My son has decided he does not want to attend Church anymore - how do I build our relationship without this?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

To each his own. I would not feel comfortable calling my loved ones who have left the faith and wish no ill will against the Church, apostates. And especially not to their faces. It appears your loved ones in similar circumstances might appreciate you using such accurate descriptors of their leaving the faith or if they were too sensitive about the term, you could at least clarify you use the term solely for informational purposes. ;o

Former members?

I don't think anyone here is talking about calling people apostates to their faces. In fact, the term really is seldom used in general. The term apostasy is used, but the label of apostate rarely is. 

However, I do think that there's still a need for the word to be in our vocabulary, and not just for rabid anti-Mormons who lash out at the church. Apostate is the correct and most descriptive term for someone who renounces their former religious beliefs or a key principle within a religion.

The term "former member" isn't an adequate replacement in my opinion. There are many people who fit the definition of being an apostate, to one degree or another, who are still members of the church. 

Edited January 18, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Again only speaking for myself, I did not "apostatize" from following the highest that I know or believe (take your pick); rather, what constitutes "the highest that I know (or believe)" evolved in an unexpected direction, and I followed where I believe that evolution led me.  I do not believe that I apostatized against the light.  And of course I could be mistaken.

In your own experience, how have people used apostate around you?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think anyone here is talking about calling people apostates to their faces. In fact, the term really is seldom used in general. The term apostasy is used, but the label of apostate rarely is. 

However, I do think that there's still a need for the word to be in our vocabulary, and not just for rabid anti-Mormons who lash out at the church. Apostate is the correct and most descriptive term for someone who renounces their former religious beliefs or a key principle within a religion.

The term "former member" isn't an adequate replacement in my opinion. There are many people who fit the definition of being an apostate, to one degree or another, who are still members of the church. 

Why not former believer then?

[manol]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

In your own experience, how have people used apostate around you?

Do you mean, has anyone directly referred to me as an apostate?  I don't remember that ever happening, at least not within earshot.  And if they say it behind my back, well I appreciate them being considerate in that way.

We have a son-in-law who's a bishop, we see them maybe every couple of weeks, and he and his family have never given me any reason to feel the least bit uncomfortable around them.  My experience has been that LDS Church members are live-and-let-live, as far as what other people believe or don't believe. 

I understand that some people's belief systems result in them labelling me as "apostate", and I respect their right to their beliefs.  I'm open to having that conversation if someone who considers me an apostate wants to talk with me about it. 

[John L]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So basically, in your opinion the church needs to ditch the word apostate, because some individuals who fit the definition of apostate to a T, don't like the term and the implication that believing members consider their decision to renounce their former beliefs as a mistake and a tragedy?

If the church hierarchy can remove the word Mormon from mouths of church members, the word apostate shouldn't be that big of a deal. Why? Because you're downplaying the meaning of apostate, atleast what it means in the church. Any member I have come in contact with and had a conversation with the word "apostate", has used the word to describe a past member they think might have been heavily influenced by Satan. That includes bishops and stake presidents. 

 

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

What he said isn't PC today, but I think his overall rundown is pretty accurate in most cases. 

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't PC, we're talking about a very important relationship on this thread, the relationship between a parent and a child. In my opinion, as members of the church, we've been trained to disregard the words that come out of the mouth of any former member because they can't be trusted anymore. All you have to do is go back to when our church was restored, early to mid 1800s, and compare our church to other churches that were started in the same time period, churches like the JWs and the Seventh Day Adventist, just like our church, they use the word "apostate" to describe a former member of their congregation in a very negative way. 

  One of my mothers siblings is a famous Dr. In our area and my mom was very proud of him. When he retired, probably around 70, he also decided to leave the church. I'm assuming he waited to leave because a large percentage of his clients were LDS. He is a great man and he has accomplished much throughout his life. But as soon as he exited the church, my mom and many other members started seeing him as a wayward soul who's been influenced by Satan. My mom did not trust him anymore. When they talked, and the church came up, my mom would say she needed to talk to the bishop, her bishop at the time was in his mid 30s, because she couldn't trust her brother anymore, even though her brother was twice the age of the bishop, and even though her brother was a bishop in the past, she wouldn't listen to him. Why? Because he was an Apostate! He wasn't honoring his priesthood responsibilities anymore. It's almost as if someone flipped a switch in my mom's brain, because it literally took 5 seconds for her to start seeing her brother as untrustworthy. 

That's the definition of APOSTATE in our church, in my opinion. And I'm saying it happens more than you know. 

 

12 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Why not former believer then?

That's probably the one I would go with. 

So let's say that the church replaced the word apostate with former believer.  I don't see how that would change anything. People would still view that as a negative. And many people to whom this applies would say something like, "I'm not a former believer, because I still believe in Christ, or the Book of Mormon, or whatever."

And let's say that the church eliminated the word apostate, would the church also need to get rid of the word apostasy and replace it with something else?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

46 minutes ago, John L said:

Any member I have come in contact with and had a conversation with the word "apostate", has used the word to describe a past member they think might have been heavily influenced by Satan. That includes bishops and stake presidents. 

What word would you prefer they use in this case besides "apostate?" If they say the person was deceived or led astray by Satan is that better or less offensive?

 

48 minutes ago, John L said:

That's the definition of APOSTATE in our church, in my opinion. And I'm saying it happens more than you know

So if the church used the phrase former believer or former member (which is already what happens 99% of the time), how would that change the situation you described?

[gopher]

42 minutes ago, John L said:

If the church hierarchy can remove the word Mormon from mouths of church members, the word apostate shouldn't be that big of a deal. Why? Because you're downplaying the meaning of apostate, atleast what it means in the church. Any member I have come in contact with and had a conversation with the word "apostate", has used the word to describe a past member they think might have been heavily influenced by Satan. That includes bishops and stake presidents. 

That's the definition of APOSTATE in our church, in my opinion. And I'm saying it happens more than you know. 

Or you could use the definitions actually used by the church.  From the link I gave you, here is what constitutes apostasy according to the handbook:

• Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders
• Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
• Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members
• Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president
• Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

That leaves lots of room for people to leave the church without their actions being called apostasy.

[gopher]

14 hours ago, Buckwheat said:

I'm a new member of the church and was wandering if to baptise my daughter when she be 8 in a few years. Are young members given a choice to baptise in church? I get scared when learning scientology make young people sign contracts and parents have no questions. This threadmakes me wonder if I should baptise. You help me understand?

It is your responsibility to teach your daughter about baptism and you have to give permission for her to be baptized.  Have you explained to her why you were baptized?  She'll have a brief interview with the Bishop where you can also attend and ask questions if you want.  I would suggest you verify everything you have read in this thread before assuming it is true.  Including my comments.

I'm not sure this place is the best resource for new members of the church.  Many posters are former believers, there's lots of snark and endless arguments over semantics, discussions of members misbehaving are popular topics, but occasionally a thoughtful and spiritually uplifting discussion will break out.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, John L said:

If the church hierarchy can remove the word Mormon from mouths of church members, the word apostate shouldn't be that big of a deal. Why? Because you're downplaying the meaning of apostate, atleast what it means in the church. Any member I have come in contact with and had a conversation with the word "apostate", has used the word to describe a past member they think might have been heavily influenced by Satan. That includes bishops and stake presidents. 

 

Doesn't matter if it is or isn't PC, we're talking about a very important relationship on this thread, the relationship between a parent and a child. In my opinion, as members of the church, we've been trained to disregard the words that come out of the mouth of any former member because they can't be trusted anymore. All you have to do is go back to when our church was restored, early to mid 1800s, and compare our church to other churches that were started in the same time period, churches like the JWs and the Seventh Day Adventist, just like our church, they use the word "apostate" to describe a former member of their congregation in a very negative way. 

  One of my mothers siblings is a famous Dr. In our area and my mom was very proud of him. When he retired, probably around 70, he also decided to leave the church. I'm assuming he waited to leave because a large percentage of his clients were LDS. He is a great man and he has accomplished much throughout his life. But as soon as he exited the church, my mom and many other members started seeing him as a wayward soul who's been influenced by Satan. My mom did not trust him anymore. When they talked, and the church came up, my mom would say she needed to talk to the bishop, her bishop at the time was in his mid 30s, because she couldn't trust her brother anymore, even though her brother was twice the age of the bishop, and even though her brother was a bishop in the past, she wouldn't listen to him. Why? Because he was an Apostate! He wasn't honoring his priesthood responsibilities anymore. It's almost as if someone flipped a switch in my mom's brain, because it literally took 5 seconds for her to start seeing her brother as untrustworthy. 

That's the definition of APOSTATE in our church, in my opinion. And I'm saying it happens more than you know. 

 

 

🖐️ Happened to me, with my sister. 

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think anyone here is talking about calling people apostates to their faces. In fact, the term really is seldom used in general. The term apostasy is used, but the label of apostate rarely is. 

However, I do think that there's still a need for the word to be in our vocabulary, and not just for rabid anti-Mormons who lash out at the church. Apostate is the correct and most descriptive term for someone who renounces their former religious beliefs or a key principle within a religion.

The term "former member" isn't an adequate replacement in my opinion. There are many people who fit the definition of being an apostate, to one degree or another, who are still members of the church. 

I’m curious why this is important to you? 
 

when I think “apostate” I think enemy to the church.  I don’t care what the church dictionary says, apostate has come to mean something very heavy in our culture.  I don’t think of anyone I know personally who has left the church as an enemy.  I can think of a few public influencers who likely fit the definition of church enemy.  But my circle? Naw. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That's probably the one I would go with. 

So let's say that the church replaced the word apostate with former believer.  I don't see how that would change anything. People would still view that as a negative. And many people to whom this applies would say something like, "I'm not a former believer, because I still believe in Christ, or the Book of Mormon, or whatever."

And let's say that the church eliminated the word apostate, would the church also need to get rid of the word apostasy and replace it with something else?

I don’t think they should eliminate the term apostate as it works just fine for the type of former believer who becomes an anti-Mormon or preaches against the Church.

The Handbook definitions cover apostasy rather than loss of belief quite well, imo.  

Edited January 18, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

don’t think of anyone I know personally who has left the church as an enemy.  I can think of a few public influencers who likely fit the definition of church enemy

I know a couple who have, but most have just moved on with their lives.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I know a couple who have, but most have just moved on with their lives.

I’m sure they are out there.  Probably even some of those I know. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, John L said:

My mom did not trust him anymore.

Did she make it explicit to you it was his loss of faith and not his hiding his loss of faith to retain his clients, essentially lying about his belief if your description is accurate, that caused her loss of trust?

[MustardSeed]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did she make it explicit to you it was his loss of faith and not his hiding his loss of faith to retain his clients, essentially lying about his belief if your description is accurate, that caused her loss of trust?

I don’t know. Let’s look at the OP.  I don’t want to be judgy here, but looking at the bare bones of it all- he wants to know how he can possibly relate to a child who no longer attends his church.  In my opinion, the loss of commonality is a bigger influence in it all.  It doesn’t need to be though, imo. 

[CA Steve]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[gopher]

I think it's ok for everyone to stop using the term apostate to describe those who leave the church.  I did a search of General Conference talks and found it's rarely used at all anymore there.  It shows up in a few relatively recent talks, but it refers to apostates in the scriptures that fit the handbook definition.  I realize it has been used in the past, but words sometimes change meaning over time.  A hundred years ago you wouldn't get a reaction at church if you declared you were a gay Mormon.  Today everyone would cringe at you calling yourself a Mormon.

Yes, that's not an original joke

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know. Let’s look at the OP.  I don’t want to be judgy here, but looking at the bare bones of it all- he wants to know how he can possibly relate to a child who no longer attends his church.  In my opinion, the loss of commonality is a bigger influence in it all.  It doesn’t need to be though, imo. 

I am talking about JL’s mom and her brother, just in case that isn’t clear.  
 

I am assuming you are saying loss of trust can come as part of how one views someone who has left the Church and are using the OP as evidence and I don’t disagree, but I am curious if it might be for a different reason in the case of JL’s mother.  I am thinking of how I have reacted when I hear of the occasional BYU prof who immediately resigns once they have retired and their pension is safe.  I don’t view them the same way I view others who leave the Church as soon as they feel certain in their disbelief or those who stay in the Church for family while being open about their own disbelief or even those who keep their disbelief hidden out of fear of being rejected by family and friends, so I am wondering if his mom might have reacted the same.

You don’t have to go to loss of faith to find someone untrustworthy if you believe they have been lying. 

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, manol said:

The talk and quote were relevant to the topic of this thread, namely, how to deal with one's children leaving the LDS Church.  That may include "betrayal" in the minds of the parents, but usually not "abuse, addiction, abandonment, etc.". 

Would you please point to the part of the talk to which you refer?

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am talking about JL’s mom and her brother, just in case that isn’t clear.  
 

I am assuming you are saying loss of trust can come as part of how one views someone who has left the Church and are using the OP as evidence and I don’t disagree, but I am curious if it might be for a different reason in the case of JL’s mother.  I am thinking of how I have reacted when I hear of the occasional BYU prof who immediately resigns once they have retired and their pension is safe.  I don’t view them the same way I view others who leave the Church as soon as they feel certain in their disbelief or those who stay in the Church for family while being open about their own disbelief or even those who keep their disbelief hidden out of fear of being rejected by family and friends, so I am wondering if his mom might have reacted the same.

You don’t have to go to loss of faith to find someone untrustworthy if you believe they have been lying. 

Very true.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/17/2023 at 7:15 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

So basically, in your opinion the church needs to ditch the word apostate, because some individuals who fit the definition of apostate to a T, don't like the term and the implication that believing members consider their decision to renounce their former beliefs as a mistake and a tragedy? 

I also have no problem with how Brigham described apostates. What he said isn't PC today, but I think his overall rundown is pretty accurate in most cases. 

And because in his experience apostates were among those who betrayed, prosecuted, persecuted, drove, and murdered their former brothers and sisters. 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[manol]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you please point to the part of the talk to which you refer?

Here is a link to the talk by Elder Scott: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/i-have-given-you-an-example?lang=eng

Here are the tenth and eleventh paragraphs, which are imo relevant to the topic of this thread, emphasis mine: 

"How can each of us become such a significant influence? We must be sure to sincerely love those we want to help in righteousness so they can begin to develop confidence in God’s love. For so many in the world, the first challenge in accepting the gospel is to develop faith in a Father in Heaven, who loves them perfectly. It is easier to develop that faith when they have friends or family members who love them in a similar way.

"Giving them confidence in your love can help them develop faith in God’s love. Then through your loving, thoughtful communication, their lives will be blessed by your sharing lessons you have learned, experiences you have had, and principles you have followed to find solutions to your own struggles. [First] Show your sincere interest in their well-being; then share your testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

It sounds to me like foundational the role we can play is to model and be a conduit for God's love so people have a safe space and can then extend that feeling of being in a safe space to how they feel about God.

And here are the sixteenth and seventeenth paragraphs, which I previously pulled quotes from, emphasis mine:

"Remember, loving them is the powerful foundation for influencing those you want to help. The influence of my Grandmother Whittle and my wife, Jeanene, would have been negligible had I not first known that they loved me and wanted me to have the best in life.

"As a companion to that love, trust them. In some cases it may seem difficult to trust, but find some way to trust them. The children of Father in Heaven can do amazing things when they feel trusted. Every child of God in mortality chose the Savior’s plan. Trust that given the opportunity, they will do so again."

Edited January 18, 2023 by manol

[John L]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Did she make it explicit to you it was his loss of faith and not his hiding his loss of faith to retain his clients, essentially lying about his belief if your description is accurate, that caused her loss of trust?

She loss of trust in her brother comes from him not being guided by the priesthood anymore. That's why she would run to her 30 some year old bishop for advice. 

Do you realize how many men and women are sitting in church that don't have a testimony anymore? 

[John L]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Happened to me, with my sister

Happens a lot.