Faith Crisis Training For Stake Leaders

[DBMormon]

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 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.

My presentation doesn't blame the church. Not sure where you get that. The closest I come is ensuring one is not disloyal in casting off false Doctrine even if said by a single leader at a single given time. That one doesn't have to hold up something simple because a prophet or apostle says it.

[wenglund]

Wade you are over reacting.

How ironic that you would think so.

I am sorry if you felt I was pointing to you as "the " people who attack me.

What? My comment that you are responding to said nothing about "attack"--though it was in response to your claim that "Everyone [which would include me] has attacked it..." and "At the root of every [which would include mine[ complaint."

Rather, I am was simply correcting some of the statements you specially made about and in response to me.

Please, keep track of what you say, and also stop misrepresenting what I say.

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.

Sounds good to me. It is just that you need to realize that you are still misreading things into what I have been saying even in the very post to which that I am responding. I will be pleased to relax once you stop doing that. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2013 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

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?

The evidence will never be compelling Hebrew 11:1 so yes your asking too much.

[DBMormon]

How ironic that you would think so.

What? My comment that you are responding to said nothing about "attack"--though it was in response to your claim that "Everyone [which would include me] has attacked it..." and "At the root of every [which would include mine[ complaint."

Rather, I am was simply correcting some of the statements you specially made about and in response to me.

Please, keep track of what you say, and also stop misrepresenting what I say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Where's the part where you accept my apology? or is it better to keep dragging it out. It's a dead horse, let it be. Of course we can keep kicking it you wish.

[sethpayne]

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.

vs.

Interesting. Well, he was not exercising good judgment. I can imagine some possible bad consequences.

It may be a learning experience for him. I have had some like that. They still ... make me sad to think back on ... the damage I caused inadvertently. One must be very careful what one says in positions of leadership. Very very careful.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209249840

???

If you can cause damage, doesn't that mean you could *potentially* be responsible for *contributing* to a person's stuggles?

Edited April 18, 2013 by sethpayne

[wenglund]

Where's the part where you accept my apology? or is it better to keep dragging it out. It's a dead horse, let it be. Of course we can keep kicking it you wish.

See my edit above where I say, "Sounds good." I will only drag thing out as long as you keep misrepresenting what I say. When you stop, then so will I. Deal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

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)

Hmmm.. That seems like a reasonable set of goals. And it might be better in that regard than I had thought originally.

But now that I see what the objectives are, I agree with others that this is something that should come top down or something like that. I see a reason for caution.

[Bikeemikey]

Hmmm.. That seems like a reasonable set of goals. And it might be better in that regard than I had thought originally.

But now that I see what the objectives are, I agree with others that this is something that should come top down or something like that. I see a reason for caution.

Lots of stuff that comes top down first went bottom up.

Growing up I was privy to a horrific situation in a ward I attended.

An older man was baptized. He started attending church regularly. Seemed very nice. Many parents in the ward started to rely on him for baby sitting. The bishop had him stay and watch his kids over night from time to time...

Turned out he was a pedophile.

At the time there was no/limited resource for Bishops to use in dealing with abuse counseling in the ward. On top of this the Bishops family was involved. In all 5 families were involved with about 15 kids in all.

The bishop was incapable of providing the necessary support. He gave all his kids (abuse victims) blessings and told them the atonement would fix it and not to talk about it anymore. Other families dealt differently but no family received substantial meaningful support from the ward leaders, the training was not there, and the abuse was present in their own homes that likely made it harder.

There was a women in the ward doing a lot of professional work with abuse at the time and she suggested to the stake president that the bishops get together with her for some training on how to deal with some of the complex issues around abuse. It really helped.

The church now has a very broad and comprehensive process to support leaders with things like abuse.

Many top down programs go up from a specific ward that is innovating then come back down as general policy.

Stuff like this should be encouraged under the revelatory mantel of local bishops and stake presidents. Stuff like this will eventually be integrated into broader training tools for local leaders.

Stuff like this is good.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

If you can cause damage, doesn't that mean you could *potentially* be responsible for *contributing* to a person's stuggles?

They are the responsible for what they do. Not me.

I am not responsible for other people's actions or what they choose to do. A doctrine that would declare me to be responsible for the sins or decisions of another when I have exercised no control or coercion is a doctrine of devils. Everyone is responsible for their own sins.

Its astonishing that anyone with knowledge of the restored gospel would suggest some other design.

[CASteinman]

Lots of stuff that comes top down first went bottom up.

...

Stuff like this is good.

yeah.. .but it goes through Priesthood Chains. You don't advertise it on the web.

[Bikeemikey]

yeah.. .but it goes through Priesthood Chains. You don't advertise it on the web.

The web is a place people can reach out to other people with tools, ideas and concepts that are working.

The only issue would be if a local ward leader started to package and promote the idea outside his mantle of leadership against the wish of other local leaders.

Saying hey there. This worked well in our ward. What are your thoughts. Does anyone else do anything like this or have a need for it is not "taking it outside the Priesthood Chains, in my opinion.

I also think this is exactly the kind of place to address and refine content of some of these presentations. It is disappointing that instead of really doing that it has become entirely about, "no you shouldn't do that".

Long and short of it... this stuff is currently left to the discretion of local bishops and stake presidents. There will likely come a time when there is a more formal process for addressing these questions... it may be through a revision of Sunday School and Institute, it may be a new program, or it may be additional specific training provided to local bishops and stake presidents who are the front line pastoral practitioners who deal with these issues daily.

Either way... this discussion good.

[Mystery Meat]

yeah.. .but it goes through Priesthood Chains. You don't advertise it on the web.

Not to pile on, but I agree with this. If a stake president asks someone to do a presentation for their stake, then that is all well and good. I am generally uncomfortable with unsolicited offerings. Its why I don't like the fireside circuit speakers.

What's more this is a topic the brethren are already well aware of and working tirelessly to address. So I would leave things like this to them. The presentation could be gold, but it doesn't change my opinion on how something like this should be distributed. Especially when the author is seeking personal credit before anyone uses it in a church setting.

Just seems very problematic to me.

[CASteinman]

The web is a place people can reach out to other people with tools, ideas and concepts that are working.

The only issue would be if a local ward leader started to package and promote the idea outside his mantle of leadership against the wish of other local leaders.

Saying hey there. This worked well in our ward. What are your thoughts. Does anyone else do anything like this or have a need for it is not "taking it outside the Priesthood Chains, in my opinion.

But it kinda is...

[Tacenda]

Hmmm.. That seems like a reasonable set of goals. And it might be better in that regard than I had thought originally.

But now that I see what the objectives are, I agree with others that this is something that should come top down or something like that. I see a reason for caution.

It's already happening in the Joseph Smith's Paper's Project. Something I just remembered, Larry Miller actually funded the project. I watched a show about his life several years ago, Scott Lloyd might remember it. They talked about his growing up years and a time when his mom fell away from the church. They said she had been treated by a psychiatrist previous to that, not sure what for, maybe it was said, anyway the doctor apparently was a little anti and I guess somehow influenced her to disbelieve in the church. I wonder if that doctor brought up the issues or warts that bother so many in the church that leave. Could it be possible that Larry Miller wanted members to have the history laid out to them from a faithful approach rather than the antis? Just as Bishop Reel aka DB wants, in order to help local leaders do this or atleast be aware of the problems so they can help? I know from my experience my bishop left me hanging and still does. Who knows where I'd be without this place, podcasts like DB's and even John Dehlin. Suicide even crossed my mind, but that could be hormonal. Still there wasn't help, I even considered calling the church. And I knew a letter to them wouldn't reach them. Last year I mentioned here that a gal I met through NOM, resigned from the church over finding out things in church history, specifically JS' s polygamy. She and I met at a nearby park near our homes once we pm'd and found we lived a few blocks away from one another, neither of us had anyone to talk to. For her she was through with the church that quick even after discussing with her bishop. Could he have been trained to help her better? I think yes. I even told her about this board and suggested she go slow in her reactions just in case the church is true. But to no avail, I've not had any contact since. So hopefully this might explain DB's passion about this and mine. Sorry so long winded.

[DBMormon]

Hmmm.. That seems like a reasonable set of goals. And it might be better in that regard than I had thought originally.

But now that I see what the objectives are, I agree with others that this is something that should come top down or something like that. I see a reason for caution.

I'll proceed cautiously

[CASteinman]

It's already happening in the Joseph Smith's Paper's Project.

An historical research project is turning into Church Doctrine that is being taught from the First Presidency down to the Stakes?

Or do you mean that its being advertised pointedly to Stake Presidents and Bishops below the Area and 12 level as a solution to some problem?

Because I do not get what you mean by this.

I know from my experience my bishop left me hanging and still does.

What does that mean? What is he supposed to do?

Suicide even crossed my mind, but that could be hormonal.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would hope that in a review of things you would say to yourself, "This sort of proves that some of the problem here is inside me". When you can take that sort of responsibility for things, you are less of a victim.

I teach this to my clients all the time. They say to me, "I can't find any good help". I ALWAYS correct them and say, "You certainly can. What you might not be able to do is find the kind of help you want at the prices you are willing to pay, but you can always find good help. Lots of companies find excellent help every day of the year with applicants left over".

Now, this tends to piss them off. But I explain to them that the more that they take responsibility for their problems, the more they can have the sense of power to control their destiny vs being controlled by unknown and random forces at whim.

Taking responsibility for this is a principle of power.

And I would submit that to a degree you HAVE taken some responsibility by going out of your way to look at things and figure things out. I am not suggesting you lay blame on yourself that is not yours to own, but how you react to things is your choice.

a gal I met through NOM, resigned from the church over finding out things in church history, specifically JS' s polygamy.

Amazes me. Did she never read.... a book? In her life? Mormons and polygamy. Its like **** and Jane. Its like Superbowl and Ads. Its like Abraham Lincoln and Assassination.

Oh well. I hope she is very happy outside of the Church. I believe people can be and I believe some people are not adapted to be members.

I hope you will not be on limited forever.

[CASteinman]

I'll proceed cautiously

I accept that. I also hope you will not be disappointed if things don't quite go your way.

[DBMormon]

They are the responsible for what they do. Not me.

I am not responsible for other people's actions or what they choose to do. A doctrine that would declare me to be responsible for the sins or decisions of another when I have exercised no control or coercion is a doctrine of devils. Everyone is responsible for their own sins.

Its astonishing that anyone with knowledge of the restored gospel would suggest some other design.

often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he'll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn't know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, 'Get in line and don't question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.' And that isn't helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what's brought them to the point they are at.

What if your one of those Bishops Elder Jensen referred to, are they doing damage?

Edited April 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

I don't know where else it is being discussed. And, I am not sure that what he says is a benefit until I see evidence that it is. Sure, some of the ideas sound nice, but so do a lot of ideas, like the Edsel, that don't seem to work when translated from theory to practice.

Canard78, how about testing Bill's suggestions out on your wife?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How do we present evidence of a newly produced approach? Are we to wait until commanded in all things, while people leave the Church?

[DBMormon]

I accept that. I also hope you will not be disappointed if things don't quite go your way.

I am pretty resilient

[sethpayne]

They are the responsible for what they do. Not me.

Then what kind of damage are you speaking of doing? Obviously you believe you exert some sort of influence on others. Else, you could not possibly damage them.

I am not responsible for other people's actions or what they choose to do. A doctrine that would declare me to be responsible for the sins or decisions of another when I have exercised no control or coercion is a doctrine of devils. Everyone is responsible for their own sins.

No one has suggested otherwise.

Rather, I think DB had something like this in mind:

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

If we have not fulfilled our responsibility to lift each other's burdens I believe we will be held accountable.

Edited April 18, 2013 by sethpayne

[Robert F. Smith]

A response I got yesterday - I asked if I could share and was given permission

. . . I hope it won't get watered down with apologetic defense. My parents, who have been very understanding, still really don't get it and even though well-meaning, reflexively slip into apologist mode if I ever discuss difficulties with the church. I fear that most bishops and stake presidents will do the same. I hope I'm wrong.

Bill,

What do most people mean when hey refer to "apologetic defense" or "apologetic mode"? Since bishops and stake presidents don't know anything about apologetics, what do you suppose is meant here? What is this person referring to?

Edited April 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[CASteinman]

What if your those Bishops Elder Jensen referrred too, are they doing damage?

Not quite exactly sure what you are asking but I presume its

"What if you're one of those Bishop's Elder Jensen referred to, are they doing damage?"

And I would say -- "Yes". I would also say, having seen it, that it is very hard to avoid doing damage to someone at some point. Of course we do not have to lay more logs on the fire when someone is too hot (and that is the sort of thing Elder Jensen is talking about). However, this is really important: we are each responsible for our own actions. Not the actions of others.

So, affronts and upsets will occur. The question is: "How will I act when I am offended or insulted?" This might even be something to think about before it happens.

Leaders have a special covenant to take upon them more of the burden of others and to bear it with grace. So they might have a responsibility to do better than what Elder Jensen said. But if they fail, that does not leave us with excuse.

I thinking of the story of Boyd K Packer and the policeman who got fired. This policeman was offended by Boyd K Packer -- who actually did nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54hK4TWgtr0

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[DBMormon]

Just had a deep thought

Elder Jensen said the following

often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he'll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn't know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, 'Get in line and don't question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.' And that isn't helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what's brought them to the point they are at.

1.) Either he is telling the Brethren what they need to do - Very Wrong by the stance many here take (myself included)

or he is

2.) Telling Church members they need to do a better job helping/training Leaders to be sensitive to the issue of Faith Crisis....

so the Question is who is the "we" he refers to?

And saying the Seventy is a cop-out.

In my opinion just thinking this through recognizing he is speaking to a college class at UVU - the "We" is "him and the people in that group" he is speaking to. The you's and me's of the Church. We need to help, We need to do our best to see Leaders are aware. My interpretation only and I welcome others views.

Edited April 18, 2013 by DBMormon

[CASteinman]

Then what kind of damage are you speaking of doing? Obviously you believe you exert some sort of influence on others. Else, you could not possibly damage them.

Not exactly. I am not sure if I should go into details of the story or not. Its not a very pleasant thing but it would not support the point you are trying to make. In fact, it would sort of undermine it.

No one has suggested otherwise.

Perhaps it was unintended but I think you kinda did suggest it.

If we have not fulfilled our responsibility to lift each other's burdens I believe we will be held accountable.

Well, it might be worse than that. But whether we are accountable for it or not, we should help lift one anothers burdens. But this is not the same thing as being responsible to fix a problem that is of their making.

Would you say this sounds like I am blaming the victim? In a way I would hope so because it would tend to prove my point.