I’ve seen a few social media posts reacting to the July 2020 Ensign which features several articles on the “problem” of people losing their testimonies or leaving the Church and how Ensign-reading Mormons are supposed to deal with that. Apparently the standard mild Christian response (be kind, patient, and supportive; be a good example of whatever happiness or grace you think they are missing out on) isn’t enough. I confess that I don’t ordinarily read the Ensign, but today I’ll take the plunge. I’ll link each article and add a short comment on what is good and what is not so good about the discussion.
Faith crisis, doubt crisis, testimony crisis, truth crisis … is it really a crisis? This is America. People switch churches all the time. Denominational identification is a lot weaker than it used to be, with millions of Evangelicals attending megachurches without likely even knowing what denomination the enterprise or its ordained ministers are formally affiliated with. Why is it a crisis when a Mormon exits or joins another faith? We certainly don’t call it a faith crisis when a convert leaves their prior church and joins the Mormons.
But when a label enters popular culture and becomes widely recognized, it often allows people to notice and recognize something that was there all along but had somehow been missed by most of us. “Faith crisis” is such a label. It seems to function as notice to mainstream members that people actually leave the LDS Church (or choose to distance themselves from it while not formally disaffiliating) not just because of sin or because they took offense or because they are lazy but (you might want to sit down when you read this) because they have come to reject or doubt standard LDS faith claims and have done so sincerely. It is fashionable to blame the Internet for this, but I’m pretty sure it has been happening since well before the Internet. I know it’s fashionable to point to the CES Letter, but before that there was the Godmakers film and before that there was Fawn Brodie’s book and so forth. We’re just talking about it differently now, and talking about it more. The July 2020 Ensign seems to support this claim. When the Ensign is talking about faith crisis (not a topic the editors really want to talk about) you know it’s a thing. Okay, here are the articles:
Church History: A Source of Strength and Inspiration. This article is by Elder Cook of the Twelve, transcribed or adapted from a September 2018 devotional.
- What’s Good: It’s nice anytime they address LDS history directly. It’s great that two LDS historians are featured in the article, giving commentary and their own personal perspective on particular issues. It wasn’t so long ago the Church didn’t trust historians and sometimes exed them. Now there are many trained historians working for the Church doing good work and posting good material at LDS.org. Elder Cook specifically identifies “The Joseph Smith Papers, the Gospel Topics Essays, Church History Topics, and now the multivolume Saints” as evidence that the Church is doing a better job being transparent in discussing its history and doctrine. I agree those are better than most of the material put out in the past.
- What’s Bad: The first paragraph notes that “some people have even purposely misrepresented stories of the past to sow doubt” without the slightest hint or acknowledgement that part of the current problem is that the Church has purposely misrepresented stories in the past to maintain member commitment and keep people signing their tithing checks. I like the historian sidebars in the article, but the one on the Urim and Thummim is misleading and downright inaccurate. No, the U&T was not “mentioned in the Book of Mormon.” They devices used in the Book of Mormon are called interpreters. Joseph called what he dug up from the hill “spectacles.” He also used seer stones he dug up in other places. The term “Urim and Thummim” was not used for several years. It was borrowed from the Old Testament because that lends biblical credibility to the whole discussion (like we call Mormon priesthoods Aaronic and Melchizedek and we use the term Zion in many contexts). The way the U&T are actually used in the Old Testament by Israelite priests bears little resemblance to how interpreters are used in the Book of Mormon and what Joseph did with his spectacles and seer stones. Misleading and inaccurate discussions like this are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
How Can We Withstand False Teachings? This is an unsigned piece tied to an upcoming Come Follow Me section, covering Alma 30-31. It talks about Korihor. As a general rule, anytime an LDS manual or article discusses Korihor, you can count on some bizarre conclusions. You would think that a church whose founding prophet was killed by vigilantes would not have a problem rejecting vigilante action in any guise, but every Mormon discussion thinks Korhior got what was coming to him. Which is exactly what all the non-Mormons said about Joseph Smith back in the day.
- What’s Good: “Gain your own testimony” does encourage raised-in-the-Church Mormons to seriously study and ponder LDS teachings and history, and come to their own conclusion and form their own commitment. (Or not.) “We can rely on revelation” isn’t really objectionable — if God answers prayer, it seems fair to think God will enlighten one who sincerely prays to know whether this or that teaching is true, or whether joining this or that church is the right thing to do. Although LDS discussion of prayer answers seems to key on an emotional response, with just about any response meaning “yes, the LDS Church is true!” or, at worst, “keep praying until you get the right answer.” I think prayer is a garbage in, garbage out process. If you don’t put in a lot of work studying and thinking, don’t expect much enlightenment. If you do a lot of studying and thinking, you might not need prayer to arrive at your answer.
- What’s Bad: The slogan “we can remember that truth is truth.” What does that even mean? In LDS discussions, “truth” is often confused with loyalty. “Be true,” in an LDS context, isn’t saying anything about truth, it’s saying be loyal, regardless of what the facts are. Learning to differentiate truthful statements from partial truths, misleading statements, or downright falsehoods is not an easy task. They used to teach it in college. Maybe it’s just part of growing up. Let me just throw in some advice from Richard L. Bushman on the topic of LDS history, since so many LDS issues are historical ones. He said go ahead and read LDS history books and articles, but read across the full spectrum. Make sure to read several points of view, not just one side of the story. That’s not advice you’ll read in any LDS manual.
When I Felt Deceived about the Church. A signed personal piece with the subtitle “Why I left. And why I came back.” A brief summary: “I began looking into the arguments of those who had concerns about the Church. … Some of the things I read over the next two years led me to question everything about the Church. Some who go through this feel sad. They grieve for the loss of their faith. I became angry. I felt that the Church had deceived me. I wasn’t sure what was real or whom I could trust.”
- What’s Good: This seems like a sincere and straightforward account. People do read to get info about troubling issues. It does lead some people to have questions about this or that issue, or to have bigger questions about LDS faith claims in general. Concerns about who can be trusted (when those previously trusted now seem unreliable) are an understandable development. Maybe some readers who have similar concerns feel validated. Maybe the answers this writer came up with are helpful.
- What’s Bad: The article quickly jumps from truth questions, the issues this guy has, to family tensions that resulted from his inquiries. The wife is unhappy. He didn’t go through the temple with his missionary son. The Church pretty much trains people to give doubters a hard time, especially family members. Using peer pressure and family pressure to punish one who has sincere questions is part of the problem, not part of the solution. And talking to someone’s stake presidency counselor doesn’t generally produce many answers. We all know that local leadership is strong on administrative experience, short on pastoral training, and almost totally deficient in LDS history familiarity. The statement “Satan is working overtime to discredit the Lord’s Church using any means possible” suggests that anything that raises a legitimate issue is the work of the adversary. Well, no. Sometimes it’s just messy history. Sometimes it’s changing LDS positions and confusing explanations.
When Loved Ones Leave the Church. A mother struggles to know how to help her son. “My husband and I have a son who does not believe in our faith. It can be difficult to know what to do. But these Book of Mormon examples can help us find inspiration for our own families.”
- What’s Good: Most Mormon parents are going to struggle over a child’s decision to leave the Church. So are Catholic parents and Evangelical parents and Muslim parents whose children either don’t take much interest in the faith of their parents or take an active interest in a different faith. Are Mormon parents more saddened than other parents when this happens? Maybe. Hard to tell. I was just reading about a Mormon convert whose Catholic mother never got over his LDS conversion right up to the day she died. Siblings or friends ought to be a little less intrusive about the religious choices of other adults (their friend or their brother/sister) but hey, parents care about their kids. They care about their kids’ education and jobs and them finding a happy marriage or partner, and they care about their religious choices. You can’t blame a parent for caring. It’s what parents are supposed to do. It’s when parents don’t care about their kids that we should have a problem.
- What’s Bad: When the article says “ask others to help.” If you ask a trusted uncle or one friend to talk to Johnny, he could use someone to talk to, maybe that’s okay. But to recruit friends and family to give Johnny a hard time because he’s not going to church anymore, that’s not good at all. Johnny might decide friends aren’t being very friendly and neither is family. And “teach truth with clarity and fearlessness” raises a similar problem. I’d rather it said, “remember, he’s still your son and deserves your love and support.” When the opportunity presents itself and your kid is likely to listen, that’s when you can share your convictions and offer advice or encouragement. But don’t wield your testimony mallet every time Johnny comes over for dinner or visits for the holidays.
So go read one or two of the linked articles (or maybe one of the ones I didn’t link to) and tell me what you think. Helpful or not? Accurate or misleading? Would these articles help you understand a child or sibling who is leaving the Church? If you have left, would these articles help your parents or siblings or friends understand why you left, or just give them more wrong ideas?
Wheat & Tares 
Quick note: I know the Ensign cover in the featured image is not the July 2020 Ensign. I can’t seem to access that image at the LDS website. I’ll update it when the image becomes available.
“Why is it a crisis when a Mormon exits or joins another faith? We certainly don’t call it a faith crisis when a convert leaves their prior church and joins the Mormons.“
Thank you!
An overall great piece. Thank you again!
These articles at least sound like they are a bit better than Elder Montoya’s June 2017 Ensign piece where he said that all doubts are of Satan and people who have them should simply erase them from their minds. But that’s a pretty low bar to clear.
Thanks for your analysis and insights, Dave. Most helpful.
A faith crisis might not be a crisis for the church but it may be a very real crisis for the individual and the family. I told my wife I didn’t think any of it was true and she cried all night even though I told her I would keep my temple recommend, etc. it was a crisis to her because she now worries that I’ve effectively divorced her in the eternities. It was a crisis as real to me a man losing my job because my entire framework about the meaning of life, family, and God changed.
Overall I’m glad the church is trying to have these conversations with the average member. But the subtext to all of them is that the LDS church is the only way to God and that anyone who leaves is ultimately going to regret it. Until a senior Q15 says “yes there are legitimate reasons to leave” there will always be an asterisk to these type of articles.
I read, When I Felt Deceived About the Church.” Here is the general problem with it. The main person says he leaves the church, then begins having problems with his spouse, then his family does an intervention on his behalf, then he feels guilty about not taking his son through the temple, giving a blessing, etc. Are people whose family members are all members of the Mormon church obligated to maintain activity because if they don’t they might offend the other active family members? I thought the only reason that people were to be active was because they had “a testimony,” in other words, a strong belief in the church’s truth claims. If you don’t have a strong belief, you don’t have a strong belief and there is no reason to be active. If I don’t believe something, why am required to put on airs for my spouse? Why am I required to teach my kids something that I do not believe? Wouldn’t that be lying? Wouldn’t that be deception? I can’t just up and choose to believe things that make no sense. Belief is mostly caused. And Mormon teachings would agree. Isn’t it taught that the Holy Spirit is causing Mormon believers to “know” somethingto be true? Strong belief in that truth claim (“testimony”) isn’t arising out of sheer willpower.
I really wish the church would acknowledge Fowler’s stages of faith or something similar. Listening to a Richard Ostler podcast about it was really helpful to me. As is pointed out by the OP, it may not be helpful for someone in a faith crisis to talk to a church leader or friend when the person in crisis is in stage 4 and everyone they know is in stage 3.
In all these stories, the believing friends or family members aren’t upset because they themselves have delved into church issues, learned all they can, and then still found the “right” answer was staying with the church. They are upset because their loved one in crisis is bringing up issues they haven’t faced, likely don’t know about, or don’t want to get into. The friends and family have real fear for the person they love, but if the solution is to keep bearing testimony or to encourage more temple attendance, scripture study, etc., then the friends and family are in a stage 3. It’s like having people with two very different world views sit down and talk to each other. There can be successful conversations, but that won’t happen if the stage 3 person is all about certainty where the stage 4 person is about questioning and exploration.
And of course if someone is in stage 3, they don’t want to acknowledge it. Or they will likely think they are at stage 5, where they have come to accept nuance and don’t feel so unsettled about the unknown. I think for a lot of church members, they find out something unsettling in their teens maybe. They ask adults around them, and get inaccurate, half baked, or faith promoting responses that may or may not allay their concerns. They go pray, and rather than asking about the specific issue, they pray to know if the church is true because that’s what the church tells you is the most important question. They get a warm fuzzy feeling, and then they shelf their concerns and are relieved they don’t have to worry about them.
Then years later, a family member has a crisis and mentions some of the issues the person prayed about as a teenager. The person trying to help their family member thinks, oh yeah I’ve already been through what they are going through. They just need to pray about the church being true and then they won’t worry. I think the person trying help legitimately thinks their experience is the same as the family member’s current faith crisis when they are two totally different things. This leads to so much frustration and heartache. The church needs to realize moving through different stages of faith is a natural human phenomenon, not a Satanic manifestation. I’m not saying evil isn’t real and doesn’t have an influence. But conflating Satan with doubt and honest truth seeking doesn’t help anyone.
I understand how emotions run high on both sides of this issue. But ward buildings and temples have been mostly shutdown for three months or so. Last General Conference was held without an in-person audience, as will be the next one. Church as we once knew it may never return. Members are free to conduct their home church and “Come Follow Me” programs.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Toad, your are right, I think. It’s the implicit idea that there simply are no legitimate reasons to have questions or issues, or to leave the Church, that drives so much of the negative feeling members and leaders direct at questioners, doubters, or those who exit. It just seems like one ought to be able to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons or sincere concerns without at the same time endorsing or approving them. “I understand why you are thinking this way and why you are making these choices, even if I don’t agree with you” seems like something members and leaders just cannot bring themselves to say. They just can’t get to the understanding part.
John W, we are thinking alike. And making everything about family can backfire if someone becomes convinced that *leaving* the Church is better for spouse and kids (and anyone else in the family) than just shelving doubts and soldiering on for the sake of family.
Mary, very well argued. I think the average member can listen to a friend’s issues for only about 20 seconds before starting in on the quick response, “Yes, I remember having that thought in passing a few years ago, but I prayed and felt good and my testimony is intact. You should do that too.” Without ever cluing into the fact that acquiring knowledge through study and experience makes some issues more compelling and insistent. Snappy answers don’t address deep and informed concerns. I should add that there are some LDS thinkers trying to provide deep and informed answers, such as Givens in Crucible of Doubt and Mason in Planted.
Mary, thank you very much for your comment. I also wish the Church would talk about, or at least acknowledge, that there are several stages of faith. I just finished reading Ostler’s “Bridges” and appreciated his treatment of the different stages of faith. I need to read Thomas McConkie’s book “Navigating Mormon Faith Crisis,” which provides a deeper discussion of the stages of faith.
Unfortunately, based on my limited understanding of the faith stages I believe that at the institutional level the Church has little interest in members moving past stage 3. According to Wikipedia, stage 3 is characterized by conformity to authority and ignoring conflicts with one’s beliefs. This seems to be the message you hear in most official communications, particularly when it comes to faith crises. Once you move past stage 3 a person’s faith become more nuanced and less deferential to authority. I would hope the Church wants everyone to act like stage 6, an “enlightened” state in which an individual would treat any person with compassion and love, which I believe should be the aim of any Christian. But the talks I hear at General Conference and over the pulpit (or webcam) on Sundays, seem to hold up stage 3 faith as the norm and ideal within the Church. This is a great loss for our collective spirituality, and as Mary pointed out it also causes great (and often needless) personal pain and heartache when Church members go through this natural progression.
“ conflating Satan with doubt and honest truth seeking doesn’t help anyone…..
…. The church needs to realize moving through different stages of faith is a natural human phenomenon, not a Satanic manifestation.”
“I really wish the church would acknowledge Fowler’s stages of faith “
Amen!!
It seems my Catholic friends can have varying differences with their Catholic faith (like birth control, etc) yet remain “active” within their faith. So why can’t our church develop a bigger tent—allow people to grow, develop, in their own way?
It seems there are many “self-appointed” boundary guards within the church on the watch for those who have any differIng feelings, views etc so they can be called out. I hate it when members refer to “the world” as something to avoid. Guess what? “The world”’ is full of awesome, Christ-like people who aren’t Mormon,and maybe not even Christian or even religious.
Just stop it.
Stop trying to cram everybody into a cookie cutter. Just be kind and welcoming. Stop shaming. Stop fear-mongering. It’s hard to proclaim we have the “truth” (and nothing but the truth) when we have to keep acknowledging the simple history taught to so many of us isn’t simple at all and way messier.
Most church members have never heard of Fowler’s stages of Faith. But here is a good reference:. Many Struggles with Faith Are Based on Mormon Culture, Not …
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/many-struggles-with-faith-are-based-on…
Most people, according to Braithwaite, remain throughout their lives in Fowler’s stage three faith, which is a synthetic-conventional faith characterized by conformity to authority, a strong cultural element to religious life, an “us versus the world” perspective, and ignoring any conflicts with one’s beliefs due to the fear of threat …
If indeed Church as we once knew it never returns, I might summon up the courage like Toad to share my true feelings on faith with my wife. Also waiting until my father joins my mother in Paradise and until a missionary child returns home. I have not yet read the Ensign articles but I’m pretty sure I can predict their editorial slant.
We had a Stake Fireside, organized by Stake Relief Society, and the speaker was from LDS Social Services where he talked about Fowlers stages of faith as an answer to faith struggles.
But have had no follow up talks by Bishop or Stake Presidency to support these ideas. I found it very uplifting at the time.
I could cope with the history if I trusted the present leaders, and if we did not continue to discriminate against gays, and women. These ensign article that take no responsibility to the church for peoples problems, are an example of why I don’t trust the top leadership. They just don’t seem to be able to be honest and take responsibility for their actions, or apologise for mistakes.
Someone in head office must have noticed how good it is not having to go to church, and thought the virus could be a circuit breaker for many people. Have had a number of people who I thought were obedience types, say the only thing they were missing was the sociability.
I saw an a road sign (those where they can change the message) that I enjoyed today. “koala mating season please slow down”.
Also the ruling on discriminating against gays in the workplace, will make our leaders bigotry more noticable, and less acceptable in the not too distant future, as it already is in most of the first world.
Does anyone think this is helpful for the relationship with me and my aging parents:
“ However, righteous parental influence… does not overrule the consequences of the unrighteous exercise of moral agency”
Wow. Not helpful at all in letting my parents understand that there are actually valid reasons why my wife and I no longer attend. Definitely not helpful.
You’ve done a great job of describing the good and the bad of these articles. Here’s the larger point in my opinion: The Church would not be addressing the topic of “faith crisis” were it not for the fact that there is a great deal of this going on right now among the membership. We don’t have reliable statistics but these articles, along with various GC talks in recent years, suggest that the Church has a major problem on its hands. Maybe we’ve always had this problem. Like you said, there was Fawn Brodie’s book, “The Godmakers”, etc.
But my sense is that with the Internet, the game has changed and it has changed for two main reasons. First, members don’t have to work that hard to research information counter to the official narratives (think Radio Free Mormon). Second, members can find others who are going through similar journeys (think Mormon Stories). What I have experienced in the last 5 years would not have been possible 20 years ago. Now extrapolate my experience across the active membership of the Church and Houston, we have a problem.
I’m not sure when it happened–perhaps was always thus–but at some point the church became all about fealty to the organization and the Q15 as “the lord’s anointed.” This is largely why it looks like a cult to many. When every discussion of every problem ends with “the church is true,” you know they’re playing the hand they’ve been dealt and there are no other options.
I read “When I Felt Deceived …” and it was as expected. Many have already provided insightful comments above on the general misdirection the article uses as its MO. This article in particular is a great example of the emotional blackmail the church uses with members who have extensive family ties to the church. The author merely mentions that he developed doubts and then makes a beeline to the problem of disappointing the family. Will this not be the primary strategy used for the foreseeable future? Growth is flat or negative in the developed world except for members having children. The church needs this natural growth to continue and perhaps ramp up.
It is disappointing that the church never promotes continuing spiritual growth among members, but leadership doesn’t really want anything beyond Fowler stage 3. Beyond that, people get more difficult and less obedient and less likely to tithe and just more independent. What a divine mess that would be.
Dr Rieux. As proof that the church prefers members to remain in Stage 3 and not progress into later stages of faith, listen to what Elder Poleman said in his 1984 “The Gospel and the Church” talk at Conference and what he had to change and edit afterwards. He originally implied that a person may outgrow the church in his spiritual journey. The re-edited version clarifies that the church will always be necessary.
As I have been reading through these articles, the short “How Can we Withstand False Teachings” stood out to me. Perhaps it is because this week, in one of the sexology themed Facebook groups that I follow, someone posted a “My Bishop — in 2020 — still believes that oral sex in marriage is a sin because Pres. Kimball opined that it was a sin in that famous letter from 1982. How do I change the Bishop’s mind?” question. In the current social climate, I am seeing a lot of references to racist teachings by 19th and early 20th century Church leaders (you know, those teachings that the current Race and the Priesthood essay officially disavows).
I think the big problem I see with this short article in the Ensign is that it focuses on false teachings that originate outside of the Church, but completely fails to address how to withstand false teachings by the Church and its leaders. It seems to me that many of the triggers for faith crises seem to boil down to how should we deal with “false teachings” by those we also sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. In the context of this article, how should we deal with those few times when our own testimony of truth is in conflict with what the prophets have taught/are teaching? It seems to me that we are not going to be able to adequately understand or address faith crises until we have a better understanding and dialog around prophetic fallibility.