"Faith Crisis" support group?

[SouthernMo]

I struggle a little bit with the idea that there are church members whose faith is too weak, and would be harmed by learning of others’ questions or concerns.

I think of the quote from J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

Why are we so concerned with an individual’s faith/trust in an organization, when we claim to be teachers of truth?  Let truth fall where it may, organization & tradition aside!

The counter-argument I often hear against my position is the “milk before meat” principle stated in 1 Corinthians.  With good intentions, we avoid difficult questions, believing it’s harmful to engage them without a stronger foundation.  The problem I see is that sometimes, we avoid  consuming or sharing meat altogether (to continue the analogy) out of fear someone is not ready, and we miss out on the joyous struggle and journey towards godlike understanding.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by SouthernMo
Rephrased a sentence.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is the first 20 minutes of our Ward Council meetings. Our representative from the High Council is working us through the essays. Each essay takes 2 to 3 weeks on average. 

This is good, except why just the ward council and not the ward? I think the adults in general will only hear if they have youth in seminary, since I guess they are teaching them there. Pretty lame that they don't trust the adults in some wards. When I asked my current bishop in my new ward if there was anyone for a person like me to talk to face to face he didn't reply back to me, he just brings up the head in the hat thing being similar to our having a cell phone in our day. I just wish they'd give us a break, if the leaders believe this church is true, nothing should be able to harm it in their minds. Of course, I once heard the leaders themselves are just learning these things. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

I struggle a little bit with the idea that there are church members whose faith is too weak, and would be harmed by learning of others’ questions or concerns.

I think of the quote from J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

Why are we so concerned with an individual’s faith/trust in an organization, when we claim to be teachers of truth?  Let truth fall where it may, organization & tradition aside!

The counter-argument I often hear against my position is the “milk before meat” principle stated in 1 Corinthians.  We don’t avoid difficult questions, but it’s harmful to engage them without a stronger foundation.  The problem I see is that sometimes, we avoid  consuming or sharing meat altogether (to continue the analogy) out of fear someone is not ready, and we miss out on the joyous struggle and journey towards godlike understanding.

I've never understood the idea that people need to be protected from information. When I went through my faith crisis, my priesthood leaders told me in very strong terms that under no circumstances was I to share any of my concerns with any other members. I still find that weird.

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never understood the idea that people need to be protected from information. When I went through my faith crisis, my priesthood leaders told me in very strong terms that under no circumstances was I to share any of my concerns with any other members. I still find that weird.

Agreed. To be fair, I’ve observed the highest levels of church leadership making more efforts to be more embracing of difficult questions and “faith challenging” facts. We could criticize these efforts of being reactive, rather than proactive, but I see trends towards more candor happening and appreciate it.

There are certainly pockets of stronger reluctance to change at the local levels, but this will change, too. Time is needed to drive change in any organization this large.

[changed]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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.

 

"tightly scripted" meetings is part of the problem that drives people away.   A "loose" script could be https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng or  https://addictionrecovery.lds.org/steps/1?lang=eng  The leader would have to be someone who was familiar with the issues, and had gone through a faith crisis themselves - just as the best AA leaders are those who are recovering A's.  You would not need a group for every ward, perhaps every stake or zone depending on the area.

 

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

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).

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.

 

If no one showed up, the leader might have been chosen wrong, or the time was wrong - a simple survey asking potential members what time would work best for them, and what leader everyone would be most comfortable with - just sent out to inactive and struggling members would probably have gotten higher attendance.  Allowing participants to explain and have input on what they need would make all the difference I think - it would need to be "servant leadership" if it was going to work. 

 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

 

I'm surprised I have not been placed on "limited" access yet - or perhaps I was and just did not not notice :D.  Those do look like great links, thanks for posting!

 

4 hours ago, juliann said:

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." 

 

I agree - but there are two sides to it, religion is all about "united in one heart", where two or three are gathered together, seeing one another face to face and all of that.  Time alone needs to be mixed with time together.

Is the point of this life's test - to see who is strong enough to go it alone, and everyone else should just stop coming?

or, is the point of this life's test to strengthen everyone - not a sifting process to find the "elite", but a process where hopefully all that were lost would be found...

If it is just a sifting process, and only a "small and little flock" are to be saved, then sure - go it alone, and let only the strongest come back...

If it is a learning / strengthening / refining thing that is supposed to reach everyone in the end - then groups to support those who struggle would be the best.

 

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

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.

 

I love much from the Buddhist and eastern religions as well, and have used a few "outlier" resources way back when I used to be called as a teacher.  Who taught who?  Jesus lived after Buddha - there are some who think Jesus - between the age of 12 and 30 (the lost years) was running around in India

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. ← no matter which religious tradition they came from, right?

Perhaps we should suggest that the new LDS hymnal should include a more.... culturally diverse... set of songs to represent the international presence of the church  I actually did learn SWAR notation, I might have to make some suggestions.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/03/news-of-the-church/preparation-underway-for-new-church-hymnbook-saints-invited-to-submit-music-and-texts?lang=eng 

 

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

This is why I am "half" in - there are some things I have a testimony in, and other things I do not.  Pushing everyone to testify they believe in every last thing from the get-go denies everyone the chance to honestly take their testimony one step at a time - to naturally grow "line upon line, precept upon precept".  Let people be "here a little and there a little" - not pushed "all in" to the deep end of the pool where they will drown.  

 

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

 

Haha - great stories!  

If nothing "official" is created, the "unofficial" groups will fill the need.... 

by not creating something "official" then.... 

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

"A prophet does not stand between you and the Savior. Rather, he stands beside you and points the way to the Savior." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng

Yes, the best mentors stand "with" others, not "in front of" them.

The last shall be first, and the first will be last - the greatest among you are your servants... perhaps the "real" leaders in the church are not who many think they are ...

Edited June 27, 2018 by changed

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think I agree with Braithwaite, here's one quote from the article you linked above:

If I understand him correctly, Braithwaite attributes this to "cultural Mormonism".  But what he describes as Fowler's stage 3 seems to be what is preached from our pulpits (including gen con) and what is expected from members.  I don't really see church leaders wanting members to move into stage 4.  For me, stage 4 was tough on my church membership and tough on my relationships with family.  Stage 5 has been easier but I have to keep most things to myself.

I don’t him attributing Stage 3 to cultural Mormonism. Rather, he is making the observation that “most people” operate in the binary world of stage three faith, a world they have created and / or assumed, and that this in turn contributes to or confirms their religious culture and cultural experience. One hand washes the other. I would also venture to guess that people living with a binary religious view have binary attitudes in general which may impact or rub against the larger culture. It seems to me that people at Stage 3 tend to be more oriented toward culture than doctrine, and if this describes “most people” as the author says it does, they certainly needn’t feel alone!

And it could offer some hope that there is at least a cultural solution to a cultural problem (hence the support groups creating a comfortable micro-culture). However, this may not be satisfactory once people move beyond Stage 3.

On the other hand my take is that doctrine and authentic, operative keys for spiritual advancement (ordinances, mysteries, revelations, etc.) ultimately transcend culture and even fallibility through grace. We can benefit from these keys no matter how slowly we advance through these stages, and while stage 3 “opens you up to being the most vulnerable to a faith crisis,” it is not necessarily the death knell. Attributes like faith, hope and charity can not only strengthen us against fears, but also prevent us from imposing "expectations that are impossible to achieve” upon others and by extension our culture.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, changed said:

Yes, the best mentors stand "with" others, not "in front of" them.

The last shall be first, and the first will be last - the greatest among you are your servants... perhaps the "real" leaders in the church are not who many think they are ...

In any case, the "real" leaders would need the divine keys to transcend the development level and the related cultural experience (even their own, if one thinks that's a problem!) that makes one vulnerable to a faith crisis. Otherwise we could not have the various helps to realizing our prayers to God such as ordinances (thinking sacrament here), mysteries (temple service), revelations (scriptures), etc.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t him attributing Stage 3 to cultural Mormonism. Rather, he is making the observation that “most people” operate in the binary world of stage three faith, a world they have created and / or assumed, and that this in turn contributes to or confirms their religious culture and cultural experience. One hand washes the other. I would also venture to guess that people living with a binary religious view have binary attitudes in general which may impact or rub against the larger culture. It seems to me that people at Stage 3 tend to be more oriented toward culture than doctrine, and if this describes “most people” as the author says it does, they certainly needn’t feel alone!

And it could offer some hope that there is at least a cultural solution to a cultural problem (hence the support groups creating a comfortable micro-culture). However, this may not be satisfactory once people move beyond Stage 3.

On the other hand my take is that doctrine and authentic, operative keys for spiritual advancement (ordinances, mysteries, revelations, etc.) ultimately transcend culture and even fallibility through grace. We can benefit from these keys no matter how slowly we advance through these stages, and while stage 3 “opens you up to being the most vulnerable to a faith crisis,” it is not necessarily the death knell. Attributes like faith, hope and charity can not only strengthen us against fears, but also prevent us from imposing "expectations that are impossible to achieve” upon others and by extension our culture.

I agree with what you've written here.  My point is that, whether you call it Mormon culture or Mormon doctrine, it seems to me that the Brethren are encouraging members to stay in stage 3... the message is "follow the prophet", "all true or all a fraud", and "trust us".  I think the predominant message we get from the correlated material and the conference center pulpit is to stay in the stage 3 boat.

From my perspective, the stage 4/5 message is relegated to the not-so-public Givens/Bushman firesides. 

[DBMormon]

I wish such a thing existed.  It doesn't nor ever will for several reasons

- The rabbit hole goes forever.  meaning that anytime you get together with others to digest and reconcile the tough issues, the continued ongoing discovery of new issues that are problematic goes forever.  This means generally that if the church makes a safe space for the focus to be on discussing the issues, everyone is going to discover more and more issues. Seriously the rabbit hole never ends.  This means that the risk of creating a loss of Faith in Mormonism is much greater than the reward of reconciling folk's concerns.

- When one begins exploring a "Mormon Faith Crisis", it is not long before one sees or comes across "Faith development".  When one dives into this social science one learns that what was before defined as a "crisis of faith", is actually normal human growth.  The reason it feels like a crisis is because of the tension bvetween the new growth inside juxtaposed by the tribe one belongs to imposing that such growth is instead a falling away.  When one grasps the concepts within this growth, it becomes apparent quickly that institutional Mormonism has many mechanisms designed to squash such an awakening and to encourage one to stay in a more binary/outer authority paradigm.  It only takes one person to open the group up to information of such development before a whole room of folks sense that the Church is a barrier rather than fertile ground for such development.

- Apologetics works well one on one.  generally Apologetic answers to the tough questions requires you to make space for the less rational solutions (think book of abraham,  The most rationale answer is the critical one but we in making space for faith encourage each other to make space for a missing scroll or a catalyst theory or some other less reasonable answer) .  Because we want to believe badly, we accept these less rationale answers as possibilities that we will "place faith in".  But if in a room full of folks a discussion ensues around these answers and their level of rationale, logic, and plausibility, it only takes one person in the group to point out that such answers are weak/problematic/irrational for one to see the critics on many issues have the more reasonable answer.  Then compound that over a dozen issues or a 100 issues.  Before long one sees the silliness in investing in "less likely" answers when looking at the issues collectively.  This is why the Church suggests you keep your doubts between you and your Bishop rather than discuss openly in classes.   

-  The final issue is that the narrative the Church holds up as official (manuals and other correlated material) is very whitewashed while containing false faith promoting stories throughout.  There are at least 18 stories in last years primary manual for instance that have historical problems begging to be asked about, and the adult manuals are not much better.  If a class was spending their time trying to help each other dive into the sticky issues, it would become apparent quickly that the Church has only shared the most faithful 5% mixed in with false faith promoting stories.  The "doubter" would quickly realize the Church has not given them enough data to make truly informed choices and the anger and frustration would increase.  In a group setting this would have a lot of risk versus little reward so long as the church tells a deeply inaccurate, simplified, whitewashed version of itself
 

Edited June 27, 2018 by DBMormon

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, if I preach my heresy how can the Lord entrust me with more heresy?  

He is capable of anything right?

Quote

I find Isaiah easier then Ezekiel. There are a few sections of Ezekiel that I so far get nothing out of it. It is in the top three trippiest books in the Bible (with Revelation and Daniel).

Perhaps ironically, I feel I know Revelation and Daniel like the back of my hand. But, I admit that Ezekiel is a challenge still. I am going to have to spend some time on it, and devote prayer to it. It is a much neglected book.

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

I wish such a thing existed.  It doesn't nor ever will for several reasons

- The rabbit hole goes forever.  meaning that anytime you get together with others to digest and reconcile the tough issues, the continued ongoing discovery of new issues that are problematic goes forever.  This means generally that if the church makes a safe space for the focus to be on discussing the issues, everyone is going to discover more and more issues. Seriously the rabbit hole never ends.  This means that the risk of creating a loss of Faith in Mormonism is much greater than the reward of reconciling folk's concerns.

- When one begins exploring a "Mormon Faith Crisis", it is not long before one sees or comes across "Faith development".  When one dives into this social science one learns that what was before defined as a "crisis of faith", is actually normal human growth.  The reason it feels like a crisis is because of the tension bvetween the new growth inside juxtaposed by the tribe one belongs to imposing that such growth is instead a falling away.  When one grasps the concepts within this growth, it becomes apparent quickly that institutional Mormonism has many mechanisms designed to squash such an awakening and to encourage one to stay in a more binary/outer authority paradigm.  It only takes one person to open the group up to information of such development before a whole room of folks sense that the Church is a barrier rather than fertile ground for such development.

- Apologetics works well one on one.  generally Apologetic answers to the tough questions requires you to make space for the less rational solutions (think book of abraham,  The most rationale answer is the critical one but we in making space for faith encourage each other to make space for a missing scroll or a catalyst theory or some other less reasonable answer) .  Because we want to believe badly, we accept these less rationale answers as possibilities that we will "place faith in".  But if in a room full of folks a discussion ensues around these answers and their level of rationale, logic, and plausibility, it only takes one person in the group to point out that such answers are weak/problematic/irrational for one to see the critics on many issues have the more reasonable answer.  Then compound that over a dozen issues or a 100 issues.  Before long one sees the silliness in investing in "less likely" answers when looking at the issues collectively.  This is why the Church suggests you keep your doubts between you and your Bishop rather than discuss openly in classes.   

-  The final issue is that the narrative the Church holds up as official (manuals and other correlated material) is very whitewashed while containing false faith promoting stories throughout.  There are at least 18 stories in last years primary manual for instance that have historical problems begging to be asked about, and the adult manuals are not much better.  If a class was spending their time trying to help each other dive into the sticky issues, it would become apparent quickly that the Church has only shared the most faithful 5% mixed in with false faith promoting stories.  The "doubter" would quickly realize the Church has not given them enough data to make truly informed choices and the anger and frustration would increase.  In a group setting this would have a lot of risk versus little reward so long as the church tells a deeply inaccurate, simplified, whitewashed version of itself
 

I agree with most of your reasons for avoiding such a group, however I think all the information is available if a member really does some research and study on their own outside of what is presented at Church on Sunday.
It's not like it is being completely hidden from everyone and I think many members do go outside the box in their study of the gospel. I guess the un-whitewashed stuff we learn is where the Bishop or another strong member could help on an individual basis. 

[DBMormon]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I agree with most of your reasons for avoiding such a group, however I think all the information is available if a member really does some research and study on their own outside of what is presented at Church on Sunday.
It's not like it is being completely hidden from everyone and I think many members do go outside the box in their study of the gospel. I guess the un-whitewashed stuff we learn is where the Bishop or another strong member could help on an individual basis. 

sure but i also hope you would agree the Church would prefer you to understand its narrative without the messy facts being in the way and isn't going to intentionally make you aware of those facts or where they can be found!

Edited June 27, 2018 by DBMormon

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

sure but i also hope you would agree the Church would prefer you to understand its narrative without the messy facts being in the way and isn't going to intentionally make you aware of those facts or where they can be found!

Would your podcast go out of business if the Church set up something like this? #followthemoney

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Would your podcast go out of business if the Church set up something like this? #followthemoney

I hope that was a joke.  Bill’s podcast finances are published for all to see.  Bill doesn’t make any money from the podcast. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I agree with most of your reasons for avoiding such a group, however I think all the information is available if a member really does some research and study on their own outside of what is presented at Church on Sunday.
It's not like it is being completely hidden from everyone and I think many members do go outside the box in their study of the gospel. I guess the un-whitewashed stuff we learn is where the Bishop or another strong member could help on an individual basis. 

The information is available but what percentage of members will go find it on their own vs the percentage who might take advantage of a support group to discuss things. 

I agree with Bill... support groups will not be provided by the church.  For example, I am someone who has been through a faith crisis and has managed to stay actively engaged and even served in ward and stake leadership positions. But, if my bishop or SP asked me to lead such a support group I would have serious reservations and ask them to consider how they’d want me to accomplish such a task.  Because, I don’t know how to lead a group like that in a way that I think my ward/stake leadership would approve of.  A Bill explained, the rabbit hole goes to deep and leads to a place that church leadership does not want to go. 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I hope that was a joke.  Bill’s podcast finances are published for all to see.  Bill doesn’t make any money from the podcast. 

he hasn't updated it since 2016. If the Church did it would anyone go to Bill or anyone else's podcast and give money? I can go to Church for free

Edited June 28, 2018 by Duncan

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he hasn't updated it since 2016. If the Church did it would anyone go to Bill or anyone else's podcast and give money? I can go to Church for free

Since Bill isn’t doing it for the money, I we are safe to assume that he’s doing it for the reasons he states: to help struggling members.  And if the church figured out a way to help struggling members such that Bill’s podcast was no longer needed, I think he’d be happy.  And he could spend his spare time with other pursuits.  #followthelogic

 

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Since Bill isn’t doing it for the money, I we are safe to assume that he’s doing it for the reasons he states: to help struggling members.  And if the church figured out a way to help struggling members such that Bill’s podcast was no longer needed, I think he’d be happy.  And he could spend his spare time with other pursuits.  #followthelogic

 

or he isn't in it for helping struggling members but has other motives, but we can agree to disagree. I think the Church has found a way to help struggling members, it's called ministering and before that home and visiting teaching. We go to Church and repent and take the sacrament, but I somehow doubt podcasts offer what Jesus can. #followjesus

Edited June 28, 2018 by Duncan

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

sure but i also hope you would agree the Church would prefer you to understand its narrative without the messy facts being in the way and isn't going to intentionally make you aware of those facts or where they can be found!

Well they certainly would not do that with investigtors or small children, but all that information is just a few keystrokes away on the internet. 

[Calm]

6 hours 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.

We had a group like that started by our RS Pres and encouraged by the Bishop.  Once she was released and ward boundaries adjusted, it fell by the wayside.  This is where it really depends on the leaders.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

or he isn't in it for helping struggling members but has other motives, but we can agree to disagree. I think the Church has found a way to help struggling members, it's called ministering and before that home and visiting teaching. We go to Church and repent and take the sacrament, but I somehow doubt podcasts offer what Jesus can. #followjesus

What other motives?

I agree that podcasts don’t offer what Jesus can (they aren’t meant to).  They aren’t meant to replace ministering or the sacrament or repentance. 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with what you've written here.  My point is that, whether you call it Mormon culture or Mormon doctrine, it seems to me that the Brethren are encouraging members to stay in stage 3... the message is "follow the prophet", "all true or all a fraud", and "trust us".  I think the predominant message we get from the correlated material and the conference center pulpit is to stay in the stage 3 boat.

From my perspective, the stage 4/5 message is relegated to the not-so-public Givens/Bushman firesides. 

The meaning of those messages will come across according to the hearer's stage of development, which also moderates his engagement with the culture and his understanding of the doctrine. A person at stage 3 cannot hear ithese messages at a stage 4 development level unless a miracle of faith occurs. A person at stage 5 might hear the Brethren encouraging him to advance his faith and spiritual development. The developmental state/stage largely defines one's take on his faith, the culture and the doctrine, and his influence in advancing these in a direction that brings others along for the better . No one is going to encourage others to stagnate at or regress to a developmental stage less than their own. 

The developmental stage is not the culture and it is not the doctrine; it is the person's faith and spiritual maturity. So we have to call them what they are and understand their differences and relationships with each other. A simple apostolic message does not equate to a low faith development score.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Would your podcast go out of business if the Church set up something like this? #followthemoney

Actually I think it would grow even faster

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The meaning of those messages will come across according to the hearer's stage of development, which also moderates his engagement with the culture and his understanding of the doctrine. A person at stage 3 cannot hear ithese messages at a stage 4 development level unless a miracle of faith occurs. A person at stage 5 might hear the Brethren encouraging him to advance his faith and spiritual development. The developmental state/stage largely defines one's take on his faith, the culture and the doctrine, and his influence in advancing these in a direction that brings others along for the better . No one is going to encourage others to stagnate at or regress to a developmental stage less than their own. 

The developmental stage is not the culture and it is not the doctrine; it is the person's faith and spiritual maturity. So we have to call them what they are and understand their differences and relationships with each other. A simple apostolic message does not equate to a low faith development score.

None of the above counters my point that the message we hear from the pulpit and in correlated materials is that members should stay in stage 3.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please offer it. 

[SouthernMo]

A few have suggested seeing a bishop, stake president, or strong member as an alternative to a faith crisis support group. Some thoughts:

1- The idea that there are strong members (who can handle tough questions) and weak members (who cannot) is binary, and only adds to my feeling of mis-belonging (not a real word - I know). I think I’m a strong member because I care enough to question and seek without quitting.

2- Traditionally strong members - as defined above - often don’t know as much about the information/history as me, don’t have answers, or aren’t bothered by the apparent inconsistencies.  Their lack of answers and vastly different paradigm does the opposite of comforting me.

3- Church leaders have so much to worry about and administer, that they can’t care about my concerns as much as I want them to (selfish, I know). But, others who struggle like me care more because they empathize.

4- A group who struggles as I do helps me feel that I’m not alone in my faith crisis, and that I still belong under the ‘big tent’ of Mormonism.

Part of an LDS faith crisis is finding answers and reshaping one’s paradigm. Part of the crisis is wondering if one still belongs.