Love and peace among the members

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think one thing that needs to be pointed out is that even though the church (leadership) is to blame here, the member/victims aren't. Members for the most part didn't hide or "de-emphasize" the true history. They may perpetuate the mischaracterizations but aren't the authors.

For the most part this is true...

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

As the years roll on though, the members too are going to be less and less innocent in this--I know a number who know the history and yet still think the Church has not hid anything, or not massaged the narrative to be something other than what is the history. 

At this time, I don't see many who are the vehement apologist types among the members.  One hears of certain bishops and stake presidents asking members to be silent on the controversies but I think they are just relaying what they are told to do from above. From my experience, they don't know the history that well and seem to not want to know.  I grew up in SLC and know a few of the current 70s.  They are good people and and even they seem to be in the camp of not wanting to know and/or assume the truth is just a bunch of anti-mormon rhetoric.  But I agree that they can't hide forever and should be eventually charged with knowing the issues.

[Johnnie Cake]

7 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think one thing that needs to be pointed out is that even though the church (leadership) is to blame here, the member/victims aren't. Members for the most part didn't hide or "de-emphasize" the true history. They may perpetuate the mischaracterizations but aren't the authors.

I believe that choices made by past church leadership to promote a perhaps well meaning but less than honest, faith promoting narrative have painted current leaders into a corner...with no good options to escape and save face.  Their only option, in my opinion is to be honest and forthright, ask forgiveness for the well meaning actions of past leadership and move on...but I don't see them doing that. 

Part of the problem is made worse because many leaders over many years have created a false illusion, one these leaders have allowed to persist among members, that they are somehow more enlightened and have access to privileged communication from God that your average member does not have access to.  But the truth is something quite different...as the record shows...while the scope of their responsibilities may be greater their access to inspiration is neither more or less than any average member....and that decisions are made with the best interests of the church based on the limited information available at the time.  Clearly past leaders could not foresee the advent of the information age, Google or the internet when access to information could no longer be controlled by the church and would be available to anyone with a desire to access it. 

One thing is clear, these men are fallible, make mistakes in both judgement and policy just like any human being. One of those mistakes was the decision to provide a narrative on church history that was faithful but not complete.  And now they are paying the price for their misjudgment.  That anyone would blame those who become aware of this past effort by church leaders to control information by promoting a faith promoting version of church history is wrong.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

At this time, I don't see many who are the vehement apologist types among the members.  One hears of certain bishops and stake presidents asking members to be silent on the controversies but I think they are just relaying what they are told to do from above. From my experience, they don't know the history that well and seem to not want to know.  I grew up in SLC and know a few of the current 70s.  They are good people and and even they seem to be in the camp of not wanting to know and/or assume the truth is just a bunch of anti-mormon rhetoric.  But I agree that they can't hide forever and should be eventually charged with knowing the issues.

For the Record:  I was precisely told by my Stake President to keep my mouth shut regarding the difficulties in church history.  Not to discuss them with anyone including my own family, friends or other church members.  I found this odd because at that time he was the only person I had ever brought this subject up with.  It hit me then that he wanted me to join in the cover up...I took a different path.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

For the Record:  I was precisely told by my Stake President to keep my mouth shut regarding the difficulties in church history.  Not to discuss them with anyone including my own family, friends or other church members.  I found this odd because at that time he was the only person I had ever brought this subject up with.  It hit me then that he wanted me to join in the cover up...I took a different path.

My relative had the same experience.  He wanted to discuss the essays in church and the stake president took away his recommend for refusing to be silent.  Humans act as a herd at times and the more people that know about the troubling aspects of church history, the more likely the herd will move in a different direction.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My relative had the same experience.  He wanted to discuss the essays in church and the stake president took away his recommend for refusing to be silent.  Humans act as a herd at times and the more people that know about the troubling aspects of church history, the more likely the herd will move in a different direction.

This!

And doubters or sideswipped members, are told it is their fault they have issues.

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My relative had the same experience.  He wanted to discuss the essays in church and the stake president took away his recommend for refusing to be silent.  Humans act as a herd at times and the more people that know about the troubling aspects of church history, the more likely the herd will move in a different direction.

It's not like Stake President's are pulling these measures (the measure for your relative and Johnny Cake) out of thin air, though.  It's not the case that they are just some naïve people who don't know how to handle information--at least not in all cases. 

[Johnnie Cake]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not like Stake President's are pulling these measures (the measure for your relative and Johnny Cake) out of thin air, though.  It's not the case that they are just some naïve people who don't know how to handle information--at least not in all cases. 

There has been and continues to be a concerted effort on the part of church leadership to control the dispersement of difficult information to its membership...the problem is that the church has already lost this battle and seems to not yet fully realize this reality.  It would serve them well to be open, honest and transparent when moving forward.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There has been and continues to be a concerted effort on the part of church leadership to control the dispersement of difficult information to its membership...the problem is that the church has already lost this battle and seems to not yet fully realize this reality.  It would serve them well to be open, honest and transparent when moving forward.  

yep.  Can't just give a rep point, so I quoted with agreement.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My relative had the recoexperience.  He wanted to discuss the essays in church and the stake president took away his recommend for refusing to be silent.  Humans act as a herd at times and the more people that know about the troubling aspects of church history, the more likely the herd will move in a different direction.

You are kidding me right???  Taking away a recommend for truth.???

Quote

 

 

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You are kidding me right???  Taking away a recommend for truth.???

 

As sad as that is, I think it's happened.  What his story has the nearly unique addition to it is, he had his recommend taken away for not wanting to be silent about what the Church had recently published.  "You want to mention Church published material in Church?  That's it...give me that recommend...it's going to the shredder.  That'll teach ya for trying to talk about stuff." 

[juliann]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

As sad as that is, I think it's happened.  What his story has the nearly unique addition to it is, he had his recommend taken away for not wanting to be silent about what the Church had recently published.  "You want to mention Church published material in Church?  That's it...give me that recommend...it's going to the shredder.  That'll teach ya for trying to talk about stuff." 

So you found one uniformed Stake Prez for which there will be hundreds who find no problem going to LDS.org, clicking "Scripture and Study" to see "Gospel Topics" on the pull down menu. That's right. It is as difficult to find Gospel Topics as it is to find Bible. If you are still confused, look directly under Jesus to find it. Scripture and Study is the first tab, on the main page, BTW. This is really getting old. I mean, really old.

There is not a practicing Mormon alive who doesn't know the difference between someone asking a tough question or bringing up a topic and the person who is being provocative and who is well known for being provocative. It is the tone of the voice and the frequency that becomes uncomfortable in those brief lesson periods. Behavior that expresses annoyance and even anger isn't welcome in most settings. We see too many people here, claiming complete innocence as they recycle the same complaints, and who are always annoyed never satisfied with any response to get away with these three line  stories as being representative of every ward and stake.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

You are kidding me right???  Taking away a recommend for truth.???

 

Yes. I know the stake president and he would do it.  Anyway, this goes to why I am on this discussion board in the first place.  How does one effectively talk to a member or leader that doesn't want to hear the truth because it is inconvenient?  Is it better to be on the outside looking in?  Can these topics even be discussed?  What can a member do that wants to still attend but doesn't buy all the truth claims?  Does this member have to remain silent because leaders think other members can't handle the truth?  Anyway, I told my Bishop when I left that I respect my mormon neighbors but that I would engage on why I left if they brought it up first.  Contact with him ceased soon after.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you found one uniformed Stake Prez for which there will be hundreds who find no problem going to LDS.org, clicking "Scripture and Study" to see "Gospel Topics" on the pull down menu. That's right. It is as difficult to find Gospel Topics as it is to find Bible. If you are still confused, look directly under Jesus to find it. Scripture and Study is the first tab, on the main page, BTW. This is really getting old. I mean, really old.

I found nothing but the story told by our dear poster Pete Ahlstrom.  With even one uninformed Stake Prez, we're all left scratching our head how something like that could have happened. 

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is not a practicing Mormon alive who doesn't know the difference between someone asking a tough question or bringing up a topic and the person who is being provocative and who is well known for being provocative. It is the tone of the voice and the frequency that becomes uncomfortable in those brief lesson periods. Behavior that expresses annoyance and even anger isn't welcome in most settings.

I don't know how many statements made here sound incredible and untrue.  There are some.  This is one.  Practicing Mormons are, quite often, overly defensive and cynical of those who ask or challenge.  Most wouldn't know the difference you mention if it bit them on the caboose, as they say.  Maybe most is over doing it.  Maybe half?  maybe more, maybe less. 

Quote

We see too many people here, claiming complete innocence as they recycle the same complaints, and who are always annoyed never satisfied with any response to get away with these three line  stories as being representative of every ward and stake.

No one has represented any single anecdotal story as representative of every ward and stake.  At least not from what I've seen.  But it just so happens some fo this stuff, like the stories here and there indicate, happens.  We should accept that and accept that we have work to do. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes. I know the stake president and he would do it.  Anyway, this goes to why I am on this discussion board in the first place.  How does one effectively talk to a member or leader that doesn't want to hear the truth because it is inconvenient?  Is it better to be on the outside looking in?  Can these topics even be discussed?  What can a member do that wants to still attend but doesn't buy all the truth claims?  Does this member have to remain silent because leaders think other members can't handle the truth?  Anyway, I told my Bishop when I left that I respect my mormon neighbors but that I would engage on why I left if they brought it up first.  Contact with him ceased soon after.

I'm here, essentially for the same reasons.  Although I've not left, as they say.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

So you found one uniformed Stake Prez for which there will be hundreds who find no problem going to LDS.org, clicking "Scripture and Study" to see "Gospel Topics" on the pull down menu. That's right. It is as difficult to find Gospel Topics as it is to find Bible. If you are still confused, look directly under Jesus to find it. Scripture and Study is the first tab, on the main page, BTW. This is really getting old. I mean, really old.

There is not a practicing Mormon alive who doesn't know the difference between someone asking a tough question or bringing up a topic and the person who is being provocative and who is well known for being provocative. It is the tone of the voice and the frequency that becomes uncomfortable in those brief lesson periods. Behavior that expresses annoyance and even anger isn't welcome in most settings. We see too many people here, claiming complete innocence as they recycle the same complaints, and who are always annoyed never satisfied with any response to get away with these three line  stories as being representative of every ward and stake.

In my relative's case, the essays were brought up in a respectful way and this is from what my other relatives say.  The bishop called my relative into his office and asked that the essays not be discussed.  The bishop then referred my relative to the stake president for further discussion.  Obviously annoyed by the over-reaction to what the church itself had published, my relative continued to bring it up and eventually the stake president had the bishop took away the recommend.  At least in this situation, silence over what can be found on lds.org was required.  Should my relative have simply ceded to what his leaders commanded, unquestioningly?

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Yes. I know the stake president and he would do it.  Anyway, this goes to why I am on this discussion board in the first place.  How does one effectively talk to a member or leader that doesn't want to hear the truth because it is inconvenient?  Is it better to be on the outside looking in?  Can these topics even be discussed?  What can a member do that wants to still attend but doesn't buy all the truth claims?  Does this member have to remain silent because leaders think other members can't handle the truth?   

First of all, your claim to have the exclusive truth is as off-putting as when Mormons do it inappropriately...or even just clumsily. Why would you expect them to be any more accepting of your claims than you are of theirs?

There is almost always an element of evangelism in those who claim that they are only asking questions. Again, there are a hundred signals that someone has an agenda rather than a question no matter how many times they claim innocence or victimization for just wanting to "talk" when that talk is filled with assertions, judgment, claims of superior knowledge, truth, etc., all of which signal disdain towards the one who is required to listen. I can understand the anger towards the church, the feeling of betrayal, the loss of trust, the loss of community. All of that is valid, of course. What I do not understand is the expectation that that makes it all right to lash out at strangers. 

I don't "buy" everything. There is so much culture and tradition embedded, how could we? But I value the community and the vibrancy of our doctrine, which includes a continuing restoration, that it is worth it to me to be courteous and behave modestly. That means behaving appropriately in church so that I do not bring attention to myself. It means learning how to modestly bring up topics. Part of what makes us such a tight community is that we do follow manners, much like where to put the silverware around the plate. 

So no, it isn't about not being able to "talk" it is about knowing how to do it. If you want an open forum, church isn't the place. It just isn't. There are so many online fora now, I don't understand why anyone feels like they can't express themselves. Again, it always comes down to a perceived right to pick an audience and make them listen. I don't get it. 

 

 

[juliann]

15 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

In my relative's case, the essays were brought up in a respectful way and this is from what my other relatives say.  The bishop called my relative into his office and asked that the essays not be discussed.  The bishop then referred my relative to the stake president for further discussion.  Obviously annoyed by the over-reaction to what the church itself had published, my relative continued to bring it up and eventually the stake president had the bishop took away the recommend.  At least in this situation, silence over what can be found on lds.org was required.  Should my relative have simply ceded to what his leaders commanded, unquestioningly?

If this is an instance of a rogue SP, it is a story about a rogue SP. That happens and aside from the fun of ragging on bad leaders, and who hasn't had one, it isn't very relevant to the bigger picture. Otherwise, it isn't about the essays, it is about how your relative "continued" to bring it up. Do you really not get that? 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

If this is an instance of a rogue SP, it is a story about a rogue SP. That happens and aside from the fun of ragging on bad leaders, and who hasn't had one, it isn't very relevant to the bigger picture. Otherwise, it isn't about the essays, it is about how your relative "continued" to bring it up. Do you really not get that? 

I do get it. We are supposedly talking about a rogue SP who made rogue decisions that should have been defied. The problem was with the leader and not the member in this case.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

First of all, your claim to have the exclusive truth is as off-putting as when Mormons do it inappropriately...or even just clumsily. Why would you expect them to be any more accepting of your claims than you are of theirs?

There is almost always an element of evangelism in those who claim that they are only asking questions. Again, there are a hundred signals that someone has an agenda rather than a question no matter how many times they claim innocence or victimization for just wanting to "talk" when that talk is filled with assertions, judgment, claims of superior knowledge, truth, etc., all of which signal disdain towards the one who is required to listen. I can understand the anger towards the church, the feeling of betrayal, the loss of trust, the loss of community. All of that is valid, of course. What I do not understand is the expectation that that makes it all right to lash out at strangers. 

I don't "buy" everything. There is so much culture and tradition embedded, how could we? But I value the community and the vibrancy of our doctrine, which includes a continuing restoration, that it is worth it to me to be courteous and behave modestly. That means behaving appropriately in church so that I do not bring attention to myself. It means learning how to modestly bring up topics. Part of what makes us such a tight community is that we do follow manners, much like where to put the silverware around the plate. 

So no, it isn't about not being able to "talk" it is about knowing how to do it. If you want an open forum, church isn't the place. It just isn't. There are so many online fora now, I don't understand why anyone feels like they can't express themselves. Again, it always comes down to a perceived right to pick an audience and make them listen. I don't get it. 

 

 

Mormons proudly send their missionaries out and getting doors slammed in their faces is a rite of passage. So doesn't this go both ways? If a little evangelism bothers you, are you prepared to have the missionaries stand down?

Anyway, my feeling on these matters is that courtesy should be followed by all and one, including rogue SPs, should have sufficient humility to admit mistakes.

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Mormons proudly send their missionaries out and getting doors slammed in their faces is a rite of passage. So doesn't this go both ways? If a little evangelism bothers you, are you prepared to have the missionaries stand down?

Anyway, my feeling on these matters is that courtesy should be followed by all and one, including rogue SPs, should have sufficient humility to admit mistakes.

The board doesn't allow proselyting, period.  Self-appointed missionaries" have been banned for it.  I'm not saying that you aren't welcome here, of course you are and I appreciate your moderate tone. But not too long ago a group of Mormons on this Mormon board stood together against those who want us to listen to their complaints and agenda in perpetuity, while claiming they innocently want to "talk." Those of us who have been here for a very long time have had enough. 

So I'm not sure what the point of the story is. Are there some awful leaders? Yes! You are right. Should they admit mistakes? Probably and they might at the same rate anyone else would. Which isn't often. I did have a bishop who didn't support me against another member apologize. Years later. Sometimes it takes awhile to see past the people in front of you.

But from a word of mouth story am I going to believe the member wasn't creating problems for the ward? No. In fact, I am going to assume he was probably inappropriately bringing up inflammatory topics using the gospel essays as an excuse. I'm betting that bishop was driven to action by upset members having their short time in a class hijacked and that time they dedicated to "feeling the spirit" destroyed.  I'm quite willing to assume there was an overreaction by the bishop. I'm also willing to assume that things may have been said in private to the bishop. In other words, with the paucity of information presented, I'm very willing to say that both were lacking humility and made a mistake. 

I also think our lesson manuals need a serious overhaul and we need to start talking about real history. My current bishop knows my proclivities, shares most of them, and excitedly rushed down the aisle before church to tell me that a gospel topic had been put in the Institute manual. I didn't know that, I'm betting you didn't either. 

I don't get why you would expect a different reaction based on a third hand account of a one sided very short story.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

The board doesn't allow proselyting, period.  Self-appointed missionaries" have been banned for it.  I'm not saying that you aren't welcome here, of course you are and I appreciate your moderate tone. But not too long ago a group of Mormons on this Mormon board stood together against those who want us to listen to their complaints and agenda in perpetuity, while claiming they innocently want to "talk." Those of us who have been here for a very long time have had enough. 

So I'm not sure what the point of the story is. Are there some awful leaders? Yes! You are right. Should they admit mistakes? Probably and they might at the same rate anyone else would. Which isn't often. I did have a bishop who didn't support me against another member apologize. Years later. Sometimes it takes awhile to see past the people in front of you.

But from a word of mouth story am I going to believe the member wasn't creating problems for the ward? No. In fact, I am going to assume he was probably inappropriately bringing up inflammatory topics using the gospel essays as an excuse. I'm betting that bishop was driven to action by upset members having their short time in a class hijacked and that time they dedicated to "feeling the spirit" destroyed.  I'm quite willing to assume there was an overreaction by the bishop. I'm also willing to assume that things may have been said in private to the bishop. In other words, with the paucity of information presented, I'm very willing to say that both were lacking humility and made a mistake. 

I also think our lesson manuals need a serious overhaul and we need to start talking about real history. My current bishop knows my proclivities, shares most of them, and excitedly rushed down the aisle before church to tell me that a gospel topic had been put in the Institute manual. I didn't know that, I'm betting you didn't either. 

I don't get why you would expect a different reaction based on a third hand account of a one sided very short story.

This wasn't a case where my relative wanted to highjack gospel doctrine class every week. My relative was mostly talking to people privately about the essays and the bishop wanted it to stop. The SP then sided with the bishop and both pressured my relative to be silent. My relative didn't like the pressure, didn't stay quiet, and lost the temple recommend. From what I gather, the bishop didn't like fielding the questions it generated. He hadn't read them and wasn't versed enough to respond to the members.

Nevertheless, I agree that church isn't the place to bring up controversy for the sake of being disagreeable like some do.  But, on the other hand, these essays are on lds.org and one of the purposes of the essays is innoculation. So, there should be a place at church to discuss them.

[juliann]

OK, but that leaves us in the same place. Why would someone be talking to people? If he didn't tell the bishop, one of those more than one persons did. That could mean they are stupid prissy people who can't handle real history, or it could mean that your relative was being aggressive or offensive in his telling of it. What puzzles me the most, though, is why he would be going to multiple people. I haven't run into anyone at church who isn't interested in this stuff, but there is only one that I know well enough to go into any detail with...or who could go into any detail. So I'm back to I don't get why your relative wasn't talking to a like minded person. 

So now you say this was done in private but go back to it should be done at church. I can't keep up.

I've offered a story now you will have to offer another anecdote to keep up. Because I have several where the essays are brought up in class. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

OK, but that leaves us in the same place. Why would someone be talking to people? If he didn't tell the bishop, one of those more than one persons did. That could mean they are stupid prissy people who can't handle real history, or it could mean that your relative was being aggressive or offensive in his telling of it. What puzzles me the most, though, is why he would be going to multiple people. I haven't run into anyone at church who isn't interested in this stuff, but there is only one that I know well enough to go into any detail with...or who could go into any detail. So I'm back to I don't get why your relative wasn't talking to a like minded person. 

So now you say this was done in private but go back to it should be done at church. I can't keep up.

I've offered a story now you will have to offer another anecdote to keep up. Because I have several where the essays are brought up in class. 

My point is that this happened. My relative lost his recommend for talking about essays located on lds.org. You may not believe it, but that's what happened. I don't agree with it and it shouldn't have happened, but it did. However, it is anecdotal so I don't know if it is churchwide. I'm not saying it is. One would need more information to make that claim.  Do you think it is possible that a church leader would do such a thing?  Sure it doesn't look good, but leaders do act poorly at times, even though others don't.

[Meerkat]

On 6/6/2017 at 6:53 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

1.  We do "see (all) through a glass darkly", we are mortal men and women who are so unacquainted with the things of eternity.

2.  So in effect, we are all at times, Laman and Lemuel, and at other times we are Nephi and Sam. What I have learned over the years, it is not so much what I might say, but the way in which I say it.

3.  Little is served in trying too, in the 30 min classes (real class time, to be honest) expose the warts that we see, or seeking only to cover them up. What should happen is to teach the material that is selected, and aid the teacher in keeping on course with it.

1.  Line upon line, precept on precept.

2.  Learning self control makes all our communications more pleasant, and our influence felt.  But, as you say, we are all Laman and Lemuel at times.  

3.  Any teacher in all organizations would find help in their monthly Teachers Council Meeting.  There, we learn how to let the Spirit guide us through our 30 to 45 minutes of teaching each week.  We learn to teach doctrine, which by its nature, leads away from the controversial outside of its proper context.

I like what the Church is doing to encourage love, peace and testimony among its members.