A Very Refreshing Ensign Article...Cudos To The Church

[Damien the Leper]

Wow- even I'm not that tactless.

Good thing you're being sarcastic- some fool might believe that nonsense.

Good thing there is not a single ounce of merit or truth to the sarcastic response, as well.

And I'm not being sarcastic either.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Valentinus

[nutshell]

You might as well join the Community of Christ, who have already implemented the "open-mindedness" you are so keen on- instead of trying to make the LDS Church into their image.

What to do with all of those suffering a crisis of faith? Fathers, mothers, spouses, children? Is their really some minimal list beyond simply love?

[Senator]

Wonderful story.

However, not all LDS spouses react the same way to loss of belief as this author did.

Indeed, some have viewed the loss of belief in and of itself as justification to leave or divorce an otherwise loyal father/husband(mother/wife). I find that truely sad.

[selek1]

Good thing there is not a single ounce of merit or truth to the sarcastic response, as well.

I agree.

All Too often, we see divorces occur when things get rocky or when folks just aren't happy.

Those who equate marriage with uninterrupted happiness do so a thier own peril- because once the happiness is interrupted, essentially so is the marriage.

In reality marriage goes through cycles. There will be some good years, some bad- but both are transitory.

Membership in the Church- and even faith itself- are likewise variable.

What seems pressing and insurmountable today will likly be forgotten tomorrow,

What might seem impossible to reconcile in this hour of trial may well become the granite foundation of an unshakable faith tomorrow.

Speaking from personal experience, I can attest that a part-faithful marriage is not an easy road to walk- but neither is it the end of the road.

Unless the spouse is actively trying to destroy your faith or that of your children, or is violating the marriage covenant through adultery or abuse, then patience, love, and compassion should be our watchwords.

Marriage covenants are still "for better or worse, in sickness and in health". We pledge our love and fidelity to our spouse through good times and bad.

That pledge should only be abrogated when there is no other choice, and only after much prayerful consideration.

Edited June 22, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

There are positives, certainly. Most church members are very nice, no doubt about it, even after they inevitably become nonplussed when I persistently hang out on the couch in the foyer and tell them I haven't held a calling or taken the sacrament for 20 years. Why do I avoid GD and Elder's Quorum? I don't tell ward members this, but it's because that's where all of the dinosaurs do their thing. Sacrament meeting messages, although typically boring, are a lot better to sit through. I can always get something out of those, even if there's seldom anything I haven't heard a thousand times before.

Try volunteering for ward library, keeps you busy, gives you a safe haven and you likely will have time to check the computer or read a book as well and it gives someone who might want to be in class the opportunity to do so...win-win all around (I volunteer for library service because I can't sit down long and would be roaming the halls a good deal or squirming uncomfortable in the back of the room trying not to be distracting to others).

[jmason]

The following is from Elder Marlin K. Jensen (I think). Note the super-orthodox "there will be a division among the people and we are seeing this now" or "unbelief is a sin and you'd better get with the program" personality is characterized as not "helpful in most cases." And that is the problem with this type of church personality. Are we interesting in helping, or being right as per our often uncharitable and literalistic interpretation of the scriptures? Or do we wish to be loving and merciful, and then genuinely helpful.

"We need to do the same for those people who are feeling disaffected – for whatever reason… doctrinally, or socially. I mean, if we really are truly Christian, it has to start there. Being less judgmental. Being more open and welcoming and inclusive. Someone asked Robert Frost once, 'What's the ugliest word in the English language?' And he said, 'Exclusive.' I think it is, too, in a way. So, if that environment can be created, and it should be, but often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he'll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn't know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, 'Get in line and don't question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.' And that isn't helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what's brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.

"It's a different generation. Everything's out there for them to consume if they want to Google it. There's no sense kidding ourselves. We need to be very upfront with them, tell them what we know, and give answers to what we have, and let them fall on their faith for things that we don't completely understand."

[Calm]

with out the need to use anonymose authors...let the sun shine in

If the ultimate aim of the Church is to create a home where testimonies as well as love can flourish, then keeping such things anonymous is likely wise as it is easier to change one's mind if one hasn't taken a public position insisting one is right, etc. Why not just keep personal struggles personal?

[Calm]

Refreshing article and a possitive direction for the church to acknowledge those in this situation.

Just wanted to point out again this is not a new direction for the Church, it has been publishing such articles for quite some time.

[Calm]

I hope the church membership will gravitate towards a more Universal message of acceptance and love and understanding, rather than the "us select LDS few will be separated from the rest of you in the Celestial Kingdom." type of posts I've read on this thread.

The Church has one of the most universal messages of acceptance and love out there. The Celestial Kingdom is open to all regardless of their current status and judgement is not even dependent on the state of the individual at death, but rather after he has been fully taught the gospel and given a realistic chance to repent of his or her mistakes, sins, misunderstandings, etc. The tent is more than large enough. It encompasses the world and beyond.

The only thing that needs to increase is an understanding of what God's judgment entails and when and how the final judgment will take place. The only judgment that anyone can make right now is expressing opinions on what a person values most in this mortality....which may change (though it may be hard to do so) when confronted with the actual relative value of things like money and power and love and family and righteousness and being one with not only God, but God's family in the eternities.

Edited June 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

CWALD -

While I respect your opinion, I can not be ok with making the tent so big that we become a universalist church. if you change the fundamental beliefs of the faith I will feel no different then the monk Elder holland referred to when he said

"“Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”

I joined this church because of it's bold claims and spiritual witness. I do not want a church that is wishy washy and has no theological standard or a very losse one. So then who has the right to get what they want.... you or me? the answer is neither.

This isn't a church where we get to vote on what we believe (no common consent posts there is a difference) God is, or how he is defined. The church takes a stand on what it believes God has revealed to it, and are you or me to define it for them. It isn't. We might please for them to be more defined on what is the doctrine and what isn't, we might be able to ask for more background or information, but we can not tell the church what it's doctrine is. IMHO that is crossing the line. Like every church there are fundamental points that can't change, at least not without revelation.

Hope you can understand where I am coming from.

[Craig Paxton]

It’s been a long time since I was a regular reader of the Ensign...so articles like this may be very common...but for me it was a first. It was refreshing in its tone and in its unjudging manner towards the unbelieving husband. I also appreciated the underlying narrative that was projected for "other" spouses who find themselves in a similar situation...to just love their spouses and allow them their agency and respect them rather than judge them for their respective choices

[altersteve]

In the context of LDS doctrine, there is no distinction of belief between on or the other. One cannot believe in God and simultaneously reject His Church.

Right. So everyone who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a sinful atheist. Okay.

[DBMormon]

JMASON -

Are we interesting in helping, or being right as per our often uncharitable and literalistic interpretation of the scriptures? Or do we wish to be loving and merciful, and then genuinely helpful.

All Elder Jensen is saying is that we need to give more information and be more empathetic, he is not suggesting we loosen our beliefs and make the tent bigger. Just that we love and care people into the tent rather then checking id as the tent door.

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[cinepro]

Just wanted to point out again this is not a new direction for the Church, it has been publishing such articles for quite some time.

Sounds interesting. Do you have some links to the other articles?

[nutshell]

“Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”

Deja vu – takes me back to watching Larry King Live one night.

[cwald]

Thanks DBmormon. I appreciate your respectful response, even if we disagree.

[Defender]

CWALD -

While I respect your opinion, I can not be ok with making the tent so big that we become a universalist church. if you change the fundamental beliefs of the faith I will feel no different then the monk Elder holland referred to when he said

I joined this church because of it's bold claims and spiritual witness. I do not want a church that is wishy washy and has no theological standard or a very losse one. So then who has the right to get what they want.... you or me? the answer is neither.

This isn't a church where we get to vote on what we believe (no common consent posts there is a difference) God is, or how he is defined. The church takes a stand on what it believes God has revealed to it, and are you or me to define it for them. It isn't. We might please for them to be more defined on what is the doctrine and what isn't, we might be able to ask for more background or information, but we can not tell the church what it's doctrine is. IMHO that is crossing the line. Like every church there are fundamental points that can't change, at least not without revelation.

Hope you can understand where I am coming from.

I agree. It can be tough when you have unbelievers who you love, but at some point you have to decide if you stand with God, or with man. Someone who stops believing the church is in sin. Once you have a testimony, and then turn from that testimony, you have committed the worst sin imaginable. This Ensign article written by an anonymous person concerns me. It seems to justify apostacy. What type of influence will this man have on his children? If he does not repent and return, he is destined for outer darkness. I don't know what the correct answer is, but it doesn't seem like simply accepting his behavior is the right course.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Defender

[nutshell]

This Ensign article written by an anonymous person concerns me.

What should likely concern us is why the woman feels the need for remaining anonymous.

[Calm]

Once you have a testimony, and then turn from that testimony, you have committed the worst sin imaginable.

That would depend on how you turned from that testimony and what that testimony was in the first place.

[Calm]

What should likely concern us is why the woman feels the need for remaining anonymous.

As I stated before, change is easier if everyone doesn't have a set expectation of you. That way you only have to fight against your own inertia, not against the inertia created by others' expectations.

[KevinG]

Sounds interesting. Do you have some links to the other articles?

We have been taught many reasons for falling away in the church. In my observation blaming a particular hidden or public sin is more of a family or ward dysfunction than a lack of proper instruction. It is like those who Christ admonished because they assumed the parents of an afflicted child were guilty of some sin.

The parable of the sewer talks about many reasons for apostasy; offense, sin, lack of support, false traditions... In our Church history we learn of those who apostatized for sin, others when taking offense, others still by having a lukewarm attitude and a lack of testimony.

I think a main cause in our day is our hearts being set upon the things of this world. And not just idolatry- but allowing ourselves to be so overwhelmed by worldly concerns that we fail to take time for those things that will keep us close to God.

D&C 40:2 And he ^areceived the word with gladness, but straightway Satan^btempted him; and the fear of ^cpersecution and the cares of the world caused him to ^dreject the word.

There are as many reasons as there are individuals. The Church has taught this in every dispensation and this one is no exception.

[KevinG]

What should likely concern us is why the woman feels the need for remaining anonymous.

I think it is appropriate to allow Saints to share their struggles without being subject to personal judgement and gossip. Just look at this thread alone and ask yourself why anyone would submit to public scrutiny of their personal struggles? This is definitely a lesson to share but a personal story to be held sacred and private.

[John Ping Pong]

It can be tough when you have unbelievers who you love, but at some point you have to decide if you stand with God, or with man.

But when the "man" you are standing with is your husband, do you not think that changes things? Even a little?

I am afraid it is your type of thinking that would justify divorce simply because one Mormon spouse ceases to believe.

I think that is a bad road to go down.

And it is at this juncture that King Benjamin's admonition takes on its greatest meaning--"When ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God."

[DBMormon]

Someone who stops believing the church is in sin. Once you have a testimony, and then turn from that testimony, you have committed the worst sin imaginable.

This is a bunch of junk. Sorry, but who are you to pass this judgement accross the board on people for being sinners due to loss of faith.

[Defender]

This is a bunch of junk. Sorry, but who are you to pass this judgement accross the board on people for being sinners due to loss of faith.

You are calling LDS doctrine a bunch of junk? Apostacy is not only a sin, but the greatest of all sins. It is funny that members will shun a family member for having a cup of coffee, yet try to be understanding when a family member apos0tatizes. Do you think the Ensign would publish an article about a woman whose husband started drinking beer every night while looking at porn, but she needs to learn to love him and accept him because he is just practicing free agency?