- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A few days ago a ward handout to assist those with questions was leaked. Here is an improved revised edition. Please feel free to share this with wards and stake leadership. This, rather than keep the uninformed comfortable, is designed to dig into the trenches with those who are questioning and have doubts. Link below the image 
[img]http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/HelpThouMineUnbelief.jpg [/img] *********************
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/STAKE-HANDOUT.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/STAKE-HANDOUT.pdf At my first quick reading, I generally like it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I generally like it now, but I’m not sure I would have liked it at the beginning or height of by faith crisis and transition. If it’s helpful to some people – even one – then that’s great. This is interesting. I saw an earlier version of this handout and didn’t care for it much. Below is the version I saw: I’ll admit, I read through it quickly at first, but I didn’t like it very much. For example, under Sources, it used to say:
Quote:Sources— Carefully consider where the information being presented is coming from. Who is the author/speaker and what is their relationship to the Church? Where are they getting their information? Be cautious of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, who profess to be committed to Mormonism or to have a desire to help Church members, but in actuality have an agenda that detracts from the faith in Jesus Christ and the restored gospel (Matt 7:15). This was changed significantly in the version DB posted:
Quote:SOURCES – Carefully consider the information you are reading. Many sources are witness accounts written years later and may be affected by one’s memory. Also, some details are only found in one source which should give us pause. People on both sides may find certain sources to be untrustworthy due to the bias of the person writing or collecting the information, and so we should spend time studying to know which sources are reliable. In the end, one should not deem all non-Mormon sources as false, nor should one see all “believing” sources as having the best answers. Instead, facts and critical analysis should be weighed by their merit and the strength of their argument, and should be balanced by prayer and spiritual study with an eye single to the glory of God.
At first, I thought I was reading a new document and couldn’t figure out why I liked this one so much better. I actually think there is a lot to like in this “adapted” handout. The main points are the same, but I like the explanations much better.
Here’s another one that I particularly like (emphasis added):
Quote:4.) STAY GROUNDED IN CHRIST AND COVENANTS: Ultimately the Gospel is about our relationship with the Savior, and it is the Church’s responsibility to point us to Christ.
The Church being constituted of flawed members is flawed itself. One of the assumptions that must change is a view that the Church is perfect, or near it. The Church is flawed and at times deeply.This is because we are imperfect and we are the body of Christ. Consider for a moment that by the Church being deeply flawed, it actually does its job and points us to Christ. The imperfect Church inspires us to let go of it as our foundation and instead build upon Christ. It essentially says, “I will let you down, I may hurt you, and I will certainly disappoint you. I am not the Rock. Christ is the Rock. Look past me to Him. I am simply here to show the way, which is Christ.” Whoever made these changes to the original (DB?), Thank you! A big improvement to the original version.
I like this mucho. Very helpful and balanced. [Admin Note]: “Leaked”
What is the source?
Whether we like it or not, we need to know the sources of things that are posted here. (I am not asking for a specific ward name, nor am I asking for a person’s name. I trust you to tell us enough about the source to know if it can be posted here – especially as a “leaked” document.)
The document has the following at the bottom. Quote:Adapted from an original handout written by C.J. Sorenson of the Richmond 2nd Ward
I am assuming that “leaked” is not the best term for this. I am guessing that it was handed out in church (possibly in just a single ward) and then someone posted it to the internet. I also assume that it was DB that made the revisions.
DB, Please correct me if I am off base on any of this.
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:This is interesting. I saw an earlier version of this handout and didn’t care for it much. Below is the version I saw:
I’ll admit, I read through it quickly at first, but I didn’t like it very much. For example, under Sources, it used to say:
Quote:Sources— Carefully consider where the information being presented is coming from. Who is the author/speaker and what is their relationship to the Church? Where are they getting their information? Be cautious of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, who profess to be committed to Mormonism or to have a desire to help Church members, but in actuality have an agenda that detracts from the faith in Jesus Christ and the restored gospel (Matt 7:15). This was changed significantly in the version DB posted:
Quote:SOURCES – Carefully consider the information you are reading. Many sources are witness accounts written years later and may be affected by one’s memory. Also, some details are only found in one source which should give us pause. People on both sides may find certain sources to be untrustworthy due to the bias of the person writing or collecting the information, and so we should spend time studying to know which sources are reliable. In the end, one should not deem all non-Mormon sources as false, nor should one see all “believing” sources as having the best answers. Instead, facts and critical analysis should be weighed by their merit and the strength of their argument, and should be balanced by prayer and spiritual study with an eye single to the glory of God.
At first, I thought I was reading a new document and couldn’t figure out why I liked this one so much better. I actually think there is a lot to like in this “adapted” handout. The main points are the same, but I like the explanations much better.
Here’s another one that I particularly like (emphasis added):
Quote:4.) STAY GROUNDED IN CHRIST AND COVENANTS: Ultimately the Gospel is about our relationship with the Savior, and it is the Church’s responsibility to point us to Christ.
The Church being constituted of flawed members is flawed itself. One of the assumptions that must change is a view that the Church is perfect, or near it. The Church is flawed and at times deeply.This is because we are imperfect and we are the body of Christ. Consider for a moment that by the Church being deeply flawed, it actually does its job and points us to Christ. The imperfect Church inspires us to let go of it as our foundation and instead build upon Christ. It essentially says, “I will let you down, I may hurt you, and I will certainly disappoint you. I am not the Rock. Christ is the Rock. Look past me to Him. I am simply here to show the way, which is Christ.” Whoever made these changes to the original (DB?), Thank you! A big improvement to the original version.
I am the author of the 2nd and not the first. You are right it is a very different document.
Roy wrote:The document has the following at the bottom.
Quote:Adapted from an original handout written by C.J. Sorenson of the Richmond 2nd Ward
I am assuming that “leaked” is not the best term for this. I am guessing that it was handed out in church (possibly in just a single ward) and then someone posted it to the internet. I also assume that it was DB that made the revisions.
DB, Please correct me if I am off base on any of this.
It was leaked in the sense that a person in the ward released it before the author wanted it public. He has said there were yet revisions to be madeDo you have permission for the article? I believe the original was done by a Sorensen? CJ Sorenson. I don’t know the name, but the original is not your intellectual property. On another board they shut a thread down pending proof you have permission to use the material. The material looks good, btw, but if it partly plagiarizes someone else’s work you could create problems for yourself and others.
flameburns623 wrote:Do you have permission for the article? I believe the original was done by a Sorensen?
He emailed me and said I did as long as I added an attribution which I didI can provide the email if needed
No email necessary. We trust you. Thank you for revising and sharing the handout DB. If it helps just one person then the effort will have been worth it. It looks really good. Thank you very much. :thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.