Spencer W Kimball’s Grandson turns in Temple Recommend

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 We're good. As I journey through this, I'm still finding myself a bit uncomfortable on the edge of inside. I've heard it said that people on the edge of inside get criticized from both sides. Those who are all out criticize them for being part in. Those who are all in criticize them for being part out. In my current position, I find the criticisms from the all in folks more troublesome, but I'm still getting used to this space.

I don't want to criticize anyone who is struggling.  Kimball, though, is not teetering "on the edge."  He's camping there.  

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

While I have not yet read any of Kimball's book, the reviews and discussions I have seen around it suggest to me that Kimball can be helpful to people trying to navigate this edge of inside space.  From what I can see, his book and thoughts can be particularly helpful for those who are not wanting to follow Dehlin and Reel into the all out space.

I question how many other people can maintain the long-term PIMO stance he is apparently advocating.  Moreover, I think advocating that stance as a long-term solution is a really bad idea.

I don't want anyone to quit their covenants.  I don't want anyone to remain perennially ambivalent/indifferent about them, either.  Kimball, I think, is advocating one or both of these.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, that is not my viewpoint.

Well you say that but when I read your posts on this thread it does seem like it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Rather, my position would be along the lines of there being good reasons to be less than full in as a church member, but none that are, broadly speaking, necessary or sufficient.

Why?  What if you are wrong. And Kimball is right?  Or Dehlin?  Or Teancum?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Air is necessary for human life.  Without air, the person dies.  Air, though necessary for human life, is not sufficient for it.  A person needs more than just air to live.  He needs water, food, etc.

Bad comparison.  Religion is not essential for life. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not essential for religion, faith or life.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Are there valid ("good") criticisms and complaints against the Church (or, as you put it, "good reasons to be less than full in as a church member")?  Of course.  That is indisputably so.  

Ok. Great. We agree.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, do any of these "good reasons" create a necessary basis for requiring or compelling someone "to be less than full in as a church member?"  Given that we are fallen, mortal beings living in a Telestial worlds, I acknowledge that there are some few extreme circumstances that I could formulate which could be reasonably characterized as subjectively and transiently creating a "necessary" basis.  By way of example, I can certainly understand and appreciate the anger that the children of Paul Adams (of Arizona sex abuse case infamy) apparently have toward the Church, and that anger eliminating any real and current possibility for them to continue activity in the Church.  They have "necessary" grounds.

See this is where I think you cannot really understand this nor do you really see any good reason to not be a middle was Latter-day Saint or to leave the church. I understand that. I have been there.  I am not sure how someone who seems to be where you are at can understand or have much empathy for those in the middle way or who leave.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Most of us, however, are not really in such extreme circumstances, such that "be{ing} less than full in as a church member" is a matter of choice, rather than of necessity.

Ummm no.  I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How about "sufficient" grounds?  If there is no single "necessary" basis "to be less than full in as a church member," is there a cumulative set of reasons that - though individually are not "necessary" - create "sufficient" grounds?  Well, same as above.  Apart from some few extreme circumstances, no, I don't think there are "sufficient" grounds.  So "be{ing} less than full in as a church member" is a matter of choice, rather than compulsory.

And what if I said there are few circumstances or sufficient grounds to remain a believing Latter-day Saint. I believe the evidence it overwhelming that the church  is not what it claims.  Yet I would never say what you just said to an active member.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

This is all a subjective exercise, for pretty much all of us.  Given what I have concluded regarding the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, I am in it for the long haul. 

Clearly.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I have not encountered any dealkiller, any singular or cumulative ground compelling me to turn from my covenants. 

But many have. I have.  Yet in your eyes we are flawed and wrong and even those who want to stay like Kimball you seem to disparage to some extent.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I seem to recall reading a comment by Daniel C. Peterson from a few years ago theorizing that decisive / competent / probative evidence negating Joseph Smith's substantive claims in terms of theophanies, the Plates, etc. would, if found, cause him to seriously re-examine his faith.  To build on that, let's say Sandra Tanner were to find and present to the world a handwritten statement by Joseph Smith confessing that he made the whole thing up, explaining how he duped the witnesses, where he got the Plates, and so on.  Extensive handwriting analysis confirms beyond any reasonable dispute that the document was written by Joseph.  Forensic evidence shows trace DNA left on the document, which is compared to known descendants of the Smith clan and found to establish, also beyond reasonable dispute, to be the DNA of Joseph Smith.  Further corroborating documents are found and shown, using comparable scientific/objective means, to have been written by a number of Joseph's contemporaries and also confessing to their part in the scam.

Yea ok so what?  And if there were similar compelling evidence like access to the gold plates, scientific evidence they were an authentic ancient record and an analysis of the text on the plates that correlate to what is in the Book of Mormon then I would believe again. Works both ways.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This, for me, could well a "sufficient" basis for me to turn from my faith and associated covenants.  I would give it a lot of time and study and prayer, but the foregoing could be a dealkiller.

So yes, there are conceivable and plausible ways in which a "sufficient" basis for "be{ing} less than full in as a church member" could arise.  I acknowledge that. 

Your bar is pretty high for this as is mine for reversing my current stance.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Sure.  Just like a person can be PIMO in regards to his marital relationship, his relationship with his children, with his employer, etc.

Sure.  Some people are. People are in all sorts of situations where they may be less than fully committed. So what?  Should someone in a marriage who is part in and out but maybe wanting it to work abandon the marriage?  Is no then why can't Kimball or Reiss remain on their terms?  Who are you to judge them and disparage them.  You disparage Reiss quite often.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I'm okay with you thinking that.  It is understandable.  I value the Restored Gospel and the Church, you don't. 

But see I did. Leaving it behind and the process behind it was one of the most painful experiences of my life. If I could have made it work I would have.  But it would maybe have been like Kimball and you (and many others) demonstrate that is not really welcome. 

Why is that? I have said before I know many Catholics that participate on their terms and are not fully on board with Catholicism but they don't get a vibe like you and others are demonstrating on this.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I presuppose that a person in a faith crisis will be better off addressing and resolving that crisis via renewed or increased devotion to the Restored Gospel and his relationship thereto.  You may presuppose that such a person will be better off leaving the Church behind.

I presuppose the person has to figure it out for themselves and make their own decision and if they can stay and make it work then great. If not then I hope they have a wonderful life after Mormonism.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have long thought little of Riess and her regularly-expressed fairweather fecklessness to be antithetical to meaningful and efficacious faith and discipleship.  And Kimball appears to be selling much the same idea.  

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean by "quite objective."

I think there are those who have departed that are very objective when talking to someone still in but doubting and trying to work it out.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, Mr. Pot, I, Mr. Kettle admit to having "a strong bias" relative to the Church.

But see I really would not try to force my choice on someone who is considering leaving.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And unlike Dehlin/Reel and Riess/Kimball, at least I am candid in my perspective on the Church.

I think they are quite candid. It just disagrees with your view.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

one of this one-foot-in-one-foot-out crapola from me.  No feigned or pretended claims to "objectivity."

Bully for you. Pat yourself on the back.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are very few things in life that merit strong and decisive and persistent devotion.  I think the Restored Gospel is one of them.  You don't.  That's fine.

I did. I don't anymore.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Both sides" of what?

Both sides of in and out of the church. I was as devoted as you are now. So I have the perspective of both sides. You don't/

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would be willing to help anyone seeking it from me. 

Great!  Could you be objective? I don't think you could.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

That does not mean, however, that all "decisions" are of equal validity, correctness and value.  Some decisions are better than others.

Yep.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No partiality at all?  Are you sure?  What if they said something like "I am thinking of leaving the Church, as you have done.  What would you do if you were in my place?" 

I would like to think I could be impartial and listen and tell them to search and ask from both sides of the issue. And pray if they still believe in prayer and then decide because I cannot presume to recommend a path. I could share my path and why I personally feel better off for where I am now but I would also say not everyone is.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Would you tell them to read the Book of Mormon, pray, attend the temple, seek counsel and a blessing or two from the bishop, etc.? 

I would tell them to council with a bishop sure. A blessing? Maybe.  Attend the temple and read scripture. Yes I think I would but I would not recommend they limit it to just that.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or would you encourage them toward the path you have taken and deem to be correct (you do feel that way, I assume)?

I do deem it correct. For me. See above for how I would want to approach it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

  

I think enduring and meaningful discipleship requires one to "be pretty much all in."  There will be many times when discipleship is "enjoyable," and many times when it will be difficult, or even unpleasant.  Regardless, my convictions about the truth claims taught by the Church, and my covenants, keep me "all in."

 

I don't know what you are saying here.  But it seems personal, so I won't ask you to elaborate.

At least we can agree on Kimball.  That we diverge on the truth claims is something we've been addressing for years.

I apologize if I gave offense, though.  That was not my intention.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was not offended.  Good discussion. Thanks

[gopher]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I guess I have nothing to worry about then 🤷‍♀️  But if I were called to be a Bishop I could encourage others to pursue things that don’t necessarily speak to me.  

I didn't intend to sound like I was referring to you with my comment.  I edited my post to clarify that I meant "still" feeling pain about the temple when accepting a call as Bishop which wouldn't include you.  I'm sure you would do great as a Bishop.  And yes, I'm aware that you are female.

[gopher]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

From some people's view the exit from the church is the best result of their faith crisis. Not a restoration of their former faith.

Sure, so this book isn't for them.  I'm trying to figure out if it's really helpful for someone still in a faith crisis who wants to stay in the church.  That's the audience the author is trying to reach.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, gopher said:

Sure, so this book isn't for them.  I'm trying to figure out if it's really helpful for someone still in a faith crisis who wants to stay in the church.  That's the audience the author is trying to reach.

Well from my standpoint I think a book like this might have been helpful while I tried to navigate the middle way.  

[Islander]

On 1/22/2023 at 9:32 PM, MrShorty said:

I hope I am reading this correctly, because, to me, this can be the most important part of the relationship to the "insiders." Those who talk about being on the edge of inside often talk about how difficult it can be. Those who are all out are disappointed in you because you haven't fully left. Those who are all in are disappointed in you because you aren't all in. The ones that bother me the most, though, are those who are all in who just wish the edge-of-insiders would get it over with and get all out. I hope that, when you talk about accepting an answer in good faith, that means that you are willing to let the edge-of-insider choose without wanting them to fully leave -- even if you would hypothetically never choose the edge of inside for yourself.

I have witnessed what you described. A friend and his family never quite returned to church activity after the Covid restrictions were lifted. They would attend maybe one Sunday per month or so. It was the summer and they were busy traveling with the children and the like. Then, it was that they built a tiny home in the mountains and were spending weekends there. 

It took him 2 years to break away from the church all together. He later confided in me that he no longer believed. The story of his faith crisis is long so I will not rehearse it here. The complexity begun when the time came to explain to the extended family. There was some tension because the grandparents wanted to take the children to church still and he was not willing. The records are still in the ward but they have been gone now for a year. We still do BBQ and the like at least once a month but no talk of church at all. I noticed that his wife was dressing "differently". Some in the ward had expressed that sentiment that "it would be best if they just leave". That felt, to me, unkind and pharisaic. 

In sum, the process is painful and complicated. I imagine even more so if you are immersed in "LDS country" where ALL your family, friends, co-workers, your mechanic and the delivery guy are members of the church. It may be extremely hard to leave the edge and exit. I guess for lots of practical reasons, at least for some time, it makes sense to remain in the edge-of-inside.

[MrShorty]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I question how many other people can maintain the long-term PIMO stance he is apparently advocating.  Moreover, I think advocating that stance as a long-term solution is a really bad idea.

It's a fair question. I don't know either. It seems to me that Kimball's main target audience are those few who think they might want to try.

The thing that stands out to me is the PIMO acronym (which is poorly defined) and the comment about ambivalence towards covenants because of the assumptions they seem to make. In a high demand religion like ours, it doesn't seem to take much to push someone to the edge. Disagreements over LGBT issues, racial issues, to what extent loyalty to church overlaps/doesn't overlap with loyalty to God/Christ, what the church ought to do with money, or others seem to be enough (each alone) to push someone to the edge. These people are often rather strident about keeping their covenants, and expend a lot of mental/spiritual energy trying to understand what is right and wrong and what God wants them to believe and do. They might feel like they sometimes have to choose to interpret their covenants or beliefs differently from what the church might officially say I have oft observed that many all ins really dislike when edgers take this kind of "personal authority over church authority" approach to morality, spirituality, and covenant. (Reading between the lines, I wonder if Elder Hamilton's talk comes from that same dislike of "personal authority," since so much of the talk seemed to be about orienting one's mental, spiritual, moral, and covenant walk with the church's interpretation of those things.)

I don't expect all ins or all outs to understand this edge space (I barely understand it, myself). It does seem to me that part of the difficulty of being on the edge is the assumptions that all ins and all outs make about what we are thinking and feeling and what we might be ambivalent about. If Kimball is arguing FOR ambivalence, I will disagree with him on that point, but it would also seem out of character to me, based on other stuff he as articulated around this space.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

I question how many other people can maintain the long-term PIMO stance he is apparently advocating.  Moreover, I think advocating that stance as a long-term solution is a really bad idea.

It's a fair question. I don't know either. It seems to me that Kimball's main target audience are those few who think they might want to try.

I can see a faithful Latter-day Saint requesting a reprieve from a demanding calling due to personal circumstances.  But the PIMO/Sabbatical stuff from Kimball and Riess go far beyond that.

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The thing that stands out to me is the PIMO acronym (which is poorly defined) and the comment about ambivalence towards covenants because of the assumptions they seem to make.

That's a fair point.

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In a high demand religion like ours, it doesn't seem to take much to push someone to the edge.

I guess I'd have to consider particular circumstances.

I think our religion is "high demand" in mostly intermittent ways.  Full-time service as a missionary?  Obviously.  Serving as a bishop, RS president (and perhaps a few other callings)?  Yes, those are pretty "high demand."  But they also come and go.

In my day-to-day life I have far more demands made of me arising from my obligations to my family.  I am married with six kids, five of whom still live at home (and the one who doesn't comes over often).  Virtually all of my time, talents, effort and money are devoted to providing for them and their needs.  The burden of meeting my obligations can be significant, but then, so are the blessings - both short- and long-term.  I hope and pray that, as regarding these obligations, I never succumb to applying the reasoning or actions proposed by Kimball and Riess.  I hope I never dilute my devotion to my family, or my efforts on their behalf.  I hope I never weaken my resolve to be the best husband and father I can be.  I hope I never adopt a "middle way" / "on the edge" attitude toward my wife and kids, where I only put forth a nominal or minimal effort to keep my relationship with them on life support.

My covenants to God encompass my duties to the "community" that is my wife and children (and, to a lesser extent, my extended family).  My covenants also include obligations to the "community" of faith to which I belong, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Disagreements over LGBT issues, racial issues, to what extent loyalty to church overlaps/doesn't overlap with loyalty to God/Christ, what the church ought to do with money, or others seem to be enough (each alone) to push someone to the edge.

Yes, those can.  The possibilities are endless.

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

These people are often rather strident about keeping their covenants, and expend a lot of mental/spiritual energy trying to understand what is right and wrong and what God wants them to believe and do. They might feel like they sometimes have to choose to interpret their covenants or beliefs differently from what the church might officially say I have oft observed that many all ins really dislike when edgers take this kind of "personal authority over church authority" approach to morality, spirituality, and covenant. (Reading between the lines, I wonder if Elder Hamilton's talk comes from that same dislike of "personal authority," since so much of the talk seemed to be about orienting one's mental, spiritual, moral, and covenant walk with the church's interpretation of those things.)

I think you are right re: Elder Hamilton.

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't expect all ins or all outs to understand this edge space (I barely understand it, myself).

I think we can seek to understand it to some extent.

22 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It does seem to me that part of the difficulty of being on the edge is the assumptions that all ins and all outs make about what we are thinking and feeling and what we might be ambivalent about. If Kimball is arguing FOR ambivalence, I will disagree with him on that point, but it would also seem out of character to me, based on other stuff he as articulated around this space.

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can see a faithful Latter-day Saint requesting a reprieve from a demanding calling due to personal circumstances.  But the PIMO/Sabbatical stuff from Kimball and Riess go far beyond that.

That's a fair point.

I guess I'd have to consider particular circumstances.

I think our religion is "high demand" in mostly intermittent ways.  Full-time service as a missionary?  Obviously.  Serving as a bishop, RS president (and perhaps a few other callings)?  Yes, those are pretty "high demand."  But they also come and go.

In my day-to-day life I have far more demands made of me arising from my obligations to my family.  I am married with six kids, five of whom still live at home (and the one who doesn't comes over often).  Virtually all of my time, talents, effort and money are devoted to providing for them and their needs.  The burden of meeting my obligations can be significant, but then, so are the blessings - both short- and long-term.  I hope and pray that, as regarding these obligations, I never succumb to applying the reasoning or actions proposed by Kimball and Riess.  I hope I never dilute my devotion to my family, or my efforts on their behalf.  I hope I never weaken my resolve to be the best husband and father I can be.  I hope I never adopt a "middle way" / "on the edge" attitude toward my wife and kids, where I only put forth a nominal or minimal effort to keep my relationship with them on life support.

You call it nominal or minimal effort and some who see people on the edge holding on with just a finger and a thumb call this minimal, but they are missing the effort that it takes to keep holding on when they have lost their grip with their whole rest of their hand, other hand and the rope connected to keep them safe. In other words sometimes that "minimal" amount is everything they have to give.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My covenants to God encompass my duties to the "community" that is my wife and children (and, to a lesser extent, my extended family).  My covenants also include obligations to the "community" of faith to which I belong, namely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Yes, those can.  The possibilities are endless.

I think you are right re: Elder Hamilton.

I think we can seek to understand it to some extent.

Good points.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 2, 2023 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

I’m not about judging anyones effort or commitment.  Or lack of.  What’s the value in that?  So many people I know who have left have left feeling alone.  🥺

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

We're good. As I journey through this, I'm still finding myself a bit uncomfortable on the edge of inside. I've heard it said that people on the edge of inside get criticized from both sides. Those who are all out criticize them for being part in. Those who are all in criticize them for being part out. In my current position, I find the criticisms from the all in folks more troublesome, but I'm still getting used to this space.

I have read that being on the edge of inside is a wonderful place to get an unbiased, clear, and perhaps quite accurate perspective on the inside. Outsiders can't understand or know enough to comment accurately. Insiders are too bound up by their identity as insiders to comment accurately. But, the one who is on the edge of inside has the ability to see inside without the bias of identity or cultural expectations. I thought that was a very interesting perspective. I like it a lot.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

You call it nominal or minimal effort, but for some may see people on the edge holding on with just a finger and a thumb, but they are missing the effort that takes to keep holding on when they have lost their grip with their whole hand, other hand and the rope connected to keep them safe. In other words sometimes that "minimal" amount is everything they have to give.

I suppose I could have framed it as "nominal or minimal effort by design and deliberate choice," but I thought the italicized part would be understood as implied.

Years ago I went to jump school in Ft. Benning.  I was pretty physically fit, but I was never quite able to complete the five pull-ups the trainers wanted all of us to do.  I would jump up, grab hold of the bar, give it my all, but the most I ever banged out was . . . three.  Getting to five was not a training requirement, so the trainers would chew me out, have me do a bunch of push-ups, and then let me carry on with the next exercise.  

Fast forward to today.  A few weeks ago my son came home with a t-shirt with the Marines logo on it.  He said he had won it from a Marine recruiter who had visited his high school and had challenged students to a pull-up contest.  Anyone who could out-do the Marine would get . . . a t-shirt.  My son did, as I recall, 27 pull-ups, easily defeating the Marine, and so won the t-shirt.

Now, let's say that my son were to go to jump school in a few weeks.  Let us further assume that the training regimen still calls for trainees to do - or at least attempt - a minimum of five pull-ups.  My son could easily do five pull-ups, but he instead completes only . . . three.  Not because he lacked the ability, but because he chose to only make a "nominal or minimal effort."  Keep in mind that all this training is intended to make trainees into the best soldiers they can be.  Our military is a vital part of preserving our society, our nation, our way of life.  Should trainees in the military nevertheless deliberately choose to do less than they could, to only make a "nominal or minimal effort," just enough to get by?

That is the sort of thing I had in mind.  People who with calculation choose to contribute substantially less than the can or ought to contribute.  This is an unfortunate mindset, and I do not fully understand it.  Imagine if Kimball and Riess were talking to soldiers, encouraging them to only exert the minimal amount of effort in their training, or even in their defense of our nation.

"Hey, binary thinking about your abilities as a soldier is a trap.  If you think 'all-in' and 'all-out' are the only choices for your service in defense of our country, you can get trapped.  I'm preaching a middle way.  There are many places to exist on the edge of your relationship with the Army, the United States, and the Constitution, and of your duties and obligations toward them.  Places that give you what you're looking for.  If being "all-in" in your military duties is not working for you, there are other ways to make it work."

There are some things in life that are worth a lot.  A lot.  That deserve our best, as much as we can do.  My relationship with God, and the duties and obligations I owe Him, are important, and deserve more than "nominal or minimal effort," more than just enough to get by.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

My wife and I have never formally joined the LDS church. I am sure all or the vast majority of you know that. However, even as we have prayed and believe it is time for us to leave the ward (it is possible to think of it as leaving without having joined), we find it very difficult to do so. Even we are undergoing a desire to "go away closer." We have attended the same small rural and fiercely proud ward for almost six years now to worship, fellowship, and minister. We now find the last one to be impossible and the second-to-last uncomfortable. The change from bishop to bishop to bishop has been very difficult for us to navigate. I am trained in and aware of organizational behavior. I believe if we don't leave, our presence will begin to cause dissension. The challenge is our leaving may cause the same thing! That isn't my point however. My point is that even though we never joined we are finding it difficult to leave. I cannot imagine how hard it must be for one who has been engaged in it for their entire lives to leave. It has to be emotionally traumatic.

Edited February 2, 2023 by Navidad

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have read that being on the edge of inside is a wonderful place to get an unbiased, clear, and perhaps quite accurate perspective on the inside.

That is one way, yes.  But "on the edge" would, I think, be a transient thing.  Temporary.

I have a very nice relationship with my wife, and I am grateful for that.  If in the future we run into substantial difficulties, such that I end up "on the edge" of my relationship with her, I sure hope I don't stay there by choice and calculation, but that I gain whatever knowledge or skillsets that perspective provides, and then make a choice about my relationship with her.  In the words of Elijah in 1 Kings 18:21: "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him..."  Or as Joshua put it: "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve."  (Josh. 24:15.)

Or Mosiah 18: 8-10:

Quote

“And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon  (for thus they were called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

“Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life.”

We all fail in various ways, hence the need for repentance.  To deliberately and with calculation step away from covenants, though, that's a very troubling thing for me.  But that's what Kimball and Riess are preaching.

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Outsiders can't understand or know enough to comment accurately. Insiders are too bound up by their identity as insiders to comment accurately. But, the one who is on the edge of inside has the ability to see inside without the bias of identity or cultural expectations. I thought that was a very interesting perspective. I like it a lot.

Good thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My point is that even though we never joined we are finding it difficult to leave. I cannot imagine how hard it must be for one who has been engaged in it for their entire lives to leave. It has to be emotionally traumatic.

It was kinda like a divorce for me. 

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We have attended the same small rural and fiercely proud ward for almost six years now to worship, fellowship, and minister. We now find the last one to be impossible and the second-to-last uncomfortable.

My perception is that you feel called to be of service, to use the gifts and talents God has blessed you with.  Could you hold meetings or classes of some sort in your home, perhaps without affiliation to a particular religion?  Just tossing out an idea. 

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well from my standpoint I think a book like this might have been helpful while I tried to navigate the middle way.  

You are giving me some things to think about.  I appreciate that.

You said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

You think a "middle way" approach would have altered how you viewed the evidence and arguments, or might have otherwise affected or altered the ultimately conclusion you reached?

Or by "helpful" do you mean that your course out of the Church was unalterable, but "a book like this" might have made the exit less difficult?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are giving me some things to think about.  I appreciate that.

You said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

You think a "middle way" approach would have altered how you viewed the evidence and arguments, or might have otherwise affected or altered the ultimately conclusion you reached?

Or by "helpful" do you mean that your course out of the Church was unalterable, but "a book like this" might have made the exit less difficult?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is my favorite post today.  Great modeling for me, thank you

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have read that being on the edge of inside is a wonderful place to get an unbiased, clear, and perhaps quite accurate perspective on the inside. Outsiders can't understand or know enough to comment accurately. Insiders are too bound up by their identity as insiders to comment accurately. But, the one who is on the edge of inside has the ability to see inside without the bias of identity or cultural expectations. I thought that was a very interesting perspective. I like it a lot.

And unrealistic as there is always bias and someone thinking there is no bias in their view is only blind to the effects of that bias and therefore can’t try and correct for it.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

And unrealistic as there is always bias and someone thinking there is no bias in their view is only blind to the effects of that bias and therefore can’t try and correct for it.

Perhaps I should have said less-biased. That might have been less-biased. Thanks for the correction. I appreciate your perspective that each of us are biased and have blind spots. I can say a hearty Amen to that.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

You are giving me some things to think about.  I appreciate that.

Thank you and you are welcome.

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

You think a "middle way" approach would have altered how you viewed the evidence and arguments, or might have otherwise affected or altered the ultimately conclusion you reached?

I do not think it would have altered my conclusion about the truth claims of the church but it may have help guide me towards a way to be successfully active without being a full believer.  Interestingly in my last two temple recommend interviews I was very candid  about my doubt  on every question that dealt with belief but I was still obeying the questions related to practice and I was given a temple recommend.  I was actually quite shocked

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or by "helpful" do you mean that your course out of the Church was unalterable, but "a book like this" might have made the exit less difficult?

Thanks,

-Smac

As notes I think it could have helped me participate and be happier about it than I was when I was trying to do that without suggestions or guidance. Perhaps I should read the book. Maybe it would prompt me to attend and participate again. 

[smac97]

On 1/23/2023 at 9:27 AM, Raingirl said:

I don’t like the attitude that if a member isn’t over-the-top engaged, that they should then be ignored.

Same here.  I don't know what "over-the-top engaged" means, but it has connotations of excess that are, I think, not healthy.

And nobody should be "ignored."  Ever.

On 1/23/2023 at 9:27 AM, Raingirl said:

There’s a multitude of reasons that a member might be less engaged or not engaged.

Yes.  But having retained their membership, they are not "all out."

On 1/23/2023 at 9:27 AM, Raingirl said:

One of the first people that reached out to me when I was an investigator was a woman who had been inactive for thirty years. She returned to the church when a new bishop reached out to her. He was the very first person who had ever done so in those thirty years. When she had stopped attending, not a single person had even bothered to ask if she was okay. 

This is an ongoing difficulty.  Many who become less active take a "Just leave me alone and stay out of my life" attitude.  Faithful and observant Latter-day Saints, being generally nice and considerate people, may end up presuming this is the general attitude of all who become less active, and so might leave them be.  

More often, though, I think straight-up neglect is the reason.  And in that we should repent and improve.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

You said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

You think a "middle way" approach would have altered how you viewed the evidence and arguments, or might have otherwise affected or altered the ultimately conclusion you reached?

I do not think it would have altered my conclusion about the truth claims of the church but it may have help guide me towards a way to be successfully active without being a full believer. 

Okay.  That raises some important philosophical questions for me.  I have been analogizing a person's "relationship" with the Restored Gospel (and the Church) with a person's "relationship" with his spouse and children.  Is a man better off remaining in a marriage materially diminished in love/affection/devotion?  To remain - using a paraphrase of your wording - "successfully married without being a full husband?"  I suppose the answer to that question could be

• a "yes" ("I'm staying for the sake of the children" or "I'm staying to keep my covenants" or some such),
• a qualified or conditional "yes" ("I'm staying in the hope that we can rekindle what we felt at earlier stages of our marriage"),
• a qualified/conditional "no" ("There is no point in staying unless there is a decent chance of rehabilitating the relationship to something like what it was in the earlier stages of our marriage"), or
• a hard "no" ("My affections and love for my wife are irretrievably gone and broken, and marriage without love or hope of regaining it is no marriage at all").

So are there ways "to be successfully active without being a full believer"?  I suppose "successfully" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing.  Putting that aside, though, I suppose I have been juxtaposing Kimball's PIMO "middle way" approach with the "all in" exhortations I see in the scriptures and in the counsel from living prophets and apostles (whereas you are, I think, juxtaposing the "middle way" and "all out" approaches).  "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."  (Luke 9:62.) "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  (Rev. 3:15-16.)  We all must allow for weaknesses, sins, failures, omissions, etc. which impair our devotions to God, as that is part and parcel of the Restored Gospel.  Many of us have "looked back" after putting our hand to the plough, and most or all of us are "lukewarm" at times.  But these are hopefully temporary conditions, and after a time we "look forward" again, we choose between "hot" and "cold."

It seems that Kimball's "middle way" PIMO approach encourages a deliberate and prolonged, rather than a circumstantial and temporary, sojourn "on the edge."  A calculated decision to be or remain "lukewarm."  

I have as friends a married couple.  I love them both dearly.  As with pretty much any couple, they both have their strengths and weaknesses.  For some time now, their weaknesses have been superseding their devotion to each other, such that are presently on the cusp of divorce.  If they sought marital counseling, would the therapist encourage them to maintain their relationship in this condition?  To simply accept the largely ambivalent, often tense, occasionally overtly acrimonious state of their marriage?  To adopt this state as permanent, fixed and immutable?  Likely not.

Kimball is advertising himself as having "spent the past 25 years 'on the inside of the edge' of Mormonism."  And he is encouraging others to join him there.  Riess has been publishing similar encouragements for years now.  For example, he is apparently encouraging members disregard the worthiness requirements of obtaining and retaining a Temple Recommend, to feel free to live in ways incompatible with having a TR.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Interestingly in my last two temple recommend interviews I was very candid  about my doubt  on every question that dealt with belief but I was still obeying the questions related to practice and I was given a temple recommend.  I was actually quite shocked

Here are the first few questions from the TR interview (new in bold) :

Quote

1) Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

1* Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?

2) Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

2* Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?

3) Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

3* Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?

4) Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

4* Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?

These are all "in the heart and mind" questions.  And none of them are absolutist, either in their wording or intent.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

As notes I think it could have helped me participate and be happier about it than I was when I was trying to do that without suggestions or guidance. Perhaps I should read the book. Maybe it would prompt me to attend and participate again. 

Perhaps so.  As between "PIMO" and "all out," the former is preferable.  But as between "PIMO" and "all in," the latter is preferable (from a Latter-day Saint perspective, that is).

I would also encourage you to read Bruce and Marie Hafen's Faith Is Not Blind, summarized here:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.
...
In the volume, lived stories — like a Latter-day Saint being challenged by an agnostic coworker — blend with the doctrinal discussions one might expect from university-level lecturers. As the authors put it, “untested idealism,” “naïve simplicity” or a gospel that’s little more than “a firm handshake, a high-five, and a smiley face” is unlikely to foster the requisite conviction in order for faith to survive today's trials.
...

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

Again, said previously: "I did not chose to not believe.  The evidence led me to the conclusions that would no longer allow me to believe nor pretend to and hold on to my personal integrity."

I suspect that you and other Latter-day Saints have looked at the same "evidence," but have done so with different presumptions, expectations, perspectives, etc.  These differences have resulted in a marked divergence, with you reaching "conclusions that would no longer allow {you} to believe nor pretend to and hold on to {your} personal integrity," while Latter-day Saints have, as the Hafens put it, "arrive{d} at ... a simplicity that transcends complexity — 'a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.'"

In other words, I think the Hafens are encouraging an "all in" over "PIMO" approach, whereas Kimball is encouraging a "PIMO" over "all out" approach.  I hope you give consideration to the former.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 3, 2023 by smac97

[Navidad]

I would only suggest there are many reasons why folks would attend a particular church at a particular place and at a particular time for the purpose of fellowship, worship, and ministry. Those same folks may have no interest, desire, or need to become a member. Isn't that ok? Doesn't that in some circumstances make sense, especially if a requirement of joining is to replace a very personal, and deeply meaningful ordinance with a new one, just to join?

What happens when they leave to go back "home?" If someone submitted to re-baptism just to join would they have to declare that there was something amiss with their original baptism, wouldn't they? Would they have to make a declaration that they need a new baptism because their old one was done by someone without proper authority? That seems disingenuous to me. If so, what happens when they leave a particular ward and go back home to their home church? Does getting rebaptized in an LDS church make their original baptism null and void? Is it like that original baptism never happened? Is there an LDS position on that?

If my wife and I joined the ward here, we would have to be re-baptized. We have no intention of staying here forever, nor do we have any interest in attending an LDS ward in a different locale. Right now we want to go to a church where we can worship, fellowship, and minister in English for the time we are here. That is it. Nothing more. Is that your one foot in and one foot out? I don't think so. We aren't culturally or doctrinally LDS. We would definitely go back to the church of our youth if we moved back to one of our home communities. If we joined here, we would be joining this ward, for this time, and at this place. Would we flunk the baptismal questions by that reality? There really is no place for a situation like ours within the LDS polity, is there? If there is a next time I am with a general authority, I am going to ask him about that.  From an identity perspective I am very happy being the Mennonite guru of LDS Mexican Mormon colony history. From a desire to worship, fellowship, and minister I really would like to do so in the ward we attend now, but I guess that is not in the cards (oops, not that I play cards - its just a saying!). Phew!

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would only suggest there are many reasons why folks would attend a particular church at a particular place and at a particular time for the purpose of fellowship, worship, and ministry. Those same folks may have no interest, desire, or need to become a member. Isn't that ok? Doesn't that in some circumstances make sense, especially if a requirement of joining is to replace a very personal, and deeply meaningful ordinance with a new one, just to join?

It's like "joining" a Buddhist community and refusing to meditate, but you like the people who do, or the idea.

We are a PATH, not a bench by the roadside, watching others walking down the path.

Orthopraxy.  You follow the steps or there is no reason to be there. 

I am beginning to understand much better how my Buddhist phase helped me be LDS.

Edited February 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

From an identity perspective I am very happy being the Mennonite guru of LDS Mexican Mormon colony history.

That's the problem- you are an observer chronicling the faith, not a participant