object to the term “urine-soaked hellhole” when you could have said, “peepee-soaked heckhole”.

Sideshow Bob: Cheerfully withdrawn.

How about some real criticisms of some of the things he did do, that you consider wrong? Like agreeing to spend $1B, oops, make that more than $3B now, for a boondoggle mall. How about putting his name on a hateful, mean, pamphlet? How about telling Larry King a lie, and then winking to the membership in GC that he really knows what he is talking about?

Oops. Wrong President.

2. Not allowing men to serve in the Temple if they have a beard.

3. Not buying the Kirtland Temple from the Community of Christ who now make more money off of Mormons visiting it than having a real use for it.

Not true, at least for me. It would not surprise me if some thought the pamphlet was lousy. It’s all in your point of view. If you want the church to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legtimate along side the hetrosexual one, which is ordained by God, you would object to the pamphlet.

I don’t know anyone in the church that thinks President Hinckley is perfect. I do know that his jokes are pretty good. I also know that he is the Lord’s Prophet on the earth and warrants respect from that standpoint.

seam, seem, its all good. i little homophonica never hurt anyone.

there are still many questions left unanswered. yes, i said homophobic positions. i stand by that as there are suggestions in the pamphlet that seam to be based in a fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. additionally it prescribes behavior based on such a feeling.

“however, it is also naive and simple to also judge the response that others may have to those homophobic positions.”
—————————————-
If I read your comment above right, you were saying that if members agree with the church position on “same sex attraction” (my term, not yours) and the counsel not to associate with other homosexuals as outlined in the new pamphet, they are homophobes.

Did I read that right?

BTW, I am going to listen to the podcast again.

keep it up and this thread will certainly get closed or deleted.

i said crap for a reason, i accept responsibility for that.

i NEVER excused the responsibilities of any other person, gay or straight.

i NEVER referred to someone that is gay or lesbian as having a ‘same sex attraction issue.’ and more, i would be forever regretful if i were publicly accused of having said that and did not refute it instantly and forcefully. I NEVER said that and i never will. do you understand that?

in this venue, i never called anyone a “homophobe.” why would you say that? why would you say i think that?

i do not think one is homophobic based on their acceptance of a prescribed or proscribed lifestyle. again, what is your basis for that accusation? did it have anything at all to do with comments made on the podcast, or are you relying on other sources?

this is a sideshow to the topic at hand. I intend to address the topic in greater detail, and i will. in the meantime, i insist on making a fast and furious response to your comments related to homosexuality and homosexuals.

thanks for listening to the podcast jay.

What I fail to understand is why you think that someone with a same-sex attraction issue should be relieved of his or her responsibility for being chaste as any unmarried member of the church? There are plenty of straight men and women who never get the opportunity to marry who are also expected to be chaste. And why you think everyone is a homophobe just because they don’t accept the homosexual lifestyle?

Eric’s post is what i said. there was no “load of” included (though, your assumption that it was there says a lot about your own vocabulary ). there was no reference to the quorum of the twelve. much of what has been discussed here does reflect the tone or the comments made on the call. if you choose to take my comments out of context, and create a sideshow, then go for it. if it is acceptable to call people jerks, but not say “crap,” then so be it. if it is acceptable to tell people to not be friends with a homosexual person, but it is not acceptable to consider that position and counsel rotten, so be it. if that’s what you want in an institution, and in a publication, so be it. however, it is also naive and simple to also judge the response that others may have to those homophobic positions.

hey doc. i love old cars. love them. i have a car that may be older than you. it may be the single greatest piece of american automobile history rolling the streets of this great city. and yet, the transmission is crappy and it would never pass a smog test. i still love that car. see what i mean, vern?

“What I would love, is to show my kids to the temple where i got married. It will never happen, because I am not willing to agree with what Hinckley says about Homosexuals and Women and Tattoos and whatever it is. It is not worth it to me to go along with the crap that he says and that he put out in his pamphlet a few days ago to to Bishops and so that i can take my kids back and show them where i got married.”