Faith Crisis Training For Stake Leaders

wenglund · April 18, 2013

How do we present evidence of a newly produced approach?

You put the approach into practice on a trial basis, and record the results. Obviously. This is basic to best practices.

Are we to wait until commanded in all things, while people leave the Church?

For me, it isn't a question of being commanded, but whether it works and works better than what others have tried and what may already be in place. What is to say whether the approach is a waste of time or may even have an opposite effect than intended?

But, again, with all the resistance I have been getting to my helpful suggestion, I now could care less whether the approach is substantiated or not, and I have affectively taken my suggestion off the table.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CASteinman · April 18, 2013

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

Uhhh.. he was one of the brethren. He gets a say. This is sort of under the "duh" category.

CASteinman · April 18, 2013

so the Question is who is the "we" he refers to?
And saying the Seventy is a cop-out.

well darned. Just cause you say so its a cop out.

By the way.. who put you in charge of such things?

Kenngo1969 · April 18, 2013

Even truth? That's what started the problem in the first place. The church not putting it all out there. We now are getting the big picture at the urgence of church leaders. For example, the different versions of the First Vision. This wasn't common knowledge before. But now it is spoken of and has been put in the Joseph Smith Paper's Project. More and more, things will be open to the public, so to speak. [Emphasis mine]

Except for that extensive article by Milton V. Backman in 1985, tucked carefully away in The Ensign, where members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were sure never to see it!

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

Tacenda, perhaps you never saw it, but this response to this particular criticism was pointed out to you on a previous thread ... not once, but twice. (Or perhaps I never saw your acknowledgement of it.) While I'm not inclined to be unduly critical of those who are struggling, perhaps you should consider how much of your problem stems from a lack of responses to the issues that are important to you by the Church of Jesus Christ, and how much stems simply from your lack of exposure to the responses which already do exist.

While, again, I don't wish to be unduly critical of those who are struggling, I don't think attempting to respond to every question or criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ is an effective method to help most gain or preserve a testimony. It's as though the questioning ask, "What about [x]?", whereupon the apologists reply, "This question was actually addressed in [source]." Whereupon the questioning then ask (essentially, even if not in so many words), "Oh, yeah? Well, that only addresses what Critic A said about [x]. What about what Critic B said about [x]?" And then, if, by some miracle, the person's doubts are assuaged about [x], s/he then says, "But what about [y]?" Whereupon the whole cycle is repeated. And so it goes. (This endless cycle of "What abouts ... ?", I think, is exactly what Elder Holland was referring to in speaking of attempting to stuff a turkey through the beak.)

Bottom line, do I have questions? Sure, I have questions! One cannot have a reasonably well-functioning brain and not have questions about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But has it borne good fruit in my life? Yes, it has, and it continues to do so. Why would I want to throw that away? I don't. I would consider such an approach seriously counterproductive. Questions are one thing; but doubt and faith are choices. I choose to believe.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Kenngo1969

sethpayne · April 18, 2013

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 need to revisit something so unpleasant.

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

I'm glad I have you here to help interpret what I meant by my own words. Thank you.

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.

I missed Mormon's disclaimer we have no duty to comfort those who suffer because of "[problems] of their making." What a relief.

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.

No, I wouldn't say that. But I would say that I'm glad you are not my home teacher.

CASteinman · April 18, 2013

Spencer W. Kimball was upset with one of the 12.

He called him out in front of the other General Authorities and chewed him up one side and down the other.

This Apostle had not actually done anything wrong. It was a mistake of sorts.

The Apostle had a choice: Be Offended. Or Not.

He stood there and took it without a word of protest.

Another General Authority approached the Apostle and said: "I am on your side". The Apostle responded and said, "If you are on my side, then you are on the Prophet's side. It is an unrighteous steward who cannot stand the rebuke of a Servant of the Lord."

Everyone gets to make choices about how they will react to life's challenges.

CASteinman · April 18, 2013

I'm glad I have you here to help interpret what I meant by my own words. Thank you.

Not exactly what i said. But, I do get to interpret them for myself. You are welcome.

I missed Mormon's disclaimer we have no duty to comfort those who suffer because of "[problems] of their making." What a relief.

Twisting my words contrary to what I actually said. That's not really like you normally.

I would say that I'm glad you are not my home teacher.

Maybe. Hard to say. I don't think you really know one way or the other.

But --- I realize I am curious: Why do you think not? You can speak freely. I don't get offended about such things and I think it would be interesting.

You are being consistently unpleasant and have been removed from the thread. Those who continue to snipe at each other will also.

Tacenda · April 18, 2013

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

My bishop hasn't acknowledged anything. Not hearing back is worse. Because my mind wandered all over the place. What is he thinking? Is there an answer? Am I going to be discussed in Ward Council? Will I be able to keep my TR? Will he think I've influenced my son in not choosing a mission at this time?

The idea that polgamy and Mormons are like peas and carrots, my words, is fine except it's replete with holes. And when the true history of it comes out, that is where the you- know- what hits the fan. You're not stupid, you know it's a problem. Don't just wave it off like it's nothing, or common knowledge. Ask around, and let me know how many women in the ward know JS had 33 wives and 11 were married to living men. I understand if you don't want to, since we both know the answer, but apparently you think everyone knows these things. So maybe you don't think it will bother a soul.

Don't take this post in the offense but understand I'm on the defense.

CASteinman · April 18, 2013

My bishop hasn't acknowledged anything. Not hearing back is worse. Because my mind wandered all over the place. What is he thinking? Is there an answer? Am I going to be discussed in Ward Council? Will I be able to keep my TR? Will he think I've influenced my son in not choosing a mission at this time?

Wow. hmmm.. This is your own mind working. You have a lot of control over this. You do not have to wait for him to call you up into his office. He may not know how to talk to you. But you could just go meet with him if it is really important to you.

The idea that polgamy and Mormons are like peas and carrots, my words, is fine except it's replete with holes. And when the true history of it comes out, that is where the you- know- what hits the fan. You're not stupid, you know it's a problem. Don't just wave it off like it's nothing, or common knowledge. Ask around, and let me know how many women in the ward know JS had 33 wives and 11 were married to living men. I understand if you don't want to, since we both know the answer, but apparently you think everyone knows these things. So maybe you don't think it will bother a soul.

I actually did ask this in a Branch I am in. I asked it differently. I asked a few of the women whether their teenaged daughters knew. It was interesting. The women I asked did, but Mostly their daughters did not -- or were not sure But here is what I really found interesting. The women would almost always say: "Lets ask them" when talking about their daughters. No fear or anything like that. It was right out in Church. And the other interesting thing was that when the daughters did not know -- they also did not care. It was like "No.. I did not know that or maybe I heard of it once -- I can't remember. Can I have the keys to the car so I can drive little brother home?" No drama.

But when you say its a problem -- yes it is a problem for some people. But who can really understand why? Its strange. I knew about this before I was baptised. Even then it was not a huge deal to me. Why should it be a problem for people who have been members for years?

Don't take this post in the offense but understand I'm on the defense.

I actually don't see you as being on the defense -- but OK! But really.. you don't have to defend anything. Really. I may not understand some things but I don't think particularly badly of people who have problems or even if they want to leave the Church. I am pretty much OK with that. Its part of life. I would rather, for their sakes that they didn't. But I love accepting the fact that people get to choose! If you really believe that, its not so troubling as it would be if you believed that somehow you were responsible for their decisions.

I had this view since before I went on my Mission. When other Missionaries were all about baptizing! I was all about Teaching! I wanted to teach and only wanted to baptize those who believed. (under pressure from my MP I made one mistake in this area that I have regretted all my life). And I taught my son when he went on his mission: You are not called to baptize people who do not believe. You are called to teach and baptize those who believe. You are not called to make people believe... just teach them and let the Holy Spirit do its job. If the people are right -- they will be baptized.

Tacenda · April 18, 2013

Wow. hmmm.. This is your own mind working. You have a lot of control over this. You do not have to wait for him to call you up into his office. He may not know how to talk to you. But you could just go meet with him if it is really important to you.
I actually did ask this in a Branch I am in. I asked it differently. I asked a few of the women whether their teenaged daughters knew. It was interesting. The women I asked did, but Mostly their daughters did not -- or were not sure But here is what I really found interesting. The women would almost always say: "Lets ask them" when talking about their daughters. No fear or anything like that. It was right out in Church. And the other interesting thing was that when the daughters did not know -- they also did not care. It was like "No.. I did not know that or maybe I heard of it once -- I can't remember. Can I have the keys to the car so I can drive little brother home?" No drama.
But when you say its a problem -- yes it is a problem for some people. But who can really understand why? Its strange. I knew about this before I was baptised. Even then it was not a huge deal to me. Why should it be a problem for people who have been members for years?
I actually don't see you as being on the defense -- but OK! But really.. you don't have to defend anything. Really. I may not understand some things but I don't think particularly badly of people who have problems or even if they want to leave the Church. I am pretty much OK with that. Its part of life. I would rather, for their sakes that they didn't. But I love accepting the fact that people get to choose! If you really believe that, its not so troubling as it would be if you believed that somehow you were responsible for their decisions.
I had this view since before I went on my Mission. When other Missionaries were all about baptizing! I was all about Teaching! I wanted to teach and only wanted to baptize those who believed. (under pressure from my MP I made one mistake in this area that I have regretted all my life). And I taught my son when he went on his mission: You are not called to baptize people who do not believe. You are called to teach and baptize those who believe. You are not called to make people believe... just teach them and let the Holy Spirit do its job. If the people are right -- they will be baptized.

This is why I like you CA, among other things. You are a good example of a LDS and make it easier to keep at the faith. But sometimes....

ETA: Is it maybe a Utah problem, this not knowing, are we sheltered? I always hear that LDS life in Utah is a lot different than in the mission field.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Tacenda

Duncan · April 18, 2013

Spencer W. Kimball was upset with one of the 12.
He called him out in front of the other General Authorities and chewed him up one side and down the other.
This Apostle had not actually done anything wrong. It was a mistake of sorts.
The Apostle had a choice: Be Offended. Or Not.
He stood there and took it without a word of protest.
Another General Authority approached the Apostle and said: "I am on your side". The Apostle responded and said, "If you are on my side, then you are on the Prophet's side. It is an unrighteous steward who cannot stand the rebuke of a Servant of the Lord."
Everyone gets to make choices about how they will react to life's challenges.

I would LOVE to know more about this!!!

Duncan · April 18, 2013

My bishop hasn't acknowledged anything. Not hearing back is worse. Because my mind wandered all over the place. What is he thinking? Is there an answer? Am I going to be discussed in Ward Council? Will I be able to keep my TR? Will he think I've influenced my son in not choosing a mission at this time?
The idea that polgamy and Mormons are like peas and carrots, my words, is fine except it's replete with holes. And when the true history of it comes out, that is where the you- know- what hits the fan. You're not stupid, you know it's a problem. Don't just wave it off like it's nothing, or common knowledge. Ask around, and let me know how many women in the ward know JS had 33 wives and 11 were married to living men. I understand if you don't want to, since we both know the answer, but apparently you think everyone knows these things. So maybe you don't think it will bother a soul.
Don't take this post in the offense but understand I'm on the defense.

I am in that bucket as well, not hearing back

canard78 · April 18, 2013

The idea that polgamy and Mormons are like peas and carrots, my words, is fine except it's replete with holes. And when the true history of it comes out, that is where the you- know- what hits the fan. You're not stupid, you know it's a problem. Don't just wave it off like it's nothing, or common knowledge. Ask around, and let me know how many women in the ward know JS had 33 wives and 11 were married to living men. I understand if you don't want to, since we both know the answer, but apparently you think everyone knows these things. So maybe you don't think it will bother a soul.
Don't take this post in the offense but understand I'm on the defense.

Well said Tacenda. Yes, polygamy is generally know (as some vague welfare motivated thing the pioneers did) but people are not generally aware of the extent of Joseph's polygamy so it can and does come as a shock. I think many would be quite shocked by the information on this. I've been to many firesides, my family subscribed to FARMS growing up, we had loads of "extra-curricular" books. But learning in the last 12 months about the teenage brides, the marrying of men's wives etc was a huge shock and only happened when I was really digging (and not always in the most positive sources).

I challenge anyone to show how I should have known all of this from official church sources. There are, from what I'm aware of, a few general polygamy references to Joseph Smith in the Ensign, but minimal. As for Joseph's teenage wives (or sealings) and polyandry... Not in an Ensign. Instead we have articles lauding Joseph and Emma as the model marriage to take as exemplars for our own.

Is it the church's job to educate on this you may ask. Perhaps it has no place in the Ensign/Sunday school/General conference... But given the church has done next to nothing to address this you can't also be dismissive when people feel shocked and let down when they find it out.

Some people on this forum are also quite dismissive that people are shocked by the history stuff. That's probably because you're now very familiar with it. You're in the environment of it being discussed and cross-referenced. I no longer find it shocking (odd, yes, but not shocked).

I was very fortunate that I had 2-3 resources when I first discovered some of the shocking past:

- A friend at church who I could discuss it openly with. They were very well read and had an open mind. They accepted both the unanswered issues and the life benfits of staying

- A few online forums (including this one) which gave me space to vent when needed and get other opinions too

- A background in research. I forced myself to cross-reference everything and take nothing on face value (both for and against). Even now I'd always prefer to read the primary source if it's possible.

At no point did I consider taking this to my Bishop. I was concerned about being stigmatised and singled out as a "problem."

He's a good man, but I didn't think it fair to bring painful information to him that could hurt him too. Ignorance was bliss and I didn't want to take his. I don't mean ignorance in a patronising 'naive TBM' way. I mean, the church history is not essential to our ability to live the gospel. But losing confidence in church history has the ability to undermine our confidence in the church and leaders as a conduit to the restoration of the gospel.

So, could/should leaders get training on how to react to a faith crisis? Yes. But they'd also need the resources to support the individual. They simply aren't qualified to de with church history concerns (and shouldn't be expected to be).

canard78 · April 18, 2013