NOM

I should have guessed that my conversation with my Bishop wouldn't stay in-house so to speak.

Over the last few days the Stake RS President came to visit my wife to bring a meal (because she just had a baby), a very nice, thoughtful thing to do, and then also proceeded to ask her about her testimony and let her know that we are on the Stake Prayer role (I didn't know there was such a thing). Then sent a follow-up email reminding DW to cling to her covenants.

The Stake President called me yesterday and asked if I would be interested in a visit from a 70 who would be visiting for Stake Conference. I politely declined, we chit chatted a bit. He's a very nice guy. So I guess word has gotten out. I asked the SP if my bishop had shared our conversations, and he said a little bit but not any details (I'm not sure if I buy it, but whatever).

On another note, I have found a good group of other Mormonish misfits, and there were six of us at our Apostate lunch yesterday as we discussed the impending decision of my bishop about blessing our baby. It is nice to have a support group of interesting and like-minded people while dealing with some of the Mormon crazy, though it's nice that the people seem to care and I believe it's all coming from true concern, as misguided as it may be.

A support group you can meet with to vent, laugh, and strategize with is invaluable. I recommend everyone find like minded people. Who knows, maybe you'll even find people in your same stake. Turning down the 70 was a good move. I know someone who met with a 70 and he confirmed the issues, suggested the church was still the best option on the planet, and pretty much dismissed their concerns with very little help and a lot of apathy.

Congrats on the baby!

Thanks RR!

Yeah, I know the meeting won't be helpful for either side so I just don't see the point. I'm not a doubter with questions, I'm a non-believer who knows the LDS church doesn't work for me specifically. Not much you can do with that.

Sometimes these posts made me feel embarrassed. I know I handed out a lot of cookies because leadership asked us to focus on a particular family. Sometimes it was really sincere and genuine - people I cared about. And it went beyond cookies. Other times it was really just an assignment and what you did in the church. I cringe about it now.

Red Ryder™ wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:51 am A support group you can meet with to vent, laugh, and strategize with is invaluable. I recommend everyone find like minded people. Who knows, maybe you'll even find people in your same stake. Turning down the 70 was a good move. I know someone who met with a 70 and he confirmed the issues, suggested the church was still the best option on the planet, and pretty much dismissed their concerns with very little help and a lot of apathy.

Congrats on the baby!

Is this the new strategy? To start delegating sticky situations up the food chain?

Congratulations on the new baby!

Yes - you are on the radar (so sorry!). It's possible that the bishop simply forwarded your name(s) following a request for wards to submit suggestions of who could be honored by being visited by the touring dignitary. Often, they just use code words, like "struggling." So nice to know we are labeled. Shortly before I resigned, I got a call asking if the SP and visiting bigwig could meet with me in my home (no way!). I said I'd be willing to meet with them in the chapel, and I actually thought it would be rather interesting to have a showdown with the 70. But my calendar was full that weekend, so it didn't happen. But a friend of mine got the same invitation & the 70 ended up bragging about himself the entire time. So, you did good to decline.

foolmeonce wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2017 12:06 pmIs this the new strategy? To start delegating sticky situations up the food chain?

It's not real new, but it is definitely a strategy. Somehow, the church believes members are all starry-eyed when it comes to GAs, since so much of the church is built on adulation directed at the humans at the top. So it is very common for stake leaders to assemble a list of names (forwarded by wards) of people they could visit while Hizzoner is in town. It's supposed to inspire people to stay in the boat - I don't think it's meant to be a browbeating session. Still, though, it's contrived and, IMO, onerous.

Everyone repeat after me: cult of personality,

I'm going out on a limb here, but I presume most people experience a faith crisis know about the CES letter. Since no 70 would help answer Jeremy's questions, why would any other leader? The only advice ever given is pray, pay, and read the BoM. That will fix everything.

2bizE wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:36 pm I'm going out on a limb here, but I presume most people experience a faith crisis know about the CES letter. Since no 70 would help answer Jeremy's questions, why would any other leader? The only advice ever given is pray, pay, and read the BoM. That will fix everything.

Faith Crises come in lots of stripes, so not sure how many are affected or know about the CES Letter.

I agree with your overall point, all church leaders have to fall back on is testimony, which to me is a series of illogical and unprovable epistemological claims. It won't work for me, and I have no interest in trying to change anyone's mind.

I was tempted though to tell the SP, I'll let you guys visit on one condition, without doing any research tell me who wrote the gospels in the NT and when. I bet 95% of most Mormons have no idea what the answer to this question is, and if not, then there is absolutely no point in having a religious, doctrinal, or theological discussion. If someone doesn't know the basics of their own revered scripture, I'm not sure what they can offer in way of discussion other than an appeal to authority, which I personally have no interest in.

Brent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:48 pm Everyone repeat after me: cult of personality,

I think this is spot on. What I have found very strange is that my Stake President, a very nice, kind successful guy, somehow pays deference to some guy that I don't even know, as if by him merely being a 70, he brings some additional light and knowledge and revelation.

Same with my Bishop, and nice successful guy, good dad and husband, somehow things this 70 has more access to God or revelation or something than he does. I know its part of the indoctrination to believe that, but looking from the outside in now, all I can see is that the 70 has been a bureaucrat longer and is totally willing to sacrifice his weekends with his family to travel around for church stuff, as if that qualifies someone for more spiritual experience points.

It's so bizarre to me now.

I'm going to throw this out there.

I've read more and more stories like this, where leadership is reaching out to the individual. When I went through my crisis of faith, most people had similar stories to mine. Leadership pushed them to the side and treated them like a plague that will infect the general membership. I have read countless posts on the old NOM board that essentially said, "What about leaving the 99 sheep for the 1?"

It seems like the church is making some changes in this regard. I'm seeing less stories about the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and higher levels of leadership reaching out to struggling members. There have been a few on here where 70s have been offered to help the individual, and that more stake presidents are getting involved.

If this is indeed the case, I applaud the LDS church for their move in this regard. While I personally don't think that a 70 or a Stake President is able to resolve the issues any better than an average member or a bishop, it does show that they are taking the individual seriously. They are taking time to get the "big guns" involved with single members. Good for them.

document wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:07 am I'm going to throw this out there.

I've read more and more stories like this, where leadership is reaching out to the individual. When I went through my crisis of faith, most people had similar stories to mine. Leadership pushed them to the side and treated them like a plague that will infect the general membership. I have read countless posts on the old NOM board that essentially said, "What about leaving the 99 sheep for the 1?"

It seems like the church is making some changes in this regard. I'm seeing less stories about the "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and higher levels of leadership reaching out to struggling members. There have been a few on here where 70s have been offered to help the individual, and that more stake presidents are getting involved.

If this is indeed the case, I applaud the LDS church for their move in this regard. While I personally don't think that a 70 or a Stake President is able to resolve the issues any better than an average member or a bishop, it does show that they are taking the individual seriously. They are taking time to get the "big guns" involved with single members. Good for them.

Agreed that it's not bad thing. Though I think I am a bit of a special case as I was on the High Council and friends with the Stake President. I went from HC to basically inactive, and I'm sure it's a sticking point to some people.

Not all my friends in the stake that have left have received the same treatment.

Brent wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2017 5:48 pm Everyone repeat after me: cult of personality,

{zombie-eyed, robot-like voice] "cult of personality"