Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[filovirus]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difficulty is that even bringing up difficult issues to be reasoned about, it is often perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive.   It is a delicate tight rope to walk with lots of risks.  It doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together.  It feels more like a place to sustain the narrative, period.  

Might I suggest going to your EQP and asking him to set aside time at the beginning or end of EQ meeting to discuss some of these difficult issues? Or maybe even a whole lesson on a topic you are having trouble with. This seems like the best place to raise some of these issues in a controlled environment without hijacking any of the meetings.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My process of determining what is of and from God, has always been ongoing. Learning as I did from my Minister Father, feelings alone are a danger that cause to reject all scripture. Therefore, whenever I encounter anything that causes me to question my Faith, my beliefs, etc. I have developed a patience that will allow me the time, to study it out with as many sources as I can locate, along with constant prayer to know the truth. My Daddy was a man wise beyond his years, as he had been giving me this advice when he was in his 30’s, and I beginning at the age of eight. He trusted me at that age, to have Faith, and the ability to understand what Faith means, and continues to aide me. 

Even today, at 66 years of age, in many situations, my Father is still the voice in my head. I have had two voices in my heart, one is thankfully is my Mama, the other is the Holy Spirit. Because of this, I have been able to weather the storms of life, as it has been a lighthouse unto me for the many storms that have rocked my life, until this day. 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have read the talk, I promise.  The context doesn't change the meaning for me, personally.   I am not alone.  I have been meeting with my dad to talk about my faith journey.  He has been incredibly supportive, thank goodness since it took a lot of courage to bring it up to one of the men I respect and look up to the most.  We were talking about how uncomfortable it can be for me at church, cringing at much of what is said and not feeling safe to talk freely and share different perspectives from the narrative that is being pushed by whomever is teaching that week.    He is the one who brought this quote to my attention and gave it as an example of how difficult subjects can successfully be addressed in church.  He said that it was discussed in his elder's quorum when a member of his ward, who is also in the high counsel, made the comment that this statement "doesn't sit well with him" and he asked for the perspectives of others.   The vocal majority unanimously agreed that it doesn't feel right and seems to go against what Joseph Smith taught about seeking truth from all sources both in and out of the church, on all topics.  Just like that, they were able to set it aside and move on.  There was no shaming, the difficulty and apparent contradiction was noted without generating contention.    It seems that whatever nuance you are trying to place on these apparently absolute words is being lost on the membership to some degree, not just me.     I long for that kind of openness in my ward.  Hopefully change is on the horizon with the directing things are going.  But heaven knows that institutional change of deeply engrained culture is no quick or easy task and may never happen - just like the "Mormon" thing. 

I don't care what the subject is, those who don't believe as we do in whatever subject it may be, may have lots to offer.   Closing down and rejecting any possibility of listening openly and being influenced by different perspectives, even on matters that we feel strongly about, is a very cult-like, honestly.   "Never take counsel from those who disbelieve."  I wish it would have said something more like this - "seek first to understand the counsel of others and seek for any commonalities and areas of agreement.  Be open to the possibility of finding light even in areas that may seem dark at first glance and be open to broadening your perspective in different areas when so compelled by the Spirit, but never feel obligated to just accept wholesale the counsel of other's that may misalign with your core values.   

 

The effect of the reader’s paradigm applies, no matter how much of the talk is read. As you pointed out, group discussion can be very productive in revealing a common, group paradigm. A few individuals may even be able and willing to adjust their paradigms after respectfully discussing, understanding and empathizing each other’s exegesis. Such is how I think councils are supposed to operate.

Given that the talk promotes the Holy Ghost, spiritual work, personal revelation, testimony, sexual morality, temple covenants and celestial and eternal aspirations President Nelson would naturally advise us to enjoy these fruits and not seek counsel from those who, unbelieving, promote the adversary, temptation, deception, disbelief, sexual immorality, public opinion as the arbiter of truth, loved ones attacking truth, and telestial aspirations (as mentioned in the talk).

I think the rephrasing you suggested is a good summary describing some of the helpful attitudes for people working through issues in a (believing) council setting.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

The difficulty is that even bringing up difficult issues to be reasoned about, it is often perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive.   It is a delicate tight rope to walk with lots of risks.  It doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together.  It feels more like a place to sustain the narrative, period.  

I'm sure it is, because there is no real venue at church to bring up that kind of stuff it often is hijacking the lesson so that concern is valid. 

But I had to listen to a man go on for 8 minutes about going to a funeral for his neighbor even though he was sick last sunday even though we were out of time and two other presenters had not been able to do their part of the lesson yet.  We all dealt with that hijacking so we should be able to deal with a little good-intentioned hijacking for actual spiritual reasons. I think that EQ and RS meetings are usually probably the easiest places to get more personal but they are only twice a month so not super accessible either.   Having a dedicated class where that kind of discussion could occur would be fun.

But we probably also need to admit that sometimes what the person is looking for is not possible or appropriate to give in a church setting.

 

[smac97]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not seeing any real answers to the questions you quoted.  

The resources referenced in the OP provide a framework for finding answers.  I think answers obtained through thought, study, introspection, prayer, etc. will be more meaningful to the individual.

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I clicked on the link "gay siblings fits into the plan of salvation".  There was no answer to that question, just a SL Trib article about the compromise the Church made to get the religious protections it was seeking.  I also read the link on polygamy.  It too was a SL Trib article.  Neither one of these provided any kind of answer, nor were they authoritive statements by the Church.

Okay.  

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you maybe point to an actual answer from the Church to those questions?  

Could you explain what "questions" are you referencing here?  Same-sex attraction and polygamy are topics. 

20 hours ago, california boy said:

Is this how most of the questions are dodged with no real answer to the questions?

This is akin to criticizing a hammer for not being useful in painting a wall.  I mean, that's true, but only because painting a wall is not the intended use of a hammer.

Meanwhile...

Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

Same-Sex Attraction - Individuals

Same-Sex Attraction - Family and Friends

Same-Sex Attraction - Leaders

Same-Sex Attraction - Member Stories

Same-Sex Attraction - Videos

• Purpose of This Website
• Let Us Be at the Forefront
• The Gospel is a Gospel of Hope
• No Blessings Denied the Faithful
• The Savior Understands Me
• Focus on the One
• Is There a Place for Me?
• LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in Church
• The Savior’s Grace
• Love and Law
• Lifting Others
• Feelings Are Real and Authentic
• God Loveth His Children
• Impact on Families
• Being an Agent to Act
• What Needs to Change
• Tonya’s Story
• Ricardo’s Story
• The Mackintosh’s Story
• Laurie’s Story
• Elizabeth’s Take on Love and Understanding
• Ricardo's Journey through His Art

Same-Sex Attraction - About

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The difficulty is that even bringing up difficult issues to be reasoned about, it is often perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive.   It is a delicate tight rope to walk with lots of risks.  It doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together.  It feels more like a place to sustain the narrative, period.  

Whether things will change with this new approach it yet to be seen.  I am skeptical. My experience when I became disaffected was exactly as you described above. I struggled to make it work and survive emotionally while attending weekly church services with my wife.  It was a rather horrible experience. I wanted to speak up but realized it would not be welcome and in some cases likely inappropriate. I would bring some things up tactfully and even that often did not go all that well.  It was depressing and anxiety generating at least for me.  I did this for 7 or 8 years until my wife also became disaffected and no longer wished to attend. Sundays and life in general became much better then.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

As long as they aren't advocating their personal beliefs that reject doctrines or teachings of the church, I think they should be be an accepted part of the community like any other member.

So, like children, dissenters should be "seen and not heard?"

In the end, I guess it depends on how you think of the Church.  If you think of it as akin to some sort of political construct or business entity, where you are a voter or a stockholder, and where the leadership is answerable to you, and where you are supposed to publicly criticize and speak against political candidates or the board's business decisions you don't like, then I think you'll end up on the periphery of the Church, and perhaps even out of it.  I've seen this pattern many times.  Dallin H. Oaks wrote an excellent article about this in 1987.  Here's a link.

On the other hand, if you approach the Church based on what it claims to be, then that seems much more workable, IMO.  The hostile/adversarial sentiments are hopefully absent, or else replaced with perspectives more comparable to an extended family or tight-knit, we're-all-in-this-together community, one which houses sacred truths and authority and ordinances that will affect our lives and our families now and after we pass on.

That's not to say that dissenting viewpoints are not allowed at all, but rather that the time, place and manner of expressing such things matter.  A lot.  A lot.  Again, the above article by then-Elder Oaks does a good job of addressing this.  There are also many scriptures which touch on this point:

• Multitude … of one heart and of one soul, Acts 4:32.
• We, being many, are one body in Christ, Rom. 12:5.
• It is good for brethren to dwell together in unity, Ps. 133:1.
• I beseech you that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together, 1 Cor. 1:10.
• Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Eph. 4:3.
• Be determined in one mind and in one heart, united in all things, 2 Ne. 1:21.
• Saints should have their hearts knit together in unity, Mosiah 18:21.
• Jesus prayed for unity among his Nephite disciples, 3 Ne. 19:23.
• The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, D&C 20:27–28 (D&C 35:2; 50:43).
• It is your duty to unite with the true church, D&C 23:7.
• Whatsoever ye shall ask in faith, being united in prayer, ye shall receive, D&C 29:6.
• If ye are not one ye are not mine, D&C 38:27.
• The Lord called his people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind, Moses 7:18.
• Beware lest contentions arise among you, Mosiah 2:32.

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps part of mentioning Sister Pearson is that she has published a book about the things she believes and doesn't believe. Are we really saying that people like her should not publish books about their faith and beliefs?

This is where the resources in the OP come into play.  

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I understand the difficulty here of trying to maintain boundaries and not disrupting meetings and so on and so forth. I also see many in these faith crisis spaces who are troubled when they feel like they cannot share their views and struggles and beliefs because they might be taken as subversive.

Is it possible that sometimes the expression of "views and struggles and beliefs" is not just something that "might be taken as subversive," but may actually be "subversive" (as in "{to} undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution)")?

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

At the end of the day, I don't know how best to navigate this space. I sometimes feel that this desire to squelch all public dissent is not the best way forward.

I am curious.  Do you feel at liberty to publicly speak against your employer?  To publicly disparage and criticize it?  Publicly tear it down, and Insult and demean its leadership and decisions?

How about addressing intra-familial disagreements?  If a married couple is in the midst of a dispute, should the husband make his position on the issue a matter of "public dissent"?  Should he go on Facebook and social media and disparage and criticize his wife?  Should he try to foment ill will against her?  Should he publicly encourage other family members and the general public to join him in criticizing her, with the intention of pressuring her to capitulate on the dispute?

There are certainly times in which "public dissent" is a necessary and good thing.  Is it possible, though, that there are times when it is not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 1/3/2024 at 9:46 AM, pogi said:

The difficulty is that even bringing up difficult issues to be reasoned about, it is often perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive.

I have six children, four of whom are adults and have moved out but still live relatively close by.  Over the past while (6-8 months) my wife and I have been hosting a Sunday night dinner where everyone is invited, and most of the time all of them come.  We go out of our way to make the meal particularly tasty (next Sunday's will be gluten-free coconut shrimp tacos with mango salsa).  We have come to realize that our children - particularly those who have moved out - have come to value this meal and its aftermath (we typically spend most of the evening talking or doing something together) as a respite.  A breather.  A recharge.  A time of calm, peace, and spending time with people they love.

A while back one of my sons asked me to not bring up news items or other "heavy" topics during dinner.  I had done this on occasion mostly to hear what my family thinks of such matters.  However, my son explained that Sunday dinner was, for him and the other kids, what is described above.  It's not a time and place to discuss controversies or hot topics, which can be saved for another day or a family meeting or a one-on-one (or even not addressed at all).  I acquiesced to this request.  

I wonder if this is how most Latter-day Saints feel about the two-hour block.  It is a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc.

On 1/3/2024 at 9:46 AM, pogi said:

It is a delicate tight rope to walk with lots of risks.  It doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together.  It feels more like a place to sustain the narrative, period.  

I think it's not a place to hash out an individual's disagreement with or criticisms of the Church, its doctrines, leaders, policies, history, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 13, 2025 by smac97

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure it is, because there is no real venue at church to bring up that kind of stuff it often is hijacking the lesson so that concern is valid. 

Should it be perceived as hijacking to ask questions or to seek to have concerns addressed from a group of differing perspectives about an issue that is specifically being addressed in the lesson and where comments/questions are requested?  I feel like when people ask for comments or questions, they are only looking for their echo chamber to back them up and don't really want to know people's honest comments and questions.   Sundays for me fill like they have become just a big group-think session.  And somehow this insular behavior is supposed to be good for us.   I feel it is unfortunate, because it didn't used to be that way.  Differing opinions were welcomed and encouraged.  Joseph would often encourage people with differing views to stand up and express their views on different issues.   

Today, generally the only socially acceptable comments and questions are those that uphold the narrative being discussed, even if the narrative is just their opinion.  Shouldn't there be room to talk about honest concerns around specific issues being talked about.  I feel like we are breeding unrighteous judgment and not teaching our kids healthy life-skills when dealing with different ideas/narratives.  Mormons don't seem to know how to cope with and healthily discuss nuance and diversity of perspectives.  That is a weakness we have nurtured for too long, I think.  Hopefully things may start to change a little hear and there with these changes.  That is yet to be seen how it will be implemented on a large scale.   

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Having a dedicated class where that kind of discussion could occur would be fun.

I think most would agree with certain established rules for engagement, it could be done well. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But we probably also need to admit that sometimes what the person is looking for is not possible or appropriate to give in a church setting.

I think what most are looking for is belonging, honestly.  I don't think that most need everyone to agree with them, or to have all their questions or concerns answered.  They just want to feel accepted and safe for who they are and how they perceive things as they explore what they believe and seek feedback.  Many genuinely are looking for different perspectives to issues they can't find any resolution for.   While all questions may not have answers, just being heard and acknowledged that it is a tough issue goes a long way. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have six children, four of whom are adults and have moved out but still live relatively close by.  Over the past while (6-8 months) my wife and I have been hosting a Sunday night dinner where everyone is invited, and most of the time all of them do.  We go out of our way to make the meal particularly tasty (next Sunday's will be gluten-free coconut shrimp tacos with mango salsa).  We have come to realize that our children - particularly those who have moved out - have come to value this meal and its aftermath (we typically spend most of the evening talking or doing something together) as a respite.  A breather.  A recharge.  A time of calm, peace, and spending time with people you love!

A while back one of my sons asked me to not bring up news items or other "heavy" topics during dinner.  I had done this on occasion mostly to hear what my family thinks of such matters.  However, my son explained that Sunday dinner was, for him and the other kids, what is described above.  It's not a time and place to discuss controversies or hot topics, which can be saved for another day or a family meeting or a one-on-one (or even not addressed at all).  I acquiesced to this request.  

I wonder if this is how most Latter-day Saints feel about the two-hour block.  It is a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc.

I think it's not a place to hash out an individual's disagreement with or criticisms of the Church, its doctrines, leaders, policies, history, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

That makes sense to me, and I respect that perspective and desire for respite.  This approach can be edifying for many, especially for those who can sit through all meetings without feeling like they don't belong because of what is being said by the teachers.  Sitting there feeling unsafe and unwelcome is not a pleasant experience.  I have said it before and I will say it again, mostly what people want is belonging.  They want to feel safe and accepted to seek support and understanding from fellow ward members during a lesson that may be triggering for them.   I have heard the desire for more open and honest Sunday school/elder's quorum from too many people to count in my life - from full-in-believers to those who are seeking their place.   Everyone should feel like they have a place in the church.  There are more than just the hard-core true believers who are seeking respite on Sundays.  Some of us feel that they have no place to go.  They are not welcome.   While church should be a place of respite, it should also be a place of mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort, for the sinner and saint alike.  It should be a place where all feel welcome and that there is shelter for them there.   I don't believe the church is ready for that kind of radical shift in culture, and I don't think they have the tools and experience to deal with it.   But I think it is needed change, and I hope this is a start. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That makes sense to me, and I respect that perspective and desire for respite.  This approach can be edifying for many, especially for those who can sit through all meetings without feeling like they don't belong because of what is being said by the teachers. 

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "what is being said by the teachers?"

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Sitting there feeling unsafe and unwelcome is not a pleasant experience.  I have said it before and I will say it again, mostly what people want is belonging.  They want to feel safe and accepted to seek support and understanding from fellow ward members during a lesson that may be triggering for them. 

I'm not sure I follow.  How often are lessons "triggering?"  There seem to be a few hot button topics: the priesthood ban, women and the priesthood, polygamy, LGBT issues.  But how often are these an organic component of a lesson at church?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have heard the desire for more open and honest Sunday school/elder's quorum from too many people to count in my life - from full-in-believers to those who are seeking their place.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "more open and honest"?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Everyone should feel like they have a place in the church. 

I can appreciate that.  "The church" is a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  We identify ourselves by it.  

So what does "have a place in the church" mean in this context?  "Have a place" to do . . . what?  

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There are more than just the hard-core true believers who are seeking respite on Sundays.  Some of us feel that they have no place to go.  They are not welcome.   While church should be a place of respite, it should also be a place of mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort, for the sinner and saint alike. 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.  "Mourn" about what?  Provide "comfort" about what?

Are you suggesting that the two-hour block ought to be a place for members to hash out their grievances, criticisms, disparagements, etc. regarding the Church, its past and/or current leaders, its history, its doctrines, etc.?  And what we should then "mourn" and "comfort" those who are voicing such things? 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It should be a place where all feel welcome and that there is shelter for them there.   I don't believe the church is ready for that kind of radical shift in culture, and I don't think they have the tools and experience to deal with it.   But I think it is needed change, and I hope this is a start. 

What sort of "radical shift in culture" are you referencing here?  I'm concerned that I am not following or understanding you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Should it be perceived as hijacking to ask questions or to seek to have concerns addressed from a group of differing perspectives about an issue that is specifically being addressed in the lesson and where comments/questions are requested? 

Could you provide a few examples of when this could happen?  What "issue{s}" are you referencing here?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I feel like when people ask for comments or questions, they are only looking for their echo chamber to back them up and don't really want to know people's honest comments and questions.

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment.  As I noted previously, ours is a community of faith, so it's reasonable to look to Sunday services as a time and place where the basic premise presupposes the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, and where the community of believers can come together and shore up each other's faith and understanding of sacred principles.  I'm not sure it's fair to disparage this by calling the two-hour block an "echo chamber," with all of the negative connotations of that term.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of my participation on this board.  Part of why I come here is that it is not an echo chamber.  I have no expectation that my beliefs will be uniformly upheld and agreed with and treated with decorum and respect.  I come here to listen to people that have views which diverge from or contradict mine.  I have no presupposition that the other participants accept, as I do, the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel (some do, some don't).  The rules of behavior here are pretty de minimis, so I have no particular expectation about feeling - as you put it - "accepted and safe" here (for that, I go to church, and to my friends and family). 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Sundays for me fill like they have become just a big group-think session.

"Group-think" also seems intended as a disparagement and criticism (like "echo chamber").  Am I correct in that?  

What you seem to think of as a "bug" about church services I see as a "feature."  The Latter-day Saints are a minority pretty much everywhere (even, these days, in Utah!).  It makes sense for them to expect formal Sunday services to stake out, and presume as established, a particularized and "faithful" point of view on the basic tenets of the Restored Gospel.  If we want to hear criticisms and critiques and disparagements and complaints about our beliefs, our community, our leaders, our history, etc., we can get an overflowing cup of such things by going . . . pretty much anywhere else except the two-hour block.  

If a bunch of BYU fans get together to enjoy watching the game, I won't begrudge them that.  Nor would I expect them to accommodate, say, a participant interrupting the game to evaluate the recent departure of Claudine Gay as the president of Harvard.  That's not to say that Gay isn't worth discussing, just that a get-together to watch a BYU game is neither the time nor place for it.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

And somehow this insular behavior is supposed to be good for us.

"Echo chamber."

"A big group-thing session."

"Insular behavior."

You are at liberty to think of Sunday services in such negative and disparaging terms, and it would therefore be understandable why, with such a perspective, someone would not enjoy those services.

For most Latter-day Saints, I think Sunday services are, as I described previously: "[A] respite.  A breather.  A recharge.  A time of calm, peace, and spending time with people you love."  I am very grateful to the members of my ward.  Not because we all think alike, but rather because we don't, and yet we still seek unity and support and love in coming together to better understand and value the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I feel it is unfortunate, because it didn't used to be that way.  Differing opinions were welcomed and encouraged.  Joseph would often encourage people with differing views to stand up and express their views on different issues.

I think the ground rules were different then.

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Today, generally the only socially acceptable comments and questions are those that uphold the narrative being discussed, even if the narrative is just their opinion.

I am not sure what you are referencing by "the narrative" and "their opinion."

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Shouldn't there be room to talk about honest concerns around specific issues being talked about.

What "issues" which are "being talked about" during the two-hour block are you referencing here?  Again, there seem to be a few hot button topics that people want to inject into the two-hour block: the priesthood ban, women and the priesthood, polygamy, LGBT issues, sociopolitical controversies, etc.  But how often are these an organic component of a lesson at church?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I feel like we are breeding unrighteous judgment and not teaching our kids healthy life-skills when dealing with different ideas/narratives.  Mormons don't seem to know how to cope with and healthily discuss nuance and diversity of perspectives.  That is a weakness we have nurtured for too long, I think.  Hopefully things may start to change a little hear and there with these changes.  That is yet to be seen how it will be implemented on a large scale.

What would be the purpose of injecting "different ideas/narratives" into the two-hour block?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think most would agree with certain established rules for engagement, it could be done well.

Not really. 

Just look at the term you are using.  "Rules of Engagement" is a military term for "the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied."  It presupposes adversarialness, divisiveness, disagreement, dispute, etc.

You want to inject "different ideas/narratives" (?) into the two-hour block, to incorporate "rules of engagement" to govern the disputations that would necessarily arise, and make this a regular feature of Sunday services?  Would this, in your view, enhance and improve the sense of unity and belonging and acceptance that such services are intended to facilitate?

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think what most are looking for is belonging, honestly. 

I agree.  So why inject disputes and controversies and acrimonies into the two-hour block?  This may help some few feel like they "belong," but most Latter-day Saints would, I think, cease to think of Sunday services as a respite, as an opportunity to come together in unity of belief and purpose.  Instead, I think Sunday services would devolve into the run-of-the-mill "mosh pit"-style interactions like what we see on this board.  Constrained, but only enough to maintain a veneer of civility (fuggedabout "unity").

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that most need everyone to agree with them, or to have all their questions or concerns answered.  They just want to feel accepted and safe for who they are and how they perceive things as they explore what they believe and seek feedback.  Many genuinely are looking for different perspectives to issues they can't find any resolution for.   While all questions may not have answers, just being heard and acknowledged that it is a tough issue goes a long way. 

I still don't understand what you are referencing here.

I go to Church because I want to interact and worship with people who share the same basic presuppositions as I do about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I don't want to have to memorize adversarial "Rules of Engagement" for interacting with these folks.  I want to be unified with them.  I want to love them.  I want us to come together "in Christ."  I want to help our community hew closer to Him and what He wants us to do.  I don't want to re-litigate the existence of God, the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the Restoration, etc.  I want to attend Sunday services with these presupposed.

To be sure, I have plenty of questions about the Church and its history, doctrines, etc.  But all of these pertain to the "appendages" spoken of by Joseph Smith:

Quote

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121).

I come here to hash out the particulars of this or that controversy or dispute about the Law of Chastity, LGBT issues, abortion, the priesthood ban, Mountain Meadows, the SEC fine, the Bishop's hotline, the Book of Abraham, the Gold Plates, the Three/Eight Witnesses, etc.

I attend the temple and Sunday services for very different purposes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 3, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Should it be perceived as hijacking to ask questions or to seek to have concerns addressed from a group of differing perspectives about an issue that is specifically being addressed in the lesson and where comments/questions are requested?  I feel like when people ask for comments or questions, they are only looking for their echo chamber to back them up and don't really want to know people's honest comments and questions.   Sundays for me fill like they have become just a big group-think session.  And somehow this insular behavior is supposed to be good for us.   I feel it is unfortunate, because it didn't used to be that way.  Differing opinions were welcomed and encouraged.  Joseph would often encourage people with differing views to stand up and express their views on different issues.   

I guess it kind of depends on your views on the purpose of church.  Is its main purpose to be a place to share honest comments and questions?  Church has evolved a lot over the decades for sure.  I don't know how to judge its current form compared to its previous ones.  I would guess there has been good and not so good in every iteration.  (I mean, Joseph also used to marry other people's wives, which most people don't feel like we should bring back.   )

I also think that sometimes people who are questioning or struggling expect or want a level of acceptance and respect that they aren't always willing to give.  Describing church as a big group-think session and echo chamber is your honest assessment, but it's also not very kind or fair to those who are sincerely there to worship and trying to follow Christ.  And that creates an awkward dynamic between the two groups that puts both at the defensive.  

Are you ok with saints who are not in a faith crisis being as honest in their feelings and perceptions of those who are, even when those descriptions are not fair or kind, as long as they sharing how they honestly feel?  

Quote

I think what most are looking for is belonging, honestly.  I don't think that most need everyone to agree with them, or to have all their questions or concerns answered.  They just want to feel accepted and safe for who they are and how they perceive things as they explore what they believe and seek feedback.  Many genuinely are looking for different perspectives to issues they can't find any resolution for.   While all questions may not have answers, just being heard and acknowledged that it is a tough issue goes a long way.

Validation is important and I'm a big fan of validating even without agreeing.  Sometimes people struggle to feel accepted in a group that won't accept their views of something and often people connect acceptance with allowance (as in, they only feel acceptance when they are allowed to espouse certain things or deny certain things).  I don't know what can be done to help with that.  

Edited January 3, 2024 by bluebell

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

That makes sense to me, and I respect that perspective and desire for respite.  This approach can be edifying for many, especially for those who can sit through all meetings without feeling like they don't belong because of what is being said by the teachers.  Sitting there feeling unsafe and unwelcome is not a pleasant experience.  I have said it before and I will say it again, mostly what people want is belonging.  They want to feel safe and accepted to seek support and understanding from fellow ward members during a lesson that may be triggering for them.   I have heard the desire for more open and honest Sunday school/elder's quorum from too many people to count in my life - from full-in-believers to those who are seeking their place.   Everyone should feel like they have a place in the church.  There are more than just the hard-core true believers who are seeking respite on Sundays.  Some of us feel that they have no place to go.  They are not welcome.   While church should be a place of respite, it should also be a place of mourning with those who mourn and comforting those who stand in need of comfort, for the sinner and saint alike.  It should be a place where all feel welcome and that there is shelter for them there.   I don't believe the church is ready for that kind of radical shift in culture, and I don't think they have the tools and experience to deal with it.   But I think it is needed change, and I hope this is a start. 

I think the Church's tools and experience are reflected in the council setting and approach, which are incorporated in our study and leadership materials for home, Sunday School and EQ/RS meetings. The council approach has been taught to leadership since the 90s (if not earlier) and in the D&C all along. Individual and group application is going to be a mixed bag, of course. 

Where is the Christ-centered council approach being implemented, and yet participants go home feeling like they have no place to go, are not welcome, and are still mourning and comfortless? I suppose these feelings would fall along a bell curve, indicating that personal paradigms play a key role in their experience.

Edited January 3, 2024 by CV75

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

The resources referenced in the OP provide a framework for finding answers.  I think answers obtained through thought, study, introspection, prayer, etc. will be more meaningful to the individual.

Okay.  

Could you explain what "questions" are you referencing here?  Same-sex attraction and polygamy are topics. 

This is akin to criticizing a hammer for not being useful in painting a wall.  I mean, that's true, but only because painting a wall is not the intended use of a hammer.

Meanwhile...

Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

Same-Sex Attraction - Individuals

Same-Sex Attraction - Family and Friends

Same-Sex Attraction - Leaders

Same-Sex Attraction - Member Stories

Same-Sex Attraction - Videos

• Purpose of This Website
• Let Us Be at the Forefront
• The Gospel is a Gospel of Hope
• No Blessings Denied the Faithful
• The Savior Understands Me
• Focus on the One
• Is There a Place for Me?
• LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in Church
• The Savior’s GraceLove and Law
• Lifting Others
• Feelings Are Real and Authentic
• God Loveth His Children
• Impact on Families
• Being an Agent to Act
• What Needs to Change
• Tonya’s Story
• Ricardo’s Story
• The Mackintosh’s Story
• Laurie’s Story
• Elizabeth’s Take on Love and Understanding
• Ricardo's Journey through His Art

Same-Sex Attraction - About

Thanks,

-Smac

So. nothing specifically that answers the question you linked to that ended up being a link to the SL Tribune in a totally. unrelated subject.

I thought this was an article about new openness and answers to questions people have.  Throwing the kitchen sink to unrelated articles is not really answering the question that you said the Church is now answering.

 "gay siblings fits into the plan of salvation".

Not sure now why you posted the article.  Doesn't really look like the Church is actually answering the questions you indicated they were answering.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

So. nothing specifically that answers the question you linked to that ended up being a link to the SL Tribune in a totally. unrelated subject.

I linked to the SL Tribune article, which included this concluding statement: "For those wondering where their gay sibling fits into the plan of salvation or if polygamy exists in heaven, giving them 'generic counsel about centering your life on Christ or "being patient with the Lord’s timing"' probably won’t, he said, resolve anything."

I could address this issue, but given the antipathy between us I do not think you would lend much credence to what I have to say.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought this was an article about new openness and answers to questions people have.  

I encourage you to read the article, which references the Church's material about "Seeking Answers to Questions" and "Helping Others with Questions."

If you do not see value in resources to assist people who are "seeking answers to questions," then I'll leave you to it.   However, I think people who are serious in their desire to seek out information and guidance on these issues can use these resources to do so.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Throwing the kitchen sink to unrelated articles is not really answering the question that you said the Church is now answering.

What "question" did I say "the Church is now answering"?  What are you talking about here?

 

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

 "gay siblings fits into the plan of salvation".

This is a "question"?

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure now why you posted the article.  Doesn't really look like the Church is actually answering the questions you indicated they were answering.

The Church has published a litany of resources to address it, notably including "No Blessings Denied the Faithful," "Is There a Place for Me?," "The Savior’s Grace," "LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in Church" and several others, all of which you summarily ignore.

You said: "Is this how most of the questions are dodged with no real answer to the questions?" 

I responded by providing extensive resources which directly address the questions/issues you reference (polygamy and "gay siblings fits into the plan of salvation").

You respond by complaining and disparaging the information responsive to your inquiry.

That is, of course, your prerogative.  The resources referenced in the OP are not intended to provide pat and pithy answers to difficult and complex questions and issues.  They are, instead, intended to help individuals who are "seeking answers to questions."  And I think they do a pretty good job of it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited January 3, 2024 by smac97

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Whether things will change with this new approach it yet to be seen.  I am skeptical. My experience when I became disaffected was exactly as you described above. I struggled to make it work and survive emotionally while attending weekly church services with my wife.  It was a rather horrible experience. I wanted to speak up but realized it would not be welcome and in some cases likely inappropriate. I would bring some things up tactfully and even that often did not go all that well.  It was depressing and anxiety generating at least for me.  I did this for 7 or 8 years until my wife also became disaffected and no longer wished to attend. Sundays and life in general became much better then.

It's a tricky thing for a teacher.  I find most teachers are stuck to their lessons and not to the people they are teaching and a lot of that is going to come down to nerves and lack if knowing how to teach.  And really it's being centered on yourself because you can't get past those nerves. So you bring up a concern and that may totally throw a teacher off balance and then they really don't know how to deal with it.

But even for teachers who are confident and listening to students there is a balancing act of first making the class safe at all and then between those who are strong in faith and those that have concerns.

I think as students we recognize all that even even we don't think it out. So you have someone already not feeling safe seeing that bringing up concerns will make it feel unsafe for other students and the teachers and leaders.

Tricky.

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

It's a tricky thing for a teacher.  I find most teachers are stuck to their lessons and not to the people they are teaching and a lot of that is going to come down to nerves and lack if knowing how to teach.  And really it's being centered on yourself because you can't get past those nerves. So you bring up a concern and that may totally throw a teacher off balance and then they really don't know how to deal with it.

But even for teachers who are confident and listening to students there is a balancing act of first making the class safe at all and then between those who are strong in faith and those that have concerns.

I think as students we recognize all that even even we don't think it out. So you have someone already not feeling safe seeing that bringing up concerns will make it feel unsafe for other students and the teachers and leaders.

Tricky.

Yes I get it.  This is one of the reasons I usually just kept quiet and mentally chewed on my finger nails.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes I get it.  This is one of the reasons I usually just kept quiet and mentally chewed on my finger nails.

I think I might have worded that poorly. I was trying to say I get what you're saying.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "what is being said by the teachers?"

Let's just call it "the traditional narrative". 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I follow.  How often are lessons "triggering?"  There seem to be a few hot button topics: the priesthood ban, women and the priesthood, polygamy, LGBT issues.  But how often are these an organic component of a lesson at church?

I am finding myself triggered almost weekly.  

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "more open and honest"?

Open family vs closed family.  Open family discusses issues in a healthy way and build each other/support each other despite their differences and disagreements.  In closed families, members feel shamed for bringing up issues that "we don't talk about in this family", they feel unsafe to be themselves and feel like they have to present an image to the rest of the family that they deem appropriate in order to be accepted. 

I feel like church is a closed family.  Many people are hiding their true selves and feelings in order to feel like they fit in.  Here is a great bit on the difference of belonging and fitting in:

  My entire membership in the church, I have felt a strong social pressure to fit in but have only on rare occasion felt like I belong.  Mormons are really good at "fitting in" - that's how we are raised socially.   AT least that has been my experience in the church, others experience may vary.   I know that I am far from alone in my experience though, and that is concerning to me.   I would like to see that culture changed.   I would like to see the emphasis on belonging rather than fitting in. 

 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that.  "The church" is a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  We identify ourselves by it.  We identify ourselves by it.

Unfortunately, I feel like "faith" and the "traditional narrative" are too often thought of being one and the same thing.  Faith is in Christ.  Not the church.  Not the prophet.   Not the current narrative.  We should cohere around faith, but unfortunately, many are being shamed and shunned despite their strong faith in Christ because they don't fit the image of the narrative. 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So what was "have a place in the church" mean in this context?  "Have a place" to do . . . what?  

Hopefully, that is clear by now.  To feel safe to be open and honest like in a healthy family dynamic without the intense social blow back and feeling pushed out.   

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.  "Mourn" about what?  Provide "comfort" about what?

Whatever it is that members are suffering from, including faith crisis, etc. 

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting that the two-hour block ought to be a place for members to hash out their grievances, criticisms, disparagements, etc. regarding the Church, its past and/or current leaders, its history, its doctrines, etc.?  And what we should then "mourn" and "comfort" those who are voicing such things? 

Nope.  Not that at all.  That's not what healthy open families do all the time.  But they don't shun/silence/shame those difficult discussions either.  Healthy families have developed effective communication tools and expectations of engagement where, at times, pertinent issues that are affecting our own brothers and sisters in our shared faith are struggling and need support, even where there may be no answers.   It shouldn't be the extreme of bear all grievances all the time, or shut thyself up and fit in, all the time either.  I feel like it is an uphill battle to try and change such an engrained culture of closedness that the alternative will be too scary for many, with fears that it will turn into what you describe above.  But that is not what healthy open families do.   We simply don't have the social tools and wherewithal in our culture.  I don't know how to cultivate such tools either.   

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What sort of "radical shift in culture" are you referencing here?  I'm concerned that I am not following or understanding you.

Hopefully you understand better now.  

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's a tricky thing for a teacher.  I find most teachers are stuck to their lessons and not to the people they are teaching and a lot of that is going to come down to nerves and lack if knowing how to teach.  And really it's being centered on yourself because you can't get past those nerves. So you bring up a concern and that may totally throw a teacher off balance and then they really don't know how to deal with it.

But even for teachers who are confident and listening to students there is a balancing act of first making the class safe at all and then between those who are strong in faith and those that have concerns.

I think as students we recognize all that even even we don't think it out. So you have someone already not feeling safe seeing that bringing up concerns will make it feel unsafe for other students and the teachers and leaders.

Tricky.

I am reminded of my five-year stint teaching at a local university.  I was teaching an "Introduction to Law" class to undergraduates, which included an overview of the Bill of Rights and some of the really big SCOTUS decisions interpreting/applying the First and other Amendments.  

Most of the content was pretty standard, but I tried to make it as interesting as I could.  As far as "controversies" go, it was pretty easy to avoid those.  For example, although the putative right to abortion arises from the "right to privacy," which in turn arises from the "penumbras" of various provisions in the Bill of Rights (and from the "liberty" interest referenced in the Fourteenth Amendment), I simply noted that and moved on.  I did not try to instigate a discussion or debate about abortion because, well, the lesson (and, by extension, the class) didn't really have much to do with abortion.

Discussion of the Second Amendment was a little bit dicier, as at the time the decision in D.C. v. Heller (which designated the "right to bear arms" as an individual, not a collective, right, and one unconnected with service in a militia) was relatively new.  Some students wanted to have a discussion about that topic, but I demurred because A) I had too much material to cover to allow for a tangential discussion/debate about gun rights, B) such a discussion would be mostly futile anyway, since those arguing against Heller would just be "kicking against the pricks," and C) my job responsibilities did not include me espousing my personal opinion for or against gun rights.

I have taught many lessons in a church context.  Most controversial topics can be, and generally are, avoidable by the teacher following the materials published by the Church.  Doing so generally A) keeps the teacher on topic and away from tangential discussion/debates, B) avoids the futility of attendees railing against the doctrines/history/practices of the Church, and C) keeps the teacher from using his calling as a soapbox upon which he can spout his personal opinions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's a tricky thing for a teacher.  I find most teachers are stuck to their lessons and not to the people they are teaching and a lot of that is going to come down to nerves and lack if knowing how to teach.  And really it's being centered on yourself because you can't get past those nerves. So you bring up a concern and that may totally throw a teacher off balance and then they really don't know how to deal with it.

But even for teachers who are confident and listening to students there is a balancing act of first making the class safe at all and then between those who are strong in faith and those that have concerns.

I think as students we recognize all that even even we don't think it out. So you have someone already not feeling safe seeing that bringing up concerns will make it feel unsafe for other students and the teachers and leaders.

Tricky.

Tricky indeed given our current climate and experience in the church with such styles of engagement.  Without proper coaching and training it wouldn't work very well.  I feel like it would be a worthy pursuit for the church to go down such a road. 

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think I might have worded that poorly. I was trying to say I get what you're saying.

Paradigms.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have six children, four of whom are adults and have moved out but still live relatively close by.  Over the past while (6-8 months) my wife and I have been hosting a Sunday night dinner where everyone is invited, and most of the time all of them come.  We go out of our way to make the meal particularly tasty (next Sunday's will be gluten-free coconut shrimp tacos with mango salsa).  We have come to realize that our children - particularly those who have moved out - have come to value this meal and its aftermath (we typically spend most of the evening talking or doing something together) as a respite.  A breather.  A recharge.  A time of calm, peace, and spending time with people you love!

A while back one of my sons asked me to not bring up news items or other "heavy" topics during dinner.  I had done this on occasion mostly to hear what my family thinks of such matters.  However, my son explained that Sunday dinner was, for him and the other kids, what is described above.  It's not a time and place to discuss controversies or hot topics, which can be saved for another day or a family meeting or a one-on-one (or even not addressed at all).  I acquiesced to this request.  

I wonder if this is how most Latter-day Saints feel about the two-hour block.  It is a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc.

I think it's not a place to hash out an individual's disagreement with or criticisms of the Church, its doctrines, leaders, policies, history, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh, if only those that suffer with a faith crisis understood what a great place this board is! It saved me I believe. But many just go on ex Mormon reddit instead. I guess if it helps then that works as well. But being on this board kept me in the middle where I'm most comfortable. I don't like the far end of either side, I was not the best true blue LDS...tended to be so fuddy duddy sometimes. And really felt uncomfortable around those that were ex or inactive or non member. Now I'm not that bad anymore and I'm so grateful I'm not like the them vs. us mentality. It saved me, and maybe it was God sent, because now I've seen the light so to speak. And I hope I'm a better person for it. I don't believe all TBM's are like me at that time, but I was a bad Mormon in that respect for sure. 

Love that you get together on a weekly basis with your family, I'm sure the kids still at home love to have their older siblings visit too. And the food you prepare, wow, sounds yummy! 

[MiserereNobis]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Be open to the possibility of finding light even in areas that may seem dark at first glance

"Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right."