You're moving your horsey wrong

[myboynoah]

I wonder how "liberals", "agnostics", and "apostates" (you left out "intellectuals") are viewed at church.

I can give specific examples if you'd like (something I'm still waiting for from you).

You could, but I don't see the point. This discussion is about what takes place here within this group. How does anything that happens in your congregation or family or among your friends outside this forum have anything to do with this discussion?

[ERCougar]

You could, but I don't see the point. This discussion is about what takes place here within this group. How does anything that happens in your congregation or family or among your friends outside this forum have anything to do with this discussion?

In one sense, it doesn't matter, because if the tone bothers people, then we ought to be considerate of that.

But really, I think we are considerate of that. My point in showing specific examples is to show that relatively speaking, the tone here is pretty respectful.

[myboynoah]

In one sense, it doesn't matter, because if the tone bothers people, then we ought to be considerate of that.

But really, I think we are considerate of that. My point in showing specific examples is to show that relatively speaking, the tone here is pretty respectful.

Yes, pretty respectful. But even then, something like this is said:

There are enough people here who see any TBM as a proxy for everything that bothers them about the church that it is not easy to be one in this setting, not least of all because the searchers/questioners have more of an interest in the controversial topics and frequently know more. Many folks just don't have the time or inclination to "study up" just to defend their view point.

Now, I like UD and agree with him for the most part (except for his silly allegience to the U), but this is not at all a very positive portrayal of the "TBMs" that inhabit the board.

[UtahDan]

See, this is where I think Brooks' wishful analogy starts to fall apart. LA pointed out the rigid differences between Orthodox and reformed Jews. Imagine your scenario spanning members of those two groups. Could it work, or would one or the other be seen as a dangerous outsider?

I like a big tent, as long as those in the tent are sensitive to the rules of the tent.

I think your last sentence is the only way it can work. But I guess what I am trying to get at is not so much trying to get the church to change to accommodate different beliefs, but getting the members to welcome the unorthodox in the tent.

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. IOW, how do we teach ourselves not to be judgmental and to be happy to see people standing at the fringe of the tent. How do we avoid being the Pharisee praying at the temple and thanking God that we are not as other men/women. I think one way would be trying to destigmatize or de-otherize these folks. And in case anyone is thinking "is it worth doing for these few folks," take a look at the attendance statistics in your ward. I would venture to say that in most wards in the church there are more inactive than active and in many places it is very lopsided.

I'm not saying it is a fix all or anything. Just trying to advance the discussion of how to make this big tent hold more people comfortably.

[ERCougar]

Yes, pretty respectful. But even then, something like this is said:

Now, I like UD and agree with him for the most part (except for his silly allegience to the U), but this is not at all a very positive portrayal of the "TBMs" that inhabit the board.

I appreciate the specific example, but even there, his use of the word "just" to me implies that these TBM's have better things to do than brush up on what they view as minutiae. They've arrived at an equilibrium where they're happy (not necessarily through lack of introspection)--why devote time to defending answers they've already found? Beyond that, they ARE busier being bishops than I am being a ward choir accompanist.

[tooblue]

Do I feel misunderstood and generally unwelcome at church? Sometimes. Maybe I should avoid that place (and all other places that make me mildly uncomfortable).

There are times when I feel that way at church also. You're other comment is non sequitur.

OR...maybe I should stop trying to take offense at things or trying to read into things meanings that just aren't there. I have never meant the term TBM in any sort of pejorative sense. Maybe it's used that way on other boards, leading pelagius to read it that way (I'd never thought it meant "true believing mormon" until he said it). I mean it as a convenient way to describe someone who's come to an equilibrium with things that falls well within the "norms" of Mormon practice and belief (orthoprax and orthodox). I'm not implying anything about how much thought and investigation went into it--for some, I'm sure a lot, for others I suspect not much at all. It strikes me as really odd that people read that into it. I'm happy to use a different term if it's that offensive, but it needs to be fewer keystrokes than "orthoprax and orthodox" or "orthoprax and heterodox". (Or we could just stop assuming the worst in everyone's intent. Nah...)

I'm not sure what else to say on this subject. If I continue to express my thoughts it seems it will only come across as taking offense and that I should be capable of understanding that no offense is intended. You also want me to cite specific examples. Why, what would be the purpose when there is a basic misunderstanding in the first place?

[UtahDan]

Now, I like UD and agree with him for the most part (except for his silly allegience to the U), but this is not at all a very positive portrayal of the "TBMs" that inhabit the board.

I hoped that it would be clear that I am referring to that as only one piece of the puzzle. Obviously that doesn't apply to pelagius or you or a lot of others. But it definitely applies to some. I didn't really intend it as controversial. I think it is understandable that some people aren't going to want to bone up on every single thing that gets brought up on a message board just so they can respond to it. I'm not calling anyone an ostrich for doing that.

[LA Ute]

I hoped that it would be clear that I am referring to that as only one piece of the puzzle. Obviously that doesn't apply to pelagius or you or a lot of others. But it definitely applies to some. I didn't really intend it as controversial. I think it is understandable that some people aren't going to want to bone up on every single thing that gets brought up on a message board just so they can respond to it. I'm not calling anyone an ostrich for doing that.

I did not take your comment that way and think it was quite on-target, at least the way I understood it. You are right - speaking for myself, I find Church history interesting but really don't choose to make the time, or generate the interest, to investigate all the "storms," and I don't come here to discuss them (although now and then I like to ask questions and I do take the time to look further into a particular subject - ER's recent and repeated references to the Kinderhook plates piqued my interest, for example).

Now, as to the "big tent" point you make, which is excellent: I'll admit I am a little puzzled by your concern. For the last 5 years I have been in a bishopric. (I keep dropping hints about how I've been in the harness longer than bishops usually serve, but can't seem to get released.) Week after week we sit in bishopric meeting and ward council and talk about those who don't feel comfortable being with us, and we make plans about helping them feel comfortable. We are regularly instructed on a stake level about how to do better at this. It is a constant theme, and I think this goes on all over the church. Is your concern more the socia/cultural pressure than some might feel and which surely exists) in some wards?

[UtahDan]

Now, as to the "big tent" point you make, which is excellent: I'll admit I am a little puzzled by your concern. For the last 5 years I have been in a bishopric. (I keep dropping hints about how I've been in the harness longer than bishops usually serve, but can't seem to get released.) Week after week we sit in bishopric meeting and ward council and talk about those who don't feel comfortable being with us, and we make plans about helping them feel comfortable. We are regularly instructed on a stake level about how to do better at this. It is a constant theme, and I think this goes on all over the church. Is your concern more the socia/cultural pressure than some might feel and which surely exists) in some wards?

So two things. First, what instruction have you received and have you found that implementing it has been a success. IOW, I have no idea what the brethren perceive the problem to be nor whether what they have given as a solution has been effective. I would be really interested to know. From 30,000 feet up it looks like the problem is worsening, but I really might be wrong about that.

Second, the answer to your last question is yes but that is not a complete answer. I don't have any sort of master plan for how I think this all works and am just sort of thinking it through. I do know that there are powerful taboos that exist that are not helpful and not at all rooted in the gospel. Certainly I think that this is a problem that exists in the culture. Do I also think that it could be addressed by leadership? Of course. The brethren have the power to transform the culture on almost any topic with a few words or strokes of the pen. Could more be done to encourage members to be accepting of less active or less orthodox in official ways? What if that was mentioned as frequently as something like porn, for example (everything religion thread has to come back to porn at some level, no? )? As I say, I don't know how you do it, but yes I think the culture is to rigid in categorizing people as "in" or "out" and yes I'm certain that leadership has the ability to influence that.

[LA Ute]

So two things. First, what instruction have you received and have you found that implementing it has been a success. IOW, I have no idea what the brethren perceive the problem to be nor whether what they have given as a solution has been effective. I would be really interested to know. From 30,000 feet up it looks like the problem is worsening, but I really might be wrong about that.

Second, the answer to your last question is yes but that is not a complete answer. I don't have any sort of master plan for how I think this all works and am just sort of thinking it through. I do know that there are powerful taboos that exist that are not helpful and not at all rooted in the gospel. Certainly I think that this is a problem that exists in the culture. Do I also think that it could be addressed by leadership? Of course. The brethren have the power to transform the culture on almost any topic with a few words or strokes of the pen. Could more be done to encourage members to be accepting of less active or less orthodox in official ways? What if that was mentioned as frequently as something like porn, for example (everything religion thread has to come back to porn at some level, no? )? As I say, I don't know how you do it, but yes I think the culture is to rigid in categorizing people as "in" or "out" and yes I'm certain that leadership has the ability to influence that.

I am sorry I can't respond more (I am suffering one of my periodic attacks of extreme employment) but I really think what you are talking about is a product of local culture more than Church culture. We are getting instruction all the time about "reaching out to the one" and allowing people to feel comfortable when they are with us. Here on CUF we seem a little preoccupied with doubters and skeptics (and I am trying to use those terms in a neutral and descriptive, not pejorative, way), but in my ward our Ward Council simply sees people who don't want to be with us and we try to find a way to invite them to come. Some were offended once, years ago. Some have WOW issues and are afraid they'll be treated coldly if they smell of tobacco smoke. Some feel guilty and uncomfortable in church. Some have an issue with a church doctrine. They're all over the map. But I can tell you that in our ward (and I think in our stake) we'll bend over backwards to make any visitor or occasionally returning less-active member feel wanted and comfortable with us. That's just how it is. Now, a ward in Orem or Farmington or South Jordan or Rexburg might be different. I don't know. But I think General Conference talks and multiple supporting materials are full of instruction on this.

Sorry, gotta go!

[myboynoah]

I think your last sentence is the only way it can work. But I guess what I am trying to get at is not so much trying to get the church to change to accommodate different beliefs, but getting the members to welcome the unorthodox in the tent.

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. IOW, how do we teach ourselves not to be judgmental and to be happy to see people standing at the fringe of the tent. How do we avoid being the Pharisee praying at the temple and thanking God that we are not as other men/women. I think one way would be trying to destigmatize or de-otherize these folks. And in case anyone is thinking "is it worth doing for these few folks," take a look at the attendance statistics in your ward. I would venture to say that in most wards in the church there are more inactive than active and in many places it is very lopsided.

I'm not saying it is a fix all or anything. Just trying to advance the discussion of how to make this big tent hold more people comfortably.

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"?

[The_Tick]

I just have a problem with what I perceive as a "you are either in or out" mentality. It makes no sense to me at all. I can understand why it is done, but I think it does more harm than good.

Let me share a few examples...

1. As YM President I would be tasked all the time about what I was doing to help the less active YM in my ward progress. My answer was typically "nothing". I would explain that I visit all the boys once a year, and I call quarterly just to see how things are and let them know we are thinking about them.

This was never good enough. I had to have a specific plan and had to have the YM involved. We needed to set goals and do all that we could to get these boys to church.

Why?

If a kid doesn't want to come, he doesn't want to come. Why harass them all the time? And why task their schoolmates to follow up with them at school? It just doesn't make sense.

2. My daughters are in YW. They have one mutual a month that is devoted to the less active YW in the ward. My oldest is a friend of one of the "less active" girls. This girl absolutely hates it. Hates when the leaders come by. Hates when the girls come by. Likes when my daughter talks with her, but doesn't want to talk Church.

My daughter is tasked as the "fellowshipper" because they are friends. She gets asked to do stuff all the time. Invite her to this, invite her to that, let her know about this.... My daughter finally told the YW President no. She then had to tell the Bishop no, because they YW President reported back that my daughter said no. So my daughter sat in the Bishops office crying and telling him that she hated doing it and that she hated even worse that she was made to feel guilty by the leaders.

So they don't ask her to anymore...they have assigned someone else to do the pestering...I mean "fellowshipping". The less active girl still hates it.

3. We don't foster a culture of acceptance. We state that as our goal but we don't, and I will use an example listed above....

A social drinker or smoker.

Believe it or not, some folks find the Church to be a benefit to their life. But they choose to not follow the Word of Wisdom. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. If they want to come to Church and participate they should be able to. Even knowing that they wont have the benefit of the Temple in their life.

But the problem is...at some point it isn't going to be good enough. A EQP/HP Leader or a member of the Bishopric is going to start in about "correcting some things in their life so they can enjoy the full benefit of membership in the Church". And this is where things start to go south. Partially in or Partially out aren't acceptable. Because if you were truly converted you wouldn't have any issues. I don't believe that for a second.

I currently find myself on the inside looking out. I love the Gospel and some of the teachings. Not all of them though. And the more I ponder I end up feeling like I am not like the rest of the people that I sit around. And then I start talking to them. They are like me, just don't want to mention to anybody else because they don't want folks to think that they question stuff.

I don't mind. I am a peculiar person. I consider myself LDS, but I consider my beliefs to be slightly different than the SLC version. I am cool with that...some folks aren't.

I don't know what othropax, hetero whatever and any of that stuff means and I am not interested in looking it up. If it starts with ortho and doesn't end with -dontist....then I don't really care.

[SteelBlue]

But the problem is...at some point it isn't going to be good enough. A EQP/HP Leader or a member of the Bishopric is going to start in about "correcting some things in their life so they can enjoy the full benefit of membership in the Church". And this is where things start to go south. Partially in or Partially out aren't acceptable. Because if you were truly converted you wouldn't have any issues. I don't believe that for a second.

You make a good point Tick. I agree with LA and MBN that the church does a lot and focuses a lot on reaching out to the one, and getting people to feel comfortable coming back. But it's been my experience that a ward can cease to be comfortable with "the one" when after a passage of time they don't show an interest in changing habits that show they are not all in. I'm speaking from my own experiences here but I think there definitely exists an in or out sentiment that can actually be almost subconscious.

When brother X comes back after 10 years and reeks of smoke everyone is happy to have him back. But with each step back toward the mainstream without actually reaching the mainstream (a year of decent sacrament meeting attendance but still reeking of smoke and refusing to attend the other 2 hours say) he is likely to sense some apathy. We as a people are, I think, good at welcoming a wide array of people back into the fold. We are not always good at tolerating what might look to us like a half-assed version of Mormonism after some time has passed.

[The_Tick]

You make a good point Tick. I agree with LA and MBN that the church does a lot and focuses a lot on reaching out to the one, and getting people to feel comfortable coming back. But it's been my experience that a ward can cease to be comfortable with "the one" when after a passage of time they don't show an interest in changing habits that show they are not all in. I'm speaking from my own experiences here but I think there definitely exists an in or out sentiment that can actually be almost subconscious.

When brother X comes back after 10 years and reeks of smoke everyone is happy to have him back. But with each step back toward the mainstream without actually reaching the mainstream (a year of decent sacrament meeting attendance but still reeking of smoke and refusing to attend the other 2 hours say) he is likely to sense some apathy. We as a people are, I think, good at welcoming a wide array of people back into the fold. We are not always good at tolerating what might look to us like a half-assed version of Mormonism after some time has passed.

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

And I don't know if it is because we feel that maybe we are missing out on something that they aren't? Or because we feel that we are better than them because we are more faithful?

I know that my attendance has waivered some. And I find it almost offputting when someone comes up and asks why I have been gone for a week or two. I usually just tell them that I didn't feel like coming. That usually ends those questions. (Granted...I have probably missed 4 times this year, so don't get worried I am off of the deep end.)

But we do have a family in the ward that asks my 12 year old if she would like to stay the night on Saturday nights, and she can ride with them to Church. That is going to stop. We attend 80% of the time, cut the crap out with your silly little games.

I find myself becoming more tolerant with folks that don't come all the time or have other issues. I respect them for taking a stand.

It reminds me...

We attend a Christmas service at a local church that some of the friends of my oldest attend. They do a very nice Christmas program put on by the youth. I actually look forward to my visit every year. It is a little sappy and a little heavy handed about how they welcome visitors. It has since helped me with how I welcome new folks to the ward. I try to make them feel like an old friend, not like a person who is the most precious thing I have ever met.

Baby steps...

[scottie]

But the problem is...at some point it isn't going to be good enough. A EQP/HP Leader or a member of the Bishopric is going to start in about "correcting some things in their life so they can enjoy the full benefit of membership in the Church". And this is where things start to go south. Partially in or Partially out aren't acceptable. Because if you were truly converted you wouldn't have any issues. I don't believe that for a second.

I like what you say there Tick. A close friend of mine is an EQP in a ward here along the Wasatch Front. In the 20 years I've know him I've never heard him say anything remotely close to being unkind/questioning/putting-down about the LDS church or its leaders. After a recent regional stake leadership (or something like that) meeting, he shared with me some concern he had over how corporate/business-like the meeting had been (the GA in attendance focused on the stat that measures the percentage of TR holders). To hear my friend talk like he did was surprising. I understand that some of the church needs to be run like a business, but I've never understood why statistics on home teaching and % of TR holders exist -- EQPs and bishops have enough to worry about as it is it seems.