- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know many of you probably have visited the website Church is true . I have really enjoyed reading on this site it is really inspirational to me !!!!! For those of you that do not know what I am talking about this new website offers a different view on the church . For many I’m sure and especially me it seems to fit into what I have gone through with my faith crisis . It is a nice new approach that works for me , many church points are deemphasized as being literal and historical and changed to spiritual truth in a metaphorical sense . Any way it works great for me and makes more sense than anything I have read in a long long long time. My question is this I wonder what the church leadership thinks of it ?? It is in no way working against the church and if anything is very supportive of the church . Could this be a new accepted way of looking at the church that may keep members that have issues to stay (like me ) . I welcome any and all that have thoughts on this important issue. Thanks . Churchistrue seems to be doing a decent job at promoting his own website, but I’m sure he appreciates your endorsement! 
Seriously, he does seem to concisely state some different points of view from the traditional all-or-nothing-black-and-white ideas that many more believing/more orthodox espouse. Most of those different viewpoints are promulgated here, but are spread about in different threads.
I’m glad you find the site useful!
Hi, yes, that’s my site. Your question about whether or not this view will ever become a mainstream or even tolerated view is a good question. I’m optimistic. A lot of people are skeptical, but let’s see how it unfolds. I will keep making noise until someone tells me to stop. 
I appreciate this site. Of all the sites I’ve been to talk about my blog posts, this is the one that has best received me. I consider this my “home site”. Thanks, everyone.
I did mean to address the question about church acceptance of different points of view in my first post. I ended up being interrupted and didn’t get to it. I think the answer is more tolerance than outright acceptance. I look at Terryl and Fiona Givens and Richard Bushman who are believers but who do espouse some views outside the mainstream orthodox views (more especially the Givenses). Church leadership does not seem to oppose what they do and it could be said they indirectly support them. I understand Bushman has been a part of some of the essay teams. However, I don’t think we’re going to hear Pres. Uchtdorf encourage anyone to read Rough Stone Rolling or Crucible of Doubt over the GC pulpit.
Likewise there does seem to be a difference – a line if you will – between the Bushman/Givens types and Snuffer and Dehlin. I think that’s where important. I think as long as individuals are encouraging embracing the core principles of the gospel and the church they’re (we’re) OK. It is when we openly speak against the leadership and/or try to gain a following that the trouble begins.
From a personal and individual perspective, I will say my own views are quite well accepted by my own stake leadership. There is definitely some leadership roulette involved, but I do think my SP is more the norm than not nowadays.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.