Anti-Mormons And "progressive" Mormons Deny Our Lived Experience

[SmileyMcGee]

Spiritual and life experiences are indeed a tool of some to try and discredit those of others - it's quite a common human trait across the religions and non-religious divide. It is actually very annoying when someone tries to force their ideology on me because they experienced this or that or because they understand this or that in this way and then expect me to accept their view because of their knowledge; its a form of pride. The truth is that in/at one time or another we all do it, whether with our friends or family or colleagues or fellow saints and especially in many of these threads, we are guilty of hypocrisy in one way or another. When this is done by covenanted members of the church, then its even worse. In situations like that: I just stick to my 'lived experience' and the Book of Mormon and my witness from the Spirit and stand my ground. No member of this church (I believe) can discredit the experiences of another without discrediting him/herself; as for non-mormons: I use my stand-my-ground tactic and it works wonders - they end up venting and raging and shouting; sometimes seeing them react in this way gives me pleasure.

This may work with people who think their experiences lead to knowledge of objective truth, but to people who are skeptical of and see the limitations of their own experiences you've got nothing.

Edited October 13, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Wards are no longer supposed to have a "no contact list", but in the past, if someone was opposed to the church and requested not to be contacted, one would be put on the list and their wishes would be honored.

 

Is this new churchwide or simply a practice in certain areas. As of 6 months ago I'm very confident Do Not Contact lists were still utilized. Discontinuation of a DNC list seems counter productive.

 

1- Waste members time reaching out to people who have stated they are not interested

2- It dishonors the wishes of the individual requesting no contact. It's rude, and as an organizational practive ignoring requests to stop contact could be seen as harrassment.

3- Refusing to honor requests for no contact could push people closer toward the resignation option.

 

I can't see how any of those things are good.

 

Also- to the OP- I'll just say that the concept of this thread is divisive, argumentative, and self righteous.

[mfbukowski]

Is this new churchwide or simply a practice in certain areas. As of 6 months ago I'm very confident Do Not Contact lists were still utilized. Discontinuation of a DNC list seems counter productive.

 

1- Waste members time reaching out to people who have stated they are not interested

2- It dishonors the wishes of the individual requesting no contact. It's rude, and as an organizational practive ignoring requests to stop contact could be seen as harrassment.

3- Refusing to honor requests for no contact could push people closer toward the resignation option.

 

I can't see how any of those things are good.

 

Also- to the OP- I'll just say that the concept of this thread is divisive, argumentative, and self righteous.

1-People's situations change all the time. A two minute phone call/knock on the door wastes no time.

2 & 3-Handled properly, contact can be seen as loving, as hopefully it would be. If I really did not want to be contacted, I would write a 2 minute letter, sign it, and have my name removed. That assures no contact. All who had been on the list had already been offered that alternative and refused. If they genuinely want resignation, it is beneficial to the ward to have them go forward - no one is stopping them from that option ever. One less "less active" to worry about. If they change their mind, they can always be re-baptized.

Out of 5 families in our Ward on the former "no contact list", one now attends irregularly, and 3 now accept home teachers. That's a start

Why would one keep a less active on the roles forever because once they said they wanted no contact? Now THAT seems non-productive to me. THAT is a waste of resources and opportunities.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Imagine having missionaries never knock on the same door after someone said they were not interested. Forever.

Ridiculous.

[thesometimesaint]

Is this in response to my comment? If so, I'm not sure I implied any of that. In my mind, asserting that one "knows" a religion is false is just as ridiculous as asserting that one "knows" that it is true. 

 

Fair point. But it works just as well if a religion claims to "We believe we're false, but we believe it anyway".

[Maedros]

Have you actually had someone vent, rage and shout at you over this?   Was it just someone trying to convince you to leave the church?  In my experience, I have not ever met anyone who would be so passionate or intrusive.

My father is a bitter and raging ex-mormon and I get this from him all the time - beside him, I get this from colleagues at work and some other family members. As a 15 year old priest and new member I use to be over-zealous and visited many preachers in their homes to try and convince them of the restored gospel (big mistake) - it ended up in a bible-bashing session. I don't get involved with those anymore. 

[SmileyMcGee]

Fair point. But it works just as well if a religion claims to "We believe we're false, but we believe it anyway".

?

[HappyJackWagon]

1-People's situations change all the time. A two minute phone call/knock on the door wastes no time.

2 & 3-Handled properly, contact can be seen as loving, as hopefully it would be. If I really did not want to be contacted, I would write a 2 minute letter, sign it, and have my name removed. That assures no contact. All who had been on the list had already been offered that alternative and refused. If they genuinely want resignation, it is beneficial to the ward to have them go forward - no one is stopping them from that option ever. One less "less active" to worry about. If they change their mind, they can always be re-baptized.

Out of 5 families in our Ward on the former "no contact list", one now attends irregularly, and 3 now accept home teachers. That's a start

Why would one keep a less active on the roles forever because once they said they wanted no contact? Now THAT seems non-productive to me. THAT is a waste of resources and opportunities.

So it sounds like not having a DNC list is something you do in your ward and not a church policy. That makes more sense.

 

1- If it happens regularly by well-meaning but uninformed ward members, yes, it can be a bother and it can waste time, and it can be frustrating to members who would rather be left alone. The DNC list allows the bishop to manage contact to make sure it is useful.

 

2-3  In my experience a DNC list is helpful because it prevents well meaning missionaries, RS or PH leaders stopping by or having YW/YM leaders and youth stop by attempting to reactivate a family who is not interested in attending. These people may not want to have their names removed but they don't want to participate either. The DNContact prevents random people doing their own thing in a haphazard or uninformed way but I've always seen that bishops make annual contact with the families to check in. This annual check in allows the the bishop to manage the contact and allows the individual or family to reconsider their involvement without being harrassed.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that it is "better for the ward" to have people resign? Please explain to me why this is better.

Do you think the desire to be left alone is the same thing as having your church membership removed, thus forfeiting any eternal blessings that come with baptism? They are not the same thing.

 

Why keep an inactive on the roles forever? Because at baptism people receive saving ordinances in addition to church membership. As long as those 2 things are tied together it would seem likely that people may feel good about having the ordinances done. Why is keeping them on the roles, even when not participating a waste of resources? If you honor their wishes to not be contacted you are not wasting any time or resources.

 

Sometimes the efficiency of managing a ward is secondary to honoring the person who is less active and giving them the time and space they desire. Things can change over time. Some people may even respond well to being harrassed, but some don't. So why not be respectful of their wishes without encouraging them to resign their membership which also cancels their ordinances?

[Jude2]

Perhaps my point was not as clear as I had intended it to be.

 

"Progressives" always tell us that the "lived experience" of being a woman, gay, transgender among other things is what establishes "truth" and we Mormons are ignoring the truth/experiences of those who agitate for doctrinal and policy changes.

 

We cannot allow the truth of the Gospel to be drowned out by some "lived experience" while ignoring the "lived experience" of millions of beliving, faithful, LDS worldwide.  That God lives, He called Joseph Smith as his Prophet, and we follow a prophet today. 

 

I'm with ya, there is a time to stand for truth and righteousness.  

[Yirgacheffe]

Maybe I am hyper sensitive to it, but I see it all the time.

 

Affirming the certainty of "facts" above personal testimony- ie- "lived experience" is a denial that my lived experience has value in my determining my own path of belief.

 

How is that not the case?   Am I the only one who sees that??

If I'm on board with the "facts" your personal testimony means nothing on my path of belief, just as when you are on board with your testimony and my "facts" are meaningless on your path of belief.  Everyone is like that "my testimony/facts/experience trumps yours, because it's mine yours, is just a claim/story/delusion.   ( I am using this smiley as a shrug )

[mfbukowski]

So it sounds like not having a DNC list is something you do in your ward and not a church policy. That makes more sense.

 

1- If it happens regularly by well-meaning but uninformed ward members, yes, it can be a bother and it can waste time, and it can be frustrating to members who would rather be left alone. The DNC list allows the bishop to manage contact to make sure it is useful.

 

2-3  In my experience a DNC list is helpful because it prevents well meaning missionaries, RS or PH leaders stopping by or having YW/YM leaders and youth stop by attempting to reactivate a family who is not interested in attending. These people may not want to have their names removed but they don't want to participate either. The DNContact prevents random people doing their own thing in a haphazard or uninformed way but I've always seen that bishops make annual contact with the families to check in. This annual check in allows the the bishop to manage the contact and allows the individual or family to reconsider their involvement without being harrassed.

 

Are you honestly suggesting that it is "better for the ward" to have people resign? Please explain to me why this is better.

Do you think the desire to be left alone is the same thing as having your church membership removed, thus forfeiting any eternal blessings that come with baptism? They are not the same thing.

 

Why keep an inactive on the roles forever? Because at baptism people receive saving ordinances in addition to church membership. As long as those 2 things are tied together it would seem likely that people may feel good about having the ordinances done. Why is keeping them on the roles, even when not participating a waste of resources? If you honor their wishes to not be contacted you are not wasting any time or resources.

 

Sometimes the efficiency of managing a ward is secondary to honoring the person who is less active and giving them the time and space they desire. Things can change over time. Some people may even respond well to being harrassed, but some don't. So why not be respectful of their wishes without encouraging them to resign their membership which also cancels their ordinances?

You are not understanding that visiting them HELPS them.

 

They advance.  Ordinances are not magic amulets to be possessed like magic beans - if they desire ordinances they can receive them on the other side if they want to.

 

We are doing the best we can to help them, and it works.  You seem to have missed that.  You are so worried about leaving them alone that you do not understand that that is not helping them advance in the gospel. Visits work.

 

Members do not typically "stop by" randomly. In my experience they work from lists generated by leaders indicating those the leaders think may benefit from a visit.

 

Young women do not go out knocking on random doors.   That is hardly part of the program.  

 

We have exhausted this discussion.  Visits work.  If you want to leave these folks along you will never know that.  Keep worrying about it.  It will get you nowhere.

[mfbukowski]

If I'm on board with the "facts" your personal testimony means nothing on my path of belief, just as when you are on board with your testimony and my "facts" are meaningless on your path of belief.  Everyone is like that "my testimony/facts/experience trumps yours, because it's mine yours, is just a claim/story/delusion.   ( I am using this smiley as a shrug )

So?  Your point?

[saemo]

For the exact same reason you think your experience trumps everybody else.

Are you trying to pick a fight or something? Because I've never claimed any such thing.

I see the value of seeing God in every experience. I think it is a good thing, actually. But that doesn't mean I am required to believe what other people claim to have experienced. Likewise, I don't believe anyone is required to believe what I experience.

That doesn't mean I don't express what I think or believe. Seems to me that is what dialogue is about.

Edited October 15, 2015 by saemo

[Mars]

in utah, i was able to get my neighbors to accept home teaching.  they were certainly on the 'do not contact' list.

 

it grew organically.  i would help him mow his yard.  i'd sit there and talk sports while he smoked.  i listened to him when he talked.  i never once complained about their dogs and went out of my way to talk to the people they had over as friends.  i learned names.  i honestly cared.  i invited them to one of my kids' blessings.  they came.  every day i was saying hello and chit chatting with them and being genuinely interested in their lives and hoping they had good things happen to them.

 

about 3 years later someone from church called me.  they knew i was their neighbor.  they had been assigned the difficult task of giving the less-active-do-not-contact-me neighbors the new 3rd hour manuals for Relief Society and Priesthood.  they asked me what they should do.  i told them it would be a colossally stupid idea to show up on their doorstep with a manual and expect it to go well.  my neighbors weren't hostile, they just would've flatly refused and gone on with their day.  so instead i went over with the brother and knocked.

 

they let the two of us in.  after shooting the breeze i got down to business and said what our intentions were.  we had the new manuals, and we would like to begin home teaching them.  i told them i wanted to come over once a month, have a prayer, and a church message as well as a little more familiar "how are you guys doing with life?" conversation.  the invitation was accepted.  they knew i cared.

 

i would love to say that they turned their lives completely into a new direction and are now temple ready and so forth.  i've moved away and have lost track of them.  but for a few months, they heard the Gospel in their home and prayed with me and heard me pray with them.

 

do not call list sounds more like a "don't let anyone who doesn't care about them approach them" list.

 

We will not be effective until we learn to have sympathy for all of our Father’s children. People can feel when love is extended to them. Many yearn for it. When we sympathize with their feelings, they in turn will reciprocate and extend goodwill to us. We will have made a friend. And as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “Whom can I teach but my friends?”

[Jeanne]

in utah, i was able to get my neighbors to accept home teaching.  they were certainly on the 'do not contact' list.

 

it grew organically.  i would help him mow his yard.  i'd sit there and talk sports while he smoked.  i listened to him when he talked.  i never once complained about their dogs and went out of my way to talk to the people they had over as friends.  i learned names.  i honestly cared.  i invited them to one of my kids' blessings.  they came.  every day i was saying hello and chit chatting with them and being genuinely interested in their lives and hoping they had good things happen to them.

 

about 3 years later someone from church called me.  they knew i was their neighbor.  they had been assigned the difficult task of giving the less-active-do-not-contact-me neighbors the new 3rd hour manuals for Relief Society and Priesthood.  they asked me what they should do.  i told them it would be a colossally stupid idea to show up on their doorstep with a manual and expect it to go well.  my neighbors weren't hostile, they just would've flatly refused and gone on with their day.  so instead i went over with the brother and knocked.

 

they let the two of us in.  after shooting the breeze i got down to business and said what our intentions were.  we had the new manuals, and we would like to begin home teaching them.  i told them i wanted to come over once a month, have a prayer, and a church message as well as a little more familiar "how are you guys doing with life?" conversation.  the invitation was accepted.  they knew i cared.

 

i would love to say that they turned their lives completely into a new direction and are now temple ready and so forth.  i've moved away and have lost track of them.  but for a few months, they heard the Gospel in their home and prayed with me and heard me pray with them.

 

do not call list sounds more like a "don't let anyone who doesn't care about them approach them" list.

I really commend you for letting them be who they are...Actually a do not call just means they are so tired of testimonies..it doesn't do any good and they want to have real friends..not assigned.  Your case is a good exception.  Whether you home teach or not...they have found a genuine friendship..that is LDS!

Edited October 15, 2015 by Jeanne

[Mars]

I really commend you for letting them be who they are...Actually a do not call just means they are so tired of testimonies..it doesn't do any good and they want to have real friends..not assigned.  Your case is a good exception.  Whether you home teach or not...they have found a genuine friendship..that is LDS!

 

very kind of you to say!  if i may disagree, though, i don't think it's that much of an exception.  (at least, i hope not.)

 

i don't think you can ask someone to be a new person (i.e. convert) unless they have a testimony.  i was always going to love them and be their friend.  they were pleasant human beings who shared interests with me.  that part came easy.

 

i had it in mind to inspire and call them to progress.  but not until after i had invited them to get a testimony on their own.  whether or not they did so was all up to them.  the friendship part was separate and not at all related to my Gospel invitations.

[Spammer]

I'm still on church records, but haven't attended an LDS church as an active member for over 20 years.  I'm now a baptized member of another church.  I'm fine with having an LDS friend over for a visit, so long as they're ok with seeing me with a beer in my hand when I answer the door.  Ward member visits to my home are infrequent, though. Invariably, when someone does ring the doorbell, they ask how I am and if I need anything.  I always say 'no, I'm doing great.'  When asked if I'd be open to future visits I always say 'sure, anytime, just be aware that I attend a different church now, don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and am immune to testimony bearing, but if you just want to come over and hang, fine by me.'  I always try to let people know those facts as kindly as possible, but I guess that's why the visits are infrequent and will likely remain so, as long as I keep my name on church records.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Spammer

[HappyJackWagon]

You are not understanding that visiting them HELPS them.

 

They advance.  Ordinances are not magic amulets to be possessed like magic beans - if they desire ordinances they can receive them on the other side if they want to.

 

We are doing the best we can to help them, and it works.  You seem to have missed that.  You are so worried about leaving them alone that you do not understand that that is not helping them advance in the gospel. Visits work.

 

Members do not typically "stop by" randomly. In my experience they work from lists generated by leaders indicating those the leaders think may benefit from a visit.

 

Young women do not go out knocking on random doors.   That is hardly part of the program.  

 

We have exhausted this discussion.  Visits work.  If you want to leave these folks along you will never know that.  Keep worrying about it.  It will get you nowhere.

Well, since you say so. I guess the discussion is over.

 

Then again, maybe not.

Visits always work? That has not been my experience. If they don't always work then that means they sometimes fail. That means that sometimes they could backfire and have a detrimental effect and maybe even drive the person farther away.

 

What I find distasteful is the idea that "we know best" so they are going to get our help whether they want it or not. We are going to ignore the request to not visit and we're going to do it anyway because it's best. It's condescending at least.

 

Apply this "we know what's good for you" mentality to other situations. Do you support authorities going against your will because they know what's best?

 

- The school wants to teach your middle schooler about 0ral s3x because they know what's best for your child, even if though you're opposed. So you choose to opt your child out of that class but they won't let you. But it's okay because they know best and it works (according to them)

 

- Your boss offers you a promotion to a different position but it's in a different state with a higher cost of living and the raise in income won't compensate. You're not interested in moving. The employer says you are doing it anyway because it's best for you. How are you going to feel about that employer?

 

People have agency. The individual uses their agency to define how they will interact with the church but you are suggesting it is okay to usurp that agency because the individual just doesn't know what's best for them. We wouldn't accept that kind of behavior at work or at school or anywhere else in society, yet you are suggesting it is good and for the best...discussion over.

 

I think that approach is extremely disrespectful of a person's agency and I believe it can do more harm than good. But you can do what you want. I think the topic is worthy of additional consideration.

[Jeanne]

very kind of you to say!  if i may disagree, though, i don't think it's that much of an exception.  (at least, i hope not.)

 

i don't think you can ask someone to be a new person (i.e. convert) unless they have a testimony.  i was always going to love them and be their friend.  they were pleasant human beings who shared interests with me.  that part came easy.

 

i had it in mind to inspire and call them to progress.  but not until after i had invited them to get a testimony on their own.  whether or not they did so was all up to them.  the friendship part was separate and not at all related to my Gospel invitations.

i respect how you feel.  See..we can remain friends with out without all the lessons.  I am sure that you are inspiring no matter what.

[thesometimesaint]

While some few may not ever rejoin or get active in the Church. I do believe it is worth the effort. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink no matter how much you salt the oats.

[cinepro]

The hypocrisy of anti-Mormons and progressive (regressive if you ask me) Mormons knows no bounds.

 

On the one hand they ask beliving Latter-day Saints to simply accept their claims and demands based on the "lived experience" of women and gays etc.  Yet on the other they consistently deny OUR lived experience of the True Gospel restored in the Latter-days.  We KNOW God lives because of our lived experiences with the Holy Ghost.  We KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet because of the many blessings brought to our lives through that knowledge.

 

So from now on when anyone asks me to accept their sin as legitimate simply because it is a "lived experience" I will simply reply by stating that my lived experience is different and must also be seen as true and legitimate.  Not only that but my lived experience trumps theirs because God, and not the influence of Satan, is on my side.

 

The more we can co-opt the propogandastic language of "progressives" the sooner we can turn the tables and start pushing back against the increasing harrassment, belittlement, and persecution of those with a testimony of the Restored Gospel.

 

I don't think they are denying your lived experience.  They just don't believe you.

Edited October 15, 2015 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Well, since you say so. I guess the discussion is over.

 

Then again, maybe not.

Visits always work? That has not been my experience. If they don't always work then that means they sometimes fail. That means that sometimes they could backfire and have a detrimental effect and maybe even drive the person farther away.

 

What I find distasteful is the idea that "we know best" so they are going to get our help whether they want it or not. We are going to ignore the request to not visit and we're going to do it anyway because it's best. It's condescending at least.

 

Apply this "we know what's good for you" mentality to other situations. Do you support authorities going against your will because they know what's best?

 

- The school wants to teach your middle schooler about 0ral s3x because they know what's best for your child, even if though you're opposed. So you choose to opt your child out of that class but they won't let you. But it's okay because they know best and it works (according to them)

 

- Your boss offers you a promotion to a different position but it's in a different state with a higher cost of living and the raise in income won't compensate. You're not interested in moving. The employer says you are doing it anyway because it's best for you. How are you going to feel about that employer?

 

People have agency. The individual uses their agency to define how they will interact with the church but you are suggesting it is okay to usurp that agency because the individual just doesn't know what's best for them. We wouldn't accept that kind of behavior at work or at school or anywhere else in society, yet you are suggesting it is good and for the best...discussion over.

 

I think that approach is extremely disrespectful of a person's agency and I believe it can do more harm than good. But you can do what you want. I think the topic is worthy of additional consideration.

Baloney- false analogies.

 

Read Mars posts.  You care about people, they respond.  If they throw you off the porch, you stay away, but try once a year or so.  Everything changes eventually if they know you genuinely care.   They can always remove their names if they want to.

 

Sure you can invent hypothetical counter examples all day long but what works is caring about people.

[jkwilliams]

Well, since you say so. I guess the discussion is over.

 

Then again, maybe not.

Visits always work? That has not been my experience. If they don't always work then that means they sometimes fail. That means that sometimes they could backfire and have a detrimental effect and maybe even drive the person farther away.

 

What I find distasteful is the idea that "we know best" so they are going to get our help whether they want it or not. We are going to ignore the request to not visit and we're going to do it anyway because it's best. It's condescending at least.

No, visits don't always work. My dad was telling me about his overzealous HP group leader, who assigned my dad to home teach someone who had been on the no-contact list for quite some time. My dad had talked to this guy years before, and the man had made it clear he didn't want any visits. The new HP group leader assigned my dad to home teach him, and my dad said no. So, they got my priests quorum adviser to visit him. When he came back, he told the HP group leader he wasn't going back and neither should anyone else. The group leader was angry and asked why not. My adviser said, "Would you go back if you had a .38 revolver shoved up your nose?"

[Mars]

i respect how you feel.  See..we can remain friends with out without all the lessons.  I am sure that you are inspiring no matter what.

 

oh stop.  my head is inflated as it is.    (but seriously thank you for your kind words)

[Mars]

No, visits don't always work. My dad was telling me about his overzealous HP group leader, who assigned my dad to home teach someone who had been on the no-contact list for quite some time. My dad had talked to this guy years before, and the man had made it clear he didn't want any visits. The new HP group leader assigned my dad to home teach him, and my dad said no. So, they got my priests quorum adviser to visit him. When he came back, he told the HP group leader he wasn't going back and neither should anyone else. The group leader was angry and asked why not. My adviser said, "Would you go back if you had a .38 revolver shoved up your nose?"

 

there are a lot of stories of "let's solve this with brute force effort!" leadership attempts.  my dad has a similar story, though he actually went and there was no gun but a lot of words that rhyme with 'duck' and end with 'off' or 'off my porch'.  the Book of Mormon my dad took over to their house wound up in the street, but i can't say who threw it.

 

it's unfortunate.  but it's understandable.

 

we do a horrible job with our home teaching and visiting teaching.  i'm just guessing, here, but a significant chunk of people who don't come to church could probably use a visit.  leaders see poor attendance and even poorer home teaching and visiting teaching numbers among the people who are supposedly receptive and they think it's time to drop the hammer.  and they gather up all the authority they can muster and they push on in vigor and sole-mindedness "we shall obtain!" and sometimes it fails miserably.  i prefer the patient, long game, myself.  but i've never been "president" anything at church.