Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Agreed. ..I hope the membership will just listen and follow the prophets' counsel.Then you do see the Church as doing something...at least the prophets?
yootaw Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Not sure how you got that since he was rather specific about the conditions: Perhaps I have misunderstood. That's why I asked for clarification. I haven't seen a direct response back yet, so I am still unclear, but I'm glad that you read it in a more positive light. What I read was "Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my contempt for you.", not "Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my leaving the church." I would like to understand better why rejecting the beliefs of your partner equate to showing contempt towards them. But as I mentioned, I may have misread this entirely.
cwald Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Then you do see the Church as doing something...at least the prophets?Absolutely. Don't condemn me because you sin differently than I do."Stop it."
cwald Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Don't agree....about the second part, agree with the first.If I understand him correctly based on other posts, he means anyone's opinion won't matter, only the truth....which will of course be the Lord's. In the end, no matter who you are--saint or sinner, slave or free, male or female, black, white or in between, it is God's opinion that matters.Okay. I get that.
Calm Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Then why this?:But I do see so many people struggle in faith crisis and the church has done nothing to address the issues.
cwald Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Then why this?:Touche'Absolutely.Don't condemn me because you sin differently than I do."Stop it."
Deborah Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I have been a member of the church for many years. In those years I have seen a lot of people leave, many apparently very strong in the faith, some so-so and for all different reasons. In all my years in the church I've never seen these people treated with contempt or anything but loving kindness. Of course family members are hurt, not understanding, and may try to persuade the person to re-evaluate the choice, but given time they learn to accept the agency of their loved one.The greatest problem comes of course when it affects the family relationship involving children. It is a breaking of the covenant made when the couple married and can have a destructive affect on the whole family. It would seem wise in such circumstances to remain in the church for the sake of the children, but there is today this selfish need to "be my true self" often at the cost of hurting others. This is why the church will not baptize a spouse or children without the other spouse's permission or the parents' permission.I have observed that problems really come in families not because the loved one leaves but because they begin openly attacking the faith of their loved ones and the faith they once espoused. This happened in my own family and almost tore my family apart until my family members realized the hurt they were causing friends and family who remained. Since they have stopped openly attacking there is peace and acceptance. Certainly making a public demonstration of denouncing the faith is one of those things that is so hurtful and harmful I can't begin to understand why someone would do it so they can "feel" better.I have observed in other cases where the family has tried to reach out to the wayward one but that person has built this wall that interprets everything as offensive. It isn't the family that is not accepting but the leaver who won't accept and twists everything into an offense.No doubt there are families who are totally rejecting but that is a family dynamic issue not a Mormon church issue. To blame the church for those situations is to avoid dealing with the main issue which is the family. 4
Jaybear Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 The greatest problem comes of course when it affects the family relationship involving children. It is a breaking of the covenant made when the couple married and can have a destructive affect on the whole family. It would seem wise in such circumstances to remain in the church for the sake of the children, but there is today this selfish need to "be my true self" often at the cost of hurting others. Based on what I have heard from apostates, when one spouse loses faith, the best thing that can happen to preserve and strengthen the marriage is to bring the other spouse into apostasy. I suspect, however, that most of you here are more concerned about the strength of the LDS church, than about the strength of apostates' marriages.
Jaybear Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Very funny Jaybear. Wasn't meant to be. You think the nonbeliever is selfish, putting his/her nonbelief ahead of the best interest of the marriage and family, by leaving the LDS Church.If that is the case, and I don't disagree, then its equally and perhaps even more selfish for the believing spouse to put his/her beliefs ahead of the best interest of the marriage and family by remaining in the LDS Church.If you take the best interest and presumed truth of the LDS Church out of the equation, the best advise to the couple could very well be leave the LDS Church and find another church to attend. You speak with disdain for the apostates need to "be my true self", but take as a given that a true believing Mormon must remain a Mormon.
Bit Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Wasn't meant to be. You think the nonbeliever is selfish, putting his/her nonbelief ahead of the best interest of the marriage and family, by leaving the LDS Church.If that is the case, and I don't disagree, then its equally and perhaps even more selfish for the believing spouse to put his/her beliefs ahead of the best interest of the marriage and family by remaining in the LDS Church.If you take the best interest and presumed truth of the LDS Church out of the equation, the best advise to the couple could very well be leave the LDS Church and find another church to attend. You speak with disdain for the apostates need to "be my true self", but take as a given that a true believing Mormon must remain a Mormon.The difference is, Jaybear, we believe that there are certain covenants (promises) that we make with God and with each other in a temple marriage. These covenants hold a strong emotional and spiritual place in the heart and mind of the Latter-day Saint. To break them is to deny what is perceived to be a holy promise with God and with your family.Your scenario just isn't the same. A former believer makes no covenants to unbelief. 1
why me Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Based on what I have heard from apostates, when one spouse loses faith, the best thing that can happen to preserve and strengthen the marriage is to bring the other spouse into apostasy.I suspect, however, that most of you here are more concerned about the strength of the LDS church, than about the strength of apostates' marriages.The apostate can be a very active missionary in attempting to get the spouse to follow. If they happen to be posting on exmormon boards, there is usually a daily update from the apostate in how the missionary effort is going. And if successful, there is much congratulation invovlved from the other apostates.Most of us here know what happens to apostate marriages with an active apostate missionary for a spouse.
why me Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 You speak with disdain for the apostates need to "be my true self", but take as a given that a true believing Mormon must remain a Mormon.Well, having been around awhile it usually goes like this: The apostate member attempts to get the spouse to follow. Out comes the books from Compton and Quinn. Then, come the internet copies of troubling issues that the spouse may not have heard about. This is a required to get the spouse to see the light. And each day, the apostate spouse harps and hounds about Joseph Smith being a sex crazed nut who was power minded and liar. Now the spouse can either succumb to the apostate missionary or leave the marriage because they are being abused by the other spouse.
William Schryver Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Based on what I have heard from apostates, when one spouse loses faith, the best thing that can happen to preserve and strengthen the marriage is to bring the other spouse into apostasy.I suspect, however, that most of you here are more concerned about the strength of the LDS church, than about the strength of apostates' marriages.This is a false dilemma. The question is not between "the strength of the LDS church" and the "strength of apostates' marriages". It's between salvation and damnation--which is an individual affair.
Jaybear Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Well, having been around awhile it usually goes like this: The apostate member attempts to get the spouse to follow. Out comes the books from Compton and Quinn. Then, come the internet copies of troubling issues that the spouse may not have heard about. This is a required to get the spouse to see the light. And each day, the apostate spouse harps and hounds about Joseph Smith being a sex crazed nut who was power minded and liar. Now the spouse can either succumb to the apostate missionary or leave the marriage because they are being abused by the other spouse.Try to show some objectivity here.What you see and characterize as abuse, they see as imparting truth to their loved ones. This is a false dilemma. The question is not between "the strength of the LDS church" and the "strength of apostates' marriages". It's between salvation and damnation--which is an individual affair.Fair point. But as I said....If you take the best interest and presumed truth of the LDS Church out of the equation, the best advise to the couple could very well be leave the LDS Church and find another church to attend.Do you disagree?
why me Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Try to show some objectivity here.What you see and characterize as abuse, they see as imparting truth to their loved ones.Do you disagree?I do disagree. It all depends on how the message is conveyed. I am sure that many apostate spouses badger the spouse into submission or the member spouse leaves. And then the apostate spouse blames the church for breaking up the marriage. If the apostate spouse is bringing this up every day and is mocking the spouse's beliefs, I would call it abuse and a shock to the believing spouse that their world has suddenly been turned upside down.
why me Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 But as I said....If you take the best interest and presumed truth of the LDS Church out of the equation, the best advise to the couple could very well be leave the LDS Church and find another church to attend.Do you disagree?Yes, I do. I think that the marriage can succeed as long as the apostate spouse doesn't start nagging the other spouse about her or his beliefs. If the spouse just goes inactive and still respects the spouse's beliefs, I can see the marriage still succeeding. It is only when the spouse becomes an active apostate does trouble begin.
John Larsen Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I take it families are more sympathetic and understanding if you invent a rejection ceremony which you perform at one of their fatih's historical sites and then have it publicized around the world? Don't worry, honey, I may reject everything you believe in, but at least I made a spectacle of my contempt for you.It was a state park. You inadvertantly point to the root of the problem. The Church thinks everything is there. We specifically and purposefully avoided any Chruch property. The site is maintained with my tax dollars and we had pulled permits. My co-existing, even in a state of difference does not signal contempt. When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along.
wenglund Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 In the end, I think that the only thing that the church can really do here is to promote a culture of understanding. I think that on the whole, this is the direction that the leadership of the church has taken.This is very good. However, I think the wrong question is being asked. Instead of looking to what the Church can do to make things better for individuals in cases of disaffection, the individuals ought to be asking what they, themselves, can do to make things better for themselves and others. This, to me, is the real thrust of the Golden Rule, where we empower and arm ourselves, as individuals, with strategies that will benefit ourselves and others, rather than shifting the onus elsewhere. This is also, to an extent, the trajectory of the restored gospel--which is why I suggested it as a solution. If people were to focus on Christ and becoming like him, doing good and loving one's neighbor, letting charity never fail, regardless of whether they do so as a member of the Church or former member, it increases the chances for amenable interpersonal relations, and at the very least it makes things workable for oneself.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
why me Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 It was a state park. You inadvertantly point to the root of the problem. The Church thinks everything is there. We specifically and purposefully avoided any Chruch property. The site is maintained with my tax dollars and we had pulled permits. My co-existing, even in a state of difference does not signal contempt. When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along.I would not want my tax dollars supporting people who are attempting to make a statement on state land about someone's church membership. Better to find private property.
Jaybear Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 The difference is, Jaybear, we believe that there are certain covenants (promises) that we make with God and with each other in a temple marriage. These covenants hold a strong emotional and spiritual place in the heart and mind of the Latter-day Saint. To break them is to deny what is perceived to be a holy promise with God and with your family.Your scenario just isn't the same. A former believer makes no covenants to unbelief.When one party to a contract breaches/repudiates the contract, the nonbreaching party is freed from the burdens of the contract.
John Larsen Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 I would not want my tax dollars supporting people who are attempting to make a statement on state land about someone's church membership. Better to find private property.Well in a pluralistic society we acknowledge and allow for speech that we don't agree with. I don't like all of the state dollars spent on "Pioneer Day". Maybe when you start your dictactorship, you can make sure that eveyone who pays to use the park (like we did) meets with you psychological agenda.
Jaybear Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 Yes, I do. I think that the marriage can succeed as long as the apostate spouse doesn't start nagging the other spouse about her or his beliefs. If the spouse just goes inactive and still respects the spouse's beliefs, I can see the marriage still succeeding. It is only when the spouse becomes an active apostate does trouble begin.I didn't say a mixed marriage "can't succeed". We can't have a reasoned discussion if you are going to change the question I asked, just so you can disagree.
stemelbow Posted July 3, 2012 Posted July 3, 2012 It was a state park. You inadvertantly point to the root of the problem. The Church thinks everything is there. We specifically and purposefully avoided any Chruch property. The site is maintained with my tax dollars and we had pulled permits. My co-existing, even in a state of difference does not signal contempt. When the Church sees that difference of opinion is not the same as hostility, we will all be better equipt to get along.I would agree, but I don't think hostility is as out of the equation as you let on. I don't mean to say you're being dishonest, per se, just not thinking clearly. I enjoyed your recent podcast about resigning, though.
Recommended Posts