“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It was just something I read in the Book of Mormon that didn't make sense. At the time I was commuting 1.5 hours each way to work, so I was reading my scriptures on the bus every morning and every evening. So, I spent about 3 months going through the text trying to figure out why the issue was there (and I'm not going to go into detail because I'm not going to argue about that). I had a little notebook I carried, and I took notes from the text. Rather than resolving the issue, I just kept finding more stuff that didn't make sense. One morning, while I was reading the Book of Mormon, it just finally hit me: Well, this obviously isn't an ancient record. Now what?

As I said, it was hardly a hiccup in my journey of faith. I just figured it wasn't meant to be a literal history, and that was fine.

I suppose. 

You know, I really disliked my mission.  Mainly because I hated how fake everything was.  It was a show with everyone from the MTC to the field and back home again.  Everyone had to have an amazing testimony, everyone had to have incredible success and baptisms and hopefully temple marriages of their converts.  Everything was embellished and overdone.  At BYU it was all the same.  I say this because the entire time, from age 19-29 (pretty much 10 years too) I had my faith crisis.  I was exposed to anti Mormon literature when I was 15 or 16.  And I had to fake my way through it all, because all the outward spiritual theatrics that were present in my surroundings were so drastically opposite of what I was experiencing.  I think I wanted to go on a mission, but it was never because I felt the kind of joy that I just couldn't keep from sharing from other people.  It was a sense of duty and obligation.  And then to have your mission president tell me towards the end of it that my mission was a waste, and that I had fooled everyone around me into thinking I was some spiritual giant (I guess the latter was true)...I finished my last transfer as a junior companion.  And then going to BYU afterwards and meet new people having zero sense of self worth.  Believing that the last two years of my life was a waste?  How does a "true church" do that to someone?

That was probably a lot of rambling.  But I say it to point out that I think everyone has issues with incorrect teachings, the weight of unrighteous leadership, struggles with the history and veracity of the BoM.  And you're right to point out that everyone deals with them differently.  I dropped out of college and joined the Army.  I just ran away and did some pretty amazing things, and some pretty amazingly stupid things.  The training I did, and my tour to Afghanistan were the absolute hardest things I've ever dealt with.  I felt that was were I was supposed to be though...even though I pretty much was inactive from the church (although I always kept tabs on how much I owed in tithing, that was always the line I would never cross, bc I felt it was literally the only thing that kept me tied to the church).  I didn't do very good things, despite all the personal triumphs and successes, I went pretty low. 

But I also found God there after a time.  You spend enough time in the dark, and you can't help but thirst for light after a while.  (That's also physically true, I had training in North Carolina where we did night land navigation with strict light restrictions, and after a time you have to pull a tarp over your head just so you can look at some light). 

I don't think you or many people who leave the church are really out of it.  Some do stay away regrettably.  But maybe you really are where you're supposed to be at this time (I still don't accept the spirit leading people out of the church, I think the Lord would always ideally have people remain active and engaged), and you need your time in the wilderness, or Afghanistan, or whatever, pick your metaphor.  Maybe one day you'll start thirsting too. 

Take care.        

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, I can see the difference. I guess I'm just thinking of the many times I've told people about the spiritual experience that was sort of the exclamation point at the end of my belief in the church. I have never had a member of the church tell me that I should follow what the spirit told me. Rather, I've been told I was listening to the wrong spirit. So, yes, I do think it's a default assumption among church members that the spirit won't lead you out of the church, but I could be wrong.

All things are spiritual at the root, and things that contradict are bound to get challenged (and therein lies the majority/unanimous and not so much the default position among those close to you; depends on how much regard and thought they gave about what you said, I suppose). What do former or non-members of the Church say about the spiritual experience and following what the spirit told you?

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

All things are spiritual at the root, and things that contradict are bound to get challenged (and therein lies the majority/unanimous and not so much the default position among those close to you; depends on how much regard and thought they gave about what you said, I suppose). What do former or non-members of the Church say about the spiritual experience and following what the spirit told you?

Both my theist and atheist friends tell me that if I feel I received a strong message, I should follow it. Of course, they differ as to the source. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I suppose. 

You know, I really disliked my mission.  Mainly because I hated how fake everything was.  It was a show with everyone from the MTC to the field and back home again.  Everyone had to have an amazing testimony, everyone had to have incredible success and baptisms and hopefully temple marriages of their converts.  Everything was embellished and overdone.  At BYU it was all the same.  I say this because the entire time, from age 19-29 (pretty much 10 years too) I had my faith crisis.  I was exposed to anti Mormon literature when I was 15 or 16.  And I had to fake my way through it all, because all the outward spiritual theatrics that were present in my surroundings were so drastically opposite of what I was experiencing.  I think I wanted to go on a mission, but it was never because I felt the kind of joy that I just couldn't keep from sharing from other people.  It was a sense of duty and obligation.  And then to have your mission president tell me towards the end of it that my mission was a waste, and that I had fooled everyone around me into thinking I was some spiritual giant (I guess the latter was true)...I finished my last transfer as a junior companion.  And then going to BYU afterwards and meet new people having zero sense of self worth.  Believing that the last two years of my life was a waste?  How does a "true church" do that to someone?

That was probably a lot of rambling.  But I say it to point out that I think everyone has issues with incorrect teachings, the weight of unrighteous leadership, struggles with the history and veracity of the BoM.  And you're right to point out that everyone deals with them differently.  I dropped out of college and joined the Army.  I just ran away and did some pretty amazing things, and some pretty amazingly stupid things.  The training I did, and my tour to Afghanistan were the absolute hardest things I've ever dealt with.  I felt that was were I was supposed to be though...even though I pretty much was inactive from the church (although I always kept tabs on how much I owed in tithing, that was always the line I would never cross, bc I felt it was literally the only thing that kept me tied to the church).  I didn't do very good things, despite all the personal triumphs and successes, I went pretty low. 

But I also found God there after a time.  You spend enough time in the dark, and you can't help but thirst for light after a while.  (That's also physically true, I had training in North Carolina where we did night land navigation with strict light restrictions, and after a time you have to pull a tarp over your head just so you can look at some light). 

I don't think you or many people who leave the church are really out of it.  Some do stay away regrettably.  But maybe you really are where you're supposed to be at this time (I still don't accept the spirit leading people out of the church, I think the Lord would always ideally have people remain active and engaged), and you need your time in the wilderness, or Afghanistan, or whatever, pick your metaphor.  Maybe one day you'll start thirsting too. 

Take care.        

I’m not out. Still a high priest. I’m glad you have found peace and a relationship with God despite all the darkness. And thank you for your service to our country. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

How does a "true church" do that to someone?   

As I've said before many times, when we get things wrong in the Church, the best possible outcome is that nothing happens. The worst is that people get hurt.

When we get things right, however, we're unstoppable.

I know you're good, mate, but please know you're always welcome in my virtual worldwide ward. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Both my theist and atheist friends tell me that if I feel I received a strong message, I should follow it. Of course, they differ as to the source. 

In other words, everybody should do what they choose to do in these matters, and what they choose to do is a function of how they view life, just like in the story, which makes its message right on point in context of the larger presentation and Elder Renlund's overall responsibilities: he is encouraging CES staff in particular, addressing "a topic [they] frequently address." The story leads into instruction to receive, and help otters receive, a fundamental testimony of the Redeemer. The questions are meant to stimulate some introspection for the CES staff and stay focused on what they are supposed to be doing. For example, "Where did you come to a knowledge of your Redeemer? How did you feel? If you have forgotten, we urge you to remember and to urge those you teach to remember how it felt." This presentation is for the teachers, and good teachers ask, "Is it I?" (as in Mark 14:19).

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm certainly not putting myself in the "most valiant" category, but it was definitely not the case that I was going through the motions and felt the gospel and church were some kind of grind I had to endure. Not my experience at all.

The sad thing is that's exactly how I would have described myself. I was valiant and prideful.

SteveO didn't ask me but I'll just share briefly what led to my research. I was about 3 1/2 years into my term as bishop when a couple of things happened.

1-  A member of my ward came in troubled and asked me about the 2nd Annointing. I had never heard of it and I had considered myself fairly knowledgeable of church history as I had read many Deseret Book/church approved histories. I was so confident in my knowledge that I told this person that he was mistaken, that he had fallen victim to misinformation which had probably been spread by anti-Mormons. I bore my testimony to him that there would be no reason a loving God would implement a 2nd anointing and that it wasn't the gospel way. I thought my testimony had swayed him but I no longer believe it did. He just kind of left my office dejected and said something like "I hope you're right". That led me to do some research on the 2A. When I discovered it was truly a practice both historically and currently I felt like I'd been kicked in the gut. I was one of the elect. I was doing everything right. I was a leader in the church, yet the church didn't trust me to tell me the truth about that. It was a hard pill to realize that I wasn't as smart or spiritual as I thought, and that I wasn't as important as I thought. Those were very good lessons to learn, but it also began teaching me that the church can't always be trusted.

2- A polygamous family moved into my ward. They kept it secret and the "other lady" living with them was a "sister". I came to learn that she wasn't a sister and despite their many lies directly to my face I realized that they were living polygamously. Once the husband knew he was caught, he opened up. He told me about Nauvoo polygamy and Joseph's polygamy specifically. Like many, I had believed that Joseph had shared the ideas of polygamy and maybe even had a wife or two (for charitable reasons) but once again I dug in my heels and told this man how he was wrong to believe Joseph had so many wives and that those marriages were consummated. The husband and one of the wives (long, fascinating story that wouldn't be appropriate to share) were excommunicated for polygamy but something he said really stuck with me. He told me that our scriptures teach polygamy and that it was only a PR/legal move to officially step away from polygamy. I started to research so that I could discount those ideas but found that they have a lot of merit. Again, I felt betrayed by the church, that as a leader I wasn't trusted to know the real truth, and that I had actually been taught misinformation my entire life.

3- A woman in my ward who suffered from mental illness accused me of some absolutely silly, ridiculous things. The kinds of things that any thinking person, regardless of whether or not they knew me, would know just couldn't be possible. Literally, the accusations were not possible in the slightest. Thankfully my ward members recognized this and it wasn't a big deal. We were able to get the woman into a mental hospital where she got some needed medications and then her family moved shortly after. The thing that really stung about this experience was the reaction of my Stake President. This is at a time when I'm attending the temple weekly, reading/praying daily both family and personal, spending 20 hours weekly in my calling, attending every service project, and just generally trying to do everything right. I had my shortcomings for sure, but I thought I was doing well and enjoyed it. During the 2 month period of this woman's accusations the SP scheduled many extra meetings with me, which is fine. I liked the guy but he was continually asking me about this woman's accusations, giving me opportunities to "confess" to doing the absurd things she was rambling about. Eventually I'd had enough and just told him that the accusations were clearly false so why was he applying a full-court pressure style interrogation of me. I was a good bishop and had never been a problem yet he seemed to believe this woman's ramblings. It was disheartening. He finally admitted that the spirit told him that some of the things were true and that I needed to repent. I don't think my eyes could have gotten wider, but I maintained my cool and then proceeded to go through each accusation and show him how it wasn't even possible that I was able to do the things she claimed. Logically he understood, yet the spirit had testified to him that it was true. He finally relented but not before I lost confidence in him as a leader. During a stressful time he made my life more difficult (in other ways too) because he thought he was following the spirit. This led me to a new study of the spirit and prophetic teachings.

Combining these experiences, all within a short period of time, were a crack in my certainty. They humbled me enough to realize that I needed to learn more, even in areas where I felt I was knowledgeable. So as I studied these things, in addition to all of the other scripture/gospel study, I began to be more and more troubled by what I was learning. The idea that I was being lazy, or that the gospel was just too hard for me to live is inaccurate. In fact I'm thankful for these experiences because they challenged me. I feel that my modified beliefs are exactly where God was leading me and I'm open to them shifting more throughout my life.

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In other words, everybody should do what they choose to do in these matters, and what they choose to do is a function of how they view life, just like in the story, which makes its message right on point in context of the larger presentation and Elder Renlund's overall responsibilities: he is encouraging CES staff in particular, addressing "a topic [they] frequently address." The story leads into instruction to receive, and help otters receive, a fundamental testimony of the Redeemer. The questions are meant to stimulate some introspection for the CES staff and stay focused on what they are supposed to be doing. For example, "Where did you come to a knowledge of your Redeemer? How did you feel? If you have forgotten, we urge you to remember and to urge those you teach to remember how it felt." This presentation is for the teachers, and good teachers ask, "Is it I?" (as in Mark 14:19).

I'm sure they do frequently address that issue. I'm just suggesting it isn't helpful to tell educators that their students' heartfelt struggles are the equivalent of dings and paint chips. We will just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I have heard over and over from people who say their concerns weren't taken seriously by church members and leaders, who usually didn't want to even hear what was bothering them. Not surprisingly, they found listening ears and compassion from us apostates. FWIW, I went back and read the entire talk from Elder Renlund, and it was better than it has been portrayed. That said, I still think his advice about "perpetual doubters" and people getting upset about mere dings and chips is misplaced.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Combining these experiences, all within a short period of time, were a crack in my certainty. They humbled me enough to realize that I needed to learn more, even in areas where I felt I was knowledgeable. So as I studied these things, in addition to all of the other scripture/gospel study, I began to be more and more troubled by what I was learning. The idea that I was being lazy, or that the gospel was just too hard for me to live is inaccurate. In fact I'm thankful for these experiences because they challenged me. I feel that my modified beliefs are exactly where God was leading me and I'm open to them shifting more throughout my life.

I'm glad you're in a good place with God and the church. As you say, the experience (mine is different but has a lot of commonalities with yours) makes you humble, not proud. It's painful and soul-rending, and yet people tell us we've taken the "easy way."

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had never heard of it ... I bore my testimony to him that there would be no reason a loving God would implement a 2nd anointing...

Serious question: considering that a testimony is a statement of personal experience, how could you have a 'testimony' regarding a topic you'd never heard of before? What exactly do you mean by testimony here?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Serious question: considering that a testimony is a statement of personal experience, how could you have a 'testimony' regarding a topic you'd never heard of before? What exactly do you mean by testimony here?

I bore my testimony of the atonement and temple work as I understood them. That testimony was contradictory to the claims of the 2A ordinance which essentially guarantee a person's exaltation. I found the idea of human judgement of exaltation to be premature and as usurping God's authority. I'm not intending for this to be a derail into the 2A so I'll just leave it there.

[jkwilliams]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I bore my testimony of the atonement and temple work as I understood them. That testimony was contradictory to the claims of the 2A ordinance which essentially guarantee a person's exaltation. I found the idea of human judgement of exaltation to be premature and as usurping God's authority. I'm not intending for this to be a derail into the 2A so I'll just leave it there.

It's interesting that you lived that long in the church without knowing about the second anointing. I'm not saying you are somehow at fault, just that although it isn't talked about, I thought it was pretty common knowledge. My mission president spent an hour one morning in the mission office telling us about the second anointing and how it was necessary for exaltation. But I think all of us have gaps or blind spots in our knowledge. I didn't know about the policy regarding children of polygamists until the November policy change happened. I was 50 years old and had never heard that before. Life is a learning process.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that you lived that long in the church without knowing about the second anointing. I'm not saying you are somehow at fault, just that although it isn't talked about, I thought it was pretty common knowledge. My mission president spent an hour one morning in the mission office telling us about the second anointing and how it was necessary for exaltation. But I think all of us have gaps or blind spots in our knowledge. I didn't know about the policy regarding children of polygamists until the November policy change happened. I was 50 years old and had never heard that before. Life is a learning process.

Yeah, me too. It was shocking

I remember many lessons about the 2nd comforter or Calling and Election being made sure but those were never taught as being part of a temple ordinance where initiates were handpicked by men to participate. I always understood them to be a personal spiritual experience with Jesus.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, me too. It was shocking

I remember many lessons about the 2nd comforter or Calling and Election being made sure but those were never taught as being part of a temple ordinance where initiates were handpicked by men to participate. I always understood them to be a personal spiritual experience with Jesus.

I can see that. As I said, I didn't realize it was a temple ordinance until my mission president explained it.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that you lived that long in the church without knowing about the second anointing. I'm not saying you are somehow at fault, just that although it isn't talked about, I thought it was pretty common knowledge. My mission president spent an hour one morning in the mission office telling us about the second anointing and how it was necessary for exaltation. But I think all of us have gaps or blind spots in our knowledge. I didn't know about the policy regarding children of polygamists until the November policy change happened. I was 50 years old and had never heard that before. Life is a learning process.

I too had never heard about the 2nd anointing until I started down my faith crisis exploration five years ago.  I could have told you a few three Nephite stories though. 

[SteveO]

48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The sad thing is that's exactly how I would have described myself. I was valiant and prideful.

SteveO didn't ask me but I'll just share briefly what led to my research. I was about 3 1/2 years into my term as bishop when a couple of things happened.

1-  A member of my ward came in troubled and asked me about the 2nd Annointing. I had never heard of it and I had considered myself fairly knowledgeable of church history as I had read many Deseret Book/church approved histories. I was so confident in my knowledge that I told this person that he was mistaken, that he had fallen victim to misinformation which had probably been spread by anti-Mormons. I bore my testimony to him that there would be no reason a loving God would implement a 2nd anointing and that it wasn't the gospel way. I thought my testimony had swayed him but I no longer believe it did. He just kind of left my office dejected and said something like "I hope you're right". That led me to do some research on the 2A. When I discovered it was truly a practice both historically and currently I felt like I'd been kicked in the gut. I was one of the elect. I was doing everything right. I was a leader in the church, yet the church didn't trust me to tell me the truth about that. It was a hard pill to realize that I wasn't as smart or spiritual as I thought, and that I wasn't as important as I thought. Those were very good lessons to learn, but it also began teaching me that the church can't always be trusted.

2- A polygamous family moved into my ward. They kept it secret and the "other lady" living with them was a "sister". I came to learn that she wasn't a sister and despite their many lies directly to my face I realized that they were living polygamously. Once the husband knew he was caught, he opened up. He told me about Nauvoo polygamy and Joseph's polygamy specifically. Like many, I had believed that Joseph had shared the ideas of polygamy and maybe even had a wife or two (for charitable reasons) but once again I dug in my heels and told this man how he was wrong to believe Joseph had so many wives and that those marriages were consummated. The husband and one of the wives (long, fascinating story that wouldn't be appropriate to share) were excommunicated for polygamy but something he said really stuck with me. He told me that our scriptures teach polygamy and that it was only a PR/legal move to officially step away from polygamy. I started to research so that I could discount those ideas but found that they have a lot of merit. Again, I felt betrayed by the church, that as a leader I wasn't trusted to know the real truth, and that I had actually been taught misinformation my entire life.

3- A woman in my ward who suffered from mental illness accused me of some absolutely silly, ridiculous things. The kinds of things that any thinking person, regardless of whether or not they knew me, would know just couldn't be possible. Literally, the accusations were not possible in the slightest. Thankfully my ward members recognized this and it wasn't a big deal. We were able to get the woman into a mental hospital where she got some needed medications and then her family moved shortly after. The thing that really stung about this experience was the reaction of my Stake President. This is at a time when I'm attending the temple weekly, reading/praying daily both family and personal, spending 20 hours weekly in my calling, attending every service project, and just generally trying to do everything right. I had my shortcomings for sure, but I thought I was doing well and enjoyed it. During the 2 month period of this woman's accusations the SP scheduled many extra meetings with me, which is fine. I liked the guy but he was continually asking me about this woman's accusations, giving me opportunities to "confess" to doing the absurd things she was rambling about. Eventually I'd had enough and just told him that the accusations were clearly false so why was he applying a full-court pressure style interrogation of me. I was a good bishop and had never been a problem yet he seemed to believe this woman's ramblings. It was disheartening. He finally admitted that the spirit told him that some of the things were true and that I needed to repent. I don't think my eyes could have gotten wider, but I maintained my cool and then proceeded to go through each accusation and show him how it wasn't even possible that I was able to do the things she claimed. Logically he understood, yet the spirit had testified to him that it was true. He finally relented but not before I lost confidence in him as a leader. During a stressful time he made my life more difficult (in other ways too) because he thought he was following the spirit. This led me to a new study of the spirit and prophetic teachings.

Combining these experiences, all within a short period of time, were a crack in my certainty. They humbled me enough to realize that I needed to learn more, even in areas where I felt I was knowledgeable. So as I studied these things, in addition to all of the other scripture/gospel study, I began to be more and more troubled by what I was learning. The idea that I was being lazy, or that the gospel was just too hard for me to live is inaccurate. In fact I'm thankful for these experiences because they challenged me. I feel that my modified beliefs are exactly where God was leading me and I'm open to them shifting more throughout my life.

I was thinking about this some more last night and I read this talk by Patrick Mason:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/courage-convictions

And what you've wrote sounds in line with those who Mason describes as "switched off" members:

Quote

The switched-off group includes those who encounter troubling information online or somewhere else, usually regarding our history or doctrine. This new knowledge doesn’t square with what they had previously learned in all their years in the church—sometimes by way of direct contradiction, but usually by revealing parts of the story that we don’t typically share in our three-hour block on Sunday.

Quote

In any case, once they discover these new facts and realize they are not just the inventions of malicious anti-Mormon propaganda, many people start to wonder what else they haven’t been told. They begin to see duplicity rather than sincerity in the church’s presentation of its doctrine and history. Skepticism and doubt begin to overcome trust and faith. One of the ironies we haven’t fully appreciated in our discussions of doubt is that to some degree our church culture is responsible for many people’s reactions to troubling information. Whether consciously or not, they are simply applying what they learned in well-intentioned but ultimately damaging Primary and youth lessons, such as when the teacher offers the class a bowl of ice cream, then dumps a small amount of dirt on it and asks if anyone wants it now. Of course they say no, and the teacher points out that this is what just a little bit of sin does—it ruins everything. So those who see a little bit of dirt in church history are acting in ways that seem entirely commensurate with what they have been taught their whole lives—God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, so we turn away from sin and touch not the unclean thing. Unable to manage the cognitive dissonance, these people’s relationship to the church becomes tenuous, and often breaks.

So I get that.  I really do.  And so I do think I need to revise my position on the church curriculum and culture contributing to this.  I still think the onus needs to be on members to do the research, but it probably needs to be widely said that the research needs to be done in the first place.  Your third example I think everyone has encountered at one time or another.  I don't think the spirit "whispers" to people as often as they claim, especially relating to matters as you describe.  And that's just recognizing and accepting that we sustain fallible leaders.  If people can't or won't come to grips with that, their future with the church probably is not going to stand the test of time.

I do think I need to revise my position that the church probably needs to be better at addressing these issues.  I gather you and others here had a very gradual decay of faith, but it sounds like your concerns just were never addressed, even though you may have been hoping that eventually they would be--but you guys I imagine held on for as long as you did because you were doing everything you were supposed to.  So that all makes sense.  But I do think President Nelson's warning this past conference to be very ominous.  It won't be possible to survive spiritually in the coming days without the influence of the Holy Ghost.  I don't think answers will ever matter if the spirit is not present in the lives of these people who are questioning.  I think you case, and I'm speculating here, was/is a case of where the spirit was present, but perhaps there were no satisfactory answers to go along with it.   

Anyways, that's the best I can do.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yeah, me too. It was shocking

I remember many lessons about the 2nd comforter or Calling and Election being made sure but those were never taught as being part of a temple ordinance where initiates were handpicked by men to participate. I always understood them to be a personal spiritual experience with Jesus.

Yes, same, I always associated these stories with a personal individual experience, not a temple ritual and definitely not something you participate in with your spouse. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I was thinking about this some more last night and I read this talk by Patrick Mason:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/courage-convictions

And what you've wrote sounds in line with those who Mason describes as "switched off" members:

So I get that.  I really do.  And so I do think I need to revise my position on the church curriculum and culture contributing to this.  I still think the onus needs to be on members to do the research, but it probably needs to be widely said that the research needs to be done in the first place.  Your third example I think everyone has encountered at one time or another.  I don't think the spirit "whispers" to people as often as they claim, especially relating to matters as you describe.  And that's just recognizing and accepting that we sustain fallible leaders.  If people can't or won't come to grips with that, their future with the church probably is not going to stand the test of time.

I do think I need to revise my position that the church probably needs to be better at addressing these issues.  I gather you and others here had a very gradual decay of faith, but it sounds like your concerns just were never addressed, even though you may have been hoping that eventually they would be--but you guys I imagine held on for as long as you did because you were doing everything you were supposed to.  So that all makes sense.  But I do think President Nelson's warning this past conference to be very ominous.  It won't be possible to survive spiritually in the coming days without the influence of the Holy Ghost.  I don't think answers will ever matter if the spirit is not present in the lives of these people who are questioning.  I think you case, and I'm speculating here, was/is a case of where the spirit was present, but perhaps there were no satisfactory answers to go along with it.   

Anyways, that's the best I can do.

Thank you for being willing to consider another perspective. I appreciate it. I agree, there were no satisfactory answers as I aggressively searched.

When I spoke to my SP when I was in the midst of my faith crisis he essentially took the same approach you originally advocated, namely that I wasn't reading/praying/attending the temple etc. enough so he challenged me to do all of those things. He thought it was spiritual complacency or laziness on my part, because, what else could it be? So I asked him to do a little exercise with me. At the same time we wrote on pieces of paper our spiritual practices, everything from morning and evening prayers, food blessings, priesthood blessings, service etc. etc. As expected our lists were very similar. I asked him if he felt like he was being complacent or lazy in the gospel to which he rightfully said, "no". He felt he was trying his best and I believe he was. I asked him to give me that same benefit of the doubt. But even though he said he did, he had nothing else in his tool box to help me other than tell me to read my scriptures more (than daily) and attend the temple (more than weekly) than I was currently doing. He promised me in the name of God that if I did those things I would regain my full faith.

IMO- that was an example of a leader taking the name of God in vain, making a promise for God that he had no business making, and in fact did not bear out. I say all of this, not to criticize my SP. I actually like the guy quite a lot, but he had nothing left to offer.

IMO- what the church is experiencing right now with so many members experiencing faith crisis, is not a crisis of faith. It's a crisis of trust. It's a loss of trust in leaders, in history, in past doctrines/teachings. And the crisis of trust exists for very legitimate reasons, some of which may only appear to be chipped paint or small dents to some people, but when taken in total ends up requiring a complete shift in paradigm for many member's as they relate to the church. For the church to cure the problem, they must figure out how to restore trust.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for being willing to consider another perspective. I appreciate it. I agree, there were no satisfactory answers as I aggressively searched.

When I spoke to my SP when I was in the midst of my faith crisis he essentially took the same approach you originally advocated, namely that I wasn't reading/praying/attending the temple etc. enough so he challenged me to do all of those things. He thought it was spiritual complacency or laziness on my part, because, what else could it be? So I asked him to do a little exercise with me. At the same time we wrote on pieces of paper our spiritual practices, everything from morning and evening prayers, food blessings, priesthood blessings, service etc. etc. As expected our lists were very similar. I asked him if he felt like he was being complacent or lazy in the gospel to which he rightfully said, "no". He felt he was trying his best and I believe he was. I asked him to give me that same benefit of the doubt. But even though he said he did, he had nothing else in his tool box to help me other than tell me to read my scriptures more (than daily) and attend the temple (more than weekly) than I was currently doing. He promised me in the name of God that if I did those things I would regain my full faith.

IMO- that was an example of a leader taking the name of God in vain, making a promise for God that he had no business making, and in fact did not bear out. I say all of this, not to criticize my SP. I actually like the guy quite a lot, but he had nothing left to offer.

IMO- what the church is experiencing right now with so many members experiencing faith crisis, is not a crisis of faith. It's a crisis of trust. It's a loss of trust in leaders, in history, in past doctrines/teachings. And the crisis of trust exists for very legitimate reasons, some of which may only appear to be chipped paint or small dents to some people, but when taken in total ends up requiring a complete shift in paradigm for many member's as they relate to the church. For the church to cure the problem, they must figure out how to restore trust.

I had a similar response from my bishop. 

Are you praying morning and evening? Yes.

Do you read and ponder the scriptures daily? Yes.

How often do you attend the temple? Weekly.

Do you hold regularly family home evenings? Yes.

He didn't make me any promises but told me to be patient and humble. 

[blueglass]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I too had never heard about the 2nd anointing until I started down my faith crisis exploration five years ago.  I could have told you a few three Nephite stories though. 

There is also evidence of polyandry 2nd anointings - a form of dual-pair or 4-way sealing/anointing:  From the John Nuttall diary from [September 14, 1887; Wednesday]

“Permission was given for sister Hannah Grover to be anointed to Bro Daniel H. Wells. This is her 2nd anointing the 2nd time.”
note50: Mrs. Grover was sealed to Wells, a member of the First Presidency, in 1871
without divorcing her husband, Thomas Grover, who was himself a devout Latter-day
Saint.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by blueglass

[blueglass]

On 7/9/2018 at 1:15 PM, stemelbow said:

Obviously Stephen inquired and hardly seemed stagnant (indeed those who see resolve to the unresolvable seem stagnant in their doubts because they just ignore them and forget the inquiry), so this feels irrelevant to the whole point they were trying to make.  Faith in the Church is what they seem to prefer, faith itself is likely had by Stephen and others.  They simply doubt his faith, just as he likely doubts theirs.  

It looks crucial to Elder Dallin Oaks to express his doubt over the doctrines promulgated as truth which were used to justify or prop up the racial ban on blacks receiving eternal family blessings.  He saw this doubt working in him as a confirmation that God's truth was higher than the "faith in bad doctrine" (Dr. Marcus Martins) he was fed by other "beloved leaders" and members.  Elder Oaks let this simmer for awhile until further light revealed and confirmed his doubts.  I'm curious where he was at on this racial issue when editor for Dialogue?  

Edited July 11, 2018 by blueglass

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, blueglass said:

There is also evidence of polyandry 2nd anointings - a form of dual-pair or 4-way sealing/anointing:  From the John Nuttall diary from [September 14, 1887; Wednesday]

“Permission was given for sister Hannah Grover to be anointed to Bro Daniel H. Wells. This is her 2nd anointing the 2nd time.”
note50: Mrs. Grover was sealed to Wells, a member of the First Presidency, in 1871
without divorcing her husband, Thomas Grover, who was himself a devout Latter-day
Saint.

 

Wow....interesting!  Why would she need to receive her 2nd anointing more than once?  

I've read quite a bit about this ordinance, but this is new to me....thanks for posting it.

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thank you for being willing to consider another perspective. I appreciate it. I agree, there were no satisfactory answers as I aggressively searched.

When I spoke to my SP when I was in the midst of my faith crisis he essentially took the same approach you originally advocated, namely that I wasn't reading/praying/attending the temple etc. enough so he challenged me to do all of those things. He thought it was spiritual complacency or laziness on my part, because, what else could it be? So I asked him to do a little exercise with me. At the same time we wrote on pieces of paper our spiritual practices, everything from morning and evening prayers, food blessings, priesthood blessings, service etc. etc. As expected our lists were very similar. I asked him if he felt like he was being complacent or lazy in the gospel to which he rightfully said, "no". He felt he was trying his best and I believe he was. I asked him to give me that same benefit of the doubt. But even though he said he did, he had nothing else in his tool box to help me other than tell me to read my scriptures more (than daily) and attend the temple (more than weekly) than I was currently doing. He promised me in the name of God that if I did those things I would regain my full faith.

IMO- that was an example of a leader taking the name of God in vain, making a promise for God that he had no business making, and in fact did not bear out. I say all of this, not to criticize my SP. I actually like the guy quite a lot, but he had nothing left to offer.

IMO- what the church is experiencing right now with so many members experiencing faith crisis, is not a crisis of faith. It's a crisis of trust. It's a loss of trust in leaders, in history, in past doctrines/teachings. And the crisis of trust exists for very legitimate reasons, some of which may only appear to be chipped paint or small dents to some people, but when taken in total ends up requiring a complete shift in paradigm for many member's as they relate to the church. For the church to cure the problem, they must figure out how to restore trust.

I personally think that the common factor in all of these stories is a feeling of being deceived.  A complete lost of trust.  It is as if a facade has been built up by the church.  General Authorities have a connection with God, not like you or me, but a special set apart anointing to speak for God.  They receive revelation from Him.  And they can make promises "in the name of God".  When it turns out that church leaders are just like everyone else, trying to figure out what is the best path to take.  Voting as a group on policies that they "think" God wants.  If they are not some kind of "called of God" men, then what are they?  What makes the church any different than any other church, or organization for that matter?  This isn't a peeled paint problem. This is a "why do you think your boat is so special" problem.

It was only after that realization that I could step back and see not just vain promises, but outright deception in covering up all the flaws in the facade to keep up this projected image that the church wants to maintain.  All the sudden, Joseph Smith is also not what he claimed to be. The Book of Abraham was not translated from papyrus "written by the hand of Abraham himself".  The papyrus doesn't match the time frame of Abraham, nor does any of the content.  They are just common funeral writings.  Then we have Joseph  running around marrying teenage girls and other men's wives while they are on some mission he sent them on.  All of this going on behind everyone's back.  This doesn't look like something a man of God would do any more than any of these other cult leaders that church members have such an easy time dismissing when they try to do the same kinds of shenanigans in their congregations.  

You know the litany of troublesome issues.  I don't have to list them.  Perhaps those are just dents and peeled paint.  The real issue is the divine claim that Christ guides the church.  Take that away and, you are right.  It is just a boat with some minor flaws with sincere men at the helm. For some, that is better than getting out of the boat. For others, it is time to start swimming to shore.

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

I was thinking about this some more last night and I read this talk by Patrick Mason:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2016/courage-convictions

And what you've wrote sounds in line with those who Mason describes as "switched off" members:

So I get that.  I really do.  And so I do think I need to revise my position on the church curriculum and culture contributing to this.  I still think the onus needs to be on members to do the research, but it probably needs to be widely said that the research needs to be done in the first place.  Your third example I think everyone has encountered at one time or another.  I don't think the spirit "whispers" to people as often as they claim, especially relating to matters as you describe.  And that's just recognizing and accepting that we sustain fallible leaders.  If people can't or won't come to grips with that, their future with the church probably is not going to stand the test of time.

I do think I need to revise my position that the church probably needs to be better at addressing these issues.  I gather you and others here had a very gradual decay of faith, but it sounds like your concerns just were never addressed, even though you may have been hoping that eventually they would be--but you guys I imagine held on for as long as you did because you were doing everything you were supposed to.  So that all makes sense.  But I do think President Nelson's warning this past conference to be very ominous.  It won't be possible to survive spiritually in the coming days without the influence of the Holy Ghost.  I don't think answers will ever matter if the spirit is not present in the lives of these people who are questioning.  I think you case, and I'm speculating here, was/is a case of where the spirit was present, but perhaps there were no satisfactory answers to go along with it.   

Anyways, that's the best I can do.

My experience of learning for the first time that Joseph Smith lived polygamy/polyandry, after stumbling across a website that I had no idea why it came up on the computer screen, was like being in a car wreck, where everything felt like it was in slow motion. And getting up from my chair and seeing my neighbor outside across the street, who I was currently in a RS presidency together with, and walking over to her and asking if she knew about it. She said yes, but it's anti Mormon, her mother is an anti-Mormon. And me going back into the house and to the computer and looking things up. And going down the rabbit hole as they say.  So the quote below, that you shared by Patrick Mason, is me. 

In any case, once they discover these new facts and realize they are not just the inventions of malicious anti-Mormon propaganda, many people start to wonder what else they haven’t been told. They begin to see duplicity rather than sincerity in the church’s presentation of its doctrine and history. Skepticism and doubt begin to overcome trust and faith. One of the ironies we haven’t fully appreciated in our discussions of doubt is that to some degree our church culture is responsible for many people’s reactions to troubling information. Whether consciously or not, they are simply applying what they learned in well-intentioned but ultimately damaging Primary and youth lessons, such as when the teacher offers the class a bowl of ice cream, then dumps a small amount of dirt on it and asks if anyone wants it now. Of course they say no, and the teacher points out that this is what just a little bit of sin does—it ruins everything. So those who see a little bit of dirt in church history are acting in ways that seem entirely commensurate with what they have been taught their whole lives—God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, so we turn away from sin and touch not the unclean thing. Unable to manage the cognitive dissonance, these people’s relationship to the church becomes tenuous, and often breaks.

[Steve-o]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally think that the common factor in all of these stories is a feeling of being deceived.  A complete lost of trust.  It is as if a facade has been built up by the church.  General Authorities have a connection with God, not like you or me, but a special set apart anointing to speak for God.  They receive revelation from Him.  And they can make promises "in the name of God".  When it turns out that church leaders are just like everyone else, trying to figure out what is the best path to take.  Voting as a group on policies that they "think" God wants.  If they are not some kind of "called of God" men, then what are they?  What makes the church any different than any other church, or organization for that matter?  This isn't a peeled paint problem. This is a "why do you think your boat is so special" problem.

It was only after that realization that I could step back and see not just vain promises, but outright deception in covering up all the flaws in the facade to keep up this projected image that the church wants to maintain.  All the sudden, Joseph Smith is also not what he claimed to be. The Book of Abraham was not translated from papyrus "written by the hand of Abraham himself".  The papyrus doesn't match the time frame of Abraham, nor does any of the content.  They are just common funeral writings.  Then we have Joseph  running around marrying teenage girls and other men's wives while they are on some mission he sent them on.  All of this going on behind everyone's back.  This doesn't look like something a man of God would do any more than any of these other cult leaders that church members have such an easy time dismissing when they try to do the same kinds of shenanigans in their congregations.  

You know the litany of troublesome issues.  I don't have to list them.  Perhaps those are just dents and peeled paint.  The real issue is the divine claim that Christ guides the church.  Take that away and, you are right.  It is just a boat with some minor flaws with sincere men at the helm. For some, that is better than getting out of the boat. For others, it is time to start swimming to shore.

 

Succinct. That's what I see too.