Encourage discussion

[stemelbow]

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings? 

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Edited April 28, 2016 by stemelbow

[Duncan]

i'm sure it's fine

[bluebell]

I'm not sure what being a priesthood holder has to do with it.  Either you, as her husband, will worry about the meetings or you won't.  How do you feel about them?  Are you concerned?

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings?  Should I direct her to stop, being the priesthood holder an all that?

Thanks for your thoughts. 

What are your current feelings about the meetings? What is your current inclination as to what to do? What (and why, and how) does your being a priesthood holder have to do with it?

Edited April 28, 2016 by CV75

[BlueDreams]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings?  Should I direct her to stop, being the priesthood holder an all that?

Thanks for your thoughts. 

I don't know. I've been in mixed groups and am fine. Discussions can be helpful but it would definitely depend on tone and expectations. And I don't know what that has in the group your wife is in.

i do know the last one would be unrighteous dominion as described in scripture. So no to the last one 

with luv, 

bd

Edited April 28, 2016 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

I see I didn't say enough about my take.  And I admit that priesthood holder comment was tongue in cheek.  I guess one of the ladies had her husband try and force her to not talk openly and not talk to ex-LDS by alluding to his priesthood power. I wouldn't have any desire to coerce my wife to stop something.

Here's my take:  I like it.  As a result she has reported some pretty harsh things being said about the Church by some, but it seems everyone's taking it just fine.  She opposes the idea, much like myself, that we should for some reason shut people out who are assertive or proselytizing in their efforts against the Church, or at least shut them out when they do so.  She wants to hear and reason with people.  Anyway, she's in a place that is different from me in a sense.  She kind wants out of the Church.  I want in.  I could see her leaving, but the pull to stay is really strong.  I want the best for her and for her to be happy.  I encourage her to make her own path.  If she leaves, she leaves.  She might be stronger in the long run because of it.  After all, we're supposed to kind of let the process of making weak things become strong to us, no?   I don't fear truth and letting people run their course, on their own terms. 

But in light of the recent suggestion to disconnect from proselytizing and assertive comments opposing the Church, I figure I'd explore further how that would work.

 

[thesometimesaint]

If someone is looking for an excuse to do something any will do.

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings?  Should I direct her to stop, being the priesthood holder an all that?

Thanks for your thoughts. 

What is the motivation of these ex-LDS women, and somewhat disaffected LDS women (you euphemistically call them 'less participating'), want to "chat" about with active members?  Perhaps be persuaded to come back into full fellowship with the Church? I doubt it. What is your wife's motivation to participate in this group? To help those who have lost --or are loosing -- their faith to come back to the fold? If so, one might be persuaded to not be against it. But if she's going there to join in on the negativity of these former and wavering members  -- negativity that will almost surely come to pass -- I"d say she should run swiftly in the other direction. Attempting to reclaim lost sheep is good, but being ambivalent or indifferent about reclaiming the Lord's lost sheep is not so good.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[JAHS]

When you start to see a change to the negative in your wife's attitude towards the church or a weakening of testimony or advocating doctrines not approved by the church, then you might want to have a serious discussion with her about it. But you don't need to invoke priesthood authority, just voice your concerns.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What is the motivation of these ex-LDS women, and somewhat disaffected LDS women (you euphemistically call them 'less participating'), want to "chat" about with active members?  Perhaps be persuaded to come back into full fellowship with the Church? I doubt it. What is your wife's motivation to participate in this group? To help those who have lost --or are loosing -- their faith to come back to the fold? If so, one might be persuaded to not be against it. But if she's going there to join in on the negativity of these former and wavering members  -- negativity that will almost surely come to pass -- I"d say she should run swiftly in the other direction. Attempting to reclaim lost sheep is good, but being ambivalent or indifferent about reclaiming the Lord's lost sheep is not so good.

Her motivation is two-fold as far as she's let on.

She wants to help others, be there for them.

She wants to have a place where she can openly discuss things.  She's tried and Church and with ward friends only to be treated poorly and rudely.  She, like me, sees fear in Church members when it comes to open and thoughtful discussion.  She doesn't want to continue to breed fear.  She needs a place to openly discuss, which she has with me and some others, but I think in a woman setting also helps. 

[bluebell]

If she is fine with losing her testimony and leaving the church then she doesn't have anything to lose by participating. 

It seems it was that concern that prompted Elder Clayton to say what he did about disconnecting. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

When you start to see a change to the negative in your wife's attitude towards the church or a weakening of testimony or advocating doctrines not approved by the church, then you might want to have a serious discussion with her about it. But you don't need to invoke priesthood authority, just voice your concerns.

We've filled our lives with discussions about life and Church.  Of course she has some negative ideas about the Church.  Don't we all, to some extent or another?  I don't see a need to fear her explorations at all, though.  That'd be foreign to me.  I would need to be convinced there should be a reason to fear any of this. 

I think it's possible in the near future she may find herself out of the church.  She's pretty bored with Church generally, and finds the environment a little inhospitable for her.  But I'm the same in that regard.  Another part of this is we each don't see much use in creating too many categories to put people in.  The whole they are ex-LDS and are assertive in their opinions about the Church therefore we need to be weary of them, doesn't resonate well.  People are interesting and need to be listened to, and it feels we need more open thoughtful dialogue, not necessarily for ourselves (because ultimately we could all shut others out and be fine enough) but for the sake of truth and goodness. 

[RevTestament]

The purpose of priesthood authority is to speak and act on God's behalf - not to limit discussion about truth or limit agency. 

I would generally view this as an opportunity to talk with my wife and offer my experiences and views on the various subjects.

I have widely varying views from the general membership on some issues such as the nature of God, and often interpret scripture differently than others. If my wife were to attempt to limit my meeting with someone, I would view that as an affront to my agency. She has always been supportive of me even if she disagrees with me on some subjects, and for that I love her. We discuss our differing views during family home evenings, and scripture reading, and why we each believe the way we do - in front of our children. I try to encourage our children to understand these things for themselves, pray about them, etc, and they don't always agree with me either... I do not wish to force anything to do with the gospel upon anyone...ever. 

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would need to be convinced there should be a reason to fear any of this. 

Isn't that what I said?

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

My wife has started meeting with some other ladies (how sexist of them) to talk about different things about life including their issues with the Church.  They are a mix of active LDS, ex-LDS and less participating, shall we say. 

What is your take?  should I fear the results of these meetings?  Should I direct her to stop, being the priesthood holder an all that?

Thanks for your thoughts. 

Which "issues" are they discussing?

They have every right to meet, but they might draw attention if their group grows in numbers.  My sister was involved in a group (started out as a book club, but evolved into women in her ward and adjoining wards mainly discussing problems they have after learning some details regarding church history and reading books about this).  She had the Relief Society president show up on her doorstep asking some question about these meetings (she'd been asked to do this by the Bishop).  They are still meeting, but feel they are being watched. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which "issues" are they discussing?

They have every right to meet, but they might draw attention if their group grows in numbers.  My sister was involved in a group (started out as a book club, but evolved into women in her ward and adjoining wards mainly discussing problems they have after learning some details regarding church history and reading books about this).  She had the Relief Society president show up on her doorstep asking some question about these meetings (she'd been asked to do this by the Bishop).  They are still meeting, but feel they are being watched. 

The issues are anything any member wishes to discuss, it sounds like.  Anything.  I mean women's issues crop up often, history, the latest things said by leaders, occasional notable events at Church or in family as it might pertain.  This is good because it's women from different areas--meaning no one in this little group is from our ward or stake.  She's probably mentioned that she meets with friends to some other friends in the ward and that might concern them some because they are already skeptical of her, but I doubt it'll escalate beyond that--no one will watch them, I think. 

[stemelbow]

I took the priesthood line out.  I meant it tongue in cheek, if you will, and it just gave the wrong impression.  Please ignore. 

[Boanerges]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She wants to have a place where she can openly discuss things.  She's tried and Church and with ward friends only to be treated poorly and rudely.  She, like me, sees fear in Church members when it comes to open and thoughtful discussion.  She doesn't want to continue to breed fear.  She needs a place to openly discuss, which she has with me and some others, but I think in a woman setting also helps. 

The part quoted above is essential I think. I participate over at StayLDS. Almost to a person there, the biggest reason they are there is because they need somewhere to talk about their concerns/questions. I have had the poor and rude treatment as well when trying to discuss questions. Perhaps it's just out of fear, nevertheless the questions persist and the angst increases as one continues to have nobody to discuss the issues with. I see only the positives in having these types of discussions unless they do turn openly hostile toward the church with the aim of damaging or demeaning the testimonies and beliefs of others.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The issues are anything any member wishes to discuss, it sounds like.  Anything.  I mean women's issues crop up often, history, the latest things said by leaders, occasional notable events at Church or in family as it might pertain.  This is good because it's women from different areas--meaning no one in this little group is from our ward or stake.  She's probably mentioned that she meets with friends to some other friends in the ward and that might concern them some because they are already skeptical of her, but I doubt it'll escalate beyond that--no one will watch them, I think. 

My sister said that one of the husbands went in and talked to the Bishop about his concerns with his wife being in this book club. I feel he should have kept it between him and his wife because it really upset and embarrassed his wife that this happened.  Maybe the husband had tried this, but was still concerned, I don't know.  I don't really know all the details other than this.

My sister is very active in the church, but does have her questions and issues regarding some of what she's recently learned about some events and details from church history.  I think many of their group discussions are focusing on this.  I suggested reading the essays as part of their reading and I think they're doing this.

I do believe that many do not feel comfortable bringing these topics up at church, so I understand wanting to get together where they feel they can discuss things.

 

.

Edited April 28, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

My wife is a wonderful person in virtually all respects.  She is a joy to have in my life, and I am grateful for my relationship with her.

She is not, however, utterly without flaw or defect.  She has her foibles.  But she is at her core a good and decent and beautiful person.

If a stranger, or even perhaps some general-but-not-particularly-close acquaintance of mine, were to come to me and ask that I sit down and listen to him outline what he dislikes about my wife, what my wife's flaws were, etc., I would decline.  That would not be due to my wife being perfect, but rather that it is not the place of some self-selected yahoo to presume to tell me what he dislikes about my wife (let alone presume to propose telling me such things on a regular basis).  There would be no good faith in that.  Even if some of the things this fellow had to say about my wife were true, I have no doubt that regular meetings with him would quickly devolve into a faultfinding gripefest, would be devoid of goodwill toward my wife or a desire to help her improve, and would not have the Spirit present.

Now, if someone I knew and trusted very well came to me and, in a spirit of genuine love and concern and care for both me and my wife, advised me that he had observed a particular defect in my wife's character, or that he had information about some prior misconduct on her part, I would probably find that a bit weird and presumptuous.  But if I had enough trust in the person and in his motives and competency, I would probably sit down and listen to what he had to say.  

But if this fellow proposed that he would like to make it a regular habit for him to come sit with me and regularly discuss and explore my wife's flaws and transgressions, well, I would not countenance that.  I am not a moron.  I know my wife well, far better than an outsider ever would or could.  I would see no value in regularly meeting with such a person.  Even if this person asked me to do it because regularly criticizing my wife would be a cathartic and helpful exercise for him, I would not do it.  I think such a proposal would be profoundly unhealthy.  Cancerous, even.  

If and when my wife develops some flaw or commits some transgression that merits discussion or correction, I would address it in the proper time and place and manner.  I would meet with her.  I would meet with those who have stewardship over her, people whom I trust and know have motives of concern and kindness and Christlike love for her.  I would work with such persons to discern and discuss the truth of what has happened, to affect repentance if necessary, and to implement steps to ensure that the misconduct or flaw is not repeated in the future.  Meeting with people who harbor malice toward my wife, and who desire to injure or destroy my relationship with her, could never be part of that process.

I love my wife.  She is good and decent and true.  She is what she claims to be.  I have a covenant relationship with her.  I owe her my allegiance.  I would not betray her faith and confidence by inviting and participating in discussions with people hell-bent on making me think ill of her, of harming or destroying my relationship with her.

Now, having said all that, go back and re-read the foregoing paragraphs and replace the references to my wife with references to the Church.  That's how I would feel about the proposal in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

if the discussion is about the church no worries, if the topic turns to husbands, no good can come of it!

[JAHS]

I remember my parents being involved in study groups back in the 50' and 60's. Then the church started to issue concerns about such groups because some were not sticking with approved church doctrines. An older Church Handbook had the following regarding study groups:

“Church members should not participate in groups that:

Challenge religious and moral values or advocate unwarranted confrontation with spouse or family members as a means of reaching one's potential.
Imitate sacred rites or ceremonies.
Meet late into the evening or in the early-morning hours.
Encourage open confession or disclosure of personal information normally discussed only in confidential settings
Cause a husband and wife to be paired with other partners." (CHI 1998)

These warnings no-long appear in the most recent CHI. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My wife is a wonderful person in virtually all respects.  She is a joy to have in my life, and I am grateful for my relationship with her.

She is not, however, utterly without flaw or defect.  She has her foibles.  But she is at her core a good and decent and beautiful person.

If a stranger, or even perhaps some general-but-not-particularly-close acquaintance of mine, were to come to me and ask that I sit down and listen to him outline what he dislikes about my wife, what my wife's flaws were, etc., I would decline.  That would not be due to my wife being perfect, but rather that it is not the place of some self-selected yahoo to presume to tell me what he dislikes about my wife (let alone presume to propose telling me such things on a regular basis).  There would be no good faith in that.  Even if some of the things this fellow had to say about my wife were true, I have no doubt that regular meetings with him would quickly devolve into a faultfinding gripefest, would be devoid of goodwill toward my wife or a desire to help her improve, and would not have the Spirit present.

Now, if someone I knew and trusted very well came to me and, in a spirit of genuine love and concern and care for both me and my wife, advised me that he had observed a particular defect in my wife's character, or that he had information about some prior misconduct on her part, I would probably find that a bit weird and presumptuous.  But if I had enough trust in the person and in his motives and competency, I would probably sit down and listen to what he had to say.  

But if this fellow proposed that he would like to make it a regular habit for him to come sit with me and regularly discuss and explore my wife's flaws and transgressions, well, I would not countenance that.  I am not a moron.  I know my wife well, far better than an outsider ever would or could.  I would see no value in regularly meeting with such a person.  Even if this person asked me to do it because regularly criticizing my wife would be a cathartic and helpful exercise for him, I would not do it.  I think such a proposal would be profoundly unhealthy.  Cancerous, even.  

If and when my wife develops some flaw or commits some transgression that merits discussion or correction, I would address it in the proper time and place and manner.  I would meet with her.  I would meet with those who have stewardship over her, people whom I trust and know have motives of concern and kindness and Christlike love for her.  I would work with such persons to discern and discuss the truth of what has happened, to affect repentance if necessary, and to implement steps to ensure that the misconduct or flaw is not repeated in the future.  Meeting with people who harbor malice toward my wife, and who desire to injure or destroy my relationship with her, could never be part of that process.

I love my wife.  She is good and decent and true.  She is what she claims to be.  I have a covenant relationship with her.  I owe her my allegiance.  I would not betray her faith and confidence by inviting and participating in discussions with people hell-bent on making me think ill of her, of harming or destroying my relationship with her.

Now, having said all that, go back and re-read the foregoing paragraphs and replace the references to my wife with references to the Church.  That's how I would feel about the proposal in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting perspective.  I personally can't see discussing doctrines and history of the Church as the same as discussing a person and in so doing harping on someone's weakness.  The Church's teachings and ideas promoted through church should be open to discuss.  But instead we treat her like she needs to be protected from the market place of ideas lest, if we allowed open thought and discussion, someone tries to damage her.  That seems fearful.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, salgare said:

if the discussion is about the church no worries, if the topic turns to husbands, no good can come of it!

I'd rep ya, but, well...you know.

My wife is way too sweet to say something negative about me to another, behind my back. 

[Mystery Meat]

I don't get the need to talk about issues with the church openly and with other people. I have my issues, questions and concerns as do most other people. But for some, negativity/drama truly is like oxygen. Couldn't survive without it.