“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[SteveO]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But you said most people who leave are a priori not living the gospel.

I don’t believe they are living the gospel.  I believe they are going through the motions, half heartedly living it, etc.  That’s  hard to do.  Why waste 3 hours on a Sunday if you’re spending it on your phone in an uncomfortable pew?  Why pay 10% of your paycheck if you’re not 100% commited to the cause?  All you’re doing is wasting your time, energy, and resources to  something you’re not giving your whole might, mind, and strength to. 

And it makes the case for staying in the church...hard to justify.

Edited July 10, 2018 by SteveO

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SteveO said:

I don’t believe they are living the gospel.  I believe they are going through the motions, half heartedly living it, etc.  That’s  hard to do.  Why waste 3 hours on a Sunday if you’re spending it on your phone in an uncomfortable pew?  Why pay 10% of your paycheck if you’re not 100% commited to the cause?  All you’re doing is wasting your time, energy, and resources to  something you’re not giving your whole might, mind, and strength to. 

So, the way I read you initially was correct, apparently. 

[Calm]

7 hours 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.

I didn't read his comment as requiring (though reading a more recent post, he may believe this is happening) people who have left are inherently spiritually lazy.  Imbalance of focus may cause a neglect of essential spiritual nourishment, putting in a huge amount of effort into those things one views as spiritually important while assuming one can put off working on something else can result in loss of faith as much and maybe even more than spiritual laziness because it is usually easier to see a personal lack when one is actually lazy and therefore easier to recognize the issue is internal rather than external than when one is working with all one's heart, but not in areas where one is spiritually vulnerable.

There are things that can be put aside without spiritual cracks showing up as it is 'not the season' for it such as not doing genealogy work when one has kids or not going to the temple because of health issues or not attending sacrament meeting because the only workable work option has one working on Sundays.  What can't be put aside and stay healthy may vary from person to person.  I am not sure how one can completely safeguard oneself because of the variation.  Covering the basics is a good idea (prayer, scripture reading, taking the Sacrament through special assignment if one can't attend church, service to others, living gospel standards), but may not be enough for a particular person.  For example, if someone relies on their intellect as their primary resource in the rest of their life, they probably should work on it as well in a spiritual context through studying background of scriptures and doctrine.  If one heavily relies on social interaction in other parts of one's life, one should probably develop strong social networks within one's faith community.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I don’t believe they are living the gospel.  I believe they are going through the motions, half heartedly living it, etc.  That’s  hard to do.  Why waste 3 hours on a Sunday if you’re spending it on your phone in an uncomfortable pew?  Why pay 10% of your paycheck if you’re not 100% commited to the cause?  All you’re doing is wasting your time, energy, and resources to  something you’re not giving your whole might, mind, and strength to. 

And it makes the case for staying in the church...hard to justify.

It just sounds like uncharitable confirmation bias to me.  Nobody is perfectly living the gospel, you can always find evidences to show how someone is falling short.  And painting others in that light is just overly simplistic and hurtful. 

If the true followers of Jesus will be known by their fruits, then it seems we can learn a lot about how people on the margins of a group are treated by those in the center.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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." 

Who knows but that the people in the story viewed their reasons (dents, weak and simple fisherman, unimpressive food) for leaving the boat  to be spiritual. No judgement was made about them, they were simply bid farewell. I'm sure the boat will circle around again.

54 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.

I would say your refusal to accept the premier of the story is an example of extrapolating your own experience onto the whole of reality. I'm not sure what position you're referring to for the Church; there are many things she holds to be non-negotiable. But ultimately I think the default of defaults is: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth." -- Joseph smith

Do you have an example of the prophets and apostles teaching that the Spirit will not lead someone to leave the Church? I would like to examine that. I see many ways to interpret that kind of claim (e.g. excommunication with intended reinstatement), but I would like to see how this concept was presented, and how it was a default position by the prophets and apostles.

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Who knows but that the people in the story viewed their reasons (dents, weak and simple fisherman, unimpressive food) for leaving the boat  to be spiritual. No judgement was made about them, they were simply bid farewell. I'm sure the boat will circle around again.

I would say your refusal to accept the premier of the story is an example of extrapolating your own experience onto the whole of reality. I'm not sure what position you're referring to for the Church; there are many things she holds to be non-negotiable. But ultimately I think the default of defaults is: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth." -- Joseph smith

Do you have an example of the prophets and apostles teaching that the Spirit will not lead someone to leave the Church? I would like to examine that. I see many ways to interpret that kind of claim (e.g. excommunication with intended reinstatement), but I would like to see how this concept was presented, and how it was a default position by the prophets and apostles.

I think that's the underlying assumption: follow the Spirit, and it will lead you to God through the church. At least that's how I've always been taught. That's what I mean by "default position." 

ETA: I'm not extrapolating my experience at all. People leave for all different kinds of reasons. My point was that the OP assumes a particular reason for people leaving that doesn't line up with what I have seen. As I said, I'm quite sure there are people who leave over trivial issues akin to peeling paint and dings, but to assume that applies to everyone isn't helpful. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by jkwilliams

[SteveO]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn't read his comment as requiring (though reading a more recent post, he may believe this is happening) people who have left are inherently spiritually lazy. 

"Spiritually lazy" to me, means that the individual doesn't care enough to make the effort.  I think most people do care.  And I think that most people don't intentionally decide they are going to live the gospel minimally.  I think that most of them think they can live the gospel, AND have it take a lesser priority when needed.  Its a gradual eroding of those spiritual receptors.  Its complacency.  And I've done it, and its miserable.  You can't do this work if you aren't completely committed.  I am absolutely convinced of that.  And I think that there are so many distractions that keep us from being fully committed.  Now, JK may not fit into that category, but I believe that many people who are leaving are doing so "on their knees" having been beaten down over the years.  Its exhausting trying to harmonize the church and the world at the same time, and I think either people have a point where they need to change themselves and fully commit, or they need to save their sanity and leave.  I think the rest of your post says it all much better. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SteveO said:

"Spiritually lazy" to me, means that the individual doesn't care enough to make the effort.  I think most people do care.  And I think that most people don't intentionally decide they are going to live the gospel minimally.  I think that most of them think they can live the gospel, AND have it take a lesser priority when needed.  Its a gradual eroding of those spiritual receptors.  Its complacency.  And I've done it, and its miserable.  You can't do this work if you aren't completely committed.  I am absolutely convinced of that.  And I think that there are so many distractions that keep us from being fully committed.  Now, JK may not fit into that category, but I believe that many people who are leaving are doing so "on their knees" having been beaten down over the years.  Its exhausting trying to harmonize the church and the world at the same time, and I think either people have a point where they need to change themselves and fully commit, or they need to save their sanity and leave.  I think the rest of your post says it all much better. 

This isn't about me or my experience (I'm hardly the poster child for living right) but about unhelpful generalizations. IMO, if the church wants to keep struggling members, it must do so individually, recognizing what is going on in that person's life that has them questioning. In my experience, no two people are alike, and the only way to help the struggling is to acknowledge that and treat them as individuals.

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

This isn't about me or my experience (I'm hardly the poster child for living right) but about unhelpful generalizations. IMO, if the church wants to keep struggling members, it must do so individually, recognizing what is going on in that person's life that has them questioning. In my experience, no two people are alike, and the only way to help the struggling is to acknowledge that and treat them as individuals.

And what I'm saying is that more often than not, the historical issues aren't the root cause.  For some yes, but divorce, addictions, heartache, and all sorts of other human tragedy start people on that road far easier than anything they find on the internet.  And its just as bad to say that more historical transparency is needed to fix all those issues than addressing and tackling the original problem.     

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SteveO said:

And what I'm saying is that more often than not, the historical issues aren't the root cause.  For some yes, but divorce, addictions, heartache, and all sorts of other human tragedy start people on that road far easier than anything they find on the internet.  And its just as bad to say that more historical transparency is needed to fix all those issues than addressing and tackling the original problem.     

You don't know that. And, speaking only for myself, I have not said "more historical transparency is needed to fix all those issues." It is fascinating to me how few people ask the person who is struggling what their reason is and actually listen. So many times I have heard, "Sure, you say that's the issue, but the real reason is ..."  and then they assign one of the boilerplate reasons: you wanted to sin, you were spiritually complacent, you tried to intellectualize the gospel, you never had a testimony, ad infinitum. Listening works much better, especially since ex-Mormons are happy to listen without judging. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, SteveO said:

And what I'm saying is that more often than not, the historical issues aren't the root cause.  For some yes, but divorce, addictions, heartache, and all sorts of other human tragedy start people on that road far easier than anything they find on the internet.  And its just as bad to say that more historical transparency is needed to fix all those issues than addressing and tackling the original problem.     

You clearly have your mind made up and have no interest in hearing or believing from anyone's lived experience, but I, for one, have no addiction, didn't experience heartache or divorce or any other kind of tragedy. Living the gospel wasn't hard for me. I was thriving in it. At my peak spirituality, study, prayer, service I lost trust in the institutional church for many reasons. The incorrect teachings and history were the start. It is the start for MANY people. I'm shocked by your refusal to accept the accounts of people who have lived it because you are so confident in your own assumptions.

 

[SteveO]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don't know that. And, speaking only for myself, I have not said "more historical transparency is needed to fix all those issues." It is fascinating to me how few people ask the person who is struggling what their reason is and actually listen. So many times I have heard, "Sure, you say that's the issue, but the real reason is ..."  and then they assign one of the boilerplate reasons: you wanted to sin, you were spiritually complacent, you tried to intellectualize the gospel, you never had a testimony, ad infinitum. Listening works much better, especially since ex-Mormons are happy to listen without judging. 

But they aren't boilerplate reasons.  Church history is filled with just very examples.  The scriptures are filled with those very examples.  The fact that it is 2018 doesn't mean those stories and examples are no longer applicable or a present danger.

"Wanting to sin" and "never had a testimony" are stupid, so I'll give you those.  But I think the complacency as I've outlined is not something to be brushed off.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

You clearly have your mind made up and have no interest in hearing or believing from anyone's lived experience, but I, for one, have no addiction, didn't experience heartache or divorce or any other kind of tragedy. Living the gospel wasn't hard for me. I was thriving in it. At my peak spirituality, study, prayer, service I lost trust in the institutional church for many reasons. The incorrect teachings and history were the start. It is the start for MANY people. I'm shocked by your refusal to accept the accounts of people who have lived it because you are so confident in your own assumptions.

Indeed. I was in the midst of an intense period of scripture study and temple attendance when I figured out that the Book of Mormon was likely not a translation of an ancient record. That was some 10 years before I had my actual crisis of faith, which perhaps coincidentally came when we had made an effort to go to the temple weekly, even though it was 70 miles from our house. Neither time was one of going through the motions, addiction, heartache, divorce, or whatever. It just happened. I understand that my experience is mine, as yours is yours, but my point, again, is that people leave for different reasons. It's not helpful to try to put them all in the same box, even with exceptions.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SteveO said:

But they aren't boilerplate reasons.  Church history is filled with just very examples.  The scriptures are filled with those very examples.  The fact that it is 2018 doesn't mean those stories and examples are no longer applicable or a present danger.

"Wanting to sin" and "never had a testimony" are stupid, so I'll give you those.  But I think the complacency as I've outlined is not something to be brushed off.

I'm sure it does happen, as I said. But I don't assume that at all. People should be able to tell their own stories without people assigning reasons.

[SteveO]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed. I was in the midst of an intense period of scripture study and temple attendance when I figured out that the Book of Mormon was likely not a translation of an ancient record. That was some 10 years before I had my actual crisis of faith, which perhaps coincidentally came when we had made an effort to go to the temple weekly, even though it was 70 miles from our house. Neither time was one of going through the motions, addiction, heartache, divorce, or whatever. It just happened. I understand that my experience is mine, as yours is yours, but my point, again, is that people leave for different reasons. It's not helpful to try to put them all in the same box, even with exceptions.

Okay I’m listening.  How did you “figure out” the BoM was not a translation?  I don’t want the evidence, that’s been discussed already elsewhere.  I want to know what led you to investigate it in the first place.  Why were you asking the questions that lead to that conclusion?  What made you read the books that you read?  Nothing ever “just happens”.  There’s always a cause and effect.  What was your cause?

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

And what I'm saying is that more often than not, the historical issues aren't the root cause.  

Every person I am personally aware of who’s left, did so after learning about troubling historical details.  I know of several members (some family and some friends or ward members) who were very active, some in leadership positions, missions served and in temple marriages who left over historical issues which as others have expressed, caused them to loose trust and faith in the church leaders and in the church.  I’m surprised you haven’t seen this.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SteveO said:

Okay I’m listening.  How did you “figure out” the BoM was not a translation?  I don’t want the evidence, that’s been discussed already elsewhere.  I want to know what led you to investigate it in the first place.  Why were you asking the questions that lead to that conclusion?  What made you read the books that you read?  Nothing ever “just happens”.  There’s always a cause and effect.  What was your cause?

It was just something I read in the Book of Mormon that didn't make sense. At the time I was commuting 1.5 hours each way to work, so I was reading my scriptures on the bus every morning and every evening. So, I spent about 3 months going through the text trying to figure out why the issue was there (and I'm not going to go into detail because I'm not going to argue about that). I had a little notebook I carried, and I took notes from the text. Rather than resolving the issue, I just kept finding more stuff that didn't make sense. One morning, while I was reading the Book of Mormon, it just finally hit me: Well, this obviously isn't an ancient record. Now what?

As I said, it was hardly a hiccup in my journey of faith. I just figured it wasn't meant to be a literal history, and that was fine.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Every person I am personally aware of who’s left, did so after learning about troubling historical details.  I know of several members (some family and some friends or ward members) who were very active, some in leadership positions, missions served and in temple marriages who left over historical issues which as others have expressed, caused them to loose trust and faith in the church leaders and in the church.  I’m surprised you haven’t seen this.

I think that's the issue for a lot of people: the loss of trust. But it depends on the person.

Edited July 10, 2018 by jkwilliams

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think that's the issue for a lot of people: the loss of trust. But it depends on the person.

I agree.  I do believe that many who are the most valiant and reading and deeply studying and searching are the ones who uncover the truth about some of what’s not taught at church (historically).  So, to classify them as complacent or lazy is odd to me!

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  I do believe that many who are the most valiant and reading and deeply studying and searching are the ones who uncover the truth about some of what’s not taught at church (historically).  So, to classify them as complacent or lazy is odd to me!

I'm certainly not putting myself in the "most valiant" category, but it was definitely not the case that I was going through the motions and felt the gospel and church were some kind of grind I had to endure. Not my experience at all.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm certainly not putting myself in the "most valiant" category, but it was definitely not the case that I was going through the motions and felt the gospel and church were some kind of grind I had to endure. Not my experience at all.

That’s not been my experience either from those I know who have left.  I’d have to say that some were the most dedicated and committed members and it was a shock to many when they stopped attending.  There was nothing lazy about their service and commitment prior to that.

Edited July 10, 2018 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JulieM said:

That’s not been my experience either from those I know who have left.  I’d have to say that some were the most dedicated and committed members and it was a shock to many when they stopped attending.  There was nothing lazy about their service and commitment prior to that.

But it certainly is easy for some people to say they had "other issues" leading up to it. I don't find that helpful in the least. One of my oldest friends could not wrap his brain around my going "less active." For about 2 years he would send me messages and emails with apologetic links and demand that I tell him why I no longer believed. I told him I wasn't going to do that, as I didn't think that was a productive conversation to have. He would call me and tearfully bear his testimony pretty regularly, and I appreciated that he wanted me to be happy. He told me that being in the church and, especially, working in the temple, brought him more joy than anything besides his family, so I wasn't about to try to get him to question. About 2 years into this, I posted a link on Facebook to some interesting historical tidbit about the church in Joseph Smith's day. I don't post controversial Mormon stuff on FB because I have a lot of LDS friends and family, and this was nothing controversial. Two weeks later, he called me, and he said, "John, you rocked my world!" That little historical tidbit was something he'd never heard, and for whatever reason, he started digging into church history. He still attends church and serves in a leadership position, but he's not a believer anymore. I kind of feel bad that I had any part of that process, but as you say, this isn't a guy who wasn't committed or happy in the church. It just happened.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I think that's the underlying assumption: follow the Spirit, and it will lead you to God through the church. At least that's how I've always been taught. That's what I mean by "default position." 

ETA: I'm not extrapolating my experience at all. People leave for all different kinds of reasons. My point was that the OP assumes a particular reason for people leaving that doesn't line up with what I have seen. As I said, I'm quite sure there are people who leave over trivial issues akin to peeling paint and dings, but to assume that applies to everyone isn't helpful. 

That default position is very different than one that says the Spirit won't lead you out of the Church.

As it turns out, I ended up spending more time on the story and its message than the OP's interpretation of it. Which is why the story (and the entire article for that matter) makes a good deal of sense for people in that particular situation.

I believe it was Elder Uchtdorf who gave a great talk -- and two other default positions I've heard over and over again for all my membership -- about why people leave: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng "Actually, it is not that simple." And, "It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves."

He also gave this great talk "Of Things That Matter Most" which I think is in line with the Renlunds' message: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/of-things-that-matter-most?lang=eng

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That default position is very different than one that says the Spirit won't lead you out of the Church.

As it turns out, I ended up spending more time on the story and its message than the OP's interpretation of it. Which is why the story (and the entire article for that matter) makes a good deal of sense for people in that particular situation.

I believe it was Elder Uchtdorf who gave a great talk -- and two other default positions I've heard over and over again for all my membership -- about why people leave: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng "Actually, it is not that simple." And, "It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves."

He also gave this great talk "Of Things That Matter Most" which I think is in line with the Renlunds' message: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/of-things-that-matter-most?lang=eng

Yes, I can see the difference. I guess I'm just thinking of the many times I've told people about the spiritual experience that was sort of the exclamation point at the end of my belief in the church. I have never had a member of the church tell me that I should follow what the spirit told me. Rather, I've been told I was listening to the wrong spirit. So, yes, I do think it's a default assumption among church members that the spirit won't lead you out of the church, but I could be wrong.

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, yes, I do think it's a default assumption among church members that the spirit won't lead you out of the church, but I could be wrong.

I would agree it is the default position of the Church that the Spirit won't lead anyone out of it or away from it. The Spirit may work with people who are already on a divergent path or who insist on following one, but it won't lead them away from Christ's church. Elder Ballard's counsel about staying in the boat seems seems to affirm this.

That being said, I don't think it is an issue that comes up much, probably because it is so far outside of typical believing LDS assumptions. So it is a default position, but perhaps a position that is more implicit than directly stated. Sort of like the church's position on hijacking airplanes. It isn't something that needs to be directly warned against because it is so obviously wrong (or in the case of the Spirit leading people out of the church, untrue--at least from most believers' perspectives, mine included).