Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

"Why some people leave the Church"


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Honestly, it sounds like even Joseph Smith couldn't decide how the Book of Mormon came forth.  I find that a bit weird. It is not hard to understand why some people are troubled by this.

Part of the problem is the either - or approach to history, instead of the both - and approach.  The conflicting claims were obviously true at different times (phases), even though described inelegantly.  Terminology is a special problem, with the false use of "Urim and Thummim" leading the way.  It should never have been inserted into the discussion, and should be dropped now entirely.  Would that Pres Nelson had ejected the term.  😎

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Part of the problem is the either - or approach to history, instead of the both - and approach.  The conflicting claims were obviously true at different times (phases), even though described inelegantly.  Terminology is a special problem, with the false use of "Urim and Thummim" leading the way.  It should never have been inserted into the discussion, and should be dropped now entirely.  Would that Pres Nelson had ejected the term.  😎

Robert, I so appreciate your honest feelings on matters such as this one and many others, it's getting late and my post doesn't reflect adequately my appreciation.

Link to comment

The hotline for bishops that started in 95 to help with reporting and providing resources has been mentioned, but a friend has pointed me to a '93 Ensign article  that clearly indicates church instruction was not to keep it in house or just let the Bishop deal with it.

Quote

Face the problem when you first suspect it. In an attempt to keep the family together or to avoid embarrassment, a nonabusive parent may deny or minimize the seriousness of the abuse. Facing the problem can be especially difficult when a spouse has been the abuser. But without intervention by someone, an abuser will likely continue, even intensify the abuse. He may even abuse other children not already involved. Requiring the abuser to face the problem is the first step toward offering help and hope.

Report abuse immediately. Look in your telephone directory under Child Protection Services, Department of Social Services, Department of Children and Family Services, or Rape Crisis Center. Or you may call the local police or hospital. The situation will be investigated. Church members who suspect a spouse of abuse should discuss it immediately with the victim and, if suspicions are confirmed, immediately seek counsel from the bishop and a trusted professional.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/01/hope-and-healing?lang=eng&_r=

The rest of the article is worth a read even if 25 years old.

And other useful info on changes made in the 90's to help leaders and members be more effective:

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/01/20/responding-to-abuse

The Ensign article referenced in the blog (focuses more on spousal abuse):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/06/the-invisible-heartbreaker?lang=eng

A well written and realistic article from a personal viewpoint (mother of young children abused by a grandfather):

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/09/i-just-need-to-cry?lang=eng&_r=1

Quote

Instinctively, I knew that the first thing I needed to do as I listened to my child was believe. An expert has said, “Children don’t lie to get themselves into trouble. They lie to get themselves out of trouble.” I felt she wouldn’t lie about sexual abuse, with all the secrets, threats, and intense emotions involved.

After listening and believing, our next step was to act. For us, acting meant seeking medical help for physical damage and professional counseling for emotional damage. We needed professional counseling not only for our children but for me also. I needed to know how to deal with their nightmares, regressive behavior, sexual play-acting, low self-esteem, anger, confusion, and fears.

Taking action also meant visiting with proper Church authorities and cooperating with law enforcement officers. And finally for us, action meant moving away from the perpetrator.

There is a battle in the sexual abuse war that no one warned us about: that is the alienation it can cause. Perpetrators of abuse live a life miserable with deceit, lying to themselves and to those around them. I didn’t realize that not everyone would believe my children. Some believed the perpetrator, enabling him to continue abusing. Even some of those who did believe our children were repulsed by such an ugly situation and withdrew from us. I had no idea that our personal integrity would be put to such a test. The alienation from others is as real a part of sexual abuse as the nightmares or regressive behavior, and it lasts just as long or longer.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

List of quotes from Marriage manual shows Abuse as a frequent theme in conference talks in 80s and 90s:

https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/abuse?lang=eng

List of conference talks that deal with abuse (though not always as main topic...nor is it a complete list as some are missing from the quote list iirc):

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/topics/abuse?lang=eng

Over the last 40 years, the Church has put out a ton of instruction on how to help victims of abuse, in manuals, in magazines, in conference talks, on their websites.  I started paying attention more once the Church had a website and it was easy to track and there has been a constant effort, imo, to respond to research and advice from professionals and make use of advancements of technology to spread the word.  Always room for improvement, so I don't expect changes to stop.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Calm, thank you for the info. 

I am assuming your motive to provide these directives is to demonstrate that the church is operating responsibly.  I think we both can agree that the directives are responsible. 

*Do you believe that bishops are adequately trained to deal with the types of issues that are presented to them? I do not.  This is opinion and also based on conversations with bishops and stake presidents. 

Do you believe relief society presidents are trained adequately to deal with the types of issues they are faced with?

Ministers? 

***it is my opinion from observation **** that as a culture we tend to automatically turn to church leaders for help where people outside the church might see a therapist or a financial planner, or lawyer or authorities for example. ( Even then, ***in my opinion from observation ***if we have an option to see an LDS therapist or other professional we will often go that route over a non member professional).  

I believe that since the tendency is to turn inward for support far beyond scope of practice (spiritual guidance), that where possible, it’s really important to teach leaders boundaries, limits, education, policies, procedures, and resources.   The handbook and written instructions are great, but I don’t think it’s enough. Do I sound critical , or concerned? I mean to be concerned. Turnover is high in church leadership, it must be tough to guide this ship. 

(I apologize, this seems like a new thread topic.  It seems topics get derailed here constantly, I’m still trying to figure this out. )

Link to comment
6 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

am assuming your motive to provide these directives is to demonstrate that the church is operating responsibly.  I think we both can agree that the directives are responsible. 

My motive is primarily to teach people what is available to help.  I think it hurts people when they understand the process as how it used to be as they will likely not avail themselves of what is there now.  I think it is also a waste of effort and resources to demand solutions that have already been provided.

I do not believe training is adequate for anyone in the Church actually, in terms of contrasting them to what professionals can bring to the calling in terms of skills.  It is, imo, the biggest problem with lay ministry, but I accept it as I believe there are more difficult issues to overcome with professional clergy and huge benefits of a lay ministry (everyone participates in leadership at some point, for example).  I am hoping that advancing technology and greater understanding of education will help to counteract to a certain extent the problem of limited training of lay ministers, but I don't see it as a problem that will ever completely go away.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Part of the problem is the either - or approach to history, instead of the both - and approach.  The conflicting claims were obviously true at different times (phases), even though described inelegantly.  Terminology is a special problem, with the false use of "Urim and Thummim" leading the way.  It should never have been inserted into the discussion, and should be dropped now entirely.  Would that Pres Nelson had ejected the term.  😎

I appreciate your input. Not sure why you feel like you shouldn't have posted your comments.  They are great points.  I am just saying that your point of view doesn't work for everyone.  Just as obvious is that it works for others.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, california boy said:

....................Not sure why you feel like you shouldn't have posted your comments.  ....................................

I was referring to other people inserting "Urim and Thummim" into the discussion, which is wrong because it refers strictly to a biblical device which is unrelated to the Nephite Interpreters.  That has caused endless confusion.

Link to comment
On 2/2/2019 at 11:02 AM, Stargazer said:

Mostly it's because they prefer the standards of the world, and like drinking, smoking, and doing their own thing.  Oddly enough, when it comes to it, they mostly like to speak of the church in positive tones.  In fact, I don't know anyone "in real life" who is a former or non-attending member who felt they were lied to by the church, or because of multiple First Vision versions, or Book of Abraham issues, or something Joseph Smith did or didn't do.  

The rest of you who know lots of people like this are just more privileged than I, apparently.

Just so you know - I'm one of those people. After many years of researching church history I have concluded that Joseph made it up.  I felt deeply betrayed as I learned that the CES version of history was less than accurate (to put it mildly), and the actual version was deeply troubling as it was painfully obvious that it was a fraud. 

I still hold a prominent stake calling and nobody knows I don't believe. I still live the church's moral standards 100%, including no porn, extramarital sex,  or word of wisdom issues. I actually love the church's standards, but just don't believe it is what it claims to be. There's many more like me, but most people don't have a clue we exist. 

When someone like me does leave, I have observed that it is often misunderstood why. Incorrect assumptions are made and rumors are spread. It is often believed they wanted to sin, so they left. Church history is rarely cited as the reason, even though it was what lead the person to lose their belief. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joe said:

Just so you know - I'm one of those people. After many years of researching church history I have concluded that Joseph made it up.  I felt deeply betrayed as I learned that the CES version of history was less than accurate (to put it mildly), and the actual version was deeply troubling as it was painfully obvious that it was a fraud. 

I still hold a prominent stake calling and nobody knows I don't believe. I still live the church's moral standards 100%, including no porn, extramarital sex,  or word of wisdom issues. I actually love the church's standards, but just don't believe it is what it claims to be. There's many more like me, but most people don't have a clue we exist. 

When someone like me does leave, I have observed that it is often misunderstood why. Incorrect assumptions are made and rumors are spread. It is often believed they wanted to sin, so they left. Church history is rarely cited as the reason, even though it was what lead the person to lose their belief. 

This was exactly my situation. I hung on secretly, pretending to still believe, for about 10 years.  I didn’t leave until after the kids were born and the time I’d have to teach them that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the Restoration drew near. I could lie to church members easily to keep the peace at home, but found when the time came I could never lie to my kids. I left to become a Catholic and the rumor mill started. Apparently, since leaving and joining a different tradition on strictly intellectual grounds is in principle impossible, it must have been that I loved to sin, didn’t love my wife anymore and must have committed adultery.  Why else would I violate my temple covenants? That this was my true motivation was news to me, but the faithful LDS church members of our ward were obviously able to read my mind and know my heart. What did I know?

[ETA: someone once asked me if I left because I was offended by something. My response was “nope, I wasn’t offended until my wife told me after my Catholic baptism had become common knowledge that some relief society sisters asked her if maybe I was an adulterer.”  That’s when I got offended. Oh boy did that offend me. I had to pray hard to suppress the violent imagery that popped into my mind after hearing that.]

Edited by Spammer
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joe said:

I still hold a prominent stake calling and nobody knows I don't believe. I still live the church's moral standards 100%, including no porn, extramarital sex,  or word of wisdom issues. I actually love the church's standards, but just don't believe it is what it claims to be.

So are you what you claim to be by holding a 'prominent stake calling' despite being a clandestine unbeliever?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From his description above, he's a worthy member of the church.  Do you disagree?

Are you genuinely going to argue that Church members should not be able to trust that their 'prominent' Church leaders don't maintain double identities as clandestine unbelievers?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you genuinely going to argue that Church members should not be able to trust that their 'prominent' Church leaders don't maintain double identities as clandestine unbelievers?

Well, you're the one giving him that label.  Read above for how he lives his life and is worthy to serve, IMO.  If everyone who holds a calling in the church had to be a 100% believer, there would be very few serving.  There are all kinds of members and many reasons why they continue to attend and serve.  He's worthy as far as I can tell (unless there's something he's not disclosed).   It's not up to any of us to judge him and it's between him, his leaders and God. 

(By the way....I'm serving in a leadership position and there are many things I no longer believe about the church.  But I am worthy to serve and I've found there are many who agree with my opinions who also serve in ward and stake leadership positions.)

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Word games. Believing something is a 'fraud' is fundamentally different to not quite being 'a 100% believer', and you know it.

It's definitely not between him and his leaders. They don't know. They inevitably believe things about him that aren't true, and he's not correcting them.

Wow.  It's not your place to judge him.

And, if he's answered the questions regarding being worthy to serve in the calling honestly....he's worthy to serve.  So yes, it is between him, his leaders and God.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  It's not your place to judge him.

And it's not his place to judge Joseph Smith. Whether or not Joseph made it all up is between him and God, and critics should all just stop criticising. :rolleyes:

Quote

And, if he's answered the questions regarding being worthy to serve in the calling honestly...

I currently serve in a stake presidency. When I was called to this position, I was asked questions directly relating to my personal testimony of the truth claims of the Church. I answered honestly. If for any reason my answers to those questions reversed, I'd be letting the stake president know.

Fortunately, given the choice between concluding that we're dealing with someone serving fraudulently in a 'prominent stake calling' or concluding that we're dealing with a troll/sock puppet, I'm leaning towards the latter.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And it's not his place to judge Joseph Smith. Whether or not Joseph made it all up is between him and God, and critics should all just stop criticising. :rolleyes:

I currently serve in a stake presidency. When I was called to this position, I was asked questions directly relating to my personal testimony of the truth claims of the Church. I answered honestly. If for any reason my answers to those questions reversed, I'd be letting the stake president know.

Fortunately, given the choice between concluding that we're dealing with someone serving fraudulently in a 'prominent stake calling' or concluding that we're dealing with a troll/sock puppet, I'm leaning towards the latter.

That was my impression as well. 

Link to comment

I would expect my leaders to have problems putting me in certain positions of responsibility and trust in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if I were to say, with respect to the Temple Recommend questions, "Well, I'm not sure about the first three, especially the last clause of the first one.  And that sixth one?  We-e-e-l-l-l, I might have a few problems with that one, as well.  And if I weren't to confess the problems I have with the Church, its leaders, its teachings, and so forth, that would mean that I probably couldn't answer the eighth one honestly, either.  And by definition, if I have problems with the first three, very possibly, that makes it much less likely that I don't (or that I won't) have problems with the twelfth, as well.  But, other than that, I'm good to go!  You sign where you sign, I'll sign where I sign, and who knows?!  Maybe we'll bump into each other in the House of the Lord one of these days?!  Thanks!  See ya!"

I could understand why someone might continue to attend to maintain family harmony or out of respect for other members of the family, wanting to support them (whatever the state of my faith), and so on.  But I don't understand accepting a teaching or a leadership calling in an organization to which I am not fully committed.  That's absolutely baffling to me.  No one's going to know you didn't accept the calling except you and the person who attempted to issue it to you unless you tell someone else, so the whole "going-along-to-get-along" and "maintaining-family-harmony" rationales go out the window.:unknw: (And if you really are a sockpuppet, Joey, I especially don't understand the rationale of attempting to convince strangers that you, notwithstanding your disbelief, serve in some leadership capacity in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But, as an old math teacher of mine used to say, "Whatever blows your skirt up!" :rolleyes:) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
10 hours ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  It's not your place to judge him.

And, if he's answered the questions regarding being worthy to serve in the calling honestly....he's worthy to serve.  So yes, it is between him, his leaders and God.

If he is not in a teaching position, I would tend to feel differently about it if purely administrative, but I don't view those as "prominent".  People's beliefs and attitudes will affect how they talk about things and such disbelief can be counterproductive if seeking out support.  

I have a real problem with people not sharing full or significant disbelief when in leadership and teaching positions.  Members are generally trusting that their leaders will relate to them in terms of worldviews, respect beliefs, see them as truth at least in regards to the core issues.  I would definitely talk differently to someone who didn't share my beliefs than I would to someone who did and I think I have a right to know if they are acting in the role of my leader what their belief is at least general terms just as I think I have a right to know if my doctor believes the surgery or medication he prescribes me is of value and will do what it says as opposed to someone who is only going along to avoid getting fired or losing patients.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think I have a right to know if my doctor believes the surgery or medication he prescribes me is of value and will do what it says as opposed.

This is a perfect analogy: a paediatrician who secretly believes that vaccination is a fraud but doesn't tell anybody. I have a hard time accepting that anyone wouldn't see that as unethical.

Link to comment

Here's Dan Peterson's take on the address (and, by extension, the questions) under consideration: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2019/02/research-is-not-the-answer.html

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is a perfect analogy: a paediatrician who secretly believes that vaccination is a fraud but doesn't tell anybody. I have a hard time accepting that anyone wouldn't see that as unethical.

Except you don’t know him or what his calling is.  A significant calling could be a clerk or secretary.  You also don’t know what was asked in his interview as he may have been completely honest and found worthy for the position.

Bottom line is without more information, you aren’t in a position to pass judgement. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If he is not in a teaching position, I would tend to feel differently about it than if purely administrative, but I don't view those as "prominent".  People's beliefs and attitudes will affect how they talk about things and such disbelief can be counterproductive if seeking out support.  

I have a real problem with people not sharing full or significant disbelief when in leadership and teaching positions.  Members are generally trusting that their leaders will relate to them in terms of worldviews, respect beliefs, see them as truth at least in regards to the core issues.  I would definitely talk differently to someone who didn't share my beliefs than I would to someone who did and I think I have a right to know if they are acting in the role of my leader what their belief is at least general terms just as I think I have a right to know if my doctor believes the surgery or medication he prescribes me is of value and will do what it says as opposed to someone who is only going along to avoid getting fired or losing patients.

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is a perfect analogy: a paediatrician who secretly believes that vaccination is a fraud but doesn't tell anybody. I have a hard time accepting that anyone wouldn't see that as unethical.

As a rank-and-file member of the Church, I will say here and now that I would not be OK with someone holding a prominent stake or ward calling while harboring unbelief in the Church of Jesus Christ. I would be worried about the potential impact said person might have on members of my family or others I cared about in the ward or stake. For the sake of his personal integrity if nothing else, such a person should resign his calling forthwith. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If he is not in a teaching position, I would tend to feel differently about it than if purely administrative, but I don't view those as "prominent".  People's beliefs and attitudes will affect how they talk about things and such disbelief can be counterproductive if seeking out support.  

I have a real problem with people not sharing full or significant disbelief when in leadership and teaching positions.  Members are generally trusting that their leaders will relate to them in terms of worldviews, respect beliefs, see them as truth at least in regards to the core issues.  I would definitely talk differently to someone who didn't share my beliefs than I would to someone who did and I think I have a right to know if they are acting in the role of my leader what their belief is at least general terms just as I think I have a right to know if my doctor believes the surgery or medication he prescribes me is of value and will do what it says as opposed to someone who is only going along to avoid getting fired or losing patients.

I agree, calm.  But let’s error on the side of giving him the benefit of the doubt.  Why are we judging him when we don’t have complete information?   He’s not under our stewardship and if he’s telling the truth, he is someone who is living the standards of the church.   However,  if I knew he was in a position to cause harm, I would step back and reevaluate my position.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...