Is it sometimes better to leave the church?

[Glenn101]

29 minutes ago, thatjimguy said:

I can say from experience it can be better. 

If a perspective of one that no longer believes maybe. But, if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true, i.e. is the actual Church of Jesus Christ, is actually His church restored in this dispensation, how does that work???

Glenn

[2BizE]

I find many around me with different tastes in life.  My mom dislikes eggs. It is a texture thing to her.  She also dislikes oranges.  Many dislike the opera or ballet.  Many love that form of entertainment.  I used to dislike onions, cranberries , and brussel sprouts.  I also dislike religion.  It is the texture, the lack of facts and reliance on magical elements.  My mind does not work taught way.  I'm too factual. Too analytical.  And yet I still try.  I have grown to like onions and cranberries , and more recently brussel sprouts.  Not yet religion though.  That doesn't mean I do not have a relationship with my creator.  It means I find ritual and  traditions silly.  What Mckonkie has learned by experienced is to see the good in everyone, and he is better for it.  Is religion really meant for everyone?  

[Meerkat]

9 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

What Mckonkie has learned by experienced is to see the good in everyone, and he is better for it.  Is religion really meant for everyone?  

Religion should teach us what Mckonkie has learned.  And I believe the answer to your question is an unequivocal Yes!

[thatjimguy]

On 8/29/2017 at 0:59 AM, Glenn101 said:

If a perspective of one that no longer believes maybe. But, if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true, i.e. is the actual Church of Jesus Christ, is actually His church restored in this dispensation, how does that work???

Glenn

No. No one is that clear cut about it. If we all were, no one would sin at all. The type of person you are talking about is everyone on their good days.

[Glenn101]

11 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

No. No one is that clear cut about it. If we all were, no one would sin at all. The type of person you are talking about is everyone on their good days.

I do not understand your response.

I am one that believes that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is just that, i.e the restoration of the ancient church organized by Jesus Christ Himself and that the LDS Church is His church. Jesus the Christ, through Joseph Smith, restored principles and ordinances necessary for forgiveness, entrance into the Kingdom of God, exaltation, and provides a means for those who have passed the portals of mortality to receive those ordinances that they were unable to receive in this life. The question of the OP is whether it is sometimes better to leave the church. From that perspective, I do not think it is wise for anyone to leave the church unless they unwilling to try to live up to the covenants they have made.

It has already been pointed out there are many good, really good people in other churches, other faiths besides Christian, and no religion at all. However, that is not really the point. It has been pointed out that there are millions, billions of people that have never heard the gospel, and that is not really the point.

A person who does not believe, that has doubts will naturally have a different perspective. So, the question is really, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints what is claimed for it? And that is the bottom line question. If the answer is yes, then no one who is a member would be better off taking leave of the church. There are things that no one can do, especially for his or herself or for his or her fellow man or woman outside the church.

I just attended a memorial service for a man, the father of two of my stepchildren who left the church and never returned. If the church is true, is he better off for having left?

I have a brother who left the church for a while. He married outside the church and was blessed with three children, none of whom were raised in the church. My brother eventually returned to activity but none of his children joined. He is now married to a member and has been serving actively and faithfully for many years. If the church is true, is he better off for having left the church for that period of time? Isn't that really what needs to be determined before anyone walks away?

Glenn

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Glenn101
A further thought

[carbon dioxide]

I wonder if one was to do a survey of those who left the church and have died and now reside in spirit prison or worse what the results of that survey would be.  I doubt a large number would declare it was worth it.  Whatever benefit they got after leaving has expired.

[thatjimguy]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not understand your response.

 

I guess my response could be a misinterpretation of your response, but I think I get it now. 

If I have it right, you are asking if it is true, then it must not be better for people to leave. In which case I will stand my statement that I can be better for people to leave for awhile. (Yes, some don't back, but that risk is no different than someone staying in while really not being active inside in the first place.)

Some people just need that contrast. To really feel the difference between within the gospel and outside of it. And when I mean outside of the gospel, I don't even mean an extreme circumstance. Here in North Carolina, every so often when visiting friends in another town, I have gone to their church. It is nice and there are things I like. But overall, I notice, even with the things I like, the contrast between how they do things and how we do things. It could be that simple understanding that makes me appreciate our way more.

The bottom line is though, that God has the power to reach people outside the confines of our church building and social systems. We may be limited, but God is not. 

My only problem with your examples is that they imply that everything would work out for the better if they had stayed. There would have been just as much reason to assume those things would have happened even if they stayed. 

Hope that helps.

 

[Marginal Gains]

If I can add a question (which may be deemed slightly adjacent to the topic).

Do ones chances of achieving a higher kingdom improve if one goes through this life not knowing about the Gospel at all? On the basis that you can’t breach covenants etc if you don’t know about them, and ordinances will get sorted out for you by proxy.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

My only problem with your examples is that they imply that everything would work out for the better if they had stayed. There would have been just as much reason to assume those things would have happened even if they stayed. 

Hope that helps.

We do not know what his children would have done had he remained active in the church and taken his children to church. They were denied that opportunity. That example is to point out that leaving the church for a period of time can and often does affect more than just the individual.

In my second example, the man was unrepentant. It would only have worked out if he had decided to change his lifestyle.

I have another brother who has not been active for years. He has a smoking problem. He still believes in the church. His wife is a member also. And also not active. Their children were not raised in the church and are attending other denominations. He says that he just is not ready to return.... yet. Seventy years old and a good man. Even if he returns, do you really believe that he is the better off for leaving?

 

10 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

Some people just need that contrast. To really feel the difference between within the gospel and outside of it. And when I mean outside of the gospel, I don't even mean an extreme circumstance. Here in North Carolina, every so often when visiting friends in another town, I have gone to their church. It is nice and there are things I like. But overall, I notice, even with the things I like, the contrast between how they do things and how we do things. It could be that simple understanding that makes me appreciate our way more.

As for your personal experience, did it engender in you a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored ancient church restored? Or is it that you just liked the LDS way better?

Thanks,

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

If I can add a question (which may be deemed slightly adjacent to the topic).

Do ones chances of achieving a higher kingdom improve if one goes through this life not knowing about the Gospel at all? On the basis that you can’t breach covenants etc if you don’t know about them, and ordinances will get sorted out for you by proxy.

That is a good question, seeing as how all that have not received the gospel will eventually have that opportunity and have vicarious ordinances performed that will open the gate to exaltation for them. In that case, why worry? Why even have the Gospel preached upon the earth at all and just let everyone live and die without hearing the gospel then have the work done for them? (There is an obvious problem with that in that there would be no one to perform the ordinances.)

The plan of salvation and Gospel principles form the seeds for all the good in this world, starting with Adam and perpetrated through Noah. I do not believe that anyone is better off for not having the opportunity to hear the gospel plan here in this life.

Glenn

[thatjimguy]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:56 AM, Glenn101 said:

We do not know what his children would have done had he remained active in the church and taken his children to church. They were denied that opportunity. That example is to point out that leaving the church for a period of time can and often does affect more than just the individual.

 

 

Just the same, if he did stay in, and kept just coming for appearances, I think the result could be just as bad or worse, for both him and his children. Perhaps the children would feel forced to go by a father who really doesn;t feel it anyway. I can tell you that is a recipe for leaving the church by all and never coming back. At least by him leaving, the kids may not have been exposed to the church, but at least in the future if someone approaches them about it, it will be fresh and not have passed it all off considering "Oh, I've done that already. Kinda boring. Not for me."

You and I can go back and forth all day with what ifs. The point is that God knows best and he doesn't have to use the confines of the church to reach someone if he deems it necessary.

[thatjimguy]

On 9/3/2017 at 10:56 AM, Glenn101 said:

 

As for your personal experience, did it engender in you a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored ancient church restored? Or is it that you just liked the LDS way better?

 

 

I can readily recall when I was just about out of the church, or at least in my presence only. I had thrown away my garments into the dumpster and was effectively done. I still believed in the church as an institution, but I was done with hope, or what I thought to be false hope at the time. I was still going to BYU-I and figured I'd just do it online

Then after a few months of being home in Erie, PA, I went to my home ward and immediately felt the spirit. I also felt the spirit in online classes without a person around me. So, at that point, I would not have said I was back in the church, but it hard not to notice going out and noticing the differences between the lifestyles of people outside the church and when I would be back in some form. The differences of visiting the local college with all the swearing and negativity, the crude and hopeless nature of how a lot of people in Erie act (can't blame them, Erie is pretty bleak in a lot of ways, it does have a lot of nice things if you can appreciate them, but it surely isn't the place where people go to chase a dream)

So, I would say at first, it was just wanting to be back because I at least liked the lifestyle and our philosophy of life. I would say that it was my second growth as a stronger member, the first being when it took a full year to get baptized. I didn't rush into it by any means. But I was stronger for it. By the same token, I did almost leave the church but am a much stronger member for going through what I did the way I did. I cannot say that had I just kept going to church during that time would I feel as strongly as I do now. 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, thatjimguy said:

I cannot say that had I just kept going to church during that time would I feel as strongly as I do now.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I cannot argue with your last statement.

Glenn

[Meerkat]

This has probably been covered already.  If a member is attacking the Church, it's doctrine or leaders past or present, and has no interest in membership, then they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them.  If a member is involved in known activities that bring the Church into disrepute such as drugs, immorality, crime, or anti-Mormon activities,  they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them in their current condition. Excommunication gives people a chance to consider their behavior, and start their way back.  On the other hand, if they are humbled and repentant, it may be appropriate for them to stay.  Either way, we love them, the Lord loves them and is prepared to give them the greatest joy and blessings they qualify for in this life and beyond, in my opinion.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[Marginal Gains]

15 hours ago, Meerkat said:

This has probably been covered already.  If a member is attacking the Church, it's doctrine or leaders past or present, and has no interest in membership, then they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them.  If a member is involved in known activities that bring the Church into disrepute such as drugs, immorality, crime, or anti-Mormon activities,  they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them in their current condition. Excommunication gives people a chance to consider their behavior, and start their way back.  On the other hand, if they are humbled and repentant, it may be appropriate for them to stay.  Either way, we love them, the Lord loves them and is prepared to give them the greatest joy and blessings they qualify for in this life and beyond, in my opinion.

 

What do you class as “attacking”?

[Meerkat]

27 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What do you class as “attacking”?

An example would be John Dehlin.  Another example would be Denver Snuffer.  People who spend more time promoting sensational parts of our Church history with the intention of undermining faith, rather than building it because they don't believe it and, as the rest of the sentence explains, they have no interest in membership.  

[Marginal Gains]

56 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

An example would be John Dehlin.  Another example would be Denver Snuffer.  People who spend more time promoting sensational parts of our Church history with the intention of undermining faith, rather than building it because they don't believe it and, as the rest of the sentence explains, they have no interest in membership.  

I don’t think that not having the intention of building faith, per se, is an indicator of someone who is attacking the Church. One can ask questions, discuss, disagree, challenge etc without intending to build faith, without it automatically being an ‘attack’. I understand your distinction with Dehlin, Snuffer slightly less so in that he is trying to build faith in what he perceives to be the true organisation. So that’s more fair competition when the Church on the other hand is trying to dissuade people from joining Snuffer on his journey.

[Meerkat]

15 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

One can ask questions, discuss, disagree, challenge etc without intending to build faith, without it automatically being an ‘attack

I agree with this statement.  I agree with being able to discuss themes, as we do here on MDDB regularly.  The qualifier in my post is quoted below.  I believe we are all reasonable people here who can recognize an attack on the Church or it's doctrines or leaders that crosses the line.

16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

because they don't believe it and, as the rest of the sentence explains, they have no interest in membership.  

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎08‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:52 AM, 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. 

I'm late to the thread, but regardless of whether or not it's considered "dangerous doctrine," my own personal experience is a testament that sometimes, people are far better off leaving the church than staying in. 

I have many friends, coworkers, and acquaintances who say the same, so I am not an anomaly.  In fact, given the disparity between the numbers of church members the LDS church reports vs. the number of LDS who so-self-identify in census figures (which, from what I've read, indicate more people leave the LDS church after baptism than those that stay active), I would imagine that those of us who leave the church and find happiness far outnumber those who choose to stay in, and likely, those that return (as in the McConkie example in the OP).

That being said... I don't feel it's necessary for "either side" (if sides is even an accurate term here) to claim victory based on numbers... When it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter what others' choices or happiness is based on... it doesn't matter who actually is in "the majority" either way----what matters, IMO, is what works for each of us, individually...

If membership and activity in the LDS church gives you meaning, purpose, identity, happiness, and joy----I support your agency and respect your own narrative to follow your heart 10000% (provided you aren't illegally or measurably harming others and are a law-abiding citizen, of course). 

And if membership and activity in any or no organizations outside the LDS church gives you meaning, purpose, identity, happiness, and joy--I support your agency to follow your heart 10000% (provided you aren't illegally or measurably harming others and are a law-abiding citizen, of course).

I hope we can all support one another in living an examined life to the best of our abilities to become the best possible versions of ourselves without compromising our identities, values, and ideals, whether or not we agree with one another.

D

Edited September 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, Meerkat said:

An example would be John Dehlin.  Another example would be Denver Snuffer.  People who spend more time promoting sensational parts of our Church history with the intention of undermining faith, rather than building it because they don't believe it and, as the rest of the sentence explains, they have no interest in membership.  

One group's villain is another group's hero.  What you view as "attacking" others view as "questioning with the intent to make things better."

One church says,

I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here. Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result. Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”

 

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.7

 

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.  We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Another church says,

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.

 

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

 

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

 

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

 

Let no one fear the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.

 

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing:

 

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

 

Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.

 

But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.

 

They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.

 

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

 

It is to be the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.

 

Whichever of the above two approaches (if either) resonates more with you, I hope there's value in respectful discussion around such issues, because such discussion oftentimes helps us better challenge, understand, articulate, crystalize, defend, and incorporate our own beliefs.

 

My view,

D

Edited September 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Meerkat]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

One group's villain is another group's hero.  What you view as "attacking" others view as "questioning with the intent to make things better."

One church says,

I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here. Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”

 

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.7

 

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.  We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Another church says,

 

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.

 

 

 

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery.

 

 

 

 

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

 

 

 

 

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false.

 

 

 

 

Let no one fear the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.

 

 

 

 

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing:

 

 

 

 

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

 

 

 

 

Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands.

 

 

 

 

But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.

 

 

 

 

They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure.

 

 

 

 

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

 

 

 

 

It is to be the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.

 

 

 

Whichever of the above two approaches (if either) resonates more with you, I hope there's value in respectful discussion around such issues, because such discussion oftentimes helps us better challenge, understand, articulate, crystalize, defend, and incorporate our own beliefs.

I agree with your overall sentiment and particularly agree with your statement:

"I hope there's value in respectful discussion around such issues, because such discussion oftentimes helps us better challenge, understand, articulate, crystalize, defend, and incorporate our own beliefs."

I'm afraid I was not thoughtful in an earlier version of this comment, which, upon rereading, came across as disrespectful. That was not my intention.  I apologize.

I believe you and Marginal Gains are overlooking the phrase "and has no interest in membership..." Some people recognize that they are happier outside the Church.  For whatever reason, they did not agree with the covenants membership requires.  I believe those who realize they dont want to live the covenants and decide the Mormon way of life is not for them and do not want to change, ought to leave the Church for their own integrity, happiness, and for the reputation of the Church.  They may want to return someday if they decide this is right and they want to live the religion.  But they shouldn't put themselves out there as a members of the Church if their lifestyle would argue against Church values, in my opinion.  

See context of my post attached:

On 9/6/2017 at 2:49 PM, Meerkat said:

This has probably been covered already.  If a member is attacking the Church, it's doctrine or leaders past or present, and has no interest in membership, then they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them.  If a member is involved in known activities that bring the Church into disrepute such as drugs, immorality, crime, or anti-Mormon activities,  they would be better off out of the Church, and the Church would be better off without them in their current condition. Excommunication gives people a chance to consider their behavior, and start their way back.  On the other hand, if they are humbled and repentant, it may be appropriate for them to stay.  Either way, we love them, the Lord loves them and is prepared to give them the greatest joy and blessings they qualify for in this life and beyond, in my opinion.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Meerkat

[Tacenda]

Sorry if this derails bluebell's op, just wanted to express thankfulness that the church put out this article! https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/09/youth/to-the-point/what-should-i-do-if-close-family-and-friends-question-the-church-and-fall-away?lang=eng

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry if this derails bluebell's op, just wanted to express thankfulness that the church put out this article! https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/09/youth/to-the-point/what-should-i-do-if-close-family-and-friends-question-the-church-and-fall-away?lang=eng

I love this.  Thanks for posting it.  In reality, I know this works both ways...this kind of understanding can really help/save marriages...parent/children relationships..and best friends.

[kiwi57]

On 8/26/2017 at 2:24 AM, hope_for_things said:

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.  

And yet - here you are!

[Tacenda]

https://faithit.com/12-reasons-millennials-over-church-sam-eaton/ I saw this post on FB by a TBM friend from high school. She posted and said it's something to think about. I think she's right. Although this article is not LDS related, it relates point by point ironically. I guess a lot of faiths are struggling to keep the Millennials. I know all of my children are not interested in the church. And we raised them from day one in the church and rarely missed church. I don't know what happened. I think my own faith crisis saved me from having to face their bad feelings about the church. If I was a stalwart member I probably would have a nervous breakdown over these feelings they have. 

The article has some points that I hope all churches will take a look at.