Boise Rescue

I listened to a bit of the audio too. Shocks all around. First shock came when they announced what the closing song would be. “Whose on the Lords side?” Really??? So sanctimonious for this type of “outreach.” Next came when DHO said what you quoted above. Why draw the lines like that? Just let the wheat and Tares grow up together to maturity, then let jesus do the separating. Next one came during Jensens talk. I was like, is he seriously going to insult everyone’s intelligence by bolstering the bofm on claims that JS was sooo unlearned and “you try writing a book in 90days.” I mean c’mon! You’re the church asst historian! You should have more insight than that.

But unlike you, I wasn’t hurt by it all. Maybe because I’m on the less believing end of the spectrum than you. Don’t know. But I am really sorry you feel this way, and you certainly have good reason to. You’re efforts to help the church are awesome imo. My TBM dad sometimes tells me “the church needs people like you.” It gives me strength to keep going. I am recently learning just how many members in my ward are struggling with faith issues related to historicity or social issues. It’s a lot! Every week now the subject is broached in one way or another. So yes, the church really does need people like you. Oaks doesn’t speak for the Lord, and on some level, doesn’t even speak for the church. This is not his church, but the Lords, and everyone who meets together in his name. I wish you luck as you work this out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Startpoor – Wasn’t it Richard Turley not Marlin Jensen that spoke.

Lastly, this method was tried early on during the Mattson process, it didn’t help much.

http://mormonstories.org/boise-rescue-oaks-turley/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormonstories.org/boise-rescue-oaks-turley/

I looked up “Boise Rescue” and first I was sent to a homeless shelter in Boise

It seems to me either the brethren are so black and white stage 3-er’s that they really can’t understand how to talk to those that are doubting, or they do understand and don’t have a response and they are more trying to stop the hemorrhaging than truly help those that are honestly questioning. It did zilch for me and my position right now.

I am sorry it hurts you. I worry about you being in Utah. I think that can make it harder to stay in, but with some questions/doubts. It seems there is more pressure and the pressure either forces you out or forces you to hold in all of your doubts.

I hope you find peace. I appreciate very much what you have done for me. Twice when I was going to throw in the towel you helped me. Once from your blog and once when we chatted on the phone. No matter what happens to either of us, I truly appreciate your efforts. Other than this site I have not found a place more helpful than your podcast.

I would love to know who selected the hymn? The GA’s, the chorister, the local leadership. Yes it sends a certain message and I am choosing the “Lord’s side” part of it. I hear and feel Oaks words, I really can see the idea of the direction they are working from – but I also try carefully to look around at the other nuanced people that the church is widely aware of – and yet no actions are taken towards them.

On the short list are the following, Carol Lynn Pearson, Mitch Maynes, Robert or Bob Rees, The Givens, BCC team, Kristine Haglund – Dialogue Editor, Joanna Brooks, Dan Wotherspoon, Michael Barker, Wheat & Tares bloggers, Times & Seasons bloggers – this is a speedy go over. So far they still maintain their membership, espouse a nuanced view, engage in conversation and remain in the faithful category or at the least – not an enemy category.

I listened to Claudia Bushman encourage women to have baby blessings in their homes, she clearly stated not to use the word Priesthood blessing, but gather the friends, hold the baby, bless it and have refreshments. It’s nuanced, it would curl some leaders hair and toes, but no one is shutting down Claudia Bushman.

As I see it, there is still room for navigation, the battle (and it is a battle) is far from over. I believe “there is hope smiling brightly before us” if we look carefully, choose wisely and use wisdom.

I remember hoping the essays would be this miraculous cure all to the problem, I was so hurt when it didn’t become such, I allowed myself to feel that hurt, to rage at it, acknowledge it, shake my fist at God about it – as I did so other lights and ideas came to me. Perhaps thats the solution here. Own the anger it gives you, own the fear, make it yours, rage in private with God – and then see where it takes you. Think of our Black brothers and sisters and the years they endured. Think of the “faithful” who held out hope, and nudged the process for the ban to be changed. Maybe our job is like theirs and we have to create the response that will do our part to keep the entire ship sailing.

I agree totally that if there is an organized crackdown and message trying to be sent it is to the ultra-conservative and extreme liberal factions – those that are saying the church leaders are apostate.

I actually find some comfort in the fact that three of the five most recent high-profile excommunications (Mattson, Snuffer and Waterman) are ultra-conservatives who, in some way, are calling for the Church to stop evolving and return to the glory days of yore. That idea scares me badly. Dehiln and Kelly don’t fit that description, but both of them openly opposed the leadership and worked to create alternative organizations to challenge the Church directly.

I wish the brush didn’t seem to paint so broadly, but I don’t know of a high-profile excommunication of anyone who simply is advocating for change but not publicly castigating the leadership. mom3’s list could be expanded greatly; I know personally hundreds of others who could be included.

Very frustrated today and sad. I no longer feel wanted…two thoughts from this audio. They have tried to work with doubters and fed up. We are no longer welcome. Either be quiet or leave

*** Oaks stated something like

“The Key Question in determining who is on the Lord’s side is how one feels about the church’s prophetic leadership and these feelings determine whether one is in apostasy or not.”

Oaks says

“Questions lead to faith and revelation whereas doubts lead to disobedience.“

To be honest I don’t really expect anything different out of these guys anymore and I would be surprised if they actually said something significantly different from what they have already been saying repeatedly for years. Remember that Dallin H. Oaks is the same guy that said it is always wrong to criticize Church leaders “even if the criticism is valid” and various other examples of dogmatic authoritarian thinking so I see this reaction to “apostasy” as mostly just another example of Oaks being Oaks.

The interesting thing about this meeting to me is that it sounds like they actually responded to some good and straightforward questions like, “The leaders won’t answer our doubts, why not?” but it looks like they simply don’t have any decent faith-promoting answers that are likely to satisfy anyone with serious doubts so instead they fell back on trying to discourage doubt and critical thinking altogether. It basically sounds like, “Trust us; we know what’s best for you.” Well what happens if they don’t know what they are talking about to begin with, is there any way within this system of, “Follow the leaders no matter what” to rectify the situation in that case (Matthew 15:14)?

I agree totally that if there is an organized crackdown and message trying to be sent it is to the ultra-conservative and extreme liberal factions – those that are saying the church leaders are apostate.

I actually find some comfort in the fact that three of the five most recent high-profile excommunications (Mattson, Snuffer and Waterman) are ultra-conservatives who, in some way, are calling for the Church to stop evolving and return to the glory days of yore…

I tried to google Mattson and couldn’t tell if he was excommunicated or resigned. From what I read in the NYTimes piece and heard on Mormon Stories he was disturbed because of the history issues but I didn’t see that he was speaking against the leadership or wanted the Church to stop evolving. He just seemed like such a decent guy who had the rug pulled out from under him. Just wondering.