A better way to talk to/about those who have left the church?

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, manol said:

That's what I thought you were saying, but wanted to be sure.  Thank you.

I think that when we have returned to Christ, we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is.  In other words, I don't think "becoming like Christ" and "returning to Christ" are two different paths with two different destinations. 

I see them different partly because I can return to Christ right now today, but I will not be like Him until long after I die.  So in my understanding, they cannot be the same because they don’t happen at the same time and they don’t happen in the same way.   

[Calm]

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

They are formerly valiant believers who once had great faith in God and powerful testimonies born of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, but who in the process of time allow themselves to spiritually degenerate in disobedience to God’s laws until they arrive at  the point when they become implacable enemies of God who are utterly hardened in rebellion against eternal truth.

The description prophets have given of sons of perdition indicate it is pretty rare and definitely not the typical or even not so typical member that leaves the Church because of loss of faith or even desire to sin.  

Sons of Perdition are those who have had a marvelous testimony of Christ and then rebel—probably for the same reason Lucifer did, pride—and would crucify Christ again even knowing he is our God and Saviour.

That type of apostate would be a quite rare individual as Cain seems to be the only one described in scripture (he had the opportunity to talk with God in ways few have had, which is what makes his rebellion so tragic and extreme).

While I know of a few faithful members who say they would be sons of perdition if they lost their faith, that seems an odd and unfortunate type of pride to me, boasting of the quality of their faith  Quite the contrast to the humility that the Saviour describes of his followers, imo.

 

Edited April 18, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

Quote

A better way to talk to/about those who have left the church?

I would say that maybe change the language from "leaving" the Church to "no longer staying/attending." It may seem a subtle difference, but I think the latter better describes the experience of many who may have spent years figuring out a way to remain active in their church community but either finally decided that it wasn't the best thing for them or drifted away slowly and recognized that they were better off. Too often, the language of "leaving the Church"--especially in Church leader rhetoric--is used to imply that persons are "leaving" something that they know is best for them but are doing it for nefarious reasons. Of course, faithful members likely believe that those who no longer attend have left what is most important, but I think this better describes the experiences of many and gives them the benefit of the doubt of the sincerity of their decisions.

[Senator]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

While I know of a few faithful members who say they would be sons of perdition if they lost their faith, that seems an odd and unfortunate type of pride to me, boasting of the quality of their faith  

 

I have never heard of that admission before.  That astounds me!

[CV75]

On 4/16/2025 at 6:47 PM, MrShorty said:

Since GC, I have repeatedly returned to Elder S. Mark Palmer's Sat. afternoon talk, "Return Unto Me...That I May Heal You." The theme of the talk was to encourage those who have left the LDS church to return "to your spiritual home." The central part of the talk was talking about a willow tree that blew down in a storm and the efforts to recover the tree rather than cut it up into firewood. The apparent analogy being that those who have left the church are like a blown down tree who need to return to the church in order to be healed.

As much as I appreciated the message of concern for those who have left the church, there were aspects of this talk that didn't sit right with me.

While no analogy is perfect and analogies can be taken too far, I was concerned with the analogy's implication that those who leave the church are a special kind of broken that, if not rehabilitated, means they are only good to be chopped up into firewood. I'm sure some will say that we are all broken in some and need healing, but it often feels like those who leave the church are broken in a different way.

In other contexts, I have seen it said that we often relate to the church and church leaders in a "parent-child" (or other unequal) relationship, and this aspect of the talk seems to perpetuate the same thinking (maybe in more of a "doctor-patient" way). As I have grappled with my own relationship to the church, I often find myself aspiring to a more "peer-peer" relationship where me and the church and the leaders are peers on a spiritual journey. Some of that is trying to heal our brokenness together, but neither of us is more broken than the other. IMO, this is one thing that would improve our communications -- treating those who have left as peers and equals.

The other major thing I saw in this talk was a subtle conflation of the church and the Savior. I especially when he issues his "invitation" to come back to church in the words of the Savior (3 Ne. 9) to return to Him. Particularly when I think of those former LDS who have found new spiritual homes in other Christian churches, I wonder if we really believe that it is necessary for them to return the LDS church in order to return to Christ. Do we believe that people can be healed by Christ in other denominations? Sometimes it seems to me that we absorb (unintentionally?) a certain superiority from our "one true church" rhetoric that can interfere in our conversations with former LDS.

We have people in this group all along the spectrum (from "all-in" LDS to former LDS to never LDS), and I thought I would see if we could talk about the things we already do well and the ways we can improve in our dialogues between LDS and non-LDS.

I think it might help to recognize that analogies are interpreted differently by different people. Elder Palmer was speaking from his experience leaving the Church, and however he felt and feels about himself will differ from another who did the same thing.

As an exercise, what elements of his talk support the interpretation that the basic root of those who leave the Church is not broken; that an egalitarian attitude prevails in tending to this root; and, that the invitation is predicated only by the longing and recognition -- the root -- that still exists in the one who left?

Edited April 17, 2025 by CV75

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If we stay connected to Christ, He'll work us out and lead us through the changes we need to make.   (I think this is as true for members as nonmembers.)

If that includes leaving behind old beliefs and accepting new ones, that doesn't mean our relationship with Him never existed or wasn't sincere

I think you describe pretty well how I see us all passing through this life. The point that stands out to me is that as you say, this applies to all of us. How can we better emphasize that we are all on the journey and that we all have incorrect beliefs that we need to leave behind and that we just want to share the journey with each other? Speaking to @JVW's point about Christians who are hostile to LDS beliefs, I find that I don't want to share my journey with those who are openly hostile to what I believe. Oftentimes that hostility is hidden behind certainty that they know better than I do what is right and wrong, and I find that certainty off-putting. I am much more interested in sharing this journey with those who have the humility to accept that they might be wrong, the courage to seek truth wherever they find it (even if it's from me), while also being courageous enough to stand up to my own errors and help me get better. I'm not saying it right, but I want to share the journey with peers rather than leaders/followers. I'm sure that somewhere along this journey is a need for a parental figure to lead, and sometimes I need a child to follow me, but mostly I want peers to walk side by side with me.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Senator said:

I have never heard of that admission before.  That astounds me!

I think I have heard it three times (all online, though I knew one of them offline as well) and my guess is at least one didn’t know what it actually meant.  They were pretty arrogant in other ways as well.  In the one case I knew relatively well, the arrogance was self protective imo and very understandable, even if annoying.  Hopefully he grew out of need for that self image (the inflated parts and the parts that troubled him).

Edited April 18, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This may be why you don’t view what you have heard in the Church as disparaging.  (Just saying your filter may be turned lower than many others, which isn’t necessarily an issue if you personally treat non or exmembers well.)

Out of curiosity, how do you view a comment that other faiths are pretending or playing at “church”?  Do you see that as offensive or not?

I will say this. If people told me I was part of a church that was playing pretend I'd prefer that much more than "your church is a cult, you preach a different gospel, and you're going to hell". What others may describe as a condescending or equal attitude from the LDS church I would describe as "your church is probably helping you, but we can help you more". Which is an entirely different tone.

As far as other churches go I think there is a distinction to be made between the ones attending, and the ones running it at various levels.

Any person, anywhere in the world, who is humble, penitent, worshipful, seeking truth, etc. Can be aided by any sort of organization encouraging them to read from sacred texts, even texts that are not the Holy Bible. The more a text ventures into the realm of trying to encourage devotion to deity the more easy it will be for the sincere seeker of truth to gain something from it, in my opinion. So if I told someone "you are playing pretend" then that is very inappropriate and offensive. If I told someone, "your church is playing pretend, you may want to consider one that's taking things more seriously." That's a different conversation to have.

If you haven't checked out the YT channel Atheist Church Audit, I think now's a good time to direct your attention there. He's called out many churches for playing pretend, but has never criticized any believers, just the pastors. See this video as an example.

But that isn't to say that everyone leading the church is as equally pure, and the intentions of the leaders can kneecap the worshippers in their own personal faith journey. Church is a big business. It's so big that even Blackrock is involved in it. Prosperity Gospel runs rampant. Spreading fear in order to motivate attendance is common. And spreading prejudice against other sects in order to preserve one's own flock is very common. Even Protestantism has infighting because of this.

Why is the LDS so nice to other churches? Because we aren't scared of them. I can read any religious text I want, and if I like it better than the Book of Mormon I can leave. I know how to pray about things and work stuff out with God. I think the LDS have this openness because we've already broken the taboo of having additional scripture.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure it is as bad as all that, but I agree in kind if not degree. Many Christians have the same superiority complex towards us, and we don't appreciate their patronizing or their condescension either. Any possibility that the issues are similar? What would improve the dialog between LDS and those Christians who believe we are the downed trees who need rescuing? When I think about it, it seems to me that some of the same principles could improve that dialog -- being seen as an equal rather than a degenerate, trusting that I have good reasons for believing what I do, and so on.

The thing that needs to be removed from the conversation is fear. LDS members need to lose their fear of feeling like they'll be going to hell forever if they join another church, and Christians need to let go of their fear of reading other scriptures besides the Bible. Love him or hate him, Pastor Jeff of Hello Saints has moved past the fear. I don't doubt that he has a deep seeded patronizing view of us and hopes to save as many LDS as he can, but dude has read the Book of Mormon and attended General Conference. He's secure in his faith, not afraid, and is super friendly to our community.

But something that is interesting to think about is how I would behave if someone I loved joined an actual cult? I would probably have the same feelings "I know better than you do. What you're doing is dangerous and will hurt you. Please come back." that sort of thing. But I wouldn't have control over their decisions, and in many cases the harder I would push the more resistance I would be met with. I wouldn't feel like I was being patronizing. But I would be aching with worry and praying a lot for God to help them snap out of their brainwashing. However, unlike my Christian brothers, I wouldn't cite Bible passages to threaten my loved one. And I would be willing to attend their cult meetings and meet the leadership there in order to better understand, and equip myself against, the dangers presented by my loved one's situation. Yet it could be said that I was being patronizing and insincere in my desire to understand their cult group.

[teddyaware]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

The description prophets have given of sons of perdition indicate it is pretty rare and definitely not the typical or even not so typical member that leaves the Church because of loss of faith or even desire to sin.  

Sons of Perdition are those who have had a marvelous testimony of Christr and then rebel—probably for the same reason Lucifer did, pride—and would crucify Christ again even knowing he is our God and Saviour.

That type of apostate would be a quite rare individual as Cain seems to be the only one described in scripture (he had the opportunity to talk with God in ways few have had, which is what makes his rebellion so tragic and extreme).

While I know of a few faithful members who say they would be sons of perdition if they lost their faith, that seems an odd and unfortunate type of pride to me, boasting of the quality of their faith  Quite the contrast to the humility that the Saviour describes of his followers, imo.

 

It appears to me that becoming a son of perdition has less to do losing ones knowledge of the reality of God and his gospel, and much more to do with hating the very real living God and his plan of salvation, a plan which those who dwell in spiritual outer darkness perceive to be far too demanding, harsh and unfair.

[teddyaware]

2 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It appears to me that becoming a son of perdition has less to do losing ones knowledge of the reality of God and his gospel, and much more to do with hating the very real living God and his plan of salvation, a plan which those who dwell in spiritual outer darkness perceive to be far too demanding, harsh and unfair. In other words, the devils know God is quite real but they hate him and wish he would die.

 

Edited April 17, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It appears to me that becoming a son of perdition has less to do losing ones knowledge of the reality of God and his gospel, and much more to do with hating the very real living God and his plan of salvation, a plan which those who dwell in spiritual outer darkness perceive to be far too demanding, harsh and unfair.

That is not how scripture describes it.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Too often, the language of "leaving the Church"--especially in Church leader rhetoric--is used to imply that persons are "leaving" something that they know is best for them but are doing it for nefarious reasons.

I agree that we would do better if we accepted that some people leave (or stop attending or however we choose to phrase it) for sincere or legitimate reasons. I think it would help if we did a better job at acknowledging some of the reasons that people stop attending and try to understand them. This is where works like David Ostler's Bridges I think are valuable. One former member recently said in a podcast that one of the things that troubled him about this talk was the failure to even acknowledge that there might be real, legitimate reasons why someone might choose to stop attending. I think it would help to somehow put people's reasons for not attending and our reasons for wishing they would return to fellowship on an even plane -- neither being above the other -- and see how that changes the discourse.

[MrShorty]

@CV75 I didn't understand the exercise, so I'm not sure I can do it right. I did notice that Elder Palmer prefaced some of his invitations with "To all who are [some variation of wanting to return]" perhaps suggesting that he isn't even intending to talk to those who are comfortable and content with their decisions to be outside the church. Is that what you are looking for?

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I agree that we would do better if we accepted that some people leave (or stop attending or however we choose to phrase it) for sincere or legitimate reasons. I think it would help if we did a better job at acknowledging some of the reasons that people stop attending and try to understand them. This is where works like David Ostler's Bridges I think are valuable. One former member recently said in a podcast that one of the things that troubled him about this talk was the failure to even acknowledge that there might be real, legitimate reasons why someone might choose to stop attending. I think it would help to somehow put people's reasons for not attending and our reasons for wishing they would return to fellowship on an even plane -- neither being above the other -- and see how that changes the discourse.

This is just a question to further the discussion and try to find solutions, and not meant to argue with your overall point.  But what if someone sincerely believes that there are no legitimate reasons for why someone might stop attending?  What then?

One of the problems that I see with this topic (it's an important topic) is that often people come at it from the perspective of one person needing to stop believing something they sincerely believe in order to make another person feel more comfortable (or equal, or reasonable, etc.).  Is that a reasonable request to make of someone?  And, if it is, then are we prepared to accept the implications is asking one person to abandon something that they sincerely believe while the other person does not have to do the same?

I also wonder, what if people like the guy from the podcast are actually being troubled by disagreement and not by someone's failure to acknowledge something?  Where can we go from that perspective, to create a more peer to peer relationship?  How can disagreement look "equal", or do we have to have agreement to find that even plane?

Edited April 17, 2025 by bluebell

[Peacefully]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is just a question to further the discussion and try to find solutions, and not meant to argue with your overall point.  But what if someone sincerely believes that there are no legitimate reasons for why someone might stop attending?  What then?

One of the problems that I see with this topic (it's an important topic) is that often people come at it from the perspective of one person needing to stop believing something they sincerely believe in order to make another person feel more comfortable (or equal, or reasonable, etc.).  Is that a reasonable request to make of someone?  And, if it is, then are we prepared to accept the implications is asking one person to abandon something that they sincerely believe while the other person does not have to do the same?

I also wonder, what if people like the guy from the podcast are actually being troubled by disagreement and not by someone's failure to acknowledge something?  Where can we go from that perspective, to create a more peer to peer relationship?  How can disagreement look "equal", or do we have to have agreement to find that even plane?

 I honor my kids’ varied decisions for leaving and they honor my decisions for staying. This seems like a logical way to look at it. One decision isn’t superior to the other and we don’t attempt to convince each other of our rightness. 

Edited April 18, 2025 by Peacefully

[CV75]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

@CV75 I didn't understand the exercise, so I'm not sure I can do it right. I did notice that Elder Palmer prefaced some of his invitations with "To all who are [some variation of wanting to return]" perhaps suggesting that he isn't even intending to talk to those who are comfortable and content with their decisions to be outside the church. Is that what you are looking for?

The exercise is to identify elements of his talk that support an alternative perspective and interpretation to yours. I gave three suggestions of what to look for that represent another application of the analogy.

Specific to what you noticed, I don't think he expects any who are comfortable and content having left the Church to be listening and is not extending the invitation to them. He is going to be nice to them anyway (I hope!). But there are many who still have that root left hanging, and I take this invitation to be extended to them. Who else could he expect to reach? He is inviting those who at some level are questioning having left the Church, missing what she offers, or responding to the spirit of kindness from someone who who still values her. 

"To all who are longing for faith, we invite you…

"To all who recognise what you have lost, we invite you…

"My message today is especially to all who once felt the Spirit but question… It is also for any who are barely hanging on or who are tempted to step away."

Edited April 18, 2025 by CV75

[Chum]

22 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

 I honor my kids’ varied decisions for leaving and they honor my decisions for staying. This seems like a logical way to look at it. One decision isn’t superior to the other and we don’t attempt to convince each other of our rightness. 

My sons are adults. I can respect their agency in a worthwhile way. Or I can do other things.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

 I honor my kids’ varied decisions for leaving and they honor my decisions for staying. This seems like a logical way to look at it. One decision isn’t superior to the other and we don’t attempt to convince each other of our rightness. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that perspective and I agree with not attempting to convince each other of our rightness if that would hurt the relationship.  It specifically seems to work for you because you sincerely believe that one decision isn't superior to the other (unless I'm completely misunderstanding you and if so I'm sorry and please set me straight).

I'm asking about those people who sincerely believe one decision is superior to the other.  How do we honor each other's varied decisions while maintaining disagreeing and sometimes contradictory views of what is best?

It's easy to treat each other as equal peers when you believe everyone is right.  Where it seems like we struggle as humans is treating each other as equal peers when we believe some of us are really wrong (regardless of the topic).  Those are the circumstances where we struggle and hurt each other's feelings or get self righteous.

How do we find a better way to talk about each other's beliefs under those circumstances? 

I don't have any answers so I'm hoping we can come up with good ideas together.

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe we need a more nuanced look at what "true" means.

@Mfbnew 😁

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

@Mfbnew 😁

Since you've showed up, I think this is the perfect opportunity to ask someone who believes differently than us (not to argue with you but to understand the topic from the outside) if you see a problem with believing one faith tradition is superior to another?  It's probably not fair to ask you to represent all active and practicing Catholics but oh well.   

Do you believe that Catholicism is superior to mormonism?

[Peacefully]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with that perspective and I agree with not attempting to convince each other of our rightness if that would hurt the relationship.  It specifically seems to work for you because you sincerely believe that one decision isn't superior to the other (unless I'm completely misunderstanding you and if so I'm sorry and please set me straight).

I'm asking about those people who sincerely believe one decision is superior to the other.  How do we honor each other's varied decisions while maintaining disagreeing and sometimes contradictory views of what is best?

It's easy to treat each other as equal peers when you believe everyone is right.  Where it seems like we struggle as humans is treating each other as equal peers when we believe some of us are really wrong (regardless of the topic).  Those are the circumstances where we struggle and hurt each other's feelings or get self righteous.

How do we find a better way to talk about each other's beliefs under those circumstances? 

I don't have any answers so I'm hoping we can come up with good ideas together.

One thing I didn’t mention is I used to think my choice was superior and I cried a lot over my kids’ leaving. I convinced myself that someday they would see the light, remember who they are, and come back. As time went on, my perspective started to change and I was able to make room for the idea that just because we each find God differently doesn’t mean one way is better. It doesn’t answer your question but I have been in both places and treating everyone’s beliefs as equal has worked far better for my mental health. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It appears to me that becoming a son of perdition has less to do losing ones knowledge of the reality of God and his gospel, and much more to do with hating the very real living God and his plan of salvation, a plan which those who dwell in spiritual outer darkness perceive to be far too demanding, harsh and unfair.

I completely agree to the hate…whether it’s because they perceive it as unfair or they are pissed off they can’t replace God, I am opened to both being possibilities, but I lean more to the latter as in they too like Lucifer want the glory.  It’s more about pride, imo, than laziness or desire to sin.  It sounds to me like they were powerful believers and maybe even leaders in the faith originally and I can easily see resentment and hate building up when they start to desire recognition and don’t get it or they do get it and want more.  It is hard for me to see someone who had a powerful witness of Christ not having accepted the demands and harshness of life as how else would they get such a powerful witness if they hadn’t struggled and sought out God first?

Edited April 18, 2025 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since you've showed up, I think this is the perfect opportunity to ask someone who believes differently than us (not to argue with you but to understand the topic from the outside) if you see a problem with believing one faith tradition is superior to another?  It's probably not fair to ask you to represent all active and practicing Catholics but oh well.   

Do you believe that Catholicism is superior to mormonism?

Dang, what a loaded question to put me on the spot! 😂

I believe that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and that the Pope is the successor of St. Peter with his authority and keys and that the Bishops united with him are the successors of the Apostles. I believe this direct authority is only found in the Catholic Church.

So, um, yeah. But ya'll are nice folks and I like hanging with ya! 🥰

[manol]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm asking about those people who sincerely believe one decision is superior to the other.  How do we honor each other's varied decisions while maintaining disagreeing and sometimes contradictory views of what is best?

Imo it can be complicated.  If we genuinely believe that another person's soul is in jeopardy as long as they do not believe what we think they should, we are likely to feel it's worth trying to persuade them, perhaps even at the risk of offending them, in order to try to get them to change.  We may even believe that we risk coming under condemnation for failing to make the effort.  

Perhaps we can arrive at honoring each other's varied decisions by prioritizing respect for the other person's free agency over demonstrating that we are right and they are wrong.  Would this be consistent with LDS teachings? 

(My own one-off belief system does not fear for anyone's soul, so the above two paragraphs are me trying to put myself in LDS shoes.)

 

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's easy to treat each other as equal peers when you believe everyone is right.  Where it seems like we struggle as humans is treating each other as equal peers when we believe some of us are really wrong (regardless of the topic).  Those are the circumstances where we struggle and hurt each other's feelings or get self righteous.

How do we find a better way to talk about each other's beliefs under those circumstances? 

I don't have any answers so I'm hoping we can come up with good ideas together.

I don't know how others do it, and I admire those who make an effort to find a way to see others as equal peers in spite of a belief system which teaches or implies that they are superior and others are inferior (or some such concept; imo the exact wording doesn't matter).

My personal belief is that we really are equals, each with our own "curriculum" for this earth life, and that it is not my place to judge where you are by what I believe my curriculum to be.  For all I know, that intolerant (<- that's me being judgmental!) person is aceing his curriculum (which might include "boldness"), while I am flunking mine by judging him as being intolerant! 

Edited April 18, 2025 by manol