Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

[Calm]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.  Can you clarify by answering my last question?  And, what do you mean "it is not always a member's fault...?"  It goes without saying that the system is not perfect though. 

Was it a tenant-landlord dispute, or a confidential disciplinary council?  If merely it was merely a dispute being settled between ward members, why was it handled at the stake level and framed as disciplinary council? 

Meadowchik talked about the issues while it was going on. It might be easiest to google for info. I will see if I can find something quickly. 

[Calm]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Good questions. Why did the church get involved in our civil case? Why did they ask us to drop the case in order to have our temple recommends? Why did they make a civil dispute about temple worthiness?

We lack information, standing and stewardship to address any of these questions.

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think I know much of the answer here, and I have a lot of compassion for the stake president and bishop in this case. But, the stake president's actions still hurt me.

I encourage you to take up the issue with him privately, rather than presenting it in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

.

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We lack information, standing and stewardship to address any of these questions.

I encourage you to take up the issue with him privately, rather than presenting it in the public sphere.

Thanks,

-Smac

I might do that, but the purpose would be the same as it is here: to point out that sometimes policies hurt people in the church. I don't know how else to convey that except to describe how it happens the best I can. Sorry to interject your thread with such unpleasantness, but I think that talking about it is important for things to improve.

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I might do that, but the purpose would be the same as it is here: to point out that sometimes policies hurt people in the church. I don't know how else to convey that except to describe how it happens the best I can. Sorry to interject your thread with such unpleasantness, but I think that talking about it is important for things to improve.

Can you provide a listing of the policies -- are they from Handbook 1 or 2?

[Meadowchik]

Since I contributed dredges I'll also contribute something pretty neat. By the time the end of 2016 came, the neighbor had assaulted my husband. The situation was untenable. But, several years earlier, our first tenants were friends we'd known for a a long time. They moved to where we lived from Canada, and lived next door while getting back on their feet. When they moved out, they moved ten minutes away. Then the twin brother of the friend moved to the area to be near his brother. And this second brother is a born diplomat, and he'd served his mission in another country and in the same ward of the tenant family about 15 years previous. They remembered him. Because of that connection, they accepted his help when he offered to help them find a new place to live. And that's how the tenants willingly moved out well before the rental contract was expired! (French rental law makes ity extremely hard to evict tenants even with good cause.)

The church is such a small world, even smaller in Europe. I love that about the church. And I love that our friend was able to bridge a divide that helped make both of our families safer. 

[Stargazer]

On 12/16/2019 at 8:48 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Your response to Thinking is correct, Spencer, but the burden thereby placed on everyone is immense.  Even just getting through your opening post is a lot of work.  Shouldn't it be possible for ordinary members to happily and successfully "feel their way" through this time of trial here below?  Must everyone become a scholar?

For the past couple of months I've been less in attendance here, so I've only just discovered this thread. I'm late to the party.

Scholarship is overrated when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, I feel.  I don't denigrate it, I just feel that there is something of greater importance, and that something is an experiential relationship with God, through the Holy Ghost.  In my earlier years in the Church, I'd run into the occasional Big List kind of thing, and it would bother me -- in fact it would fill me with darkness, and make me want to stay away from it. What preserved me was testimony.  I liked the light and peace that I felt in the gospel, and these anti-Mormon materials felt like some kind of blocking force impeding the light from arriving at my soul. So, I avoided them, like a paramecium attempting to avoid unpleasant stimuli by backing away and then moving forward on a new axis. You don't need to wallow in the mud, if it burns you.

I joined the Church at age 14, not having had an explicit revelatory experience at the time, because what I was taught made sense, and that I felt it was true.  That seemed sufficient.  I discovered later that I had actually had a personal experience with the spirit even before I spoke with the young man who invited me to hear the missionaries, but before that realization I had the peace and light, which I was drawn to.  It wasn't until just a few months after my baptism that I experienced the Holy Ghost in a very simple yet direct way.  I won't explain what happened, except to say that nothing like this had ever happened to me before. That experience, and several others like it since then continue to preserve for me the sweet assurance that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's authorized church upon the earth.

So, no, not everyone needs to become a scholar.  But everyone needs to learn from God himself who God is, who his Son is, and not rely upon the opinions of others. Once that has been nailed down, tripe like these Big Lists can be seen for exactly what they are: tripe.

I suppose I'm being too simplistic.  But when all is said and done, my experiences with the Spirit trump all.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide a listing of the policies -- are they from Handbook 1 or 2?

LDS Church (2010). Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops (Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church) §6.10.4.

[smac97]

On 1/8/2020 at 9:30 AM, Meadowchik said:

I might do that, but the purpose would be the same as it is here: to point out that sometimes policies hurt people in the church.

I don't think any "policy" is implicated here.

Quote

I don't know how else to convey that except to describe how it happens the best I can. Sorry to interject your thread with such unpleasantness, but I think that talking about it is important for things to improve.

Okay.

I think the best way for it to improve is to let the Church know.

By way of illustration: Years ago I proposed to my (now) wife over the summer.  We scheduled our wedding for December, so when she returned to Provo in August (we were both at BYU), I attended church services with her.  During that summer I moved to a new apartment, but I never attended the ward there.  I was either out of state (in military training), or else I attended my fiancée's ward.  In November, I called the bishop of my student ward (whom I had never met) and asked for an interview so I could get a recommend to get married in the temple.  I told him about my circumstances, and that I had been attending church every week, just not at his ward.  The bishop refused to meet with me, explaining that he could not give me a recommend because I had never attended his ward (though my records were there).  He suggested I speak with the bishop of my fiancée's ward.

So I approached this other bishop.  He said he would love to help (he had met me, knew I was engaged to a member of his ward, had seen me there every week, etc.), but he could not give me a recommend unless my records were in his ward.  I explained that the bishop of my ward was refusing to meet with me, and he (the other bishop) suggested I try to contact my "home ward bishop" (essentially, my parents' bishop).  

So I called that bishop.  He too said he couldn't help, and for the same reason (he was not my bishop, and did not have my records).  I asked him for advice on where to go next, and he said he did not know.

I went back to my ward's bishop and explained my efforts.  He commisserated, but still refused to meet with me because I had never attended his ward.

By this point I was about two weeks out from getting married, and was pretty stressed.  I spoke with my dad about what I had been experiencing, and he was quite surprised.  He said the two other bishops were right, and that the only bishop who could give me a recommend was the bishop where my records were located.  He ended up calling a friend of his, who was, IIRC, a former area authority.  He (my dad) explained the situation, then hung up.  He said his friend was surprised, and a bit irritated.  He had said something like this to my dad: "We move heaven and earth to encourage members to get young adults to prepare to go to the temple.  We spend years and untold amounts of effort to make this happen, only to have stuff like this happen."

The friend apparently knew how to fix it, as he made a call to someone else.  Within a few minutes, I got a call from by bishop, the one who had repeatedly refused to meet with me, this time welcoming me to meet with him the next day.  I met with him.  He apologized for his prior refusal to meet with me.  He interviewed me at some length (since, again, he had never met me), and gave me the recommend.

What did I learn from this?  Well, a few things. 

First, the leaders of the Church can, and do, make mistakes.

Second, the issue here was not really a problem about "policy."  The bishop should have granted me an interview, but I should have probably attended my ward at least a few times.  It was a matter of circumstance, not a problem with "policy."

Third, there was no "bad guy" in this sequence of events.  The bishop erred in refusing to meet with me, but there was no malice on his part.  To the contrary, he explained that his refusal to meet with me was because he thought I should meet with a bishop who knew me better than he did.  It was a mistake, but an honest one.  He was a good man doing what he thought was correct.

Fourth, notwithstanding the lack of a bad "policy" or a bad/malicious actor, I still ran into a pretty substantial and frustrating problem pertaining to a matter of church governance.  

Fifth, the problem was resolved through persistence and communication.  I'd like to think that most such administrative/policy issues in the Church can be and are addressed that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 25, 2020 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think any "policy" is implicated here.

Okay.

I think the best way for it to improve is to let the Church know.

By way of illustration: Years ago I proposed to my (now) wife over the summer.  We scheduled our wedding for December, so when she returned to Provo in August (we were both at BYU), I attended church services with her.  During that summer I moved to a new apartment, but I never attended the ward there.  I was either out of state (in military training), or else I attended my fiancée's ward.  In November, I called the bishop of my student ward (whom I had never met) and asked for an interview so I could get a recommend to get married in the temple.  I told him about my circumstances, and that I had been attending church every week, just not at his ward.  The bishop refused to meet with me, explaining that he could not give me a recommend because I had never attended his ward (though my records were there).  He suggested I speak with the bishop of my fiancée's ward.

So I approached this other bishop.  He said he would love to help (he had met me, knew I was engaged to a member of his ward, had seen me there every week, etc.), but he could not give me a recommend unless my records were in his ward.  I explained that the bishop of my ward was refusing to meet with me, and he (the other bishop) suggested I try to contact my "home ward bishop" (essentially, my parents' bishop).  

So I called that bishop.  He too said he couldn't help, and for the same reason (he was not my bishop, and did not have my records).  I asked him for advice on where to go next, and he said he did not know.

I went back to my ward's bishop and explained my efforts.  He commisserated, but still refused to meet with me because I had never attended his ward.

By this point I was about two weeks out from getting married, and was pretty stressed.  I spoke with my dad about what I had been experiencing, and he was quite surprised.  He said the two other bishops were right, and that the only bishop who could give me a recommend was the bishop where my records were located.  He ended up calling a friend of his, who was, IIRC, a former area authority.  He (my dad) explained the situation, then hung up.  He said his friend was surprised, and a bit irritated.  He had said something like this to my dad: "We move heaven and earth to encourage members to get young adults to prepare to go to the temple.  We spend years and untold amounts of effort to make this happen, only to have stuff like this happen."

The friend apparently knew how to fix it, as he made a call to someone else.  Within a few minutes, I got a call from by bishop, the one who had repeatedly refused to meet with me, this time welcoming me to meet with him the next day.  I met with him.  He apologized for his prior refusal to meet with me.  He interviewed me at some length (since, again, he had never met me), and gave me the recommend.

What did I learn from this?  Well, a few things. 

First, the leaders of the Church can, and do, make mistakes.

Second, the issue here was not really a problem about "policy."  The bishop should have granted me an interview, but I should have probably attended my ward at least a few times.  It was a matter of circumstance, not a problem with "policy."

Third, there wss no "bad guy" in this sequence of events.  The bishop erred in refusing to meet with me, but there was no malice on his part.  To the contrary, he explained that his refusal to meet with me was because he thought I should meet with a bishop who knew me better than he did.  It was a mistake, but an honest one.  He was a good man doing what he thought was correct.

Fourth, notwithstanding the lack of a bad "policy" or a bad/malicious actor, I still ran into a pretty substantial and frustrating problem pertaining to a matter of church governance.  

Fifth, the problem was resolved through persistence and communication.  I'd like to think that most such administrative/policy issues in the Church can be and are addressed that way.

Thanks,

-SMac

I may do that if I can. Also, I have been considering researching the impact of gender/priesthood policies from a scientific level. I'm sure that a social network analysis of church hierarchies cannot encompass all elements involved, but if I complete such research, (attending school for a Masters right now) I will send my findings to the church.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

For the past couple of months I've been less in attendance here, so I've only just discovered this thread. I'm late to the party.

Scholarship is overrated when it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, I feel.  I don't denigrate it, I just feel that there is something of greater importance, and that something is an experiential relationship with God, through the Holy Ghost.  In my earlier years in the Church, I'd run into the occasional Big List kind of thing, and it would bother me -- in fact it would fill me with darkness, and make me want to stay away from it. What preserved me was testimony. 

I am glad to hear it.

However, there are others who, for varying reasons, have not been able to preserve their testimony in the face of such challenges to it.  

There are also many who, like me, have found faithful and informed scholarship to be a thrilling ancillary witness to the merits of the Restoration.

Quote

I liked the light and peace that I felt in the gospel, and these anti-Mormon materials felt like some kind of blocking force impeding the light from arriving at my soul. So, I avoided them, like a paramecium attempting to avoid unpleasant stimuli by backing away and then moving forward on a new axis. You don't need to wallow in the mud, if it burns you.

A fair point, but not necessarily a universally applicable one.  For me, I have found great satisfaction in studying the Gospel from both spiritual and "scholarly" perspectives.

Quote

I joined the Church at age 14, not having had an explicit revelatory experience at the time, because what I was taught made sense, and that I felt it was true.  That seemed sufficient.  I discovered later that I had actually had a personal experience with the spirit even before I spoke with the young man who invited me to hear the missionaries, but before that realization I had the peace and light, which I was drawn to.  It wasn't until just a few months after my baptism that I experienced the Holy Ghost in a very simple yet direct way.  I won't explain what happened, except to say that nothing like this had ever happened to me before. That experience, and several others like it since then continue to preserve for me the sweet assurance that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's authorized church upon the earth.

This is wonderful to hear.

However, I personally know a number of people who have had similar experiences, but who have nevertheless been persuaded to abandon their faith.  The reasons are varied, but forgetting those spiritual experiences, or neglecting them, or retroactively discounting or diminishing them, can happen.

To be sure, the remedy of returning is a primarily spiritual process.  But intellectual inquiry can play a big part in that process

Quote

So, no, not everyone needs to become a scholar.  But everyone needs to learn from God himself who God is, who his Son is, and not rely upon the opinions of others. Once that has been nailed down, tripe like these Big Lists can be seen for exactly what they are: tripe.

I suppose I'm being too simplistic.  But when all is said and done, my experiences with the Spirit trump all.

I think Daniel Peterson put it well in this Liahona article: Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon.  An excerpt:

Quote

Serious study of the Book of Mormon by Latter-day Saints is flourishing today as never before. And, with more study, the book’s richness and the remarkable accomplishment of its translator, the Prophet Joseph Smith, become more apparent.

Of course, scholarship does not replace spiritual witness as a source of testimony. As Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy said: The power of the Holy Ghost “must ever be the chief source of evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon. All other evidence is secondary. … No arrangement of evidence, however skillfully ordered; no argument, however adroitly made, can ever take its place.”

Yet scholarship has a definite place, even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”

Careful scholarship helps us to understand more fully, deeply, and precisely. “To be known, the truth must be stated,” Elder Roberts said, “and the clearer and more complete the statement is, the better opportunity will the Holy Spirit have for testifying to the souls of men that the work is true.”

So it's not an either/or scenario.  Rather, I submit that we should take a first-comes-faith-through-confirmation-from-the-Spirit,-then-comes-strengthening-and-expanding-one's-testimony-through-continued-study-and-application,-which-can-include-study-of-"scholarly"-materials approach.

The Church uses "gospel scholar" in a number of places.  I think that can have an expansive definition.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I may do that if I can. Also, I have been considering researching the impact of gender/priesthood policies from a scientific level. I'm sure that a social network analysis of church hierarchies cannot encompass all elements involved, but if I complete such research, (attending school for a Masters right now) I will send my findings to the church.

That would be an interesting point of study.  Difficult to do empirically and dispassionately, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That would be an interesting point of study.  Difficult to do empirically and dispassionately, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, but that's what a good mentoring professor is for!

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I might do that, but the purpose would be the same as it is here: to point out that sometimes policies hurt people in the church. I don't know how else to convey that except to describe how it happens the best I can. Sorry to interject your thread with such unpleasantness, but I think that talking about it is important for things to improve.

The problem I have with this is that, by your account, the local leaders were violating policy so it really cannot be blamed on the policy that was not followed.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem I have with this is that, by your account, the local leaders were violating policy so it really cannot be blamed on the policy that was not followed.

Sometimes they followed it, sometimes they didn't. 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/

 

Reading the old thread, it is sad in some ways to see me holding on to what I know is gone now. Much of that was trust in the church. The pivotal moment was when we received the invitation to the council in December 2016. After that, something broke. I had mentioned in another thread the implicit trust I had in our leaders, and it is that trust which was broken on that day. Apologies later were much appreciated, but the idea that there was some special protection and compassion through them, creating this divine connection with us, is totally gone.

Maybe that is for the best, but it is not easy to live without those comforting feelings. I have to rebuild my world a bit everyday in different ways to replace those functions. 

I was also reminded of the powerful support given me here when I shared our troubles. I think they made a difference in me that helped protect us during those times. So I am grateful for this board for that. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

LDS Church (2010). Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops (Salt Lake City, Utah: LDS Church) §6.10.4.

How does that policy (disciplinary council procedure) hurt people?

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How does that policy (disciplinary council procedure) hurt people?

It excluded me from the proceedings. Or would have, the council ended up de-escalating and was ultimately just a meeting between my husband and the SP. I still went with my husband and waited in the hall. The SP invited me in afterwards to join them for 10 minutes. At the time I was simultaneously feeling excluded but also grateful for the smaller chance to be heard. The SP apologized to us both, but by then the damage had already been done. (See above post where I respond to the link Calm provided.)

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It excluded me from the proceedings. Or would have, the council ended up de-escalating and was ultimately just a meeting between my husband and the SP. I still went with my husband and waited in the hall. The SP invited me in afterwards to join them for 10 minutes. At the time I was simultaneously feeling excluded but also grateful for the smaller chance to be heard. The SP apologized to us both, but by then the damage had already been done. (See above post where I respond to the link Calm provided.)

I'm not seeing that in the procedures--it sounds like it was not a disciplinary council (using the Handbook semantics) but a session of invited parties meeting to counsel together. Your exclusion in that case would have been at the discretion of the presiding leader, not a policy requirement.

As a generic term, "council" can refer to any group of two or more people meeting formally under Church leadership, and there are many purposes other than discipline.

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not seeing that in the procedures--it sounds like it was not a disciplinary council (using the Handbook semantics) but a session of invited parties meeting to counsel together. Your exclusion in that case would have been at the discretion of the presiding leader, not a policy requirement.

As a generic term, "council" can refer to any group of two or more people meeting formally under Church leadership, and there are many purposes other than discipline.

In this case, it was most definitely a disciplinary council at the outset.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In this case, it was most definitely a disciplinary council at the outset.

Per the handbook (specifically, section 6.7.1):

Quote

6.7.1 When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary
...
Civil Disputes

Disciplinary councils should not attempt to resolve disputes over property rights or other civil controversies. However, if such a dispute involves accusations that a member has committed acts that would justify Church discipline, leaders treat the accusations like any other accusations of transgression.

If Church leaders are asked to help settle civil disputes, they should act as unofficial, private advisers and should not involve the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2020 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

In this case, it was most definitely a disciplinary council at the outset.

Who was the discipline for? If not for you, I don't think you would have been invited (normally... though the rare exception could be made, I suppose).

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Who was the discipline for? If not for you, I don't think you would have been invited (normally... though the rare exception could be made, I suppose).

For my husband. The SP cited two concerns in the email: 

1) the conflict with the tenants, of which we were both involved if not me moreso.

2) husband's attitude with the bishop when they had a heated argument that month regarding the conflict, which they had amicably resolved before the email. The bishop and I had also had words that were heated during the same period and had reconciled. But, because my husband was the priesthood holder and me not, I was excluded from the SPs invitation. 

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

For my husband. The SP cited two concerns in the email: 

1) the conflict with the tenants, of which we were both involved if not me moreso.

2) husband's attitude with the bishop when they had a heated argument that month regarding the conflict, which they had amicably resolved before the email. The bishop and I had also had words that were heated during the same period and had reconciled. But, because my husband was the priesthood holder and me not, I was excluded from the SPs invitation. 

RE: #2, was that the SP's explanation for your exclusion from the invitation to your husband's disciplinary council?

Stake presidents (and not bishops) do preside over disciplinary councils for those holding the Melchizedek priesthood because they preside over the Melchizedek priesthood in their stakes. It seems your bishop did not see the need to hold one for you.

Was the stake-level disciplinary council a formal one (where the high councilors are present) or a less formal, counseling-type session with a smaller group of individuals (both can be referred to as disciplinary counsels)?