Seeking private advice

It’s a shame that the orthodox approach is often some form of punishment, a revocation of privileges, applying derogatory labels, shunning, etc. The person already feels hurt by the institution they trusted and representatives of the organization respond by pouring salt in the wound. It seems like a good way to get stuck in a feedback loop.

Mourn with those that mourn. What happened to that? But right now I suppose your local leaders feel threatened and are acting accordingly. Still, I’m guessing that the letter would only reaffirm the sister’s issues with the church.

The policy change may be at the center of their crisis, but there are many filters that are applied.

1) What the family feels comfortable relaying to the RSP. There may be much more that’s left unsaid.

2) The RSP’s interpretation of what the family told her.

3) Then the telephone game takes over.

If she had an issue over policy (authority) taking precedent over family, flexing authority (that letter) may be the the exact opposite approach they need to take.

I’m preaching to the choir. To your questions:

1) I would voice my concerns about sending her the letter. It would probably be gas on the fire, another example of institutional abuse in her life. Also, maybe raise a question about whether the letter ministers to her needs or the institutional church’s needs. If the letter doesn’t help her feel loved it’s best not to send it.

2a) It depends. I would assume anything you say to them while visiting alone would do the rounds on the stake grapevine.

2b) Maybe, but I wouldn’t try to excavate for issues. If she raises issues, yes. The it becomes validate, validate, validate.

2c) Yeah, maybe so. If nothing more than to blunt the edge of any authoritative/punitive approach that a local leader might bring to the visit.

For the past six months I have been building a spiritual practice in the form of Manifesting and Metaphysical lifestyles. – Meditation, etc. One of the key tenets of this form of living is that we create the world.

So when the church chooses the punish or push back method, they are actually damaging themselves. It creates animosity, resistance, and magnetizes the very thing they don’t want – apostasy.

Because of that – and 12 years of history watching the church – a letter would be bad. Facebook is a private forum. Yes it looks public, but I have a slew of people who I “unfollow but remain friends with” – for a lot of reasons. What she does on her page, is her business. – And our cultural policy of policing everyone is doing so much more harm than good.

As I read it I think you have left off an option – it’s the scarier of the options, but what if you confided in her that you have struggles, too. Caveat – in my world it works best when I am hanging out with/sharing with some one of my gender. I have never confided in a man. But in the past 6 months I have enjoyed having devout LDS women voluntarily share their struggles with me. I didn’t ask for the opportunity, but every conversation has actually been very healing.

To feel safe, to let off some steam, to not be rejected by both parties is huge.

I glanced through “Bridges”. – I gave it to my mom a few months ago, and paper copies of the stickier essays. Not to sway her, just to inform her. Most of my family is out. My parents and siblings are devoutly in. I wanted to “Bridge” the difference if I could. I don’t even know if she has read it.

What is even the purpose of sending a letter? Is it to threaten some sort of church discipline if she doesn’t talk nice about the church on Facebook? If so, that seems awfully unhelpful and I would discourage it being sent.

I have had a few conversations like this over the years. I have always gone alone.

I have basically told these individuals that my experiences lead me to question the common assumption in church that everything is as God directs. There are several ways to square the church still being God approved without it being God micro-managed. The example of civil weddings is a perfect example of a policy that was not eternal and has been changed. Unfortunately church culture and teaching is such that questioning any such thing is very unpopular in church (even after such a policy has been changed). This can be incredibly frustrating.

I have told them that I believe that God approves of the good that the church is doing for me and my family and I feel His love for me. I also believe that God works outside of the LDS church and can reach his children in many different ways. I am available to talk and more importantly to listen (confidentially if they would prefer) to anything they might like to say.

Most often it doesn’t lead to anything definitive. We basically return to whatever relationship that we had before the conversation. I do believe that it helps to validate them in their struggles and let them know that they are ok and that they are not alone.

I did send an email to the SP and he responded. He was not aware of the situation but asked that the bishop be patient and refrain from sending any kind of letter or taking/threatening any disciplinary action or asking if she would like her name removed. I’d say that’s a win. He also asked me if I thought a visit from a member of the stake presidency would be helpful and I have not responded back because I’m not sure it would be. I think of the options I previously offered here I’d rather either visit myself and be very forthright or visit with the RSP who does seem to have some sort of relationship (and probably be a little less forthright). I’m really still unsure.

I asked my wife if she has seen any of her Facebook posts and she said she can’t because of her privacy settings and she hasn’t accepted her friend request. The SP also can’t see her posts, which is positive because it bolstered my argument in the email to him that she does not seem to be trying to pull others away or gain a following. My friend in the bishopric, who my be the one more bent on things like asking her about name removal than the bishop himself is, has only shared a couple of the posts, one simply referring to herself as a recovering Mormon and the other stating that she’s willing to talk with anyone who wants to. If the latter is apostate then I’m an apostate too.

Our copy of Bridges did arrive yesterday but I have not looked at it yet and probably won’t have time until this weekend.

Yeah, some years ago I had a fairly forthright conversation with my then current bishop regarding tithing. I had created a belief that tithing (and church participation, honoring my priesthood, and generally keeping the commandments) would insulate me from serious hardship. That expectation was dashed.

Bishop was sympathetic. He agreed that members sometimes make that erroneous connection. He also agreed that bad things (even catastrophically bad things) happen to full tithing payers and that tithing does not appear to prevent it.

I showed him a quote that I had found in a recent book put out by the church. The book had just come out and bishop still had a stack of them sitting on his desk to distribute to the youth. The quote said that tithing will bring both spiritual and temporal blessings. The bishop responded that he believes tithing CAN bring temporal blessings. This makes no sense to me is there a cause and effect relationship or isn’t there.

But it was useful to understand how far the bishop could go to understand my perspective. I could have been mistaken and placed my belief in wrong things. Some misguided members might have taught me to put my faith in wrong things. The church leadership only ever teaches the correct things and any error must come from a misinterpretation of their words.

My understanding is that the Church has a hard-line stance AGAINST proactively asking if anyone wants their name removed. Local members don’t always get this. Sending this letter is an utterly terrible idea on every front, and the fact that they don’t know that just tells me that they are assholes.

Yeah, I wasn’t really sure what the current policy is in this regard. Back in the day of McConkie’s church it was perfectly OK unless they were trying to dodge church discipline. My Bishop is more or less stuck in that era (pretty literally – he regularly quotes SWK and talks about things like building Zion). I’m not sure his actual intent was to send such a letter or if that was coming from the counselor who told me about it. Interestingly, that counselor is fairly progressive and open minded and has himself been under church discipline in the past. He’s a bit of a paradox.

You know what might actually help this sister who has been greatly wronged by the institution’s now changed policy? An apology. I would bet that it doesn’t have to come from the HQ. Even just having the SP listen, care, and say to her “I know you know I had nothing to do with that policy, but it harmed people. It harmed you and your family. And you deserve an apology. I am deeply sorry for the pain it caused.” That’s the fact of it.

I agree. Our SP is pretty open minded and somewhat progressive, especially when it come to those who struggle. He puts up with sitting on his high council and offering unsolicited advice. I think he does understand why people struggle with stuff liked this, and he has at least two young adult children of his own who struggle. I think he could say something similar to what you outline, especially the part about understanding how it hurt them and I think he’d be sincere in saying so. I’m not sure he’s at a point where he feels he could apologize, but we’ve had this discussion here before. Is it him who needs to apologize? As you say, he didn’t make or change the policy and whether or not he agrees and whether or not he sees the harm it has caused, he can’t apologize for something he didn’t do. If it were me being apologized to I’d be polite to him (and this sister is a nice person and would also be polite) but not really accept the apology internally while holding no ill will from him. I’ve said this on the open forum before – the apology needs to come from the top, from the people who did do it. Even a statement that they understand how some things have hurt people (Uchtdorf almost got to that point on a couple occasions) would help.