I think I get what you are saying, DJ. Those speaking in class might really believe it literally as they are saying it...black and white without nuance or equivocation. They think in their minds if you walked into Christ's church when he was alive (he didn't set one up when he was alive), that you would find relief society classes and deacon's quorums and the same church. They believe in the restoration of all things.DarkJedi wrote:Except I don't think that's usually what they are saying. I might think like that and others (like you) might think like that but I think generally what they are saying is "This is the true church set up exactly as it was in Jesus's time by Jesus who directs it through the prophet today. Therefore we cannot possibly question anything the church does or is. People do stupid unChristlike things and make mistakes because they aren't perfect but we need to overlook that because the church is perfect." I certainly wouldn't get into a childish argument, but I think there must be tactful, perhaps even funny, ways to point out that the church is not perfect. I don't want to turn this into a conversation about "The Policy" but it is a good example. Any change is a good example - if the church were perfect policies wouldn't need to change.
My response is not a passive one to avoid confrontation. Nor is it to suggest no response is the best response.
Simply a strategy for one hearing stuff that makes your hairs stand up on the back of your neck to stay in the church when others talk that way. Because....I don't think it is a good strategy to try to convince them otherwise. How they view it is how they view it. That's great. I think they are wrong. That's great. That's why I go to church...to hear what others think so I can consider it and process it and seek learning and the spirit. Maybe I offer views to help others too, I don't know.
But...your quote is exactly makes my point which can be hard sometimes for us to give ourselves permission to shift thinking about it.
You see...by acknowledging people in the church say and do stupid things...the person making that statement or suggesting that thinking is agreeing with my thinking. We are more in agreement than disagreement on this.DarkJedi wrote:People do stupid unChristlike things and make mistakes because they aren't perfect but we need to overlook that because the church is perfect.
The person who is saying that, is also part of the group that (s)he is saying should be overlooked. What (s)he is saying might be stupid...to suggest the church is perfect when I know very well it keeps changing and therefore imperfect. Perfect in my mind isn't focusing on the same things perfect in his/her mind. Therefore...responding may not always be productive since the problem is in the deeper level of definitions and semantics that would take longer to explore than the class allows...and any other response is just the "My view (no it isn't) vs your view (yes it is)" level of discourse. And therefore not needed when the understanding lies beyond the scope of the class.
THat isn't to say avoid responding always. More just what to think while sitting there thinking what to respond with.
If you want to respond to share a different view, that's cool. But a response to change someone else's paradigm won't happen in a 40 min sunday school setting. Right? So the approach should consider that...how do I handle myself in the situation and environment I'm in?
Something to consider when people say, "the church is perfect, the people aren't" or "Jesus didn't say it would be easy, he said it would be worth it".
I appreciate the exchange...don't intend to feel like I'm debating it with you, just explaining my post and viewpoint. Part of being at church for me is practicing how I process what others say, and I think my views are as valid as theirs. I think you get it...hope I didn't belabor the point. <heber...stop typing and hit submit>