John and Zilpha Larsen

[_moinmoin]

People in a cult rarely recognize that they are members of a cult... However I am seeing signs that the cult control veneer is beginning to crack. During a resent conversation with my TBM wife, she currently serves as stake relief society president, she stated that in her stake, she is seeing signs of major push back from members with many now declining callings altogether. The problem is now so bad in her stake that the stake president is discussing the problem in stake leadership meetings. It is very common now for members to decline callings or to even state what they will and won't do. As a totalistic ideolology, this does not foretell good things for the future of the church. It's success is dependent on mindless obedience. If the once obedient members, who were taught to accept any and every calling, begin to take back their power by declining callings when asked, the future is going to be bleak for the church. Basically the demands of the church are starting to over tax what believers are willing to do and accept from the church. This is a sure sign that the church, where once no one questioned, is showing signs of future problems.

In my experience, this is much more a function of the incompetency and lameness of members in 2017 than it is a mature "standing up to the man" action against the machine. Many members who decline callings just don't want to devote the time and effort to it, and thankfully just say so, rather than saying they will and then not doing it. It isn't usually a battle of ideologies or an attempt to throw down the gauntlet to the Church, though.

[_moinmoin]

Out of the blue, I got a Facebook message from this guy apologizing for abruptly cutting off contact with me. He told me that he was asked to by the bishop because the bishop was afraid I would hurt his faith. His wife was also asked not to confide her problems in my wife by this same bishop. Very culty bishop behavior interfering in friendships like that.

That is just so bizarre to me. Telling people not to associate with others. That is culty behavior! I am personally unaware of anything like this, but it does happen (as evidenced by your anecdote).

[_fetchface]

No, I am pretty sure that this is what I read:

http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/magick/texts/lifton.html

I didn't like the intro on that. Lifton is careful to call them the eight criteria for though reform. Whoever wrote that intro calls them the eight criteria for "mind control." The main thing I really liked about Lifton was his avoidance of loaded terms like those.

You might enjoy Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism if a psychological study Chinese prison thought reform programs is something that would interest you. I mean, I don't think his eight criteria that he comes up with in the end can't be improved upon or that it is a perfect work, but it is probably one of the 10 most interesting academic books I have ever read, but then again the psychology of belief fascinates me. It is scary to think that with the right program, you can achieve essentially a 100% conversion rate.

Sorry for the tangent, everyone.

[_fetchface]

I have his book on the Nazi doctors. He is a mainstay in cult studies.

I've read that one too. I got some weird looks when reading it at work at lunch time.

[_fetchface]

In my experience, this is much more a function of the incompetency and lameness of members in 2017 than it is a mature "standing up to the man" action against the machine. Many members who decline callings just don't want to devote the time and effort to it, and thankfully just say so, rather than saying they will and then not doing it. It isn't usually a battle of ideologies or an attempt to throw down the gauntlet to the Church, though.

When I was called as EQP, I had three children under four years old and my wife was pregnant. I took the calling because that's just what you do with a calling from God and it almost broke me. I was soon given all of the most demanding families to home teach. Every day I rode home on my motorcycle (trying to save gas because money was tight) I would think about how if someone pulled out in front of me and I crashed and died, I could at least rest.

If I had refused the calling would that have been "a function of [my] incompetency and lameness?" You sound like a nice guy most of the time, and then something like that comes out...

Honestly, I just didn't feel I could do the calling but I accepted it anyway because the calling was from God. The fact that many more people are now voicing their true thoughts and offering a firm "no" is a big change from how things used to be. It indicates that the members may not actually believe that the calling is a direct requirement from God or that local leaders speak for God. This is certainly the case in my wife now. She is even talking about how she believes that the brethren sometimes mistake their cultural conditioning for God's will. She has told me that she thinks there might be a change with respect to the church's stance on gay marriage in the future. How's that for a testimony? Keep in mind this is a lady who loves going to the temple and is there enthusiastically every Sunday building the kingdom. She's not the only one like this in the ward, either.

[_moinmoin]

If I had refused the calling would that have been "a function of [my] incompetency and lameness?" You sound like a nice guy most of the time, and then something like that comes out...

I didn't mean that to be an across-the-board description. I said it was "more a function" of that, and that is my experience. To the extent that members give principled reasons for turning down a calling, more power to them, and God bless them! *Most* of the time, people just don't want to do it, but without it relating to any kind of a stance or attitude of opposition to the Church. Some people end up having a track record of lousy performance in callings or turning them down often, and you learn to not depend on them. Because you were recommended and called as an EQP, I can almost guarantee that you did not come across this way (i.e., that your attitude and reliability were impressive).

I had a conversation with a member of the Seventy once, and he was proud of the fact that, according to him, not one person had ever turned down a calling as a bishop or stake president. If someone did, he played the "calling from God" card and got them to accept it. I disagree with this. To me, I am extending a calling, and people really have the agency to accept or decline it. I find that there are people who share good information I didn't know (which is good to know), and which leads me (or my counselors; they know that they are authorized to "pull out of the dive" if necessary and appropriate) to recall the extension of the calling --- and to make sure that they know that I don't look down on them for doing so. I *could* get almost all of these people to accept the calling if I insisted and wanted to play the "calling from God" card, but with the new information, it is better for all involved if we fill it elsewhere.

As for your plight as EQP with your young family, for what it's worth, I don't leave people in callings longer than 18 months. This does two things: it fights against burnout, and it also means that other people will have the experience and opportunity. I am aware of other bishops in the stake who, for example, have had the same RS president for five years (that's criminal!), or who simply recycle the same handful of people in the leadership callings. I don't like to do that, either.

[_fetchface]

I didn't mean that to be an across-the-board description. I said it was "more a function" of that, and that is my experience. To the extent that members give principled reasons for turning down a calling, more power to them, and God bless them! *Most* of the time, people just don't want to do it, but without it relating to any kind of a stance or attitude of opposition to the Church. Some people end up having a track record of lousy performance in callings or turning them down often, and you learn to not depend on them. Because you were recommended and called as an EQP, I can almost guarantee that you did not come across this way (i.e., that your attitude and reliability were impressive).

I had a conversation with a member of the Seventy once, and he was proud of the fact that, according to him, not one person had ever turned down a calling as a bishop or stake president. If someone did, he played the "calling from God" card and got them to accept it. I disagree with this. To me, I am extending a calling, and people really have the agency to accept or decline it. I find that there are people who share good information I didn't know (which is good to know), and which leads me (or my counselors; they know that they are authorized to "pull out of the dive" if necessary and appropriate) to recall the extension of the calling --- and to make sure that they know that I don't look down on them for doing so. I *could* get almost all of these people to accept the calling if I insisted and wanted to play the "calling from God" card, but with the new information, it is better for all involved if we fill it elsewhere.

As for your plight as EQP with your young family, for what it's worth, I don't leave people in callings longer than 18 months. This does two things: it fights against burnout, and it also means that other people will have the experience and opportunity. I am aware of other bishops in the stake who, for example, have had the same RS president for five years (that's criminal!), or who simply recycle the same handful of people in the leadership callings. I don't like to do that, either.

I used to chalk my Elder's refusals to take assignments to their laziness but if I'm honest now I have to admit that I was just very jealous of the ability they had to pick and choose what worked with their family life and what didn't while I was stuck holding the baton if nobody would take it. EQP has to make it happen whether he gets someone else to do it or if he has to do it himself. I'm not saying that applies to you, but having some years of separation between then and now gives me the ability to admit that about myself.

Demanding callings should have a shorter time limit. That's good that you do that. I felt so sorry for our SP when he got called. He is my age (late 30s) and has bunch of kids (one a newborn baby). Is the guideline still 10 years for an SP? I sure hope not. I can't get the image of him pacing and bouncing a baby in his arms up on the stand as his wife was asked to bear her testimony in the stake conference when he was sustained. Maybe he is handling everything just fine. Or maybe he is drowning like I was. I sure hope not but I don't have a lot of confidence in this church to back off on people they are asking too much of. Suffering for the church's sake is idolized and worshiped.

[_moinmoin]

I used to chalk my Elder's refusals to take assignments to their laziness but if I'm honest now I have to admit that I was just very jealous of the ability they had to pick and choose what worked with their family life and what didn't while I was stuck holding the baton if nobody would take it.

I don't think laziness is the right word in most cases, but I would say most members are not equal to the commitment all the time. Those who are stand out like a little kid playing "pick a card" and jutting the card you're supposed to pick way out . . .

At a canning assignment, the man thanked us for being the STP. I was confused, thinking about a fuel additive, and he explained that in his experience, it is the "same ten people" who always come to these assignments. We also had a counselor in a stake presidency who joined the church with his mother and sisters. His father, who never joined, told them after years of observing them in the Church that Mormonism can be described as "the killing of the willing." I do what I can to alleviate this phenomenon, but it can be like the little boy throwing starfish back into the ocean.

EQP has to make it happen whether he gets someone else to do it or if he has to do it himself.

Absolutely. As you know from experience, I would say that good EQP and ward mission leaders are even more crucial than the "glory positions" (bishop, stake president, etc.). When they are good and solid, and do much on their own agency and volition, I think it has a bigger impact than a bishop. I tell our leaders that family comes first, and to just do what they can do and not tie themselves up into knots over trying to do it all.

I was called again as a bishop (5 years, two months) after only a year and a half interlude (long story, and probably not a good one for this venue. The old bishop was disciplined, and they were concerned about it having a bad effect on the ward). I've been in for three years, and it has been rougher sledding this time around (many more all-around problems in this ward). I'll admit that I've thought about moving to a different ward when our lease is up in June and we need to move, but we'll probably stay in the ward and let it run its course.

Demanding callings should have a shorter time limit. That's good that you do that. I felt so sorry for our stake president when he got called. He is my age (late 30s) and has bunch of kids (one a newborn baby). Is the guideline still 10 years for an stake president?

Yes, it's generally 5 years for bishops, and 10 years for stake presidents. Our last SP was between 9 and 10 years. While it is ten years, I don't think SP is as demanding as EQP, WML (if done well), or bishop. You have coordinating council meetings and other meetings and stake-level disciplinary councils, but these are after the heavy lifting has been done at the ward level. You do get the direct "come to Jesus" talks (read: get reamed) by Salt Lake more than the bishops.

I sure hope not. I can't get the image of him pacing and bouncing a baby in his arms up on the stand as his wife was asked to bear her testimony in the stake conference when he was sustained. Maybe he is handling everything just fine. Or maybe he is drowning like I was. I sure hope not but I don't have a lot of confidence in this church to back off on people they are asking too much of. Suffering for the church's sake is idolized and worshiped.

I've noticed the same "lameness" increasingly among leadership as well. A *major* emphasis over the last several years has been "delegate until they breathe for you" (Elder Anderson), and this was reiterated in a September regional meeting with two high-ranking GAs. I'm a terrible delegator, but most bishops and stake presidents seem kind of wimpy about the demands, and gladly delegate a whole bunch (I have even heard on more than one occasion questions seeking exact lists of what they are required to do and what they can delegate). I think it's ideal (best) when people called to positions of responsibility have big shoulders and can shoulder the burden, but it is increasingly the case that even "high up" leaders struggle under the demands of the calling.

While I'm old-fashioned, I do everything I can not to crush people and to spare the wear and tear. Church and living the gospel should be a joy, not drudgery. And, I take the consistent counsel to "reduce and simplify" time and money demands on members --- counsel which the Church collectively really struggles with. We don't do fundraisers (everyone hates those, and we're really not supposed to, per CHI), we have ward council once a month, or more often as needed.

[_cwald]

Out of the blue, I got a Facebook message from this guy apologizing for abruptly cutting off contact with me. He told me that he was asked to by the bishop because the bishop was afraid I would hurt his faith. His wife was also asked not to confide her problems in my wife by this same bishop. Very culty bishop behavior interfering in friendships like that.

That is just so bizarre to me. Telling people not to associate with others. That is culty behavior! I am personally unaware of anything like this, but it does happen (as evidenced by your anecdote).

It happens ALL THE TIME.

[_cwald]

Moinmoin, I think you are being terribly dishonest if you are claiming that the LDS church does not teach it's membership, or at least it is believed by most faithful members, that callings issued from a Bishop or SP, really are callings issued from god and should be accepted. This is just a common practice and belief system within the church.

If things have changed in the last 7 years since I was involved, great. But to claim that it was taught and opening acknowledged even 10 years ago that members can simply turn down callings and still be considered faithful and in good standing is ridiculous.