Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[Johnnie Cake]

Yesterday I attended a gathering of what I’ll refer to as transitioning Mormons.  A group of people consisting of every demographic one would expect to find on the Mormon belief spectrum including resigned Mormon’s, In the process of resigning Mormon’s, inactive/non believing/non-attending Mormon’s, non-believing but still attending Mormon’s and questioning/doubting but still attending Mormon’s.  Some like myself, were veterans of having faced and dealt with the ramifications of a Mormon faith crisis while others were just beginning the process of discovering that the Mormon narrative was in reality more messy and complicated with many loose ends than the promoted correlated narrative that the church teaches. Within the group there were former bishopric members, high council members, primary presidents, elder’s quorum presidents, young men and young woman presidents as well as your average salt of the earth members.  Truly the finest the church has to offer. The group consisted of every social economic demographic one would expect to find along the Wasatch front ranging from financially successful to those less fortunate.  In other words it was a board cross section of what one would find with in a sampling of the wards along the Wasatch front.  The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Along the Wasatch front there are dozens of such groups meeting weekly.  When added to groups from around the world, there are hundreds of such support groups meeting weekly.

During this informal gathering attendees were allowed to ask questions, vent frustrations, process their Mormon experience without judgment and share their individual stories.  Many of these people are hurting, others are still angry with discovering the messiness of Mormonism’s truth claims. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre, but I also understood where they were coming from…having experienced much of what many expressed. 

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions.

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize that many of the questions these people agonize over and are concerned with, that lead to a faith crisis, do have answers, while not necessarily all believable or satisfactory, but at least there is something that provides a safe harbor where belief could be maintain under the right frame of mind.  But the task that the church faces in reaching these lost sheep is overwhelming and is getting even more so with the passage of each day.  It is a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  Bishops are already overwhelmed in their current duties just addressing the needs of believers and the youth. And for understandable reasons their support leaders ,such as home teachers, EQ leadership and HP leaders, all seem ill equipped to address the specific needs of this doubting member demographic.

As I listened to the stories I thought...many of these lost souls could still be benefitted by participation in the church but the current organization is ill prepare to deal with them.  I then thought that what the church needs is a new set of educated, informed, apologetic missionaries assigned to every stake in the church…who have been brought up to speed on every concern and issue that impacts those who doubt....perhaps missionaries taught by the members of the MD&D posting community.

The problems as I see it is that by getting your average member up to the level necessary to be able to  address the needs and concerns of these people…the church would actually risk losing these same believers to the group they are attempting to save. They risk breaking other mental shelves...so the process is a complete mine field of unknown concerns...due to so many harboring their own mental back burner issues.

So should the church go after the 1 or stay with the 99? Should they even risk the attempt? Are these former believers even worth the effort it would take to attempt such a massive task?

I know from having met with several GA’s myself that whatever the church is currently doing is not working…at least not for those who are in the throes of a faith crisis.  Anyway thought I's share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

The Church should do all it can to accommodate people, I say.  I think major shifts will have to come in the Church for it to maintain in the future.  Openness will be key. Making room for all kinds of people will have to happen.  Those will flip the current church on its head, I think, and might in the short term cause the Church to really struggle.  But doing this will also reach far more people.  We're so concerned about structure and dogma adherence right now, we're causing problems.  The Church has historically been really slow to adapt to truth.  that'll have to change too, and I'm hopeful it will. 

Absolutely people are worth it, each person is. 

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yesterday I attended a gathering of what I’ll refer to as transitioning Mormons.  A group of people consisting of every demographic one would expect to find on the Mormon belief spectrum including resigned Mormon’s, In the process of resigning Mormon’s, inactive/non believing/non-attending Mormon’s, non-believing but still attending Mormon’s and questioning/doubting but still attending Mormon’s.  Some like myself, were veterans of having faced and dealt with the ramifications of a Mormon faith crisis while others were just beginning the process of discovering that the Mormon narrative was in reality more messy and complicated with many loose ends than the promoted correlated narrative that the church teaches. Within the group there were former bishopric members, high council members, primary presidents, elder’s quorum presidents, young men and young woman presidents as well as your average salt of the earth members.  Truly the finest the church has to offer. The group consisted of every social economic demographic one would expect to find along the Wasatch front ranging from financially successful to those less fortunate.  In other words it was a board cross section of what one would find with in a sampling of the wards along the Wasatch front.  The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Along the Wasatch front there are dozens of such groups meeting weekly.  When added to groups from around the world, there are hundreds of such support groups meeting weekly.

During this informal gathering attendees were allowed to ask questions, vent frustrations, process their Mormon experience without judgment and share their individual stories.  Many of these people are hurting, others are still angry with discovering the messiness of Mormonism’s truth claims. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre, but I also understood where they were coming from…having experienced much of what many expressed. 

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions.

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize that many of the questions these people agonize over and are concerned with, that lead to a faith crisis, do have answers, while not necessarily all believable or satisfactory, but at least there is something that provides a safe harbor where belief could be maintain under the right frame of mind.  But the task that the church faces in reaching these lost sheep is overwhelming and is getting even more so with the passage of each day.  It is a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  Bishops are already overwhelmed in their current duties just addressing the needs of believers and the youth. And for understandable reasons their support leaders ,such as home teachers, EQ leadership and HP leaders, all seem ill equipped to address the specific needs of this doubting member demographic.

As I listened to the stories I thought...many of these lost souls could still be benefitted by participation in the church but the current organization is ill prepare to deal with them.  I then thought that what the church needs is a new set of educated, informed, apologetic missionaries assigned to every stake in the church…who have been brought up to speed on every concern and issue that impacts those who doubt....perhaps missionaries taught by the members of the MD&D posting community.

The problems as I see it is that by getting your average member up to the level necessary to be able to  address the needs and concerns of these people…the church would actually risk losing these same believers to the group they are attempting to save. They risk breaking other mental shelves...so the process is a complete mine field of unknown concerns...due to so many harboring their own mental back burner issues.

So should the church go after the 1 or stay with the 99? Should they even risk the attempt? Are these former believers even worth the effort it would take to attempt such a massive task?

I know from having met with several GA’s myself that whatever the church is currently doing is not working…at least not for those who are in the throes of a faith crisis.  Anyway thought I's share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC...thank you so much for giving me this info as I, too, wanted to attend but could not.  I hope others will appreciate and hold some value to what you have written.  That being said, a few on this board have laughed so easily at the small attendance of mass resignations.  In so many ways, I feel that those who are in any positions regarding the church in your post above..may simply not matter and after all is said and done..you know it is their fault.  But thank you..!

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church should do all it can to accommodate people, I say.  I think major shifts will have to come in the Church for it to maintain in the future.  Openness will be key. Making room for all kinds of people will have to happen.  Those will flip the current church on its head, I think, and might in the short term cause the Church to really struggle.  But doing this will also reach far more people.  We're so concerned about structure and dogma adherence right now, we're causing problems.  The Church has historically been really slow to adapt to truth.  that'll have to change too, and I'm hopeful it will. 

Absolutely people are worth it, each person is. 

I believe the church should have not put up the LDS Gospel Topic Essays with all the warts and should have kept a low profile, keep all the ex Mormons looking like they wanted to sin or were offended.

The fact that the church is transparent may just be their downfall. But maybe they want to weed out the truest LDS, such as the Refiner's Fire mentality. I believe the church wants to have members that have bulletproof testimonies. 

ETA: After reading my post it sounds kind of like I'm downing ex Mormons. But what I tried to do was show that what the church is doing might be exposing things a little too well now, and members will read the essays or learn of truth and it scares them off. I guess the church is up against the internet and must be as transparent as possible. And I guess that will leave them with the most stalwart members ever that know everything yet still believe.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church should do all it can to accommodate people, I say.  I think major shifts will have to come in the Church for it to maintain in the future.  Openness will be key. Making room for all kinds of people will have to happen.  Those will flip the current church on its head, I think, and might in the short term cause the Church to really struggle.  But doing this will also reach far more people.  We're so concerned about structure and dogma adherence right now, we're causing problems.  The Church has historically been really slow to adapt to truth.  that'll have to change too, and I'm hopeful it will.

Absolutely people are worth it, each person is.

I'd still like to know exactly what this means.
On the surface I both agree and disagree with it.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yesterday I attended a gathering of what I’ll refer to as transitioning Mormons.  A group of people consisting of every demographic one would expect to find on the Mormon belief spectrum including resigned Mormon’s, In the process of resigning Mormon’s, inactive/non believing/non-attending Mormon’s, non-believing but still attending Mormon’s and questioning/doubting but still attending Mormon’s.  Some like myself, were veterans of having faced and dealt with the ramifications of a Mormon faith crisis while others were just beginning the process of discovering that the Mormon narrative was in reality more messy and complicated with many loose ends than the promoted correlated narrative that the church teaches. Within the group there were former bishopric members, high council members, primary presidents, elder’s quorum presidents, young men and young woman presidents as well as your average salt of the earth members.  Truly the finest the church has to offer. The group consisted of every social economic demographic one would expect to find along the Wasatch front ranging from financially successful to those less fortunate.  In other words it was a board cross section of what one would find with in a sampling of the wards along the Wasatch front.  The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Along the Wasatch front there are dozens of such groups meeting weekly.  When added to groups from around the world, there are hundreds of such support groups meeting weekly.

During this informal gathering attendees were allowed to ask questions, vent frustrations, process their Mormon experience without judgment and share their individual stories.  Many of these people are hurting, others are still angry with discovering the messiness of Mormonism’s truth claims. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre, but I also understood where they were coming from…having experienced much of what many expressed. 

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions.

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize that many of the questions these people agonize over and are concerned with, that lead to a faith crisis, do have answers, while not necessarily all believable or satisfactory, but at least there is something that provides a safe harbor where belief could be maintain under the right frame of mind.  But the task that the church faces in reaching these lost sheep is overwhelming and is getting even more so with the passage of each day.  It is a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  Bishops are already overwhelmed in their current duties just addressing the needs of believers and the youth. And for understandable reasons their support leaders ,such as home teachers, EQ leadership and HP leaders, all seem ill equipped to address the specific needs of this doubting member demographic.

As I listened to the stories I thought...many of these lost souls could still be benefitted by participation in the church but the current organization is ill prepare to deal with them.  I then thought that what the church needs is a new set of educated, informed, apologetic missionaries assigned to every stake in the church…who have been brought up to speed on every concern and issue that impacts those who doubt....perhaps missionaries taught by the members of the MD&D posting community.

The problems as I see it is that by getting your average member up to the level necessary to be able to  address the needs and concerns of these people…the church would actually risk losing these same believers to the group they are attempting to save. They risk breaking other mental shelves...so the process is a complete mine field of unknown concerns...due to so many harboring their own mental back burner issues.

So should the church go after the 1 or stay with the 99? Should they even risk the attempt? Are these former believers even worth the effort it would take to attempt such a massive task?

I know from having met with several GA’s myself that whatever the church is currently doing is not working…at least not for those who are in the throes of a faith crisis.  Anyway thought I's share. 

Thanks Jonnie, really appreciate you sharing.  I had a conversation a few weeks back with my Stake President about this very topic.  What can we do to help those who are suffering from a faith crisis, provide some level of support for them, a place for them to feel safe and not judged, a place to validate their concerns and try and reach out to these people.  

I expressed that for those going through this kind of a crisis, it is just as real and perhaps just as challenging as other types of crisis that local church groups do a very good job helping people with.  Things like serious illnesses and accidents, death in the family, loss of employment, etc.  Local support during such times of crisis can be a very helpful thing, but for those suffering with loss of faith, there isn't a mechanism for support that is very helpful.  

My suggestion was to have a class offered where we walk through the church's essays in a safe environment where any questions and discussion is on the table and no-one is alienated or shamed for their questions.  He seemed open to this idea but said he wants to discuss with his Bishops and PEC to see what other ideas they have as well.  My personal experience and faith journey is that people need support and love and a person to talk with, and that local wards/stakes don't provide safe environments and support structures for these people.  

I believe the central church has chosen a strategy of trying to minimize the collateral damage largely by ignoring people going through faith crisis, by only offering bits and pieces of help to these people, but by not mainstreaming historical challenges and transparency because of their fear that it will only exacerbate the problems.  I believe this is a calculated strategy, one which I don't find morally acceptable, and one that I believe time will show was the wrong decision strategically.  

[Ahab]

Like it or not this time of mortal probation is a time for each one of us to learn about what we want out of life and who we should trust to help us.  I've been through hard times before and I came through it all, usually all the better educated for it, and I know enough to know Jesus is the only one who can possibly save us.  The rest of us, at best, are simply trying to become more like him and we wouldn't want people to come to us vs going to him.

[Johnnie Cake]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Jonnie, really appreciate you sharing.  I had a conversation a few weeks back with my Stake President about this very topic.  What can we do to help those who are suffering from a faith crisis, provide some level of support for them, a place for them to feel safe and not judged, a place to validate their concerns and try and reach out to these people.  

I expressed that for those going through this kind of a crisis, it is just as real and perhaps just as challenging as other types of crisis that local church groups do a very good job helping people with.  Things like serious illnesses and accidents, death in the family, loss of employment, etc.  Local support during such times of crisis can be a very helpful thing, but for those suffering with loss of faith, there isn't a mechanism for support that is very helpful.  

My suggestion was to have a class offered where we walk through the church's essays in a safe environment where any questions and discussion is on the table and no-one is alienated or shamed for their questions.  He seemed open to this idea but said he wants to discuss with his Bishops and PEC to see what other ideas they have as well.  My personal experience and faith journey is that people need support and love and a person to talk with, and that local wards/stakes don't provide safe environments and support structures for these people.  

I believe the central church has chosen a strategy of trying to minimize the collateral damage largely by ignoring people going through faith crisis, by only offering bits and pieces of help to these people, but by not mainstreaming historical challenges and transparency because of their fear that it will only exacerbate the problems.  I believe this is a calculated strategy, one which I don't find morally acceptable, and one that I believe time will show was the wrong decision strategically.  

I understand its a two edged sword...that in making the attempt to help... they risk exposing others to a faith crisis...but merely standing on the sidelines and playing like this is not a problem within the church is not going to resolve this problem.  To begin with I believe that the church first needs to acknowledge that they have a problem...and unless they can take that first step...this problem is only going to get worse....those in a faith crisis need to be told by someone inside the church that they are not crazy that they are justified in having doubts based on what they understand...but that yes there are answers...although not necessarily fully satisfactory in fully resolving their doubts but that at least can allow some to maintain faith.

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd still like to know exactly what this means.

Me too, honestly.  I'm not able to see the future so I'm kind of guessing and filling it in with platitude-type ideas. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

On the surface I both agree and disagree with it.

What's so disagreeable? 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What's so disagreeable?

The idea that doctrine should change to be more inclusive.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Thanks for your thoughts, Craig! I'll offer some of mine:

In my experience, there is a time window where people are able to be helped, and this time window is different for each individual. After this individual time window has passed, no amount of help will help --- regardless of the quality of the answers. It mostly has to do with feelings of betrayal and being deceived. I have had many examples in my life where people are not open to even good answers, but the most prominent one was the "Bremen apostasy." Two former bishops and a former stake presidency member left the Church, and a lot of members joined them in the late 1990s. Both my father and I were close to one of the main figures in it, and he was a spiritually-powerful man (I had a personal spiritual experience with him during the beginning time of his apostasy, so I know that there was still good in him at that time, and he was high councilor over Oldenburg and Wilhelmshaven while I was there). The concerns were garden-variety (translations of the Tanners' material), but the help took too long to get. A new mission president, a native German (the one following my second one), arranged a long conference call with the main figures with Dan Peterson, Brent Hall, and John Tvedtness. They completely answered all of their questions to their satisfaction (the men admitted that they were satisfied with the answers, and that they had no further questions), but it didn't ultimately matter for all but one of them. For that one, the meeting was a huge turnaround (the president told Dan, "You saved a soul yesterday"). Ultimately, it wasn't the answers and the details that mattered, after the feelings of betrayal and deceit had festered long enough.

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

I don't think it's that we're clueless in how to reach or support them (at least, not in all cases) so much as many have passed the time window I spoke about above. Getting them help in a timely manner is key. I've been able to do this in my sphere of influence, but that is limited, of course. Most recently, my stake had me meet with a brother with CES letter concerns. I told his bishop to plan on as much time as he needs, even if it takes days (I wanted him to know that I will take the time to go through all of his concerns with him. No Swedish Rescue brush-off!)

As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions.

Agreed. Here is what the mission president said about the Bremen Apostasy aftermath: "I remain convinced that had facts/knowledge been available during the time their concerns began, the mission could have forestalled much of the calamity that followed the excommunications and withdrawals from the Church. The poison had worked too long as unanswered concerns."

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize that many of the questions these people agonize over and are concerned with, that lead to a faith crisis, do have answers, while not necessarily all believable or satisfactory, but at least there is something that provides a safe harbor where belief could be maintain under the right frame of mind.  But the task that the church faces in reaching these lost sheep is overwhelming and is getting even more so with the passage of each day.  It is a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  Bishops are already overwhelmed in their current duties just addressing the needs of believers and the youth. And for understandable reasons their support leaders ,such as home teachers, EQ leadership and HP leaders, all seem ill equipped to address the specific needs of this doubting member demographic.

I think it's more a function of a) can we find the people? (many have gone inactive), and b) are they still open to an attempt to answer their questions?

As I listened to the stories I thought...many of these lost souls could still be benefitted by participation in the church but the current organization is ill prepare to deal with them.

I think this varies geographically.

I then thought that what the church needs is a new set of educated, informed, apologetic missionaries assigned to every stake in the church…who have been brought up to speed on every concern and issue that impacts those who doubt....perhaps missionaries taught by the members of the MD&D posting community.

I think this is much more powerful when it is genuinely local and not from imported "hired guns." This means that it won't be available in all areas.

 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I understand its a two edged sword...that in making the attempt to help... they risk exposing others to a faith crisis...but merely standing on the sidelines and playing like this is not a problem within the church is not going to resolve this problem.  To begin with I believe that the church first needs to acknowledge that they have a problem...and unless they can take that first step...this problem is only going to get worse....those in a faith crisis need to be told by someone inside the church that they are not crazy that they are justified in having doubts based on what they understand...but that yes there are answers...although not necessarily fully satisfactory in fully resolving their doubts but that at least can allow some to maintain faith.

I agree with you.  Some of that kind of very mature open and honest discussion and vulnerability could happen at any moment if any of the current 15 leaders had the courage to do this.  But I think they have agreed on their minimize the damage strategy.  

Think about this for a minute.  Lets assume that church leaders are acutely aware of the faith crisis problem in the church.  They've discussed the issue at multiple meetings for years, and have discussed the pros and cons on how to address this issue.  They are keenly aware of the number of people this is impacting, how its impacting their tithing revenue and how quickly its spreading.  They have access to all the statistics to validate these issues, and are moving forward with a very deliberate and calculated strategy on how they want to address this issue.  They believe that this strategy is the best way for them to minimize the impact and damage caused to the church as a whole.  This is why I don't think you'll see the kind of open discussion that you and I both want to see.  

They have all the information, they have discussed this issue for years and years, and prayed about and considered how to address this issue.  Their current strategy is what we're going to see until something significant changes that causes them to believe they need to change course.  Just like with blacks and the priesthood or polygamy, it took a significant pressure from external sources before the brethren were humble enough to consider change.  The structure of our hierarchy is organized in such as way, that change is very slow and difficult.  

[Ahab]

The main problem to be solved is: to whom should we go to be saved?

Seriously, that is the crux of the issue.

Someone at some Mormon recovery group, or someone in the Church, or to the only person we should go to be saved?

The Church doesn't and can not save us.

The Church is the people who are saved and we don't have anyone who can save us but Jesus.

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

In my experience, there is a time window where people are able to be helped, and this time window is different for each individual. After this individual time window has passed, no amount of help will help --- regardless of the quality of the answers. It mostly has to do with feelings of betrayal and being deceived. I have had many examples in my life where people are not open to even good answers, but the most prominent one was the "Bremen apostasy." Two former bishops and a former stake presidency member left the Church, and a lot of members joined them in the late 1990s. Both my father and I were close to one of the main figures in it, and he was a spiritually-powerful man (I had a personal spiritual experience with him during the beginning time of his apostasy, so I know that there was still good in him at that time, and he was high councilor over Oldenburg and Wilhelmshaven while I was there). The concerns were garden-variety (translations of the Tanners' material), but the help took too long to get. A new mission president, a native German (the one following my second one), arranged a long conference call with the main figures with Dan Peterson, Brent Hall, and John Tvedtness. They completely answered all of their questions to their satisfaction (the men admitted that they were satisfied with the answers, and that they had no further questions), but it didn't ultimately matter for all but one of them. For that one, the meeting was a huge turnaround (the president told Dan, "You saved a soul yesterday"). Ultimately, it wasn't the answers and the details that mattered, after the feelings of betrayal and deceit had festered long enough.

I'm struggling with this characterization, probably because I might fall into your definition of "apostasy", yet I'm currently an actively attending member.  I'm thinking you would consider that my time window has passed, yet I'm still engaging with my local ward and trying to do so in productive ways.  How would you characterize someone like myself, I definitely don't align with the apologetic perspectives of the Dan Peterson's of the word, and don't find his explanations satisfying to my intellect.  I tend to believe in God still, but am much closer to an agnostic or deistic view of God, yet I still am open to spiritual experiences.  

Your whole premise of a window of time where people can effectively be engaged I find very limiting and honestly an immature view that shows a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics.  I'd love to have a more expanded view of your perspective though, so if you could please elaborate that would be great.  

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm struggling with this characterization, probably because I might fall into your definition of "apostasy", yet I'm currently an actively attending member.  I'm thinking you would consider that my time window has passed, yet I'm still engaging with my local ward and trying to do so in productive ways.  How would you characterize someone like myself, I definitely don't align with the apologetic perspectives of the Dan Peterson's of the word, and don't find his explanations satisfying to my intellect.  I tend to believe in God still, but am much closer to an agnostic or deistic view of God, yet I still am open to spiritual experiences.  

Your whole premise of a window of time where people can effectively be engaged I find very limiting and honestly an immature view that shows a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics.  I'd love to have a more expanded view of your perspective though, so if you could please elaborate that would be great.  

I'very talked with people who have made similar statements and the border is between someone who is still looking for answers and those who have looked but not found and because they have not found they lean more toward the idea that the answers can not be found, otherwise they would have more hope and keep looking.  

You seem to still be looking, rather than someone who has given up hope that the answers can be found.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'very talked with people who have made similar statements and the border is between someone who is still looking for answers and those who have looked but not found and because they have not found they lean more toward the idea that the answers can not be found, otherwise they would have more hope and keep looking.  

You seem to still be looking, rather than someone who has given up hope that the answers can be found.

Actually, I think this is a misunderstanding on your part and Rongo's part as well if he agrees with you.  I can only personally speak from my experience, and my observations of others who are on a similar faith journey.

I personally don't think I've found "answers" to the most important religious and existential questions about life.  I feel very incapable of asserting any confidence with respect to the kinds of questions that Mormonism typically claims to have answers to about life.  I find that I'm searching and listening and trying to learn from all kinds of perspectives, and I'm willing to say what I find helpful, but to make claims that I know the important answers to these very complicated questions is actually quite antithetical to my current world view.  

That being said, I do have strong opinions on what I think might have been happening when it comes to early church history.  I'm not asking the same kinds of questions that I asked earlier in my journey.  A simple question like "is the Book of Mormon true" is not a question I find relevant anymore.  So if you encounter a person like myself the simple questions that the church missionaries typically ask and claim to have answers for really just aren't relevant to me anymore.  And all that being said, I'm still on a quest to learn more, to gather more information about the human experience and religion in general.  I want to understand and learn more about other cultures and other religions, I seek to continue to learn from history and sociology and science.  I'm on a quest to be a better person, to apply the teachings of the gospel that I find of most value and to help others wherever they may be along their journey in life.  

I'm not looking for answers to the typical Mormon questions anymore.  I don't believe Mormonism has any exclusive claims on truth or authority, hence why I said that perhaps Rongo and others would consider me as an apostate.  But yet, I'm still here. I still am very much a cultural Mormon, I still follow and the conservative lifestyle that has served me and my family so well. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, I think this is a misunderstanding on your part and Rongo's part as well if he agrees with you.  I can only personally speak from my experience, and my observations of others who are on a similar faith journey.

I personally don't think I've found "answers" to the most important religious and existential questions about life.  I feel very incapable of asserting any confidence with respect to the kinds of questions that Mormonism typically claims to have answers to about life.  I find that I'm searching and listening and trying to learn from all kinds of perspectives, and I'm willing to say what I find helpful, but to make claims that I know the important answers to these very complicated questions is actually quite antithetical to my current world view.  

That being said, I do have strong opinions on what I think might have been happening when it comes to early church history.  I'm not asking the same kinds of questions that I asked earlier in my journey.  A simple question like "is the Book of Mormon true" is not a question I find relevant anymore.  So if you encounter a person like myself the simple questions that the church missionaries typically ask and claim to have answers for really just aren't relevant to me anymore.  And all that being said, I'm still on a quest to learn more, to gather more information about the human experience and religion in general.  I want to understand and learn more about other cultures and other religions, I seek to continue to learn from history and sociology and science.  I'm on a quest to be a better person, to apply the teachings of the gospel that I find of most value and to help others wherever they may be along their journey in life.  

I'm not looking for answers to the typical Mormon questions anymore.  I don't believe Mormonism has any exclusive claims on truth or authority, hence why I said that perhaps Rongo and others would consider me as an apostate.  But yet, I'm still here. I still am very much a cultural Mormon, I still follow and the conservative lifestyle that has served me and my family so well. 

I meant on specific issues, particularly the issues you don't have the answers for, yet.  You still seem to be looking for answers on those issues rather than thinking the answers can not be found.

So yes I think we did misunderstand each other.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Johnnie Cake

"As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions."

It pains me to pen a response like this Johnnie Cake but you are wrong about this; next to none of those people would remain in the Church. Those people, gathered there, found out the answers hard way and they are not going to spend Sunday after Sunday when they have no testimony. Before joining LDS, I had a very close community of my folks (Eastern Orthodox). Once I convinced myself of my unbelief I could not even return my community The Faith that kept us together was gone, to give you an example we also have some elaborate rituals, one of the simplest processes is going through the picture/statue of Mary and burn a candle.....My wife & I could not do this because it seemed so absurd to us anymore.

And by any chance you attended John's gathering I can almost guarantee that none his followers are coming back, he genuinely helps to those who's partner insist to remain active. All others have punched their tickets to one way, no return voyage. 

Most of us unbelievers accuse The Church Hierarchy of inaction, I totally disagree with this; they exactly know not to rock the boat. Yes they know the ship is sinking but they don't want to accelerate the demise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

 

The answers can be found by those who keep looking until they find them. And the answers will lead us to Jesus and his Church.

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I meant on specific issues, particularly the issues you don't have the answers for, yet.  You still seem to be looking for answers on those issues rather than thinking the answers can not be found.

So yes I think we did misunderstand each other.

Yes, but these questions I'm seeking answers for, I don't expect some authority figure to have an easy answer to these questions, and I suspect any insights I learn as I seek understanding will just open up additional questions, rather than take me to a destination where I have a comfortable answer.  I also don't think Mormonism is any more likely to have answers to these questions than any other religious tradition.  I don't expect to find a universal answer to these questions, they are going to be relevant to specific context, but not universally applicable.  

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Thanks for your thoughts, Craig! I'll offer some of mine:

In my experience, there is a time window where people are able to be helped, and this time window is different for each individual. After this individual time window has passed, no amount of help will help --- regardless of the quality of the answers. It mostly has to do with feelings of betrayal and being deceived. I have had many examples in my life where people are not open to even good answers, but the most prominent one was the "Bremen apostasy." Two former bishops and a former stake presidency member left the Church, and a lot of members joined them in the late 1990s. Both my father and I were close to one of the main figures in it, and he was a spiritually-powerful man (I had a personal spiritual experience with him during the beginning time of his apostasy, so I know that there was still good in him at that time, and he was high councilor over Oldenburg and Wilhelmshaven while I was there). The concerns were garden-variety (translations of the Tanners' material), but the help took too long to get. A new mission president, a native German (the one following my second one), arranged a long conference call with the main figures with Dan Peterson, Brent Hall, and John Tvedtness. They completely answered all of their questions to their satisfaction (the men admitted that they were satisfied with the answers, and that they had no further questions), but it didn't ultimately matter for all but one of them. For that one, the meeting was a huge turnaround (the president told Dan, "You saved a soul yesterday"). Ultimately, it wasn't the answers and the details that mattered, after the feelings of betrayal and deceit had festered long enough.

 

I don't think it's that we're clueless in how to reach or support them (at least, not in all cases) so much as many have passed the time window I spoke about above. Getting them help in a timely manner is key. I've been able to do this in my sphere of influence, but that is limited, of course. Most recently, my stake had me meet with a brother with CES letter concerns. I told his bishop to plan on as much time as he needs, even if it takes days (I wanted him to know that I will take the time to go through all of his concerns with him. No Swedish Rescue brush-off!)

 

Agreed. Here is what the mission president said about the Bremen Apostasy aftermath: "I remain convinced that had facts/knowledge been available during the time their concerns began, the mission could have forestalled much of the calamity that followed the excommunications and withdrawals from the Church. The poison had worked too long as unanswered concerns."

 

I think it's more a function of a) can we find the people? (many have gone inactive), and b) are they still open to an attempt to answer their questions?

 

I think this varies geographically.

 

I think this is much more powerful when it is genuinely local and not from imported "hired guns." This means that it won't be available in all areas.

 

If people aren't able to see that the Church has withheld information from the members, I'm not sure many will stick around either.  I think a huge step forward will be made as the Church becomes more and more willing to admit the weak approaches it has taken in the past.  It must learn to accept that members are going to feel betrayed, because, as it turns out the main narrative often orchestrated through the Church's teaching materials is wrong.  It's only likely people will feel betrayed.  But a way to approach this is not to blame the varied people for getting to a stage wherein they simply can't get back out of, the Church needs to take responsibility and accept that criticisms have merit and acknowledge as much.  Someday the Church will be much better equipped to take criticisms and adapt when criticisms merit change.  That's the day I look forward to.  Sorry, Rongo, but your take is just offensive to me.  People are just too varied for your model to really work in real life, and the worst part is it puts the blame in the wrong place, if you ask me.

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea that doctrine should change to be more inclusive.

Of course, I knew that.  But doctrine needs changing if its wrong--the priesthood ban change and all that. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, but these questions I'm seeking answers for, I don't expect some authority figure to have an easy answer to these questions, and I suspect any insights I learn as I seek understanding will just open up additional questions, rather than take me to a destination where I have a comfortable answer.  I also don't think Mormonism is any more likely to have answers to these questions than any other religious tradition.  I don't expect to find a universal answer to these questions, they are going to be relevant to specific context, but not universally applicable.  

With Jesus and our Father giving us our answers on the issues we have questions about, yes, they will be relevant to specific context but may also be, at least sometimes, universal.

And I believe they are the best authorities to appeal to for answers.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yesterday I attended a gathering of what I’ll refer to as transitioning Mormons.  A group of people consisting of every demographic one would expect to find on the Mormon belief spectrum including resigned Mormon’s, In the process of resigning Mormon’s, inactive/non believing/non-attending Mormon’s, non-believing but still attending Mormon’s and questioning/doubting but still attending Mormon’s.  Some like myself, were veterans of having faced and dealt with the ramifications of a Mormon faith crisis while others were just beginning the process of discovering that the Mormon narrative was in reality more messy and complicated with many loose ends than the promoted correlated narrative that the church teaches. Within the group there were former bishopric members, high council members, primary presidents, elder’s quorum presidents, young men and young woman presidents as well as your average salt of the earth members.  Truly the finest the church has to offer. The group consisted of every social economic demographic one would expect to find along the Wasatch front ranging from financially successful to those less fortunate.  In other words it was a board cross section of what one would find with in a sampling of the wards along the Wasatch front.  The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Along the Wasatch front there are dozens of such groups meeting weekly.  When added to groups from around the world, there are hundreds of such support groups meeting weekly.

During this informal gathering attendees were allowed to ask questions, vent frustrations, process their Mormon experience without judgment and share their individual stories.  Many of these people are hurting, others are still angry with discovering the messiness of Mormonism’s truth claims. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre, but I also understood where they were coming from…having experienced much of what many expressed. 

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You list very detailed descriptions of these meeting, listing offices like Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priest Group Leaders, Bishops, Stake Presidets and the like to show how all suffer from sorrow just as the simple members does. I remember when I left the Baptist Church, a place where I preached from it's pulpit, and taught it's lessons. I left to join the Church, because I no longer believed much of the doctrine being taught. I never looked back, never felt victimized, never sought out an organized group to lament my "pain". I did not do so, because I loved that Church. 

I don't understand why people who leave the Church need such gatherings, well maybe I do. Why do you attend meeting like this to listen to (in your words) people rant? My guess if indeed such meetings happen on a regular schedule, it is to continue to discuss their doubts about leaving, by discussing their doubts for leaving in n effort to continue to stay away. Also you term "ranting", implies hatred for the Church and it's leaders. It makes this comment my by Joseph true, "those who leave the Church, can't leave the Church alone". Once someone who has seen the light, the blinding light of truth, they will seek any light, even like a moth to a flame, and having their wings burned...never fly again. 

In the past, you could click on "Reputation Points" and you would find that the post that gained the most points ever, was the testimony of great value. It was about someone who left the Church who was working on the Joseph Smith papers. After a long while he realized, and was touched by the Spirit that the Gospel is indeed true. Upon his return, there was no retribution or punishment, and he was given full access to the historical offices and the Joseph Smith papers. In shor the Church is not the big bad wolf that seeks to eat it's members. So I don't see the need for therapy no support groups where (a gain your words) to rant about their pain from being abused. 

Also, people and Preacher or Pastors and deacons leave other Churches all the time, but those who no longer attend do not obsesse over percentages and call them droves. They don't hav support groups, and whine about how bad the Church is. Also, when I see threads like this that list callings of persons in leadership, it seems it is for the purpose of making others question their faith as well. Not to mention the county and "front" that is the most Mormon are on the planet. 

Johnnie, just let the Church go, be that person who can "leave the Church, and leave the Church alone". It will make you happy to be free of your of your problems with the Church. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course, I knew that.  But doctrine needs changing if its wrong--the priesthood ban change and all that.

So what current doctrines (as opposed to Church policies) are false or incorrect?
Who is not joining or staying with the Church because an incorrect doctrine is being taught who might join or stay if the doctrine were changed?