Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[HappyJackWagon]

This thread is intended for non-TBM's who are trying (or have tried) to engage in middle-way Mormonism. This is for the NOM's, the un-correlated, internet Mormons, for the borderlanders, for the StayLDS and A Thoughtful Faith types who are critical in some ways but also find some value through engagement and perhaps even hope to help the church become a better version of itself by becoming more open, welcoming, accepting, and less judgmental. If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like  

I'm a podcast listener during my daily commute and today I listened to a new episode of Infants on Thrones in which, Glenn, Matt, and Tom interview Bill Reel. It's a fascinating podcast and I recommend it for other podcast junkies. But this thread is not about the podcast participants. Any attempts to make it about the personalities instead of the ideas will be reported to mods for ejection from the thread.

The basic idea came to this... One of the infants whose name rhymes with Cat, claimed that Bill, and others like him who try to stay engaged in the church by finding some kind of middle way, are really a major part of the problem they say they are trying to solve. He claims that from the ex-Mormon perspective encouraging people to stay and engage thoughtfully harms the people and causes trauma when they should simply rip of the bandage and leave Mormonism in their rearview mirror. He argues that those experiencing faith crisis or transitions are harmed by having a safe landing spot where they might feel a level of comfort, acceptance, and validation (note the 3 pattern) when they should simply get out. Bill argued against this perspective.

It occurs to me that many from the TBM, chapel Mormon, correlated, orthodox (however you wish to label yourself) perspective may wish for the same thing. Instead of having people struggling to hang on with their unorthodox views, it would be better for them just to get out so they don't taint the rest of the congregation/church with their criticisms and doubts. We even saw this position play out in a thread on this board a week ago.

Both of these (simplified) positions (both orthodox and Ex) seem to share some common ground of desiring the middle-way folks would just get out, even if the reasoning is different. They seem to think and/or act like a middle way is a fools errand and that it serves no positive purpose and actually does more harm than good.

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

 

http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

[hagoth7]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged...

Blessings. In the now, and in the hereafter.

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

3. Had a neighbor a couple of years ago who, in a temporary deepening of a lengthy crisis, took his own life believing his family would be better off that way. For him, the very suggestion of others being better off by him leaving traced reportedly to a shift in medication that was not *at all* a healthy solution for him.  

2. As to the church, there have been times when I believed that both I and the church would be much better served with me serving from outside the church. With  surprising frequency, things said and done in church have been the opposite of healing medication, urging me to want to serve elsewhere. I would hope that if I ever choose to withdraw again, it would only be in a scenario where I was  the last patient one left...to bring up the rear.

1. I suggest carefully considering Elder Holland's most recent conference talk.

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Tacenda]

HJW, I listened to the podcast early this morning, I thought it excellent fascinating as well. Bill was pretty much trying to stand his ground on why he wants to stay in the church. His feeling about it is so often the same for most middlewayers. There are things he would miss in the church, he enjoys being part of the church, and like he said, he is the one to get the kids to go to church each Sunday. His calling is as a church finance clerk and he enjoys the time spent in conversation with another on their way to deposit the tithing funds. He thinks that as long as the individual isn't harmed by attending the church then he doesn't see the problem if they want to stay. 

My husband and I are moving in the late fall, and I think I will be able to start fresh with a new ward if I go back to church. The ward I'm in has seen my transition and basically have nothing to do with me. Luckily I have a few neighbors that do though. And we are only moving a few miles away. 

I see the good it is to have the church community. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

This is good HJW and good questions.  I love how you wrote out your OP so inclusive and with great respect to all.  To me, thisI is so ..so..personal.  As different individuals, regardless of our level of faith, there are good reasons to stay.  Family at the top of the list.  As for me, my problem stemmed from outside the church as a very late teen.  I had a depression that when I spoke to a counselor...told me a truth.  I was trying hard to please two parents that were totally dtleifferent from each other.  I was being torn and in order to move on and progress in my own personal spiritual and personal growth, I had to find my own values..my own way..and use goals to measure my success and not what others expected of me.  When I came to that interception in the middle of road when it came to the LDS church, I knew I had to make a decision..I could not be half way..or pretend..or please.  I do not condemn anyone for finding a path that works staying in the church and trying to make difference.  That is optismism at it's best and I admire that.  But what happens when the patience and all the time and effort has run is course?  Well..you are right back at the interception..and your wife, family..children...they won't know you anymore.

Some people will be able to make subtle changes or shifts in thinking outside the box  I believe there will be a mental price that will be paid unless you stay with full commitment.

 

Quote

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is intended for non-TBM's who are trying (or have tried) to engage in middle-way Mormonism. This is for the NOM's, the un-correlated, internet Mormons, for the borderlanders, for the StayLDS and A Thoughtful Faith types who are critical in some ways but also find some value through engagement and perhaps even hope to help the church become a better version of itself by becoming more open, welcoming, accepting, and less judgmental. If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like  

I'm a podcast listener during my daily commute and today I listened to a new episode of Infants on Thrones in which, Glenn, Matt, and Tom interview Bill Reel. It's a fascinating podcast and I recommend it for other podcast junkies. But this thread is not about the podcast participants. Any attempts to make it about the personalities instead of the ideas will be reported to mods for ejection from the thread.

The basic idea came to this... One of the infants whose name rhymes with Cat, claimed that Bill, and others like him who try to stay engaged in the church by finding some kind of middle way, are really a major part of the problem they say they are trying to solve. He claims that from the ex-Mormon perspective encouraging people to stay and engage thoughtfully harms the people and causes trauma when they should simply rip of the bandage and leave Mormonism in their rearview mirror. He argues that those experiencing faith crisis or transitions are harmed by having a safe landing spot where they might feel a level of comfort, acceptance, and validation (note the 3 pattern) when they should simply get out. Bill argued against this perspective.

It occurs to me that many from the TBM, chapel Mormon, correlated, orthodox (however you wish to label yourself) perspective may wish for the same thing. Instead of having people struggling to hang on with their unorthodox views, it would be better for them just to get out so they don't taint the rest of the congregation/church with their criticisms and doubts. We even saw this position play out in a thread on this board a week ago.

Both of these (simplified) positions (both orthodox and Ex) seem to share some common ground of desiring the middle-way folks would just get out, even if the reasoning is different. They seem to think and/or act like a middle way is a fools errand and that it serves no positive purpose and actually does more harm than good.

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

 

http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

If I'm honest, I might say that I stay because of inertia. I was born a Mormon, lived orthodox Mormonism for my first 3 or so decades. I feel comfortable here, and I love Mormons (for the most part). My social community and structure are Mormon. Mormonism doesn't actively cause me any pain. So why leave? People say that most people leave the church for non-intellectual reasons and I believe this. I think the same can be said for most people who join and participate at church. They go because it works for them. They stop because it stops working for them. 

On a deeper level, I find much joy and goodness in the broad expansive gospel taught by Joseph Smith. The vision of a God that has prepared many mansions for his children - degrees of glory, rejection of an eternal hell etc. There is much more, but it is difficult to encapsulate in a setting like this. I do find true purpose and meaning in my relationship with the church, even though I do so on my own terms through my orthoprax heretical worship. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

1. I suggest carefully considering Elder Holland's most recent conference talk.

Holland's Songs Sung and Unsung talk doesn't resonate much with me. While I think it is a nice gesture to say that all are invited, I simply don't see that is the case. Usually people are subtle in suggesting people don't fit, and other times they are more abusive and bold. But even the metaphor of the choir is set in an environment where there are roles to be played in an effort to make everything sound harmonious by singing proper parts, singing the same music (correlated), in the same rhythm, with proper accompaniment etc. But sometimes people don't fit into the harmony so they still feel on the outside. If the church is like MoTab and everyone is invited to be a part, it is only if they agree to act and sound like motab, even if gospel rock, or jazz might be the music that moves them.

 

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

The Church has ecclesiastical counseling and disciplinary processes for people whose faith issues require assistance to help them retain membership. Advising them to refuse those benefits seems to be unscrupulous.

An extra-ecclesiastical counseling process amounts to the same thing when membership is retained on paper but would not if the ecclesiastical process were observed.

People in faith or spiritual crisis are going to be enticed one way or the other by any of these three approaches to meeting their desire to stay (ecclesiastical retention, “anti”-retention, substitute retention).

So I think the value of staying engaged is only of value when the person in crisis avails himself of the counseling and disciplinary benefits of membership. This is of value to his fellow members as well. The Church is better off with people resolving their problems and remaining connected with her until they do.

[hagoth7]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Holland's Songs Sung and Unsung talk doesn't resonate much with me. While I think it is a nice gesture to say that all are invited, I simply don't see that is the case. Usually people are subtle in suggesting people don't fit, and other times they are more abusive and bold. But even the metaphor of the choir is set in an environment where there are roles to be played in an effort to make everything sound harmonious by singing proper parts, singing the same music (correlated), in the same rhythm, with proper accompaniment etc. But sometimes people don't fit into the harmony so they still feel on the outside. If the church is like MoTab and everyone is invited to be a part, it is only if they agree to act and sound like motab, even if gospel rock, or jazz might be the music that moves them.

I see his message saying something more along the lines that in those brief moments when the song within us doesn't align with the sheet music, then *everyone* is best off (ourselves included) if we stand (and/or sway) with the choir, but keep our internal song to ourselves. Sometimes, *that* song is best left unsung. Pardon drawing from a cartoon, but the movie Happy Feet assumes the song within him *is* helpful to others. However, sometimes our internal song is only intended to help *us* and can instead harm others if shared. In such cases, silence is golden.  I think *that* was the gist of Elder Holland's message - at least that's what I drew from it this time around.

Thoughts?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

To more directly address your question, I can't say whether or not the church would be better off. To me this is a better question for the orthodox believers. The question relevant to me is would I be better off if I left. Right now the answer to that for me is no. 

[hagoth7]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...People in faith or spiritual crisis are going to be enticed one way or the other by any of these three approaches to meeting their desire to stay (ecclesiastical retention, “anti”-retention, substitute retention).

? What is substitute retention?

[bluebell]

I don't think the church would be better if the NOM's left, and I think the benefit of trying to stay in the church where there is doubt is that I believe that the church is the vehicle that leads us to salvation (via priesthood authority and ordinances).

[hagoth7]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Holland's Songs Sung and Unsung talk doesn't resonate much with me. While I think it is a nice gesture to say that all are invited, I simply don't see that is the case. Usually people are subtle in suggesting people don't fit, and other times they are more abusive and bold. 

I would also add that what an apostle says in such matters, and what others might say, will obviously not always align.

So, since his message represents the church's official position on such things, we can take anyone else's unwillingness to bear with our temporary burden...and toss *that* facet of humanity behind us where it belongs (instead of the dirty bandage you alluded to).

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

3. Had a neighbor a couple of years ago who, in a temporary deepening of a lengthy crisis, took his own life believing his family would be better off that way. For him, the very suggestion of others being better off by him leaving traced reportedly to a shift in medication that was not *at all* a healthy solution for him.  

This is so tragic. Sadly it is not an uncommon ideation among those in the throws of a faith crisis.

A couple of years ago on the old NOM board there was a thread and a survey asking how many people had suicidal ideation caused by their faith crisis. It was shockingly high. I don't really want to get into suicidality because I'm not qualified to talk about it and because there seems to be some kind of element of suggestability to the idea, but I mention it because I think it is illustrative for how overwhelming a crisis of faith can be with its accompanying fear of losing family, friends, membership, certainty, and a even a personal relationship with the divine etc.

I don't think many people understand the extreme level of depression a faith crisis can elicit among many who once believed so firmly and rooted their entire identity and life in the church. There doesn't often seem to be much empathy for those who are struggling to hang on. So when I see suggestions that some people simply don't belong, or shouldn't participate, or should get out, I get pretty defensive.

[Rain]

As a mom of someone who has left the church by actions (but I don't know what his beliefs are and I don't think he has resigned), I very much don't want him to leave. I always have that hope he will come back. As the Old Testament says over and over,  Christ's "hand is stretched forth still" and I think this is what we should be doing as well.

However, I am not comfortable with some people in the middle holding specific callings. If someone doesn’t believe in Christ I really don't want them serving as bishop or my kid's spiritual teachers. I would be ok with them as chorister or pianist, librarian, VT supervisor, financial clerk as mentioned etc. While I believe that each of those callings is done better through the Spirit, they don't require it most of the time. (And please I don't want to get into an arguments about specific callings.

There is a place for those in the middle as long as they understand and respect there will be concerns about having them there with specific callings 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Rain

[Gray]

I don't think it can be generalized. Each individual must decide the best course of action for themselves. I wouldn't presume to give someone advice along those lines.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

Thanks HJW, a thread for me!  :-)  I haven't listened to the episode yet, but I will soon and I'm very familiar with the Infants and have listened to many of their episodes.  Here is what I think.

There is value in religion.  I think that for the Infants who mostly identify as atheists, they feel there is value in identifying as atheist (an ideology similar to a religion).  Part of the time I feel like my brain is atheist, and at other times I feel like I have experiences that lean towards an identify that is more spiritual.  These are two sides of my personality and at this stage in my life, I don't feel like these sides of me are in conflict, I actually feel like they are strengths that help me be a more well rounded person that is empathetic to others.  

Personally, I don't think the church is better off by having less diversity of thought.  I think this is one of the challenges in our modern world.  We have the freedom to align our organizations with narrow focus on certain niche ideas, or we can choose to appeal to a more diverse group.  Mormonism might grow and be more unified if it chooses a path of less diversity, I can't predict the future.  But I think that this more unified Mormonism will be less of an influencer on the broader world if they choose a path of pushing away those who have different opinions.  

There have been many studies about the strengths of diversity of thought and how diverse opinions help groups function better and I believe strongly that a big tent Mormonism will be a better Mormonism that will foster greater influence on the world.  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

I think I fall under the "unorthodox" category (or maybe I'm hyper-orthodox).
I think the value of staying engaged and a member, regardless of my personal doctrinal disagreements, is in the blessings of the ordinances, priesthood, spirit, somewhat similarly believing social groups, and many other ways.
But that is because whatever my disagreements, I still am a believer.
For those who don't believe the gospel as the Church teaches at all I am much harder pressed to answer that question.
 

Quote

 would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

That's a good question.  I personally think the Church would be better off if those who fight against what it considers revealed truth were to leave.
This is hard to make clear but I think you know what I am saying.
You believe as an organization that doctrine or practice X is necessary, true, and the will of God.
But you have members who don't believe this and spend good amounts of time agitating or complaining against doctrine or practice X.

How can it not bee seen as better off for internal resistance to X to be removed?
But I don't think the Church is better off without people, just better off without those that would fight our beliefs from within.

[hagoth7]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...There doesn't often seem to be much empathy for those who are struggling to hang on. So when I see suggestions that some people simply don't belong, or shouldn't participate, or should get out, I get pretty defensive.

Ditto.

Have I suggested such a thing?

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How can it not bee seen as better off for internal resistance to X to be removed?

1. A means for members to learn patience and longsuffering....keeping their commitment to bear others' burdens.

2. A means for those *with* concerns to eventually respond to that longsuffering kindness/help/encouragement. 

If this church is only for those with no concerns, problems, or challenges, or who agree to remain silent about such, we're kidding ourselves. 

The introverted will generally keep their concerns, etc., to themselves, suffering and working through such in silence.

The extroverted are the ones who generally work through such concerns by speaking out. And if they're only shunned by doing so, we're denying them *their* default means of transforming/healing.

So if we're saying, you're welcome only as long as you suffer in silence...we have a double standard, one that leaves too many hurting in silence, and others with no assistance to resolve their concerns.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pain+transformed+not+transmitted&client=tablet-android-verizon&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9amStdzUAhUS52MKHYovBnMQ_AUICSgB&biw=962&bih=601#imgrc=mgeRDz0M88TEwM:

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

HJW, I listened to the podcast early this morning, I thought it excellent fascinating as well. Bill was pretty much trying to stand his ground on why he wants to stay in the church. His feeling about it is so often the same for most middlewayers. There are things he would miss in the church, he enjoys being part of the church, and like he said, he is the one to get the kids to go to church each Sunday. His calling is as a church finance clerk and he enjoys the time spent in conversation with another on their way to deposit the tithing funds. He thinks that as long as the individual isn't harmed by attending the church then he doesn't see the problem if they want to stay. 

My husband and I are moving in the late fall, and I think I will be able to start fresh with a new ward if I go back to church. The ward I'm in has seen my transition and basically have nothing to do with me. Luckily I have a few neighbors that do though. And we are only moving a few miles away. 

I see the good it is to have the church community. 

Nice, Tacenda.  But why won't they let me give you a rep point?

[Jeanne]

No one can do anything within the church if they must remain silent.  Eventually that will eat you up. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Ditto.

Have I suggested such a thing?

Nope. I've never seen that from you. I have seen it from many others.

[Jeanne]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

HJW, I listened to the podcast early this morning, I thought it excellent fascinating as well. Bill was pretty much trying to stand his ground on why he wants to stay in the church. His feeling about it is so often the same for most middlewayers. There are things he would miss in the church, he enjoys being part of the church, and like he said, he is the one to get the kids to go to church each Sunday. His calling is as a church finance clerk and he enjoys the time spent in conversation with another on their way to deposit the tithing funds. He thinks that as long as the individual isn't harmed by attending the church then he doesn't see the problem if they want to stay. 

My husband and I are moving in the late fall, and I think I will be able to start fresh with a new ward if I go back to church. The ward I'm in has seen my transition and basically have nothing to do with me. Luckily I have a few neighbors that do though. And we are only moving a few miles away. 

I see the good it is to have the church community. 

Just don't move to far!  Wishing you all the best and this must be so exciting!!  Did you say you were giving your home to me???  Whaat????  A new ward may make all the difference in the world!

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

1. A means for members to learn patience and longsuffering....keeping their commitment to bear others' burdens.

2. A means for those *with* concerns to eventually respond to that longsuffering kindness/help/encouragement.

If this church is only for those with no concerns, problems, or challenges, or who agree to remain silent about such, we're kidding ourselves.

The introverted will generally keep their concerns, etc., to themselves, suffering and working through such in silence.

The extroverted are the ones who generally work through such concerns by speaking out. And if they're only shunned by doing so, we're denying them *their* default means of transforming/healing.

So if we're saying, you're welcome only as long as you suffer in silence...we have a double standard, one that leaves too many hurting in silence, and others with no assistance to resolve their concerns.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pain+transformed+not+transmitted&client=tablet-android-verizon&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL9amStdzUAhUS52MKHYovBnMQ_AUICSgB&biw=962&bih=601#imgrc=mgeRDz0M88TEwM:

I don't think that is what I was saying.
Or maybe it was. 

I just don't see how an organization wouldn't be better off without those among its number who are working against said organization.
After all, there was a reason the 1/3 part of the host had to leave heaven and weren't allowed on earth.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

HJW, I listened to the podcast early this morning, I thought it excellent fascinating as well. Bill was pretty much trying to stand his ground on why he wants to stay in the church. His feeling about it is so often the same for most middlewayers. There are things he would miss in the church, he enjoys being part of the church, and like he said, he is the one to get the kids to go to church each Sunday. His calling is as a church finance clerk and he enjoys the time spent in conversation with another on their way to deposit the tithing funds. He thinks that as long as the individual isn't harmed by attending the church then he doesn't see the problem if they want to stay. 

My husband and I are moving in the late fall, and I think I will be able to start fresh with a new ward if I go back to church. The ward I'm in has seen my transition and basically have nothing to do with me. Luckily I have a few neighbors that do though. And we are only moving a few miles away. 

I see the good it is to have the church community. 

You have told us how you told various people in your ward how you don't want to talk. We've discussed  this before. Are you saying that you have gone back to these people, told them that you have changed your mind and do want contact and they still have nothing to do with you?