- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m willing to tell everyone what a great job they did after the fact. Jordan Turner wrote:foundational document is a good idea. I’ll take a look, too.
Thanks, Jordan. I just added you. Plz. check your email.
Yeah, I’d rather divvy it up. It’s longer than I remembered it being. 
hkobeal wrote:Yeah, I’d rather divvy it up. It’s longer than I remembered it being.
The good news is that you can all edit the same document, so you won’t worry about having to sync it all up after your edits.
John, these thoughts are great and very well thought out. If you want a critic on the message, here are my thoughts: Regarding the paragraph that starts “This heavy load of responsibilities leaves little, if any time for deep study of controversial LDS Church history…
I can not help but believe that with the access of information they have at their fingertips in today’s information age and with the number of issues there are in our faith, and the number of “inactive” or disgruntled members that the G/As would have
hadto reviewed/addressed many of these issues at some point in their tenure. Part of their “job” is to help folks struggling with their faith. Todd Christopherson was my stake president and sent me on my mission and I can’t help but think he has been exposed to some of these issues. I think it is an insult to their integrity to assume they would not look into some of these issues. Just look at the Steve Benson interview with Oaks and Nelson. They know what is going on.
That entire paragraph is a very broad assumption and I disagree with it. I think it is fine to assume they want to maintain membership and their intention is good, but do not assume they are clueless. You know they are very bright men.
Regarding the paragraph that starts “In spite of all this, it’s fair to say that the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve once made a sincere attempt at openness and full disclosure of LDS Church history…
A rational decision can still be immoral. I understand not emphasizing the issues, but I would certainly not be x-ing radical thinkers like they have in the past. Like your ship analogy – it is a big ship, but that does not mean you can not steer it clear of the iceberg that is straight in front of you. It might take planning and time, e.g. blacks and the priesthood, but simply ignoring it will catch-up to them at some point. You make this very point in the next section – when we fall short in our own lives, it will often catch up with us in some way.
In other sections:
I think it is important to point out the etymology of the word “believe” – it comes from two old English words: BE and LIFON. BE meaning “life” (as in being) and LIFON meaning “according to”. Therefore, to believe means to live according to (what you believe)! Ironically, to “know” – to have sexual intercourse with is attested from c.1200, from the O.T.
I love the part about raising children in the church and I would love to see a lot more on this topic that is very specific, e.g. how you teach them about J. Smith specifically, the temple, etc.
Great stuff John. It has helped me tremendously.
Laird
I have little time, but just to echo one of Laird’s points: One of my biggest frustrations about the general Prop 8 debates is that those who oppose the Church’s stance often dismiss any possibility of it being correct largely because “the old guys who run the Church are out of touch with modern society”. Um, no they aren’t. How anyone could listen to Pres. Hinckley and reach that conclusion just baffles me.
I think there should be some recognition that, as Laird says, the Church is led by incredibly intelligent, well-informed people. That doesn’t make everything they say automatically correct, but it should give them the benefit of the doubt when issues are murky and they speak as one.
Perhaps that is a topic for the issues list. I’ll mention it on that thread.
Back to the original post and the TR questions section, I’ll give my two cents. When I read it (admittedly a long time ago – I don’t remember specifics) I had the impression that parts of this section could be seen as encouraging over-rationalization, which borders on dishonesty similar to Ray’s comment. Some time back when a strongly orthodox/TBM friend read it (my wife told him about NOM and he checked out the site – found the essay) I think some of his shock in reading the TR section (he mentioned it specifically to me) spilled over into his assuming that I had blurred the lines to the point of dishonesty in obtaining my own TR (which I had at the time from prior to my crisis) – which I took a little heat for but quickly corrected the situation.
So needless to say that specific section has impacted me personally to some extent. I agree in this case it was because it was read by someone other than the intended audience — which brings up a new question (I will be happy to re-read the essay and give my opinions) which is:
>
Should we put any effort into making “StayLDS” friendly to concerned TBM family members of the disaffected?Maybe a separate section designed to help them understand the situation? I think Bushman’s intro to his conference from this summer would be one excellent piece. I know John’s “why they leave” is in the same vein. I have spent a little time trying to express the nature and difficulty of this position to this same TBM friend. This Bushman essay helped (more so than his reading RSR) and a couple of analogies that I tried to use to expand some of Bushman’s words.
I echo what Brian said about not trying to be apologetic and not worrying about the reaction of church leaders. That’s a complete distraction from helping people stay LDS who have had a crisis of faith. As far as the temple recommend questions, why not leave those out of the overarching essay, as Alisa has suggested? There are folks on the extreme of writing a letter of resignation, and others who simply want to feel free expressing their opinions in Gospel Doctrine, for whom navigating the TR interview is not a concern. It’s an interesting way of approaching the intersection of belief and honesty, but it shouldn’t be part of the intro.
I agree about not worring about the reactions of church leaders, I also agree with the suggestion to leave the TR section out – it’s not fundamental. I feel that you may have misread, or misunderstood my question around “friendly to TBM family”. In my case obviously my primary concern is my wife. Let’s say she knew I was having ‘problems’ with the church, and that I had found “StayLDS” that was designed to help me stay in the church. It would be nice if her curiosity could take her to the site without it destroying her confidence that I could get some “help” there.
Maybe this is a bigger personal concern to me that it is for others, but I have been through this exact situation. It is extremely disheartening to be told by a loved one that they don’t like something that you’ve personally found to be helpful.
I think it would be easy to have a director: !!*** BELIEVING MEMBERS – READ THIS !!*** Not that bold and obnoxious but maybe a statement of purpose could be something they would be drawn to. I think there are ways to state and frame our purpose that could help these family members grasp the reality that people who have “fallen off the cliff” (an analogy for the TBM perspective of stage 4 that I have used) simply don’t speak the same language as the believing member. The only way to help them is to speak their language and I think it can ease the concerned family member’s mind on the issue if they understand this.
I have a couple of partially developed ideas along these lines, maybe I should work on them and submit them for review.
I think we have to decide who our audience is to prevent a future split of focus and resources. We’ve already seen one with OpenMormon>StayLDS. Is our audience those who are contacting John via email, or spouses who are orthodox and want help for understanding how to help? They are two different groups with different needs. I agree, John N – and I think that’s John D.’s call. John, thanks for the clarification. I agree with the focus, I was simply stating something from my own experience. For me at least half the battle has been around those close to me not understanding the battle – and effectively wanting to derail my progress because they didn’t understand what actually helps in this process. I simply thought others may be in similar situations as myself – and may benefit significantly if their close TBM family could understand to support any help they may receive from StayLDS.
It’s a thought in the brainstorming process. Call it a desire to give others something I wish I had found for myself. I had wished that there was some source to point my family to that would help them understand what I was going through without judging me harshly for my confusion.
Orson, I understand where you are coming from. I wonder if Brian’s website Faces East would be a good place to refer spouses (and other family members).
I’ve started. Made a working copy of the original. May take a while, John. But I think it’s worth doing. Take the best from whatever we throw at you. Rachel Maw wrote:Orson,
I understand where you are coming from. I wonder if Brian’s website Faces East would be a good place to refer spouses (and other family members).
I think the tone and environment of FacesEast is the right approach for helping the believing people we all love. The Church is supported there. It’s assumed people are there who want to keep believing. It’s ok there to buy into the “standard party line.” It’s purposely designed to be the safe landing zone for the spouse of a NOM (how it got started). FacesEast is focused specifically on marriage. I could talk to Prairie Chuck to see if she would be comfortable opening it up sometimes to family and friends of the disaffected?
It’s just a message forum right now though. There’s limited “staff” to do the work. 4 or 5 people make up most of the responses. I’m one of the more lengthy and detailed people to post responses. I could talk to Prairie Chuck to see if she would be comfortable turning it into a website with essays. That would be a convenient way to compartmentalize the help in a safe zone.
Compartmentalization is very important. You kind of have to keep the two groups separate.
The people who are currently NOT in questioning stage need to understand those they love who are struggling, WITHOUT pushing them over the same cliff before their time.
The people in crisis need a lot of straight answers and honest presentations. They are speaking a whole new language.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.