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

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:44 AM, pogi said:

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. 
 

The group I referenced earlies in the Rochester NY area is fairly political.  Big supporters of Black Lives Matters and such.  But they do a lot of good. I am very involved with our local Habitat for Humanity and the UUA group here is very supportive of our efforts in Rochester.  I tend more left of center these days and their politics are more left than I am.  But they do a lot of good in the inner city of Rochester and it needs all the help it can get.

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:01 PM, 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  )

I appreciate your remarks and position.  I recall the first few times I attended a Catholic Mass as well as Catholic Funerals and Weddings.  Catholics are the predominant religion in the Rochester area.  I was rather young at the time.  Maybe mid 20s.  All I really knew was LDS services and a few protestant services I had attended with my wife's family.  I did find it odd and different.  But that is because I was not used to it.  As I have matured, and attended numerous Catholic Masses since then I actually have come to like the ritual quite well. If I could once again believe the NT message I would consider Catholicism. 

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:25 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mind clarifying this?

The idea that no other religion is really good enough for those who leave Mormonism is simple nonsense.  But it is ingrained in believing members and there are periodic General Conference Talks from LDS leaders that say things like the one below.  It is designed to make people think that anything else is less than the LDS "Restoration."  I find it rather arrogant. @rpns comments reflect this.

 

Quote

 

Today is no different. For some, Christ’s invitation to believe and remain continues to be hard—or difficult to accept. Some disciples struggle to understand a specific Church policy or teaching. Others find concerns in our history or in the imperfections of some members and leaders, past and present. Still others find it difficult to live a religion that requires so much. Finally, some have become “weary in well-doing.”⁵ For these and other reasons, some Church members vacillate in their faith, wondering if perhaps they should follow those who “went back, and walked no more” with Jesus.

If any one of you is faltering in your faith, I ask you the same question that Peter asked: “To whom shall [you] go?” If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do? The decision to “walk no more” with Church members and the Lord’s chosen leaders will have a long-term impact that cannot always be seen right now. There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

Never abandon the great truths revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Never stop reading, pondering, and applying the doctrine of Christ contained in the Book of Mormon.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/10/to-whom-shall-we-go?lang=eng

 

 

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

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)

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

It is interesting.  And hopeful.  

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.

Since I am telling some how much I like them I want to tell you I like you a lot as well. It would be fun to talk in person to understand better how you navigate your faith. We grew up under different approaches by top leadership and it seems to have worked well for you.  Might have worked for me as well.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Since I am telling some how much I like them I want to tell you I like you a lot as well. It would be fun to talk in person to understand better how you navigate your faith. We grew up under different approaches by top leadership and it seems to have worked well for you.  Might have worked for me as well.

I've really enjoyed the changes in our posting relationship as well.  I've come to respect you a lot.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as "critical thinking skills."  I know many Latter-day Saints who are quite adept with actual and substantive "critical thinking skills" and remain happy and faithful Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

I did not say that those who stay don't have critical thinking skills, now did I?  But once one uses them and deconstructs Mormonism, they tend to use the same skills when approaching other religions. And they also may be cautious because they have already been burned by one religious organization.  That is where I am at.

 

See Smac you need to understand a few things.  And I think struggle with this. It seems hard for you to have empathy. I doubt you have it for people like myself.  You certainly don't seem to have it for those with same sex attractions. 

I never ever started out trying to pick Mormonism apart. As I have said numerous time here, I was all in. As much as you or any other member.  But for me, the claims of the founders of Mormonism just don't hold up.  If they do for you and other great.  They don't for me. And they don't for most people who were not born in the faith who even casually start digging into it.  Since the information age the church's convert numbers show that, especially in industrialized nations. But whatever, really.  We all have to trod our own paths.

So sure, there are Latter day Saints, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologists and on and on and on, that have excellent critical thinking skills. People believe all sorts of things for various reasons. Like it or not, often those who are high end critical thinkers have a tough time using the same skills when digging into supernatural beliefs that they think are real.  Smart people believing something does not make it true. Not at all.  It is hard to take apart a belief that one has long held and one that the person holds dear.  Believe me. I know.

 

[Emily]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

It’s weird how you can say straight members, but not gay members. 

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a couple of "gay" members who have chosen to keep their covenants.  They participate in a larger LDS social community, both online and locally, of members who have made a similar commitment.

Both choose to call themselves SSA as opposed to "gay" because there is a presupposition that if you are "gay" you are, or will be, dating or marrying someone of the same gender. It seems to be a common method of differentiation.

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Emily said:

From the perspective of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints who accepts at least the most basic doctrines of the church, this is an untenable position. An individual in a homosexual relationship will not achieve exaltation. They can't be sealed to their partner for time and all eternity, and they can't have eternal increase. 

In addition, they are violating a moral law, which comes with its own loss of blessings. 

Have you considered the same conditions in the next life probably exists for those who are attracted to the opposite sex?  Perhaps heterosexual attraction will keep them from exaltation because it would prevent someone from truly being one with their spouse and therefore prevent sealings performed in mortality from being confirmed by the Spirit for eternity because the true and full commitment of being one flesh with each other and with no other can’t be made as long as heterosexual desires towards others continue to exist in them.  How can one be fully “one flesh” with your spouse if you are imagining what companionship or sex would be like with someone else?

Unless we can give up any type of lust or even attraction for those not our eternal companions in marriage, heterosexuals will likely not achieve exaltation imo either because they are violating a moral law as well and will lose the blessing of exaltation they might have had if they are willing to put aside their heterosexual desires and accept only allowing themselves to have romantic and sexual desires for the person they are sealed to.***

While we may be forgiven for our sexual attractions to those not our spouses in this life as long as we don’t nurture those desires in the next life when we are expected to put off the natural man and give up our weaknesses in order to be pure, surely we will have the ability to not only control sexual desires, but to remove the desire for them so they never even appear just as we will remove our desire to envy others so that it won’t just be stopping the flash of jealousy when it first pops in our head, but we wil never even experience envy again.  It won’t be just about controlling our natural instincts by only expressing them in the marriage context, it will be about replacing those instincts with a more godly focus…just as we demand homosexuals do in this life, but give ourselves a pass because God is currently using heterosexual drives to encourage people to mate so they can learn the benefits of eternal companionship by living something similar.

And maybe God has a purpose for homosexual desires and we as a community are just too focused of the benefits of men and women becoming one flesh to realize there may be better ways to learn other aspects of exaltation than through marriage and in the end those who were married heterosexually in this life will still need to learn what those who were single or even married homosexually had the chance to learn in mortality

I am not here suggesting homosexual marriage in mortality would be the only way to learn what is needed to learn; I don’t believe heterosexual marriage in mortality is the only path one can take to exaltation and that is certainly not doctrinal as we are promised all necessary opportunities to learn what we need to learn.  Perhaps it is easier to internalize the true value of marriage when society in general doesn’t value your own marriage that highly so you need to develop a stronger self supporting perspective to make up for the lack of support in your environment.  Maybe those who have fought for the right of marriage will take that well developed sense of its value into the next life and that will help them make the sacrifice of those aspects of their natural man easier to put in the altar while those who married with approval and congratulations will struggle when they discover there are attributes they also need to give up in order to achieve the truest form of exaltation/marriage.

Bottom line for me…

We won’t be dating when exalted as far as we know. If so, there is no eternal need for heterosexual desires (in the sense of being attracted to the opposite sex in general) because we will have our eternal companions.  We therefore shouldn’t be assuming our current sexual nature is somehow pure enough or inherently moral so it will be our eternal sexual nature just because it currently works for producing and raising offspring.
 

***This may be confusing if one sees attraction to your wife if a man or your husband if a woman as a heterosexual desire.  Think of it as changing your desire so only one person possibly satisfying your sexual desire rather than having the possibility of multiple persons doing that and you are just choosing one of many to focus on. Wasn’t it President Kimball who said if any two people both are working towards the Celestial Kingdom, they can have a Celestial marriage and be exalted together…or at least something close to that?  Instead, I am suggesting we will get to the point in our progress towards exaltation where further movement towards exaltation can only occur with the person you have progressed to that point with because your commitment to each other has turned you into being one.  Unisexual is the best label I can think of so far for this state. 

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[california boy]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

By way of example, this year I will be celebrating my 28th anniversary of being married to a wonderful woman.  I feel quite at ease declaring that I know that I love her, and that she loves me.  That's not an affectation or a "throwaway intensifier."  It would feel odd for me to say "I believe that my wife loves me," or "I hope she loves me."  At this point in my life, I know it.

Thanks,

-Smac

While I totally disagree with your position on gay marriage, I would like to ask you a simple question to see just how you are able to maintain the position you hold.  So here is the situation.  If Church leaders came out today and said that any couple whose last name starts with M will no longer be able to marry and all such unions with a last name that starts with M must be dissolved in order to be worthy of membership into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And furthermore, any such marriages will no longer be considered eternal marriages.  There will be no possibility of reuniting with your former spouse in the next life.  Former husbands and wives whose last name starts with M will be given the opportunity to marry for eternity another person.  If you do this, you will still be worthy of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and eilgible to enter the Celestial Kingdom (obviously without your current wife however).

And here is the question.  Since I believe your last name starts with M, would you be willing to divorce your wife, never kiss her again, never hold her hand again, never go on a date with her, never cuddle with her, never hug her, never be intimate with her EVER again, not in this life or the life to come, would you be willing to just walk away from that relationship, be celibate for the rest of your life and be given to another in the next life?

I get that this does seem kinda random to just focus on people whose last name starts with M.  You know, kinda like randomly being gay and also asked to do the exact same thing.

So what is your conviction now?  No problem?  You would give up your relationship with your wife because Church leaders asked you to?  No claim of revelation here, just a policy of the Church.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

In addition, they are violating a moral law, which comes with it's own loss of blessings. 

It's the same problem as a person of heterosexual orientation who chooses to build an intimate relationship without the benefit of marriage. The relationship will not continue after their life and they are violating moral laws

If they are married, then is there a moral law being violated?

 

1 hour ago, Emily said:

The state may currently recognize homosexual marriage, but God does not.

Are we sure of this? 
 

Im not yet convinced that this isn’t an issue created by man’s limitations- that we won’t be told some day, “we couldn’t allow it because the people never would have accepted it” or something similar (of the which we have heard before). 
 
Im choosing to remain open, as compassionate as I can be, and curious.  

Edited March 10, 2024 by MustardSeed

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If they are married, then is there a moral law being violated?

 

Are we sure of this? 
 

Im not yet convinced that this isn’t an issue created by man’s limitations- that we won’t be told some day, “we couldn’t allow it because the people never would have accepted it” or something similar (of the which we have heard before). 
 
Im choosing to remain open, as compassionate as I can be, and curious.  

Covenants support moral standards and do not define them. I would say that, in the Church, “ethisexuals” believe that the covenant of temple marriage is between a man and a woman because the human standard to multiply and replenish the earth is the highest of moral priorities. The generation, maintenance and full enjoyment of life are entailed in the Atonement of Jesus Christ -- the fulness of the gospel.

Not accepting this standard or its supporting covenant does not prevent anyone from remaining open and compassionate, especially in the intersection of moral standards between overlapping communities, precisely because covenants only support morality, and moral standards can be observed, at least to a degree, with or without accompanying covenants.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Im not yet convinced that this isn’t an issue created by man’s limitations- that we won’t be told some day, “we couldn’t allow it because the people never would have accepted it” or something similar (of the which we have heard before). 
 

I think one could argue homosexuality is immoral because it gets in the way of producing children and that gets in the way of God’s work which is to help Man have joy and Man has to be around first in order to have joy. 

But then being single does the same thing if we insist having children can only be done within marriage and we teach it is righteous to refuse marriage and therefore parenthood under quite a few conditions, including simply because the potential spouse is not currently a member of the Church.

If it isn’t immoral not to have children because you can’t be happily married to a church member, it doesn’t seem logical to me that it would be immoral not to have children because one can’t be happily married to someone of the opposite sex. 

Even in raising children, since in the past raising children was more a group effort as extended families would stay together in a community, having single men and women being willing to share resources with children not their own is likely to increase the ability to survive. For example, if the single men are the first defense of a community, the risk takers, it is less likely a father will die…something that would not only be traumatic, but possibly lethal for children in a community that wasn’t inclined for families to adopt or even care for fatherless/parentless kids.  If morality is in part the survival of children so they can become adults and learn what they need in order to have joy, having more than just two parents available to devote to their care would seem to lean quite moral. And homosexuality might have a positive effect here. 
 

In the past there were arguments of higher rates of mental illness, etc among homosexuals.  If this was inherent somehow, don’t see how that would be a sign of immorality anymore than another disability someone was born with. If the higher rate was not due to inherent nature, but rather was causation (someone with attractions that never acted on it would have less mental illness than someone who did), then it could be argued imo that homosexual behaviour was inherently damaging and therefore immoral…but as far as I am aware we haven’t determined how much past or present rates of mental/emotional dysfunction are caused by environmental factors, how much is inherent in the person and how much is caused by behaviour….so it is an argument that can go nowhere and is pretty useless these days. 
 

Last argument I remember hearing claiming to demonstrate that homosexual behaviour is immoral is the rates of certain illnesses such as certain forms of cancer go up with certain forms of homosexual sexual behaviour.  Since the behaviour is seen as damaging the body, it is labeled immoral. 

However, getting pregnant and carrying a child fullterm can be pretty damaging to a woman’s body, especially multiple times, so with that reasoning, one could say having children is immoral. 

https://www.who.int/news/item/07-12-2023-more-than-a-third-of-women-experience-lasting-health-problems-after-childbirth

So if homosexual behaviour is immoral, I am not sure what logic there is except to say God says it is immoral (which I am not saying is impossible, just that I believe we have been wrong about what God considers moral and immoral in the past, sometimes monstrously so…slavery…so I believe we need to be cautious and up front about the possibility of our traditional interpretations being wrong).

Does anyone have another argument for homosexual behaviour for being inherently immoral other than a religious belief?

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a couple of "gay" members who have chosen to keep their covenants.  They participate in a larger LDS social community, both online and locally, of members who have made a similar commitment.

Both choose to call themselves SSA as opposed to "gay" because there is a presupposition that if you are "gay" you are, or will be, dating or marrying someone of the same gender. It seems to be a common method of differentiation.

 

What’s with the quote marks around the word gay?

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think one could argue homosexuality is immoral because it gets in the way of producing children and that gets in the way of God’s work which is to help Man have joy and Man has to be around first in order to have joy

This argument would then suggest that marrying an infertile person would be immoral would it not? 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

This argument would then suggest that marrying an infertile person would be immoral would it not? 

Yep…if intentional. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep…if intentional. 

Sad concept.  

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep…if intentional. 

I think this gets to the covenant-morality relationship.

People who do not know God's will come up with their own morality and supporting covenants. Of course, some say that "God's will" is just our own anyway, so the Church's commandments and covenants easily become irrelevant or malleable to them. Others may say that the Church's commandments and covenants are immoral and so have nothing to do with them.

Rather than "homosexuality is immoral," the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is observed in the covenant path through the marriage covenant, and without the covenant path by instinct or by tradition carried out without priesthood authority. Grace covers our shortfalls, shortcomings, lack of opportunity, etc. according to our willingness, which is where I think your reference to intentionality comes in. I would say that refusal to repent given the opportunity to hear, understand, receive and sustain the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth and the priesthood covenants associated with it renders a person's substitute choices immoral.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Grace covers our shortfalls, shortcomings, lack of opportunity, etc. according to our willingness

Did God just run out of grace when it came to covering the homosexuals?

[MustardSeed]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did God just run out of grace when it came to covering the homosexuals?

I know you don’t believe that. 

IMO God has plenty of Grace.  We need to catch up. 

[Emily]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What a hateful way to describe the feeling of companionship, love and intimacy that someone shares with their spouse. 

It's not hateful, it's a metaphor. Any time you decide to give up something highly desirable that you have been promised in the future for something you feel an immediate need for right now, you've chosen the pottage. This doesn't mean the "pottage" isn't desirable and isn't important, just that it's not as important as a birthright.

Everyone wants companionship, love and intimacy. But some of us believe there are things that are even more important, like eternal joy and exaltation. 

Esau decided his birthright wouldn't be important to him if he died of starvation. The context of several people's posts use the same logic:

What use is is eternity if my life here and now is one of loneliness and sexual frustration? 

I can't say that I disagree with their logic. If the birthright is not as important to them as companionship, love and intimacy, then it makes sense to give up the birthright.

It also makes sense for people who value the birthright to think it's a foolish choice. They would rather starve, perhaps even to death, then give it up.

You can get mad when they point that out. Or you can be secure in your choice and move on. It's generally better for your own mental health to move on.  

It's tough to convince someone who is willing to starve to death to reach a particular goal that eating would be a lot more pleasant.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Emily said:

It's tough to convince someone who is willing to starve to death to reach a particular goal that eating would be a lot more pleasant.

I will just point out further, that it’s a hateful Father that would expect someone to starve to death to keep some vague, non tangible, non verifiable “birth right” in the first place. 

[Emily]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

What’s with the quote marks around the word gay?

Well to begin with, "gay" started as a derogatory term and back when I was growing up, using the term, even to refer to an individual with homosexual preferences, was pretty rude.

If someone chooses to call themselves that, I'm happy to comply in any situation when sexual preferences are an important component of the conversation. (Quite frankly, it doesn't come up much.) I had a work colleague who liked the term and made it part of his email address. Another colleague, who happened to be older and in a committed homosexual relationship, found it really offensive. He also didn't like "laddie, nancy boy, fag" and other terms that have been applied to homosexuals on occasion. I know this because he suggested the colleague use one of those terms (and a few others even ruder) instead... In a pretty nasty tone of voice.

Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

 

[Emily]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just point out further, that it’s a hateful Father that would expect someone to starve to death to keep some vague, non tangible, non verifiable “birth right” in the first place. 

As I mentioned, this is a matter of belief and opinion. You don't think it's worth it. I do. We can agree to disagree.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did God just run out of grace when it came to covering the homosexuals?

I'm not sure why you are asking this in this way considering my comment is about grace covering everyone. Would you like to reassess my post and rephrase any question?

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, Emily said:

As I mentioned, this is a matter of belief and opinion. You don't think it's worth it. I do. We can agree to disagree.

Besides Esau wasn't really going to starve to death, his freshly desires overcame his reason.

Thinking "I can't live without having sex!" is equally irrational. Of course you can. So you can choose the birthright (celibacy) or the pottage (sex according to YOUR desires).