Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad.

I wonder how well faith supports a person in depression when their depression is caused by a loss of faith.

I think it's also worth noting that many in "faith" crisis are really in crisis with their relationship to the church, not their faith in Christ. Faith in Jesus and faith in the church are often confused. One can lose faith in an institutional church and all of the fear that separation from the institution could cause, while still holding faith in God/Jesus.

This, of course, was not my experience, as one can see from my participation here. I came away with an even stronger confirmation that the Church is indeed the Church of Jesus Christ. I was not seeking that confirmation at that time.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 As to your last two questions.  I don't know the answers.  I think any dissident would be considered a NOM so long as they take part in membership in the church.

Thank you -- it seems to be a flexible term that people choose to use to describe themselves or someone else who doesn't quite "fit in" to the degree they expect they should or think others expect them to. Its flexibility may be emotionally useful but is also a distraction -- I think it's better I think to take people as they are.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

Simply a reference to the NT premise of considering oneself a pilgrim...in a strange land...longing for a heavenly home.

Back to OP.

Yes. With regards to the OP, I think hearing about the point at which someone identifying as NOM should not be considered such by fellow NOMs would help in determining  whether or not they should prioritize membership or not.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad.

I wonder how well faith supports a person in depression when their depression is caused by a loss of faith.

I think it's also worth noting that many in "faith" crisis are really in crisis with their relationship to the church, not their faith in Christ. Faith in Jesus and faith in the church are often confused. One can lose faith in an institutional church and all of the fear that separation from the institution could cause, while still holding faith in God/Jesus.

Avoiding the use of the term "NOM" to label people in faith crisis, or to label those who are disappointed in the Church, it seems that when spiritual resources are not trusted, emotional (professional) sources would be most appropriate, especially when depression is involved. Depression and faith are so interrelated/interactive that I think professional help is warranted when an ecclesiastical leader/system hasn't been able to alleviate the pain.

[ALarson]

On 6/28/2017 at 6:27 AM, CV75 said:

Also, I saw in one post Posted 22 hours ago kudos for a popular "NOM" teacher. Is he popular because he teaches "NOM" principles, or because he teaches well from the manual and happens to be "NOM"?

I just saw this and wanted to respond (since it is regarding my earlier post).

Here is an example of how this Gospel Doctrine teacher leads discussions.  He taught a recent lesson that involved the telling of the milk strippings story and Thomas Marsh.  He gave all details available and told the whole story (as much as possible) instead of what is usually related.  The class members were fascinated and loved hearing more about it.  He also told of how Marsh returned to the church years later.  However, he did not relate Brigham Young's very unkind and humiliating public comments he made upon Marsh's return.  He tries to still keep the conversation a faithful one and is very good at doing this.

He then opened up the discussion by asking members to raise their hands it they've had a family member or friend go inactive or leave the church.  Many hands went up.  He then asked how many of these members left because they were offended ("keep your hands up if they did") and all hands went down.  This led to a great discussion over why members are really leaving today.  It stayed civil and positive and ended with discussing what we can do as members to help those who are struggling.  It became obvious that many there had either gone through this themselves or were currently struggling.  There was a feeling of love and acceptance and members respond to this.

Edited June 30, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just saw this and wanted to respond (since it is regarding my earlier post).

Here is an example of how this Gospel Doctrine teacher leads discussions.  He taught a recent lesson that involved the telling of the milk strippings story and Thomas Marsh.  He gave all details available and told the whole story (as much as possible) instead of what is usually related.  The class members were fascinated and loved hearing more about it.  He also told of how Marsh returned to the church years later.  However, he did not relate Brigham Young's very unkind and humiliating public comments he made upon Marsh's return.  He tries to still keep the conversation a faithful one and is very good at doing this.

He then opened up the discussion by asking members to raise their hands it they've had a family member or friend go inactive or leave the church.  Many hands went up.  He then asked how many of these members left because they were offended ("keep your hands up if they did") and all hands went down.  This led to a great discussion over why members are really leaving today.  It stayed civil and positive and ended with discussing what we can do as members to help those who are struggling.  It became obvious that many there had either gone through this themselves or were currently struggling.  There was a feeling of love and acceptance and members respond to this.

But what does this have to do with being a NOM? I've taught similar lessons in similar ways and I don't consider myself to be a NOM. The hand-raising responses I seem to solicit seem to be "yes, no, both" but maybe I'm not that clear in what I'm asking LOL

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But what does this have to do with being a NOM? I've taught similar lessons in similar ways and I don't consider myself to be a NOM. The hand-raising responses I seem to solicit seem to be "yes, no, both" but maybe I'm not that clear in what I'm asking LOL

I think it's great if you have taught in a similar manner.  However, most seem to just follow what is in the manual and do not give the complete story regarding Thomas Marsh (if they even know it).  From what I could tell, many (most?) in the class had not heard the other details of why Marsh left and very few knew that he returned to the church.  

I know this brother well (the teacher) and he is most definitely an unorthodox member or middle way or NOM (or whatever other label you want to give him....I really don't like labels but know they are necessary at times). He knows a great deal about church history, details, warts and all, but holds back with giving anything too negative or controversial when teaching.  

I see members who are bored to death with the lessons as written and that's why many don't even stay for SS (or Priesthood and RS) now.   As a bishopric, we discussed at length whether or not to call this brother as a teacher (and both the Bishop and myself are unorthodox believers of sorts), but trusted that he'd use discretion in his teaching and he has thus far.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's great if you have taught in a similar manner.  However, most seem to just follow what is in the manual and do not give the complete story regarding Thomas Marsh (if they even know it).  From what I could tell, many (most?) in the class had not heard the other details of why Marsh left and very few knew that he returned to the church.  

I know this brother well (the teacher) and he is most definitely an unorthodox member or middle way or NOM (or whatever other label you want to give him....I really don't like labels but know they are necessary at times). He knows a great deal about church history, details, warts and all, but holds back with giving anything too negative or controversial when teaching.  

I see members who are bored to death with the lessons as written and that's why many don't even stay for SS (or Priesthood and RS) now.   As a bishopric, we discussed at length whether or not to call this brother as a teacher (and both the Bishop and myself are unorthodox believers of sorts), but trusted that he'd use discretion in his teaching and he has thus far.

This has to be the direction the church needs to go in order to successfully transition from the one-sided story it was teaching to the whole story.  "The church lied to me," whether or not one believes it, is a reason people cite as to why they leave.  The narrative does need to be changed and this GD teacher seems to get it.

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

 

He then opened up the discussion by asking members to raise their hands it they've had a family member or friend go inactive or leave the church.  Many hands went up.  He then asked how many of these members left because they were offended ("keep your hands up if they did") and all hands went down.  This led to a great discussion over why members are really leaving today.  I

Yes, the 'offended' claim that many members often regurgitate is almost universally false. In a survey done by the PEW institute on why (all) Christians leave their Church, taken a few years back, it didn't even make the top 10

Edited June 30, 2017 by mnn727

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's great if you have taught in a similar manner.  However, most seem to just follow what is in the manual and do not give the complete story regarding Thomas Marsh (if they even know it).  From what I could tell, many (most?) in the class had not heard the other details of why Marsh left and very few knew that he returned to the church.  

I know this brother well (the teacher) and he is most definitely an unorthodox member or middle way or NOM (or whatever other label you want to give him....I really don't like labels but know they are necessary at times). He knows a great deal about church history, details, warts and all, but holds back with giving anything too negative or controversial when teaching.  

I see members who are bored to death with the lessons as written and that's why many don't even stay for SS (or Priesthood and RS) now.   As a bishopric, we discussed at length whether or not to call this brother as a teacher (and both the Bishop and myself are unorthodox believers of sorts), but trusted that he'd use discretion in his teaching and he has thus far.

I haven't seen much usefulness for the label "NOM" in this thread -- to me, it has proven to be meaningless in helping people understand each otehr enough to relate well to each other. Example: "he is most definitely an unorthodox member or middle way or NOM (or whatever other label you want to give him" -- the whole notion seems wrought with contradiction. And "unorthodox believers of sorts" are just sort of NOMs (or whatever, LOL).

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I haven't seen much usefulness for the label "NOM" in this thread -- to me, it has proven to be meaningless in helping people understand each otehr enough to relate well to each other. Example: "he is most definitely an unorthodox member or middle way or NOM (or whatever other label you want to give him" -- the whole notion seems wrought with contradiction. And "unorthodox believers of sorts" are just sort of NOMs (or whatever, LOL).

I'm not sure what you're laughing at here.  We are discussing real members who no longer believe in a strict orthodox manner regarding the church.  I think you really do understand, but are just acting naive or like you have no idea what is being discussed here.  You seem to be stuck or obsessed with discussing the label "NOM" when you can't possible be that uninformed with what is taking place with the beliefs of many members today.  Have you served in any leadership positions recently?  If so, I have to believe you have experience with members going through this (or possibly a family member or friend if not as a leader).  This is not that difficult to understand, IMO.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you're laughing at here.  We are discussing real members who no longer believe in a strict orthodox manner regarding the church.  I think you really do understand, but are just acting naive or like you have no idea what is being discussed here.  You seem to be stuck or obsessed with discussing the label "NOM" when you can't possible be that uninformed with what is taking place with the beliefs of many members today.  Have you served in any leadership positions recently?  If so, I have to believe you have experience with members going through this (or possibly a family member or friend if not as a leader).  This is not that difficult to understand, IMO.

I'm laughing at the contradiction of using a term that at once "most definitely" describes someone along with "whatever," and that "sort of" is another form of "whatever".

Yes, I am focusing on the label NOM because it is attached to real people with real problems. If it could be defined, that would help understanding them and their problems, at least when it is used to describe a particular person and situation. Otherwise, we should throw it out. But so many of the best and brightest on this thread are using it that I'm giving it the benefit of a doubt. But nobody has indulged me with a coherent description of what it is--the conversation just kind of drops off. Is it something that only special people can discern and aren't supposed to fully articulate (too scared to share?)? I think not...

I think simplifying "what is taking place with the beliefs of many members today" does them a disservice, and it seems the term can contribute to that.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/26/2017 at 2:20 PM, 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? http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

A huge waste of time. And in the process Reel looks like a crybaby. What a monumental waste of time; with one side of his mouth "I want to stay, I love this Church" with other side of mouth "I can't do this anymore, this "narrative" is so wrong"....

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm laughing at the contradiction of using a term that at once "most definitely" describes someone along with "whatever," and that "sort of" is another form of "whatever".

Yes, I am focusing on the label NOM because it is attached to real people with real problems. If it could be defined, that would help understanding them and their problems, at least when it is used to describe a particular person and situation. Otherwise, we should throw it out. But so many of the best and brightest on this thread are using it that I'm giving it the benefit of a doubt. But nobody has indulged me with a coherent description of what it is--the conversation just kind of drops off. Is it something that only special people can discern and aren't supposed to fully articulate (too scared to share?)? I think not...

I think simplifying "what is taking place with the beliefs of many members today" does them a disservice, and it seems the term can contribute to that.

Many have explained to you who is being discussed here (starting with HJW's opening post).  But if you truly want to understand and get to know some of the members who feel they are NOMs or middle way Mormons, etc., then google "New Order Mormon" (using the quotes) and then click on the first link and start reading.   

Edited June 30, 2017 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm laughing at the contradiction of using a term that at once "most definitely" describes someone along with "whatever," and that "sort of" is another form of "whatever".

Yes, I am focusing on the label NOM because it is attached to real people with real problems. If it could be defined, that would help understanding them and their problems, at least when it is used to describe a particular person and situation. Otherwise, we should throw it out. But so many of the best and brightest on this thread are using it that I'm giving it the benefit of a doubt. But nobody has indulged me with a coherent description of what it is--the conversation just kind of drops off. Is it something that only special people can discern and aren't supposed to fully articulate (too scared to share?)? I think not...

I think simplifying "what is taking place with the beliefs of many members today" does them a disservice, and it seems the term can contribute to that.

Well, this thread isn't really about labeling people NOM. The term was used in the OP as one of many ways people may self-identify. There is no hard/fast definition of what is NOM and who or who isn't NOM. Some people like to use the label to identify themselves as non-traditional members. Some like to use it (or other labels) to acknowledge some level of difference between them and the more orthodox. If the word is causing you too much confusion and/or angst, I'd recommend not using it. But suggesting that everyone throw away the term because you're not satisfied with the definition seems a bit like taking the football and going home if you don't get to be the quarterback.

All I can do is share what my understanding of the phrase is and how I would choose to use it (or not) to self-describe and how I think it fits me.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

A huge waste of time. And in the process Reel looks like a crybaby. What a monumental waste of time; with one side of his mouth "I want to stay, I love this Church" with other side of mouth "I can't do this anymore, this "narrative" is so wrong"....

I think there are two sides pulling. Emotions are often caught in the middle so it's not surprising to see someone fluctuate back and forth. I have days where I totally feel like I can make it work for the long haul. Other days I wonder why I'm even trying. That's kind of the human condition, isn't it?

In any case, calling him a "crybaby" is a bit rude and unwanted on this thread. As I said in the OP, this isn't about the individuals participating in the podcast, but rather about the idea of staying or going. I hope you can recognize that it's a struggle for many people to make such a weighty decision and they want to give it full consideration and due diligence.

[Atheist Mormon]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think there are two sides pulling. Emotions are often caught in the middle so it's not surprising to see someone fluctuate back and forth. I have days where I totally feel like I can make it work for the long haul. Other days I wonder why I'm even trying. That's kind of the human condition, isn't it?

In any case, calling him a "crybaby" is a bit rude and unwanted on this thread. As I said in the OP, this isn't about the individuals participating in the podcast, but rather about the idea of staying or going. I hope you can recognize that it's a struggle for many people to make such a weighty decision and they want to give it full consideration and due diligence.

OK, HappyJackWagon, the adjective "Crybaby" is well warranted when it takes over fifteen years for a decision to drag. I listened all those pods like you did. Reel, not only knew the facts from the getgo, he had every opportunity to make a decision to separate himself from the Church anytime, It wasn't like Church hid any facts from Reel....... I was in his shoes.....after seeing the evidence what did I do? Life is too short to torment yourself about the facts you know. Besides he has a successful podcast show and makes a living......I'm sorry if I'm coming across hard.....All he does is waste his time with torment. 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well, this thread isn't really about labeling people NOM. The term was used in the OP as one of many ways people may self-identify. There is no hard/fast definition of what is NOM and who or who isn't NOM. Some people like to use the label to identify themselves as non-traditional members. Some like to use it (or other labels) to acknowledge some level of difference between them and the more orthodox. If the word is causing you too much confusion and/or angst, I'd recommend not using it. But suggesting that everyone throw away the term because you're not satisfied with the definition seems a bit like taking the football and going home if you don't get to be the quarterback.

All I can do is share what my understanding of the phrase is and how I would choose to use it (or not) to self-describe and how I think it fits me.

I see where CV75 is coming from though.  My problems with the label are: 

1) It is not really a "new order" at all.  It has been around from the beginning, and takes its cues from the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young , and many others, and from examples like Orson Pratt.  Choosing your own conscience over what any man tells you, be they a bishop, apostle, or president of the church, has been part of our heritage and teachings from the beginning.  For some reason, that has turned into the "unorthodox" approach to Mormonism, but I don't see it that way.

2) What purpose does it serve other than creating division, when we should be striving for unity?  The only reason that I can think of that a person would want to self identify as a "New Order Mormon" is because they are too uncomfortable identifying as simply Mormon.  It comes off as a divisive and prideful attempt to make themselves separate from the body of the saints, as if there is something wrong with identifying with the general membership, or as if they are somehow better then the "regular" Mormons in some way.  That, to me, is unfortunate, because the principles they embrace are uniquely Mormon.

So many thoughts, so little time... this will have to do for now. 

 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Many have explained to you who is being discussed here (starting with HJW's opening post).  But if you truly want to understand and get to know some of the members who feel they are NOMs or middle way Mormons, etc., then google "New Order Mormon" (using the quotes) and then click on the first link and start reading.   

I did Google it and got a lot of support groups with no clear definition, and individual posts didn't seem to match up with Wikipedia.

I originally posted, in response to the OP, about the unscrupulousness of steering those in faith crisis away from membership and the attendant ecclesiastical counseling and discipline services available to them, and how strategies to retain membership, when under legitimate counseling and discipline processes membership would not be appropriate to retain, are also unscrupulous. The term wasn't a big deal to me; I thought the OP was about faith crisis. But then I saw NOM mentioned more and more and seemingly as code for loss of belief or faith crisis, and I challenged that based on what I had Googled in the first place.

[CV75]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Well, this thread isn't really about labeling people NOM. The term was used in the OP as one of many ways people may self-identify. There is no hard/fast definition of what is NOM and who or who isn't NOM. Some people like to use the label to identify themselves as non-traditional members. Some like to use it (or other labels) to acknowledge some level of difference between them and the more orthodox. If the word is causing you too much confusion and/or angst, I'd recommend not using it. But suggesting that everyone throw away the term because you're not satisfied with the definition seems a bit like taking the football and going home if you don't get to be the quarterback.

All I can do is share what my understanding of the phrase is and how I would choose to use it (or not) to self-describe and how I think it fits me.

I do appreciate what you shared about it, as a self-described NOM. At this point I'd just like to know where the term, as flexible/catch-all as it is, originated, or who coined it. Anyone know?

To backtrack a little, In ALs' teacher story, the term didn't seem connected to someone having a faith crisis, but he made a point of describing him as a NOM. Why would that be relevant, or important? @ALarson

I wouldn't say it's causing me confusion or angst, but I do like to think critically, be thorough and challenge inconsistencies and contradictions, which is evidently what good NOMs do (oh no, am I one? LOL...)

I wasn't being literal about abolishing the term from the English language, just emphasizing how useless a term it is for me, which many if not all in this thread, the long run seem to agree with.

Now hypothetically, had I confusion and angst and your advice is not to use the word, at what point would you advise a person in crisis to not use the Church, whether for example to stay a member in name only or to seek help from the bishop?

Edited June 30, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did Google it and got a lot of support groups with no clear definition, and individual posts didn't seem to match up with Wikipedia.

Maybe try "NewOrderMormon.net" if you are really interested in finding more information on and understanding these members.  That forum is not difficult to locate.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe try "NewOrderMormon.net" if you are really interested in finding more information on and understanding these members.  That forum is not difficult to locate.

I think I am interested in understanding the members, that is an ongoing priority and activity for me. I'm more interested at this point how the term originated and caught on. Has this thread gone on with me not being the only one not knowing?

Edited June 30, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To backtrack a little, In ALs' teacher story, the term didn't seem connected to someone having a faith crisis, but he made a point of describing him as a NOM.

One doesn't have to be in a "faith crisis" to feel they are a NOM.    The teacher in my example is certainly not having any type of crisis related to what he currently believes.

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

One doesn't have to be in a "faith crisis" to feel they are a NOM.    The teacher in my example is certainly not having any type of crisis related to what he currently believes.

I see that. I just don't see a material difference between a NOM having a faith crisis and any other member, except perhaps in getting to understand someone better when he talks about himself as a NOM (in which case I would ask him to explain what that means, and what it means in relation to his crisis) as opposed to others talking about NOMs in a thread about faith crisis.

Edit: I hesitate to ask this, but what does your teacher friend mean in referring to himself as a NOM? Does he visit a support group site?

Edited June 30, 2017 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did Google it and got a lot of support groups with no clear definition, and individual posts didn't seem to match up with Wikipedia.

I originally posted, in response to the OP, about the unscrupulousness of steering those in faith crisis away from membership and the attendant ecclesiastical counseling and discipline services available to them, and how strategies to retain membership, when under legitimate counseling and discipline processes membership would not be appropriate to retain, are also unscrupulous. The term wasn't a big deal to me; I thought the OP was about faith crisis. But then I saw NOM mentioned more and more and seemingly as code for loss of belief or faith crisis, and I challenged that based on what I had Googled in the first place.

This podcast specifically talks about New Order Mormons if you're looking for more info. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/new-order-mormons

And a decent article http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2012/07/the-threat-of-new-order-mormons/

The name isn't really that important though. It's just a label that is used as a shorthand to get a general idea that a person still participates in the church even if they are unorthodox or even unbelieving.