I’ve been thinking a lot about the three retention factors David Ostler identified in his book “Bridges”: trust, belonging, and meaning. From the book:
Unbelief (or disengagement) largely stems from one of these three reasons:
- Losing trust in the Church or its leaders
- Not feeling a sense of belonging in the Church community
- Not finding meaning or relevance in the doctrines of the gospel
He provides three statements that he believes all Church members should be able to state about these attributes:
- Trust. Even with the limitations of Church members and leaders, I have confidence that the Church and its leaders will help me find spiritual purpose and guidance. I trust leaders and other members to help me as I make choices for my own spiritual growth.
- Belonging. My ward accepts my authentic self and supports me as I develop my own spirituality and relationship to God. I feel like I belong and feel love, acceptance and support–even with my differences.
- Meaning and relevance. I feel spiritually lifted when I think of Church doctrines and participate in the Church. I feel my most important questions are addressed and answered. I feel closer to my Heavenly Parents and find meaning and direction in the teachings and doctrines of the Church.
I think these categories are broad, but insightful. In particular, I wanted to hear from our readers how you feel about these three categories. So, here are a few polls to gather input.
The next category is Trust, and there are several different things to consider in Ostler’s statement. First, he is lumping Church leaders and members together, and it may be that some people find Church leaders to provide helpful counsel, but Church members to provide harmful or ineffective counsel; just as easily, the reverse could be true. Additionally, he describes the type of counsel being provided to be regarding spiritual purpose and guidance. Someone might find that spiritual counsel given is beneficial, but counsel that seems rooted in political, temporal or other values is not valuable. Answer the poll question to the best of your ability, explaining your answers in the comments.
The category of belonging is likewise a bit more complicated than may first appear. We have often been told that everyone needs “a friend” at church, but is one friend with 20 judgmental strangers really enough? And how do we know whether strangers are judgmental if we don’t really know them? What is one’s authentic self? We all present different versions of ourselves at work or in various social settings, so is it your “authentic” self that is accepted? The line is probably easiest to draw if you become aware that you are acting a part to be accepted, although if you are acting inauthentic, that may be due to your own fear of rejection rather than actual rejection. Additionally, how do you personally feel “love, acceptance, and support”? Everyone experiences these things differently. Do you feel ward members have your back? Do you believe they genuinely like the real you, the you that you like? A lot of people talk about feeling seen and feeling valued for who they really are.
Final category! Let’s talk about the meaning and relevance of Church doctrines and how they apply to life’s questions. There are a lot of open questions in considering this category because there are so many Church doctrines, and each doctrine could be of relatively high or low importance to different people. Additionally, some people consider different things to be “doctrines” that are eternal and God’s will vs. just “policies” that are secular or administrative and time-bound. For example, some view the Proclamation as “eternal and God’s will” while others (like me) view it as “secular and time-bound.” And not everyone will agree on what is a doctrine.
There’s also an issue with how doctrine is presented. The phrase “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture” isn’t just an indictment of “wrong” teaching, but a descriptor of all teaching. Humans write the curriculum. Humans wrote the scriptures. The definition of “doctrine” is just “teaching,” though, so in that sense, anything the Church actively teaches is implied by this statement, and the more “teachings” you consider irrelevant or incorrect, the less likely you are to stay.
Please elaborate your thinking in the comments.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I am kinda tired of the whole “authentic “ thing. We all play different roles and act somewhat differently depending on who we are with and the the content of the encounter. So which version is the real you? In church I present myself as a run of the mill, straight shooting Mormon keep up my social currency. I only rarely comment in SS school and P-hood, and usually only to respond to the most egregious comments by others in the ward.
As for leaders, I don’t think they are any more adept at recognizing and receiving revelation then the average church member, but I recognize their authority to give direction. Just because I don’t fully agree with a specific directive, doesn’t mean I don’t follow through as long as no harm would result.
As for doctrine, I choose to limit the core doctrine s to those taught by Jesus in 3 Nephi 11. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and “commenth of evil.”
To me your post and poll are moot. I became atheist months after my excommunication for apostasy. Critical thought has cleared a lot of things up for me and has helped me overcome indoctrination, although I have a long way to go to be rid of 61 year’s worth!
It’s the 21st century. Isn’t it time to give up mythology?
I’ll take “Finding Meaning and Relevance in an Uncaring Godless Universe” for $400, Alex.
What I have found is that most of the doctrines have little to no meaning for me. Instead i have found more meaning in the unspoken. It is about building relationships, finding effective ways to serve, learning to connect, and helping each other in their struggles. I honestly could care less about what may or may not happen to us in the afterlife. I am much more interested in the here and now and people in general. The church provides a space for people to connect. That’s what I’m interested in.
I am stunned by the lack of trust shown by those (over 100) who have answered that question so far. I suspect that this and other blogs/forums must be a big release for some. I trust the straight and narrow walking primary teachers more than the average non-LDS source on a host of issues that many would think they have no expertise in. I also trust the average SS commenter in my ward and the average W&T commenter more that the average source. These are frequently not the same on many subjects, but they are noticeably superior to many other sources. The prayerfully and carefully prepared GC talks and other presentations by church authorities are generally even more superior to average sources.
Maybe I am just reading the options differently that some of the voters here?
“A Thoughtful Faith: Essays on Belief by Mormon Scholars,” edited by Philip Barlow, was published by Canon Press in 1986. It includes an essay by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. In her essay, Ulrich recalls her response to a friend who had concluded that the Church is 10 percent human and only 90 percent divine. Ulrich responded that if one can find an earthly institution that is even 10 percent divine, one should wholeheartedly embrace it, that a small portion of divinity leavens the whole. She also recounted having a Bishop who told her that the Church is a good place to practice the Christian virtues of forgiveness, mercy, and love unfeigned. Ulrich noted that the Church is an institution that does not so much exemplify Christian virtues, as it is a place that requires them, and which is a gathering of imperfect people who imperfectly reach for the divine.
This was written more than 30 years ago, but I think it especially relevant to this discussion in 2019. People in the Church, leaders included, are a mix of good and bad. There are teachings I think are beautiful, and there are things that make me wince. Ezra Taft Benson’s political beliefs made me shake my head, but I also was blessed to have a personal encounter with him that radiated the pure love of Christ.
So how do I resolve the contradictions? I think of Juanita Brooks’ explanation to Fawn Brodie, explaining why she remained a believing member of the Church, when Brodie had long ago stopped believing: “Fawn, there is SOMETHING in the Church. I can’t explain it, but it is there.” (Not an exact quote.) This, from a woman who is one of Mormonism’s foremost scholars, and who placed her membership in jeopardy by writing a very necessary, but unpopular, book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I stay in the Church because I have received a witness from the Holy Spirit that I belong in it. Others might receive different answers, but as I must respect the validity of their answers, so I would hope that they would respect my answer as valid. For some people, the Church is not a good place to be. For many, it is.
Trust in church leaders:
Protective factors include home-run conference talks (Go Holland!), humanitarian efforts that make a difference, closeness to the members, purpose and making a difference in people’s lives.
Risk factors include the distance between the GAs and rank and file, Rich(er) local leaders and average Joes, POX, works/obedience-based guilt, silence during moral crises (e.g. appeasement of the Third Reich prior to and during WWII, silence about the current crisis involving children in cages at the border, the rise of nationalism and white supremacy in art , events, and rhetoric, etc.)
Belonging.
Protective factors include everything that goes with the concept of “Zion” .
Risk factors include political, racial, socioeconomic, and political divisions. Largest risk factor is materialism and pride, and the distain for the poor (as predicted and discussed in like a zillion chapters in the BoM).
Meaning and relevance:
Protective factors include everything associated with our best selves and the miracle and expansive vision of the restored gospel.
Risk factors include leaders and members who miss the mark and focus on pharisaical minutia, you know- like we do all the freakin’ time. Pride and inauthenticity cause us to dodge important topics as we pretend to have no problems that require mankind’s search for the greatest answers.
I’m just wondering if any of the site leaders here have any intention of ever letting my comments through, or even bothering to acknowledge them. I’m certainly not feeling much “trust” or “belonging” from being completely ignored. I’ve been reading—and thoroughly enjoying—this site for months, the same period of time I’ve been investigating the church.
I’ve read the comment policy. I’ve watched and gotten a feel for how you interact. I can’t see any way in which I’ve violated your norms or policies. Are the so-called “TBMs” just right about you “Middle Way” folks or what? They gently warned me that you might not be very “faith-promoting,” and, indeed, I am starting to lose faith—in this blog. At least the TBMs haven’t acted like I don’t exist!
I’ve tried emailing the mods. I’ve reviewed the comment policy to see if maybe I overlooked something. I’m at a loss to understand what the problem is. So I’ll give this one last try. Are “Visitors Welcome”? Or does that only apply to church on Sundays? I’ve so enjoyed reading this blog the last few months. It’s been a valuable part of my investigating the church. It’s a disappointment not to be able to join in and participate.
For me, it’s meaning. By far. I think all three are important but how you prioritize them are probably due to personality. I have a little bit of an anti-social, anti-authority bent to me at times, so trust and belonging is not quite as important to me. But meaning is definitely important. Finding meaning within the LDS Church as I moved away from beliefs in the literal accuracy of foundational events was the key to wanting to stay in an enthusiastic way and not just because I was doing it for family or whatever.
“I am stunned by the lack of trust shown by those (over 100) who have answered that question so far… Maybe I am just reading the options differently that some of the voters here?”
Probably.
I generally do trust individual church member sincerity even if I don’t trust the information they are repeating. I was one of those church members for a long time. When I answer “Don’t trust the church or its leaders,” it’s in the context of unbelief and the obfuscation of its truth claims. The church has given me plenty of reason to believe it is not what it claims to be. I can’t help to not be wary of its claims now.
It is important to distinguish between personal morality, in which being truthful and earning trust are important considerations, and institutional morality, which really has very little to do with morality. Institutions serve their own interest, which sometimes means making truthful statements and garnering trust but often means making false statements and hiding information. That’s what institutions do, whether it’s the government or the military or a corporation or a church.
I don’t trust Church leaders because they are speaking for the institution and therefore they follow institutional morality, not personal morality, when they speak in public. To a certain degree, local leaders and even rank-and-file Mormons follow institutional morality — that is, self-interest, whatever makes the institution look good, regardless of what the truth is — when they talk about the Church. They generally don’t even realize they are doing this.
Probably like most, my issue is trust. Not so much an issue in that Church leaders are intentionally malicious in there attempts to harm. Just that there has been a well established pattern of deception for a long, long, time. They are lying to protect us, or lying for the benefit of the Kingdom. Whatever the motivation, please stop being deceptive.
Investi-Jesse: The mod queue issues are related to our over-active spam filter. You were not being modded intentionally. Looks like we’ve got you sorted.
I think it’s interesting that different commenters value these three things to a differing degree, which relates to how important a gap is. If you don’t look to the church for meaning, then you probably care less if it fails to have meaning for you. If you don’t look to other people or authority to provide guidance, trust probably matters less. If you are anti-social by nature, you might not care that much that you don’t feel accepted by the group. I think it would be very tough to stick around if you feel negatively about any of these (the most negative response), and it would have to be something you don’t care much about. But I sure don’t see how anyone can stick around if they feel negatively about more than one.
Overall, it looks like the average respondent (which could be our reader base or a different set of people who just like polls related to Mormonism) is very middle way, which is pretty much what I would have thought. Most polls pull to the middle.
That first question really goes to the differences in why people “church.” Some look to a church to find meaning in its doctrines while others view the “church” as the people you go to sit next to and do Christian stuff together, an organizing body to make discipleship easier, but they seek God on their own (rather than through the Church). And still others look to find personal guidance through the authority of the Church, to be instructed, to have the meaning explained, to be told “this way, not that way.”
Angela, I really like your summary comment about why different aspects might be important for different kinds of people. I think I fit nicely in the “not looking for meaning” group. I find meaning hard to find anywhere, and I’ve definitely given up on finding it at church. I’d rather hope for belonging, which seems like a much more manageable goal.
Thanks, Angela! Sorry to pester you. I was just couldn’t figure out what was going on. My previous comments have still never gone through, but I guess by now they’re probably on posts too old to still be generating any conversation.
As far as the topic of this post, it gels with a lot of the things that have been going into my “yes” or my “no” columns about joining the church. I’m really drawn to the service opportunities and by the fact that I’ve always found Mormons to be some of the kindest people I know (so “Belonging” is high on my list).
If doctrine refers to theology, that, too, goes in my “yes” column. The Restoration makes sense to me as an natural progression of Christianity, a way of taking stories from an society and making them relevant and alive for modern people. I like most of Mormonism’s theological innovations, from the pre-existence to ongoing and personal revelation, to the idea of Heavenly Parents. I don’t take the Book of Mormon literally as history (because, science), but it speaks to me in the same way that Jesus’ parables do. Reading it as literal history cheapens it, in my opinion. It would be like reading the parable of the lost sheep, and then getting hung up on whether the sheep was a Merino or a Dorset.
Some of the “its doctrine till we disavow it and then we call it a policy”….yeah, not so much…. Things like the all-male priesthood and anti-LGBT stuff go in my “no” column, and might be total dealbreakers except that I realize that I’m never going to agree with any group about everything, and if I always picked up my toys and went home, I’d be an island unto myself. I don’t even agree with my spouse about everything. If two people can’t be in total agreement, 14 million certainly can’t.
As I’m investigating, I’m making it a point to read “the anti stuff.” Not Decker-type garbage, but I read and listen to stuff by ex-Mormons because…well, because I don’t want to wind up one. It’s striking to me how many of them, especially on Mormon Stories, say that their ward was their family, that they still consider them the best people in the world, but they felt they had to leave because they found out the Book of Mormon wasn’t literally true.
And I think….are you nuts?? Why would leave people you STILL consider the best people in the world because there weren’t steel and horses in precolonial America? And—forgive me, I know this is terribly judgmental—but if you believed that literal ancient Jews built literal submarines and sailed to America by the light of literal rocks touched by the hand of God…..well…..don’t you have just a TEENSY bit of responsibility for being gullible when it turns all that wasn’t literally true?
So that one speaks to trust in church leaders, which I can’t really say how I feel about yet. The leaders I’ve read or listened to all strike me as sincere believers, as tender-hearted and often wise men. But the lack of female leadership does leave a gaping hole. It’s ironic….one of the things I love about Mormonism is it acknowledges the obvious: If we’re children of God, we must have a Heavenly Mother, and yet that balance is not replicated in church leadership.
Wow Investi-Jesse, for a not-yet-member you have an impressively thorough and thoughtful grasp of the issues.
I go to church for my wife and family and because I like my fellow church members, so the social and belonging aspects are very important to me.
I don‘t really believe in God, revelation, some policies and most core doctrines, but manage to keep a recommend when necessary. I think most church leaders are sincere and well-meaning, but are sometimes misguided and will protect the institution at all cost.
Unfortunately I don’t know enough about other churches and religions to compare and contrast, but it doesn‘t interest me at the moment anyway.
Very grateful on those rare occasions when a talk or class speaks to universally positive values like charity, honesty, forgiveness, repentance, self-discipline. Too much time is spent on – mostly abstract treatments – of the Gospel, Jesus, the Church. I really try to go to meetings with an open mind and positive attitude and try to extract or contribute something useful, but it‘s really hard.
Investi-Jesse – The fact that you approach the church with your eyes wide open is a good thing and may work for you.
Regarding: “don’t you have just a TEENSY bit of responsibility for being gullible when it turns [out] all that wasn’t literally true?”
Absolutely. In my case, it’s not “just a TEENSY bit” feeling responsible. I’m astounded how I went so long without questioning. My wife, on the other hand, questioned everything. She never accepted polygamy, the second class status of women or LBGQT. She never believed we all descended from a literal Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark/Flood, Jonah in the whale, the tower of Babel (and hence Jaredites), talking donkeys, etc. My belief in all that, however, was a demonstration of how great my faith was and the church reinforced that belief.
But the church was a horrible place for my wife. I don’t know what the ward you’ll attend will be like, if you join, but mine is full of people who think the way I used to: Belief in the unbelievable is a demonstration of faith. People with nuanced belief or who reject the literalness of the Book of Mormon lack faith and are looked at askance. My wife did not “belong”; eventually she recognized this and left. I’ve since come to understand what she’s known.
Good luck to you, but realize the mainstream church is not nuanced about its truth claims. They take them very literally.
My ward accept my true “authentic” self? hah! But it is partly my fault. I didn’t let anyone see it for a long time. Growing up in the church, I knew how to do all the right things and fit in. It wasn’t until later that I realized none of it fit. I learned all the issues with the church gradually, over time, and then accelerated once the internet came along, but none of it was a deal breaker. I’m an English major and I know how mythology and story work. The biggest issue was that I stopped learning or growing at church. Church became boring and irrelevant. Every lesson was watered down even more than it had been in the past. Most ward members had little idea what the scriptures were actually saying and when I would try to gently comment it seemed that they were not well-received. Gradually, I became a pariah at church. I was actively excluded.
I also have very little confidence in President Nelson and Oaks. I understand that they are trying their best to modernize the church and I do see some good changes being made, and I am glad about that but something about the manner in which they go about it just rubs me the wrong way. I think also the fallow period of President Monson’s tenure as the prophet at such a crucial time really hurt the church. It is a time of change in the church. Hopefully, when all is said and done it will be better than it was before, but I do not feel optimistic. For now, I am a “Jack Mormon” who is currently choosing not to participate and I am getting more comfortable with it.
Eugene, Dave, Laura:
Thanks for the replies! I was pretty familiar with the Mormon Church already, as I’ve lived out west and had Mormon friends for years. Now that I’m investigating I’m finding out a lot of new stuff that I didn’t know and reading the scriptures in a whole new light. But, as I tell new friends in the ward….don’t worry; I know the weird stuff already 😉 So I’m still learning plenty, but it’s not like this was all new to me.
Plus, I’m studying with friends, not the missionaries. It’s just too hard when we’re not at the same place in our lives. They could be my daughters. I admire them enormously–the way I look at it, if you serve a mission for ONE DAY, it’s a testament to your faith—but I have friends with kids on missions. When the sisters come to visit, I get all maternal and basically just keep putting food in front of them. (The poor girls are starving! They eat like football players! Doesn’t the church feed these kids??)
So I have two friends who prayed about it and agreed to teach me. One is very much a liberal, “Middle Way” type Mormon. The other is very much a when-the-prophet-speaks-the-debate-is-over TBM. So I’m getting the full spectrum in my lessons with them (we’re currently on the books of Nephi, because the the D&C is just a snoozer 🙂 My ward here is really nice and certainly seems to be pretty liberal. I get the impression that outside of the “Morri-dor,” the wards sort of adapt to where their members are at. I’m not sure things quite so strict (although I’ve heard of liberal wards even in Utah). I’ve committed to study for at least one year without giving up, but to not get baptized until at least that year is up. I am disturbed by how quickly they want to dunk new converts. Shouldn’t I AT LEAST study the standard works first?
To give you an example though, the first day I attended my ward, a young man got up to speak because he had been assigned to. He stumbled a bit, confessed he hadn’t prepared, then took a deep breath, began to cry and admitted that he’s not sure what he believes anymore and went on describe his faith crisis. I’m too new to know what happened later, but everybody seemed to be really supportive of him. There’s also no such thing as “porn shoulders” here. (Porn shoulders…seriously??) Everyone dresses in their nicest clothes for church, and I like that, but women wear dresses above the knee or dresses with straps. I’ve even seen strapless dresses—it’s the middle of summer! It’s hot!
But then, on the other hand, I watch the little boys serve the sacrament and they all look so cute and so proud. Why can’t the little girls do that? They just sit there and stare at their shoes. Why is this necessary? But, then, I hardly need to go to Mormon church to find places where women and girls are excluded, or where there’s homophobia or racism. I try not to hold the church to a standard it can’t possibly meet, that exceeds the entire surrounding culture. If there’s any place, sexism and homophobia, and racism don’t exist, I have yet to find it.
Don’t sell yourselves short. On the whole, Mormons are really, really good people. And now that I’m studying to possibly join, I’m paying more attention to what they DO than to what they SAY. For example, I don’t like or understand the all-male priesthood thing. That said, I would bet money (I can still gamble; I haven’t been baptized yet! 😉 that Mormon men are spending more time on average with their families than non-Mormon men. Among my non-Mormon friends, many of the women are struggling with husbands who are never around, never help out, don’t support the family financially, view parenting as “babysitting,” etc.
I’m very much generalizing, of course, but I think if you put them up side by side, on average, the Mormon dads are doing more for their families because they’re told it’s a priesthood duty. I can’t remember who said, “The measure of feminism is how often it watches the kids,” but….well, I’m pretty sure some moms I know would happily trade off the super-duper-penis-God-powers if it meant their husbands would provide for the family and spent time with them and their children.
Dang, this is getting long. I guess I’ll leave it there and go read some of the newer posts! Nice to meet you all!
Oh, Dave, I did mean to add that, yes, I do think it’s only a teensy bit of responsibility. Because if someone is told all their lives that this is the literal truth, and all their family and friends believe that, then it does make sense to me that people continue to literally believe what seems preposterous to me when taken literally.
It’s just that I hear that part a lot on Mormon Stories, where people sling a lot of blame at the church, but they ever seem to actually take even that teensy bit of responsibility, and say…well, yeah, maybe I should have guessed… But, then, they were told their whole lives NOT to question it.
I’m being judgmental. That’s something I’m really trying to work on about myself. I just think of how I totally believed in Santa Claus as a kid. And no one ever told me Santa wasn’t real. I had no siblings to spoil it and none of the other kids at school did (amazingly enough). So I believed in Santa till I was about 8 or 9, and I remember one day just realizing….OH! Well played, Mom, well played.
But, then, I didn’t get the smackdown for that either. Once I figured it out, my parents admitted it and just told me that while Santa isn’t real, the spirit of giving that Santa represents is real. If I’d been shamed for realizing it and been surrounded by an entire culture that insisted Santa is real, I don’t know what that would have been like. I probably would have tried to convince myself that what was obvious—those presents came from my mom—wasn’t true.
It must be a terrible feeling of betrayal. So I shouldn’t be so judgey. I just don’t get it because my life experience is different.
My liberal teacher does not take the BoM literally. My TBM teacher, of course, does, but says it’s not necessary that I do, that if it brings me closer to God, and that if I prayed and received confirmation it was true (which I did–a story in itself!), then I don’t have to believe there were literal Nephites and Lamanites running around the continent. She does think that “as my faith grows” I’ll start to believe it literally. I’ve told her not to hold her breath.
Investi-Jesse –
I just have to say how much I’m enjoying your perspective. You are breath of fresh air. My ward isn’t nearly as accepting as yours, and sometimes I get caught up in all the things I struggle with at church and forget just how wonderful the people are. And they are wonderful in so, so many ways. Thank you for reminding me.
Thanks, ReTx! I’m about to move, so…I guess we’ll what my new ward is like. (Pretty soon I’m going to be disappearing for a while, because I’ll be in the middle of moving. I didn’t tell my current ward until the last minute, because I didn’t want them to think I started going there to get help with the move. They keep reminding me that when you serve, you’re blessed, so offering an opportunity for others to serve me is like offering them blessings. But still….Elders Quorum Moving Service is SUCH a stereotype, I just can’t even!)
I’m going to miss them, and I’m worried if the new ward will be as cool. The advantage to geographic wards: The members are all at least somewhat close to you, often your neighbors, depending on the Mormon population of the area. The disadvantage of geographic wards: You can’t split and go to another one if it’s a bad scene.
My first Relief Society meeting, though, I had to bite the inside of my cheeks to keep from laughing because the meeting started off with announcements (we only have one pianist, so she has to go around and do the hymns for all the other meetings first). Almost all the announcements were to the effect of: “Elders Quorum will have a children’s activity on [lists dates approximately once a week].” There was even a trip to the nearest temple, followed by a discussion of Masonic symbolism in the temple….wish I could gone to that one—fascinating! I didn’t know the Masonic symbolism was so readily acknowledged.
On Mother’s Day, the EQ took the kids and youth from Primary/YM/YW until after supper. Once RS meeting was over, by which point, we were all giggling and drunk on sugar and estrogen, it was….have a Mother’s Day, ladies! See you this evening!
Do you know how many mothers would kill for a night off once a week?? Frankly, if I were a dude, I would think it was a raw deal. After all, my husband takes care of our family and nobody has to tell him he has a special connection to God to get him to do it. He would be insulted. (My husband is not interested in joining the church. No church. He’s not a believer at all.)
So, the priesthood thing still concerns me. It’s ripe for abuse. Didn’t Joseph Smith even say that all—not some, ALL—priesthood holders would exercise unrighteous dominion at some point? Maybe I’m misremembering that; there’s so much to study! But it’s ripe for abuse, and it’s cutting off half the potential leadership, while making decisions about me without me. Plus, I just don’t get it. What does being male have to do with exercising the priesthood?
But in practical terms, I’m trying to look at it in as many ways as possible, and the moms in my current ward, despite having typically more children, seem a whole lot less stressed out than the non-Mormon moms I know! I would be too, getting Dads-take-the-kids-day virtually every single week like that.
el oso says; The prayerfully and carefully prepared GC talks and other presentations by church authorities are generally even more superior to average sources.
Well, they’re certainly carefully thought out, and the written versions carefully edited so that they sometimes don’t match the spoken versions, and if they stray enough, they’re sometimes re-recorded entirely while the initial version goes down the memory hole. That in and of itself is enough to tweak my trust-meter.
But it’s not what the leaders of the Church say in Conference or at firesides that strains my trust, though it is often problematic. It is the rest of the ways in which the Church, from the very top on down, is more concerned with its own reputation, covering its sins, staunchly insisting upon the unsupportable, and flat-out lying to cover up unpleasantness than with “bring[ing] to pass the immortality and eternal life of [hu]man[ity]” that has me irate. Either the top leaders of the Church are the most naïve bunch of senior executives the world has ever seen, or the cover-ups and buy-offs of victims of serial sex abusers are known and accepted by those we sustain as prophets, who frequently remind us that “the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance,” who deny people access to so-called saving ordinances on the basis of a cup of coffee but continue to shuffle rapists and child molesters blithely from ward to ward as if the Lord’s prescription for those people were a moving van rather than a millstone, who continue to condone and sometimes advise the disfellowshipping of women for being victims of rape and who, when anyone asks them to adopt Christlike humility and actual contrition, respond by shooting the messenger.
Add to that an unwillingness to genuinely lead the Church toward a more Christlike love for our unconventional brothers and sisters in the LGBTQIA community and Saints of color, who hear lukewarm messages of semi-acceptance on one hand and a lack of firm condemnation for the bigoted things still said and taught about those communities in our congregations and classes. No, trust goes far beyond the contents of a General Conference address.