Blasphemous Question

[Surfah]

Sounds like fun. You must be like that off-the-wall kid in my primary class when I was growing up. You know the one: the kid who can't handle answering the questions right 'cause he feels so controlled by them. I, OTOH, was that perfect little girl who gave all the correct answers with tones of superiority in my voice. (Please try to add a haughty intonation to the word "I" in that last sentence.)

Go watch primary one of these days. A high percentage of kids react negatively to the leading questions. Guessing they might want to be allowed to think up their own answers.... heaven forbid.

What is a high percentage? This is certainly not the case in my experience with primary (just finished a two year tour with Gidget). I'd argue that most of the kids love leading questions because they know the answers. The last thing they want to do amongst their peers is to give a wrong answer and feel embarrassed. Of course there are a few OTW kids who are always good for a silly answer. If they didn't get raucous laughter out of the rest of the primary and teacher's I'm sure they'd stop. But as a percentage these kids represent maybe 5% of the primary. Not a high percentage if you ask me.

Our class always had more thoughtful questions and answers than when the primary met together for say sharing time. But I think this is a product of size and setting. Leading questions don't bother me in a large group as a teacher because it allows you to maintain control over topic and direction. The last thing I want as a teacher is to ask a poor question that turns my intended course of discussion on its head. On occasion this may lead to better introspection and conversation, but more often than not it seems to devolve and there is little chance of bringing the discussion back to the prepared material. I don't think this has to be a 'what to think vs. how to think' argument. A good teacher can inspire both.

[Rosebud]

Darn that correlation; if only we could be led to the wrong answer once in a while.

Sounds like fun. You must be like that off-the-wall kid in my primary class when I was growing up. You know the one: the kid who can't handle answering the questions right 'cause he feels so controlled by them. I, OTOH, was that perfect little girl who gave all the correct answers with tones of superiority in my voice. (Please try to add a haughty intonation to the word "I" in that last sentence.)

Go watch primary one of these days. A high percentage of kids react negatively to the leading questions. Guessing they might want to be allowed to think up their own answers.... heaven forbid.

[creekster]

The way the questions are worded doesn't exactly leave us all that much room to come up with the wrong answers.

Darn that correlation; if only we could be led to the wrong answer once in a while.

[Rosebud]

You seem to be pretty certain about what the answer was supposed to be to the question that was posed. I don't see any reason why whatever it was that they wanted you to answer couldn't have included your answer as well. In fact, I think that the Book of Mormon is pretty explicit in showing that this is a very acceptable answer.

Me too.

I think we all pretty much know what the right answers are to the questions that are posed, though, don't we? I've been in the church all my life. I could probably answer every question in a particular lesson before I even heard what they were. The teacher could tell me the lesson subject and I could share the right answers standing on my head with my earbuds in. I'm correlated.

The way the questions are worded doesn't exactly leave us all that much room to come up with the wrong answers.

[wuapinmon]

Even assuming your claim is true, I'm not sure why you conclude that gives you carte blanche.

He is being sarcastic. Look at what he's said. Even the good Dr. Dr. doesn't have the hubris to pull this off without a smirk.

[Indy Coug]

I think it's already clear that I have had more relatives in church hierarchy than anyone else on this board besides Cardiac. I figure this gives me the right to say what I want.

Even assuming your claim is true, I'm not sure why you conclude that gives you carte blanche.

[DU Ute]

As far as you know, anyway.

Give me your numbers then. I've got Eyring, Kimball, Hafen, and the Romneys. If you go back far enough (which isn't really fair), I have many others. I realize that relation is often more important than revelation, so I wouldn't be surprised if you had even more GA relatives than we do. In any case, I consider myself to be part of the Mormon aristocracy.

[SoonerCoug]

If I had relatives who were general authorities, I wouldn't reveal their identities just because you dared me to, and I wouldn't use those relations as an authority in an internet argument.

I'm just asking for numbers--not names.

There are few things in Mormonism that carry more weight than name dropping if you have a GA relative. All you have to do is say "My uncle the prophet said WHAM!" and the discussion is over. This is one of the things I really love about being Mormon. No thought necessary--just quotes.

[All-American]

Give me your numbers then. I've got Eyring, Kimball, Hafen, and the Romneys. If you go back far enough (which isn't really fair), I have many others. I realize that relation is often more important than revelation, so I wouldn't be surprised if you had even more GA relatives than we do. In any case, I consider myself to be part of the Mormon aristocracy.

If I had relatives who were general authorities, I wouldn't reveal their identities just because you dared me to, and I wouldn't use those relations as an authority in an internet argument.

[SoonerCoug]

As far as you know, anyway.

Give me your numbers then. I've got Eyring, Kimball, Hafen, and the Romneys. If you go back far enough (which isn't really fair), I have many others. I realize that relation is often more important than revelation, so I wouldn't be surprised if you had even more GA relatives than we do. In any case, I consider myself to be part of the Mormon aristocracy.

[All-American]

I think it's already clear that I have had more relatives in church hierarchy than anyone else on this board besides Cardiac.

As far as you know, anyway.

[I.J. Reilly]

I usually sit in RS and play on the internet, but today the teacher split us into small groups and passed out questions from the manual for us to discuss. I have this goal to stay quiet at church because I've learned that what I say is so different than the standard comments that as soon as people hear my voice they have a tendency to suddenly turn around and stare at the the back row. But I digress....

Anyway, the small group thing sort of socially forced me to put down my phone and participate. My group leader read our question: "Why doesn't God always answer our prayers?" and I found myself blurting out, "That's a leading question" because I've been thinking about how one of the things that's frustrating about the correlated manuals is that the discussion questions often seem to have the "correct" answers embedded into them thus making it pretty difficult to have a unique or educational spiritual experience.

As usual, my words kind of took people aback (should have kept my trap shut) and I was immediately asked, "So you think God always does answer our prayers?" Luckily someone started talking and I had a couple minutes to think about the answering of prayers. I realized that I do think God always answers our prayers, but that I define "answer" differently than some.

When I pray, the answer I get is a change inside of me rather than a change to my external world. I can't pray my trials away, but I can pray myself into being able to emotionally/physically/spiritually cope with my trials. I'm really sick of listening to the whole "God helps when he wants and in his timing" thing that would have been one of the standard answers to the correlated question I was presented with. To me, God answers me during my prayers. I can take my anger, fear, frustration, or whatever to him and turn them around. I'm positive that God won't answer my prayers from protecting me from suffering, but I'm pretty confident that he'll make me capable of dealing with suffering.

You seem to be pretty certain about what the answer was supposed to be to the question that was posed. I don't see any reason why whatever it was that they wanted you to answer couldn't have included your answer as well. In fact, I think that the Book of Mormon is pretty explicit in showing that this is a very acceptable answer.

[Katy Lied]

If that's not akin to communist totalitarian philosophy, I don't know what is.

You can't quit communism. Or just not show up for communism.

[Rosebud]

Remember that my dad has commanded me to ask him for help, but then he gives it in his own time. And what about the little girl, raped, buried alive, lungs full of dirt when they find her corpse? What of those prayers? Where were those footprints? Again, I maintain that he does a lousy job of explaining himself, and I've never ever heard anyone give, beyond two centuries-dead rabbis (Gersonides, & Maimonides--in his perfectly-titled Guide for the Perplexed), any kind of cogent explanation for why people who believe in God have to suffer, especially the innocents.

My dad was blessed that he would be healed and return to his calling as ward clerk. On more then one occasion. By more than one person.

I dumped his ashes in Apalachicola Bay last October, and someone is probably dissecting his brain at Case Western right now. If my dad had been healed, we would have to praise God. When he died, we were told, blessings are dependent upon the Lord's will.

Again, why give us the power of the priesthood, to act in his name, if he just gets to do whatever-the-hell-he-wants anyway?

What's the point?!

Why?

In summation, even with a prophet, hell, 15 of them, not counting John and the Three Amigos, we still don't get logical things from God. We get Prop * support and "brother Williams, is there some spiritual imbalance in your life that is causing you to have this physical affliction?"

I do not hold that I am right; I maintain that for someone who demands blind obedience to his commandments and faith in things unseen and a second Second-Thessalonianseque-cessation-of-miracles-like-was-seen-in-the-Nauvoo-Church, he does any absolutely lousy job of explaining himself, especially when he putatively KNOWS what it's like to be human.*

* as much as anyone groomed for divine captaincy from birth can.

I usually sit in RS and play on the internet, but today the teacher split us into small groups and passed out questions from the manual for us to discuss. I have this goal to stay quiet at church because I've learned that what I say is so different than the standard comments that as soon as people hear my voice they have a tendency to suddenly turn around and stare at the the back row. But I digress....

Anyway, the small group thing sort of socially forced me to put down my phone and participate. My group leader read our question: "Why doesn't God always answer our prayers?" and I found myself blurting out, "That's a leading question" because I've been thinking about how one of the things that's frustrating about the correlated manuals is that the discussion questions often seem to have the "correct" answers embedded into them thus making it pretty difficult to have a unique or educational spiritual experience.

As usual, my words kind of took people aback (should have kept my trap shut) and I was immediately asked, "So you think God always does answer our prayers?" Luckily someone started talking and I had a couple minutes to think about the answering of prayers. I realized that I do think God always answers our prayers, but that I define "answer" differently than some.

When I pray, the answer I get is a change inside of me rather than a change to my external world. I can't pray my trials away, but I can pray myself into being able to emotionally/physically/spiritually cope with my trials. I'm really sick of listening to the whole "God helps when he wants and in his timing" thing that would have been one of the standard answers to the correlated question I was presented with. To me, God answers me during my prayers. I can take my anger, fear, frustration, or whatever to him and turn them around. I'm positive that God won't answer my prayers from protecting me from suffering, but I'm pretty confident that he'll make me capable of dealing with suffering.

As for the raped little girl found dead with dirt in her lungs scenario, I'm pretty dang sure that there's no little girl in the world who can adequately deal with that kind of suffering no matter how much praying she does. Even worse, I've had quite a few adult victims of childhood sexual abuse tell me that their abusers would taunt them into praying to God for help then would assault them and laugh about how God didn't answer their prayers. Interestingly, though, these same people told me that they felt like God did help them during their trials by sort of removing their minds from them and making them forget the trauma until they could cope with it emotionally.

I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with that reasoning, but I do see where they were coming from. They said they felt very abandoned by God (esp. considering that they said they prayed for help that obviously didn't come), but also felt like he gave them some sort of long term assistance through the ways their minds coped with the experiences.

That's an extreme example, but it is kind of the same idea: that God's answers don't change the external world -- they change our internal worlds.

[Viking]

I think it's already clear that I have had more relatives in church hierarchy than anyone else on this board besides Cardiac. I figure this gives me the right to say what I want.

Besides, I'll be damned if I ever subscribe to the Dallin Oaks Doctrine: "It is wrong to criticize church leaders even when the criticism is true." If that's not akin to communist totalitarian philosophy, I don't know what is.

Sooner, you're too hard on the old boy. What Dallin meant, if given more time to answer, was that we don't criticize the leaders in person. Instead, we mention things about them behind their backs and then when they find out about it, we deny it. Such is the passive aggressive mormon way.