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

[jkwilliams]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

Send such folks to mormonhub.com.  After all, they send folks to mormondialogue.org whenever someone shows up there and wants to argue and voice criticism about the church and whatnot.  

Never heard of mormonhub. What is it?

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you were so prone to be rattled by things you saw on the FairMormon site, I dare say that would have happened to you anyway when you encountered those things elsewhere and that FairMormon is not to be blamed for how you reacted to your exposure to them. 

As I said before, at least FairMormon is not using these things as a basis for attack but on the contrary is endeavoring to provide a soft landing by giving context and perspective. And as I mentioned, that has benefited me on many occasions by keeping the playing field level or, to use another of my favorite metaphors, keeping the ground clear of noxious weeds so that my faith has space to flourish. 

I have to believe there are many others like me. 

By the way, I don’t think visiting teachers typically are good resources for responding to attacks on the faith and the Saints. They ordinarily are ill-equipped to do so, as they have not seen a personal need to delve into apologetics. I wouldn’t be inclined to blame them for not having ready answers to your questions, although I wish more of our rank and file would be acquainted with such essentials as the Gospel Topics essays. 

When I would read on FairMormon years ago it was hard at first to distinquish it from being anti because FM members would post the question by someone that brings up super scary stuff about the church and the answer below, and I would have a hard time distinguishing between them. So I at first wasn't reading it correctly and it was blaring out at me it was anti-Mormon. And then I'd read the answer and the quotes and it was so confusing to me. Because some answers were non answers. And worse, I'd never heard about things that were being asked, for instance, masonry in the temple.

Does that make sense? Or do you understand how a person can be rattled? I remember how instant the internet would send me to all kinds of sites, without my doing much to bring them up. I remember never even hearing about John Dehlin and his site StayLDS.com. I remember reading, on that very tame site, and feeling a dark feeling, and looking over my shoulder afraid anyone could see me reading it. I've come a long way since then. 

I'm sure this person that Stargazer wants to help, may be going through the same thing, and eventually discussing on a board like this may just help. When I first came on here it was difficult because it was before the church essays and some things I would mention that I'd come across, to some on this board, they said were false, and now that the essays came out, turns out it was true afterall. 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It was the beginning of my FC. I thought others knew and I just didn't know enough, I was a poor reader of church history. And that's why I brought it up to my VT'rs. thinking they knew possibly. So I wasn't suppose to express my dilemma? No, I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the church. And I will always blame the church. Sorry, but that's where it belongs. The church failed, and you can see the fallout everywhere. Not just over polygamy, but about the BoM translation process, unknown to a majority of members, and the essay on blacks and the PH. I'm listening to a former bishop right now on a live broadcast that expressed that was his moment of dissonance after reading the essay. So I'll put the essays as a possible testimony breaker as well, I've heard/seen this many times on the bloggernacle.

It is the responsibility of the members to learn the doctrines and history of the Church.  The Church could do more but in the end, the buck stops as the member.  If one thinks they are going to get a broad understanding of the scriptures, church history, ect from their Sunday meetings, they are way off the target.  

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is the responsibility of the members to learn the doctrines and history of the Church.  The Church could do more but in the end, the buck stops as the member.  If one thinks they are going to get a broad understanding of the scriptures, church history, ect from their Sunday meetings, they are way off the target.  

Then it is the church's responsibility to answer the questions out in the open, even in a Sunday school setting, IMO. I remember not too long ago of teachers being reprimanded for bringing up the essays at one time. Or discussing the warts in church history. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then it is the church's responsibility to answer the questions out in the open, even in a Sunday school setting, IMO. I remember not too long ago of teachers being reprimanded for bringing up the essays at one time. Or discussing the warts in church history. 

It's both the member's responsibility as well as the church's.  Neither one can lay the blame completely on the other.  The church needs to do better (and I think they are working on it so let's give them some credit where it's due.  That only seems fair).  Members also need to do better.  Let's face it, the majority of members probably get 40 minutes of theology study a week (the length of a typical sunday school class).  That's obviously substandard and we as members should know that without it constantly being pointed out to us.

We need to take some responsibility for our spiritual welfare.  Many of us don't.   We don't act; we sit around waiting to be acted upon.

Edited August 15, 2018 by bluebell

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then it is the church's responsibility to answer the questions out in the open, even in a Sunday school setting, IMO. I remember not too long ago of teachers being reprimanded for bringing up the essays at one time.

That seems odd.  Why get reprimanded for presenting material published by the Church?

FWIW, our ward's bishop used a Fifth Sunday lesson to introduce the essays to the ward and encourage members to read and study them.

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Or discussing the warts in church history. 

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems odd.  Why get reprimanded for presenting material published by the Church?

FWIW, our ward's bishop used a Fifth Sunday lesson to introduce the essays to the ward and encourage members to read and study them.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

I vaguely recall the story Tacenda seems to be referring to, wherein a youth Sunday School teacher was released because, in response to questions from his students, he used one or more of the essays in his class.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I vaguely recall the story Tacenda seems to be referring to, wherein a youth Sunday School teacher was released because, in response to questions from his students, he used one or more of the essays in his class.

Here's the story:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2475803&itype=CMSID

"This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church's own race essay in lesson"

Edited August 15, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's the story:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2475803&itype=CMSID

"This Mormon Sunday school teacher was dismissed for using church's own race essay in lesson"

Thank you, that is the one, but I think we've had this discussion about bringing up these issues in a regular classroom, seems like dozens of times, so I should have left it out I guess. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I vaguely recall the story Tacenda seems to be referring to, wherein a youth Sunday School teacher was released because, in response to questions from his students, he used one or more of the essays in his class.

Hmm.  Very odd.  Using essays published by the Church got the teacher reprimanded?  Nothing more?

I generally don't put much store in such aberrant, one-sided anecdotes like this.  I suspect we're not getting the whole story.  And even if we are, it seems an aberration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Very odd.  Using essays published by the Church got the teacher reprimanded?  Nothing more?

I generally don't put much store in such aberrant, one-sided anecdotes like this.  I suspect we're not getting the whole story.  And even if we are, it seems an aberration.

Thanks,

-Smac

I hope it's an aberration, but the man was released, not just reprimanded. 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I hope it's an aberration, but the man was released, not just reprimanded. 

From the Trib article:

Quote

After the class, students told their families about the conversation. One parent complained to Dawson's bishop.

"Anything regarding black history before 1978 is irrelevant," Dawson recalls his bishop saying, "and a moot point."

Then, the former teacher says, his bishop insisted during a February interview that Dawson agree never again to bring up the essay or discuss "black Mormon history" in the class.

Dawson declined — even after believing he would be "released" from teaching the class for disobedience.

"If the [Holy] Spirit guides me in a way that involves these multitude of documents," he asked the bishop, "who am I to resist the enticing of the Spirit?"

The bishop replied, according to Dawson, "The Spirit is telling me to tell you not to use those documents."

...

Eventually, their local LDS leaders agreed that Dawson's materials were legitimate but decided he shouldn't teach them anyway.

It was too much for the kids, they argued, and church was not the right venue for the discussion.

Hmm.  The context does help.  It really does seem like a weird decision from the bishop, though.  Nevertheless, I still feel like we are not getting the whole story.  The fact that the individual went and reported it to the Salt Lake Tribune, and in doing so painting himself in the best possible light and his bishop in the worst, and him knowing that his bishop has no means of responding, etc. makes this one seem a bit fishy.

And then the wife chimes in with this non-sequitur (with an editorial dash from the Tribune for good measure):

Quote

Ezinne spent her high school years in upstate New York and felt accepted in her Mormon congregation there. As a freshman at BYU, however, she experienced the sting of racism from her church community for the first time.

"My freshman roommate from Pleasant Grove refused to talk with me," she says. "She was uncomfortable being around me."

Ah.  A freshman acting weird.  Must be racism.  Must be.  When I was in college I had roommates that refused to talk with me.  And they were of another race.  Must've been racism, then.

This, dear reader, is "news" from the Salt Lake Tribune.  Funny how such "news" items overwhelmingly casts Mormonism in a bad light.  It just sorta happens.

At the end of the day, this story hardly seems newsworthy.  Such one-sided, agenda-driven pablum is part of why the Tribune's credibility as a news source has declined, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 15, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

When I would read on FairMormon years ago it was hard at first to distinquish it from being anti because FM members would post the question by someone that brings up super scary stuff about the church and the answer below, and I would have a hard time distinguishing between them. So I at first wasn't reading it correctly and it was blaring out at me it was anti-Mormon. And then I'd read the answer and the quotes and it was so confusing to me. Because some answers were non answers. And worse, I'd never heard about things that were being asked, for instance, masonry in the temple.Does that make sense? Or do you understand how a person can be rattled?

I take your point that this is how you perceived it (or rather, misperceived it) at first, and I can even grant the possibility that others might be or might have been similarly confused.

But I don't accept that this is a universal or even a common experience among those encountering the website.

What I have observed over the last several years is that there seems to be a common effort to undercut the value or credibility of FairMormon and the Gospel Topics essays by making claims that they brought on or worsened one's faith crisis. So I have become highly suspicious of such claims. It is almost as if those making the claims do "protest too much" (if I might allude to the Shakespeare quote).

 

Quote

I remember how instant the internet would send me to all kinds of sites, without my doing much to bring them up. I remember never even hearing about John Dehlin and his site StayLDS.com. I remember reading, on that very tame site, and feeling a dark feeling, and looking over my shoulder afraid anyone could see me reading it. I've come a long way since then. 

I can relate to that. I still get a dark feeling whenever I look at Dehlin's stuff.

 

Quote

I'm sure this person that Stargazer wants to help, may be going through the same thing, and eventually discussing on a board like this may just help. When I first came on here it was difficult because it was before the church essays and some things I would mention that I'd come across, to some on this board, they said were false, and now that the essays came out, turns out it was true afterall. 

Hard to address this without specifics about what things some here were saying were false, but it merely illustrates a shortcoming of this and other boards -- a shortcoming I would call pooled ignorance -- one of the things that I believe makes it ill-suited for one having a "faith crisis." I would want such a person to go to a site like FairMormon that is vetted, carefully researched and takes pains to be accurate.

[juliann]

8 hours 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.

There is so much wrong here, I don't even know where to start. I ran the "old FAIR board." Where in the world did you get the orange dot thing? It has been quite interesting watching the ever expanding message board atrocity tales. FAIR started as a message board before it created online content. Then it became just another message board. I was the only Board member who posted on it after the first President left. Today there is an elist that gives you membership for $25 a year but there wasn't back then. I have no idea what you mean by "FAIR members" and your email mob mentality slur.    Interesting that you find people who have come to know each other sending emails. Are we allowed to speak to one another at all? What you are probably referring to was Mormon Voices. Yup, we would form a "mob" when the church was being trashed in newspaper articles. Not like there is a trash mob that forms in comment sections on the Trib or anything. That had zip to do with a message board. 

We were so sick of being attacked on the AOL message boards, we were too strict with the first incarnation of the board. We didn't allow links to the usual ministry and anti sites. Without that, the antis had to work harder. It became too tame and the board died. At that time, ZLMB became the hub. But it was open season there, Calm can tell you about the moderation. When they began to interfere with our private lives, I convinced Dan Peterson to come to FAIR, where we would have moderation that protected LDS. As in, like now, it is a board for Mormons. Well, the Mormons abandoned ZLMB. But the antis followed us, of course, howling all the way that I had destroyed ZLMB by walking away from their abuse. 

That began a period where we started to ban posters to get rid of the contention. Thus, that other message board was formed for the refugees who were outraged they couldn't turn FAIR into ZLMB.  It wasn't until Nemesis took over that the antis were actually run out of town, often in purges. Thus, as so many have said, we have an amazingly moderate board now. But it was a learning process.

Should everybody have been nicer? Sure. Do I have a lot of sympathy for those who flooded a Mormon board to denounce, mock, and vilify us? Um, no. I guess I'm not CK material like you guys. But thank you for the most inventive story yet of what a small group of people created online.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is so much wrong here, I don't even know where to start. I ran the "old FAIR board." Where in the world did you get the orange dot thing? It has been quite interesting watching the ever expanding message board atrocity tales. FAIR started as a message board before it created online content. Then it became just another message board. I was the only Board member who posted on it after the first President left. Today there is an elist that gives you membership for $25 a year but there wasn't back then. I have no idea what you mean by "FAIR members" and your email mob mentality slur.    Interesting that you find people who have come to know each other sending emails. Are we allowed to speak to one another at all? What you are probably referring to was Mormon Voices. Yup, we would form a "mob" when the church was being trashed in newspaper articles. Not like there is a trash mob that forms in comment sections on the Trib or anything. That had zip to do with a message board. 

We were so sick of being attacked on the AOL message boards, we were too strict with the first incarnation of the board. We didn't allow links to the usual ministry and anti sites. Without that, the antis had to work harder. It became too tame and the board died. At that time, ZLMB became the hub. But it was open season there, Calm can tell you about the moderation. When they began to interfere with our private lives, I convinced Dan Peterson to come to FAIR, where we would have moderation that protected LDS. As in, like now, it is a board for Mormons. Well, the Mormons abandoned ZLMB. But the antis followed us, of course, howling all the way that I had destroyed ZLMB by walking away from their abuse. 

That began a period where we started to ban posters to get rid of the contention. Thus, that other message board was formed for the refugees who were outraged they couldn't turn FAIR into ZLMB.  It wasn't until Nemesis took over that the antis were actually run out of town, often in purges. Thus, as so many have said, we have an amazingly moderate board now. But it was a learning process.

Should everybody have been nicer? Sure. Do I have a lot of sympathy for those who flooded a Mormon board to denounce, mock, and vilify us? Um, no. I guess I'm not CK material like you guys. But thank you for the most inventive story yet of what a small group of people created online.

Maybe I’m wrong, but HJW seems to be talking about something different from the FAIR board that evolved into this one. I’m not familiar with what he’s talking about, so I’ll leave it up to him to explain what he means. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is so much wrong here, I don't even know where to start. I ran the "old FAIR board." Where in the world did you get the orange dot thing? It has been quite interesting watching the ever expanding message board atrocity tales. FAIR started as a message board before it created online content. Then it became just another message board. I was the only Board member who posted on it after the first President left. Today there is an elist that gives you membership for $25 a year but there wasn't back then. I have no idea what you mean by "FAIR members" and your email mob mentality slur.    Interesting that you find people who have come to know each other sending emails. Are we allowed to speak to one another at all? What you are probably referring to was Mormon Voices. Yup, we would form a "mob" when the church was being trashed in newspaper articles. Not like there is a trash mob that forms in comment sections on the Trib or anything. That had zip to do with a message board. 

We were so sick of being attacked on the AOL message boards, we were too strict with the first incarnation of the board. We didn't allow links to the usual ministry and anti sites. Without that, the antis had to work harder. It became too tame and the board died. At that time, ZLMB became the hub. But it was open season there, Calm can tell you about the moderation. When they began to interfere with our private lives, I convinced Dan Peterson to come to FAIR, where we would have moderation that protected LDS. As in, like now, it is a board for Mormons. Well, the Mormons abandoned ZLMB. But the antis followed us, of course, howling all the way that I had destroyed ZLMB by walking away from their abuse. 

That began a period where we started to ban posters to get rid of the contention. Thus, that other message board was formed for the refugees who were outraged they couldn't turn FAIR into ZLMB.  It wasn't until Nemesis took over that the antis were actually run out of town, often in purges. Thus, as so many have said, we have an amazingly moderate board now. But it was a learning process.

Should everybody have been nicer? Sure. Do I have a lot of sympathy for those who flooded a Mormon board to denounce, mock, and vilify us? Um, no. I guess I'm not CK material like you guys. But thank you for the most inventive story yet of what a small group of people created online.

I don't have any insider knowledge, but I do remember the board that was run by FAIR, and the orange dot thing does sound wacky to me.

[jkwilliams]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't have any insider knowledge, but I do remember the board that was run by FAIR, and the orange dot thing does sound wacky to me.

Three possibilities:

1. He’s delusional and none of what he said happened. 

2. He’s making it up for some reason.

3. He’s not talking about the FAIR board Juliann was involved in starting. 

I’m guessing #3.

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Three possibilities:

1. He’s delusional and none of what he said happened. 

2. He’s making it up for some reason.

3. He’s not talking about the FAIR board Juliann was involved in starting. 

I’m guessing #3.

Yes, it's #3. There was another message board hosted on the FairMormon website. Hope_for_things posted there too. I lurked a bit but never posted anything. This was circa 2015 or so. Didn't observe any abuse from FM members, but I only checked the board occasionally.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Yes, it's #3. There was another message board hosted on the FairMormon website. Hope_for_things posted there too. I lurked a bit but never posted anything. This was circa 2015 or so. Didn't observe any abuse from FM members, but I only checked the board occasionally.

Were orange dots involved? Thanks for clarifying. I figured it had to be something like that. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Nevo]

I don't remember if there were orange dots but FM members were distinguished from the other posters on the board. I remember that much.

[Calm]

There have been three discussion boards associated with FairMormon.  Juliann was part of the first one.  That got shut down for a variety of reasons, top two:  people were assuming that it was FAIR and the vast majority of FAIR members weren't interested in it and never posted on it.

That board was transferred to this board's current owner and all ties with FAIR were severed and even less FM members posted....more or less like an old restaurant closing and a new owner came in and refurbished the place and the old clientele mostly stuck around and a few staff stuck around, but switched to being customers.

Then many years later, there was a first attempt at a FM support board.  I was not involved in that, it lasted less than three months as I understand it.  Not sure what happened, but it sounded like it was a disaster and everyone involved very quickly lost interest, except the guy whose idea it was.  Not quite a year later it started up again with a forceful plea for everyone to get involved.  There was a vague mission statement summed up by the title FM Support board, but it seemed like few had the same idea of its purpose and it was a trial and error thing.  The originator had no message board experience, iirc. I broke my vow and offered my services as another moderator in pity (there were some spammers at the beginning, thought I could cover the graveyard shift, but it became fulltime as these things do).  My view is that what was wanted was to take the one on one experience of the question service  and replicate it for an online support group using the format of a message board.  That way lurkers could benefit as well.  Unfortunately the structure was incompatible imo, especially since they had no real rules or vetting of the process to match up people with mentors who could help them.  It was supposed to be organic, I guess.  Modified as we went along and saw what worked and what didn't.  More like it turned into a jungle and a few reacted by bringing out the pesticides.

Closed down with the idea it might go to a stack question type of thing where the questions sent in would be made public and then people would answer, those would get vetted and posted and then voted on or something...which would help us see which answer people found the most successful.  Unfortunately those able to do that had life intruding, so it is currently in deep freeze hibernation.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Were orange dots involved? Thanks for clarifying. I figured it had to be something like that. 

Names were in different colors iirc.  One for moderators, one for mentors (mostly FM people), one for everyone else.  My memory is orange, green, blue with maybe red for admins....but very vague memory.

A lot of posters didn't notice those and were confusing nonmembers (both of FM and LDS) of being FM, so even those who posted may have missed the color coding.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Names were in different colors iirc.  One for moderators, one for mentors (mostly FM people), one for everyone else.  My memory is orange, green, blue with maybe red for admins....but very vague memory.

So, HJW was not telling a creative atrocity story, after all. I had no idea such a board ever existed, so I can’t comment on HJW’s experience. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, HJW was not telling a creative atrocity story, after all. I had no idea such a board ever existed, so I can’t comment on HJW’s experience. 

I think HFT was on it.  Not too many others.  It wasn't advertised that I remember as we were experimenting still.  There was a link on the contact us page, I am guessing.  The only one I really remember was zerinus who got banned because he started attacking people's quality of faith or something.  There were a couple of other prolific believing types, a very few in the middle or beginning of a faith crisis, no real conclusions drawn yet people (they mainly stayed in the intro section where limited discussion was allowed and dropped out after first questions were discussed).

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

There have been three discussion boards associated with FairMormon.  Juliann was part of the first one.  That got shut down for a variety of reasons, top two:  people were assuming that it was FAIR and the vast majority of FAIR members weren't interested in it and never posted on it.

That board was transferred to this board's current owner and all ties with FAIR were severed and even less FM members posted....more or less like an old restaurant closing and a new owner came in and refurbished the place and the old clientele mostly stuck around and a few staff stuck around, but switched to being customers.

Then many years later, there was a first attempt at a FM support board.  I was not involved in that, it lasted less than three months as I understand it.  Not sure what happened, but it sounded like it was a disaster and everyone involved very quickly lost interest, except the guy whose idea it was.  Not quite a year later it started up again with a forceful plea for everyone to get involved.  There was a vague mission statement summed up by the title FM Support board, but it seemed like few had the same idea of its purpose and it was a trial and error thing.  The originator had no message board experience, iirc. I broke my vow and offered my services as another moderator in pity (there were some spammers at the beginning, thought I could cover the graveyard shift, but it became fulltime as these things do.  My view is that what was wanted was to take the one on one experience and replicate it for an online support group using the format of a message board.  Unfortunately the structure was incompatible imo, especially since they had no real rules or vetting of the process to match up people with mentors who could help them.  It was supposed to be organic, I guess.  Modified as we went along and saw what worked and what didn't.  More like it turned into a jungle and a few reacted by bringing out the pesticides.

Closed down with the idea it might go to a stack question type of thing where the questions sent in would be made public and then people would answer, those would get vetted and posted and then voted on or something...which would help us see which answer people found the most successful.  Unfortunately those able to do that had life intruding, so it is currently in deep freeze hibernation.

I do remember hearing about that one, though I never posted or even read there.

Wasn't Bill Reel involved with that project during his brief and ill-fated association with FAIR?

My understanding from what I heard is that it became overrun with antagonists and got out of control.