Faith Crisis Training For Stake Leaders

[Scott Lloyd]

I have sort of missed that he was trying to make it go Church-wide.

I don't know how ambitious his goals are regarding it. But he is billing it as "training for stake leaders," promoting it on the Internet — both here and on his blog site — and telling people they need to get the associated PowerPoint and documents from him.

If so, my caution would not be in how one endeavors to make that happen but rather -- caution about being very optimistic. He may well be disappointed.

I think it worth mentioning that things like this ought not be aggressively disseminated to Church leaders through non-official channels. As I've mentioned elsewhere on the thread, I believe there is wisdom in — and divine inspiration behind — the priesthood correlation process.

However, upon thought -- if I had to make a recommendation about how to go about it, I would relay a story from my life. When I was quite a bit younger and more full of myself than I am now (ahh.. youth) I was responsible for the Strategic Plan at a Fortune 250 sized Division of a Fortune 50 Company. They had always had a really lightweight and silly strategic plan. An afterthought.

I put something really strong and powerful together. I presented it to The Division and won acclaim and awards.

Then the plan started coming back from VP's with red marks all over it. I had to incorporate them because, after all, I was not a VP. I was insulted and angry. How dare they change my Holy Writ -- the product of half a year of intense research and concentration -- with only a few minutes of idle thought. Obvious blasphemy.

But I had to comply. Worse, they did not always agree and when I had to resolve the conflicts I ended up having VP's nearly come to blows with each other, throw chairs, threaten to quit and so on. But slowly, I got it all worked out. And incorporated their obviously foolish comments.

When I was done, I looked it over and realized something: It was much much better than what I had done on my own.

Since then I have been convinced that there was nothing I could produce that a team of smart interested people could not make much better. Sometimes (as recently on some business proposals I have created) I have found this not to be true -- and I am always disappointed when that happens -- but I believe that when it does not happen, its not because my work is so immaculate. It is that the others have decided its good enough and they don't need to spend their time. But whereas before, I was insulted if they messed with it, now I sort of wish they would.

That's a great story.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

For the record, I can confirm that this wasn't the case with me. As intimated in response to your PM to me. I didn't make comments on this thread because of our history, but in spite of it. And, I don't doubt your faithfulness as a member, and nothing I have said on this thread may rationally be interpreted otherwise.

I don't know who else on this thread you may have in mind as "the select few"? Could you please tell us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not just this thread Wade, but on this board there are a handful of individuals who can't help but jump at me first chance they get. Rather not name. Zerinus was one, he got banned but there are several others. I named them in my message to you but no reason to do that here in public

[Calm]

(P.S. There has been some thought about adding a fourth mission -- but it is also not related to explaining history).

The fourth mission has already been added: Caring for the poor and needy.

[CASteinman]

But back to what you said about the church not needing to address church history, I disagree, if they care about the needs of some of it's members, it's needy members as far as disallusionment goes, something needs to be put in place.

That is different than what you were suggesting -- that they were not telling "it all". It is not their mission to "tell it all". In fact it is against their mission to tell things that would injure faith and progress.

On the other hand, it is entirely within the purview and mission of the adversary to find means and ways to create doubt and destroy faith. Good tools for that are Cherry Picking and "Questioning" afterward.

I know you are limited (wish it was not so because I look forward to your posts), so if you want to reply in private I am ok with that.

[DBMormon]

This is not necessarily a criticism of anyone on this thread or this Board. I do think it's interesting, though, how, if a Church (or other) leader wants us to implement something that's brought in from outside the area, we're prone to criticize and to wonder, "The Brethren seem so out of touch. How is it that they thought that this sort of one-size-fits-all solution to a complex, widespread problem with many possible causes could possibly work here." Yet, if we're the one who comes up with the idea, we want to see it implemented as widely as possible.

It seems, with all due respect, as though the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders can't win: if they don't implement what we think are good ideas, they're out of touch, but if they do implement ideas from elsewhere, we cast a skeptical eye at them and conclude that ... they're out of touch.

I don't see that at all. If some people want to try and use my presentation, it's there for them to do so. If not fine. I also think the large majority of top leadership are very much in touch with the issues. I just told someone on NOM today that I felt like most were aware and heartbroken and wanted to help those struggling in faith crisis. The problem is not easy to address or fix without the risk of hurting one's testimony not prepared to hear these issues.

[CASteinman]

The fourth mission has already been added: Caring for the poor and needy.

I understand. Still not sure its actually been changed -- in that they have not said its really a change in the "Mission" but rather an added "Purpose". Distinction without a difference? Probably.

[DBMormon]

It seems clear to me now that the request for feedback was disingenuous--which underscores my perception that those who are most free with their criticisms of the Church (even faithful members) tend to be the least open to being criticized, including constructive criticism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Feed back on the presentation itself, which very little constuctive critcism has been given. Everyone has attacked it as a vehicle to move the discussion but the content has been essentially not discussed. Discuss the content, not my motives or wrong use of the presentation. Let's try discussing the presentation itself.

At the root of every complaint is me ark steadying or my working outside the priesthood line of authority....

[Calm]

I understand. Still not sure its actually been changed -- in that they have not said its really a change in the "Mission" but rather an added "Purpose". Distinction without a difference? Probably.

I would agree, but making it more 'distinct' may help some make the effort to become more aware of it.

[DBMormon]

I think there may be some of this going on but not in every case it seems like you are thinking of based on how I am reading your own responses to them, but I think it would be very helpful to respond here as we do at FAIR, taking every question as if it was totally sincere and not with any negative bias attached...even if we believe it is likely that way.

Avoid getting into the personal stuff, simply answer questions in a precise and non defensive way and I think you will do much ti dissipate any past issues that may be lingering on tainting the conversation....and if others continue to bring it up, then it will be that much more obvious and people can therefore judge whether it is inappropriate or not.

Hard to do, I am too fiesty to take a lashing sitting down..... lol

[Calm]

Feed back on the presentation itself, which very little constuctive critcism has been given.

I think it is of value to discuss not only the presentation but the vehicle through which it may be 'delivered' in order to increase its effectiveness in helping others. It may be a great package, but if it is wrapped up in troubling 'paper' who is going to open it up or look at it without judgment?

[Calm]

Hard to do, I am too fiesty to take a lashing sitting down..... lol

Just pretend you are talking to a sincere investigator...don't connect the post with the person...such an approach can work well. Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

In reality We all have to blame for the faith crisis of one in our circle of influence.

I do not agree at all. (I have to stifle myself from just blurting that its Bogus -- but it is).

I am not to blame if you had a crisis of Faith about something in Church History. You are responsible for yourself. I am happy to help resolve things -- if I am able. But I might not be able. If not, I am not going to wear your lack of faith as my hair shirt. I have so many sins of my own to whip myself for, I don't need yours.

Horrible teaching there.

Edited April 17, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Not just this thread Wade, but on this board there are a handful of individuals who can't help but jump at me first chance they get. Rather not name. Zerinus was one, he got banned but there are several others. I named them in my message to you but no reason to do that here in public

The point is, it isn't happening on this thread. So, your claim is incorrect that, "Anytime I say anything on this board a select few can't help themselves in making comments because of our history rather then see me as another faithful member." It is also irrelevant to this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

It is training for Stake Leaders

- I used the Powerpoint presentation to "Train Leaders in my Stake"

In yes the training was very well received.

- It went so well, that if anyone felt it was useful, I am happy to share it and hope others might see the benefit in it as well

So am I pushing it as "official" NO

Am I demanding it be used? NO

Am I shoving down anyone gullet? Nope

It is training for stake Leaders, that is what I designed it for - within my stake - I am offering something that worked well in my stake to others

No different the getting a fireside idea off the internet that has been used by other wards.

Next up - how this site works against the Church http://www.jennyphillips.com/

oooohhhh aaaaaahhhhhhh whooooaaa

[DBMormon]

I think it is of value to discuss not only the presentation but the vehicle through which it may be 'delivered' in order to increase its effectiveness in helping others. It may be a great package, but if it is wrapped up in troubling 'paper' who is going to open it up or look at it without judgment?

Well we shall see. From my view it works. Bishops in my stake both those aware of faith crisis issues and those who were not loved it. Stake Presidency is next. If they like it then in my part of the Vineyard the delivery system works. Which means it would generally work (with moderate adaptation perhaps) in other Wards (not all like foreign countries ect).

The main issue and it has been agreed here is that someone in that stake with trust has to pick it up and run with it.

Edited April 17, 2013 by DBMormon

[CASteinman]

I would agree, but making it more 'distinct' may help some make the effort to become more aware of it.

I think it does for me. I am glad for it.. whether it is a change or whether it is just an amplification or whatever.

By the way, I noticed this article claimed that the Threefold Mission was announced in 1981. I absolutely know that I was teaching this on my mission in 1976 and I believe that this was at that time, not "new" doctrine.

[DBMormon]

The point is, it isn't happening on this thread. So, your claim is incorrect that, "Anytime I say anything on this board a select few can't help themselves in making comments because of our history rather then see me as another faithful member." It is also irrelevant to this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is true Wade, When I start a thread or join a discussion, If I don't tow the line of some, I am met with sarcasim and resent. Would you like me to show where this has happened?

Never said you, although at times yes, you are one of those who seems to gravitate towards butting heads with me. Not once in todays responses did I say anything about you. If you feel singled out, not sure why

[CASteinman]

Well we shall see. From my view it works.

I honestly do not see how it has any power, but if it works.. it works. And to me, that is the key. I believe in a pragmatic approach to things.

But it is possible I do not understand its intent -- and maybe my lack of understanding of the objective creates a lack of insight on my part. It might actually have some obvious power to do something that I have not visualized because of a misunderstanding of things.

What exactly are you seeking to accomplish with this? Who is the audience? What is the change that takes place in them?

[wenglund]

Feed back on the presentation itself, which very little constuctive critcism has been given. Everyone has attacked it as a vehicle to move the discussion but the content has been essentially not discussed. Discuss the content, not my motives or wrong use of the presentation. Let's try discussing the presentation itself.

At the root of every complaint is me ark steadying or my working outside the priesthood line of authority....

Perhaps you forgot that you asked the question in the OP about how your presentation may impact the Church--which is what I spoke to.

Also, my request for evidence that your presentation works (so as to bolstering your presentation), is obviously a criticism (constructive in this case) of you presentation.

My criticism had nothing to do with your motives, and in fact when you falsely assumed that it did, I corrected you.

Nor, for that matter, did my constructive criticism have at its root any complaint about you ark steading. I intentionally bit my tongue on that issue, and determined to give your ideas a chance.

I am sorry, but you are flat out wrong about me and my criticism, and have merely reinforced what I said about you not being genuine about wanting feedback.

But, as I mentioned before, I am okay with that. It is your presentation, you don't have to take feedback, and you are free to try and do with your presentation whatever you wish. At this point, I could care less about it. My only interest now on this thread is to correct some of the misleading statement you have made about me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

I honestly do not see how it has any power, but if it works.. it works. And to me, that is the key. I believe in a pragmatic approach to things.

But it is possible I do not understand its intent -- and maybe my lack of understanding of the objective creates a lack of insight on my part. It might actually have some obvious power to do something that I have not visualized because of a misunderstanding of things.

What exactly are you seeking to accomplish with this? Who is the audience? What is the change that takes place in them?

The goal is to help leaders

1.) realize there is a problem (most are unaware)

2 understand why the person is struggling (what causes it in generalities)

3.) How to help and How not to help

4.) things we do as Leaders that draw unnecessary lines in the sand

5.)Give Leaders some tools and resources to help them if they run into this (someone struggling)

[DBMormon]

Perhaps you forgot that you asked the question in the OP about how your presentation may impact the Church--which is what I spoke to.

Also, my request for evidence that your presentation works (so as to bolstering your presentation), is obviously a criticism (constructive in this case) of you presentation.

My criticism had nothing to do with your motives, and in fact when you falsely assumed that it did, I corrected you.

Nor, for that matter, did my constructive criticism have at its root any complaint about you ark steading. I intentionally bit my tongue on that issue, and determined to give your ideas a chance.

I am sorry, but you are flat out wrong about me and my criticism, and have merely reinforced what I said about you not being genuine about wanting feedback.

But, as I mentioned before, I am okay with that. It is your presentation, you don't have to take feedback, and you are free to try and do with your presentation whatever you wish. At this point, I could care less about it. My only interest now on this thread is to correct some of the misleading statement you have made about me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade you are over reacting. I am sorry if you felt I was pointing to you as "the " people who attack me. I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular and if I had to name people who disregard my substance and attack me personally you are not in my Fave 5.

Relax - Again I am sorry. I went back and read the whole thread and realize because of our hsitory I do indeed read more into what you say then is likely there and did that early on in this thread.

I will work on that. In the meantime I extend the hand of fellowship to you and extend me more patience then I likely deserve.

Edited April 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

I do not agree at all. (I have to stifle myself from just blurting that its Bogus -- but it is).

I am not to blame if you had a crisis of Faith about something in Church History. You are responsible for yourself. I am happy to help resolve things -- if I am able. But I might not be able. If not, I am not going to wear your lack of faith as my hair shirt. I have so many sins of my own to whip myself for, I don't need yours.

Horrible teaching there.

And herein is encapsulated what is probably my chief point of disagreement with DBMormon. I have seen him repeatedly put up laundry lists of items that shake some people's faith for which he seems to hold the Church accountable. Most, if not all, of these items I don't see as worth worrying about, certainly not calling the divinity or truthfulness of Mormonism into question over. Some of them are matters of folk doctrine, and hence not the responsibility of the Church as an institution.

On that, reasonable minds can differ; I get that. But any sort of pre-packaged curriculum or PowerPoint presentation that presumes to place blame on the Church of Jesus Christ or the Brethren or even local stake and ward leaders for not divining in advance what is going to throw this person or that into a "faith crisis" is going to turn me off at the outset.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

It is true Wade, When I start a thread or join a discussion, If I don't tow the line of some, I am met with sarcasim and resent. Would you like me to show where this has happened? Never said you, although at times yes, you are one of those who seems to gravitate towards butting heads with me. Not once in todays responses did I say anything about you. If you feel singled out, not sure why

Again, the point is, it isn't happening on this thread. So, your claim is incorrect that, "Anytime I say anything on this board a select few can't help themselves in making comments because of our history rather then see me as another faithful member." It is also irrelevant to this thread.

Furthermore, I said nothing about, nor even hinted at being singled out. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

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.

"aggressively promoting its material specifically as training for stake leaders"

I've not seen Bill "aggressively promoting" his content anywhere.

When you say aggressive which meaning did you use:

1. characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country.

2. making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive: an aggressive basketball player.

3. vigorously energetic, especially in the use of initiative and forcefulness: an aggressive salesperson.

4. boldly assertive and forward; pushy: an aggressive driver.

5. emphasizing maximum growth and capital gains over quality, security, and income: an aggressive mutual fund.

6. pertaining to a risky surgery or treatment, or to a medication that has grave side effects: aggressive chemotherapy.

This material is already training for Bill's stake leaders, at their invitation. Beyond that Bill has posted it on a few bloggernacle forums for feedback and has asked whether this would be useful elsewhere.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Faith Crisis Training Fireside for Stake Leaders.

This shares with you a presentation I put on for Leaders in my stake in hopes of raising awareness of Faith Crisis and how we can better help. It was extremely well received. I am hoping some of you may see benefit in doing something similar knowing it's positive reach. Included in this is a list of things I included in a Packet that was handed out to each leader present. You will also need the power point presentation. Email me and I will send it to you. You are free to use and adapt as needed though I ask you give credit where it is due (Bill Reel) email me to get the PowerPoint Presentation - reelmormon@gmail.com

This presentation is discussed at the link below but involves a powerpoint and packet.

http://mormondiscuss...stake-training/

Is this useful?

Would this impact the Church for Good?

Thoughts?

If God actually does do what the scripture promised and answers prayers, what point of the conference? I would think God would be concerned enough that he would actually want to do something about this with..........um.........better evidence for His truth? Am I asking too much of Him?