Spencer W Kimball’s Grandson turns in Temple Recommend

[mfbukowski]

On 1/22/2023 at 2:02 PM, Craig Speechly said:

No one seems immune anymore and yet he has found a way to remain a participant in his ward as a blue shirt with no tie wearing back bencher.

In our ward, one must pay extra tithing to be one of those.

[Emily]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

The only cases, imo, this offer should be given to (and not pushed on, but presented side by side with staying on the rolls imo) is when the individual makes it clear that they want no contact ever, as the only way to truly achieve that is to withdraw membership or when an individual is significantly abusive to those contacting

I think members need to make choices when it comes to membership in the church. If they are showing up to meetings with any type of regularity, even if it's only sacrament meeting, that's a choice that indicates a desire for continued membership and it would be pretty inappropriate to offer record withdrawal. But I also know stuff goes on behind the scenes that ward members may not know about and the person in question, who was offered a record withdrawal, may not be completely honest (even to themselves) about what actually led to the offer.

Like the individual who was pushing anti-Mormon literature to other members in the ward under the guise of "just having questions." Problem was, he asked the same questions over and over, was extremely hostile and confrontational with anyone who attempted to answer his questions, and started disrupting classes with hostile arguments.  He was offended when he was asked if he would like to have his records removed, and refused the offer, but he did stop attending church. If you talk to him, he, "Didn't leave the church, the church left him, just because he had a few questions." I'm sure he's passing the story of being an innocent victim of ecclesiastical abuse to anyone who brings up the subject of his inactivity and most likely, he really believes this story. But he made the choice to act like an apostate. He was a bit blatant about it, but some are quiet enough that few other ward members are aware of the situation and are surprised (and vulnerable to the victim stories) when a member is asked to actively choose his side of the fence.

On the other hand. I ministered to a sister for several years who comes to sacrament meeting sporadically then goes home. She does not follow the Word of Wisdom, and her grasp of church doctrine is tenuous at best. She occasionally questions the leadership and church policies (privately, with friends), when she's in a tetchy mood, but she keeps coming and even holds a church position. She's a ward organist. If she shows up, she plays. If she doesn't, another sister plays. It's an arrangement that has gone on for three decades now and still continues as far as I'm aware. She's well-loved in the ward. I can't imagine anyone ever asking her if she'd like to have her records removed. She's also made an obvious choice, so there's really no need to ask.

There are a lot of ambiguous members in the church though, who haven't made any kind of choice. If a member hasn't attended church in 10 years and dodges contact with ward members, asking to be placed on no contact, etc. Even those not openly hostile... I think perhaps being presented with a choice would not be a bad thing. I suppose they could be offended by someone asking them to make a choice, but it might also get them thinking about exactly what it is that keeps them bound to their ordinances. If nothing else, it makes them aware of options that are available so they can make that choice. Some inactive members really don't realize how easy, from a logistical standpoint at least, it is to leave these days.

 

Edited January 24 by Emily

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Emily said:

I think members need to make choices when it comes to membership in the church. If they are showing up to meetings with any type of regularity, even if it's only sacrament meeting, that's a choice that indicates a desire for continued membership and it would be pretty inappropriate to offer record withdrawal. But I also know stuff goes on behind the scenes that ward members may not know about and the person in question, who was offered a record withdrawal, may not be completely honest (even to themselves) about what actually led to the offer.

Like the individual who was pushing anti-Mormon literature to other members in the ward under the guise of "just having questions." Problem was, he asked the same questions over and over, was extremely hostile and confrontational with anyone who attempted to answer his questions, and started disrupting classes with hostile arguments.  He was offended when he was asked if he would like to have his records removed, and refused the offer, but he did stop attending church. If you talk to him, he, "Didn't leave the church, the church left him, just because he had a few questions." I'm sure he's passing the story of being an innocent victim of ecclesiastical abuse to anyone who brings up the subject of his inactivity and most likely, he really believes this story. But he made the choice to act like an apostate. He was a bit blatant about it, but some are quiet enough that few other ward members are aware of the situation and are surprised (and vulnerable to the victim stories) when a member is asked to actively choose his side of the fence.

On the other hand. I ministered to a sister for several years who comes to sacrament meeting sporadically then goes home. She does not follow the Word of Wisdom, and her grasp of church doctrine is tenuous at best. She occasionally questions the leadership and church policies (privately, with friends), when she's in a tetchy mood, but she keeps coming and even holds a church position. She's a ward organist. If she shows up, she plays. If she doesn't, another sister plays. It's an arrangement that has gone on for three decades now and still continues as far as I'm aware. She's well-loved in the ward. I can't imagine anyone ever asking her if she'd like to have her records removed. She's also made an obvious choice, so there's really no need to ask.

There are a lot of ambiguous members in the church though, who haven't made any kind of choice. If a member hasn't attended church in 10 years and dodges contact with ward members, asking to be placed on no contact, etc. Even those not openly hostile... I think perhaps being presented with a choice would not be a bad thing. I suppose they could be offended by someone asking them to make a choice, but it might also get them thinking about exactly what it is that keeps them bound to their ordinances. If nothing else, it makes them aware of options that are available so they can make that choice. Some inactive members really don't realize how easy, from a logistical standpoint at least, it is to leave these days.

 

Because as we've all heard many times, church is for sinners.

[Orthodox Christian]

On 1/23/2023 at 1:11 PM, John L said:

As a member of our church, we are taught our church is the only religion on the face of the earth that can push the penthouse button in the elevator. Everything we are taught revolves around pushing the penthouse button, everything. Look at it this way. A big LDS family enters an elevator, they've all been taught the penthouse is the only place true happiness can be found, so everyone is shouting at the family patriarch, PUSH THE PENTHOUSE BUTTON DADDY, PUSH THE PENTHOUSE BUTTON! So daddy pushes the penthouse and while the elevator is climbing to the tippy top, daddy starts explaining the rules required to enter the penthouse once the doors of the elevator open. Well, one of the children decides he's not interested in hanging out in the penthouse for the rest of his life, he rather walk the halls of the building, play with the ice machines, the soda machines, knock on doors and run away, explore. So daddy explains to the wayward child, that getting off at a lower floor will separate the child from the rest of the family and if the child decides to take the stairs to the penthouse, none of the family will be able to open the penthouse door when the child knocks. He tells the child an explanation will have to be given to the guards that stand on either side of the penthouse door, why the child decided to waist time playing in the hallways. He explains to the child, the guards won't just open the door to the penthouse, the guards will demand for the child to circle back to the doors he knocked on for fun and apologize to all the guests for running away. They'll also make the child clean up any ice that fell on the carpet while he was playing in the ice machine. And after making the child wait for 6 to 12 months so the child can prove loyalty to the family, the guards may or may not allow the child to enter the penthouse. 

Well, that seemed just a little to complicated to the child, he was also scared, so the child thought, hmmmm, I'll just pretend I still believe, that way I won't be separated from everyone I love and I can be with my family. The child realized the inconvenience of going to church once a week and pretending to believe was better than possibly losing an entire family over not believing in the demanding belief system the family patriarch decide to raise the family in. 

That's how thousands of thousands, if not millions of "faithfull" LDS feel right now. And it's my opinion atleast 20% if not more of the people found in sacrament meeting are probably there so they can make a family member happy, nor because of a strong testimony of belief. Am I wrong? Isn't this what Kimball is probably doing?

 

True of many faiths I would say. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 hours ago, Emily said:

I think perhaps being presented with a choice would not be a bad thing. I suppose they could be offended by someone asking them to make a choice, but it might also get them thinking about exactly what it is that keeps them bound to their ordinances. If nothing else, it makes them aware of options that are available so they can make that choice.

People are complicated.

When I was a new missionary, we got a letter from Church HQ asking us to verify if a certain 'lost' member might be living at an address in our area. We went, and he was. Hadn't been to church in 20+ years.

We asked him if he needed a lift to church. No.

We asked him if he would like home teachers to visit. No.

The EQ president? No.

The bishop? No.

Would he like us to come in and share a message? Visit another time? No and no.

Confused and a bit frustrated, I asked, 'Do you even want to be a Church member still?'

He motioned us inside. It was obvious that he spent most of his waking hours in a well-worn lounge chair. A floor lamp was behind it, and either side were tables covered with books, the TV remote, and a glass of water. The top book was an old light-blue copy of the Book of Mormon with an image of Moroni on the cover. The cover was almost worn through, and the pages were yellow. He picked it up, clutched it to his heart, wept a little, and then asked, 'Why would you want to take this away from me?'

I still don't understand. I'm glad God does.

Edited January 25 by Hamba Tuhan

[Okrahomer]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

People are complicated.

When I was a new missionary, we got a letter from Church HQ asking us to verify if a certain 'lost' member might be living at an address in our area. We went, and he was. Hadn't been to church in 20+ years.

We asked him if he needed a lift to church. No.

We asked him if he would like home teachers to visit. No.

The EQ president? No.

The bishop? No.

Would he like us to come in and share a message? Visit another time? No and no.

Confused and a bit frustrated, I asked, 'Do you even want to be a Church member still?'

He motioned us inside. It was obvious that he spent most of his waking hours in a well-worn lounge chair. A floor lamp was behind it, and either side were tables covered with books, the TV remote, and a glass of water. The top book was an old light-blue copy of the Book of Mormon with an image of Moroni on the cover. The cover was almost worn through, and the pages were yellow. He picked it up, clutched it to his heart, wept a little, and then asked, 'Why would you want to take this away from me?'

I still don't understand. I'm glad God does.

Thank you for this.  I have known some brothers and sisters like this.  Reading about this experience of yours has brought forth tears — I’m not sure why.

[smac97]

On 1/22/2023 at 3:02 PM, Craig Speechly said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/01/18/jana-riess-how-stay-lds-after/

curious if anyone has read his book? After being released as a bishop he turned in his  temple recommend.  He evidently had been struggling to maintain a traditional childlike belief in church.  No one seems immune anymore and yet he has found a way to remain a participant in his ward as a blue shirt with no tie wearing back bencher. 

I don't think "maintain{ing} a traditional childlike belief," as such, is not what we are supposed to do.  We have all sorts of exhortations and commandments to learn and progress and grow.  The scriptural mandate that we seek “out of the best books words of wisdom” and “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118) has been with us since 1832 or so.  "{H}e that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."  (D&C 50:24.)  As regarding these matters, I will always be grateful to my parents.  To my mother, who through sheer force of will taught her children many lessons about Church history and the scriptures.  And to my father, who helped me in a time of cognitive dissonance, who taught me that faith and knowledge are complementary to each other, that studying scholarship pertaining to the Church and to the Gospel can and should augment faith in the Gospel, even though such efforts have required me to move beyond the simplified and idyllic version I was taught as a child.  But that is, I think, as it should be.  As Paul put it: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."  My parents "inoculated" me by teaching me to study through reading and prayer, and to seek to understand difficult truths in measured and circumspect and faithful ways.

This message board has also been very helpful to me.  I have spent many years here listening to a very broad spectrum of perspectives on the Church and the Restored Gospel.  I have reviewed and scrutinized arguments and evidence and reasoning for and against the Church and its actions.  This quote (erroneously attributed to Aristotle, it seems) is apt: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”  I aspire to this, and in the process I have learned a lot, and have expanded and adjusted my horizons and perspectives a lot.

Past generations of church members might have understandably lacked the means and resources to extensively study the history of the Church (and this still may be the case for members who  live in other parts of the world and do not yet have access to these resources). However, in 2023, the average English-speaking Latter-day Saint with Internet access doesn't have much of an excuse to remain uninformed about the history and doctrines of the Church, particularly given the Church's efforts to augment the Scriptures with feely-available "best books" such as these resources (as well as various other efforts by members of the Church, such as FARMS, FAIR, Interpreter, hundreds of individual authors, etc.).

Anyway, regarding "childlike belief" and "innoculation" and such, I've posted this a few times now:

Quote

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 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
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.”

 

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

I think this is becoming increasingly important.  We need to seek simplicity (the essential attribute, I think, of "childlike belief") that transcends and is on the other side of complexity.  That transcendent and simple belief must, in the end, be rooted in faith borne of the Holy Spirit.  I think for this dispensation, the catalyst for the formation of that sort of faith is the Book of Mormon.  Ezra Taft Benson told us that "{s}ocial, ethical, cultural, or educational converts will not survive under the heat of the day unless their taproots go down to the fulness of the gospel which the Book of Mormon contains."  More recently, Pres. Eyring has told us: "You will not survive spiritually without the protection of the companionship of the Holy Ghost in your daily life."  I really like how Elder Michael John U. Teh of the Seventy put it back in 2009:

Quote

It’s very important that you gain your own testimony. A borrowed testimony or just relying on the fun things you do in the Church will only get you through so much. I often use the illustration of the wise man who built his house on rock and the foolish man who built on sand (see Luke 6:47–49). Our testimonies can be compared to that home. What will determine the strength of your testimony—or how you will survive, in the gospel sense—is whether you will continue to be strong and committed.

In Luke 6:48 it says that the wise man “built an house, and digged deep.” We must dig deep. Also, digging down to rock is a lot of hard work. We need to invest time in reading, studying, and being involved in the Church so that we can dig that deep foundation and build upon that rock.

The verse then says that “the stream beat vehemently upon that house.” Challenges will come to you vehemently, head-on. So if you’re not prepared, your house will fall, and you will fall. You will not survive, you will not be as committed, you will not be as ready to do what the Lord wants you to do, and you will not be prepared for what He has planned for you. So it is terribly important that you invest the time to gain that testimony.

My experience has shown me that if you put forth the effort to sincerely study the scriptures and pray, Heavenly Father will bless you with a testimony, which can change your life and be a guide to you throughout your days.

I think the foregoing exhortations and counsel are far more accurate and conducive to maintaining a meaningful and efficacious testimony than the fare I typically see from Jana Riess.  I commented on this last year:

Quote

Back in 2015 Jana Riess did this: A year off from Mormonism

We talked about the above article on this board: Taking A "sabbatical" From Activity In The Church

For myself, I find the notion of "taking a break" from one's covenants to be inherently problematic.  I could no more blow off my obligations to God than I could blow off my obligations to my wife and children.  I mean, I guess I could do that, but that would materially diminish me, particularly if I were to do so in a calculated way.  In the immortal words of Marilla Cuthbert (of Anne of Green Gables fame) : "God does not want you for a fair-weather friend."  We are, instead, commanded to be vigilant and constant in our devotions:

• "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."  (Galatians 6:9)
• "Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great.  Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days."  (D&C 6433-34).
• "Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy."  (James 5:11)
• "And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb."  (1 Nephi 13:37)
• "Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life."  (3 Nephi 15:9)
• "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."  (D&C 14:7)
• "And as many as repent and are baptized in my name, which is Jesus Christ, and endure to the end, the same shall be saved."  (D&C 18:22)
• "But blessed are they who are faithful and endure, whether in life or in death, for they shall inherit eternal life."  (D&C 50:5)
• "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were steadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God."  (Alma 1:25)
• "And he also spake unto Lemuel: O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!"  (1 Nephi 2:10)
• "And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint."  (Luke 18:1)
• "To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life."  (Romans 2:7)
• "If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation."  (D&C 6:13)
• "And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times; But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord."  (D&C 59:9-12)
• "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."  (Mosiah 2:17)
• "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  (Revelation 3:16)

I have known many people who have returned from inactivity, but I have known many more who have not.

The prescriptions from Jana Riess are, in my view, unsound and unworkable.  It's not really surprising, then, to see her advertising a book from a like-minded person such as Christian Kimball.  That he is the grandson of Pres. Kimball makes not a lick of a difference.  It is the substance of what he saying that matters, not his pedigree.

What Bro. Kimball has to offer is pretty much what Riess has to say.  Phrases and words that come to mind: Lukewarm.  Milquetoast.  Ambivalent.  Fair-weather friend.  Watered-down.  Feckless.  That Sis. Riess and Bro. Kimball are going out of their way to persuade other Latter-day Saints to emulate their indifferent and apathetic approach to keeping covenants is pretty disappointing.  Consider, for example, this statement from Bro. Kimball:

Quote

You note in the book a tendency among church members and ex-members to engage in binary thinking — either it’s all true or it’s all false.

Binary thinking is a trap. If you think “all-in” and “all-out” are the only choices, you can get trapped. People often feel very angry with the church and think leaving is the only choice. Breaking the binary is one of three or four themes I wanted to come back to over and over in the book. It hurts people. It’s preached over the pulpit, where it gets reinforced that these are the only two options: You’re in or you are out. You obey or you don’t.

I’m preaching a middle way, saying there are many places to exist on the edge. Places that give you what you’re looking for. If being “all-in” in the childlike role that the church wants for you is not working for you, the book is trying to say there are other ways to make it work.

Imagine the application of this reasoning to a person's relationship with something or someone other than the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it.

A spouse, for example.  "Hey, binary thinking about your marriage is a trap.  If you think 'all-in' and 'all-out' are the only choices for your marital relationship, you can get trapped.  I'm preaching a middle way.  There are many places to exist on the edge of your relationship with your wife, and of your duties and obligations toward her.  Places that give you what you're looking for.  If being "all-in" in your marriage is not working for you, there are other ways to make it work."

Or children: "Hey, binary thinking about your role and responsibilities as a parent is a trap.  If you think 'all-in' and 'all-out' are the only choices for your relationship with your kids, you can get trapped.  I'm preaching a middle way.  There are many places to exist on the edge of your relationship with your children, and of your duties and obligations toward them.  Places that give you what you're looking for.  If being "all-in" in your parental role is not working for you, there are other ways to make it work."

Blech.  No thanks.  No thanks squared.  There are few things in life that warrant an "all in" attitude.  One's relationship with God is one of those few.  Consider this pithy comment from Martin Crane on Frasier:

Quote

Frasier: Dad, Niles and I and, uh, Maris would like you to join us for dinner on Saturday night at Le Cigare Volant, one of the hottest new restaurants.
Martin: Oh, gee, I don't know.
Niles: Oh, oh. The food is to die for.
Martin: Niles, your country and your family are to die for. Food is to eat.

I think that's nearly right.  I previously served in the military, which for me involved a willingness to take and uphold this oath:

Quote

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

I would add to Martin's comment:  "{Your relationship with} your country and your family {deserve the highest levels of devotion and effort, and even more so your relatonship with God}."  I took the above Oath of Enlistment, and I took it and its attendant duties and obligations seriously.  In a somewhat similar way, I have also made covenants with God.  I take these covenants seriously.  A core component of those covenants pertain to my duties and obligations has a husband and father.  I also have covenanted to fulfill duties and responsibilities to the Lord's Church.  His "symbolic bride."  His inchoate and nascent Kingdom.  I acknowledge that the Church is run by flawed and imperfect human beings, which is why my devotions to it are not contingent or conditioned on them being perfect.  My wife is imperfect, too, but her imperfections do not excuse me from my obligations to her.  My children are also imperfect, but their flaws and mistakes do not excuse me from my obligations to them, either.

I recognize that some things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I further acknowledge that errors, omissions, transgressions, etc. by leaders of the Church can also create difficulties for members of the Church relative to their ongoing relationship with it.  And yet the Lord still expects us to carry on, to sustain these leaders despite their occasional weaknesses and flaws.  He expects us to endure and persevere.  And sometimes that will be hard.  It will be unpopular.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Sis. Riess and Bro. Kimball are, in my view, setting themselves up as voices alternative and superior to the collective voice and authority of the Brethren.  I reject much of what they (Riess and Kimball) have to say as, at best, misguided, and at worst, reckless.

The best things I have in my life, that I have done and experienced and observed in my life, have been associated with the things to which I have exerted real devotion, and consistency, and time, and effort, and patience.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 26 by smac97

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I recognize that some things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I further acknowledge that errors, omissions, transgressions, etc. by leaders of the Church can also create difficulties for members of the Church relative to their ongoing relationship with it.  And yet the Lord still expects us to carry on, to sustain these leaders despite their occasional weaknesses and flaws.  He expects us to endure and persevere.  And sometimes that will be hard.  It will be unpopular.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

I will stand up for the "dark sayings" of Jesus until the day I die and then some. I do so partially because they reject the "triumph of the therapeutic" which I think has been generally injurious to the health of society. But I also do so because they remind us that the world is not essentially good, that the nature of fallen society is essentially evil - against which He appears as a radical disruption. "Normal," to a Christian mindset, should mean bad. Why keep up with the Joneses if they're going off a cliff? 

[Emily]

On 1/26/2023 at 10:58 AM, smac97 said:

Or children: "Hey, binary thinking about your role and responsibilities as a parent is a trap.  If you think 'all-in' and 'all-out' are the only choices for your relationship with your kids, you can get trapped.  I'm preaching a middle way.  There are many places to exist on the edge of your relationship with your children, and of your duties and obligations toward them. 

Excellent way of highlighting the specious nature of this argument.  There are plenty of parents and spouses who do follow a "middle way" in their relationships, but their actions are rarely described in complementary terms.

[Navidad]

I believe I once sat next to Christian Kimball at a MHA banquet. Maybe he has a brother it could have been? I found him delightful, extremely well spoken and dressed, and clearly insightful. He told me a lot of what it was like to be a grandchild of the prophet at a general conference. We emailed a bit afterward. He also had lots of folks come up and great him very cordially. It is amazing all the folks you meet at a MHA conference! Ha! Someone might be writing on another forum . . . Hey I once sat next to this Mennonite guy at a MHA conference. He was quite . . . well never mind about that!

[gopher]

I read the first chapter and his comments on BCC.  Wouldn't a book on successfully overcoming a faith crisis and restoring your faith and testimony be a more useful book for someone going through a faith crisis?  If you are going through a faith crisis, aren't you hoping it will be temporary and not continue on for over 25 years?  It may be an interesting book for believers and nonbelievers who are curious about his life (I don't blame him for using his family name to promote the book), but it sounds depressing for anyone currently struggling with a faith crisis.

And it you are having a faith crisis, why turn in your temple recommend?  Isn't the temple one of the best places to spend your time rebuilding your trust and faith in God?

[Navidad]

On 1/24/2023 at 8:58 AM, Tacenda said:

Because as we've all heard many times, church is for sinners.

True, but its not for non-members!😄

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

testimony

 

4 hours ago, gopher said:

I read the first chapter and his comments on BCC.  Wouldn't a book on successfully overcoming a faith crisis and restoring your faith and testimony be a more useful book for someone going through a faith crisis?  If you are going through a faith crisis, aren't you hoping it will be temporary and not continue on for over 25 years?  It may be an interesting book for believers and nonbelievers who are curious about his life (I don't blame him for using his family name to promote the book), but it sounds depressing for anyone currently struggling with a faith crisis.

And it you are having a faith crisis, why turn in your temple recommend?  Isn't the temple one of the best places to spend your time rebuilding your trust and faith in God?

Not if the temple is a painful experience.  It was for me at one time.  Now it’s lovely.  It’s not my first go to for a God experience. I realize that probably sounds awful to some devoted members.  I’ve just never felt what some feel at the temple.  I’m totally worthy too by the way. We can’t assume. 
 

On topic: I agree with Hamba.  People are complicated.  Often, when we have all the truth, things make sense. 

[smac97]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

I read the first chapter and his comments on BCC.  Wouldn't a book on successfully overcoming a faith crisis and restoring your faith and testimony be a more useful book for someone going through a faith crisis? 

I guess we would need to examine "useful," such as useful to whom?  To what ends?

I think that people who are in a faith crisis, or who have emerged from it with a lessened or nonexistent sense of devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are not well-situated to guide others to anything other than a similarly lessened or nonexistent sense of devotion.  

IIRC, John Dehlin in years past made claims to wanting to help people stay in the Church.  I'd like to think he was, at the time, sincere rather than conniving.  In any event, it's pretty clear that how things turned out for him.

The same goes, more or less, with Bill Reel.

I think the lukewarm / blasé / apathetic / ambivalent approach to discipleship is fundamentally unsound and unworkable.  President Harold B. Lee said, “It is the pursuit of easy things that makes men weak.”  I think this is what Kimball and Riess want.  They want discipleship, particularly as pertaining to pursuing unity and cohesion in the Church and amongst the disparate members of the "body of Christ," to be easy.  Convenient.  Subordinate.  Kept at arm's length, or even at a distance.

I just don't think that works.  Faith requires devotion, and devotion requires loyalty, and all of these require real and persistent effort.

As the Savior put it: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment."

As Joseph Smith put it: “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  

Elder Robert Wood of the Seventy made some very astute observations back in 2002:

Quote

The psychologist Erich Fromm called the wish to escape the consequences of one’s actions a desire to escape from freedom. For being free requires being responsible.
...

But what can one man or woman or a handful of Latter-day Saints accomplish? Much. The dynamics of history are driven, on the one hand, by the few who are engaged, and on the other hand, by the many who are apathetic. If we are not among the few engaged, we are, despite our concerns and voices of alarm, among the apathetic. May it never be said of us, “Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).

We are among the most blessed people in all of history. There is no place for complaining, no excuse for inaction, no “escape from freedom.” Being so richly blessed, we have the responsibility to be a blessing to others, to our nation, to the world.

"Apathetic" is what Riess and Campbell are advocating.  It won't work.  It is not sufficient to maintain a relationship with the community of the Saints.

Pres. Hinckley, who was always so subtly skilled in balancing candor and gentleness in his counsel, summed things up well here:

Quote

William Manchester, as a young Marine, fought through the terrible battle of Okinawa. He was savagely wounded but lived to return to the hellish fire of the Shuri Line, where thousands on each side perished. Then, years later, as a grown and mature man and an accomplished writer, he returned to Okinawa and walked over its once battle-scarred ridges. On reflection on those earlier brutish days, he wrote:

Men, I now knew, do not fight for flag or country, for the Marine Corps or glory or any other abstraction. They fight for one another. Any man in combat who lacks comrades who will die for him, or for whom he is willing to die, is not a man at all. He is truly damned. [Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1980), p. 391]

Be loyal to those with whom you work in the battles of life. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (see Mark 3:25).

Stand up for loyalty to your heritage. Each of us represents the latest chapter in a long line of generations. Included in those generations are forebears, many of whom made terrible sacrifices for that which we have today. They have left us good names that have been safeguarded through the generations. The name that you carry is a treasured possession. Keep it unsullied. Pass it to the next generation without stain or embarrassment. Stand up for loyalty to those who have gone before you.

Be loyal to the Church. Stand tall for it. Defend it. Speak no evil against it. It is the work of God. He who ridicules it or defames it offends him whose church it is. It carries the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is as a wonderful mother to you, in whose arms you find shelter, warmth, comfort, and security.

Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show.
We ask it fearlessly:
Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
[“Who’s on the Lord’s Side?” Hymns, 1985, no. 260]

You cannot be indifferent to this great cause. You have accepted it. You have entered into sacred covenants. Regardless of what you do in the future with the knowledge you gain from your secular studies, you cannot escape your obligation under the covenant you implicitly made when you were baptized and the covenant that you have renewed each time you have partaken of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

You cannot simply take for granted this cause, which is the cause of Christ. You cannot simply stand on the sidelines and watch the play between the forces of good and evil. Said Nephi: “They who are not for me are against me, saith our God” (2 Nephi 10:16). Wrote John the Revelator:

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. {Revelation 3:15–16}

Pres. Hinckley's invocation of the comment by William Manchester is apt in terms of illustrating the scope and breadth and strength of the relationship we should either have or be actively pursuing with the community of the Saints, with each other. 

An indifferent or "on the edge" relationship with some groups and communities is fine, often even warranted.  I have a relationship with the Utah State Bar because it regulates my licensure as an attorney, which licensure allows me to work and provide income for my family.  However, I don't really have much invested in that relationship apart from the licensure.  I just want the State Bar to do its job, and otherwise stay out of my life and don't take up any more of my time than is reasonably necessary.

I nominally belong to a political party, one whose platform and policies best approximate my views and preferences.  However, I don't donate much money to it, or to its candidates.  And I am not really involved in party activities, events, etc.  That may change in the future if I feel it necessary and appropriate, but for now my relationship with this party is fairly minimal, so it doesn't require much of me, my time, my resources, etc.

I have a subscription with Amazon Prime, solely out of self-interest.  The instant I decide that subscription no longer serves my interests, I will cancel that subscription.  I have no loyalty or devotion to Amazon at all.  My relationship with Amazon is based solely on what I get out of it.

I previously had a subscription with Netflix.  I felt that its prices were going up while the quality of its content was deteriorating.  As with Amazon, my relationship with Netflix was based solely on my and mine.  I owe nothing to it, no obligation to maintain the relationship.  So I ended it.

All of the foregoing relationships are relatively weak and transient.  In contrast, I have a strong desire to create, maintain, nurture and strengthen my relationship with the United States and its founding document, the Constitution.  America's leaders and government often do dumb and expensive and damaging things, but that doesn't mitigate my devotion to it, or to my desire to maintain and strengthen my relationship with it.  My country, whatever its flaws and errors, and the Constitution, whatever shortcomings and imperfections it has, are worthy of my devotion and allegiance and loyalty.  Even to the point of laying down my life.  This does not mean I condone or excuse or justify or ignore the errors of this community/society.  To paraphrase a passage from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre: “I like to serve {America} and to obey {it} in all that is right.”

I likewise have strong sentiments of devotion and loyalty to my relationship with my family.  To build and maintain and strengthen that relationship.  And to defend those within it, even to the point of laying down my life if necessary.

And above all these, I have a strong desire to be loyal to Jesus Christ.  To be His disciple.  To build and maintain and strengthen my relationship with Him.  To the utmost, even to the point of laying down my life if necessary.  For me, such fealty includes and extends to His Church.  Its leaders sometimes made mistakes or say unfortunate things, some of them even being quite serious.  Nevertheless, such errors do not mitigate my devotion to the Church, or to my desire to maintain and strengthen my relationship with it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whatever its flaws and errors, is worthy of my devotion and allegiance and loyalty.  I will therefore support and maintain and strengthen it, and my relationship to it, "in all that is right."  

7 hours ago, gopher said:

If you are going through a faith crisis, aren't you hoping it will be temporary and not continue on for over 25 years? 

I have an acquaintance who recently advised that she is separating from her husband of many years.  Per her account (there's always two sides to the story, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt), her husband has been, for many years now, indifferent, and even feckless, about his relationship with her and their children.  He has only exerted just the minimum amount of time and effort and attention to these relationships to stay - in Campbell's wording - "on the edge" of them.  As you can imagine, the relationship has, as a result, materially deteriorated and weakened.  The husband, who has previously refused to alter his behaviors and patterns, or to get into marital counseling, is now - in the face of an announced separation - claiming a newly-found willingness to address these things.  It may be too late, though.  I hope they can sort things out.

It is a surprisingly common, and also very unfortunate, thing for a married couple, or one or the other of the participants, to be inattentive to the obligation to maintain and strengthen the relationship.  Familiarity breeds contempt.  Distractions and laziness can obscure our view.  Hard feelings can accumulate and, if not addressed, they can fester and create even more serious problems to the helth of the relationship.

So it is, I think, with our relationship with God, and with His Church.

7 hours ago, gopher said:

It may be an interesting book for believers and nonbelievers who are curious about his life (I don't blame him for using his family name to promote the book), but it sounds depressing for anyone currently struggling with a faith crisis.

My sense is that John Dehlin and Bill Reel, at least for a time, presented themselves as wanting to help members of the Church address and overcome their "faith crises," and in so doing repair their relationship with the Church, but that their actual objective was to sow seeds of doubt and discontent.  What better way to do that than approach Latter-day Saints struggling and "on the edge," shower them with warm words of encouragement and understanding, and then gently coax them even further off "the edge" of their relationship with the Church.

Kinda hard not to reach the same conclusion re: Campbell and Riess.

7 hours ago, gopher said:

And it you are having a faith crisis, why turn in your temple recommend?  Isn't the temple one of the best places to spend your time rebuilding your trust and faith in God?

Yep.  This is like a marriage counselor publicly bragging about the deterioration of his relationship with his own wife.  

That Campbell is advertising that he turned in his temple recommend is an indication, I think, of his direction and purpose.  And it ain't about strengthening relationships with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  This is like a marriage counselor publicly bragging about the

If I’m questioning the legitimacy of a doctors credentials, why would I sign up for surgery in his care? Usually when I have serious doubts I don’t dive deeper. 
 

I might do more studying on the issue but I certainly don’t go to the heart of the issue at hand and participate. The temple doesn’t speak to everyone believe it or not.  I understand that in your eyes it should. 

[MrShorty]

@smac97 I kind of apologize for the downvote, but that is the kind of post that sounds to me like, "for all you edge of insiders, don't let the door smack you on your way out." Unlike Reel and Dehlin, who, if memory serves, went from in to out over a few years, Kimball (check your autocorrect, it seems to prefer Campbell) has been (successfully?) navigating this "edge of inside" space for a quarter century without being drawn back into full orthodoxy, but also not being cast out and disfellowshipped/excommunicated. I don't know what is right or wrong here or what Christ would or would not do. As one who sits uncomfortably on the edge of inside, the hardest times are when the all ins are saying something that sounds like, "get in or get out, we don't want you sitting on the back row."

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 I kind of apologize for the downvote, but that is the kind of post that sounds to me like, "for all you edge of insiders, don't let the door smack you on your way out."

That was not at all my intent.  I apologize if I gave that impression.

I was criticizing Dehlin and Reel, whom I perceive as working to push Latter-day Saints farther out on the edge, which is not where I want those folks to be.

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Unlike Reel and Dehlin, who, if memory serves, went from in to out over a few years,

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Kimball (check your autocorrect, it seems to prefer Campbell)

Corrected.  Thanks.

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

has been (successfully?) navigating this "edge of inside" space for a quarter century without being drawn back into full orthodoxy, but also not being cast out and disfellowshipped/excommunicated.

Yes.

50 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know what is right or wrong here or what Christ would or would not do. As one who sits uncomfortably on the edge of inside, the hardest times are when the all ins are saying something that sounds like, "get in or get out, we don't want you sitting on the back row."

I don't think the Latter-day Saints are saying "get out."  We are clearly partial to folks staying and strengthening their faith.

Again, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I guess we would need to examine "useful," such as useful to whom?  To what ends?

I think that people who are in a faith crisis, or who have emerged from it with a lessened or nonexistent sense of devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, are not well-situated to guide others to anything other than a similarly lessened or nonexistent sense of devotion.  

IIRC, John Dehlin in years past made claims to wanting to help people stay in the Church.  I'd like to think he was, at the time, sincere rather than conniving.  In any event, it's pretty clear that how things turned out for him.

The same goes, more or less, with Bill Reel.

I think the lukewarm / blasé / apathetic / ambivalent approach to discipleship is fundamentally unsound and unworkable.  President Harold B. Lee said, “It is the pursuit of easy things that makes men weak.”  I think this is what Kimball and Riess want.  They want discipleship, particularly as pertaining to pursuing unity and cohesion in the Church and amongst the disparate members of the "body of Christ," to be easy.  Convenient.  Subordinate.  Kept at arm's length, or even at a distance.

I just don't think that works.  Faith requires devotion, and devotion requires loyalty, and all of these require real and persistent effort.

As the Savior put it: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment."

As Joseph Smith put it: “Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  

Elder Robert Wood of the Seventy made some very astute observations back in 2002:

"Apathetic" is what Riess and Campbell are advocating.  It won't work.  It is not sufficient to maintain a relationship with the community of the Saints.

Pres. Hinckley, who was always so subtly skilled in balancing candor and gentleness in his counsel, summed things up well here:

Pres. Hinckley's invocation of the comment by William Manchester is apt in terms of illustrating the scope and breadth and strength of the relationship we should either have or be actively pursuing with the community of the Saints, with each other. 

An indifferent or "on the edge" relationship with some groups and communities is fine, often even warranted.  I have a relationship with the Utah State Bar because it regulates my licensure as an attorney, which licensure allows me to work and provide income for my family.  However, I don't really have much invested in that relationship apart from the licensure.  I just want the State Bar to do its job, and otherwise stay out of my life and don't take up any more of my time than is reasonably necessary.

I nominally belong to a political party, one whose platform and policies best approximate my views and preferences.  However, I don't donate much money to it, or to its candidates.  And I am not really involved in party activities, events, etc.  That may change in the future if I feel it necessary and appropriate, but for now my relationship with this party is fairly minimal, so it doesn't require much of me, my time, my resources, etc.

I have a subscription with Amazon Prime, solely out of self-interest.  The instant I decide that subscription no longer serves my interests, I will cancel that subscription.  I have no loyalty or devotion to Amazon at all.  My relationship with Amazon is based solely on what I get out of it.

I previously had a subscription with Netflix.  I felt that its prices were going up while the quality of its content was deteriorating.  As with Amazon, my relationship with Netflix was based solely on my and mine.  I owe nothing to it, no obligation to maintain the relationship.  So I ended it.

All of the foregoing relationships are relatively weak and transient.  In contrast, I have a strong desire to create, maintain, nurture and strengthen my relationship with the United States and its founding document, the Constitution.  America's leaders and government often do dumb and expensive and damaging things, but that doesn't mitigate my devotion to it, or to my desire to maintain and strengthen my relationship with it.  My country, whatever its flaws and errors, and the Constitution, whatever shortcomings and imperfections it has, are worthy of my devotion and allegiance and loyalty.  Even to the point of laying down my life.  This does not mean I condone or excuse or justify or ignore the errors of this community/society.  To paraphrase a passage from Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre: “I like to serve {America} and to obey {it} in all that is right.”

I likewise have strong sentiments of devotion and loyalty to my relationship with my family.  To build and maintain and strengthen that relationship.  And to defend those within it, even to the point of laying down my life if necessary.

And above all these, I have a strong desire to be loyal to Jesus Christ.  To be His disciple.  To build and maintain and strengthen my relationship with Him.  To the utmost, even to the point of laying down my life if necessary.  For me, such fealty includes and extends to His Church.  Its leaders sometimes made mistakes or say unfortunate things, some of them even being quite serious.  Nevertheless, such errors do not mitigate my devotion to the Church, or to my desire to maintain and strengthen my relationship with it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whatever its flaws and errors, is worthy of my devotion and allegiance and loyalty.  I will therefore support and maintain and strengthen it, and my relationship to it, "in all that is right."  

I have an acquaintance who recently advised that she is separating from her husband of many years.  Per her account (there's always two sides to the story, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt), her husband has been, for many years now, indifferent, and even feckless, about his relationship with her and their children.  He has only exerted just the minimum amount of time and effort and attention to these relationships to stay - in Campbell's wording - "on the edge" of them.  As you can imagine, the relationship has, as a result, materially deteriorated and weakened.  The husband, who has previously refused to alter his behaviors and patterns, or to get into marital counseling, is now - in the face of an announced separation - claiming a newly-found willingness to address these things.  It may be too late, though.  I hope they can sort things out.

It is a surprisingly common, and also very unfortunate, thing for a married couple, or one or the other of the participants, to be inattentive to the obligation to maintain and strengthen the relationship.  Familiarity breeds contempt.  Distractions and laziness can obscure our view.  Hard feelings can accumulate and, if not addressed, they can fester and create even more serious problems to the helth of the relationship.

So it is, I think, with our relationship with God, and with His Church.

My sense is that John Dehlin and Bill Reel, at least for a time, presented themselves as wanting to help members of the Church address and overcome their "faith crises," and in so doing repair their relationship with the Church, but that their actual objective was to sow seeds of doubt and discontent.  What better way to do that than approach Latter-day Saints struggling and "on the edge," shower them with warm words of encouragement and understanding, and then gently coax them even further off "the edge" of their relationship with the Church.

Kinda hard not to reach the same conclusion re: Campbell and Riess.

Yep.  This is like a marriage counselor publicly bragging about the deterioration of his relationship with his own wife.  

That Campbell is advertising that he turned in his temple recommend is an indication, I think, of his direction and purpose.  And it ain't about strengthening relationships with the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have lots of thoughts on your comments but they are so voluminous and do not have the time for every point.

 

But a few points.  

 

You come from a viewpoint that there is no good reason to be less than full in as a church member or at least that is how it seems. I think most active LDS are this way.  You can be PIMO but be quiet about it. I think your comment about Kimball or Reiss not being well suited to work with someone that is having a faith crisis to be nonsensical and arrogant.  There are plenty of members who are more nuanced than you are that can be quite objective in how they help those going  though such things and honestly they may be better suited to do it than you are because you certainly have a strong bias.  Maybe they do as well but I can say for me I have been on both sides. I do not think you have.  But that said I do not think I would want to guide someone through such an experience as I went through. Ultimately it is a personal journey and we all have to make our own decisions. Were someone to approach me and were they interested I would share my journey and tell them I would support them in whatever they decided.  In my journey I found most active members pretty useless.  Even my bishops. They really were not equipped to deal with me and my issues. My SP was as was the prior SP but honestly they are both pretty nuanced. 

I also think your comparisons of half way in other things is silly and specious and not that applicable. A church does not have to be a marriage.

 

All that said I do think to really enjoy the church and prosper in it one must be pretty much all in.  I tried to make it work without being all in for quite a few years. I tried different approaches and nuances in my own mind. Ultimately I become miserable. As you know personally I think the truth claims of the church don't stand up well.  But there was a time I wanted to try to make it work as a way to connect to God.  But to do that it seemed I had to pretend to be something I was not.  Your post above and another one above this one in this thread continues to demonstrate I was correct. I think Kimball's approach it futile and ultimately does not work. 

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, gopher said:

I read the first chapter and his comments on BCC.  Wouldn't a book on successfully overcoming a faith crisis and restoring your faith and testimony be a more useful book for someone going through a faith crisis?  If you are going through a faith crisis, aren't you hoping it will be temporary and not continue on for over 25 years?  It may be an interesting book for believers and nonbelievers who are curious about his life (I don't blame him for using his family name to promote the book), but it sounds depressing for anyone currently struggling with a faith crisis.

And it you are having a faith crisis, why turn in your temple recommend?  Isn't the temple one of the best places to spend your time rebuilding your trust and faith in God?

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.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@smac97 I kind of apologize for the downvote, but that is the kind of post that sounds to me like, "for all you edge of insiders, don't let the door smack you on your way out." Unlike Reel and Dehlin, who, if memory serves, went from in to out over a few years, Kimball (check your autocorrect, it seems to prefer Campbell) has been (successfully?) navigating this "edge of inside" space for a quarter century without being drawn back into full orthodoxy, but also not being cast out and disfellowshipped/excommunicated. I don't know what is right or wrong here or what Christ would or would not do. As one who sits uncomfortably on the edge of inside, the hardest times are when the all ins are saying something that sounds like, "get in or get out, we don't want you sitting on the back row."

Precisely!

[MrShorty]

@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.

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.

[Teancum]

5 minutes 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.

Yes that was my experience as well.

5 minutes 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.

It is your journey.  Ignore the noise from both sides along the way.  Best wishes to you.

[gopher]

6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Not if the temple is a painful experience.  It was for me at one time.  Now it’s lovely.  It’s not my first go to for a God experience. I realize that probably sounds awful to some devoted members.  I’ve just never felt what some feel at the temple.  I’m totally worthy too by the way. We can’t assume. 
On topic: I agree with Hamba.  People are complicated.  Often, when we have all the truth, things make sense. 

Sure, I was basing my comment on my own experiences.  But I would hope someone wouldn't accept the call as a Bishop if their experiences in the temple were still painful since getting people to the temple is one of the most important responsibilities of a Bishop.  Maybe that's an unfair assumption.

Edited February 1 by gopher

[MustardSeed]

48 minutes ago, gopher said:

Sure, I was basing my comment on my own experiences.  But I would hope someone wouldn't accept the call as a Bishop if their experience in the temple was painful since getting people to the temple is one of the most important responsibilities of a Bishop.  Maybe that's an unfair assumption.

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.  

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You come from a viewpoint that there is no good reason to be less than full in as a church member or at least that is how it seems.

No, that is not my viewpoint.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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

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.  

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think most active LDS are this way.  You can be PIMO but be quiet about it.

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

People "can" do this, which for me is a separate question from whether they have necessary and sufficient grounds to do this.

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think your comment about Kimball or Reiss not being well suited to work with someone that is having a faith crisis to be nonsensical and arrogant. 

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There are plenty of members who are more nuanced than you are that can be quite objective in how they help those going though such things

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and honestly they may be better suited to do it than you are because you certainly have a strong bias.

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

And unlike Dehlin/Reel and Riess/Kimball, at least I am candid in my perspective on the Church.  None of this one-foot-in-one-foot-out crapola from me.  No feigned or pretended claims to "objectivity."

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.

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Maybe they do as well but I can say for me I have been on both sides. I do not think you have.

"Both sides" of what?

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But that said I do not think I would want to guide someone through such an experience as I went through.

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ultimately it is a personal journey and we all have to make our own decisions.

I quite agree.

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Were someone to approach me and were they interested I would share my journey and tell them I would support them in whatever they decided. 

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?" 

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.? 

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my journey I found most active members pretty useless.  Even my bishops. They really were not equipped to deal with me and my issues. My SP was as was the prior SP but honestly they are both pretty nuanced. 

I am sorry to hear that.  I feel very fortunate to have a variety of people whom I trust and who have useful and informed and "nuanced" - and faithful - perspectives on the Restored Gospel and addressing difficult issues associated with it.  Several family members and friends.  Quite a few very helpful resources as well (FAIR, FARMS, Interpreter, BOMC, Jeff Lindsay, etc.).

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I also think your comparisons of half way in other things is silly and specious and not that applicable. A church does not have to be a marriage.

A comparison is generally an exercise in evaluating traits or characteristics shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.

I have never said "a church does not have to be a marriage."  But the comparison, I think, can work pretty well.

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All that said I do think to really enjoy the church and prosper in it one must be pretty much all in. 

In large measures, I "enjoy the Church," but that's not the metric I use to determine whether I stay in it.  At least not the only one.  

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."

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I tried to make it work without being all in for quite a few years. I tried different approaches and nuances in my own mind. Ultimately I become miserable.

I am sorry to hear that.

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As you know personally I think the truth claims of the church don't stand up well.  But there was a time I wanted to try to make it work as a way to connect to God.  But to do that it seemed I had to pretend to be something I was not. 

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

49 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your post above and another one above this one in this thread continues to demonstrate I was correct. I think Kimball's approach it futile and ultimately does not work. 

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