How far do you take agency?

[Duncan]

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Awesome subject. 

[changed]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

 

When I first went inactive I would have loved the attention of being someone's "project".  I was hurting quite a bit, needed support, prayed for support, and got back almost nothing.  People avoided me because... you know... the issues were above everyone's pay grade.  If someone has health issues, or loses a job, or has a "socially acceptable" problem, then great - lots of love and support!  If someone is dealing with abuse, adultery, pedophiles -  or heaven forbid - a faith crisis - then... not so much. 

Each case is unique of course, but there are many inactive members who would love to talk through the hard issues.  It is a very painful thing - to have the foundation you thought was so firm crumble from underneath you.    A drowning person will take others down with them - so it feels like there is plenty of council being given to "leave them alone" if they are inactive because they read too much stuff on the internet, or the kid was abused or something.  If you catch someone in the early stages of a faith crisis, and put a lot of work in - and I mean a lot of work - you could probably turn them around.  Leave them alone too long - like me now - and we learn to be self-reliant, without the need for anyone to come after us any more.

I prayed for a long time - for one simple thing - that a single brother would offer to give me a blessing.  It never happened.  My bishop said "sorry, I do not have any experience with that" and that was the last I heard from them.  

 I will put a wool fleece on the threshing floor tonight. If the fleece is wet with dew in the morning but the ground is dry, then I will know that you are going to help me rescue Israel as you promised....

I will fast and pray for one simple thing - a blessing.  If no one offers to give me a blessing, if there is no support within the church, if there is no spirit, if it is not led by God, then let me be met with silence.  .... 

I got my answer.  

Edited May 23, 2019 by changed

[SouthernMo]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

This dilemma is (to me) why it is so important to just treat people with real love. It is only when we have an agenda of something we want them to do (be reactivated) that we need to worry about some level of respecting their agency.

Making others feel loved should be our only agenda.

[Jane_Doe]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Always be friendly and keep the door open for people.  And respect a person's choice whether or not to walk through it. 

[JLHPROF]

Kind of goes against scripture...but after numerous experiences with this situation Pres. Heber C. Kimball admitted it was probably best.

[Metis_LDS]

51 minutes ago, Duncan said:

how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

If a member says that they want no contact we must respect that. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Respect them, yes, absolutely.  Treat them as equals, just try to be a good neighbor.  If the opportunity presents maybe ask about their journey, not to learn how you can effectively try to reactivate them, but so you can be a better friend and empathy goes a long way too.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, changed said:

 

When I first went inactive I would have loved the attention of being someone's "project".  I was hurting quite a bit, needed support, prayed for support, and got back almost nothing.  People avoided me because... you know... the issues were above everyone's pay grade.  If someone has health issues, or loses a job, or has a "socially acceptable" problem, then great - lots of love and support!  If someone is dealing with abuse, adultery, pedophiles -  or heaven forbid - a faith crisis - then... not so much. 

Each case is unique of course, but there are many inactive members who would love to talk through the hard issues.  It is a very painful thing - to have the foundation you thought was so firm crumble from underneath you.    A drowning person will take others down with them - so it feels like there is plenty of council being given to "leave them alone" if they are inactive because they read too much stuff on the internet, or the kid was abused or something.  If you catch someone in the early stages of a faith crisis, and put a lot of work in - and I mean a lot of work - you could probably turn them around.  Leave them alone too long - like me now - and we learn to be self-reliant, without the need for anyone to come after us any more.

I prayed for a long time - for one simple thing - that a single brother would offer to give me a blessing.  It never happened.  My bishop said "sorry, I do not have any experience with that" and that was the last I heard from them.  

 I will put a wool fleece on the threshing floor tonight. If the fleece is wet with dew in the morning but the ground is dry, then I will know that you are going to help me rescue Israel as you promised....

I will fast and pray for one simple thing - a blessing.  If no one offers to give me a blessing, if there is no support within the church, if there is no spirit, if it is not led by God, then let me be met with silence.  .... 

I got my answer.  

Oh my word, you described to a "t" what I went through, but mine was the "faith crisis". When I told the bishop what it was about, I became a doubt germ. No one said a word to me the whole year I quit going to church, then we moved. And my new bishop was told up front by myself what I'd been through and he hasn't spoke to me since, I know I'm inactive, but there is texting out there.

And both my new and old RS presidents had/has been absent, same with former neighbors at the time. I wonder if they had stepped up and asked where I'd been and showed concern or asked me, I wonder if I'd be more involved with the church now.

I've never heard it put so succinct as you, changed! I'm c/p'g your post & saving because it is beautifully written and fits perfectly. Maybe it was a blessing that I didn't have anyone swoop in and befriend or show concern to me. Then I'd be back to the grind and not have to search for my faith...a faith I didn't think I ever needed because it was a given that the church was true. I'm still not there but I've grown so much. Even though it doesn't appear to anyone on this board, I'm sure. 

I believe there are only certain members that the leaders want reactivated, as you said so well, to me they don't want faithful members to know about certain problems that occur. It's basically like a club to me now. I don't see the christlike things anymore. I know it's out there amongst the members, but too far a gap for a church that believes it's God's only church, way too far a gap. Their out is to say, don't judge the church by the people. But I do, because aren't they the fruit of the tree (church)?  But I know that there are a lot of members that are truer than the church, when I am luckly enough to know or meet them.

ETA: I don't want to derail by making this all about me, I just had to respond to changed. And I've always felt that if members of the church really want to live the gospel, don't quit speaking to people like me or changed. When people want to be on the no contact list, that means as far as the ward goes or about attending church or accepting callings, it doesn't mean to have nothing else to do with them. 

But I will admit, I may have treated someone like me the same way, and just held back thinking that they didn't want me to reach out or be a fake friend.

Great subject Duncan, I've always wanted to say something about this. It probably made me run faster from the church when no one seemed to care that I hadn't been to church for that long. It may be that I'm more an introvert too, but RS president and bishopric, should have at least come around, same with home teachers. But it didn't happen. That said a lot to me. 

So you out there that are dealing with this, or inactives, don't listen to people like Duncan's SP leader! Just love them and reach out in friendship like hope_for_things, changed and SouthernMo mentioned, do not however, go silent!

One more thing, I was looking forward to having ministering sisters, believing I might make a friend. I kept wondering where they were because I've been in the new ward for over a year, it wasn't until the last few weeks that I found out why. And it is because our hometeachers/ministering couple, is technically my ministering sisters too. So all wrapped into one couple. So much for having a couple of ministering sisters now. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Tacenda

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Maybe this far?

Quote

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’

 

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my word, you described to a "t" what I went through, but mine was the "faith crisis". When I told the bishop what it was about, I became a doubt germ

Okay since I have been on both sides of the fence (active as a leader (not Bishop) and then inactive and now active once more) I can say something.  Please do not think I am excusing anyone who has a stewardship for the stray sheep.  At some point when people are progressing towards being inactive or just have become (I include myself in this) they give off a vibe.  Some find that vibe scary,  some find it depressing,  some cannot explain but they know for sure they do not want to be around you at all.  Some simply do not have faith that they can help you, maybe from past experiences that did not go well.  Now after my adventures so to speak I am confident that whatever vibe someone would give off it would not set me back.  So not a bunch of excuses for those not helping or trying to help but a reality check for both sides of the fence.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Metis_LDS
cut down

[SouthernMo]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe this far?

 

This is a cute story that makes an emotional appeal, but how do you specifically apply it?

Not all “sheep” who aren’t in the fold (active, white-shirted Mormons) are lost, want to come back, and they wouldn’t take too kindly to being hoisted up onto your shoulders and dragged back to be with the 99 sheep who are where Jesus wants them. 

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Okay since I have been on both sides of the fence (active as a leader (not Bishop) and then inactive and now active once more) I can say something.  Please do not think I am excusing anyone who has a stewardship for the stray sheep.  At some point when people are progressing towards being inactive or just have become (I include myself in this) they give off a vibe.  Some find that vibe scary,  some find it depressing,  some cannot explain but they know for sure they do not want to be around you at all.  Some simply do not have faith that they can help you, maybe from past experiences that did not go well.  Now after my adventures so to speak I am confident that whatever vibe someone would give off it would not set me back.  So not a bunch of excuses for those not helping or trying to help but a reality check for both sides of the fence.

I believe you're right, strange phenomonen that has maybe been borne out from the dynamics in our church. I hope the current leaders figure out what to do about it. Maybe you people that are able to help make changes in the church might need to send it up the line somehow. Maybe only those like yourself will be able to understand. I know many that have never gone through it, and I do give them slack for not doing as the Lord would want them to. It's maybe because there is that buffer or shield that is covering their eyes and they are blind to it, through no fault of their own. I guess they need some how to have that covering pulled off. To see that members like me or changed aren't as scary as we may seem. And maybe members like us need to step out of our own minds and be the first to speak and maybe they'll see we aren't going to take them down a different path. But in all honestly, if the members believe this to be the true church, how come their testimonies are that fragile? I think it's because their testimony is in the church too much, and they need to step away from all the dogma.

[changed]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Oh my word, you described to a "t" what I went through, but mine was the "faith crisis". When I told the bishop what it was about, I became a doubt germ. No one said a word to me the whole year I quit going to church, then we moved. And my new bishop was told up front by myself what I'd been through and he hasn't spoke to me since, I know I'm inactive, but there is texting out there.

And both my new and old RS presidents had/has been absent, same with former neighbors at the time. I wonder if they had stepped up and asked where I'd been and showed concern or asked me, I wonder if I'd be more involved with the church now.

I've never heard it put so succinct as you, changed! I'm c/p'g your post & saving because it is beautifully written and fits perfectly. Maybe it was a blessing that I didn't have anyone swoop in and befriend or show concern to me. Then I'd be back to the grind and not have to search for my faith...a faith I didn't think I ever needed because it was a given that the church was true. I'm still not there but I've grown so much. Even though it doesn't appear to anyone on this board, I'm sure. 

I believe there are only certain members that the leaders want reactivated, as you said so well, to me they don't want faithful members to know about certain problems that occur. It's basically like a club to me now. I don't see the christlike things anymore. I know it's out there amongst the members, but too far a gap for a church that believes it's God's only church, way too far a gap. Their out is to say, don't judge the church by the people. But I do, because aren't they the fruit of the tree (church)?  But I know that there are a lot of members that are truer than the church, when I am luckly enough to know or meet them.

ETA: I don't want to derail by making this all about me, I just had to respond to changed. And I've always felt that if members of the church really want to live the gospel, don't quit speaking to people like me or changed. When people want to be on the no contact list, that means as far as the ward goes or about attending church or accepting callings, it doesn't mean to have nothing else to do with them. 

But I will admit, I may have treated someone like me the same way, and just held back thinking that they didn't want me to reach out or be a fake friend.

Great subject Duncan, I've always wanted to say something about this. It probably made me run faster from the church when no one seemed to care that I hadn't been to church for that long. It may be that I'm more an introvert too, but RS president and bishopric, should have at least come around, same with home teachers. But it didn't happen. That said a lot to me. 

So you out there that are dealing with this, or inactives, don't listen to people like Duncan's SP leader! Just love them and reach out in friendship like hope_for_things, changed and SouthernMo mentioned, do not however, go silent!

One more thing, I was looking forward to having ministering sisters, believing I might make a friend. I kept wondering where they were because I've been in the new ward for over a year, it wasn't until the last few weeks that I found out why. And it is because our hometeachers/ministering couple, is technically my ministering sisters too. So all wrapped into one couple. So much for having a couple of ministering sisters now. 

 

Leave the 99 and go after the one?  Haha - they say it, but they don't do it - not for the faith crisis "one's"  

Big hugs going out to you Tacenda.  I am so lucky - there is a thriving "inactive" support group in my area, and that has made all the difference - along with forums like this to find others traveling along the same paths.  Lots of amazing books - 

Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life [Richard Rohr] 

Stages of Faith - Fowler

The Sin of Certainty - Pete Enns

As well as amazing podcasts - I especially love Noah Rasheta's Secular Buddhism (Check out #93 - Stepping Into Groundlessness, on embracing uncertainty - "acceptance of uncertainty as part of life" happens to be the highest stage within the Perry Levels of Intellectual and Ethical Development, which are unobtainable within an authoritarian organization espousing truth claims

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by changed

[changed]

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

Okay since I have been on both sides of the fence (active as a leader (not Bishop) and then inactive and now active once more) I can say something.  Please do not think I am excusing anyone who has a stewardship for the stray sheep.  At some point when people are progressing towards being inactive or just have become (I include myself in this) they give off a vibe.  Some find that vibe scary,  some find it depressing,  some cannot explain but they know for sure they do not want to be around you at all.  Some simply do not have faith that they can help you, maybe from past experiences that did not go well.  Now after my adventures so to speak I am confident that whatever vibe someone would give off it would not set me back.  So not a bunch of excuses for those not helping or trying to help but a reality check for both sides of the fence.

 

Haha - bad vibes - like the vibes a spouse gives off after they learn they've been cheated on and lied to? or the vibe the neighbor gives off when someone has run over their dog with the car?  ... Lost that Mormon glow have we?  

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a cute story that makes an emotional appeal, but how do you specifically apply it?

Not all “sheep” who aren’t in the fold (active, white-shirted Mormons) are lost, want to come back, and they wouldn’t take too kindly to being hoisted up onto your shoulders and dragged back to be with the 99 sheep who are where Jesus wants them. 

A cute story?

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, changed said:

Leave the 99 and go after the one?  Haha - they say it, but they don't do it - not for the faith crisis "one's"  

They?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Not all “sheep” who aren’t in the fold (active, white-shirted Mormons) are lost, want to come back, and they wouldn’t take too kindly to being hoisted up onto your shoulders and dragged back to be with the 99 sheep who are where Jesus wants them. 

Pres. Heber C. Kimball-

"I do not feel as I used to when I see a man going away from the society of the Church of God. I used to be filled with sympathy and plead with them hours and hours, importuning with them until my head would ache and my heart sicken; and I never had the satisfaction in even converting one such character in my life. If I should happen to get one converted he would not stay converted, so I have concluded, and I think wisely, to let them go, and not suffer myself to have any more feelings about it than I would about any of the common occurrences of life."

[changed]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is a cute story that makes an emotional appeal, but how do you specifically apply it?

Not all “sheep” who aren’t in the fold (active, white-shirted Mormons) are lost, want to come back, and they wouldn’t take too kindly to being hoisted up onto your shoulders and dragged back to be with the 99 sheep who are where Jesus wants them. 

 

OK - I have to share this dream I had - weirdest dream I cannot forget (perhaps someone here can interpret it for me

So in the dream, I am a hired shepherd - I am up on a horse watching over a bunch of sheep - we are in a big field, and on the edge of the field is a dark forest.  The forest feels evil, feels like wolves or bears or something could come out of that forest at any moment, and I am sitting there wondering if I love the sheep enough to go through a blood bath for them, or if I would just take off and leave them if a predator appeared.  The evening progresses, no wolves come - and the sun starts going down.  As the sun starts to set, I notice a circular pen in the distance, and the sheep line up, and all of them start walking towards the pen.  As the person up on the horse it feels like I should be herding them over there or doing something to lead them, but it turns out they don't really need a leader - like they have done this so many times it is just their schedule, and they are perfectly content to march off to their pen all on their own.  I follow them over, wait for the last sheep to dutifully march into the enclosure, and then I shut the gate behind them all.  Now the thing with this pen - it is not secure, just a 2-rail split rail fence.  The fence is no security at all, would not keep any predator out, does not protect anything - and yet the sheep are grouped together inside it acting all snug and secure, not a worry in the world.  ... and that is when I feel it - feel completely and totally alone.  The sheep - they are all cozied up together for the night, in their little family groups, and me?  I am not a sheep - I cannot turn myself into a sheep - I am a person on a horse, I am a different species.  I walk into the pen - and the sheep are polite to me, make room for me, but I am an outsider, not one of them, not part of any family, no other humans are there, I'm alone.  ... so I leave the pen and have a choice - do I stay and protect these sheep from whatever predator might come out of the woods at night? but then - they are not my sheep, no relation to me - they do nothing but make me feel alone and isolated... I can't take it, can't take feeling so alone, so I hop on the horse, and ride into the forest... and it turns out the forest is not so bad afterall - the smell of pine, it is soft and quiet - I ride through it, loving the forest, and the dream ends I am an Indian chief on the horse, looking up into the stars - beautiful stars... and horribly, painfully, eternally alone.

Goodnight everyone.

Edited May 24, 2019 by changed

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

The Prime Directive.

We must honor Moroni 10 4-5 or be hypocrites

That simple. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

They?

FairMormon gets lots of questions from people trying to figure out how to best help the one.  Some members may ignore those in faith crisis, but I know many who don't.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Some years ago, my home teaching companion decided to leave the Church because of his support for gay 'marriage'. He was very public about it and demanded, quite publicly, that no one try to reach out to him, rescue him, or try to change his mind. So we didn't. Respect for agency and all that.

A couple of years later, he paid me a visit. What a bunch of shallow hypocrites the Saints are, he told me bitterly. His evidence: literally not one had tried to reach out to him, rescue him, or change his mind when he left the Church.

[Metis_LDS]

Well this topic is not dear to me but sadly it is near.  I will speak about myself so as not to offend anyone else on the board.  When I became disaffected I had a tape running in my head about how the members should react and treat me.  Only problem is now I remember I never told them the script they were suppose to follow.  The same thing happens in marriages you want your partner to be a certain way but you never tell them.  I suppose it is the old thing about if I told the members what I wanted and they did it then it would be only because I told them.  What I learned is that anytime you really want people to be a certain way (and it is very important to you) you are heading for a train wreck.  Reality can be very harsh.  I strive now to get rid of that desire for people to be the way I want,  but that takes time and a lot of effort.

[rchorse]

In my experience, those who cry the most loudly that no one ever tried to reach out or visit or rescue them were always those we had tried the hardest to help. As bishop, I would often hear that someone had complained to his/her neighbor/home/visiting teacher that no one ever came by or cared or offered to help. That was typically from people that we as a bishopric had visited fairly recently and had either not even let us in the door or told us that they wanted no contact.

While some people definitely do slip through the cracks, and some leaders / members don't reach out the way they should, I'm inclined to take most of these types of stories with more than a grain of salt.

That said, though, I agree that the best approach for everyone is to love them without any ulterior motives of reactivation, etc.

[The Nehor]

Yeah, I watched a couple complain that the church did not help them when their baby had health problems........after they refused the bishop entrance to the hospital when he came by to see i they were okay, refused to come to the door for their assigned ministers, and ignored texts from over a dozen people trying to reach out. That level of self-deception has always impressed me in a sad way.