Staying in the Church?

[bhcs]

I didn't find anything objectionable about the article. In fact, it was somewhat comforting for me. I really don't have problems or questions about doctrine (of course what I consider to be doctrine is fairly narrow these days - the standard works and present day counsel - I don't worry about the stuff in between). My problem is one of culture. I don't fit in with the monolith of LDS culture in Utah county (where I currently live). I never have. I have spent many years of my life trying to and the attempt very nearly drove me crazy.

In the MTC I learned about social conversions and spiritual conversions. They say that often social conversions come first - then spiritual conversions come later. For me it is the other way around. I have given up on the social conversion.

I have started to learn to just let things go. My politics, my world view, my experiences just don't match up with those of the people around me. So what. Those things aren't really that important in the long run. Sometimes going to church drives me crazy. Sometimes the wackiness of the local culture irks me or someone I know. When that happens, I try to tell myself that most people are sincerely trying to do their best. I try to take the good and leave the bad.

I think the 'middle way' the article is advocating is a similar approach. Take things line by line, step by step. I think it is funny that there are some people who feel perfectly at home in the LDS Church, some who like the culture but have problems with the doctrine, and others who believe the doctrine but struggle with the culture.

[talisyn]

I love what you said, Changed, "The church is described as a “little flock”. " I don't believe it has ever been described as a 'righteous horde'

[Elphaba]

--Reasons why Elphaba didn't receive a spiritual confirmation.--(Elphaba's summation)

I was a member of the Church for 25+ years. You haven't told me anything I don't already know. I only responded to the OP asking for our opinions regarding the book, and I gave mine. I didn't ask why I never received a spiritual confirmation of the gospel.

I find it extremely presumptuous when people assume what I have or haven't done to gain a testimony without asking me. I would never presume to tell anyone else, including those on this board, what they experienced is not real, because I have no idea whether it was or not. I haven't experienced it, and don't understand it. But I don't dismiss it.

I realize this is a LDS board, and that in most of the threads it is appropriate to proselytize; however, usually people ask for the information in those threads.

I know my response will not be popular, but it's not uncommon to people in my situation. That's why Dehlin included the example in his book.

Again, if anyone is truly interested in understanding why some people leave the Church, read the first answer again, without immediately thinking how to counter it. Just read it, and if you haven't experienced it, realize you don't understand it, and unless it is the subject of the thread, either ask the person about it, or leave it alone.

Elphaba

Edited to add: Actually, you, or anyone else, can say anything you want in a thread. It is presumptuous of me to tell you what you should do. If it is a response to a post of mine, I will tell you how I feel about it, as I did in this thread. But my comments should have been suggestions, not demands.

Also, I changed the words I originally quoted from your post. They were rude, and if you saw them, I apologize.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Elphaba
Edited out a rude remark.

[ErikJohnson]

...if we truly believe that coming to the church and then leaving it is worse than never having joined at all...

I know I've ripped this from the surrounding context--but I'm just wondering if LDS really think it's true. Anyone care to defend this statement, provide a verse or cite a GA to back it up?

--Erik

[Hemidakota]

It is when the Holy Ghost leaves that person. Not having that Spirit is the first noticeable act with those who not only leave the church on a negative term but will live it until repentance.

[MsMagnolia]

I know I've ripped this from the surrounding context--but I'm just wondering if LDS really think it's true. Anyone care to defend this statement, provide a verse or cite a GA to back it up?

--Erik

D&C 88:3

3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

once you know.. ignorance is no longer and option.

[Hemidakota]

How true...it becomes a rebellious state after receiving such knowledge.

[ErikJohnson]

D&C 88:3

3 For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

once you know.. ignorance is no longer and option.

So marshac actually did have a valid point that LDS missionaries may be doing more harm than good given the low rate of convert retention. I thought there might be a flaw in his premise—but apparently not.

The math would go something like this (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here): Supposing LDS missionaries baptize 5 "good" people who are all headed for the Terrestrial Kingdom. Two of them stick with it and upgrade to the Celestial, but the other three leave and get downgraded to the Telestial. That leaves us with a net effect of minus one.

Obviously it works out well for the two who stayed with it—but it's clearly a bad outcome for humanity in the aggregate.

Given LDS's great concern for humanity in general—wouldn't it be prudent to stop missionary efforts immediately until the problem with convert attrition gets sorted out?

--Erik

[Seanette]

In defiance of God's explicit command to engage in missionary work?

[john doe]

It's not the missionaries' fault if people decline to act on their knowledge of the truth. God knew, and I will acknowledge, that people will fail at keeping His commandments. But that's the chance we took when we accepted the chance to come to earth. I know you chose it because you are here arguing against it, but the fact that you are here means you chose it.

Edited June 13, 2009 by john doe
fixed spelling

[ztodd]

We could have all stayed "safely" in heaven with our Father, with no chance of progression, but we all chose to come here, knowing there would be a risk.

Sooner or later everyone will know fully well and have full accountability and opportunity to make the choice. Sooner would be better than later. Easier for a child to set his life in the right direction than for an adult to change course.

[Carl62]

The math would go something like this (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here): Supposing LDS missionaries baptize 5 "good" people who are all headed for the Terrestrial Kingdom. Two of them stick with it and upgrade to the Celestial, but the other three leave and get downgraded to the Telestial.

--Erik

How do you know those 3 "Terrestrials" might not have gone to a "Telestial" life, even without the church? At least we tried and did our part. That's all God asks for us to do. Plus, 2 did get upgraded to the "Celestial" level which they never would have had without the church. So all and all, I still think it worked out for the good. I guess I just prefer to look at life with the glass 'half full'.:)

[Maxel]

Gonna pull a classical 'Maxel' here and do a whole lot of judging really fast.

John Dehlin is a wolf in sheep's clothing, touting his own brand of 'faithfulness' (which is really faithless hypocrisy) for those who are weakened by doubt. As others have said, he panders to a growing number of cultural mormons who have become disaffected from the faith. Ultimately, adhering to his advice and not to the advice of the General Authorities (yes, the advice is different!) leads from doubt to apostasy.

I barely skimmed the article linked by the OP, but I found some very nice quotes to share and expose his viewpoint.

In our experience, most dogmatic, orthodox people are so for a good reason. Maybe they've had a death in the family, and cling to religion as their only hope for seeing that loved one again. Maybe they are struggling with addiction, or depression. Maybe they suffer from abuse at home, or a horrible marriage. Some of the people who cling to dogmatic religion most tightly, are the ones who are least happy, and most scared in their lives. This situation -- above all others, perhaps -- deserves our love and respect. Even for the purely sincere -- do you really want to run around trying to disabuse them of their beliefs? Isn't that like running up to random children to tell them that Santa Claus is a fraud? People cling to belief for all sorts of reasons -- and thoughtful, kind people will respect this. If you really want to emulate Christ, start with empathy.

Translation: "Orthodox people who really believe in the faith are like little kids who haven't faced reality, or cling to faith because their character is compromised in some critical way. You, the enlightened and disillusioned pseudo-Mormon need to show Christ-like empathy and be patient with them- look at them like children throwing occassional tantrums."

Wholeheartedly resist the temptation to disrupt Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society with controversy. Even though these meetings are promoted under the guise of education, education is clearly not what they are about. They are primarily about convincing members to be obedient to church commandments, and to promote (as much as possible) wholesome living. Learning is far from the primary or even secondary goal. Try your hardest to respect the actual, unstated purpose of the gathering. Instead of disrupting, simply don't attend if you are unable to maintain your cool. Over time, perhaps after some distance, you may find yourself able to attend again with more patience and empathy.

Translation: "The Church's main goal is to produce a herd of mindless automotons. Don't interrupt this process with controversy because the Morg don't like it when their boats get rocked."

You may decide that you simply cannot or will not pay 10% tithing to the church. If you have arrived at this place, you may also decide it best to stop going to tithing settlement (if it makes you uncomfortable), and to not feel like you have to give an explanation to anyone. Consider your charitable contributions between you and God.

But if you or your family are benefiting from attending church, then you don't want to be a complete freeloader, do you? In that case, consider giving 5% (or whatever you are comfortable giving) to the church. You might give the other 5% to other really worthwhile charitable organizations. There are lots of good causes out there: cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development.

We're quite sure that God Himself would gladly accept these offerings as legitimate in His eyes. And We're even more sure that the church would warmly accept 5% rather than 0% (if it comes to this).

Translation: "Don't worry about that burdensome tithing thing. Just do what you can to avoid freeloading, as your conscience dictates. In fact, giving money to other good causes and 5% tithe is warmly accepted by God! Can't beat that!"

(Hopefully, the fact that the translations are blatant falsehoods is abundantly clear to all. If not, let me state and restate it: Dehlin's words are bad advice, contrary to God's statutes and laws.)

John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast is just as bad. It's really, really hard to see through the facade if you're not aware of the tactics employed, but if you want to nurture a testimony of God, stay away from his stuff like poison.

[FlaviusHambonius]

I thought the article was fairly well written with a certain common sense approach to it for people who have had their testimonies of the church and Joseph Smith negatively affected.

For many growing up in the church and learning the standard version of the history of the church only later in life to find out through study that it was in some cases a whole different story can really affect that certain individual. So it's easy to see how it could affect a new convert finding out more historical information regarding LDS history.

I know in my own case, I have had some problems dealing with some of the issues. But through study and searching out I have come to conclusions which I have come to peace with.

On other issues I have not come to a peaceful place as of yet. But it is a journey and I will keep searching.

For example when I read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith--The Polygamy issue bothered me much more than it had previously and still remains a thorn in my side that I would love to pluck out someday.

When I read stories about such people as Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young it certainly doesn't help.

Perhaps the article that was provided by the OP will seem to stalwart LDS as just some wishy washy Mormons who can't grasp the truth, but perhaps may indeed be just the vehicle needed to grasp onto in they're journey.

[Islander]

Again, in regards to the like of Delhi, there are those that seek to exalt themselves above the rest, disguising their own emptiness, spiritual decay and defunct faith with well crafted and manicured speeches. It is self aggrandizing, useless rhetoric. Who appointed him as an arbiter in spiritual matters? Is he a sage or a wise man on his own merit? It is just garbage.

If your faith weakens, if your testimony falters, if hope weans; kneel down and humble yourself to the deepest recess of your soul and seek to repent. For after you have been handed the Gospel of salvation and the ordinances pertaining to such only sin can drive a wedge between us and our Father in Heaven. Seek to reach a state worthy of the emanations of the Holy Ghost and attempt, with all your might to reach the Savior's hand for His is stretched out still waiting for yours. Salvation is in Christ, in following his footsteps and worshiping Him in the spirit of truth, in full devotion, nothing wavering. Anything else is an affront and mockery that will not stand without judgment.

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." Tim 3:2-5

Edited June 14, 2009 by Islander

[Hemidakota]

Again, in regards to the like of Delhi, there are those that seek to exalt themselves above the rest, disguising their own emptiness, spiritual decay and defunct faith with well crafted and manicured speeches. It is self aggrandizing, useless rhetoric. Who appointed him as an arbiter in spiritual matters? Is he a sage or a wise man on his own merit? It is just garbage.

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." Tim 3:2-5

You just described most of the world, including some members in the church.

[ErikJohnson]

Gonna pull a classical 'Maxel' here and do a whole lot of judging really fast.

John Dehlin is a wolf in sheep's clothing...

Maybe you should slow down, Maxel, and consider 3 Nephi 14:1 ("Judge not, that ye be not judged").

Obviously I don't agree with Dehlin's approach, but I will say he doesn't deserve your reflexive ad-hominine (which you seem to apply indiscriminately to anyone who makes a criticism of your church--and all the more when you don't appear to have an answer to the substance of the criticism). And on a related note--how is it we are supposed to rely on your "translations" of his paragraphs when you yourself said you "barely skimmed" his article?

No doubt your words play well to a certain group on the board. But for the rest of them, your approach is almost certainly counter-productive. When I see someone attacked in so indecent a manner as you've attacked Dehlin--it leads me to think he must have had something important to say.

Give it some thought, when time permits.

--Erik

[Moksha]

Gonna pull a classical 'Maxel' here and do a whole lot of judging really fast.

John Dehlin is a wolf in sheep's clothing, touting his own brand of 'faithfulness' (which is really faithless hypocrisy) for those who are weakened by doubt. As others have said, he panders to a growing number of cultural mormons who have become disaffected from the faith. Ultimately, adhering to his advice and not to the advice of the General Authorities (yes, the advice is different!) leads from doubt to apostasy.

So should those people who are able to stay due to John Dehlin's advice, be driven from or booted out of the Church because their understanding is not pure enough?

[Islander]

So should those people who are able to stay due to John Dehlin's advice, be driven from or booted out of the Church because their understanding is not pure enough?

Not at all. Let me share my sometimes "extreme" examples, like my wife says.

Imagine I feel I do not like my wife. I do not find her attractive, I do not want to be with her and I feel I do not love her any more. Delhi's advise equate to: "Well, stay with her just for the kids...go ahead and have a fling here and there so you can take care of your sexual needs...don't bother her or tell her how ugly she is...just be nice to her...have a date with a pretty girl now and again but be discrete...don't make waves at home just hang in there..."

Instead of listening to these self appointed sages, we should head to the counsel of the brethren. If sin has entered into your live in thought or in deed, repent. Seek the counsel of your priesthood leaders, avail yourself of help within the fellowship, do ALL things necessary to strengthen your faith and your marriage. Cast out of your heart and your mind the thoughts the enemy has planted therein. Remember your covenants with the Lord and the calling to which you have been called. Remember how kind, merciful and forgiving the Lord has been with you all the days of your live. Remember that you once loved this woman, and promised before Him and witnesses to care, provide, protect and honor her. Do whatever it takes, no mater how much and how long to preserve what the Lord has consecrated.

That would be the right kind of advise, don't you think?

[Elphaba]

Not at all. . . . That would be the right kind of advise, don't you think?

You contradict yourself.

Elphaba

Added later: I misunderstood Islander's meaning when he wrote "Not at all." He did not contradict himself. E.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

For example when I read Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith--The Polygamy issue bothered me much more than it had previously and still remains a thorn in my side that I would love to pluck out someday.

I don't know if it would help, Flavius, but Richard Bushman addresses Joseph's polygamy in a way I had never thought of before. This is in his book, Rough Stone Rolling.

I'm not saying it will completely ease your mind, but it does give a certain perspective that may help.

Elphaba

[Islander]

You contradict yourself.

Elphaba

How? I said "Not at all", we should not boot them out of the Church. But the advise needs to be qualitatively different. That is what I am saying. Rather than a passive, hypocritical, untruthful, resentful and ultimately destructive attitude, those who struggle need to do it the Lord's way.

[Carl62]

Not at all. Let me share my sometimes "extreme" examples, like my wife says.

Imagine I feel I do not like my wife. I do not find her attractive, I do not want to be with her and I feel I do not love her any more. Delhi's advise equate to: "Well, stay with her just for the kids...go ahead and have a fling here and there so you can take care of your sexual needs...don't bother her or tell her how ugly she is...just be nice to her...have a date with a pretty girl now and again but be discrete...don't make waves at home just hang in there..."

Instead of listening to these self appointed sages, we should head to the counsel of the brethren. If sin has entered into your live in thought or in deed, repent. Seek the counsel of your priesthood leaders, avail yourself of help within the fellowship, do ALL things necessary to strengthen your faith and your marriage. Cast out of your heart and your mind the thoughts the enemy has planted therein. Remember your covenants with the Lord and the calling to which you have been called. Remember how kind, merciful and forgiving the Lord has been with you all the days of your live. Remember that you once loved this woman, and promised before Him and witnesses to care, provide, protect and honor her. Do whatever it takes, no mater how much and how long to preserve what the Lord has consecrated.

That would be the right kind of advise, don't you think?

Wow! Where did he say anything that would be on the same level as committing adultery?! I think a better analogy would be more like the wife saying "You can look at your Playboys, but if you dare cheat on me, I WILL pull a Loraine Bobbit on you!!!. And while you may argue that this is committing mental adultery (and it is), as long as the husband is not stepping outside of the marriage bond then they might be o.k. with that. Actually, if you talk to a wife whose husband is out cheating on a regular basis, they'd probably give their right arm if all he was doing was looking at Playboys.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Carl62

[Islander]

Wow! Where did he say anything that would be on the same level as committing adultery?! I think a better analogy would be more like the wife saying "You can look at your Playboys, but if you dare cheat on me, I WILL pull a Loraine Bobbit on you!!!. And while you may argue that this is committing mental adultery (and it is), as long as the husband is not stepping outside of the marriage bond then they might be o.k. with that. Actually, if you talk to a wife whose husband is out cheating on a regular basis, they'd probably give their right arm if all he was doing was looking at Playboys.

I think you stepped out on a limb here. We do not tolerate pornography in the Church as other may not consider it a marital transgression but we do. An unrepentant spouse addicted to pornography will be excommunicated for it is the same as adultery. So, for all practical purposes, the example is accurate. But beyond that, you may not understand fully how meaningful the Temple covenant should be for us.

[Carl62]

I think you stepped out on a limb here. We do not tolerate pornography in the Church as other may not consider it a marital transgression but we do. An unrepentant spouse addicted to pornography will be excommunicated for it is the same as adultery. So, for all practical purposes, the example is accurate.

Hmm, I know of people who've been ex-communicated for adultery and the church makes that very clear, but in my 30+ years of being in the church I've never heard of anybody being ex'd for looking at pornography and that only. I know people who've just been disfellowshipped for waaaay worse than that. Maybe you know something on that that I don't. That's news to me.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Carl62