Are There Valid Reasons to Leave the Church?

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

And you have done a wonderful job of publishing on those best books in which you find words of wisdom, such as those written by Margaret Barker.

But is not the finding of such wisdom from those "best books" separate and distinct from your being a member of the LDS Church?

From your last sentence quoted above, I take it the answer is probably yes.

 

Actually, the answer is no.  My seeking out of the best books has been intimately and inextricably intertwined with my Mormon identify, especially in exploring and defining what that means in terms of understanding and commitment.   My personal testimony began with the Book of Mormon.  My intellectual awakening came with a reading of Truman Madsen's Eternal Man, and Nibleys An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  My own personal questing in the Bible came as I sought to understand why other people did not believe what I found so compelling and persuasive.  (That eventually led to the FAIRMormon essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets).  Tracking down all things Nibley led to my discovery of BYU Studies and Dialogue and Sunstone, and a wide range of Mormon scholars.  Trying to situate my admittedly provincial suburban background within the larger context of comparative world religion and mythology and experience led to Ninan Smart, Joseph Campbell, Northop Frye, Thomas Kuhn, and NDE literature, and that in turn opened my eyes as I considered the implications for my own faith and understanding. Testing the strengths of what I learned by reading Brodie, the Tanners, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Emerson, and many others led to the discovery that I at times had something to say as a Mormon.  My response to reading Margaret Barker was, as the title of my first publication states, a consideration of her "Significance for Mormon Studies."

And incidentally, "one and only true and living," is NOT a quotation of D&C 1, which says something very different, and could set up a very different set of expectations for LDS identity, and therefore, could and should lead to a very different experience of membership in the church.  One thing I got from reading The Changing World of Mormonism is that Jerald Tanner's notion of the church as supposedly possessing exclusive and complete truth as well as perfect leaders and morally superior members is expressly contradicted in D&C 1, which formally, bluntly, and expressly declares our imperfection, incompleteness, and our non-exclusiveness with respect to truth, virtue, and revelation. What he considered outrageous and decisive, I take utterly for granted by formal definition. Consequently, he wasted his life.

The distinctive "well pleasingness" applied to the collective, and not individuals, has to do with the voice of warning, priesthood, ordinances, temple, covenants, ongoing revelation including the Book of Mormon. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Glenn101]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But the worst criteria of all has to be that whatever Church leaders tell us must be right simply by virtue of the fact that they are Church leaders.

Agreed?

I think that maybe Brigham Young himself would agree with that.

 

However, if you were to believe a bevy of bloggers on the internet and many posters on this board, it would seem that the church leaders hardly ever get anything right.

 

I do not have faith in church leaders. I have faith that Jesus Christ is at the head of the church.

 

[salgare]

21 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And incidentally, "one and only true and living," is NOT a quotation of D&C 1, which says something very different, and could set up a very different set of expectations for LDS identity, and therefore, could and should lead to a very different experience of membership in the church.

Glenn101 states

" It does not matter what personal beefs one may have with any policy or doctrine, if the Church is the one true church. Jesus Christ is the only way and he has established only one church. "

Kevin, would you please elaborate on what you are referring to here?  It seems to me that the large majority of orthodox members believe in the "one true church" but it also seems like the Church is trying to back down on the truth claims.

[Kevin Christensen]

8 minutes ago, salgare said:

Glenn101 states

" It does not matter what personal beefs one may have with any policy or doctrine, if the Church is the one true church. Jesus Christ is the only way and he has established only one church. "

Kevin, would you please elaborate on what you are referring to here?  It seems to me that the large majority of orthodox members believe in the "one true church" but it also seems like the Church is trying to back down on the truth claims.

I'll quote from a formal publication of my reading of D&C 1 in an Interpreter essay:

The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants was received in Hiram, Ohio on November 1, 1831, as a formal statement of “mine authority, and the authority of my servants.” (v 6). The leading verses describe how people have “strayed from mine ordinances and have broken mine everlasting covenant.” Verse 17 describes the calling of Joseph Smith in response, and verse 18 describes how God also gave commandments to unspecified [Page 133]“others.” Later, God explains that “I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh; for I am no respecter of persons.” (v 34-35). Truth and revelation here are important for LDS claims, but both are expressly non-exclusive.

Speaking of the LDS leaders against the notion of absolute and actual truth as static and unchanging, see verses 24-28:

These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known;

And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent;

And inasmuch as they were made humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes.

My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of true and living cast light on the meaning: “true vine,” “true treasure,” “truth and life,” “tree of life,” “living bread,” “living waters,” “new and living way through the veil” (Hebrews 10:20); and “true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22). The Bible imagery of “true and living” has to do with the voice of warning (Jeremiah 10:10, and D&C 1:2), priesthood (true vine, John 15:1-5), living bread and living waters (sacrament and baptism, Holy Spirit inspiration, scripture; that is, ordinances and covenants and revelation), and finally, tree of life and “living way through the veil,” which both point to the temple and Christ’s role as the Melchizedek High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹ The themes that go with Biblical “true and living” imagery parallel the themes of D&C 1 point for point, verse for verse. Collectively all of these Bible images based on “true and/or living” center on the ongoing revelation and the distinctive priesthood ordinances and covenants, scriptures and temple worship that do, in actual fact and practice, distinguish the LDS from other faiths. But the designation is expressly non-exclusive and incomplete relative to truth, revelation, and human virtue. Riskas refers to “‘the only true Church’ on the face of the earth today,” but he has not considered the fact of his misquotation⁵⁰ and consequent inaccuracy of thought, and therefore he has not considered the implications of his own misreading as a “multiplier of negative effects.”⁵¹ My point is that the expectations that I get from a close reading of D&C 1 are far more tolerant and robust than the expectations that Riskas uses to test LDS truth claims. I can matter-of-factly expect many of the same things that he sees as decisive anomalies. My assumptions make a different set of predictions for Mormonism. Different predictions direct me to different methods, problem fields, and standards of solution.

Of course, it’s easy to object that many LDS think and behave as though D&C 1 says exactly what it does not say. There happens to be a very good reason for the common misreading that goes beyond repetition and commonplace thinking. Brigham Young commented that “there is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.”⁵² One of the ways that has helped me better understand “men and women as they are” has been the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. The Perry Scheme is based on a study of the way students develop during their college years in moving from provincial communities to a diverse university environment.⁵³ Here are Positions 1 and 2 of 9:

Position 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms—Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will [Page 136]teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them.

Position 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are true authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.⁵⁴

The point here is that the attitude toward a group’s authorities that Riskas sees as a distinctive Mormon claim applies to a position of human development that everyone faces regardless of their cultural background. Because Mormons are human, these positions will always be found among Mormons. But it is not a binding Mormon doctrine, simply an expected expression of human attitude toward their chosen society at a particular level of personal growth. As I have shown, D&C 1 expressly contradicts the assumptions of these initial positions and thereby encourages further growth. Later, I’ll return to the Perry Scheme and show how Joseph Smith compares to the later positions, demonstrating cognitive and ethical growth in the prophet that Riskas, who is clearly stuck at Position 2, does not show. Riskas has merely exchanged the locations of his labels for those who he sees as TRUE authorities and those who are confused and are frauds.

From http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[consiglieri]

38 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Actually, the answer is no.  My seeking out of the best books has been intimately and inextricably intertwined with my Mormon identify, especially in exploring and defining what that means in terms of understanding and commitment.   My personal testimony began with the Book of Mormon.  My intellectual awakening came with a reading of Truman Madsen's Eternal Man, and Nibleys An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  My own personal questing in the Bible came as I sought to understand why other people did not believe what I found so compelling and persuasive.  (That eventually led to the FAIRMormon essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets).  Tracking down all things Nibley led to my discovery of BYU Studies and Dialogue and Sunstone, and a wide range of Mormon scholars.  Trying to situate my admittedly provincial suburban background within the larger context of comparative world religion and mythology and experience led to Ninan Smart, Joseph Campbell, Northop Frye, Thomas Kuhn, and NDE literature, and that in turn opened my eyes as I considered the implications for my own faith and understanding. Testing the strengths of what I learned by reading Brodie, the Tanners, Freud, Bertrand Russell, Emerson, and many others led to the discovery that I at times had something to say as a Mormon.  My response to reading Margaret Barker was, as the title of my first publication states, a consideration of her "Significance for Mormon Studies."

And incidentally, "one and only true and living," is NOT a quotation of D&C 1, which says something very different, and could set up a very different set of expectations for LDS identity, and therefore, could and should lead to a very different experience of membership in the church.  One thing I got from reading The Changing World of Mormonism is that Jerald Tanner's notion of the church as supposedly possessing exclusive and complete truth as well as perfect leaders and morally superior members is expressly contradicted in D&C 1, which formally, bluntly, and expressly declares our imperfection, incompleteness, and our non-exclusiveness with respect to truth, virtue, and revelation. What he considered outrageous and decisive, I take utterly for granted by formal definition. Consequently, he wasted his life.

The distinctive "well pleasingness" applied to the collective, and not individuals, has to do with the voice of warning, priesthood, ordinances, temple, covenants, ongoing revelation including the Book of Mormon. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

My journey in Mormonism is similar to yours, Kevin, though obviously not identical.

I appreciate the contributions you have made to Mormon Studies, not the least of which is your analysis of D&C 1.

I, too, have had many undeniable spiritual experiences mediated to me through Mormonism.

Other spiritual experiences have been mediated through things non-Mormon.

I view Joseph Smith in a largely positive manner, as he worked tirelessly to break down traditions, both religious and cultural, and establish a new faith whose basic premise was friendship and studying out and receiving all truth regardless of what source it comes from.

For Joseph, it was all about continuing to receive further light and knowledge, and eschewing creedal religious formulations that served as impediments to that end.

I find the Book of Mormon to be a work of genius, and am firmly convinced it will wear us out before we wear it out.

Some of my disappointment comes from recognizing that the church Joseph established has turned from his vision and become the very kind of church that required the restoration in the first place.

At least that's how I see it.

Others may differ. 

All my best to you, my friend!

--Consiglieri

[salgare]

Thanks Kevin, I have got to get to work today, I will study this out as it does interest me.

[consiglieri]

46 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not have faith in church leaders. I have faith that Jesus Christ is at the head of the church.

Within the LDS paradigm, my experience has been this is two ways of saying the same thing.

 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, salgare said:

Steeling the once in a life time experiences from people rates a bit higher on the scale than hurt feelings.

This is a decision made by the bride and groom especially.  If family can't support someone's choices to follow what they believe God wants over what the family wants, then at least blame the people who have made the choice to put God first as well as the organization which teaches that such is something to aspire to.

This idea that the church is forcing people to get married without their parents is dumb (and i say that as someone who married without hardly anyone in the sealing room because there were hardly any who could be there because they weren't members or weren't worthy).

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But if I don't obey you, are you going to stick my hand on the hot stove to punish me?

If you disobey and touch the stove?  No one has to stick your hand on a hot stove, you've done that yourself thru your disobedience to the command not to touch it.

[Zakuska]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

My journey in Mormonism is similar to yours, Kevin, though obviously not identical.

I appreciate the contributions you have made to Mormon Studies, not the least of which is your analysis of D&C 1.

I, too, have had many undeniable spiritual experiences mediated to me through Mormonism.

Other spiritual experiences have been mediated through things non-Mormon.

I view Joseph Smith in a largely positive manner, as he worked tirelessly to break down traditions, both religious and cultural, and establish a new faith whose basic premise was friendship and studying out and receiving all truth regardless of what source it comes from.

For Joseph, it was all about continuing to receive further light and knowledge, and eschewing creedal religious formulations that served as impediments to that end.

I find the Book of Mormon to be a work of genius, and am firmly convinced it will wear us out before we wear it out.

Some of my disappointment comes from recognizing that the church Joseph established has turned from his vision and become the very kind of church that required the restoration in the first place.

At least that's how I see it.

Others may differ. 

All my best to you, my friend!

--Consiglieri

Thanks all of you for sharing this.  I'd like to stand and bare my testimony too. My experiences in the church have been very similar. I too have some of the same feelings about the current state of things as you all do.

Over the past 5 years it has been very difficult to remain faithful due to growing up issues we've been having with my oldest daughter. My wife and I both had an epiphany when we realized that there was a big difference between "the gospel" and "Mormon culture". Since my daughter didn't fit the "molly Mormon" mold and so was basically looked down upon by the other ward members, purposefully and secretly excluded from several young womens activities we only found out about later. Our current leadership is very good and things have been getting a little better. She still will only go to Sacrament meeting with us.

I have no issues as far as the Gospel goes.  My issues with the church mainly has to do with "Mormon Culture" and the "blind followers" found there in.

I know the Savior lives and the BOM is the word of God.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a decision made by the bride and groom especially.

And often brings them great distress making, every bit as much as the hurt inflicted on parents, siblings etc.

If family can't support someone's choices to follow what they believe God wants over what the family wants, then at least blame the people who have made the choice to put God first as well as the organization which teaches that such is something to aspire to.

The only important part of what the organization is teaching involves the sealing.  In fact the separation of the legal aspect of marriage till death do you part would seem a positive.  We all know the endless back and forth this topic can provoke bluebell.  There is much pain involved, which the organization simply is not sympathetic too.  It was rumored that last January the Church was going to remove the marriage portion for safety from legal/tax reasons anyway. This would seem to make a lot of sense with SSM right?  And yet they continue to inflict unnecessary pain on families.  Why? 

This idea that the church is forcing people to get married without their parents is dumb (and i say that as someone who married without hardly anyone in the sealing room because there were hardly any who could be there because they weren't members or weren't worthy).

It was my wife and I, they had to round up witnesses.  And yet for something as sacred as this sealing, would it not be to a very limited immediate family?  With a large community celebration at the wedding.  It seems that is how the early days of the church as well.  But then again they held dances in the Temple.

Bottom line, the Church's refusal to move to only a sealing in the temple is immoral based on the pain inflected on all involved.

You know what the critics answer is to the reason why.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, salgare said:

Bottom line, the Church's refusal to move to only a sealing in the temple is immoral based on the pain inflected on all involved.

You know what the critics answer is to the reason why.

In your opinion.  

And i don't care what the critics answer is to the why.  If i cared what the critics thought, i wouldn't be LDS.  I also wouldn't be Christian, because there are more critics of christianity than of mormonism.  I also wouldn't believe in God, since there are more critics of belief in God than there are critics of Christianity.

 

[Zakuska]

19 minutes ago, salgare said:

Bottom line, the Church's refusal to move to only a sealing in the temple is immoral based on the pain inflected on all involved.

You know what the critics answer is to the reason why.

You would think that with their co-opting of Members funerals to preach the Gospel, that they would want to co-opt their weddings too to teach the plan of salvation to the non-member attendees.

Who ever accused the church of being rational though.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Thanks all of you for sharing this.  I'd like to stand and bare my testimony too. My experiences in the church have been very similar. I too have some of the same feelings about the current state of things as you all do.

Over the past 5 years it has been very difficult to remain faithful due to growing up issues we've been having with my oldest daughter. My wife and I both had an epiphany when we realized that there was a big difference between "the gospel" and "Mormon culture". Since my daughter didn't fit the "molly Mormon" mold and so was basically looked down upon by the other ward members, purposefully and secretly excluded from several young womens activities we only found out about later. Our current leadership is very good and things have been getting a little better. She still will only go to Sacrament meeting with us.

I have no issues as far as the Gospel goes.  My issues with the church mainly has to do with "Mormon Culture" and the "blind followers" found there in.

I know the Savior lives and the BOM is the word of God.

Can members or the culture that is rotten, be a fruit of this religion, or bad fruit?  I see it too, now in my lackadaisical way of living Mormonism.  I see a definite divide between the way the members treat me now verses when I was all in.  

My daughter went through the same thing in church, she didn't fit in with the young women at all.  It was heartbreaking to witness as her mother.  I wanted her to fit in so much.  But glad now, that she's happy being who she is or meant to be.  

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Well, we'll have to wait and see how it works out. If you can do it, more power to you and I really do wish you the best. You've said you believe there are many ways to God and that you no longer believe in the exclusivity of Mormonism. Do I have that right? If so, what are your views of Joseph Smith's claims to receiving the priesthood keys? If he received the keys of the kingdom (given also to Peter) as he said, then doesn't that imply those keys are needed to baptize, confer the gift of the Holy Spirit and the priesthood, do work for the dead and so forth? And how would other sects have those keys? And what are your views of the Book of Mormon? 

Thanks for being a good sport about all the frags I was tossing your way earlier, Cold Steel!

Any of the questions above would require a lot of explanation on my part, and might be worth their own thread.

I am game if you are.

Hope you are doing great!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

36 minutes ago, salgare said:

 

 

 

 

Bottom line, the Church's refusal to move to only a sealing in the temple is immoral based on the pain inflected on all involved.

Pain is an insufficient criterion for establishing the immorality of an act.

[Zakuska]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Can members or the culture that is rotten, be a fruit of this religion, or bad fruit?  I see it too, now in my lackadaisical way of living Mormonism.  I see a definite divide between the way the members treat me now verses when I was all in.  

My daughter went through the same thing in church, she didn't fit in with the young women at all.  It was heartbreaking to witness as her mother.  I wanted her to fit in so much.  But glad now, that she's happy being who she is or meant to be.  

You should have seen how the "molly Mormons" in the ward  treated her when we relented and let her get her ears gauged and die her hair blue.

 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  Time and place matter.  Church meetings are generally intended to uplift and edify, not to hash out doctrinal disputes, or differences of opinion about this or that socio-political issue, or to criticize the Brethren, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course the problem with that is that meetings are very often not uplifting or edifying. Maybe allowing a bit more frank discussion would help?

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

You would think that with their co-opting of Members funerals to preach the Gospel, that they would want to co-opt their weddings too to teach the plan of salvation to the non-member attendees.

Who ever accused the church of being rational though.

I do. It is definitely rational not to take advice from those who have left the organization and those who are our enemies. They certainly have our best interests at heart.

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do. It is definitely rational not to take advice from those who have left the organization and those who are our enemies. They certainly have our best interests at heart.

I am pretty sure faithful Mormons have registered a similar opinion.

Even on this thread.

 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am pretty sure faithful Mormons have registered a similar opinion.

Even on this thread.

 

"Sometimes them that seemeth good proveth to be evil." -Witchsmeller Pursuivant

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Of course the problem with that is that meetings are very often not uplifting or edifying. Maybe allowing a bit more frank discussion would help?

To me Church meetings are opportunities to learn more about the people involved in the meetings,  and what I get out of a meeting is what I learn from and about those people who are involved in the meetings. 

The Sacrament meeting,  for example, is an opportunity for me to learn more about Christ as I think about him and commune with him during the meeting, or at least during the time devoted to taking the Sacrament during that meeting,  and the rest of the time in that meeting is an opportunity for me to learn more about the other people who are speaking and sharing their own thoughts during that meeting, which helps me to get to know them better and understand at least something about how they think and what they feel as members of the Church.  So even if I already know everything the speaker is talking about it is edifying and uplifting to me to hear from some other person to find out that they also know what I know even though they are not exactly like me.  I like finding common ground with other people,  so the more I know about someone and what they think the more I usually see myself in them and them in me and Christ in all of us as he works within us to make us perfect, like he is.

That's what I see in Church meetings that is edifying and uplifting to me, and yes I also have these kinds of edifying and uplifting experiences in any and every meeting that involves getting to know the people that are involved in those meetings,  whether in or out of a Church building. 

[Zakuska]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"Sometimes them that seemeth good proveth to be evil." -Witchsmeller Pursuivant

IOW,  Beware of sheep clothing wearers.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Zakuska

[salgare]

4 hours ago, Zakuska said:

You would think that with their co-opting of Members funerals to preach the Gospel, that they would want to co-opt their weddings too to teach the plan of salvation to the non-member attendees.

Who ever accused the church of being rational though.

money outweighs conversion efforts ... besides they already have that covered with the Ring Ceremony.

[salgare]

3 hours ago, volgadon said:

Pain is an insufficient criterion for establishing the immorality of an act.

When it's inflicted for reasons of control and money I disagree.