Faith Crisis Training For Stake Leaders

[wenglund]

If I have misread your intentions then I apologies. Using language like 'smug' and 'arc steadier' isn't particularly conducive to balanced dialogue with another board member. If you called me a smug arc steadier I might have trouble paying attention to the rest of what you said.

That would be your choice, just as it would be my choice to point out when I believe people are being smug and steadying arks. But, this is beside the point of what I reasonably and helpfully suggested earlier.

Anyway, given all the overly-defensive and harsh reactions to my helpful suggestion, I have lost interest in the presentation, and I will no longer pay it any attention. I no longer care. I leave it to whomever may care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If I remember right, your professional work is counseling/psychology--something like that? If so, I think you're sounding a bit like someone who's unconsciously suffering from a case of professional jealousy. Could that be what's driving some of your criticism and insistence that he provide case studies and statistics to prove his presentation works?

Actually, my primary career over the last 4 decades has been in business, and the last decade or so I have been heavily involved in business start-ups. My supposed "criticism," or as I would call it, "helpful suggestion," comes from years of learning what works and what doesn't in persuading people to invest their hard-earned money into projects and take action. Setting forth a track record (i.e. evidence of viability and profitability) is essential.

Furthermore, my educational background in the social sciences, and my avocational experience in counseling and psychology, has also taught me the fundamental value of supportive and persuasive evidence. In particular, I share the sentiments of Dr. Aaron Beck, a psychiatrist who entered the field back when it was predominately Freudian. And after years of using the Freudian approach and seeing little success in his practice, he determined to challenge the conventions of psychology, and determined instead to take a more evidence-based approach, and operate under the principle that if something doesn't work, and work well, then what would be the point in using it. From this he developed what is now referred to as Cognitive Behavior Therapy, which, according to the numbers that are now being kept, is far more successful than the approach of his predecessors. His approach demonstrably works because he cared about determining if it works or not.

So, no, my suggestion wasn't motivated by professional envy. Rather, it was motivated by a reasonable sense of pragmatism (i.e, a desire to promote what works).

But, as I indicated above, the persistent negative reaction to my "helpful suggestion" has now turned me off, and I will leave you all to do whatever with Bill's project.

If he was going to write it up for inclusion in a Psych. journal I could see this being necessary, but if all he's doing is giving some of his own insights and ideas, from his own experience for helping members going through a crisis of faith, I don't think he has to provide case studies and statistics.

Actually, it went beyond Bill simply offering up his ideas. He has in mind taking his presentation to other stakes and to the Church. In fact, the question I addressed was in regards to Church. And, since Bill may not be well known in other stakes or throughout the Church, leaders will have little reason to consider his ideas, let alone embrace his ideas, absent evidence that they work--not that I now care.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad that (1) Bill is anxiously engaged in a good cause, and grateful that (2) he has taken a significantly different, and more faithful approach than John Dehlin -- providing positive reasons for faith, and preparation for leaders to consider when confronting those with serious questions. It does no good to hem and haw when substantial questions are asked.

Indeed, a number of the Church's most ambitious programs began as the musings of faithful individuals who thought that maybe, just maybe it would be a good thing if the Church were to . . . (you fill in the blank).

For example, my best friend quietly developed the idea for our current Perpetual Education Fund (PEF) based on the old pioneer Perpetual Emigration Fund. He managed to get an audience with Church Welfare officials, made his proposal, and a few years later the program was fully implemented. At Conference time, two successive Church Presidents have lauded the program as inspired by God. None of you know the name of the guy who came up with the idea, and he wasn't seeking publicity. But he takes great satisfaction today in all the people worldwide who are being aided by this wonderful program.

We don't know where Bill's program will go, nor whether there are similar programs being created by others, but the Church does need to deal with such issues forthrightly. Sadly, at the same time that Bill is finding hope, one of the most stalwart defenders of the faith has been silenced, namely FARMS. Unlike Bill, John Dehlin has been celebrating the demise of that organized defense of the faith (based on actual ancient historical scholarship). I suspect that the reason for such celebration is because of FARMS' uncanny success in opposing the lies and misinformation generated by "ill wishers.".

Much of what happens in the Church begins with a local initiative somewhere at sometime. Primary, Sunday School, the forerunner to the Young Men and Young Women organizations, the Church Welfare Program, Seminary and, arguably, Relief Society all began that way.

I only get uncomfortable when I see an attempt to export such a local initiative as pre-packaged curriculum throughout the Church without any direction or involvement of the general leadership. I don't believe that happened with any of the above things I mentioned.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I only get uncomfortable when I see an attempt to export such a local initiative as pre-packaged curriculum

From the discussions here and elsewhere I've been a part of, I don't see Bill doing this. He is rather attempting to create a resource much like FAIR does with its wiki where people can take what ideas they find appealing, add what they want and ignore the rest. At most I see the 'promotion' is to get the idea of something like this out there, whether or not they take advantage of Bill's materials he's collected and had help with or start something of their own.

FAIR volunteers do this quite a bit, pass around presentations they've been asked to do so as to help spark ideas in others that are asked to make similar presentation.

Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

From the discussions here and elsewhere I've been a part of, I don't see Bill doing this. He is rather attempting to create a resource much like FAIR does with its wiki where people can take what ideas they find appealing, add what they want and ignore the rest. At most I see the 'promotion' is to get the idea of something like this out there, whether or not they take advantage of Bill's materials he's collected and had help with or start something of their own.

FAIR volunteers do this quite a bit, pass around presentations they've been asked to do so as to help spark ideas in others that are asked to make similar presentation.

But I don't see FAIR aggressively promoting its material specifically as training for stake leaders — complete with essential PowerPoint and information packet — and they're definitely not doing that in a way that appears to exclude the priesthood correlation structure of the Church. In fact, FAIR is careful to make a prominent disclaimer that it is a private initiative not officially connected with the Church.

So I see a bit of a difference there.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Much of what happens in the Church begins with a local initiative somewhere at sometime. Primary, Sunday School, the forerunner to the Young Men and Young Women organizations, the Church Welfare Program and, arguably, Relief Society all began that way.

I only get uncomfortable when I see an attempt to export such a local initiative as pre-packaged curriculum throughout the Church without any direction or involvement with the general leadership of the Church. I don't believe that happened with any of the above things I mentioned.

Bishop Reel wouldn't be bishop if the church leaders thought what he was doing was wrong. They must be on the same page as him in my eyes. They see that it must be done. I see them utilizing his methods one day soon actually, just watch and see. I'm half tempted to speak with my former bishop turned stake president but hesitate because he hasn't acknowledged my email previous about the reasons for my faith crisis and turning down a teaching calling. But we don't talk about the elephant in the room, but talk casually in open spaces. Can't believe I even worried I hurt his testimony with church history that he may not be aware of. And now believe his testimony is bullet proof like so many here. The help people get through the Bishop's ideas keep people in the church longer and make it so they don't feel like they are in it by themselves, in a la, la land or twilight zone. Or a feeling that things are being hidden from everyone. That mentality usually scares people off, not the reverse.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bishop Reel wouldn't be bishop if the church leaders thought what he was doing was wrong.

I'm not at all certain they're even aware of it.

[mfbukowski]

Actually my approach has been to share the power point with whomever. Use the podcast to understand how I use the powerpoint and what i am thinking, then the individual would then use it in their stake where they can be the go to person with trust already built.

OK- Good idea!

[rongo]

The problem I see with this is that Bill Reel seems to want to promote his podcast and his Powerpoint as a Church-wide thing. He is not a John Dehlin, but it seems to me that he would like to be ---- the level of influence and impact, not the actual or secondary results. He hasn't crossed the line into Meldrumville, but it starts that way.

When I was a bishop, my ward mission leader and I discussed ways we could reach more of the community. He and I were familiar with the Ross Baron firesides in SoCal,

http://www.fairlds.o...-fishers-of-men

and we approached our stake president about this. He actually gave me a "blank check" with little oversight (he trusted me not to "leave the reservation," and I am our stake's "resident competent apologist"), and we did three community firesides: "Are Mormons Christians?", "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?", and "Can Mormon Prophets Hold up under Scrutiny?" We had "ask anything" Q&As after. We advertised locally, and had over 130 non-members in attendance (including some anti-Mormon ministries), including investigators brought by the missionaries. My WML did the first one, my primary president did the second one, and I did the third one. I was invited to do two radio interviews: one, critiquing a show centering around a hidden mike taping of a missionary lesson (these particular missionaries were outstanding and did a great job), and another critiquing the Mormon-themed shows they had previously done (three pastors, one Ivy league-trained).

The difference between Bill's initiative and ours is that ours was strictly local. We didn't "market" our presentation outside of our stake or approach other areas and leaders. We weren't "podcasting," and we didn't assemble resources and strategies for people completely unconnected with our local areas. Two of Ross Baron's bedrock principles are very important:

1) Priesthood driven ----- it really should be "driven" by the priesthood in the local area, not used or allowed secondarily when they are made aware of it.

"Not only did I put this as number one, but on a scale of one to ten, it’s a ten. And that is, it has to be priesthood driven. If your stake presidency is not 100% behind it, you don’t do it. Don’t do it as a sideline little thing or your own pet project. Don’t do it because you think it’s a great idea. If it is not priesthood driven, do not do it. I can’t emphasize that enough. I don’t know what else to say about that. And I just feel so confident with that because when it’s priesthood driven, the Spirit’s there, you have the support of the whole stake, and you get– you get the authority, especially if you’re under the assignments to do what you need to do. So that is number one, and that is probably the most important one."

2) Keep it Local --- by definition, striving to broaden a presentation outside of ward/stake boundaries is no longer local, and is only nominally priesthood driven (it's essentially outsourced by delegation rather than being priesthood initiated and driven --- like packets I used to get in the mail from when I was a bishop from non-Family Services psychologists offering courses and things for addictions). There is tremendous power in local units employing their keys to make such presentations their own. Ross Baron implored:

"Don’t call me and ask me to come to your stake. Don’t call Dan Peterson and ask him to come to your stake. Don’t call Ara Norwood and ask him to come and speak at your stake. Don’t do that. Keep it local. Find someone in your stake that has the capacity, the ability, the moxie, the chutzpah–whatever you want to call it–to be able to do this kind of thing. I think when we cross stake boundaries and do these kind of things, we run into problems. Remember: Priesthood driven; keep it local. I believe that the Lord can raise anybody up in your stake, if this is done right, that can do this. So don’t e-mail me and say, “Well, we have a special circumstance.” Please don’t bother with any of the other representatives here. You know, “John Tvedtnes, come and give us–talk about Hebrew etymology.” Don’t do that, because I believe that that will violate the principles that will make it successful and be a blessing for your area. Keep it local."

Edited April 17, 2013 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem I see with this is that Bill Reel seems to want to promote his podcast and his Powerpoint as a Church-wide thing. He is not a John Dehlin, but it seems to me that he would like to be ---- the level of influence and impact, not the actual or secondary results. He hasn't crossed the line into Meldrumville, but it starts that way.

When I was a bishop, my ward mission leader and I discussed ways we could reach more of the community. He and I were familiar with the Ross Baron firesides in SoCal,

http://www.fairlds.o...-fishers-of-men

and we approached our stake president about this. He actually gave me a "blank check" with little oversight (he trusted me not to "leave the reservation," and I am our stake's "resident competent apologist"), and we did three community firesides: "Are Mormons Christians?", "Book of Mormon: Fact or Fiction?", and "Can Mormon Prophets Hold up under Scrutiny?" We had "ask anything" Q&As after. We advertised locally, and had over 130 non-members in attendance (including some anti-Mormon ministries), including investigators brought by the missionaries. My WML did the first one, my primary president did the second one, and I did the third one. I was invited to do two radio interviews: one, critiquing a show centering around a hidden mike taping of a missionary lesson (these particular missionaries were outstanding and did a great job), and another critiquing the Mormon-themed shows they had previously done (three pastors, one Ivy league-trained).

The difference between Bill's initiative and ours is that ours was strictly local. We didn't "market" our presentation outside of our stake or approach other areas and leaders. We weren't "podcasting," and we didn't assemble resources and strategies for people completely unconnected with our local areas. Two of Ross Baron's bedrock principles are very important:

1) Priesthood driven ----- it really should be "driven" by the priesthood in the local area, not used or allowed secondarily when they are made aware of it.

"Not only did I put this as number one, but on a scale of one to ten, it’s a ten. And that is, it has to be priesthood driven. If your stake presidency is not 100% behind it, you don’t do it. Don’t do it as a sideline little thing or your own pet project. Don’t do it because you think it’s a great idea. If it is not priesthood driven, do not do it. I can’t emphasize that enough. I don’t know what else to say about that. And I just feel so confident with that because when it’s priesthood driven, the Spirit’s there, you have the support of the whole stake, and you get– you get the authority, especially if you’re under the assignments to do what you need to do. So that is number one, and that is probably the most important one."

2) Keep it Local --- by definition, striving to broaden a presentation outside of ward/stake boundaries is no longer local, and is only nominally priesthood driven (it's essentially outsourced by delegation rather than being priesthood initiated and driven --- like packets I used to get in the mail from when I was a bishop from non-Family Services psychologists offering courses and things for addictions). There is tremendous power in local units employing their keys to make such presentations their own. Ross Baron implored:

"Don’t call me and ask me to come to your stake. Don’t call Dan Peterson and ask him to come to your stake. Don’t call Ara Norwood and ask him to come and speak at your stake. Don’t do that. Keep it local. Find someone in your stake that has the capacity, the ability, the moxie, the chutzpah–whatever you want to call it–to be able to do this kind of thing. I think when we cross stake boundaries and do these kind of things, we run into problems. Remember: Priesthood driven; keep it local. I believe that the Lord can raise anybody up in your stake, if this is done right, that can do this. So don’t e-mail me and say, “Well, we have a special circumstance.” Please don’t bother with any of the other representatives here. You know, “John Tvedtnes, come and give us–talk about Hebrew etymology.” Don’t do that, because I believe that that will violate the principles that will make it successful and be a blessing for your area. Keep it local."

I want to say you've wrapped up in a nutshell what I'm trying to say -- except that yours is much lengthier than anything I've posted so far.

In any event, I think we're on the same page. Bravo!

[rongo]

Bishop Reel wouldn't be bishop if the church leaders thought what he was doing was wrong. They must be on the same page as him in my eyes.

Has he said he is a bishop? I must have missed that --- I thought he refused to explain in what capacity he is a "local leader."

It's naive to extrapolate FP or Q12 approval or support for things like this, simply by virtue of the fact that he (assuming for the sake of argument that he is a bishop) isn't removed. When I wrote and directed some local firesides, I guarantee that the FP/Q12 had no idea I had done so, and my continued years of service were completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they sanctioned or approved of them. That's what the local leadership is for.

[Scott Lloyd]

Has he said he is a bishop? I must have missed that --- I thought he refused to explain in what capacity he is a "local leader."

No, you're thinking of Buckeye. The two are irl acquaintances, but it was Buckeye who characterized himself as a "leader of a local congregation." Bill Reel (DBMormon) has never made a secret of the fact that he is a bishop and has made himself rather prominent with podcasts and what not. It was Bill who objected to my asking Buckeye what he means by "leader of a local congregation." Buckeye, to my knowledge, has not responded yet.

It's naive to extrapolate FP or Q12 approval or support for things like this, simply by virtue of the fact that he (assuming for the sake of argument that he is a bishop) isn't removed. When I wrote and directed some local firesides, I guarantee that the FP/Q12 had no idea I had done so, and my continued years of service were completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not they sanctioned or approved of them. That's what the local leadership is for.

Indeed.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

For the record, I sent my concept in to someone much higher. If he asks me to knock it off I will and if he says proceed, I will, and he he says great but keep it local then I will do that too.

Edited April 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[rongo]

"Someone much higher" as in, what? Area authority seventy over your area? Higher than that?

Are you comfortable just telling us what level you pitched this to? If not, why not?

[Scott Lloyd]

For the record, I sent my concept in to someone much higher. If he asks me to knock it off I will. ...

I don't predict he will say that -- as it pertains to your own ward or stake. Does he know you're promoting it on the Internet as "training for stake leaders"?

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

The trouble, and this is only understood if one grasps faith development, is that most humans and hence most LDS are in a literal black and white way of seeing the gospel/world/politics/ect... They are reluctant to allow themselves to see outside their comfort zone. They balk at anything that doesn't mesh with their view. Meanwhile people are leaving and whether people here mish mosh over Marlin Jensen's meaning of an “apostasy the size of which we haven't seen since kirtland” there is a serious trouble that has arisen due to the easiness of access to information found on the internet.

So while in theory we say stay local and work through priesthood, I also am aware that some leaders are not ready to even comprehend what is needed. That is no knock on being lead by the spirit but rather it works with the faith development stage they are at and what is reasonable to expect in their capacity to understand and deal with faith crisis.

Edited April 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I don't predict he will say that -- as it pertains to your own ward or stake. Does he know you're promoting it on the Internet as "training for stake leaders"?

I gave the person all the info - podcast site - powerpoint pdf - feedback from those who have viewed it - ect...

Who? - I am not comfortable saying that would be inappropriate. But his answer will be good enough for me.

[rongo]

Why would it be inappropriate? And why wouldn't you at least tell us what heiarchy level, without telling a name?

[alter idem]

Why would it be inappropriate? And why wouldn't you at least tell us what heiarchy level, without telling a name?

I think he's right to feel uncomfortable answering every question posed to him.

If he shared it with someone, I'm not sure that person would want him discussing them on a public message board.

And I'm not sure 'what hierarchy level' they are at has to do with the discussion. Less information shared on message boards is always better than more, IMO.

[DBMormon]

Why would it be inappropriate? And why wouldn't you at least tell us what heiarchy level, without telling a name?

Because I have a history here. Anything I do has been and will be seen as inappropriate. Rather then have snarky remarks or someone work against me behind the scenes, I am better leaving it at that. If I get a reply,I'll go from there.

[DBMormon]

I think he's right to feel uncomfortable answering every question posed to him.

If he shared it with someone, I'm not sure that person would want him discussing them on a public message board.

And I'm not sure 'what hierarchy level' they are at has to do with the discussion. Less information shared on message boards is always better than more, IMO.

Thank You

[rongo]

And I'm not sure 'what hierarchy level' they are at has to do with the discussion.

Simply that some of us, who also have experience with complicated communications with levels higher than the stake, are curious. "Much higher up," as he said, implies higher than the stake, but he plays coy about exactly what level that would be under a (what seems to me to be unwarranted) "wouldn't be prudent" defense.

It's especially pertinent because he has used "much higher up" to placate and assure/reassure people who have concerns (i.e., "this is being reviewed by high levels"), but (to me) it loses much of this intended effect because of how he acts with these (to me) simple and benign questions. For someone who wants to convince concerned or skeptical leaders to use his program, this isn't a very auspicious way to garner comfort.

Edited April 17, 2013 by rongo

[DBMormon]

Simply that some of us, who also have experience with complicated communications with levels higher than the stake, are curious. "Much higher up," as he said, implies higher than the stake, but he plays coy about exactly what level that would be under a (what seems to me to be unwarranted) "wouldn't be prudent" defense.

It's especially pertinent because he has used "much higher up" to placate and assure/reassure people who have concerns (i.e., "this is being reviewed by high levels"), but (to me) it loses much of this intended effect because of how he acts with these (to me) simple and benign questions. For someone who wants to convince concerned or skeptical leaders to use his program, this isn't a very auspicious way to garner comfort.

It will have to suffice for now.

[CASteinman]

Maybe I am missing something here. I don't see where MBD has done anything wrong. I just think he is trying to do good. I have been critical of what he actually put together, but I don't understand the criticisms of his intent. I think his intent is to help the stake and ward where he lives to benefit the lives of those in their stewardship. How is that bad? I am really confused.

Am I missing something?

Edited April 17, 2013 by CASteinman

[oremites]

It's especially pertinent because he has used "much higher up" to placate and assure/reassure people who have concerns (i.e., "this is being reviewed by high levels"), but (to me) it loses much of this intended effect because of how he acts with these (to me) simple and benign questions. For someone who wants to convince concerned or skeptical leaders to use his program, this isn't a very auspicious way to garner comfort.

Except he's not trying to convince skeptical leaders here. He's dealing with strangers on the internet. Being cautious about what you put out there on the web for all the world to see is just basic common sense.