Special Sunday School class

Did he create the class because the two of you got together and decided it would be helpful to talk about various issues at church or was it more one-sided, where after talking to you he alone thought it would be a good idea to create the class and then he committed you to attend? The only reason I ask is because if it was a mutual decision then I think there’s more of an expectation that you attend. If you decide not to attend he may be thinking, “But you wanted this.”

No, it wasn’t just for me. It’s been something on his mind for a while. We talked about it because I shared in very general terms that I was not renewing my TR and why. He offered some advice, and allowed me some time before putting a deadline on having a TR. We also discussed the class, which I think is a splendid idea, but not necessarily for me at this time. I felt much more positive about it only 6 months ago.

There may (or as you point out, may not) be others in your ward with similar issues. I’m just thinking out loud, why hold a dedicated class for one person? But some leaders might do just that. But to your question, I’d expect both. Maybe a few other people that have expressed doubt and maybe a few people that feel like they know all of your issues but are still orthodox in their beliefs. I tried to be careful how I worded that. There are people that remain orthodox that say they know all the issues, and that may be 100% true, but in my mind there’s a difference between “the” issues and “your” issues. Something that doesn’t affect one person can have a deep effect on someone else.

I know at least one other person on the class list is in my boat or even further down the road as they have not been to church in quite some time. There will be very orthodox believers in the class, including some who seem to be at peace with many of the things that give me pause (my spouse among them). I have learned through my deconstruction process that “issues” are very specialized to the person. Even among “nuanced” believers things trigger different people in different ways. This is one reason I don’t think this class will work, except for providing a forum where these things can be discussed in more detail in an intimate setting. Having the bishop there is a problem, but I don’t see how you do this class without him there. This bishop, at least, is very earnest about helping people. That is on reason why we are having the class in the first place.

If the class had more interesting discussion than the alternative (Sunday school) I might continue to attend. If the class felt like they were trying to fix me I’d stop attending.

This very nearly mirrors my concern. I do not want to be “fixed.” I feel that I’m working that out without this class. I don’t want to lay bare all my issues for that class to examine. I don’t want to be a catalyst for someone else to start a faith crisis. I don’t want to hand the bishop the blueprint to my current belief (or lack thereof). And finally, I don’t need a regurgitation of FAIRMORMON when I can do that on my own time. That said, no matter what, it is going to be more interesting than the typical Sunday school class. How can it not be?

You shared a concern. Your sincere Bishop listened to your concern, and similar concerns from others, and is trying to help.

I think you owe it to him to attend at least once. If it is detrimental to you, you can stop attending, with a sincere thanks to your Bishop for the effort. If it isn’t detrimental, and especially if you can contribute in a way that helps or doesn’t hurt others, it is a win-win socially, at the very least.

To build social capital, it would be good to start off with some difficult topic but quickly bring in supportive and positive tones to it that allow people to think but don’t prescribe specific answers. I think it would be good to end with positive stories of testimony building while not ignoring difficult topics, many quotes on this site from prior church leaders about investigating and challenging truth without fear since we have truth and revelation on our side, speaking in terms like “our side” to build that tribe connection. I think it is ok to have doubts and struggle with some things at church, but we work through those…and you can me tion how the church has opened up to change recently to accommodate this. The church leaders have listened. That is a huge point to be made. Whether or not we have answers…the point is they listen and change comes slowly but it can come.

I also think you may pass around a clip board to ask class members to give topics they are thinking or wondering about and have never discussed in church, to give future class content for lessons…that way it is coming from the class, not just you.

Just some ideas.

Well, I am returning to report on the class. I’m having a hard time processing how it went. It was a mix of great people all across the spectrum (mostly trending towards orthodox, but not obnoxiously so), so if nothing else it’s going to be interesting.

The first part was spent by the bishop framing the purpose of the class. And that was that it is okay to inquire thoughtfully and prayerfully. It’s okay to have doubts. Most people do. Most of the rest of the class was a deeper dive into introductions and possible future topics.

My trouble comes because I don’t feel this class is for me. Even as little as a year ago it would have been. That said, I am still able to frame my thoughts constructively and in harmony to accepted church teachings. At least on some issues. I just will chose to not be vocal on the topics that I struggle with the most. I think this is consistent with the counsel I have received on this thread. Thank you all who have participated.

Bottom line is I think it will be helpful and enjoyable for most participants.

On another note, it did prompt a post church discussion with my spouse. That did not go well, much to my surprise. We are retreading some ground we have tread already. Maybe I haven’t been clear enough with my thoughts and feelings. Maybe if I was, she still didn’t want to hear it, or accept it. Two steps back and none forward I guess today.

If you are not responsible for teaching the class then it would be fairly easy to keep the datails of your faith as private as you want.

Sounds like we will take turns leading the discussion. Its meant to be far more discussion heavy rather than “learning.” I like the concept. The person leading the discussion is supposed to relay information to the group outside of class so that all can be prepared to discuss (trying to get out of the “read out loud” method of teaching). Other class members are also free to distribute items to review together prior to the class. So its not all on the discussion leader for that topic. I’ve jokingly called this the special needs sunday school class. But maybe I’m looking at it all wrong and its really advanced placement?

OTOH if it is too much like FAIR then I would lose interist after a few weeks. Every year on ward conference we have ward council members who teach on the new Essays.

FAIR will have a big role, I can tell. I don’t mind that too much, but like you, I may lose interest. The gospel essays will also play a large part. I expect it to be very apologetic. From my brief reading of the tea leaves from class, with the exception of one other person, I am the most “out there.” I’m a little disappointed by that. I was hoping to be surrounded by more heathens. Maybe they are just more shy than me (which would be interesting as I’m a classically trained introvert).

Is this a class where you can discuss RSR?

Very much so. It’s on the reading list. I started re-reading it last night so that I can use it as camouflage to incorporate some of my doctrinal and church history concerns. I’m cautiously optimistic.

Sometimes JS would predict in the Name of the Lord that everything was going to be awesome and then it wasn’t. Not sure how much of that was meant to be actual prediction and how much was meant as hyperbole and wishful thinking to inspire confidence in his followers.

The first vision – especially how it was described in the earliest manuscript was not altogether unheard of for that time period and region. Also was most likely visionary in nature.

Part of my frustration with the current church culture is the narrative that we tell of JS is not one that I believe that JS would recognize. We have deified the memory of JS for our own purposes and built an entire elaborate superstructure over that foundation.

My two cents: I think human memory can be very unreliable. We subconciously rewrite history, even our own history, to better fit our current narrative. Faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1). Evidence, facts, etc has nothing to do with it. What Joseph once held to be prophecy, he might’ve later in hindsight took to be personal hope. Likewise, the Joseph Smith many members have faith in is most likely very different from the man he actually was. Same thing with Jesus Christ, maybe even moreso. It doesn’t matter who they actually were, so much as who we believe them to be. To quote Rick and Morty:

“Our people will get more from the idea that he represented, than the jellybean he actually was.”

Another good example I just thought of was Gandhi. Historically and objectively, he was very racist against blacks. He was also sexually… “self-tested”. But even though it’s true, even though the man was a complicated mess like everyone else, we need our legends and heroes. He’s a symbol for something much greater than who he actually was, and it’s a symbol we need.

I have a few thoughts.

1. Your Bishop sounds like a progressive guy to take a risk with a class like this. It’s out of the norm. I wonder if his stake president knows. This is normally something that happens in the homes of doubting members, not as a regular class. Church is for building testimonies, even if it means avoiding doubtful topics. So having a class that is meant to expose and deal with doubt is an interesting class.

2. If I was asked to participate in a class like this, I would probably have said ‘no’. StayLDS is the only place I know of that is truly safe. The anonyminity, open-mindedness and acceptance of people along the spectrum, and the absence of formal church heirarchy makes it so. If you are truly authentic in this class, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot for future ordinations, or return to your former TR holding status if you want. All the other rank and file members there will use whatever you share to form an impression of you, and that will disseminate a reptutation you might not want. That is what happened to me.

3. Now that you’ve decided not to be part of the experience, I think you need to consider developming an exit strategy. They will undoubtedly want to know why you want out, so I think it’s time to get the reasons together. Whatever you do, I wouldn’t be candid. I would share something true and complementary — perhaps that you felt is served its purpose, that it shows the church is accepting of people who have questions (not doubts, questions). Perhaps along the lines that it has done much to enhance your opinion of the church as a caring place. That is enough.