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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

There isn't a clear delineation in the church between leaders and lay members in the church that can be found in other churches.

Um… your church is one of the most top down organizations out there. Case in point:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/11/24/slap-face-lds-relief-society/

[bluebell]

46 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 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 have two thoughts on this post too.  

1-I understand your point and I think it makes sense.  I just think that it doesn't work to think of the leaders as a different entity from the members, when the vast majority of leaders are just members serving in that position for a few years.  

2-You are assuming that your friend is only doing everything she is doing because "it's what they've been taught from day one that must be done."  Do you actually know that that's the only reason that she's doing these things or are you maybe projecting your thoughts and feelings onto your friend?  I ask because in some ways she sounds like my own mother and the things that she is doing right now, but I can tell you with certainty that she does what she does because of her relationship with Jesus and for no other reason. 

She loves Christ and she loves her family and she loves the members of her ward.  Her service to each group comes from that love, not obligation to the church.

[Peacefully]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Agreed.  If an unmarried heterosexual member wants to date, hold hands even kiss someone of the opposite sex it is acceptable, even encouraged. Not so for gay members who would like to do the same with someone of the same sex. The church requires them to not only refrain from sexual relations, but from any type of romantic behavior or companionship with someone of the same sex. Comparing the paths of unmarried heterosexual members to unmarried gay members is comparing apples to oranges, and unfair to both. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by Peacefully

[california boy]

Just now, Tacenda said:

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. 

I guess I don't really see any value in joining any religious organization.  Can anyone tell me what value is there in joining any religious organization? 

If it is just to find a social group to worship with, I don't really need that kind of social group.  

If it is just a place where helping others takes place, I can become involved in so many other social groups that are involved in worthwhile causes.  

If it is just a place to worship God, I don't really need a church to do that.  Studying and discussing religious ideas can happen anywhere and at any time.  There is no need to formalize those kinds of relationships.

Simply put, give me just one good reason why joining any religious group would be beneficial to my life.

 

[Teancum]

22 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

In my experience, and in my interactions with members who have left, when they apply the same critical thinking skills that led them out of Mormonism to other religions or sects, those fall apart as well.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand your point and I think it makes sense.  I just think that it doesn't work to think of the leaders as a different entity from the members, when the vast majority of leaders are just members serving in that position for a few years.  

In my experience when people talk about members vs institutional church they aren’t including lay leadership in the institutional church. 

Edited March 9, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Also, if an unmarried heterosexual member wants to date, hold hands even kiss someone of the opposite sex it is acceptable, even encouraged. Not so for gay members who would like to do the same with someone of the same sex. The church requires them to not only refrain from sexual relations, but from any type of romantic behavior or companionship with someone of the same sex. Comparing the paths of unmarried heterosexual members to unmarried gay members is comparing apples to oranges, and unfair to both. 

Honestly at this point, anyone who thinks that being gay and being heterosexually single is the same thing, just wants to hold on to that belief.  Perhaps it is because acknowledging that there is a difference points out the destructive and inhuman nature of that policy.  

Simply put, humans are hardwired to seek out love, committing to be in a relationship and sharing life with someone that brings meaning into their lives.  That drive is so built into the nature of what it means to be human, people can go through divorce after divorce after divorce and still not give up on being  in that kind of personal relationship.  Telling a person that just because they are gay, they don't need that kind of relationship in their life is fighting against perhaps the biggest driving force of how humans are hard wired.

[pogi]

11 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.  

I don’t have a problem with that if it suits you, but I was responding to Teancum who hinted that he might still be exploring eastern religions.  

While I agree that no institution should replace personal relationship with God, most people find greater value in a community with shared common values.  Studies are pretty clear that those who participate in religion have higher well being than who don’t or who identify as “spiritual” only.  
The UUA tries to be a place for everyone (Christian and atheist alike) free of dogma and creed, I think it gains some things in that but loses other things in that.  It seems to appeal to the more liberal who find value in humanistic principles (maybe that’s their dogma?) who feel an affinity to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thoreau and are spiritually independent minded. They are also highly politically active with social causes.  I personally wish they’d leave politics out of it, but many align with those values. 
 

[MiserereNobis]

26 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.  

I'm not questioning you personally on this, but using your statement as a starting point for this idea.

One possible issue/problem, as I see it, with the "spiritual but not religious" is that organized religion offers ritual, and humans seem to be hard-wired to ritual. Now it is true that someone could create their own spiritual rituals and perhaps that would satisfy the seemingly innate need for ritual. I look at ritual as a way of approaching the divine that is beyond words and rests only in symbols. Language is a wonderful paradox in that it is both broadening and limiting. It broadens our world because we can name and identify and convey. But it limits because that which we cannot name and identify and convey is beyond our grasp, our understanding, our reality (cue @mfbukowski and some Wittgenstein quote he'll find for us).

God is beyond language. An infinite Being, the source of be-ing, the ground of reality, cannot be constrained within the circle of language. Every word creates a duality: this/not-this. God is underneath that duality or in that duality or however limited way we can describe it, and therefore unreachable by language.

Cue, therefore symbolism, which speaks to us beyond language. Cue the poets! Remember that scene from the film Contact where Jodi Foster's character, the logic-loving scientist, sees the beauty of the universe and says, "no words to describe it. They should have sent a poet!"

Poets can bend language, play with language, take language out of itself and try to convey what cannot be conveyed. There's a reason why St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church, wrote poems to describe his mystical experiences of unity with God.

And ritual, especially ritual steeped in the symbols of the culture that gave us our worldview, can use those symbols to go right past language and zap us in our souls. Ritual is symbolism in action. It takes us past language, past conception, and allows the opportunity for that which is beyond words to reach down to us and us to reach up to that. God's finger reaching towards Adam's finger (an image that is itself a symbol).

It seems to me that spiritual but not religious is missing this important aspect of spirituality: symbolism and ritual.

(on the other hand, a dose of LSD could take you right there  )

[Teancum]

1 hour 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.

This is one that I have not checked out yet. But there is a congregation and building right by my office in downtown Rochester NY.  They are quite involved in the community as well. I keep thinking about looking into them more. Thank you for the suggestion.

[Teancum]

23 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).  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. 

For you that may be easy but is is really nonsense.  And border on arrogance and the "Where will you go?" talks that some GAs have given.  There are rich and fulfilling religions out there if someone wants them. I find Catholicism very appealing and well as more traditional high church protestant sects.  There doctrine and philosophies are rich and filled with much to rad, ponder, pray about and connect with something beyond if one has the faith and believes in it.  I like a lot of the doctrine of Mormonism, if they were in fact true and it does try to wrestle with issues that others may not have answers to. But it is not the penultimate repository of doctrinal elegance when it comes to religion.

[MiserereNobis]

23 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).

Do you mind clarifying this?

[Peacefully]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly at this point, anyone who thinks that being gay and being heterosexually single is the same thing, just wants to hold on to that belief.  Perhaps it is because acknowledging that there is a difference points out the destructive and inhuman nature of that policy.  

Simply put, humans are hardwired to seek out love, committing to be in a relationship and sharing life with someone that brings meaning into their lives.  That drive is so built into the nature of what it means to be human, people can go through divorce after divorce after divorce and still not give up on being  in that kind of personal relationship.  Telling a person that just because they are gay, they don't need that kind of relationship in their life is fighting against perhaps the biggest driving force of how humans are hard wired.

You said it so well and so much better than me because you have lived it. 

[Teancum]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:54 PM, 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.

Yet the is a big difference that you seem rarely able to acknowledge that there are major differences.

Edited March 10, 2024 by Teancum

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

A fair point.

[Teancum]

19 hours 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

Yea I was right. You don't get it.  But @bluebelldoes.  And she is correct.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In my experience when people talk about members vs institutional church they aren’t including lay leadership in the institutional church. 

At what point in your view does leadership move out of “lay” and into “professional” or whatever appropriate label you think should be used?

None of our leadership is trained professionally in the sense of going to a seminary or divinity school.

Quote

‘Lay’ is used in the professions to mark-out someone who is not a member of that profession and is untrained or unskilled. Classically, lay was used over and against clerical but is now also used in other professions too. 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/174701610500100407

[california boy]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not questioning you personally on this, but using your statement as a starting point for this idea.

One possible issue/problem, as I see it, with the "spiritual but not religious" is that organized religion offers ritual, and humans seem to be hard-wired to ritual. Now it is true that someone could create their own spiritual rituals and perhaps that would satisfy the seemingly innate need for ritual. I look at ritual as a way of approaching the divine that is beyond words and rests only in symbols. Language is a wonderful paradox in that it is both broadening and limiting. It broadens our world because we can name and identify and convey. But it limits because that which we cannot name and identify and convey is beyond our grasp, our understanding, our reality (cue @mfbukowski and some Wittgenstein quote he'll find for us).

God is beyond language. An infinite Being, the source of be-ing, the ground of reality, cannot be constrained within the circle of language. Every word creates a duality: this/not-this. God is underneath that duality or in that duality or however limited way we can describe it, and therefore unreachable by language.

Cue, therefore symbolism, which speaks to us beyond language. Cue the poets! Remember that scene from the film Contact where Jodi Foster's character, the logic-loving scientist, sees the beauty of the universe and says, "no words to describe it. They should have sent a poet!"

Poets can bend language, play with language, take language out of itself and try to convey what cannot be conveyed. There's a reason why St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church, wrote poems to describe his mystical experiences of unity with God.

And ritual, especially ritual steeped in the symbols of the culture that gave us our worldview, can use those symbols to go right past language and zap us in our souls. Ritual is symbolism in action. It takes us past language, past conception, and allows the opportunity for that which is beyond words to reach down to us and us to reach up to that. God's finger reaching towards Adam's finger (an image that is itself a symbol).

It seems to me that spiritual but not religious is missing this important aspect of spirituality: symbolism and ritual.

(on the other hand, a dose of LSD could take you right there  )

Well you are definitely in the right church if you are drawn to rituals.  The Catholics do it better than anyone else.  I have also spent time in Asian countries and find some of their rituals to be so beautiful and touching.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

At what point in your view does leadership move out of “lay” and into “professional” or whatever appropriate label you think should be used?

Those that have general authority in the church. First quorum of the 70 (or whatever it is these days), FP, quorum of 12 and presiding bishopric. And those they employ full time at church headquarters.  

[bluebell]

21 hours 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.

There are.  But the existence of those people is irrelevant to the experience of homosexual members (who I also don't believe are being inundated with messages about how the church hates them)

Quote

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.

If you go back to my first post to you, I made clear what I meant. They are required to eschew romantic love and marriage (even if it is offered to them) if they want to be a member in good standing and have access to everything the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has to offer to God's children.

 

Quote

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.

Not as an abstraction.  It exists as a possibility.  It exists as a goal.  It exists as an option.  None of that is true for homosexual members and that is not a point to gloss over.

Quote

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

You've tried to make this argument before, and I get what you are saying and why you are saying it.  But it's starting to sound disingenuous because other people have responded to it in the past, outlining the problems with it.

Yes, everyone in the church must reject sexual behaviors that violate the law of Chastity, but only homosexual members are asked to reject marriage to a romantic partner in order to keep the law of chastity.

Again, that is a distinction with a huge difference that can't be ignored.

Quote

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.

Yes, everyone 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.  But only homosexual members are asked to reject marriage to a romantic partner completely.

We lose absolutely nothing, and gain charity, by acknowledging that.

Quote

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

It is interesting.  And hopeful.  

Quote

Pretty similar, though.

Only in the way that a tomato and an orange are similar since they are both fruit.  But the truly wise person knows that despite a tomato being a fruit, you can't put it in a fruit salad because the differences that do exist, cannot be overstated.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/8/2024 at 11:13 AM, 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).  

This is cute. If we actually take people at their word, they leave because of “history related to church founder Joseph Smith” as the number one reason. The thing is, once you deconstruct one sect of Christianity, it’s just one more baby step to deconstruct the whole thing. This is facilitated by the fact that most church apologetics is pointed this way. You have a problem with polygamy? It’s right there in the Bible! Joseph had trouble getting the details of his vision right? So did Paul. It’s all teed up for you. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Honestly at this point, anyone who thinks that being gay and being heterosexually single is the same thing, just wants to hold on to that belief.  Perhaps it is because acknowledging that there is a difference points out the destructive and inhuman nature of that policy.  

Simply put, humans are hardwired to seek out love, committing to be in a relationship and sharing life with someone that brings meaning into their lives.  That drive is so built into the nature of what it means to be human, people can go through divorce after divorce after divorce and still not give up on being  in that kind of personal relationship.  Telling a person that just because they are gay, they don't need that kind of relationship in their life is fighting against perhaps the biggest driving force of how humans are hard wired.

It is good for man (in the general human sense) to be alone?

God: Only if they are queer.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Only in the way that a tomato and an orange are similar since they are both fruit.  But the truly wise person knows that despite a tomato being a fruit, you can't put it in a fruit salad because the differences that do exist, cannot be overstated.

Yoinking this to use in the future.

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um… your church is one of the most top down organizations out there. Case in point:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/11/24/slap-face-lds-relief-society/

i think we're talking about this in two different ways. Having top-down order, does not exclude anything that I said. It doesn't change that where one gets the leaders is from the lay members. Any form of "professional" training is generally just long-term experience serving in differing church callings. I also don't know how one would measure to get to the conclusion of "most top-down organization." 

10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In my experience when people talk about members vs institutional church they aren’t including lay leadership in the institutional church. 

Also, on this point, from my experience "the church" is usually not that cleanly defined. Most people experience the church on the local and/or familial level. These arenas tend to strongly influence what messages stick out to them from general leadership and how they're interpreted/engaged with. What this looks like varies drastically from member to member. Remember both Smac and I are active participating believing members. I know there is plenty we don't see eye-to-eye on in our faith and how we engage with the world in general. The same could be said about me and BB (minus our affinity for the color blue). But what's described, reacted to, and propped up as "The Church"  when I see this is usually only a specific strain of religious practice and ideology. Every time "the church" is brought up in a negative light, it's usually when something supports this smaller framing. Which is why when some people outside of our faith (via former or never-members) have engaged with me, they're quite frankly confused. I do not fit the stereotype. I do not fit their expectations. Instead of this helping to broaden a perspective  and add nuance to what it means to be a Latter-day Saint, it tends to be dismissed as a weird outlier to maintain a flat image of "the church" as a monolith of thought and practice. 

Lay leadership is the bulwark of the institutional church. It includes every leader in a local and regional leadership role. If one is ignoring this as part of the institutional church, they're missing a massive part of the actual institution and that's a problem. 

  

With luv,

BD

Edited March 10, 2024 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yoinking this to use in the future.

Excellent one to yoink, whatever that means.