Is this a "safe" place to send a persons with a faith crisis?

[rpn]

I'm not sure the internet is ever the best place to send people.   But to some extent it depends on what they are looking for.  There are plenty of believing members who can share their faith and also that no one has THE exclusive way that the gospel must be lived here and other places.   Generally, working with someone they trust who can talk with them and guide them through the issues is most helpful.  

OTOH, we all know where they are going to go online, and this site is far better than there.

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m being totally serious that I wouldn’t wish a loss of faith on anyone. It’s the most painful experience I’ve ever been through. I almost lost my life and my family. 

If you’re happy in the church, there’s no reason to put yourself through that. And I do think that coming to a combative place like this isn’t going to help.

I know and believe this, knowing you, I would have never thought otherwise.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would say a personal, face to face experience with someone he knows and trusts would be far more beneficial.

There you go...this is what I needed most back in the day.  Someone to talk without judgement and to study together. 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m being totally serious that I wouldn’t wish a loss of faith on anyone. It’s the most painful experience I’ve ever been through. I almost lost my life and my family. 

If you’re happy in the church, there’s no reason to put yourself through that. And I do think that coming to a combative place like this isn’t going to help.

I agree...sometimes it is hard with people close to me..but if they are happy and don't bring things up...mum is the word.  I just want people to find their own way.  The love doesn't change for me either way.  Sometimes I lose because of my disaffection from church..but deep down those who know me..know that I am that same little girl in many ways.  I have learned a lot here..sometimes the hard way and have had to develop some thicker skin..and I know I bite hard on people sometimes..but if you are exploring in growth and understanding of those who remain and those who do not..this is a great place..but both sides of the fence, we have all shared some un-Christlke behavior.  I got my first crisis early 2007..stone in the hat...the visions..all that found in a lot of places..but I went to mormon sites always to verify some things.

 

[Calm]

To the opening post...

Often a faith crisis is precipitated by having to deal with too much unfamiliar information at once and the best solution is taking a breath and stepping back from the pile, prioritizing issues, and then focusing on one aspect at a time (pretty much the same advice I'd give anyone feeling overwhelmed by being confronted by too many demands of whatever nature).

There are too many different opinions that get thrown out there and often without a careful use of definition and nuances so as to avoid confusion (so it may appear to someone unfamiliar that people who agree are arguing and people who don't are telling each other they are right, probably a myriad of conversations that leave newbies scratching their heads going 'what exactly are they debating ').  I don't think the board is therefore a good place for someone trying to sort things out in their minds, it would just add at best to the feeling of information overload.

FairMormon's Ask a Question service can provide information in a more controlled fashion.  There are often people who write multiple questions and we try to cover all of them, but there are usually just one or a few responding and they are responding solely to the questioner and not to each other, so the questioner has more control on where the conversation goes.

The FairMormon Answers (the name of the Wiki) can feel overwhelming if they approach it as trying to absorb it all at once.  A more directed research of exploring one question at a time and maybe taking a week or two or more off between explorations may help with the process.  I recommend Mike Ash's Shaken Faith Syndrome book because it discusses effective approaches to resolving the crisis and how to avoid deepening it as well as deals with some specific issues to show the process.

Here is a short version:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Michael-Ash.pdf

Book is available here as well as Amazon:

https://www.fairmormon.org/store/product/shaken-faith-syndrome

Edited August 15, 2018 by Calm

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

It probably depends on the person.

One thing that I think needs to be made clear to people who have a "faith crisis" is that the goal isn't to try and somehow get back to where they were before the crisis.  The person that they were is now dead, and they're not coming back.

The goal is to try and become the person they are going to become.   And who is that person, and what will they believe?  No one knows.  That person may have faith in the Church's claims and belief in the Church's teachings, but it is going to be a different kind of faith and belief.  And it seems to be different for everyone.  Lots of different factors are in play.

So is this board "safe"?  "Safe" for what?  Are we going to help them get back to the kind of faith they used to have?  No, because like I said, it isn't going to happen.  Will FairMormon be safer?  I don't think so, because most of what I've seen from them seems to be from the idea that if we just look at stuff a certain way, then we can go back to the way we used to be and forget about all this disturbing new stuff.  Again, it doesn't work.

I think this board does about as good a job as any place helping people get where they're going to go.  Other avenues might seem more helpful in that they mete out the info at a slower pace and thus slow down the journey, but  I don't know if "slower" is the same thing as "safer." 

Coming here worked for me! When you are struggling with things, the last thing you want is people who are only going to discuss the church in a positive "rainbows and puppies" type of way. It's better to come here and get many perspectives and some real answers even if it does not present the church in a positive way. When sitting in Sunday School or at church, real answers...throw down debates are not going to happen. I was helped by the diverse opinions, complaints and issues. I found a new faith and in many ways a stronger, more mature faith. I guess it depends on the person but church can feel claustrophobic and like there is no way to have a "real" discussion without being viewed as an apostate. Because of  this, I think this is a good place to be.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Coming here worked for me! When you are struggling with things, the last thing you want is people who are only going to discuss the church in a positive "rainbows and puppies" type of way. It's better to come here and get many perspectives and some real answers even if it does not present the church in a positive way. When sitting in Sunday School or at church, real answers...throw down debates are not going to happen. I was helped by the diverse opinions, complaints and issues. I found a new faith and in many ways a stronger, more mature faith. I guess it depends on the person but church can feel claustrophobic and like there is no way to have a "real" discussion without being viewed as an apostate. Because of  this, I think this is a good place to be.

Ditto for the most part, still working on the faith deal, or who that faith is in. But really believe this board helped when I couldn't get that help in a church/ward setting and helped me have ex LDS, TBM or NOM to converse with. Love this board! 

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

To the opening post...

Often a faith crisis is precipitated by having to deal with too much unfamiliar information at once and the best solution is taking a breath and stepping back from the pile, prioritizing issues, and then focusing on one aspect at a time (pretty much the same advice I'd give anyone feeling overwhelmed by being confronted by too many demands of whatever nature).

There are too many different opinions that get thrown out there and often without a careful use of definition and nuances so as to avoid confusion (so it may appear to someone unfamiliar that people who agree are arguing and people who don't are telling each other they are right, probably a myriad of conversations that leave newbies scratching their heads going 'what exactly are they debating ').  I don't think the board is therefore a good place for someone trying to sort things out in their minds, it would just add at best to the feeling of information overload.

FairMormon's Ask a Question service can provide information in a more controlled fashion.  There are often people who write multiple questions and we try to cover all of them, but there are usually just one or a few responding and they are responding solely to the questioner and not to each other, so the questioner has more control on where the conversation goes.

The FairMormon Answers (the name of the Wiki) can feel overwhelming if they approach it as trying to absorb it all at once.  A more directed research of exploring one question at a time and maybe taking a week or two or more off between explorations may help with the process.  I recommend Mike Ash's Shaken Faith Syndrome book because it discusses effective approaches to resolving the crisis and how to avoid deepening it as well as deals with some specific issues to show the process.

Here is a short version:

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Michael-Ash.pdf

Book is available here as well as Amazon:

https://www.fairmormon.org/store/product/shaken-faith-syndrome

Oh, yes.  I have it on Kindle, and it arrived in print today.  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here are a few additional thoughts (posted previously here, discussing the generalized state of apologetics, which for me is heavily influenced by my pariticpation on this board) :

[Yoda has passed into The Force, Luke is sitting outside his hut with R2]

Luke: I can't do it, R2. I can't go on alone.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: [voice emanates from nowhere] Yoda will always be with you. [reveals himself as a spirit walking nearby]

Luke: Obi-Wan. Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father.

Obi-Wan: Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view.

Luke: [incredulously] A certain point of view?

Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

I am of the opinion that Kenobi should have been a bit more honest in his conversations and should have just told him his father was a child-killing mass murderer and that Kenobi had chopped off all his limbs and left him to burn alive. But yeah, your father wanted you to have this.......

[The Nehor]

Good: A board filled with kind people who can discuss this is=n a loving and helpful fashion.

Better: A one on one with a loving friend who you trust to have your best interests at heart and only wants to help.

Best: A wrestle with a God in prayer to seek answers and pierce the veil to find the truth complete with the normal pleadings and tears.

 

Bad: Here

Worst: Most of the rest of the Internet.

Edited August 15, 2018 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Personally, I wouldn't steer them here or fairmormon. FAIR was a major instigator of my faith crisis. Not only did it open me up to lots of new information but I also saw how "the faithful" often treated people with questions  and non-orthodox views.

So it depends on what their purpose is. Do they need a place to ask any questions, be skeptical, get a variety of opinions? If so, then this place will work. But if they're trying to stay actively engaged in the church I'd recommend a FB group like A Thoughtful Faith.

At least FairMormon addresses the sensitive issues with proper context, something one is not guaranteed to find here or necessarily in other places. Just a guess, but for every individual who claims FairMormon instigated his faith crisis, there are multiple individuals who gained the perspective with the help of FairMormon to see them through to a resolution of their issues.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  FAIR has been a wonderful resource for me.  

Thanks,

-Smac

And for me as well. I have lost count of the number of occasions when I have been able to explode some sort of sophistry or another by a quick trip to fairmormon.org. That alone justifies its existence for me.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

How about send the person to many different sites and let the person decide for him/herself?  The person is going to go to many different places on the internet to find out what the real story is anyway.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

How about send the person to many different sites and let the person decide for him/herself?  The person is going to go to many different places on the internet to find out what the real story is anyway.

I bet on human laziness over human thoroughness and I rarely lose these bets.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

How about send the person to many different sites and let the person decide for him/herself?  The person is going to go to many different places on the internet to find out what the real story is anyway.

I can answer that with one word: sophistry.

An online source defines sophistry as "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

Some individuals don't have the intellectual tools or background to spot sophistry when they see it. There is a very real danger that they will stop with some deceptive claim when they ought to look further into the matter. They need guidance. We all do at times in our lives.

I'm not quite willing to join The Nehor in betting on "human laziness over human thoroughness," but I'm wary about a human tendency toward intellectual vulnerability.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can answer that with one word: sophistry.

An online source defines sophistry as "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation."

Some individuals don't have the intellectual tools or background to spot sophistry when they see it. There is a very real danger that they will stop with some deceptive claim when they ought to look further into the matter. They need guidance. We all do at times in our lives.

I'm not quite willing to join The Nehor in betting on "human laziness over human thoroughness," but about wary about a human tendency toward intellectual vulnerability.

 

In my experience, I went to many sites and then commented and asked questions trying to understand all of the issues.  I went to Interpreter and commented there and asked questions.  I went to Times & Seasons and commented there as well as here and By Common Consent, asking questions.  All the while I was reading and as many books as possible as well as the scriptures, praying too.  The thing is that I don't know any but the very simple minded that will only go where their guides take them in the age of mass information.  I know that I would have run to Sandra Tanner had someone tried to force me to stay away from certain sites.  In my mind, we were supposed to have the truth and the truth should withstand the Tanners of the world.  Also, there seems to be a push to inoculate and that cannot happen unless the questioner is exposed to everything.  Maybe the guides can keep repeating over and over that it doesn't matter what happened in the past and remind the questioner that one doesn't really know the past anyway once it gets beyond a certain point (although I don't think that applies to church history as it is pretty recent and here again, the reaction of the guide can push the questioner away).  The guides can also stress the results of believing and staying in the boat, but there is a danger that the questioner will realize that whatever good feelings one gets in the church is merely a function of belief itself and that the belief that the source of the good feelings comes from one place is really illusory and could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  Also, good principles are had in many different places.  Even so, inoculation works to a certain extent as it kept me believing for a while anyway, despite having been exposed to Dialogue, Sunstone, Wesley Walters, Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart and John Silitoe personally over the years.  Robert Smith and some of the other apologists know all the issues and have stayed.  Yet a lot that know the issues have left as well.  It's like the questions that I posed to the adult sunday school class I taught when I came back from inactivity:  Given that we are supposed to do missionary work yet stay in groups that support our standards, how does that really work?  One needs to venture into mammon to evangelize the sinners, yet the venture will undoubtedly expose the innocent missionary to worldly ideas that seem rational.  So, who gets converted, the so-called sinner or the missionary or is it a little of both?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Coming here worked for me! When you are struggling with things, the last thing you want is people who are only going to discuss the church in a positive "rainbows and puppies" type of way. It's better to come here and get many perspectives and some real answers even if it does not present the church in a positive way. When sitting in Sunday School or at church, real answers...throw down debates are not going to happen. I was helped by the diverse opinions, complaints and issues. I found a new faith and in many ways a stronger, more mature faith. I guess it depends on the person but church can feel claustrophobic and like there is no way to have a "real" discussion without being viewed as an apostate. Because of  this, I think this is a good place to be.

You seemed to me at your early postings like someone  had the ability to process a lot of information and focus on the important stuff.  I always thought you were good at getting to the point (at least of the things that interest me) and I have made the habit of reading your posts.

If people have the ability to process varied sources at once without feeling overwhelmed and they enjoy having a variety of sources to chose from rather than two or three, they may benefit from the board.

Board dynamics seem to draw particular types of persons.  For some, it seems to exacerbate their uncertainty or distrust but they are comforted (or so it appears) by being able to say whatever they want (up to a point).  Others appear to thrive on hearing a variety of voices.  Others are rewarded undoubtedly by things others are not aware of.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The question in the title just about covers it.  

I'm asking because I have a particular individual in mind, but also generally.  

Sometimes I think the answer might be "yes", and sometimes "no", but your opinion is solicited.

And by "safe" I mean will participating here make things worse with respect to the faith crisis, or better.  I know that nothing is 100%, but overall, if all things are equal.  Feel free to answer, even if you're not an LDS believer.

It seems no one has pointed out the board guidelines:

BANNED TOPICS include but are not limited to:
• Proselyting, witnessing or other one sided posts intended to preach not discuss
• Sensational or tabloid topics about public or private figures
• Repeated or multiple threads on the same topic (unless it is a unique sub-topic)
• Politics (unless directly related to the church)
• Sexually themed threads or discussions of sexual behavior of LDS leaders, past or present
• Making yourself the subject or personal crisis topics like:
• Why I Left the Church or de-conversion stories
• Suicide threats and threats of harm to self or others
• Personal faith crises or marriage crises discussions

These definitely need to be kept in mind for anyone sent here.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It seems no one has pointed out the board guidelines:

BANNED TOPICS include but are not limited to:
• Proselyting, witnessing or other one sided posts intended to preach not discuss
• Sensational or tabloid topics about public or private figures
• Repeated or multiple threads on the same topic (unless it is a unique sub-topic)
• Politics (unless directly related to the church)
• Sexually themed threads or discussions of sexual behavior of LDS leaders, past or present
• Making yourself the subject or personal crisis topics like:
• Why I Left the Church or de-conversion stories
• Suicide threats and threats of harm to self or others
• Personal faith crises or marriage crises discussions

These definitely need to be kept in mind for anyone sent here.

Hmmm.  Strictly speaking, someone with a personal faith crisis could come here, ask a question in connection with their personal faith crisis without identifying it as such, and be perfectly within the board guidelines, it seems to me.  In fact, someone who is not experiencing such a crisis could come here and pop a question that connects with someone else's faith crisis, and also not be violating board guidelines.  For example, say a member of my ward was having a hard time with a particular issue and I posted a question in relation to it, in order to get some ideas on how to handle the matter.  I think the board guidelines are saying "Don't come here and try to get treatment for your ailment."

But your point is well taken.

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

In my experience, I went to many sites and then commented and asked questions trying to understand all of the issues.  I went to Interpreter and commented there and asked questions.  I went to Times & Seasons and commented there as well as here and By Common Consent, asking questions.  All the while I was reading and as many books as possible as well as the scriptures, praying too.  The thing is that I don't know any but the very simple minded that will only go where their guides take them in the age of mass information.  I know that I would have run to Sandra Tanner had someone tried to force me to stay away from certain sites.  In my mind, we were supposed to have the truth and the truth should withstand the Tanners of the world.  Also, there seems to be a push to inoculate and that cannot happen unless the questioner is exposed to everything.  Maybe the guides can keep repeating over and over that it doesn't matter what happened in the past and remind the questioner that one doesn't really know the past anyway once it gets beyond a certain point (although I don't think that applies to church history as it is pretty recent and here again, the reaction of the guide can push the questioner away).  The guides can also stress the results of believing and staying in the boat, but there is a danger that the questioner will realize that whatever good feelings one gets in the church is merely a function of belief itself and that the belief that the source of the good feelings comes from one place is really illusory and could come from almost anywhere or nowhere.  Also, good principles are had in many different places.  Even so, inoculation works to a certain extent as it kept me believing for a while anyway, despite having been exposed to Dialogue, Sunstone, Wesley Walters, Dan Vogel, Michael Marquart and John Silitoe personally over the years.  Robert Smith and some of the other apologists know all the issues and have stayed.  Yet a lot that know the issues have left as well.  It's like the questions that I posed to the adult sunday school class I taught when I came back from inactivity:  Given that we are supposed to do missionary work yet stay in groups that support our standards, how does that really work?  One needs to venture into mammon to evangelize the sinners, yet the venture will undoubtedly expose the innocent missionary to worldly ideas that seem rational.  So, who gets converted, the so-called sinner or the missionary or is it a little of both?

Thankyou, that was very thought-provoking, especially the bolded part, which is what I am dealing with at the moment -- not personally, someone I know and care about, and it'd be off-topic to bring into this thread.

The Apostle Paul conducted several missionary journeys in which he was exposed to groups that did not support his standards, yet he was not a bit converted by worldly ideas (apparently).  But then, that's Paul, and not some young, newly-minted missionary, so perhaps the comparison isn't apt.

I was not born into the church, but found my way into it in my youth, rather to my parents' consternation.  I had already been "of the world", I guess you could say, but abandoned it.  My full-time mission (entered into without support from my parents, and in fact with some opposition) did not lead me in any way to any degree of conversion back to my worldly origins (that sounds amusing, actually).  Neither did any of my fellow workers seem to get converted to the world in any way -- though I suppose some were affected.  I think of my second companion, who was a nice farm boy from Idaho.  He was surprised a few times by what he found among the "Gentiles", but it didn't seem to faze him at all. 

It seems obvious to me that "venturing into mammon" is something we all must do -- unless we live in some backwoodsy part of Utah or Idaho where virtually everyone is a member of the church.  So we venture daily into "mammon", and most of us keep apart from the standards of the world even while moving among the world. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, but if the person is not knowledgeable enough -- which is probably the case here, it might not be as beneficial as you might hope.

Which person is not knowledgeable enough, the one struggling or the one trying to help him? In either case, here is an extensive list of resources (the bottom half seem more relevant) that I would consider very reliable content-wise, and safe interpersonally-wise, especially with a trusted coach with whom ideas can be exchanged : https://www.lds.org/si/objective/doctrinal-mastery/gospel-sources?lang=eng

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I've wondered about FAIR, as well.  I've found it to be very useful to me, but then I think I had already run into any number of new-to-me tidbits that I had put on a backburner until I had better answers than I possessed at a given time.  But I think I can see that if someone has just a few "things" nagging at him or her, learning about a whole new constellation of them might be a bit overwhelming.

I suppose that someone might keep the information found at FAIR on tap, and then dispense it as needed -- like a doctor prescribes only the medication that the patent needs, rather than dumping the whole pharmacopeia upon them at one go!

Keep in mind that it's OK to say there aren't good answers for some things. Some issues are just problematic, period, and trying to force a satisfactory answer often does little more than validate the person's concern. "I don't know," or "I can't defend that" is better than "It's right, no matter what."

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

Really? Because FM only has contact with people through direct personal email. And those who write in are treated very well, on a very few occasions where someone has said something too harsh, others jump in. 

Are you saying their website contact treats people badly? Please provide an example of that. 

Actually, I'm referring to the old FAIR discussion board. It was a hot mess. Members of fair were designated with an orange dot by their profile so it was easy to see who was an official member of fair, versus others who may be posting. But there were many times I witnessed abusive behavior by members of FAIR and I assume many of the same people are still there, though I don't know whether or not they are part of direct email contacts. And it wasn't a rare occurrence. Sometimes there seemed to be a mob mentality. Knowing people who were part of FAIR I am aware that group messages went out which would then result in a mass of people coming to a discussion like a mob. I can't provide examples because the site was taken down. I can't even express how unimpressed I was with many of the people there.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At least FairMormon addresses the sensitive issues with proper context, something one is not guaranteed to find here or necessarily in other places. Just a guess, but for every individual who claims FairMormon instigated his faith crisis, there are multiple individuals who gained the perspective with the help of FairMormon to see them through to a resolution of their issues.

Maybe it's gotten better. But when I was reviewing their material regularly and participating in their discussion board the "proper context" was often very weak apologetics. That's part of why I struggled. I expected good answers to questions but quickly learned their "proper context" was weak sauce.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Actually, I'm referring to the old FAIR discussion board. It was a hot mess. Members of fair were designated with an orange dot by their profile so it was easy to see who was an official member of fair, versus others who may be posting. But there were many times I witnessed abusive behavior by members of FAIR and I assume many of the same people are still there, though I don't know whether or not they are part of direct email contacts. And it wasn't a rare occurrence. Sometimes there seemed to be a mob mentality. Knowing people who were part of FAIR I am aware that group messages went out which would then result in a mass of people coming to a discussion like a mob. I can't provide examples because the site was taken down. I can't even express how unimpressed I was with many of the people there.

I didn't realize there was another FAIR board besides this one (which when I started posting was called the FAIR board and was directly affiliated with FAIR).