How should I know if the answer hasn’t been given? However, I see you like to speculate that any time we don’t have an answer to a hard question it must be because we aren’t supposed to think about that. You are free to make such speculations of course. Such head-in-the-sand approaches aren’t really my thang though.

the fact that I believe our leaders are fully aware of these hot-button questions and choose not to go there is worth noting

Ok, duly noted. But what does their avoidance mean to you? I’m not sure what your point is by repeating this over and over.

Does that help, or just frustrate you more?

Frankly, most all of your responses frustrate me more since it all sounds like spin and double-talk to me. And as usual I hardly know know what we are even talking about in this thread at this point.

Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see how studying what the prophets have said and trying to pull those thoughts together as a response is the same thing as making up an answer.

Simple — because it your your own personal answer to questions they have not explicitly answered. It is your own speculation on a mythical unified answer pulled out of quotes from lots of people who probably never agreed with each other to begin with. There is nothing wrong with coming up with our own speculations of course — but it is healthy to acknowledge them as such.

You’ve made some excellent points. I concede that the index at LDS.org does have answers to some of these things. I also agree that it could be a lot easier to find some of these answers (New Sunday School Manuals would be nice). And I think there could be more depth and clarity on some of these points, if only to seperate them from future church doctrine.

I don’t disagree. I just try to consider that there may be reasons they don’t go there, and so I try to do the best I can with what they have said.

(That was a little shorter response at least. hehe)

Hehe. And yet it is the same thing.

Help me here. Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see how studying what the prophets have said and trying to pull those thoughts together as a response is the same thing as making up an answer.

I suppose if you are looking for a conference “Thus saith the Lord” quotation to include on all our blogs, then I can see where you are coming from. But I feel that at least I can know what has been said by current leaders and share that…not to be ‘official’ but to help in the process of answering with what we have been told.

Isn’t it sort of like any other issue? Like gender issues, or the balance of marriage and education, or grace and works. Some of being a member is to me about simply knowing what they say and trying to talk about what they say in a balanced way, no? I can’t see how that is the same thing as making up an answer.

What am I missing?

I’m having a hard time zeroing in, too. I hear Matt’s post saying, “There are questions we don’t have answers to.” I’m saying, “On some of these things, we do have answers. And if we don’t, maybe that’s ok, or maybe there is a reason for that.”

Geoff, you say: “I am mostly focusing on your earlier assertion and demonstrating the point that many of these official answers have never been given (sort of the point of Matt’s post).”

And so, I would ask why have they not been given? Could it be that it’s best that we not focus so much on these things? These hot button topics end up often being bottomless pits, imo. (They are largely why the ‘nacle exists…we go around and around on these topics, and people never agree, even historians and theologians and other ‘experts.’ I really think it’s unwise to go into too much of this with people who have no foundation of testimony. People WITH testimony sometimes lose their faith by focusing too much on these questions.

I confess to not fully understanding why my point seems so weird – the fact that I believe our leaders are fully aware of these hot-button questions and choose not to go there is worth noting. I don’t know exactly *why* this is the case, but I’m ok just sort of trying to follow their approach in dealing with hard topics. As a church, I think it behooves us to follow their example rather than insist that we need to have more info in order to be more liked or accepted.

Not that there isn’t room to grow as a church. But, imo, I think as members, we ought to get better at basic answers *first,* with what we DO have, rather than trying to delve into more questions. People are still squirmy with the topics alone (didn’t Matt say something about this?) I’d rather see us get ourselves more familiar with and comfy with what answers we do have, even if they are basic and don’t cover all follow-up questions. A good PR person knows when to steer questions elsewhere. I think we need to all be better at that. If we were a little more comfortable with ourselves, maybe others would be too. That’s my view.

Does that help, or just frustrate you more?

Really? That’s your point? Well we are all free to worry or not worry about whatever we want I guess.

It’s not like the leaders are unaware of the issues, imo.

How does that statement interact with Matt’s post?

And did I make up an answer? I actually tried to assimilate what has officially been said, so I don’t see that as the same thing. :)

Hehe. And yet it is the same thing.

You are fairly slippery on this and I don’t know why. We probably all do agree to a large extent. However, we are trying to zero in on the part where we disagree so we can hash that part out.

You said:

I think one could also, as impressed to do so, share personal thoughts — but then just make sure that is clarified. “I have no idea what the official word would be past this point, but some thoughts I have had as I have speculated about this are….”

When challenged on that you equivocate though:

And did I make up an answer? I actually tried to assimilate what has officially been said, so I don’t see that as the same thing. :)

I don’t know if the smiley face is supposed to convey that you know you are playing the slippery eel, or if it is supposed to convey that the two things are not the same, Geoff out to know that and the smiley should take the edge off your setting him straight. (Probably it is a third option.)

In any case, I feel like I am trying to narrow in on the specific kernel of disagreement between us so we can give it more scrutiny but I’m having a hard time. I suspect (althought I don’t know) that it is because you have a different goal in the discussion. If I acknowledge that we largely agree, can you state our disagreement in a concise and pithy way? I wrote a post called On Discussion specifically so I could link to it on occasions such as this.

I think I agree with you more than you think I do. I already recognize that some answers may not exist. And then my point would be that maybe we ought not worry about those questions so much. It’s not like the leaders are unaware of the issues, imo.

And did I make up an answer? I actually tried to assimilate what has officially been said, so I don’t see that as the same thing. :)

I have no problem with anyone saying that either. I just wanted to use that example to make it clear to you that your suggestion that we members should be “willing” to:

give simple, consistent answers…not our own speculative answers or opinions, but answers that leaders have given, that have official sanction.

Makes no sense. Who among us isn’t willing to do that? The problem is that on many answers that simple, clear, and officially sanctioned answer does not exist. So, like with this example I gave, you were forced to come up with your own personal answer.

I have no problem with that actually. I am mostly focusing on your earlier assertion and demonstrating the point that many of these official answers have never been given (sort of the point of Matt’s post).