Is it sometimes better to leave the church?

[bluebell]

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the notion that some people are better off leaving the Church for a time and then returning -- or even "taking a break" from Church activity -- is dangerous doctrine. 

[rongo]

I definitely think that it can be better, in the long run, for some people who aren't committed, don't like the Church, are embarrassed by it, etc. to disengage completely from it (i.e., leave it). I think that if they actually do manage to garner the spark of belief, it will come after they have "figured out who they are" by experience, and then give the faith of their fathers a second look in light of that experience. This won't happen in all cases, but if it happens with conviction, I think that this is the way it will happen.

And, I believe that the voice of God really did tell David Whitmer to separate himself from the Saints in Far West. 

I think that God really can, and does, lead people away from the Church in the short term for a long-term, lasting purpose (or, at least, to give people a fighting chance).

Edited August 25, 2017 by rongo

[kllindley]

I think it absolutely is the right path for some. I can't speak for McConkie, but I can identify a number of situations where personal issues, family dynamics, or other factors make it more likely that an individual can grow and develop better outside of the Church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I definitely think that it can be better, in the long run, for some people who aren't committed, don't like the Church, are embarrassed by it, etc. to disengage completely from it (i.e., leave it). I think that if they actually do manage to garner the spark of belief, it will come after they have "figured out who they are" by experience, and then give the faith of their fathers a second look in light of that experience. This won't happen in all cases, but if it happens with conviction, I think that this is the way it will happen.

And, I believe that the voice of God really did tell David Whitmer to separate himself from the Saints in Far West. 

I think that God really can, and does, lead people away from the Church in the short term for a long-term, lasting purpose (or, at least, to give people a fighting chance).

Wouldn't the better thing to do be to repent of being non-committal, disliking the. Church and being embarrassed by it, all without leaving the Church? 

Isn't the idea that some people just aren't "cut out" to be Church members something of an elitist attitude? 

He inviteth all to come unto him and He denieth none: black and white, bond and free, male and female, rich and poor (paraphrasing here, because I'm on a mobile, and it's too hard to look up and paste in the scriptural passage). 

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wouldn't the better thing to do be to repent of being non-committal, disliking the. Church and being embarrassed by it, all without leaving the Church? 

Good, better, best ---- yes. That would be best. But many, many people are never going to reach the point of repenting and embracing the Church until they try things their way and learn the hard way. 

Isn't the idea that some people just aren't "cut out" to be Church members something of an elitist attitude?

I wouldn't say that it's a matter of people not being cut out for the Church. The reality is that many people are not now in a position where they willfully and happily embrace the duties and blessings of Church membership. And they won't ever reach this point until they learn by doing things their way.

He inviteth all to come unto him and He denieth none: black and white, bond and free, male and female, rich and poor (paraphrasing here, because I'm on a mobile, and it's too hard to look up and paste in the scriptural passage).

He inviteth all --- and so do we. But the fact of the matter is that inviting does not mean that people will willfully and happily embrace it. They have to learn from their own experience, and many do reach this point. But not without the experience of doing things their way.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

I really love the work that Thomas McConkie is doing.  From his mindfulness work, to his faith development work, to his speaking and engagement in internet Mormon circles.  People like him, give me hope for the future in Mormonism.  

If you listen to him talk, I don't think you'll hear him express a "testimony" of the church.  I can't recall hearing him express any dogma about Mormonism having exclusive authority or anything like that.  I have heard him talk about feeling called back to Mormonism, and feeling like this is where he needs to be.  

I think if you asked him about his journey out of Mormonism he would say that it was both painful and important, not because it would lead him back to Mormonism, what an odd way of twisting the story around, the guy might leave Mormonism in the future again, who knows, who cares.  The world does not revolve around Mormonism, its a quaint little religion in the grand scheme of things.  I find your questions and this article quite odd.  

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think the notion that some people are better off leaving the Church for a time and then returning -- or even "taking a break" from Church activity -- is dangerous doctrine. 

Only dangerous if you have a very narrow view about what is acceptable in God's eyes and think that your perspective applies to everyone universally. 

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think it absolutely is the right path for some. I can't speak for McConkie, but I can identify a number of situations where personal issues, family dynamics, or other factors make it more likely that an individual can grow and develop better outside of the Church. 

Yes, absolutely.  Actually, its funny that anyone thinks differently at all.  Would any of us have a problem saying that some Jehovah's Witnesses will develop better outside of the Jehovah Witness faith?  Its so obvious it sounds odd to say.  

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

Yes.  McConkie brings back to the Church a world of knowledge.  This tells us we all need to be more open to ideas and information.  The old, stick to Church sanctioned stuff, or fearing other religions and culture needs to go (and certainly has to some extent).  Getting rid of the one true Church idea will take us a ways. 

Quote

Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along," said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. "They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else.... Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted ... the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people.... We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense" (Conference Report, April 1928, p.59).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

Good, better, best ---- yes. That would be best. But many, many people are never going to reach the point of repenting and embracing the Church until they try things their way and learn the hard way. 

 

 

I wouldn't say that it's a matter of people not being cut out for the Church. The reality is that many people are not now in a position where they willfully and happily embrace the duties and blessings of Church membership. And they won't ever reach this point until they learn by doing things their way.

 

 

He inviteth all --- and so do we. But the fact of the matter is that inviting does not mean that people will willfully and happily embrace it. They have to learn from their own experience, and many do reach this point. But not without the experience of doing things their way.

Wherefore, cheer up your hearts and remember that he are free to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. 

We are born in mortality "to act and not be acted upon."

[rongo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Wherefore, cheer up your hearts and remember that he are free to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. 

We are born in mortality "to act and not be acted upon."

Isn't choosing to leave the Church "acting?" That's an absolute expression and use of agency. 

People are free to choose, but it is the fact that their choices carry consequences that makes it possible that they will learn from their choices. For many, choosing other than what the Church teaches is what eventually leads them to embrace what the Church teaches.

It would be better if they had believed and acted on that belief in the first place, but many people have to learn why this is themselves, through their own experience.

I think that's the core of what Lehi and Nephi are teaching.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Isn't choosing to leave the Church "acting?" That's an absolute expression and use of agency. 

People are free to choose, but it is the fact that their choices carry consequences that makes it possible that they will learn from their choices. For many, choosing other than what the Church teaches is what eventually leads them to embrace what the Church teaches.

It would be better if they had believed and acted on that belief in the first place, but many people have to learn why this is themselves, through their own experience.

I think that's the core of what Lehi and Nephi are teaching.

And for some leaving the Church gives people reason to embrace what God wants for them, or embrace God's truths that the Church simply can't see. 

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Only dangerous if you have a very narrow view about what is acceptable in God's eyes and think that your perspective applies to everyone universally. 

We're just going to ignore that "strait is the gate and narrow is the way" rot, then? Christ was just kidding when He said that, I guess. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

There is good, better, and best. I do not think this kind of path would ever be considered (let's say while anticipating one's life's course while yet in the pre-mortal realm)  the 'best," but the Lord can make the best of even the worst.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

According to your citation, no, I do not think him leaving Mormonism was necessary though I think it ks healthy to listen to others and do a compare and contrast scenario according to what you learn about others with what Mormonism is, or, rather, what tou understand Mormonism to be. I do this a lot but I naturally enjoy doing it as I enjoy learning from ither's beliefs. Compare / contrast, justification, analysis, etc. are all forms if higher thinking which I think brings us closer to Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

Isn't choosing to leave the Church "acting?" That's an absolute expression and use of agency. 

People are free to choose, but it is the fact that their choices carry consequences that makes it possible that they will learn from their choices. For many, choosing other than what the Church teaches is what eventually leads them to embrace what the Church teaches.

It would be better if they had believed and acted on that belief in the first place, but many people have to learn why this is themselves, through their own experience.

I think that's the core of what Lehi and Nephi are teaching.

Thinking the only way you can you can find God is by wandering off is not acting. It is being acted upon. Believing discipleship is within one's power and then pursuing that course is acting. 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This article is going around the internet and I thought it was interesting.  It's about a man who left mormonism in his teens, spent some time as an atheist/buddhist, and then returned to mormonism again (after having a very turbulent relationship with it for many years).

How An LDS Man Related to Apostles Left Mormonism....and Became Mormon Again

In the last paragraph in the condescended interview he says this-

"But his time spent outside of Mormonism was not without spiritual development. In fact, in McConkie's case, it helped him realize the perspective of others and change how he viewed Mormonism. 

"As I learned to take on the perspective of a European, of an atheist Spaniard, or you know, whatever perspective I was conversing with, I think I started practicing taking the perspective of my father more deeply and my family of origin, my Church," McConkie told NPR. "And I think that was the beginning I think of a kind of compassion that edge of these people are crazy just started to smooth. And this new voice was coming up in me saying these people have a perspective. People are wise. People mean well. And I would do well to listen to their perspective. And that was a really significant shift for me growing up in Europe."

My question is, was McConkie's journey out of the faith necessary for him to have the testimony he eventually was able to find?  Or, do you think, if he had just gone along with his family and done what he was supposed/expected to do that eventually he would have found a testimony anyway?

Unless you're using testimony in a different way than most people use it, it wasn't that leaving Mormonism helped him regain his testimony. I think what happened was that leaving Mormonism and the perspectives and maturity he gained during that time led him to view Mormonism differently and accept the things that were frustrating to him. I shouldn't speak for him, but if you listen to him speak and read his book, I think he has a testimony and view of the church is very similar to mine. A post faith-crisis-faith-reconstruction kind of perspective. I went through this process without leaving the church, but you could say I was mentally out even though I was still in. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thinking the only way you can you can find God is by wandering off is not acting. It is being acted upon. Believing discipleship is within one's power and then pursuing that course is acting. 

Are you saying that one only uses his agency if he uses it correctly? That, if he acts in a way contrary to the gospel, he isn't acting, but is instead being acted upon? 

No, that doesn't make any sense to me. All choices we make are acting and using our agency. There are natural consequences either way, and it is these consequences that put us in a position (through our own knowledge and experience) to be able to make further choices and actions (and sometimes out past choices narrow our future ones).

[Scott Lloyd]

I fear that somehow some have talked themselves into believing that wandering or falling away from the Church and its precepts is the courageous thing to do. It's not. It's the natural-man path of least resistance. The courageous, difficult thing is to stay the course Difficult because discipleship requires a total commitment, a sacrifice of all that one has. Once we get there, we find to our joy that His "yoke is easy and [His] burden is light."  But the scary thing is getting there. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Are you saying that one only uses his agency if he uses it correctly? That, if he acts in a way contrary to the gospel, he isn't acting, but is instead being acted upon? 

What I'm saying is expressed in what I just posted, the message that appeared just after yours, although I was writing it at the time yours appeared. 

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear that somehow some have talked themselves into believing that wandering or falling away from the Church and its precepts i the courageous thing to do. It's not. It's the natural-man of least resistance. The courageous, difficult thing is to stay the course Difficult because discipleship requires a total commitment, a sacrifice of all that one has. Once we get there, we find to our joy that His "yoke is easy and [His] burden is light."  But the scary thing is getting there. 

Are you joking? Do you understand the strength of integrity required to face family and friends and explain that you don't believe the way they believe anymore, knowing the price you will pay for such a decision in terms of being shunned, the sad pitiful eyes you will have to face every Christmas or family gathering, the disappointment your parents will heap on you? If you think falling away from the Church doesn't involve courage then you have no concept of reality. You may think they are wrong, but to think no courage is involved is ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about, that much is very clear.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear that somehow some have talked themselves into believing that wandering or falling away from the Church and its precepts i the courageous thing to do. It's not. It's the natural-man of least resistance. The courageous, difficult thing is to stay the course Difficult because discipleship requires a total commitment, a sacrifice of all that one has. Once we get there, we find to our joy that His "yoke is easy and [His] burden is light."  But the scary thing is getting there. 

Bravo. Taking up a cross and following Him is taking the road to our personal Golgatha.

He stumbled and wanted out, but persevered.

Just as we're supposed to.

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We're just going to ignore that "strait is the gate and narrow is the way" rot, then? Christ was just kidding when He said that, I guess. 

We're just going to keep assuming God is confined to the Church rot, then?  I mean come on.  Just because strait ist he gate and narrow the way, we also know that God has a way to save and exalt any soul whether they live their life on earth as a Mormon or not. 

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear that somehow some have talked themselves into believing that wandering or falling away from the Church and its precepts is the courageous thing to do. It's not. It's the natural-man path of least resistance. The courageous, difficult thing is to stay the course Difficult because discipleship requires a total commitment, a sacrifice of all that one has. Once we get there, we find to our joy that His "yoke is easy and [His] burden is light."  But the scary thing is getting there. 

I don't think it's wise to be so dogmatic about this.  We each travel our course in life and it's silly, in my mind, to think so absolutely as you have done--so black and white.  Sometimes for some and in some circumstances perhaps it is far easier to just stay in the Church then leave, even if God would want them to leave.  You simply can't know any of that.  TIme to open up, Brother.