"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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 really appreciate this.  I do not have knowledge of the people and theories you talked about but so much went along with my experience. 

I truly tried to seek God's will and follow what He said in my whole process. I started with the very basics of the doctrine and talked with my husband and other active, believing members. I just didn't get the same answer even though I was willing and ready to do what God wanted me to do, whatever that was.

This subject is hard for me to talk about here as board rules don't allow for me to share my story, but it really goes into the heart of what is being asked for in this topic. I'm ok with that, but if people want to get a full understanding of the subject they may need to go off board to do so.  NOT saying I am the answer as sometimes I feel like I'm one of the few that went through it like I did or at least that most are not sharing similar experiences in the places I am.

Edited Monday at 08:29 PM by Rain

[manol]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What if that [remaining in the LDS Church and staying active] isn't God's highest priority?

^^^This^^^

Perhaps what matters most is that we each become “the same manner of man (or woman) as Christ”, and perhaps it doesn't so much matter where we are as we do so.

Edited Monday at 09:42 PM by manol

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sometimes we have to make a "Choose Ye This Day"-style decision.

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.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

My general experience is that many of my friends and acquaintances who "disaffiliate" have done so by having gone through a faith crisis quietly/secretly, nursing doubts and voicing them online, but not really communicating with "faithful" friends and sources.  For these folks, I think it's difficult for "devout church members" to address concerns when they don't know the concerns are there, or are not aware of the severity of those concerns.

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.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alternatively, there are some who do make a real effort to maintain/salvage their faith. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

He had sought out faithful sources of information (FAIR, etc.), and was really trying to give the Church and its advocates a fair hearing.

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."

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"God's highest priority" is, I think, His children:

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.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think we can do so by attributing misconduct to God.

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.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

And also recognize that Choosing ye this day and choosing/serving the Lord may look different for me than it does for you. Just because my answer is different than someone else's doesn't mean I was not serving the Lord.

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Yes, or sometimes that if my answer was different I could have been sincere, but not in tune enough or deceived. 

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

 

Edited yesterday at 02:41 AM by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

 

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

What if that [remaining in the LDS Church and staying active] isn't God's highest priority?

^^^This^^^

 

It’s never made sense to me that membership in the Church was God’s highest priority for us given the vast majority of humanity has lived without that opportunity. 

Making the most of what we have whatever that may be…seems like our doctrine agrees with that (we are judged by the law we are given).

Some may interpret that to mean that for those who have been given the opportunity to be a member, they need to stay a member.

I have just seen too many who get (or always were even as members trying to do the right thing) uncoupled from the community and the Church through no fault of their own as far as I can tell to see things that way.***

I sincerely believe that there are those whose lives are benefited by living the faith

***no experience of the Spirit which is central to our faith; abusive family or leaders or other members that destroy the ability to trust those who claim to be living the Gospel or who claim that have interaction with the Spirit; experiences that make more sense outside than inside; other stuff I can’t think of right now 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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.

I would rather throw scripture under the bus than God.  I have never understood the need to justify horrors just because they got chosen to be included in a sacred text when part of our doctrine is that there are errors in that text. 

I would love to see in our lesson manuals rather than odd justifications as “we don’t know what was going on in this section, we will wait and see what God has to say about it before judging”.

I don’t actually see myself throwing scripture under the bus, just treating it more as literature rather than textbook.  

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, manol said:

Perhaps what matters most is that we each become “the same manner of man (or woman) as Christ”, and perhaps it doesn't so much matter where we are as we do so.

What we become is, of course, what really matters. I sometimes liken our mortal experience to schooling. We have various classes to take. There are too many to take all at once in mortality and some will be deferred until later. Not all courses are required by everybody. The class "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" is a required course that everybody will eventually take. Though, as Calm pointed out, the vast majority of humanity doesn't take the course in mortality. Same for Calculus. I think everybody will have to learn it.

That said, the principles and goodness by faithful adherence to the covenants found in the Church is never a negative. It can be potentially problematic if somebody feels compelled to take upon themselves covenants that they are unwilling to keep. Not making covenants one won't keep is better than making covenants and not keeping them.

God's highest priority is our happiness and progression. Progression to our fullest potential absolutely will require making and keeping covenants and that is true for everybody. No exceptions. Timing is an issue, and so I try not to judge. There are "classes" that I'll have to take later that others take in mortality. Everybody's "course schedule" will be a little different. I do not begrudge in any my opportunity to make and keep covenants here, now, in mortality. Taking the "class" now has been and is a huge blessing to me.

[Stargazer]

On 6/11/2026 at 3:11 PM, Nofear said:

What I reject is the idea that Genesis and our other creation accounts are a description of the creation of the entire universe. Such an interpretation doesn't make sense historically, scientifically, or theologically.

Ah, I see. I reject this, too. But Hawking was using the Big Bang and the creation of the universe as a hammer to beat the idea of a Creator, who had no time to exist in. I don't believe I used Genesis to advocate for the Big Bang. In order to create the universe, the Creator had to do so from outside it. Which is why He can see everything in it, from its inception to its end. Because He is outside it.

The Genesis 1 account does refer only to this earth and this solar system. When God said "Let there be light" that corresponds to the ignition of the sun's nuclear furnace. 

But the Genesis 1 event has occurred in many other places in the universe at various times. God told Moses:

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." Moses 1:33,34

Besides our world, he has created many others, and will create others more. And in those places he has placed an Adam.

"And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." Moses 1:37,38

Edited 14 hours ago by Stargazer

[Nofear]

Very good. We are in alignment with Genesis between local creation stories. As you point out, there are countless earths and Adams ... and Genesis is just an account of our particular Creation.
 

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In order to create the universe, the Creator had to do so from outside it. Which is why He can see everything in it, from its inception to its end. Because He is outside it.

That supposes God created the entire universe. There are interpretations of LDS theology where our Heavenly Parents are not the first exalted beings. Even if one doesn't subscribe to that, we hold that with exaltation we become full participants in the works of God, including Creations. Will that be creations of entire universes? I personally don't think so. LDS theologians expressly reject creatio ex nihilo. Saying God created the universe from extant matter is creatio ex nihilo-light. For if matter existed prior to the universe, why not call where the matter existed the universe? Thus "creating the universe" becomes a semantics game about what we mean by "universe".

 

This same argument applies to our self-existent core: intelligence. I'm personally quite comfortable with the idea of God's eternal essence (and everbody's) being self-existent into an infinite past but that God, as an organized being, only having a finite past. While a heretical concept to many, D&C 19 makes it explicit that terms like "endless" and "eternal" should not be equated with infinite. Similarly, Moses was explicitly told that "countless" doesn't mean infinite. We are explicitly informed that the number of concurrent worlds of God's creation are numbered*. 

I view God's Creation as being the act by which He organized this neighborhood of the universe and galaxy to be suitable for His purposes. Our doctrine's orthodoxy doesn't require us to go any further than that. Creedal traditions have us doing so, but the Restoration does not require it.


* One can have countable infinities, so "numbered" doesn't have to mean finite. I don't think God was using such mathematical semantic subtlety when He was explaining things to Moses. God was telling Moses that there are only a finite number of concurrent mortal worlds.
 

[smac97]

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Sometimes we have to make a "Choose Ye This Day"-style decision.

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.

I don't think it is for me to "force someone {else} into such a decision."  I meant to say that we each of us individually, and of our own volition, make this decision.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

I agree with your sentiments here.  

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

My general experience is that many of my friends and acquaintances who "disaffiliate" have done so by having gone through a faith crisis quietly/secretly, nursing doubts and voicing them online, but not really communicating with "faithful" friends and sources.  For these folks, I think it's difficult for "devout church members" to address concerns when they don't know the concerns are there, or are not aware of the severity of those concerns.

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.

My sample is anecdotal, so there's that.

Also, several separate personal experiences came to mind when I wrote the above.  Each involved people coming to me (most in my capacity as a friend, a few came to me specifically in my capacity as a bishop).  In each interaction, there were the following features:

• Each person had apparently largely already made up his/her mind, and so came to me with what appeared to be a posture of, effectively, "These are the conclusions I have reached, and I am on my way out."  The discussions felt more like an "FYI / Heads Up" than a "I'm struggling in my faith and testimony and would like some input from you."  One came to the "discussion," only to have it be a one-sided "Why I'm Leaving"-style summary, with no particular willingness to have a discussion.  Two others said, in essence, "I have reached conclusions about these, and they are not open for discussion or debate."  So the discussion seemed almost an after-the-fact sort of thing, but I could be in error on that point.
   
• Each came to the discussion with a substantial list of concerns/grievances that did not really seem thematically linked or likely to have arise organically from an earnest and faith-based study of the Restored Gospel, but rather more from "Gish Gallop / shock value"-style compilations like the CES Letter.  One of these folks (the one who came to me in my capacity as bishop) actually brought the list and read from it to me.  He/she would not let me see the list, but I caught a glimpse and saw that it was a bullet list printed out from a website.  Another, when I asked him/her about his/her list of concerns, admitted that they did not originate from him/her studying the Restored Gospel, but rather came from a large variety of sources including books, podcasts, internet, discussions with believers, doubters, former Latter-day Saints, and so on. 
   
• None of them seemed particularly interested in discussing the substance of the concerns in their lists.  One of them was willing to talk broadly about faith and overcoming doubts and concerns, but not in relation to any of the particular issues he/she had presented.  The others presented their lists and declined to have any discussion about any of those topics.
   
• In some of these interactions, the individuals did not seem to have given much time or effort to studying sources that address difficult topics from a faithful perspective.  For example, two of these individuals specifically mentioned in their lists concerns about the Book of Abraham.  I asked each of them if they had ever reviewed any materials from John Gee or Kerry Muhlestein, and both said no.  I then asked them if they knew who these men were, and they both said no.  Another individual, the one with the longest list, was the most vitriolic.  In his view, he said, the only way to stay in the Church is to be very ignorant or very dishonest, or both, because nobody could encounter the topics he had and come away with an intact testimony.  I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said no.  I asked him if he knew who Daniel Peterson was, and he again said no.  I made similar inquiries about Bill Hamblin, John Tvedtnes, John Welch, Michael Ash, Jeff Lindsay, Matthew Roper, and several others.  His response was the same.  
   
• In most of these interactions, there did not seem to be a willingness to attempt a "Go Back to the Beginning"-style approach.  That is, to read The Book of Mormon, utilizing a "Seed of Faith" (from Alma 32) and Moroni's Promise (from Moroni 10:3-5), and seek out inspiration and revelation from God about the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel.  

Of these various experiences of mine, only one seems to have given what I would call "a fair hearing" to the Church.  Most seem to have been influenced by the Gish-Gallop-style sensationalized lists of controversies and difficult topics, and did not do much independent investigation/research.  

Alternatively, I have had several experiences where there was a greater willingness to, as then-Pres. Uchtdorf put it, "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith."  Reading, praying about, and seeking inspiration about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon seems to be an important component of that.  The "keystone of our religion" characterization really seems apt.

I would like to understand this better:

Quote

That suggested to Strong that the most active members of the church “have a blind spot,” he said.

That gap in understanding makes it all the more difficult to have honest and productive conversations across the divide. Most people who leave do tell a church member about their faith crisis or faith deconstruction — 83%, according to the research. But some of these conversations go better than others.

More than 4 in 5 people experiencing a faith crisis spoke to someone in the church about it. (Strong and Dotson, “Why People Are Leaving the Church” survey)

People who had left the church reported that their most helpful conversations were with their peers, like spouses and friends. More than half said those conversations were helpful and supportive.

Far down the list were conversations with parents (14% positive) and Relief Society presidents (10% positive). Worst of all were discussions with LDS bishops and stake presidents — only 5% of leavers said those exchanges were helpful.

Conversations with local church leaders were the least helpful, and exchanges with friends and spouses the most helpful. (Strong and Dotson, “Why People Are Leaving the Church” survey)

Relevant to all these conversations is how thoughtfully people approach them.

“In high-stakes conversations, principle No. 1 is don’t talk under the influence,” Strong said. By this, he didn’t mean being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which Latter-day Saints avoid as a part of their religion, but reacting out of fear, anger and frustration.

“Step away and take a breather,” he advised.

He said it’s fine for devout Mormons to tell their loved ones who are talking about leaving, “Hey, I’m just not in a good place to have this conversation yet. I love you, and this is really important, and I want to show up the right way for you and for me. I just need some time to get my head and heart in the right place.” And members of the church need to admit it if they feel anger or disappointment, rather than pretending everything’s great, he said.

“You’ve got to put these emotions on the table, and you’ve got to own them,” he said. “And you also need to examine the story you’re telling yourself.” Instead, sometimes church members “sort of invent narratives” about other people and why they leave — particularly that disaffiliation is a sudden, 180-degree change that comes out of nowhere, he added. 

I wonder if some (many? most?) of these conversations arise, and end up being ineffective or even harmful, because the listener is not prepared (either in the moment, or else is not really equipped to address controversial/difficult topics), and/or because the listener is "reacting out of fear, anger and frustration" (of course, the posture of the person expressing the concerns also matters a lot).

As for the invented "narrative" where "disaffiliation is a sudden, 180-degree change that comes out of nowhere," I can see how that happens.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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 have tried that approach as well.  

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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 quite agree.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

He had sought out faithful sources of information (FAIR, etc.), and was really trying to give the Church and its advocates a fair hearing.

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.

I can see how you could read that into my comment, but that was not my intent.  This particular individual ended up becoming less active (though in recent years I think he has returned to activity).  My comment here was also about those who appear to have mostly based their "Why I'm Leaving" narrative on lists of grievances (such as those presented in the CES Letter), as in my experience they seem to have taken these grievances/criticisms as both facially valid and fatal to maintaining a testimony of the Restored Gospel, and so did not really seem to have made a "real effort" or given the Church "a fair hearing."  That's my subjective perspective, so take it for what it's worth.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Yes, one of the above examples was like that.  He told me to my face that the only way to stay in the Church is to be very ignorant or very dishonest, or both, because nobody could encounter the topics he had and come away with an intact testimony.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Alas, I'm not sure I can adopt such an impartial posture.  I feel I am better of if I acknowledge my partiality, but at the same time emphasize that I can and do separate my personal affection and regard and respect for the individual from his/her decisions relative to the Restored Gospel.  I can also adopt a sincere perspective of "Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, including important things."  I can respect whatever conclusion they come to and still maintain regard and affection and respect for them.

I think that door needs to swing both ways, though.  I have a very good friend who has strong feelings about same-sex marriage, and so has declared to me that anyone who does not accept and endorse it is "morally defective" (his/her phrase, not mine).  He/she also said that he cannot identify any way for a Latter-day Saint to avoid this "moral defect" except by embracing and endorsing same-sex marriage (but that in so doing, they almost certainly must leave the Church).  He/she has also told me that since I remain a Latter-day Saint, he/she considers me to be morally defective.  He/she simply refuses to consider the possibility of people having a principled, good faith perspective on same-sex marriage that varies from his/hers.  He/she has refused to let me lay out my reasoning/analysis on this issue (which includes my acceptance and recognition of same-sex marriage under the laws of the land and my willingness to attend same-sex weddings).  This has been going on for a while now.  I don't know why same-sex marriage became the litmus test of our friendship.  I had never discussed it with him/her, and he/she has never asked me questions about it, and has only assumed that I disagree SSM because of my affiliation with and regard for the Church.  (While I do disagree with same-sex marriage, that disagreement is fairly nuanced, and based on quite a bit more than religious sentiments.)  This has been a hindrance to our relationship, but I'm still working on it.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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."

A very fair and valid point.

In the end, each of us must do what we think is right.

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

"God's highest priority" is, I think, His children:

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.

That is certainly a sticky wicket.

I think Latter-day Saints who believe the Church is what it claims to be feels that membership in, and receiving and honoring covenants administered through, the Church is an extension of John 14:6: "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, Jesus Christ is the Way. There is no other Savior. But He has clearly established a Church, given it His authority, and commanded us to receive specific ordinances and make covenants. These are not substitutes for Christ — they are the very means He has ordained for us to come to Him fully and receive all that the Father has. Just as Naaman had to wash in the Jordan River (not some other river) to be healed, we must come the way the Lord has appointed.

That said, I appreciate your perspective.  We agree that God’s highest priority really is His children. He knows each of us perfectly and is working with us right where we are.  At the same time, I do believe that being actively engaged in the restored Church, receiving its covenants, and striving to keep them is the best path the Lord has provided for His children — not because the Church is perfect, or because every member is at the same place spiritually, but because that is where His full authority, ordinances, and guidance are found.

I also recognize that for some people, at certain seasons of their life, being actively involved in the Church right now may not feel like the healthiest or most helpful thing. Life is complicated. Some carry deep wounds, others are wrestling with serious questions, and others simply need space. God knows all of that. His love and patience are much bigger than any of our current activity levels.

My hope is that we can hold two ideas at the same time:

1. The restored gospel and its covenants truly are the Lord’s appointed way for us to receive the fulness of what He offers.
2. He is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing.

I’d be interested in your thoughts. Under what circumstances would you feel that the Church might not be the best thing for all of His children?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 11 hours ago by smac97

[longview]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t actually see myself throwing scripture under the bus, just treating it more as literature rather than textbook.  

It is beautiful literature in many ways: testifying of God's love for humankind, listing the MANY tender mercies and steadfast faithfulness of God, proclaiming the joys of redemption, and on and on.

It is an amazing textbook documenting cause and effect on many levels of obedience and of disobedience, verifying the many prophecies that have been fulfilled in various stages of history, advocating for adherence to the many saving commands and wise counsels from God, achieving continual personal progression that occurs from walking with God, etc, etc.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Same for Calculus. I think everybody will have to learn it.

And many (most?) of us who have taken it will have to retake it because of forgetting or never really grokking it in the first place (I had a fantastic teacher the first semester, horrible one the second, and so so the third, so while my grades were fine, my ability to actually use what I learned in the last two semesters was poor to begin with—knew the formulas but might not recognize when I needed to use them and which ones were appropriate—and then switching to psych as my major toasted any chance of long term retention).

I suspect there are many spiritual lessons we learn here that we have incomplete understanding of and we will need additional education and practice to truly embed them in our hearts. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Calm

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Might you possibly have a citation for this quote? I am not questioning it; I would simply like to use it. I know Patrick and have utmost respect for him. If you don't happen to have a source, I can contact him directly and ask him. Thanks for the quote. I really like it and want to use it in my new book. Ok. I found it. It appears to be from  a 2016 FAIR talk. Thanks.

Edited 11 hours ago by Navidad
clarification

[manol]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

What we become is, of course, what really matters. I sometimes liken our mortal experience to schooling. We have various classes to take. There are too many to take all at once in mortality and some will be deferred until later. Not all courses are required by everybody. The class "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" is a required course that everybody will eventually take.

Thank you for your response! 

Imo ordinances and covenants can assist in the journey of becoming the same manner of man or woman as Christ, but ordinances and covenants in and of themselves are not the actual becoming itself. The “mighty change of heart” spoken of by Alma is an internal thing. The “becoming” is an internal thing.

And imo “becoming” might not even be the right word. Let me explain:

I think your “taking of classes” paradigm is correct. I think the class that lies before us at this time, both individually and collectively, is something like “awakening to our Christhood”. I think “awakening” is a more accurate description than the word I have been using, “becoming”. I find “awakening to our Christhood”, or something like that, to be the underlying essence of “all that God does now reveal”. In my experience “all that God does now reveal” seems to be largely coming through sources and messengers outside of the LDS Church, and thus for Latter-day Saints it may lie in the “seek, and ye shall find” category.

Regardless of the role ordinances and covenants may or may not play, in my opinion the path to awakening to our Christhood is continually being placed before us, and looks something like this:

Every moment offers us the opportunity to choose love or to choose something else. The greater the challenge, the greater the opportunity for growth. Every time we choose love to the best of our ability in the moment, our capacity for love, and for choosing love, is expanded. And every time we don't becomes the opportunity to choose again.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by manol

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

It is an amazing textbook documenting cause and effect on many levels of obedience and of disobedience, verifying the many prophecies that have been fulfilled in various stages of history, advocating for adherence to the many saving commands and wise counsels from God, achieving continual personal progression that occurs from walking with God, etc, etc.

There are parts of the scriptures I find to be wonderful examples of how we should live our best lives (the parables of Jesus, instructions to care for those in need, the poor, love and forgive our enemies).

There are other parts that if followed like a how to book of obedience would lead to disaster imo.  Jephthah is not an example of commitment to covenant making I think we should be modeling (and it’s jaw dropping for me to see him pointed to in a church lesson as such without any warning attached).  Do you believe we should be so committed to any covenant we make with the Lord, personal or public, that we will harm others or ourselves to fill them?  That we should never question if our covenants are actually what God wants us to do?

Jephthah even places the blame for the outcome of his stupid vow not on his own impulsive foolishness, but on his daughter…who obedient to her father’s desires goes to her death willingly and he follows through ‘obediently’ with his vow and sacrifices her.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-student-study-guide-obs/the-book-of-judges/judges-11-12-the-story-of-jephthah?lang=eng

Quote

The Lord used this person from a lowly position, however, to deliver Israel from her enemies. Jephthah had faith in God and forsook idols, which gave him the strength of the Lord in his efforts.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Calm

[Navidad]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Might you possibly have a citation for this quote? I am not questioning it; I would simply like to use it. I know Patrick and have utmost respect for him. If you don't happen to have a source, I can contact him directly and ask him. Thanks for the quote. I really like it and want to use it in my new book. Ok. I found it. It appears to be from  a 2016 FAIR talk. Thanks.

I am responding to my own message. I don't think I have ever done that before. I just thought I would post a link to the talk that Patrick Mason gave that was used in an above post. It is a powerful and well-thought out talk, by someone who has at times been of great help to me. Here we go:

Patrick Mason “The Courage of Our Convictions” Extended Transcript | Thoughts on Things and Stuff

[Kevin Christensen]

On 6/13/2026 at 9:53 AM, california boy said:

Wow I am impressed with the thought and studying you have put into this issue.  The problem I have with your analogy is that Dravot used the ignorance of the people to perpetuate a false story that he wanted to build upon for his own gain.  He was not a god, but he liked being called and treated like a god.  That seems problematic to me.

I thin D&C 1:6 is a bit fuzzy about expectations.  But the church used far more direct scriptural quotes to tie prophets directly to being a mouth piece for God himself.  I remember as a missionary, using the church produced discussions that at the time, the church expected missionaries to give verbatim where we had the investigator read from Amos  3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. ( I didn't even have to look up what that verse said from all the times I used that on my mission).   Another verse that was commonly used was D & C 1:37-38  “Whether by Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants, It Is the Same”.  Both of those scriptures were used so often in describing what the church claimed that I think most members could quote those verses without looking them up.  And those verses paint a very different picture of how members should treat what the latter day prophets said and taught.  Can you see why many that have left the church couldn't really buy into the thinking that you are now presenting?

You are right.  Many early members invested in the Kirtland bank with the idea that Joseph established the bank with the approval from God, which evidently was not the case.  But isn't this just another example of blurring the lines of when a prophet claims something came from revelation to something they did without revelation?  Isn't the claim of the Book of Abraham is that its translation came from God as it was written by the hand of Abraham himself?  Did the Book of Abraham come from God or Joseph Smith.  Did Abraham have any part in what is written in the Book of Abraham?  When the church speaks of revelation from God, what do you think that even means?

I get that you have changed your expectations of what to expect of someone calling himself a prophet of God, but I think the vast majority of people leaving the church don't share your revised expectations because they literally were not taught to have those lower expectations from so much of the doctrine that has been laid out by those claiming to be a prophet.

I do like your reasoning that you have laid out here.  But I honestly see a huge gap in what I was taught about prophets and priesthood authority and what you are presenting here.  Like in your analogy of "The Man Who Would Be King" I feel like the church exploited what people thought a prophet was and what he really was.  

Maybe I could ask you 2 questions to see how your thinking answers real questions.  

Do you think women should never be allowed to hold the priesthood because God has ordained that only men hold the priesthood and it is a woman's role to only support that priesthood?

Do you think God forbids gay couples from falling in love, marrying and forming family relationships?

My point in citing The Man Who Would Be King is to show what happens when people make overreaching claims of authority to secure conformity, whether that do so naively (as often happens in every human community, time and place, as the Perry Scheme teaches me to expect) or as a conspiracy, in Carnahan's case.  What should I expect of Latter-day Saint leadership is a different issue than what some people claim for Latter-day Saint leadership, and what some people demand from them, or report that "this is not what I was taught."  So, "Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom," is a very different admonition than, "Trust me. If I heard it church, it is beyond question."  I read all the verses in D&C 1 in context, and that full context resists the very misreading that annoys you.  "This is mine authority and the authority of my servants."  Both kinds of authority are spelled out in detail.  D&C 1 does not say of Latter-day Saints leader that:

Quote

And because they can never err, there is nothing more to know,
And if there were any wisdom to find they will instruct us on what matters,
And they cannot sin because as chasteners, they are beyond repentance,
And they have no need of humility because of the strength of their infallibility,
And they have no need to receive further knowledge because it came all at once, and is at hand on their shelves in a Big Book of What to Think

Rather the opposite. A significant question is, why do some readers skip over the relevant verses that bluntly spell out weaknesses, errors that will be made manifest, and that revelation comes from time to time based on inquiry and expedience, and jump to an over-reaching reading of just D&C 1:38?  In the Myers-Briggs Type indicator, SJ personality types clearly have a tendency to respect authority and tradition, and to favor conformity and sameness.  As with the Perry Scheme, that describes human characteristics, not Latter-day Saint peculiarity.

A better reading of Amos 3:7 is "surely the LORD God with do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" ought to consider the underlying Hebrew.

Quote

In Who Shall Ascend to the Hill of the Lord, LeGrand Baker and Stephen Ricks cite Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown, to show that “the meaning of the Greek word mysterion (translated as mystery in the English version of the New Testament) and the Hebrew word sode (translated “secret” in the English versions of the Old Testament) is essentially the same. Mysterion is more specific since it refers to secrets disclosed during initiation into sacred religious rites…, while sode is more general in that it refers to … either a religious or secular council. Brown observes that the New Testament mysterion refers to the Council in Heaven.  He shows that Old Testament sode sometimes refers to that council or its decisions (as in Amos 3:7).”  

Should I just stop with "What I was taught" or seem to remember by whomever in Sunday School, or, like Abraham, "seek to possess greater knowledge," and "seek out of the best books words of wisdom," not just "seek out of official publications words of orthodoxy"?  In cultural context, the Hebrew tells me that the prophets ought to provide knowledge of the Council in Heaven (something Joseph Smith did in fact, provide), NOT that I should expect them all to be omniscient and inerrant, and eager to pour that knowledge into my waiting palm, according to my personal whims.  

D&C 1 overall does not blur the lines.  Rather, people who want absolute certainty without effort, blur the lines.  And that tendency is common to humanity, to human development, not due to any Latter-day monopoly on overreach.

Quote

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Consider the opposite of the way D&C 121 encourages the Latter-day Saint priesthood holders to behave:

Quote

Power or influence can be maintained by coercion, impatience, brutality, pride, and feigned love. By transactional interactions, and by using rhetoric effectively and saying whatever flatters enough people of the right sort to gain and keep a following, and by projecting our own guilt onto other people, we can paint them as embodying all corruption, and serve our own agenda and ambition at all times.
Reproving constantly and without concern for facts, when moved upon by pride and vanity and ambition, and then afterwards showing an increase of love towards the flag and your allies, that we may be united against whomever we decide is an enemy, whomever we designate as scapegoat, to blame for all our problems and distract attention from our shortcomings,
That people may know better than to criticize or cross you for fear of what will happen to them
Let thy bowels be full of charity to your allies, plot revenge upon your enemies, and let ambition and pride garnish thy thoughts unceasingly, and then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of adoring crowds and sycophants.

Who does that that picture bring to mind?  Anyone prominent?

Some people want their authorities to be perfect, as that removes from their lives any personal responsibility to think for themselves or question themselves.  See Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (New York Harper and Row, 1951). The
strength of the ''True Believer" mode is the zeal such persons possess, with an accompanying willingness to sacrifice all things, if necessary, for the cause. Hoffer claims that no mass movement ever succeeded without such people. The
weaknesses of the mode derive from its rigidity, the tendency to polarized thinking and brittIe background expectations. True believers can demonstrate what Joseph Smith referred to as a "zeal that is not according to knowledge." A number
of the most vocal critics of the Church are former true believers, who when their too-brittle faith shatters, become true anti-believers.  That is, they change direction but not their character. 

The claim of the Book of Abraham by the Latter-day Saint scholars is that it is a translation, not the original.  I have many books and have read many papers on the topic.  I personally think the Book of Abraham is one of the strongest parts of the restoration.  And frankly, when I read stuff that purports to blow down the entire edifice of Latter-day Saint belief via some Book of Abraham issue, I don't find myself impressed.  Inevitably, these days, I observe that there are telling gaps in what they tell me.  For example, I like the big FARMS volume on old Abraham Traditions that match the Book of Abraham, a large body of details that fretting over what "by the hand of Abraham" implies, does nothing to solve.  I can see how they see and why, but they don't ever account for what I see. 

You ask, "When the church speaks of Revelation from God, what do you think that even means?"  I find this relevant:

Quote

Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark reports that Jesus says of this parable, "Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?"

The revelations are not going to be received and nurtured in the same way, nor contextualized nor interpreted in the same way, nor will the same seed produce the same harvest in every case.  I have long been interested in the ones who produce the best and most impressive harvests.  And I did a study of the Latter-day Saint claims of religion in the context of World Religions and came up with this:

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

And personally, what I have experienced as revelation in my own life has born impressive harvests.  I consider sitting next to Brent Metcalfe at a Sunstone back in 1999, when he described how he was driving in Salt Lake and just realized all at once that all of faith and belief was a sham.  If I had trusted his insight into reality whole while just driving around Salt Lake City as decisive, I consider a great many books and experiences that I subsequently encountered and I personally value, and recognize that had I taken his view, I would not have even known what I was missing.  But in holding on to my initial personal witnesses, not just for the moments in which they occurred, but the harvest over many seasons that came as a result, I cherish what has come of them.

My own expectations of prophets, I don't think are lower, but are more accurate, and produce realistic expectations.  Again, "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."  So "What should I expect?" is a question that leads to checking one's own eye for beams, which  in turn, leads to clearer vision.  When I personally searched and discovered that the Bible contains at least 28 distinctive tests for True and False prophets, I was a bit startled to realize that anyone could have done what I did, and no one had.  I was not included to toss it all in the garbage, because, after all, no one taught it to me at church.  Is what I learn on my own initiative of no worth, compared to what some person with no notable exertion or qualifications utters?  So when I see something that strikes me as inaccurate, I see people in process, humanity doing what humans in process do, not gathering grievances to use for leverage.   When I see you say "the church exploited what people thought" I consider that the Greek behind "church" is "eklesia" which refers to an assembly, a gathering of people, of individuals of all kinds, who behave in human ways.  So I see people in the assembly doing what they themselves thought best, rather than people who knew better exploiting the ignorant for malicious personal gain.  The church consists of individual people, and is not a personified monolithic Entity that acts from a single unified malicious motive.

You ask, 

Quote

Maybe I could ask you 2 questions to see how your thinking answers real questions.

Sure, if you realize that I always consider questions like these as particularly telling in light of two things.  First, Kuhn's observation that all paradigm choice involves deciding "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  And second, this passage from an art book by Betty Edwards that to me remains the single most important insight I have discovered relative to why people differ on issues of faith and life.

Quote

Most of us lend to see parts of a form hierarchically.
The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of
information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or
the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger
than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant,
or that we decide are smaller, or that we think
should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they
actually are. (Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, rev. ed. (Los
Angeles: Tarcher, 1989), 134.)

First, 

Quote

Do you think women should never be allowed to hold the priesthood because God has ordained that only men hold the priesthood and it is a woman's role to only support that priesthood?

The Latter-day Saint Temple ritual openly speaks of "becoming priestesses."  Clearly, "never" is wrong.  And then Apostle Oaks spoke in a General Conference a few years back on how when any woman in the Church accepts any calling, that calling involves their use of Priesthood authority because "What other authority could it be?"

Second,

Quote

Do you think God forbids gay couples from falling in love, marrying and forming family relationships?

Since such things obviously happen, clearly God does not prevent such things.  I have a brother and a best friend whose spouses left them to enter into series of such relationships.  One eventually left off that decade long series and entered into a temple marriage.  The other did not but remains in the other life style.  The Latter-day Saint faith operates under the principle that "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  The recent legislation in Utah supporting Gay rights has been cited as exemplary, and the cooperation of the church was involved.  The leaders obviously do not recommend such relationships, and cite the proclamation on the Family in relation.  

Neither question, to me, engages what Hugh Nibley called "The Terrible Questions."

Quote

"The real question, of course, is Is this all there is? That is what everybody wants to know, the only question that bothers us. If you can answer that definitively, then our troubles are over, there is nothing left to worry about."  (See "The Terrible Questions" in Hugh Nibley, Temple and Cosmos, 339.)

I've been attending 12 Step Meetings for a little over 20 years, and one thing I notice is that typically a third to a quarter of those attending and sharing disclose same sex desires and experience.  In SA, many of these are men who are striving to stay in a heterosexual marriage, and in SAA, I see some who want to stay in a same sex marriage or relationship.  I do not assert that being gay is addiction, but that someone who is gay is just as vulnerable to addiction as someone bi or straight. One of the defining characteristics of sex addiction is the feeling that "sex is my most important need."  (Again, think of Kuhn and Edwards:  "Which problems are most significant to have solved?" and what do we decide is most important?).  It happens that physiologically speaking, addiction happens because at some point in life, a dopamine and other brain chemical "hit" became so profound as to trick the body into treating the cause of that hit to as equivalent to survival, as a physical need, rather than something optional even if desired.  (For the details, see the video "Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction").   It happens that 12 Step Recovery actually addresses and heals the physiological changes in the brain that underlie addiction.   The group support and boundaries adopted helps a person go without long enough for the body to heal of the increased desire, and the "searching and fearless moral inventory", story sharing that reduces shame, and dismantling of grievance stories removes feelings of entitlement, actually changes the way a person thinks and allows them to respond to threats by considering experience and consequences, rather than being launched into acting out by "triggers" and deal with consequences later.  The point of this is to demonstrate that I know from personal experience that assuming that the existence of heterosexual marriage demonstrates the unfairness of God in allowing some people sexual fulfillment while eternally condemning others to permanent frustration is not accurate.  In many cases, due to a range of physical and emotional issues, people in a heterosexual marriage may choose to go without in order to preserve family relationships.  They can best do if they have found a way to understand and feel that "sex is not my most important need, but is optional."  

So, "Which problems do I see as most significant to have solved?"  That God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that the Restoration is Real, that the Book of Mormon is authentic, and that the Book of Abraham is very very cool indeed.   And also that beyond the boundaries of the Latter-day Saint community that "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true."  (Alma 29:8)

FWIW,
Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited 7 hours ago by Kevin Christensen

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

My hope is that we can hold two ideas at the same time:

1. The restored gospel and its covenants truly are the Lord’s appointed way for us to receive the fulness of what He offers.
2. He is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing.

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.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

My hope is that we can hold two ideas at the same time:

1. The restored gospel and its covenants truly are the Lord’s appointed way for us to receive the fulness of what He offers.
2. He is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing.

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.

Could you elaborate on your perspective relative to item 2?

By way of example, I know of a young man who was raised in the Church, and then stepped away from it and did a bit of "riotous living."  Drugs and alcohol.  Petty crime.  And he got a girl pregnant.  She has substantial substance abuse/addiction issues, mental health issues, is unemployed and effectively unemployable.  She has no family except one grandmother who lives out of state.  He also has substance abuse issues.  He works, but does not make much money.  They have gotten together and split up a few times now.  She stopped the drugs and alcohol while pregnant and nursing, but she has been excited to wean the baby so she can get back to using those substances. 

I know the young man and his family quite well (mostly Latter-day Saints).  They are all interested in his well being and that of his son and on-and-off girlfriend.  They are all handling things pretty well.  I think they believe Heavenly Father "is merciful, and He works with each of His children individually, according to their own needs and timing," and according to their willingness. 

That said, do you think they are obligated to endorse and ratify what this young man did in setting aside the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom?  Is that what item 2 entails?  Does viewing the young man's behavior as wrong or sinful amount to rejecting item 2?  Or can they view it that way and still affirm item 2?

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Wow.  That's way out of line.  I don't think the Latter-day Saints should be viewing anyone as "irredeemable."

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Does that perspective mitigate, in your view, our obligation to repent in this life?

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

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.

Actually, I think many (most?) Latter-day Saints take a lot of comfort in our brand of universalism.  But is it possible that this concept can be misconstrued as an excuse to disobey the commandments, not repent, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac