Private Groups Of Members Meeting Together

[mfbukowski]

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..

Then why did you start the thread?   Seriously?  Why bring it up here at all??

[mfbukowski]

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?

Do I actually need permission?  See, you state that I will do what I want with or without permission but no one requires permission be asked.  Do you ask permission to go to sleep at night?  Do you ask permission to drive your car to work?  no and it is silly because permission is not required.  Neither is it here. .

You are actually debating with yourself. Interesting.

[mfbukowski]

yet that means it could be you or at least both of us or are self deluded right?

Which one of you? This is why I will not debate you. Edited August 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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!

Exactly.

At this point I think any credibility he had is going out the window. The whole thread is self-contradictory and has no purpose. Yet on it goes.

[Calm]

How is this board all that different from an in person study group that discusses gospel topics, other than there are no set meetings so we just pop in when we want, and we can hide our IRL identity through an avatar if we so choose?

It is in public and anyone can see it and comment on any directions that they feel like may be dangerous.  Much less likely for "group think" to occur or pressure to affect someone's thoughts when they are at a distance as opposed to up close and personal (this can be used for both good and bad).

[Calm]

Actually I do because they messaged me and told me once more and bob was out indefinitely.. 

Missed this earlier.

 

Well, his forced absence from the board was not noted by me.  Sorry Bob, I probably assumed you had better things to do.  

 

My apologies for assuming I knew more than I did because I hang out here way too much.

Edited August 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[Jeanne]

I wouldn't ask permission from the bishop..but I would invite him to attend a meeting..perhaps he could be geared to a better understanding and if he wants, provide some answers. and input to help those that need them.  If any of you have been active for years or even just for awhile..you have given your time, talents and income to help the church.  This is not bad if you truly believe..but you have also been taught about agency and of as late been able to discuss more than you ever have about the church and the doctrine which has been a good thing for all.  Your thoughts, your feelings are yours.  I do not think in your agency that you should have to ask permission for anything that belongs to you in your spiritual journey.  The people who meet together are not obligated..and can leave..I cannot (IMO) see the Lord condemn anyone for searching..learning..and helping others.

 

Eight years ago, I went from extremely active to a complete stop.  I would have given anything for someone to talk to about things.  It was one of the loneliest times of my entire life.  Those of you who can gather should be so grateful..and grateful to you.  The Bishop should have authority within the walls of the church and its programs...but you should not have to ask permission to think or discuss outside those walls. 

 

Good luck and just tread softly..go gently..and even with prayer and follow your own gut..

 

I do think that having questionnaires is a good idea. 

 

BTW:  To all of you..I appreciate that you have given me a chance here on this board to ask questions..voice my opinions..and in general put up with me.

[Bernard Gui]

Bottom line for me....

 

The fact that this is not a study group in the sense that it studies a manual

or a scripture, but is a group in which disaffected members can air their

disaffection makes it come under the purview of the ones who have stewardship

over the spiritual welfare of the ward or stake....that would be the bishop and

the stake president. There is no getting around that. The fact that you are asking

the questions here instead of to them indicates you have some uncertainty.

Maybe there's a good reason for that.

 

The shepherd is at the gate. The wolves enter over the wall.

Are you at the gate or coming over the wall?

 

If your group is on the up and up, giving a nod to the stake president

eliminates all doubt, fortifies your position, and makes this discussion unnecessary. 

If you have asked and they said no or if you do ask now and they say no and you

go ahead, then you are in quicksand. If you haven't asked, why not?

 

If you ask and they say yes, good on ya. go for it!

Edited August 24, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

I wouldn't ask permission from the bishop..but I would invite him to attend a meeting..perhaps he could be geared to a better understanding and if he wants, provide some answers. and input to help those that need them. If any of you have been active for years or even just for awhile..you have given your time, talents and income to help the church. This is not bad if you truly believe..but you have also been taught about agency and of as late been able to discuss more than you ever have about the church and the doctrine which has been a good thing for all. Your thoughts, your feelings are yours. I do not think in your agency that you should have to ask permission for anything that belongs to you in your spiritual journey. The people who meet together are not obligated..and can leave..I cannot (IMO) see the Lord condemn anyone for searching..learning..and helping others.

Eight years ago, I went from extremely active to a complete stop. I would have given anything for someone to talk to about things. It was one of the loneliest times of my entire life. Those of you who can gather should be so grateful..and grateful to you. The Bishop should have authority within the walls of the church and its programs...but you should not have to ask permission to think or discuss outside those walls.

Good luck and just tread softly..go gently..and even with prayer and follow your own gut..

I do think that having questionnaires is a good idea.

BTW: To all of you..I appreciate that you have given me a chance here on this board to ask questions..voice my opinions..and in general put up with me.

Where were you so long ago when I needed you? That's about when it happened to me!

I think it's a whole different world now, church wise especially. The leaders know, they know of members like us. And honestly, I tired of so many of my FB friends posting quotes from LDS leaders, but lately sense they know of the angst. And one quote by Elder Holland made me feel like it was geared toward members like we were. Sort of in code, but I'm probably wrong.

And they can't very well address the issues head on, it needs to be handled delicately. And I've come to believe many of them really didn't know all that much on the issues such as JS' s polygamy/polyandry. They've lived their lives in the now, faithfully serving and reading the Ensign and scriptures, lessons etc. Sure they'll read history, but that takes some time. Much of which they spend actively living the gospel. That's my outsider opinion.

Also, that's a great idea for Bill to invite the bishop. He needs to be open outside of FB and his podcast, as if they aren't open enough, lol.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

December, 1835. As the temple was being finished in Kirtland, Ohio, William Smith began a friendly

debate society in the evenings in his home. The brethren would pick a gospel

subject. Some would take one side, and some another. After a few meetings, Brother Joseph mentioned that it was interesting, but that he didn't think it was a good idea to continue them because things were getting

a bit out of hand. William said it was his home and he could do whatever he wished in it.

Joseph said he had helped build the home, so he could indeed have

something to say. Words were exchanged, tempers heated up, Joseph took off his coat, and it ended with

arguing, name calling, hitting and shoving each other, and Joseph being knocked to the ground.

He left in anger and the two stopped speaking to each other. 

 

For several weeks, the bad feelings spread throughout the Smith family and Kirtland, and work on the temple

ceased. Some conciliatory letters were exchanged, but neither would apologize in person. Finally, Joseph

made it his New Year's resolution to bring back the good feelings in the family, and at a family meeting

Father Smith gave them what for in a very nice way.  They smoked the peace pipe, things smoothed out,

all was forgiven, and the work progressed.

 

Moral of the story: If you are going to have meetings in your house, don't invite the authorities.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[The Unclean Deacon]

I say meet or don't meet but don't feel like you owe anyone a request for permission.

[The Nehor]

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?

I'm afraid all your questions are above your clearance level. Your friend the Computer asks you to go to a confession booth for a mandatory discussion on why you think you need to know.

Edited August 24, 2015 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

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..

I take it, then, that you won't be consulting any priesthood leaders about your project. Which makes me wonder why you're looking for documentation about whether "study groups" are approved or not. Is it to convince people you're not doing anything shady? Wouldn't the quickest and most credible way to do that be to get the stake president to sign off on it?

[The Nehor]

I take it, then, that you won't be consulting any priesthood leaders about your project. Which makes me wonder why you're looking for documentation about whether "study groups" are approved or not. Is it to convince people you're not doing anything shady? Wouldn't the quickest and most credible way to do that be to get the stake president to sign off on it?

 

I wonder if this group even exists. Anything to try to win an internet argument.

[Darren10]

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?

Why is you attention so focused on LDS "in transition"? Do your meetings declare The Church of Jesus Christ of Katter-Day Saints is God's only true Church on the earth? Does it declare that we are to have faith in our leaders called by the Priesthood? Does it declare we are to honor our covenants made in the temple? Do these things ocurr under local priesthood authority and/or supervision? How are your efforts going to differ, or, better yet, improve on John Dehlin's efforts? Will your results be better than his?

I think your group meetings trigger more questions and concerns for me than knowing that there are, as always has been, "Mormons in transition".

I do not know any rules beyond what you outlined in your second post. Make sure you do not make your meetings confessional ones. That seems very likely to happen.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Darren10

[smac97]

Having read through this thread, I am having a difficult time extending a presumption of legitimacy and good faith to the proposed meetings described in the OP.  I say this is someone who is fairly devoted to the LDS Church and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ which houses it.  I would be thrilled at any good faith effort to help individuals strengthen their testimonies and improve their understanding and acceptance of the Restored Gospel.  And yet this OP and subsequent posts have left me . . . uneasy.

 

A few thoughts:

 

1. Playing Coy / Been There, Done That

 

The OP's description of this "study group" and subsequent statements about it come across as . . . coy.  The OP describes the group's participants as "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."

 

"In a faith transition?"  What does that mean?  "Support each other in their transitions while also being encouraged to press forward with faith?"  What does that mean?

 

This sounds quite a bit like the approach that John Dehlin used, which in retrospect turned out to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing" approach.  We've all seen how John Dehlin started, and how he ended up.  We've been there, done that, so I think there is concern on this board that we are in the process of going there and doing that again.  This may be the basis for unease expressed by the active LDS participants in this thread.  

 

2. Questions of Stewardship, Concerns of Usurpation

 

This thread appears to be an attempt to preemptively (or retroactively?) justify evading any disclosure of information to, or submission to the jurisdiction of, local priesthood leaders.  Is this a correct assessment?  

 

In the LDS paradigm, the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Saints falls squarely within the stewardship/jurisdiction of the bishop and stake president.  If a Latter-day Saint is experiencing difficulty in accepting and/or living by the precepts of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, then their local priesthood leaders should indisputably be made aware of that.  This would not preclude concerned friends and family from providing support to such persons, but to actively withhold disclosure of such issues from local priesthood leaders with stewardship and responsibility of such persons strikes me as problematic.

 

And if an individual or group goes beyond refusing to disclose such things to local leaders, and actually proceeds to usurp the role of pastoral counselor to those having difficulties with the Gospel, and to do so seemingly in secret, then this strikes me as deeply problematic.

 

Is that the proposed function of the "private group" described in the OP?

 

3. Is the Teacher Ready/Competent?

 

The author of the OP proposes to act as a guide to others who are apparently struggling with their faith.  I would certainly admire and support the sincere desire to help such folks.  But it took about 2 minutes of googling to find that the author has elsewhere declared to the world that he has "severe doubts of the restoration as we have been taught it."  And here he proclaims to the world that, in working with other Latter-day Saints who are struggling with their faith, "I don't feel inclined to try and reconvert anyone because I validate the journey to leave as well as to stay."  And here he tells the world that he has "thought deeply about leaving (the Church)."

 

Bro. Reel is not alone in these sentiments.  Many of us (most?) have struggled with our faith in varied ways at different points of our lives.  However, should a person who is apparently in the midst of his own published-to-the-world faith crisis be putting himself out there as a guide for other Latter-day Saints who are likewise struggling?  And more importantly, should a person who has declared to the world that he will "validate the journey to leave (the Church)" be trusted with the spiritual welfare of other Latter-day Saints, particularly where A) he is apparently proposing to set himself up as a counselor in the place of authorized priesthood authorities, and B) that he do these things without authority or permission, and perhaps even in secret?

 

4. Caught In Medias Res

 

I have only slight and recent familiarity with Bill Reel's writings, so the foregoing assessment is made without an in-depth understanding of the overall scenario underlying the OP.  Therefore, I am happy to be corrected if the foregoing perceptions if they are in error.

 

Active Latter-day Saints will rejoice when those who have struggled with their faith find ways to strengthen their faith and their standing relative to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  So if the study group referenced in the OP is designed to foster faith in the Restored Gospel, why are several members of this board, who are also active, observant Latter-day Saints, seemingly so skeptical and uneasy about it?

 

I just added a new quote to my signature line.  It's from then-Elder Harold B. Lee.  Is it applicable here?  I really hope not.  I will be happy to be instructed on that point.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2015 by smac97

[Darren10]

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.

 

 

Good for the bishop. This is a case where *you* may do well conducting this type of group but as a matter of policy the Church may discourage this type of settings as many many many people would probably not fare so well. There's nothing wrong so far as I can tell to meet and read scriptures with others. To make it meet sort of "official" in terms of expectations, outcomes, etc. can be dangerous.

[Darren10]

So FairMormon Conference is out?

 

Wow. Are your meetings transparent? Do they reinforce the truth of the gospel? Does it declare, in the end, that Joseph Smith was God's true prophet? FAIRMormon conferences do precisely that. I suspect that your meetings consist of "this church may not be right for you". We love you and support you in your new journey. That's different than "God bless you in your decision". Your group would actively support members leaving, the latter situation shows a non judgemental approach to other people but offers no active support to leaving the Church.

 

Just my observation.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Darren10

[Darren10]

maybe I already have....

 

 

No, you have not.

[Darren10]

It's not a private group - my invitation went out on facebook to any who were interested.  I also encouraged people coming to bring others who they thought would benefit..  By the way I could list a private group that meets together to discuss Church but this group would have most here side stepping such connection and defending it as a defensible exception to the rule.

 

Is this part of the facebook invite you call attention to here?

 

 

"LEADING WITH FAITH" Group is Meeting Aug 22nd in the St. George, Utah area. Email me or Private message me if you want to get involved. This will be a faithful atmosphere that also works to validate your perspective and journey.

 

Ummmm, "validate your perspective and journey"? Sounds to me I got the gist of your meeting spot on in my previous post  #168.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Do I actually need permission?  See, you state that I will do what I want with or without permission but no one requires permission be asked.  Do you ask permission to go to sleep at night?  Do you ask permission to drive your car to work?  no and it is silly because permission is not required.  Neither is it here.  Now in terms of the effect the group has on the individuals I am steadfast and determined that it will encourage people to stay in the church and to work towards making it work.  That said it will validate the church and its history as messy but all there already know that, they just are struggling to cope with it.

 

 

Sleeping at night and driving your car to work does not even imply church membership. Your meetings absolutely do. You are taking the name of the Church and providing a service in its name whowbeit "on you own and in the privacy of your own home". Your facebook invite absolutely calls upon the name of the Church into these meetings. You target "LDS" members and thus invoke the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also known as the "LDS Church". Yes, if you do something in the name of the *LDS* church, you definitely should share your activities with your bishop. at the very minimum, that should help make sure your activities remain in harmony with Church standards and expectations.

[Darren10]

sure but since no one in my ward is in the midst of a faith crisis, none of them were aware of the group and were not in attendance.  But I guess he could.  That would be in his jurisdiction.

 

Who is your bishop. I'll be glad to give him a head's up.

[Darren10]

I'm building my case on a general principle and wasn't speaking of you specifically.

I don't think I've ever had a quarrel with you on this board so there's no reason to be so overtly defensive any time anyone says something you don't agree with. It's not always all about you personally.

 

A true John Dehlin in the making so far as I can tell.

[sdc999]

Who is your bishop. I'll be glad to give him a head's up.

that's so funny...  

And Bishop,  I saw the Stewarts at Wal-Mart on Sunday shopping..

And I saw Mr. Tanner use a curse word this week and I saw Ms. Davis wearing an inappropriate top that doesn't meet gospel standards. And I saw...

 

Bishop:  You have done well good and faithful servant.  Go forth Darren10 and keep an eye on all members and report back because you and you alone should be the Lord's police detective.  No one should be able to sin without being reported.

[sdc999]

Then why did you start the thread?   Seriously?  Why bring it up here at all??

His motives?  Not sure.

 

But 9 pages worth of debate on the subject shows that the church has been clearly driven by folklore vs a directive from the top.  Else, 'here is my question': Response  'Great, here is what the church says:'   Yes, allowed.    No, not allowed.  Check appropriate box.