MrShorty

Both and... When I look at LDS and Biblical history, I see the people of God, following their prophet leaders, actively endorsing and promoting slavery and racial segregation. Not merely accidentally giving the impression that they aren't completely opposed to these practices, but active endorsement and promotion. When I see these issues discussed by devout LDS, the general consensus seems to be that God will know how to redeem these people in/from these sins. I figure that, if God can redeem people who actively promoted slavery, God also knows how to redeem people who endorse violating the word of wisdom or the law of chastity. That I think is the biggest part of the tension around your second statement -- just how far does God's mercy and grace and forgiveness and redemption go? I think, for devout LDS, it is sometimes hard to accept that God actually knows how to redeem sinful people. We cannot look past Alma's declaration that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, so we don't really believe your second statement. We give lip service to it, but, when the rubber hits the road, we don't trust that God can redeem "those people." I think it does. I think that "hopeful universalism" reduces our obligation to repent at some level. I can acknowledge that there is a lot of unresolved tension here, but, at some level, it leaves open the very real possibility that God will redeem people who don't repent in this life. As I noted above, our history contains plenty of examples of people who have not repented (in this life) of sins that are about the worst the 21st century mind conceives of, and, yet, we tend to also insist that God has the means to redeem even them. If we really believe that God can redeem the ancients in spite of their misconstrual of sins, then I think God can redeem us when we misconstrue God's call to repentance in our day. I understand that there is a real tension here. With two years to prepare, is there anyone in church curriculum or in the podcast universe around CFM that wants to prepare a lesson on Alma 45 that does a real deep dive into what Alma is really saying about God being unable to look upon sin with any allowance, when scripture and history are full of examples where God commands, endorses, or even turns a blind eye to sin?

I hope we hold these two ideas in tension at the same time, as well. For the devout, 1 is pretty straightforward. I find many devout LDS who seem unable to hold onto number 2 -- especially when we are talking about someone who has left the church. I encounter so many who insist that someone who has left the church is irredeemable unless they return to activity in the church before they die. If they die in their disaffiliated state, they cannot be redeemed and exalted. Personally, as I try to hold both ideas in tension, I find myself in a place that I've heard Teryl Givens describe as "hopeful universalism." That God so perfectly knows every one of His children that He will know how to show them their errors (mostly in the next life) in such a way that they will repent and accept Christ's atonement and the restored gospel. That includes those who disaffiliate from the church. I recognize that we LDS have a certain dislike for universalism; we don't like the idea of people getting some kind of "free pass" to get the same blessings that we struggled to cling to.

I think you are right. The caution I would make is, when you decide to force someone into such a decision, make sure it is an absolutely critical decision. As a bio-ag major at BYU within living memory of Elder McConkie's Deadly Heresies talk, some of the saddest case studies were those who decided they had to choose between the church and evolution. I think it was Patrick Mason who observed that, at times in our history, we have insisted on putting things in our truth cart that don't really belong there. I think the hardest part of any "choose ye this day" type of decision is knowing when God really demands that kind of decision and when our "exclusivist" type culture demands it. Strong claims that 80+% of his group sought out someone to talk to, so I can't explain why your sample set doesn't reflect that. Perhaps Strong's convenience sample is over-representing those who talk about it or maybe it's just luck of the draw. I'm reminded of a short video I saw by Jared Halverson in which he talked about a close relative (in-law, I believe) who left the church because they couldn't find anyone to talk over their concerns with. Jared vowed to himself that he would make sure that people around him were aware that he was able and willing to have those conversations. I know that I am careful about who I share my own faith crisis with. Strong's data shows that those conversations go poorly with some groups of people. As we're saying, figuring out how to help those conversations be better is a big part of the conversation. I could be reading to much into this. One thing I feel like I encounter among devout LDS is the underlying assumption (I'm not sure it is even conscious) that anyone who "makes a real effort" or "gives the church a fair hearing" will inevitably come to the same conclusion as the other devout members of the church. Of course, the same thing can be seen from the worst of the church's critics, who seem to believe that everyone who gives the church a fair hearing will come to their same conclusions. I cannot speak for all (though I don't believe I'm alone) that the best conversations I have are those where my sounding boards don't care what conclusion I come to, as long as I am using reasonably good judgement. They will respect whatever conclusion I come to. In a space talking about how these conversations go with devout LDS, I feel like all to often, coming to the "wrong" conclusion will lead devout LDS to assume that I must have been insincere or biased against the church or some such. That would be one thing I would suggest that devout members of the church could change if they wanted to make these conversations "better." I think you're right. I wonder if we can allow that being active in the LDS church may not be the best thing for all of His children. Tangent alert: As we come to the end of the genocidal conquest narrative portion of our OT studies, I find it interesting what kinds of "misconduct" get attributed to God. I find it interesting (if not a bit troubling) how many LDS and Christian commentators who are willing to defend attributing things like genocide or slavery to God. All things considered, God allowing good people to leave the church and be good people outside the church seems pretty mild compared to the other kinds of misconduct that we attribute to God.

As I've been monitoring the conversation around the internet, I'm finding a common theme or tension. In some ways, I think these conversations with Dyer and his team contrasted with the conversations I see with Strong (aside: I think it would be great to get them both on the same podcast and let them compare and contrast their different data sets) is where to place "blame" for the trends in disaffiliation that we're seeing. It would probably require a deeper dive into the whole of the data to really tease this out, so I'm not sure that anyone has really pressed the issue. What I'm seeing is that Dyer and his team like to emphasize these kinds of statements that seem to put the onus for disaffiliation on the disaffiliates themselves while seeming to characterize the church and the devout members as innocent bystanders. Strong's emphasis has been on "culture" and trying to push a narrative where, if devout church members were "better" at talking with potential disaffiliates, then fewer would disaffiliate and the disaffiliates are just responding to what the devout members say and do. To polarize the conversation, it seems that everyone either wants to claim that the disaffiliates themselves are all to blame or the church is all to blame. I just don't think it is a clear dichotomy. I think people who disaffiliate make choices and otherwise have their part to play in their own disaffiliation, AND the church and its devout members make choices and have their part to play in people's disaffiliation. I feel like the better conversations would try to understand what is happening in the middle ground where we try to understand how both parties are interacting together. While we're trying to parse out blame for the disaffiliation phenomenon, the other difficult thing I see in this particular quote is when does God Himself become complicit in disaffiliation? I recognize that it's kind of a "problem of evil" question, but, if Dyer is right about this being the strongest predictor, then why doesn't God make Himself a little less hidden for these people? Strong notes that many of these disaffiliates wrestle with things for years before pulling the plug. If God would just be a little less stingy with His "presence" in their lives, would fewer disaffiliate? Or could this observation tell us something about God's priorities? I have noted before that it seems that the church's ultimate priority is to convince people to stay active and participating in the church. What if that isn't God's highest priority?

I came out 77% Givens, and 70% ProgMo, and only 47% McConkie.

Someone in my ward made the same point about "pursuit of happiness." In a few recent podcasts, I've heard Bart Ehrman talk about the ancient Greek concept of eudaimonia. I like the idea as long as we are talking in vague generalities. The trouble seems to come when we try to determine exactly what beliefs and practices lead to human flourishing (and, as government is concerned, what legislation it should enact). I find that the same question when we turn to the church's idea of the "plan of happiness." It sounds good in vague generalities, but becomes difficult and controversial when we try to pin down exactly what beliefs and practices lead to eternal human flourishing.

In a thread that started on the topic of LDS specific disaffiliation, I want to make one observation. Not everyone who disaffiliates from the church is unwilling to be yoked to Christ. Not everyone who remains active in the church is avoiding Satan's hellish grasp. Perhaps it is just an axe I grind, but all too often we in the church conflate church and Christ as if to leave one is to leave the other. I recognize that, statistically, a majority of those who disaffiliate from the LDS church lose belief in God and Christ, but a minority continue to believe in God and Christ and some other variation on Christianity. And many who never join the LDS church (like @Navidad) are strongly yoked to Christ even if they actively choose to stay officially unaffiliated with the church. I fear that all too often we invoke the separating of the wheat and tares as if that is clearly what is happening when we talk about affiliation/disaffiliation. I'm not convinced that people who disaffiliate or never affiliate with the LDS church are officially tares/weeds.

I think one of the challenges here is understanding exactly what we mean by "retention" and exactly how we are measuring it. The timing being what it is, I can't help but wonder if this is somehow aimed at Jeff Strong's latest work, which claims that 40% of those who were active LDS 25 some odd years ago are no longer active or have completely disaffiliated. The Des News article in the OP focuses on Pew/PRRI data that suggests that the overall church population has remained roughly constant or grown slightly. IMO, Strong's measure seems more in line with my understanding of retention, where the Des News statistics would seem to be more of a combination of people leaving and being offset by new converts so that the overall growth rate is slightly positive. At least that's how Strong reconciles his 40% number with other claims of slow, overall growth. Ryan Cragun (former LDS and researcher in the field of sociology of religion) went on Mormon Book Reviews and suggests that data he is aware of largely agrees with Strong's data that 30% or more of LDS disaffiliate (details needed to pin down exactly what it is measuring). Within my own circles, I don't see that many people disaffiliate, but the disaffiliation rate is clearly more than 0%. I largely agree with the idea in the Des News article -- accurate information leads to accurate conclusions. The never ending trouble with statistical data is trying to understand exactly what the numbers are measuring. I can see ways to understand how the church can both have a near steady population, and also have a relatively high percentage of people who disaffiliate.

The idea of a journey versus an object really resonates with me. As I've been working through a "faith crisis" or "faith deconstruction/reconstruction," I've encountered many who describe these kinds of processes as "journeys." It makes room for my current state of belief and practice to be just as "true" as the state I was in 20 years ago, and doesn't prescribe what my beliefs and practices will be in 20 years. "Sufficient to the day is the evil (or good or faith) thereof." It makes space for grace for the things I couldn't have known in my youth, and things that I don't know I don't know now, and the epistemic humility to acknowledge that I will probably never know all truth. It encourages me to ground myself in today.

Resurrecting to add a recent news piece from a local NBC affiliate. Even though the legal negotiations are over and the church has all its permits and such, the mayor of Fairview is asking the church to reconsider the steeple/building height: https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fairview-mayor-asks-lds-church-reconsider-temple-steeple-height/4021254/#yrzr2u56folp604itbx9qkz2iy1gnz0c I have no way of knowing if the mayor's impressions of community sentiment are correct, but I can't help but wonder if we are going to build a nice temple with all of the right legal permits and such, and still leave a bad taste in the mouths of local residents.

FWIW, One of my recent podcast choices was from Bart Ehrman's (notable atheist who is also a prominent New Testament scholar) podcast. At some point, he was asked what he thinks it was about the way Christ taught that made Christianity so successful. His answer fit right into this thread. He said that it wasn't so much something that Christ said or taught or anything, it was ultimately that His followers believed He had been raised from the dead. (If you want to hear it from Ehrman himself, it is episode 182 of his Misquoting Jesus podcast, towards the end during the "Ask Bart" segment.)

I get it, and, to some extent, that makes sense. In a case like this, though, it seems to me that "here's a general rule, but there are exceptions and it's up to you to decide if you are an exception" means essentially cancels out the general rule. If anyone can decide on their own initiative that they are an exception to the rule without any guidance on what legitimate and illegitimate exceptions are similar, then the general rule essentially becomes meaningless. At some point, it seems best to just back down from the "complementarian with exception" rule and just adopt egalitarianism -- as long as people are taking care of their families. I agree. I don't know how best to do it. We invoke divine revelation for stuff that we believe and do, so making changes requires more revelation, but too much revelation changing what was previously revelation begins to look like God is the one who is "tossed about by every wind of doctrine."

I would say, that, yes, this is a mixed message. Mostly because it contradicts the messages I grew up with that husbands/fathers should be the sole (or primary) breadwinner while the wives/mothers should stay home (to the extent possible) and care for the home and children. The big question seems to be whether or not the church still believes this, or if the church's beliefs are drifting in a more egalitarian direction, where families/couples decide for themselves based on individual circumstance which parent will fill which roles. Personally, I believe that families/couples should decide for themselves based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, but I have not seen the church ever make a truly official statement one way or the other on that. This is true. Perhaps I missed something, but every talk that comes immediately to mind failed to make a clear statement about this kind of scenario. They may have recited the appropriate paragraph from the Proclamation, but I have yet to hear a church authority (in recent years, anyway) declare that a breadwinner mom/stay at home dad scenario was inappropriate. In my experience, the church almost never "disavows" what prior prophets/apostles/leaders have taught, but the church will allow teachings to drift. This seems to me to be an example of this kind of drift. IMO, if the church and its leaders officially dislike the direction of this drift, they need to say something clear and unambiguous to that effect.

The tension I see in that post and comments section is just how much acceptance it displays of full egalitarianism. I see comments praising him for possibly accepting the role of "house husband" or "stay at home dad" when future children come into the picture. Other comments respond with "discomfort" around those possible roles and choices for him. Ultimately, I think it is the never ending tension we experience between complementarianism and egalitarianism. As a church community, we are still trying to grapple with those tensions. We haven't, yet, picked a side to be on, and the institutional church has largely claimed no official position as it doesn't seem to want to referee the controversies. Personally, I appreciate the example of this anecdote. It seems to me to be evidence that we are slowly sliding towards embracing egalitarianism, which, IMO, is more "true" than complementarianism. The church has a lot of inertia, so change comes slowly, but it comes.

Several years ago as I was contemplating how much of scripture might be "pious fiction," I recall asking myself the question from the opposite end -- How much of scripture must be historical for my faith to continue. As I contemplated that question, I concluded that there had to be some kernel of historic truth to the accounts of Christ's resurrection. Which isn't to say that I need all of the details provided by the Evangelists in their gospels to be historically true. I think I can be fine if much of the passion narrative is fictional adaptation of the actual events to make different theological points, but, in some fashion, Christ must have died and then been resurrected to immortality. I can still be flexible in the details, but there must be something historically true there.