Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm good with this paradigm, as long as we stay humble to receive new perspectives and information and we remain open to learning new things.  If we ever get to a position where we think we've received knowledge from the divine and we are uncomfortable with information we encounter that brings our earlier knowledge into question, we need to be open to a paradigm shift, and recognize that the divine may be calling us to open our understanding to a new perspective that is good and relevant.

I've learned so much as I let go of my earlier confidence in perspectives, this has caused me to have empathy for all kinds of groups of people that I may have stereotyped in the past.  What I've learned is that I need to keep learning, to keep seeking to never think I've arrived at my destination, to always be seeking greater light and understanding.  This is what rings true to me in the gospel, and unfortunately this kind of openness seems very contrary to the culture of Mormonism at large that I experience in Sunday school, one that is fearful of new information and constantly warning people to stay away from unconventional sources of wisdom.  This kind of close mindedness is so sad to me and it makes it extremely hard to feel like I'm gaining anything from my Sunday interactions at times.  

There are slow learners even in Church Sunday School.  And even in Church Sacrament meetings. Even among Church members who attend all of the Church meetings every Sunday, or every Sunday they can.

And we should all try to do as much good as we can or know how to do, every day, even though all that we do will never be enough to ever save anyone, not even ourselves 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

All the things Church members do to try to help themselves and other people are good, at least in intention, and sometimes it's just nice to have something to do that is a good thing to do.  

But everyone should still realize that what we do or say doesn't save anyone. At best we only pointing to Jesus, aND at worst we are pointing sone othe way.

Jesus is who we should all rely upon to know if and when and how we are saved.  The only one who can save us.

And if we believe that salvation comes through Jesus, and I'm happy to say that I do, but its not an exclusive claim, just the way that works for me personally, then I would assert that is not our belief or understanding about Jesus that is important.  Its through a trust in his teachings and surrendering ourselves to following those teachings in practice and accepting that God loves us as flawed beings with a divine seed of potential that is beautiful within each of us, and having confidence in our ability to do good and to lift the weary and make a positive impact on society, through this kind of trust in God and in ourselves, that is when we will see the kind of transformation (salvation) that the scriptures speak of.  

To me, this is where the concept of grace comes in that traditional Mormonism has been lacking, but that is gradually beginning to see some movement on in recent years.  If you can combine this idea of grace and unconditional love and acceptance, with the ideas of divine nature and unique beauty and acceptance by God, and the concept of continued growth and progression with the concept of loving each other and building up the oppressed and marginalized here in this life with tolerance and love, then you have the essence of the gospel as I see it.  Its wonderful and what I find inspiring.  

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Just looking for an alternate perspective.  If someone feels the Church should change doctrines that may be false to appear more inclusive to people I would like to know what those might be.
Goodness knows there are changes the Church has already made that I consider to be incorrect.  Further changes would seem even more ill advised.

How about fixing those changes you consider to be incorrect? Change again ..not to coddle but to make correct.  

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope. Conforming in and of itself is not a virtue nor does Christ preach it as such. The organising principle is that of being closer to the Father via Christ, not conforming.

You can visualize the concept mathematically if you compare a point to a sphere. As objects get closer and closer to a point, they must bend more and collapse in on themselves into one pointillistic dimension. However, as objects get closer and closer to a sphere, they can still remain three dimensional and be completely enveloped by the sphere.

So, the question is: is God more like a one dimensional point or a three dimensional sphere?

I'm no mathematician.  But conforming IS a principle of the gospel.  It's not about moving closer to God, it's about becoming exactly like the Father is by following the same laws and doctrines that the Father does.

Quote

John 5: 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

I John  3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 

D&C 88:22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.
24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

Sounds like conforming to me.
As Elder Wirthlin once said "To open the windows of heaven, we must conform our will to God’s will."

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There are slow learners even in Church Sunday School.  And even in Church Sacrament meetings. Even among Church members who attend all of the Church meetings every Sunday, or every Sunday they can.

And we should all try to do as much good as we can or know how to do, every day, even though all that we do will never be enough to ever save anyone, not even ourselves 

I tend to believe that we're already "saved" by the definition you're using, if you're talking about salvation in the next life.  I believe its already given and always has been given by God.  I but if you're talking about salvation as transformation, then we can all receive transformation as we surrender ourselves our ego, as we learn to accept ourselves and everyone else as part of the body of Christ as part of this grander society as part of the whole of creation and a universal community of divine life.  

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

How about fixing those changes you consider to be incorrect? Change again ..not to coddle but to make correct.  

Because that isn't the design.
God steers his own ship.  He restored his gospel through Joseph Smith.  Any off course moves we have made will be corrected in his own good time, but they will be corrected.

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Our Father loves all of us but hates all that we do or say that is evil. And the more we come to know God through Jesus the more we know what good is along with the difference between good and evil.

Some of us just get what others do not, depending on how much we want and try to learn from God.  It looks like a huge learning curve to me.

I disagree with you.  We all get something from God, most don't realize the source of life, sure.  But God doesn't see a difference between some faithful member and another whom He loves and guides outside the Church, as I see it.  It is, as I see it, far less about the evil that we do or think, and more about us following some journey in which we all patronize some "evil" and some "good" on our way, learning and relearning as it were.  I'd disagree witht he general LDS sentiment of the Atonement is effective for those who go through LDS rituals. 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well sorry for my miscommunication there.  Conforming to what the Church has defined rather than what God has defined is the problem.  People question whether they must conform to the unnecessary sure.  But I'd say there are tons who are out there who want to feel aligned with God.  The Church has just pushed them out because they don't fit in with the mistaken mold the Church has tried to force people to be.

So again, please name one way in which the current Church requires an alignment that doesn't fit with what God has defined.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm no mathematician.  But conforming IS a principle of the gospel.  It's not about moving closer to God, it's about becoming exactly like the Father is by following the same laws and doctrines that the Father does.

Sounds like conforming to me.
As Elder Wirthlin once said "To open the windows of heaven, we must conform our will to God’s will."

Some level of conforming will be a side effect of acquiring attributes like God's. But "God, through Christ" is the organising principle, not conforming itself.

Lots of devils conform  

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You list very detailed descriptions of these meeting, listing offices like Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priest Group Leaders, Bishops, Stake Presidets and the like to show how all suffer from sorrow just as the simple members does. I remember when I left the Baptist Church, a place where I preached from it's pulpit, and taught it's lessons. I left to join the Church, because I no longer believed much of the doctrine being taught. I never looked back, never felt victimized, never sought out an organized group to lament my "pain". I did not do so, because I loved that Church. 

Often people who have been in an abusive relationship require therapy to fully recover.  The fact that you didn't require recovery from The Baptist Church speaks well of that church...However the question we should all ask is why do so many who leave Mormonism need time to process their experience inside Mormonism with like minded individuals?  The easy answer is just to point a finger at the individual and blame them for the level of devotion & dedication they had while in the church...yeah they just believed it too much...shame on them for being such devoted members and buying into it all.  Or you can take the OP in the spirit it is offered...and learn from it.

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I don't understand why people who leave the Church need such gatherings, well maybe I do. Why do you attend meeting like this to listen to (in your words) people rant? My guess if indeed such meetings happen on a regular schedule, it is to continue to discuss their doubts about leaving, by discussing their doubts for leaving in n effort to continue to stay away. Also you term "ranting", implies hatred for the Church and it's leaders. It makes this comment my by Joseph true, "those who leave the Church, can't leave the Church alone". Once someone who has seen the light, the blinding light of truth, they will seek any light, even like a moth to a flame, and having their wings burned...never fly again. 

The LDS church claims to be the One  true Church on the face of the earth.  When some make discoveries that put that claim into question worlds fall apart, dreams and families relationships crumble and dreams of celestial glory is lost...and you wonder why people would want to talk about it?  Frankly I find your post offensive, insensitive and typical of what many face when they seek answers to their legitimate questions.

 

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

In the past, you could click on "Reputation Points" and you would find that the post that gained the most points ever, was the testimony of great value. It was about someone who left the Church who was working on the Joseph Smith papers. After a long while he realized, and was touched by the Spirit that the Gospel is indeed true. Upon his return, there was no retribution or punishment, and he was given full access to the historical offices and the Joseph Smith papers. In shor the Church is not the big bad wolf that seeks to eat it's members. So I don't see the need for therapy no support groups where (a gain your words) to rant about their pain from being abused. 

Returning is easy...the prodigal sons story come to mine...but leaving is oft time fraught with pain, loss and many challenges

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Also, people and Preacher or Pastors and deacons leave other Churches all the time, but those who no longer attend do not obsessed over percentages and call them droves. They don't hav support groups, and whine about how bad the Church is. Also, when I see threads like this that list callings of persons in leadership, it seems it is for the purpose of making others question their faith as well. Not to mention the county and "front" that is the most Mormon are on the planet. 

Johnnie, just let the Church go, be that person who can "leave the Church, and leave the Church alone". It will make you happy to be free of your of your problems with the Church. 

Obviously you should NEVER be called to administer to anyone with doubts and questions...you will only push them out the door.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm struggling with this characterization, probably because I might fall into your definition of "apostasy", yet I'm currently an actively attending member.

Then I don't consider you to be an apostate!  

I have worked (and work) with many people who don't believe some or most LDS truth claims. None of them are apostates; at least, not to me.

I'm thinking you would consider that my time window has passed, yet I'm still engaging with my local ward and trying to do so in productive ways.  How would you characterize someone like myself, I definitely don't align with the apologetic perspectives of the Dan Peterson's of the word, and don't find his explanations satisfying to my intellect.  I tend to believe in God still, but am much closer to an agnostic or deistic view of God, yet I still am open to spiritual experiences.

How would I characterize you? Not as an apostate. I know many people like you, and am thrilled that you stay and try to work through how you relate to the Church --- despite your idealogical challenges.

Your whole premise of a window of time where people can effectively be engaged I find very limiting and honestly an immature view that shows a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics.  I'd love to have a more expanded view of your perspective though, so if you could please elaborate that would be great.

How so "immature" and "a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics?" That's my experience. I was fascinated (and saddened) by the president's written account of the aftermath of what happened. All of the apostates said that they had fully answered their questions to their satisfaction, and they had no further questions. One of them was beaming, and visibly relieved to have his faith back and intact. The others grumbled over the course of days in the interim and, though saying that their questions had been answered, continued to work against the Church. Similar experiences lead me to conclude that the answers don't really matter, once the time window has passed. People who feel hurt, betrayed, and deceived by the Church find it very hard to trust or have faith in the Church again. 

I'd love to have a more expanded view of your perspective though, so if you could please elaborate that would be great.

Happy to! Could you specify what you would like me to expand on? I'm not clear on that.

Thanks! 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So again, please name one way in which the current Church requires an alignment that doesn't fit with what God has defined.

I'm not sure what you mean again.   This was something I used to bring here on this board.  President Hugh B Brown once preached: 

Quote

I admire men and women who have developed the questioning spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas and stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence nor any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.” Hugh B. Brown, counselor in First Presidency, Speech at BYU, March 29, 1968.

But these days, as it is, this message is entirely gone.  It is nowhere near preaching that we should admire or see nobility for members to question, not fear dissent, embrace the idea that "Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant".  Instead we're asked to conform, doubt our doubts, not question leader's teachings and the like. 

There's one way in which the Church wants us to conform (that is not dissent and question when we are informed and feel strongly about something), but I'd wager God is not fond of. 

 

 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because that isn't the design.
God steers his own ship.  He restored his gospel through Joseph Smith.  Any off course moves we have made will be corrected in his own good time, but they will be corrected.

I think my problem with this is that I don't see God condoning mistakes or waiting to fix things and be understood.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm struggling with this characterization, probably because I might fall into your definition of "apostasy", yet I'm currently an actively attending member.  I'm thinking you would consider that my time window has passed, yet I'm still engaging with my local ward and trying to do so in productive ways.  How would you characterize someone like myself, I definitely don't align with the apologetic perspectives of the Dan Peterson's of the word, and don't find his explanations satisfying to my intellect.  I tend to believe in God still, but am much closer to an agnostic or deistic view of God, yet I still am open to spiritual experiences.  

Your whole premise of a window of time where people can effectively be engaged I find very limiting and honestly an immature view that shows a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics.  I'd love to have a more expanded view of your perspective though, so if you could please elaborate that would be great.  

Rongo was giving examples from his personal experience.  There are obviously people like yourself who continue to stay active and open despite their alternative views, but my experience aligns more closely with Rongo's in that the majority who become disillusioned have a very real sense of betrayal and distrust in the church.  Once the damage has been done, it is unlikely that they are going to be open to listen to the church who "betrayed" them. 

Just curious where you think you fall on the apostasy spectrum?

Edited March 6, 2017 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

In our addiction recovery family support group, among the first things we learn is that we are responsible for our own actions, that we are not victims, that we cannot fix our addicts, and that we must only be concerned with our own healing. We attend the group because we feel betrayed and abandoned by our loved one, we mourn the loss, we doubt our own testimony, we seek someone to blame. How does this apply?

My loved ones who have bitterly left the Church for whatever their reason might be now have the responsibility to find their own peace. I have seen the same things they have seen, experienced the same concerns they have experienced, had the same doubts they have, but have dealt with it in a different way. If I were able to make all the changes they are demanding....and perhaps those being demanded in these disaffected member support groups...I am not confident they would say, "All is forgiven, here's my tithing, give me a calling." 

While the Church does what it does, ultimately the decision is between the member and God if he still believes in God, or by personal reflection and determination. Thinking that fixing what one thinks is wrong with the Church and its leaders, trying to make them conform to one's expectations, and throwing down the gauntlet will make everything good again may not turn out that way.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean again.   This was something I used to bring here on this board.  President Hugh B Brown once preached:

But these days, as it is, this message is entirely gone.  It is nowhere near preaching that we should admire or see nobility for members to question, not fear dissent, embrace the idea that "Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant".  Instead we're asked to conform, doubt our doubts, not question leader's teachings and the like.

There's one way in which the Church wants us to conform (that is not dissent and question when we are informed and feel strongly about something), but I'd wager God is not fond of.

So if I read you correctly you are looking for more of this kind of attitude from the Church:

• I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. - Joseph Smith

I could agree with that.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And if we believe that salvation comes through Jesus, and I'm happy to say that I do, but its not an exclusive claim, just the way that works for me personally, then I would assert that is not our belief or understanding about Jesus that is important.  Its through a trust in his teachings and surrendering ourselves to following those teachings in practice and accepting that God loves us as flawed beings with a divine seed of potential that is beautiful within each of us, and having confidence in our ability to do good and to lift the weary and make a positive impact on society, through this kind of trust in God and in ourselves, that is when we will see the kind of transformation (salvation) that the scriptures speak of.  

To me, this is where the concept of grace comes in that traditional Mormonism has been lacking, but that is gradually beginning to see some movement on in recent years.  If you can combine this idea of grace and unconditional love and acceptance, with the ideas of divine nature and unique beauty and acceptance by God, and the concept of continued growth and progression with the concept of loving each other and building up the oppressed and marginalized here in this life with tolerance and love, then you have the essence of the gospel as I see it.  Its wonderful and what I find inspiring.  

I agree and I believe that where you have seen a lack in understanding the concept of grace in traditional Mormonism, you have only seen it lacking in only some members understanding.  And people who are not Mormons also lack a full understanding of how God's grace works, sometimes, too.

But there have always been members of the Church who do understand how God's grace determines if and when and how much he will save someone.  I've read enough Church history to see that.

Some people get things that others do not get, or haven't got yet, whether member or never been a member. And I think there will always be people on different levels of the learning curve.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I think my problem with this is that I don't see God condoning mistakes or waiting to fix things and be understood.

Condoning no.
Waiting to fix things and be understood yes.
That is a function of faith and agency.  To take away faith and agency would be Lucifer's plan.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sorry, Rongo, but your take is just offensive to me.  People are just too varied for your model to really work in real life, and the worst part is it puts the blame in the wrong place, if you ask me.

I'm not placing blame, just stating an observation of mine (that the feelings of betrayal are at the epicenter of disaffection with the Church --- not the actual "answers"). I agree with you that the Church's coddling approach with the "narrative" for decades has led to this state of things for many. 

There is a palpable and tangible relief to people in the air, so thick you can cut off a slice and take it home with you, when you simply acknowledge the difficulties and show people that you actually know everything they're talking about --- and more. That builds credibility with them, and at least helps them listen as you explain why you continue to have a testimony --- even and especially in spite of the issues and the details. The brother who had concerns with the CES letter was actually giddy, a) that I knew the issues and details, and b) that I could give him even more details , and c) that I could give him perspective on things that none of his critical sources mentioned. But I wouldn't have had the credibility with him without first building confidence with him that I wasn't a "Baghdad Bob" spin doctor, telling him "there's nothing to see here."

As for people being too varied --- that's why it is most effective to talk to people face-to-face. I'm "all things to all people," as Paul put it, and the actual approach in the moment is really dictated by their personality and temperament. The same applies to counseling as a bishop --- you have to work with who is before you. I really think a big part of the current problem with Glaubensverlust is the electronic age. Not necessarily access to hidden information (the critics' party line --- though that is certainly a factor), but the fact that so much is impersonal electronically. People get thrown for a loop, and read all sorts of takes on things (mostly critical), and if they don't have people they can talk to who can help them, the problem festers and the panic and outrage build. People also get dismayed by the climate on reddit or critical sites and an apparent inability to adequately answer critics (B.H. Roberts called this "making the heart sick") --- and this angers some hurt people further against the Church. I have found that it is much better if people can get one-on-one, personal help, rather than rely on the comments sections on the internet.

My problem with Johnnie's suggestion that the Church should deploy apologetic missionaries is that I think it is better dealt with independent of the Church --- with people not correlated by the Church. I think the Church plays it too safe, and any systematic apologetic response by the Church wouldn't go over very well. I also think it's more powerful and effective the more local the help is, and the further away from Church headquarters. 

[Johnnie Cake]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Rongo was giving examples from his personal experience.  There are obviously people like yourself who continue to stay active and open despite their alternative views, but my experience aligns more closely with Rongo's in that the majority who become disillusioned have a very real sense of betrayal and distrust in the church.  Once the damage has been done, it is unlikely that they are going to be open to listen to the church who "betrayed" them. 

Just curious where you think you fall on the apostasy spectrum?

All the more need for timely response to legitimate questions from an informed knowledgeable person who can offer real answers to honest questions

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

How would I characterize you? Not as an apostate. I know many people like you, and am thrilled that you stay and try to work through how you relate to the Church --- despite your idealogical challenges.

Thats good, thanks for clarifying.  But what if I wasn't actively attending church (I just recently started attending again).  I personally don't consider inactive members apostate, and honestly don't find that word even useful anymore. 

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

How so "immature" and "a lack of trust of people and their ability to handle and deal with mature and adult topics?" That's my experience. I was fascinated (and saddened) by the president's written account of the aftermath of what happened. All of the apostates said that they had fully answered their questions to their satisfaction, and they had no further questions. One of them was beaming, and visibly relieved to have his faith back and intact. The others grumbled over the course of days in the interim and, though saying that their questions had been answered, continued to work against the Church. Similar experiences lead me to conclude that the answers don't really matter, once the time window has passed. People who feel hurt, betrayed, and deceived by the Church find it very hard to trust or have faith in the Church again. 

I think you're onto something about how these people feel, hurt, betrayed and deceived by the Church.  I see these as emotions with great validity.  Just as much validity as those members who have testimonies of the truth of the church also primarily through positive emotions of gratitude, love, peace and trust in the institution.  I see both sides of experience as equally valid.  Someone who's converted to Mormonism for these emotions, and someone's who's converted through similar emotions.  If you accept those members who align themselves because of their emotional(spiritual) witness solely, can you not see the flip side of that coin for those who've decided to leave for the opposite experience.  It seems to me that its two sides of the same coin.  

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Happy to! Could you specify what you would like me to expand on? I'm not clear on that.

It was the whole window of time where these people are open to influence concept you talked about.  I just don't understand why you say that, because it presupposes that someone learning new information and processing that learning, that at some stage along the path they become outside of the influence of the "truth" after a certain amount of learning.  That if you can't get to them early enough in the process that Mormonism has no answers for those who've learned too much.  It sounds like some of the bad stereotypes of the past about people being deceived by satan and becoming past feeling and unable to be influenced by the spirit after they are deceived so much.  I don't want to put words into your mouth if thats not what you're saying, but if it is what you're saying then can you please explain how that old stereotype is even legitimate, because I find that perspective very immature and judgmental.  

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Rongo was giving examples from his personal experience.  There are obviously people like yourself who continue to stay active and open despite their alternative views, but my experience aligns more closely with Rongo's in that the majority who become disillusioned have a very real sense of betrayal and distrust in the church.  Once the damage has been done, it is unlikely that they are going to be open to listen to the church who "betrayed" them. 

Just curious where you think you fall on the apostasy spectrum?

I'm not sure I believe in our culture's use of the word apostasy.  I'm not willing to say there is no such thing as apostasy as I tend to shun absolutes, perhaps there is someone somewhere that we should consider apostate, but I don't like the term.  I don't see myself or anyone I know or have come into contact with in this life as apostate.  I think its a remnant of our evolutionary tribalism, and we ought to push against this term that excludes people, I think its in opposition to the call of the gospel message and I don't think it serves us well in our modern pluralistic society.  

Edited March 6, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You list very detailed descriptions of these meeting, listing offices like Elders Quorum Presidents, High Priest Group Leaders, Bishops, Stake Presidets and the like to show how all suffer from sorrow just as the simple members does. I remember when I left the Baptist Church, a place where I preached from it's pulpit, and taught it's lessons. I left to join the Church, because I no longer believed much of the doctrine being taught. I never looked back, never felt victimized, never sought out an organized group to lament my "pain". I did not do so, because I loved that Church. 

I don't understand why people who leave the Church need such gatherings, well maybe I do. Why do you attend meeting like this to listen to (in your words) people rant? My guess if indeed such meetings happen on a regular schedule, it is to continue to discuss their doubts about leaving, by discussing their doubts for leaving in n effort to continue to stay away. Also you term "ranting", implies hatred for the Church and it's leaders. It makes this comment my by Joseph true, "those who leave the Church, can't leave the Church alone". Once someone who has seen the light, the blinding light of truth, they will seek any light, even like a moth to a flame, and having their wings burned...never fly again. 

In the past, you could click on "Reputation Points" and you would find that the post that gained the most points ever, was the testimony of great value. It was about someone who left the Church who was working on the Joseph Smith papers. After a long while he realized, and was touched by the Spirit that the Gospel is indeed true. Upon his return, there was no retribution or punishment, and he was given full access to the historical offices and the Joseph Smith papers. In shor the Church is not the big bad wolf that seeks to eat it's members. So I don't see the need for therapy no support groups where (a gain your words) to rant about their pain from being abused. 

Also, people and Preacher or Pastors and deacons leave other Churches all the time, but those who no longer attend do not obsesse over percentages and call them droves. They don't hav support groups, and whine about how bad the Church is. Also, when I see threads like this that list callings of persons in leadership, it seems it is for the purpose of making others question their faith as well. Not to mention the county and "front" that is the most Mormon are on the planet. 

Johnnie, just let the Church go, be that person who can "leave the Church, and leave the Church alone". It will make you happy to be free of your of your problems with the Church. 

I agree that you do not understand.

Do you realize that many who leave, acting in good faith and honesty, are shunned by family and friends? 

Do you understand how deeply full activity in the church can condition  person? Did you know that some prisoners have difficulty adjusting to normal society after they've served their time? They, too, have experienced conditioning.  

I honestly no longer believe the Church is true. I have a teen son who believes and is very committed, and I am committed to accomodating his wishes and respecting his beliefs. Yet it is also my job as his mother to help and guide him appropriately. So, no, it would be irresponsible of me to just walk away from the Church. Imo I owe it to my son to walk with him and help him asmuch as I can to work through his church-related struggles, even if I think he might be better off without it altogether.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I agree and I believe that where you have seen a lack in understanding the concept of grace in traditional Mormonism, you have only seen it lacking in only some members understanding.  And people who are not Mormons also lack a full understanding of how God's grace works, sometimes, too.

But there have always been members of the Church who do understand how God's grace determines if and when and how much he will save someone.  I've read enough Church history to see that.

Some people get things that others do not get, or haven't got yet, whether member or never been a member. And I think there will always be people on different levels of the learning curve.

Yes, I agree with you here, good to come to an understanding about this.  To be fair though, church leaders teachings about grace in the past have lead to these perceptions, so any members who come by these misconceptions about grace do so by following the dominant narrative often espoused by the brethren.  

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm not placing blame, just stating an observation of mine (that the feelings of betrayal are at the epicenter of disaffection with the Church --- not the actual "answers"). I agree with you that the Church's coddling approach with the "narrative" for decades has led to this state of things for many. 

There is a palpable and tangible relief to people in the air, so thick you can cut off a slice and take it home with you, when you simply acknowledge the difficulties and show people that you actually know everything they're talking about --- and more. That builds credibility with them, and at least helps them listen as you explain why you continue to have a testimony --- even and especially in spite of the issues and the details. The brother who had concerns with the CES letter was actually giddy, a) that I knew the issues and details, and b) that I could give him even more details , and c) that I could give him perspective on things that none of his critical sources mentioned. But I wouldn't have had the credibility with him without first building confidence with him that I wasn't a "Baghdad Bob" spin doctor, telling him "there's nothing to see here."

As for people being too varied --- that's why it is most effective to talk to people face-to-face. I'm "all things to all people," as Paul put it, and the actual approach in the moment is really dictated by their personality and temperament. The same applies to counseling as a bishop --- you have to work with who is before you. I really think a big part of the current problem with Glaubensverlust is the electronic age. Not necessarily access to hidden information (the critics' party line --- though that is certainly a factor), but the fact that so much is impersonal electronically. People get thrown for a loop, and read all sorts of takes on things (mostly critical), and if they don't have people they can talk to who can help them, the problem festers and the panic and outrage build. People also get dismayed by the climate on reddit or critical sites and an apparent inability to adequately answer critics (B.H. Roberts called this "making the heart sick") --- and this angers some hurt people further against the Church. I have found that it is much better if people can get one-on-one, personal help, rather than rely on the comments sections on the internet.

My problem with Johnnie's suggestion that the Church should deploy apologetic missionaries is that I think it is better dealt with independent of the Church --- with people not correlated by the Church. I think the Church plays it too safe, and any systematic apologetic response by the Church wouldn't go over very well. I also think it's more powerful and effective the more local the help is, and the further away from Church headquarters. 

You're an asset for your stake...but wouldn't it be wonderful if every stake had someone like you who could acknowledge the concerns, address the concerns and offer a plausible solution to the concerns.  The church needs an army...not an individual...and yes I agree that a local would be preferred.