Tacenda Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I hear this a lot. The loss of the church in the life of an extremely devout person can feel like an identity crisis. I felt this personally. My entire identity was wrapped up in the church and then suddenly it wasn't but it has taken effort and time to redefine who I am, trying to take the good in the church and leaving the bad, trying to take the good in society while leaving the bad. In many ways I'm a different person than I was 5 years ago. Some things are better, some aren't. But for me it has been useful to recognize that I don't have it all figured out and that I'm a work in progress instead of a finished person. 1 hour ago, california boy said: I can certainly emphasize with you. While my issues may be different than yours, the result is the same. I guess for me, I knew for a long that that eventually I would have to leave the church. When the time actually came, it was not that difficult for me. I accepted all the shaming and disappointment that went with it quite easily, because staying in the church was worse. We only have one life. And each of us has to discover who they are as a person and then work to make that person better. For some, the church can help in that process. For others, the distrust and distortion of truth can never be resolved. If you can not trust a church that claims to be the church of Christ, then you have to find something that you can completely trust in. For me, it was relying and listening closer to what God wanted from me rather than leaders of the Church. When you believe those are two different things, then you only have one choice as far as I am concerned. Trust God. I wish you well on your journey. And yeah, it is a journey. Thanks you two! 😘
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: A good friend of mine and I went through our "crises of faith" at the same time about 12 years ago. One day we were talking about the fantasy that a lot of exmos have that the church is collapsing from within, that it will implode and vanish soon. We both thought that was ridiculous because the number of people leaving is, relatively speaking, just a trickle, and the church continues to grow. But we started talking about when we would know the trickle was reaching "critical mass," meaning that it was becoming a big enough problem that it had to be dealt with. We decided that we would know when this critical mass had been reached when the church started talking about leave-takers in conference, in church magazines and lesson manuals, and in leadership training. We would also see the church trying to deal with the issues that were causing people to question and leave. At the time (circa 2006), none of that was happening, and we both said we'd be surprised to see that happen in our lifetime. Around the time of the Swedish Rescue and the gospel topic essays, my friend called me up and said, "Have you noticed that the church is doing exactly what we thought it would do if things reached a critical state? I never thought we'd see that, but here it is." I had to agree with him. So, IMO, it's still not a massive number of people leaving, but it is significant enough that the church is taking concrete steps to deal with it. As for Renlund being frank, I don't think it's hard to be frank when you believe the issues are analogous to chipped paint and dings. I wonder if the church is shooting itself in the foot. I've thought to myself on several occasions that the church putting out the essays is a big testimony cruncher, more so than exmormon sites, IMO. And even fairmormon is a testimony stumbler. And now the CES employees are getting these trainings or meetings with Elder Renlund stating things in history that made someone he knows stumble and stating it started with multiple first visions and then polygamy. Luckily he just said the polygamy in Nauvoo, and mentioning JS's specific polygamy was avoided. And like you said things mentioned in General Conference, and also Elder Uchtdorf's talk "doubt your doubts", or the one where he admits that some leaders have made mistakes. Or many more talks in GC about people doubting. Pretty sure that the church being transparent is going to make a lot of people leave, but maybe that's what the church wants, they want to make members go through a refiner's fire and they really don't want the fence sitter or the wishy washy member. I've read recently that leaders will even have their membership clerks find out if inactive members want to have their names removed. Edited July 10, 2018 by Tacenda
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: I wonder if the church is shooting itself in the foot. I've thought to myself on several occasions that the church putting out the essays is a big testimony cruncher, more so than exmormon sites, IMO. And even fairmormon is a testimony stumbler. And now the CES employees are getting these trainings or meetings with Pres. Renlund stating things in history that made someone he knows stumble and stating it started with multiple first visions and then polygamy. Luckily he just said the polygamy in Nauvoo, and mentioning JS's specific polygamy was avoided. And like you said things mentioned in General Conference, and also Elder Uchtdorf's talk "doubt your doubts", or the one where he admits that some leaders have made mistakes. Or many more talks in GC about people doubting. Pretty sure that the church being transparent is going to make a lot of people leave, but maybe that's what the church wants, they want to make members go through a refiner's fire and they really don't want the fence sitter or the wishy washy member. I've read recently that leaders will even have their membership clerks find out if inactive members want to have their names removed. Who knows? I don't think they could ignore what has been happening, but I'm not sure how effective the responses have been. The fallback position seems to be the one Ryan Dahle outlined: if you can't resolve the issues by appeal to the Spirit, it's your fault.
CV75 Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, ALarson said: Which still applies to them even if they choose to leave. The Atonement of Christ is not something that only active members of the church believe in and receive. Yes, the Atonement of Christ is for everyone who ever lived, everyone who ever lived needs it, everyone needs rescuing, and everyone can have perspective on the magnitude and significance of their problems in relation to it. 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Again, I have not seen that significant slice. I'm not denigrating the story, just explaining what I see in it. Yes, evidently you have not seen that slice. It does not mean it is not there! I interpreted your and others' earlier comments as denigrating the story aside from what you are explaining that you see in it as one who left the boat so to speak for reasons you feel are justifiable and processes that don't require faith in some things overcoming doubt in other things sufficient to remain in the boat. 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: As Steve mentioned, there are many other boats in the water, quite a number of them offering the Atonement of Christ. I haven't seen Steve's comment, but only Christ offers His Atonement. There are many churches, and He offers it irrespective of how many churches there are. I think that's the point of having the Restored Church. But now we're getting into the reasons this particular boat in the story is the LDS boat and her role in leading people to Christ given that they have come so far by the light of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost, and how, as wonderful as these things are, prove insufficient for a fulness in Christ. Given the context of the story's telling, of course the boat is going to represent the LDS Church. Edited July 10, 2018 by CV75
Ryan Dahle Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Who knows? I don't think they could ignore what has been happening, but I'm not sure how effective the responses have been. The fallback position seems to be the one Ryan Dahle outlined: if you can't resolve the issues by appeal to the Spirit, it's your fault. I'm not saying methods of delivery or patterns of teaching/discourse can't be improved. What I am saying is that no matter how good the delivery is, the underlying message of the gospel is that spiritual truths can only be received by those who are spiritually in tune. There will always be intellectual grounds to doubt, disbelieve, or reject any specific gospel message, just as there will always be grounds to doubt, disbelieve, or reject the cumulative gospel message. Therefore, the fact that a message is rejected, isn't necessarily an indication of its validity, at least according to the gospel paradigm (using the term gospel fairly loosely here).
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I'm not saying methods of delivery or patterns of teaching/discourse can't be improved. What I am saying is that no matter how good the delivery is, the underlying message of the gospel is that spiritual truths can only be received by those who are spiritually in tune. There will always be intellectual grounds to doubt, disbelieve, or reject any specific gospel message, just as there will always be grounds to doubt, disbelieve, or reject the cumulative gospel message. Therefore, the fact that a message is rejected, isn't necessarily an indication of its validity, at least according to the gospel paradigm (using the term gospel fairly loosely here). I would imagine everyone who believes in Mormonism has some rational grounds for believing. Some of us have spiritual reasons for not believing, as well as rational reasons. Of course, we're just told we are listening to the wrong spirit or aren't "spiritually in tune." 1
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Who knows? I don't think they could ignore what has been happening, but I'm not sure how effective the responses have been. The fallback position seems to be the one Ryan Dahle outlined: if you can't resolve the issues by appeal to the Spirit, it's your fault. Yeah, but the longer I seem to hang around the church, the more and more I’m seeing that to be the case. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but I see spirituality more like physical fitness. You can do everything right for a time, but all it takes is complacency in a few areas over a very short period of time before you start losing all that muscle mass you’ve gained over the years and years of training. I’m not saying people are always guilty of heinous sins (although sometimes...), but I simply no longer buy the line that people were doing everything they were supposed to with exactness when their “shelf” broke. My darkest moments with the church have always, without fail, coincided with the times I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to be doing, and living up to my covenants. One cannot communicate with God until they sacrifice their self oriented natural man. And there are far too many distractions anymore making that sacrifice harder and harder for people to hear the spirit. To fully illustrate my point, a family from my mom’s branch back home in Wisconsin are leaving the church. And what she told my mom on their last visiting teaching encounter was absolutely stunning: “I don’t care if it’s true anymore, it’s just too hard” Its not hard to live the gospel, but it becomes hard when we prioritize the small, inconsequential things at the expense of the more important ones. And it’ll happen to anyone—even former branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, etc.
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: Yeah, but the longer I seem to hang around the church, the more and more I’m seeing that to be the case. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but I see spirituality more like physical fitness. You can do everything right for a time, but all it takes is complacency in a few areas over a very short period of time before you start losing all that muscle mass you’ve gained over the years and years of training. I’m not saying people are always guilty of heinous sins (although sometimes...), but I simply no longer buy the line that people were doing everything they were supposed to with exactness when their “shelf” broke. My darkest moments with the church have always, without fail, coincided with the times I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to be doing, and living up to my covenants. One cannot communicate with God until they sacrifice their self oriented natural man. And there are far too many distractions anymore making that sacrifice harder and harder for people to hear the spirit. To fully illustrate my point, a family from my mom’s branch back home in Wisconsin are leaving the church. And what she told my mom on their last visiting teaching encounter was absolutely stunning: “I don’t care if it’s true anymore, it’s just too hard” Its not hard to live the gospel, but it becomes hard when we prioritize the small, inconsequential things at the expense of the more important ones. And it’ll happen to anyone—even former branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, etc. I would caution against extrapolating your own experience onto others. Leads to a lot of problems. But yes, I understand yours and Ryan's is the default position in the church. It is simply unthinkable to imagine that the church might not be true or that the spirit might lead one to leave the church. 2
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I would caution against extrapolating your own experience onto others. Leads to a lot of problems. But yes, I understand yours and Ryan's is the default position in the church. It is simply unthinkable to imagine that the church might not be true or that the spirit might lead one to leave the church. And I understand yours to be the default position of those who have left the church. It is simply unthinkable to imagine that the church might be true or that you could be mistaken.
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: And I understand yours to be the default position of those who have left the church. It is simply unthinkable to imagine that the church might be true or that you could be mistaken. Oh, there's always the possibility.
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Oh, there's always the possibility. Then what is it that I wrote that would lead you to think I’ve never seriously considered the possibility that the church might not be true? 1
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: Then what is it that I wrote that would lead you to think I’ve never seriously considered the possibility that the church might not be true? I overstated what I meant. My point was that you believe people who have left have become spiritually complacent and lazy. You simply do not believe that someone who is spiritually in tune and "doing everything they were supposed to with exactness" could lose their faith in the gospel. If someone like me says we were led by the spirit to leave the church, you will likely reject that every time.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 16 minutes ago, SteveO said: Yeah, but the longer I seem to hang around the church, the more and more I’m seeing that to be the case. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but I see spirituality more like physical fitness. You can do everything right for a time, but all it takes is complacency in a few areas over a very short period of time before you start losing all that muscle mass you’ve gained over the years and years of training. I’m not saying people are always guilty of heinous sins (although sometimes...), but I simply no longer buy the line that people were doing everything they were supposed to with exactness when their “shelf” broke. My darkest moments with the church have always, without fail, coincided with the times I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to be doing, and living up to my covenants. One cannot communicate with God until they sacrifice their self oriented natural man. And there are far too many distractions anymore making that sacrifice harder and harder for people to hear the spirit. To fully illustrate my point, a family from my mom’s branch back home in Wisconsin are leaving the church. And what she told my mom on their last visiting teaching encounter was absolutely stunning: “I don’t care if it’s true anymore, it’s just too hard” Its not hard to live the gospel, but it becomes hard when we prioritize the small, inconsequential things at the expense of the more important ones. And it’ll happen to anyone—even former branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, etc. Yeah, I guess we're all lying. I've never heard anyone claim perfection, but if perfection is required to maintain a testimony, then that seems an unreasonable expectation. I've known many devout people who have left the church to varying degrees and none of them said it was "too hard". Not to say it never happens, but I'm talking about devout people who have walked the walk successfully for decades. It wasn't too hard. Some may have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it based on their current belief in church teachings and/or leadership but they don't leave because it was hard. I thrived in the church, living the commandments, having FHE, scripture study, prayer, often working 20 hours a week in my calling. It wasn't hard. I enjoyed it. But I understand why some feel more comfortable believing the "it's just too hard" narrative. It strokes the pride of those who stay. 2
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, I guess we're all lying. I've never heard anyone claim perfection, but if perfection is required to maintain a testimony, then that seems an unreasonable expectation. I've known many devout people who have left the church to varying degrees and none of them said it was "too hard". Not to say it never happens, but I'm talking about devout people who have walked the walk successfully for decades. It wasn't too hard. Some may have come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it based on their current belief in church teachings and/or leadership but they don't leave because it was hard. I thrived in the church, living the commandments, having FHE, scripture study, prayer, often working 20 hours a week in my calling. It wasn't hard. I enjoyed it. But I understand why some feel more comfortable believing the "it's just too hard" narrative. It strokes the pride of those who stay. It wasn't hard for me, either. One guy here told me I must have been one of those people who resented having to keep the commandments and serve in the church, but I don't ever remember even thinking it was that difficult. I suppose I could say I was overly affected by guilt as a young man, over minor things, but even then, it wasn't hard. 1
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I overstated what I meant. My point was that you believe people who have left have become spiritually complacent and lazy. You simply do not believe that someone who is spiritually in tune and "doing everything they were supposed to with exactness" could lose their faith in the gospel. If someone like me says we were led by the spirit to leave the church, you will likely reject that every time. No, no, no. I don’t like the word “lazy” when describing people who leave the church. They aren’t lazy. And I would say that many of those on this board who have left the church probably don’t fit in with what I wrote. I was more responding to your story of you and your friend saying that the numbers that are leaving have reached critical mass. I would be comfortable saying that a vast majority of them started their journey out of the church due to reasons that have nothing to do with the church’s historical reasons. But you are right, I don’t believe the spirit leads people out of the church.
Calm Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I wonder if the church is shooting itself in the foot. I've thought to myself on several occasions that the church putting out the essays is a big testimony cruncher, more so than exmormon sites, IMO. And even fairmormon is a testimony stumbler. And now the CES employees are getting these trainings or meetings with Elder Renlund stating things in history that made someone he knows stumble and stating it started with multiple first visions and then polygamy. Luckily he just said the polygamy in Nauvoo, and mentioning JS's specific polygamy was avoided. And like you said things mentioned in General Conference, and also Elder Uchtdorf's talk "doubt your doubts", or the one where he admits that some leaders have made mistakes. Or many more talks in GC about people doubting. Pretty sure that the church being transparent is going to make a lot of people leave, but maybe that's what the church wants, they want to make members go through a refiner's fire and they really don't want the fence sitter or the wishy washy member. I've read recently that leaders will even have their membership clerks find out if inactive members want to have their names removed. FM frequently gets appreciation notes that state we helped someone's faith survive or become stronger, so while there may be some lost through the greater amount of history and expanded discussion the Church is pushing, it seems to me there are many who are helped. To suggest that the Church's motivation for being transparent is to encourage people to leave seems pushing it since the Church is well aware of the problems that arise in families of mixed faith nor is there any indication I have seen that leaders enjoy seeing people suffer which loss of faith can cause. All along leadership has been open and firm about things that have led many to leave, such as Word of Wisdom, temple restrictions and rituals, tithing, etc. There is a consistent recognition that members will need to sacrifice, to face opposition either in themselves or from others to grow. There is nothing inherently different with the struggle to accomodate historical information into one's world view than all the other struggles to incorporate into our lives things that set us apart or force us to recognize our own weaknesses. There have as far as I can tell always been some leaders that tell their membership clerks to ask if no contacts/inactives want their name removed (I heard of this being done in wards here and there 30, 20, 10 years ago and currently or iow ever since I started paying attention to such things so it likely happened much earlier than that...I remember one quite awhile back who said they took letters so all that the person had to do was sign it, though no one actually did iirc and that didn't upset the leader as he just wanted them to know they had choices). Otoh, I am pretty sure if it was a new churchwide directive at sometime in the past ten years that we would have heard of it almost, if not immediately given other information publicly shared about policies. Some leaders from what I have seen see removing as a way to better use resources for those who want it and/or to avoid offending those who do not want to be seen as part of the faith community, others prefer to leave names on the record because they see it like leaving a candle in the window for the lost wanderer. Both views have value, imo. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, SteveO said: No, no, no. I don’t like the word “lazy” when describing people who leave the church. They aren’t lazy. And I would say that many of those on this board who have left the church probably don’t fit in with what I wrote. I was more responding to your story of you and your friend saying that the numbers that are leaving have reached critical mass. I would be comfortable saying that a vast majority of them started their journey out of the church due to reasons that have nothing to do with the church’s historical reasons. But you are right, I don’t believe the spirit leads people out of the church. Then maybe you shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush and assume that people are lying when they said they were doing their best to follow the spirit when their faith came crashing down.
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But I understand why some feel more comfortable believing the "it's just too hard" narrative. It strokes the pride of those who stay. I never said it was too hard or that I believed that narrative.
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Then maybe you shouldn't have painted with such a broad brush and assume that people are lying when they said they were doing their best to follow the spirit when their faith came crashing down. I believe I said there were exceptions at the beginning of my original post
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: I believe I said there were exceptions at the beginning of my original post That makes it all better, then.
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: That makes it all better, then. You’re either the exception, or you fall into the category of what I wrote. If you’re the former, take it with a grain of salt and don’t worry about it.
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: You’re either the exception, or you fall into the category of what I wrote. If you’re the former, take it with a grain of salt and don’t worry about it. 🙄🙄🙄
HappyJackWagon Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, SteveO said: I never said it was too hard or that I believed that narrative. I guess I misunderstood what you meant... Quote SteveO- Yeah, but the longer I seem to hang around the church, the more and more I’m seeing that to be the case. I’m not saying there aren’t exceptions, but I see spirituality more like physical fitness. You can do everything right for a time, but all it takes is complacency in a few areas over a very short period of time before you start losing all that muscle mass you’ve gained over the years and years of training. I’m not saying people are always guilty of heinous sins (although sometimes...), but I simply no longer buy the line that people were doing everything they were supposed to with exactness when their “shelf” broke. My darkest moments with the church have always, without fail, coincided with the times I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to be doing, and living up to my covenants. One cannot communicate with God until they sacrifice their self oriented natural man. And there are far too many distractions anymore making that sacrifice harder and harder for people to hear the spirit. To fully illustrate my point, a family from my mom’s branch back home in Wisconsin are leaving the church. And what she told my mom on their last visiting teaching encounter was absolutely stunning: “I don’t care if it’s true anymore, it’s just too hard” Its not hard to live the gospel, but it becomes hard when we prioritize the small, inconsequential things at the expense of the more important ones. And it’ll happen to anyone—even former branch presidents, bishops, stake presidents, relief society presidents, etc. 1
SteveO Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I guess I misunderstood what you meant... But none of that is because the gospel is too hard. I said explicitly that living the gospel is not hard to do. You even bolder it. Not living the gospel is hard. Living it with minimal effort is hard. Going through the motions is hard. But living the gospel is not.
jkwilliams Posted July 10, 2018 Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, SteveO said: But none of that is because the gospel is too hard. I said explicitly that living the gospel is not hard to do. You even bolder it. Not living the gospel is hard. Living it with minimal effort is hard. Going through the motions is hard. But living the gospel is not. But you said most people who leave are a priori not living the gospel.
Recommended Posts