Protecting Mormons online

[cinepro]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:34 AM, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, trying to protect Mormons by discussing controversial issues is the worst way to deal with these issues, except for all the others.

 

The Church is in a really tough position.  For better or worse, there are some things in its history and doctrine that when presented to some members and non-members, really make them not feel good about the Church.  And now almost everyone is carrying around a little device that can instantly present these issues in a myriad of ways to anyone at the push of a button.  Even people with a mild curiosity can find out stuff that in the past required some actual time and effort to find in a library.  

These are things that from simple, objective viewpoint are just catastrophically bad, and require a huge amount of "context" in order to reconcile with the idea that the Church's history and doctrines are reflective of 180+ years of communication with an omnipotent deity.

Right now, Church leaders are absolutely flailing to figure out a way to "protect" members and investigators from these issues.   Ignoring them didn't work.  Denying them didn't work.  So frankly, if you have any suggestions, I'm sure that not only would the LDS on this board be anxious to hear them, but the FP and Q12 would probably give you a seat at one of their Thursday meetings if your plan was in any way unique or likely to work.

Edited April 5, 2017 by cinepro

[juliann]

13 hours ago, K-2 said:

Were you referring to Mormons being personally attacked, or to their beliefs being attacked?

Have you never visited a board hostile to Mormons?   When the Mormons are set up like ducks in a shooting gallery, with little or no protection offered from moderators,  they don't stay. That is why ZLMB died, despite a couple of good mods who tried their best against impossible rules that protected the attackers. It resulted in a mass migration to the old FAIR board when Mormons were promised protection from hateful attackers.

Trolls who followed us were banned and ended up starting their own board.  They still keep trying though, dishonestly creating sock puppets over and over. I do find it amusing that  they consider this board such a prize that they can't be satisfied with their own. This board has thrived ever since. It doesn't allow nasty insults to leaders...of any religion. It doesn't allow defamation or ad hominem. It requires that accusations or claims be supported with documentation rather than empty and escalating opinions. That pretty much removes the tools of those who do nothing but accuse and condemn.  Mormon defenders who did the same things were banned as well, BTW. 

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

Right now, Church leaders are absolutely flailing to figure out a way to "protect" members and investigators from these issues.   Ignoring them didn't work.  Denying them didn't work.  So frankly, if you have any suggestions, I'm sure that not only would the LDS on this board be anxious to hear them, but the FP and Q12 would probably give you a seat at one of their Thursday meetings if your plan was in any way unique or likely to work.

It isn't about the messy stuff. It is about undoing the culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect. In other words, reframing expectations and accepting responsibility for ones own beliefs. I think it is ultimately a good thing despite how uncomfortable it is. 

[clarkgoble]

On 4/4/2017 at 10:34 AM, K-2 said:

I read a comment where one of this board's founders said that it was created for the benefit and protection of Mormon posters. How do you protect Mormons by discussing controversial questions regarding their beliefs or history? Isn't that what John Dehlin thought was a good idea? We all know how that turned out.

I think the problem with Dehlin wasn't the original project. I thought his original project was great and told him so. It's that Dehlin himself was a doubter and came to view rather shrilly the faithful perspective. There's a pretty big difference between how he interviews someone with a faithful position and a more skeptical position. That came through loud and clear and the project ceased to be what it originally presented itself as.

If you provide a place where faithful answers can be presented and fairly treated then that's a net positive. Because frankly there are faithful answers to most things. The big problem is that many people adopt a kind of fundamentalist view of Mormonism that can't be justified and then when they come up with things they can't reconcile they reject Mormonism rather than that particular fundamentalist view of Mormonism. By at least providing people with the knowledge that there are different ways of viewing Mormonism that hopefully will keep some people in the faith.

As I said, the problem with Dehlin is that I think he, consciously or not, really became an advocate against Mormonism. So of course that ceased to be a truly safe place.

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem with Dehlin wasn't the original project. I thought his original project was great and told him so. It's that Dehlin himself was a doubter and came to view rather shrilly the faithful perspective. There's a pretty big difference between how he interviews someone with a faithful position and a more skeptical position. That came through loud and clear and the project ceased to be what it originally presented itself as.

If you provide a place where faithful answers can be presented and fairly treated then that's a net positive. Because frankly there are faithful answers to most things. The big problem is that many people adopt a kind of fundamentalist view of Mormonism that can't be justified and then when they come up with things they can't reconcile they reject Mormonism rather than that particular fundamentalist view of Mormonism. By at least providing people with the knowledge that there are different ways of viewing Mormonism that hopefully will keep some people in the faith.

As I said, the problem with Dehlin is that I think he, consciously or not, really became an advocate against Mormonism. So of course that ceased to be a truly safe place.

Yes, most satisfactory answers require an abandonment of fundamentalism. That's no easy task - Mormonism is been highly fundamentalist (in its own unique Mormon way) for most of its history. But I see some signs of that changing. 

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, most satisfactory answers require an abandonment of fundamentalism. That's no easy task - Mormonism is been highly fundamentalist (in its own unique Mormon way) for most of its history. But I see some signs of that changing. 

In some ways although it's always been a complex issue. By and large though fundamentalism is the view that one can assume ones limited understanding is all one needs to have the correct understanding. There always were strong trends against that in Mormonism. Where there was a problem was with CES which by and large rejected inquiry regarding science and history. It should have been clear in the 70's that would eventually cause problems (which it did). I think Hinkley worked against many aspect of that in the 90's. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while not perfect, was a huge, huge step up from people defining Mormonism from a partial reading of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. I think FARMS, again despite some unfortunate problems with tone, also helped tremendously. Even CES, while it still has a ways to go, is vastly better today than it was in the 80's or 90's.

Edited April 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[K-2]

I was under the impression that Mormonism claims to be no more or less than fundamentalist Christianity.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, K-2 said:

I was under the impression that Mormonism claims to be no more or less than fundamentalist Christianity.

There are no hits for "fundamentalist Christianity" on lds.org.  How does the Church claim to be something without actually claiming to be it?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Calm

[pogi]

6 hours ago, K-2 said:

I was under the impression that Mormonism claims to be no more or less than fundamentalist Christianity.

FLDS? That would be confusing.  I think restorationist is a better term as fundamentalist can be perjorative and has negative connotations.  It can be associated with the extreme right.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, K-2 said:

I was under the impression that Mormonism claims to be no more or less than fundamentalist Christianity.

We claim to be the equivalent of primitive Christianity. I mean that in the non-pejorative sense of primitive.

There are warnings against fundamentalist positions in scripture. In my experience fundamentalism is usually associated with dogmatism and dogmatism is almost always bad even when you are right. Dogmatism tends to lead one to believe they have all the answers and thus severs them from revelation and new understandings. One of the greatest men in the Church I know once spoke in a meeting and made the comment that we should have taken a class from him when he was in his 20s as back then he knew everything. He then said he now knows Jesus is the Christ and all the rest is a tentative understanding filled with a combination of truths and speculation slowly being purified and upgraded as revelation continues. Also, he still knew pretty much everything and had a quote or scripture or insight for almost everything. He told me once I could one day surpass him.....I have my doubts.

In any case, no, we are not fundamentalists as most people use the term.

[Bernard Gui]

On April 5, 2017 at 0:19 PM, cinepro said:

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, trying to protect Mormons by discussing controversial issues is the worst way to deal with these issues, except for all the others.

 

The Church is in a really tough position.  For better or worse, there are some things in its history and doctrine that when presented to some members and non-members, really make them not feel good about the Church.  And now almost everyone is carrying around a little device that can instantly present these issues in a myriad of ways to anyone at the push of a button.  Even people with a mild curiosity can find out stuff that in the past required some actual time and effort to find in a library.  

These are things that from simple, objective viewpoint are just catastrophically bad, and require a huge amount of "context" in order to reconcile with the idea that the Church's history and doctrines are reflective of 180+ years of communication with an omnipotent deity.

Right now, Church leaders are absolutely flailing to figure out a way to "protect" members and investigators from these issues.   Ignoring them didn't work.  Denying them didn't work.  So frankly, if you have any suggestions, I'm sure that not only would the LDS on this board be anxious to hear them, but the FP and Q12 would probably give you a seat at one of their Thursday meetings if your plan was in any way unique or likely to work.

I agree that there are hard issues for an increasingly unbelieving world to deal with. For me the answer is found in John 6.... It's part of a long discussion of a seemingly shocking doctrine between Jesus, his disciples, and the Jews. The two groups each found something offensive in these words that caused them to question and doubt him and to walk away. Whether it were something that contradicted their own religious traditions or something that on the surface appeared absurd or troubling and required deeper spiritual understanding, it was sufficient for them to abandon the Lord.

Today it's not difficult for non-believers to encounter notions that seem non-nonsensical or unscientific, or for members to confront issues of history or doctrine that cause doubt. Ultimately the questions they all must ask themselves is, "Will I walk away?" "Where will I find the Words of Life?" It all comes down to the witness of the Holy Ghost. Has he drawn us to the Father? If so, do we hold to that witness of the spirit, do we chafe at hard words, do we discard it all because something offends us?

I don't see the Brethren flailing around at all. This was the theme of a number of Conference talks. Their resolve is firm. They continue to give the voice of warning, but tempered with love and compassion, just as the Savior did.  Do we stand with them or do we not? The time of decision has arrived.

Quote

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:23 AM, Tacenda said:

If it weren't for this board I would be out of the church, my name might still be on the records, but I would be totally hellbent in not having anything to do with it. Thank heavens I had a place to discuss and also a place that could put me in my place if needed. And not a place that would just add to my doubt but give me something to think on.

That's good to hear.  For me, it was Mormon Stories and the New Order Mormon board that kept me in the church.  I discovered this board a little later in the process.

[rockpond]

On 4/4/2017 at 10:48 AM, JLHPROF said:

Approach matters.
On one side you would have Dehlin.  He was about breeding doubt.

 

On 4/5/2017 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem with Dehlin wasn't the original project. I thought his original project was great and told him so. It's that Dehlin himself was a doubter and came to view rather shrilly the faithful perspective. There's a pretty big difference between how he interviews someone with a faithful position and a more skeptical position. That came through loud and clear and the project ceased to be what it originally presented itself as.

If you provide a place where faithful answers can be presented and fairly treated then that's a net positive. Because frankly there are faithful answers to most things. The big problem is that many people adopt a kind of fundamentalist view of Mormonism that can't be justified and then when they come up with things they can't reconcile they reject Mormonism rather than that particular fundamentalist view of Mormonism. By at least providing people with the knowledge that there are different ways of viewing Mormonism that hopefully will keep some people in the faith.

As I said, the problem with Dehlin is that I think he, consciously or not, really became an advocate against Mormonism. So of course that ceased to be a truly safe place.

 

Dehlin didn't go into MS to "breed doubt".  He went into it to explore his own (valid) questions and concerns.

MS has, largely, followed Dehlin's own trajectory.  Where his life is now about helping those who doubt and those who leave the church, his podcasts are about creating safe spaces for those people and ways to navigate their faith crises.  The church doesn't really provide those spaces so I think it is good that Dehlin is.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's good to hear.  For me, it was Mormon Stories and the New Order Mormon board that kept me in the church.  I discovered this board a little later in the process.

I read NOM but never got the feedback like I did here. Also, what started my FC was a site I stumble upon about JS's wives. Right after that I saw John Dehlin's video that showed the problems in the church that might help those family members understand why their loved one doubts. I can't find it on the episode list. That caused a lot of doubt a long with things on NOM. So the way I was able to stay longer was because this board offered rays of light that the church could be true despite leaders' mistakes etc. And this board would talk to me and make me feel like I mattered. I didn't feel that with NOM unless I was putting down the church. Now I see there are different topics for NOM's where some that are in the middle can discuss. Along with Staylds.com they seem to offer a more middleground also. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 2:52 PM, juliann said:

It isn't about the messy stuff. It is about undoing the culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect. In other words, reframing expectations and accepting responsibility for ones own beliefs. I think it is ultimately a good thing despite how uncomfortable it is. 

I agree with this, yet at the same time I bristle at the implication that members have somehow been irresponsible in coming to their beliefs. I'm not claiming that's what you're trying to say (maybe it is- I don't know) but I at least read the implication between the lines. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to it based on how I've been blamed for trusting leaders I've been taught I must trust to return to God.

While I agree that we should all take responsibility and ownership of our own beliefs, I also recognize that in my experience individual responsibility has been abdicated to church leadership at the behest of church leadership. I think people fell honestly into the mistake of basing their beliefs on the authoritative claims of others instead of claiming their own power to open their minds and hearts and believe what really resonates with them. I think the process of seeking, uncovering, and accepting what is truly meaningful to each of us individually is what develops real faith.

[rockpond]

On 4/5/2017 at 1:52 PM, juliann said:

It isn't about the messy stuff. It is about undoing the culture that has grown up around making everything look perfect. In other words, reframing expectations and accepting responsibility for ones own beliefs. I think it is ultimately a good thing despite how uncomfortable it is. 

 

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with this, yet at the same time I bristle at the implication that members have somehow been irresponsible in coming to their beliefs. I'm not claiming that's what you're trying to say (maybe it is- I don't know) but I at least read the implication between the lines. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to it based on how I've been blamed for trusting leaders I've been taught I must trust to return to God.

While I agree that we should all take responsibility and ownership of our own beliefs, I also recognize that in my experience individual responsibility has been abdicated to church leadership at the behest of church leadership. I think people fell honestly into the mistake of basing their beliefs on the authoritative claims of others instead of claiming their own power to open their minds and hearts and believe what really resonates with them. I think the process of seeking, uncovering, and accepting what is truly meaningful to each of us individually is what develops real faith.

 

I agree with what both of you are saying here but I think the difficulty is that church culture right now struggles to let one have a personalized, differing belief system and stay a part of the church.  There seems to be an "all or nothing" demand on members.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read NOM but never got the feedback like I did here. Also, what started my FC was a site I stumble upon about JS's wives. Right after that I saw John Dehlin's video that showed the problems in the church that might help those family members understand why their loved one doubts. I can't find it on the episode list. That caused a lot of doubt a long with things on NOM. So the way I was able to stay longer was because this board offered rays of light that the church could be true despite leaders' mistakes etc. And this board would talk to me and make me feel like I mattered. I didn't feel that with NOM unless I was putting down the church. Now I see there are different topics for NOM's where some that are in the middle can discuss. Along with Staylds.com they seem to offer a more middleground also. 

I haven't been on NOM for years, so I don't know what it is like now.  It happened to be the thing I needed at the beginning... possibly because I needed some validation at first (this was before the church was publicly admitting to any of the problems like they have now).

Mormon Stories was my next step because it provided a framework that allowed me to work through the problematic issues and deal with them.  MS not only kept me in the church but helped me with my marriage and family.  I know many people here dislike Dehlin and MS but the reason I often try to come to his defense is because those podcasts have had such a tremendous positive impact on my life.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't been on NOM for years, so I don't know what it is like now.  It happened to be the thing I needed at the beginning... possibly because I needed some validation at first (this was before the church was publicly admitting to any of the problems like they have now).

Mormon Stories was my next step because it provided a framework that allowed me to work through the problematic issues and deal with them.  MS not only kept me in the church but helped me with my marriage and family.  I know many people here dislike Dehlin and MS but the reason I often try to come to his defense is because those podcasts have had such a tremendous positive impact on my life.

I agree with what you're saying.  The A Thoughful Faith and Mormon Matters podcasts and online communities including vibrant social media support structures are very helpful for those that want to stay engaged in Mormonism but with less orthodox beliefs.  I respect Dehlin for keeping these communities supported and moving forward, as well as his new efforts with Mormon transitions to help those who want to transition out of the faith.  People need help and support.  

The central church hasn't ever provided any meaningful support for people struggling with faith, especially local support.  The institution is a slow moving and rigid institution that would rather suffer some losses than reach out to help those suffering in faith crisis.  Its sad and I'm still angry about it.  They know many families are broken over these issues, they are more scared of spreading the disease than providing support and love to those impacted.  I think history will reflect poorly on the actions and lack of helpful action of the church during this time period.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

 

I agree with what both of you are saying here but I think the difficulty is that church culture right now struggles to let one have a personalized, differing belief system and stay a part of the church.  There seems to be an "all or nothing" demand on members.

But then we have talks from Elder Holland this conference, that we are welcome. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/media/session_2_talk_7/5381786756001?lang=eng But he includes the caveat that there must be obedience and love for God. Hopefully, I'm okay if it's a rocky belief of God, because I'm still working on that portion. Hopefully my testimony of the church being rocky hasn't completely affected my belief in God too much.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I haven't been on NOM for years, so I don't know what it is like now.  It happened to be the thing I needed at the beginning... possibly because I needed some validation at first (this was before the church was publicly admitting to any of the problems like they have now).

Mormon Stories was my next step because it provided a framework that allowed me to work through the problematic issues and deal with them.  MS not only kept me in the church but helped me with my marriage and family.  I know many people here dislike Dehlin and MS but the reason I often try to come to his defense is because those podcasts have had such a tremendous positive impact on my life.

Without realizing it, maybe it kept me in also, come to think of it. Just being able to listen to stories like my own. I continue to listen but with an eye that also reserves the space for belief of a church that is good as a whole. Pieces of it still need a lot of work, IMO.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But then we have talks from Elder Holland this conference, that we are welcome. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/media/session_2_talk_7/5381786756001?lang=eng But he includes the caveat that there must be obedience and love for God. Hopefully, I'm okay if it's a rocky belief of God, because I'm still working on that portion. Hopefully my testimony of the church being rocky hasn't completely affected my belief in God too much.

Yes and AMEN to that talk.  Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf seem to be leading a charge that I hope will get picked up and carried forward by more of our leaders.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Dehlin didn't go into MS to "breed doubt".  He went into it to explore his own (valid) questions and concerns.

I know he didn't go into Mormon Stories to push doubt. As I said I was originally praiseworthy for the aims of Mormon Stories. However over time what it became was quite different. It's far from merely being a "safe space."

Edited April 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I know he didn't go into Mormon Stories to push doubt. As I said I was originally praiseworthy for the aims of Mormon Stories. However over time what it became was quite different. It's far from merely being a "safe space."

There are safe spaces as I mentioned the A Thoughtful Faith community I'm involved in has moderators that make sure it stays a safe space.  I imagine that everyone's definition of safe is different.  I don't agree with your assessment.  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I know he didn't go into Mormon Stories to push doubt. As I said I was originally praiseworthy for the aims of Mormon Stories. However over time what it became was quite different. It's far from merely being a "safe space."

The "breeding doubt" comment was in reply to JLHPROF (you'll note I quoted him in the same reply).

I noted that you like his original project.

Unfortunately, I disagree with you on what it has become... I think it is a safe space for those who have doubts.  For many, it's a place where the issues can be openly discussed when they have no other place.  I know a lot of struggling members who can't have conversations with their family members and they can't bring up the topics in church without being ostracized.  Their LDS friends don't want to have those discussions.  There isn't much left.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes and AMEN to that talk.  Elder Holland and President Uchtdorf seem to be leading a charge that I hope will get picked up and carried forward by more of our leaders.

Holland seems a little schizophrenic lately, sometimes he has a great talk like this last conference, but then he has another talk that's completely lacking in empathy, I'm thinking of the Arizona meeting with the famous "taffy pull" quote that he gave last year.