How to Minister to those with doubts

[Anonymous]

As I reported on another thread (http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5935” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5935) at a stake meeting yesterday we discussed the LDS.Org Topics section and there was some discussion about an increase of Bishops and the SP getting members who are coming in with questions. The general attitude lacked a comprehensive understanding of ministering to those who are experiencing or have experienced a faith crisis.

In a recent Borderlands article D. Jeff Burton had a discussion with a Bishop about how he (the Bishop) ministered to those with doubts/questions in his ward (http://forthosewhowonder.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/A-Borderland-Bishops-Story1.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forthosewhowonder.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/A-Borderland-Bishops-Story1.pdf).

I serve in a Stake calling (not the Stake Presidency) and I feel compelled to minister to those with doubts/questions. Having been through the process I appreciate how hard and lonely it can be. However, I don’t know exactly how to go about it.

What I imagine (what I am currently thinking) of is to have an evening every couple of weeks where people who the SP or Bishops have identified can meet together and have some dedicated, safe, non-judgmental space where people can discuss anything they want. There would be some rules, such as civility rules, we are here to uplift, to love and be loved, we are together to learn and grow. The purpose would be to help people Stay LDS despite their doubts or changed paradigms. I would also need the SP and other members of the Stake Leadership to stay away (which I don’t think they would like). I need to put some more thought into this before I would actually present it to the SP, but that is the overview.

However, each scenario I think through ends with me having to explain what exactly this will accomplish, why it would helpful, what will we talk about, and why I feel compelled to do it. And as I think through how this might play out I keep seeing me being released and then having to face my own inquisition.

For me personally, I would be Ok if the end result was being released and/or my TR was taken away. I would be fine with that, but I don’t think my wife would be. Honestly, if I had my TR taken away for doing what I thought was a good thing, she would be fine with that, but she likes being lds and she is more afraid of how people would react to us as a family (which honestly just makes me really sad to think that we could be shunned because of how we might believe.) and that people might not want to be friends with us and let their kids play with our kids. That, to her, is what scares her the most.

So I feel in my heart a desire (a calling?) to reach out to those in need, but not quite sure how to do it without becoming marginalized myself.

Any thoughts/advice?

[Anonymous]

I feel that same calling and since it actually is part of my formal “church calling” I feel OK in it. The problem is in how to approach it. I’ll be honest here in saying that taking initiative on my part to contact certain individuals who are clearly in crisis has not been very fruitful, and I think my SP considers one of those particularly to have been an unpleasant experience (and I agree it was not pleasant and may have made things worse). I think if we each reflect on our own experiences and even coming here and posting we’ll find for the most part that it was initiated within ourselves – we had to want to acknowledge/change/seek help and we had to be ready for the transition.

I am intrigued with the idea of a meeting, though, and I think my SP might actually approve something like that. That’s partly because I have found more success when the people have come to me. I think that’s partly why I have been afforded the opportunity to speak in SC – to make it very clear there is someone who has been there in stake leadership. I can also see opposition to the idea because more orthodox members seem to have some fear of questioning itself and perhaps even a fear of allowing us to gather and interact. Who knows what might happen!? :wtf: Still I think a kind of meeting where individuals self select and where they could be free to openly discuss things might be good – even though we can’t afford the anonymity afforded here (and I think it would also be necessary to exclude the judges in Israel, even if they are questioners themselves).

I’d be interested to hear other thoughts as well.

[Anonymous]

DJ,

Couple of points you made:

1) I agree that having a place where people could self-select is better than reaching out. If someone is in an interview with the Bishop and starts asking tough questions, it would be much easier for the Bishop to say “you know, those are good questions. I don’t know that I will be able to resolve those for you. But there is a class we have that you can attend. The purpose is xyz, they have talked about all the questions you are bringing up here. How would you feel about attending?”

That way people really can choose how they want to engage. They will realize their concerns are being addressed, and the leadership does care.

If I were leading the class I would make it a point to say at every class that I don’t have any answers for anyone. This is not a class for answers, it is a class of how to actively deal with your concerns, work through them the best you can, and come up with your own answers. But I don’t have the answers.

2) I do wonder what would happen if you got together a community like ours in person. Could be super awesome, could be a disaster. I have no idea. That’s why building in a purpose and framework for the class and discussions would be important. Keep things kind of in a box without wandering too far.

3) I bet more Orthodox members probably wouldn’t like it. But I don’t really care. I mean, it would be good to get buy in, but I see this effort as ministering and if members don’t want or can’t handle ministering to the questioning souls of the stake, then they need to attend their own class about becoming more like Jesus. I wonder sometimes why members are so afraid of those who question…

Good thoughts, thanks for the response.

-SBRed

[Anonymous]

SunbeltRed wrote:

I wonder sometimes why members are so afraid of those who question…

I’ve wondered about this, too. I’m sure there’s no one answer (“It is not that simple”), but I think a big part of it is that they are afraid they might be wrong or that someone else might be able to shake their faith. The thing is almost all of us have some questions – but most suppress or ignore them. Confronting the questions can seem risky, especially to those who fear their eternal welfare is in jeopardy simply by seeking the answer. I think when it comes down to it, that is the crux of everyone’s faith crisis/transition – we each found some answer or answers we weren’t necessarily seeking that shook our foundations.

I like the idea of the bishops referring people while giving them a choice. I don’t think it would work well if people were specifically invited unless the individual doing the inviting felt moved upon to do so. I don’t see another way to accomplish an invitation other than general announcements which could turn out not to attract anyone.

[Anonymous]

Sunbelt:

If I was asked to attend one of these meetings, I probably wouldn’t go as currently structured in your proposal. It’s not safe. Their goal is to get you back on the TR-list, and for someone like me, I wouldn’t be ready. Plus, sharing doubts will only limit opportunities to serve in the future, and keeping that door open is critically important for me, as I have no faith in my own doubts!

I don’t quite know how at this point, but I would be inclined to make the contacts one on one…I would see if you can figure out who the walking doubters are (the people at church who are living the facade). Perhaps drop unorthodox comments to open the door to trust, and don’t try to systemize it. Let it happen naturally. If you are in meetings, listen for people who are brought up that show potential unorthodox, disaffected attitudes, and find ways of getting to know them, and steering their conversation to coping etcetera.

The most important part of these kinds of outreach activities, in my view, is to not have any agenda for the outcome. The only hard outcome I would seek is a good relationship in which the person feels welcome, safe, and accepted.

[Anonymous]

SD,

That is how I would want the class to be. Invite only, no leadership is invited or allowed to be there. Everything said and shared is 100% confidential. The goal would be to create a safe space, however the overarching purpose would be to help people who are interested in staying LDS or want to maintain a connection to the church in some fashion. I imagine something like an AA for faith strugglers 🙂

But I get where you are coming from. I am already attempting what you outline below. If people listen closely to my talks and comments, they would recognize a fellow Liahona. I certainly understand the hesitancy someone might have and as DJ pointed out, attempting to reach out without really knowing where someone is at can be a bit tough. Within the plan might be the opportunity to visit one-on-one as an alternative to attending the class.

Appreciate the input.

-SBRed

[Anonymous]

SunbeltRed wrote:

SD,

That is how I would want the class to be. Invite only, no leadership is invited or allowed to be there. Everything said and shared is 100% confidential. The goal would be to create a safe space, however the overarching purpose would be to help people who are interested in staying LDS or want to maintain a connection to the church in some fashion. I imagine something like an AA for faith strugglers 🙂

The problem is that I personally don’t believe there is much confidentiality in the church. I wouldn’t want to be at a meeting in the flesh as a reslt.

I’ve had an idea occur to me three times now, and that is to initiate some kind of Google Group for the locals, where they can post anonymously. After a while, they may become more willing to come out in person. On the other hand, isn’t that simply StaylDS in a google group? Why not encourage them to post here?

Anyway, if they get used to sharing their feelings online, they may grow to trust you and then “come out”. For example, after about 3 years of posting here on StayLDS, I grew more comfortable with certain people on this site knowing my full identity and location. Trust has been established. Further, I’ve grown pretty comfortable in my own skin, and realize that I don’t really need the church to self-actualize any longer. So, even if someone finds out who I am, I’m not sure I’d care as much as I did 5 years ago.

It took a while for me to find a new path…and to trust my new identify as someone who is trying to develop divine attributes (and I don’t say that in the “becoming a god” kind of way, either).

Perhaps I’m more paranoid than other people, but those are my thoughts about any kind of local middle way initiative.

[Anonymous]

I won’t disagree that you might be a bit more paranoid than some others here, SD, but some paranoia in our situation is certainly warranted – maybe even more so for those who live in the Corridor. I have thought about what you said, and if invited to a meeting specifically I probably would not have attended during much of my faith crisis – I wasn’t ready for one thing. If it were just a generally announced “fireside” kind of thing, I may have at later stages of the crisis – essentially post Uchtdorf Oct. 2013. The thought of some kind of online group is also intriguing, and you make a good point that people could just come here. A local group might be more personal, though, even though there could be anonymity.

I’d really like to hear what others think about this – if invited now, would you attend a meeting where you would be assured there were no judges (bishops or SPs) and everything stayed in that room? Would you have attended when you were alone and not getting the kind of help you are getting here? Would you participate in a local online group or perhaps something like a reddit? What if it were a conference call that allowed total anonymity?

[Anonymous]

I also have a desire to really reach out to others. I went through my faith crisis without another sole to talk to (or at least that I knew of). My current bishop is very supporting and loving and I live several states away from the Jello belt – deep in the bible belt. I know the SP from my youth (a bit). I have been toying with offering to talk in the Saturday night meeting of stake conference on “how to treat those with doubts.” I think I am going to tell my bishop I am willing and see if he feels like floating it to the SP, or if he wants me to do it, or if he thinks the SP wouldn’t go for it. I will tell them I will submit the talk to the SP first.

[Anonymous]

If invited now, I probably would not attend, for a number of reasons. First, I’m an introvert and instinctively shy away from group settings. I would be much more comfortable speaking one-on-one to someone who had demonstrated personal friendship to me first. Second, like SilentDawning, I value my anonymity for now. Probably everyone in my ward knows that there’s something or other going on with me, but they don’t know the details. I don’t want those details coming out, partly because I fear the consequences, but partly because the details of my faith crisis are very emotional and I have difficulty sharing them with anyone, let alone someone I don’t know (except in a completely anonymous setting like StayLDS). Third, I am becoming more comfortable with my own faith and personal direction, so I don’t need a support group as much as I did a year ago.

If invited a year or five years ago…. that’s a hard question. I probably would have been most comfortable with the idea of an anonymous conference call or MAYBE a fireside where I could sneak in, sit in the back, and leave early without being noticed if I wanted to. But I think I would have been seriously suspicious that any such event would be some kind of intervention-style trap. It might have depended a lot on how the event was described.

[Anonymous]

Hi SBR,

I think you are a visionary and a little ahead of your time on this one. I really don’t think leadership overall is ready for such a bold approach, especially given that the church is highly authoritarian still and likes to control things rather tightly. This was hammered home to me once again just this summer when I watched this program ( http://www.channel4.com/programmes/meet-the-mormons/episode-guide ) about a young missionary in Leeds. They spent a fair amount of the program showing some church official in the background to make sure nothing wrong was said.

The Church also has a history of treating those who question and make it public poorly – from blaming them, to threatening them with disfellowship, to excommunicating them. Bottom line – I don’t think the Church is ready for such a gathering, even if I think it is a good idea. I also think those with doubts would fear attending because of the retaliation that might take place.

You mentioned that your leadership is seeing an increase of people coming in to bishops and the stake president with questions. I feel encouraged that is happening in your area because in most instances, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and maybe this issue will get some more attention in a way the Church can be comfortable with now.

I picture “help for those with doubts” as being a little more confidential. I think that if you built up a pool of faithful doubters like you and others that bishops and the stake president can refer people to in confidence, that might fly with the leaders and you might still be able to keep your TR . There is less chance of people feeding off each other and making the situation worse and the one on one would just be more personal. Many with doubts don’t want a spouse or family members to know either.

My two cents. Good luck and God bless.

[Anonymous]

SunbeltRed wrote:

That is how I would want the class to be. Invite only, no leadership is invited or allowed to be there. Everything said and shared is 100% confidential. The goal would be to create a safe space, however the overarching purpose would be to help people who are interested in staying LDS or want to maintain a connection to the church in some fashion. I imagine something like an AA for faith strugglers 🙂

I don’t think you’d get much support from the church with this. One of the reasons we continue to see messages that are essentially saying “don’t stray from the correlated material” is because leaders see members leave after being exposed to certain information. If they don’t see it I’m sure they imagine that’s what will happen. I’m afraid a group meeting, especially a group meeting where the leaders were explicitly barred entry, would be a giant red flag to leadership. They would view the meeting as a place where members are being exposed to that certain information. Fears would likely prevent such a meeting. The leaders would understandably want access to make sure that the meeting wasn’t leading the flock astray, the participants wouldn’t participate with leaders present. Catch 22.

I would imagine that someone going through a faith crisis would also worry about spies in the meeting. Which participant has shifty eyes and is taking notes? :think: You’d probably also want to have plans in place for dealing with people that only show up to win back the wayward souls.

I feel bad because all I’ve really done is beat suggestions down without offering much of what can be done, not very constructive. I struggled to post in this thread because of some experiences that I’ve had in trying to help leadership reach out to people with doubts. I’m not quite ready to share those experiences because they aren’t exactly edifying. Maybe someone with a little more clout than me (I’m a nobody) in stake leadership could get the ball rolling better that I could.

One of the takeaways that I will share is that members with doubts are approached in the exact same manner as members that are inactive for other reasons. There’s one approach for all: read scriptures, pray, and attend church. That probably works well in some circumstances but I don’t have to tell you how those don’t work for someone going through a faith crisis. Unfortunately love bombing, although well intentioned, also drives someone struggling through a faith crisis away. I think a person going through a faith crisis needs a bit of alone time in the wilderness. I know I did. I would have loathed multiple visits from church members during this period.

Again, I apologize for the tone. I’ve only explored the unasked question: how not to minister to those with doubts, which is negative. Unfortunately that appears to be all I know as I haven’t seen anything on the local level that leaders are willing to support. I think eventually there will have to be people in leadership callings that “get it.” People that have perhaps been there. A difficult prospect because people that have been there may have already made the decision to leave or may not want the headaches of a leadership calling.

[Anonymous]

Appreciate the thoughts.

I am re-thinking my approach. Perhaps I will just reach out to my SP and let him know that I am willing to talk with anyone that the Bishops or SP has come across that are having a hard time. I can say something generic like “I’ve been through what the people with questions have been through and I am here and still active and so I can empathize with what they are experiencing. If they are willing to have someone visit, I am willing to visit with them.”

Then perhaps I can share a few of the articles and ideas from here (without reference to here) that may help him understand what people are experiencing. The hang-up though may be, if someone would be ok with a visit, what I would/ could/ or should talk about with them. I won’t be able to provide answers, because people have to work through this on their own, but I can help them talk through re-framing their paradigm. However, those conversations would be uncomfortable if someone else from the leadership were there. I don’t think it would be a safe space if that were the case.

But you have all given me some food for thought and I am going to ponder on it some more over the next few days.

For me, and this is just my experience, I really needed someone to talk to. Someone who would just listen, understand, and then sort of say, whatever you decide, I’m ok with it. But let me tell you about how I have dealt with it. That is essentially what Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts are, a place to explore, listen, and ponder. I know how much those spaces have meant to me, and just hoping to pay it forward in some small way.

-SBRed

[Anonymous]

SunbeltRed wrote:

I am re-thinking my approach. Perhaps I will just reach out to my SP and let him know that I am willing to talk with anyone that the Bishops or SP has come across that are having a hard time. I can say something generic like “I’ve been through what the people with questions have been through and I am here and still active and so I can empathize with what they are experiencing. If they are willing to have someone visit, I am willing to visit with them.”

That might fly, but remember, all individual counseling is supposed to be the jurisdiction of the bishop and SP last time I read the handbook. Unless sanctioned as an official calling somehow, I see that as an obstacle.

But I do think you are on to something valuable — I would like to spin off Nibbler’s idea. What if you held a Fireside called “Helping those with Doubt and Commitment Issues regarding the LDS Church: A View to Understanding”.

This fireside targets the TBM’s and local leaders to whom the knowledge you have gained here at StayLDS is likely new. I remember being at a Ward Conference and a member of the SP said “We have these members who are active through their youth, serve a mission, and get married in the temple. But then somewhere in their 30’s 40’s and 50’s they go inactive — why????”.

You would answer that question, You could actually go to the leadership of the local Stake and ask them to generate questions for the people who doubt, or suffer from commitment problems, post the questions here, and then hold a fireside or leadership training meeting for the local leaders in which they get candid, anonymous answers to selected questions. We could give you our backgrounds so they know we are not anti-Mormons, but people with long experience, many of whom still have ties to the church, and still attend, and if they are like me, want their options open to engage fully at some point in the futre.

You could also answer questions such as:

1. What is the best way to reach a person who is suffering from doubt or commitment problems?

2. How can I, as a leader, help these people feel welcome at church?

3. How can I empathize with this group? What is their life experience after they experience doubt or commitment problems? What stages do they go through?

4. What challenges do local wards present to people who doubt or have commitment problems, perhaps unknowingly? How can we as leaders prevent this from happening?

5. How can I, as a leader, prevent my own leadership from becoming a stumblingblock to full activity in the people I lead?

Your reach would likely be much further than you could achieve on your own. You would be influencing the leaders who interact regularly with other leaders, and members who have commitment or doubting issues. And you wouldn’t be violating any sacred counseling cows or anything.

[Anonymous]

SunbeltRed wrote:

For me, and this is just my experience, I really needed someone to talk to. Someone who would just listen, understand, and then sort of say, whatever you decide, I’m ok with it. But let me tell you about how I have dealt with it. That is essentially what Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts are, a place to explore, listen, and ponder. I know how much those spaces have meant to me, and just hoping to pay it forward in some small way.

-SBRed

This was it for me, too, SBRed. Seriously, I would have come back long before I did if someone would have just listened and tried to understand and not tried to argue or call to repentance. They didn’t need to agree with me, just hear me out. In fact, this was a criticism I had of my wife that I would share with church leaders – I had no one to talk to, not even my best friend/”eternal companion.” That’s why this forum is what really brought me back, although I will say that my current SP does listen. I am going to attempt to make this point in my talk this Sunday, and with the support of our friends at BYU (at least their quotes) I think the point can be safely made. I’m hoping that people will come to me, but I am also telling them that their bishops, RSPs, EQPs, could be talked to as well (while advising those people to listen).

I think what really needs to happen, SBRed, is more like what Bill Reel has done and talk to the leadership. I really do like this thread and I’m glad you brought it up and I appreciate the answers/input. The leadership does have to come to an understanding that the standard “read, fast, pray….” does not work for everyone (probably almost no one in crisis actually) and what people really need is listening with love (charity actually).

Just a note to Nibbler’s reply, and I’m not attacking you whatsoever, I love and appreciate you. There is the perspective that people who would come to such a meeting have already been “exposed” and that’s why they’re the way they are. I agree that a TBM might not see it that way, though, and may see it as fueling the fire – and that indeed could be a negative outcome. I think you and I, Nibbler, may have had some similar experiences – self selection is a must.

[Author]

Posts