How To Help Those In Crisis

[Log]

In the Dehlin thread, this was posted (lightly redacted for this thread):

The interesting thing is, is that Rufus is an example right here in front of you of the types of respondents Dehlin refers to in his study/survey. But what happens? Rufus is discounted at face value.... The vitriolic or at least unkind responsiveness that has manifest itself on this thread to ... Rufus is somewhat disconcerting to those that would like to come at things with an unbiased or balanced approach.

Why is Rufus being treated with doubt and yes, a wee bit of ridicule for stating his overall "carry away" in regards to his experience with looking for answers and being discouraged in general with LDS apologetics? Granted, maybe Rufus is a dishonest anti-mormon or dishonest NOM just trying to muddy the waters. That seems to be the knee jerk response of some here.But what if he's not? Is he not worth listening to?

When all is said and done, this thread is an example of why those that are struggling with the church may exit the doors of the LDS meetinghouse. What they have to say is discounted at face value. In a softer sort of way Kevin Christensen(?) looks at these folks and questions why they haven't jumped through all the intricate hoops of reasoning and logic that he has. If they only would, they would stay, etc. Problem is, a lot of these folks are just regular folks without academic training and expertise like many of you. You tend to look at them as all being on a level playing field with you and judge them accordingly. This is where, IMO, things have the potential of becoming un-Christlike. Kind of a holier than thou sort of thing.

Mentalgymnast's words ring true to me. That was largely the response to Reelmormon when he came on this board, for example.

I would like to offer a model for helping those with questions.

1. Assume the poster is in good faith unless and until he does or says something overtly to undermine or destroy someone's faith. Even if the poster does or says something overtly hostile, give him the benefit of the doubt. Even sincere seekers may be in pain, and when people are in pain, they tend to lash out.
   
2. If you don't have an answer for a particular issue, refer to someone who does. It is unhelpful to delegitimize someone's concerns, such as by intimating that their concerns are trivial.
   
3. Approach the poster at his own level. If you cannot speak to someone within their own paradigm, from within their own assumptions and values, then you cannot communicate with them to help them. You can, however, alienate them.
   
4. Talk to them, not about them. I recall a poster who analyzed a seeker in terms of narratives which came off extremely condescending and patronizing, while at the same time offering no real help to the seeker.
   
5. If you cannot interact with the seeker in good faith yourself, then don't try! If you cannot be charitable and patient, listening with your heart, then you've no real business trying to help - because you're not helping, in fact, even if you appear to be scoring points.
   

I've had multiple faith crises myself, and it is a wonder that I am still here. Through these crises, I have been brought to know of the pain of the deepest kind of betrayal, of cognitive dissonance, of alienation. One of these crises in particular is relevant to the point of this post - though the issue that precipitated it is NOT relevant to this post.

I ran across an historical teaching that I had heard was debunked - specifically, that the person in question had never taught what was attributed to him, and what was attributed to him was officially denounced. I found textual evidence that not only had he apparently taught it, but had done so multiple times in an authoritative context. This flew in the face of the apologetic defense I had read.

I wrote to Hugh Nibley, but his response was unhelpful, referring me back to the source that I already had on the issue. I then sent a PM or email to Dan Peterson. I basically yelled at him, saying "Why do we say this person never taught this when he most certainly did!!??!! Why are we lying about this!?!?"

Dan responded to me with all kindness, and asked if it was ok if he could forward my email to someone who specialized in the issue at hand. I said yes, and, after a quite interesting discussion with this specialist, came away fully satisfied with regards to that issue.

If Dan had responded in a patronizing manner, things would have gone very poorly for me. But he did not.

He took me at face value. He referred me to someone who knew the answer. He addressed me at my own level. He spoke to me. He was charitable and patient.

If you were in pain, looking to resolve the contradiction between your head and your heart, how would you want to be approached?

And, finally, even if it takes a lot of effort - even if you have to repeat yourself multiple times because an answer went unheard or is not comprehended - how great will be your joy with them in the Kingdom of God if you truly help them!

Edited May 11, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

Having been on discussion boards for over 20 years now, I would say that we should ALWAYS assume that the person is who and what they say they are until there is very excellent reason to believe otherwise.

I say this after having seen so many cases where people have been mischaracterized very quickly.

Generally speaking I think it occurs among people who have been hyper sensitized to attacks or misrepresentations, and they start seeing boogymen everywhere. Most recently, I have seen this on political boards (Romney and Santorum boards) where the people on those boards became very sensitive to Ron Paul followers coming and blistering them with waves of Paulian propaganda and spewings.

As a result, every new guest was viewed with suspicion. I happen to be a pretty strong supporter of Romney, but because I was a new person on that board and because I was slightly critical of some of the aspects of the Romney campaign, I was immediately identified as a secret Ron Paul supporter and hated. In fact, I was never able to convince everyone of my loyalty.

I think this can happen on Mormon Boards.

But, after 20 years, I feel pretty confident in saying that if you jump to conclusions about new participants -- if you look for reasons to find the to be an enemy or to be some sort of secret spy, you will almost always be wrong. And, those few times that you were right, it really would have cost you nothing if you simply assumed the best intentions of the person at the start.

Evil people will reveal themselves in time and you will not hurt yourself by treating them kindly before they do.

That is my experience of 20 years on Internet boards. Maybe others have different experience, but I feel pretty good about this.

[Storm Rider]

It is easy for those of us use to participating on these types of forums. We quickly sum up who a person is based upon the tone of their comments/questions; our history/experience leads us to make conclusions quickly. It is possible that some new participants just happen to appear to follow in the same tone/manner that we have seen on multiple previous occasions.

It is true that we need to give some space to new participants to allow them the opportunity to define who they are; however, when it sounds, looks, and acts like a fish; it is ususally a fish or what have you.

[bluebell]

Having been on discussion boards for over 20 years now, I would say that we should ALWAYS assume that the person is who and what they say they are until there is very excellent reason to believe otherwise.

I say this after having seen so many cases where people have been mischaracterized very quickly.

Generally speaking I think it occurs among people who have been hyper sensitized to attacks or misrepresentations, and they start seeing boogymen everywhere.

I think it happens on this message board a lot because there have been specific instances of people come here, claiming a crisis of faith of one kind or another, receiving loving and kind words by posters trying to help and then it is discovered that it's all a scam and that the poster is on some other board making fun of how easy it is to dupe the mormons, bragging about how dumb and pathetic everyone over here is.

However, i agree with everything in the OP. We really lose nothing by giving people the benefit of the doubt. We may be taken advantage of or made fun of (and i think we should be cautious with newbies until we have more room to trust) but in the end, the insincere one's are only hurting themselves and not us.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with Log though I am not always the best example of acting in the way he recommends. I will do better.

[DBMormon]

however, when it sounds, looks, and acts like a fish; it is ususally a fish or what have you.

Log, I wish I found the thread a little sooner....

this site has been on the fritz for several days.... are the kinks worked out?

Stormrider, I disagree with you on the quote above. Rufus may or may not have have been sincere, yet I absolutely can empathize with his feelings. His tone matched mine and others I have spoken too who have felt as I do. Some people on here still do not believe I am an active LDS (see my thread on Grace,Mercy and Works). When some of you talk to me or rofus the way some of you did, you make me and others feel justified in our frustration with church issues. If others are anything like me they do not need sarcasm or doubt of their intentions, they need someone to take a step back acknowledge full well they you can see why they feel like they do. Agree that you can understand why one would see the issues the way they do then walk them through the issue so they can see how you place the issue in context and also help them to remember the spiritual experiences they have had.

There was a moment in my first thread where some of you took a negative path in replying to me, and at that moment I almost fortified my distrust and dislike of you as a group. Luckily one of you took me aside and waled me through my questions with the appraoch I needed and also apoligizing for those who took a negative approach and doubted me.

Hence I am still here

I would much rather have 10 critics say they fooled us then one latter day saint walk away form the church when we could have prevented it or helped them back

"Cast not away therefore thy Confidence"

Edited May 14, 2012 by reelmormon