NOM

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:57 am I wouldn't take this meeting seriously. What you probably have is a member of the presidency who fancies themselves a Mormon scholar and apologist who's read a couple of books put out by Deseret. You'll get some meandering answers, no follow up questions allowed, and a couple of one liners meant to shut down conversation.

You won't get much from the meeting, but the presidency will be able to identify "problems" in the stake, and the faithful members will come away with a stronger testimony knowing that their leaders were able to silence some Zeezorams in their midst.

This has been my cynical take on it. That the answers will not be decent answers, that anyone who asks questions they can't answer will be noted as an apostate trying to still up trouble, and that the leaders and TBMs will all congratulate themselves on having put the doubters in their place.

But, I guess this week is one of my more nasty and cynical.

Next week I will probably see that meetings like this with the bad answers will tip a few people who are on the fence with doubt, into doing more research and eventually getting out.

I do understand the need to be able to say that you did ask and try to get answers, and the hope of sparking doubt in a few more people, and I really do understand the hope that maybe this time there will be better answers than the usual half a**ed ones. I looked for decent answers for a long time, even after I was pretty sure it was all crock.

And I really like the idea of giving people the idea that they can think for themselves. I know too many people who are into the church so deeply that they can even begin to use the brains God (or evolution) gave them. I guess I was never in so deep that I didn't have a big shelf, but I remember discussions back in the late 60s & 70s about how I thought black's should have priesthood and temple blessings, and people who swore it was not ever supposed to happen because prophet/God said so. Somehow, I trusted my own conscience more than "authority."

Thanks for answering. It really did help.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:57 am I wouldn't take this meeting seriously. What you probably have is a member of the presidency who fancies themselves a Mormon scholar and apologist who's read a couple of books put out by Deseret. You'll get some meandering answers, no follow up questions allowed, and a couple of one liners meant to shut down conversation.

You won't get much from the meeting, but the presidency will be able to identify "problems" in the stake, and the faithful members will come away with a stronger testimony knowing that their leaders were able to silence some Zeezorams in their midst.

This was my impression exactly. We NOMs probably know far more about these issues than the people who will be giving the answers at this meeting. We know what the apologetic answers are and that they are mostly lame. This meeting will deliver watered-down versions of FAIR answers with a big helping of pray, read the BoM, pay your tithing, and trust the leaders becaue God will work everything out in the end.

The Swedish Rescue was an attempt to answer questions but it was also a tool to sniff out deserters. I would expect that the takeaway from this meeting will be that outspoken questioners will come away from it with nothing but a scarlet letter stamped on their forehead.

As much as I really love the idea of local leaders sincerely wanting to deal with the tough questions I find it almost impossible to believe. The correct answers are the only ones that will not, can not, be entertained. These men believe that people lose testimonies due to ignorance and sin and they think they can fix you with simple faith-promoting answers if you are humble enough to hear it. If you are not fixed by a couple of minutes of tap dancing then it will most likely be concluded that you have lost perspective due to pride and deceit.

This is my return and report after the meeting -

Turns out I am in an exceptional stake and the meeting was something I never thought I would witness. About 100 people piled into the relief society room and the stake president wrote on the board as we made a list of the historical/doctrinal/cultural issues we have with the church. People were very open about things that would get any one of us thrown out of Sunday school for mentioning - BOM historicity, book of Abraham, first vision, polygamy, gender issues, etc. Direct references were made to the ces letter and no one batted an eye. We chose a topic to discuss next time, and the SP told us all to go research from any source we could find and come prepared to discuss. There were no lame apologetics, calls to repentance of any kind, or outright dismissals. Only acknowledgement that meetings like this are long overdue.

Stats were cited by members and the president demonstrating that the church is losing 83% of its youth.

The stake presidency is to be commended for their courage. It doesn't sound like the higher-ups know though, so I am interested to see if these guys are allowed to stay in leadership while facilitating such open discussion.

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:44 am This is my return and report after the meeting -

Turns out I am in an exceptional stake and the meeting was something I never thought I would witness. About 100 people piled into the relief society room and the stake president wrote on the board as we made a list of the historical/doctrinal/cultural issues we have with the church. People were very open about things that would get any one of us thrown out of Sunday school for mentioning - BOM historicity, book of Abraham, first vision, polygamy, gender issues, etc. Direct references were made to the ces letter and no one batted an eye. We chose a topic to discuss next time, and the SP told us all to go research from any source we could find and come prepared to discuss. There were no lame apologetics, calls to repentance of any kind, or outright dismissals. Only acknowledgement that meetings like this are long overdue.

Stats were cited by members and the president demonstrating that the church is losing 83% of its youth.

The stake presidency is to be commended for their courage. It doesn't sound like the higher-ups know though, so I am interested to see if these guys are allowed to stay in leadership while facilitating such open discussion.

I'm impressed. I can't see this happening in my stake ever. Brave leader you have there.

Holy cow, that really happened? Wow! Thanks for the R&R!

Tells me that things are getting critical out there in Mormon land and some people in local leadership are beginning to face up to the realities. I see this as a good sign.

It also reminds me of that Stake President (was it in Washington state?) pre-1976 who ordained a black member to the priesthood and was immediately excommunicated.

I sincerely hope yours does better. He seems to have much more courage than the average sycophant.

Did anyone bring up the pain and damage that is caused to marriages when spouses have differences of opinion on these issues?

A meeting like this would be awesome, but mho is that it probably won’t change many people’s beliefs. Believers will continue to believe and doubters will continue to doubt.

This would be an ideal format however for leadership to first acknowledge and discuss that there are indeed real concerns and issues, but then to validate those who can’t recocile issues and remain buffet style Mormons.

The should tell couples that talking about these things is not taboo, and that spouses should be open and honest with each other, without fear of damage to their relationship.

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:44 am This is my return and report after the meeting -

That's amazing and I'm jealous. I would love to have been there with my wife. Do let us know of further events that proceed from this meeting.

Wow. Fascinating. I am really interested to see how/if the SP tackles all this without resorting to the classic apologetics. Even if he does resort to that I guess he is still to be commended for having a spine and using it.

interesting experiment. I'm wondering how many people from the meeting will go less active or go NOM. My feeling is that it is the right thing to do (open discussion) however, it will bring things to a head and hasten people distancing themselves from the church.

Once the pluralistic ignorance has been broken and the bond of conformity weakened, adherence to an LDS lifestyle is similarly considerably weakened.

I will return and report after the next meeting - it was agreed that we would prepare to discuss the first vision.

The SP said he didn't know how many people would show up and was setting up a half circle of chairs before the meeting. By the time we started we had a full room plus a few standing in the hall. The interesting thing is that these meetings going forward will not be led by any church leaders. The SP will be present, but whoever volunteers to lead a particular discussion will lead. It was decided that a man and a woman would co-lead the next meeting.

I don't think he even knows where this will end up, but he said he sees the need for this kind of discussion and we can use this as a pilot to see how things go. If it goes well (whatever that means) he said he would spread the idea to other stakes and 70s he is acquainted with. I am new to the stake, but he seems like a winner. He may very well be a NOM...or will be soon at least.

I also wonder how many unsuspecting members decided to attend because it sounded interesting and were blown away by the topics brought forward. I recon a handful of people have had a few rough nights since Sunday.

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:44 pm I will return and report after the next meeting - it was agreed that we would prepare to discuss the first vision.

The SP said he didn't know how many people would show up and was setting up a half circle of chairs before the meeting. By the time we started we had a full room plus a few standing in the hall. The interesting thing is that these meetings going forward will not be led by any church leaders. The SP will be present, but whoever volunteers to lead a particular discussion will lead. It was decided that a man and a woman would co-lead the next meeting.

I don't think he even knows where this will end up, but he said he sees the need for this kind of discussion and we can use this as a pilot to see how things go. If it goes well (whatever that means) he said he would spread the idea to other stakes and 70s he is acquainted with. I am new to the stake, but he seems like a winner. He may very well be a NOM...or will be soon at least.

I also wonder how many unsuspecting members decided to attend because it sounded interesting and were blown away by the topics brought forward. I recon a handful of people have had a few rough nights since Sunday.

This is amazing. Please keep reporting.

That is shocking that he will not retain control of the discussion. How far off in the weeds is willing to let it go? Theres gonna be some arguing thats for sure...

redjay wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:19 pmI'm wondering how many people from the meeting will go less active or go NOM. My feeling is that it is the right thing to do (open discussion) however, it will bring things to a head and hasten people distancing themselves from the church.

I'm not so sure this is true. People, including intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people, really can be exposed to this information and still remain 100% believers. They will be better informed, more nuanced, and they'll be more likely to think through their beliefs, though. Some may end up more confident and self righteous now that they know the "answers" to the hard criticisms. The Wheat and Tares blog claims that most members who read the essays, for instance, are satisfied with the explanations given.

Of course, there probably will be some for whom it begins a long dark night of the soul.

In recent months, there have been a number of bishops and other church leaders convicted of sexual abuse of children under their watch. Why does the church continue worthiness interviews in such a way that places our children at risk?

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:44 am It doesn't sound like the higher-ups know though, so I am interested to see if these guys are allowed to stay in leadership while facilitating such open discussion.

This must have sent the forum monitoring people at the Church Electronic Surveillance and Proselytizing Division into a Defcon level 2. I imagine they have already started into search and neutralize mode. Hope they do not succeed until the next return and report.

BriansThoughtMirror wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:09 pm

redjay wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:19 pmI'm wondering how many people from the meeting will go less active or go NOM. My feeling is that it is the right thing to do (open discussion) however, it will bring things to a head and hasten people distancing themselves from the church.

I'm not so sure this is true. People, including intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people, really can be exposed to this information and still remain 100% believers. They will be better informed, more nuanced, and they'll be more likely to think through their beliefs, though. Some may end up more confident and self righteous now that they know the "answers" to the hard criticisms. The Wheat and Tares blog claims that most members who read the essays, for instance, are satisfied with the explanations given.

Of course, there probably will be some for whom it begins a long dark night of the soul.

Yes, there are those that know warts n'all and still believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet - Bushman, Quinn come to mind. But it really will be interesting to discover what the fallout will be.

It is true that people can show tremendous cog-dis even when it becomes more supposedly apparent that their belief system is flawed, and they entrench more deeply, but I'm fascinated to see the role of openness. If I was to guess I would say that within 12 months 50% of the people there will be less active or NOM (lacking literal belief in the LDS church foundational truths as preached from the pulpit).

Let the chips fall where they may. I'm simply interested in the result.

BriansThoughtMirror wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:09 pm

redjay wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:19 pmI'm wondering how many people from the meeting will go less active or go NOM. My feeling is that it is the right thing to do (open discussion) however, it will bring things to a head and hasten people distancing themselves from the church.

I'm not so sure this is true. People, including intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people, really can be exposed to this information and still remain 100% believers. They will be better informed, more nuanced, and they'll be more likely to think through their beliefs, though. Some may end up more confident and self righteous now that they know the "answers" to the hard criticisms. The Wheat and Tares blog claims that most members who read the essays, for instance, are satisfied with the explanations given.

Of course, there probably will be some for whom it begins a long dark night of the soul.

Of course some people still believe in the church after learning more details, but in my experience, there are very few (if any) good answers to the issues. This will lead people away from orthodox belief towards NOMism or EXism when they realize that the issues are more real than they thought and there are no answers. People like Bushman and Givens maintain a very nuanced, non-conference inspired faith that is basically their own re-definition of Mormonism.

BriansThoughtMirror wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:09 pm I'm not so sure this is true. People, including intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people, really can be exposed to this information and still remain 100% believers. They will be better informed, more nuanced, and they'll be more likely to think through their beliefs, though. Some may end up more confident and self righteous now that they know the "answers" to the hard criticisms. The Wheat and Tares blog claims that most members who read the essays, for instance, are satisfied with the explanations given.

I don't know why this bugs me so much right now. I know some very smart people that know this stuff and yet remain TBM, and I think HOW!? Perhaps its the stage I am in. Maybe their nuance just gets deeper? I used a "wheat and tares" principle myself for a while when trying to stay TBM it went something like this "In order for God to support the agency we fought for in the PE, there must be enough evidence on both sides for us to make an unbiased choice, a choice we will be judged on in the afterlife." Now I can see how ridiculous that is, but at the time...

Perhaps the sp is on his out and wants to take peeps with him? Seems like an unusual move for the faithful