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

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Would polygamy be consider completely unchaste in the Church if the government hadn’t stepped in?

Seems like that part of the law was imposed from the outside and polygamy is not considered inherently unchaste as it is permissible under certain circumstances as is heterosexual monogamy whereas homosexual sexual behaviour in all forms violates the Law of Chasity.

It would have been interesting to know how the marriages of nonmember polygynists would have been viewed by members if we had expanded into countries where polygyny was common while plural marriage was seen as abiding by the Law of Chastity, whether those marriages would have been viewed on equal terms with monogamous nonmember marriages (valid and chaste though not eternal) since there are plenty of monogamous marriages where the woman is not seen as on equal terms with the man as if generally assumed to occur in typical polygyny.

Edited March 9, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."  

Odd, you would think that people who are literally surrounded by Mormons all the time would see through this “narrative” if it were a lie.

It is less hatred and more a “We don’t want you around unless you pretend to be straight in every way” thing that drives people away.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Two of those three have presumably not lived lives of celibacy. Also many of those fall away. Do you know what single adult retention numbers are like, particularly amongst the never married. They are socially marginalized in church culture, just not nearly as overtly. That is a really weird comparison to make considering how rarely never married people stay active. Divorced people have similar problems or even worse ones depending on the situation.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

It's possible that because, at some time they were fully invested and loyal to the church and it's beliefs.  But once they somehow decide in their own minds that the Church is not true they can't imagine any other church having the true gospel, if their original faith was not the right one. So they don't join any of them and in fact may even become atheists. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Pretty similar, though.

No.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

Would polygamy be consider completely unchaste in the Church if the government hadn’t stepped in?

I don't know what you mean.  Being in a polygamous marriage triggers a mandatory membership council:

Quote

32.6.1

When a Membership Council Is Required

The bishop or stake president must hold a membership council when information indicates that a member may have committed any of the sins described in this section. For these sins, a council is required regardless of a member’s level of spiritual maturity and gospel understanding.

See 32.11 for potential outcomes of councils that are convened for the sins listed in this section. Informal membership restrictions are not an option for these councils.

Sins That Require Holding a Membership Council

• Murder

• Rape

• Sexual assault conviction

• Child or youth abuse

• Abuse of a spouse or another adult (as outlined in 38.6.2.4)

• Predatory behavior (violent, sexual, or financial)

• Incest

• Child pornography (as outlined in 38.6.6)

• Plural marriage

• Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position

• Most felony convictions

...

32.6.1.2

Sexual Immorality

Incest. A membership council is required for incest as defined in 38.6.10. Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is almost always required.

Child Pornography. A membership council is required if a person is involved in child pornography as outlined in 38.6.6.

Plural Marriage. A membership council is required if a person knowingly enters into a plural marriage. Some plural marriages may occur in secret, with a spouse not knowing about one or more other spouses. Withdrawing a person’s Church membership is required if a person knowingly enters into plural marriage.

Sexual Predatory Behavior. A membership council is required if an adult repeatedly harms people sexually and is a threat to others.

 

Same-sex behavior and being in a same-sex marriage are not grounds for a mandatory membership council:

Quote

38.6.5

Chastity and Fidelity

The Lord’s law of chastity is:

• Abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.

• Fidelity within marriage.

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is intended to be beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife.

Only a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife should have sexual relations. In God’s sight, moral cleanliness is very important. Violations of the law of chastity are very serious (see Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:28; Alma 39:5). Those involved misuse the sacred power God has given to create life.

A Church membership council may be necessary if a member:

• Has sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, such as adultery, fornication, same-sex relations, and sexual encounters online or over the phone (see 32.6.2).

• Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.

• Uses pornography intensively or compulsively, causing significant harm to a member’s marriage or family (see 38.6.13).

The decision about whether to hold a membership council in these situations depends on many circumstances (see 32.7). For example, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive.

See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required for sexual sins.

In some cases, personal counseling and informal membership restrictions may be sufficient (see 32.8).

In other words, being in a polygamous marriage is seemingly more serious than being in a same-sex marriage.

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seems like that part of the law was imposed from the outside and polygamy is not considered inherently unchaste as it is permissible under certain circumstances as is heterosexual monogamy whereas homosexual sexual behaviour in all forms violates the Law of Chasity.

Per Section 32.6.1 of the Handbook, just being in a polygamous marriage triggers a membership council, regardless of whether sexual relations are involved.

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would have been interesting to know how the marriages of nonmember polygynists would have been viewed by members if we had expanded into countries where polygyny was common while plural marriage was seen as abiding by the Law of Chastity, whether those marriages would have been viewed on equal terms with monogamous nonmember marriages (valid and chaste though not eternal) since there are plenty of monogamous marriages where the woman is not seen as on equal terms with the man as if generally assumed to occur in typical polygyny.

I could ask my parents.  They served a mission in Zimbabwe a few years ago.  My recollection is that he said that people who are involved in polygamous marriages are not allowed to be baptized.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Two of those three have presumably not lived lives of celibacy. Also many of those fall away. Do you know what single adult retention numbers are like, particularly amongst the never married. They are socially marginalized in church culture, just not nearly as overtly. That is a really weird comparison to make considering how rarely never married people stay active. Divorced people have similar problems or even worse ones depending on the situation.

If social interaction is ones determining factor on whether to stay active or not they have completely missed the point.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean.  Being in a polygamous marriage triggers a mandatory membership council:

Don’t be disingenuous.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Being in a polygamous marriage triggers a mandatory membership council:

Nowadays; it didn’t 150 years ago, so it would seem that in some circumstances (plural marriage) polygyny is viewed as chaste unlike any homosexual sexual behavior, which is currently viewed as inherently unchaste. 
 

Quote

being in a polygamous marriage is seemingly more serious than being in a same-sex marriage.

But unlikely because it is breaking the law of Chasity and more likely because of the harm it could have caused the Church in the past similar to how embezzlement of church funds will cause an automatic mandatory council, imo. 
 

Quote

  My recollection is that he said that people who areinvolved in polygamous marriages are not allowed to be baptized.

Which is missing my point…

Imagine if the US government never stepped in to interfere with plural marriage. Most likely, while the frequency of plural marriages would have dropped as it had been doing on its own before the major persecution, it still would have been allowed in some cases…especially if there was no significant social pressure to drop the practice even if still viewed as odd and unusual such as our temple building and temple work. 
 

I am wondering how the Church membership would then view other forms of polygamy if we still practiced to some degree plural marriage.  We do not view heterosexual monogamous marriage as inherently unchaste; there have to be qualifications that make it so, such as incest or it being an open marriage.  My guess is heterosexual polygamous would be viewed in the same way….as normal iow.
 

You were drawing parallels with plural marriage and homosexual sexual behavior because they are both currently violations of the Law of Chastity…but the way they became violations were different paths. 

Homosexual sexual behavior has never been viewed as chaste under any condition and until recently the majority of members would have viewed such behavior as unnatural and perverse.  However, in many cases members look back at their polygamous heritage with respect and admiration. Those who participated are generally held as righteous and even celestial material for their sacrifices and definitely are not condemned as unchaste for participating in polygamous marriages. 

When I was growing up before the scandals of abuse and criminal behavior because known, polygamist breakoff groups were generally viewed as misguided and somewhat rebellious against the authority of church leadership and therefore in apostasy, but not living in sin in the same way unmarried couples were.  Choosing polygamy was more accepting too much responsibility rather than not being mature and responsible by being willing to commit when choosing to live together without marriage.  I don’t remember polygamous participants being called unchaste even if they were breaking the Law of Chastity.  Since my grandmother’s grandmother was a chaste plural wife, it was easy enough to view those undertaking plural marriage in more recent years as making an religious error, not a chastity error like teenagers who won’t wait for marriage to have sex. 

Attitudes have changed with the greater distance from plural marriage families.  They don’t fit in with “normal” anymore for the vast majority of church members  

Still apostles even speak of participating in a polygamous marriage in the afterlife at the pulpit and they are viewed as having chaste and worthy thoughts and being very mainstream LDS while if someone testified they would be in an eternal homosexual marriage they would be viewed as in apostasy and going off the rails and desiring that which is not chaste or worthy by the majority of membership, I would guess. 
 

Polygamy and homosexual sexual behaviors may both be currently breaking the law of chastity, but there are some highly significant differences that are being ignored imo in your use of polygamy. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

12 hours 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). 

I think of things Tacenda has said. Basically once she lost her trust in what the "Spirit" taught her that she found not to be true it was hard to trust on other things. 

For me some of it has been that some things I've lost my faith in are beliefs in other religions as well so it doesn't make sense to go to them. But keep in mind that I have not left the church as of now (just lost faith in it), but it wouldn't be for any of the 3 reasons listed in the OP as the most common. I seem to be an odd one so I may not be a good source of why people are not going to other religions.

12 hours ago, rpn said:

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. 

 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Rain

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Out of curiosity, do you ever listen to what other people say in this forum? 

The truth is actually quite simple. Mormonism works for some people, but it doesn’t work for others. If you are gay, it probably doesn’t work for you.

In the words of one poster, "I am pretty miserable in the gospel. Threatening me with misery for leaving just doesn’t really work that well as a threat."

Or as another said, "I have to say that because I am gay, just about everything I hear about this magical Celestial Kingdom makes me have zero desire to want to be there.  All the carrots they offer to get there such as multiple wives, eternal increase and being straight are just a no starter for me.  I don't need to be miserable here on earth just so I will be miserable throughout eternity."  

Gays in the Church aren’t inundated with messaging that the Church hates them. They are inundated with the message that in order to make it to the top level of heaven, they have to eventually marry somebody of the opposite sex. I’m surprised you didn’t know that. 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you mean.  Being in a polygamous marriage triggers a mandatory membership council:

Do you want to qualify that statement?  Because President Nelson is in a polygamous marriage.  Marriage is eternal in our church. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

15 hours 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.

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.

Totally agree with your first point. 

With your second point, while I think “hate” is a strong word, I can understand why someone might have different feelings towards “the institutional church” as being distinct from its members in general.   For example, the general membership had nothing to do with the financial deception (for lack of a better word) that led to the SEC fines.  The general membership don’t make it a policy to not say “we’re sorry”, agree or not, it is a point which irks many members.   It is perceived by many that the institutional church hid, or whitewashed, history from the general membership for generations.   The point isn’t if these things are accurate or not or to argue about the fine points of these issues, but to give examples where people are likely distinguishing between the two.

My guess is that “the institutional church” is being defined by these people as the policies/policy makers and machinery high up on the upper and official levels who have authority to direct the affairs, act and speak for “the church”; and is not being defined as the holistic body of the church in general, which we all are.

Edited March 9, 2024 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

I know a few people have already answered you and I don't want to dog pile as I agree with all the ones that I saw respond. 

You quoted someone on compassion and disagreeing with their life choices. I do agree that people can hold compassion and disagreement at the same time. I would say, though, that compassion does entail and need deeper understanding of a person/people for it to truly be there. I find that if there isn't understanding compassion will always be limited to our own framework. And it leads us to conclusions that are entirely wrapped up in our own reality rather than fully grasping the reality of another. Your conclusions and assertions of sameness leads me to believe you don't really understand this. Which leads me to assume there's a limit to the compassion felt. 

It is not hard to see that there is a difference between what we currently ask of our queer members and our single, widowed, and divorced members. Personally if you don't feel a bit of the conflict they experience in that while seeking out their stories and experiences for better understanding, I question whether there's depth to ones compassion. 

I should note, I don't have a "right" solution for the concerns presented in this subsection of the population. But even if we don't have a major shift in doctrinal applications, I do think we're missing something. Particularly in our understanding of the CK, what we focus on in the church when it comes to fulfilling our calls on earth, and how we incorporate members who do not fit the most comfortable moulds, doctrinally. What that looks like, ain't entirely my call. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, manol said:

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. 

In my journey I have tried to first make Mormonism continue to work and I did tried a variety of approaches over an almost 7-10 year period but eventually that did not work.  Since then I have explored other Christian religions and options.  But much of what I had problems with in Mormonism I also found the similar problems.  These really come down to the doctrines of a revealed religion and a theistic type of God the Judeo, Christian and Islamic philosophy revolve around.  I have not yet drilled into eastern religions or mysticism though I am exploring meditation there is an impressive Zen Center in Rochester NY near where I live. It is well known nation wide and one of the oldest of such centers in the USA.

 

18 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

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?

Further from Coates: ““This portion of the survey,” he said, “is only useful in answering the question ‘What do former members prefer to respond when asked on a survey why they left?’”

This is pretty gross from Coates and makes me question the validity of his survey as a whole when he is clearly this biased. I’ll be the first to admit that humans are complicated, but when it’s only the exmos opinions he’s dismissing… 

How condescending would it be if I did this?

Me: Why are you a member?

You: Because it makes me my best self.

Me: That’s what you prefer to say, but clearly you just like feeling special and feeling like you are better than everyone around you. 

[Tacenda]

21 hours 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.

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.

I like most of this post, but the second on the list, I don't know how much I agree with. Leaders make the rules that members need to follow in order to be able to hold a temple recommend. Leaders give talks that members are supposed to learn from and try to follow. Luckily the great members change things in the church that aren't right. So it is the members like these that I look at and admire when they do change the wrongs. That's the beauty of the church really, it's not set in stone. It's pliable and changes for the better each decade, or maybe not in some of those decades. But it's a living church, did I say that right? 

I mentioned a friend of mine previously that is just over worked in the church, she's one of the ten in every ward. She's been RS president twice, YW's leader twice and now going to be the Primary President going on the third time. And many other callings in between.  She takes care of her elderly parents nearly every day, it's her job. She quit another job, to take on that job. She also drives over an hour each week to take care of her two grand children. Recently, she and her husband were called to work in the new temple nearby. Her husband is the ward clerk. They are in their late 50's and this has been their life, constantly busy. And no complaints out of their mouths, it's what they've been taught from day one what must be done. 

Oh, and her health isn't the best as far as the body goes. She's had surgeries on her neck and both legs too. 

So to me, this is wrong. But others that have read this far will probably disagree with me.

What was the talk awhile back about being "horse broke"? Now I can't remember. But looking up talks with that wording there are a few talks in the church with it. And my friend, is definitely that. 

 

[Tacenda]

double post

Edited March 9, 2024 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

I am happy to understand you do not like the "I know" that just about every LDS testimony includes and has as long as I can remember. But when you say some take the phrase at face value are you implying most don't?  Because at least when I was active I would say about 100% of active members understood the words to mean literally that they or the testimony bearer, actually did KNOW.  And I believe that is perpetuated from the top down. I think of Elder McConkie's last testimony. I think of a talk by Elder Ballard on what a testimony should consist of.  I have never heard anyone talk about a testimony saying I know as anything other than that.  In fact knowing has been emphasized and a testimony as a result of personal revelation was even better than actual eye witness testimony.  Is that really changing?  Do you have anything from official sources that attempts to move I know being literal to meaning really strong faith and belief.  Do others LDS believers here agree with @smac97on this?

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In my journey I have tried to first make Mormonism continue to work and I did tried a variety of approaches over an almost 7-10 year period but eventually that did not work.  Since then I have explored other Christian religions and options.  But much of what I had problems with in Mormonism I also found the similar problems.  These really come down to the doctrines of a revealed religion and a theistic type of God the Judeo, Christian and Islamic philosophy revolve around.  I have not yet drilled into eastern religions or mysticism though I am exploring meditation there is an impressive Zen Center in Rochester NY near where I live. It is well known nation wide and one of the oldest of such centers in the USA.

 

 

Have you explored Unitarian Universalism?  It removes all the barriers you mention as a dogmatic requirement, but also welcomes you if you identify as a Christian, Buddhist, or even atheist, and does its best to try and acknowledge the good from all religions.  I have attended the meditation group with the First Unitarian church in SLC several times, and they have a study group after services which explores mystic religions/principles.  Sounds like it might fit the bill for you, although the local church in your area may be a bit different.

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

It's been years (10+?) since I've been to a testimony meeting. I was struck by the sheer number of "I know" statements -- it actually became quite distracting because once I noticed it I couldn't un-notice it. This was especially true when some children were saying "I know." I didn't feel like I was being critical of your faith when the voice in my head kept saying "no, you don't know, you just believe." I was being critical of the presentation. Has the style of testimonies changed at all in the past few years?

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's been years (10+?) since I've been to a testimony meeting. I was struck by the sheer number of "I know" statements -- it actually became quite distracting because once I noticed it I couldn't un-notice it. This was especially true when some children were saying "I know." I didn't feel like I was being critical of your faith when the voice in my head kept saying "no, you don't know, you just believe." I was being critical of the presentation. Has the style of testimonies changed at all in the past few years?

I think part of it comes from one particular conference talk which I can't remember who it was given by anymore. I remember a lot of talk afterwards saying "but what if I only believe?"

No, in the wards I've been in it hasn't changed. 

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Have you explored Unitarian Universalism?  It removes all the barriers you mention as a dogmatic requirement, but also welcomes you if you identify as a Christian, Buddhist, or even atheist, and does its best to try and acknowledge the good from all religions.  I have attended the meditation group with the First Unitarian church in SLC several times, and they have a study group after services which explores mystic religions/principles.  Sounds like it might fit the bill for you, although the local church in your area may be a bit different.

Maybe what you might be missing is that I no longer see any value in joining any congregation no matter what their beliefs are.  Following your own heart and trusting in your own relationship with God is much more spiritually rewarding than once again, allowing other people to tell you what God thinks when all of them have been wrong about that multiple times.

Tell me a religion that does actually know the will of God and doesn't have leadership that has been so wrong and infallible over and over again and I might change my mind.  I simply distrust that organized religion gets the things of God right.  

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe what you might be missing is that I no longer see any value in joining any congregation no matter what their beliefs are.  Following your own heart and trusting in your own relationship with God is much more spiritually rewarding than once again, allowing other people to tell you what God thinks when all of them have been wrong about that multiple times.

Tell me a religion that does actually know the will of God and doesn't have leadership that has been so wrong and infallible over and over again and I might change my mind.  I simply distrust that organized religion gets the things of God right.  

Hopefully this isn't butting in in a rude way, but the place pogi mentioned seemed to not care what religion people come from. Sounds kind of interesting. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I like most of this post, but the second on the list, I don't know how much I agree with. Leaders make the rules that members need to follow in order to be able to hold a temple recommend. Leaders give talks that members are supposed to learn from and try to follow. Luckily the great members change things in the church that aren't right. So it is the members like these that I look at and admire when they do change the wrongs. That's the beauty of the church really, it's not set in stone. It's pliable and changes for the better each decade, or maybe not in some of those decades. But it's a living church, did I say that right? 

I can't speak for BB, but this is also a difference that I find annoying. There isn't a clear delineation in the church between leaders and lay members in the church that can be found in other churches. So, for example, in a protestant or catholic faith, one could make more of this distinction. A subsection of their population receive specialized training, schooling, and/or are ordained to hold a very specific office. They'll hold credentials and they often live and engage differently on the regular than their lay members. Lay members may participate in limited volunteer/paid positions in the church. But it's limited without the training (which could also be considered its own form of sub-cultural indoctrination) 

That is not how our church works. Leaders come directly from existing pools of lay members will to take on specific callings. The culture of a ward or stake especially will be directly effected by who is chosen for said position from the lay membership. These communities can drastically shift in focus just based on who is called from the existing pool. Who's chosen is in and of itself a cultural reflection of what is valued or seen as needed for a specific area or call. So leaders are more so reflections of the cultural focus of our communities moreso than other christian faiths.  

It's kinda like saying, I like/neutral to mexicans but I don't like mexican culture. That's not as easily differentiated and I would assume most would find that a questionable statement. When I see this stated, I see people kinda giving a caricature of the church to have as a punching bag for all they things they don't like about our faith, while giving space to ignore that or be okay with "exceptions" within the culture for members that they do like or engage with okay. As someone whose usually in the "exceptions" category, I find that personally frustrating because I don't actually feel seen within my context and it allows others to continue to demonize my context while insisting they do like me.   

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I mentioned a friend of mine previously that is just over worked in the church, she's one of the ten in every ward. She's been RS president twice, YW's leader twice and now going to be the Primary President going on the third time. And many other callings in between.  She takes care of her elderly parents nearly every day, it's her job. She quit another job, to take on that job. She also drives over an hour each week to take care of her two grand children. Recently, she and her husband were called to work in the new temple nearby. Her husband is the ward clerk. They are in their late 50's and this has been their life, constantly busy. And no complaints out of their mouths, it's what they've been taught from day one what must be done. 

Oh, and her health isn't the best as far as the body goes. She's had surgeries on her neck and both legs too. 

So to me, this is wrong. But others that have read this far will probably disagree with me.

What was the talk awhile back about being "horse broke"? Now I can't remember. But looking up talks with that wording there are a few talks in the church with it. And my friend, is definitely that. 

 

I hesitate nowadays to describe something as overtly wrong...but I absolutely worry that her inability to say no and recognize limits in service is a recipe for serious burnout. 

 

With luv,

BD