Why do people stop attending church?

[applepansy]

I find this highly offensive. It is simplistic, arrogant, and sounds very "Holier-than-thou".

My wife is going through a faith crisis at the moment and I know that if someone told her this, she would never set foot inside a church building again, and probably neither would I. My wife had a strong testimony until she read some factual stuff about Joseph Smith. Not from anti souces, but from credible sources (Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling). She has made it her goal to avoid anti sites because she knows how biased they are. Her testimony is weaker now and doesn't always attend, but it's not because of sin. It's because the church hasn't been fully up front with it's history.

Define sin. If we truly look into our own hearts at what is keeping us from church or even from the Lord, it is because of something in our life. To me anything that takes me further from the Lord is a sin. And if I take the time to look up scriptures and conference talk I'm sure I'd find references to support that.

LeGrande Richards is my grandfather's first cousin. There was a time I heard "If you're not going to church its because of some sort of sin" more than once and as a teenager and young adult I was offended. But isn't being offended a sin of sorts? At the least its a lack of charity, which can be defined as a sin. Truth often makes us uncomfortable especially when we need to work on our personal growth.

Right now I'm struggling to go to church. Some of the things that keep me from growing are health related. I'm exhausted and in pain. But... when I finally was honest with myself about the excuses I was making I realized that I was sinning. My sin? I didn't have a forgiving heart about some issues in our family. I'm certain there are other sins I'm not aware of. We're all a work in progress. I'm also certain that as I resolve the sins I know I have more will pop up that I need to work on.

Once we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, when we step away...even a tiny half step.... we are sinning, which in turn will make it harder and harder to feel comfortable going to church.

How do we heal those feelings of being uncomfortable? We go to Sacrament meeting and partake of the Sacrament. We search out the cause of our feelings and repent of whatever we're doing (even unconsciously) that would make us uncomfortable in the Lord's presence.

I'm sorry your wife is struggling with her faith. I've been there more than once in my life. My heart hurts for her. I hope you'll both be able to allow healing ability of the Atonement to work for you in this issue.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Canuck Mormon. I hope you are doing good. :)

Her testimony is weaker now and doesn't always attend, but it's not because of sin. It's because the church hasn't been fully up front with it's history.

How can this statement you have made even be true?

You are saying that your wife's testimony is weaker because the church hasn't been fully up front with it's history.

Suppose I accept as true, for the sake of argument, the idea that the church has not been fully up front with it's history. Will you please explain how it is true that what the church did or did not do was actually the cause, or is what made, your wife's testimony become weaker?

Regards,

Finrock

[MarginOfError]

Good afternoon Canuck Mormon. I hope you are doing good. :)

How can this statement you have made even be true?

You are saying that your wife's testimony is weaker because the church hasn't been fully up front with it's history.

Suppose I accept as true, for the sake of argument, the idea that the church has not been fully up front with it's history. Will you please explain how it is true that what the church did or did not do was actually the cause, or is what made, your wife's testimony become weaker?

Regards,

Finrock

This is a great example of how Church becomes a hostile place for people who are questioning their faith and their testimonies. When a person is brave enough to state that they are struggling in the faith and give the reasons that led to their doubt, and the response they get back in return is "there must be some other reason because I don't see how to got from point A to point B," their connection to the Church and the membership gets severed even more.

We need to stop trying to pigeon hole people into our own definitions of what leads to inactivity/personal apostasy/faith questioning. As long as we fail to accept people as they are and accept that their narratives are what they truly believe of their journeys, we'll never be able to help them return to the fold.

It is not our place to dictate to a person the reasons why they left the Church. It is not our place to stipulate the conditions on which they may return (except for those who hold the proper priesthood keys). Our role is to throw open our arms and offer a safe haven. Trying to discredit a person's expression of their own path to inactivity is a spectacular failure to fill that role.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MarginofError. I hope you are having a good day! :)

This is a great example of how Church becomes a hostile place for people who are questioning their faith and their testimonies. When a person is brave enough to state that they are struggling in the faith and give the reasons that led to their doubt, and the response they get back in return is "there must be some other reason because I don't see how to got from point A to point B," their connection to the Church and the membership gets severed even more.

We need to stop trying to pigeon hole people into our own definitions of what leads to inactivity/personal apostasy/faith questioning. As long as we fail to accept people as they are and accept that their narratives are what they truly believe of their journeys, we'll never be able to help them return to the fold.

It is not our place to dictate to a person the reasons why they left the Church. It is not our place to stipulate the conditions on which they may return (except for those who hold the proper priesthood keys). Our role is to throw open our arms and offer a safe haven. Trying to discredit a person's expression of their own path to inactivity is a spectacular failure to fill that role.

I see you quoting me, but I don't see you actually responding to my post. You seem to be talking about somebody else and about something else other than what I was asking.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited June 17, 2013 by Finrock
Grammar

[skippy740]

I'm going to try and 'translate' this exchange.

Finrock, when you stated "Suppose I accept as true"... this tells the reader that you are only doing 'selective listening'. That you are going to listen through your lens of the way you see the world.

When someone is inactive - for whatever reason - they need someone that will listen to them with unconditional love. Ask questions and try to understand the other person's point of view.

You know the old saying - you don't know a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. (Of course, now you're a mile away and you have their shoes! lol)

That phrasing could imply a 'holier than thou' attitude... even when it wasn't intended. But to immediately dismiss someone's concerns - whether valid or not - is not a way to 'win friends and influence people'.

We need to listen and see how we can help, if we can.

[Anddenex]

This is a great example of how Church becomes a hostile place for people who are questioning their faith and their testimonies. When a person is brave enough to state that they are struggling in the faith and give the reasons that led to their doubt, and the response they get back in return is "there must be some other reason because I don't see how to got from point A to point B," their connection to the Church and the membership gets severed even more.

We need to stop trying to pigeon hole people into our own definitions of what leads to inactivity/personal apostasy/faith questioning. As long as we fail to accept people as they are and accept that their narratives are what they truly believe of their journeys, we'll never be able to help them return to the fold.

It is not our place to dictate to a person the reasons why they left the Church. It is not our place to stipulate the conditions on which they may return (except for those who hold the proper priesthood keys). Our role is to throw open our arms and offer a safe haven. Trying to discredit a person's expression of their own path to inactivity is a spectacular failure to fill that role.

Yet, isn't this what you have accomplish MOE by pigeon holing Finrock within your "personal" interpretation of what we must accomplish to avoid a "spectacular failure"?

Recently I had a friend speak with me, out of the blue, about his addiction to pornography and why he felt he was addicted.

Although, I was loving in my response and I would accept him with open arms, I didn't believe the reason why he shared he was addicted. I provided an alternative viewpoint regarding his addiction, different than the reasons he provided.

At the end of our conversation, he thanked me and appreciated that I would listen to him, and that I would be honest and forthright with him. He also agreed that the alternative view point I provided was true (which reminds me I need to follow up with him).

Yet, from your reply my response would have been a "spectacular failure" because I "discredited" his reason for his addiction -- at least this is what I am reading from your post.

Part of the responsibility for us all is to see things as they really are, not to see things "how we want to see them." Part of our responsibility is to help point out when someone isn't seeing things as they really are, and other times we just listen and wait for an ear that is willing to listen to truth.

On my mission I helped a family of four return to the gospel because I was willing to point out the inconsistencies in his reasons for leaving the Church. I welcomed him with open arms, but I wasn't willing to allow an untruth continue because he believed it -- at the time.

There is a time to listen and there is a time to correct, whether or not we have stewardship, or are priesthood leaders; however, we must be sensitive to either time because both options can be "spectacular failures."

EDIT: This reminds me of this youtube video

"

" Edited June 17, 2013 by Anddenex

[Finrock]

I'm going to try and 'translate' this exchange.

Finrock, when you stated "Suppose I accept as true"... this tells the reader that you are only doing 'selective listening'. That you are going to listen through your lens of the way you see the world.

This is my way of telling the reader that I may or may not accept that premise which is critical to their position, however, lets just ignore it for now and deal with this one question.

When someone is inactive - for whatever reason - they need someone that will listen to them with unconditional love. Ask questions and try to understand the other person's point of view.

You know the old saying - you don't know a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes. (Of course, now you're a mile away and you have their shoes! lol)

That phrasing could imply a 'holier than thou' attitude... even when it wasn't intended. But to immediately dismiss someone's concerns - whether valid or not - is not a way to 'win friends and influence people'.

We need to listen and see how we can help, if we can.

I agree with all of this. I just don't see how it's relevant to what I was asking.

My question doesn't have to be directed at any particular person. To me, this is not personal. I'm just dealing with the actual words that were typed and the ideas expressed. I'm dealing with the principle being expressed. I have my own thoughts and beliefs, true, but I am willing to be shown how it can be true that a person's testimony is actually made weaker because the church has not been fully upfront about it's history.

I am inviting anyone who knows to educate me.

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

I won't know how to answer that question until I understand the other person and their concerns. Once I've listened... then I might be able to answer your question.

Even if two people said they had the same problem, I wouldn't try to interrupt them and tell them I have the answer... until I've listened long enough to them individually.

[Finrock]

I won't know how to answer that question until I understand the other person and their concerns. Once I've listened... then I might be able to answer your question.

OKay, so you believe it is possible, in principle, for a person's testimony to actually be made weaker because the church was not completely upfront about its history? I have a hard time accepting this principle.

It is this principle that I am asking you to explain. Not an individual's circumstances.

Even if two people said they had the same problem, I wouldn't try to interrupt them and tell them I have the answer... until I've listened long enough to them individually.

Those are all good skills, qualities, and traits and I applaud you for having them.

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

Could a person's testimony weaken because:

- There were multiple versions/editions of Joseph Smith's Testimony?

- The sky is blue?

- They were offended by another member?

- They read the hymn 'O My Father' and didn't believe in a Heavenly Mother?

- Kolob doesn't exist?

- Brigham Young was a racist?

- The Mountain Meadow's Massacre?

- That the Book of Abraham is an 'inspired' translation?

A person can have trouble with anything for any reason. Is it justified? It doesn't matter... because it's justified in their mind.

It's a whole lot easier to have a feeling of faith, when you feel that you have the full truth about everything. If you don't, you begin to feel 'duped' or even 'deceived'.

When one feels deceived, one doesn't feel like attending Church. It could even get worse by attending because it's like a wound that isn't healing and begins to fester. So, one takes time out to try to gain clarity.

Our job, for those who are having trouble, is to help them talk about it. Talking about it helps the person to define the problem and gain clarity for themselves. Were they really duped or deceived? By whom? The Church? Or the source of this other information?

[Finrock]

Could a person's testimony weaken because:

- There were multiple versions/editions of Joseph Smith's Testimony?

- The sky is blue?

- They were offended by another member?

- They read the hymn 'O My Father' and didn't believe in a Heavenly Mother?

- Kolob doesn't exist?

- Brigham Young was a racist?

- The Mountain Meadow's Massacre?

- That the Book of Abraham is an 'inspired' translation?

A person can have trouble with anything for any reason. Is it justified? It doesn't matter... because it's justified in their mind.

I get this part and I appreciate that this is how it is with people and so it doesn't have to be rational in order for them to "feel" a certain way. However, sooner or later, we have to deal with things as they truly are.

It's a whole lot easier to have a feeling of faith, when you feel that you have the full truth about everything. If you don't, you begin to feel 'duped' or even 'deceived'.

When one feels deceived, one doesn't feel like attending Church. It could even get worse by attending because it's like a wound that isn't healing and begins to fester. So, one takes time out to try to gain clarity.

Our job, for those who are having trouble, is to help them talk about it. Talking about it helps the person to define the problem and gain clarity for themselves. Were they really duped or deceived? By whom? The Church? Or the source of this other information?

Once you have their trust and attention and they are talking about it, your duty doesn't end there. You must now teach correct principles and help the individual to learn that faith is a choice and help them to learn how they can maintain their testimonies despite circumstance.

Regards,

Finrock

[skippy740]

Yes, I agree that it doesn't end there. There needs to be a change to teach and instruct.

Yes, faith is a choice as well as exercising that faith through church activity.

But until you can get to this point, even the 2nd part of our duty can take quite a bit of time. It can't be done in just 1 home teaching visit. It can take YEARS.

Everyone is at a different level of spirituality. The minimum levels we should be striving for is church activity and being able to answer temple recommend interview questions appropriately.

In fact, sometimes just bringing this up might be enough? You could say "I don't remember that being a part of the temple recommend interview questions list. Is it really that important?" It's just a way to try to keep the focus on the main thing... which is what I think you were trying to get at, Finrock.

Just some thoughts.

[Bini]

I think financial class difference can push people away. Generally, I think wards consist of people with the same financial status but sometimes you get a mixture of upper class and lower income. In my current ward we are diverse. We have some finely dressed families and we have some rougher characters that attend. If a family feels a stigma, it's possible that they'll eventually just feel so out of place, that they'll stop coming to church.

My bestfriend is Navajo and also traditional Navajo. There was a time when her family was investigating the Church and would attend with my family. At one point, she told me that her parents no longer wanted to go anymore and it was because there were a couple members in our ward that had made her parents feel inferior (direct comments and some unfriendly looks were apparently made). It broke my heart that people who my family never had any issues with, allegedly, made my friend and her family feel unwelcomed and unequal. So, right or wrong, that is one possible reason.

[LDSCubsFan]

For example, at my last ward, I got ticked off at the stake president. He called me in for a meeting one time, and asked me to commit to a plan he had to me (a calling or something). I told him I had to think about it, and he said that if I had any doubts about it, it was "the devil" getting to me. During the same meeting, we were discussing my financial situation at the time, and he said that if I filed for bankruptcy I would "still have to pay it back" because the scriptures were filled with passages that say to "repay all debts." This guy was cocky in my opinion. This did not cause me to leave the church, but it certainly made me not want to deal with him.

[Canuck Mormon]

Good afternoon Canuck Mormon. I hope you are doing good. :)

How can this statement you have made even be true?

You are saying that your wife's testimony is weaker because the church hasn't been fully up front with it's history.

Suppose I accept as true, for the sake of argument, the idea that the church has not been fully up front with it's history. Will you please explain how it is true that what the church did or did not do was actually the cause, or is what made, your wife's testimony become weaker?

Regards,

Finrock

I'm not going to get into details, but it has shaken her testimony. Let me use an example.

***THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES*****

For years you are told that the sky is blue because God used a rollerbrush to paint it. You go on a mission and people tell you no he used a paint gun. You defend your position because that's what you are told from the leaders of your faith. 15 years after your mission a book is written that is well researched and proven to be factual in its accounts. In that book it states that God did indeed use a paint gun to paint the sky. How would you feel about the leaders of your faith at that point? How could you believe anything else that they claim is true?

****THE PRECEDING WAS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES***********

That's where my wife is. And she feels that if she talks with anyone about it, she'll be labelled as an Apostate, a sinner, deceived, etc.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Canuck Mormon
Formatting

[Wingnut]

I think financial class difference can push people away. Generally, I think wards consist of people with the same financial status but sometimes you get a mixture of upper class and lower income. In my current ward we are diverse. We have some finely dressed families and we have some rougher characters that attend. If a family feels a stigma, it's possible that they'll eventually just feel so out of place, that they'll stop coming to church.

There are two people in my ward that I know of right now -- one a dear friend, the other an acquaintance -- who both have a really hard time coming to church because "there's nobody else who's fat there." Setting aside lifestyle changes that could be made, or medical conditions that may exist, they have a hard time because the large majority of women in my ward (like, 70%) are 25-35, up to size 6, and super perky and cute. If you're even a size 12, it's hard to compete with that. I've been in this ward six years now, and I heard the same sentiment from someone else within six months of moving into it as well.

[Suzie]

Many years ago Apostle Le grand Richards was visiting our mission and interviewing all the missionaries. I was asked to drive Elder Richards several hundred miles across the state to his next area (mission Zone) in our mission. Not only was this a great honor but it gave my companion and I several hours of one on one time with an Apostle.

One question I had concerned this very subject. I asked Elder Richards what was the reason people do not come to church. There was a specific individual I was asking about and I explained this individual's circumstance. Elder Richards was very stern and specific with me as he answered this question - I would point out here that this question did catch his attention and change his demeanor in our discussion. I remember well his very penetrating tone when he said to me, "There is only one reason that a person does not attend church to renew their covenants on the Sacred Sabbath of the L-rd - that reason is sin."

The Traveler

IF what you say is accurate and true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) I find his statement to be unfortunate. I wish he didn't say that, another reason why I try to remember sometimes that yes apostles are apostles but they are also men like us and "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church."

[LilyBelle00]

I have a hard time understanding some of the reasons listed here. Also when I first read the quote about sin being the reason people quit attending church, I was offended. But as I read the excuses for not going to church, I started rethinking it.

Wouldn't it be a sin to quit coming to church because you envy other members' physical looks or financial status? Even if it's not envy, wouldn't it be a sin to let something so worldly keep you from renewing your covenants and serving in the church?

Wouldn't it be a sin to leave the church because you can't forgive someone who offended you?

Are we supposed to go to church because we like all the people there or are we supposed to go because we love and obey The Lord?

I know that there are the occasional legitimate reasons to stop attending (health and some cases work) but I would say 90% are just excuses.

We have two families in our branch (twig) that have recently stopped attending. Both because they got offended by another member. It's just so sad to me. One guy stood up to give a talk and instead announced that he was leaving the church because he heard that someone else said something about him. Another family quit coming because their teenage son got caught stealing and the branch president told him that he couldn't pass sacrament... That was too harsh apparently.

All of this is coming from someone who was inactive for almost 10 years. I know about excuses.

[MarginOfError]

Yet, isn't this what you have accomplish MOE by pigeon holing Finrock within your "personal" interpretation of what we must accomplish to avoid a "spectacular failure"?

These kind of responses are irritating. "My mistreatment of others can't be so bad because your mistreating me in the same way." As if somehow two wrongs make it okay. Take that approach if you want, but tell me how it benefits anyone. Butting heads on that matter just gives fuel for us not to change our behavior so that we are capable of embracing those who are struggling in their faith. If I'm given a choice of pigeon holing people who are struggling and pigeon holing those who are in a position to help, I'll gladly pigeon hold those who are in a position to help if I think it will help them realize that there's a better way to do what they are in a position to do.

Recently I had a friend speak with me, out of the blue, about his addiction to pornography and why he felt he was addicted.

Although, I was loving in my response and I would accept him with open arms, I didn't believe the reason why he shared he was addicted. I provided an alternative viewpoint regarding his addiction, different than the reasons he provided.

At the end of our conversation, he thanked me and appreciated that I would listen to him, and that I would be honest and forthright with him. He also agreed that the alternative view point I provided was true (which reminds me I need to follow up with him).

Yet, from your reply my response would have been a "spectacular failure" because I "discredited" his reason for his addiction -- at least this is what I am reading from your post.

Part of the responsibility for us all is to see things as they really are, not to see things "how we want to see them." Part of our responsibility is to help point out when someone isn't seeing things as they really are, and other times we just listen and wait for an ear that is willing to listen to truth.

On my mission I helped a family of four return to the gospel because I was willing to point out the inconsistencies in his reasons for leaving the Church. I welcomed him with open arms, but I wasn't willing to allow an untruth continue because he believed it -- at the time.

There is a time to listen and there is a time to correct, whether or not we have stewardship, or are priesthood leaders; however, we must be sensitive to either time because both options can be "spectacular failures."

EDIT: This reminds me of this youtube video

"

"

Good on you! This is exactly how it's supposed to work. But notice that I highlighted a word for you.

Social Penetration Theory might be a good model to explore here. It uses an onion as a model for developing relationships. In the early phases, conversations have great breadth, but they are superficial--the outer layers of the onion. As we develop more intimate relationships, the discussions go into more depth, with more personal details being shared--the inner layers of the onion.

When you've put in the time to develop a friendship with a person and have reached a point where your discussions reach into the inner layers of the onion, you've earned the privilege of sharing your interpretations and opinions on their life. When your relationship is still on the outer layers, you keep your mouth shut until you get to those inner layers (sharing too much too soon is often damaging to the relationship).

As much as we like to think otherwise, the majority of our relationships with members in our wards are on the surface of the onion--which is exactly where reinterpretation of their experience is so damaging.

[applepansy]

I'm not going to get into details, but it has shaken her testimony. Let me use an example.

***THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES*****

For years you are told that the sky is blue because God used a rollerbrush to paint it. You go on a mission and people tell you no he used a paint gun. You defend your position because that's what you are told from the leaders of your faith. 15 years after your mission a book is written that is well researched and proven to be factual in its accounts. In that book it states that God did indeed use a paint gun to paint the sky. How would you feel about the leaders of your faith at that point? How could you believe anything else that they claim is true?

****THE PRECEDING WAS AN EXAMPLE AND NOT WHAT THE CHURCH BELIEVES***********

That's where my wife is. And she feels that if she talks with anyone about it, she'll be labelled as an Apostate, a sinner, deceived, etc.

Let me try to understand by restating: A Sunday School teacher, Primary teacher, parent understood and taught that God painted the sky blue with a roller brush. The person being taught grows up and teaches the same thing. Then years later learns from a respected researcher and author that in fact God used a paint gun and not a roller brush. This person is bothered by the inconsistency to the point he/she stops going to church. This person now is upset because they were taught something inaccurate which in turn they taught to others.

Did I get that right?

Rhetorical Questions: Instead of realizing that people are imperfect I stop going to church? Instead of asking my Heavenly Father to confirm the truth, I stop going to church? Instead of working to resolve the conflict I allow Satan to build on my doubts which in turn moves me away from my Lord and Savior and I stop going to church?

In my opinion, when we assume we will be labeled for asking honest questions we leave the door open for Satan to move us further from our Savior and from the healing power of the Atonement. Being labeled doesn't change our standing with our Heavenly Father and our Savior. What changes our standing with God is allowing our fear of labels or our pride to move us further away.

Its good to question. Its not good to allow the questions to go unresolved. Nor it is good to allow the questions to move us further from God.

I'm older than dirt and I've found that our testimonies are regularly tested. As I get older I've learned to recognize when my faith is under attack a little bit faster. But the constant or the Core of my faith is: "God lives. God is the Father of our spirits. He loves us and will help us especially when our faith is under attack. He provided a Savior for us. That Savior is Jesus. And Jesus Christ atoned for our sins so we could return to live with our Heavenly Father. There are commandments from God, one of which is to attend our meetings."

If something in church history or a neighbors opinion keeps me from keeping a commandment then the fault is mine and I need to humble myself, let go of my pride and return to the place Heavenly Father wants me to be so I can continue on my journey back to Him.

Its not easy to let go of our doubts sometimes. But a first step is to recognize who is growing our doubts about our faith. I guarantee its not Heavenly Father or Christ who is growing those doubts.

I hope your wife will be able to return to the core of her faith and let the peripheral things go for a awhile. When she's stronger and the spirit is back, her doubts will be resolved (quickly if she asks Heavenly Father to help). I know from personal experience when I focus on the core of my faith then any doubts I may be having often just go away, or something happens to resolve the issues which caused the doubts in the first place.

I pray you and your wife will find the peace and resolution you're seeking.

[MarginOfError]

Let's use a more realistic example, shall we.

Children grow up hearing a story about a young Joseph Smith who needed to have leg surgery. The surgeon wanted to give him brandy to dull the pain and make it easier to perform the surgery. But young Joseph refused, because he knew that it was wrong to drink. And so if young Joseph could understand God's will that we follow the Word of Wisdom, then we can do it too!

Then, later in life, you learn that Joseph enjoyed his alcohol (HC 1, I'd have to look up the page number at home), and later in life often enjoyed wine with his dinner (Rough Stone Rolling, though wine wasn't strictly against the Word of Wisdom at the time).

For a person who has bought into the image of Smith as an angelic, nearly perfect prophet of the Restoration, these historical revelations can be jarring. If your testimony of and faith in the Church is rooted in your testimony of that image of Joseph, learning that what you've always believed...what you feel you've always been taught...is not what really happened can shatter the foundation of your faith.

We can discuss whether the Church propagates that image of Smith deliberately, or if they just don't do enough to counter it, or whatever. The reality is that this is what happens to some people. Whether or not we think it should happen or follows logic or anything else doesn't matter. It happens, and so we have to deal with it.

For the person who is experiencing this kind of thing to be told it is their fault because of some sin, or because they've allowed their doubts to interfere with their faith, or because they are unwilling to forgive some offense does more harm than good. Even if these things are true, they are in a state of turmoil, and blaming them usually makes them feel less accepted when what they need is more acceptance.

[applepansy]

Let's use a more realistic example, shall we.

Children grow up hearing a story about a young Joseph Smith who needed to have leg surgery. The surgeon wanted to give him brandy to dull the pain and make it easier to perform the surgery. But young Joseph refused, because he knew that it was wrong to drink. And so if young Joseph could understand God's will that we follow the Word of Wisdom, then we can do it too!

Then, later in life, you learn that Joseph enjoyed his alcohol (HC 1, I'd have to look up the page number at home), and later in life often enjoyed wine with his dinner (Rough Stone Rolling, though wine wasn't strictly against the Word of Wisdom at the time).

For a person who has bought into the image of Smith as an angelic, nearly perfect prophet of the Restoration, these historical revelations can be jarring. If your testimony of and faith in the Church is rooted in your testimony of that image of Joseph, learning that what you've always believed...what you feel you've always been taught...is not what really happened can shatter the foundation of your faith.

We can discuss whether the Church propagates that image of Smith deliberately, or if they just don't do enough to counter it, or whatever. The reality is that this is what happens to some people. Whether or not we think it should happen or follows logic or anything else doesn't matter. It happens, and so we have to deal with it.

For the person who is experiencing this kind of thing to be told it is their fault because of some sin, or because they've allowed their doubts to interfere with their faith, or because they are unwilling to forgive some offense does more harm than good. Even if these things are true, they are in a state of turmoil, and blaming them usually makes them feel less accepted when what they need is more acceptance.

The bolded is the root of the problem. Our faith should be rooted in Heavenly father and His Son Jesus Christ. When our faith has a good foundation then these human failings (for lack of a better word) don't shake us so badly.

Its not a sin to have doubts. We're still back to the definition of sin and therefore "fault." I don't believe there is fault in having doubts. We get in trouble when we allow our doubts to move us away from Christ. I know that is hard to hear when you're in the middle of a faith crisis, but nonetheless, its the truth.

What LeGrande Richards said was not a judgement but a fact. I understand and have experienced being offended in a similar way. The fix is to root our testimony in God our Heavenly Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ. Maybe starting back at the basics would be helpful for your wife? My suggestion to put her doubts on a shelf and focus on the core of her faith will help her resolve the faith issues.

Edited June 18, 2013 by applepansy

[MarginOfError]

The bolded is the root of the problem. Our faith should be rooted in Heavenly father and His Son Jesus Christ. When our faith has a good foundation then these human failings (for lack of a better word) don't shake us so badly.

As I said earlier, this can be as true as you want it to be. You still have to deal with what the person is feeling.

Its not a sin to have doubts. We're still back to the definition of sin and therefore "fault." I don't believe there is fault in having doubts. We get in trouble when we allow our doubts to move us away from Christ. I know that is hard to hear when you're in the middle of a faith crisis, but nonetheless, its the truth.

Completely agreed. But again, sometimes saying "the truth" in these situations does more harm than good. There are times when the blunt truth is not what a person needs to hear.

What LeGrande Richards said was not a judgement but a fact. I understand and have experienced being offended in a similar way. The fix is to root our testimony in God our Heavenly Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ.

I have serious doubts that what Elder Richards said is a universal fact.

Edited June 18, 2013 by skippy740
fixed quote function

[Letrell]

Laziness. Hate the word or love it....pure lazy.

Everything we do takes work...we have to push forward...keep moving. Tons of reasons and excuses; it's all the same. I speak from my comfy spot in the Lazy Boy....LOL.

Pure, unadulterated laziness.

[Olivia7]

Doubts are not sins- I also agree! And sometimes it is really hard to hear the blunt truth. But, after all, we are still kids in our souls and some really stopped going to church because they were taught inaccurate things - relly sad! I believe mormons will find the right way back to church!

Edited June 18, 2013 by Olivia7
link removal