Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If that was all to the story, then the parents were wrong, imo.  However, I have seen claims made this happened when I knew from other comments there was more going on, mainly pressure from the unbelieving spouse to leave the Church as well or going ahead and bringing into the home things the believing spouse was uncomfortable with, such as alcohol and porn.  Descriptions approached abuse if they were not actual abuse, imo.

In other words, I would suggest hearing from all those involved before making judgments of the right or wrongness of anger.

Right. I'm extremely suspicious of those "church broke up my family" stories. Almost every one that starts that way, when you hear more detail, it's like "nah, you broke up your family, the church didn't."

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Right. I'm extremely suspicious of those "church broke up my family" stories. Almost every one that starts that way, when you hear more detail, it's like "nah, you broke up your family, the church didn't."

I don't put it out of the realm of possibility, just highly unlikely as it is so contrary to everything I have seen taught that I think the family dynamics have to be pretty screwed up already for such to come from parents or if inappropriate counsel from a leader (my understanding is they are directed to never counsel divorce though I believe they are instructed to promote safe decisions if abuse is involved...perhaps someone in a bishopric or formerly in one can verify this), the believing spouse has an extreme approach to pastoral counsel if that was all it took for him/her to file for divorce.

I just don't think there are that many people like that so that the 'perfect storm' of personalities that are needed can occur except in rare occasions.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't put it out of the realm of possibility, just highly unlikely as it is so contrary to everything I have seen taught that I think the family dynamics have to be pretty screwed up already for such to come from parents or if inappropriate counsel from a leader (my understanding is they are directed to never counsel divorce though I believe they are instructed to promote safe decisions if abuse is involved...perhaps someone in a bishopric or formerly in one can verify this), the believing spouse has an extreme approach to pastoral counsel if that was all it took for him/her to file for divorce.

I just don't think there are that many people like that so that the 'perfect storm' of personalities that are needed can occur except in rare occasions.

That is correct. It states in the handbook that Bishops are never to counsel a member to divorce. I always found it best to help the member talk through all the relevant factors and then counseled them to study it out and take the decision to the Lord in prayer. 

Link to comment
On 6/26/2017 at 3:20 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is intended for non-TBM's who are trying (or have tried) to engage in middle-way Mormonism. This is for the NOM's, the un-correlated, internet Mormons, for the borderlanders, for the StayLDS and A Thoughtful Faith types who are critical in some ways but also find some value through engagement and perhaps even hope to help the church become a better version of itself by becoming more open, welcoming, accepting, and less judgmental. If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like :) 

I'm a podcast listener during my daily commute and today I listened to a new episode of Infants on Thrones in which, Glenn, Matt, and Tom interview Bill Reel. It's a fascinating podcast and I recommend it for other podcast junkies. But this thread is not about the podcast participants. Any attempts to make it about the personalities instead of the ideas will be reported to mods for ejection from the thread.

The basic idea came to this... One of the infants whose name rhymes with Cat, claimed that Bill, and others like him who try to stay engaged in the church by finding some kind of middle way, are really a major part of the problem they say they are trying to solve. He claims that from the ex-Mormon perspective encouraging people to stay and engage thoughtfully harms the people and causes trauma when they should simply rip of the bandage and leave Mormonism in their rearview mirror. He argues that those experiencing faith crisis or transitions are harmed by having a safe landing spot where they might feel a level of comfort, acceptance, and validation (note the 3 pattern) when they should simply get out. Bill argued against this perspective.

It occurs to me that many from the TBM, chapel Mormon, correlated, orthodox (however you wish to label yourself) perspective may wish for the same thing. Instead of having people struggling to hang on with their unorthodox views, it would be better for them just to get out so they don't taint the rest of the congregation/church with their criticisms and doubts. We even saw this position play out in a thread on this board a week ago.

Both of these (simplified) positions (both orthodox and Ex) seem to share some common ground of desiring the middle-way folks would just get out, even if the reasoning is different. They seem to think and/or act like a middle way is a fools errand and that it serves no positive purpose and actually does more harm than good.

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

 

http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

I say it's  better if they stay. How else will the prophecy of the wheat and the tares growing together until the final separation be fulfilled? 😏

Link to comment

Looking at some of the posts, I'm wondering how saints of a common mindset congeal and begin to identify and call themselves "NOM". I think I pretty much understand the dynamics of an "intra-church" social faction / coterie (if someone has another, better word describing what the grouping is, please share -- RS used to encourage "pods"; I don't know if that is done anymore). This question may be a tangent from the OP which I took to be about keeping struggling people in the Church (I don't see "NOMs" as necessarily struggling to stay in the Church), but there also seems to be some overlap.

Also, I saw in one post Posted 22 hours ago kudos for a popular "NOM" teacher. Is he popular because he teaches "NOM" principles, or because he teaches well from the manual and happens to be "NOM"?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Looking at some of the posts, I'm wondering how saints of a common mindset congeal and begin to identify and call themselves "NOM". I think I pretty much understand the dynamics of an "intra-church" social faction / coterie (if someone has another, better word describing what the grouping is, please share -- RS used to encourage "pods"; I don't know if that is done anymore). This question may be a tangent from the OP which I took to be about keeping struggling people in the Church (I don't see "NOMs" as necessarily struggling to stay in the Church), but there also seems to be some overlap.

Also, I saw in one post Posted 22 hours ago kudos for a popular "NOM" teacher. Is he popular because he teaches "NOM" principles, or because he teaches well from the manual and happens to be "NOM"?

I think in this context NOM is generally being considered heterodox members who continue to participate for reasons other than firm belief in the church's literal truth claims.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

For dingdongs who think they're judgment is more important than his, I guess.  I don't think that's you.  I'm far more likely to end up Terr or Tel than anyone here. 

I'm shooting for the CK myself, but when I was Ward Exec Secretary I was privy to some conversations where people just felt they were tired of trying. (no names, no ward info)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think in this context NOM is generally being considered heterodox members who continue to participate for reasons other than firm belief in the church's literal truth claims.

Do you consider there to be a difference between heterodox and unorthodox?

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ummm...a rather smug comment

Why do you say that? Have you never gotten tired of all the requirements to reach the CK and felt you are falling short, ever feel like its helpless?

If not, you're a much better person that many of the Church membership.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Right or wrong I tend to use the words interchangeably. Why?

 

I was looking up the definition of heterodoxy and found unorthodoxy as a synonym. In comparing them, they share the following synonyms: nonconformist, dissenting, and heretical. They differ in that heterodoxy has more oppositional-sounding synonyms (dissident, rebellious, renegade, blasphemous, recusant, apostate) while unorthodox has more personality-sounding synonyms (unconventional, unusual, radical, avant-garde, eccentric, maverick, strange, idiosyncratic).

Still being interested in the thread, I was wondering which term you (or others) think best describes a NOM. Or, at this point, which of the synonyms I listed above best describes a NOM as we discuss how they should be treated (or how those in the podcast say they should be treated), and how to consider their desire to retain membership in the Church.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

Why do you say that? Have you never gotten tired of all the requirements to reach the CK and felt you are falling short, ever feel like its helpless?

If not, you're a much better person that many of the Church membership.

To be honest, I worry about all of the requirements to reach the CK about as often as I worry about meeting the requirements to reach that spaceship hiding within the tail of the Hale-Bopp Comet...

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was looking up the definition of heterodoxy and found unorthodoxy as a synonym. In comparing them, they share the following synonyms: nonconformist, dissenting, and heretical. They differ in that heterodoxy has more oppositional-sounding synonyms (dissident, rebellious, renegade, blasphemous, recusant, apostate) while unorthodox has more personality-sounding synonyms (unconventional, unusual, radical, avant-garde, eccentric, maverick, strange, idiosyncratic).

Still being interested in the thread, I was wondering which term you (or others) think best describes a NOM. Or, at this point, which of the synonyms I listed above best describes a NOM as we discuss how they should be treated (or how those in the podcast say they should be treated), and how to consider their desire to retain membership in the Church.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I hadn't really considered the finer points of the words.

Personally I would consider myself more unorthodox.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I hadn't really considered the finer points of the words.

Personally I would consider myself more unorthodox.

So going with unorthodox, at what point should someone who can be described by the following not be considered a NOM: unconventional, unusual, radical, avant-garde, eccentric, maverick, strange, idiosyncratic?

I’ll add to that some other words I found, synonyms for non-conformist and unconventional, which may or may not fit your concept of unorthodox / NOM: irregular, unfamiliar, uncommon, unwonted, out of the ordinary, atypical, singular, alternative, different; new, novel, innovative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original, unprecedented; idiosyncratic, curious; anomalous, extraordinary; individualist, free spirit, original, outsider.

I took out the more disparaging-sounding synonyms like: quirky, odd, strange, bizarre, weird, outlandish, abnormal, aberrant, misfit, dropout, Bohemian.)

Link to comment
18 hours ago, CV75 said:

...unconventional, unusual, radical, avant-garde, eccentric, maverick, strange, idiosyncratic?

...irregular, unfamiliar, uncommon, unwonted, out of the ordinary, atypical, singular, alternative, different; new, novel, innovative, groundbreaking, pioneering, original, unprecedented; curious; anomalous, extraordinary; individualist, free spirit, original, outsider.

Wouldn't any who choose to be of a  "peculiar" people align with most, if not all, of such words...perhaps even in their own unique way?

https://youtu.be/9O8oLqY2sxo

Link to comment
2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Wouldn't any who choose to be of a  "peculiar" people align with most, if not all, of such words...perhaps even in their own unique way?

https://youtu.be/9O8oLqY2sxo

Absolutely. But I'm trying to discuss NOM and was told (by a NOM) that these kinds of words describe it, so am taking up the conversation where it is.

You underlined outsider. LDS may consider themselves "outsiders" but don't refer to themselves as New Order Protestants.

My question surrounding these terms was to adress at what point should someone who can be described by them not be considered a NOM. In other words, at what point can one be "too" x-y-z to qualify as a NOM, and what would that look like?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
On 6/28/2017 at 9:13 AM, mnn727 said:

I'm shooting for the CK myself, but when I was Ward Exec Secretary I was privy to some conversations where people just felt they were tired of trying. (no names, no ward info)

Why are you shooting or he CK?  Do you want a  world??  You want the responsibility of spirit children??  Wives????

Link to comment

If Orson Pratt was alive today, he might be considered by some as a NOM.  In fact, I think Orson Pratt could be appropriately termed, 'the father of the NOM movement'. 

In the Book Conflict in the Quorum, Orson clearly upholds several of the same prinicples that NOMs live by.  He certainly was somewhat of a dissenter and non-conformist.  Orson disagreed with Brigham Young on many doctrinal issues and several of their most important disagreements involved the issue of dissent:

Quote

 

  • Is it a sin to publicly criticize the doctrines, policies, or officers of the church?
  •  If public criticism is a sin, what is the appropriate ecclesiastical punishment with which to meet it?
  •  Is it an essential element of Mormonism to believe or declare that all official church policies and doctrines represent the true will of God?
  • If some doctrines are mistaken, is it an essential duty of members to overlook and support such mistakes (at least in public), and leave such matters primarily in the hands of God?

 

Orson paid a price for not keeping his dissenting views private and received disciplinary council where his seniority was demoted in the quorum of the 12 to where he could not advance to the presidency, but he still remained an apostle and held that office for nearly 40 years.

When pressure was put on Orson by President Young to teach and support a doctrine which he disagreed with, Orson said:

Quote

I am not a man to make a confession of what I do not believe. I am not going to crawl to Brigham Young and act the hypocrite. I will be a free man. It may cost me my fellowship, but I will stick to it. If I die tonight, I would say, O Lord God Almighty, I believe what I say.

If that is not NOM, I don't know what is!  I find it fascinating how different things were in the church back then.  To hear an apostle make a statement like that today would be jaw-dropping to say the least.  It is unheard of.  

If Orson Pratt could retain the position of an apostle in the church for 40 years, I don't see why NOM should feel pressure to leave today.  I think it important to note that Orson knew when to stop however, he understood when an argument had run its course and he knew how to balance un-orthodox views with being a supporting member of the organization in order to keep organizational life healthy and functioning.

I have to say I sympathize in many ways with Orson and the NOM movement, as I think all of us on here (or at least most of us, that I am aware of) hold at least one un-orthodox view and dissent in one way or another from orthodox beliefs.  I think the difference comes in the spirit in which we air our dissenting voices while retaining respectful feelings towards the church and its leaders.  I also don't really see the need to separate ourselves the general membership of the church with a distinguishing label.  Do we need to create divisive titles and 'ites, can't we all just be members of the church with different perspectives, like in the good old days of Orson?

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, pogi said:

If Orson Pratt was alive today, he might be considered by some as a NOM.  In fact, I think Orson Pratt could be appropriately termed, 'the father of the NOM movement'. 

In the Book Conflict in the Quorum, Orson clearly upholds several of the same prinicples that NOMs live by.  He certainly was somewhat of a dissenter and non-conformist.  Orson disagreed with Brigham Young on many doctrinal issues and several of their most important disagreements involved the issue of dissent:

Orson paid a price for not keeping his dissenting views private and received disciplinary council where his seniority was demoted in the quorum of the 12 to where he could not advance to the presidency, but he still remained an apostle and held that office for nearly 40 years.

When pressure was put on Orson by President Young to teach and support a doctrine which he disagreed with, Orson said:

If that is not NOM, I don't know what is!  I find it fascinating how different things were in the church back then.  To hear an apostle make a statement like that today would be jaw-dropping to say the least.  It is unheard of.  

If Orson Pratt could retain the position of an apostle in the church for 40 years, I don't see why NOM should feel pressure to leave today.  I think it important to note that Orson knew when to stop however, he understood when an argument had run its course and he knew how to balance un-orthodox views with being a supporting member of the organization in order to keep organizational life healthy and functioning.

I have to say I sympathize in many ways with Orson and the NOM movement, as I think all of us on here (or at least most of us, that I am aware of) hold at least one un-orthodox view and dissent in one way or another from orthodox beliefs.  I think the difference comes in the spirit in which we air our dissenting voices while retaining respectful feelings towards the church and its leaders.  I also don't really see the need to separate ourselves the general membership of the church with a distinguishing label.  Do we need to create divisive titles and 'ites, can't we all just be members of the church with different perspectives, like in the good old days of Orson?

 

I think we’ve come a long way in 187 years in matters like this, building on the experience, hard lessons and improvement of generations. Just as the past generations would have hoped, I imagine.

I thought NOM was simply about no longer believing in particular tenets yet wanting to belong to the Church on a secular-familial-cultural level, but now I’m given to understand it has more to do with the more positive aspects of unorthodoxy.

You refer to the principles NOMs live by. How formal is the NOM movement? Do you have a link that lists the principles?

Based on those principles, at what point (I know I keep asking) – based on the descriptors I had been given a few posts above – would a person no longer be appropriately considered a NOM, or be welcome in the NOM movement?

Who created the distinguishing label?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think we’ve come a long way in 187 years in matters like this, building on the experience, hard lessons and improvement of generations. Just as the past generations would have hoped, I imagine.

I thought NOM was simply about no longer believing in particular tenets yet wanting to belong to the Church on a secular-familial-cultural level, but now I’m given to understand it has more to do with the more positive aspects of unorthodoxy.

You refer to the principles NOMs live by. How formal is the NOM movement? Do you have a link that lists the principles?

Based on those principles, at what point (I know I keep asking) – based on the descriptors I had been given a few posts above – would a person no longer be appropriately considered a NOM, or be welcome in the NOM movement?

Who created the distinguishing label?

I don't know that NOMs only stay on a secular-familial-cultural level, I think most of them will claim that they receive spiritual nourishment from much of what the church teaches but may disagree with some tenets (the problem is that I think we all fit that description to one degree or another), at least that is how I interpret it.  But I don't know that there is one definition or description of who they are or what they believe.  As I understand it, I think there are some underlying principles that they uphold over others.  They uphold the individualist approach to Mormonism vs., what they might label, the "subordination" approach that they see in statements like these:

Quote

 

“The Saints can have faith in their leaders and vote unanimously on all propositions, knowing that the things presented for their sustaining vote were approved of the Lord to their leaders before being presented to the membership of the Church” (Ensign, May 1974, Alma P. Burton, BYU Professor of Church History and Doctrine). 

“Keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it. But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray’” (current Aaronic Priesthood Manual, Lesson 24 "Follow the Prophet"; Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78; ).

 

I think Orson Pratt would have agreed with them in their opposition to these statements.  As Orson once said:

Quote

“We have hitherto acted too much as machines, as to following the Spirit*. I will confess to my own shame that I have acted contrary to my own judgment many times. I mean hereafter not to demean myself, to not run contrary to my own judgment. ...When [President Young] says that the Spirit of the Lord says thus and so, I don’t consider that all we should do is to say let it be so.” (Elder Orson Pratt, 1847; Conflict in the Quorum, Gary James Bergera, pg 70.). 

If there was one single word that I think best describes NOMs, it would be "dissident".  I do think that term would also appropriately be applied to Orson Pratt. 

As to your last two questions.  I don't know the answers.  I think any dissident would be considered a NOM so long as they take part in membership in the church.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
15 hours ago, CV75 said:

You underlined outsider. LDS may consider themselves "outsiders"...

Simply a reference to the NT premise of considering oneself a pilgrim...in a strange land...longing for a heavenly home.

Back to OP.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

On the other hand, I found my faith served me well during an extended period of intense clinical depression. In the very darkest moments of despair and hopelessness when all other "Helpers failed and comforts fled," I discovered in my existential core the unshakeable foundation that saw me through...the love of Christ. When there was absolutely nothing left that I cared for, in the center of my stripped-away existence abided the Lord Jesus Christ. I found  that He was all there is and that gave me life.

I'm glad.

I wonder how well faith supports a person in depression when their depression is caused by a loss of faith.

I think it's also worth noting that many in "faith" crisis are really in crisis with their relationship to the church, not their faith in Christ. Faith in Jesus and faith in the church are often confused. One can lose faith in an institutional church and all of the fear that separation from the institution could cause, while still holding faith in God/Jesus.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...