Recent Comments

  • ReTx on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “More inclusive…Mar 18, 22:50
  • ReTx on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “So what does “creating a problem” look like? This feels like a key question. I caused problems (and got pushback) by answering class questions that reflected my faith that was non-standard. I caused problems by gently, kindly correcting huge doctrinal/historical errors by ward members. The big one though that got me blacklisted from callings (or at least relegated to the library and classes of younger children) was insisting to my stake president that actually the temple ceremony could change to be not inclusive of women as there was a precedent for change. I’ve never once tried to influence someone out of the church. Part of inclusion to me is encouraging others in the path they are in of it works for them, including the lds orthodox path. In the last few years, I’ve shut my mouth entirely and faded into the background. Most people at church seem happier that way. I’m no longer causing problems because I’ve disengaged.Mar 18, 22:48
  • RLD on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “I’ve been reading this series (and the responses) with interest, but have to comment on this one to endorse “We want everyone at church. It doesn’t matter what people believe unless they are actively causing problems.” And I’ll add that we have procedures for identifying and dealing with those who are causing problems, and judges in Israel to carry them out. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to usurp that role does so at their peril–I’m pretty convinced that the sin after murder that Alma talked about was not sexual sin, but causing people to leave the Church. And I don’t think “But he didn’t believe the important things we believe” will be much of an excuse. I would include in that comments like “Then why are you here?” or anything else that makes people feel unwelcome. Dave, I’m glad you didn’t take that patriarch’s advice for both your sakes. Anna’s story makes me sad because I’m sure those are her honest perceptions and perceptions matter. I recognize some elements of it, and can imagine a ward where those elements predominate. That said, my experience is very different. For one thing, I’m in a ward where I doubt a teacher could tell the milk strippings story without someone pointing out that it’s dubious (but not definitively debunked) because contemporary records of Marsh’s excommunication don’t mention it and George A. Smith (not Brigham Young) only told it years later. But it was not a cover-up for polygamy given that it all happened in Missouri, and the full story of Marsh’s conflict with the Church would have been very familiar to the Saints at the time. (Anna, I think you might like my ward. We’d welcome you at any rate.) ReTx, I think we all struggle with the dialectic “God loves me as I am” and “God wants me to change.” I’m not surprised that your fellow ward members are reflecting that imperfectly (maybe very imperfectly) but I hope that both are more true than they’ve managed to communicate. I don’t doubt they’d prefer that you change by becoming more like them though–that’s human nature. PWS, if there’s one good thing about the Trump years, it’s that most conservative Church member have had to recognize the difference between right-wing politics and Church doctrine. Too many have put their politics first, but that happens on the left too. Even in the most ruby-red ward, not knowing if the person in the pew next to you is a MAGA enthusiast or a Never-Trumper is a pretty good deterrent to bringing up politics, and that’s all to the good.Mar 18, 22:24
  • E on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “I’m enjoying this series so far and looking forward to more. A few years ago while I was RSP one of the other ward leaders gave me a copy of “Bridges: Ministering to those who question” by David Ostler. A point made in the book is that most people who are in “faith crisis” really want to stay and need acceptance, validation, and support but are usually pushed out instead because other church members feel threatened by them or consider them unfaithful. Your “safe space” group sounds like exactly what the author was trying to promote.Mar 18, 20:51
  • Jonathan Green on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “Stephen, I think stating those two things at the outset – different but not better, the goal is to help people to stay – is really important. Thanks for reminding me. PWS, I’m not sure why you think I wouldn’t hear comments in the same way. I’d try to process them differently, of course. I try not to subject people’s testimony’s to too close of scrutiny because they’re unscripted and I’d rather have people speak from their hearts, even if the thoughts that come out aren’t perfectly polished. I’m sorry people said unkind things about your daughter. I’ve been in a position to provide feedback about an unspecified church event, and one piece of feedback was that adult leaders at the event should under no circumstances make disparaging political comments. When you say some people don’t want “people like me” at church, what do you mean? I can’t say that such people don’t exist, but in the most recent example I know, the one person who sincerely didn’t want someone at church was outnumbered by a dozen others (at least) who did and ended up moving to another state.Mar 18, 20:31
  • PWS on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “I am completely certain that, if asked, members of my ward would almost unanimously say that I am welcome at church. I am nearly as certain that a pretty large portion of those same people don’t actually want people LIKE me at church. I get that second message fairly often. Jonathan Green, part of the difference between your perception and Anna’s might be that you don’t hear the comments in the same way. I know that when I have asked others what they think of ward members bringing their politics into church discussions, most don’t remember that politics were part of the discussion. If you honestly think your politics actually are church doctrine, you won’t recognize that you are talking about politics. I once said something to a few people about a bishopric member’s testimony that we shouldn’t have questions because we already have all the answers, but no one I talked with even remembered that he had said it. I hosted a family home evening that ended up including very negative comments about gay members said by people looking at a photograph of my gay daughter. I’m sure those neighbors only thought they were expressing support for church doctrine, but that is not how the comments landed on me. “Not a problem for me” is not the same thing as “not a problem at all.”Mar 18, 19:29
  • Dave on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “When I was in the beginning stages of faith crisis / deconstruction, a previous stake president and then-current patriarch gave a sacrament talk in which he mentioned the new Gospel Topics Essays. I had read the essays, but hadn’t heard them discussed openly before. I approached this brother and asked if I could talk through some things and he agreed. We met the next week and I dumped way too much way too fast about things in church history that gave me grief. His response was, “Well, the church isn’t for everyone. Maybe you would be more comfortable elsewhere.” I inferred that he was afraid that I would spread my concerns to other ward members. I was just really confused that he brought up the controversial topics in sacrament meeting, but then signaled that he didn’t really want to see these things discussed. It is super important for me to have a place to discuss these tough topics while remaining “inside the club.” If this Safe Space meeting didn’t exist, I may have taken that patriarch’s advice by now and retired. I find validation that I have legitimate concerns and I am not alone in the struggle.Mar 18, 18:28
  • Stephen Fleming on Sins of Christendom: A Review: “Thanks for the review, Chad. You made an interesting point about the book not interjecting the “real” history of Mormonism and that makes me wonder if one ought to be an expert in Mormonism to write about anti-Mormonism. Seems like it could help, but I also get that the author’s topic is evangelical not Mormons.Mar 18, 16:43
  • Stephen Fleming on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “You definitely address lots of issues at the heart of what I wanted to discuss here, Jonathan. The parameters I listed in the comments on this post (https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/03/different-church-experiences-and-the-command-to-mourn-with-those-that-mourn/) I found worked quite well: you can be different but not better, the purpose of the group is to help people stay, but it’s a safe space for people to bring up questions and concerns. I found it worked really well, and group members have told me it’s played a big role in helping them stay. So I guess this brings me back to the point I made in the previous comment: are we uncomfortable helping people stay who have unorthodox beliefs? Is that seen as creating something problematic for wards and the church as a whole. Again, coming back to what that 2008 group member said to Bushman and Bushman’s response. For me, I’m very good with wanting to help people to stay and okay with them having unorthodox resolutions. Again, my group members told me I helped them stay. Is that okay? :) Ultimately, perhaps you and I had a different experience with the Bloggernacle. I did find it a helpful place to hear voices of people who had concerns I did but still wanted to be faithful members. I wasn’t totally sure there was such a thing before reading Kevin Barney’s blog post on prop 8 back in 2008. That meant a lot. And yes, we know it’s been something of the wild west here, but I’ve also observed many standards of blog policing that I actually thought would be good rubrics for my group: don’t be self-righteous and if you really hate the church this probably isn’t the best place fro you (I know that gets unevenly applied). But at the end of the day, the Bloggernacle was and is a helpful place for me. Sharing ideas seems like a good thing to me, even if some of us are annoying. :)Mar 18, 16:42
  • Stephen Fleming on “Who Do We Want at Church?”: “I think many commenters bring up a place where the rub is, and one that Bushman was referring to when he asked the question, “Who do we want at church?” And that’s the question of belief. Again, the guy in the 2008 seminar said he had a problem with Bushman invited Dehlin since Dehlin didn’t believe much of the orthodox doctrine, and Bushman responded in his “Who do we want” way. So Bushman, back by Woodruff, were asserting that they felt that we as members wanted to make room for people with unorthodox beliefs “as long as they weren’t creating a problem.” So what does “creating a problem” look like? Woodruff (if I recall) basically said trying to get people to leave the church, and I have to say, I’ve encountered occasional unorthodox stuff, but I’m never encountered anyone at church trying to get others to leave. So based on my experience, I’d assume that’s pretty rare. I’ve encountered a few who do voice frustration, but in my experience, such people don’t want to keep coming to church, and will either drop out, or wait till they’re feeling better about things to come back. So that’s kind of the heart of the question I was curious to ask, how to we feel about the unorthodox coming? And truth be told, when I asked my ward council that question to begin the meeting the follow week, I was talking about myself as much as anyone else. Literally I was asking if I (was the bishop at that time) was welcome because the prior meeting got pretty tense to the point that I wondered. So to answer your question Sideshow, what happened the next week as that as soon as I was done with church that first week, I felt a very strong impression that I was to prepare for next Sunday and to say what God told me to say. I started with the 2008 story and the question “who do we want at church.” I felt strongly impressed not to open the question up to the whole group to but specifically asked to guys in the front. The mentor guy I’d mentioned in previous posts who said he agreed that we wanted everyone as long as they aren’t causing problems, and then I asked the other guy, the eqp and he simply said, “Well, doesn’t the sign say visitors welcome?” I then gave something of an autobiography of why I’d felt prompted at various points in my life to research what I had. All that happened related to that meeting is quite a long story, but 1) it was pretty intense (I had like 4 panic attacks that month) 2) I learned a lot from the experience, and 3) I was eventually able to smooth things over that needed to be. I’ll answer Jonathan in it’s own comment.Mar 18, 16:30