Private Groups Of Members Meeting Together

[DBMormon]

So tonight at my home I hosted a "lead with Faith" Support group where Latter-day Saints who were in a faith transition could meet together and support each other in their transitions while also being encouraged to press forward in faith.  It was well attended and I got several positive comments.

 

There is a certain private group of LDS who meet together in a private group setting to discuss that my group of people meeting together should not happen and that it frustrates them that I would be doing such as groups of LDS meeting outside of the church could be dangerous.

 

My question is, is there a real rule of not having small groups of LDS meet outside church to support each other in their trials?  

 

I know some here will jump in because they don't agree with me or feel my motives are skewed or unclear but I am curious what official rules have been laid out. 

 

What parameters have been taught both officially and unofficially as well as policy or even firmer as even perhaps doctrine?

[DBMormon]

I should add I am aware of this

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/12/news-of-the-church/policies-and-announcements?lang=eng

 

 

Church members should not participate in groups that:. 

1. Imitate sacred rites or ceremonies.

2. Foster physical contact among participants.

3. Meet late into the evening or in the early-morning hours.

4. Encourage open confession or disclosure of personal information normally discussed only in confidential settings.

5. Cause a husband and wife to be paired with other partners.

But this really doesn't apply at all to the group I am speaking of that I am involved with.

Edited August 23, 2015 by DBMormon

[cinepro]

So tonight at my home I hosted a "lead with Faith" Support group where Latter-day Saints who were in a faith transition could meet together and support each other in their transitions while also being encouraged to press forward in faith.  It was well attended and I got several positive comments.

 

There is a certain private group of LDS who meet together in a private group setting to discuss that my group of people meeting together should not happen and that it frustrates them that I would be doing such as groups of LDS meeting outside of the church could be dangerous.

 

My question is, is there a real rule of not having small groups of LDS meet outside church to support each other in their trials?  

 

I know some here will jump in because they don't agree with me or feel my motives are skewed or unclear but I am curious what official rules have been laid out. 

 

What parameters have been taught both officially and unofficially as well as policy or even firmer as even perhaps doctrine?

 

I seem to recall a letter from the First Presidency years ago that discouraged (or outlawed) private groups of LDS meeting together to discuss gospel related subjects.  I think it too frequently leads to apostasy (which, if it ever happened at all, would be too frequently). 

 

If my memory is correct, then that might lead to some vestigial uneasiness with such private group meetings.

[filovirus]

The bishop is called and given priesthood keys and authority over his stewardship. If the meeting encompasses more area than the ward boundary, it falls to the stake president, then to the area authority. If there is any doubt about the meetings or group settings, it is probably best to council with them.

[Bernard Gui]

Funny thing this. Sister Gui and I have petitioned our stake president and received permission to organize a group for faithful members whose loved ones have

left the Church and caused chaos, contention, rejection, and bitterness in their families. We want to provide hope and support for loving family members who are in

the process of grieving the loss of their loved ones. Perhaps you should consider getting the SP's permission to hold your meetings.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Duncan]

According to that list seminary is out! This thing happened in my ward maybe 2-3 years ago. This older lady acted like a mother hen to the then newer converts and she'd have them over to her place for discussions. Well, it was total bananas what she was telling them. She pushed all of them to get endowed (there was maybe 6 of them and of the 5 that went to the Temple 3 are totally inactive now with one semi active), what she was telling them about the Temple was mumbo jumbo. The RS Pres. complained to the Bishop about her feeling they were going to the Temple too early and he agreed but like you were the one that signed their recommends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that and some other things that the Bishopric didn't do anything about it the mtgs kind of fizzled out. This lady still attends our ward and I don't even know what to think about the whole thing. I guess if it's good (i'm thinking that Miller-Eccles deal in So Cal looks fun) then it could be good but if it's sour than it's a bad scene

 

On the other hand though, it's your place you can invite whoever you want and talk about whatever but their are consequences

Edited August 23, 2015 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

There are warnings about unapproved groups meeting for specifically religious purposes without the approval of Priesthood leadership. If your little group encourages people who are "transitioning" out of the church then attendees are definitely going against one of the recommend questions at the least.

 

The Brethren have extensive experience with these groups. Those who want to have formal meetings outside of Church authority usually have a reason for wanting to be outside that authority. That reason is usually bad.

 

Here are the ones I have see:

 

- Teach esoteric doctrines, usually led by a quack with delusions of enlightenment

- Advance to a new level of study beyond what the Church teaches, again with delusions of enlightenment

- Seek spiritual experiences through meditation, some kind of rigorous gospel study, or follow some steps to something like the Second Comforter

- Fundamentalists who venerate teachings of someone like Joseph Smith and seek to live some doctrine they believe the Church has neglected

- Like yours, groups where the spiritually sick meet for "fellowship" and infect each other with their own sicknesses

- Seek to meld the Church with other faith traditions or outright wacky ideas

 

I have seen positive groups formed but they come from members or leaders who see a need, get approval, and stay on the straight and narrow. If you would be uncomfortable having Priesthood leaders there or believe they would be uncomfortable attending then you are off the reservation.

[The Nehor]

According to that list seminary is out! 

 

I am pretty sure officially approved Church activities are exempt from the early-morning and late-night restriction or seminary and camping trips would be banned.

[DBMormon]

So lots of circumstantial hearsay but no real solid source for such?  awesome

[JAHS]

My parents were involved in a study group back in the early 60s. 

 

If I remember Jim Harmstrom began his apostasy from the church in a study group where things got very out of hand and as a result started the TLC church. 

Edited August 23, 2015 by JAHS

[The Nehor]

So lots of circumstantial hearsay but no real solid source for such?  awesome

 

There is some instruction in the CHI.

 

I would recommend consulting with the Bishop to get the full details. I won't hold my breath on that though.

[Scott Lloyd]

There are warnings about unapproved groups meeting for specifically religious purposes without the approval of Priesthood leadership. If your little group encourages people who are "transitioning" out of the church then attendees are definitely going against one of the recommend questions at the least.

The Brethren have extensive experience with these groups. Those who want to have formal meetings outside of Church authority usually have a reason for wanting to be outside that authority. That reason is usually bad.

Here are the ones I have see:

- Teach esoteric doctrines, usually led by a quack with delusions of enlightenment

- Advance to a new level of study beyond what the Church teaches, again with delusions of enlightenment

- Seek spiritual experiences through meditation, some kind of rigorous gospel study, or follow some steps to something like the Second Comforter

- Fundamentalists who venerate teachings of someone like Joseph Smith and seek to live some doctrine they believe the Church has neglected

- Like yours, groups where the spiritually sick meet for "fellowship" and infect each other with their own sicknesses

- Seek to meld the Church with other faith traditions or outright wacky ideas

I have seen positive groups formed but they come from members or leaders who see a need, get approval, and stay on the straight and narrow. If you would be uncomfortable having Priesthood leaders there or believe they would be uncomfortable attending then you are off the reservation.

I wonder whether Bill would want the stake president interfering.

If in these meetings, for example, he's comparing the Church to an abusive parent, the stake president might have some reservations about that. I know I would.

I notice Bill hasn't yet weighed in on the matter of seeking official priesthood leader sanction for these groups, though the possibility has been mentioned now repeatedly.

I suspect what is happening is that Bill is building a case to argue the matter in the event someone in authority tries to shut him down.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My parents were involved in a study group back in the early 60s. 

 

If I remember Jim Harmstrom began his apostasy from the church in a study group where things got very out of hand and as a result started the TLC church.

I remember quite clearly there were warnings against "study groups" in the Church, probably because of occurrences such as you cite.

This was many years ago, however, probably in the 1970s or earlier. Long enough before the internet that it would probably be difficult-to-impossible to find anything about it online.

[Bobbieaware]

So lots of circumstantial hearsay but no real solid source for such?  awesome

The instant I read about your private group I had a strong negative reaction and began searching for words to explain why I had such misgivings. But as I continued to read other responses. I saw Nehor hit the bullseye, perfectly expressing what it was I was trying to say:

"Like yours, groups where the spiritually sick meet for "fellowship" and infect each other with their own sicknesses." (The Nehor)

With very few words, Nehor gets to the very heart of the problem. Let's put it this way: If I were to ever contemplate starting such a group, I would ask myself if it was a good idea to have a number of wavering members get together in one place in a spiritually unstable environment where there was a very real likelyhood it could all end up with the group of doubters negatively reinforcing each other in their faith crises...Very counterproductive.

But I suppose a faith strengthening group might do some good as long as the discussion leader is a very solid member of the Church who really knows his stuff. Someone who, unlike like John Dehlin, isn't prone to finding fault with the Church and is not dealing with a faith crisis of his own. And it makes sense that it would surely be much wiser to counsel each wavering member one at a time, and do so in a manner approved by the local leadership. But if the counseling was going to be done in a group setting, it would be far better to have one wavering member meet with two or more unwavering members.

[JLHPROF]

Like Scott, I remember the Church recommending against such groups. I think it was back in the 90's. (I doubt they'd approve of this board either).

And like Nehor I've seen such groups lead people into apostasy.

I think the Church ban came around the same time as the September 6 incident and was pretty widely known.

[Saint Sinner]

For family home evening my friend, whom I'm staying with, has his brother and sister in law over. They alternate books of the standard works and each week someone suggests a scripture for the next week. I've sat in a couple times. I mostly keep to myself as I'm not sure how to respond. However, it is comical to hear them bicker over scripture and what it says or how the context develops a bigger message. I am participating a week from tomorrow. I'm considering drawing relationship between Psalm 139 and Proverbs 8.

I'm sure this was off topic. Apologies.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Saint Sinner

[maklelan]

Like Scott, I remember the Church recommending against such groups. I think it was back in the 90's. (I doubt they'd approve of this board either).

And like Nehor I've seen such groups lead people into apostasy.

I think the Church ban came around the same time as the September 6 incident and was pretty widely known.

 

When I was finishing up at BYU I organized a scripture study group with people in my ward that was quickly given the kibosh by the bishop. This is one of the largely unwritten rules of the Church that I find particularly restrictive and concerning. Evidently we may only study the scriptures in groups during the 30-40 minutes of Sunday school when no one has anything insightful or particularly intelligent to say.

[Saint Sinner]

When I was finishing up at BYU I organized a scripture study group with people in my ward that was quickly given the kibosh by the bishop. This is one of the largely unwritten rules of the Church that I find particularly restrictive and concerning. Evidently we may only study the scriptures in groups during the 30-40 minutes of Sunday school when no one has anything insightful or particularly intelligent to say.

This sounds horribly unfortunate.

[Teancum]

I wonder whether Bill would want the stake president interfering.

If in these meetings, for example, he's comparing the Church to an abusive parent, the stake president might have some reservations about that. I know I would.

I notice Bill hasn't yet weighed in on the matter of seeking official priesthood leader sanction for these groups, though the possibility has been mentioned now repeatedly.

I suspect what is happening is that Bill is building a case to argue the matter in the event someone in authority tries to shut him down.

Why do you assume the worst about Bill and his intent?

[Teancum]

When I was finishing up at BYU I organized a scripture study group with people in my ward that was quickly given the kibosh by the bishop. This is one of the largely unwritten rules of the Church that I find particularly restrictive and concerning. Evidently we may only study the scriptures in groups during the 30-40 minutes of Sunday school when no one has anything insightful or particularly intelligent to say.

It seems to me that this is just one more way out church culture creates an environment of dependence and control over the membership. Indeed it emphasizes among other things that do as well, a parent child relationship. At least in my opinion it can develop people who become spiritually and intellectually immature. Of course most will dismiss my thoughts on this as the views of a filthy negative apostate.

[DBMormon]

I wonder whether Bill would want the stake president interfering.

If in these meetings, for example, he's comparing the Church to an abusive parent, the stake president might have some reservations about that. I know I would.

I notice Bill hasn't yet weighed in on the matter of seeking official priesthood leader sanction for these groups, though the possibility has been mentioned now repeatedly.

I suspect what is happening is that Bill is building a case to argue the matter in the event someone in authority tries to shut him down.

Is there an official statement that says I need a leaders permission to meet with other mormons? Until then, no need to tell a groupvof folks here who have no authority whether I did. And your last assumtion is what I call a false assumption..

[DBMormon]

I remember quite clearly there were warnings against "study groups" in the Church, probably because of occurrences such as you cite.

This was many years ago, however, probably in the 1970s or earlier. Long enough before the internet that it would probably be difficult-to-impossible to find anything about it online.

Memory is a tricky thing... I am looking for facts here which you seem to lack Edited August 23, 2015 by DBMormon

[rayhale]

I can understand what everyone means by it not being a good idea about having outside church, but I can think of some reasons that a group would want to have one:

You can control who comes, and what they read. If they don't come, or read the books that you tell them, you can tell them that they are not welcome back.

You can read books outside the scriptures, like Plato, The Dead Sea Scrolls, etc, and compare them to the scriptures.

I could think of more but I think that there are more bad than good reasons to have meetings outside of Church supervision.

[DBMormon]

I could think of more but I think that there are more bad than good reasons to have meetings outside of Church supervision.

 

So FairMormon Conference is out?

[Duncan]

I am pretty sure officially approved Church activities are exempt from the early-morning and late-night restriction or seminary and camping trips would be banned.

 

quiet you