NOM

I've been wanting to tell this one for a while, but still worry about outing myself over it. That, and I don't want my bishop to be the villain of the story. He is a victim too, in many ways, of the crap sandwich that is non-correlated church history. But it's a really good story, illustrating the mess the church is in right now over correlated history, and what happens when the correlated version simply can't be used any more. Sorry for the length, but there is some background I need to cover.

I shared it in other places on the NOM board, but I've been pretty vocal about getting the information of the essays out there. In doing this, the HPGL overheard one of my conversations, so I shared with him some of the essay material (and a few other things) and he was not happy, claiming they were anti-Mormon lies. So I asked if he read the essays, and he said yes; after about five minutes, it was clear he either didn't, or was experiencing severe cognitive dissonance. In any event, about a month later I'm in front of the SP, having to answer questions about my "loss of testimony." Again, pretty frank, I told the SP that I'm not having a faith crisis, I'm having a church crisis; as in I believe in God, still have a belief in the atonement, but not really happy with the corporate church right now. Having hidden a lot of our history, building a mall and luxury apartment buildings, focusing on church authority and obedience to that authority, the November policy, the whole nine yards. At the end, I was left with a vague invitation to meet again, but in the meeting the SP let me know that the concern of this HPGL is that I was teaching Gospel Doctrine, and the HPGL felt I shouldn't. I said that's an easy fix, why don't you have the bishop release me? So I went home and told the bishop through email I was releasing myself. Well, he's a good dude, talked me out of it, saying the SP wasn't really into that either after a conversation with him, and they wanted me to stay on. Fair enough.

Fast forward to the end of the year, and I'm introducing Church history. I excitedly tell the class about the new church history material in the Church Library app, where to find the essays, the revelations in context, and all that good stuff. And really, I was excited about going into this material. Well, with the a birth of a grandchild I went away for two weeks, so I asked the replacement teacher (in preparation for the First Vision lesson) to ask the class to read all four versions of the first vision, and to consider a) what was different b) what was similar and c) the significance of this. Well, I got an email later in the week from the bishop, stating his concerns that I was making this the focus of the lesson. So I told him that what I was teaching was in the online material, that clearly the mandate from Elder Ballard is to teach this stuff, so I'm not going rogue, I'm just following the lesson plan. (Keep in mind, this is the FIRST lesson I'm planning to teach.) In any event, the bishop emails me back and says the purpose of GD is not to teach this stuff, but to ensure that "everyone feels the spirit." At this point I've had enough, that if they are going to look over my shoulder all year I'm not really willing to go through that, and I tell the bishop I'm not going to teach, and they can release me.

Cue to the night before, and the bishop wants to meet with me. I say that's fine, and he lets me know that they will release me. And that's fine with me, I've been teaching the class for years and a new voice is needed, especially for the milquetoast correlated version they want to have taught. But I asked him point blank, that since the manual contradicts the new material (I gave the example of the Thomas B Marsh milk stripping story) can I bring up essay material in class without fear of reprisal? Apparently so, but it will be interesting going forward, if they are just going to sit there and let me go off and correct the flow of correlated information. In any event, the bishop was interested in my views, so I told him all that I told the SP. So everyone knows now how I view things, and that's fine with me. But I did find out that the HPGL, who is now working in the stake, was sending emails to both the bishop and the SP trying to get me released for a few months now, which I found was interesting. If the predominant emotion I feel for the church right now wasn't apathy, I'd probably be really mad about this. The good news is, I probably won't have a calling for some time now, even though for reasons of my own, namely children of marriageable age, I want to keep a recommend - good thing they can't take it away for just doing nothing!

What this shows to me, is that despite the Ballard initiative in getting the essay material out there, clearly the "Bushmanification" of church history is still a LONG way off, and that the tensions between the essays and correlated history are going to be manifested in a lot of different ways in the church, and I'm just collateral damage. And this dividing line is only going to get deeper, between those who know the true history, and those who prefer the whitewashed nonsense that is correlation. I've heard from a lot of people in the ward that they are sad to have me released, which is great for the old ego, and for now I'm toeing the party line that since I've done it for over a number of years, "it was just time" for a release. And again, that's fine. But now you know the real story, and I don't think it's going to be pretty for any nuanced believer going forward, unless you are a Columbia-trained historian like Bushman, or a millionaire like Prince. And that's the real story.

If you're still here to the bitter end, thanks for listening!

Sorry, man, you are the kind of teacher the Church desperately needs - for its own good. That sucks.

I never took Elder Ballard at his word. He doesn't really want the hard stuff discussed freely and fully. He wants it mentioned in a way that makes the members think it is all hunky-dory and there's nothing to worry about. He and the other Brethren don't really want the dirty laundry out there for all to see.

Sorry. You are great and a blessing to your ward. I would love to have come to your classes. Yesterday was tough in GD in my ward. This middle way can be painful!

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:29 pm If you're still here to the bitter end, thanks for listening!

That


Was


Awesome!

(And quite sad, all at the same time...)

If there were more teachers like you, I might happily stick around after sacrament meeting. As it is, I skipped Sunday School yesterday to play with the dog. A few weeks ago I walked home in the snow. ANYTHING rather than sit through the mind numbing boredom and intellectual dishonesty.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:29 pm What this shows to me, is that despite the Ballard initiative in getting the essay material out there, clearly the "Bushmanification" of church history is still a LONG way off, and that the tensions between the essays and correlated history are going to be manifested in a lot of different ways in the church, and I'm just collateral damage. And this dividing line is only going to get deeper, between those who know the true history, and those who prefer the whitewashed nonsense that is correlation. I've heard from a lot of people in the ward that they are sad to have me released, which is great for the old ego, and for now I'm toeing the party line that since I've done it for over a number of years, "it was just time" for a release. And again, that's fine. But now you know the real story, and I don't think it's going to be pretty for any nuanced believer going forward, unless you are a Columbia-trained historian like Bushman, or a millionaire like Prince. And that's the real story.

This saddens me. Bushman is right - the narrative really does need to change but so few are allowing it to happen. And the point about the divide between members, well, you're right about it happening and it isn't pretty. It's going to divide a lot of families and push out a lot of good members. I'm sorry you were the collateral damage here. I've been wondering how long until I lose my credibility, although if I'm honest with myself, I think it's already happening. It's a shame that unless you have a special degree or a lot of money that telling the truth not only doesn't matter, it can get you silenced.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:37 pm Sorry, man, you are the kind of teacher the Church desperately needs - for its own good. That sucks.

I never took Elder Ballard at his word. He doesn't really want the hard stuff discussed freely and fully. He wants it mentioned in a way that makes the members think it is all hunky-dory and there's nothing to worry about. He and the other Brethren don't really want the dirty laundry out there for all to see.

Totally agree. The essays are simply a big CYA, and will be used for Gas Lighting purposes from here on out. Until the content is discussed in General Conference, membership will actively ignore it.

foolmeonce wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:03 pm

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:37 pm Sorry, man, you are the kind of teacher the Church desperately needs - for its own good. That sucks.

I never took Elder Ballard at his word. He doesn't really want the hard stuff discussed freely and fully. He wants it mentioned in a way that makes the members think it is all hunky-dory and there's nothing to worry about. He and the other Brethren don't really want the dirty laundry out there for all to see.

Totally agree. The essays are simply a big CYA, and will be used for Gas Lighting purposes from here on out. Until the content is discussed in General Conference, membership will actively ignore it.

After this experience, I kind of agree with the both of you, sad as it is to say. As the bishop argued, bringing up the essays are fine, depending on the "spirit and the tone." In other words, as long as the faith-building narrative is upheld, the essays are fine; if they make people question, they are problematic. So what I take as a green light from Ballard, appears to be more of a yellow light of caution from my bishop, that the essays are only to used in cases of "questions," not as faith-building material. As I'm starting to see, that's probably the view of Ballard too.

I've heard a similar argument regarding the use of the essays from Sister M. She opined that since I was questioning the church, the essays would only harm members of the ward who had weak faith, and my intent was to tear that faith down. Rather annoyed by this, I countered by saying that my view of the bishop's intentions was to deliberately hide this material, in order to fool members of the ward into believing a narrative that was false, so people would stay and make him look better. Horrified now, she said, "of course the bishop wouldn't do that!" So I said, "but you're willing to subscribe the blackest of motives to me, when all I want is to teach the truth." I was impressed that at least she thought about it. In any event, being released has put less strain on our relationship; for the last couple of years Sister M was worried I was going to be ex'd for the things I was saying in class. As a good friend told me who recently moved out of the ward, "I can't believe they're letting you say the things you say." I did have a lot of fun teaching the class.

I'm sure that being totally fine with my release and just sitting in class fiddling on my phone reading NOM has at once calmed the raging TBM's after my hide, and simultaneously perplexed the leadership as to why I'm taking my apostasy so calmly. It's amazing how more at peace one is by taking power away from the mormagisterium.

I tried to bring up essays and progressive views the other day in GD and got shot down very quickly. This is such a hard situation for everyone. In order for people to truly understand a more nom'ish point of view, they have to understand some general attitudes that are too complex to be shared in 15 minutes. We hoped the essays would alleviate some of this, but it is clear that people still view them as a threat.

I wish you were our GD teacher!

I remember this post! And I still wish you were our GD teacher. Ours reads directly from
the manual......

I saw this article today about Thomas Marsh. What a great story to define the facts.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon ... ost=mormon

In other words, as long as the faith-building narrative is upheld, the essays are fine; if they make people question, they are problematic.

So I have a few strong reactions to this.

Most members of the Church seem to have "faith" in a narrative that just isn't true. (It's like the Gershwin song ♫It ain't necessarily so...♫). But it's just not possible to have "faith" in something that isn't true, right? (according to the definition in Alma).

Reaction number two. We are freaking adults. We should be able to handle the truth. If not, we have a lot of growing up to do.

(maybe I'm downplaying how difficult it is to face all of this...)

This was a great story and an excellent slice of the struggles the LDS church increasingly feels.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:29 pmThe good news is, I probably won't have a calling for some time now, even though for reasons of my own, namely children of marriageable age, I want to keep a recommend - good thing they can't take it away for just doing nothing!

I still would recommend keeping your head down until you bypass all reasons to need your temple recommend. "Just doing nothing" is a very subjective distinction dependent on your tone of voice and leadership roulette.

Achilles, I appreciate and share to some degree your reaction to the thread above. Why do even adults have a hard time admitting when we are wrong? From Bill Clinton to Joseph Smith to Jefferson Davis to Deacon Blues, we all seem to have blinders on when confronting some of our own faults.

foolmeonce wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:03 pm

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:37 pm Sorry, man, you are the kind of teacher the Church desperately needs - for its own good. That sucks.

I never took Elder Ballard at his word. He doesn't really want the hard stuff discussed freely and fully. He wants it mentioned in a way that makes the members think it is all hunky-dory and there's nothing to worry about. He and the other Brethren don't really want the dirty laundry out there for all to see.

Totally agree. The essays are simply a big CYA, and will be used for Gas Lighting purposes from here on out. Until the content is discussed in General Conference, membership will actively ignore it.

I agree. If the church cared, it would have owned up to the facts long ago and somehow retooled the corporation into a real church. Instead, it's like Amway with gold-coated statues on top of a few buildings. The essays would never have been created or published if it weren't for the information finally getting out to enough people to scare the Q-15 into acting. CYA is the best term for it.

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:36 pm I still would recommend keeping your head down until you bypass all reasons to need your temple recommend. "Just doing nothing" is a very subjective distinction dependent on your tone of voice and leadership roulette.

Thanks for the reminder, particularly how I haven't held a calling for the six months I've been released now. However, a couple of things have emboldened me about this particular situation, and why I feel they can't just strip me of a recommend because of not doing anything. Since I simply can't call myself to a position in the ward/stake, and if I've never said no to a calling EVER, and if I need a calling to keep the TR, why don't they find me a calling? Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that bishopric meeting, as they try to figure out what the ward pariah can do! Maybe the chapel cleaning consultant? Eeesh, I just might have jinxed myself.

Secondly, it's pretty clear in the handbook, unless they've changed it in the online version in the last couple of years, that one cannot lose their recommend "for not fulfilling commitments such as home teaching." It's pretty clear to me. I'll always remember some years ago a friend lost his recommend because he hadn't done his home teaching because of a particularly zealous bishop, and I opened up my handbook and showed him this little gem. Luckily he managed to get it back, and so I think there are ways to fight stupidity if you have a little bit of knowledge, you just have to stand up a little bit. I actually do my home teaching, my families have some definite needs so I'm glad to be of service.

And lastly, at this stage, I think they'd rather have a quiet Bro. M with a recommend, than a really loud and pissed off Bro. M without one. And they'd be right, I'd fight a recommend stripping on principle as far and as long and as loud as I could; in fact, I've informed a member of the SP some weeks ago that they better have a dang good reason to strip me of one, not just a "wavering testimony," or else I'll go far in fighting it. So I think I'm fairly safe. But good advice nonetheless.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:29 pm Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that bishopric meeting, as they try to figure out what the ward pariah can do!

I'll put my money on something to do with scouts. It's my understanding that scouts is the one area where the church allows non-members to hold church callings.