Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[hagoth7]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But I don't think the Church is better off without people, just better off without those that would fight our beliefs from within.

I can't speak to church governance. That's a matter for church leaders. 

For rubber-hits-the-road members, your suggestion reminds me of the sons of Mosiah. 

After being truly converted, they sought to minister among their so-called enemies - to heal the breach and bring them back in faith/fellowship.  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/31.35?lang=eng#p34

Others judged their choice to minister there foolhardy...that their enemies should instead be fought or avoided.

[hagoth7]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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

I'm guessing you're more of an extrovert.  ? 

For those of us who are wired as introverts...we at times have few constructive options other than to press forward slowly/quietly on our own.

Attempting to talk things through sometimes makes things worse, for us, and for many of those around us.

I'll give a brief example. I did something some time back...publicly...that stunned a number of people closest to me.  They invited me to a social get together, said there would be fun games, and when I arrived, instead ambushed me with their judgments of what they felt about my decision, insisting with threat of reprimand that Iexplain myself, in depth, on the spot. 

Anyone who knows introverts, as three of them were professionally trained to know, they would realize that if you want an introvert to open up and offer genuine responses, you give an introvert *lots* of heads up notice of what will be discussed, and what questions will be asked. Otherwise, an introvert will instead clam up - either to reflecdt on the content, or in response to what is perceived as an enemy ambush.

In my case,  the trust was gone, I was a bit cryptic, but mostly clammed up.  And was promptly jettisoned from their fellowship and from their homes, for quite some time. (This wasn't a church action.) 

 

They should have known better how to engage with an introvert.

And I should have been more mature.  (Mebbe some day.)  

 

In short,  extroverts shouldn't expect introverts to engage as they might.

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Well said, HappyJack, however, it is often precisely the person who is going through the throes of a faith crisis (bad as that seems to be) who is able to find a catharsis, and from that experience become a better person.  Only dead people fail to go through life's stages -- I mean dead inside, never thinking an original thought, never questioning their own behavior, never suffering nor enjoying the reality of life in all its shame and glory.  From the time we are born as mewling babes, till we say a fond farewell at the end, we should try to live life with zest and gusto, without too many regrets for our obvious shortcomings -- nor for those of others.

Life is filled with opposites, and we need to engage them as best we can, not cower in the face of difficulty.  Hopefully we have friends and family who will gently help us along the way.  Aside from all that, for me, the Lord has always been there, willing to listen to my plaintive cries and to be "a light unto my path."

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Jeanne,

Thanks for sharing, I always appreciate your posts on this board.  I can totally empathize.  Let me say that after my sabbatical of 1 and 1/2 yrs away from church activity, I started being active again this year, and have had a resurgence of spirit and energy towards the church.  And I've done all this while being very authentic about my different beliefs.  I usually make one or two comments during Sunday School and priesthood that make people think, but I try to be respectful as well.  

I'm at a place where I'm open with my bishop and most members about my heterodox beliefs, and non-belief for that matter.  And its helped me form some relationships with people I never expected to, people that have family members who have left the church or are struggling with faith crisis.  They are coming to me for advice and support, and I feel like I'm able to help, and that gives me great happiness to feel like I can help with something that church leaders are unable to help with most of the time.  

So most of my feelings of anxiety and frustration with church have dissipated to the point that I'm able to endure much of the black and white thinking that happens, and I feel like I'm adding value to my community again, and in turn, I'm able to learn from them and try and appreciate that all experiences are valid and important even those naive to the historical controversies of the dominant church narrative.  

People are important to me, not theology.  The people of the church are good people, I want to love and serve them in spite of dogma about what people consider a good Mormon.  I'm a good person and I'm sure you are too.  I have confidence in that independent of the culture of Mormonism.  I'm pretty Mormon still, and recognize my privileges which enable me to not be as impacted as some others.  I respect every journey, in and out of Mormonism, all are acceptable to me.  I just wanted to let you know, that taking a break from activity and being open about my heterodoxy has made things so much better for me personally.  I wish you the best.  

[Jeanne]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Jeanne,

Thanks for sharing, I always appreciate your posts on this board.  I can totally empathize.  Let me say that after my sabbatical of 1 and 1/2 yrs away from church activity, I started being active again this year, and have had a resurgence of spirit and energy towards the church.  And I've done all this while being very authentic about my different beliefs.  I usually make one or two comments during Sunday School and priesthood that make people think, but I try to be respectful as well.  

I'm at a place where I'm open with my bishop and most members about my heterodox beliefs, and non-belief for that matter.  And its helped me form some relationships with people I never expected to, people that have family members who have left the church or are struggling with faith crisis.  They are coming to me for advice and support, and I feel like I'm able to help, and that gives me great happiness to feel like I can help with something that church leaders are unable to help with most of the time.  

So most of my feelings of anxiety and frustration with church have dissipated to the point that I'm able to endure much of the black and white thinking that happens, and I feel like I'm adding value to my community again, and in turn, I'm able to learn from them and try and appreciate that all experiences are valid and important even those naive to the historical controversies of the dominant church narrative.  

People are important to me, not theology.  The people of the church are good people, I want to love and serve them in spite of dogma about what people consider a good Mormon.  I'm a good person and I'm sure you are too.  I have confidence in that independent of the culture of Mormonism.  I'm pretty Mormon still, and recognize my privileges which enable me to not be as impacted as some others.  I respect every journey, in and out of Mormonism, all are acceptable to me.  I just wanted to let you know, that taking a break from activity and being open about my heterodoxy has made things so much better for me personally.  I wish you the best.  

I love this.  That you are able to be who you are and honest with yourself and others is a wonderful thing.  I have had two wards..(of course this has been a while ago)..but I cannot even imagine that.  Best to you.  I wish you happiness!

[Rain]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I think one of the biggest problems here is who determines who is working against the organization? 

There are some things that are against doctrine. There are some things against tradition. Some people routinely mix them up. If a beloved SP makes a drastic change there will be some who will grumble that the "tradition" shouldn't be changed. If, however, someone in the middle makes the same change those grumblers may be shouting now that "doctrine" shouldn't be changed. 

So I agree with you in theory, but sometimes just what is and what isn't doctrine gets misunderstood and who is making a good change and who is fighting against the church is not agreed upon. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour 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.

That's because there is a line (although we may not all agree on where it lies) between finding the lost sheep and casting out the rebellious.
God and Christ have advocated both. 
I think the place you have every right to get defensive is when the average members practice shunning on those who are struggling to keep their faith.  But the Church has every right to take action on those within who are fighting against their policies.  Again, finding the dividing line is the real difficulty, and not one the average member has a responsibility to do.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think one of the biggest problems here is who determines who is working against the organization?

There are some things that are against doctrine. There are some things against tradition. Some people routinely mix them up. If a beloved SP makes a drastic change there will be some who will grumble that the "tradition" shouldn't be changed. If, however, someone in the middle makes the same change those grumblers may be shouting now that "doctrine" shouldn't be changed.

So I agree with you in theory, but sometimes just what is and what isn't doctrine gets misunderstood and who is making a good change and who is fighting against the church is not agreed upon.

Funny - I just answered this above.
Who determines?  The Church leadership.  That is their calling.  Not the average member.

Take Kate Kelly or John Dehlin or Denver Snuffer.  At some point they crossed the line from struggling progressive Mormon to rebellious activists (or whatever term you like).  There is a line.  It is the leadership who define it, not the average member.  That is why shunning is a bad practice.

Edited June 26, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because there is a line (although we may not all agree on where it lies) between finding the lost sheep and casting out the rebellious.
God and Christ have advocated both. 
I think the place you have every right to get defensive is when the average members practice shunning on those who are struggling to keep their faith.  But the Church has every right to take action on those within who are fighting against their policies.  Again, finding the dividing line is the real difficulty, and not one the average member has a responsibility to do.

Nor is it easy for most of those who have that responsibility. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I love this.  That you are able to be who you are and honest with yourself and others is a wonderful thing.  I have had two wards..(of course this has been a while ago)..but I cannot even imagine that.  Best to you.  I wish you happiness!

Just a couple weeks back one of our Gospel Doctrine teachers, an older gentleman that is very conservative, made a comment to me that I just loved and really helped me recognize just how much empathy I need to give to all kinds of believers within my ward.  Just to give you an idea about this person, he taught the lesson the first vision earlier this year and said that he heard about "other versions" of the FV and that he didn't care to read about them, because he had a testimony that the one in the PoGP was the true one.  

He asked me ahead of time to give my thoughts about the second coming/millennium in class, and later in that class he mentioned that he really appreciated how I share points of view and ask questions that aren't always traditional and sometimes are challenging questions, but that he believes I add great value to the discussions in class and that I make people think.  Now if a person who is this traditionally orthodox can appreciate what I'm bringing to class, and what I bring sometimes are hard questions that don't always come across as faithful, if this person can tell the whole class they appreciate me, even though I'm sure I've made this person uncomfortable at times with my questions, then I can give a lot more leeway towards people like him in my efforts to show empathy to others, even those perspectives that I personally believe are shallow or bigoted, I am forced to try and find a space in my heart to be loving and patient with them.  

All of this I get from Mormonism.  I think its kind of like the Eugene England model, even though I personally don't think there is anything about the ordinances or the theology of Mormonism that is ultimately required for any kind of salvation, and I don't believe in the supernatural, and tend to define God as a function of something in our brain.  I appreciate what Mormonism has given me, its continuing to make me wrestle, and I find great value in this wrestle.  

[smac97]

My thoughts:

1. I welcome anyone and everyone to seek and maintain membership in the Church.  The limited exceptions in terms of participation (attending meetings), are people whose unrepentant and ongoing behavior is A) violent/threatening, B) profane/abusive, and/or C) materially disruptive/demeaning/disrespectful; and the limited exceptions in terms of membership are possibly elements of A, B, and/or C, and also D) people who are in a state of apostasy as defined by the Church and as adjudicated by those in authority.

2. Here is the question in the OP:

Quote

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?

I welcome such people in the Church, and hope they stay.  I think we are all on a journey of faith of one sort or another.  I do not think it is for us as individuals to set arbitrary standards differentiating the presence of faith from its absence.  That is too neat, and disregards the spectrum of faith on which the vast majority of us reside.  I think there are very few people who have pitch-perfect faith in God and behavior that is congruent therewith.  Likewise, I am not persuaded that there are tons of people at the opposite end of the spectrum, where reside the utterly faithless and debased.  We are, most of us, in the muddled middle.

3. As far as the sociological aspects of the question posed, I think "observant/faithful" Latter-day Saints can and should exercise much love and faith and respect and patience when interacting with "unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM{s}."  I think the former should give the latter some breathing room to figure things out and decide which way to go, and then love them no matter what they figure out and where they go.

Conversely, I think "unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM{s}" could treat "observant/faithful" Latter-day Saints and their faith with a substantial measure of respect.  You may not believe in such things at the moment, and that is certainly your privilege.  But going online and smearing/mocking/belittling LDS doctrines, practices, leaders, etc., is profoundly offensive.  I have in mind here this type of person:

Quote

I think there is a crop of participants here who claim to be members of the LDS Church, and yet also routinely and publicly denigrate and insult and ridicule the LDS Church, its doctrines, practices, leaders, etc.  They appear to feel entitled to say such appalling things about our shared faith because they are nominally members of the Church.  I can see the theoretical value of this board for, say, a church member who is struggling to build or maintain a testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who is seeking to better understand a difficult and thorny topic like the Priesthood Ban or polygamy or Mountain Meadows.  But the crop of participants I have in mind do not fit that description.  Instead, they seem to revel in being a member and yet coming here and - behind the safety of an online pseudonym - publicly denigrating the Church, slandering the leaders of the Church, ridiculing sacred things, taunting fellow members of the Church, and otherwise seeking undermine and tear down the LDS Church.  This is not "constructive criticism."  This is not "loyal opposition."  This is, to me, something approaching apostasy.  There is only such much of such behavior with which I am willing to put up.  Non-member critics span the spectrum of civility, and there are a number who are quite civil and polite in their disagreements with us.  More to the point, these non-member critics are not bound by covenants as members are.  So I guess I'm saying I have substantially less patience for critics who are members of the Church than critics who are not.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things about the Church and what is going on within it.  But overtly disrespecting or denigrating or mocking it is going to raise some serious roadblocks in terms of building or maintaining goodwill with those in the Church with whom you may presently disagree.  Similarly, setting yourself up as a voice of authority which is alternate and superior to that of the Brethren will also create some real problems.  Put another way, attempting to persuade others in the Church to disregard or disobey the established doctrines of the Church and the general doctrinal/behavioral/procedural parameters set by the Brethren will likely create suspicion, anger, mistrust, and ill will.

4. In sum, it would be my hope that both sides could demonstrate good will, mutual respect, and affection for each other and each other's faith journey.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

I don't like the term NOM, but we have to use some kind of labels to communicate. I will call it as someone post faith crisis in faith reconstruction. I describe those in faith reconstruction as likely not believing literally in certain traditional LDS concepts like exclusivity, scripture historicity, and some of the supernatural events described in church history, but who believe in the power of the LDS faith to transform lives and give spiritual guidance, and for the LDS church to be a good place to worship and be part of the Body of Christ, and for the LDS church to be a powerful force for good in the world.

I'm going on 10 years now, post faith crisis in process of faith reconstruction. I have been active in online forums during that time, have dedicated a blog to it, and currently am writing a book on the subject. I've spent some time thinking about this subject.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I've heard the same debates for many years. Whether or not the NOM position is sustainable or whether or not you think it's valuable, probably depends on how you view a few items.

1. How much harm the church does and how much good the church does. How much of that is institutional/central vs cultural/local. And let's really look at the harm. Let's not look at the outrage on social media, sometimes manufactured by those with ill intentions towards the church. Let's look at the actual harm.

2. How possible is change. The things that are harmful, is there potential for change? How fast can that change come? Can I use my influence to affect change? Or is it futile to even try?

3. How possible it for me to shift from literal to metaphorical concepts, when it comes to scripture, church foundational events, doctrine, everything.

4. (I don't really like to admit this but to be fair I should) "Privilege" or social/familial motivation to stay. For example, I'm white, married with kids, no LGBT+ issues with any kids, upper middle class, from pioneer stock, living in Utah County. Certainly that would be considered a "privileged" position in the church that makes it easier to stay and more motivated to transform my mind to get on the right side of items 1-3 above.

 

So, every individual has a different view of these things. I personally, feel the church does some harm but also a lot of good, which outweighs the harm. Further, I believe the church is capable of change and to progress to improve on the things that currently are causing people harm. It wasn't easy for me to pick up on the whole nuanced thing, but after spending some time working on it, it really speaks to me. I'm invigorated with a new view of the BOM and other scripture and church and scripture study is rewarding to me again.  I think the Church is a great organization that can get even better, and I think I can be part of that change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by churchistrue

[hagoth7]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...Aside from all that, for me, the Lord has always been there, willing to listen to my plaintive cries and to be "a light unto my path."

While that's affirming for you and others like you, it sometimes only deepens the wound for those who have temporarily gone without such light...and especially for those who have *never* felt such companionship.

When I was young, one of my closest friends *never* felt the presence of God. Never felt the Spirit. (Otherwise served a mission as faithfully as he could.) His gift, in that time at least, was to believe in the testimony of others.

Those who have to take a few (or many) steps iwthout such light/companionship..might not take solace in your claim to always have such. Sacrament prayer understood. Some won't realize whose footprints were in the sand until the end. Even the greatest of all had to experience some time when he at least *felt* forsaken.

Fair 'nuf?

[pogi]

2 hours 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?

I think there is plenty of value if one can actually engage in the faith instead of criticizing it all the time (not calling any one out here specifically).  I don't see a problem with trying to change the culture to be less judgmental, but it will certainly be better received coming from a less judgmental tone.  The call to repentance usually works better from a voice of inspiration rather than condemnation.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. I welcome anyone and everyone to seek and maintain membership in the Church.  The limited exceptions in terms of participation (attending meetings), are people whose unrepentant and ongoing behavior is A) violent/threatening, B) profane/abusive, and/or C) materially disruptive/demeaning/disrespectful; and the limited exceptions in terms of membership are possibly elements of A, B, and/or C, and also D) people who are in a state of apostasy as defined by the Church and as adjudicated by those in authority

I liked so much of your post that I gave you a rep point, very thoughtful and I appreciate it.  I would push back a little on items C & D here I think C is questionable because opinions will vary on how to interpret, and I think D is completely unnecessary and is an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with.  

Overall, we all need to be more tolerant and respectful of differing perspectives.  Sometimes when someone is going through faith crisis they can be unintentionally disrespectful because of the way they are feeling about the church, they are going through the stages of grief and that anger faze is a doozy!  I think people need to be more loving and patient and mourn with them in their mourning.  

Conversely, sometimes an orthodox member can be dismissive and hurtful with tribalism and boundary maintenance towards those pushing their comfort levels.  I think those who are unorthodox need to try to be more patient towards those who make these comments, realizing that they do so out of fear sometimes or feelings of loyalty towards the institution and towards those ideas they feel are sacred and need defending. 

If both sides can be more tolerant and empathetic, I have confidence that we can not only coexist, but that we can learn valuable lessons from our interactions.  We need to forgive, we will make mistakes, but we can build a better future, perhaps even a Zion like future, if we love people first and put our pride in the backseat.  This is the gospel that I have a testimony of.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

? What is substitute retention?

It was in reference to the extra-ecclesiastical counseling process I mentioned earlier in the post. Membership is retained on paper / Church records but would not if the ecclesiastical process were observed. The member continues struggling without the benefit of ecclesiastical counseling

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because there is a line (although we may not all agree on where it lies) between finding the lost sheep and casting out the rebellious.
God and Christ have advocated both. 
I think the place you have every right to get defensive is when the average members practice shunning on those who are struggling to keep their faith.  But the Church has every right to take action on those within who are fighting against their policies.  Again, finding the dividing line is the real difficulty, and not one the average member has a responsibility to do.

And that's key.

Extroverts will speak out during their struggles. And might be branded as rabblerousers for doing so.

Introverts will respond differently, and might likewise be branded as being subversive for doing so.

Edited June 26, 2017 by hagoth7

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours 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?

This is a great question; I have thought about this same thing myself at times, due to the fact that I am a critic in several ways. 

I think the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, etc. is that you can fully examine and investigate some of the church's truth claims from different points of view (outside of what the church wants).  In other words, IMO, the church has tried to pass a very correlated narrative; however, pressure from the outside and/or non-believing community allows for greater transparency concerning certain events/doctrine.  Also, non-believers and critics can allow for greater freedom of thought, outside of what the church wants its members to believe and think, IMO. 

I think the church leadership, along with many orthodox members, feel threatened by some of the various NOM types; therefore, many probably feel the church would be better off if all NOMs left.   As a critic of the church in many areas, I personally get the sense from family members, friends, and other members that it would be better if I left the church completely--but then I would become a "lost sheep," -- and they don't want me in that category either.  

I don't think it has to be all-or-nothing with Mormonism (or any religion).  I continue to go to church because I generally like the people and enjoy sacrament meetings (at times).  I don't fit into any typical LDS mold and openly disagree with many of the church's truth claims and doctrine.  That is, I pick and choose those things in the church that I find beneficial and abandon other teachings/rules I feel are a waste of my time.  No, I don't think the church would be better off if all NOMs left because I think there are numerous NOM types in the church, many of which strive to be faithful members and contribute a great deal.  

 

 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.

There is not complete uniformity of belief in society at large, yet people seem to live in it in relatively healthy ways. I think my wife and children know me pretty well. I don't hide my beliefs from them, but share how I interpret the scriptures with them. Now if I were trying to hide who I was, I might agree with you more. I just don't believe my beliefs have to align 100% with the GAs to be a member in good standing or to receive the blessings of the gospel. What I like about this board is that there are other members who are similarly in this position, yet like me, defend the Church and the restored gospel. I am myself 100%, and don't say things because I believe that is what the class wants or expects to hear. That would present a crisis for me. I don't have to believe McKonkie's Mormon Doctrine 100 % to love the Church and the restored gospel, and I generally say as much.

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

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

There are times I choose to remain silent, and there are times I speak my mind. Here I speak my mind. I think in general we all learn there are times to remain silent. We don't always tell people what we think of them for instance. There are times when what we say is more harmful than helpful. I am sure you realize this as a mother, as a child, as a wife, etc. Probably no one aligns completely with every sermon they hear or every lesson they are taught. However, I do have faith in Yeshua, and wish to follow His word, and I know the Church offers the restored gospel. That I cannot get elsewhere...

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

I'm guessing you're more of an extrovert.  ? 

For those of us who are wired as introverts...we at times have few constructive options other than to press forward slowly/quietly on our own.

Attempting to talk things through sometimes makes things worse, for us, and for many of those around us.

I'll give a brief example. I did something some time back...publicly...that stunned a number of people closest to me.  They invited me to a social get together, said there would be fun games, and when I arrived, instead ambushed me with their judgments of what they felt about my decision, insisting with threat of reprimand that Iexplain myself, in depth, on the spot. 

Anyone who knows introverts, as three of them were professionally trained to know, they would realize that if you want an introvert to open up and offer genuine responses, you give an introvert *lots* of heads up notice of what will be discussed, and what questions will be asked. Otherwise, an introvert will instead clam up - either to reflecdt on the content, or in response to what is perceived as an enemy ambush.

In my case,  the trust was gone, I was a bit cryptic, but mostly clammed up.  And was promptly jettisoned from their fellowship and from their homes, for quite some time. (This wasn't a church action.) 

They should have known better how to engage with an introvert.

And I should have been more mature.  (Mebbe some day.)  

In short,  extroverts shouldn't expect introverts to engage as they might.

you are welcome in my home as you are Hagoth7  

[Pete Ahlstrom]

For me, attending activities maybe once a year is all that I do with the church. I come to this site to see how to properly engage with my family that are still active and believing. Otherwise I would probably leave it alone.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Just a couple weeks back one of our Gospel Doctrine teachers, an older gentleman that is very conservative, made a comment to me that I just loved and really helped me recognize just how much empathy I need to give to all kinds of believers within my ward.  Just to give you an idea about this person, he taught the lesson the first vision earlier this year and said that he heard about "other versions" of the FV and that he didn't care to read about them, because he had a testimony that the one in the PoGP was the true one.  

He asked me ahead of time to give my thoughts about the second coming/millennium in class, and later in that class he mentioned that he really appreciated how I share points of view and ask questions that aren't always traditional and sometimes are challenging questions, but that he believes I add great value to the discussions in class and that I make people think.  Now if a person who is this traditionally orthodox can appreciate what I'm bringing to class, and what I bring sometimes are hard questions that don't always come across as faithful, if this person can tell the whole class they appreciate me, even though I'm sure I've made this person uncomfortable at times with my questions, then I can give a lot more leeway towards people like him in my efforts to show empathy to others, even those perspectives that I personally believe are shallow or bigoted, I am forced to try and find a space in my heart to be loving and patient with them.  

All of this I get from Mormonism.  I think its kind of like the Eugene England model, even though I personally don't think there is anything about the ordinances or the theology of Mormonism that is ultimately required for any kind of salvation, and I don't believe in the supernatural, and tend to define God as a function of something in our brain.  I appreciate what Mormonism has given me, its continuing to make me wrestle, and I find great value in this wrestle.  

What a wonderful ward...and I am sure they so appreciate you.  You are one of the ones that could help those inside.I bet you do!

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is not complete uniformity of belief in society at large, yet people seem to live in it in relatively healthy ways. I think my wife and children know me pretty well. I don't hide my beliefs from them, but share how I interpret the scriptures with them. Now if I were trying to hide who I was, I might agree with you more. I just don't believe my beliefs have to align 100% with the GAs to be a member in good standing or to receive the blessings of the gospel. What I like about this board is that there are other members who are similarly in this position, yet like me, defend the Church and the restored gospel. I am myself 100%, and don't say things because I believe that is what the class wants or expects to hear. That would present a crisis for me. I don't have to believe McKonkie's Mormon Doctrine 100 % to love the Church and the restored gospel, and I generally say as much.

There are times I choose to remain silent, and there are times I speak my mind. Here I speak my mind. I think in general we all learn there are times to remain silent. We don't always tell people what we think of them for instance. There are times when what we say is more harmful than helpful. I am sure you realize this as a mother, as a child, as a wife, etc. Probably no one aligns completely with every sermon they hear or every lesson they are taught. However, I do have faith in Yeshua, and wish to follow His word, and I know the Church offers the restored gospel. That I cannot get elsewhere...

I can tell that this comes from your heart.  I appreciate it and somewhat envy you.  One thing you and I have in common is our faith in Yeshua.

[RevTestament]

4 hours 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?

I am not sure where I fit on your spectrum. I characterize my wife as TBM - she believes and does what the GAs say. I would characterize myself as currently unorthodox, although I believe I would fit right in with Joseph Smith. The more time that passes, the more I find to disagree with. So maybe I'm the orthodox one, and the TBMs are the unorthodox members  

Speaking from my perspective, I love the restored gospel, have a testimony of the prophet-hood of Joseph Smith, and the truth of the BoM, D&C, etc. I know there is no one else exactly like me, but I believe there are a good number who have some similar feelings. What am I to do? How do I find fulfillment in the Church? To some extent I find it here. I find it in my family. I find it living the gospel. Should I leave? Is the Church better off without me? I spent much of my life worrying whether someone would be better off without me, and I won't do that anymore. I give them the respect to make that decision for themselves, so I will leave that decision to the Church. I know I benefit from the restored gospel, and that my ancestors benefit from it. I searched high and low and found nothing as complete and as beautiful as the restored gospel, and I desire to live it.

For the most part I do not find myself in disagreement with practices of the Church, and I don't believe I really speak against any of them. Where I hold differences is in interpretations of scripture made by various GAs over the years since the days of Joseph Smith - starting with BY. I have my belief and the members of the Church body have their's. I hold no ill will towards them, and no anger towards the Church for their differing interpretations. I think we are all doing our best in that regard to understand the scriptures. However, I do see people online that I believe are angry at the Church. These are the people who I believe get themselves in trouble with the Church for speaking against its practices or openly speaking against the Church - Joseph Smith, and principles of the restored gospel. I think Smac covers these categories pretty well in his post so won't repeat them.

While I might be at the extreme end of the spectrum, I suspect there are many persons such as myself which have varying interpretations from those previously spoken by GAs. If they were all kicked out, I suspect the Church would lose perhaps even a majority of its members. I believe such members wish to live the gospel and harbor no ill-will toward the Church. They are just trying to understand the gospel and live the scriptures. I would hope the Church would not marginalize such members nor shun them, but I do see that happen. While I would like to get more acceptance and validation, I accept that being outside of various correlated teachings puts me at least in the "caution" category, so-to-speak, so I don't expect to get validation. In fact I truly doubt I will. For some people that may cause them to feel too much on the outside. I guess I just became used to that over the course of my life. I have learned to deal with that, but I certainly understand people that are hurt or leave over it. I hope the Church never resorts to kicking them out. Indeed, the Church seems to be instructed never to persecute its members - that seems to include for varying beliefs. So long as members are not trying to lead other members after them, or to otherwise harm the Church, or are not living in open defiance/sin, I believe such people are valuable members of the Church in various stages of belief and doubts. So to any reading this who feel they are in this latter category, I only wish to say that I hope they have no fear in presenting their doubts or feeling that they are alone or unworthy or other such things, and I hope that like me they can find joy in living the restored gospel.

[rpn]

1)  The first value is that few people actually fit the TBM stereotype, and the church is full of people who dearly love the savior, believe it is the Lord's church and still do not have testimonies of everything that comes out of every church leader's mouths.  So the people who others are calling middle way, are in reality simply another segment of church members who whether TBM or wildly different thinking, still are not the stereotypes given them.   It is therefore pointless and even demeaning to decide for anyone in any category what their worth is.

2)   The ordinances matter.   Wherever someone is on the range of testimonies and objective perfection, being a member, having had the ordinances offers both protection and access.

3)  Since baptism, personal best and quick repentance = perfect in Christ, one always have to wonder whether all those people "TBMs" (or whatever flavor of member) would get rid of might be more square with God, than those asking to eject them (and therefore judging unrighteously) are.   If the despised are perfect in Christ by ejected, while the "righteous" are not perfect in Christ because they despise, just what is accomplished by throwing out people at all?