Getting fed up and really considering going inactive

[SisterSarah]

My husband and I have been discussing this for a while and are just not sure which direction to go.

We joined the church a number of years ago, went to Temple, sealed etc:

We always held the believe that a testimony comes from the heart and soul and one's beliefs in the gospel and relationship to God. Belonging to a denomination was always thought to be secondary to our testimony and out beliefs. Prayer, scripture reading, discussions and growth mainly happen in the home.

But what attracted us to the church in the first place was the system of family values, a like minded sense of clean and moral living, and the opportunity to grow together, share in lessons, testimonies, sacrament meetings and interaction with those that share the same values. It is what set the church apart for us.

In fact prior to being baptized (it was quite a while back), we were asked a series of questions. And then prior to going to the temple, more discussions and questions.

But lately things have changed A LOT, and honestly if we were brand new investigators in the church we likely would not have returned with what our observations.

Before anyone chimes in and says we have to love everyone, and be accepting and not self righteous, hear me out.

The bar is truly being lowered and it appears that anyone with a pulse can be baptized and become members of the church. And if their behavior, appearance and lifestyle and customs are far different than what we have been taught, I guess we just need to be accepting and not be self righteous.

Sorry, it is not a joy to go to church when new members are attending classes, going up on fast and testimony, sharing the sacrament and even taking on callings when their behavior, dress and appearance and lifestyles are not anywhere near what the church has taught in the past.

Perhaps some lie in pre baptism interviews regarding their marital status or their open ness regarding illegal behavior that they say was during their inactive or less active times. And offensive clothing and even tatoos that are proudly displaying offensive words or photos depicting violence and are displayed with not attempt to cover them up; and actually declaring in classes that they feel they should be accepted for "who they are." Thank goodness we no longer have young children because no way would I send them to Sunday school classes and be exposed to that.

It is getting ridiculous and the church leaders merely look the other way and tell other members to to be judgmental.

So what's next, a biker gang, transvestites, pedophiles?

It seems these days that anyone with a pulse can be baptized and join and it is a growing sub culture. It seems that eventually every value that we cherished will be meaningless.

In any event, although we are believers, we are not sure we want to enable this behavior. Perhaps a church that still share the values that were once taught.

Remember how we were all told we should set an example. Well the current accepted example is not something that is a good influence to put very mildly.

Thanks for letting me vent.

[Leah]

My husband and I have been discussing this for a while and are just not sure which direction to go.

We joined the church a number of years ago, went to Temple, sealed etc:

We always held the believe that a testimony comes from the heart and soul and one's beliefs in the gospel and relationship to God. Belonging to a denomination was always thought to be secondary to our testimony and out beliefs. Prayer, scripture reading, discussions and growth mainly happen in the home.

But what attracted us to the church in the first place was the system of family values, a like minded sense of clean and moral living, and the opportunity to grow together, share in lessons, testimonies, sacrament meetings and interaction with those that share the same values. It is what set the church apart for us.

In fact prior to being baptized (it was quite a while back), we were asked a series of questions. And then prior to going to the temple, more discussions and questions.

But lately things have changed A LOT, and honestly if we were brand new investigators in the church we likely would not have returned with what our observations.

Before anyone chimes in and says we have to love everyone, and be accepting and not self righteous, hear me out.

The bar is truly being lowered and it appears that anyone with a pulse can be baptized and become members of the church. And if their behavior, appearance and lifestyle and customs are far different than what we have been taught, I guess we just need to be accepting and not be self righteous.

Sorry, it is not a joy to go to church when new members are attending classes, going up on fast and testimony, sharing the sacrament and even taking on callings when their behavior, dress and appearance and lifestyles are not anywhere near what the church has taught in the past.

Perhaps some lie in pre baptism interviews regarding their marital status or their open ness regarding illegal behavior that they say was during their inactive or less active times. And offensive clothing and even tatoos that are proudly displaying offensive words or photos depicting violence and are displayed with not attempt to cover them up; and actually declaring in classes that they feel they should be accepted for "who they are." Thank goodness we no longer have young children because no way would I send them to Sunday school classes and be exposed to that.

It is getting ridiculous and the church leaders merely look the other way and tell other members to to be judgmental.

So what's next, a biker gang, transvestites, pedophiles?

It seems these days that anyone with a pulse can be baptized and join and it is a growing sub culture. It seems that eventually every value that we cherished will be meaningless.

In any event, although we are believers, we are not sure we want to enable this behavior. Perhaps a church that still share the values that were once taught.

Remember how we were all told we should set an example. Well the current accepted example is not something that is a good influence to put very mildly.

Thanks for letting me vent.

So...you are saying that you are perfect?

[Vort]

Sister Sarah, one of the lessons we learn in Church is that we leave judgment to those whose duty it is to judge. New baptisms are performed primarily by the full-time missionaries, and it is their duty (and their mission president's) to decide whether such candidates are prepared. On occasion, I expect they get it wrong. But that is their duty, not ours.

Similarly, on a ward level, discipline is left to the bishop, not to us. In general, I think bishops do remarkably -- perhaps miraculously -- well, but there are probably mistakes made on this level, too. Not our problem. We are to help strengthen the Church, not find fault with its leaders.

Please do not let the weaknesses of the members, or even of the leaders, diminish your desire. The Church is true, and the members are your brothers and sisters. They are striving for God, imperfect though their steps may be. Show them the patience and charity you want for yourself. Eventually, despite imperfections and mistakes, we WILL get there. Stay with the caravan.

[JudoMinja]

The standards of the church haven't changed. All new members go through the same baptismal interview and are asked the same questions. While it is possible some lie their way through the interview, I think it is more likely that they are merely struggling to keep their baptismal covenant. The individuals that seem to stand out to you are likely people who have a strong desire to repent and do better, but who have difficult habits to break or are subjected to situations and/or influences that make it hard for them to keep their testimonies strong.

There does need to be a balance between accepting people "as they are" and expecting them to improve. We do not want to drive people away from the gospel, and have been told at several points in the scriptures that we should continue to allow even those who are struggling through serious repentance or even unwilling to go through the repentance process to come and worship with us. We want them to feel the love and welcoming embrace of the Savior as they come to our meetings.

At the same time, the standards and expectations we hold ourselves to need to be made clear. This is mostly handled in the background, by those leaders who sit in interviews with these individuals and determine whether or not they should be partaking of the sacrament, serving in callings, or attending the temple. The blessings of the sacrament and temple attendance are limited to those living worthily, while church attendance is meant to be open to all those who desire to come.

[prisonchaplain]

In the 1950s folk in my fellowship did not drink, smoke, gamble or chew--nor did we go with the girls that do. We did not attend the moving pictures. Dancing was a sure path to fornication. The gals wore dresses, but no makeup, precious little jewelry. We were so far separated from "the world" that I'm not sure how much gospel impact we could have.

I would imagine that folks who grew up in that era are so discomforted by today's standards. Our young folks wear all kinds of makeup, many come to church in jeans--including the gals. Movie watching is a matter of personal conviction. We still don't drink and smoke...though we understand that many are "fighting those battles."

The music has gone from hymns played to piano and organ to praise and worship, done to guitar, synthesizer, and drums.

Yet, somehow, God continues to get glory, many feel the touch of the Almighty, and good, strong teaching continues.

Most of what you bemoan is a transition of churches from being citadels against worldly contact to spiritual clinics, where those wounded by the world and sin can get healing. Jesus said he did not come for the righteous, but for those in need of his forgiveness and healing.

My sense is that church is becoming less comfortable...but also more powerful as we dare to let "the least of these" in.

[Guest]

Matthew 9

10 ¶And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

[SisterSarah]

In the 1950s folk in my fellowship did not drink, smoke, gamble or chew--nor did we go with the girls that do. We did not attend the moving pictures. Dancing was a sure path to fornication. The gals wore dresses, but no makeup, precious little jewelry. We were so far separated from "the world" that I'm not sure how much gospel impact we could have.

I would imagine that folks who grew up in that era are so discomforted by today's standards. Our young folks wear all kinds of makeup, many come to church in jeans--including the gals. Movie watching is a matter of personal conviction. We still don't drink and smoke...though we understand that many are "fighting those battles."

The music has gone from hymns played to piano and organ to praise and worship, done to guitar, synthesizer, and drums.

Yet, somehow, God continues to get glory, many feel the touch of the Almighty, and good, strong teaching continues.

Most of what you bemoan is a transition of churches from being citadels against worldly contact to spiritual clinics, where those wounded by the world and sin can get healing. Jesus said he did not come for the righteous, but for those in need of his forgiveness and healing.

My sense is that church is becoming less comfortable...but also more powerful as we dare to let "the least of these" in.

First of all to answer all of the above, no we are not perfect, but a total lack of respect is another thing. What is the difference between accepting and enabling.

As to prison chaplain, while it is true that in the 1950's we were taught to wear dresses, modest clothing, (mainstream makeup and tasteful jewelry were not frowned upon ) at least in the church we grew up. But self respect and respect for a place of worship was expected.

I am also not implying or suggesting that we need to hide away from the outside world. But I do have to ask parents, to what extent do you allow your children to associate with others. Are you saying that it's ok for your children to associate, go to camp with, attend Sunday school (and or be taught by) ANYONE????

If these people were NOT baptized and attending the church, would you want your kids associating with them or would you for that matter want to, but the exception is they managed to get baptized.

WE are not talking people struggling and overcoming wearing jeans in church, too much makeup, smoking, drinking etc: (wish that was all it was).

What about people teaching a class or getting up in front of everyone at fast and testament saying "I know this church is true......" then attending a class right after saying I expect everyone to accept me as I am. And that same person get up in front of the church in a mini skirt, boobs hanging out under a sheer top, tatoos with F words and photos of guns and violence? Ok call me judgmental all you want.

Or another that held a temple recommend with the F words tatoo visably.

Sorry but I am all for teaching responsibility as well as respect. Forgiveness is fine also but enabling and condoning i not.

There are people that have an agenda for being a member even when they full well are open about not even coming close to trying to "work through" anything. Instead they come to get some free handouts or to meet people and solicit kids.

No one is perfect, but those who have no intention to try and respect the church they claim to be true is another story.

[Guest]

If a sex offender or someone with a history abuse got baptized, I would certainly accept them into the ward, but not give them access to my children. If someone who has tattoos gets baptized, I'd certainly accept them and be glad that the mistakes I've made in the past aren't so visible. I would hope that if they had swear words, the person would make an effort to cover them up, especially around youth. Taking appropriate precautions to protect your children against people who have a proven history of harming children, or who the Spirit has told you could be a danger, is totally appropriate. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to be redeemed and take part in Christ's church. It just means that hopefully they won't even be in callings where they have children in their charge, and if somehow they slip through the cracks and are in those callings, that the parents and children will be aware and educated enough to avoid harm.

If there is someone who you truly believe is a danger to children, by all means, talk to your bishop about it. If you're judging people who are trying to reform themselves from a past of sin- as we all should be trying to do- maybe it's time to look inward a bit.

[SisterSarah]

Not judging anyone who IS trying to reform themselves. I am saying that there are people who come into the church with NO intention of informing anything and have been straight up about their reason for joining which has nothing to do with reforming to the ways of the church, rather expecting everyone to accept them as they are and as a member has the rights to "free stuff. " Not my words, it's a quote.

I think everyone wants to mean well and assume that others come in that WANT to reform. This is not always the case at all.

This is also exactly how many groups of people come into our churches, communities, cities, towns and country and eventually push their own agenda and change the entire structure of what was once a respectful peaceful non violent society.

For those quoting verses about Jesus being accepting, remember he said sin no more not continue on with your own beliefs and we will all just accept it.

Oh well perhaps we will visit a ward out of our area or some places that expects that a house of worship is to be respected.

[Leah]

First of all to answer all of the above, no we are not perfect, but a total lack of respect is another thing. What is the difference between accepting and enabling.

As to prison chaplain, while it is true that in the 1950's we were taught to wear dresses, modest clothing, (mainstream makeup and tasteful jewelry were not frowned upon ) at least in the church we grew up. But self respect and respect for a place of worship was expected.

I am also not implying or suggesting that we need to hide away from the outside world. But I do have to ask parents, to what extent do you allow your children to associate with others. Are you saying that it's ok for your children to associate, go to camp with, attend Sunday school (and or be taught by) ANYONE????

If these people were NOT baptized and attending the church, would you want your kids associating with them or would you for that matter want to, but the exception is they managed to get baptized.

WE are not talking people struggling and overcoming wearing jeans in church, too much makeup, smoking, drinking etc: (wish that was all it was).

What about people teaching a class or getting up in front of everyone at fast and testament saying "I know this church is true......" then attending a class right after saying I expect everyone to accept me as I am. And that same person get up in front of the church in a mini skirt, boobs hanging out under a sheer top, tatoos with F words and photos of guns and violence? Ok call me judgmental all you want.

Or another that held a temple recommend with the F words tatoo visably.

Sorry but I am all for teaching responsibility as well as respect. Forgiveness is fine also but enabling and condoning i not.

There are people that have an agenda for being a member even when they full well are open about not even coming close to trying to "work through" anything. Instead they come to get some free handouts or to meet people and solicit kids.

No one is perfect, but those who have no intention to try and respect the church they claim to be true is another story.

Don't you have the same expectation when you make choices that are at odds with church teachings?

I would ask you this question...what good are we doing by barring these people from coming to church? Does that make their lives better? Does it make your life better? What would be accomplished by banishing them?

[Windseeker]

I think a better question may be what good are you doing by going inactive?

[mnn727]

The Church is not a refuge for the perfect, its a hospital for sinners who are trying to get better.

Regarding the tattooed people, luckily yours and my sins are not on display for everyone to see.

Have you talked to your Bishop about your concerns?

Edited October 15, 2012 by mnn727

[Vort]

I would also point out that getting a tattoo is not "sinful", just a bad idea that we have been counseled against. For those who are not even members of the Church, getting a tattoo doesn't even rise to the level of a bad idea. Somewhat foolish, at worst. Tattoos should generally be a non-issue.

[Dravin]

I would also point out that getting a tattoo is not "sinful", just a bad idea that we have been counseled against. For those who are not even members of the Church, getting a tattoo doesn't even rise to the level of a bad idea. Somewhat foolish, at worst. Tattoos should generally be a non-issue.

To be fair to Sarah it seems to be the content of the tattoo that's the issue not so much that there are visible tattoos. At least that's the sense I get. While I don't see myself separating myself from the Church because of the presence of a tattoo with profanity on it, I could see requesting (politely and without casting scorn) of someone that they make some effort to make the F-bomb on their arm (or what have you) inconspicuous if they're teaching my children (suggesting a Band-aid, or long sleeve shirt or what have you).

Edited October 15, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

To be fair to Sarah it seems to be the content of the tattoo that's the issue not so much that there are visible tattoos. At least that's the sense I get.

Right. I was speaking in general. If a Church member gets a blatantly offensive tattoo, that is cause for concern, at least concern about the brother or sister showing poor judgment. But it's for the bishop to deal with.

[SisterSarah]

I think a better question may be what good are you doing by going inactive?

Perhaps for the same reason people make choices on where to send their children to school

Many people send their children to Christian schools, charter schools and places where moral values are not only in the handbook, but enforced and expected of students. Perhaps the same reason that Clubs and organizations like the girl scouts, boy scouts, and a number of adult organizations have suggested dress codes that they expect that their participants or members abide by. Perhaps why people choose to live in areas, or do business in areas other than the ghetto where they do not need to be subjected to obscenities and violence. Perhaps the same reason why some businesses post signs that refuse to serve people without shirts, shoes or smoke on their grounds.

Perhaps the same reason why people make choices on not being around music with obscenities, or frequenting places where pornography is acceptable and in plain view.

Perhaps the above paragraph may explain why we had interest in the LDS church in the first place. Because we identified with the teachings, and the family values.

Perhaps the same reason why we didn't join an extremist mosque or organization that displayed hate and violence.

No one is suggesting the banishment of anyone. What I think should be accepted however, is when people refuse to comply with the basic respect and expectations of a group, they are told they must comply with certain behavior standards or come back when they are ready to do so.

Personally, if someone makes it known that the only reason they are coming is to get their grocery list filled and get help with their rent but no one should judge their behavior, it is a dis service to other members and makes the teachings appear to be a farce or unimportant.

We simply do not want to be a part of accepting this disrespect and enabling this kind of behavior which will only continue to get worse.

Like anything else, people can and will choose what they will attend and will or will not support. I think that it's important to work on retention of members who get confused by what the church allows and stands for rather than continuing to baptize people to meet quotas. This is becoming common practice not just isolated instance. What's next spray painting graffiti on the walls and expecting other members to show up to clean up after them? Where does it end.

No we are no perfect, but I would hope people would have enough respect to make an attempt to walk the talk. If not exactly what is the point.

[Dravin]

Right. I was speaking in general. If a Church member gets a blatantly offensive tattoo, that is cause for concern, at least concern about the brother or sister showing poor judgment. But it's for the bishop to deal with.

Honestly, I'd say the first step would be a polite request, then the Bishop. At least assuming you can keep your calm and be polite and loving about such a request. If the subject or individual upsets you so that you can't keep any ire, scorn, or bile from being involved in such a request* then I would suggest addressing your concern to the Bishop first. Ultimately of course, it is the Bishop's to deal with, but I don't think that means reasonable adults can't attempt to solve differences and disputes among themselves first before involving the Bishop (for stuff of this nature).

*And that includes your response if you're brushed off.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Dravin

[Backroads]

While I sympathize with the shock and anger you feel when people are pretty much being hypocrites... you don't know what is in their heart or how they see and interpret their own actions. If I'm reading you right, you joined the Church because of the culture and atmosphere you believed it would promote... and then found yourself sorely disappointed. That's fair to be upset about.

Are you blaming those who are doing the best they can, living good lives, who aren't going out of their way to stop the behaviors of others? It's good to set an example and to expect others to be their best, but many people follow the concept of "change yourself first" and there's not much you can do to stop that.

[SisterSarah]

To be fair to Sarah it seems to be the content of the tattoo that's the issue not so much that there are visible tattoos. At least that's the sense I get. While I don't see myself separating myself from the Church because of the presence of a tattoo with profanity on it, I could see requesting (politely and without casting scorn) of someone that they make some effort to make the F-bomb on their arm (or what have you) inconspicuous if they're teaching my children (suggesting a Band-aid, or long sleeve shirt or what have you).

Good grief!!!!!

I am not some old complaining futty dutty talking about a mere tatoo here, and we don't have band aids large enough. Body cast perhaps! But no one is attempting to cover anything. Actually one removed her top to show the artwork on her back as well.

Like on this forum, the ward seems not to care or want to bother and we are not talking ONE person because these folks have recruited their friends (free food and rent) can draw a bit of a crowd). F words (that can be read from across the room) prominently displayed and definitely not covered but deliberately displayed for affect (so everyone can accept it), and language that matches the tatoos.

And it is not just tatoos. OK I get that people have sins and some behavior that had to work on correcting. But people that don't recognize the behavior as wrong in the first place, and people that insist everyone else needs to accept the behavior as normal, is wrong by any standards. You can't even behave like that in most inner city public schools without a reprimand at best.

But lets just keep defending the poor sinners (albeit they don't believe in anything being wrong) and call those judgmental that get tired on showing up every Sunday to this. We are just so done with it.

[Guest]

Are you saying these people get up and actually say that they don't believe LDS doctrine, but the food and rent money are great? There are people I've suspected probably take advantage, but they also generally lived LDS standards and I admittedly didn't know all the circumstances.

It would bug me, too. But really, the resources of the Church and ward are in the bishop's stewardship, and it's his call. Again, it sounds like you need to have a chat with him. It might not change anything but then again, it could. At very least maybe he can help you understand and feel better about some things.

[SisterSarah]

Honestly, I'd say the first step would be a polite request, then the Bishop. At least assuming you can keep your calm and be polite and loving about such a request. If the subject or individual upsets you so that you can't keep any ire, scorn, or bile from being involved in such a request* then I would suggest addressing your concern to the Bishop first. Ultimately of course, it is the Bishop's to deal with, but I don't think that means reasonable adults can't attempt to solve differences and disputes among themselves first before involving the Bishop (for stuff of this nature).

*And that includes your response if you're brushed off.

Thanks for the tip, but good luck. Make an appoint with a secretary and hope someone gets back to you without telling you it's judgmental.

AS for the comment that we joined because of the good values, that is true. Had it been this way when we joined MANY years ago, we likely would not have returned after one or two visits at best.

And many of YOU are not reading this thread in it's entirety and assuming that people are working on improvement. What part is not read that it has been blatantly stated that they do not intend or wish to change anything and that it is up to us to be accepting.

Oh well thanks for your time.

Looking for somewhere to pray and study scriptures with much less distraction and much more respect

[Guest]

I have never encountered that type of behavior, widespread, in the many wards I've been in throughout my life. The one family I can think of that wanted a free ticket without giving anything back didn't stick around long. Last I heard they were mooching off my neighbor's baptist church.

[Backroads]

Okay, you're right, I'm done trying to be respectful.

Here you go: I'm soooo sorry I did not immediately and automatically jump up with you to condemn people I don't even know. I'm soooo sorry I didn't find out where your ward was and drive there to lecture everyone and singlehandedly find and improve every unsatisfactory member of that ward. I'm soooo sorry I did not notice your total and absolute proof that NO ONE to whom you refer is working on improvement

A little more serious:

And maybe you're right, maybe it ought to be done. But it also doesn't jive with my personal spiritual feelings and approaches, and I'm sorry about that, too.

Whatever you decide to do, I do hope you continue on your personal spirituality and testimony.

[SisterSarah]

Eowyn,

Neither had we and we have been around for a long while and moved a few times so this is not our original ward. It may have started as one person or "family" but apparently word got out somewhere. Suffice it to say people will work the system especially when the system is a tad weak and it's questionable who is minding the store.

But if we are going to feed these folks the least they can be is respectful.

Times are changing I guess.

[Vort]

Also worth noting is that, while the Church works very, very hard to correlate both doctrinal teachings and Church administration, the actual day-to-day work is done by local leaders, bishops and stake presidents. These men vary in individual style, perception, and understanding. It is entirely possible that some individual local bishop is being naive or even derelict in his duties. If so, that's regrettable, but says nothing about the Church as a whole.

Being a member of the LDS Church is more than just a Bible study group or someplace to go on Sunday to hang out with friendly people. The LDS Church claims to be, very literally, the kingdom of God on earth, with the power of the Priesthood. If this claim is false, then it's arguably better not to be a member of such an organization at all. But if the claim is true -- and it is -- then leaving the Church for any reason is an act of spiritual suicide. And leaving the Church over a trifle (like that some idiot somewhere is taking advantage of our largesse) is simply unthinkable.