Have you ever heard?
“Well, the Church has been hiding the real story for years. I can’t trust them anymore.”
“It’s pretty obvious from the language in the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith must have written it? Where is Zarahemla anyway?
“That Joe Smith was nothing but a sex fiend. I guess Brigham Young must have been the same way.”
“Joseph never started polygamy; it was Brigham Young who did.”
“Have you ever read about the way the Church treated the Blacks, not giving them the Priesthood for more than 100 years and then would not apologize after they were finally pressured into doing it in 1978.”
“Women used to do all kinds of blessings and anointings in the Church but now the leadership won’t let them and suppresses women all the time… And they won’t give us the Priesthood.”
“Church is boring.”
And on and on. These are just some of the reasons why folks have left the Church or are not active. There is about a million more just like it.
Maybe, the real reason they do not want to be part of the Church is that they just don’t want to.
They have other interests, other pursuits, other things that they want to do. And the Church is a time sink and an effort sink. And why waste a whole day and give up 10% of your income. For what?
I’ve had a number of folks tell me when I visited them that they just aren’t interested. Not a ton of excuses, just that simple. “Anything in particular?” I might ask. “No, not really,” came the reply.
Now maybe it wasn’t the truth, but it often sounded like it.
And you know what, it’s ok. But, at least be honest with yourself and others about the real reason.
“I just don’t want to.”
Wheat & Tares 
Hmmm….I think it could be a combination of your reasons above. For my husband, who was overbearing TBM, his biggest issue was that he had a hard time participating in a church that was not as literal as he was taught to believe. He didn’t want to live in a way that made him feel dishonest with himself and with others. He didn’t want to give it up, it was such a huge part of his life, it was a massive inner conflict. I don’t ever think it’s that cut and dry.
I think the issue is there isn’t just one “class” of people who leave, any more than there is one “class” of people who stay.
I think the vast majority of people who “go inactive” have relatively non-complex, non-nuanced reasons for inactivity…because their activity was non-complex and non-nuanced either. Most of these inactive people would probably look identical (from a practical side) to people who leave the church — so it might be safe to say that most people who “leave the church” do so for non-complex, non-nuanced reasons.
But these people don’t blog. These people don’t go on forums. They don’t tweet. So, you’re going to have to do something else to account for the people who do these things.
I guess you can say all of those people are just “antis” who secretly “know it’s all true” or whatever. That’s what a lot of people do to reconcile the difference, unfortunately…
P.S. re “I don’t want to.” Couldn’t you always ask something like, “Why don’t you want to?” And then, wouldn’t the answers be similar to the statements mentioned above? Why don’t I want to spend a kazillion dollars getting my thetan pores cleansed? Because I’m not persuaded to Scientology Again, one can “not want” something for non-complex, non-nuanced reasons, BUT one can “not want” something for more substantive reasons as well.
I guess what I was saying in a nutshell was that, as Andrew points out, it may not be that complex or driven by some event, knowledge, affront or persuasion.
Just a general choice to stop doing something. Sure there’s a reason, but it’s not one of those heart-stopping events that some claim.
I was a convert at age 19 – 30 years ago. I have never felt a connection to the Church culture itself. It does nothing for me. However, if we are talking about the Restored Gospel, seeking for further light and knowledge through the Holy Ghost, enjoying the fruits of being a full Disciple of our Saviour, and the blessings of the Temple then I shall participate willing.
It is my belief that, as a lifestyle, Mormonism leaves a tremendous amount to be desired in today’s world. It extracts a high cost when it is viewed solely through the lens of a “social” or “cultural” testimony. However, if viewed through the lens of Discipleship then it takes on a whole different meaning. It becomes alive, a vehicle to understanding Truth, and the respository of Priesthood Authority. It brings peace and joy to my soul as I explore the foundational principles and mysteries of eternity. It allows me to seek the face of God in truth and wisdom.
However, not everyone has the “fire in the belly” to become full disciples. Many use the Church as a social outlet or as a scaffold to raise their children and teach them character and discipline. If that is how you approach your church membership then there are a myriad of opportunities to receive the same benefit in other venues without so much effort and cost.
I have often pondered the end result of a “social” testimony. If someone does not enjoy Gospel Scholarship, exploring the Fullness of the Gospel, participating in Adoration and Emulation of our Lord, and in full service to others, what do they think they will be doing in the Celestial Kingdom for eternity? As Elder Maxwell so eloquently put it in one of his talks, we really will be given that which we truly desire. It cannot be otherwise. Our words and actions so easily reveal those desires. If we do not seek for full discipleship in this life then we will not be offered it in the next life. If we do not enjoy living by a Celestial law and mastering the Fullness of the Gospel then we will not be forced to enter the Celestial Kingdom. He states that the education of our desires is perhaps the real purpose of our mortal probation. What do we really want?
I do agree with your assessment that for some people they “just don’t want to”. I do think it is much more complex than that, however, for both those who leave the Church as well as those who leave.
I would even go so far as to propose that there are no two people even IN the Church who see things exactly the same. For example: suppose you polled people on what being a member of the Church “means”:
– DO you drink coffee?
– Decaffeinated coffee:
– Black tea?
– Green teas?
– Mate?
– Herb teas?
– Coke?
– Decaffeinated coke?
– Wine?
– Cooking wine?
– Beer?
– Non-alcoholic beer?
– One-piece swimming suits?
– Bikinis?
– Tankinis?
– Speedos (ugh)?
– Covered shoulders?
– Covered bellies in kids?
– Covered knees?
– Staying in Sunday clothes all day?
– Watching football on TV on Sunday?
– Playing football with your family in a park on Sunday?
– Going to a professional football game on Sunday?
– Going back-to-school shopping on a Sunday?
– Going to buy weekly groceries on Sunday?
– Going to buy a single item you forgot for a dinner half-prepared on a Sunday?
– Going to Barnes & Noble to buy a book on a Sunday?
– Buying the same book on Amazon on a Sunday?
– Shopping for books on Amazon on a Sunday, but not actually buying them until Monday?
– Etc.
The list could go on and on. I almost guarantee that there are NO TWO active, faithful, TBM, TR-holding members who would answer ALL of the questions the same way. We are all unique. We all engage or disengage with the Church for different reasons.
At the end of the day, the Church is just another tool. Our ultimate goal in life is NOT our relationship with the Church as it’s currently instantiated. Our ultimate goal is our relationship with God. For many millions of people, the Church helps them in this ultimate goal. For many billions of others, in their personal opinion, the LDS Church is NOT the best thing for them in their quest to touch the divine.
And it’s really as simple as that.
Nice post. And great comment from Mike S.
If someplace besides the LDS Church works for a person’s spiritual growth, why should they waste time in Mormon meetings?
OR, maybe, the real reason they do not want to be part of the Church is exactly what they told you and they are being honest. Stranger things have happened.
Two things:
first, if going to a professional football game on a Sunday, Then Andy Reid would be in big trouble.
Second, I’m trying to figure out what the picture of Bruce Springsteen has to do with the OP? Just my humor showing
Sorry, it should have Read: If going to a Professional Football game was and is a sin, then Andy Reid would be in big trouble.
I agree with Andrew that it comes in all shades and degrees, but still “I just don’t want to” can be reasonably interpreted as “I don’t see the value”. I am not at all persuaded that most people are so lazy as to consciously throw away salvation because “their just not in the mood”. I think if most people felt that there was in fact Eternal consequences to their involvement in the Church, they would more or less play ball. On the spectrum of “I have reason to believe the Church” to “I have reason not to believe the Church” there is a region near the origin that says “I have neither any reason to believe the Church or not to believe the Church”, where the logical default is to then be unexcited about religious system with no apparent value. In other words, “I just don’t want to” isn’t a reflection of someone with a testimony who is reticent to a little effort, but rather they are a person who has no reason to believe and won’t put forth the effort because, what’s the point! They would rather invest their emotions, time, and energies into something else, even if that appears to be nothing else to the self-assured religious community.
Andrew S
I would disagree with you that people who leave the church or who go inactive don’t blog or tweet.
I blog and give reasons as to why I have gone inactive all the time and people like you refuse to accept the reasons by saying that the reasons we give are not good enough in your view, or as you and some others have implied is that people like me are just to lazy. Which is as far from the truth as one can get.
I have tried and tried to fit in. The church is not as forgiving to people who do not fit into the regular mode. And to say the “church is perfect” but the people are not just doesn’t work. Because as far as I’m concerned the people who run the church are the ones who are making it difficult for people like me by saying we are lazy or just being prideful.
Cowboy,
“I agree with Andrew that it comes in all shades and degrees, but still “I just don’t want to” can be reasonably interpreted as “I don’t see the value”.”
Excellent point. I think that is another way of saying it. I remember my first Econ class in college, the prof tried to explain to us how simple Economics was by equating it to everything. We exchange something (time, money, effort, etc) in exchange for something else of equal value. As soon as the value of what we get goes down, we should consider whether it is an exchange we wish to continue.
I think it is the same with the church or any other endeavor. I think that is an honest answer.
“If going to a Professional Football game was and is a sin, then Andy Reid would be in big trouble.’
The excuse is, is that it is his job.
Diane,
As a single gay man trying to live the law of celibacy, I understand entirely how you feel. That is why I have to concentrate on the spiritual aspect of the Restored Gospel or I would end up walking out. I have a certainty of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration by Brother Joseph. It keeps me going when I am faced with the social idiocy.
Wait… Andy Reid works on Sunday? That’s even WORSE than going to a professional football game.
What’s that? His JOB is to BE AT PROFESSIONAL FOOTBAL GAMES!!??? Maybe because he doesn’t actually play it’s OK?
[head asplode]
re 10:
Cowboy,
of course. But again, we can go another step further…why don’t people see the value? I actually like your “logical default” to be unexcited about religious systems with no apparent value, but I feel like many people *do* get burned, and it’s not enough to just pretend that they don’t (or to imply that that wasn’t a factor at all.)
Why does the value of a religious system go down for someone for whom it once may have had positive value? I mean, it’s not as if this never happens! This isn’t a bizarro world scenario I’m mentioning.
re 11:
Diane,
For every one of people like us (and I do say *us*; maybe you don’t know who I am? Hi, I’m Andrew S.) who blogs about our story, I think the reality is that there are several more people who do not blog, who do not comment, who do not post. For whom when the church is out of sight, it is out of mind. The reason people like us blog is to differentiate ourselves from this group, even though we face adverse numbers.
re 15:
harpchil
It’s ok; it’s ok. He pays a full tithe on the money earned working on Sunday (…at least I hope). And that’s what really matters.
Why would a person want to be a member of the Church?
The most obvious motivator, is a conviction that it is true. How many people who truly believed that — that activity in this Church is the best or only way to eternal glory — would really care about the time and effort involved?
“Just not interested,” if you unpack it, is as likely as not shorthand, for many people, for “just not convinced.”
The issues of history and doctrine which are offered as affirmative evidence that the Church is not true, are probably not what tips the balance for people. What tips the balance is that they were never affirmatively persuaded that the Church was true. The affirmative evidence is as likely as not simply a garnish on the main issue: The initial burden of proof was never satisfied (in their minds); the affirmative evidence against is ultimately superfluous.
Now maybe there are some people who believe, but just don’t care. I don’t pretend to understand that logic. And there are probably also people who just couldn’t be bothered to give “gaining a testimony” a reasonable chance. And to them, Elder Holland can fire away with all guns.
But some people seem to have an idea that you should be presumed to be a lazybones who just doesn’t care about spiritual things, if you don’t keep buggering on through unconviction until you die. Because otherwise, you haven’t given Mormonism a fair chance.
The problem is that those people in all likelihood haven’t given Catholicism, Methodism, Buddhism, or so forth a fair chance, either.
So “Maybe they just don’t want to” stops one step short of where that line of thinking leads. Why don’t they want to?
Andrew S,
“Why does the value of a religious system go down for someone for whom it once may have had positive value? I mean, it’s not as if the never happens! This isn’t a bizarro world scenario I’m mentioning.”
I would propose that, in a Mormon context, it happens because someone is either viewing the value in social/cultural terms or has distanced themselves from the Divine that they used to experience in the church due to the lack of nourishment to the soul.
I know this may sound as a “blame the victim” explanation but there is definitely a connection between nourishing the soul and experiencing the Divine. It requires a constant effort which is why it is so aptly described as a war.
If we only think of membership in any religion as a value proposition for social and cultural reasons then we are merely visiting the outside courtyard of the mansion. We are never venturing inside to see the depth of its offerings. That makes it easy to go visit another courtyard at another mansion to see what they are serving at their BBQ.
re 19:
Michael,
How does one “distance oneself from the Divine that they used to experience in the church due to lack of nourishment of the soul”?
Please note that this only becomes a “blame the victim” explanation if the ONLY way you allow for this to happen is because of the victim. But for whatever it’s worth, plenty of people seem to be fully convinced that it’s possibly to be doing everything “right” and yet still feel spiritually starved in the church.
One of the best things of the new Church Handbook of Instructions, to me, is a consistent reminder that the Church exists for the benefit of the members, not the other way around.
I have gotten caught up in the past, and feel most members do as well, that as a Latter-Day Saint, I’m supposed to “fit in” and be part of a particular culture. Because of the new CHI and other reasons that I’ve experienced recently, I don’t feel that way any more and it’s quite liberating.
I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church on the earth. By living the teachings of the restored gospel, I am happier. I would invite anyone and everyone to investigate and see if it makes them happier too. If not, or if you want to live the Gospel YOUR way, it doesn’t matter. I’m going to love you as myself anyway!
Andrew S,
I can only speak to my own personal experiences as a convert to the Restored Gospel. I was raised Irish Catholic and joined the church at 19. I don’t know if it is a pre-disposition I have to to the spiritual or if it is more than that. I find that building faith, seeking for light and knowledge, pondering, deep prayer, mediation, service, adoration and emulation definitely lead me to more directly experience Divine manifestations and have my mind enlarged with greater spiritual knowledge. I feel this most profoundly when spending time in the Celestial Room.
I must state that I am not oblivious to the value offered by other spiritual paths (or even non-spiritual paths for that matter). I left the church for 10 years to come to terms with my gay identity but never gave up my spiritual longings. I find comfort in attending a Catholic mass as much as a Temple session. I find truth and spiritual nourishment in the most unlikely of places.
But in the end it comes back to that darn Book of Mormon and Brother Joseph’s Restoration.
Michael,
when you say you “can only speak to [your] personal experience,” are you implying that others’ mileages may vary, so to speak? Could someone do the same things you did and come to a different conclusion?
Andrew S,
I imagine they could. The scriptures speak of different gifts of the Spirit. Perhaps my gift has been a gift of faith.
“And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.
For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;
And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;
And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning all things;
And again, to another, the beholding of angels and ministering spirits;
And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;
And again, to another, the interpretation of languages and of divers kinds of tongues.
And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.”
I definitely know I don’t have the gift of miracles.
Michael,
Yes, and don’t forget the additional ones in D+C 46.
It just seems to me that in the church, the gifts aren’t weighted equally. If you have neither the gift to know that Jesus is the Christ nor the gift to believe on others’ words, then the rest of the gifts seem to pale in comparison.
Andrew S,
I do think there is a disadvantage to being raised in the Church when one is dealing with the challenges you mention. Without having had experience in other religions or in the secular world, it is difficult for a Latter-day Saint to evaluate the value of the Church or to ascertain the validity of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration because you have very limited direct experience with which to compare it.
In my case, I have a full Irish Catholic family with all its traditions, strengths and weaknesses as well as my gay world with all its strengths and weaknesses. This allows me to compare and contrast and to gain a perspective that I don’t think I would have if raised in the Church or the mountain West.
I think it is similar to going overseas for your mission and seeing a different country or culture. It changes how you view the world.
Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side of the fence but many times it is not. And sometimes it is just a different color.
“Without having had experience in other religions or in the secular world, it is difficult for a Latter-day Saint to evaluate the value of the Church or to ascertain the validity of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration because you have very limited direct experience with which to compare it.”
Is that really true?
Having something to compare the Church with, doesn’t necessarily help you determine whether it is True or not. It just gives you the ability to measure whether it is better than the next outfit.
To conclude that 25 + 30 = 55, I do not have to have spent part of my life thinking the right answer was 50. Truth ought to stand or fall on its own merits. It’s not enough just to be better than something else — one error can be “better” than another, without being True.
Thomas,
I acknowledge your position. So then how would you answer Andrew S. in post #25 when he seeks a confirmation but does not have the gift to believe that Jesus is the Christ or the gift to believe on other’s words?
My response to him was in context of his statement.
re 26:
Michael,
But this isn’t just something that can happen to someone born and raised in the church. Not only that, but someone born and raised in the church can leave the church and see other things and never come back to believe in the church’s validity.
According to your story, you did something similar. You left the Catholic church of your upbringing, but you didn’t go back.
You will probably say, “It’s because Mormonism is true,” but anyone else could be convinced similarly for any other religion, or of no religion at all.
I ultimately have to agree with Thomas’s point re 27 about this. Having something to compare the Church (or any church) with doesn’t necessarily help you determine whether it is true or not. It gives you the ability to measure whether it is better than the next outfit. BUT I’d go even further…your ability to measure whether it is better than the next outfit does not determine that the church is objectively better than the next outfit, because your perception of betterness or worseness is not connected with objectivity but with subjectivity.
In this case, might you consider it a “gift” to consider the Church “better” than other churches? And what if someone lacks that gift?
I’m a generally active member. I’m not “disaffected,” but neither am I fawning over the church. I think the church is, largely, an idol we worship. We bear testimony of the church, of its “truthfulness” and stand at our collective Rameumptum’s to witness as much each and every Sunday (especially the 1st Sunday of the month). The church is generally the source of our longing, our affection and our faith. We trust the Church(tm), we trust in her correlative processes and trust that she will bring us nigh unto salvation. Don’t believe? Take a tally of the testimonies that get borne during F&T meeting. Or not.
We worship the Church(tm) of the Lord, instead of the Lord of the church.
We worship the Temple of the Lord, instead of the Lord of the temple.
We worship the scriptures of the Lord rather than the “WORD” of the Lord.
We worship the “LAW” of the Lord, rather than the Lord of the “law”.
We worship the Prophet of the Lord, rather than the Lord who calls the prophet.
So for me, when people say that they no longer find value in the church experience, or they “just don’t want to”, I kind of understand. Each situation is different, but for me (and a few other people I know) the reason I can empathize with their situation is because I think the Church(tm) is laden in various forms of unintended idolatry. What generally begins with honest intentions occasionally devolves into stumbling blocks of one sort or another.
I think one reason some just don’t want to go to church anymore is because they find it more and more an obstacle to worshiping the Lord. That’s not the case for all (many?), but it’s a problem with me. I still go to church every week, but when leaders of the church tell me I can either “… choose to follow the prophet, or we can look to the arm of flesh,” I shake my head at what is going on around me and hope for something else.
Some might scoff at this situation – it’s not as if it hasn’t happened before – but I’ve felt the pressure of not conforming to many of the modern day teachings more intimately than many will know. The pressure for conformity of belief has been very real in the units I’ve belonged to the past couple of years.
Monmouth,
You said it perfectly.
@13)
My point is that some people don’t see the distinction, between working on a Sunday because its’ your job, because to them its’ still breaking the Sabbath as in the response to #15
Michael in 26, I’d like to respond, but I’m not quite sure what you’re asking.
I wouldn’t say boring…but how about monotony? How many times can a woman serve in Young Womens, then Primary, then Young Womens again and find the programs exhilarating? How many times can one use Gospel Principles as a text and not yearn for something else? Even President Hinckley after so many years of giving conference talks repeated the ‘yes I am late, but I am clean’ story. (I think breaking from monotony is one of the appeals of the bloggernacle.)
Yet you look at the families in your ward and share the joy with them when their children advance, graduate, go to college and go on missions, and if you have had the opportunity to serve them along the way, even if it was teaching from those well-worn manuals, there is joy.
The very premise of this post is a huge over simplification. I am sure there are people who have left because they just did not want to be members. I scanned the comments and totally agree that “just don’t want to” is probably more along the lines of “just not convinced” or even more common “lost my conviction”.
You quote a lot of things that people who have left say, but without a lot of the context surrounding those statements it is not fair to judge a single comment. Leaving the church, losing belief is way more complex than a simple statement and I really don’t think anyone leaves for a single reason. There are usually multiple reasons and then one straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Having said precisely the same thing to visiting missionaries, let me give you a little insider translation.
What they actually are saying to you is:
“There is a reason and it is deeply personal because religion is deeply personal and you don’t get to peer into my personal life just because you knocked on my door. But you seem nice, so have a nice day!”
You’re taking them waaaay too much on face value.
Monmouth,
You about nailed it. Some just outgrow what the Church (TM) has to offer, and find a better spiritual path elsewhere.
Jeff, I think you’re right in the OP. But there’s another reason people leave, and it’s a little related to some of what Mike S has said — they choose to live differently than the church teaches. In the case of more than one person I know, they admit that they are living in transgression, and therefore are not comfortable at church. They do not deny the truth of the church or the reality of the Savior, but don’t feel comfortable living at odds with those truths and being regularly reminded, so they stay away. I do not make this assumption of all who stay away, but know that some do feel this way.
It seems that less active/inactive in our area are very active in other churches:
* The Church of Hunting & Fishing
* The Church of NFL
* The Church of just wanting to do what I want to do on Sunday
* The Church of two recreational days each weekend rather than one
* The Church of “I can feel closer to God by being in nature”
* The Church of Anywhere but The Church where I was offended by one of its members
Oh, just say it, Wyoming: the church of inferior to you.
“Some just outgrow what the Church (TM) has to offer, and find a better spiritual path elsewhere.”
Or the Church outgrows them.
Val,
““There is a reason and it is deeply personal because religion is deeply personal and you don’t get to peer into my personal life just because you knocked on my door.”
This is supreme irony! People are not willing to answer a direct question in person because it is too personal, but are willing to spill their guts on the Internet.
Kiley #35,
“You quote a lot of things that people who have left say, but without a lot of the context surrounding those statements it is not fair to judge a single comment.”
That is the context. And those are the statement they use. In come cases, there is explanation, in some others, not. Besides, I thought those statements pretty much convey a pretty clear message.
Jeff (42):
On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog. Furthermore, you can always walk away from a conversation at any time. These things don’t work quite as well offline. I think privacy and information disclosure between online and offline are just two different things.
I see no irony here. EVERYONE behaves differently online than in person, for perfectly rational reasons that shouldn’t require explaining.
Unless you meant irony in, like, an Alanis Morissette “things that don’t turn out how I want” sort of way. Then yes, supremely.
There is a huge difference. Online, I can express doubts or concerns about various religious things with other folks that have an LDS background. I can say that I don’t really “know” that the Church is true, but certainly hope it is. I can say that I have read the BofM over a dozen times and prayed about it hundreds of times and, guess what, I’ve never received an answer that it’s true. At the end of the day, however, the ideas I have about everything stand for themselves. People may agree or disagree, but life goes on.
Contrast that with the real world. My last calling was YM President for 60-70 YM. I had 20-25 priests, 20 teachers and 20 deacons. We have around 15 of the YM I taught on missions. Imagine me getting up on fast Sunday and saying the same things. Imagine me talking to the bishop about them. Imagine me talking to the young men about them. It would have caused a lot of waves, a lot of talking, a lot of chatter. The way this church is, it would have caused a lot of long-term repercussions for my family and me.
At the end of the day, since I had stewardship over a number of people, I didn’t want to rock the world of those who weren’t perhaps mature enough to hold on to contrasting ideas. So I play along with the program in the real world, and discuss my issues here.
You know, its possible that the person simply no longer believes. They weren’t offended or some other lame label that is placed on them.
Why invest all the time and money if you no longer believe?
“Why invest all the time and money if you no longer believe?”
I think that is a perfectly good reason.
Mike S.
“I didn’t want to rock the world of those who weren’t perhaps mature enough to hold on to contrasting ideas.”
I don’t think I could exist with that much conflict within myself.
Re: #41
The ability of the Church™ to outgrow someone would be predicated on the Church™ progressing itself, would it not? I understand that many have said the same thing (i.e. the train will move on without you, etc.), but I’m not sure I buy the reasoning. Assuming we’re not talking about numbers here, and the reference to “growth” is referring to the ability to measure some spiritual growth, then how does the Church™ (an insentient corporate institution) outgrow someone?
I’m sure there are some who are spiritually indifferent, who were baptized for the wrong reasons and want nothing to do with it. However, I’d be specifically interested in how the Church outgrows people who are spiritual, and/or who are looking for the divine, and/or who are looking for their spiritual path and/or who are fed up with the vomit, the errant vision, etc., both in and outside of church.
Re: Mike S.
I agree with your comments about being able to voice concerns here on the internet, and not in public (or at least not in person). I’ve tried to voice some of my concerns in meetings in my local unit and usually get railroaded out of the room, figuratively speaking (some examples: questioning why our obedience needed to be based on “the Brethren,” as opposed to Christ; or whether Woodruff’s comment about not being able to lead the Church astray was a logical fallacy; or that we should think about changing the words of “Follow the Prophet” to better reflect the Being we should be claiming to follow, etc). Each time I raised issues which should normally not be that controversial, and other concerns, my faith has been questioned, my status as an “apostate” reaffirmed and my callings removed from me. I haven’t held a calling in over 2 years, not because I’ve declined one (I can’t decline that which isn’t offered) or am unworthy, but because I have the scarlet A on my chest (for “apostate”). I’m routinely counseled to “follow the Prophet” and the “Church™”; but never told to “follow Christ.” It’s either the Prophet and the Church™, or bust.
At least here, I can usually speak openly and discuss other issues without running into the Gospel Gestapo at my ward. One good thing is that I know I can at least talk sports with my fellow ward members without risking any weird looks. I find it funny that I’m encouraged to talk sports with these people, but discouraged (yes, on multiple occasions) from having gospel discussions outside of the 3-hour block on Sundays; that the gospel (and my ability to live and question the same) is reserved for a 3-hour timeframe where the approved sources can monitor the discussion. As if the gospel can be confined to an institution to begin with.
Maybe these people and experiences are in my path because these are the lessons I need to learn, but boy do I get fed up with our cocksure ways.
“The ability of the Church™ to outgrow someone would be predicated on the Church™ progressing itself, would it not?”
Not exactly. I was observing that some folks never seem to progress out of a “Primary” view of the Church and the Gospel. in other words, beyond the “I know the Church is true” phase. Well, the church itself isn’t true. The Gospel is true, The Savior is the Christ and the LDS Church is His imperfect vehicle to bring the Gospel and the Ordnances to the earth.
So, when I say the Church outgrows the person, it is a reflection of them, not the Church. Perhaps too abstract.
“I’ve tried to voice some of my concerns in meetings in my local unit and usually get railroaded out of the room, figuratively speaking.”
I’ve never experienced this in 28 years. Either happening to me or anyone else. I’ve had a talk once with the Sunday School president about a complaint about what someone else was saying in my class, but I pretty dismissed it to one’s person (another person in the class) inability to tolerate a discussion where views might differ. We were accused of having an argument which was ridiculous. And the SS pres and the Bishop’s counselor were not even in the room at the time. It was a baseless charge.
So, I’ve never seen, experienced nor acting upon anything that you describe other than that.
I am sorry that you have.
It is absurd to think that people who wrench themselves away from the only culture they’ve ever known are just indulging pique. If anyone has ever read any of the process of accepting that they are inflicting pain on loved ones or accepting being treated as pariahs in their own communities and families or being betrayed by beliefs and an organization they had devoted their lives to then it’s nothing less than insulting to have it reduced to just not wanting to follow the WOW or being bored in meetings.
Is it possible people responded that they just didn’t want to talk about it (however they phrased that) because they don’t think their concerns will be treated seriously or fairly? The tone of this entry strikes me as potential evidence of that.
My name is Jack and I have left the Church because I disagreed with it past and present teachings. It would have been, in many ways, much easier to stay in the only environment I had only known, where I had already established a strong support system made up of strong relationships.
People’s decisions to leave can be very complicated. Maybe the best thing for you to do, would be to ask someone who left WHY they left. Listen to them, instead of assuming what their reason is.
In my mind, if there are 6,875,000,000 on earth who don’t belong to the church and there are at least 8 million members (of 14 million) who don’t attend church, there are many, many more compelling reasons than “I just don’t want to”.
I would start with Joseph Smith made it all up. That from a member who doesn’t go to church any more because he doesn’t want to, but not “just” because he doesn’t want to.
This is nonsensical.
Carson N
If this topic is nonsensical to you, you should ignore it. The rest of us think it’s a topic worth discussing, if only to bring to light the nonsensical components.
RE: Monmouth #50
Maybe people take exception to what you say because they feel they are worshipping God and following Him when they follow the leadership. It is possible and it’s possible that you’re finding trouble where there isn’t any. Just a thought.
Re: #5–Just renewed my church magazines online. Worked like a charm. 😀
And in ward conference today, our stake president made it abundantly clear that watching the superbowl was not a Sabbath activity.
Rick, I quoted a sentence that I think is nonsensical. Does the sentence make sense to you? Is there some interesting topic in that sentence? I honestly want to know what it means, saying that someone doesn’t want to because they just don’t want to. Isn’t that tautological? Is it an attempt to trivialize the reasons why someone doesn’t go to church? What is it?
I hope my observation did not offend you. I liked your comment at #47.
Carson N,
I didn’t catch the quote part. I thought you were making that comment and stating that the discussion was nonsensical.
My mistake.
I’m not offended by anything anyone says here.
I have very thick skin. You have to, if you have an opinion.
I think it is important to understand what is trying to be said here. If the intent is to simply trivialize the concerns of those who leave the Church, then perhaps to post was in as poor of taste as those who suggest active Church members are “brain-washed”. If on the other hand the intent was to cut-away from all of the conflict and get to the point that ultimately some people just don’t personally get value from their membership, with the implicit “unconvinced that it is true” parameter, then I think this is a good point.
Let’s take the Priesthood ban as an example. Implicit in any concerns over this issue, should be the notion that this proves the Church false, as any other objection is irrational. If your concern is with God, ie, that he is either unethical or a racist, then you must also concede that your concern is quite short-sighted, assuming you accept his omniscience. If on the other hand you hold to the a priory that God is not a racist, and he is “ethical” (and assuming that the ban was undoubtedly racist and unethical), then the ban represents contradiction, and that leads to less-convincing. Furthermore, if you are not convinced that the Church is true or probably not true, then the perceived value of continued participation is diminished.
The above notwithstanding, this is only a single example of how a person, or a subset people approach the issues. While I don’t want to oversimplify with a one dimensional continuum, I think it serves an adequate illustration. Going back to my comment in #10, it is not enough to not have adequate reason to not believe the Church false, to maintain interest. But rather, a person must have reason to believe. For some, who are religiously dispassionate, Church membership is often imposed by culture, as opposed to any type of personal yearnings. Such people, particularly Children, will generally play ball when they must, because those are the house rules, but ultimately “fall away” when the the external social pressures are not so great as to imply value. Many young adults fall away for this very reason, and few if any have ever taken seriously the question of “is the Church true”. They aren’t interested and consequently haven’t had any significant experience in the “I have reason to believe the Church is true” region of the belief continuum. They are not aware of the complexities surrounding many of the popular issues such as polygamy, the priesthood ban, fallibility of prophets, 19th century superstition, etc. These people fit perfectly in line with Jeff’s simplification. Why don’t they remain active? Because they don’t see the value, have yet to be convinced (either because the Church was not convincing during their time there, or because they did not apply the effort – just depending on how we want to interpret it), or more simply put, “they just don’t want to”.
This should not however stand as a way of interpreting every single, or most every, case. In other cases as we move further along the continuum we get to a region where the orientation shifts from “no reason to believe/not believe” to “reason not to believe”. People in this group have either been at one time active and believing, or have at least taken their religious heritage and culture intellectually and spiritually serious. In sum, they take the weight of contradiction actively and probabilistically as evidence against the likelihood that the Church is “true”. Additionally, for those who end up leaving, they view the cost of sustained membership greater than the value that can be spiritually gleaned from participation or that which can be enjoyed from social unity. As a note, some perhaps miscalculate those costs and can become sorely disappointed. In any case, in consideration of those costs, ultimately it still boils down to the fact that they just don’t see the value, where the perception of value is based on how convinced they are/aren’t, resulting from their perceptions on the classic issues. In other words, at the end of the day, Jeff is right, “they just don’t want to”. The only caveat is that this disinterest is the result of anything but a nonchalant ambivalence to Mormonism.
This topic was about those who lose faith, but for the sake of consideration, those at the other end of the continuum have progressed to the point of “I have reason to believe”, are not ambivalent either. They have weighed the evidence and either decided on a liberal definition of Prophets, etc. Or they challenge the validity of some contradictions etc. These individuals tend to actually believe however, and cannot therefore have their membership ascribed to cultural affiliation only.
@ Rachel
I think he would change his mind if people in the ward were 1) a Professional football Coach. I have one in my ward so, I don’t think your Stake President would be saying that supporting your ward member in their work would be wrong.
Cowboy,
“If on the other hand the intent was to cut-away from all of the conflict and get to the point that ultimately some people just don’t personally get value from their membership, with the implicit “unconvinced that it is true” parameter, then I think this is a good point.”
The ultimate point is that someone can lose the desire to participate in the Church. It does not have to be one of the earth-shattering reasons that are sometimes given. If that equates to “seeing no value” that is fine.
I was trying to make the point that a reason such as “I don’t want to” is as legitimate as an elaborate one.
Another side point, I suppose, is that the Church does not have to be the evil demon for someone to simply walk away from it. Some seem to have to demonize the Church as a reason to leave.
re: 51 – if that’s the case, then I might suggest they are shrinking away from the church, but even so, I don’t see the evidence that the church is outgrowing anyone. Even so, the church is not the gospel and the gospel is not the church.
re: 52 – I realize that’s not everyone’s experience, but it’s certainly mine. I can think of several examples in several different units where I was let known that my viewpoints weren’t what the church teaches and, as such, were not welcome. I’ve seen it happen to others too – i.e., someone raises a point that is either a little “out there” or perhaps not of the Gospel Essentials variety, and a dozen or so hands jump up to redirect the conversation and contradict what the original participant stated. Church members (warning: generalization coming) are surprisingly “strangely touchy” about participating in discussions that are not officially “approved” by the Correlation committee. My personal experience merely echoes what Nibley stated many years back:
re: #58 – I’m generally (though not always) careful to preface most of my comments in any “class” as being either my opinion or based on my experience in hopes that fellow participants will take it as such. We should all be free to share our opinions, feelings, experience, etc., in any class in church. I’m all for discussion, debate and informed beliefs, and would readily invite it, but I’m hardly “finding trouble where there isn’t any.” I appreciate the viewpoint, but if you knew me you’d probably reconsider that statement.
It’s one thing to disagree with how I view the gospel – and I’m totally OK with that – but something entirely different to tell/request/inform me that I can’t talk about “gospel principles” with anyone outside of the 3-hour block. Good news is I just moved to a new state/unit for work, so we’ll see how tolerant my new unit is. Here’s to hoping.
“Another side point, I suppose, is that the Church does not have to be the evil demon for someone to simply walk away from it. Some seem to have to demonize the Church as a reason to leave.”
There are those who leave the Church with a “good attitude”, which is fine I suppose. They would probably come in two camps though. The first camp would be compose of those who actually do foster resentment or bitter feelings towards the Church, but prudently choose to be diplomatic in their open and casual associations. The second camp would probably be among the good natured individuals I defined in my previous comment as belonging to the “no reason to believe or not believe” group, who just feel like the Church isn’t for them. Ultimately they are not convinced that the Church is true, so default that it is not, but are willing to accept that if others get value from their membership then that is acceptable.
It is also hard to discern from the adjective “demonize”, at what point an objection to the Church crosses a line. In other words, anyone who does not believe the Church is true ultimately will have some reservations against it, though some may choose not to make it a big deal in their life. I for example have often thought that I would love to just be done with the Church and move on, but I can’t. I live in Utah County, my wife enjoys the social networking at Church. My extended family is all dyed in the wool Mormon, and most of the people I interact with professionally on a day to day basis are all Mormon in the heartland of Mormonism. So paranthetically, blogging is somewhat of how I deal with that, but it is not because I have some desire to demonize the Church as much as I am constantly presented with Pro-Church sentiments with which I disagree(strongly in most cases). So in essence, I agree that not every case has ultimately result in the conclusion that the Church is bad, though implicitly it’s unique truth are generally rejected. Still, that does not mitigate against the reality that for some people the earth-shattering issues are the reason. Finding out about the manner in which Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or treasure seeking can be very real catalysts to the loss of what was otherwise a devoted faith.
#66 – Great point, Cowboy. The word “demonize” is a loaded word. I suspect that for most active members, anyone who actively speaks out against the church or its practices is demonizing it. I wonder whether the same people consider the comments regularly made in church settings about other religions or social or political groups to be demonizing said groups. I suspect not. For a church that preaches proactivity in saving others’ souls, and which places such high value on the first vision story which “demonizes” every other religion on earth, I think it’s a term that should probably be avoided.
#65,
“It’s one thing to disagree with how I view the gospel – and I’m totally OK with that – but something entirely different to tell/request/inform me that I can’t talk about “gospel principles” with anyone outside of the 3-hour block.”
First of all, it’s ridiculous for anyone to have suggested that, let alone a leader. Second, it’s not even within their purview to suggest such a thing (Agency) and third, how would they enforce it. Just absurd.
“Good news is I just moved to a new state/unit for work, so we’ll see how tolerant my new unit is. Here’s to hoping.”
I hope so as well.
“I suspect that for most active members, anyone who actively speaks out against the church or its practices is demonizing it.”
“For a church that preaches proactivity in saving others’ souls, and which places such high value on the first vision story which “demonizes” every other religion on earth, I think it’s a term that should probably be avoided.”
Really, now, are we that childlike? I should think you knew what I meant in making the statement about “demonizing the Church.” One can walk away from the Church without having to make it be evil to do so.
I think it’s called being a “grownup about it.”
Actually, Jeff, I wasn’t really thinking of you. In fact, I don’t think I even read your original comment. I was commenting more in the abstract based on Cowboy’s comment, so I apologize if it seemed like I was taking a shot at you.
That said, whatever term you want to use, I don’t see why those who walk away from the church quietly should be seen in any more positive light than those who walk away from the church and feel the need to criticize it. As I pointed out, Joseph Smith didn’t hesitate to publish to the world that not only was every other church in the world wrong, but they were disingenuous about their piety as well. I don’t point that out in the interest of score-keeping, but rather to highlight the fact that when we’re talking about truth, salvation, etc., I think people should be granted a lot of leeway in how they view things and the methods they employ to find and spread what they see as the truth. I’ve seen missionaries use some pretty unsavory tactics which were ultimately justified by an “ends justifies the means” mentality. The point is, if someone thinks they’ve discovered the truth, how can you criticize them for wanting to share it with others? I just think it’s a bit of a double standard.
But again, Jeff, I didn’t mean to direct the comment at you.
“Another side point, I suppose, is that the Church does not have to be the evil demon for someone to simply walk away from it. Some seem to have to demonize the Church as a reason to leave.”
Human nature. People do this every time they change loyalties, whether it involves churches, politics, banks, pop idols, or brands of toothpaste.
“They can leave Wells Fargo, but they can’t leave it alone.” Needless to say, this says nothing one way or the other about whether Wells Fargo is the One True Bank, or whether the person’s underlying decision to switch to a credit union was meritorious.
Where does “strenuous criticism” end and “demonizing” or “dehumanizing” begin?
Both words are potentially imprecise, and thus easily abused for rhetorical purposes.
“One can walk away from the Church without having to make it be evil to do so.”
Velvet divorces are admirable, but contrary to all but the most saintly human natures.
One could add that the Church could say goodbye to departing members, without having to make them evil — Bitter Fruity Apostates — to do so.
Then again, maybe the real reason they do not want to be part of the Church is that the Church isn’t true. Ever think of that?
#74 – No need to demonize, Janelle.
Just kidding, Jeff.
And to add to Thomas’ comment, not to tell members who are friends of people who have left not to associate with them as well.
The Church does not like to have people demonize it, but it does a dam sure job of making people who have issue with it seem as if they are people who have gone off the deep end.
“Then again, maybe the real reason they do not want to be part of the Church is that the Church isn’t true. Ever think of that?”
Yep, I thought of that. I like to “what if myself?”
They have a saying in Scientology ” What’s true for you is true.”
That is a correct statement to a degree. In other words, you might choose to believe something is not true. And, as far as you are concerned, it is not. That in and of itself does not make it untrue.
Jeff (68)
Unfortunately, your response to Monmouth represents wishful thinking more than it represents fact.
While I agree with you in terms of what should be — it is nevertheless the case that the Church(TM) is perfectly fine with two or more believers in Christ coming together to discuss the gospel — as long as those believers in Christ are not LDS.
If they are LDS, then they are not to meet together to discuss the gospel except in official church meetings.
Family meetings are different. A family may meet together to discuss the scriptures [family home evening, family scripture study, etc.] with no problems. But if the meeting is not a family meeting [meaning it is between non-related church members] and they are discussing the gospel, then they become suspect and might be called in to see the bishop.
“While I agree with you in terms of what should be — it is nevertheless the case that the Church(TM) is perfectly fine with two or more believers in Christ coming together to discuss the gospel — as long as those believers in Christ are not LDS.
If they are LDS, then they are not to meet together to discuss the gospel except in official church meetings.”
This can be true in some circumstances, and frankly is treated quite unusually. In an old Ward there were a few of the retired gentleman who would get together a few times a week to visit over bagels and orange juice, and hold informal scripture studies together. This was a well known throughout the Ward and has lasted for several years. As far as I am aware there has never been really much of an issue raised from the presiding leadership over these “gatherings” of two or more. On the other hand, while I was on my mission there was a situation that I was not directly involved with, but apparently had severe impacts on a local Ward. Some of the members decided that they wanted to have a weekly scripture study evening. These were intended to be a bit more formal, where participants were given assignment to study selected materials and come prepared to discuss the scriptures from an LDS perspective. These lasted for a few short months before the local stake leadership got involved and effectively shut them down.
I’m not sure how much the difference between these two observations can be attributed to individual Ward idiosyncracies, but I think there is some insitutional influence to discourage “unofficial” gatherings. This is only conjecture, but I speculate that if I had a few friends in the Ward who I got together with routinely to discuss scriptures, there would be little effort to discourage us. On the other hand, if I undertook to sponsor “couples night” with a group of couples in the Ward to get together at a set time each week or month and undertake a formalized group study, they would probably intervene. That’s just a guess.
#77 – I agree with this, Jeff. And vice versa.
“If they are LDS, then they are not to meet together to discuss the gospel except in official church meetings.”
Sorry, not buying it. My wife and/or I have done it with friends many times without consequence or anything like it. And I wouldn’t let anyone tell me otherwise.
I’m not sure where you live, or have lived throughout your life, but this sort of tactic has been fairly well known throughout my life. You can enforce it by threats, innuendo or the use of “Priesthood Authority.” Certainly actual “punishment” might not happen, but threats are often as useful as actual enforcement. It might not be in their “purview,” but its almost natural for leaders to take that area under their purview. For example: if some informal/formal group is getting together within ward boundaries, the bsihop may feel its his duty to be the “judge in Israel” and “protect his flock.”
I was once in a ward council meeting where a member of the council promoted the idea of organizing a weekly “bible study” – to include ward members and, hopefully, area non-members – but it was summarily shot down by the bishop who stated (perhaps in ignorance) that the “Church counsels us to avoid” those kinds of meetings (my paraphrasing).
Personally, I’d be really surprised to see the church turn a blind eye to any formal or informal, regularly attended, scripture study group. Just my experience.
Jeff: My wife and/or I have done it with friends many times without consequence or anything like it.
I’ve been told this countless times in my discussions with people online, so I’m familiar with the phrase:
That’s what comes to mind right now.
According to the LDS Oral Law, “Teaching the Gospel” falls under the stated authority of the bishop of a ward. Any meeting of LDS that discusses the gospel falls under his jurisdiction. Your bishops may have chosen to remain inactive — but should a bishop choose to go poking his nose around, itching for a witch-hunt — then he is within his stated, Church(TM)-approved bounds of authority. As Monmouth and tjscott have witnessed to.
I just read Cowboy’s (79) witness of this too — so him too.
Kiley in #35 accurately described my situation: there was not “a single reason. There are usually multiple reasons and then one straw that breaks the camel’s back.
After a lifetime of ultra-faithful service in wards, stakes and temples, it was disorienting beyond words to suddenly find myself a divorced father in this intact family-obsessed church. My experience was that all the “trying to be like Jesus” occurs only amongst those who fit in culturally. Divorced dads do not, and gay divorced dads are essentially untouchable. I was greeted politely on Sundays by a couple of people. But the distance and discomfort from everyone else was almost palpable.
Eventually one grows tired of being shut out of the club, especially after years of active, welcoming membership. I realized that I’d been just like that before and probably treated others as I was now being treated. I was ashamed beyond words. I also began to realize that this place was no longer conducive to my spiritual growth.
I had always been intellectually curious, a strong defender of the faith, read lots of FARMS publications, enjoyed debating with Church critics, etc. But with such a personal stake in the issues surrounding Proposition 8, I began to look at the history of the Church’s treatment of God’s gay children with a more impartial eye.
I concluded that there was no way to explain the zig-zagging of ostensible doctrine on that issue any other way than that it simply represented the personal beliefs of leaders in place at the time. And they had been spectacularly wrong, while claiming inspiration. Having lost trust in them on that issue, I expanded my inquiries. If they were wrong on one thing, they might be wrong on others.
After a long process of study–again, mind you, with a lifetime of faithful church service in the background–I concluded that there was just too much on which I could no longer trust the Church or its leaders to be everything they claimed. Not just living ones, but past ones too. So why continue to subject myself to the dictates of their organization? Especially when it was abundantly clear that there was no place for me in LDS theology or in my local ward or stake?
Never in my life did I imagine I would leave the Church. I had this perfect picture of my eternal destiny all neatly planned, and it rested on absolute complete trust and faith and “knowledge” of the Church’s truthfulness.
But reality turned out differently. It’s like I was born in a boat, which carried me for most of my life, saved me from many disasters, and for which I’ll always be grateful. But my boat has now hit the shore of an unexpected new place, a place which the boat is simply not designed or equipped to navigate. So I had to get out and continue on my own. I still have faith in God and the Savior, nothing makes sense without that. But no longer in the institution called the LDS Church.
It has been one of the most gut-wrenching, grief-ridden experiences of my life, to leave behind all of that. But honesty and integrity demanded it. I find that I’m going through a grieving process and it’s going to take some time to figure out a new path. But when I explained all of this to my former stake president, he said there was a peace and a radiance in my countenance that he hadn’t seen before. That tells me I’m on the right track.
@82)
I don’t know what area of the country you live in, but we have institute once a week where I live and people have always brought investigators and or friends to our classes.
Here’s a question to bounce off the peanut gallery (especially considering Jeff’s comment (#68) on how some of these restrictions are absurd):
I am a lifelong active member. I’m an Elder, returned missionary, temple marriage, etc., etc., etc. Never really had a moment where I questioned much. 2 years (or so) ago, I was laid off from a job and found myself with some extra time to study and read. Some of this studying was in the gospel arena. Some of this study brought upon a new/nuanced belief system. Instead of being a TBM/”the Prophet can never lead us astray member”, I morphed into a belief system where I believe I can no longer trust any one individual, no matter their calling in the church. I have nuanced beliefs – see lots of gray and very little “black or white”.
This, rather unintentionally, has spilled over into my family life. My wife, however, remains a TBM and doesn’t see room in our marriage for my “apostate” and “deceived by the devil” beliefs (her words). I’m not disaffected, I am still active, but I feel my past “worship” wasn’t complete in that it was the worship of an organization, a church, a prophet, etc., where Christ was rarely mentioned other than as a way to close a prayer or testimony.
My wife views this as tearing up the foundation our marriage was founded upon, that my inability to tell our kids that they should follow the prophet, no matter what, gives her reason to “protect the children” from me via divorce, that my searching for “Christ” is tearing the family apart. And the responsibility is all on me. I either choose my “searching for truth,” or I choose the church and her. Divorce isn’t imminent, but she has told me that the church and my beliefs are one thing that would validate her decision to divorce me in order to “protect the kids” from my apostate beliefs.
My wife has stated the same words as someone else mentioned above – i.e. that I can’t discuss “gospel principles” with anyone outside of church, and only told this to me after counseling with her “spiritual advisor” (the stake president). Following that meeting with the stake president, she returned with a list of what she termed “ultimatums”: (a) no reading anyone’s blog on the internet, (b) no discussing “gospel principles” outside of church with anyone, (c) no reading any books other than my quadruple combination, or words of “modern prophets” – i.e. the Ensign or other “approved” books and (d) I can either choose my “beliefs” or my “family.”
End of story.
Personally, it’s not a good situation (no kidding, right?). So my “agency” that Jeff alludes to is now pinched between my family and the gospel. My definition of the “gospel” isn’t valid, the only definition that counts is what is defined by the church. My wife is scared out of her mind – scared that I’m ripping my family apart. My worship, for now, is confined to what is “approved.” I’m not sure the exact words that the stake president told her, other than that my beliefs were pretty “messed up.” Those were direct words and have led to the ultimatums above. Even commenting here is against those ultimatums above.
And, IMO, my beliefs aren’t that bizarre. It’s just that I’m not certain of anything anymore. I don’t know if the church is true (and, personally, I don’t care – it’s not something that matters to me. The Church™ is merely a trademark and I don’t see the “truthfulness” of a church as that important in the grand scheme of things. I did like how someone referred to it as a “boat” that can only take you so far, and how it’s only designed to do so much). I don’t know that our modern leaders are “prophets” – I agree that they have the calling and the keys, but that doesn’t make them anything they aren’t. I will sustain them when they exercise those keys, but I don’t see a whole lot of revelation flowing down the pipeline these days. I see inspiration and good advice, but I’m not confident that its revelation. I have questions with how the church uses my tithing funds and think the time for transparency was yesterday. I have issues with the “control” religion, in general, imposes on believers. I have issues with the “fear” that our church preaches to our youth. I have issues with prophet/leader worship. I have issues with how we preach “for doctrines the commandments of men.” Mostly, though, I see these as issues that I’d define as the “traditions of men.”
And, I don’t see any of these issues as insurmountable. I’m not resigning my membership. I have what I’d define as hope for most things. I hope Christ is all the scriptures say He was/is. I hope for revelation and guidance on a daily basis. I hope that the ordinances the church administers are divine and approved by God. I’d like to think my outlook is generally positive – I’m not anti, I don’t openly dispute issues that arise, but will share my mind if asked. It is not my responsibility to change any of the “issues” I see in the church at large, but I do privately wonder if Joseph Smith would receive the same answer today he received back when he originally stole away to the Sacred Grove. I have private and personal responsibility with family, but even that is restricted given that my wife (and local leaders) feel that I have been “deceived by Satan.” It’s bizarre to see what I’d term “differences of opinion” as “deception” inspired by the Devil itself. I can’t disagree with anything “official” without hearing the word “deception.”
So what some see as “absurd,” I see as my daily life. The control and fear I’ve seen in some local leaders is palpable. Controlling what I read/study and fearing anything that is not officially “approved.” So it’s my experience that this does indeed happen.
#87 – Wow, Tom. That is heartbreaking for you, your wife and your kids. I’m sorry for all of you guys. I hope you and your wife can find some way to a happy ending for everyone.
@Tom, #87:
I’m the one that used the boat analogy. My ex-wife is largely the same as you describe your wife, though it was other issues that led to our divorce. So I understand how you feel.
I don’t know if this will help or hurt if you bring it up, but a quote from J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency comes to mind: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, [then what we have] ought to be harmed.”
Remember also that Paul in the New Testament said “prove all things”, that is, test and examine everything.
The question for anyone who’s scared of the kind of questioning you are doing is whether they love truth or security more. Sounds like you are one and your wife is the other. Maybe you should ask her whether Joseph Smith would have told you to do what she’s insisting on. OTOH, maybe not. That’d probably be gas on the fire.
I wish I had some good advice for you, other than keep long-term consequences for the kids uppermost in mind.
Tom – While obviously I don’t really know your situation, from what you describe it seems like there are bigger and more pressing issues in the relationship than “religion” or following the prophet per se. Those kinds of ultimatums and comments about being deceived by the devil, and blame, etc. come out of pure fear and panic from your wife, and could be well addressed by a professional. Religion is a big “content” issue, but when it’s THIS big it’s not about religion (the trees) anymore, it’s about something bigger in the relationship (the forest).
#87 Tom: “So my “agency” that Jeff alludes to is now pinched between my family and the gospel.”
I disagree that your agency is pinched. You ceertainly may still behave however you like, but it is true that there may be consequences for those choices that you had not previously considered.
I do hope that you and your wife are able to find a way to communicate about this issue that is clearly important to both of you, though in different ways.
#90 – I agree with your assessment, Adam, but as you probably know, and as I can attest from having once been on that side of the issue, with the cultural, social and especially family pressures that often come with church membership, sometimes there is nothing that can combat that fear.
brjones – exactly, there are a lot of complex pressures at play. That problem of very intense and personal, and usually unrealized or hidden fear is huge, and is not something that can be combated, but must be processed in therapy. That’s my bias anyway. 😉
Tom,
Your apostasy is having a negative impact on your family and your relationship with your wife. As such, for the sake of the marriage, you need to change. If excessive watching of football; or playing too much golf; or spending too much time on the interfered with your marriage, would you change? Why they would you not change your falling away? Is your personal opinion or bias more important than your family?
Will, I understand what your intent is (I think it’s fine), but putting the blame on Tom (or his wife, as is easy to do here as well for some) is not at all helpful, productive, effective, etc. nor will it promote any positive change. We’re all speculating but since he’s asking the peanut gallery… of course Tom has his responsibilities to his wife and family and to this current problem. So does his wife. Blaming either of them (him, in your case) will not do any good but satisfy your own pride. They need help to make this into a shared problem.
#87, Tom,
I am very sorry to hear about your troubles. I do hope things improve.
If I might make a rather bold statement here, knowing only what you wrote in your post and nothing else.
Your wife is way out of line. I am sure she is scared and all, but the way you are describing her actions, she is contributing to the direct breakup of your marriage. Our marriage vows including the words love, honor, cherish and protect (just a paraphrase) and include a three-way relationship with Heavenly Father. I don’t remember that loyalty to the Church being mentioned as one of those things a spouse has to defend. If indeed a Stake President counselled your wife in such a way, shame on him!
If all that happened is what you have described, he should have told her to go home and support you and help you work through it, not issue edicts and ultimatums. That is a sure fire way of driving a wedge between two people in spite of a loving relationship.
So, if you thought that I think your agency is “pinched” between your family and the Gospel, it really all depends on what you intend to do. If all you are doing is modifying your belief system but are still participating as you can and allowing your family to do the same thing, I see no problem.
but, of course, if you are modifying your beliefs and throwing it all away so you can “choose” to go out with the boys, chase women and get drunk, that is a very different story. The latter behavior in my mind comes with a severe consequence. The former might not and perhaps should not.
Best wishes in your struggle to keep your family.
# 96
Isn’t there a third possibility? Like maybe someone’s beliefs are modified and their investigations lead them to some other path that is equally valid, worshipful and moral.
To say that someone has a sincere change in their perspective and that necessarily means “throwing it all away so you can ‘choose’ to go out with the boys, chase women and get drunk” is a good illustration of “pinching” someone’s agency in my humble opinion.
#94 – Classic Will. Now all we need is a Jon Miranda special to complete the circle.
BRB, I need to go out with the boys, chase women, and get drunk.
For what it’s worth, I have learned that a surprising number of people whom I have known all my life, at one point or another, had serious crises of faith. I’m talking about months and years where they did not pray or read scriptures or participate in the church in any meaningful way. Each of these people had the loving support of their spouse and family, and each of them is now firmly active in the church with a strong testimony. I’m not saying this to point out that you have it worse or that your wife is deficient, but rather to point out an alternative to what your wife sees as a very black and white issue. A crisis of faith, even a serious one, does not have to equal disaffection or apostasy from the church. It does for some, and that is an understandably frightening prospect for the spouse of the person who is struggling. But it seems highly premature to assume that conclusion and throw away a marriage and a family, when so many others have been through this and have come out on the other side with testimony intact. Perhaps there’s some way to get in contact with such people to give your wife some comfort that all is not lost.
Sorry for the typo’s in the last section, I was typing from my Iphone.
Brjones – Thanks. I guess.
Adam F – The most poignant question, in my opinion, asked by the Savior in the New Testament to his disciples was ‘What Seek Ye?”. An honest response to that question will help most of us in our decision process. In the case of Tom, who chooses to disclose his personal relationship problems, the question is: What is more important, your relationship with your wife, or your personal doubts?
As I have mentioned in the past, I have no problem with having doubts. I have my own doubts. That’s not the point. The point is the impact it is having on your family.
Clearly, Tom’s Wife is discussing the issue with the Stake President it causes her; and, thus the marriage, great distress. I then ask the question to Tom, if you don’t feel (as you implied) the Church is doing harm to you or your family, then why press the issue with your Wife when it clearly causes problems?
It is tantamount to having doubts about your relationship. There are millions of married people that at some point in their marriage question if they made the right choice. Divulging this to your spouse will create more tension and distress. So why do it? If that doubt grows to the point where you know you made the wrong decision, then it is wise to approach the subject. Likewise, if know the church (or strongly suspect) is causing harm to your personal salvation, then it is wise to approach the subject. Until, or unless, you reach that point, bringing the subject up is only causing damage to your relationship. So why do it?
Thanks to all the replies. There is obviously more to the story, but that would take far more space than necessary. I stated that my agency feels “pinched” because I have been given the choice between “your beliefs and your family.” It’s an either or which I reject in principle because it implies that all my beliefs are wrong, that I can’t choose my family and keep my beliefs, that the kids are worse off with me because of my beliefs and a lot more.
To be fair, I have no idea what the local leadership said. I only know what was related to me upon her return from the meeting, and that she definitely felt validated by the process.
Jeff: yes, we have it on the agenda to see some professional about this – hopefully one who understands the Mormon belief system – but we’ll see. We haven’t yet found one, or even began looking – but you can email me offsite with some recommendations (if you don’t mind) in our area. I have felt that my wife is acting out of fear the whole time – and it’s a perfectly normal fear coming from at TBM perspective. The problem I have in discussing this with is the entire discussion on fear, and her acting out of fear have to come from someone else. When she views me as “deceived” as I am on spiritual matters, and when she has felt validated by the local leadership, my words are fairly useless.
Now – we still get along, we’re generally happy and these issues don’t rise to the surface every day or week – but they’re the backdrop to nearly everything we do.
Will: thank you for your comments, even if I don’t agree with them. I don’t spend exorbitant amounts of time on any activity – I believe that I am generally still the same me, but my beliefs were/still are changing. Does that make me apostate? I don’t spend hours and hours on the internet, I don’t watch football all day Sat/Sun (or at all, for that matter), I don’t golf all day Saturday. Now, am I at fault? Absolutely. There are many things I’d do differently and am trying to change – but my point in posting my part of the story was to highlight how control/fear have played a part in how the Church interrelates to my family, not to suggest I’m not at fault. And, with that in mind, do I deny some of the feelings + impressions I’ve had in order to make peace? Certainly I’ve done that in some areas, but just how far do I go? Do I give up everything I believe and become something I am not to make peace, even when my wife has placed all blame on me and when local leadership has validated her side of the story and reinforced the idea that I’m being “deceived by Satan”? At one point I did view life like Jeff does – that we can/should be tolerant of divergent beliefs. Now that I’m on the other end of the table, though, I can’t say that – as a people – we really practice that sort of tolerance. We might preach it, but in practice it is different. At least that’s my experience.
Further, I don’t bring these issues up. I never have. Given that I don’t have answers, I generally keep quiet on the matters. I don’t goad her into discussions, I don’t demean or belittle the church or its beliefs.
Then, add the dynamics of a “temple” / “sealed” marriage with kids in tow and it gets complex real fast. Then, further add cultural Mormonism + extended family dynamics and it’s even murkier.
Tom – I have access to a decent community of couple therapists across the US and Canada – I can inquire there. Shoot me an email (if you want, no pressure) and I’ll inquire/look around if there is something in your area… shenpawarrior@gmail.com. Finding a GOOD therapist is really important, and you don’t always know what you’re going to get. Some really work out, some don’t at all, and sometimes it just doesn’t work with your finances or schedule. But when it all works it can be VERY helpful.
Just to clarify, Tom is not Thomas.
“Following that meeting with the stake president, she returned with a list of what she termed “ultimatums”: (a) no reading anyone’s blog on the internet, (b) no discussing “gospel principles” outside of church with anyone, (c) no reading any books other than my quadruple combination, or words of “modern prophets” – i.e. the Ensign or other “approved” books….”
If a man pulled something like that, any church leader worth his salt would be pulling D&C 121 off the shelf for a little discussion of unrighteous dominion.
#94: “If excessive watching of football; or playing too much golf; or spending too much time on the interfered with your marriage, would you change?”
The key phrase is “too much.” If Tom is persuaded that his beliefs are true, than you cannot have too much truth.
If Tom is doubting that it is possible for him to worship Christ truly in the context of the Church, and is seeking the truth, then Christ says “your personal doubts.” Wife goes under the bus with the rest of the relatives:
(Luke 14:26.)
#94,
“Your apostasy is having a negative impact on your family and your relationship with your wife.”
I am not sure we are talking about full out apostasy here. I sounded to me like a bit of the doubts plus some new information changes the zeal in which one sees the Church.
What a tragedy that a man has to choose between living a lie and being faithful to the REAL people in his life that he loves. And that his community judges him for it.
For an unqualified opinion, here are my thoughts:
First, any attempt rational discussion or understanding went out the door the minute Tom’s Wife adopted the “decieved by Satan” paradigm. There is no rational evidence of this, and therefore suggests she is clearly approaching this from a place of irrationality. What can be said to her? Only if you can get her to come to terms with this, can you expect to work things out together. For me it would be the deal-breaker.
Second, her Stake President is not a legal authority, and neither is she. In other words, neither of them are in a position to threaten you about how your newly developed liberal gospel leanings are somehow jeopardizing YOUR children’s saftey. I would make sure that both of them clearly understand this – CLEARLY. While I don’t think it wise to immediately dump all of this onto you children’s lap, you have a right and obligation to try and steer them towards happiness and healthy living, and the Church only has the authority over children granted by their parent(s). While your decision as how to manage your marriage is personal, and generally not universally right or wrong, I would stand my ground in regards to the Children. You should of course compromise and allow their Mother to teach her message, but she has no right to make the accusations that she has (taking you at your word, of course) and she ought to be reminded that unless her God can actually intervene, it will be the law of the land that determines this – and she will lose! An overly agressive Stake President can learn this lesson as well, so long as you are willing to take a strong position.
“Second, her Stake President is not a legal authority, and neither is she. In other words, neither of them are in a position to threaten you about how your newly developed liberal gospel leanings are somehow jeopardizing YOUR children’s saftey. I would make sure that both of them clearly understand this – CLEARLY.”
Sometimes I wish the old “alienation of affection” tort was still recognized.
It was the marriage-law equivalent of the (still-valid) tort of intentional interference with contractual relations, or inducing breach of contract.
But since marriage went from being the strongest contract recognized by law, to pretty much an illusory contract with hardly any binding power whatsoever, the “outmoded” concept that a person has a responsibility not to break up another person’s marriage went out the window.
Well, whaddaya know. Utah is one of the handful of states that still recognize the “alienation of affection” tort:
Norton v. Macfarlane, 818 P.2d 8 (Utah,1991).
Do you think he could claim Priest-Penitent confidentiality?
@104)
let’s not even get on the topic of unrighteous dominion, because my former home teacher was definitely applying undue influence when he said he the right to say that I needed both Psychiatric and Spritual intervention and that he had the right to say this to me because he was once a Branch President.
All this because I as a single woman told him to stop doing something that was annoying the crap out of me. My BRanch President, and Stake President Knew he was doing this and did nothing about it.
So, let’s not talk about how a righteous STake Leader worth his salt would get up and intervene, Because I can personally, tell you and Testify with 100% veracity, they just don’t give a crap
109)
You are right, his wife, nor the stake president are legal authorities, unless either one of them happens to be a lawyer.
But the Stake President is an Ecclesiastical authority and sometimes that just makes things worse. Especially, when they walk into your home and demand to know what’s going on. Just to be clear my stake president never did this, but I know of a case where a Bishop has done precisely done this. Either way they are either intrusive where they don’t have the right to enter a home and try to control a situation they have no right to control. And or in my BP they just don’t think a situation has anything to do with them.
Jeff @9:10 — I wouldn’t think so; it typically protects only penitential communications. The wife’s not confessing her sins; she’s complaining about her husband’s.
Plus, the privilege just means you can’t force disclosure of communications. If a person has his *own* evidence that a religious leader is the primary cause of destroying his marriage, that could be enough for judgment in his favor.
If a person has his *own* evidence that a religious leader is the primary cause of destroying his marriage, that could be enough for judgment in his favor.”
would it be “hearsay” evidence ( That the husband had from the wife) in which the SP could say, ” I am not at liberty to disclose that we talked about?
Jeff — There’s an exception to the hearsay rule for “party admissions,” or statements by a party to the litigation. In other words, if a wife suing for alienation of affection were to take the deposition of his husband, and he testified that a church’s representative had encouraged him to end the marriage, then the representative’s statement, though hearsay, would be admissible. The logic behind this is that the hearsay declarant is available to give his side of the story, and can’t self-servingly hide behind claims that his *own* statements are hearsay.
Plus, if the representative said “I am not at liberty to disclose that we talked about,” without any legal basis for refusing to give evidence, then he — and, potentially, the organization he represented, could be found in contempt of court. More lethally, there is (at least in California) something called “terminating sanctions,” which can mean that if a party to litigation refuses to comply with his duty to give admissible evidence, the matter on which that evidence bears on can be summarily decided against that party.
Now, the Church is absolutely lousy with lawyers. Which is why I’m always skeptical (no offense meant, Tom) of claims that any reasonably high-ranked Church official, like a Stake President, would be allowed to expose the Church to legal liability. Kirton & McConkie would be screaming “STOP IT, YOU FOOL!!” in a leader’s ear faster than you could say boo.
Re Jack, #54:
I realize this discussion has moved on and probably nobody is here anymore, but wanted to share an experience relating to your comment.
I’m still active, at least outwardly, for various reasons (not really relevant here). For years I have been fascinated by the stories of those who choose to leave and those who choose to stay. I understand a bit of the pressure to do both and have felt pressure to do both myself.
Both my wife and I come from large LDS families (10 children each). My wife grew up in an incredibly orthodox LDS family in southeast Idaho, which is far more culturally conservative than Provo. In many ways that family is very close. They still maintain a tradition of having an annual family reunion, for example. Over the years, four of her siblings left the church (two have since returned to activity, and I’m confident the other two never will). They left for various reasons, some because they just didn’t want to be constrained, but others for genuine concern over historical or doctrinal issues.
A few years ago my wife’s siblings and spouses all took her parents on a cruise to celebrate her father’s 80th birthday. On the cruise I had a chance to sit down and have an extended chat with one of her brothers who had left the church, and I asked him if he would mind sharing with me in detail his thought process and what led him to finally leave. (he had been out of the church for roughly 10 years at this point)
I still remember his initial reply: “In ten years, not one member of my immediate family has ever asked.”
T #102: Isn’t it interesting how we are taught in church to stand up for righteousness and our beliefs at all times, except when those beliefs contradict official church policy.
I would ask to all, Where are the gifts of the spirit in the church? gifts of healing (not just give blessing and let’s see what happens but see a person who has no hope and death is eminent be restored to health against all odds) gift of prophesy among rank and file ( this not just the ability to write a good conference talk and is not limited to apostles) the gift of working mighty miracles, gift to be healed again not just recover gift of tougnes (sorry 2 months of intensive language training is done well at the CIA too and I don’t count it as a gift of the Spirit) Now where are they honestly? And what did Moroni say if this were the case? (Mor 10:24-25)
And pray tell what does anyone actually mean when they say they believe in Joseph Smith and the restored gospel of Christ and yet thing the current LDS church is the same thing? Joseph and followers stove to live the law of having all things in common and plural marriage. But if you believe in such things now you are deceived by Satan. In fact if someone truly wanted to live the fullness of the gospel he would of have to leave the church in order to do it since the leadership has denied the very teachings which God restored through Joseph even those teachings which he gave his life for.
There are reasons for divorce even from a temple sealing. So many in the church readily say oh for adultery of course. But the Lord doesn’t always approve that and usually only after repeated offenses. But to have one’s agency denied to me is the most sensitive trigger of all. If I allow my agency to be denied me what have I said to God? I know where of I speak because for more than 20 years and in two marriages I allowed my wives to destroy my agency. I did it because the church taught that my first priority was to do all in my power to make my wife happy. That brothers and sisters is flat out false doctrine. I do all in my power to please God and if my wife is not happy with it she can answer before God for that. My covenant was and is to follow Him and not set up my wife’s approval as a false god to worship.
I recently met a man who was in the same situation as Tom: His first wife gave him a list of ultimatums to follow and he simply kissed his kids good-bye and walked out the door, choosing to give up EVERYTHING to seek after Christ. He’s since remarried to a woman who went through something similar (she too gave up everything but for different reasons) and I could tell they’re quite happy together. In the meantime, the judgmental neighbors continue the gossip of, “How could she have just left her children like that?” and other whisperings and backbitings. To them I say read Section 101.
“It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband…” (section 134 of the D&C before being expunged)
The situation Tom is in brings up the question of whether it is proper for church leaders to interfere in the marriage relationship beyond teaching correct principles.