Private Groups Of Members Meeting Together

[juliann]

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..

 

Why are you asking a message board?? Surely you have the connections as a former bishop that most of us wouldn't have. Please find out and report back!

[sdc999]

I would feel quite comfortable with meeting in a quite small group with extended family members, or with close friends.

Thanks,

-Smac

Judging from the fact that you have over 8000 posts, I would say that you feel quite comfortable meeting in  a larger group of not extended family members and people that are not friends but anonymous to discuss gospel topics and even some controversial LDS topics.   

[smac97]

What do you mean by "faith transition"? Leaving the church?  Having doubts and decided to stay?

Yes, I think I have that question, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Actually I do because they messaged me and told me once more and bob was out indefinitely.. He and I both know this is the case... You seem eager to state things you have no knowledge of.

Wow. I can't recall the last time I saw a snotty remark aimed at Cal. She is, I think, about as roundly well-respected and -regarded a member of this board as has ever been.

Just sayin'...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Asanine

Wow. I thought this was an attempt at a good faith discussion. The more I read through it, however, the more I find that my perception was probably incorrect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 23, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

It has been my observation that critics of Bill Reel on this board have been unduly harsh in the past, and in this thread as well.  That being said, the more this thread has developed, the more it looks like a pot-stirring exercise by Bill.  I'm not sure what the point of that really is. 

 

You want to have your meetings, Bill?  Have your meetings.  An Internet message board, especially this one, is unlikely to be kind to your intentions on this.  If you were genuinely looking for feedback as to the source of the long-standing practice of discouraging independent "study groups" in the Church, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't a good reference source on this issue at this point.  Beyond that, you're just getting sucked into trading barbs with The Nehor.   Nothing productive will come of that.

So DBMormon = Bill Reel?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

So DBMormon = Bill Reel?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't think I disclosed anything new since there have been several threads lately that are critical of "Bill Reel" and DBMormon has, himself, gone into the threads to defend those actions using the word "I".

[thatjimguy]

Secret groups getting together to discuss how other secret groups shouldn't be getting together?

 

Are you sure you're not playing the Paranoia RPG?

 

 

I know only one of you might get the reference, but it's a good one.

 

That being said, I don't know why people would have to meet in secret to discuss faith and doubt. Don't we all go through this? Why is it considered bad to have crisis of faith in LDS society?

[Rain]

There was something official read over the pulpit while I was on my mission. It was when I was serving in Woodlands or kingwood so it was...winter of 89-90 or summer of 1990. I remember it because in the week before we had visited a somewhat recent convert who told about her group while she was playing some sort of original star trek heaven/enya type music on her organ. There was an odd feeling that day and now when I hear similar music it comes back to me.

The letter had some specific types of groups which I don't remember, but it did not concern all study groups.

I realize it probably doesn't matter since I can't produce the letter now.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Rain

[filovirus]

I'm interested: Have you counciled with the bishop/stake pres? And if so, what were their recommendations? Seems there would be no arguing if everybody knew the facts.

An evasion of these answers would probably be "no" to the first question or not what you wanted to hear from the latter question.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

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.

Alma, and the group at the Waters of Mormon, as a prime example of private study groups leading to apostasy. Dang apostates.

[rpn]

I too recall the specific warnings against study groups, prayer circles, and temple clothes.   But when I went to look for the handbook instruction that I thought would mirror what I recalled, I only found the information identified earlier in the thread from the handbook.

 

I too had that visceral reaction to your description.   It is your candid description of helping them to transition (and what you do in the rest of your life) that leaves me concerned.   However well-meaning you might be, I don't think people in the transitional world see you as leading people to Christ and helping them strengthen their commitments to their covenants and membership in the Church of Jesus Christ.   And it will be way too easy to get a cult following as the result of those meetings that justify and assist them to leave the LDS church.

 

As I have talked to faithful members with non-believing spouses, the single biggest obstacle to their working out their differences so they can stay together has been that one spouse joined a group of people (internet or in person) who didn't believe and invested time and got positive reinforcement for things that made working together with spouse more difficult.    In other words, the groups reinforce the pulling away from the church, and make it easier for the doubting spouse to pull away from the family too.  

 

I don't know if I'd feel differently if you were holding these meetings via skype and people were attending from their own homes with spouses allowed to listen and observe at least in the background.   Or if you were not the group leader.    Or if you were doing this at the behest of your priesthood leader or at least with his full knowledge and approval.

[provoman]

So DBMormon = Bill Reel?

Thanks,

-Smac

Nothing new. Just within the past few weeks, mud-slingers graced the board with "Bill Reel has cooties" type threads.

Bill apparently no one can find official statements against or in support of the meeting you held; other than those restrictions you listed. I, like ttribe, think carry-on, in sincerity.

[Calm]

There was something official read over the pulpit while I was on my mission. It was when I was serving in Woodlands or kingwood so it was...winter of 89-90 or summer of 1990. I remember it because in the week before we had visited a somewhat recent convert who told about her group while she was playing some sort of original star trek heaven/enya type music on her organ. There was an odd feeling that day and now when I hear similar music it comes back to me.

The letter had some specific types of groups which I don't remember, but it did not concern all study groups.

I realize it probably doesn't matter since I can't produce the letter now.

 

From a 2001 SL Trib article that is posted on a nonSL Trib site in its totality which I think is a violation of copyright so I won't link to it, Peggy Fletcher Stack reports that the Church has issued a statement dealing with private groups 5 times since 1989.  The last one was issued in the Church News and read over the pulpit.  Others were likely as well imo.

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/40005/Members-counseled-about-self-awareness-groups.html

 

The message does not appear to be sticking though...it is posted again in 2010:

 

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/60087/From-the-First-Presidency.html

 

Also (these might already have been posted, just trying to see if I can find the five times):

 

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

 

Referred to in link below:  Bulletin, 1993–2, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1993

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/counseling-with-our-councils?lang=eng

 

Looks like the one you remember, Rain:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1989/12/news-of-the-church/policies-and-announcements?lang=eng

Edited August 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[provoman]

So you are doing . . . what, exactly? Trying to provoke your fellow Saints to anger and then "chuckling" about it when you succeed?

What am I reading here? I thought this was a serious discussion, not an attempt at provocation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I remember saying as child "Johnny made me do it, because he..." The response back from the adult was that I was responsible for my own conduct. I do not see Bill's conduct as poking a bear. What I see is individuals who refuse to accept responsibility for their own conduct. To me it is sad to see such anger and insults lobbed at Bill.

[Bob Crockett]

DBMormon, I wish there was a group like yours meeting in our ward or stake. I know of so many who could benefit from meetings with others who they can open up to, discuss, share and help each other.

Keep up the good work as it's obvious you do care.

 

I see little difference than his activities from what happens on this board.  Further, he sticks his neck out in his own name.  I just think he has a very thin skin, which probably has little to do with this thread, but it has led him to say some rather silly things on this thread.   Bill -- you don't need the endorsement of this Board; why even ask?  I'd come to one of your meetings, even to be abused.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

Was quickly going to say...Bill, if you're worried about this contact your SP. But then I read Teancum's response. If we're told this church isn't a cult then we need to be free in our associations.

Bill might just be interception for members going to the groups who lean toward anti Mormon now. Believe me, I have seen it. I joined one on FB that meets once a week and thought it'd be so comforting to be around those with the same issues. I can't bring myself to attend now, the meet up is within 5 miles from my house. I attended twice and know it's the wrong group. The majority are not attending or have removed their names.

My heavens, Bill is a lot different and has even held firesides that probably discuss similar topics such as the essays in Gospel Topics, and with permission from his leaders! John Dehlin never had that. I know darn well I could be out of the church if it weren't for members like Bill. All I can say is openness is so healthy. But if Bill was exiting the church it would be a different story of course. But Bill does need to go easy on those that are just finding info out!

BTW, there were things on Fair LDS, old name, that contributed to my faith crisis. It's all a matter of self reflection and whether you feel the church brings you closer to the spirit, everyone's journey is different. There are many things in the church that keep me from exiting. It would take a lot for me to depart it.

[Calm]

Study groups in and of themselves seem to be okay given they are even suggested in the Ensign:
 
 

 Some successful ideas include learning do-it-yourself home repairs, marriage enrichment classes, study groups using Preach My Gospel, bringing lunch to shut-in sisters, and a support group for sisters with infertility challenges.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/03/home-family-and-personal-enrichment-around-the-world?lang=eng

 

My ward is currently having a scripture study group for sisters weekly Wednesday night, iirc. (I am hoping to start going in a month or two as we are very close to getting Mom nicely settled in a routine and I can start looking for time to have a routine myself now).
 
I think the problem arises when such groups go into areas that are inappropriate as can happen anywhere...even with professional guidance, but especially when nonprofessionals (lack training in group dynamics and what to expect, watch out for and guide) are in charge and just want everyone to feel good about their experience.  Positive attitudes, ideas and action end up being neglected in favor of griping, negativity or apathy.  I have been involved in two group therapy groups as part of my education.  One was absolutely fantastic, one of the best things I did in my college experience, very helpful as well as fun.  It was a class requirement.  The second, which I took because of the first, was horrible.  It was formed because people were looking for the group experience rather than being required to take it and most involved in it were there to be reinforced in their victimhood from what I could see; not looking for support to change, but support to justify their feelings of being put upon, etc.  Some were there because they wanted to make connections (that was why I was there), but they weren't willing for that to be equal, they wanted to be noticeed but they didn't care about paying attention to others.  I can't remember if I dropped out after a few sessions, I don't remember more than a few so I think so, not being particularly outgoing at the time, it didn't occur to me to stay and try to help steer the group as a group and no one seemed to feel like they wanted me as any more than a face to talk to (I am sure there were nice people there for the same reason I was and like me unable to communicate well, but the verbal ones were rather self obsessed and those are the ones I am judging; if I knew then what I know now, I would have paid attention to the quiet ones and seen if I could help let them feel secure enough to speak up...but that was me back then   ).  If I had attempted to predict the successfulness, I would have thought the first would be more likely to be a failure as some weren't there by choice (save they chose to go into Clinical Psychology and thus were required to take the class) and the second would be the success because everyone chose to be there and were invested in it from the start emotionally, not just for a grade (I got an A by the way ).

 

Study groups sharing religious experiences could from what I've seen go either way.  A very conscious effort by all participants to keep focused on positive action even if dealing with negatives is needed.  Probably a good idea to keep it highly structured to begin with so quieter participants get a chance to speak up and it does not become dominated by one individual, especially the moderator if that is the form it is going to take.  Maybe rotate on who is the leader each week, we did that for helping my nephew prepare for his mission---each taught one of the Preach My Gospel lessons in depth, including any controversies he might come in contact with.  Seemed to work well in keeping it balanced among the group rather than focused on one person as default leader/moderator.
 
If all one does is encourage someone to express their doubts and there is no plan to do something about it, not only is there a great chance of wasting time, but also doubt becomes a habit and a goal in and of itself rather than a stepping stone towards growth.

Edited August 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[JAHS]

Nothing new. Just within the past few weeks, mud-slingers graced the board with "Bill Reel has cooties" type threads.

Bill apparently no one can find official statements against or in support of the meeting you held; other than those restrictions you listed. I, like ttribe, think carry-on, in sincerity.

I honestly do remember hearing about the discouragement of study groups although there was perhaps no official letter from the FP. It's possible that the statement about the self-help symposia that we were warned about back in 1990 (now in the handbook), along with a history of certain study groups pulling members into apostasy, sparked a general paranoia about study groups in general and some stake presidents took the opportunity to counsel their members against them to avoid any potential problems. 

Perhaps it's the name, "study group",  that is striking fear in people's minds. Maybe you could just call them firesides instead?

[DBMormon]

Nothing new. Just within the past few weeks, mud-slingers graced the board with "Bill Reel has cooties" type threads.

Bill apparently no one can find official statements against or in support of the meeting you held; other than those restrictions you listed. I, like ttribe, think carry-on, in sincerity.

Thank you I plan to

[mfbukowski]

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?

You should know that already Bishop.

 

Read the manual.

[mfbukowski]

I should add I am aware of this

 

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

 

 

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

Then why the question?

[readstoomuch]

I think groups are hard to pull off outside of Church.  Not every one wants the same level of honesty, doctrine or allegiance to the faithful way of saying things.  There was a group that lasted two weeks in my ward.  We started with reading The Crucible of Doubt.  My wife can`t handle all levels of discussion about Church history and doctrine.  She does`t like any message board about the Church unless it is faithful to a t.  One couple unfortunately sounds like they are on their way out of the Church-victims of the Snufferite way of thinking.  So, some people were doing fine with what any one said and others weren`t.  My wife walked out early and no one has wanted to meet since then.  I think if the couple who are Snufferites hadn`t come it would have worked.  I don`t think there is enough empathy and counseling in my soul or at the meeting to get them to see things more faithfully right now.  They hated (or didn`t like) the Givens books, which I find to be quite powerful.  

 

So, Bill I think there is no specific rule against your meetings.  You will be responsible for the content and some have warned you to talk to you bishop about it.  It is probably good advice, but you are more concerned about our blessing more than the bishops.  If the bishop doesn`t know about your thinking it might open up conversations in your new home of St. George.  John Dehlin`s support groups didn`t always end up well and was at least part of the argument against him keeping his Church membership along with others.  Good luck and maybe it would be best to really limit the group to those with doubts and misinformation.  Hopefully, you don`t open up a can of worms for someone and make their doubts worse.  You might have a questionnaire about their reading sources so you can have some idea what level of information they have obtained.  

[mfbukowski]

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

So if your pres hassles you make sure you tell him the board said it was ok.

[Tacenda]

It has been my observation that critics of Bill Reel on this board have been unduly harsh in the past, and in this thread as well. That being said, the more this thread has developed, the more it looks like a pot-stirring exercise by Bill. I'm not sure what the point of that really is.

You want to have your meetings, Bill? Have your meetings. An Internet message board, especially this one, is unlikely to be kind to your intentions on this. If you were genuinely looking for feedback as to the source of the long-standing practice of discouraging independent "study groups" in the Church, I think it's pretty clear that there isn't a good reference source on this issue at this point. Beyond that, you're just getting sucked into trading barbs with The Nehor. Nothing productive will come of that.

In my previous post I hadn't read the thread completely. I agree, Bill needs to take a chill pill. Bill I support your leading in faith endeavours but for you to have credibility, I hope you take the high road even with your non supporters. Edited August 24, 2015 by Tacenda