Damien the Leper Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 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.You assume a good deal. If Mak chooses to dignify your post then please be prepared for a beating. If he chooses not to respond then you got off easy.
ALarson Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) 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?Wow, just read this entire thread. Whew. I really don't understand why all the drama over this, DBMormon. Just hold your meetings if you want, talk to your leaders if you want, or don't. The bolded part above is kind of funny to me. So, there's a "private group" meeting together to discuss whether or not it's ok for you to hold a "private group" meeting? Edited August 24, 2015 by ALarson
Tacenda Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) I think this is getting way out of hand Bill, aka DB. You need to take it back a notch. Maybe you'll discontinue our FB connection for having said this. But I really think you need to ease up on the FB posts about church etc. Your dissatisfaction with so many things. I really like what you've done with the podcast, but I see that going a different path if you're not careful. A faithful LDS reading some FB posts might not want to be interviewed for your podcast. That's why I like your podcast, that there is a good balance with the majority favoring having faith. If not and you no longer want to go there, just change the format and I may or may not stay. I've supported it monetarily, albeit not much, but still have. I really hope you think super hard about this. I know I come off a little judgey right now. But really am seeing a train wreck about to happen if you're not careful. You usually never respond to my support of you on this board, rarely. Maybe you'll respond now lol. Anyway, I'm getting old and also feel like I'm losing it, so I'm just letting my inhibitions take me wherever. So there it is, for what it's worth. Edited August 24, 2015 by Tacenda
Guest Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 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?It is not that unusual to have private scripture study groups. I have taken part in such, but even in such groups you can end up in a pecking order where one person is considered leader of the group. Without the right "Spirit" false doctrines and teaching can enter in and lead others astray.
provoman Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 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. Where is the Church policy that discourages self organized "scripture study group with people in [a] ward". You have done a fantastic job pounding your chest pronouncing the evils of others. And this Church policy you speak of so authoritatively, you can document it right? So far the best anyone can provide, is DBmormon who quoted the Church; which if you did not read it, did not discourage scripture study groups. Calmoriah also posted an article that encourage scripture study groups. The best anyone else has been able to do, is appeal to hearsay and faded memories. With all the self-assured chest pounding, hearsay and faded memories, is very sandy foundation to build on.
jkwilliams Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 The bolded part above is kind of funny to me. So, there's a "private group" meeting together to discuss whether or not it's ok for you to hold a "private group" meeting? Yeah, that is kind of ironic and funny at the same time.
Mystery Meat Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 I think the Church's guidelines are quite good. For me, I would add a few more qualifications: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.---6. Are secretive or encourage participants to not disclose the contents of the meeting to family members or local Church leaders.7. Discuss or advocate "private" militancy or violence, or opposition to or the overthrow of civil government, or the stockpiling of weapons.8. Center on or make claims of special or secret authority or revelations of an individual or group, which claims are not recognized by the visible Church.Thanks,-Smac 9. Teach doctrines or philosophies that are not currently taught as doctrines by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12. 1
smac97 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) 9. Teach doctrines or philosophies that are not currently taught as doctrines by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12. That's a fair point. I wonder if discussing such doctrines or philosophies might be okay (as opposed to "teaching" or "advocating" or "trying to persuade each other to accept" such doctrines/philosophies). On balance, probably not. Too much risk for error, developing gospel hobby horses, etc. Elder Cook put it well: Another sign of spiritual immaturity and sometimes apostasy is when one focuses on certain gospel principles or pursues “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal. Almost any virtue taken to excess can become a vice. Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark. Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the “meat” the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the “milk.” Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught. Moreover, we have way too much established doctrine to talk about to spend appreciable amounts of time on speculative or conjectural topics. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 24, 2015 by smac97 2
Popular Post Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) 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.There is no folklore here. This is the directive from the top:"The bishop directs the work of salvation in the ward. This work includes member missionary work, convert retention, activation, temple and family history work, and teaching the gospel.""The stakes of the Church are established 'for a defense, and for a refuge' for the Saints in the latter days (D&C 115:6). The term stake comes from the prophecies of Isaiah, who described latter-day Zion as a tent or a tabernacle that would be secured by stakes (see Isaiah 33:20; 54:2)."The stake president holds the priesthood keys to direct the work of the Church within the stake. He and his counselors form a stake presidency. They minister to stake members with love and concern, helping them become true followers of Jesus Christ." Edited August 24, 2015 by Bernard Gui 5
HappyJackWagon Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 To comply with the unwritten order of things I avoid the following... -Having parties where people come to my home and talk-Having dinner guests-accepting invitations to the homes of others-Attending book clubs-Attending symposia such as FAIR Conference-Allow my wife to attend Time Out for Women-Attendance at local Mormon Historical association-Attendance at Family History symposia-Attendance at preparation workshops My wife says I'm anti-social but I'm just trying to avoid the appearance of evil. All of these things could lead to apostacy. But, just like everyone here, I do frequent boards like this one where we have discussions without priesthood permission.
Popular Post Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2015 Popular Post Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) The solution is simple....get an appointment with the stake president, outline the issues and your proposed solution, follow his counsel. It's not hard to do.Sister Gui and I have done precisely this to start a support group for family members who are grieving from the apostacy of their loved ones. We and a surprising number of friends across ward and stake boundaries have been devastated by the angry and hateful behavior of relatives who have left the Church. We saw a need, and based on our long experience with family support for addiction recovery, we approached our stake president with our idea. He has given us approval to go ahead with a one year trial. I would not consider for a second to do this without his input and permission. It's his stewardship, not mine. Edited August 24, 2015 by Bernard Gui 5
HappyJackWagon Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 The solution is simple....get an appointment with the stake president, outline the issues and your proposed solution,Follow his counsel. It's not hard to do. Seriously, people? How many of you get an appointment with the Stake President to get permission before you invite people over to your house? Give me a break. 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 To comply with the unwritten order of things I avoid the following... -Having parties where people come to my home and talk-Having dinner guests-accepting invitations to the homes of others-Attending book clubs-Attending symposia such as FAIR Conference-Allow my wife to attend Time Out for Women-Attendance at local Mormon Historical association-Attendance at Family History symposia-Attendance at preparation workshops My wife says I'm anti-social but I'm just trying to avoid the appearance of evil. All of these things could lead to apostacy. But, just like everyone here, I do frequent boards like this one where we have discussions without priesthood permission.None of which, of course, has the expressed purpose to give personal and group counsel to members who are leaving the Church. 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Seriously, people? How many of you get an appointment with the Stake President to get permission before you invite people over to your house? Give me a break.That is not the issue. Perhaps you should read the whole discussion. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) That is not the issue. Perhaps you should read the whole discussion.I know what Bill is being accused of, but that doesn't make it so. None of which, of course, has the expressed purpose to give personal and group counsel to members who are leaving the Church. If Bill has stated this as his purpose I will be happy to retract. I'll just need a CFR. Edited August 24, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
smac97 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 None of which, of course, has the expressed purpose to give personal and group counsel to members who are leaving the Church.I know what Bill is being accused of, but that doesn't make it so. If Bill has stated this as his purpose I will be happy to retract. I'll just need a CFR. What about this: "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.'" Thanks, -Smac 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) I know what Bill is being accused of, but that doesn't make it so.If Bill has stated this as his purpose I will be happy to retract. I'll just need a CFR.What is he being accused of? I have made no accusations. He asked for advice. The advice he has been given is sound and based on Handbook #1.1, 30,41, 58 to start."What do you mean by 'faith transition?'""Leaving the church? Having doubts and decided to stay?""People who recognize their faith is changing and I would add are feeling angst and separation over it as they see it distancing them from their faith community. what my hope is to show them this is normal and that if they seek to allow christ to change their foundation and feel empowered to reconstruct their faith that it is possible to do so in a way that allows them to remain in."How do you mentor someone who is going through the dark night of the soul? Very patiently. High-level mentors are a precious resource at this time. Suffering people will dump their hurt, frustrations, anger and loneliness on you. Don’t offer answers the way Job’s friends did, just be present with them. Avoid shock, just listen and empathize with them as they wrestle with traumatic memories and regret. Share your own dark night (if you haven’t been through it you probably can’t be much help). Assure them that what they are going through is normal in the walk with God. Share the stories of Elijah, Job, Peter and Jesus. Radiate your own acceptance of them as a token of God’s acceptance. Forgive them as needed and encourage them to experience the forgiveness of God. In most cases the day will come when the dark night ends and they will be able to move on. Some people may have to experience the dark night more than once in order make it through, but eventually, if they stay the course, they can move on. "This is the stewardship of the stake and bishop. There is no ambiguity. Edited August 24, 2015 by Bernard Gui 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 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)." Did you run across the occasion when he compared the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father? And where he later doubled down on it when he was called on it on this board?
smac97 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Did you run across the occasion when he compared the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father? And where he later doubled down on it when he was called on it on this board? Wow! Nope. Hadn't heard that. Thanks, -Smac
ttribe Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 And, the piling on continues. Bill, I'm not sure how you might have thought this would end up any other way than it has. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 What about this: "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.'" Thanks, -SmacThis is sounding eerily familiar. Didn't Dehlin maintain all along that he was there to help people stay or go, depending on their preference?
sdc999 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 There is no folklore here. This is the directive from the top:"The bishop directs the work of salvation in the ward. This work includes member missionary work, convert retention, activation, temple and family history work, and teaching the gospel.""The stakes of the Church are established 'for a defense, and for a refuge' for the Saints in the latter days (D&C 115:6). The term stake comes from the prophecies of Isaiah, who described latter-day Zion as a tent or a tabernacle that would be secured by stakes (see Isaiah 33:20; 54:2)."The stake president holds the priesthood keys to direct the work of the Church within the stake. He and his counselors form a stake presidency. They minister to stake members with love and concern, helping them become true followers of Jesus Christ."you cited some entries. I'll cite #179 Scott Lloyd. He and I have had some differences but I believe his is as Mormon as one is allowed to be. He has participated, according to his post, in study groups. So, what we have here are TWO very active LDS guys who obviously have approached this differently. Unless Scott recants and says he was wrong to attend without permission, you two seem to disagree. That is where I stand firmly with the 'folklore' comment. Unless the church says "DO NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION", members will go along saying what they have always said and believing what they have always believed. Whether it is correct and from the top or it is folklore passed down. Until everyone is on the same page about such a simple subject.
jkwilliams Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Did you run across the occasion when he compared the Church of Jesus Christ to an abusive father? And where he later doubled down on it when he was called on it on this board? I take it you think Bill is actively working against the church.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Wow! Nope. Hadn't heard that. Thanks, -SmacHere's the thread where the discussion occurred two weeks ago.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 you cited some entries. I'll cite #179 Scott Lloyd. He and I have had some differences but I believe his is as Mormon as one is allowed to be. He has participated, according to his post, in study groups. So, what we have here are TWO very active LDS guys who obviously have approached this differently. Unless Scott recants and says he was wrong to attend without permission, you two seem to disagree. Um, 179 was PaPa's post, not mine.
Recommended Posts