Is it sometimes better to leave the church?

[Meerkat]

On 8/25/2017 at 9:44 AM, 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.

I agree.  I think your comment depends on what the word "disciple" means to you.  If disciple means to follow Christ wherever He leads, then enduring to the end would be the context, is that what you are saying?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Meerkat

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:48 AM, bluebell said:

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?

The scriptures and leaders never tell us it is sometimes best to leave the church for a period of time.   

Edited August 26, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

I agree.  I think your comment depends on what the word "disciple" means to you.  If disciple means to follow Christ wherever He leads, then enduring to the end would be the context, is that what you are saying?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking exactly.  My thoughts on discipleship are that discipleship is trying to follow Christ wherever you believe He is leading you after doing everything you can to know His will.  I don't think you can tie discipleship to church membership or belief.  

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The scriptures and leaders never tell us it is sometimes best to leave the church for a period of time.   

I think the scriptures and our leaders generally function from a best case scenario perspective.  They teach to the rule, in other words, and not to the exception.  

And to be clear, I don't think anyone thinks that it is ever best to leave the church.  What I'm asking is whether or not it might be best sometimes for certain people.

Edited August 26, 2017 by bluebell

[Meerkat]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:24 AM, hope_for_things said:

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.  

His parents, siblings, souse, children, grandparents, etc. or combination thereof undoubtedly care.  It is clear that your world does not revolve around Mormonism. Mine does.  Sometimes Your comments pinch a little. Was "Mormonism, it's a quaint little religion in the grand scheme of things" an innocuous comment, or were you making a point that its relatively small numbers were perhaps a good reason to leave the Church?

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:20 AM, 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. 

Isn't there something about "putting one's hand on the plow?" And then there is the Prodigal.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Was "Mormonism, it's a quaint little religion in the grand scheme of things" an innocuous comment, or were you making a point that its relatively small numbers were perhaps a good reason to leave the Church?

Well, Nephi described the Church in the latter-days...

Quote

And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

Jesus said...

Quote

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

At his death, his followers scattered and abandoned him. Only a few remained with him. 

And Joseph said to his small band,

Quote

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know notwhere to find it—

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited viery much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves.

17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully doall things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

It's not necessarily the numbers that matter.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, Nephi described the Church in the latter-days...

Jesus said...

At his death, his followers scattered and abandoned him. Only a few remained with him. 

And Joseph said to his small band,

It's not necessarily the numbers that matter.

Right. It's global presence and influence. And it's the spiritual strength and fortitude of those who have come into the fold, however many there are. Which is a good reason to resist wolves in sheep's clothing. I worry about them more than I do any ebb in growth rates or baptism rates. I know that it is prophesied that in the last days the church of the lamb will be small, its numbers relatively few, by reason of the influence of Satan and his followers. That is happening now with people calling good evil and evil good. 

[Duncan]

I think some people emotionally check out of the church, I had a few mission companions like that. They just didn't want to do it anymore, they had lost the fire but weren't doing the wrong things to get sent home but not the right things for a missionary-mostly go through the motions but just were in it anymore.Some physically check out, some people just get burned out or tired of drama (some wards are full of drama), some people can be hard to take. It's hard to take things seriously if others don't, like if you have leaders who are semi active or don't know anything and aren't willing to learn then why bother coming and listen to what? our HC today simply read a general conference talk in Church and people were in and out and I doubt anyone was listening, I don't think anything was really his own material, if he doesn't care enough to come up with a talk, why listen?-"On other occasions we have meetings where the speaker comes and all he brings is a little cup of eternal truth, and the members of the congregation come with a large jug, and all they get in their jugs is the little dribble that came from a man who should have known better and who should have prepared himself and talked from the revelations and spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit." Elder McConkie, 1980 BYU

As I say there is that other guy on our HC who thinks Naziism, of all things, should be given the benefit of the doubt, do I trust that guy to teach my son?  honestly no I don't and to be totally honest if I knew he held those kinds of views I wouldn't have sustained him, now it's too late of course

I think some people probably need to step back from the Church to re evaulate their life and what impact the Church is having, should be having or should not be having. I guess it's up to the individual whether or not they physically leave or not or are honest if they accept a calling or not. If people leave I hope they come back for the better, although if they come back into the same stuff, I wonder if they' leave for good, "tried coming back to church and was asked to do 3 callings plus, this and this and this" 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Duncan

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I think some people emotionally check out of the church, I had a few mission companions like that. They just didn't want to do it anymore, they had lost the fire but weren't doing the wrong things to get sent home but not the right things for a missionary-mostly go through the motions but just were in it anymore.Some physically check out, some people just get burned out or tired of drama (some wards are full of drama), some people can be hard to take. It's hard to take things seriously if others don't, like if you have leaders who are semi active or don't know anything and aren't willing to learn then why bother coming and listen to what? our HC today simply read a general conference talk in Church and people were in and out and I doubt anyone was listening, I don't think anything was really his own material, if he doesn't care enough to come up with a talk, why listen?-"On other occasions we have meetings where the speaker comes and all he brings is a little cup of eternal truth, and the members of the congregation come with a large jug, and all they get in their jugs is the little dribble that came from a man who should have known better and who should have prepared himself and talked from the revelations and spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit." Elder McConkie, 1980 BYU

As I say there is that other guy on our HC who thinks Naziism, of all things, should be given the benefit of the doubt, do I trust that guy to teach my son?  honestly no I don't and to be totally honest if I knew he held those kinds of views I wouldn't have sustained him, now it's too late of course

I think some people probably need to step back from the Church to re evaulate their life and what impact the Church is having, should be having or should not be having. I guess it's up to the individual whether or not they physically leave or not or are honest if they accept a calling or not. If people leave I hope they come back for the better, although if they come back into the same stuff, I wonder if they' leave for good, "tried coming back to church and was asked to do 3 callings plus, this and this and this" 

I think you are exactly the kind of Mormon that the church needs. You can step back enough to know what is wrong and what is right, despite that it is a HC member doing it or not. Some members are so "in", they wouldn't blink an eye. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think you are exactly the kind of Mormon that the church needs. You can step back enough to know what is wrong and what is right, despite that it is a HC member doing it or not. Some members are so "in", they wouldn't blink an eye. 

aw shucks!!!!!

[Rain]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:23 AM, 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.

This describes my son so clearly. One of the most terrifying things I have heard is when he said there is God's way and his way and he didn't think it mattered which way he went.  If God is all knowing and wants the best for us then that doesn't make a lot of sense.  

So I've always known the best way was for him to make an effort to understand God better and make choices to follow Him, but since he wasn't willing to do that then he has to experience what it is like to follow his own path (and feel like that was his choice alone) before he can find his path back to God's.

We actually all do this to some extent.  The best way is to save money,  but some are not willing so they learn from not saving and the consequences that come of it.  The best way is to eat healthy,  but some are not willing so they learn from the consequences of eating badly.  The best way is magnifying your calling,  but some are not willing so they learn from not doing it.  

It's not so much that leaving faith/the church is the best thing,  but what one learns when they have left can be a good thing. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Rain

[Meerkat]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's not so much that leaving faith/the church is the best thing,  but what one learns when they have left can be a good thing. 

This is the purpose of excommunication and disfellowshipment, imo.  A loving opportunity to repent, change and be welcomed back to Church membership when they demonstrate they believe it and want to live it's values.  People who leave on their own may have objections to doctrine, history or other reasons. Having such views and sharing them can be harmful to the Church.  It is probably best for them and the Church that they part company until they experience a mighty change of heart and have a sincere desire to unite with the Saints. 

[hope_for_things]

On 8/26/2017 at 4:09 PM, Meerkat said:

His parents, siblings, souse, children, grandparents, etc. or combination thereof undoubtedly care.  It is clear that your world does not revolve around Mormonism. Mine does.  Sometimes Your comments pinch a little. Was "Mormonism, it's a quaint little religion in the grand scheme of things" an innocuous comment, or were you making a point that its relatively small numbers were perhaps a good reason to leave the Church?

Mormons like to think the world revolves around their religion.  I guess I was a little harsh with the quaint little religion comment, even though I believe that is essentially true.  Its the quaint little religion that I still attend and that dominates the worlds of many family and friends, and it has a largely positive effect on these people.  I guess in many contexts, religious groups are quaint and little and still have a huge impact on the individuals that are involved in them. 

I guess I just find it frustrating sometimes how intensely inwards focused Mormonism can be.  Its probably a strength in many ways, but I think its also a weakness.  

[clarkgoble]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

A lot of people classified as "inactive" or "less active" don't realize that they are. I learned that one time when doing a story on priesthood reactivation efforts. So I question the proportion of this 40 percent that were what could be considered disaffected.

These were people who self-identified as inactive. Of course that's 40% of active members in the pre-internet era. It's not the percentage who leave. That's harder to know. And again, because this was a very old statistic I don't think it tells us much of current behaviors. Yet it is significant in showing people leaving isn't uncommon.

I'd also note that many listed inactive don't consider themselves Mormon at all. That's very clear when you look at the discrepancy between self-identification statistics versus church statistics.

A similar stat is in "The Consequential Dimension of Mormon Religiosity," in Latter-day Saint Social Life (1998). There the number is 44%. (See this Cumorah.com page)

On 8/25/2017 at 11:35 PM, Glenn101 said:

From a scriptural standpoint I do not see a benefit for anyone leaving the church to walk other paths. There are things that they cannot do in those other paths that they can do in the church. If that were not the case, then there would be no need for a church. But Christ established one for a reason. He established the temple for a reason.

If a person is unable to keep the covenants that he makes in the church at baptism and in the temple, then it probably is better that he or she remove themselves from under those burdens. But in so doing they would also be removing themselves from the protection and blessings obtainable only through keeping those covenants.

I think your two paragraphs are at odds with each other. I'd add a second point that God created things so that the vast, vast majority of his children never get taught the gospel in this life. We can't dismiss this when considering walking other paths. That's not to disagree with your point about the gospel. It is valuable and it's better for people to be in it. The question is more about their personal development and when they should be in it. I don't think it's really that controversial (or at least it shouldn't be) that many people aren't ready to live the gospel for whatever reason.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think some people probably need to step back from the Church to re evaulate their life and what impact the Church is having, should be having or should not be having. I guess it's up to the individual whether or not they physically leave or not or are honest if they accept a calling or not. If people leave I hope they come back for the better, although if they come back into the same stuff, I wonder if they' leave for good, "tried coming back to church and was asked to do 3 callings plus, this and this and this" 

Yup. My grandfather came back for a little while after some spiritual experiences during heart surgery (done by Pres. Benson's son in law). He'd never really been too Mormon although he knew lots of GAs and was a very well known figure in southern Alberta. Yet when he came to Church he was so overwhelmed that he left again and never came back before his death.

[clarkgoble]

On 8/25/2017 at 1:09 PM, Tacenda said:

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.

It's pretty typical belief in most forms of Christianity that only Christians are saved. The main difference is that most Christians accept all the Christian sects as one Church of a sort whereas Mormons don't. Now for lots of other movements you're correct. (I don't know about Islam) However Christianity has always been an exclusive religion. That's not to say the more liberal forms of Christianity doesn't reject that. However it is a traditional doctrine.

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup. My grandfather came back for a little while after some spiritual experiences during heart surgery (done by Pres. Benson's son in law). He'd never really been too Mormon although he knew lots of GAs and was a very well known figure in southern Alberta. Yet when he came to Church he was so overwhelmed that he left again and never came back before his death.

I hope things are different in the next life! Not the first time I have heard of situations like that

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I hope things are different in the next life! Not the first time I have heard of situations like that

In his case I think it was primarily because of all the people coming up to him excited about his coming to Church.

[Meerkat]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup. My grandfather came back for a little while after some spiritual experiences during heart surgery (done by Pres. Benson's son in law). He'd never really been too Mormon although he knew lots of GAs and was a very well known figure in southern Alberta. Yet when he came to Church he was so overwhelmed that he left again and never came back before his death. .

Callings are necessary and important, in my opinion. If we allow ourselves to become overloaded and out of balance, our other important responsibilities such as our employment and family may suffer.  I have seen this happen, and have seen good people stop attending Church.  

We have the scriptures. We have the Holy Ghost.  We have our intellect.  We have our agency. Do we have a responsibility to counsel with our spouse, the Lord and perhaps our bishop when we feel overloaded? In my opinion, we do.  It's a hard lesson for some of us to learn.  And leaving Church activity is a high price to pay for running faster than is wise. 

I love these two merciful principles:  

1.  "No success can compensate for failure in the home." David O. McKay

2.  "...it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order."  Mosiah 4:27

Current Church guidance is that Church service shouldn't compromise a person's employment or family responsibilities.  When possible, a member should have only one calling in addition to that of a home or visiting teacher.  This counsel from Church leadership feels right to me.  It's usually manageable, leaving time for family fun, and the other important things we do. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Meerkat

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/25/2017 at 3:30 PM, carbon dioxide said:

For some people, perhaps leaving the Church and seeing that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence and returning to the Church turned out to be a blessing for them.  However these instances are more of the exception than the rule.  Better to not get involved with cocaine than experimenting with cocaine for a time to find out it does not lead to a good outcome and then work to get out of the hole one has dug for themselves.

True.  However, it remains a fact that the best spokesmen for giving up drugs are former users.  They not only understand how to do it, but they speak the language of those caught up in that trap -- and clearly see why drug diversion and treatment programs need to be emphasized, rather than criminalizing recreational drug use as part of our failed national "drug war."

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think your two paragraphs are at odds with each other. I'd add a second point that God created things so that the vast, vast majority of his children never get taught the gospel in this life. We can't dismiss this when considering walking other paths. That's not to disagree with your point about the gospel. It is valuable and it's better for people to be in it. The question is more about their personal development and when they should be in it. I don't think it's really that controversial (or at least it shouldn't be) that many people aren't ready to live the gospel for whatever reason.

In a way you are correct. A person that is baptized receives the priesthood, receives their endowments are making some pretty solemn covenants between themselves and the Lord. Just leaving the church does not remove the responsibility to honor those covenants nor the condemnation for not keeping them. In that case, such an one would not be better off but would remain under condemnation. If such an one were excommunicated he or she would not be party to any of those covenants and no longer under condemnation for breaking them.

It is hardly controversial that many people are not ready to live the gospel, else conversion numbers would be astronomical. However once a person has heard the gospel plan the responsibility for accepting or rejecting that Word is upon their own heads.

D&C 88:
81 Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.
82 Therefore, they are left without excuse, and their sins are upon their own heads.

From those verses it would appear that everyone who hears the gospel preached and is capable of understanding it is responsible then for accepting or rejecting it. The Lord does not include the caveat concerning whether one is ready to receive the gospel for whatever reason. Now it could be argued that a caveat for those mentally incapable of understanding the words they have heard is not included either, but we know through the words of our prophets that such is the case.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

It is hardly controversial that many people are not ready to live the gospel, else conversion numbers would be astronomical. However once a person has heard the gospel plan the responsibility for accepting or rejecting that Word is upon their own heads.

 

That's true but I'd hasten to add that we don't know when a person has understood sufficiently in order to reject it in terms of judgment. We should note that there was continuing revelation on this subject after Joseph. We can't neglect D&C 138 - particularly verse 29. 

[Glenn101]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's true but I'd hasten to add that we don't know when a person has understood sufficiently in order to reject it in terms of judgment. We should note that there was continuing revelation on this subject after Joseph. We can't neglect D&C 138 - particularly verse 29. 

I agree with that. It is not my judgement to make . But we need to look at verses 58 and 59 of the same section also. Thanks for bring that to my attention.

Glenn

Edited August 29, 2017 by Glenn101
Thanks

[thatjimguy]

I can say from experience it can be better. 

Much like going to BYU-I and then stepping on another campus. Doesn't take long to feel the difference. 

The concept is a difference in contrast. you want to get away from the church, then you do, then realize what the differences are. (and maybe even realize the reasons that made you want to get away were actually universal no matter where you go.)