[startpoor]

So, I had the unfortunate luck of having a spouse who spilled the beans for me, to my parents. My dad’s reaction was to immediately badmouth the internet, other religions, etc without asking me what my specific problems were. My mom’s reaction was to lose sleep, cry, and blame herself. It was painful, but I focused on what I still believed and took seriously, and tried to calm their concerns about me leaving the church and my eternal welfare in the dust. Not to mention screwing up my family. Things have gotten better. I wouldn’t rush to tell them, and when/if you do, the pain won’t last forever; people can be surprisingly resilient.

[startpoor]

Roy wrote:

This is somewhat of my niche as far as my pet area of interist and study.

In both my personal experience and my studies, I am intrigued at the limitations of “choice” during extreme trauma. Your body seems to be equipped with subconscious response mechanisms. Even the initial state of shock is a protective mechanism that prevents the individual from being too overwhelmed with the new information all at once. Although there are some general patterns there is also great diversity in how these quasi-involuntary responses manifest. Most of these responses are considered normal and the individual would be advised to “go with” the response.

Do you mean that to fight the initial shock response (keep an open mind) is somehow damaging/harmful for the person recieving the new information?

Roy wrote:

I feel like the concept of an “assumptive world collapse” applied well to me. In an assumptive world collapse as well as with grieving in general there are some healthy choices to be made, but there is also wisdom in listening to your body and your heart and not trying to force things.

I see what you mean as far as grieving goes. And when the bottom falls out of one’s world, that could naturally lead to grief and pain. But this seems to perpetuate the idea that denial and close-mindedness are things to be embraced for our very well-being.

Roy wrote:

I recently read a quote from Elder Holland:

Quote:

In his address to Christian leaders, Elder Holland acknowledged the “risk associated with learning something new….. New insights always affect old perspectives, and thus some rethinking, rearranging, and restructuring of our worldviews is inevitable.”

This is true and I am overjoyed that he said it. But he also seems to be describing the type of minor imperceptible changes that happen organically and daily and that do not threaten the structure/foundation of the worldview itself.

Sometimes something happens that is so powerful as to callenge all previous assumptions.

As spokesmen for a particular brand of assumptive reality it is somewhat the job of Mormon church leaders to suggest that some assumptions should NEVER be challenged. I’m ok with that, I’m just somehwat aware that my experiences place me somwhat outside of the boundaries of their worldview.

I guess I can’t help but disagree with this. If the leadership tries its hardest to ensure that its members aren’t questioning its assumptions, isn’t that playing off the innate human self interest of denying that which challenges our worldview?

[startpoor]

SamBee wrote:

Oh dear! Don’t the RLDS/CoC have their own series of Joseph Smiths too?

I know of JS III, perhaps there’s more?

[startpoor]

SamBee wrote:

A tip for you. In EQ we now put the chairs in a circle or split into groups, this is much better than rows behind rows in my experience.

Well, we hold EQ in the chapel so… 🙂

And there is a nice brother who sits in the front row asleep for the lesson.

[startpoor]

nibbler wrote:

Ok, I admit I’m a bit curious… how did that subject come up in primary? 🙂 I joined the church later in life so I missed out on primary and YM, is church history a subject that is taught to some of the older primary students?

Hehe, yeah, we taught church history all this year. My group was 10 and 11 and very bright. To be honest, there wasn’t much in the manual that I had a problem with, except the perpetuation of myths surrounding our persecution.

nibbler wrote:

Good luck with teaching out of the new manual. I took a quick peek at it online, skimming the chapter headings. Some look like they would provide a good forum for people in our position: [list]

[startpoor]

Though kids are unpredictable, I don’t think faithful, active living vs. inactive living is the whole issue. You help your daughter understand the outcomes of her decisions without bias and grant her the responsibility to decide fore herself. Your friend sounds like he never trusted them to make those decisions.

My house was a mix of both. Going to church was never an option, but certain things were, like going to events on Sundays. My dad would tell me it was my decision, but not in a flippant way. We both knew what was riding on the result. I think no matter if your kids are active or not, you are succeeding in teaching them to make well thought out decisions. Some kids still won’t respond to that, but hey, parents can only do so much.

[startpoor]

GBSmith wrote:

richdunn wrote:

Does anybody know who the next manual is going to be about?

Joseph Fielding Smith, a person who saw nuance in the gospel.

Ah, I get him and Joseph F. Smith mixed up a lot. Didn’t Fielding write the origins of man book and start the church correlation program?

[startpoor]

nibbler wrote:

I asked those sorts of questions all the time, though I’d soften them up a bit. That particular one never came up but maybe I would have first played up the sentiment that it was 100% natural to have a faith crisis and then ask… can you imagine if you lost a child and how difficult that would be? How could we survive that event without becoming embittered? How could we turn an event like that into an experience that built us up as opposed to one that tore us down? What direction would we take going into the future? How difficult of a path would that be? etc. I realize that this isn’t the same line of questioning but my experience is that it generated some good discussion. I wouldn’t even get into the expectations of people external to the life shattering event looking in to judge the person that was going through it. Maybe my goal would have been to ask questions that are aimed at putting everyone in the shoes of the person going through the life altering event to hopefully make them less likely to judge…

I like that line of questioning much better than what I used. Way better to get people in the shoes of others. That must have been an interesting experience teaching during a faith crisis. I feel like when just starting out, before refining one’s approach ie, via talking to people at staylds, we tend to make embarrassing mistakes. I taught primary during my crisis, and I kept teaching the kids that the church had a lot of responsibility for its persecution, and at one point I told them it wasn’t known whether or not JS ordered the attempted assassination of Gov. Boggs, rather than outright denying it.

nibbler wrote:

I don’t see myself as a good teacher, I have difficulties in communicating thoughts, but I often got positive feedback from people in the quorum… but it was a very nice, intelligent and humble group. Besides, people always say “that was a good lesson” if nothing more than to be polite. I really did take every opportunity that I had to teach them as an opportunity to ask a question related to something I wanted to learn about the subject at hand. I’d ask the questions and draw on the experiences of the quorum to learn new things. It was my little secret, looking back I guess that was a bit selfish of me but it did generate discussion.

I don’t see anything wrong with that. Selfish or not, at least you put thought into it, and gave them a different experience. I think most people want to learn more of the nitty gritty. I recently heard an active member in my extended family say “I don’t care about polyandry or treasure digging, I just want people to teach the real history” or something to that effect. I think she had just read Rough Stone Rolling, or attended a Bushman lecture.

nibbler wrote:

The Teaching of Presidents of the Church manuals are an interesting thing… They got introduced at the very trail end of my mission. People didn’t know how to teach out of them then and they don’t know how to teach out of them now. The overwhelming majority of lessons I’ve sat in on that have come out of that manual have been simple start reading from the beginning of the manual with an occasional pause to ask “In your own words, what is President _____ saying?”

When teaching out of ToPotC manuals I’ve tried to find a quote or two out of the manual to share and just teach the principles from other sources like scriptures, history (world or church, positive or negative examples), etc. Hard manuals to teach lessons out of.

That’s the approach I’m trying to take. I thought at one point about teaching an uncorrelated history of the teachings of these prophets, but I soon ceased to see the helpfulness of that. It would be interesting though.

[startpoor]

Jodi,

Thanks for sharing. I just joined this site and am so glad to be among people with an equal purpose. I feel for your pain. I think that, like some here, most of what makes up the church today is man-made, and therefore imaginary. Some bits have been inspired by god or by inner human goodness or wisdom. I think some of the issues women face in the church are rooted deeply is some of our most basic myths and teachings, and in order to get past those, we need to acknowledge the workings of men in the church. This has helped me heal some wounds I didn’t realize I had. Or if I had them, I shrugged them off as the carnal, evil side of me, that needed to be fixed. Now I feel free to love as I wish, to worship as I wish. I also let myself pray to a heavenly mother sometimes, because I get a different feeling when I do, and it’s good and full of love. I’m not trying to offer up an easy fix for you, just take it slow, meditate, get professional help if you need it, and find understanding people to talk to (like many of the wonderful people here.)

-Rich

[startpoor]

DarkJedi wrote:

richdunn wrote:

@Darkjedi–Thanks for your thoughts, and no offense taken whatsoever! The challenge I’m facing in my new calling has made me transition from a position of secretly having different beliefs to a position of putting those to the test by seeing members in a new way, getting to know them better, trying not to be an outsider. (for the last several years, I have hopped from ward to ward and been put in primary, so I was hidden pretty well.) I’m now having to articulate myself, while being careful to be fair, accurate, and keep my integrity. When you give your warning to not try to indoctrinate people with my way of thinking, do you also mean to withhold relevant factual information that may have been correlated out of the lesson? I’m not trying to debate, just want to talk about it (I’ve not had this conversation with anyone yet.)

Today I read this article and it empowered me somewhat: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/11/on-giving-a-sacrament-meeting-talk-about-official-declaration-two/

Thoughts?

I hope I didn’t misinterpret what your were trying to say in the first place, my apologies if I did. Indeed I have also come to the point of seeing members in a different way and I’ve learned to listen to what others are actually saying in a church setting – and what they’re not saying. I’m all for honesty, especially to oneself. I also have little problem pointing out facts as opposed to the myriad Mormon myths, but there are appropriate times and ways to do so; sometimes the setting just doesn’t allow it or it would be contentious to do so. I do it all the time with my family, but at church or with home teachers or whatever sometimes I don’t, depending on the situation. It’s because I agree with what Ray says (contention, not hiding things yet leaving things out others might feel should be shared) and partly just because those individuals just aren’t ready to hear it or don’t want to hear it. This is different from my role as a professional teacher where I don’t hesitate to point out inaccuracies with the Thanksgiving story (for example) because sometimes dispelling Mormon myths really can affect the faith and testimonies of others. I’m not saying I teach from the manual word for word, that’s not my lesson style (mine are much more discussion oriented with me moderating and prompting as necessary), but I don’t necessarily see it as my role to point out each and every inaccuracy or difference in belief; fact is, I could be wrong, too.

And by all means, I’m more than willing to discuss this further as I’m sure others are. One of the things I love about this site is that we can have a civil open discussion about things we probably can’t discuss anywhere else or with anyone else.

DJ and Ray, thanks for the replies. I agree that truth telling is a tricky business. I had a discussion with my institute instructor about this subject. I let him know I was going through a faith transition and that I had been studying history from trustworthy sources which had pretty much rocked my world. I told him I was troubled that historical fact was being portrayed more accurately on South Park than in CES. He responded very kindly, saying that it is being discussed, and that many in CES want to be more open. He also told me he would bring this up with the class. Well, when he did, I learned what I was really up against. He told everyone that this was a safe place to talk about anything that was troubling them, then talked about how to keep your testimony by admitting you don’t know the answers to things, but holding on to what you do know. He then asked if anyone had any questions. One person asked about church policy on something trivial, and the rest were silent. He really didn’t create an open space at all. When I asked him (in front of his boss) if CES was moving in a more open direction, he said no, that some things like Mountain Meadows, for example, would make no sense to someone in Japan, but would be taught in the area near where it happened.

I could start a whole post on my institute class, but what it really is for me, is a source of determination that I need to be responsible for change in a positive way, at least as how I see it. I think the church is on shaky grounds, and I want to help people out. Not give them the red pill, but help arm them. At least I want to give them the truth while respecting their agency to choose for themselves what they want to know. I’m sure some of you have been teaching in a capacity much longer than I. To those, I ask, do you feel positive about how things have gone? Has anybody thanked you, argued with you, or are most people indifferent?

[startpoor]

Ann wrote:

richdunn wrote:

Things were going fine, and my wife was being very supportive until I decided to visit a Community of Christ Sunday school so I could talk openly about the church’s history from an academic perspective. My parents soon found out about this, and that has been the straw that broke the camel’s back. My marriage is now under a lot of strain while I attempt to reassure her that things will be okay. She feels betrayed and angry, and I understand her pain. I have “broken the deal.” She wants to be able to talk about faithful aspects of the church, and gets frustrated with me when I can’t.

Hi, richdunn – Glad you’re here. I’m looking forward to hearing about how things go in your calling. If you’re willing/able to share, I am wondering what kind of “deal” you have with your wife. I hope that talking here takes some of the strain off your marriage.

Ann,

The deal I had, that went unspoken, was that I was a priesthood holder first and foremost, who would lead the family in righteousness according to the dictates of the church and the inspiration we received together. My usual counter to this is that the church didn’t hold up its end of the deal, or that I am still a temple holder and am keeping my covenants. Except, as is often pointed out, the instruction to not speak evil of the Lord’s anointed. Well, she has me there

It’s funny how I always thought that she was the liberal one in the marriage until I went through this transition. She was stung by prop 8, and had to convince a gay friend at work that she did not believe their respective relationships were either superior or inferior to each other’s. Now I’m receiving push back, and she is digging in her heals, both of us retreating further into our own camps. We did have a good moment last night. I drove her to the temple, and she had a wonderful experience there. A member from our new ward who doesn’t know anything about her, held her hand during the ceremony and gave her reassurance. I think things have the potential to be very good for us, but I am still shocked when she tells me she has to leave.

[startpoor]

@Darkjedi–Thanks for your thoughts, and no offense taken whatsoever! The challenge I’m facing in my new calling has made me transition from a position of secretly having different beliefs to a position of putting those to the test by seeing members in a new way, getting to know them better, trying not to be an outsider. (for the last several years, I have hopped from ward to ward and been put in primary, so I was hidden pretty well.) I’m now having to articulate myself, while being careful to be fair, accurate, and keep my integrity. When you give your warning to not try to indoctrinate people with my way of thinking, do you also mean to withhold relevant factual information that may have been correlated out of the lesson? I’m not trying to debate, just want to talk about it (I’ve not had this conversation with anyone yet.)

Today I read this article and it empowered me somewhat: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/11/on-giving-a-sacrament-meeting-talk-about-official-declaration-two/

Thoughts?

[Author]

Posts