Is it sometimes better to leave the church?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

What if he did not have any faith in Christ any longer?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Well I'm not convincing you otherwise.  Many a scriptural teaching alone is considered wrong by the Church, it seems to me.  Was polygamy on part with doctrines or scriptural revelation to those who lived in the Church's polygamy hey day?  What about the priesthood restriction?  Were the teachings which explained the position of the Church, espoused by the first presidency themselves as doctrine and revelation, not revelation and doctrine? 

I'm sure there's not changing your mind at this point.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I don't think you would advocate for either.  You stated that the path of least resistance is to leave the church.  I was just pointing out that that's not true and provided an example to support that.

[RevTestament]

Speaking of one who did drift away from the Church, I seem to have a perspective from both sides of the coin. There is a "cost" to our actions. There are consequences. If one leaves, God will work to bring them back, but is there a cost?

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.

One might say we have committed to put our hand to the plough when we are baptized, but most have not really experienced the world at that age. Some may not really be fully committed, and thus not fully fit for the kingdom of God. Peter's many failures turned him for a testimony. However, they were somewhat bitter experiences. Some were micro-turning-away experiences. 

The parable of the prodigal son resonates with those who have departed and lost their inheritance. And although when he returned, the Father did welcome him back and slew a calf that they may eat together, his elder brother, who had been perfect, did not welcome him back into the house at that time, and his inheritance in the house had been spent. Thus, there was a cost for his departure most would not want to pay. Did he learn something by departing from the house? Surely, he did, but there was a cost for his decision, and he did not return on the same footing on which he left. His elder brother now expected more of him.

Was it necessary to learn it that way? For the prodigal son it was, but not everyone has to make that choice. There are certainly easier choices. "Absent revelation we should have some humility on that point." Was it necessary for Adam to fall? It was, and he didn't like it, but he did it for Eve. Thus, his motive was unselfish. If you want to learn the hard way, and have trouble with your brothers trusting you, and letting you back into the house, you may consider the choice of leaving, but it is better if you have a decent motive for doing so, and not just that you want to be free to commit sin. The member who jumps expecting God to save him, is tempting God.

Luke 4:

9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: ***

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not ^atempt the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 6:16-17

16 ¶ Ye shall not ^atempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Yes, perspective has a great deal of influence. 

My perspective is that one should follow Christ. Catholicism and its tenets may be a way for one to do that for a while, but once one comes forward on the path to the point of finding the restored gospel in its fullness, then continuing to follow Christ means being baptized by one having authority. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if he did not have any faith in Christ any longer?

Then I guess he would need to go back and start again with the earlier stages of development, giving place in his heart for the word to be planted, nourishing it with his faith until it grows into a tree, etc. I don't see that any of that entails falling away from Christ and His gospel. 

[hope_for_things]

34 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.  

Actually, I think pretending to have a testimony and continuing to go through the motions is extremely difficult and I know many people who have done that to some degree to try and maintain family and friendships after they lost a testimony in the traditional sense.  I would say this may be the path of most resistance.  

Least resistance would be just going along with the group and believing the same as everyone else.  Thats the easiest path from a group identity perspective.  

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

That's fine that we have different perspectives, I think thats a good thing in a lot of ways, and I appreciate your perspective.  The reason I'm finding this odd is that I don't think you're understanding McConkie when you describe his coming back to Mormonism in terms of testimony reborn, I just don't think that's how he would describe his perspective at all.  I guess this works as a thought experiment in general, but specifically I don't see how it fits these circumstances.  

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think you would advocate for either.  You stated that the path of least resistance is to leave the church.  I was just pointing out that that's not true and provided an example to support that.

You mean the one about the Catholic priest? I just addressed that. I don't see adhering to the tenets of his faith as following the path of least resistance. I see it as following Christ until one is led to the gospel in its fullness. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, I think pretending to have a testimony and continuing to go through the motions is extremely difficult and I know many people who have done that to some degree to try and maintain family and friendships after they lost a testimony in the traditional sense.  I would say this may be the path of most resistance.  

Least resistance would be just going along with the group and believing the same as everyone else.  Thats the easiest path from a group identity perspective.  

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Neither one amounts to pressing forward with steadfast faith in Christ. 

I fear you don't really understand what that means. Probably none of us have a full or perfect understanding of it until we have done it. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, perspective has a great deal of influence. 

My perspective is that one should follow Christ. Catholicism and its tenets may be a way for one to do that for a while, but once one comes forward on the path to the point of finding the restored gospel in its fullness, then continuing to follow Christ means being baptized by one having authority. 

I agree.

But for those who sincerely believe that God is telling them to leave, for example, our perspectives aren't valid.  Does God expect/require people to go against what they sincerely believe is right (even if they are actually wrong)?  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Six of one and half a dozen of the other. Neither one amounts to pressing forward with steadfast faith in Christ. 

I fear you don't really understand what that means. Probably none of us have a full or perfect understanding of it until we have done it. 

It would be difficult to rate and rank which experiences are more challenging as all experience is subjective.  I just didn't like the idea of trying to minimize someone else's trails in life as being the easy way out.  I would agree with you that many people I know who are committed to following their path, are very devoted and feel like their path is very challenging.  

Probably best if we just honor the paths that people take, regardless what that path is, and acknowledge that our lack of experience in their shoes somewhat disqualifies us from truly appreciating what they are experiencing.  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That's fine that we have different perspectives, I think thats a good thing in a lot of ways, and I appreciate your perspective.  The reason I'm finding this odd is that I don't think you're understanding McConkie when you describe his coming back to Mormonism in terms of testimony reborn, I just don't think that's how he would describe his perspective at all.  I guess this works as a thought experiment in general, but specifically I don't see how it fits these circumstances.  

It might not be how he would describe it.  I think that's how most members would interpret it which is why I used the words I used.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean the one about the Catholic priest? I just addressed that. I don't see adhering to the tenets of his faith as following the path of least resistance. I see it as following Christ until one is led to the gospel in its fullness. 

No, i meant the example of just going with the flow to keep the peace, even if you no longer believe the church is true.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, I think pretending to have a testimony and continuing to go through the motions is extremely difficult and I know many people who have done that to some degree to try and maintain family and friendships after they lost a testimony in the traditional sense.  I would say this may be the path of most resistance.  

Least resistance would be just going along with the group and believing the same as everyone else.  Thats the easiest path from a group identity perspective.  

I don't think it's possible to just believe in something that you don't actually believe in.  

[kllindley]

2 hours 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. 

Well, Scott. If I hadn't stepped back from the Church for a short time, I wouldn't have been alive long enough to find out that his burden is light. I'm sure grateful that God is able to do his own work and answered my prayers and the pleadings of my family in a way that allowed me to live and then to rediscover the Gospel in all its glorious light without all the baggage I had grown up with. 

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It might not be how he would describe it.  I think that's how most members would interpret it which is why I used the words I used.  

Fair enough, but most members would likely be shocked at many of his unorthodox ideas as well.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's possible to just believe in something that you don't actually believe in.  

I agree, and I'm not saying these people going through the motions believe the same way anymore.  Their beliefs have changed, but they are still serving in callings and attending meetings and keeping their new beliefs inside and not sharing them with people.  It becomes very challenging because of the dissonance created.  Its largely a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy.  

[clarkgoble]

4 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 don't think excommunications are ever appropriate? Because that's fundamentally the decision they are taking - that some people are better off not being in those covenants. If we are willing to do it in a court of love, we shouldn't be surprised if God directs people to do the same to the point they are able to both repent and accept the doctrines. Not everyone is in a place where they can do that.

Now it is dangerous in one sense of course. In that I agree. Many who leave don't come back. However there was a study by the church I believe in the late 80's or early 90's that something like 40% of all active members surveyed had been inactive for some period. So I don't think this is as uncommon as we might initially think. Of course since then there have been a lot of significant social changes. I don't know if that makes it more dangerous or less though.

[Tacenda]

1 hour 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. 

What if the church isn't the gateway but a personal relationship and accepting grace as a free gift and not exaltation to become gods at all? Although you didn't mention exaltation. What if you and a few million members are wrong? What if you're living in a world like "The Truman Show" or "The Matrix", or "Pleasantville"? There is a video for ex LDS or disaffected LDS that shows bits of each of these movies as if to say they woke up. Or I could compare it to several religions that think they are the one true church. 

But I'm thinking members such as yourself and others, think they can't comprehend eternity not progressing and becoming a god. I can see that too. Or some that think the church is a culture people feel the most comfortable in. I think there are a variety of reasons people like the relgion they are in. But like Stemelbow, I think the amount of members in the LDS church is so small, that I wonder. And there is so much that enables doubt that it's amazing that so many are able to look past them and still believe. Still trying to figure it out, whether to leave or stay. I will be moving to a new neighborhood and ward, so I am at a point of either going full force or not. 

 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, and I'm not saying these people going through the motions believe the same way anymore.  Their beliefs have changed, but they are still serving in callings and attending meetings and keeping their new beliefs inside and not sharing them with people.  It becomes very challenging because of the dissonance created.  Its largely a matter of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy.  

I was more responding to this statement you made-

Quote

Least resistance would be just going along with the group and believing the same as everyone else.  Thats the easiest path from a group identity perspective.  

 

[thesometimesaint]

4 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?

I wouldn't say it is better, but sometimes their path is too hard for a time. I welcome them back with open arms.

[Guest]

Simply put, I have come to the difficult reality that not all are meant for the Church. For those who do not believe, or those who cannot reconcile themselves with Church policy, they should first seek out answers through fasting and prayer. If they cannot find them, then they should just go. It is pointless for them to agonize over it day after day, to stalk others on the Internet to find "sole mates", if you will that will champion their cause, or their axe to grind. Often in life, people must lose what they have to fully appreciate it, or just the thought of such loss to bring them to their knees in prayer. Either way, the purpose of life is joy, so for some that will mean leaving, some for a season and some forever. 

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Simply put, I have come to the difficult reality that not all are meant for the Church. For those who do not believe, or those who cannot reconcile themselves with Church policy, they should first seek out answers through fasting and prayer. If they cannot find them, then they should just go. It is pointless for them to agonize over it day after day, to stalk others on the Internet to find "sole mates", if you will that will champion their cause, or their axe to grind. Often in life, people must lose what they have to fully appreciate it, or just the thought of such loss to bring them to their knees in prayer. Either way, the purpose of life is joy, so for some that will mean leaving, some for a season and some forever. 

This is why I wonder if organized religion is even a good thing. And why not just a faith, and go to whichever church you want without the message that it is the one true religion. How that mentality hurts so many out there is astounding. It hurts the faith in God, IMO. Because once they find out that their church may not be the only true church, they begin to doubt God or Jesus Christ. Below is a link to LDS.org. Our church distinctly believes it's the one true church with the added families can be together forever, so if one leaves they won't be with their families. That isn't what is in the other non organized religions. Religions like ours make the non believer believe they are going to be cut off, wait nix that, make the believer think their family member will be cut off. This is extremely harmful. I don't think this is what God wanted. 

https://www.lds.org/youth/article/only-true-living-church?lang=eng

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Speaking of one who did drift away from the Church, I seem to have a perspective from both sides of the coin. There is a "cost" to our actions. There are consequences. If one leaves, God will work to bring them back, but is there a cost?

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.

One might say we have committed to put our hand to the plough when we are baptized, but most have not really experienced the world at that age. Some may not really be fully committed, and thus not fully fit for the kingdom of God. Peter's many failures turned him for a testimony. However, they were somewhat bitter experiences. Some were micro-turning-away experiences. 

The parable of the prodigal son resonates with those who have departed and lost their inheritance. And although when he returned, the Father did welcome him back and slew a calf that they may eat together, his elder brother, who had been perfect, did not welcome him back into the house at that time, and his inheritance in the house had been spent. Thus, there was a cost for his departure most would not want to pay. Did he learn something by departing from the house? Surely, he did, but there was a cost for his decision, and he did not return on the same footing on which he left. His elder brother now expected more of him.

Was it necessary to learn it that way? For the prodigal son it was, but not everyone has to make that choice. There are certainly easier choices. "Absent revelation we should have some humility on that point." Was it necessary for Adam to fall? It was, and he didn't like it, but he did it for Eve. Thus, his motive was unselfish. If you want to learn the hard way, and have trouble with your brothers trusting you, and letting you back into the house, you may consider the choice of leaving, but it is better if you have a decent motive for doing so, and not just that you want to be free to commit sin. The member who jumps expecting God to save him, is tempting God.

Luke 4:

9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: ***

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not ^atempt the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 6:16-17

16 ¶ Ye shall not ^atempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.

I think the ploughing scripture has more to do with the Israelites moaning about Egypt and Lot's wife wanting to go back to Sodom. It is more about craving the pleasures of Babylon while trying to build Zion.