You're moving your horsey wrong

[SteelBlue]

I agree. But we should be okay with it. Some form of attendance is better than none.

We're on the same page, believe me. Someday I'll talk about my sister and how difficult she is to love and serve. She's left the church and I personally feel like her ward really failed her because they couldn't come to terms with her personality and differences.

[The_Tick]

We're on the same page, believe me. Someday I'll talk about my sister and how difficult she is to love and serve. She's left the church and I personally feel like her ward really failed her because they couldn't come to terms with her personality and differences.

I would love to hear it. Even if you just send it to me if not comfortable sharing.

Change from within is where I stand.

[scottie]

David O. McKay diaries, May 17, 1962:

Men must learn that in presiding over the Church we are dealing with human hearts, that individual rights are sacred, and the human soul is tender. We cannot run the Church like a business.

IMO, bishops do a great job of that. I have seen some stake presidents get aggressive with the business side though (HT stats).

[UtahDan]

Maybe I'm not seeing something or understanding where you are going with this. My experience has always been that reaching out to those not in attendance has been a priority. I recall a number of cheesy LDS films on the topic. I remember visiting the "innactive boys" as a Deacons Quorum Presidency. Don't you remember the change from "innactive" to "less active" for fear of stigmatizing some people? Two weeks ago we had a three-hour training session on a Saturday which focused specifically on "to the rescue" of those in our lives that are currently "outside the tent." Every PEC with which I've worked has spent time focused on those that were not participating and how best to reach out to them.

Now granted, the focus is to bring them into the tent as, for the most part, orthodox believers. But if along the way orthodoxy becomes an issue, I trust we're flexible enough to adapt. I bet it is happening already, we just don't hear about it.

A three hour meeting, UD. On Saturday. And porn didn't come up once. What more do you want from us "TBMs"?

I started to bang out a response but the dialog between SB and Tick captures it nicely. I don't doubt that we are trying, but I truly don't know whether it addresses the core issue I'm attempting to put my finger on. This conversation has helped me refine some of my thoughts.

[wuapinmon]

Hot damn! This was a good thread.

[wuapinmon]

The connections between religion and political discourse of late reminded me of this stellar thread. I've been grousing lately about people moving their horsey wrong with their vote, but I don't really have much skin in the game.

[wuapinmon]

bump, for Topper.

[UtahDan]

Maybe I can put it another way. Where I live the members are spread all over geographically so pretty much everyone I see at church is all in, at least in how they practice their faith. There are some exceptions, but for the most part I don't even know the other 1/2 to 2/3rds of the congregation who do not attend. But in Utah it is a lot different. I imagine there are lots of places where you know your neighbors pretty well and are very much aware that some of them are either inactive, have apostatized, etc. So here are all these people you know who aren't coming to church for whatever reason, who certainly everyone would love to have at church.

Some of them aren't going to come no matter what. But I do think there are some who would come but are uncomfortable because of the "two boxes" I am talking about. I know I don't want a calling and really only want to come once a month but don't feel comfortable doing only that. Or I have some far out views and would still like to come but I don't think they really want me. Or I don't believe but would enjoy partaking in many of the aspects of worship because it is part of may heritage but aren't sure the ward would want me there. I think it is very clear that the brethren, to a man, would say of course we want every one of those people there how ever often they would like to come, even if that is only once a year. Every Bishop would say that too. EDIT: The point I never quite made here is that people already see every variation of belief and practice in their own neighborhoods, wouldn't it cool to see those people at church more often.

I guess what I am getting at with the orthodox/unorthodox distinction (certainly I understand that is not perfect, it is just a starting place for discussion) is that it is helpful in thinking about how we can make Sunday a welcoming place for people who don't want to be "all in" in either practice or belief at some level.

This is interesting for me to re-read two years later. At this point in my journey I was still feeling hopeful that maybe a place could be carved out within the church for people who are less than fully committed in either terms of activity or belief where they are comfortable, other members are comfortable with them and the church recognizes them in some legitimizing way. MBN kept trying to make the point to me here that he was not sure that was practical or fair. With the benefit of hindsight, I think he was right.

I think that the church has an "all in" philosophy about the practice of religion and even though you don't have to actually be that to show up on Sunday, you are definitely going to be encouraged to be that. If that is not who you are or want to be, then you really are much, much better off doing something else with you time than you are trying to reform the church to have some other fundamental goal for you besides "all in." You are just asking it to be something different than what it is. That is not to say that reform minded Mormons are wasting their time on all issues, but I think that trying to carve out a "partly in" niche that will gain greater acceptance is counter-productive waste of effort.

I think everyone's efforts would be better spent, on both sides, learning how to accept each other as is.

[LA Ute]

This is interesting for me to re-read two years later. At this point in my journey I was still feeling hopeful that maybe a place could be carved out within the church for people who are less than fully committed in either terms of activity or belief where they are comfortable, other members are comfortable with them and the church recognizes them in some legitimizing way. MBN kept trying to make the point to me here that he was not sure that was practical or fair. With the benefit of hindsight, I think he was right.

I think that the church has an "all in" philosophy about the practice of religion and even though you don't have to actually be that to show up on Sunday, you are definitely going to be encouraged to be that. If that is not who you are or want to be, then you really are much, much better off doing something else with you time than you are trying to reform the church to have some other fundamental goal for you besides "all in." You are just asking it to be something different than what it is. That is not to say that reform minded Mormons are wasting their time on all issues, but I think that trying to carve out a "partly in" niche that will gain greater acceptance is counter-productive waste of effort.

I think everyone's efforts would be better spent, on both sides, learning how to accept each other as is.

I hope my question is not simplistic (I think it is merely simple): Why can't someone who is not "all in" just tell the bishop, "I have major belief issues but I'm going to come to church now and then anyway. I don't want [a calling/home teachers/whatever]. I just want to be involved at the level I feel comfortable with. I'll let you know if anything changes." Our bishop (and every bishop I've ever known) would say, "Okay."

I suspect that you think I am missing something. What is it?

[Moliere]

I hope my question is not simplistic (I think it is merely simple): Why can't someone who is not "all in" just tell the bishop, "I have major belief issues but I'm going to come to church now and then anyway. I don't want [a calling/home teachers/whatever]. I just want to be involved at the level I feel comfortable with. I'll let you know if anything changes." Our bishop (and every bishop I've ever known) would say, "Okay."

I suspect that you think I am missing something. What is it?

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

[DrumNFeather]

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

Membership clerk, that way, they can see who else has an asterisk.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

Worse yet, they probably won't be able to participate in any ordinances involving their kids and they won't be allowed to attend temple weddings for friends and family. This would likely lead to lots of stress on a marriage and family relationships.

[LA Ute]

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

I agree. I don't understand why a person who felt that way would want to have a calling that required him/her to teach or espouse (or publicly disavow) key teachings or beliefs. I also think it would be unreasonable to expect that -- it's a case of wanting to "have your cake and eat it too."

[Indy Coug]

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

There are many degrees of "struggle", so the answer to that question is hard to provide without knowing the magnitude of their struggles.

[DrumNFeather]

I think everyone's efforts would be better spent, on both sides, learning how to accept each other as is.

How would you define this? Or moreover, what would it look like? It seems like in many of these situations, there is always some kind of string attached to acceptance really on both sides. So I'm curious to know how something like this would work.