I have a question…

[Anonymous]

This isn’t meant to be critical. I’m just curious.

I am not a member of any other social media sites.

I’m not on Face Book, Twitter, etc. I found this site purely by accident.

This site has really helped me find my way back to the LDS church on my own terms.

I know that there are others here that would agree with me. There is a talk by Elder Uchtdorf called:

“Can You Hear the Music?” In the conclusion he said: “If you can’t muster the faith to believe, then desire to believe.

God will meet you there. And He will add to the light you already possess until, one day, you feel His glorious presence

within your heart as a beacon of light and a source of divine peace.” This is what this board has helped me understand

and deal with. There are topics I can only discuss here.

This is to the Administrators & general membership of this site.

What do you see for the future of StayLDS?

Or, is this just the ebb & flow for most talk web sites like ours?

The reason I ask is: the general “population” on this site seems to have dropped off substantially.

I would hate to see it go away.

[Anonymous]

I’d really hate to see it go too, for the archived conversations and for the connections some people made here.

Minyan Man wrote:

What do you see for the future of StayLDS?

Or, is this just the ebb & flow for most talk web sites like ours?

I feel like it’s going away. There are less than a half dozen people that still post and posting among those members has really tapered off.

I don’t do social media either but I do have an account at newordermormon that I visit from time to time. I see participation dying off there as well. Not to the same extent it has here, but the site doesn’t have the volume of posts it once did.

It’s like a small town burger joint. On Friday the place is hopping. It’s the only restaurant in town, it’s where the action is at. The town grows a little. A McDonald’s opens in town. A few dozen more restaurants open in town. In time the original burger joint is reduced down to a small handful of regulars. Years pass and when the owner decides to retire their kid doesn’t feel like keeping the lights on and the burger joint closes.

That’s kind of how I feel things are going at staylds. Now there are a lot more outlets for support and for the conversations that were once unique to this place. I don’t feel like I need as much support as I used to so I couldn’t tell you what those places are but I get the feeling those connections are happening with close family and friends. The town of people that have had a faith crisis has grown in the 15 or so years since the site was created. Alternatives for those people have grown as well.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Nibbler.

I have pulled away sometimes because “my faith transition stabilized” and I don’t necessarily have anything new to say.

I keep coming back at random times.

I am here again because a) “Interesting Conversation”, b) My baby turns 8 in August – and I am setting groundwork now for some serious conversations over the next few months.

– I am not planning the baptism (hard boundary). I can commit myself to getting her sister there to support my baby (and that is as far as I go).

– I am not taking anyone to church on Sundays.

– I am not taking my baby to Achievement Days.

NOTE: These are all tasks that I feel deeply are “assigned to me” that I do not value enough to accomplish. I don’t want to signal to the community that “we are reactivating” or participating in the LDS branch community to that level. This is a “rejection” that will be a hard pill to swallow.

– My mother and/or sister-in-law may be drafted/draft themselves to “plan the baptism”.

– I am having conversations now with them in sense of “here is an unfortunate limit my faith transition created – please don’t hate me, resent me, or judge me incorrectly” without stating yet “I am not participating in my baby’s baptism”.

NOTE 2: I am hopeful that my husband agrees with me that my baby being baptized at 8 would signal dishonestly to our LDS branch community a higher level of engagement and threaten the intellectual safety of her older sibling unduly (the sibling is an atheist/agnostic who is strongly anti-religious right now).

[Anonymous]

I foresee StayLDS winding down.

1) Participation

I think that the Covid shutdowns provided a break for many. I think that a good number of people that were on the margins were able to experience what life would be like without church and decided that option wasn’t as scary as they might have thought. This translated to less people looking for a support group like StayLDS to make it work.

With less participation, we seem less attractive to those lurkers that might check us out. It seems like not much is going on here and that is not inspiring for those sitting on the fence about making a post. It’s been a really long time since we’ve had a new introduction. Without any new blood it get hard to break out of ruts or spark new conversations.

2) Financial

If it weren’t for the generous financial support of one StayLDS participant, I believe that we would have closed our doors before now. The hosting fee is $177 per year. In the beginning we were sponsored financially by the Mormon Stories Foundation but we have not received anything from them in maybe 10 years. We very much appreciate the generous annual donation from that StayLDS participant that has allowed us to keep the lights on.

3) Administration

The site is managed by a few key people (Nibbler, Old-timer, Dark Jedi, and I). If any of us where to move on from StayLDS then that would be another reason to discontinue.

[Anonymous]

There have been many current events in Mormondom over the last few years that go completely undiscussed here.

I could try creating a thread for them as they occur, even if people don’t post up.

Same with general conference. It’s a ghost town here during conference. We used to have a thread for ongoing discussion. I could try that again. The difficulty with that is having to watch conference.

[Anonymous]

Lately, I’ve been reading some of the older posts & the discussions & the questions they generated. I would hate

to see them go away. If for nothing else, it would show people that their own problems, doubts & insecurities are not

wrong & you can get through them. The dynamics of the human condition are very interesting to me as it relates to the

church, the gospel, history & doctrine:

– some of us can resolve our problems & stay in the church.

– some cannot & will move on without the church.

– some will get angry & remain angry.

In the end, I believe God understands & is compassionate.

There isn’t always simple solutions to complicated problems, questions & issues that confront us.

I wonder: why doesn’t the Church have a site similar to StayLDS.com?

I’m sure they don’t want to look like they promote or encourage questions, doubts or controversy.

I like a site like this that has clearly stated Mission Statement, Rules of Etiquette, Statement against Political Posts &

monitored. I would miss is site if it went away.

[Anonymous]

AmyJ wrote:

I agree with Nibbler.

I have pulled away sometimes because “my faith transition stabilized” and I don’t necessarily have anything new to say.

I keep coming back at random times.

This describes me above. I have reached an equilibrium with my faith and the church. And I don’t have a lot of new ideas to contribute either.

There was a time when I was on this site for a couple of hours every day I visited, often several days a week. But I have worked through my faith issues and have reached an equilibrium. My kids are all grown up and have decided not to engage with the church. My wife goes, but doesn’t really pressure me to go to church.

This isn’t to say that I haven’t had inklings of returning to church now and then though, and I may do so in the future.

I would be sad if this goes away, however. I think it does a lot of good, and it provided a community you can’t get anywhere else. Someone said they wonder why the church doesn’t have a site like this. The answer — there would be no tolerance for the diversity of thought that is accepted here. It would be threaded with traditional beliefs that no longer work for people.

The good news is that with lower participation, is lower volunteer leadership “burden”. Fewer needs to moderate, fewer needs to participate to keep threads alive, fewer needs to welcome newcomers. Probably less maintenance.

I hope we can do what is necessary as my own faith equilibrium gets knocked off center now and then, and I need the thoughtful opinions of others here.

SD

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I wonder: why doesn’t the Church have a site similar to StayLDS.com?

The church would never. It would be very difficult to control and flamers would likely come out of the woodwork. The questions might be innocent enough but the answers would either be Pollyanna and apologetic or too blunt and potentially hurt the faith of many. I think the closest that the church comes to having a site like StayLDS is the relationship that the church has with the Neal A. Maxwell institute and FARMS.

[Anonymous]

I’ll be sad when StayLDS goes away. It’s been a big help to me since I joined years ago when in the middle of my faith crisis. I haven’t been very active on this site recently since it’s been a while since I went to church and many of the happenings in Mormondom no longer directly impact me. Though I will admit to casually scrolling through Reddit to keep up-to-date with some of the current events in Mormonism. Not entirely sure why, maybe I just want to feel a little connected to what was once a major part of my life.

I do think independent forums like this one are pretty much all going away as everyone now uses Reddit and Twitter. Though I feel like those larger sites having so many users makes it impossible to have any sort of real conversation or back-and-forth discussion. Other than this forum I am on two other internet forums. One is a fan forum for a band that is no longer active, that one is pretty much dead and seems to have been overrun with spam bots recently. The other one is dedicated to a niche hobby and is surprisingly active, with thousands of active users and at least several dozen posts per day.

With places like StayLDS winding down, I’m afraid it will be continuing a trend that has seen places with genuine conversation and support disappear in favor of bigger social media sites, where it feels like people post and comment but rarely discuss.

[Anonymous]

I see whatever is best for us and for people who find us.

I have no idea what that will be, but I am at peace with whatever it will be.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Minyan Man wrote:

I wonder: why doesn’t the Church have a site similar to StayLDS.com?

The church would never. It would be very difficult to control and flamers would likely come out of the woodwork. The questions might be innocent enough but the answers would either be Pollyanna and apologetic or too blunt and potentially hurt the faith of many. I think the closest that the church comes to having a site like StayLDS is the relationship that the church has with the Neal A. Maxwell institute and FARMS.

I have been thinking about Roy’s post. You said the church would never have a site like this because it would be difficult for them to control…

IMO, they can’t control the members that are currently leaving the church. At the very least, they would have a clear idea why they are leaving.

Or, what the current issues that members are dealing with in their lives. Or, the struggles they have with doctrine, etc.

They can still control the flamers by exactly how the Administrators are doing it here. I’m sure there are a lot of things going on behind the

scenes that the average participant isn’t aware of here. For me, there could be a big advantage for the church in knowing what members

anonymously think, feel and deal with on a regular basis. My 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

Roy wrote:

Minyan Man wrote:

I wonder: why doesn’t the Church have a site similar to StayLDS.com?

The church would never. It would be very difficult to control and flamers would likely come out of the woodwork. The questions might be innocent enough but the answers would either be Pollyanna and apologetic or too blunt and potentially hurt the faith of many. I think the closest that the church comes to having a site like StayLDS is the relationship that the church has with the Neal A. Maxwell institute and FARMS.

I have been thinking about Roy’s post. You said the church would never have a site like this because it would be difficult for them to control…

IMO, they can’t control the members that are currently leaving the church.

On some level, I suspect that the leaders assume that the choice is between “members leaving [who are fickle by definition]” and “doctrinal truths as understood by the leaders [which is by definition “eternal” and “accurate”]. Members are leaving because a) they have information that leads them to believe that they will get a better experience elsewhere with their time/talents/energy, and/or b) there is concrete pain (and in some cases trauma) that that staying affiliated with the church creates.

Minyan Man wrote:

At the very least, they would have a clear idea why they are leaving.

Or, what the current issues that members are dealing with in their lives. Or, the struggles they have with doctrine, etc.

I don’t think that the church leadership honestly wants to know why members are leaving. It’s far easier to write them off as “misguided feminists and intellectuals” than changing the organizational culture that creates hedge laws around doctrine and truths from God. Also, the church organization has sloughed people off before and still survived mostly intact – why vary from that strategy when the church organization has survived well enough that way?

Minyan Man wrote:

They can still control the flamers by exactly how the Administrators are doing it here. I’m sure there are a lot of things going on behind the

scenes that the average participant isn’t aware of here. For me, there could be a big advantage for the church in knowing what members

anonymously think, feel and deal with on a regular basis. My 2 cents.

There are individuals within the church organization who do want to know what members think, and why members are leaving (and/or reducing their participation levels). But since that information isn’t going to drastically change church doctrine, church decisions, or really anything – it becomes worthless to invest in as a short-term investment.

The church organization is here to a) survive, and b) “be the most right of right” – they are less interested in “getting it right” for marginalized populations, or for anyone else who wants to figure out the questions to ask, not to be fed answers.

[Anonymous]

I think church leaders calling the shots aren’t ready for those types of conversations. That’s really at the heart of it.

Taking it piece by piece…

Minyan Man wrote:

they can’t control the members that are currently leaving the church

Leaders are in a difficult position, I imagine they don’t want to make changes that will upset the more orthodox members but they also recognize the need for change to retain rising generations. It’s a balance.

Not going to lie, I feel like I’m in a demographic that church leaders have simply written off. Perhaps leaders are fine with experiencing acceptable losses as they move through a transitionary period. Perhaps leaders know that they can’t control members that have left the church or are on the fence. Perhaps they’re happy to see us go. I’m sure they aren’t but that’s how it comes across.

Minyan Man wrote:

At the very least, they would have a clear idea why they are leaving.

I think leaders believe they know the issues and believe that they’re listening. That’s not the same as knowing the issues and actually listening. The first hurdle is being open to feedback. The second hurdle is that by the time they receive the feedback it’s been filtered through multiple people that like to put positive spins on everything. The third hurdle is the lens through which they interpret things. Someone listening can walk away with something that’s totally different than the thing the speaker wished to communicate. I’m sure there are other hurdles but these seem especially relevant.

I think those hurdles are there for anyone seeking to understand another person’s perspective, not just church leaders. I’d also point out that just because we’ve cleared hurdles on one subject doesn’t mean we’ve cleared hurdles on another subject.

We’ve recently talked about two examples on this site, one where it appears they’re listening (cleared a hurdle) and another where they appear to be doubling down (tripped on a hurdle).

Doubling down: Garments. Many members have medical issues with the garment, other members want to take a more relaxed and nuanced approach to wearing the garment. Leaders obviously got wind of this because they gave two talks during general conference and also changed the temple recommend interview questions where they appeared to close loopholes that they felt some people were taking advantage of.

Listening: Temple changes. There have been criticisms related to the inequality between sexes. The endowment has changed twice in the last five years to address that very issue. In my opinion, that’s no small thing. Temple ordinances are a sacred cow, the fact that they changed it is a pretty big deal.

[Anonymous]

I broke my post into two because I was rambling a bit and worried that I was going off subject. Some additional thoughts…

There’s another large hurdle, it’s a part of the human condition and it made an appearance on the Simpsons.

[attachment=0]skinner.jpg[/attachment]

Believing you’re the gatekeeper to doctrinal purity leads to a lot of that happening in the church. We start from a default position of the church being right and any issues are the results of members not being faithful enough with participation in programs, acceptance of doctrines, etc. Unfortunately a byproduct of that is that there’s not a whole lot of listening going on.

Minyan Man wrote:

Or, what the current issues that members are dealing with in their lives.

That’s a really big issue. It’s so hard to get outside our bubble, that goes for anyone. All I have to go on are the subjects that get brought up during general conference and I find somewhere between 95-100% of general conference completely irrelevant to my life.

It’s like the anecdotal stories about people in a faith crisis that approach their bishop and their bishop recommends that they read scriptures more and pray more. That’s how general conference feels. This most recent conference was all temples and covenants. Just like the well meaning bishop with the member experiencing a faith crisis, leaders probably feel like temples and mentioning covenants are the solution to every ill in life. Neither feed me spiritually but I’m probably not their target audience.

When all you have is a hammer (temple and covenants), everything looks like a nail.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think church leaders calling the shots aren’t ready for those types of conversations. That’s really at the heart of it.

I agree.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my father about some of my siblings that I felt “weren’t getting on with their lives” and finding salaried employment. My father chastised me pretty thoroughly because I wasn’t aware of how much the employment landscape had changed – to the point where some of the opportunities that I lucked into just didn’t exist for my siblings. I was ready for that conversation and accepted the new information (and stopped judging them about it), and I have never forgotten that lesson.

There are a lot of hard conversations to be had out there about how combining “gender” and “authority” sets unrealistic expectations on marginalized populations (de-powering men, not extending power to women, etc.).

There are conversations to be had about how “unrighteous dominion” is more then just “wrong choices” – but can look like trauma, religious trauma, communal trauma, entitlement, and narcissism and creates an “us vs them” mentality.

nibbler wrote:

Leaders are in a difficult position, I imagine they don’t want to make changes that will upset the more orthodox members but they also recognize the need for change to retain rising generations. It’s a balance.

Not going to lie, I feel like I’m in a demographic that church leaders have simply written off. Perhaps leaders are fine with experiencing acceptable losses as they move through a transitionary period. Perhaps leaders know that they can’t control members that have left the church or are on the fence. Perhaps they’re happy to see us go. I’m sure they aren’t but that’s how it comes across.

I feel the same. Though it is debatable whether I wrote them off first.

I am pretty sure that the male leaders that I made uncomfortable are happier without me at church. I am pretty sure that individuals who wanted me to fit the template (not lead, walk up to brethren to introduce myself and state my purpose, etc.) are more comfortable at church because I am not there providing an accidental distraction.

nibbler wrote:

Minyan Man wrote:

At the very least, they would have a clear idea why they are leaving.

I think leaders believe they know the issues and believe that they’re listening. That’s not the same as knowing the issues and actually listening. The first hurdle is being open to feedback. The second hurdle is that by the time they receive the feedback it’s been filtered through multiple people that like to put positive spins on everything. The third hurdle is the lens through which they interpret things. Someone listening can walk away with something that’s totally different than the thing the speaker wished to communicate. I’m sure there are other hurdles but these seem especially relevant.

I agree. I have conversations with my teenager now that remind me of this. I am “open to feedback” from my teenager – except when they are trying to verbally assassinate me/verbally manipulate me. And yes, my teenager reports that I “put positive spins on everything” – I have a different set of hormones and a different set of experiences that inform me about the scope of the teenager’s concern. I know that I walk away with an entirely different understanding then my teenager does – and I am learning how to listen to them better.

nibbler wrote:

I think those hurdles are there for anyone seeking to understand another person’s perspective, not just church leaders. I’d also point out that just because we’ve cleared hurdles on one subject doesn’t mean we’ve cleared hurdles on another subject.

We’ve recently talked about two examples on this site, one where it appears they’re listening (cleared a hurdle) and another where they appear to be doubling down (tripped on a hurdle).

Doubling down: Garments. Many members have medical issues with the garment, other members want to take a more relaxed and nuanced approach to wearing the garment. Leaders obviously got wind of this because they gave two talks during general conference and also changed the temple recommend interview questions where they appeared to close loopholes that they felt some people were taking advantage of.

Listening: Temple changes. There have been criticisms related to the inequality between sexes. The endowment has changed twice in the last five years to address that very issue. In my opinion, that’s no small thing. Temple ordinances are a sacred cow, the fact that they changed it is a pretty big deal.

The changes to the endowment session the sealing language awhile back generated mixed emotions for me. On the one hand, yay for reducing ceremonial inequality in the rites, rituals, and covenants. On the other hand, those changes combined with my personal phase in life have made me question “what I signed up for” when I got married. I don’t even have the right questions to ask (myself and others), let alone the opportunity for the “right answers” for myself or for the state or the church members.

[Author]

Posts