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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is it not arrogant to claim to be the only way, truth, and life?

If you want to accuse Christ of arrogance, go for it.  
 

If you actually read Mr. Shorty’s comment, he never accused Christ or God of arrogance.  He stated he trusted God, in fact.  He did express concern about those who might confuse Christ with mortal authorities, which I deeply agree with him as does I believe church doctrine*** since while we believe Christ and the Father are perfect, no mortal or mortal production is inerrant and we are even counseled, imo, to be wary of those in power/been given authority over others, including ourselves, human inclinations and all.

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/06/06-what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-the-church-is-true?lang=eng

Quote

Perhaps some are hesitant to testify of the truth of the Church because they sense that the Church and its leaders may not be perfect. Indeed, neither the Church nor its leaders are perfect, nor have they claimed to be! It is noteworthy that nowhere in the scriptures or the teachings of Church leaders is it stated that the purpose of the Lord was to perfect the Church.

Quote

In fact, in the October 2013 general conference, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, then Second Counselor in the First Presidency, said:

“To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

“I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. …

“It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed.

Quote

Sometimes we defend a concept about the way the Lord deals with the leaders and members of His Church that does not serve us well. We might expect that the Lord should controleverything that leaders and administrators in the Church do so that no mistakes of any kind can be made. It may be better to recognize that the Lord gives guidance to those servants as they prayerfully do their best in their respective charges to direct His work. That is how loving parents teach their children.

The Lord gives us guidance but does not generally exercise control, except in matters that bear directly on our salvation. Once again, it is not His purpose to perfect the Church but rather to perfect His children, including Church leaders and administrators. This pattern of inspired operations at Church headquarters is not substantially different from that used in stakes and wards and homes.

 

Edited April 19, 2025 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

If you want to accuse Christ of arrogance, go for it.  
 

Of course not.  Obviously a rhetorical  comment to make a point about the supposed arrogance of being the One. That’s why I quoted the scriptures I quoted. They speak of the authority of God vested in His Church. .

17 hours ago, Calm said:

If you actually read Mr. Shorty’s comment, he never accused Christ or God of arrogance.  He stated he trusted God, in fact.  He did express concern about those who might confuse Christ with mortal authorities, which I deeply agree with him as does I believe church doctrine*** since while we believe Christ and the Father are perfect, no mortal or mortal production is inerrant and we are even counseled, imo, to be wary of those in power/been given authority over others, including ourselves, human inclinations and all.

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/06/06-what-do-we-mean-when-we-say-the-church-is-true?lang=eng

 

With all its imperfections, the Church is still the only church on Earth in which the keys of salvation reside in their fullness. But what if that is true? Some mistakenly think that is arrogance. I don’t. Just the opposite…absolute humility.
 

Quote

It often seems to me that the alleged existence of some kind of special key given by God to a group is the source of the arrogance and such that leads to the problem. Think of the Zoramites and their Rameumptom and their prayer extolling their own privileged position over their neighbors. Consider Mis belief that those same priesthood keys were past down through the ages Pope to Pope and currently reside in Pope Francis, contrary to our own beliefs about apostasy and the need for restoration of those same keys.

I might go so far as to say that priesthood keys are tangential to the issue I'm seeing here. How does one both believe that God has granted them special privileges, keys, authority, or whatever, without developing an arrogant or overbearing attitude? How does one believe that God has granted them special status, and treat neighbors, friends, dissentors, etc. as peers and equals who may also be redeemed by God?

 

Edited April 20, 2025 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."  Matthew 23:11.

[Calm]

On 4/19/2025 at 5:55 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Obviously a rhetorical  comment to make a point about the supposed arrogance of being the One.

Rhetorical points work better when not attacking a strawman.

[the narrator]

On 4/19/2025 at 2:33 PM, let’s roll said:

You may have missed, or misunderstood, the last sentence of my comment.  We identify the truth of teachings and doctrine of churches, including the Church, by asking Him.  No church, and no church leader, is the final arbiter of truth.  A leader may be asked by God to share a message from Deity and with that message state “thus sayeth the Lord.”  In such cases, it is a manifestation of worship and discipleship, not a demonstration of a lack of faith, to take that message to Him and ask it to be imprinted upon our hearts.  Mortals, including prophets, must align with Deity, not vice versa.  And since life eternal is defined as knowing Deity, I trust Church leaders understand that their teachings and goods works are never meant to supplant the personal relationship with Deity that God and His Son desire for each of us.

Trust me, I’m fully aware of what the rhetoric is, and, yes, everything you said is rhetorically true, but in practice the Church’s contemporary interpretation of its doctrines and practices (which are always in flux) will always trump any individual’s personal inspiration. So thus while the rhetoric of leadership may be for someone to pray to ask “if” something the Church or a leader in the Church says is of God, in practice they are being told to pray to know “that” it is. Thus, prayer does not determine the validity of the Church’s position, the Church’s position determines the validity of one’s answer to a prayer. This is precisely what is implied in your very response, which already presumes the message of the Church to be from God: “ to take that message to Him and ask it to be imprinted upon our hearts.”

 

[MrShorty]

On 4/19/2025 at 2:33 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Is it not arrogant to claim to be the only way, truth, and life?

My first consideration might be -- do I believe St. John when he claims that Christ said such a thing? The arrogance comes into play when we claim to speak for God when our audience is unconvinced that we are speaking for God. I'm not sure exactly what it looks like, but I sometimes feel like a couple of ideas for limiting that arrogance would be to acknowledge our fallibility as the human intermediaries through whom God speaks and works, and acknowledge that, even if we are right about our truth claims, that they can only be known by personal testimony from God and acknowledge that God as the gatekeeper of who receives a testimony ultimately decides if our audience will be granted a testimony of the truth claims we are making.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

My first consideration might be -- do I believe St. John when he claims that Christ said such a thing? The arrogance comes into play when we claim to speak for God when our audience is unconvinced that we are speaking for God. I'm not sure exactly what it looks like, but I sometimes feel like a couple of ideas for limiting that arrogance would be to acknowledge our fallibility as the human intermediaries through whom God speaks and works, and acknowledge that, even if we are right about our truth claims, that they can only be known by personal testimony from God and acknowledge that God as the gatekeeper of who receives a testimony ultimately decides if our audience will be granted a testimony of the truth claims we are making.

I’ve often wondered about the way things are written- 

I think it’s safe to assume God holds no arrogance- it’s a negative trait and if God has negative trait, He is not God.  
 

Sometimes people seem to imitate God in their judgements and strong admonishments in areas outside their responsibility.  That is arrogant IMO

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Trust me, I’m fully aware of what the rhetoric is, and, yes, everything you said is rhetorically true, but in practice the Church’s contemporary interpretation of its doctrines and practices (which are always in flux) will always trump any individual’s personal inspiration. So thus while the rhetoric of leadership may be for someone to pray to ask “if” something the Church or a leader in the Church says is of God, in practice they are being told to pray to know “that” it is. Thus, prayer does not determine the validity of the Church’s position, the Church’s position determines the validity of one’s answer to a prayer. This is precisely what is implied in your very response, which already presumes the message of the Church to be from God: “ to take that message to Him and ask it to be imprinted upon our hearts.”

 

You’re trying very hard to be right here and, of course, what you say may be right for you but it isn’t for me and need not be for anyone else.

 

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

in practice the Church’s contemporary interpretation of its doctrines and practices (which are always in flux) will always trump any individual’s personal inspiration.

Trump for whom, you?  Not for me.  I will always strive to act consistent with revelation given to me.  

 

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

So thus while the rhetoric of leadership may be for someone to pray to ask “if” something the Church or a leader in the Church says is of God, in practice they are being told to pray to know “that” it is.

Don’t you believe we’re invited to pray to understand how that “something” applies to us individually?  I can’t receive personal revelation for you and you can’t receive personal revolution for me.  Thus we each need to ask and act on the Divine direction we receive which, because it is for us alone, may be different.  There were two prophets in Jerusalem, God revealed to one that he should stay, to the other that he should go.  While their actions were different, each honored His direction.

 

4 hours ago, the narrator said:

Thus, prayer does not determine the validity of the Church’s position, the Church’s position determines the validity of one’s answer to a prayer. This is precisely what is implied in your very response, which already presumes the message of the Church to be from God: “ to take that message to Him and ask it to be imprinted upon our hearts.”

My response doesn’t imply anything.  The petition is for Him to imprint His will for me on my heart, thus if the message is consistent with His will for me, the message will abide.  If not, whatever is His will for me is my primary focus.  Another may ask and be directed to have the “something” be their primary focus for a season.  We each honor Him by following His personal message to us.

A simple example.  “Every worthy young man” should serve a full time mission was characterized by Church leaders and understood by membership in a variety of ways, from commandment to loving invitation.  However characterized or understood, it should not supplant each individual’s process of seeking communion with, and direction from, God.  The result of such communion and direction will be that some will go into the mission file and some will not.  Each who follows Divine direction serves God.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Trump for whom, you?  Not for me.  I will always strive to act consistent with revelation given to me.  

I am pretty sure what he means is if we try and teach anything contradictory to a stated church position, we risk discipline, even losing our membership, so “trump” for the Church.  More obvious ones are same sex marriages and priesthood office for women, but I know of members who have been told they are wrong even for rejecting a calling or mission or asking to be released (less likely you will be disciplined, but you may be looked at as less than devout even if you claim the choice is based on personal revelation).  I was scolded by a church leader and she claimed my daughter was going to lose faith because I wasn’t attending my evening RS meetings (maybe she was right, but it was for health reasons and a choice between functioning better at home rather than ending up in bed for a day or two).  It was quite hurtful because it showed no trust in me as an individual and I had been great friends with her before she became my RS President.

Edited April 21, 2025 by Calm

[halconero]

I frequently hear or witness paternalistic language among local members in regards to those who have left the Church. I don't think all paternalism is bad, especially when it comes to our own children. I know, for example, that letting my 2-year-old consumer copious amounts of Easter Egg chocolate isn't good for him, but he does not.

I do not think it is typically useful when it comes to those who leave. It often leads us to assume deficits in knowledge or character that may not be accurate. At best, it's disrespectful. At worst, it can lead to misguided actions or thought patterns that increase the distance between individual members and those who have left.

I think the scriptures offer a better relational model — marriage, separation, and divorce. While the scriptures do talk about our relationship with Christ and the institutional body representing in parent-child terms (e.g., chicks-under-wings), these typically refer to those who are within the covenant body and willing to learn and practice Gospel principles. When it comes to those who exit the community, it's more often framed in terms of separation and divorce.

Why do I think this framing is more helpful. Well, because we actually have plenty of examples and learning around healthy relationships between ex-spouses following a divorce, including those where reconciliation and re-marriage are possible. Common findings include:

• Mutual recognition of intelligence and shared values for doing good (for any shared children, typically).
• Willingness to reflect, grow, and take responsibility for any frictions.
• Respecting boundaries following the dissolution of the relationship.
• Avoiding blame language.
• Third-party mediation.
• Empathic listening and validation.

Among couples the reconcile specifically:

• Individual growth and maturity must continue even while apart.
• Not avoiding the past, while adopting new relational contracts.
• Continued contact, specifically focused on something external to both parties.
• Non-defensive, curious engagement.
• Narrative shifts, where someone's exit becomes less about failure and more about rediscovery.
• Re-establishing trust, where low-stakes communications and keeping promises are seen on both ends.

Drawing on the above, here are some of the practices that might translate to Church contexts:

• Avoiding narratives like "they were offended" or "they just want to sin," when it comes to those who leave. They might have been offended and they might just want to sin, but we have zero clue if that's the case when we don't ask about their rationale, and have no reasons for substituting our narrative for their own when they give us a reason that differs from these two. If we're going to have any opportunity to maintaining a relationship or reconciling, we might as well accept what someone says at face value.
• Love and presence in peoples' lives matter more than urgency. Pressure alienates, while consistent care can foster good relationships (that doesn't mean love bomb people, but rather, expressing curiosity in their journey, joy at their success, and sympathy for their difficulties).
• Recognizing and affirming the values people carry with them even as they leave — community, service, family, and pondering. On a personal note, I am part of a community group focused on housing reform, and at a causal night, we discovered that around 40% of us are members or ex-members (my city is *not* majority members, so this is odd). One of the ex-members said they still believed in being anxiously engaged in a good cause.
• When we recognize shared hopes and common values people can engaged in, it opens relational and spiritual pathways.
• People who feel understood on their transition out may be less inclined to burn relational bridges, even if, with understanding, there are still doctrinal differences.

Returning back

• I'm not sure if people who return back are typically "won back" by some Coup de grâce of service or doctrinal argument. The ones I've seen come back have usually done their own re-framing to view the Gospel in a deeper or clearer light through their life experiences. They've maintained a curiosity about the meaning of life generally and our place in the universe. Continually discovering, elucidating, and discovery Church history, doctrine, and practice can encourage people to allow us some of their grace and curiosity.
• Returning should be me with respect and openness more than "I told you so."
• Is it better to view exists as rebellion or departures? Again, they might actually be rebellion, but that's a rebellion between them and as an individual and God, not a rebellion against us. Do we act like the older brother to the returning prodigal? Or should we esteem ourselves as having all fallen short of the glory of God with equal capacity for righteousness for grace.
• Meet stories of exit with curiosity ("tell me about your journey," or "tell me what you've found meaningful over the past while") versus interrogation.

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am pretty sure what he means is if we try and teach anything contradictory to a stated church position, we risk discipline, even losing our membership, so “trump” for the Church.  More obvious ones are same sex marriages and priesthood office for women, but I know of members who have been told they are wrong even for rejecting a calling or mission or asking to be released (less likely you will be disciplined, but you may be looked at as less than devout even if you claim the choice is based on personal revelation).  I was scolded by a church leader and she claimed my daughter was going to lose faith because I wasn’t attending my evening RS meetings (maybe she was right, but it was for health reasons and a choice between functioning better at home rather than ending up in bed for a day or two).  It was quite hurtful because it showed no trust in me as an individual and I had been great friends with her before she became my RS President.

Hi Calm.  Thanks for your response.

Why would I teach anything contrary to a stated Church position?  My position is that God’s direction to me will always be my first priority, even if seemingly, or actually, contrary to a stated Church position.  Full stop.  If following God causes others to view me as less devout, so be it.  It seems axiomatic to me that my spiritual devotion is best placed in the Creator of my spirit.  I’m not sure how a Church leader could take issue with that with any credibility.

And since, as I noted, His direction to me is personal to me, I have no reason to try teach it to anyone else or invite anyone else to do what God has asked me to do.

 As to careless and thoughtless comments by Church members and leaders, I’m willing to believe that most, if not all, come from a place of genuine concern, however misguided, and try to take no offense.  I remember having a conversation with a Bishop the night before I was to speak to his Ward as the visiting High Counselor (he waited a week to return my call)…well, never mind 😉.  Godspeed to you.

[bluebell]

I decided to check out this weeks Follow Him podcast with Hank Smith and John Bytheway and was pleasantly surprised to realize that the topic of the study was mostly about how we treat or view people who had once been members and then decided to leave.  It focused on a man who appears in one of the sections of the D&C (James Covel) who was a methodist minister who covenanted with the Lord but then quickly left the church.

The scholar for the week had written a lot of papers about Covel and had studied at the Methodist historical library for his sources.  He explains why it makes sense that James would have joined the church and also why it makes sense that he would have struggled with his mission call and then decide to leave.

But my favorite part was where Dr. Jones quotes D&C 40, where it says:

"Behold, verily I say unto you that the heart of my servant James Covel was right before me for he covenanted with me, that he would obey my word and he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. Wherefore, he broke my covenant and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen."

Jones mentions that a lot of members read that in a kind of ominous tone but that we shouldn't.  That it's actually a sign of God's mercy and love for Covel, and then he shares what happened throughout the rest of Covel's life and how he spent it with a renewed determination to bring people to Christ, though through his Methodist beliefs, and how Christ continued to use him for good and to bring people to Him.

Jones also shares stories about his own family members who had once been very stalwart and then fell away and what amazing people they are and how close to God they are, etc.

I know that Follow Him is not endorsed by the church, but both Hank and Bythway frequently give talks and firesides at churches as part of the CES system, and of course bytheway wasn't released that long ago from the general YM presidency.  And in both my Utah ward and my very conservative ward in wyoming, the Follow Him podcasts are quoted frequently in SS.  So these are men and a platform that gets some heavy rotation in active, conservative church circles.

Which is to say that I think there's hope with this topic.  Smith and Bytheway acknowledged that members can be unkind about those who leave and then spent almost 2 hours with a historian giving reasons why that is wrong, in a format that a lot of members are listening to.  Good stuff.  

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I decided to check out this weeks Follow Him podcast with Hank Smith and John Bytheway and was pleasantly surprised to realize that the topic of the study was mostly about how we treat or view people who had once been members and then decided to leave.  It focused on a man who appears in one of the sections of the D&C (James Covel) who was a methodist minister who covenanted with the Lord but then quickly left the church.

The scholar for the week had written a lot of papers about Covel and had studied at the Methodist historical library for his sources.  He explains why it makes sense that James would have joined the church and also why it makes sense that he would have struggled with his mission call and then decide to leave.

But my favorite part was where Dr. Jones quotes D&C 40, where it says:

"Behold, verily I say unto you that the heart of my servant James Covel was right before me for he covenanted with me, that he would obey my word and he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. Wherefore, he broke my covenant and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen."

Jones mentions that a lot of members read that in a kind of ominous tone but that we shouldn't.  That it's actually a sign of God's mercy and love for Covel, and then he shares what happened throughout the rest of Covel's life and how he spent it with a renewed determination to bring people to Christ, though through his Methodist beliefs, and how Christ continued to use him for good and to bring people to Him.

Jones also shares stories about his own family members who had once been very stalwart and then fell away and what amazing people they are and how close to God they are, etc.

I know that Follow Him is not endorsed by the church, but both Hank and Bythway frequently give talks and firesides at churches as part of the CES system, and of course bytheway wasn't released that long ago from the general YM presidency.  And in both my Utah ward and my very conservative ward in wyoming, the Follow Him podcasts are quoted frequently in SS.  So these are men and a platform that gets some heavy rotation in active, conservative church circles.

Which is to say that I think there's hope with this topic.  Smith and Bytheway acknowledged that members can be unkind about those who leave and then spent almost 2 hours with a historian giving reasons why that is wrong, in a format that a lot of members are listening to.  Good stuff.  

It's interesting how this makes me feel. I honestly want to appreciate it. I very much don't want to tear down people when they try. I am grateful that people are doing their best. I love that they acknowledge God works with each of his children. In the end though, it is hard for me that they chose an example of a person who left because he yielded to the temptations of the devil. The person leaving always has to be in the wrong no matter how much good they do after.

I really struggle replying this to you because I feel of your love for me and your desire to heal things between those who leave and those who stay.  I feel like you may think I'm trying to knock down bridges, but honestly, the example they used just really hurts my heart and makes me feel I can never just be a good person for members.  I'll always be the person who was gave way to temptation, but managed to do good despite it. 

 

[Senator]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

  I'll always be the person who was gave way to temptation, but managed to do good despite it. 

 

Oh man, a parallel just washed over me.  I'm thinking of one other couple that transgressed, chose to leave, yet ultimately filled and indispensable role in accomplishing God's work and glory.    

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

It's interesting how this makes me feel. I honestly want to appreciate it. I very much don't want to tear down people when they try. I am grateful that people are doing their best. I love that they acknowledge God works with each of his children. In the end though, it is hard for me that they chose an example of a person who left because he yielded to the temptations of the devil. The person leaving always has to be in the wrong no matter how much good they do after.

I really struggle replying this to you because I feel of your love for me and your desire to heal things between those who leave and those who stay.  I feel like you may think I'm trying to knock down bridges, but honestly, the example they used just really hurts my heart and makes me feel I can never just be a good person for members.  I'll always be the person who was gave way to temptation, but managed to do good despite it. 

 

I can see what you are saying.  I'm sad that it caused you any hurt.

Maybe it's helpful to remember that the hosts and scholar chose this example because the current subject of the podcast is the D&C, so the story needed to be from there, and the current weekly study is from the specific chapters that include the revelations to and about Covel, so the focus also needed to be from those specific sections? 

Since this is a revelation in a book of scriptures that is currently being studied, how do you believe would be the best way to study it that wouldn't cause hurt (sincerely asking)?

Below are a few other quotes from the podcast and a couple from JS that the podcast hosts highlighted.  I don't know if they will lessen the hurt at all but I thought they might provide more context to my previous post.

Quote

"Here is an example of somebody who fails to heed the word of the Lord, the let the cares of the world get in the way, and who chose to walk away from some really incredible promised blessings that are laid out in section 39.  And I got to tell you, that was a really comforting message for me. As somebody who regularly succumbs to the cares of the world, as somebody who regularly doesn't do everything I'm supposed to as a gospel doctrine teacher, or Deacons Quorum advisor or husband or father or professor or saint who regularly, weekly, daily makes mistakes, it's actually really, really comforting to know that God's hand is still there, that his grace is still being extended and that he can still do much good through me. That even after I've made a mistake, that's a really, really meaningful message for me as a believer."

 

Quote

"I'm reading through section 39, just glancing down at it now at this promise made to James Covel about all the things that still came to pass. I read verse 13, thou art called to labor in my vineyard to bring forth Zion that it may rejoice in the hills and flourish. And then in verse 17, wherefore lay too with your might--which he did--and call faithful laborers into my vineyard--which he did--that it may be pruned this last time, verse 19, go forth crying with a loud voice. The kingdom of heaven is at hand. There are so many things that he went on to do. I love this merciful way of seeing this."

"How glorious are the principles of righteousness? We are full of selfishness. The devil flatters us that we are very righteous while we are feeding on the faults of others"

and

"While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with fatherly care and paternal regard. He views them as his offspring. And without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes 'his sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust', he holds the reins of judgment in his hands. He is a wise law giver and will judge all men, not according to the narrow contracted notions of men, but according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil, or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey or India."

 

 

 

 

(I've been writing this response back to you for a couple of hours I think.  I hope it comes across in the spirit it was sent.  It hasn't taken me so long because I am upset but because I want to be sincere and also not cause more hurt and it feels like a minefield very hard to maneuver through. To be honest, my raw reaction to your post was similar to your raw reaction to mine, that there is no way for me, as a latter-day saint, to hold on to certain beliefs about the gospel and also not be seen as judgmental and self righteous in your eyes. But that was fleeting.  I just decided that while I don't think you see me like that, even if you do, it doesn't change anything for me.  I'll continue to try to--imperfectly--meet you where you are and trust that you'll continue to do the same with me and we'll deal with the hard parts of that dance as they come up because you are my friend and I am yours.)

 

Edited April 24, 2025 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

I think it’s important that all of us keep in mind that it is reasonable to believe that people can leave the church for reasons other than sin.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I think it’s important that all of us keep in mind that it is reasonable to believe that people can leave the church for reasons other than sin.

Sure. People leave the Church for a variety of reasons (e.g., intellectual, emotional, cultural, spiritual, etc.).

Conversely, I think it's also important to keep in mind that, although members believe departing from covenants does carry spiritual consequences, that doesn't mean we automatically assume someone left because they wanted to sin, or that they had immoral motives.

 

[The Nehor]

What if I leave the Church due to intellectual convictions and then have a threesome the next day since I don’t think the covenants apply? Will everyone assume it was for the threesome?

It could be a coincidence.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure. People leave the Church for a variety of reasons (e.g., intellectual, emotional, cultural, spiritual, etc.).

Conversely, I think it's also important to keep in mind that, although members believe departing from covenants does carry spiritual consequences, that doesn't mean we automatically assume someone left because they wanted to sin, or that they had immoral motives.

 

Yes, if I understand you that was the intent of my suggestion. 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can see what you are saying.  I'm sad that it caused you any hurt.

Maybe it's helpful to remember that the hosts and scholar chose this example because the current subject of the podcast is the D&C, so the story needed to be from there, and the current weekly study is from the specific chapters that include the revelations to and about Covel, so the focus also needed to be from those specific sections? 

It does make a difference.  I had this example in the thread context and you had it from the lesson context merged with the thread. So what I got from it was another person doing wrong and you got a lesson to love others like God from reading the scriptures.  

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Since this is a revelation in a book of scriptures that is currently being studied, how do you believe would be the best way to study it that wouldn't cause hurt (sincerely asking)?

I really think the big thing here is just the context.  Some may still feel hurt when in that class, but they are reading the scriptures and discussing a good way to frame it rather than bringing up examples of how to treat those who have left.

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Below are a few other quotes from the podcast and a couple from JS that the podcast hosts highlighted.  I don't know if they will lessen the hurt at all but I thought they might provide more context to my previous post.

 

"How glorious are the principles of righteousness? We are full of selfishness. The devil flatters us that we are very righteous while we are feeding on the faults of others"

and

"While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the great parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with fatherly care and paternal regard. He views them as his offspring. And without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes 'his sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust', he holds the reins of judgment in his hands. He is a wise law giver and will judge all men, not according to the narrow contracted notions of men, but according to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil, or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey or India."

 

 

 

 

(I've been writing this response back to you for a couple of hours I think.  I hope it comes across in the spirit it was sent.  It hasn't taken me so long because I am upset but because I want to be sincere and also not cause more hurt and it feels like a minefield very hard to maneuver through. To be honest, my raw reaction to your post was similar to your raw reaction to mine, that there is no way for me, as a latter-day saint, to hold on to certain beliefs about the gospel and also not be seen as judgmental and self righteous in your eyes. But that was fleeting.  I just decided that while I don't think you see me like that, even if you do, it doesn't change anything for me.  I'll continue to try to--imperfectly--meet you where you are and trust that you'll continue to do the same with me and we'll deal with the hard parts of that dance as they come up because you are my friend and I am yours.)

 

That's why I tried to share how I did.  I never felt hurt by you as I know you and trust you.  It was by the situation we have been put in. I debated on not saying anything because I didn't want you hurt and really tried not to come out on the attack (because I was not trying to attack, but I knew he could feel that way), but felt it was important to share for understanding.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

It does make a difference.  I had this example in the thread context and you had it from the lesson context merged with the thread. So what I got from it was another person doing wrong and you got a lesson to love others like God from reading the scriptures.  

I really think the big thing here is just the context.  Some may still feel hurt when in that class, but they are reading the scriptures and discussing a good way to frame it rather than bringing up examples of how to treat those who have left.

That's why I tried to share how I did.  I never felt hurt by you as I know you and trust you.  It was by the situation we have been put in. I debated on not saying anything because I didn't want you hurt and really tried not to come out on the attack (because I was not trying to attack, but I knew he could feel that way), but felt it was important to share for understanding.

 

I assumed that everyone knew that the Follow Him podcast was a weekly study of the Come Follow Me curriculum for Sunday School, and I shouldn't have.  I'm glad you spoke up for multiple reasons, including because knowing that you didn't know the context for my comment helps me understand where you were coming from even better.  

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I assumed that everyone knew that the Follow Him podcast was a weekly study of the Come Follow Me curriculum for Sunday School, and I shouldn't have.  I'm glad you spoke up for multiple reasons, including because knowing that you didn't know the context for my comment helps me understand where you were coming from even better.  

If I had thought through it I would have remembered it followed along with the curiculum, but it didn't connect till you said that. Also, because they share examples from various places I wouldn't have necessarily connected this was directly in the lesson and not added material they put in the podcast. 

[california boy]

On 4/24/2025 at 2:52 PM, The Nehor said:

What if I leave the Church due to intellectual convictions and then have a threesome the next day since I don’t think the covenants apply? Will everyone assume it was for the threesome?

It could be a coincidence.

This is exactly how I felt.  Since the Church told me that if I choose to fall in love and have a relationship with someone I love, then I could never be redeemed in the Celestial Kingdom.  So if that is how I choose to live my life, then what difference would it make for me to break any other commandments.  I was already damned.  Can anyone give me a good reason why I should ever keep any of the commandments?  Because there is absolutely no way I want to live eternally with a woman.  That seems like a far worse punishment than not being in the Celestial Kingdom.  

I have never once regretted the decision I made.    It is definitely the right decision for me.  My life has been so enriched and I value my companionship with my partner more than anything else in the world.  

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

with a woman.  That seems like a far worse punishment than not being in the Celestial Kingdom.  

Touche. 🤔

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Because there is absolutely no way I want to live eternally with a woman.  That seems like a far worse punishment than not being in the Celestial Kingdom.  

One oddity is that I have heard the same sentiment from ostensibly straight people engaged in “humorous” wife bashing.

A common joke in online queer communities is that it seems like a lot of straight men don’t like women at all so why are they so upset at queer men?