Our ward has a new bishopric. This past Sunday, the bishop talked for the entire first hour. There were two notable things about his talk. First, he held everyone’s attention for the entire period. Second, he shared a memorable message.
He talked about the parable of the lost sheep. He added Christ’s companion parable of the lost coin to give context to the story.
8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[a] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015%3A8-10&version=NIV
The point he made was that a coin does not lose itself. He expanded that to point out that sheep naturally keep together. Sheep do not wander off unless something unusual happens. For a sheep, or a coin, to be lost, someone has to lose it.
He went over common conceptions and misconceptions about how people move away from fellowship and how the research shows that those common opinions of why people are lost from the church are generally wrong. The research tells us that we lose people because we fail them.
It was an interesting talk, and gave the congregation much to think about.
Sounds like a thoughtful talk and a timely one. Over the many years I’ve been in the church, the rhetoric for someone leaving has most often (99% of the time) centered around assigning blame to the person for doing. Obviously the person is choosing to do so. But what we hardly talk about is how we a church community contributed to their leaving. I’m seeing this kind of self-reflection pop up more and more from Christian pastors–asking people to look at how their own behavior is pushing people away from God. It’s a really good question to ask. Now if we could just get high up church leadership to admit openly that mistakes have been made, major harm caused as a result and then apologize for it instead of avoiding or explaining it away.
As many people know, there is one parable in 3 parts in Luke 15, with the emphasis being one parable. In part 1 we have the sheep who wanders, in part 2 we have the coin that is lost, and in part 3 we have the son who willfully leaves. The parables are not about the sheep, coin, and son: the principal actor in each part is the shepherd, the woman, and the father. This parable, or if one doesn’t accept 3-in-1, then these three parallel parables, is about how leaders respond to the lost, and we are presented with three kinds of loss.
What jumped out at me (and I was not there) is another very common leadership tactic in our faith, which is placing blame on members for not being good enough. The sheep and the coin have in common that their leader wasn’t paying enough attention. Both had failed to keep track of the creatures in their care. I agree with chrisdrobison that we usually place all lost entities in the third category and ignore them, saying they made the choice to leave. That is error by over-generalization. But it would also be error to teach the sheep-shepherd and coin-woman without teaching the son-father, which is where the parable-giver spent most of his time. Yes, the father helped his son leave.
This good bishop may focus on finding those who have innocently wandered or those who are absent because of leaders who need to do some cleaning. This could be good. But he might also put unfair demands on RS and EQ in regards to ministering (by the way, bishoprics don’t get ministering assignments) and he may point the finger at them when they don’t minister as he wants them to do. Wouldn’t RS and EQ ministers err if they treated prodigal sons as if they were wandering sheep or lost coins? One size does not fit all. When dealing with a prodigal son, should we not allow him his freedom? We shouldn’t send ministering brothers and sisters. We should leave him alone! But when/if he returns, we welcome him back without question. We don’t ask him to confess how many riotous women he slept with in the far away country.
Admittedly, the hard part is deciding whether a person is inactive due to simple wandering, or whether we’ve done something that him hide, or whether he left wholly on his own. Maybe there are not only three types of inactivity, but maybe Jesus gave three examples to show that each case is individual. Each ailment gets its own medicine (to introduce another metaphor), and the medicine that cured one ailment might not cure another, and it might do harm. In other words, maybe the parable in Luke 15 teaches that each person who has left our company should be treated as an individual, and the remedy should be quite individual and singular. I note that the actors in the three parts of the parable were the leaders, not the members. It wasn’t the other sheep that went out looking for the lost sheep, and it wasn’t the other coins in the purse that cleaned the house. I hope that this bishop doesn’t impose unrighteous demands on the women and men in his RS and EQ. Maybe the bishop is the shepherd, the woman, and the father, and the ward members are the other sheep, the other coins, and the elder brother.
“The research tells us that we lose people because we fail them.“
Who is the “we” and who is failing whom?
I can point to a dozen families in my ward who were at one time very active and in the past dozen years have left the church and activity with our ward. Each and everyone of them made an intentional choice and in every case it was because they decided the religion did not meet their needs. The departure of these members had nothing to do with the ward members.
I cannot emphasize this enough. The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships. They chose to disassociate themselves. They did it because what they believed was inconsistent with what the LDS religion teaches. That’s it. No one burned a cake. No one forgot a birthday. The “sheep” was “lost” because the “sheep” decided there was a greener pasture elsewhere that did not trouble their preferred beliefs and preferences.
So I ask what action is the idea that “we failed them” supposed to cause if the “failure” is the incompatibility of a person’s beliefs with the teachings and policies of the religion? I don’t see any failure with anyone. I see a person who decided that a particular religion does not fit their belief system. No apology needed. No elaborate explanation. Just reality.
It is true that a person who has disassociated from the church may return. The person may realize they can find compatibility with what they believe and what the church teaches. The person may decide that they prefer having what the church offers over “fighting against the pricks” as the saying goes.
It is for this reason that active church members should be patient and respectful to the “lost sheep”. Active church members should not “burn bridges” to the lost sheep. This is the only failure that active members could be assigned. But assigning blame to active church members because members go inactive over policy and doctrinal disagreements makes zero sense. And assigning blame to anyone makes zero sense in most cases. People make choices and sometimes those choices cause separation. The focus on laying blame does a great disservice as it incorrectly assigns responsibility and accountability. In particular, it disrespects the Intelligence and Agency of the person who chooses to separate from the church.
“In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents‘
This parable isn’t about someone leaving church, it’s about a sinner who repents. I take great issue with this because as our family is now seen by the church as a lost sheep, when in the context of the story we aren’t.
We aren’t sinning, we aren’t doing anything reprehensible in the sight of the Lord. We just don’t believe in the church was restored by God to Joseph Smith.
(by the way, bishoprics don’t get ministering assignments)
Since when? My current ministering companion is a member of the bishopric. When I was HPGL, I gave assignments (OK, it was home teaching, not ministering) to the bishopric members and nobody ever suggested I should not.
As for why people leave the Church, we should not waste time debating whether people leave for this reason or that. The OP is about whether people leave because we “lose” them and how can we avoid losing them. Sure, many people leave for other reasons. But some we just lose. On more than one occasion, I have heard people denounce whatever ward I am in for not trying harder not to lose them. They then insist that our efforts to lose them will fail–they will stick around anyway. But they never do. Bednar is fine blaming them for being offended. But when they tell ward members what they are failing at and the members don’t fix it, that’s on the members.
lastlemming, see 21.2.1 in the handbook. stake presidencies and bishoprics are normally assigned as ministering brothers.
correction: are normally NOT assigned
When Jesus is asked, his “Way” is not confined to religion; it begins right here and now with the daily details of human relationships; loving each other as we want to be loved. In each loving detail is the law fulfilled because relationship building “itself”, presence in action, IS the spiritual life, Jesus’ Way. Functional religion (there’s a giant asterisk) ushers us into these loving details and direct spiritual encounters, dysfunctional religion becomes an end in itself, symbol without meaning, a form of corporate narcissism blind to deeper connection.
A Disciple – I agree with your general sentiments, because people, all of us, make choices every day on who, what and where we want to spend our time. Your comment also underscores, what I believe, as we see throughout all of scripture, a deeply dysfunctional tendency of religion. Institutions have their own kind of momentum, which finds themselves bogged down with making a life of “Faith” more about beliefs, than about relationality. We spout off endless platitudes that we categorize as “testimony”, while spending precious little time talking about salvation as a communal project. Of course, people leave, when the emphasis is placed on agreement about dogmatic claims, and they come to see those propositions differently, enough so that they feel like a pariah, outside the accepted norms for a card-carrying latter-day saint. I personally believe that “Everything” about the philosophy of Jesus is about community and relationship, period. All the rites, rituals, and religious practices are only means to that end, otherwise we are no better than the Zoramites, who believe that God exists in certain buildings, using certain words, wearing certain clothes, on certain days, that sounds oddly familiar.
There are many orthodox Mormons so immersed in the dogma, they refuse to take their blinders off and accept that people can find happiness and purpose outside Mormonism.
Rather than engaging in circular discussions in ward council about reactivation, perhaps the focus should be on authenticity and engaging as friends and neighbors. People know when they are assigned as ward “projects”. The culture of “finding the one” does not require disingenuous and often insincere efforts.
Too often, Mormons only recognize fellow congregants as being worthy of their friendship. There are clear lines of demarcation between active/inactive and member/non-member. Messaging about the covenant path and lazy learners only creates more separation.
let me write a “reality” parable about sheep. Sheep pick on any one who is different. Sheep are NOT the sweet innocent things the parable about the good shepherd talks about. Anyone who has ever seen a herd of sheep head butt a lame or injured lamb, knows what I am talking about. Or the black sheep. Bad rep that guy. But it isn’t *his* fault he was born black and the herd essentially lets him follow a good distance behind. They head butt him to the edge of the fold. The lame lamb who can’t keep up, the sheep want him on the outside edge of the herd so the wolves get him first. Those are the ones who are lost. They get lost because of the other SHEEP. Poor black is the one who gets lost because the other sheep don’t accept him. In real life, that sheep gets butchered and becomes the shepherd’s supper.
The old time shepherds had to protect an injured or different sheep from the other sheep. The sometimes carried an injured animal so the other sheep wouldn’t push it out of the herd. They sheltered that sheep until it could heal, protecting it both from wolves and other sheep who would literally head butt the poor thing to death.
Just a note of explanation here. My dad spent a few years as that guy up in the mountains in summer with his horse, two dogs and a herd of sheep. My dad ended up disliking sheep.
He had an injured lamb once, minor injury to one leg. His choice was to protect it until it healed rather than have to butcher it or let a wild animal get it or the other sheep kill it. He had to separate it from the herd and because it was small and nursing, that meant separate mama too. He carried it, kept it right with him 100% of the time for three weeks. In his camp trailer at night, on his horse when they moved, with its mama being guarded by the dogs other times. Its mama followed him while he carried it or it was on his horse.
It takes a LOT of work to protect an injured lamb. Finding it when it is lost is not near as much work as solving the problem of why the herd rejected it in the first place. It isn’t the sheep’s fault when it gets lost, nor is it the shepherds, so much as it is the other sheep.
Now, how do we relate this to humans? First are we sheep or humans? Shouldn’t we stop head butting the different out of our herd?
Lots and lots of human “head butting” going on under the far right about now. Deporting immigrants. Taking away the right of transgender to get medical care, even to go pee in public places. This is all the same damned behavior as sheep head butting the lame or injured or different. Lots and lots of “head butting” going on at church. My lesbian daughter—head butted right out of the church.
Yes, this is just as instinctive for humans as it is for sheep. But we gotta decide if we are human or mostly animal. Margret Meed said that she recognized “civilization” in humans when they found a human leg bone that had been broken and healed, because it took other humans helping and protecting that injured person to allow them to heal instead of die. Are we civilized enough to take care of those who are injured or different than us. It is part of Christianity to care for those who cannot care for themselves- —-so let’s gut Medicaid and those programs that feed the poor, like stupid sheep instead of civilized humans.
Relate this back to the church? My brother has been mentally disabled, (hallucinations because of depression) since his 30s. Not one penny of help from the church. Of course he left. As the VICTIM of sin, I could not get any help from the church, but the sinner was loved and pampered and protected all in the name of “repentance”. Of course I left the church. My daughter the lesbian, of course she left the church. My other daughter saw how women were treated and wanted nothing to do with that and so of course she left the church. My son saw the church break laws and lie and cover up it financials and of course he is looking at his herd in disgust thinking about leaving.
The church needs to learn how to treat people and stop head butting anyone who is different. It needs to BE Christian not just claim Christianity.
I’m enjoying the comments so far. I wish to remark on A Disciple’s comment specifically.
I am one who has intentionally chosen to leave. As stated, the church did not meet my needs, but it’s more than that. The church did fail me in that they lied and misrepresented themselves to me for decades. If you want to say that my morals wouldn’t allow me to stay associated with an organization that is based on mis and half truths, then yes, it didn’t meet my needs, but that isn’t the whole picture. For me personally, the major issue was the organization, but, as one who never fit the complete mold (part-member family) the members definitely were a factor. If you don’t check the boxes as expected, despite service/dedication/faith, you will never be fully accepted, but treated like the reluctant step-relation. This is about being part of a community and when you’re kept as a fringe member of said community, you get tired of trying – that is on the members.
You write: ” The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships”. Why? Why do I have to break off friendships or relationships because I no longer identify with being LDS? Why can’t I remain friends with active members? Is it because they’re cautioned to not associate with “apostates”? Is it because they’re uncomfortable with anyone who is not just like them (hint: YES)? While this directly relates to member behavior, the direction comes from the top of the organization.
I appreciate the comment that one should be respectful of another’s choice to separate from the church and wholly agree with that. Leave them alone in regard to church involvement, but again, why must all personal ties be severed? It seems there are two general camps that former members reside in: one where it’s like they never existed and are erased from the community and the other where they won’t leave you alone. Both are disrespectful. Neither is a great option. Something in between is needed.
“First, he held everyone’s attention for the entire period. Second, he shared a memorable message.”
That’s great!
“The point he made was that a coin does not lose itself. He expanded that to point out that sheep naturally keep together. Sheep do not wander off unless something unusual happens. For a sheep, or a coin, to be lost, someone has to lose it.”
I see it differently — and I think Jesus did, too. Sheep do naturally (and innocently) wander off, especially in a flock of a hundred or so. In contrast, a coin does not naturally wander off, but can be inadvertently misplaced.
For the lost sheep, the shepherd simply goes and finds it as part of the shepherd’s normal duty of care. For the lost coin, the housekeeper needs to put affairs in order, and then the coin will be found again. In neither circumstance is there a need to assign blame by identifying the someone who lost it.
Then, there is yet another circumstance illustrated by the prodigal son. As part of that illustration, the father did not seek after the lost, but left him alone.
In all three illustrations, the reason for the “lost” circumstance is different — and in all three, the response of the “adult” is different. It seems to me that we tend to conflate these three circumstances and want to prescribe the remedy for the first (being a good shepherd) to all three. Jesus didn’t do that.
The common theme is the rejoicing that occurs when the lost is found — it seems to me that we tend to look for punishment or some other correction before we allow the lost to return. Jesus didn’t do that.
I hope OP’s new bishop won’t impose burdens on his ward members; rather, I hope OP’s new bishop will follow Jesus’ example by (1) choosing himself to personally seek after those who innocently stray, to put his ward’s affairs in order, and to respect the agency of those who purposefully decide to step away; and (2) rejoicing (rather than imposing punishment) when the lost are found.
The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.
I’d like to add to Andy’s comment. The first message of what Jesus teaches in Luke 15 is that we each individually are valued by God. We are his treasures and he does not want to lose us. Observe what triggered what Jesus taught:
“Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Then Jesus told them this parable: …”
Why does Jesus reach out to the “sinner”. It is because the “sinner” is his lost treasure. This is especially made clear in the parable of the lost sheep. Who is the shepherd? None other than Jesus himself. He is going to find us and save us. The good shepherd cares for all his sheep and Jesus is that good shepherd.
The first rule of being a good Christian is we believe that each and every person is valued by God. The second rule of being a good Christian is we rejoice when a “sinner” repents. And why? Because God himself is rejoicing when the lost thing he treasures returns to him.
The LDS mentality about inactive members and “sinners” is a stumbling block. The religion is so focused on keeping tabs on who is in the boat or outside the boat that it misses what really matter. What matters is enabling repentance and repentance is not simply discarding bad habits and adopting healthy habits . Repentance is a change in our disposition where we “find God” and rejoice in that recognition.
We see the stumbling of LDS leaders with this simple observation. The leadership speaks fondly of other faiths and the sincere members of those other faiths. But the LDS leadership struggles greatly to reconcile that former LDS members can be sincere in their faith. Their view of former members is tainted by feelings of personal offense and this requires someone must be blamed for the separation.
I agree with chrisdrobison that self-reflection is needed. Church members should reflect on whether their personal behaviors are Christian or not. So should leaders. And yet the LDS church as an institution has a pattern of giving leaders a pass. During the pandemic my stake president literally told members to not come to church if they would not respect HIS pandemic policies – these were not guidelines required by local government, these were rules the stake president imposed and seemingly without consultation or approval of any others in the stake, including his own counselors. This stake president has never apologized and not even publicly remarked that he might have been wrong. (For what it’s worth, I could list a number of actions my stake leadership has taken the past decade that caused great disruption to the church in my area. Alas, they will never point the finger at themselves).
And so I find the finger pointing by church leaders to be shifting the blame. Rather than acknowledge the rough edges of the church experience – and the conflict created by church policies and decisions – the leaders cast blame on the members for not being “good enough”. And then the leadership wonders why fully committed church members have such low spiritual self confidence and are so critical of themselves! Isn’t it obvious why?
“The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.” That’s a problem.
There was no fault on the part of the shepherd when the one sheep strayed. Maybe the sheep saw a butterfly, or maybe he followed some sweet green grass, but one shepherd can’t see every single sheep at every minute, not when there are hills and trees. The question isn’t why did the shepherd lose the sheep, but what did he did when he realized the sheep was lost.
There was no fault on the part of the housekeeper when a coin was lost. She did not willfully lose the coin. Look between your chair and couch cushions and you’ll likely find coins, and there is no fault for that. Yes, she needs to get a broom to get up under furniture, and she needs a candle to see in dark places, but again the questions why did the woman lose the coin, but what did she do when she realized the coin was lost.
We cannot fault the father for his son’s decision to leave. The father even cashed out his son’s inheritance, so he helped him leave, because he loved his son enough to honor his choices.
As ji pointed out, a common theme in all three is the rejoicing when the sheep, coin, or prodigal son was found.
If this bishop’s starting point is that being lost is a fault of leadership, or a fault of other members, then we’re leading by placing blame on members for not being good enough. I don’t think that is how Jesus led.
“The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.”
I agree that this thought is a problem.
But assuming, arguendo, that it is true, what is the bishop going to do about it?
Will he do as the Savior did, and personally himself go out to find the lost, sweep and put his house in order, and so forth? Or, will he preside in ward council and insist that others provide reports on what they’re doing and how they are responding to the tasks that he has given them?
I don’t know OP or OP’s bishop, so I don’t know that answer to the question. I hope the first is the answer; however, based on long experience, I have to suppose the latter is the answer. And that is sad.
The overall problem I see with the structure of church is that it’s all talk and not much action. This Bishop sounds well intentioned and I’m sure his words felt inclusive to anyone in attendance who has felt othered. But the talk is now in the past. What will this ward actually do to be respectful to their community?
Our leaving has been uneventful. Our best friends are still our best friends. Our extended family (which was never great and thankfully live far away) is still our extended family. People we only knew through the church are still very friendly when we see them at school and community events. We still attend church service if invited to a missionary homecoming of whatnot and we still attend the secular stuff like trunk or treat and the Christmas party. To me this is what I want and so I’m mostly content.
Regarding the prodigal son, I guess I read it differently. Yes the son left. Yes he travelled to another place. But did that really mean he wanted no contact? Making this a modern tale, was the dad provided a forwarding address? Did the son block him from social media? If the neighbors were on holiday and ran into the son did he want them to pretend they didn’t see him? I’m guessing the son wanted independence but not isolation, but perhaps that’s just my projection. So while people may choose to no longer attend church and want independence from a flawed organization that either no longer meets their needs of was actively harming them, I’m guessing most of us still want friends and sociality. But only if it’s genuine. I have heard enough stories of people moving to Utah and first impression was how friendly the Mormons were until it became clear these people weren’t interested in being proselytized, at which point they became persona non-grata.
We can all do better, including those of us that have left. I try not to make it awkward. I try to ask questions since the last time I saw them to show I still remember them and care about them. Because I do. But comments like A Disciple remind me why this is so hard. Because some people are just judgmental meanies.
A much better talk than the one that I usually hear which attacks those who leave for overreacting to minor issues or actions or getting duped by “anti-Mormon” literature online. This is a talk that doesn’t seem to be blaming those who leave the church but asking, instead, for the members to cleanse the inner vessel in order to reach out to those who leave more effectively and efficiently. One that almost gestures at criticism of leadership and leadership policies. I can certainly get behind this talk.
That said, there is a caveat. At the base of it, there may be a cruel reality. One that has increasingly dawned on me: which is that it could very well be that there really isn’t anything that can be done. It could very be that Joseph Smith told everyone that they needed to join his ship that he was steering so that they could avoid drowning, but that this ship was actually on land the entire time and there was no ocean to drown in, and that the ocean is simply a game of pretend that may feel so real to some that they fully believe it is real. If that’s the case, then what exactly could the church do to change that would bring back those, like me, who think that everything is just all a big game of pretend? For the way I see it, the ship that my environment and community have repeatedly told me to stay in at all costs I’ve left. Long ago. And what I found was that it didn’t drown in an ocean. I was on dry ground the whole time. There were many other communities and ideas to explore. I explored those. Some work and some don’t. The church leaders can remodel the ship. They can do a different advertising strategy. They can help improve the qualities of the people on the ship. It doesn’t change the fact that the ship is still on dry ground. I go and hang out on the ship regularly. I love and know many people on the ship. They are great people. They are smart, caring, interested in sharing and helping, etc. But if I tell them that the ship is on dry ground, they won’t believe me. They are convinced that a dangerous ocean surrounds them and that they will drown if they step off the ship. So I don’t bother trying to tell them. I simply walk off the ship myself and go back in as I please. It is only those who open their eyes enough to try walking off the ship that I can talk to and convince, “you know, the ocean is pretend, it’s just dry ground.” They tend to be more persuadable.
Bottom line: for me, I’m so removed in my mind of the church being “true” at least in some literal sense (as opposed to true=good place) that I simply can’t see it any other way. And there are many like me who have left. And the church leaders and members can try to cleanse their inner vessel all they want, and I appreciate their attempts to do so, but the biggest problem isn’t the vessel per se, but the location of it. Its whole reason to exist is what Joseph Smith said and did. And if the basic foundations of what Joseph Smith said and did aren’t really true, then there really isn’t much that can be done to salvage the vessel in my eyes. That said, the church will continue. But it is only because of the game of pretend that it has long been based on and using tried and tested effective mind tricks to make members take the church seriously. You acknowledge the pretense of it all, it all collapses. The leaders know this. There is only so far they can go only so much ground they can concede. Maintaining the integrity of the church by all accounts requires keeping intact a tradition that is simply flawed.
In all three parables, it is clear who “owned” the coin, the sheep, or whose son. But when we apply it to “the church” everyone here seems to be making “the woman”, the “shepherd”, and “the father” into different things and I guess so did I in my comment above. So, just who is the “shepherd” when we are talking about the church and the ward and the individual. A bishop is really just an undershepherd to his ward. He was is a hireling as my father was when he herded sheep in the mountains. My father didn’t own those sheep. He might have liked and respected them better if he owned them. I mean, he cared for that one lamb as a pet, and he saved it only to give it back to some rich jerk who actually owned it. (who happened to be his father, but an abusive father who left him zero.)
So, all of us need to think about who is the shepherd because it makes a huge difference. I see the shepherd of “the church” as the leadership who teach hirelings how to care for their sheep….or really they just hire anybody who acts faithful whether they know a damned thing about “sheep” or not. So, we get a lot of really poor bishops because they are part time bishops and the bishop’s family gets neglected because he has his employment on top f a full time shepherd job. A shepherd cannot be a part time shepherd. It is a full time job for one human and three or four really good trained dogs, or sheep get eaten by mountain lions, lambs carried off by golden eagles and bald eagles, and the sheep kill anyone who is injured of different.
N
So, I think people are leaving because the “shepherd” is doing a piss poor job. The shepherd is the “prophet” and his presidency and the 12. They lie about history. They act like money is more important than people. They lie about that money both to legal authorities and their flock. They lie about their own ability to prophecy. They lie about past leadership and past policies. They implement harmful policies and teach hateful “doctrine” about LGTB and they lie about the reasons they lose so many sheep. They expect the sheep to clean out the sheep pen and they expect the sheep to feed themselves on the same old pasture they have been eating for years. (Clean our own chapels and provide spiritual nourishment given the same old regurgitated conference talks) They hire untrained hirelings part time to be shepherds and expect what is cheapest for them to work just perfectly and then blame the poor sheep for getting eaten by wolves, mountain lions, and bald eagles.
The flocks are struggling to stay together, but under those conditions, it is hard. Some hireling bishops are good, some not so good. All are over their head in a job that is more than they can do part time.
So, in the case of the institutional church, I put the blame squarely on shepherds.
I am quite enjoying this post and comments – it has provided me with new insights. Thank you Stephen R Marsh et al. Clearly, there are multiple ways to interpret parables. That’s kind of the point. What impressed me most, however, was at the very beginning: a bishop (the quasi-equivalent of a pastor) spoke engagingly and informatively for the balance of a sacrament meeting. That alone would improve church experience for many of us who find it is a rare Sunday we are charged up from what is taught from the pulpit.
To familywomen & Chadwick,
You make a fair criticism to my statement: “The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships”. In writing this I was considering real-life situations personal to me. I had a very good family friend choose to discard her church friends when she chose to discard her church relationship. I recognize that it does not need to be this way.
The issue of church friends is a complicated one because we want to believe that our religion makes us more friendly than the average joe. I have no idea if anyone has studied the question to say if this is true or not. Personally, I have the emotional capacity to maintain only a few close friends, but I enjoy having acquaintances. Consequently I enjoy the social aspect of church because it allows me to sustain informal connections to people I enjoy. In recognizing this, it follows that those members who left the church and my ward over the past decade also dropped out of my pool of informal connections. Sometimes this annoys me but that is my fault for having those feelings.
In terms of shepherding and extending a warm hand of fellowship, I once had a Bishop who was gifted in that ability. This Bishop personally reactivated more than a dozen “lost sheep” through his personal visits and invitation. He was special. The church could use ten thousand more of these kind of men and women!
Anna: Your characterization of the shepherd and the hireling is brilliant. I had not considered it this way before. Thank you.
A Disciple: Thank you for your follow up comment. This is a good reminder that when people leave they want different things. I’m sorry you lost a family friend. In terms of losing informal connections, again I think it varies. I still see members a lot at my kids school events, at neighborhood restaurants, and at work events. Most of the time we smile and seem genuinely happy to see each other even if we were never close friends. Other times I sense a hesitation from some members, and am not sure why. Do they see me as a threat? Are they not sure what to say? Do they truly not want to associate with post-members? Do they not remember me? On my best days, I smile and say hi and engage them as well and usually that is enough to nip any awkwardness in the bud.
If you live in an area with not many members or if you don’t get out much or are an empty nester, I could understand why these people have completely dropped out of your pool of informal connections.
Comments by Anna and Family Woman are spot on and extremely thoughtful imo. Members have been blamed for anything that went wrong since the very beginning, i.e. the Kirtland anti-bank, Missouri expulsion (Danites were created to expel dissenters first). Blood atonement was first against dissenters- that is our history!! LoudlySublime
Fine discussion, and I think A Disciple really changed the framing.
Here’s the thing. Some of those who voluntarily exit the Church (whether formally or informally) do so because they no longer accept the list of LDS truth claims. Other leave without particular regard to “truth,” but rather because participating in LDS church is no longer a positive thing for them or is largely a negative thing in their life. They think they are better off without the Church in their life.
But LDS leaders absolutely cannot accept either of these fairly straightforward observations. They cannot and will not say, “Some people left because they figured out the Church is not true.” Nor can they ever acknowledge that some people are better off without the Church, true or not. So we hear a variety of explanations for why people leave, some worse than others but pretty much none of them having much accuracy. These pseudo-explanations are designed to confuse LDS listeners, not explain anything.
What could LDS leaders do to change course, to have fewer exit the Church? Big question, for a longer discussion on another post. It’s easy to throw out ideas, but honestly it’s hard to judge what, if anything, would make a difference at this point.
Lots of thoughtful comments. Fortunately, my experience has been more like Chadwick’s. People leaving the church doesn’t mean that social ties must be cut, on either side. I do understand that when those ties were superficial or toxic or come with strings attached, that people don’t want to maintain those relationships. And sure, I’ll go so far as to say that there can be blame on any of these groups of people: top leaders (Jesus talked about nothing so much as the hypocrisy and corruption of the Jewish leaders), ward leaders, ward members, or even those who have left (as astutely observed, some people really cannot be around people who hold different views).
I think the key difference is that there are people who go inactive when local wards are a problem. They might just quietly go away / quit attending when a total a-hole gets made bishop or the RS president is a jerk or the gospel doctrine teacher makes political comments regularly or the ward members say things that are anti-LGBTQ or racist or sexist. And have I seen all these things? For sure. I wouldn’t say they are the majority of the people I’ve known, but the modern church certainly tolerates these things. People are pretty non-confrontational when it comes to standing up for what’s right when someone lacks empathy and self-awareness, and top leaders not only model this lack of empathy but elevate it to the level of being doctrinally sanctioned.
But most people who leave aren’t coming back, and they aren’t waiting out some local bad blood. You can really like the people, but the content is the content. If you don’t believe it, you’re not going to come back and get nothing out of it just because you like your neighbors, and you’re not going to want to have to pretend you believe it either. I’m not sure how church culture that doesn’t require some level of belief looks, aside from the UU (which I only really know in theory despite my bestie being UU). Even UU, which has no set dogma and doesn’t even really require a belief in God leans left politically and would probably feel unwelcoming to someone who was either conservative or MAGA. Similarly, the church culture today in most areas feels toxic to those who don’t lean right–it does vary geographically, but it’s become a huge problem and the Church has not navigated it well. Even so, if you don’t believe, the community can be welcoming, the people great, the politics neutral, and you still aren’t getting much out of the experience.
An excerpt from Dan Foster (Backyard Church)
The Way We See ‘Prodigals’ Needs to Change
For so long, we acted like people who leave are just testimonies in the making, as if their story isn’t complete until they return to us. We wait for them, pray for them, and sometimes even chase after them, convinced that the only ‘right’ outcome is homecoming.
But if God is with them where they are, then maybe our posture toward them needs to change.
Instead of wringing our hands and hoping they ‘wake up,’ maybe we need to trust that God is already at work in their lives — even if they never come back to church, never say the right words, never return to the faith as we understand it.
Maybe our role is not to intervene, but to release — to let go of the need to control their journey and trust that it is in bigger hands than ours.Maybe ‘Coming Home’ Doesn’t Look Like We Expect
For years, I believed that faith was a straight line. That if someone wandered away, they needed to retrace their steps to find their way back.
But what if ‘coming home’ isn’t about going backward?
What if it’s about moving forward into something new?
Some people who leave toxic religious environments actually find a healthier, more authentic faith on the other side. Some who step away from church find God in the quiet of their own soul, in community that doesn’t look like a Sunday service, in conversations where they can ask the questions they were never allowed to ask before.
Maybe their journey isn’t a detour.
Maybe it’s the road they were always meant to walk.
For a long time, I assumed that when someone ‘left faith,’ they had stepped away from God. That if they weren’t in church, if they weren’t praying the right way or believing the right things, then they were outside of God’s reach.
But what if that was never true?
What if God isn’t limited to the spaces we recognize?
Alma, in chapter 33:2, speaks straightforwardly to this notion, saying; “Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Alma’s words strike at the heart of every ward council heartily discussing the latest “prodigal” that needs to be brought back to the synagogue, meaning, the only correct way to find, worship and experience God. Alma slams this idea right to the mat and pins it for a full 10 seconds, calling it “not true”. These chapters in the Book of Mormon, regardless of what anyone thinks of the BOM, seriously challenge the LDS, “God by Mormonism only” exclusivity claim.
If the father’s love stretched into the far country, if the shepherd left the ninety-nine, if the woman refused to stop searching — then who are we to say that anyone is ever truly lost?
I did not return after coved, partly because it was obvious that those claiming to be profits had no more idea than good health professionals. We did not have anyone undermining the health professionals so had a lot less deaths, also a better health system.
On sheep there are 5 million sheep in America and 70 million in Australia.
We have a caregory 2 Cyclone bearing down on us, expected to cross over later this morning. A cyclone is like a hurricane except in the souther hemisphere the rotate clockwise. We have not had a cyclone this far south for 50 years, but because of global warming the ocean temperatures are 27 degrees c. We are forecast to get 800 mm (32in) plus rain in the next 4 days, and wins around 150k (95mph). There is beach erosion on 1000k of beaches.
On Wednesday I went out to get sand bags. The local council provided sand and begs, It takes one holding a bag and another shovelling. People of all ethnicities were helping each other to fill bags then helping load them into their cars. There was a lovely spirit of community. When I got home neighbours on each side came out to help.
Wheat & Tares 
Sounds like a thoughtful talk and a timely one. Over the many years I’ve been in the church, the rhetoric for someone leaving has most often (99% of the time) centered around assigning blame to the person for doing. Obviously the person is choosing to do so. But what we hardly talk about is how we a church community contributed to their leaving. I’m seeing this kind of self-reflection pop up more and more from Christian pastors–asking people to look at how their own behavior is pushing people away from God. It’s a really good question to ask. Now if we could just get high up church leadership to admit openly that mistakes have been made, major harm caused as a result and then apologize for it instead of avoiding or explaining it away.
As many people know, there is one parable in 3 parts in Luke 15, with the emphasis being one parable. In part 1 we have the sheep who wanders, in part 2 we have the coin that is lost, and in part 3 we have the son who willfully leaves. The parables are not about the sheep, coin, and son: the principal actor in each part is the shepherd, the woman, and the father. This parable, or if one doesn’t accept 3-in-1, then these three parallel parables, is about how leaders respond to the lost, and we are presented with three kinds of loss.
What jumped out at me (and I was not there) is another very common leadership tactic in our faith, which is placing blame on members for not being good enough. The sheep and the coin have in common that their leader wasn’t paying enough attention. Both had failed to keep track of the creatures in their care. I agree with chrisdrobison that we usually place all lost entities in the third category and ignore them, saying they made the choice to leave. That is error by over-generalization. But it would also be error to teach the sheep-shepherd and coin-woman without teaching the son-father, which is where the parable-giver spent most of his time. Yes, the father helped his son leave.
This good bishop may focus on finding those who have innocently wandered or those who are absent because of leaders who need to do some cleaning. This could be good. But he might also put unfair demands on RS and EQ in regards to ministering (by the way, bishoprics don’t get ministering assignments) and he may point the finger at them when they don’t minister as he wants them to do. Wouldn’t RS and EQ ministers err if they treated prodigal sons as if they were wandering sheep or lost coins? One size does not fit all. When dealing with a prodigal son, should we not allow him his freedom? We shouldn’t send ministering brothers and sisters. We should leave him alone! But when/if he returns, we welcome him back without question. We don’t ask him to confess how many riotous women he slept with in the far away country.
Admittedly, the hard part is deciding whether a person is inactive due to simple wandering, or whether we’ve done something that him hide, or whether he left wholly on his own. Maybe there are not only three types of inactivity, but maybe Jesus gave three examples to show that each case is individual. Each ailment gets its own medicine (to introduce another metaphor), and the medicine that cured one ailment might not cure another, and it might do harm. In other words, maybe the parable in Luke 15 teaches that each person who has left our company should be treated as an individual, and the remedy should be quite individual and singular. I note that the actors in the three parts of the parable were the leaders, not the members. It wasn’t the other sheep that went out looking for the lost sheep, and it wasn’t the other coins in the purse that cleaned the house. I hope that this bishop doesn’t impose unrighteous demands on the women and men in his RS and EQ. Maybe the bishop is the shepherd, the woman, and the father, and the ward members are the other sheep, the other coins, and the elder brother.
“The research tells us that we lose people because we fail them.“
Who is the “we” and who is failing whom?
I can point to a dozen families in my ward who were at one time very active and in the past dozen years have left the church and activity with our ward. Each and everyone of them made an intentional choice and in every case it was because they decided the religion did not meet their needs. The departure of these members had nothing to do with the ward members.
I cannot emphasize this enough. The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships. They chose to disassociate themselves. They did it because what they believed was inconsistent with what the LDS religion teaches. That’s it. No one burned a cake. No one forgot a birthday. The “sheep” was “lost” because the “sheep” decided there was a greener pasture elsewhere that did not trouble their preferred beliefs and preferences.
So I ask what action is the idea that “we failed them” supposed to cause if the “failure” is the incompatibility of a person’s beliefs with the teachings and policies of the religion? I don’t see any failure with anyone. I see a person who decided that a particular religion does not fit their belief system. No apology needed. No elaborate explanation. Just reality.
It is true that a person who has disassociated from the church may return. The person may realize they can find compatibility with what they believe and what the church teaches. The person may decide that they prefer having what the church offers over “fighting against the pricks” as the saying goes.
It is for this reason that active church members should be patient and respectful to the “lost sheep”. Active church members should not “burn bridges” to the lost sheep. This is the only failure that active members could be assigned. But assigning blame to active church members because members go inactive over policy and doctrinal disagreements makes zero sense. And assigning blame to anyone makes zero sense in most cases. People make choices and sometimes those choices cause separation. The focus on laying blame does a great disservice as it incorrectly assigns responsibility and accountability. In particular, it disrespects the Intelligence and Agency of the person who chooses to separate from the church.
“In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents‘
This parable isn’t about someone leaving church, it’s about a sinner who repents. I take great issue with this because as our family is now seen by the church as a lost sheep, when in the context of the story we aren’t.
We aren’t sinning, we aren’t doing anything reprehensible in the sight of the Lord. We just don’t believe in the church was restored by God to Joseph Smith.
(by the way, bishoprics don’t get ministering assignments)
Since when? My current ministering companion is a member of the bishopric. When I was HPGL, I gave assignments (OK, it was home teaching, not ministering) to the bishopric members and nobody ever suggested I should not.
As for why people leave the Church, we should not waste time debating whether people leave for this reason or that. The OP is about whether people leave because we “lose” them and how can we avoid losing them. Sure, many people leave for other reasons. But some we just lose. On more than one occasion, I have heard people denounce whatever ward I am in for not trying harder not to lose them. They then insist that our efforts to lose them will fail–they will stick around anyway. But they never do. Bednar is fine blaming them for being offended. But when they tell ward members what they are failing at and the members don’t fix it, that’s on the members.
lastlemming, see 21.2.1 in the handbook. stake presidencies and bishoprics are normally assigned as ministering brothers.
correction: are normally NOT assigned
When Jesus is asked, his “Way” is not confined to religion; it begins right here and now with the daily details of human relationships; loving each other as we want to be loved. In each loving detail is the law fulfilled because relationship building “itself”, presence in action, IS the spiritual life, Jesus’ Way. Functional religion (there’s a giant asterisk) ushers us into these loving details and direct spiritual encounters, dysfunctional religion becomes an end in itself, symbol without meaning, a form of corporate narcissism blind to deeper connection.
A Disciple – I agree with your general sentiments, because people, all of us, make choices every day on who, what and where we want to spend our time. Your comment also underscores, what I believe, as we see throughout all of scripture, a deeply dysfunctional tendency of religion. Institutions have their own kind of momentum, which finds themselves bogged down with making a life of “Faith” more about beliefs, than about relationality. We spout off endless platitudes that we categorize as “testimony”, while spending precious little time talking about salvation as a communal project. Of course, people leave, when the emphasis is placed on agreement about dogmatic claims, and they come to see those propositions differently, enough so that they feel like a pariah, outside the accepted norms for a card-carrying latter-day saint. I personally believe that “Everything” about the philosophy of Jesus is about community and relationship, period. All the rites, rituals, and religious practices are only means to that end, otherwise we are no better than the Zoramites, who believe that God exists in certain buildings, using certain words, wearing certain clothes, on certain days, that sounds oddly familiar.
There are many orthodox Mormons so immersed in the dogma, they refuse to take their blinders off and accept that people can find happiness and purpose outside Mormonism.
Rather than engaging in circular discussions in ward council about reactivation, perhaps the focus should be on authenticity and engaging as friends and neighbors. People know when they are assigned as ward “projects”. The culture of “finding the one” does not require disingenuous and often insincere efforts.
Too often, Mormons only recognize fellow congregants as being worthy of their friendship. There are clear lines of demarcation between active/inactive and member/non-member. Messaging about the covenant path and lazy learners only creates more separation.
let me write a “reality” parable about sheep. Sheep pick on any one who is different. Sheep are NOT the sweet innocent things the parable about the good shepherd talks about. Anyone who has ever seen a herd of sheep head butt a lame or injured lamb, knows what I am talking about. Or the black sheep. Bad rep that guy. But it isn’t *his* fault he was born black and the herd essentially lets him follow a good distance behind. They head butt him to the edge of the fold. The lame lamb who can’t keep up, the sheep want him on the outside edge of the herd so the wolves get him first. Those are the ones who are lost. They get lost because of the other SHEEP. Poor black is the one who gets lost because the other sheep don’t accept him. In real life, that sheep gets butchered and becomes the shepherd’s supper.
The old time shepherds had to protect an injured or different sheep from the other sheep. The sometimes carried an injured animal so the other sheep wouldn’t push it out of the herd. They sheltered that sheep until it could heal, protecting it both from wolves and other sheep who would literally head butt the poor thing to death.
Just a note of explanation here. My dad spent a few years as that guy up in the mountains in summer with his horse, two dogs and a herd of sheep. My dad ended up disliking sheep.
He had an injured lamb once, minor injury to one leg. His choice was to protect it until it healed rather than have to butcher it or let a wild animal get it or the other sheep kill it. He had to separate it from the herd and because it was small and nursing, that meant separate mama too. He carried it, kept it right with him 100% of the time for three weeks. In his camp trailer at night, on his horse when they moved, with its mama being guarded by the dogs other times. Its mama followed him while he carried it or it was on his horse.
It takes a LOT of work to protect an injured lamb. Finding it when it is lost is not near as much work as solving the problem of why the herd rejected it in the first place. It isn’t the sheep’s fault when it gets lost, nor is it the shepherds, so much as it is the other sheep.
Now, how do we relate this to humans? First are we sheep or humans? Shouldn’t we stop head butting the different out of our herd?
Lots and lots of human “head butting” going on under the far right about now. Deporting immigrants. Taking away the right of transgender to get medical care, even to go pee in public places. This is all the same damned behavior as sheep head butting the lame or injured or different. Lots and lots of “head butting” going on at church. My lesbian daughter—head butted right out of the church.
Yes, this is just as instinctive for humans as it is for sheep. But we gotta decide if we are human or mostly animal. Margret Meed said that she recognized “civilization” in humans when they found a human leg bone that had been broken and healed, because it took other humans helping and protecting that injured person to allow them to heal instead of die. Are we civilized enough to take care of those who are injured or different than us. It is part of Christianity to care for those who cannot care for themselves- —-so let’s gut Medicaid and those programs that feed the poor, like stupid sheep instead of civilized humans.
Relate this back to the church? My brother has been mentally disabled, (hallucinations because of depression) since his 30s. Not one penny of help from the church. Of course he left. As the VICTIM of sin, I could not get any help from the church, but the sinner was loved and pampered and protected all in the name of “repentance”. Of course I left the church. My daughter the lesbian, of course she left the church. My other daughter saw how women were treated and wanted nothing to do with that and so of course she left the church. My son saw the church break laws and lie and cover up it financials and of course he is looking at his herd in disgust thinking about leaving.
The church needs to learn how to treat people and stop head butting anyone who is different. It needs to BE Christian not just claim Christianity.
I’m enjoying the comments so far. I wish to remark on A Disciple’s comment specifically.
I am one who has intentionally chosen to leave. As stated, the church did not meet my needs, but it’s more than that. The church did fail me in that they lied and misrepresented themselves to me for decades. If you want to say that my morals wouldn’t allow me to stay associated with an organization that is based on mis and half truths, then yes, it didn’t meet my needs, but that isn’t the whole picture. For me personally, the major issue was the organization, but, as one who never fit the complete mold (part-member family) the members definitely were a factor. If you don’t check the boxes as expected, despite service/dedication/faith, you will never be fully accepted, but treated like the reluctant step-relation. This is about being part of a community and when you’re kept as a fringe member of said community, you get tired of trying – that is on the members.
You write: ” The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships”. Why? Why do I have to break off friendships or relationships because I no longer identify with being LDS? Why can’t I remain friends with active members? Is it because they’re cautioned to not associate with “apostates”? Is it because they’re uncomfortable with anyone who is not just like them (hint: YES)? While this directly relates to member behavior, the direction comes from the top of the organization.
I appreciate the comment that one should be respectful of another’s choice to separate from the church and wholly agree with that. Leave them alone in regard to church involvement, but again, why must all personal ties be severed? It seems there are two general camps that former members reside in: one where it’s like they never existed and are erased from the community and the other where they won’t leave you alone. Both are disrespectful. Neither is a great option. Something in between is needed.
“First, he held everyone’s attention for the entire period. Second, he shared a memorable message.”
That’s great!
“The point he made was that a coin does not lose itself. He expanded that to point out that sheep naturally keep together. Sheep do not wander off unless something unusual happens. For a sheep, or a coin, to be lost, someone has to lose it.”
I see it differently — and I think Jesus did, too. Sheep do naturally (and innocently) wander off, especially in a flock of a hundred or so. In contrast, a coin does not naturally wander off, but can be inadvertently misplaced.
For the lost sheep, the shepherd simply goes and finds it as part of the shepherd’s normal duty of care. For the lost coin, the housekeeper needs to put affairs in order, and then the coin will be found again. In neither circumstance is there a need to assign blame by identifying the someone who lost it.
Then, there is yet another circumstance illustrated by the prodigal son. As part of that illustration, the father did not seek after the lost, but left him alone.
In all three illustrations, the reason for the “lost” circumstance is different — and in all three, the response of the “adult” is different. It seems to me that we tend to conflate these three circumstances and want to prescribe the remedy for the first (being a good shepherd) to all three. Jesus didn’t do that.
The common theme is the rejoicing that occurs when the lost is found — it seems to me that we tend to look for punishment or some other correction before we allow the lost to return. Jesus didn’t do that.
I hope OP’s new bishop won’t impose burdens on his ward members; rather, I hope OP’s new bishop will follow Jesus’ example by (1) choosing himself to personally seek after those who innocently stray, to put his ward’s affairs in order, and to respect the agency of those who purposefully decide to step away; and (2) rejoicing (rather than imposing punishment) when the lost are found.
The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.
I’d like to add to Andy’s comment. The first message of what Jesus teaches in Luke 15 is that we each individually are valued by God. We are his treasures and he does not want to lose us. Observe what triggered what Jesus taught:
“Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” Then Jesus told them this parable: …”
Why does Jesus reach out to the “sinner”. It is because the “sinner” is his lost treasure. This is especially made clear in the parable of the lost sheep. Who is the shepherd? None other than Jesus himself. He is going to find us and save us. The good shepherd cares for all his sheep and Jesus is that good shepherd.
The first rule of being a good Christian is we believe that each and every person is valued by God. The second rule of being a good Christian is we rejoice when a “sinner” repents. And why? Because God himself is rejoicing when the lost thing he treasures returns to him.
The LDS mentality about inactive members and “sinners” is a stumbling block. The religion is so focused on keeping tabs on who is in the boat or outside the boat that it misses what really matter. What matters is enabling repentance and repentance is not simply discarding bad habits and adopting healthy habits . Repentance is a change in our disposition where we “find God” and rejoice in that recognition.
We see the stumbling of LDS leaders with this simple observation. The leadership speaks fondly of other faiths and the sincere members of those other faiths. But the LDS leadership struggles greatly to reconcile that former LDS members can be sincere in their faith. Their view of former members is tainted by feelings of personal offense and this requires someone must be blamed for the separation.
I agree with chrisdrobison that self-reflection is needed. Church members should reflect on whether their personal behaviors are Christian or not. So should leaders. And yet the LDS church as an institution has a pattern of giving leaders a pass. During the pandemic my stake president literally told members to not come to church if they would not respect HIS pandemic policies – these were not guidelines required by local government, these were rules the stake president imposed and seemingly without consultation or approval of any others in the stake, including his own counselors. This stake president has never apologized and not even publicly remarked that he might have been wrong. (For what it’s worth, I could list a number of actions my stake leadership has taken the past decade that caused great disruption to the church in my area. Alas, they will never point the finger at themselves).
And so I find the finger pointing by church leaders to be shifting the blame. Rather than acknowledge the rough edges of the church experience – and the conflict created by church policies and decisions – the leaders cast blame on the members for not being “good enough”. And then the leadership wonders why fully committed church members have such low spiritual self confidence and are so critical of themselves! Isn’t it obvious why?
“The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.” That’s a problem.
There was no fault on the part of the shepherd when the one sheep strayed. Maybe the sheep saw a butterfly, or maybe he followed some sweet green grass, but one shepherd can’t see every single sheep at every minute, not when there are hills and trees. The question isn’t why did the shepherd lose the sheep, but what did he did when he realized the sheep was lost.
There was no fault on the part of the housekeeper when a coin was lost. She did not willfully lose the coin. Look between your chair and couch cushions and you’ll likely find coins, and there is no fault for that. Yes, she needs to get a broom to get up under furniture, and she needs a candle to see in dark places, but again the questions why did the woman lose the coin, but what did she do when she realized the coin was lost.
We cannot fault the father for his son’s decision to leave. The father even cashed out his son’s inheritance, so he helped him leave, because he loved his son enough to honor his choices.
As ji pointed out, a common theme in all three is the rejoicing when the sheep, coin, or prodigal son was found.
If this bishop’s starting point is that being lost is a fault of leadership, or a fault of other members, then we’re leading by placing blame on members for not being good enough. I don’t think that is how Jesus led.
“The bishop seemed to think being lost was primarily the fault of leadership.”
I agree that this thought is a problem.
But assuming, arguendo, that it is true, what is the bishop going to do about it?
Will he do as the Savior did, and personally himself go out to find the lost, sweep and put his house in order, and so forth? Or, will he preside in ward council and insist that others provide reports on what they’re doing and how they are responding to the tasks that he has given them?
I don’t know OP or OP’s bishop, so I don’t know that answer to the question. I hope the first is the answer; however, based on long experience, I have to suppose the latter is the answer. And that is sad.
The overall problem I see with the structure of church is that it’s all talk and not much action. This Bishop sounds well intentioned and I’m sure his words felt inclusive to anyone in attendance who has felt othered. But the talk is now in the past. What will this ward actually do to be respectful to their community?
Our leaving has been uneventful. Our best friends are still our best friends. Our extended family (which was never great and thankfully live far away) is still our extended family. People we only knew through the church are still very friendly when we see them at school and community events. We still attend church service if invited to a missionary homecoming of whatnot and we still attend the secular stuff like trunk or treat and the Christmas party. To me this is what I want and so I’m mostly content.
Regarding the prodigal son, I guess I read it differently. Yes the son left. Yes he travelled to another place. But did that really mean he wanted no contact? Making this a modern tale, was the dad provided a forwarding address? Did the son block him from social media? If the neighbors were on holiday and ran into the son did he want them to pretend they didn’t see him? I’m guessing the son wanted independence but not isolation, but perhaps that’s just my projection. So while people may choose to no longer attend church and want independence from a flawed organization that either no longer meets their needs of was actively harming them, I’m guessing most of us still want friends and sociality. But only if it’s genuine. I have heard enough stories of people moving to Utah and first impression was how friendly the Mormons were until it became clear these people weren’t interested in being proselytized, at which point they became persona non-grata.
We can all do better, including those of us that have left. I try not to make it awkward. I try to ask questions since the last time I saw them to show I still remember them and care about them. Because I do. But comments like A Disciple remind me why this is so hard. Because some people are just judgmental meanies.
A much better talk than the one that I usually hear which attacks those who leave for overreacting to minor issues or actions or getting duped by “anti-Mormon” literature online. This is a talk that doesn’t seem to be blaming those who leave the church but asking, instead, for the members to cleanse the inner vessel in order to reach out to those who leave more effectively and efficiently. One that almost gestures at criticism of leadership and leadership policies. I can certainly get behind this talk.
That said, there is a caveat. At the base of it, there may be a cruel reality. One that has increasingly dawned on me: which is that it could very well be that there really isn’t anything that can be done. It could very be that Joseph Smith told everyone that they needed to join his ship that he was steering so that they could avoid drowning, but that this ship was actually on land the entire time and there was no ocean to drown in, and that the ocean is simply a game of pretend that may feel so real to some that they fully believe it is real. If that’s the case, then what exactly could the church do to change that would bring back those, like me, who think that everything is just all a big game of pretend? For the way I see it, the ship that my environment and community have repeatedly told me to stay in at all costs I’ve left. Long ago. And what I found was that it didn’t drown in an ocean. I was on dry ground the whole time. There were many other communities and ideas to explore. I explored those. Some work and some don’t. The church leaders can remodel the ship. They can do a different advertising strategy. They can help improve the qualities of the people on the ship. It doesn’t change the fact that the ship is still on dry ground. I go and hang out on the ship regularly. I love and know many people on the ship. They are great people. They are smart, caring, interested in sharing and helping, etc. But if I tell them that the ship is on dry ground, they won’t believe me. They are convinced that a dangerous ocean surrounds them and that they will drown if they step off the ship. So I don’t bother trying to tell them. I simply walk off the ship myself and go back in as I please. It is only those who open their eyes enough to try walking off the ship that I can talk to and convince, “you know, the ocean is pretend, it’s just dry ground.” They tend to be more persuadable.
Bottom line: for me, I’m so removed in my mind of the church being “true” at least in some literal sense (as opposed to true=good place) that I simply can’t see it any other way. And there are many like me who have left. And the church leaders and members can try to cleanse their inner vessel all they want, and I appreciate their attempts to do so, but the biggest problem isn’t the vessel per se, but the location of it. Its whole reason to exist is what Joseph Smith said and did. And if the basic foundations of what Joseph Smith said and did aren’t really true, then there really isn’t much that can be done to salvage the vessel in my eyes. That said, the church will continue. But it is only because of the game of pretend that it has long been based on and using tried and tested effective mind tricks to make members take the church seriously. You acknowledge the pretense of it all, it all collapses. The leaders know this. There is only so far they can go only so much ground they can concede. Maintaining the integrity of the church by all accounts requires keeping intact a tradition that is simply flawed.
In all three parables, it is clear who “owned” the coin, the sheep, or whose son. But when we apply it to “the church” everyone here seems to be making “the woman”, the “shepherd”, and “the father” into different things and I guess so did I in my comment above. So, just who is the “shepherd” when we are talking about the church and the ward and the individual. A bishop is really just an undershepherd to his ward. He was is a hireling as my father was when he herded sheep in the mountains. My father didn’t own those sheep. He might have liked and respected them better if he owned them. I mean, he cared for that one lamb as a pet, and he saved it only to give it back to some rich jerk who actually owned it. (who happened to be his father, but an abusive father who left him zero.)
So, all of us need to think about who is the shepherd because it makes a huge difference. I see the shepherd of “the church” as the leadership who teach hirelings how to care for their sheep….or really they just hire anybody who acts faithful whether they know a damned thing about “sheep” or not. So, we get a lot of really poor bishops because they are part time bishops and the bishop’s family gets neglected because he has his employment on top f a full time shepherd job. A shepherd cannot be a part time shepherd. It is a full time job for one human and three or four really good trained dogs, or sheep get eaten by mountain lions, lambs carried off by golden eagles and bald eagles, and the sheep kill anyone who is injured of different.
N
So, I think people are leaving because the “shepherd” is doing a piss poor job. The shepherd is the “prophet” and his presidency and the 12. They lie about history. They act like money is more important than people. They lie about that money both to legal authorities and their flock. They lie about their own ability to prophecy. They lie about past leadership and past policies. They implement harmful policies and teach hateful “doctrine” about LGTB and they lie about the reasons they lose so many sheep. They expect the sheep to clean out the sheep pen and they expect the sheep to feed themselves on the same old pasture they have been eating for years. (Clean our own chapels and provide spiritual nourishment given the same old regurgitated conference talks) They hire untrained hirelings part time to be shepherds and expect what is cheapest for them to work just perfectly and then blame the poor sheep for getting eaten by wolves, mountain lions, and bald eagles.
The flocks are struggling to stay together, but under those conditions, it is hard. Some hireling bishops are good, some not so good. All are over their head in a job that is more than they can do part time.
So, in the case of the institutional church, I put the blame squarely on shepherds.
I am quite enjoying this post and comments – it has provided me with new insights. Thank you Stephen R Marsh et al. Clearly, there are multiple ways to interpret parables. That’s kind of the point. What impressed me most, however, was at the very beginning: a bishop (the quasi-equivalent of a pastor) spoke engagingly and informatively for the balance of a sacrament meeting. That alone would improve church experience for many of us who find it is a rare Sunday we are charged up from what is taught from the pulpit.
To familywomen & Chadwick,
You make a fair criticism to my statement: “The members who chose to leave chose to break off friendships and long relationships”. In writing this I was considering real-life situations personal to me. I had a very good family friend choose to discard her church friends when she chose to discard her church relationship. I recognize that it does not need to be this way.
The issue of church friends is a complicated one because we want to believe that our religion makes us more friendly than the average joe. I have no idea if anyone has studied the question to say if this is true or not. Personally, I have the emotional capacity to maintain only a few close friends, but I enjoy having acquaintances. Consequently I enjoy the social aspect of church because it allows me to sustain informal connections to people I enjoy. In recognizing this, it follows that those members who left the church and my ward over the past decade also dropped out of my pool of informal connections. Sometimes this annoys me but that is my fault for having those feelings.
In terms of shepherding and extending a warm hand of fellowship, I once had a Bishop who was gifted in that ability. This Bishop personally reactivated more than a dozen “lost sheep” through his personal visits and invitation. He was special. The church could use ten thousand more of these kind of men and women!
Anna: Your characterization of the shepherd and the hireling is brilliant. I had not considered it this way before. Thank you.
A Disciple: Thank you for your follow up comment. This is a good reminder that when people leave they want different things. I’m sorry you lost a family friend. In terms of losing informal connections, again I think it varies. I still see members a lot at my kids school events, at neighborhood restaurants, and at work events. Most of the time we smile and seem genuinely happy to see each other even if we were never close friends. Other times I sense a hesitation from some members, and am not sure why. Do they see me as a threat? Are they not sure what to say? Do they truly not want to associate with post-members? Do they not remember me? On my best days, I smile and say hi and engage them as well and usually that is enough to nip any awkwardness in the bud.
If you live in an area with not many members or if you don’t get out much or are an empty nester, I could understand why these people have completely dropped out of your pool of informal connections.
Comments by Anna and Family Woman are spot on and extremely thoughtful imo. Members have been blamed for anything that went wrong since the very beginning, i.e. the Kirtland anti-bank, Missouri expulsion (Danites were created to expel dissenters first). Blood atonement was first against dissenters- that is our history!! LoudlySublime
Fine discussion, and I think A Disciple really changed the framing.
Here’s the thing. Some of those who voluntarily exit the Church (whether formally or informally) do so because they no longer accept the list of LDS truth claims. Other leave without particular regard to “truth,” but rather because participating in LDS church is no longer a positive thing for them or is largely a negative thing in their life. They think they are better off without the Church in their life.
But LDS leaders absolutely cannot accept either of these fairly straightforward observations. They cannot and will not say, “Some people left because they figured out the Church is not true.” Nor can they ever acknowledge that some people are better off without the Church, true or not. So we hear a variety of explanations for why people leave, some worse than others but pretty much none of them having much accuracy. These pseudo-explanations are designed to confuse LDS listeners, not explain anything.
What could LDS leaders do to change course, to have fewer exit the Church? Big question, for a longer discussion on another post. It’s easy to throw out ideas, but honestly it’s hard to judge what, if anything, would make a difference at this point.
Lots of thoughtful comments. Fortunately, my experience has been more like Chadwick’s. People leaving the church doesn’t mean that social ties must be cut, on either side. I do understand that when those ties were superficial or toxic or come with strings attached, that people don’t want to maintain those relationships. And sure, I’ll go so far as to say that there can be blame on any of these groups of people: top leaders (Jesus talked about nothing so much as the hypocrisy and corruption of the Jewish leaders), ward leaders, ward members, or even those who have left (as astutely observed, some people really cannot be around people who hold different views).
I think the key difference is that there are people who go inactive when local wards are a problem. They might just quietly go away / quit attending when a total a-hole gets made bishop or the RS president is a jerk or the gospel doctrine teacher makes political comments regularly or the ward members say things that are anti-LGBTQ or racist or sexist. And have I seen all these things? For sure. I wouldn’t say they are the majority of the people I’ve known, but the modern church certainly tolerates these things. People are pretty non-confrontational when it comes to standing up for what’s right when someone lacks empathy and self-awareness, and top leaders not only model this lack of empathy but elevate it to the level of being doctrinally sanctioned.
But most people who leave aren’t coming back, and they aren’t waiting out some local bad blood. You can really like the people, but the content is the content. If you don’t believe it, you’re not going to come back and get nothing out of it just because you like your neighbors, and you’re not going to want to have to pretend you believe it either. I’m not sure how church culture that doesn’t require some level of belief looks, aside from the UU (which I only really know in theory despite my bestie being UU). Even UU, which has no set dogma and doesn’t even really require a belief in God leans left politically and would probably feel unwelcoming to someone who was either conservative or MAGA. Similarly, the church culture today in most areas feels toxic to those who don’t lean right–it does vary geographically, but it’s become a huge problem and the Church has not navigated it well. Even so, if you don’t believe, the community can be welcoming, the people great, the politics neutral, and you still aren’t getting much out of the experience.
An excerpt from Dan Foster (Backyard Church)
The Way We See ‘Prodigals’ Needs to Change
For so long, we acted like people who leave are just testimonies in the making, as if their story isn’t complete until they return to us. We wait for them, pray for them, and sometimes even chase after them, convinced that the only ‘right’ outcome is homecoming.
But if God is with them where they are, then maybe our posture toward them needs to change.
Instead of wringing our hands and hoping they ‘wake up,’ maybe we need to trust that God is already at work in their lives — even if they never come back to church, never say the right words, never return to the faith as we understand it.
Maybe our role is not to intervene, but to release — to let go of the need to control their journey and trust that it is in bigger hands than ours.Maybe ‘Coming Home’ Doesn’t Look Like We Expect
For years, I believed that faith was a straight line. That if someone wandered away, they needed to retrace their steps to find their way back.
But what if ‘coming home’ isn’t about going backward?
What if it’s about moving forward into something new?
Some people who leave toxic religious environments actually find a healthier, more authentic faith on the other side. Some who step away from church find God in the quiet of their own soul, in community that doesn’t look like a Sunday service, in conversations where they can ask the questions they were never allowed to ask before.
Maybe their journey isn’t a detour.
Maybe it’s the road they were always meant to walk.
For a long time, I assumed that when someone ‘left faith,’ they had stepped away from God. That if they weren’t in church, if they weren’t praying the right way or believing the right things, then they were outside of God’s reach.
But what if that was never true?
What if God isn’t limited to the spaces we recognize?
Alma, in chapter 33:2, speaks straightforwardly to this notion, saying; “Behold, ye have said that ye could not worship your God because ye are cast out of your synagogues. But behold, I say unto you, if ye suppose that ye cannot worship God, ye do greatly err, and ye ought to search the scriptures; if ye suppose that they have taught you this, ye do not understand them. Alma’s words strike at the heart of every ward council heartily discussing the latest “prodigal” that needs to be brought back to the synagogue, meaning, the only correct way to find, worship and experience God. Alma slams this idea right to the mat and pins it for a full 10 seconds, calling it “not true”. These chapters in the Book of Mormon, regardless of what anyone thinks of the BOM, seriously challenge the LDS, “God by Mormonism only” exclusivity claim.
If the father’s love stretched into the far country, if the shepherd left the ninety-nine, if the woman refused to stop searching — then who are we to say that anyone is ever truly lost?
I did not return after coved, partly because it was obvious that those claiming to be profits had no more idea than good health professionals. We did not have anyone undermining the health professionals so had a lot less deaths, also a better health system.
On sheep there are 5 million sheep in America and 70 million in Australia.
We have a caregory 2 Cyclone bearing down on us, expected to cross over later this morning. A cyclone is like a hurricane except in the souther hemisphere the rotate clockwise. We have not had a cyclone this far south for 50 years, but because of global warming the ocean temperatures are 27 degrees c. We are forecast to get 800 mm (32in) plus rain in the next 4 days, and wins around 150k (95mph). There is beach erosion on 1000k of beaches.
On Wednesday I went out to get sand bags. The local council provided sand and begs, It takes one holding a bag and another shovelling. People of all ethnicities were helping each other to fill bags then helping load them into their cars. There was a lovely spirit of community. When I got home neighbours on each side came out to help.