"Faith Crisis" support group?

[Jeanne]

At my crisis time..I had postmo....LDS sites...and my church leaders.  And all this..a lonely time.  Would have loved a face to face group of any kind of support.

Edited to add:  At the time that I moved from my ward to another place, John Dehlin was my contact to stay in.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

At my crisis time..I had postmo....LDS sites...and my church leaders.  And all this..a lonely time.  Would have loved a face to face group of any kind of support.

I know the feeling. The only person who ever reached out to me in kindness was Daniel Peterson, but that was a couple of years later, when it was pretty much over.

[JAHS]

On the ward level church members who are having a faith crisis might not be willing to sit in a group of other ward members, simply because it is a very personal thing that they may not want others to know about. 
I think for many members their concerns might be best addressed and more openly discussed in a one on one setting with their Bishop or Stake President or close friend who will keep it all confidential. 
A ward support group might do more harm than good if several people bring up concerns that the other members didn't even consider or know about thus adding to and increasing their faith crisis.
Discussions could get heated if they are not well controlled and moderated by someone in charge of the group. 

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then the question becomes are they more often wrong then the person making that statement? I find the messengers are better at revelation then I am and are more likely to be right. Plus I have the assurance that they will not lead me to hell and that God stands with them despite their occasional errors.

Is the average John or Jane Doe doubter so good at receiving clear revelation that they can safely dispense with Apostles as they are a superior source of truth?

A physicist once made a mistake so I am not going to trust any of them. I will just figure out the laws of physics on my own (math is easy) while I build a starship to fly to Koloa. I am sure it will turn out fine.

I'm not saying that John/Jane is going to get it right all the time. But that is up to them, to get personal revelation. Sure we can take the good that the apostles/leaders put out, but if they are saying live polygamy or be damned, or blacks are cursed, or Adam is God, or ...

In the D&C, are we to believe these verses below, or can it be a dangerous thing? I believe we are to get so close to the Lord, (I'm so  not there) that we can get His guidance and be assured. 

"As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, just as Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as our prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.

You can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

"Your greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14-16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory" (D&C 21:4-6).

Edited June 27, 2018 by Tacenda

[changed]

56 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

This is true. The Church frowns on discussing issues outside of the lessons, Archaeology, etc. 

The Church has also frowned on outside study groups probably for many of the same reasons. I have an inquisitive mind, which is always asking and searching for answers. To me the Church is all about having an open mind and learning from the best sources until one becomes a member, and then it seems the dialogue of members changes to not reading that "anti-material." I have read a lot of it, because I am interested in addressing it, and diffusing it. A typical example would be the CES Letter.

How many inactives have gone through a faith crisis? My guess is a lot of them, if not most of them to some extent. I remember a story of someone on Beliefnet who was investigating the Church and heard a voice say "It is true. It is true." He was attracted to the teachings of the Church, ie the restored gospel, and this was the straw that pushed him into the Church. He was happily in the Church for awhile, but began to learn about some issues which he had not known when he joined, and he began to doubt the Church. He eventually left, and was posting against the Church in the Beliefnet forums. 

I am personally of the opinion that if there were archaeology sites which people could see actually supported the Book of Mormon, that would do much to alleviate the concerns of those who choose to leave the Church or go inactive. Then they would feel Joseph was not just making it up. 

I believe this day was foreseen when the faith of members would wane. 

8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Church does not know prophecy when they see it, and has interpreted a good number of things incorrectly. This news is not welcome by the Church because it casts doubt on the Church leadership. Yet, they themselves say the Lord will not allow them to lead the Church astray. Of course they do not envision an "outsider" as being the one to correct them. Anyone who they perceive as correcting them seems to get labeled as "ark steadiers" in a condescending manner, which I find quite ironic since it refers to this very scripture which indicates the ark needs steadying, but will not be easily steadied. 

I have said on this very forum I will not teach false doctrine. Despite several early doctrines being repudiated by the Church (ie, Adam-god, blood atonement, etc)  the Church continues to take a hard stand on those who do not see eye to eye with traditional teachings. While these issues may not be the issues which have disturbed your apple cart, they are issues which bug me - for instance Eden in America. Some view these issues as almost quaint - giving the Church a "different feel." I, however, believe them to be damaging to the Church.

What I am telling you is I strongly doubt you will ever see some kind of officially sanctioned faith crisis support group. The Church is still in the stage where it believes "when the prophet[president] has spoken, the thinking is done." It expects members to simply follow what has been taught without "thinking." Thus, my type of questioning is not welcome. It is perceived as disturbing the apple cart, and raising questions can cause doubts which are seen as the work of the devil. 

When a hierarchy espouses truth, it is a powerful thing, but there has never been a hierarchy which has continually espoused truth. By its own admission this includes our current Church hierarchy, which has itself denounced certain early Church teachings. This is troubling to some. Strangely, to me it brings hope. Hope for change - that the Church will eventually realize more things it has incorrectly taught - like physical sacrifice has been done away - and will show more patience with those who have written about such issues. 

While my guess is such issues are not what trouble you, I bring them up as examples, and to let you know that one can have such beliefs and yet be active in the Church. I also want to let you know that you are free to discuss your issues in forums such as this one, although that is not what you seek. I am probably not going to provide satisfying answers on issues like polygamy. My spiel on this issue is if you don't like polygamy, just say no. Contrary to early rhetoric it is not a commandment, nor is temporal polygamy necessary for exaltation. Just another area where the Church was wrong. If you can live with Church leaders being wrong despite their rhetoric, and still love the restored gospel and the scriptures, that should help relieve internal stress. On more modern issues such as LGBTQ, I don't see the Church changing much more. I personally do not like the November policy, but i suppose the Church has seen youth struggle with their parents when choosing to join the Church, and doesn't wish to be a part of that struggle. However, I think Christ foresaw such difficulties when He taught that His sword of truth would divide father and child. I have not been persuaded that the parent's permission is not sufficient in these cases.

I have read most of the anti stuff (my extended family are not members), have actually received an answer on polygamy - see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/one-thing-needful-becoming-women-of-greater-faith-in-christ?lang=eng, it comes from the "Law of Sarah",   Abraham/Sarah/Isaac are symbols of Heavenly parents - it concerns a handmaid being the mother of Jesus - their "only" son... Eve did not bear children in her perfect form either... look up all the "barren women" scriptures and think through what all of that is about, why transgression was needed to bear children etc.  the point is to raise up seed... the handmaid Mary was a virgin, the handmaid relationship was temporary with Mary having her own husband and family in the end, it was a trial of faith but I get it... not an answer everyone will accept, but there it is.  

I have family who are LGBT - I told them Christianity is a religion of sacrifice, and everyone's Abrahamic sacrifice is personal and different.  If a Catholic nun will not condemn me for not choosing celibacy, I will not condemn my Aunties for their family either.  They need one another, they are beautiful together, and I am not a pharisee.  I think it is wonderful that familysearch is now recording SS couples in the LDS family tree.  

I do believe a certain maturity is needed before tackling some of the deeper doctrines - if you know it, you will be responsible and accountable for living it, so it is good that everyone does not know some things, because they cannot live it.  There are also things that can only be innocently learned by someone who comes into it in ignorance.  

It feels like the church can do a good job starting someone down the road, but at some point - when people are old and strong enough to stand on their own two feet - it does become a personal affair, and you have to let go of any crutch of relying on the arms of flesh.  

I wish there was a better balance within the church of supporting personal thought and the development of personal testimonies more - no borrowed light - prophet or not prophet, in the end it is between each individual and G-d, with no middleman about it.  ... to be a community, without being a dictatorship ... without pride, without holding themselves above other beautiful belief systems, or others of G-ds children.  

Edited June 27, 2018 by changed

[changed]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

On the ward level church members who are having a faith crisis might not be willing to sit in a group of other ward members, simply because it is a very personal thing that they may not want others to know about. 
I think for many members their concerns might be best addressed and more openly discussed in a one on one setting with their Bishop or Stake President or close friend who will keep it all confidential. 
A ward support group might do more harm than good if several people bring up concerns that the other members didn't even consider or know about thus adding to and increasing their faith crisis.
Discussions could get heated if they are not well controlled and moderated by someone in charge of the group. 

 

The Bishop's #1 job are the youth in the church - they do not have time for long doctrinal discussions.  It is just logistics - church leaders are too busy to handle this type of thing well, not their fault, they just do not have the time for it.

controlled setting is what happens at Sunday mtgs - and that is not what someone going through a crisis needs.  Most people who go into crisis mode, go all the way - have read it all, know it all - the best to lead the group would be someone who has read everything, and came out of it a solid member in the end.  The right leadership could direct an open conversion in the best way I think.  Avoiding the problem areas in the church does not solve any problems.  First of the 12 steps - admit the problem, face it, define it - impossible to get to step 2 without first admitting the problem.  ... some of the addiction 12 step programs I think could be applied to a faith crisis too.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by changed

[changed]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not saying that John/Jane is going to get it right all the time. But that is up to them, to get personal revelation. Sure we can take the good that the apostles/leaders put out, but if they are saying live polygamy or be damned, or blacks are cursed, or Adam is God, or ...

In the D&C, are we to believe these verses below, or can it be a dangerous thing? I believe we are to get so close to the Lord, (I'm so  not there) that we can get His guidance and be assured. 

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, just as Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as our prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.

You can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

Your greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14-16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory" (D&C 21:4-6).

 

I am not sure why I am unable to "like" your posts?  consider your post "loved".  

My fave AOF is:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There is no need for leadership to try to define and dictate every last belief that everyone should have - leave some things ambiguous, leave some (most?) things as "not official church doctrine" - believe what you will on it.  

Allowing everyone personal exploration, and personal revelation - without controlling every last doctrine - that would be healthy for everyone I think.  

[CA Steve]

3 minutes ago, changed said:

 

The Bishop's #1 job are the youth in the church - they do not have time for long doctrinal discussions.  It is just logistics - church leaders are too busy to handle this type of thing well, not their fault, they just do not have the time for it.

controlled setting is what happens at Sunday mtgs - and that is not what someone going through a crisis needs.  Most people who go into crisis mode, go all the way - have read it all, know it all - the best to lead the group would be someone who has read everything, and came out of it a solid member in the end.  The right leadership could direct an open conversion in the best way I think.  Avoiding the problem areas in the church does not solve any problems.  First of the 12 steps - admit the problem, face it, define it - impossible to get to step 2 without first admitting the problem.  ... some of the addiction 12 step programs I think could be applied to a faith crisis too.

 

I think there is an underlying assumption here on your part about leadership. I have not seen any consistency in leadership at local levels when it comes to dealing with  and knowledge of troublesome issues. My guess is that these meetings would vary wildly in how the local leader decided to hold "open" conversations. I think the church realizes that also, for the same reason the church discourages outside scripture study. Simply put,  church sanctioned meetings are tightly scripted.  I am not sure how one could hold these meetings and adhere to a church framework and have open, honest and direct conversations in a group setting. On top of that I suspect that there would often be people attending the meetings who were far better informed about church issues than whomever was leading the meeting. I don't believe the church has a large  pool of lay leadership who would be able to handle this kind of meeting.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

The Bishop's #1 job are the youth in the church - they do not have time for long doctrinal discussions.

Every Bishop I know has made time for members to talk about their concerns about the church.  Could also be done by home teachers (excuse me ministers).

 

8 minutes ago, changed said:

controlled setting is what happens at Sunday mtgs - and that is not what someone going through a crisis needs.  Most people who go into crisis mode, go all the way - have read it all, know it all - the best to lead the group would be someone who has read everything, and came out of it a solid member in the end.  The right leadership could direct an open conversion in the best way I think.

The right leadership directing the conversation is what I meant by a controlled setting.  We actually tried such a support group in the past in our ward and nobody showed up for the meetings.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, changed said:

 

I am not sure why I am unable to "like" your posts?  consider your post "loved".  

My fave AOF is:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There is no need for leadership to try to define and dictate every last belief that everyone should have - leave some things ambiguous, leave some (most?) things as "not official church doctrine" - believe what you will on it.  

Allowing everyone personal exploration, and personal revelation - without controlling every last doctrine - that would be healthy for everyone I think.  

Thanks for the love!  I am on what this board calls "limited". I cannot receive or give upvotes or I can only post 12 times per day and not able to post topics. I actually don't mind, because I'd be all over the place. Limited because some of my comments got me in trouble, or I may have started too many topics, many things I'm not able to put my finger on. 

Just wondering if you happen to have noticed the links I posted previously on this thread. Going to post again, I think it's pretty cool. Wish the church had it on LDS.org or something. The guy in charge seems to be legitimately TBM, or a true believer in the church. I think it may be helpful until you find what works...

http://www.listenlearnandlove.org/faith-challenges

http://www.stakeandwardresources.org/stories

Edited June 27, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

Will the church allow people to get together like firesides after church to talk and just discuss   Oh...how I would have loved this with people that were trusted in my life at the time.  I am sure that it is no go...but I would hope that someday the church may see this as an advantage.  To be in...and yet thoughtful and yearning for knowledge in a way that gives free agency a new meaning.

[FearlessFixxer]

I am not sure if this has already been said, but r/mormon might be a decent place to try.

[JAHS]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Will the church allow people to get together like firesides after church to talk and just discuss   Oh...how I would have loved this with people that were trusted in my life at the time.  I am sure that it is no go...but I would hope that someday the church may see this as an advantage.  To be in...and yet thoughtful and yearning for knowledge in a way that gives free agency a new meaning.

Many years ago I remember my parents were in a "study group" that met at various members houses and discussed gospel topics.  Study groups are OK as long as they follow the counsel in the Church Handbook:

“Church members should not participate in groups that:

“1. Challenge religious and moral values or advocate unwarranted confrontation with spouse or family members as a means of reaching one’s potential.
“2. Imitate sacred rites or ceremonies.
“3. Foster physical contact among participants.
“4. Meet late into the evening or in the early-morning hours.
“5. Encourage open confession or disclosure of personal information normally discussed only in confidential settings.
“6. Cause a husband and wife to be paired with other parties.”

We strongly counsel against affiliation with any such group and warn against believing any claim of Church approval, tacit or otherwise, by any private organization offering “experiential” or “empowerment” training."
 

[juliann]

14 hours ago, changed said:

There are anti-support groups out there that mirror this for sure - there is tons of support for people who want to leave the church, and not as much support for those tinkering on the edge of almost wanting to stay... 

Yes - it would have to have some spiritually redeeming quality to it - perhaps something a little alternative, meditation, or sharing anything uplifting - not necessarily from the traditional scriptures -  just anything.  The point being to get your mind in a happy place, non-resentful, free to believe what you are able to believe kind of a place.

I understand the need for validation and a knowledge that you are not alone, but I also wonder if some things are a personal journey. Religion is an intensely personal experience. There are legitimate gripes about how unhelpful church stuff can be, but I think part of the success so many have had with revamping their belief system maybe because of the personal and lonely struggle that makes what emerges theirs. The advantage now is that people no longer need to feel like they are the only ones while they do it. 

IMO, successful members are all going to have to realign their thinking as we drop the black/white paradigm. At least in my ward, different ways of looking at things are being introduced. Rather than a large group of hardliners enforcing boundaries, it is now one or two who aren't very successful. There is still a reluctance to allow "controversy" but that really is only a communication skill that we aren't good at yet. It is all in how it is done and requires "Mormonspeak." 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, changed said:

I have read most of the anti stuff (my extended family are not members), have actually received an answer on polygamy - see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/one-thing-needful-becoming-women-of-greater-faith-in-christ?lang=eng, it comes from the "Law of Sarah",   Abraham/Sarah/Isaac are symbols of Heavenly parents - it concerns a handmaid being the mother of Jesus - their "only" son... Eve did not bear children in her perfect form either... look up all the "barren women" scriptures and think through what all of that is about, why transgression was needed to bear children etc.  the point is to raise up seed... the handmaid Mary was a virgin, the handmaid relationship was temporary with Mary having her own husband and family in the end, it was a trial of faith but I get it... not an answer everyone will accept, but there it is.  

I have family who are LGBT - I told them Christianity is a religion of sacrifice, and everyone's Abrahamic sacrifice is personal and different.  If a Catholic nun will not condemn me for not choosing celibacy, I will not condemn my Aunties for their family either.  They need one another, they are beautiful together, and I am not a pharisee.  I think it is wonderful that familysearch is now recording SS couples in the LDS family tree.  

I do believe a certain maturity is needed before tackling some of the deeper doctrines - if you know it, you will be responsible and accountable for living it, so it is good that everyone does not know some things, because they cannot live it.  There are also things that can only be innocently learned by someone who comes into it in ignorance.  

It feels like the church can do a good job starting someone down the road, but at some point - when people are old and strong enough to stand on their own two feet - it does become a personal affair, and you have to let go of any crutch of relying on the arms of flesh.  

I find myself identifying with you a good bit. It is nice to be able to share with people of like thoughts.... When I joined the Church, I loved everything about it, but I was a child. The Church had answers for my issues with other Christian sects, and showed me answers out of the Bible. I was excited about the Church, and was all about the Church. This is supposed to be what the Church is about imho. To teach and preserve the gospel. To shine its light to seekers. 

Quote

I wish there was a better balance within the church of supporting personal thought and the development of personal testimonies more - no borrowed light - prophet or not prophet, in the end it is between each individual and G-d, with no middleman about it.  ... to be a community, without being a dictatorship ... without pride, without holding themselves above other beautiful belief systems, or others of G-ds children.  

Ultimately, you are right. As we mature, our testimonies will fade on borrowed light. We have to have our own to provide drive and feel vibrant. Otherwise, I think we risk mediocrity. I know Christ leads this Church, but to me that doesn't mean the leaders are always right, and if I relied on them, I believe I wouldn't find the way with the exception of Joseph Smith. I don't particularly like that children's song anymore. I believe the president of the Church actually doesn't know the way. I am not saying that he is leading anyone to hell, or that he doesn't hold the keys to run this Church - but just that to a certain extent the way has been hidden, and he didn't perceive it any better than past Christians. The Heavenly President of the Church, Yeshua, does know the way. He is the way, and has walked it, and thus in the end our truest leader. Ultimately, whether I am right or true is between me and the Lord. So, to that extent there is no community that I can rely upon. Thus, it behooves the community to guide rather than to dictate. This can be a fine distinction, and one I feel sometimes the Church has muffed, but I have stated these very same feelings previously on this board, and my hope that Sunday School class can be a little more open to exploring through the spirit, and give all an opportunity to speak on a subject without panicking if someone says something which seems to contradict what some Church leader has said or what's in the correlated materials.

There are other beautiful belief systems. I have always had a certain attraction to the Buddhist philosophy. While I don't strive to detach myself from emotion, I do believe there is benefit to disciplining the mind, and I feel this is where Buddhism excels. I believe many Christians lack a disciplined mind, and will allow their mind to wander where it should not go - for males this may be on lustful thoughts about women for instance. I see many Christian values and life teachings in Buddhism, and suspect that the Buddha may even have encountered Biblical teachings before his "enlightenment." So I celebrate Buddhism for its strengths, but this does not mean that I wholeheartedly  embrace it. I study it for what can make me a better Christian, and add to my perceptions of truth, but I perceive some fundamental things about it as not being true or practical anyway. For instance the Buddha's goal of escaping suffering. I believe suffering is inevitable in our temporal world, because I believe it is dualistic. We cannot know joy without knowing sorrow, etc.  

Nevertheless, Church leaders do have a responsibility to teach and defend the scriptures, and I perceive some risk in touting leaders of other faiths as purveyors of truth. I believe if we say these types of things we also need to be honest in perceptions of where they depart from the truth. For this reason statements about Muhammed being a teacher of truth, I think should be tempered with teachings that are incorrect - such as God has no Son. Otherwise, I see no problem in exploring other religions or sects for truths or successful practices. I certainly do it. I believe the very act of studying other belief systems and groups is a barrier to developing false pride.

Edited June 27, 2018 by RevTestament

[juliann]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Will the church allow people to get together like firesides after church to talk and just discuss   Oh...how I would have loved this with people that were trusted in my life at the time.  I am sure that it is no go...but I would hope that someday the church may see this as an advantage.  To be in...and yet thoughtful and yearning for knowledge in a way that gives free agency a new meaning.

Why would you need permission to get together with people? I can see where it could create problems taking up space in church buildings but there are other spaces. I think the need to have approval from local leaders once you are outside of church is a large part of the problem. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is key.

Where did you get this assurance?

I confirmed it via strong revelation.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not saying that John/Jane is going to get it right all the time. But that is up to them, to get personal revelation. Sure we can take the good that the apostles/leaders put out, but if they are saying live polygamy or be damned, or blacks are cursed, or Adam is God, or ...

In the D&C, are we to believe these verses below, or can it be a dangerous thing? I believe we are to get so close to the Lord, (I'm so  not there) that we can get His guidance and be assured. 

"As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord, just as Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Nephi, Mormon, and other prophets of the scriptures. We sustain the President of the Church as our prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church. We also sustain the counselors in the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Like the prophets of old, prophets today testify of Jesus Christ and teach His gospel. They make known God's will and true character. They speak boldly and clearly, denouncing sin and warning of its consequences. At times, they may be inspired to prophesy of future events for our benefit.

You can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

"Your greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14-16). He promises great blessings to those who follow the President of the Church:

"Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith. For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory" (D&C 21:4-6).

I believe them.

It is important to remember Brigham Young’s counsel that following without getting a testimony yourself of what is said is dangerous. Also his counsel that anyone who must be led in all things and is too lazy to seek revelation will never be exalted.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why would you need permission to get together with people? I can see where it could create problems taking up space in church buildings but there are other spaces. I think the need to have approval from local leaders once you are outside of church is a large part of the problem. 

I agree we shouldn’t need permission, but it’s how we’re made to feel at times.

My sister (who is very active in the church) began meeting with a group of other sisters (in her ward first and it has grown to others in her area joining) to discuss some church history books and they also read and discuss other books and topics.  Some were very intellectual type sisters who taught college, etc.   it was all done in a faithful manner but on the edge, I like would say (discussing some contraversial topics not discussed much at church such as polygamy).  

These were held in homes monthly and different books discussed.  Nothing was ever publicized through church meetings for this group.

One day the RS president came to my sister’s door and said she was in the area and wanted to say hi.  It ended up being awkward (for the RS president and my sister), as it soon was made known she was really there on assignment (from the SP through the Bishop and then to the RS President).  She started asking all kinds of questions about this book club and told my sister the Bishop had instructed her to tell my sister that she’s not to hold these meetings anymore.  All women coming to the group are strong, active members too.  So, yeah, we do feel we need permission when things like this happen.

Edited June 27, 2018 by JulieM

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I confirmed it via strong revelation.

I say/ask this not to ‘strong arm’ you into a position, but to understand your testimony:

Isn’t it fair to say then, that your own personal revelation is the basis and rock on which you in the end rely on, rather than the organization/church/intermediary?  You didn’t need an intermediary to receive that confirmation.

[SouthernMo]

1 hour ago, changed said:

If a Catholic nun will not condemn me for not choosing celibacy, I will not condemn my Aunties for their family either. 

I love this comparison. Thanks for sharing it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

I am not sure why I am unable to "like" your posts?  consider your post "loved".  

My fave AOF is:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

There is no need for leadership to try to define and dictate every last belief that everyone should have - leave some things ambiguous, leave some (most?) things as "not official church doctrine" - believe what you will on it.  

Allowing everyone personal exploration, and personal revelation - without controlling every last doctrine - that would be healthy for everyone I think.  

This is the case now. Some people believe Christ died for everyone in the Universe. Others believe just for this world. Some believe the Ten Tribes live under the icecaps. Most do not. I know one guy who believes all the pagan gods are unclean spirits masquerading as Zeus and Odin. I do not mean to suggest that this ambiguity means everyone can be right if they disagree as if ambiguity has some kind of holiness to it.

I have beliefs many here would probably consider heretical. Some I am sure of, others I just strongly suspect are true. As the Book of Mormon teaches many have the mysteries of God revealed unto them but you are only supposed to share what has been generally revealed (unless you are an apostle or, sometimes, only the Prophet). If you feel left out of the mysteries of God and feel you deserve more the reason people do not get more of them is that they cannot keep a secret. If you would run out to tell your neighbor or your Gospel Doctrine class every time you learn a new doctrine then God will probably avoid telling you much.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree we shouldn’t need permission, but it’s how we’re made to feel at times.

My sister (who is very active in the church) began meeting with a group of other sisters (in her ward first and it has grown to others in her area joining) to discuss some church history books and they also read and discuss other books and topics.  Some were very intellectual type sisters who taught college, etc.   it was all done in a faithful manner but on the edge, I like would say (discussing some contraversial topics not discussed much at church such as polygamy).  

These were held in homes monthly and different books discussed.  Nothing was ever publicized through church meetings for this group.

One day the RS president came to my sister’s door and said she was in the area and wanted to say hi.  It ended up being awkward (for the RS president and my sister), as it soon was made known she was really there on assignment (from the SP through the Bishop and then to the RS President).  She started asking all kinds of questions about this book club and told my sister the Bishop had instructed her to tell my sister that she’s not to hold these meetings anymore.  All women coming to the group are strong, active members too.  So, yeah, we do feel we need permission when things like this happen.

You're right. In my sister-in-law's stake they were urged not to have Bunco groups by their SP. And it had nothing to do with the church by way of announcements etc. But he was the same guy who said they shouldn't have statues of Christ that was popular to get at Relief Society meetings at the time. https://ldsbookstore.com/lds-statues Every SP is different, and sometimes a little wacky.  BTW, I would have loved to have been part of that book club your sister was in. I hope they were able to continue anyway. 

[Jeanne]

29 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why would you need permission to get together with people? I can see where it could create problems taking up space in church buildings but there are other spaces. I think the need to have approval from local leaders once you are outside of church is a large part of the problem. 

I agree  and it was just my assumption as I had heard it had been tried before in people's homes.  I apologize if I am incorrect but I just did not thing it would be appropriae to local leaders if members met to discuss issues.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I agree we shouldn’t need permission, but it’s how we’re made to feel at times.

My sister (who is very active in the church) began meeting with a group of other sisters (in her ward first and it has grown to others in her area joining) to discuss some church history books and they also read and discuss other books and topics.  Some were very intellectual type sisters who taught college, etc.   it was all done in a faithful manner but on the edge, I like would say (discussing some contraversial topics not discussed much at church such as polygamy).  

These were held in homes monthly and different books discussed.  Nothing was ever publicized through church meetings for this group.

One day the RS president came to my sister’s door and said she was in the area and wanted to say hi.  It ended up being awkward (for the RS president and my sister), as it soon was made known she was really there on assignment (from the SP through the Bishop and then to the RS President).  She started asking all kinds of questions about this book club and told my sister the Bishop had instructed her to tell my sister that she’s not to hold these meetings anymore.  All women coming to the group are strong, active members too.  So, yeah, we do feel we need permission when things like this happen.

These kinds of groups almost always go bad. If I were the Bishop I would would most likely not have acted to shut it down but there also may have been more going on behind the scenes in this case that led to this decision.

A couple of stories like this I know of:

- One started an unofficial Sunday School class in an empty room for those who thought Gospel Doctrine was too boring. Three people went less active. Two people were excommunicated.

- Started as an intellectual discussion group outside of church. Later they became obsessed with the concept of the Second Anointing and Second Comforter. They started trying ritual gatherings to usher themselves into God’s presence. Two idiots in the group decided adultery might help.

- A man with more learning then sense started a discussion group and set himself up as a kind of spiritual leader. He always thought he was being passed over for prominent callings (I would not have trusted him with that level of responsibility either) and the class primarily served as a way to feed his ego. He began claiming spiritual powers and giving revelations. It destroyed his family and several others left the Church when the group exploded in fiery drama.

To be fair I have seen more humble groups work. In my parents ward they have an unofficial retired/older people meetup where they gather and sing and have a pretty conventional lesson. My parents went once and did not return because they thought it was dull.

I have seen unofficial Singles groups that do okay. I did attend one FHE where I should have had a drinking game where you take a shot every time someone shared false doctrine as true (two shots if they are aping a “General Authority” voice) but downside is I would have died of alcohol poisoning in most of them. Got a couple of dates out of it though......mostly bad ones. I don’t go anymore.

Edited June 27, 2018 by The Nehor