NOM

So my wife made a post in FB the other day about the churches wealth. Several people reached out to "check on her" including the bishop who wanted to sit down with us "and talk".
I told him since all three of us know the apologetics, it was pointless to waste time having a conversation that boils down to "follow.the brethren and have faith".
He insist thats wasnt what hed suggest, but rather that we pray and listen to the HG. I must have been in a bad mood, because i pointed out thats the same answer--because if you dont get the "offical" answer you need to keep praying, obeying, ect or be less than. He insisted thats not the way it is, its about following Christ amd the church doesn't care so i sent a few talks about how submission to the fathers will and laid out how doctrinally, you follow or are a less than member....
It becomes well lets start with jesus? God? What do you believe mooseman?

I wont be pinned.down on my believes. I hate talking about them. Not even my wife knows what i believe. I kind of lost it. Straight up, i told him if he wants to use steel tools to discuss doctrines around civil rights, evolution of priesthood, temple worthniess, fine. We can talk facts, but i wont be pinned down to say what i believe.
He latched on to evolution.of priesthood, as something he "didnt know was an issue" and after a few quotes he said he wanted to learn more About it, and again asked to sit down with me so can understand "others wholl come ti him with these issues". I offered to send him Sources, podcast, websites and so on...i even linked him to the discussion we had here on the.topic, but hes pushing to sit down and discuss it through "a filter (he) trust" aka me.
I told him id need time to compile it-gather from farms, bushman, bill reel, Radio free, infants, ect and i wont give my opnionnd he finally said ok, let him know....
Im hesitant to do it. It feels like a trap he thinks hell be able to flip and save me. It feels like at worst itll be him Manipulating the situation for an objective i know nothing of....at best adding to a good mans shelf.
I know im paronid in general. I tend to suspect every one of ulterior motives, trying to manipulate me...
Even writing this im getting terrified he read it and ill be outted.

I just dont know what to do...

I'd ask him a couple of questions first.

1) Does he believe it is important to be honest in his dealings with others, including you?
2) What is his real (honest) purpose in having this conversation with you. Is it:
a) To better understand the issues?
b) To save your soul and bring you back to the covenant path?
c) To defend the church?
d) some mixture of the above?

If he can't be honest with you in two then how does he expect to have an open conversation?

I would ask him up front those questions and only then decide to have a meeting or not based on those answers. I would also inform him, up front, that if you sense a bait and switch the conversation ends. Right then, right there. Have the conversation at a place where you are in control of that meeting: a public restaurant where you can get up, if necessary and leave him with the bill. Your home, where you can have him arrested for trespass if he doesn't respect the end of the conversation, etc.

-losh

He insist its to understand, and to be fair hes never been pushy like this. Normally its hey jesus its all good we love ya....like most people he kept trying to seperate doctrine, thr church and jesus with jesus being whats important. I dont know if in his mind its the rope we know that is, but he is, in his own life, very follow the prophet even if he thinks hes actually following thr spirit. (We all rememebr that mindset right?)

So in his mind he wanta to understand. In actuality....

If it were me I'd be open to meeting with him. I'd start each topic by asking him what he thinks the truth is, and *then* say something like 'Yes, that's what I was told too, but here's what I found out' and give sources.

I think that takes away some confrontation but also puts him on the spot in letting you know what he thinks before you give your reasons.

I like that idea. Allows kind of what do you know situation, and then springboard into here are the facts. Heres what history tells us. Heres how facts are interpreted by experts...

mooseman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:55 am He insist its to understand, and to be fair hes never been pushy like this. Normally its hey jesus its all good we love ya....like most people he kept trying to seperate doctrine, thr church and jesus with jesus being whats important. I dont know if in his mind its the rope we know that is, but he is, in his own life, very follow the prophet even if he thinks hes actually following thr spirit. (We all rememebr that mindset right?)

So in his mind he wanta to understand. In actuality....

This could actually be true. You know him better than any of us, of course. But how many on this board, on Reddit, or on the MS FB group have been bishops? Many have been there, served on high councils, stake presidencies, etc.. Many lost their faith seeking to better understand the arguments presented by those that have lost their testimony.

mooseman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:09 am It becomes well lets start with jesus? God? What do you believe mooseman?

I wont be pinned.down on my believes. I hate talking about them. Not even my wife knows what i believe. I kind of lost it. Straight up, i told him if he wants to use steel tools to discuss doctrines around civil rights, evolution of priesthood, temple worthniess, fine. We can talk facts, but i wont be pinned down to say what i believe.

That's about how things went when I told my bishop I wouldn't be renewing my recommend because I no longer had a testimony. I specifically said I don't know what I believe anymore, but I couldn't truthfully answer yes to any of the recommend questions about testimony.

As I was leaving, he asked me specifically if I believed in a savior that had atoned for my sins and a loving HF. I told him I was trying to, but my testimony there didn't exist anymore and I left it at that. A year later I was out fully.

I would say I believe certain things, but I recognize that different people may approach topics like "Jesus" or "The Priesthood" from different perspectives. Some people would say the goal is to learn that they "are True." Others would say that the goal is to learn "what is true."
I don't think on my feet well, so I personally like to write my feelings, and then examine them. I also am suspicious when it seems other people want to dictate the parameters of the "Search for Truth." Such a desire almost always leads to circular reasoning.

By the way, isn't it nice to know you don't have to do what he says in order to be "righteous?'

I like a poem called "Abou Ben Adem by Leigh Hunt. It is a short poem with a message for people who are into "right beliefs."

I think one reason leaders press for details is because they want to fix you and they need to know what the problem is in order to do it. Once armed with all the specifics, some will begin to tear what you share down point by point with apologetics.

That's why I try to avoid conversations like that. They won't change until they are ready to change, if they change at all. We likely won't change based on anything they say either.

But you never know.

What's the point of the conversation, to correct your erroneous interpretations or to understand?

nibbler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:38 pm I think one reason leaders press for details is because they want to fix you and they need to know what the problem is in order to do it. Once armed with all the specifics, some will begin to tear what you share down point by point with apologetics.

That's why I try to avoid conversations like that. They won't change until they are ready to change, if they change at all. We likely won't change based on anything they say either.

But you never know.

What's the point of the conversation, to correct your erroneous interpretations or to understand?

I am incredibly cynical about the motives of those in the church wanting 'to understand,' but I would take the chance to talk to them every time if I am upfront to begin with that I did not come to these conclusions lightly and if they are looking to change me that they are wasting their time (politely, of course).

I would actually love the chance to talk to people who want to understand what I believe - I would kill for my family members in the church to talk to me and go over the issues. They really do not want to know, so if someone said "I am just curious as to why you left" I would be so happy to talk to them even if it was a back and forth as long as it stayed respectful.

Personally I think bishops/leaders *need* to hear these issues because they are becoming more prominent as the information becomes more readily accessible, so I actually think it's great that anyone is willing to sincerely seek it out. The question of course is whether they sincerely want to know, but you won't find that out until you have the conversation.

Good point.

I remember years ago being at that stage where I wanted to talk to friends and family, if only to be understood, and most of the time people were completely unwilling to even listen.

It makes me wonder, if enough people come to their local leaders with similar stories, what is a local leader empowered to do? Say, yeah the church's truth claims are shaky, I get it; then follow the correlated path as scheduled where everyone rehashes the PH restoration lesson during the 3rd hour?

How many people would it take for the message to reach the top? What steps could the top take?

I'm not looking for answers to these questions. I'm more thinking out loud. It feels like addressing the real issue would require a fundamental shift in the church's identity that would eventually have to come from the top if only because the church's current identity is to always take direction from the top.

There is absolutely no mechanism to deal with doubters for leaders beyond just trying to spin them back in line by telling them to pray harder, read the scriptures more seriously, etc.

I think that's why *sometimes* you'll hear of a bishop that will actually go outside the box and try to talk to people honestly and not try to be condescending with their doubts. The problem, of course, is that if you admit the reasons for doubt are legitimate it's really hard to keep people faithful when it just comes down to community.

You're right though - most people just don't want to know. At one point DW asked me "If you believe there are so many smoking guns, why do so many people still go every week?"

The answer is, without a doubt, because most members not only refuse to seek it out, they won't even listen to those they trust to go over it. I guarantee that if everyone knew what we knew here, the church's membership would fall apart. There would still be many who would stick around, but you would lose a *ton* of people overnight. Even my wife refuses to actually dig into any of this, and I believe she trusts me with her life on everything that does not involve the church. So if she's not going to be open to it, why would those who don't have a family member falling into apostasy even think to research these issues?

HI Mooseman,

It is a rare bishop that can actually take off his "judge in Israel" hat and have a real conversation when it is in the Bishop's office. Rare doesn't mean impossible though.

Perhaps the most important thing in this decision IMO is where you are at in regards to the church and how much influence it has on you. If this meeting could be triggering to you and affect your mood and mental health, then it is just not worth it.

I would offer a compromise for this if the BP continues to pressure you for a face to face. Get him to meet you for lunch somewhere neutral so you can avoid the "office" where it is designed to remind you of the power difference between you and the BP.

If he is not willing to meet away from the office, I think you can reasonably see his motivation.

Best of luck.

No Tof wrote:HI Mooseman,

It is a rare bishop that can actually take off his "judge in Israel" hat and have a real conversation when it is in the Bishop's office. Rare doesn't mean impossible though.

Perhaps the most important thing in this decision IMO is where you are at in regards to the church and how much influence it has on you. If this meeting could be triggering to you and affect your mood and mental health, then it is just not worth it.

I would offer a compromise for this if the BP continues to pressure you for a face to face. Get him to meet you for lunch somewhere neutral so you can avoid the "office" where it is designed to remind you of the power difference between you and the BP.

If he is not willing to meet away from the office, I think you can reasonably see his motivation.

Best of luck.

I agree that this is the perfect litmus test for bishop motive. None of them have taken me up on this offer. For one, it's inconvenient for them time wise, and two, they don't feel comfortable in public settings.