My Wife's Encounter with some Lovely Ex-Mormons

[talisyn]

I really do not understand why people dislike church so much. 3 hours of gospel teaching, 3 hours of discussing the prophets (modern and olden), 3 hours of sheer sweet bliss of no outside world interfering with our journey down the path back to our Father in Heaven. We are not there to be entertained, that's what John Stewart is for.

My family once lived out in the middle of a desert about 65 miles from the nearest chapel and we weren't very active anyways, so we went to church about 3 times a year for 12 years. I can still remember the horrible longing to just be in the chapel. It was like losing a limb. You know it's there, you can feel it, but you cannot use it. Consig, maybe your wife needs to feel that same desperate hunger for the spoken words of the gospel and the company of any fellow Saints.

But I have a feeling your path has already been decided. Good luck and remember you guys are always welcome back

[Mudcat]

Truly as I said, and I think you know, it isn't a big thing. Your opinion that is.

Actually, my opinion is just as big a thing as your is. How you regard it is an entirely different matter.

Chuckle, well he certainly has strong convictions about himself, and of course the need to entertain his wife so that her testimony can be shared with others around her. I of course don't share that conviction with him.

Emphasis mine. I would agree with that. But why shouldn't he have strong convictions about himself. From what I have seen his self convictions are rooted in his beliefs and his studies of his beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with men of conviction and consider the trait admirable.

I meant the term cheerleader as (to paraphrase you) an observation. Plenty of cheerleaders out there. They rah rah, but don't add much to the game, at least not in substance.

Yes, I quite understand how you meant it Jeff, but thanks for restating your point. Its good to know that I was making a correct interpretation. I also caught the underlying sentiment of contrast, that you feel you are a player who adds substance to the game. Well I suppose in my rather worthless little opinion, you have as of yet offered any shred of substantive insight to the game. Sort of reminds me of the t-ball kids I have coached that would rather swill their fingers in the dirt and build sand castles in the baselines than stand up and play ball.... yet they are players on the field.

No, I think my summation is fairly accurate. No other reason seems apparent from our loquacious consigliari.

Accurate based upon what?... your rather caustic assumptions?

Mudcat wrote:

I certainly don't know what statement in specific you are referring to, but do you belong to that ward? Do you know anyone who does, other than Consig? Do you even know where that ward is? Have you spent any amount of time there? What special qualification allows you to not take his statement at face value?

Jeffs reply:

Well to answer your query.

Any group of people of say 300+ people from, one assumes 300+ separate families, with 300+ life distinct life experiences, and they are all dour faced and unhappy at being in church but come every Sunday. I sometimes play the odds in business when things are questionable, liklihoods and outcomes. I find the statement telling, more from its author than a characteristic from the ward. But feel free to accept everything on faith, I reserve such things for important matters.

Seems your reply is all assumption based. I'll take that as 'No' answer to you belonging to Consig's ward, knowing anyone that does, knowing where his ward is, spending any time there or having any special qualifications that allow you to not take his statements at face value.

That is all I wanted to know.

Keep the faith in the self aggrandized masses. I tend to be more cautious.

I find it poor judgment, that you following your own assumptions vs. accepting the information at hand is considered cautious. But that is your business.

[Calm]

Don't forget the napping. It's essential.

I totally agree, it's on my schedule every week after church.

[Deborah]

I totally agree, it's on my schedule every week after church.

My son often takes his nap during church. His wife has to jab him to wake him up. I suppose it's nice to finally be so relaxed he can sleep.

[erichard]

Okay, I'm going to open up here with everybody.

...--Consiglieri

Hi Consig,

Not that you need another response! People here definitely like you.

This is my advice: consider the possiblity that there is something the Lord wants you and your wife to do, and the church is simply not providing that work for you. Can the Lord have works independent of his Gentile church? Maybe you could go to church also.

You have a sincere testimony of the Gospel, and not just of the church. You have the power and faith to seek assignments from the Lord independent of any one else.

When I made the decision (long ago) to not sustain the church leadership, and to no longer participate until the controversies were settled, soon afterward I decided to visit my next door neighbor who I had waved to for some time, but never really talked to. Without home teaching assignments, etc, etc, I finally had enough time.

It turned out that he was my Grandmother's first cousin, and I ended up having many visits with him. My grandmother grew up in Provo, Utah and later married and moved to St. George. This neighbor, who enjoyed my company, knew endless things about the life my Grandmother grew up in, and many relatives and events I knew little about. I felt very edified and blessed by befriending this relative. I still believe the Lord led me to get to know him.

We all know that all is not well in Zion. We may not know what all the problems are, but we can still accept that the Lord will set his house in order eventually, and in the mean time we can go to the Lord independent of anyone else and seek assignments.

Just my advice.

Richard

[Bond...James Bond]

I totally agree, it's on my schedule every week after church.

Mormoni dormite!

(I assumed Mormon would be a 2nd declension masculine noun...otherwise you could go with Mormona for neuter 2nd or Mormonae for 1st, all vocative of course)

[Alf O'Mega]

It's time for you to leave this thread, Jeff. As originator of the thread, Consiglieri has the standing to excuse you, but he's probably too generous and not insecure enough to ask you himself. So I'm suggesting that you show a little class and leave without any further prompting. It will greatly improve my opinion of you, although I doubt that will be much incentive. In any case, it's the right thing to do.

[Somebodyz]

Truly as I said, and I think you know, it isn't a big thing. Your opinion that is.

Any need for this rudeness? Madcats opinion, is as valid as yours.

I meant the term cheerleader as (to paraphrase you) an observation. Plenty of cheerleaders out there. They rah rah, but don't add much to the game, at least not in substance.

Are you adding much to 'the game', with unkind remarks like this? How does that make you better? You criticise consigliari's wife for judging the ward, yet feel it's ok to judge consig and mudcat. Both who have offered much to the board. Mudcat has never been a mere cheerleader, he's a one of the fairest people on this board. Slow to anger and remarkable polite, even under provacation. One of those non-members,who makes this board a better place to be.

No, I think my summation is fairly accurate. No other reason seems apparent from our loquacious consigliari.

Without much info, many reasons could be guessed at. Other posters were able to offer support and ideas, without the rudeness. Sometimes it's not what's said, but how it's said.

It's time for you to leave this thread, Jeff. As originator of the thread, Consiglieri has the standing to excuse you, but he's probably too generous and not insecure enough to ask you himself. So I'm suggesting that you show a little class and leave without any further prompting. It will greatly improve my opinion of you, although I doubt that will be much incentive. In any case, it's the right thing to do.

I second this.

[Jeff K.]

I didn't say his opinion of what was going on was invalid, rather he was simply cheerleading on that one post.

Are you adding much to 'the game', with unkind remarks like this?

How does that make you better? You criticise consigliari's wife for judging the ward, yet feel it's ok to judge consig and mudcat. Both who have offered much to the board. Mudcat has never been a mere cheerleader, he's a one of the fairest people on this board. Slow to anger and remarkable polite, even under provacation. One of those non-members,who makes this board a better place to be.

THere is a difference between responding to a query and adding to the game, and I don't post to "feel better" or "feel worse". I post what I think nothing more. People who post to "feel better" have differen agendas.

Everything else you have stated I am not in disagreement with, but then it doesn't have much to do with what I posted either.

QUOTE

No, I think my summation is fairly accurate. No other reason seems apparent from our loquacious consigliari.

Without much info, many reasons could be guessed at. Other posters were able to offer support and ideas, without the rudeness. Sometimes it's not what's said, but how it's said.

Crux of the matter. No reasons were expressed. I know a structural engineer whose hobby is studying wooden trestles (yes I know go figure). He always enjoyed seeing an error here or there in which the wrong thing was supported since the wrong base of foundation was assumed.

[Jeff K.]

It's time for you to leave this thread, Jeff. As originator of the thread, Consiglieri has the standing to excuse you, but he's probably too generous and not insecure enough to ask you himself. So I'm suggesting that you show a little class and leave without any further prompting. It will greatly improve my opinion of you, although I doubt that will be much incentive. In any case, it's the right thing to do.

Didn't realize that was in the rules. So if I start a thread I can exclude anyone who disagrees with me or offers insight I disagree with? Wow, interesting. How does that work? A built in echo chamber perhaps?

Thank you for the suggestion. But no. And no, its not the right thing to do.

[beastie]

I don't think there is an easy solution to this.

While some LDS seem to be perfectly constructed to allow enjoyment of all aspects of the LDS lifestyle, including long, repetitive meetings, there are others who struggle with finding enjoyment in these same aspects. I do not think it should be a cause of condemnation or judgment - it's just different personalities.

My oldest sister, her husband, and four children, have been active mormons since her conversion in 1975. (well, the children came later) But her personality has never been conducive to enjoying the mormon lifestyle. She has headaches every Sunday without fail, and often experiences stress at dealing with members. She is a strong-minded woman who does not easily "suffer fools", so to speak, and certainly cannot abide the frequent underlying sexism she feels she experiences in the LDS culture. But even more than that, she has a more introspective, less social personality, and that type of personality isn't as comfortable with the type of glad-handing and socializing that is part of the LDS culture. She's struggled with this poor fit since the moment she joined the church. She has not found a solution, other than the occasional use of anti-depressants, but I'm not sure she really has found those helpful, either.

I also think that personality type has to do with how one deals with the works stressed in LDS salvation. Yes, of course, in the end, Mormons believe they are "saved" through Christ's grace, but they have to work for that exaltation. There are a lot of demands outlined, and it's easy for some personality types to feel constantly inadequate. Other personality types realize they need the prodding. But if someone already is fairly judgmental of him or herself, the constant prodding to be and do all the things the LDS lifestyle seems to require can be very stressful and even depressing.

The LDS lifestyle simply cannot, and does not, suit every personality type, and it's foolish to think it should. That's not how the world works. OTOH, this causes a lot of distress to people who genuinely believe in the church but just can't quite fit in. I am sorry that there is no easy solution for you, consig, and wish you well in continuing to work with this issue.

[Jeff K.]

Sigh, people you need to understand something.

Its not about disliking or liking someone. It is childish to have that standard in dialogue. I enjoy some of his remarks regarding the church and its history.

But that is beside the point not isn't it?

There are two issues here. One that was brought up was his somewhat "shock the ward" teaching that he brings up from time to time. That is not, nor ever was a part of gospel doctrine class. Its about helping people understand better. If he wants to shock and awe he can put together a group discussion held at his home, I do that for church history and history in general for members in my ward who wish to attend, its a nice social gathering.

The other issue is his wife.

Specifics were given.

1-She claims to still have a testimony

2-She hates going to church (and here I asked if we replace the word temple for church, what does that say?)

3-And finally, we are told the "entire" ward hates going to church (and you all find this credible?).

I have yet to see it articulated that she feels anything beyond boredom, which may be Consilieri's take on it since he is so easily bored with the rabble he teaches (after all no one wants to be there).

Now perhaps I am the only one not willing to put up with a tedious echo chamber and willing to post my thoughts on the subject. But I find it interesting that it coalesces around "liking someone" or not and not around the issues. It has nothing to do with "like". It has everything to do with 'why'.

[Tchild2]

I never enjoyed church services and rarely went even when I considered myself totally active. In fact, at Dixie college I used to attend the St. George temple once a week with all the old timers (I was the only under 60 temple goer) and couldn't get myself to suffer church services. It was excruciating for me.

To understand, you could get inside a small coffin and have someone close the lid down on you.

For your wife, the contradiction is that not only does she dislike LDS services, but that other LDS who also disliked church, have now found a happier alternative. That can definitely challenge one's beliefs and assumptions about their church, if not consciously, unconsciously for sure, which may manifest in ways not fully understood (like disliking church enough to refuse to go).

My feeling is that describing church as a "burden" is only part of the description. I found that the "burden" was interacting with people who seemed to feign and exhibit a fake religious veneer that I found utterly repugnant to my personality. That isn't most members, but enough to make the experience uncomfortable and unpleasant.

Happiness came to me when I could reconcile my inner feelings (I can't stand church) with my actions (I ain't going), with the final piece of the puzzle; the church isn't literally true for me. It may be "true" symbolically in some or a lot of ways, but not literally, and that freed me emotionally and physically from the tether that creates the constant tension / guilt of believing the church is true, but disliking it.

I don't have any advice, but I think that you and your wife's feelings are not uncommon at all, and are very normal. I think that is why you are a well liked poster; because you are refreshingly honest about your humanness. That is something we crave, but that is absent in LDS culture.

[aspire]

Hello Consiglieri,

After reading this entire thread the only thing I can say is; your wife is not alone. I have been a member for 30 years +. I do have a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I have friends in my ward that I have been attending with for ten years, and three hours on Sunday arenâ??t it either, I attend the temple (and love it), pay a full tithe, and dot all my i-s and cross all my t-s. I do attend church almost every Sunday because of my children. I donâ??t like going, with a dislike of RS most of all. I have no idea what will happen in ten years when all my children are grown and out of my home.

I have tried, but no longer find enjoyment in LDS church services.

With all my heart I wish I did, because I know I suppose to.

Jenn

[why me]

The key to finding happiness or contentment during church meetings is to realize that all are just average human beings trying to do what they believe needs to be done to be saved. Sure it would be great if all members were prototypes of joyce meyer or joel osteen or benny hinn. But...members are just human beings working in the world as teachers, janitors, business people, lawyers, cashiers etc. To be bored at church is to be bored with human beings. And there is no surprise there. Humans can be boring. But...at least people are trying to do what is right.

As for the EVs, I have seen them dancing in the aisles, praising Jesus and looking kinda of drugged out on Jesus. Not my cup of tea. But yes, the burden is small.

[why me]

Hello Consiglieri,

I have tried, but no longer find enjoyment in LDS church services.

With all my heart I wish I did, because I know I suppose to.

Jenn

We live in the age of instant enjoyment and entainment. Most humans are not that entertaining. Church members are just average people complete with 'warts' and boring personalities. Am I any different? Are you? I know that I am just human with boring aspects woven into my personality. But likewise, I can also have some exciting characteristics in my personality. What is a church? It is a group of likeminded people who come together to do what is expected of them: to serve and worship god. But at the end of the day, we are just boring human beings trying to do what we need to do to be saved.

Now to attend a church with a paid clergy...a clergy that has wonderful speakers and showmanship would be great. Certainly it would be entertaining. But not realistic since they have been trained to entertain.

[Alf O'Mega]

Didn't realize that was in the rules. So if I start a thread I can exclude anyone who disagrees with me or offers insight I disagree with? Wow, interesting. How does that work? A built in echo chamber perhaps?

Consiglieri sets the tone he hopes to have in this thread with the very first line: "Okay, I'm going to open up here with everybody." It's a signal that he will be sharing something very personal and anticipating everybody's good will in response. And for the most part he has had sensitive responses, even in some cases where his respondents have suggested that he and his wife look to themselves for the source of their discomfort. Your responses, in contrast, have been belligerent and insensitive. Such a stance is out of place in this particular thread, even if it might fit in comfortably in other threads.

I believe that you can recognize how out of step the spirit of your engagement is with that of this thread. Please reconsider your participation.

[saemo]

Consiglieri, you brought to mind something I have been reading and contemplating.

Saint Augustine, in a homily on the First Letter of John,

describes very beautifully the intimate relationship between prayer and

hope. He defines prayer as an exercise of desire. Man was created for

greatnessâ??for God himself; he was created to be filled by God. But his

heart is too small for the greatness to which it is destined. It must

be stretched. â??By delaying [his gift], God strengthens our desire;

through desire he enlarges our soul and by expanding it he increases

its capacity [for receiving him]â?. Augustine refers to Saint Paul, who

speaks of himself as straining forward to the things that are to come

(cf. Phil 3:13). He then uses a very beautiful image to

describe this process of enlargement and preparation of the human

heart. â??Suppose that God wishes to fill you with honey [a symbol of

God's tenderness and goodness]; but if you are full of vinegar, where

will you put the honey?â? The vessel, that is your heart, must first be

enlarged and then cleansed, freed from the vinegar and its taste. This

requires hard work and is painful, but in this way alone do we become

suited to that for which we are destined.

Even if Augustine speaks directly only of our capacity for God, it is

nevertheless clear that through this effort by which we are freed from

vinegar and the taste of vinegar, not only are we made free for God,

but we also become open to others. It is only by becoming children of

God, that we can be with our common Father. To pray is not to step

outside history and withdraw to our own private corner of happiness.

When we pray properly we undergo a process of inner purification which

opens us up to God and thus to our fellow human beings as well. In

prayer we must learn what we can truly ask of Godâ??what is worthy of

God. We must learn that we cannot pray against others. We must learn

that we cannot ask for the superficial and comfortable things that we

desire at this momentâ??that meagre, misplaced hope that leads us away

from God. We must learn to purify our desires and our hopes. We must

free ourselves from the hidden lies with which we deceive ourselves.

God sees through them, and when we come before God, we too are forced

to recognize them. â??But who can discern his errors? Clear me from

hidden faultsâ? prays the Psalmist (Ps 19:12 [18:13]). Failure to

recognize my guilt, the illusion of my innocence, does not justify me

and does not save me, because I am culpable for the numbness of my

conscience and my incapacity to recognize the evil in me for what it

is. If God does not exist, perhaps I have to seek refuge in these lies,

because there is no one who can forgive me; no one who is the true

criterion. Yet my encounter with God awakens my conscience in such a

way that it no longer aims at self-justification, and is no longer a

mere reflection of me and those of my contemporaries who shape my

thinking, but it becomes a capacity for listening to the Good itself. (from the encyclical letter Spe Salvi (Saved By Hope), by Pope Benedict XVI)

Sometimes, I think we desire to fill our hearts with God, but are not quite sure how, or not quite sure where. We can turn to formulas, routines, duties and even others. This is not what we depend upon. We depend upon God. He is our Hope, our Salvation, our very reason for existing at all. Being fiercely independent, as I have been my whole life, makes for a particular difficulty. That of, putting your reliance in God, wholly and completely. It is not easy, and can be very painful, but in my experience God will not let you down.

All these fears your wife has about who will think what. God should be her only concern. Listening to where He is leading and not fearing to follow. His burden is indeed light, but sometimes we like to hang onto our own burdens. They give us comfort, in a strange way. When we give them to God, sacrifice what we hang onto out of comfort and fear, we make room for receiving Him into our hearts and our lives.

Pray for courage.

[beastie]

But yes, the burden is small.

This is often repeated among LDS, so I must point this out - I have friends who are active members of other faiths that are just as occupied and busy with their church as LDS are.

BTW, whyme, are you active?

[Deborah]

This is often repeated among LDS, so I must point this out - I have friends who are active members of other faiths that are just as occupied and busy with their church as LDS are.

No they are not. They don't prepare talks and lessons nor do visiting and home teaching. They may do other things, but so do LDS as well as all the responsbilities they have in callings and assignments.

[auteur55]

I used to feel this burden that the lovely ex-mormons are speaking of. It was an anxiety about being a good enough Mormon and a constant stress about living up to the standards set for me by the church.

Once I grew to understand the atonement I realized I could put this burden on the Lord and I was never meant to carry this burden. Instead I was to do my best to be a good person, strive to live an honest virtuous life. Once I did this I free'd myself from any feelings of inadequacy and I don't beat myself up for falling short. I've also refused to change anything about who I really am to try and conform to what a model LDS is supposed to be. I feel this has been the church's gain.

I too find church an excercise in personality-less tedium but I try to bring more to the table. 3 hours a week is not a big ask to spend in contemplating spiritual things. If I am bored with a speaker I read the scriptures. If sunday school get's dull I either study the scriptures alone or I try to make interesting comments to liven things up. If Elders Quorum is getting boring I volunteer to teach the next week and I try to liven it up. At least these meetings are controlled, have a purpose and end when the bell rings the meeting is done. Because of this I don't have a problem with church so much as I do the meetings that come before and after. The unnecessary Sunday and Saturday night meetings, the correlation meetings that are longer then they need to be, missionary meetings where tangents lead us to stay an extra 30 minutes necessary...it's the disrespect of my time that I find unbearable.

There's no better place on earth for us to be on Sunday then at church. It is an opportunity to mingle with the saints, build the kingdom and find way's to grow spiritually. I don't think this time would be better served sitting at home or going on a picnic. We tend to be selfish in this regard and forget that there are others that faithfully go to church who are just as bored as we are. Their burdens are greater and their boredom is greater when we stay at home and don't help lighten their load.

Consig I would say this ward needs you and your wife more than any other. If a ward is lifeless and boring then think how bad it would be if you tucked tail and ran. I think we have a duty to try to change the ward we are in. I just moved into another ward here in Ohio. Me and my wife were asked to speak and I took a completely different approach to my talk and really put effort into making it entertaining, uplifting and unlike anything they have ever heard. The result....several members came up to us afterward and said it was the best sacrament they attended in months. One member said we raised the ward up to another level. What this shows to me is that members are starving for great uplifting talks, they are are starving to be edified and hear something different.

I was just called as an Assistant Ward Clerk in the ward. I have never hated a calling more. I am kept at church hours longer then necessary because the 2nd counselor in the bishopric loves to tell long stories and can't stop talking. I also am starting to feel like this is turning into a second job and it bleeding any spirituality I would feel at church (I often miss Sunday School because I am doing welfare checks). Despite all this I find I'm gaining a new perspective and love for the members after seeing how generous their offerings are. I also know I play an important role in helping many get needed welfare. I try to keep this perspective while I do a job that is the opposite of my personality and skill set.

[BenMacKay]

I have read this entire thread...spending way more time than I should doing so. But it has been fascinating.

First of all, I'm pretty surprised at the generalizations made by Jeff K. Rather pointed, unfair, and caustic generalizations I might add. Am I the only one on this board who actually knows Consiglieri personally - in the real world? (Maybe Sceptre who's in the stake to the north? Good to know someone else is from our neck of the woods!) The "sage on the stage" comments that Jeff K. has apparently extrapolated from Consiglieri's posts is shocking in their demonstrated ignorance. You're making quite an assessment on very little evidence; and, I might add, (from what I can tell from your posts) absolutely no personal experience.

While I have never attended Consiglieri's GD class, I have worked with him on other projects in our stake. I have a very sincere respect for Consiglieri's honesty, intellect, and commitment to the gospel. The person I probably know from his family the best is his now-21 year old daughter. I have worked with the youth a long time, and interacted with her weekly in a seminary setting for three years. (BTW Consig: glad to hear she's attending church again; I can see where her questions may come from; regardless I always thought, and still think, she would make a great missionary; she's a wonderful young woman.) There are some things Consig says that probably shock some people, but it is to get people thinking. I, for one, value his insights and understanding. Of course, I'm obviously making that statement from a limited data set as well since I'm basing that mostly on personal interaction and I haven't been as frequent a reader on this board as I would like over the last several months. But hopefully I can offer a little counterpoint to some of the assessments already made.

Regardless, the quandary that Sister Consiglieri is facing is a difficult one. Sometimes we operate under the assumption that everyone is either happy or miserable at church; depending on your perspective. And even though we know that such a generalization is unfair and inaccurate, in the emotion of the moment, it's hard to get past that perception. My wife and I recently taught a joint RS/Priesthood lesson on FHE and the most frequent comment I got afterwards was, "I'm so glad FHE is so chaotic in your house as well; why are we so afraid to talk so directly about things like that sometimes?" (We have four children 9 and younger.)

There is an interesting dynamic in the church, and every other religious community that I know of, by the way, and that is the "museum of saints/hospital for sinners" conundrum. We sometimes believe we intellectually understand the latter, but for some reason we always want to be one of the former. In reality, we're all the latter. It's human nature in our LDS community to want to know "how we're doing" in the eternal scheme of things, and the outward commandments are the most easy and tangible to use in our self-evaluation. And those are the ones most easily comparable. It's a fallacy that we so easily fall into, but it's a whole lot easier to do and gauge than the internal, heart and soul centric evaluation that actually really counts.

As for other churches, I sometimes think of all the things some people I know that are my age and younger have accomplished in life, and wonder why I'm so behind and why I haven't hit the same milestones. I remember having a conversation with my counterpart in the YW in our stake, a friend for whom I have the highest respect. She is a gifted artist, and was once feeling a little disappointed that she hadn't accomplished as much as a young "up and comer" she read about in BYU Magazine. She than said something that I'll never forget: "But she doesn't have to be Stake YW President; and you know, I wouldn't trade my experiences in this calling for anything." I feel the same. The experiences I have had with so many wonderful youth over the last 7+ years are worth more to me than any professional award I've ever received - or not received. We all go through periods of energy and strain in church. We all sometimes feel the pang of "why not me?" or "why is my burden so heavy?" or "why can't I relate to others in my ward?" Sometimes there are real personal conflicts and misunderstandings and challenges that only that individual and the Savior truly understand. To make a sweeping statement like "just buck up and go" is as ignorant as "just leave since it's not true anyway."

Ultimately, we go to church to worship and follow the Savior, regardless of how boring it may be. I am a true believer in the principle of "you get out what you put in" but nothing is ever quite as simple as one-liners and cliches. I, for one, hope that you and your wife can find some measure of peace and refuge in your church attendance, Consig. Little by little, that Spirit will increase and pretty soon it won't be so much of a cross to bear but rather a yoke that is easy to bear. After all, the Savior could completely change the church meeting format tomorrow if He wanted. He could say the Sabbath day is Tuesday, that women have the priesthood, that we should go to the temple weekly and sacrament meeting monthly, that we should go to 5 hours of church instead of 3, or 2 instead of 3. He could do all those things and the primary purpose of going to church would be exactly the same: to grow closer to the Savior Jesus Christ as individuals, and help as many people around us do the same along the way.

Ben

[beastie]

No they are not. They don't prepare talks and lessons nor do visiting and home teaching. They may do other things, but so do LDS as well as all the responsbilities they have in callings and assignments.

Just because the jobs they do at their church have different names doesn't mean that they aren't demanding and occupying. Of course, I'm referring to the most active of the congregations. There are many members who don't do anything other than attend on sunday - but there are LDS who are the same way. Of course the most demanding job - the equivalent of a bishop - is a paid, full-time position in many faiths (not all - and I say it ought to be, rather than create stress for the family by having the father work full time AND have a second full time job at church), but most of the rest of the work is done by unpaid, volunteer believers.

I find it remarkable you feel as if you're enough of an authority on the religious demands of other faiths that you feel able to make such categorical statements. IIRC, Jehovah Witnesses are supposed to tract 5 hours a week for the rest of their lives. Do most LDS do that?

[why me]

This is often repeated among LDS, so I must point this out - I have friends who are active members of other faiths that are just as occupied and busy with their church as LDS are.

BTW, whyme, are you active?

There is a difference. The catholics and EVs that I know attend church and basically that is it. Nothing wrong in that. But the burden is small when compared to the lds who are involved in serving their church through talks, callings. and meetings. Without the members doing the work the lds church would fall apart. But with a paid clergy and no priesthood among the ordinary membership, the burden is certainly lighter for average protestants and catholics.

No I am not active. But I do attend meetings when I can. And when I do, I give the people the benefit of doubt and see their humanness as ordinary people trying their best.

[why me]

Just because the jobs they do at their church have different names doesn't mean that they aren't demanding and occupying. Of course, I'm referring to the most active of the congregations. There are many members who don't do anything other than attend on sunday - but there are LDS who are the same way. Of course the most demanding job - the equivalent of a bishop - is a paid, full-time position in many faiths (not all - and I say it ought to be, rather than create stress for the family by having the father work full time AND have a second full time job at church), but most of the rest of the work is done by unpaid, volunteer believers.

I find it remarkable you feel as if you're enough of an authority on the religious demands of other faiths that you feel able to make such categorical statements. IIRC, Jehovah Witnesses are supposed to tract 5 hours a week for the rest of their lives. Do most LDS do that?

I think that you know perfectly well what I am talking about. The lds church requires all members to do their part. True, there are church bums like me but when one is active, one is active by doing the work involved to keep the ward or branch afloat. A ward of back benchers would mean the ward faltering and falling apart.