Are There Valid Reasons to Leave the Church?

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for your responses so far.

Can we all agree that it is at least theoretically possible that God might want somebody to leave the LDS Church?

If that question is being asked within the LDS paradigm, then I disagree.

If that question is being asked outside the LDS paradigm, then I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

For the 2000+ that recently left, what percentage of them do you believe left for the reason you have given?

If you will look to my recent posts on this thread, You will see I said there are two general reasons for leaving:

1) No longer believing.

2) Commiting sin and afterward not wanting to go through the repentance process so to become reconciled to God and the Church. 

Edited January 6, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This raises a good issue.

A lot of people attend the LDS Church even though it doesn't make them happy.

Some have asked why anybody would attend a church that didn't make them happy.

I don't know for sure what other people experience. I get the sense that most of the members of my ward would rather be somewhere else, but I can't know for sure.

My experience with church attendance as ranged from hopefully seeking spiritual experiences (usually not finding them in the 3 hour block) to putting up with the boredom with good humor, to feeling crushed and drained by the dreariness of meetings and the weight of a calling that took me away from my family, and now boredom with small spikes of amusement, dismay, and love. I never feel like I've missed out on anything when I skip a Sunday, except for perhaps the social aspect (we've got a lot of great people in our ward).

The lay ministry thing may have its positives, but one thing it does not do is help us create engaging, uplifting meetings. We do a lot of serving, but I don't think many are actually served.

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with that.

However, it's not because i don't believe that the LDS church is God's only true church on the earth (meaning the only church that has the fulness of the gospel).  I agree with that because not all people need the same thing at the same time.  A message that helps one person may harm another, not because of the message but because of the issues of the person receiving it.  Even love (something that we can universally agree on as good) can feel hurtful to someone who has no ability to interpret and receive it because of internal issues caused by past experiences.  And some people have the ability to see around different weaknesses and imperfections in the delivery of a message that other people just don't.

In my opinion, when God does direct someone outside of His church, it's because that is the route they need to take to eventually (however long that might be) be able to accept the Gospel more fully.

 

 

I appreciate what you have said here, Bluebell.

And I agree with most of what you say . . . until the last sentence.  

I think God can (and does) lead people out of the LDS Church and not with the goal of eventually reuniting them with the LDS Church.

As much as I love President Uchtdorf, this was one part of his October 2013 GC address I felt was lacking.

He acknowledged there are legitimate reasons for people to leave the Church. (Huge kudos there!)

And then he invited the people who had left to come back, promising there was a place for them.  (Again huge kudos.)

The problem was that he never said anything about correcting the problems with the Church that had caused the people to leave in the first place.

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe this thread is about people, like the woman who's the subject of the op, who leave the Church through proactive self-excommunication. There's  a world of difference between merely going inactive and no longer wanting to have your name on the roles of the Church. 

Good point!

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

I think it would be better just to avoid places that make you unhappy.

 

I don't think that's a helpful thing at all.  I know a person who is leaving his wife of 15+ years and told her he no longer wants any contact with his kids because his life as a husband and father is 'making him unhappy.'  I have a family member who for years lived in the drug lifestyle because he was convinced (he no longer is, thankfully) that he was happiest there.

Human emotion is capricious and often tied to immature or dysfunctional thinking.  They should not be given uncontrolled power in our life, considering how flawed feelings often are.

[rockpond]

I apologize if this quote has been posted already but, when I read the thread title, I immediately thought of President Uchtdorf's address: "Come Join with Us" and this quote:

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves.

[salgare]

2 minutes ago, busybee said:

From my point of view.

No,

No, given that it is the Lord's church and contains the fullness of His gospel,

And no. The scriptures say. by their fruits ye shall know them. A corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit.

And if you are going to assert that the church is corrupt and yet produces good fruit, be forewarned, I shall be asking for references.

Perhaps you missed this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66694-these-are-three-grand-keys/

In that thread part of my hope was to pull out a discussion of can a corrupt tree have even one good branch (with what turned out a very controversial example given).

FWIW, I believe the temporal half of the split root corrupted the spiritual half.  So no a corrupt tree can not produce good fruit.  That has been my point all along.

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If that question is being asked within the LDS paradigm, then I disagree.

If that question is being asked outside the LDS paradigm, then I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Is there only one LDS paradigm?

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If that question is being asked within the LDS paradigm, then I disagree.

If that question is being asked outside the LDS paradigm, then I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

The LDS paradigm has become that of a parent who insists that its children remain infants, never grow up, and sure as heck don't leave the house and go live on their own.

At some point, a member of any church has learned all that the church has to offer.

It is then that a responsible church encourages the member to leave so the member can continue to progress.

Snatch the pebble from my hand.

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know for sure what other people experience. I get the sense that most of the members of my ward would rather be somewhere else, but I can't know for sure.

My experience with church attendance as ranged from hopefully seeking spiritual experiences (usually not finding them in the 3 hour block) to putting up with the boredom with good humor, to feeling crushed and drained by the dreariness of meetings and the weight of a calling that took me away from my family, and now boredom with small spikes of amusement, dismay, and love. I never feel like I've missed out on anything when I skip a Sunday, except for perhaps the social aspect (we've got a lot of great people in our ward).

The lay ministry thing may have its positives, but one thing it does not do is help us create engaging, uplifting meetings. We do a lot of serving, but I don't think many are actually served.

Amen to this!

A good thought question is whether one would attend LDS Church meetings if not required to do so.

The LDS Church would experience a huge upswing in vitality if it concerned itself more with making church a place people wanted to go.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think it would be better just to avoid places that make you unhappy.

 

I know several people who are now almost completely homebound because they used that reasoning (along with others, this was a primary influence though).  It can become a dangerous (to mental and emotional health) line of reasoning.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

The problem was that he never said anything about correcting the problems with the Church that had caused the people to leave in the first place.

Well, from my perspective, if you have left over 'problems in the church' then that's not a valid reason.  

I don't believe that the church can 'cause' us to do anything-i think we always have the power of our own choices and can't blame anything that we do on the church.  I don't think God ever tells someone to leave because someone else in the church messed something up.  I also don't believe that any of us should cultivate testimonies where 'problem-free' is one of the pillars.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Amen to this!

A good thought question is whether one would attend LDS Church meetings if not required to do so.

The LDS Church would experience a huge upswing in vitality if it concerned itself more with making church a place people wanted to go.

So far it has been taken as a sign of disloyalty to admit that the meetings are dreary, except among close friends in a non-church context. Until that changes, the meetings won't improve.

I agree, the church would be much more vital if the experience of going to church were more uplifting/inspiring.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Well, from my perspective, if you have left over 'problems in the church' then that's not a valid reason.  

 

But would the same line of thinking hold if we were talking about an abusive relationship?

 

[salgare]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If you will look to my recent posts on this thread, You will see I said there are two general reasons for leaving:

1) No longer believing.

2) Commiting sin and afterward not wanting to go through the repentance process so to become reconciled to God and the Church. 

And I'm asking what percentage of that 2000 fits your item 1 and 2?  I'd suggest a third item and SWAG the percentages of the three

1. No longer believe - 30%

2. commiting sin - 5%

3. The Church took an immoral position that offended their personal consciences to such a point that they did not want their name associated with it. - 65%

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate what you have said here, Bluebell.

And I agree with most of what you say . . . until the last sentence.  

I think God can (and does) lead people out of the LDS Church and not with the goal of eventually reuniting them with the LDS Church.

As much as I love President Uchtdorf, this was one part of his October 2013 GC address I felt was lacking.

He acknowledged there are legitimate reasons for people to leave the Church. (Huge kudos there!)

And then he invited the people who had left to come back, promising there was a place for them.  (Again huge kudos.)

The problem was that he never said anything about correcting the problems with the Church that had caused the people to leave in the first place.

I'll issue a CFR on the claim that Pres. Uchtdorf "acknowledged there are legitimate reasons for people to leave the Church."  I suspect this will come down to an issue of interpretation and semantics, but I'll give it a try.

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the appropriate course of action ...

excellent post smac

[phaedrus ut]

When I was a believer I would have answered no.  I believed the LDS church to be God's restored church and the way a person can progress spiritually to return to his presence. As a non-believer my answer is of course.  There are hundreds of valid reasons. 

I believe the opposite question is also interesting.  To the non-believers; do you think there valid reasons someone should stay in the LDS church?

 

Phaedrus

[Zakuska]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The problem was that he never said anything about correcting the problems with the Church that had caused the people to leave in the first place.

Come on consig... dontcha know anything... the church never has or ever will "have problems that could cause people to leave".  The church can do no wrong ever.

I mean it admits now the "p-ban was wrong" but in some peoples minds it was right even though it was wrong.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Zakuska

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

My advice is to leave if you believe you have found something better.

I was once dating a girl and came to a crossroads where I realized that I didn't want the relationship to continue. I broke up with her. She asked me who I was dating. I wasn't dating anybody. She was puzzled that I would break up if I didn't have a new/better relationship option. One of my roommates told me I should have stayed with her until I found somebody better. I told him it wouldn't be fair to her for me to stay in the relationship out of convenience if I knew that I didn't want it to continue.

[bluebell]

Just now, consiglieri said:

But would the same line of thinking hold if we were talking about an abusive relationship?

 

That's a good question.

If someone believes the church is abusive, then they believe that the church wasn't ever, and will never be, God's church.  Obviously, their perspective and mine are so different that they cannot be compared.  Truly abusive relationships should be left because promises have been broken on the abuser's side already.  There is no 'relationship' to abandon.

However, accusation of 'abusive', like every other label, is as much a matter of perspective as everything else.  I can claim that you are abusive on this board ( ) but that doesn't mean you actually are.  And when it comes to abusive relationships that actually aren't abusive, yes, i think that line of thinking holds.

I think that every accusation of 'abusive' put forth towards the church (and not a member) is as absurd as calling you abusive here.

[salgare]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I propose that we not publicly speculate about such things.  It's not helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry about that folks ... I just wanted to highlight, the snufferite type situation and that there is indeed a significant number of members, active or not who just don't fit the suggested 2 causes.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The LDS paradigm has become that of a parent who insists that its children remain infants, never grow up, and sure as heck don't leave the house and go live on their own.

At some point, a member of any church has learned all that the church has to offer.

It is then that a responsible church encourages the member to leave so the member can continue to progress.

Snatch the pebble from my hand.

With respect, I disagree with the first sentence above.  I do not think a person will "progress" in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ by leaving the Church which houses it, teaches it, holds its authority, and administers its saving ordinances.

As to the second sentence, I do not concede the application of a line of reasoning applied to the LDS Church that is predicated on how things function in "any church."  Moreover, this sentence reminded me of these statements attributed to President David O. McKay (as recollected by Elder Boyd K. Packer):

Quote

 

As his health began to decline in the mid-1960s, he soon spent much of his time in a wheelchair and called additional counselors into the First Presidency. Despite his weakening physical condition, he continued to conduct the business of the Church and to teach, lead, and inspire. Not long before his death, he spoke at a meeting in the Salt Lake Temple with the General Authorities of the Church. Elder Boyd K. Packer, who was present at the meeting, recalled the experience as follows:

“[President McKay] talked of the temple ordinances and quoted at length from the ceremonies. He explained them to us. (That was not inappropriate, considering that we were in the temple.) After he had spoken for some time, he paused and stood gazing up to the ceiling in deep thought.

“I remember that his big hands were in front of him with his fingers interlocked. He stood gazing as people sometimes do when pondering a deep question. Then he spoke: ‘Brethren, I think I am finally beginning to understand.’

“Here he was, the prophet—an Apostle for over half a century and even then he was learning, he was growing. His expression ‘I think I am finally beginning to understand,’ was greatly comforting to me.” Even with his extensive understanding of the gospel and his experience in the Church, President McKay was humble enough to realize that he could still learn and discover deeper levels of meaning.

 

I am more inclined to think that these statements are a more accurate statement of reality than "At some point, a member of any church has learned all that the church has to offer."  That's simply not true in the LDS paradigm.  I don't think anyone has ever "learned all that the [LDS Church] has to offer."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think God can (and does) lead people out of the LDS Church and not with the goal of eventually reuniting them with the LDS Church.

Do you think God can (and does) lead people to commit adultery?

Do you think God can/does lead people to abandon faith in Jesus Christ?

Do you think God can/does lead people to abandon their responsibilities as parents of their children in favor of a life of debauchery and free from responsibility?

These are not rhetorical questions.  I'd like to see your answers.

Thanks,

-Smac