Doctrinal Questions

[didyoumythme]

I just learned that my stake will be holding a meeting in a couple weeks for members to come and ask "doctrinal questions". I have heard about these types of meetings but have never been invited to one directly.

How have these meetings gone for you? Do they actually allow hard questions and offer thoughtful responses? My stake president will have his own approach I'm sure.

My initial thoughts were to ask questions about the principle that "god will never allow prophets to lead the church astray", BOM\BOA historicity and translation, and Reconciling polygamy.

[Palerider]

You might ask something like this:

"Pres. "Jones", seeing how in the past many of the apostles' statements on numerous doctrines have been later described as "speaking as men" and years later disavowed by the church, what assurance do we have today that anything you say can be taken as the true doctrine of Christ. Do you speak for Christ today?"

Then get ready for a load of fluff and maybe a few "harumphs" to be coming your way....

[nibbler]

Interesting. I've heard of events like these geared towards the youth but the questions are always screened and are always banal questions like, "How can I best prepare to serve a full time mission?"

This is event for adults?

I imagine the adult equivalent would be, "What's the most effective way to do home teaching." or some similar kiss-@$$ nonsense.

[didyoumythme]

Interesting. I've heard of events like these geared towards the youth but the questions are always screened and are always banal questions like, "How can I best prepare to serve a full time mission?"

This is event for adults?

I imagine the adult equivalent would be, "What's the most effective way to do home teaching." or some similar kiss-@$$ nonsense.

Yes it's for adults, and it was announced in sacrament as a meeting for anyone to come and ask the stake presidency "doctrinal questions" about any issues. I was surprised to hear it announced.

[Give It Time]

This is the church's statement from their website.

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

Abuse is the treatment of others or self in a way that causes injury or offense. It harms the mind and the spirit and often injures the body as well. It can cause confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear. It is a violation of the laws of society and is in total opposition to the teachings of the Savior. The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional. Abusive behavior may [why does this say "may" when in the previous sentence it says "the Lord absolutely condemns"? If the Lord absolutely condemns, then His church should absolutely condemn. Change "may" to "will"] lead to Church discipline.

Those who have been abusive in any relationship are urged to repent of their sin, to plead with the Lord for forgiveness, and to ask for forgiveness from those who have been harmed. Those who have been abusive should also speak with their bishop or branch president so he can help them through the repentance process and, if necessary, help them receive additional counseling or other assistance [this decision should actually be left up to either a trained professional or the spouse should have the option to make getting this help a requirement for staying married, this should absolutely not be a Bishop's call because they frequently know precisely squat about the subject and are easily manipulated]. Part of the repentance process may [See my previous comments about the verbiage. . If legal consequences are necessary, they should be integral to repentance. I shouldn't have to have written that previous sentence.] also include accepting whatever penalties are imposed by law.

Victims of abuse should seek help immediately, normally from their bishop or branch president [after having followed the advice of a victim's advocate]. His first responsibility is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse [and may give his support to the victim in choosing to divorce, because the only way the bishop can prevent this is by becoming the victim's 24/7/365 bodyguard for the rest of the victim's life.].

Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others [So the bishop will cease and desist from telling the victim to go to the temple to hear about the obedience covenant, with the implication being that if the victim obeyed better, they wouldn't be abused--which isn't true, btw.]. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin.

Victims of abuse can seek help from their priesthood leader to guide them through the process of emotional healing [I know they mean well, but there's just too much in the doctrine that supports abuse. I once stated that this church helped Elizabeth Smart heal, but in reading her book, I found she doesn't credit the church with any of her healing and she is beginning to talk about how some of the things she was taught at church made the situation worse, but I'll throw the church this bone]. Through the blessings of the gospel, victims of abuse can stop the cycle of abuse and be freed from the suffering they have experienced [I somehow don't think they know what the cycle of abuse is and if they did, they would have chosen a different word like "chains". Do the blessings of the gospel stop the cycle of abuse?].

My comments are in red. My question to pose is in blue. I think this is actually an interesting question, because this is the actual cycle of abuse.




How can the blessings of the gospel end the cycle of abuse? I didn't write the web page and I do know the church leaders talk to DV professionals. So, i would appreciate further light and knowledge as to how the blessings of the gospel actually help a victim stop the abuser from abusing? That is literally what that statement is saying. How can that happen? Especially, in light of this scripture that is cited to accompany the church's official statement on abuse. It's D & C 121:46 and it basically instructs priesthood holders to engage in the cycle of abuse.

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Personally, I think the historical issues have had their day in the sun and it's time to shine the light on the doctrinal issues, those being "the women problems" of inequality, domestic violence, rape and sexual orientation.

[didyoumythme]

You might ask something like this:

"Pres. "Jones", seeing how in the past many of the apostles' statements on numerous doctrines have been later described as "speaking as men" and years later disavowed by the church, what assurance do we have today that anything you say can be taken as the true doctrine of Christ. Do you speak for Christ today?"

Then get ready for a load of fluff and maybe a few "harumphs" to be coming your way....

I was thinking of something like this. However, I want to be prepared with solid examples in case I am challenged. Blacks and the priesthood, Adam-god, Paul Dunn, BoA, .what are other examples you can think of?

[Anon70]

Personally, I think the historical issues have had their day in the sun and it's time to shine the light on the doctrinal issues, those being "the women problems" of inequality, domestic violence, rape and sexual orientation.

Where I live and have lived there are very few who have heard of the historical issues. But I don't think we have to only focus on one area. Unfortunately....there are a myriad of issues that could be addressed

[Give It Time]

Personally, I think the historical issues have had their day in the sun and it's time to shine the light on the doctrinal issues, those being "the women problems" of inequality, domestic violence, rape and sexual orientation.

Where I live and have lived there are very few who have been heard of the historical issues. But I don't think we have to only focus on one area. Unfortunately....there are a myriad of issues that could be addressed

Too bad, because the historical issues: first vision, polygamy, B of A, priesthood ban, etc. Are all questions they'll be expecting and prepared for. My question would blindside them.

[alas]

This is the church's statement from their website.

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

Abuse is the treatment of others or self in a way that causes injury or offense. It harms the mind and the spirit and often injures the body as well. It can cause confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear. It is a violation of the laws of society and is in total opposition to the teachings of the Savior. The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional. Abusive behavior may [why does this say "may" when in the previous sentence it says "the Lord absolutely condemns"? If the Lord absolutely condemns, then His church should absolutely condemn. Change "may" to "will"] lead to Church discipline.

Those who have been abusive in any relationship are urged to repent of their sin, to plead with the Lord for forgiveness, and to ask for forgiveness from those who have been harmed. Those who have been abusive should also speak with their bishop or branch president so he can help them through the repentance process and, if necessary, help them receive additional counseling or other assistance [this decision should actually be left up to either a trained professional or the spouse should have the option to make getting this help a requirement for staying married, this should absolutely not be a Bishop's call because they frequently know precisely squat about the subject and are easily manipulated]. Part of the repentance process may [See my previous comments about the verbiage. . If legal consequences are necessary, they should be integral to repentance. I shouldn't have to have written that previous sentence.] also include accepting whatever penalties are imposed by law.

Victims of abuse should seek help immediately, normally from their bishop or branch president [after having followed the advice of a victim's advocate]. His first responsibility is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse [and may give his support to the victim in choosing to divorce, because the only way the bishop can prevent this is by becoming the victim's 24/7/365 bodyguard for the rest of the victim's life.].

Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others [So the bishop will cease and desist from telling the victim to go to the temple to hear about the obedience covenant, with the implication being that if the victim obeyed better, they wouldn't be abused--which isn't true, btw.]. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin.

Victims of abuse can seek help from their priesthood leader to guide them through the process of emotional healing [I know they mean well, but there's just too much in the doctrine that supports abuse. I once stated that this church helped Elizabeth Smart heal, but in reading her book, I found she doesn't credit the church with any of her healing and she is beginning to talk about how some of the things she was taught at church made the situation worse, but I'll throw the church this bone]. Through the blessings of the gospel, victims of abuse can stop the cycle of abuse and be freed from the suffering they have experienced [I somehow don't think they know what the cycle of abuse is and if they did, they would have chosen a different word like "chains". Do the blessings of the gospel stop the cycle of abuse?].

My comments are in red. My question to pose is in blue. I think this is actually an interesting question, because this is the actual cycle of abuse.




How can the blessings of the gospel end the cycle of abuse? I didn't write the web page and I do know the church leaders talk to DV professionals. So, i would appreciate further light and knowledge as to how the blessings of the gospel actually help a victim stop the abuser from abusing? That is literally what that statement is saying. How can that happen? Especially, in light of this scripture that is cited to accompany the church's official statement on abuse. It's D & C 121:46 and it basically instructs priesthood holders to engage in the cycle of abuse.

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

Personally, I think the historical issues have had their day in the sun and it's time to shine the light on the doctrinal issues, those being "the women problems" of inequality, domestic violence, rape and sexual orientation.

Confusion here, because there are two cycles that are called "the cycle of abuse". One is exactly what you posted, where usually the husband is abusing his wife and there is a pattern of loving behavior, moving into tension, moving into the next abuse episode. There is also a generational cycle of abuse. That is where abused children grow up to abuse their own children, or children of abusive families grow up to marry someone who is abusive.

I think the church is thinking about the generational cycle. If the child who sees her mother beaten gets therapy as a child, she will grow up knowing the kind of man to avoid (theoretically) It the child who was sexually abused, gets help, she is less likely to marry someone similar to her father, and more likely to keep her own children away from the man who abused her.

But, still, the question remains, how does the gospel help with ending any cycle of abuse? from the victim's perspective, the gospel has nothing at all in helping him/her heal. It is even counter productive when the church officially forgives the abuser, instead of leaving forgiveness up to God or to the victim. When the church declares an abuser forgiven by God, it reabuses the victim, because if they are still struggling and hurting, declaring their abuser forgiven just rubs salt into the injury. A victim abused by their parents is not helped by being told that their sins are forgiven. Their problem is not their sin, but someone else's. The gospel as taught just gets in the way of healing. But of course, that doesn't help the church feel special. So, the church makes up feel good statements.

With DV, if they are talking about that, maybe they are under some delusion that the gospel will cause the abuser to stop abusing. When I stop laughing, I will address that idea.

[Give It Time]

Confusion here, because there are two cycles that are called "the cycle of abuse". One is exactly what you posted, where usually the husband is abusing his wife and there is a pattern of loving behavior, moving into tension, moving into the next abuse episode. There is also a generational cycle of abuse. That is where abused children grow up to abuse their own children, or children of abusive families grow up to marry someone who is abusive.

I think the church is thinking about the generational cycle. If the child who sees her mother beaten gets therapy as a child, she will grow up knowing the kind of man to avoid (theoretically) It the child who was sexually abused, gets help, she is less likely to marry someone similar to her father, and more likely to keep her own children away from the man who abused her.

But, still, the question remains, how does the gospel help with ending any cycle of abuse? from the victim's perspective, the gospel has nothing at all in helping him/her heal. It is even counter productive when the church officially forgives the abuser, instead of leaving forgiveness up to God or to the victim. When the church declares an abuser forgiven by God, it reabuses the victim, because if they are still struggling and hurting, declaring their abuser forgiven just rubs salt into the injury. A victim abused by their parents is not helped by being told that their sins are forgiven. Their problem is not their sin, but someone else's. The gospel as taught just gets in the way of healing. But of course, that doesn't help the church feel special. So, the church makes up feel good statements.

With DV, if they are talking about that, maybe they are under some delusion that the gospel will cause the abuser to stop abusing. When I stop laughing, I will address that idea.

I consulted the great God, Google, and it did differentiate between the two types.

Cycle of abuse:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_abuse

Intergenerational cycle of violence:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_of_violence

Google did come back with the exact phrase I provided, even though Wikipedia didn't match.

However, if you were to take me to task, I would concede, because Google doesn't know everything (like how to get me from Copperville to Aspen without getting me completely lost).

I agree the church is thinking of the intergenerational cycle, but I would still take them to task on that ambiguity, because this church says it draws a hard line (absolutely condemns), yet doesn't even know when it is using incorrect or ambiguous terminology. Is that accidental or intentional? As I said, I know there are leaders and policy writers within the church who have met and continue to meet with DV experts. If this is an honest mistake it illustrates very clearly the church doesn't truly care about this issue. If the phrasing is intentional, it is clear victim blaming. Neither alternative is good.

You are absolutely right about the premature absolution. I knew some easily manipulated priesthood leader would forgive Voldemort. Voldemort was weirdly obsessed with my repeating back to him, as close to verbatim as possible, every talk or blessing he ever gave. I don't know why I wasn't expecting him to send emails of the talk to my sons and probably to leaders and his allies in my ward. Perhaps because it wouldn't occur to me to do it. I wouldn't advertise that I'm forgiven and everyone needs to treat me decently. Anyway, when I saw that talk, It felt like all the oxygen in the universe and all the bones in my body had disappeared at the same time. I thought of all the headway I had made and felt the fragments of optimism I had about my situation just evaporate. It is simply incredible! It's like the victim's pain is completely irrelevant. At least before, people would acknowledge it mattered, but once forgiveness from ecclesiastical leadership comes, the matter is now permanently off the table...until the next transgression they won't witness, because he lives in another state.

I gotta say, it was one of the few times I was grateful for my father's shenanigans, because I have personally witnessed a bishop witlessly absolving all the sins. If someone tries to throw Voldemort's repenting in my face, I now have a handy example of another bishop getting it wrong and I can simply say, it wasn't the first time and it won't be the last.

[Palerider]

You might ask something like this:

"Pres. "Jones", seeing how in the past many of the apostles' statements on numerous doctrines have been later described as "speaking as men" and years later disavowed by the church, what assurance do we have today that anything you say can be taken as the true doctrine of Christ. Do you speak for Christ today?"

Then get ready for a load of fluff and maybe a few "harumphs" to be coming your way....

I was thinking of something like this. However, I want to be prepared with solid examples in case I am challenged. Blacks and the priesthood, Adam-god, Paul Dunn, BoA, .what are other examples you can think of?

I think you're on the right track here. One other that comes to mind:

In 1961, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph Fieding Smith, said:
“We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it… The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.”

This statement is likely based on Book of Abraham doctrine that the moon is of a higher order than the earth and therefore man will not be permitted to go there or anywhere else in space.

[moksha]

Tangential question

Would having missionaries provide service to the communities where they are stationed ultimately benefit the stated missions of the Church more than proselytizing?

Corollary to tangential question

Is it better for people to welcome missionaries with open arms than to avoid them?

[alas]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

[Give It Time]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

I didn't take the thought this far, but it did remind me of Jesus talking about people trying to hang him up for one word.

Good points. I don't want to see people lose their testimonies. It's just every now and then I get wrapped up in unreasonable hope that if people could just see, they would work for change. I just have to keep repeating to myself people are just fine wth things how they are. They're fine wth things how they are and it's up to me to choose what to do from there.

[Palerider]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

I don't necessarily disagree with you Alas. When I was still an attending but non-believing member I felt frustrated listening to the falsehoods being taught but I also decided that this is "their place of worship" and not my place to cause disruption.

On the other hand it is the church that first issues the challenge. They are the ones who start the conflict by telling others that they are the sole arbiters of truth and that all who reject them will suffer eternal consequences. They are the ones to first say "you are wrong, we are right."

Shouldn't they be prepared for the hard questions?

Shouldn't they be expected to explain the inconsistencies without feeling threatened or that someone's only reason for asking is because they are evil people who are inspired by Satan?

My choice was to leave the church alone as long as they left me alone. But when a leader or member tries to ply me with their well intentioned scam, I don't hold back. They need to know I won't accept mindless and unreasonable answers.

[didyoumythme]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

For me there are a few reasons. First, I consider this part of my due diligence before officially leaving behind everything I was taught about the universe and my place in it. Yes these questions are hard, and unfortunately I don't expect great answers, but part of me hopes that they will either surprise me with a good answer, or I will feel this elusive spirit they talk about constantly.

Another reason is that the stakes are high for my relationship to friends and family. If I don't have personal stories about asking the hard questions that were important to me, then I will have no credibility in their eyes. They will dismiss me as one who didn't really want to believe and didn't try hard enough. I don't want the church to tell my story for me in this way.

Also, there is a moral argument to be made in defense of asking hard questions. Is it worth it to speak up to help people see the error in their thought processes? To help members think critically about the many accepted facts of Mormonism? Yes, because religion is not benign. It is a major influence in people lives and affects every decision they make. People should be expected to justify their beliefs. The institution has dishonestly withheld pertinent information from members. It has simultaneously declared itself the arbiter of all truth, while manipulating the facts to persuade people to believe in a fictional story of Mormonism. Faith for the sake of faith. I believe it would be immoral to walk away from the dishonesty without speaking up.

[Give It Time]

Actually, I did it because they extended the invitation for questions. I phrased my come back the way I did, because I'm tired of my issue being ignored.

That's it. It's late and I'm tired and I know trying to bring change on this subject is a waste of time.

[blazerb]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

I'm not the kind to speak up. But if I had the chance to ask the hard questions and watch someone stumble, I would hope that it might cause some leaders to pause before asserting that the church has all the answers. I would hope that maybe they might consider the consequences of giving advice that harms people. I do not want to destroy anyone's testimony, but when that testimony threatens the emotional well-being of people I care about then I want to find a way to diminish the threat.

Those hopes are probably in vain, anyway, though. The apologetic non-answers can give the appearance of certitude without actually making sense. That is why I tend to keep my head low. I'm not going to get a decent answer, and I probably will not accomplish anything that could help someone else. That help probably needs to come one-on-one, but I don't know who needs that help. I could use help and would love to help others, but we all keep our mouths shut on Sunday. Maybe the best reason to ask hard questions in a kind way is to put myself out there as someone other doubters can talk to. I'm still not ready to do that. Maybe soon.

[oliver_denom]

I wouldn't take this meeting seriously. What you probably have is a member of the presidency who fancies themselves a Mormon scholar and apologist who's read a couple of books put out by Deseret. You'll get some meandering answers, no follow up questions allowed, and a couple of one liners meant to shut down conversation.

You won't get much from the meeting, but the presidency will be able to identify "problems" in the stake, and the faithful members will come away with a stronger testimony knowing that their leaders were able to silence some Zeezorams in their midst.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

You know, we here know the answer to these question. It is simply that the church is not what it claims to be. So, why are we even looking for questions to ask to trip up church leaders. It just strikes me as the same as the lawyers who tried to trip up Jesus by asking him trick questions. It is not going to be an honest question, because we know that these things just prove that the church isn't what it claims to be. Do we think they are going to be so stumped by the question that they realize and blurt out, well, then the church can't be true, can it. We know they don't have good answers. So what is the point? Just to be cruel to point out to them that there are hard questions they don't have answers for? Why? I don't treat my believing family that way, TP purposely challenge them with ugly history and hard questions. Do we really want to destroy someone's testimony? I am honestly asking. Why do people want to ask this kind of question when we know that the real answer is that the church isn't what it claims. Why torture believers?

I think the idea of infallibility is an important issue in the church. I think it would be very good for all members, even believers who stay believers, to know they are allowed to think for themselves. We can weigh ideas and doctrines and to evaluate them. As a believer, I didn't know that. I thought I had to simply accept what was taught to me, especially by any GA. You can point out where prophets have been seriously, doctrinally wrong (I think the racism and the priesthood topic is about the best example). Should the people then have simply followed the prophet, or should they have followed their own consciences? What should we do if we disagree with some policy or doctrine now? I think there's an important discussion to be had there. I'm not exactly sure how to do it in a fair, neutral way, though.
Alas, I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense to just try to trip them up or to be duplicitous. But if there's an honest way to open this sort of a discussion, I think it would be good for everyone. Unfortunately, it might require a lot of background info, so it might not work well in this sort of venue.