Dying testimonies. How tragic.

[Traveler]

I wasted about thirty minutes an hour or two ago reading through a blog from some Latter-day Saint woman who styled herself "liberal but faithful". Her blog was a series of rants (many rather foul-mouthed) about what she perceived as shortcomings in Church actions and doctrine, including Proposition 8, Elder Mark E. Peterson's 1960s-era expressed opinions about "negroes" (does anyone besides me even remember Elder Peterson? a truly great and intelligent man, but as with the rest of us, a man of his era and culture), women's subservience in the Church, etc. etc. ad nauseam. To the surprise of absolutely no one except, perhaps, herself, a year or so ago she found herself no longer "faithful", but unbelieving and on the verge of leaving the Church and its ignorant members. (That's where she stopped her blog, so I have no idea what has happened since then, and I suppose I don't care enough to go looking.)

I just finished reading mormonmusic's update about his home teachee. Here is a man with enough Church service that he has actually served on a high council, yet his testimony is so fragile and brittle that he has become inactive because he thought the stake presidency and high council talked too much about tithing.

Did these people fail to read Alma 32, or did they just fail to understand it? Like Bette Midler's

, the word is a living plant, not an anchor or a tower or a boulder or some such thing. You have to nourish it. You have to protect it. You have to nurture it, just like you would your baby, or your marriage, or any other precious living thing you care for. How does writing screeds against "the corporate Church" nurture the word within you? How does a man grow up in the gospel and reach middle age without having a testimony strong enough to lean on? I'm not really appalled or aghast, just sad for these people.

I do not think myself anything special. I never use myself as an example of righteousness (except to my children, and then only by how I try to act in front of them). I expect there are many on this forum who have far greater spiritual maturity than I, and I expect even more would agree with that assessment :). So how is it that I can see this and so many others seem blind to it? How is it that even in my own (extended) family, I have so many relatives who insist on finding fault with the Church and its leaders and members? Can they not see the damage they do to themselves and their dependents?

Of course leadership is not perfect! So what? I am asked to sustain my leaders, where "sustain" means "help make them successful in their callings". I am not asked to sustain them when it's convenient for me, or sustain them only when I think they are making good decisions. I am not called to police them. If my son were called to be the bishop, would I be sure to point out all his flaws and problems? Is that how I would show him my solidarity?

What do people expect of our leaders? They are truly great men and women, but they are not God. Why do we expect that of them? They aren't allowed to make a mistake? Many non-Mormons, even on this forum, think that a "prophet" should be someone who literally cannot make a mistake. Are we Latter-day Saints really so childish that we believe such nonsense? I can sort of understand such ridiculous beliefs from non-members; they have no background in restored truth, only traditional legends and their own understanding of the Bible. But we should be far above such silliness.

If you feel your testimony is weak and fragile, then heed that feeling! Take steps to strengthen your testimony! Read and really study the scriptures, and pray a lot! (Yes, that's two words.) And do not give into the temptation to find fault: If you really, truly just cannot help but think that your leaders are just dead wrong about this or that, then KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT! If that's too hard, then talk with your bishop/quorum president/group leader/RS president. But for heaven's sake (literally), protect your testimony.

I realize there are a few who style themselves as "open-minded" who will take offense at what I have written, claiming it's "mind control" or against the First Amendment or anti-Mother-love or blinkered GoodThought or some such. Whatever. If that's you, then I am not talking to you, because you have no ears to hear. This is to those who have the heart to understand what I'm trying to say, perhaps even in spite of how I have said it.

[/frustrated_rant]

We are told that our spirit needs constant nourishment. I was once told that we really do not need to read scriptures and pray daily - just on the days we eat.

Testimonies do not just die - most often they are starved to death. But on occasions it does appear to me that rather than prolong spiritually suffering - some just commit spiritual suicide and get it all over with at once.

The Traveler

[Guest mormonmusic]

I personally like, "human beings are well known to struggle with managing the cognitive dissonance created by their perception of religious ideals and they actions of those they feel should uphold those ideals."

That's precisely it. They can't handle the tension between what they hear at Church, and what they hear/see in the actions of others. So, to resolve the tension, they absolve the formal leadership and hierarchy of any responsibility for what happens. In this way, their testimony/inner peace, is not threatened in any way.

Unfortunately, if they hit a REALLY MAJOR disconnect between the actions they see, and the religious ideals they see at Church, they are sometimes unable to withstand the tension -- and their testimony caves.

That's why I think it's better to acknowledge that the whole thing isn't perfect, and that you're still OK with that. How you come to that understanding is personal and often very different for each person.

If there is no tension, if leaders and members are living up to the ideals, well, I see no need to put anyone through the hardship and introspection that comes from experiencing such tension. But when it happens -- I always believe in calling a spade a spade, and then figuring out how to keep my commitment and faith in spite of the failings of the Church, its leaders, and its members.

[Backroads]

That's precisely it. They can't handle the tension between what they hear at Church, and what they hear/see in the actions of others. So, to resolve the tension, they absolve the formal leadership and hierarchy of any responsibility for what happens. In this way, their testimony/inner peace, is not threatened in any way.

Unfortunately, if they hit a REALLY MAJOR disconnect between the actions they see, and the religious ideals they see at Church, they are sometimes unable to withstand the tension -- and their testimony caves.

That's why I think it's better to acknowledge that the whole thing isn't perfect, and that you're still OK with that. How you come to that understanding is personal and often very different for each person.

If there is no tension, if leaders and members are living up to the ideals, well, I see no need to put anyone through the hardship and introspection that comes from experiencing such tension. But when it happens -- I always believe in calling a spade a spade, and then figuring out how to keep my commitment and faith in spite of the failings of the Church, its leaders, and its members.

I love how you and MoE have worded this conversation. I really do think there's a gap between the publicized, everyday Church ideal that is perceived (even if that's not how it's intended) and the actual Gospel and intended set-up of the Church. I do believe the concept of the Church and how it should function is perfect, but it doesn't seem to function correctly--or at least somewhere our perception doesn't match up with the actual and/or intended function.

[AGStacker]

[Guest mormonmusic]

AgStacker -- it would helpful if you gave some key points from the talk if you get a chance...that might spark even greater interest in watching the video.

[MarginOfError]

I love how you and MoE have worded this conversation. I really do think there's a gap between the publicized, everyday Church ideal that is perceived (even if that's not how it's intended) and the actual Gospel and intended set-up of the Church. I do believe the concept of the Church and how it should function is perfect, but it doesn't seem to function correctly--or at least somewhere our perception doesn't match up with the actual and/or intended function.

Hooray for the humanists! :patselfonback:

[Beast]

Allow me to present a view from the other side of your argument. I do hope you will allow this post to satnd, but I have no real illusions that you will. If you actually do leaev this post published as is, kudos to you and huzzah for objectivity.

I am a disaffected mormon who has serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS church. I am active. I was born mormon; I served a mission (was an AP even for those of you who think that means something about my service); I graduated from BYU with honors and have even been in bishoprics. I hold a responsible calling at present. I pray. I pay a full tithe. I have a temple recommend, and I sin. And even more so, I doubt.

Loudmouth Mormon’s prior comment says a lot about why I stay in the church. LMM said “The only good reason to be Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be. If you're there for any other reason, you may have a good experience or a bad experience. But if you're there because that's where God wants you, then even the bad experiences are for your good, and you know it.” I am trying to “know it” because god did put my BIC butt in the LDS church, but knowing in any true sense, is difficult for me.

I have had archetypal LDS spiritual experiences. Afterwards, some of the premises upon which those experiences were based proved to be verifiably false. That troubles me. I will not go into reasons that I doubt in detail because I do not think you truly want to know. If I am wrong in that assumption, I will happily correct it later. Believe it or not, my disaffection came about as a result of getting called to (based on people’s perceptions) higher and higher callings in the church. My job requires advocacy, and (in my best Stuart Smalley voice) doggonit, I’m pretty good at it. So, I decided to really buckle down and learn the issues upon which people attack the church, and I was going to rebuff them all. What I discovered instead was, for me at least, how thin the veneer actually is. In any event…

When you make characterizations like “no surprise” about someone falling away, you show a certain callousness, don’t you think? You even stated that you “don’t care to go looking” for this individual. Is she not worthy of your concern? If she is not, who is? You make so many assumptions about those of us who are disaffected. We must have been offended because of some person. We want to sin. There’s always a sin. You’re just weak with your too fragile testimony. And then you say that makes you “just sad” in a pitying sort of way. I doubt any disaffected member wants your pity. I don’t. Understanding, rather than ignorant condemnation, might go a long way, but then there would have to be tolerance for people like me in the church rather than what appears to be disdain for anyone who does not use your specific grip in the exact specified spot on the iron rod.

Do you want people like me to continue attending even though we don’t believe the church is a perfect organization despite its imperfect members and leaders? Some of us may even believe (we’re big on belief even though we don’t claim to know things) that god does not necessarily guide every step of the church and that prophets make mistakes. Oh, but wait! You realize that one though, don’t you. Good then…some common ground.

We know leaders are not perfect and that they are not god, but many of us have a hard time reconciling the aphorism in the church that the prophet will never lead the church astray. For many of us, there are instances where that has not been “true.”

You contend that we (the disaffected and testimony challenged) should not find fault and “KEEP [Y]OUR MOUTH SHUT.” OK. Should we do that in the same way you have exercised temperance in your own fault finding with those of us who struggle—keeping your mouth shut and lovingly helping us with our struggles in a Christ like manner.

Actually many of us do just keep our mouths shut, and after a time when that becomes too hard we just leave. Does that trouble you? My guess is that it does not. Those of us who do not meet your standards of certainty and worthiness should just leave quietly rather than remaining with an imperfect testimony and continue seeking to do good in spite of it all, shouldn’t we?

We should have ears to hear and get what you are saying in spite of how you say it? How about some of that benefit of the doubt approach back the other direction?

Yours in an imperfect, weak, less-than-knowing faith.

The Beast

Edited October 12, 2011 by Beast

[mikbone]

Yours in an imperfect, weak, less-than-knowing faith.

I loved your post. Many members feel the same way that you do. Doubt is normal. Doubt is good. Blind obedience is nonsense. Yours is a perfect example of what we need to do when we are in doubt. Keep doing the right things. Recognize our shortcomings try to fix them, continue to serve, and pray.

From your post you don't seem to have the spirit of apostasy at all. You are not ranting. You are not condeming the church, and you aren't self righteous. The original post was concerning people who are strangling their testimonies and ranting against the church with the spirit of apostasy. We are talking about 2 very different things here.

I am curious about the comment,

many of us have a hard time reconciling the aphorism in the church that the prophet will never lead the church astray. For many of us, there are instances where that has not been “true.”

Where has the prophet led the church astray?

What are your specific issues with the Church?

If you have a temple recommend, you were able to answer the important questions correctly. You have a testimony of God, the Atonement, the restored gospel, and you sustain the president of the church as the prophet.

It is enough.

You are not an outlier, you are the majority.

What are the options if the Church is not true? Athiest, Agnostic, another religion...

The Church of Jesus Christ ain't perfect. But in my opinion it is the only sane alternative.

My testimony is that the Restored Gospel is true. The Book of Mormon is obvious. The Atonement works. The teachings of the Church will bring us closer to God and happiness.

I am a disaffected mormon who has serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS church

Elaborate on the above, and we can get down to business.

Edited October 12, 2011 by mikbone

[Dravin]

AgStacker -- it would helpful if you gave some key points from the talk if you get a chance...that might spark even greater interest in watching the video.

Can't give you the key points but I can provide a better link: Safety for the Soul - general-conference

Text and Video.

[belledame2]

Frankly, I don't like the way the original person who started this post gave the lame excuse of Mark Peterson being a product of his time. Patootey. I thought Peter said in the Book of Acts that God is no respector of persons. African Americans and others weren't given the priesthood until 1978. I darn well remember also that women were banned from giving prayers in Sacrament Meeting from 1969 until 1978 due to the feminist movement.

[Spartan117]

When you make characterizations like “no surprise” about someone falling away, you show a certain callousness, don’t you think? You even stated that you “don’t care to go looking” for this individual. Is she not worthy of your concern? If she is not, who is? You make so many assumptions about those of us who are disaffected. We must have been offended because of some person. We want to sin. There’s always a sin. You’re just weak with your too fragile testimony. And then you say that makes you “just sad” in a pitying sort of way. I doubt any disaffected member wants your pity. I don’t. Understanding, rather than ignorant condemnation, might go a long way, but then there would have to be tolerance for people like me in the church rather than what appears to be disdain for anyone who does not use your specific grip in the exact specified spot on the iron rod.

I appreciate your honesty and your openness about you and your situation in life at the moment. I hope you stick around and let us get to know more. I really mean that too.

That being said, your paragraph there covers every stereo type that gets associated with people who are struggling or on their way out. You also come off as someone who is rather offended at something. I'm not judging or jumping to conclusions, but you are clearly jaded about this. And that's fine! I hope we get to find out what has lead you to where you are.

Do you want people like me to continue attending even though we don’t believe the church is a perfect organization despite its imperfect members and leaders? Some of us may even believe (we’re big on belief even though we don’t claim to know things) that god does not necessarily guide every step of the church and that prophets make mistakes. Oh, but wait! You realize that one though, don’t you. Good then…some common ground.

Let it all out.

We know leaders are not perfect and that they are not god, but many of us have a hard time reconciling the aphorism in the church that the prophet will never lead the church astray. For many of us, there are instances where that has not been “true.”

I don't there is anything wrong with scrutinizing church leaders. I'm right there with you. Can you give an example of one of those instances?

You contend that we (the disaffected and testimony challenged) should not find fault and “KEEP [Y]OUR MOUTH SHUT.” OK. Should we do that in the same way you have exercised temperance in your own fault finding with those of us who struggle—keeping your mouth shut and lovingly helping us with our struggles in a Christ like manner.

Actually many of us do just keep our mouths shut, and after a time when that becomes too hard we just leave. Does that trouble you? My guess is that it does not. Those of us who do not meet your standards of certainty and worthiness should just leave quietly rather than remaining with an imperfect testimony and continue seeking to do good in spite of it all, shouldn’t we?

That sounds awful for you, and what's worse is I bet that is exactly how people have reacted to you at times. And that sucks.

We should have ears to hear and get what you are saying in spite of how you say it? How about some of that benefit of the doubt approach back the other direction?

I know there people hear who will read your story and want to give you hug. Probably not Vort, I don't think he's a huger anyway. But you've sparked a lot of peoples interest and I hope that venting helped :)

Yours in an imperfect, weak, less-than-knowing faith.

The Beast

Hiya Beast

[Spartan117]

Safety for the Soul - general-conference

That talk is what lead me to converting. I stumbled across it and it changed my life.

[Spartan117]

Frankly, I don't like the way the original person who started this post gave the lame excuse of Mark Peterson being a product of his time. Patootey. I thought Peter said in the Book of Acts that God is no respector of persons. African Americans and others weren't given the priesthood until 1978. I darn well remember also that women were banned from giving prayers in Sacrament Meeting from 1969 until 1978 due to the feminist movement.

The apostles were instructed to only preach the gospel to the Jews at first. The gentiles were forbidden to hear good news. They had apostles walking among them and they weren't even allowed the chance to hear about Christ. That's just how it was. In the Lord's time, that changed and the gospel was no longer exclusive to the Jews, gentiles could now learn about the Savior. When Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt, the Lord eventually took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood with him. The Aaronic Priesthood remained, but the Holy Priesthood was not available to them.

The priesthood ban in latter days is the same way. In the Lord's time, it was made available to everyone. No one knows why, and I don't think that answer will ever be given. But it isn't the first time something like that happened, and it certainly isn't unique to the LDS Church.

[applepansy]

Allow me to present a view from the other side of your argument. I do hope you will allow this post to satnd, but I have no real illusions that you will. If you actually do leaev this post published as is, kudos to you and huzzah for objectivity.

I am a disaffected mormon who has serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS church. I am active. I was born mormon; I served a mission (was an AP even for those of you who think that means something about my service); I graduated from BYU with honors and have even been in bishoprics. I hold a responsible calling at present. I pray. I pay a full tithe. I have a temple recommend, and I sin. And even more so, I doubt.

Loudmouth Mormon’s prior comment says a lot about why I stay in the church. LMM said “The only good reason to be Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be. If you're there for any other reason, you may have a good experience or a bad experience. But if you're there because that's where God wants you, then even the bad experiences are for your good, and you know it.” I am trying to “know it” because god did put my BIC butt in the LDS church, but knowing in any true sense, is difficult for me.

I have had archetypal LDS spiritual experiences. Afterwards, some of the premises upon which those experiences were based proved to be verifiably false. That troubles me. I will not go into reasons that I doubt in detail because I do not think you truly want to know. If I am wrong in that assumption, I will happily correct it later. Believe it or not, my disaffection came about as a result of getting called to (based on people’s perceptions) higher and higher callings in the church. My job requires advocacy, and (in my best Stuart Smalley voice) doggonit, I’m pretty good at it. So, I decided to really buckle down and learn the issues upon which people attack the church, and I was going to rebuff them all. What I discovered instead was, for me at least, how thin the veneer actually is. In any event…

When you make characterizations like “no surprise” about someone falling away, you show a certain callousness, don’t you think? You even stated that you “don’t care to go looking” for this individual. Is she not worthy of your concern? If she is not, who is? You make so many assumptions about those of us who are disaffected. We must have been offended because of some person. We want to sin. There’s always a sin. You’re just weak with your too fragile testimony. And then you say that makes you “just sad” in a pitying sort of way. I doubt any disaffected member wants your pity. I don’t. Understanding, rather than ignorant condemnation, might go a long way, but then there would have to be tolerance for people like me in the church rather than what appears to be disdain for anyone who does not use your specific grip in the exact specified spot on the iron rod.

Do you want people like me to continue attending even though we don’t believe the church is a perfect organization despite its imperfect members and leaders? Some of us may even believe (we’re big on belief even though we don’t claim to know things) that god does not necessarily guide every step of the church and that prophets make mistakes. Oh, but wait! You realize that one though, don’t you. Good then…some common ground.

We know leaders are not perfect and that they are not god, but many of us have a hard time reconciling the aphorism in the church that the prophet will never lead the church astray. For many of us, there are instances where that has not been “true.”

You contend that we (the disaffected and testimony challenged) should not find fault and “KEEP [Y]OUR MOUTH SHUT.” OK. Should we do that in the same way you have exercised temperance in your own fault finding with those of us who struggle—keeping your mouth shut and lovingly helping us with our struggles in a Christ like manner.

Actually many of us do just keep our mouths shut, and after a time when that becomes too hard we just leave. Does that trouble you? My guess is that it does not. Those of us who do not meet your standards of certainty and worthiness should just leave quietly rather than remaining with an imperfect testimony and continue seeking to do good in spite of it all, shouldn’t we?

We should have ears to hear and get what you are saying in spite of how you say it? How about some of that benefit of the doubt approach back the other direction?

Yours in an imperfect, weak, less-than-knowing faith.

The Beast

Yes!!! That troubles me, which is the basis of why it also makes me sad. Not pity...Sad.

Thank you for your post. I appreciated your views and I hope you'll stay so we can get to know you better.

[cwald]

I know many people who have become less active in the day to day affairs of the church because they have "lost" their testimony. Of course, these folks will say they didn't lose their testimony at all, but instead their testimony ""changed and evolved" on a personal level as they gained understanding and perspective.

To say that a person's testimony is "lost" because a sin is involved is terribly naive and judgmental, IMO.

PS - I like your response Beast.

[RMGuy]

I think the Beast brings up some very interesting points. I can particularly relate to this,

"I have had archetypal LDS spiritual experiences. Afterwards, some of the premises upon which those experiences were based proved to be verifiably false. That troubles me. I will not go into reasons that I doubt in detail because I do not think you truly want to know. If I am wrong in that assumption, I will happily correct it later. Believe it or not, my disaffection came about as a result of getting called to (based on people’s perceptions) higher and higher callings in the church."

-RM

[Suzie]

What meaningless blather.

Can one truly believe that if one took the time and effort to really get to know the home teachee in question, come to grips with his hopes, fears, experience and thought processes and really understand when he was going though, that one would conclude that he has become inactive because: 1. the Stake Presidency talked to much about tithing and 2 he doesn't understand Alma 32?

Nonsense.

That's obviously nothing but a clumsy technique to marginalize someone else and their situation while puffing up one's self and one's perspective, ie, I'm smart, or faithful, honest, thrifty, true or brave and if only you were smart, faithful, honest, thrifty, true and brave like me, then you would get it, like I get it.

In the real world, such people - and I have no more idea what's in the guy's heart than you do - have much more complex and deep seated reasons behind their behavior - usually it's a matter that the dogma that they have been taught doesn't hold up in light of what they experience - their religion doesn't explain their experience.

So very true and inspiring. I wish more people can realize how quick we are in assuming things about others when we really do not know them or their hearts or intentions. Thanks a lot for this post.

[Vort]

Allow me to present a view from the other side of your argument. I do hope you will post this but I have no real illusions that you will. If you actually do post this, kudos to you and huzzah for objectivity.

Thanks for your post, to which I will try to respond, since you're obviously talking to me.

By the way, this forum is moderated only after the fact. You can post whatever you want, and the moderators will only remove it if it's openly offensive (e.g. profane) or otherwise violates the agreements of the site. And I'm not a moderator, so my opinion carries no special weight, anyway.

There are two issues to respond to in your post: First, your specific situation; second, your claims and perceptions about what I wrote. The first is the most important, of course, but I will concentrate mainly on the second. It is clear that, whatever I write, you're not going to be particularly open to my opinions or insights, so it's probably best that I limit my response to your perceptions of what I wrote.

I am a disaffected mormon who has serious doubts about the truth claims of the LDS church. I am active. I was born mormon; I served a mission (was an AP even for those of you who think that means something about my service); I graduated from BYU with honors and have even been in bishoprics. I hold a responsible calling at present. I pray. I pay a full tithe. I have a temple recommend, and I sin. And even more so, I doubt.

Loudmouth Mormon’s prior comment says a lot about why I stay in the church. LMM said “The only good reason to be Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be. If you're there for any other reason, you may have a good experience or a bad experience. But if you're there because that's where God wants you, then even the bad experiences are for your good, and you know it.” I am trying to “know it” because god did put my BIC butt in the LDS church, but knowing in any true sense, is difficult for me.

I have had archetypal LDS spiritual experiences. Afterwards, some of the premises upon which those experiences were based proved to be verifiably false. That troubles me. I will not go into reasons that I doubt in detail because I do not think you truly want to know.

On the contrary, if I can be of help, I very much want to know. But I do not want to know in a voyeuristic sense. Obviously, I have plenty of my own problems and am perfectly happy not to be burdened with those of others, unless I am in a position to do something for them.

If I am wrong in that assumption, I will happily correct it later. Believe it or not, my disaffection came about as a result of getting called to (based on people’s perceptions) higher and higher callings in the church. My job requires advocacy, and (in my best Stuart Smalley voice) doggonit, I’m pretty good at it.

Then we are very different. I do not have any "higher" calling, and probably would not be very good at it if I did.

So, I decided to really buckle down and learn the issues upon which people attack the church, and I was going to rebuff them all. What I discovered instead was, for me at least, how thin the veneer actually is. In any event…

This would be of interest to me. Which issues do you think have been "veneered over"? I often hear this, so obviously it's an issue of common concern. But in 48 years of active Church membership, I have found amazingly few issues that look "veneered over" to me. I wonder if it's a matter of difference of interpretation, or if somehow I have not been exposed to whole realms of faith-shattering reality. I tend to doubt the latter, but I do not dismiss the possibility that I've simply led an unusually sheltered life.

When you make characterizations like “no surprise” about someone falling away, you show a certain callousness, don’t you think? You even stated that you “don’t care to go looking” for this individual. Is she not worthy of your concern?

Is it a surprise? If I spent my time identifying and pointing out all the flaws (real and imagined) I see in my wife, would you then be surprised when, a few years down the line, I divorced her? If I produced a constant stream of criticism against my employer, would it be a big shocker to find out later that I had left my job?

This woman kept a public blog wherein she detailed her disaffection with the Church, from its doctrines to its leaders to its rank-and-file members. Why do you suppose it's callous of me not to be even a tiny bit surprised that she has decided to leave the Church, or at least is seriously contemplating doing so? I could see that my comments might be interpreted as a bit cynical, but I cannot understand how any reasonable person could see them as callous. On the contrary, I was mourning her state and the road she had traveled to get there. There was no callousness in that.

As far as not caring to go looking for her -- what, you think I should be eager to go find her on a Mormon Recovery list or see if she's bad-mouthing the Church or its members somewhere? How ghoulish! No, I have not the least desire to investigate the charred remnants of what was once a living, growing testimony of truth. If she had deserted her path out of the Church and come back, that would be wonderful -- but then, she would surely have put that up on her old blog. So yes, I did (and do) not care to go looking to find out where she's at now, and no, I don't think it's uncaring. If anything, it's quite the opposite.

If she were my blood relative, then perhaps I would keep tabs just in case I could offer assistance. But she is not. She is an anonymous, nameless person whom I do not know and probably never will, whose situation I am utterly powerless to change. The idea that I should expend emotional energy and time worrying about someone I do not even know and have not the least power to help is, to me, utterly absurd. That I sometimes do exactly that, even to some extent with her, does not invalidate the absurdity of the idea.

If she is not, who is?

People I have some actual possibility of being able to help in some way.

You make so many assumptions about those of us who are disaffected. We must have been offended because of some person. We want to sin. There’s always a sin. You’re just weak with your too fragile testimony.

I assumed none of these things. This is your own inference, and incorrect at that.

And then you say that makes you “just sad” in a pitying sort of way. I doubt any disaffected member wants your pity. I don’t.

Where on earth did you ever get the idea that I think they want my pity? I don't pity them because they want me to pity them; I pity them because I find their situation pitiable.

Understanding, rather than ignorant condemnation, might go a long way,

Please point out my condemnation of these two people, ignorant or otherwise.

but then there would have to be tolerance for people like me in the church rather than what appears to be disdain for anyone who does not use your specific grip in the exact specified spot on the iron rod.

I am responsible for what I write. If I have written badly, then I must accept responsibility for having done so.

But interestingly, there appear to be many people who have read and understood my meaning without imputing to me judgmentalism or intolerance that I neither felt nor implied. They seem largely to agree with what I wrote, without any hint of disdain for those who fall away or who are struggling, and without assuming I meant any such thing, either.

What do you make of that?

Do you want people like me to continue attending even though we don’t believe the church is a perfect organization despite its imperfect members and leaders? Some of us may even believe (we’re big on belief even though we don’t claim to know things) that god does not necessarily guide every step of the church and that prophets make mistakes. Oh, but wait! You realize that one though, don’t you. Good then…some common ground.

I don't understand your hostility and the offense you have taken. You are not utterly alone; Snow has openly (and falsely) accused me, as well, and I have received a bit of profane hate mail as a result (I assume, anyway) of what I wrote. Why a minority of people have misinterpreted what I have written, I don't know. I expect that a few have chosen to misunderstand so they can stand and bray on their personal rameumptom. I doubt you are among them, since your response is not as strident or condemnatory. But how is it possible that I can try so carefully to communicate what I'm feeling, and have the result be that some understand me and others totally misunderstand me?

I have a theory. I expect that those who understand me and do not impute evil motives are those who see things like I see them, and thus understand where I'm coming from. Those who misinterpret me probably are starting from a point of defensiveness, or else from an assumption that anyone who sees things the way I see them must be a judgmental SOB who is seeking for self-glorification. Thus, they see in me what they expect to see in me, whether it's really there or not.

Anyway, that's my working theory. It's the best I can come up with to explain the phenomenon.

We know leaders are not perfect and that they are not god, but many of us have a hard time reconciling the aphorism in the church that the prophet will never lead the church astray. For many of us, there are instances where that has not been “true.”

Truth is self-existent, not individually determined. People might perceive this or that as "true", but that doesn't mean those things really are "true". For example, just because some LDS member somewhere thinks that Proposition 8 was evil and that the Church should not have been involved, that does not mean that Proposition 8 really was evil or that the Church really should not have been involved. It really just means that the person disagrees with the Church.

You contend that we (the disaffected and testimony challenged) should not find fault and “KEEP [Y]OUR MOUTH SHUT.”

Yes, but not in the way you seem to be implying. The blogger I brought up: What good did it do her to broadcast her disaffection to the world? Did it build her testimony, or those of other people? Did it bring her closer to Christ?

My friend (and I mean that sincerely, not condescendingly, though I know we don't actually know each other), we all have issues and areas where our personal beliefs or prejudices or worldviews or norms simply do not line up with Church practice. All of us. Every one. Are we to spend our time loudly announcing to whomever might listen what our problems are? Or would we be better served to KEEP OUR MOUTHS SHUT, work, study, and pray, and finally grow through our problems? I suggest the latter.

Many Saints before 1978 disapproved of the Church's doctrine (or policy, if you prefer) of not ordaining men of black African descent to the Priesthood and of not allowing members of black African descent to participate in temple ordinances beyond baptism for the dead. Some of these people openly rebelled, and were promptly cut off out of the Church, which quite frankly is where they belonged. Others stewed and steamed and privately (and sometimes not so privately) expressed their disaffection and disagreement with such "racism", as they styled it. Many of these left the Church, weak in the faith, having allowed their dissatisfaction and prejudices against Church practice to destroy the miraculous testimony they once had; many others just sort of limped along, inactive or semiactive, unwilling to relinquish their share in the kingdom of God but equally unwilling to step up and be counted.

But some of this group kept their feelings to themselves, continued to enjoy the fellowship of the Saints, and fasted and prayed and quietly waited for the time that had been promised, when ancestry would not be an issue. In his biography of Hugh Nibley, Nibley's son-in-law identifies Nibley himself as one of these.

Which group do you suppose was happy and strong and fully participating in the gospel, enjoying the fruits of eternal life and growing in their service in the kingdom of God, when the promised day finally came in June of 1978? It certainly wasn't those who just couldn't help but express their harsh feelings toward the Church.

OK. Should we do that in the same way you have exercised temperance in your own fault finding with those of us who struggle—keeping your mouth shut and lovingly helping us with our struggles in a Christ like manner.

How have I found fault with you?

Actually many of us do just keep our mouths shut, and after a time when that becomes too hard we just leave. Does that trouble you? My guess is that it does not. Those of us who do not meet your standards of certainty and worthiness should just leave quietly rather than remaining with an imperfect testimony and continue seeking to do good in spite of it all, shouldn’t we?

So your opinion of me is set. Too bad, but I have little interest in begging for your good opinion. I have passed personal judgment on no individual, as you have done on me.

We should have ears to hear and get what you are saying in spite of how you say it?

Yes, I guess so.

How about some of that benefit of the doubt approach back the other direction?

Fair enough. Of course, I could say the same, based on what you have written.

Yours in an imperfect, weak, less-than-knowing faith.

The Beast

Perhaps you are right. I wonder on what you base your highly personally directed judgment?

[Vort]

That's obviously nothing but a clumsy technique to marginalize someone else and their situation while puffing up one's self and one's perspective, ie, I'm smart, or faithful, honest, thrifty, true or brave and if only you were smart, faithful, honest, thrifty, true and brave like me, then you would get it, like I get it.

So very true and inspiring. I wish more people can realize how quick we are in assuming things about others when we really do not know them or their hearts or intentions.

How humorously ironic.

[Suzie]

How humorously ironic.

One day, when you grow up you can be like Snow.

[Snow]

One day, when you grow up you can be like Snow.

One day I too hope to grow to be like me. When faced with a decision or quandary, I often think, if I were me, how would I respond. It undoubtedly helps me make the best possible choice.

[HiJolly]

I know many people who have become less active in the day to day affairs of the church because they have "lost" their testimony. Of course, these folks will say they didn't lose their testimony at all, but instead their testimony ""changed and evolved" on a personal level as they gained understanding and perspective.

To say that a person's testimony is "lost" because a sin is involved is terribly naive and judgmental, IMO.

PS - I like your response Beast.

Welcome to the site, cwald. Hey-o.

HiJolly

[Beast]

mikbone:

Thank you very much for your reply and for apparently taking my message in the way it was intended. I try not to have the spirit of apostasy or to rant against the church. Such activity is just not productive in my view although I can understand why some do it from time to time. I may have ranted a bit once or twice in my frustration, but never very publicly, and I had/have no intention of doing so here. My own struggles have been hard enough that I have no desire to inflict such on anyone else by publishing my doubts all over cyberspace. Given that, I will only try to give some representative information that is responsive to your questions, but I am hesitant to elaborate in too much detail about the many points of doubt that I have about the church’s truth claims because in many ways (a) I feel I have exhausted those inquiries, and (b) well, there’s that whole contentiousness thing that I don’t want to provoke. I appreciate your zeal in wanting to “get down to business,” and I even admire it a bit, but I did not come here to debate. If you feel that the foregoing is my way of depriving you an opportunity to shore me up, so to speak, I apologize. Being shored up could be a good thing, but I am going about it other ways.

I have many shortcomings. I do continue to pray in spite of my doubts. However, to the extent that god is answering back, hearing him do so has never been my strong suit. I try to maintain faith and hope that he is there whether I hear him or not. Maintaining faith in a creator and in the immortality of the soul is the easier aspect for me. Maintaining belief that god directs the church in a proactive fashion and actively intervenes in our individual lives on a regular basis is one of a number of things I struggle with. I believe our church leaders are sincere in their efforts, but I do not believe they have a direct, open line of communication with god that amounts to sure and unquestionable direction from him on a regular basis as most members seem to believe which leads to a perception of the church being infallable. Leaders seem to be praying and asking and acting on what they perceive to be inspiration the same as the rest of us. Are they better men than I? No doubt.

You're right; I am not an atheist, nor am I wholly agnostic even. I may be becoming a mormon deist, however, because more often than not, I feel that we are largely left to our own devices here in life even though I want to believe that we planned things out in much detail and have help and guidance available in order to follow what we mapped out for ourselves.

I do not see myself affiliating with another religion ever in this lifetime either. God (or possibly chance, with which I will not disagree) sent me to a mormon family, and that religion will remain the formal, external structure to my spirituality, for better or worse, until I shed the mortal coil as they say.

As for where I believe prophets have led the church astray, perhaps I should rephrase or qualify just a bit. I don’t know that any prophet has made such huge errors in leadership that the church has been irreparably harmed, but some have certainly caused damage in varying degrees. Among instances of such damage for me are the Adam-god theory (espoused by BY as truth, later decried by Bruce R. as heresy—I side with Bruce on this one) and the view that people of black African descent were less valiant and unworthy of the priesthood. Both of these are poignant to me even though most apologists view these concerns as mundane and would say “Is that all you got?” I do realize that the present trumps the past and that both of these errors, as I choose to call them, have been corrected. That is great.

I still recall exactly where I was as an 11 yo boy when I heard over the radio that the priesthood ban had been lifted. What came into my heart and mind at that moment, I still consider a spiritual, even revelatory experience. What was spoken, more so it seemed from my soul, than from any outside source was “Thank God that horrible mistake has finally been corrected.”

Similarly, I still recall as an even younger lad overhearing my non-LDS relatives discussing the church and my uncle telling one of my cousins (thinking I was not listening) that the LDS church worships Adam. I thought at the time, "we don't believe that, what bunk!" only to discover that such had not been far off from the truth at one point in our history.

So, in my mind, both these mistakes have caused damage.

On a final note, both in agreement with you, but also by way of stating an additional concern, I would heartily agree with you that “blind obedience is nonsense.” Those who ascribe to and tout the mind set of “When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done," scare me. As much as I hate to use the “C” word, such thinking borders on a cultish mentality. I refuse to forego using my agency without thought regardless of where the directive originates. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the church seems to be taking this approach more and more in recent years. Follow the Prophet! That is all. Teach only from the manual. We know what is best for you. Maybe you do, but I’ll reach that conclusion on my own after much study and inquiry, some of it even from outside the manual and standard works.

So mikbone, thanks again for your indulgent reception of my message. I appreciate it and to all you others who have replied with kinds words to my message, thank you much. Vort, yes, I was replying to your OP (and others that came after) more or less directly, and where I misinterpreted you, you have my apology. And again, my apologies for not allowing any of you the opportunity to “get down to business” as well, but even if we could defeat the Huns along the way, that was not my intent in coming here and I have not changed my mind on that front. So in closing, I bear you my testimony that I know how much I do not know. I know the amount of what I do not know is immense. I believe what I choose to believe, much of which aligns with the LDS gospel and some of which does not. I hope that what I believe will someday prove to be true.

Blessings to you all,

Beast

[Spartan117]

I hope that what I believe will someday prove to be true.

Don't we all. Best of luck to you.

[Guest Madison54]

I am also one who has (as you on here would put it) "lost" their testimony.

I am a multi-generational BIC Mormon (who is closely related to current general authorities on both sides of my family), served a mission, married in the temple, former RS president, on and on.

I no longer attend church and I am completely at peace with this.

I was not offended.

I did not sin.

I am still a current temple recommend holder (at least until it expires) and am still completely worthy to hold this recommend (other than no longer paying tithing or attending church).

I still am raising my children with strict, Christlike standards.

Nothing has changed in my life other than the fact that I now know the complete truth about the church, its history, and so on.

I am not bitter or angry, nor do I hold any malice towards those who still choose to believe or attend.

I do however, find that I have been harshly judged, thought less of by active members, and treated many times in an extremely unChristlike manner by members still attending. This is quite puzzling to me and also extremely contradictory to what TBMs should be doing and how they should be behaving.

If you do not know about the forum "New Order Mormon" (or NOM for short), you all could really gain some insight and knowledge regarding why members stop attending (or become less active) and why many have stopped believing (yes, these numbers are growing rapidly as the church can no longer hide the real truth about their history).

Here is a link to one of the threads over at NOM that will be particularly eye opening to you on here (it contains many letters written as to why they now feel as they do about the church):

New Order Mormon :: View topic - Letters of leaving or explaining

Understanding and love are the two key elements that are missing when active members deal with and judge those who have chosen to no longer attend. Rarely does anyone stop attending because of sin or because they have been offended (these are myths that make you all feel better about this and more comfortable).

Also, there is a thread over there discussing this thread on here:

New Order Mormon :: View topic - Dying testimonies how tragic...

I love this New Order Mormon forum. I do not post over there, but I do love to read over there.

Spend some time on this forum. Open up your mind to the REAL reasons people leave and also learn what high caliber, intelligent, kind, and filled with integrity these people truly are.