Is it sometimes better to leave the church?

[smac97]

2 hours 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?

That is an interesting question.  Two stories from the scriptures come to mind.  The first is the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  They partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, knowing that it transgressed the commands of God, but also knowing that it "brought mortality and death to them and to their posterity; for it made possible the human family upon the earth (2 Nephi 2:25)."  In other words, transgression was an integral ("necessary") part of the Plan of Salvation.  

So can/should this experience be replicated?  If the Church is analogized to the Garden, is it sometimes necessary to leave it in order to progress?  In my view . . . no.  I think the analogy is not apt.  The Garden was idyllic, but by design also constrained Adam and Even from progressing.  In contrast, the LDS Church is designed to facilitate progress.  That is what the doctrines and commandments are intended to encourage.  And the saving ordinances.  And the structure of the Church.  And the gifts of the Spirit and the focus on Jesus Christ.  So I think this analogy (leaving the Church is sometimes necessary, like Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden) substantively fails.

Another analogy comes to mind: the Prodigal Son:

Quote

11 ¶ And he said, A certain man had two sons:

12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.

26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.

27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and entreated him.

29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

This analogy, I think, is also problematic.  It does not illuminate the central issue posed in your question (the "necessity" of leaving the Church).  The Prodigal Son chose to leave.  He was not compelled by conscience or circumstance.  He apparently wanted to indulge in "riotous living."  However, there are many, many people in the Church who are people of character and principle, and who choose to leave on principled grounds (just as there are many people who stay on principled grounds).  Moreover, there are many people who, upon leaving the Church, lead wonderful lives, and do not descend into depravity or "riotous living."  So this analogy also does not fare well.

I guess my next and final thought would be about the voluminous scriptural exhortations to "endure to the end" (see Topical Guide entries under "Endure," "Perseverance," "Diligence," "Dedication" and "Steadfastness").  Also consider Luke 9:62: "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

I can see a person asking to be released from a calling when their personal circumstances make fulfilling that calling impossible or inappropriate.  But as far as whether a "journey out of the faith" is "necessary," I would say . . . no.  I don't think it's part of the Plan.  I don't think that is what the Lord wants His covenant people to do (hence the whole "covenant" thing).

I am, of course, very happy that Bro. McConkie, having departed from our community of faith, returned to it.  Things worked out for him.  Many others, however, do not return.  Such departures have profound ramifications on those individuals, on their loved ones, on their descendants, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It was Christ who established the Church to administer His strait and narrow way. To reject the Church He established for that purpose is to reject Him. 

[The Nehor]

Talking about necessary is dipping in waters we have no comprehension of. Many things are necessary because of choices we have made. Our lives are known in advance by God so the path we are walking is "the plan" but that plan damns many. We make choices and God has factored them in.

So yeah, some people may need time outside the faith. I would still doubt anyone recommending such a course or choosing it themselves. Some return, many do not.

Would I trade days of daily revelation wrapped in the love of God for days learning cultural attitudes to apprise my faith from the outside? Hell no! It might be necessary but I would not choose it or recommend it.

Exit: It is also suspicious because humans have a tendency to justify experiences they have had in the past as necessary or learning experiences. Saying I wasted ten years of my life doing something is rarely satisfactory and even when people do say something like that they usually append that they learned from it. They probably did but was it necessary to learn it that way? Absent revelation we should have some humility on that point.

Edited August 25, 2017 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was Christ who established the Church to administer His strait and narrow way. To reject the Church He established for that purpose is to reject Him. 

I think that's a very black and white way of thinking.  Most who accept Christ have nothing to do with the Church.  In time everyone will bow their knee and all that.  We need not rush it, nor need we reject those whom we know not if Christ will reject.  That's just taking far too many liberties, I'd say.  The Church is tiny in the land.  It hardly has reached a soul, in relative terms.  God is too big for us.  WE're just tiny, a part of one little tool in God's tool chest.  Relax a bit, Scott.  People will come around, eventually.  WE'll see.  It'll be a heavenly day.  For now, open up a bit, is my advice. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's a very black and white way of thinking.  Most who accept Christ have nothing to do with the Church.  In time everyone will bow their knee and all that.  We need not rush it, nor need we reject those whom we know not if Christ will reject.  That's just taking far too many liberties, I'd say.  The Church is tiny in the land.  It hardly has reached a soul, in relative terms.  God is too big for us.  WE're just tiny, a part of one little tool in God's tool chest.  Relax a bit, Scott.  People will come around, eventually.  WE'll see.  It'll be a heavenly day.  For now, open up a bit, is my advice. 

Whether one accepts the gospel now or in the future, the gateway will always be baptism and other ordinances of salvation administered through the Church Christ established. That is why we pour so much time, effort and expense into vicarious work for the dead. Everyone who bows the knee and confesses that Jesus is Lord will have to come in through that gateway sooner or later. 

And I'm sorry, but telling me to relax is bad advice, since the commandment to all of God's covenant people is to preach the gospel to every nation and to bring souls to Christ. If anything, I need to step up my game, not slacken it. 

[bluebell]

2 hours 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. 

So you believe he would have eventually arrived at the same testimony if he had stayed a member, even if he had to pretend or just 'go with the flow' for a few years?

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

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.

Every choice, even a bad choice, has its immediate and long-term consequences. But I stand by my position that what takes real fortitude is discipleship and enduring to the end. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether one accepts the gospel now or in the future, the gateway will always be baptism and other ordinances of salvation administered through the Church Christ established. That is why we pour so much time, effort and expense into vicarious work for the dead. Everyone who bows the knee and confesses that Jesus is Lord will have to come in through that gateway sooner or later. 

And I'm sorry, but telling me to relax is bad advice, since the commandment to all of God's covenant people is to preach the gospel to every nation and to bring souls to Christ. If anything, I need to step up my game, not slacken it. 

I didn't say relax on preaching good things to people.  I say relax on a bit on how you view other's salvation, and on people's affiliation with the Church.

Edited August 25, 2017 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

1 hour 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. 

I think we approach and interpret scripture very differently

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

That's o.k.  I find your view of the LDS church, as a member yourself, quite odd too.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

 

So you believe that the church must deny some of it's revelations and doctrine?  And what do you mean when you said that doing that will 'take us a ways."  A ways to where?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

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.

I'm wondering how Scott would describe someone leaving another religion to join Mormonism.  Would that be a courageous act in his mind?  Or are only acts that align with Mormon exceptionalism considered truly courageous.  Curious....  

[bluebell]

1 hour 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 disagree that for people with a long history in and with the church, that leaving is the path of least resistance.  Pretending to have a testimony and just going through the motions would be the real path of least resistance.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

So you believe that the church must deny some of it's revelations and doctrine?  And what do you mean when you said that doing that will 'take us a ways."  A ways to where?

The Church should continually reevaluate it's revelations and doctrines.  It has in times past left revelations and doctrines in the past, going forward with the notion they were mistakes of men, policies not doctrine, and the like.  A ways down the path of goodness and progress.  The teaching itself is part of the dogma which seems to have shut many a member out from considering good things that we should embrace.  We should embrace goodness and truth no matter the source. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you believe he would have eventually arrived at the same testimony if he had stayed a member, even if he had to pretend or just 'go with the flow' for a few years?

Whether or not he "would" have is dependent on him  But I see no reason to believe he <could> not have done so by pressing forward with steadfast faith in Christ, as we are all commanded to do after having made the baptismal covenant.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't say relax on preaching good things to people.  I say relax on a bit on how you view other's salvation, and on people's affiliation with the Church.

I can't with the integrity do that, believing what I have been taught about the Church. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can't with the integrity do that, believing what I have been taught about the Church. 

Ah well...Someday you'll see.  Can't fault you for not being able to see.  It's your eyes fault. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I disagree that for people with a long history in and with the church, that leaving is the path of least resistance.  Pretending to have a testimony and just going through the motions would be the real path of least resistance.  

That's not good either, and it is certainly not what I'm advocating here, which is to press forward with steadfast faith in Christ. 

Sheesh. Just "going through the motions" and falling away altogether are both bad options. Why do you think I would advocate either one?

Edited to add: Going through the motions and full on departure may be part and parcel of the same behavior anyway, since the one is often the eventual outcome of the other. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ah well...Someday you'll see.  Can't fault you for not being able to see.  It's your eyes fault. 

I could turn that statement back on you, but what good would it do?

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is an interesting question.  Two stories from the scriptures come to mind.  The first is the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  They partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, knowing that it transgressed the commands of God, but also knowing that it "brought mortality and death to them and to their posterity; for it made possible the human family upon the earth (2 Nephi 2:25)."  In other words, transgression was an integral ("necessary") part of the Plan of Salvation.  

So can/should this experience be replicated?  If the Church is analogized to the Garden, is it sometimes necessary to leave it in order to progress?  In my view . . . no.  I think the analogy is not apt.  The Garden was idyllic, but by design also constrained Adam and Even from progressing.  In contrast, the LDS Church is designed to facilitate progress.  That is what the doctrines and commandments are intended to encourage.  And the saving ordinances.  And the structure of the Church.  And the gifts of the Spirit and the focus on Jesus Christ.  So I think this analogy (leaving the Church is sometimes necessary, like Adam and Eve leaving the Garden of Eden) substantively fails.

Another analogy comes to mind: the Prodigal Son:

This analogy, I think, is also problematic.  It does not illuminate the central issue posed in your question (the "necessity" of leaving the Church).  The Prodigal Son chose to leave.  He was not compelled by conscience or circumstance.  He apparently wanted to indulge in "riotous living."  However, there are many, many people in the Church who are people of character and principle, and who choose to leave on principled grounds (just as there are many people who stay on principled grounds).  Moreover, there are many people who, upon leaving the Church, lead wonderful lives, and do not descend into depravity or "riotous living."  So this analogy also does not fare well.

I guess my next and final thought would be about the voluminous scriptural exhortations to "endure to the end" (see Topical Guide entries under "Endure," "Perseverance," "Diligence," "Dedication" and "Steadfastness").  Also consider Luke 9:62: "And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

I can see a person asking to be released from a calling when their personal circumstances make fulfilling that calling impossible or inappropriate.  But as far as whether a "journey out of the faith" is "necessary," I would say . . . no.  I don't think it's part of the Plan.  I don't think that is what the Lord wants His covenant people to do (hence the whole "covenant" thing).

I am, of course, very happy that Bro. McConkie, having departed from our community of faith, returned to it.  Things worked out for him.  Many others, however, do not return.  Such departures have profound ramifications on those individuals, on their loved ones, on their descendants, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

His story reminded me of Christ's words in the book of Revelation 3 to the church of Laodicea.

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.  15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.  16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It seems like Christ is saying that it's better to be cold in the gospel, than be lukewarm.  That its better to be out of the church than in it not doing what you are supposed to be doing and not believing what you are supposed to be believing.

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Exit: It is also suspicious because humans have a tendency to justify experiences they have had in the past as necessary or learning experiences. Saying I wasted ten years of my life doing something is rarely satisfactory and even when people do say something like that they usually append that they learned from it. They probably did but was it necessary to learn it that way? Absent revelation we should have some humility on that point.

This is how I feel when i hear people say that they have no regrets about the life they have lived.  It always comes across to me as just a way not to have to ever admit that you were wrong about anything.  

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Every choice, even a bad choice, has its immediate and long-term consequences. But I stand by my position that what takes real fortitude is discipleship and enduring to the end. 

It all depends on perspective though, doesn't it?

I mean, if we were talking about a Catholic priest's choice between staying in the Catholic church and keeping the covenants that he made to God when he became a priest, or leaving it to join the LDS church, you would be arguing that leaving was the courageous choice and that staying and enduring to the end in the Catholic church as a disciple as the Catholic church defines it would be the path of least resistance.

[hagoth7]

2 hours 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. 

The question wasn't whether it's dangerous.

The question was whether it's true.

(Mortality is quasi-dangerous...yet we each opted to come here.)

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church should continually reevaluate it's revelations and doctrines.  It has in times past left revelations and doctrines in the past, going forward with the notion they were mistakes of men, policies not doctrine, and the like.  A ways down the path of goodness and progress.  The teaching itself is part of the dogma which seems to have shut many a member out from considering good things that we should embrace.  We should embrace goodness and truth no matter the source. 

I'm aware of teachings and that kind of thing that the church has left in the past, but not actual doctrines or scriptural revelations on par with the teaching that the church is the Kingdom of God on the earth, and the only organization with the authority to act in the name of God, and administer the ordinances which are required for salvation.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is how I feel when i hear people say that they have no regrets about the life they have lived.  It always comes across to me as just a way not to have to ever admit that you were wrong about anything.