Once a person has gone through a faith crisis, what can church leaders do to help? David Ostler offers 3 suggestions to help leaders create a more comfortable atmosphere at church.
David: In the second part of the book, I talk about three major principles that I think are important for people to feel, for them to remain affiliated with the church, after they have a faith crisis. I think if leaders understand these three issues, they can find ways to be able to reach out to people and to accommodate them, to help them, to love them, to accept them, all of these kinds of ministerial words that we want to have there. Those three principles are first trust. Individuals need to trust the community that they’re in. They need to trust the leaders. They need to trust that the engagement with the community will help them and that that community can guide and give them a confident path towards their spiritual goals. Sometimes that doesn’t happen. There’s a lot of different ways trust can break down. You can lose trust that the Prophet speaks for God. You can lose trust that the church will authentically represent its history, you can lose trust that the church will be transparent about the way in which it administers its affairs. You can lose trust in someone who’s broken a confidence. You can lose trust that if you say something, there won’t be a penalty for what you say. So trust becomes a big issue. And as I surveyed members that are in a faith crisis, many of them have lost trust in all of those aspects. I can share some of that data with you if you felt like…
GT: Absolutely! We love data.
David: Yeah, you and I kind of eat data for a living, don’t we? So I asked these faith crisis members about trust. This is 320 people who responded that are in a faith crisis. I asked them questions, and one question I asked is, whether they agreed with this statement, “My local leaders can help me with the important decisions in my life.” Zero percent strongly agreed with that; 9% agreed with that, which 91% have disagreed in one form or another. So, if they’re going to church, and they’re feeling like their local leader cannot help them with the spiritual issues in their lives, then we as a church have failed. These are largely people that are earnest and wanting to connect to God, and to resolve their spiritual concerns. They’re not enemies of the church. They’re people that just have concerns, and they’re trying to sort them out and understand what they believe.
GT: Even I would put myself in the 91%, and I go to church.
David: So, here’s another one, “I am comfortable disclosing my current beliefs to my local leaders.” And 3% strongly agreed with that; 22% agreed with that, which means 75% disagreed with that in one way or another. Then it goes even further, “From the outside do you appear as a traditionally believing member of the church?” Of this faith crisis group that has no trust in their local leaders, 78% said that from the outside they look like a traditionally believing member. So, on the outside, they’re shiny and bright, and they’re wearing all the right clothes, and probably even in serving in the right callings. But underneath, they can’t express the concerns that they have, and that they’re really struggling with. When they call it a faith crisis, that means they’re evaluating whether they remain affiliated with the church. So, those are the kinds of concerns that you get with trust.
There are two types of people who attend the LDS Church: leaders and non-leaders. No matter whether we are a leader or not, what are some ways to make church better for those struggling with their faith? David Ostler has some great ideas.
David: We don’t have to have a leadership role to be able to minister. So some of the things that I think we can do individually on this is that we can learn the issues and find ways to understand what other people are feeling, and then support them as they’re feeling that. So, for example, in a gospel doctrine class, if I’m participating, or if I’m teaching, and a comment comes up that I disagree with, or I think is wrong, or is controversial, I can respond to it in a particular way that is ministering, that reaches them, that says, “I understand. Tell me more about that. I really appreciate you raised that. That’s a different perspective than what I’ve thought before. Thank you for expressing that.” Then also to be able to find ways to make sure that the class doesn’t jump all over someone.
GT: Well, that’s what I was just going to say, because you’re going to start getting people, “Well, I bear testimony,” whatever.
David: It’s a skill, and we have to practice it. There isn’t some magic answer on how to do that. But sometimes we can say things like, “I know some people in the class will disagree with what you’re saying. I appreciate how brave you are to say it anyway.” I think that helps that person know that you know what’s going on in that class, and you know that they took a risk by asking that. I think it helps the people that might want to testify away that issue, to understand that there is a person behind the comment, and that they have feelings and that they are struggling with that.
What do you think of Ostler’s suggestions?
Wheat & Tares 
The comments on trust seem to suggest that trust/distrust is a binary distinction about whole groups of people — the “community,” the “leaders.” It isn’t and Ostler probably didn’t mean to suggest that it is. There are degrees of trust and more specific objects of trust. One might trust some in a community or some aspects of a community and not others — some leaders and not others — the same leader for some things and not others. One can find spiritual and other value in attendance and affiliation and in baptism and the sacrament(s) without trusting “that the Prophet [always] speaks for God [without trusting] that the church [who is that anyway?] will always authentically represent its history, [without trusting] that the church will always be transparent about the way in which it administers its affairs [without trusting] that if you say something, there won’t be a penalty for what you say.” I believe some level of trust in some objects of trust is extremely important to most as they are to me, but for some of them the “faith crisis” aspect of loss of complete trust seems partly a function of binary thinking (natural to some and fostered in Primary and thereafter) and partly a function of testimony bearing in the usual LDS style, among other things.
I like Ostler’s suggestions on responses that can make church classes more supportive. I note, however, that ““I know some people in the class will disagree with what you’re saying. I appreciate how brave you are to say it anyway” can and probably should also sometimes be directed at those who try to shut down discussion by bearing testimony to their particular, however common, way of thinking. E.g., I’ve seen a bishop-sponsored discussion in a 5th Sunday PH/RS shut down by testimony bearing that the prophet/church leaders/church will “never lead astray” — without any acknowledgment of the context or source of that concept or of possible varied meanings of “lead astray.” We might have salvaged what had been a productive discussion had any of us thought to direct Ostler’s proposed comment to the testimony bearers .
JR,
One of the dilemmas I face when writing a post is that I don’t want to give the whole interview away in the post, because I want people to watch/listen. I want to draw interest without being click-baity. Inevitably, that leads to the problem of context. Out of context quotes generally draw attention. The title I used was “3 things…” but I only listed 1 of the items Ostler suggested in the post (hopefully to get people to click the link to find out the other 2.) So yes, the quote is relatively out of context, and I think if you watch the whole video, you’ll recognize that Ostler didn’t try to make this a binary trust/non-trust issue. IMO, he really “gets it” when it comes to faith crisis.
Having said that, I did get the following comments on Facebook from the same person. The post both worked and didn’t work.
” Well…well…I admit I’ve been skeptical of engaging with Ostler’s ideas, but this short transcript exceeded all my expectations. His discussion of a lack of trust with church leaders resonated quite strongly with me. Thank you for sharing. I am now excited to listen to your interview and read his book.”
and then….
“I listened to this today, admittedly while multitasking. I liked Ostler’s ideas, but afterward I found I couldn’t articulate his other 2 ideas. Can anyone help me out?”
I will also add one other anecdote. I was recently added to a Mormon Facebook group called “Thoughtful Saints”, and I asked how people in the group handled unorthodox comments at church, along with a link to the 2nd video. To my dismay, they handled my question just as poorly as people do at church, full of judgment, denial that orthodox comments even happen at church, and just “follow the commandments” (you apostate!) They didn’t call me an apostate, but they might as well have. There seems to be the attitude ‘It’s ok to talk about unorthodox stuff, but certainly church is not the time or place.” I quickly left the group.
We’ve got a long way to go still.
I’ve just started listening to the interview with Bro. Ostler. But, the thing that keeps jumping out to me is that
many leaders/members remember that in the “last days” even the “elect” will be deceived.
I don’t think people leaving the church is a big problem or concern for many leaders/members within the church. Those who stay devout, untroubled, and unquestioning can feel comfort that they will be counted among the few in the last days.
So, while it is nice to imagine a more open and considerate conversation which could broaden a church community’s reach, I don’t think many see that as something to strive for. It’s like catering to the people in the “large and spacious building” in Lehi’s dream.
(I do appreciate Bro. Ostler’s views and work in this area and think his approach more Christ-like than what I’ve encountered in my church experience).
Lois really has it right, I think. I applaud Ostler’s sincere desire to help and the time and effort he puts into his ideas, but the truth is, the church community (different from church leadership) sees things exactly as Lois lays out. It’s just a sifting of the wheat and tares, so much so that the church’s dwindling numbers are actually taken by these people as a positive sign of the last days and the second coming. Broadening the community, espousing “big tent Mormonism” or legitimizing “middle way” Mormons is seen by so-called “true believers” as watering down the gospel to accommodate prideful sinners, not as being kind and loving and open to a variety of viewpoints. Quite similar, IMHO, to the knee-jerk reactions I see amongst older conservatives about immigration. There are legitimate points to be made on either side of that debate, but the folks who freak out when they hear Spanish spoken at a MacDonalds are like the people in my ward who react to anyone who’s left the church or any comment in Sunday school that might even slightly complicate the dominant, over-simplified church narrative: They don’t want to hear about it, they don’t see “apostates” as people and they cleave to a “truth” that isn’t the truth. So really, despite the good intentions of a number of people trying to change things, the church has done such a fantastic job of making zealots of a good majority of its mainstream members that those intentions and efforts aren’t going to change much.
There is more than one church community even within a single ward. I’ve seen what Brother Sky and Lois lay out. I’ve also seen other LDS church communities. I’m even a member of more than one within my own ward. I’ve seen even greater differences in church communities from ward to ward in different locations. So what Lois and Brother Sky describe may be the dominant, vocal community in many — even most — places, but not all, and is not the only relevant church community even in one place. For me the question is sometimes how acceptance can be broadened despite that perhaps dominant narrative.
I absolutely agree with you, JR. I was speaking from my own experience having lived in various places in the US as a church member. And I currently live in a relatively conservative part of the country as well, which colors my most recent experiences with this sort of thing. I imagine I would find quite a different dynamic in, say, Seattle or the Bay Area.
I’m loving this series but have to agree with some of the commenters that it will be hard to see much change in our congregations anytime soon – though I gather there are some fairly progressive units scattered here and there. I find that most folk within the fold don’t want to hear questioning voices. People start to avoid and view you with suspicion. It can be a lonely road for those in a faith crisis and why people turn to online forums like Bro Ostler mentioned.
Continuing listening to Bro. Ostler’s part 2 discussion:
It really hit home for me. The last time I bore my “testimony” in church, I simply stated that as I got older, I found I had more questions and fewer answers, (never mentioning the word “doubt”)but I was choosing to believe. (I didn’t go into any detail as to what those questions are). The very next person to bear their testimony stridently proclaimed they had no doubt the church is true. While I don’t begrudge that person their right or their firm beliefs, it did sting a little. I haven’t spoken in church since.
Another experience (I’ve shared this on other blog posts), was a discussion with (who I thought was a close friend (and is the current Stake Relief Society Pres) about my struggles/questions (not bringing up polygamy etc), and how it isn’t helpful when people simply respond that I need to read the scriptures and pray more, but what would be most helpful is simply to be listened to. She responded stridently “you need to figure out what is wrong with you that you need to be heard.” She doesn’t understand the concept of validation–that people can have different experiences that are true to them. I don’t have the need to reject or challenge her experiences that she has had that confirm what she believes, (but that must be what she felt). She went further to say that I need to humble myself. (hey, I’m not saying I have all–or any answers, nor do I have the luxury that she does of having speaking to large groups of people and feeling validated). Ouch.
If it weren’t for sites like Wheat and Tares, I probably would’ve stopped attending church altogether.
Lois, There are jerks everywhere and at all levels, but there are also others. I hope you find them. It’s great to have live ones as well as sites like Wheat and Tares.
I would like to give an example that happened in my family yesterday. My oldest kids are preparing for a trip to Nauvoo and there was a meeting last night to give the kids a preview. They were presented with a lot of information about Adam-Ondi-Ahman including testimonies that it was the spot where Adam and Eve emerged from the Garden of Eden. After the meeting, one of my kids (the science one) approached a stake leader and asked if she was required to believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden were real and existed in North America. She began asking questions based in her knowledge of archaeology and anthropology and told the trip leader that she was content to believe that Genesis is a story but didn’t want to feel pressured to believe things about the origins of life that she doesn’t believe. Based on her account of the interaction, after a few minutes she was shut down and told that if she couldn’t “get on board with church history that this trip might not be the trip for her.” She tells me all of this as we are driving home. She feels as though she was uninvited from the trip. I guess she has been identified as a “Tare” already and we are ready to just sift her right out of the Church as she wrestles with what she believes and what is truth. I told her that she should NEVER ask a church leader questions like this but she should save all questions for home.
An interesting topic but I have a problem with the word “more”.
The church administration is in no way supportive. Everything I hear from the First Presidency is how we should be supporting them. They’ve issued the directive that no one call or write them several times. They say they have all the answers but the only questions they’ll answer are the carefully pre-screened ones they’ve already “answered” a hundred times before. They’re not even any more responsive with the hard working Bishops and Stake Presidents who are left to grapple with the growing number of people who come to them with thorny issue of truth and sincere and justifiable doubts. Yet all the “wisdom” we get to deal with it is questions are OK but doubts are verboten. … or is it doubts are OK but questioning is verboten? I don’t know. I’ve gotten so inured to it it just goes in one ear and out the other at this point.
It’s a one way, top down organization and that’s what has to change. But anyone holding their breath waiting for it to happen should have a friend standing by with oxygen.
Often Perplexed:
Sorry to hear of your daughter’s experience , and your advice to her to raise the questions at home was dead on target.
The year we used the Ezra Taft Benson manual for Priesthood and R.S. (several years ago), the lesson one particular Sunday was on supporting Church leaders. I mentioned that not everything that comes out of the mouth of an Apostle is necessarily church policy, but only when he clearly speaking ex cathedra. Two members of the Quorum got upset with me, and one said that he thought we should follow all words from an Apostle, even when they were only personal opinion. I was fortunately backed up by our former Bishop, an extremely rigid man who nevertheless had enough intellectual honesty to say that I was correct. I then pointed out that the Church in the 1960s and 1970s regularly issued official statements disavowing ETB’s controversial political statements as NOT being church policy. The two men did not like that, but knew I could ask them, so you are disagreeing with official church announcements? Not Christian of me, but I loved it!
Your daughter needs to “learn her audience,” I.e. whom it is safe to talk with openly, and whom to just say Good Morning and nothing else to. It has taken me a lifetime to learn that skill, and I am still not totally there.
I’m always sad to hear members with a mentality that “in the last days you’re going to lose people so… bye!” The parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin was all about trying to get them to come back and that should be our focus.
The church has potential to do so much potential to do good. To help families, individuals and communities. If one of the Q15 stated “lets do service projects”..thousands would instantly help. When they leaned into to help immigrants even ardant republicans in utah changed their hard line. On LGBT housing then people were willing. But when they stay silent the ulta orthodox voice dominates. Then a narrative of wheat over tares is spoken.
The church really is not what it claims to be. We all have an idea what we think the church is in our head. But it is not. Then when the prior believers eyes are open and they recognize the truth, cognitive dissonance starts.
The church could stop all this pain. But they are creating more by the silence on some topics , and their old school retarict on other themes. The Q15 is following the same pattern of the pharisees. History always repeats. The church has failed in its own 4 fold purpose.
If Christ were to come before the Q15 they would call him a tare and disfellowship him
I know this is a pipe dream, but I feel it would be beneficial if the church provided the local Bishops and Stake Presidents with some structured (honest and transparent) training on how to assist their congregations with hot button Mormon issues…and we all know what those are. Then again, I understand that exposing even the strongest members to the controversial topics that initiate faith crises is probably not in the best interest of those in the highrise. It seems the church has yet to figure out a way to provide its members with consistent, solid resources when their faith is deeply tested. I’m wondering if LDS Social Services are even equipped to assist.
For example, I approached my last Bishop with concerns about being a gay Mormon and not being able to find my footing in the local ward, to which he replied ( and I will never forget this)…”Well, if I was the only straight man in a gay church, I might understand how you feel.” I knew at that point I would never be able to receive spiritual counseling or even a sympathetic ear from this Priesthood leader. I imagine if he had been trained on how to approach same-sex issues within the context of pastoral care, our meeting might have gone differently and I might still be attending the Mormon church.
I think Lois and Brother Sky bring up a very sad truth (for me at least). There is a big segment of the Church and the leadership that don’t want to make space for unorthodox believers, cafeteria Mormons or anyone LGBT. If we were all in agreement that we wanted to keep people in and make the Church a big tent, there would be a lot of options. David Ostler presents some great ones. I think this is an urgent need or we are going to keep losing a lot of members. I recently heard from a friend whose son came out as gay and they decided to leave the Church. Great people, great family, but they saw no future for their son in the Church and that it would be a harmful place and got out. I can’t blame them. I really worry that the desire to separate the wheat from the tares is going to result in a smaller, more fundamentalist and unwelcoming Church.
Seeking help from Bishops is problematic in several regards including: (1) lack of training on both doctrinal issues and how to properly counsel; and (2) the Bishop is not only a counselor but also a potential judge.
Ministers (home teachers) and LDS counselors are also a problem because of the lack of discretion and privacy. There is nothing stopping these people from reporting you to Church authorities. Or worse yet, discussing your case in some council meeting.
It would seem the bloggernacle is our best hope, unless you have real friends (with discretion) that you can commiserate with. Planning on Church help, at the moment, is a lost cause.
What Mormonism needs are several renegade Stake Presidents or Bishops who choose to call and ordain members of the LGBT community and women to positions or offices they are currently shut out of. Let the Area Presidencies and/or General Authorities spend most of their time excommunicating such renegade local leaders. Let’s have then a second crop of renegades do the same thing. Over and over again.
When bishops from the Episcopal Church did this in 1974, it only took two more years before the General Convention officially authorized the ordination of women.
This is where the support needs to come from. Grassroots support in the LDS church is great, especially for the mental health of disenfranchised groups. But for real change, it is going to take some very brave men to make this happen.
Bishops and Stake Presidents have the power to forever change the face of the LDS Church, but as we know, LDS Bishops and Stake Presidents, more often than not, are selected primarily for their loyalty.
Wow, I love so many of these comments! Especially alice’s. I want to like it seventy times seven times!