Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[smac97]

From the Tribune:

Quote

When Josh Coates and Stephen Cranney wanted to learn more about members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they had to strategize about the best ways to reach them. More and more people aren’t answering surveys, either by phone or online. Reaching a small minority population like Latter-day Saints is difficult.

So they resurrected an old-school methodology — sending 80,000 physical postcards to randomly selected households in the Mormon Corridor — and supplemented it with targeted Facebook ads to a Utah audience.

The results are going to be skewed a bit, I think.  Trends involving those who leave the Church are likely to be influenced by whether the people who are doing the leaving or in, or not in, "the Mormon Corridor."

Quote

1. Former members are more likely to be LGBTQ.

In the survey, only 4% of current members identified as LGBTQ, compared with 18% of former members.

Interesting, but not surprising.  There is a pretty strong "Mormons Hate Gays" narrative being perpetuated in social media and elsewhere, mostly by people who are antagonistic to the Church, and I think it is particularly potent in the "Mormon Corridor."  

Quote

2. Few have a traditional belief in God, without any doubts.

The 2023 Current and Former Latter-day Saint Survey repeated a long-standing question from the General Social Survey about belief in God. Comparing the current and former members, the differences in belief are stark: Among current members, more than 7 in 10 say they “know God really exists and … have no doubts about it.” That’s more than six times the rate of certainty about God among former members.

I sort of question what some (many?) Latter-day Saints mean when they speak in such absolutist terms.  I previously commented on this back in 2018:

Quote

We should ditch the "I know" paradigm.  "I'd like to bear my testimony.  I know this church is true..."  Well, actually, no.  Most of us, I think, have faith that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Church is what it claims to be, etc.  "I know" has become an affectation, and an inaccurate one at that.  Just as people use "literally" to mean "figuratively" ("I was so bored yesterday, I was literally climbing the walls..."), I think members of the Church use "I know" to mean "I believe."  And in so doing we've set up an incorrect perception of things.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).  "{I}f a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it."  (Alma 32:17-18).  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (AoF 1:9).

We are supposed to not have a sure knowledge.  We are supposed to be proceeding in faith.  But we've made it seem like anything short of a pulpit-thumping "I know..." just isn't good enough.  But "I know" seems too rigid.  Too fragile.  Too glass-jawed.  "I believe...", on the other hand, gives us some room.  Some time and some space to absorb challenging/difficult things.  

In recent years we have seen, or else taken more particular notice of, the misuse of the word "literally."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Schur isn’t the only one peeved by “literally’’ gaining popularity as both a throwaway intensifier and a replacement for “figuratively.’’ It’s a word that has been misused by everyone from fashion stylist Rachel Zoe to President Obama, and linguists predict that it will continue to be led astray from its meaning. There is a good chance the incorrect use of the word eventually will eclipse its original definition.

What the word means is “in a literal or strict sense.’’ Such as: “The novel was translated literally from the Russian.’’

“It should not be used as a synonym for actually or really,’’ writes Paul Brians in “Common Errors in English Usage.’’ “Don’t say of someone that he ‘liter ally blew up’ unless he swallows a stick of dynamite.’’

“My kids do this all the time,’’ writer and former Time magazine editor James Geary explained in the British newspaper the Guardian last month. “There were ‘literally’ a million people there, or I ‘literally’ died I was so scared. When people use literally in this way, they mean it metaphorically, of course. It’s a worn-out word, though, because it prevents people from thinking up a fresh metaphor for whatever it is they want to describe.’’

I wonder if "I know" declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a "throwaway intensifier," as intending to express more of a strong belief rather than a sure knowledge.  Unfortunately, there seem to be some in the Church who seem to take "I know" at face value, and in so doing feel that their having faith (alongside questions and doubts) is just not good enough.  I think we need to work on that.

Quote

3. Their moral priorities look very different.

One of the most groundbreaking aspects of the survey Coates and Cranney devised was that they utilized Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory to try to understand whether current and former Latter-day Saints emphasized different aspects of morality. That theory measures values such as fairness, loyalty, authority, care and purity. In Haidt’s research, liberals tend to stress fairness and care but put less emphasis on obedience to authority or being loyal to a particular tribe.

Former Latter-day Saints, it turns out, have much in common with liberals in the general population, with high ratings for care and fairness. Meanwhile, current members look more like conservatives, but with a particularly high emphasis on purity/sanctity — something former Latter-day Saints do not stress much at all.

This one is interesting.  All sorts of data indicate that, as a practical matter, and rhetorical pronouncements notwithstanding, "liberals" are far less charitable, both financially and hours of service, than "conservatives." (see, e.g., here).

Quote

4. They are more likely to have been divorced.

For survey respondents who were still Latter-day Saints, the divorce rate for first marriages was 18%, while for former members it was 39%. The former members’ rate is closer to the national average for divorces in the United States.

Divorce is a very difficult and disruptive thing to the fabric of an individual's life.  It makes sense that this disruptive influence could spread to other aspects of a person's life.

Quote

5. They have smaller families.

Coates cautions that the data on this is still provisional because accounting for age will make a major difference in the findings, but in terms of the raw numbers, current Latter-day Saints appear to have almost one child more per family (3.4 children) than those who’ve left the church (2.5 children).

Huh.  Not sure what to make of this.

Quote

6. Many say they left the church because of historical issues.

The top three reasons for leaving in the 2023 survey were 1) history related to church founder Joseph Smith; 2) the Book of Mormon; and 3) race issues.

However, Coates said he is somewhat skeptical, comparing these questions to asking divorced couples why their marriages failed. He said it’s difficult to know what potential conscious or unconscious biases are at play.

Hmm.  Are offered-in-hindsight "Why the Relationship Failed" explanations, whether as to one's relationship with his spouse or as to one's relationship with the Church, susceptible to such biases?  

Quote

7. The vast majority have no interest in returning to church activity.

More than 4 out of 5 former members say that returning is “very unlikely,” with an additional 10% saying it’s unlikely.

A majority has very negative feelings about the church. “Three out of 4 said they dislike or strongly dislike the church as an institution,” Coates reported. In brighter news, “they had a neutral to positive disposition toward the people.”

Hmm.  Something like 80% of former members "say that returning is 'very unlikely,'" yet per this article, a significant subset of people who leave do come back.

Quote

8. Most don’t join another religion after leaving.

Some 70% of the former members selected “none” when asked to describe their religion now. However, Coates observed that the actual percentage could be even higher, because an additional 19% chose “other” and then hand-wrote responses that were sometimes compatible with “none.”

I have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune:

The results are going to be skewed a bit, I think.  Trends involving those who leave the Church are likely to be influenced by whether the people who are doing the leaving or in, or not in, "the Mormon Corridor."

Interesting, but not surprising.  There is a pretty strong "Mormons Hate Gays" narrative being perpetuated in social media and elsewhere, mostly by people who are antagonistic to the Church, and I think it is particularly potent in the "Mormon Corridor."  

I sort of question what some (many?) Latter-day Saints mean when they speak in such absolutist terms.  I previously commented on this back in 2018:

In recent years we have seen, or else taken more particular notice of, the misuse of the word "literally."  See, e.g., here:

I wonder if "I know" declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a "throwaway intensifier," as intending to express more of a strong belief rather than a sure knowledge.  Unfortunately, there seem to be some in the Church who seem to take "I know" at face value, and in so doing feel that their having faith (alongside questions and doubts) is just not good enough.  I think we need to work on that.

This one is interesting.  All sorts of data indicate that, as a practical matter, and rhetorical pronouncements notwithstanding, "liberals" are far less charitable, both financially and hours of service, than "conservatives." (see, e.g., here).

Divorce is a very difficult and disruptive thing to the fabric of an individual's life.  It makes sense that this disruptive influence could spread to other aspects of a person's life.

Huh.  Not sure what to make of this.

Hmm.  Are offered-in-hindsight "Why the Relationship Failed" explanations, whether as to one's relationship with his spouse or as to one's relationship with the Church, susceptible to such biases?  

Hmm.  Something like 80% of former members "say that returning is 'very unlikely,'" yet per this article, a significant subset of people who leave do come back.

I have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Two thoughts.

1-I don't think the high number of LGBTQ+ ex-members has much to do with the idea that "mormons hate gays" but everything to do with the doctrinal teachings of the church that requires LGBTQ+ members to be celibate for life in order to be members in good standing.  That is not a life that very many people are going to volunteer to live.

2-It drives me a little crazy when people say that they hate the institutional church but are neutral or even positive about the members.  The church literally is the members.  It's all one group.  It's like someone saying that they hate berries but have positive feelings towards strawberries.

[rpn]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

8. Most don’t join another religion after leaving.

Some 70% of the former members selected “none” when asked to describe their religion now. However, Coates observed that the actual percentage could be even higher, because an additional 19% chose “other” and then hand-wrote responses that were sometimes compatible with “none.”

Expand  

I have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

For me that is easy.  Once you have been taught what we know about how the Plan of Salvation works, no other faith has anything to offer except community (which, of course is no small thing).  More importantly, unless the survey also asked whether they had their membership removed or whether they resigned, many of the group probably don't join another faith knowing that would also sever all sealing covenants (which some don't want to do because of how that feels to family members who remain, and others because they want to keep their own options open. 

[Thinking]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"liberals" are far less charitable, both financially and hours of service, than "conservatives."

If true, this one doesn't surprise me. Liberals tend to lean toward socialism where the government takes care of the people.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Two thoughts.

1-I don't think the high number of LGBTQ+ ex-members has much to do with the idea that "mormons hate gays" but everything to do with the doctrinal teachings of the church that requires LGBTQ+ members to be celibate for life in order to be members in good standing.  That is not a life that very many people are going to volunteer to live.

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

For some time now I have included the following quote, a comment from Rick Warren, in my sigline:

Quote

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

I think this goes a long way in explaining things.  Equivocation by conflating "disagreement" of behavior with hatred of those who engage in that behavior.  Equivocation by conflating having "love" for a person with ratifying and celebrating and endorsing everything they do.

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

2-It drives me a little crazy when people say that they hate the institutional church but are neutral or even positive about the members.  The church literally is the members.  It's all one group.  It's like someone saying that they hate berries but have positive feelings towards strawberries.

Same here. 

I think it is more socially acceptable to express "hate" for an institution.  I also think that such expressions of "hate" are often more particularly intended for the leadership of the institution, and/or the principles/ideology of the institution.

The challenge here is that most of what distinguishes Latter-day Saints involves their individualized behaviors and actions, which behaviors/actions are heavily influenced by the Church's doctrines.  Most of these doctrines are wonderful, and have been manifested in wonderful ways.  However, sometimes things go sideways. 

A hearty sense of identity and community amongst the Saints may end up manifesting as exclusionary actions.  A strong work ethic may end up manifesting as avarice.  A strong belief in missionary service may end up manifesting as contempt for those who do not serve.  A belief in the Word of Wisdom may manifest as judgmentalism for those who imbibe.  Strong belief in the Law of Chastity and the need to constrain sexual behaviors to parameters set by God may manifest in judgmentalism against those who do not define those parameters in the same way.

Some of this "manifesting" is actual misconduct by the Latter-day Saints, and we need to improve on these things.  OTOH, some of this "manifesting" is less about the actual conduct of the Saints, and more about how our beliefs come across, and how dissidents and antagonists try to characterize and construe when they step in and presume to "explain" what Latter-day Saints believe.  Many such characterizations are pretty unfair, slanted, inaccurate, etc.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

"liberals" are far less charitable, both financially and hours of service, than "conservatives."

If true, this one doesn't surprise me. Liberals tend to lean toward socialism where the government takes care of the people.

Yep.  From the news link I provided earlier:

Quote

Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it’s wrong to link a state’s religious makeup with its generosity.

People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said.

Since taxes are compulsory, "being more willing to pay higher taxes" doesn't really come into the equation.  Moreover, there is nothing keeping "{p}eople in less religious states" from voluntarily paying more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay, but I doubt any appreciable number of them actually do this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

Was there a comparison to general population leaving other faiths or at least comparable ones like the RCC, which also claims authority from God in a similar way that makes switching between denominations more about a definite change in faith as opposed to keeping essentially the same, but fine tuning doctrinal ideas or looking for a different view towards social issues rather than doctrinal disagreements.

With the growing numbers of “nones” in the population, it’s hard to know what amount of the 70% is attributed to more of the cultural disinterest of having religion as a part of one’s life vs an active rejection of specific beliefs in God, religious authority or something else (think of it as getting divorced because it just feels like too much work living with the other person, you are just not compatible versus divorcing out of significant anger or dislike of them or something they do, such as you can’t stand their politics and disagree with them going out and promoting their candidate and contributing money to them not just because it takes it away from paying off your home or no vacation, but it contributes to greater success for the candidate).

Though now that I think of it, I am not sure the difference between the general population and our specific faith could be confidently assumed to be based on a more active rejection as a high commitment faith might increase percentages of those who leave out of disinterest, so we might even have less rejection of doctrine, etc than the general population.  Even removing one’s name could be just about not wanting to have to deal with ministers, etc rather than making a statement, private or public, that one is no longer part of this faith community or one rejects those beliefs.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

1-I don't think the high number of LGBTQ+ ex-members has much to do with the idea that "mormons hate gays" but everything to do with the doctrinal teachings of the church that requires LGBTQ+ members to be celibate for life in order to be members in good standing.  That is not a life that very many people are going to volunteer to live.

I see the more likely dominant “narrative” as more Mormonism is not compatible with a gay life rather than Mormons hate gays….maybe more of a Mormons don’t understand gays slant….

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

For me that is easy.  Once you have been taught what we know about how the Plan of Salvation works, no other faith has anything to offer except community (which, of course is no small thing).  More importantly, unless the survey also asked whether they had their membership removed or whether they resigned, many of the group probably don't join another faith knowing that would also sever all sealing covenants (which some don't want to do because of how that feels to family members who remain, and others because they want to keep their own options open. 

I don’t see why one couldn’t simply reject belief in the Plan of Salvation though and if one loses belief in the authority of the Church, what is the meaning of sealing covenants?  

I can see not wanting to offend family members by not removing one’s name, but one could attend another church at least on Sunday under the radar pretty easily I would think without removing your name even in the Mormon corridor…though maybe I just don’t have those types of conversations with my friends and others do (we focus more on what we do together than what the other does without us and don’t push for details if not offered when do you ask how they are spending their times).

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  From the news link I provided earlier:

Since taxes are compulsory, "being more willing to pay higher taxes" doesn't really come into the equation.  Moreover, there is nothing keeping "{p}eople in less religious states" from voluntarily paying more taxes than they are legally obligated to pay, but I doubt any appreciable number of them actually do this.

Thanks,

-Smac

If one wants and trusts the government to care for those in need, one may be more likely to assume these programs are working (and if they weren’t, why wouldn’t the government just ask for more taxes?) while conservatives may be more likely to distrust the ability of government to do this, so it may have little to do with actual level of caring.

[manol]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And 70% [not subsequently joining another religion] sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

Thoughts?

My guess is that there are a wide variety of reasons why former Mormons don't join another religion.  My reasons are probably different from @Teancum's, for example. 

I have investigated several religions and groups (formal and informal) but thus far have chosen unencumbered freedom of thought over the alternatives.  I prefer not to formally align myself with anything I do not believe completely, and prefer to retain the privilege of quickly re-aligning myself to greater light and knowledge if and when I find it. 

Joseph Smith on the subject of subscribing to a formal belief structure:  “I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. But I want to come up into the presence of God and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes and say ‘hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ — which I cannot subscribe to.”

Joseph Smith again: "... the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”

These are concepts I am comfortable with as long as I am the one deciding for myself, rather than allowing someone else to decide for me, what constitutes "true principles".  I want complete freedom to align myself to the brightest light I can perceive and to think the highest thoughts I can conceive of, and imo formal affiliation with an insufficiently flexible or adaptable or expandable belief system would impede that freedom. 

 

Edited March 8, 2024 by manol

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  

By celibate I meant without romantic love and remaining single.  Being willing to live a life without romantic attachments and without a spouse is different than being required to live that kind of a life.  For heterosexual members, the option of marriage exists.  For homosexual members, they must reject that option. 

The two situations are not the same.

[manol]

Oops double post... or surreptitiously padding my post count...

Edited March 8, 2024 by manol

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t see why one couldn’t simply reject belief in the Plan of Salvation though and if one loses belief in the authority of the Church, what is the meaning of sealing covenants? 

Or, alternatively, one might see the Plan as being inclusive rather than exclusive, in which case sealings are affirmations rather than imperatives. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

By celibate I meant without romantic love and remaining single. 

And even trying to control or suppress/destroy one’s fantasy life as that is seen as nurturing inappropriate attractions.  If one felt guilty in dwelling on the attractions of beautiful people because that caused attractions that could never be fulfilled to increase, that takes a lot of fun out of life imo when single…dreaming of possibilities in one’s future. 
 

Quote

For heterosexual members, the option of marriage exists.

And a pretty robust fantasy life…

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Or, alternatively, one might see the Plan as being inclusive rather than exclusive, in which case sealings are affirmations rather than imperatives. 

Right, one can expand on doctrine in that way, but I was also thinking about being literal children of God with eternal natures of the same species as God.  If one moves to a more traditional view of God and Man it would be easier to join a more traditional faith as that would be offering something the Restored Gospel does not. 
 

The sealing observation was more of a part two, second reason more focused on lack of need to have it if one no longer believes in the authority of the Church. 

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune:

The results are going to be skewed a bit, I think.  Trends involving those who leave the Church are likely to be influenced by whether the people who are doing the leaving or in, or not in, "the Mormon Corridor."

Interesting, but not surprising.  There is a pretty strong "Mormons Hate Gays" narrative being perpetuated in social media and elsewhere, mostly by people who are antagonistic to the Church, and I think it is particularly potent in the "Mormon Corridor."  

I sort of question what some (many?) Latter-day Saints mean when they speak in such absolutist terms.  I previously commented on this back in 2018:

In recent years we have seen, or else taken more particular notice of, the misuse of the word "literally."  See, e.g., here:

I wonder if "I know" declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a "throwaway intensifier," as intending to express more of a strong belief rather than a sure knowledge.  Unfortunately, there seem to be some in the Church who seem to take "I know" at face value, and in so doing feel that their having faith (alongside questions and doubts) is just not good enough.  I think we need to work on that.

This one is interesting.  All sorts of data indicate that, as a practical matter, and rhetorical pronouncements notwithstanding, "liberals" are far less charitable, both financially and hours of service, than "conservatives." (see, e.g., here).

Divorce is a very difficult and disruptive thing to the fabric of an individual's life.  It makes sense that this disruptive influence could spread to other aspects of a person's life.

Huh.  Not sure what to make of this.

Hmm.  Are offered-in-hindsight "Why the Relationship Failed" explanations, whether as to one's relationship with his spouse or as to one's relationship with the Church, susceptible to such biases?  

Hmm.  Something like 80% of former members "say that returning is 'very unlikely,'" yet per this article, a significant subset of people who leave do come back.

I have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

RE: #3, they way they word this, I wonder if the surveyors understand the concept of “liberal” and “conservative” in terms of Moral Foundations Theory: liberal and conservative in MFT have nothing to do with politics. Rather they are meant to study the spectrum of differences in how the several foundations, which we all human beings share, are modulated. For example, political liberals and conservatives possess all moral foundations listed in the link (there are up to ten to consider now; originally there were four or five). All base their rationale in terms of morality to justify their moral leanings, but they differ in terms of what the moral point (e.g., "purity") means, how it gets prioritized, expressed, etc., and this often becomes politicized.

One of Haidt's books on this subject was an effort understand how basically moral people can become so contentious against each other, individually and politically. But even apolitical individuals have a moral foundation that in terms of MFT is labeled liberal or conservative. I’m pretty sure the individual members of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve contextualize these moral foundations very differently, yet adhere to a very similar code of moral expression.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Quote

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  

By celibate I meant without romantic love and remaining single. 

Okay.  But the point remains that there plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to, and do, live their lives "without romantic love and remaining single."  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Being willing to live a life without romantic attachments and without a spouse is different than being required to live that kind of a life. 

Not sure what you mean by "required."  Membership in the Church is entirely voluntary, as is abiding by the Law of Chastity's constraints on sexual behavior.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For heterosexual members, the option of marriage exists. 

As an abstraction, sure.  But for many, it's an abstraction that will only manifest in the hereafter.  But then, that same abstraction exists for same-sex attracted members as well.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For homosexual members, they must reject that option. 

Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The two situations are not the same.

Pretty similar, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

I think assuming gays in even in the Mormon Corridor are constantly inundated with messaging is a stretch.  Perhaps those who hang out on online forums with that focus, but in their daily life it may not be a common topic of conversation, especially if they hang out with others who don’t talk much about religion.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  But the point remains that there plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to, and do, live their lives "without romantic love and remaining single."  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

Not sure what you mean by "required."  Membership in the Church is entirely voluntary, as is abiding by the Law of Chastity's constraints on sexual behavior.

As an abstraction, sure.  But for many, it's an abstraction that will only manifest in the hereafter.  But then, that same abstraction exists for same-sex attracted members as well.

Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

Pretty similar, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

This points out to me the allowance the Lord has for leaders to exercise the administrative keys within their units in the kingdom of God on earth the best they can (MFT can be applied to this) until their leaders or the Lord Himself intervenes. He will ultimately judge in the heavenly kingdom of God anyway.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

You haven’t known unmarried couples who have participated in church?

[Pyreaux]

My many inactive siblings love their parents, their up bringing, and LDS friends, they don't hate the church, they don't go to church because of a handful of things like they believe in dinosaurs and don't follow some church teachings. That frames my picture of typical "happy" ex-members. They can't continue because they drink Mochaccinos, want to sleep-in on Sundays, they don't want responsibility, it would take a crisis will bring them to pray, and a positive result to believe in spite of other issues (like my brother when my mom was dying recently).

Edited March 8, 2024 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

You haven’t known unmarried couples who have participated in church?

Yes.

What I have not seen is polygamists who have participated in church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Quote

Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

This points out to me the allowance the Lord has for leaders to exercise the administrative keys within their units in the kingdom of God on earth the best they can (MFT can be applied to this) until their leaders or the Lord Himself intervenes.

"The best they can" would involve following the policies and procedures laid out in the Handbook.

Bishops sometimes sidestep some of their more unpleasant responsibilities.  It's an understandable thing, but it's not them doing "the best they can."

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He will ultimately judge in the heavenly kingdom of God anyway.

True.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The best they can" would involve following the policies and procedures laid out in the Handbook.

Bishops sometimes sidestep some of their more unpleasant responsibilities.  It's an understandable thing, but it's not them doing "the best they can."

True.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not sure how you (we) can identify exactly who this, and what you (we) can do about it. I think their priesthood leaders can step in and train or make a correction no matter how they interpret the Handbook, try to implement the policies and guidance, or how compliant they seem in our view.

A while ago our Sunday School class was in a discussion about the OT, and one member wanted to discuss "critically" how leaders make mistakes. The teacher tried to tone down the implications, and when the member escalated in his tone, the teacher asked, "OK give us examples." The member hemmed a bit with, "Well, we've all seen it." The teacher said, "Not good enough. Give us names and infractions." The class laughed, but when the member started to answer with an example about back-and-forth ward procedural decisions on COVID safety, the teacher good-naturedly invited him to discuss it in the foyer after class.

I guess this is a virtual foyer after class!