Carolyn Homer of Washington, D. Three years later, Jenson has returned to her Latter-day Saint community but in her own way. I will not pay tithing. I do not sustain the general authorities. I don't want a calling, and I don't attend classes. I am my kind of Mormon, and that kind of Mormon is just fine.
Jenson is a strong, independent woman, though, and worries about others who try to do the same thing. No one has pointed out that I am not wearing garments. It may not be so easy to escape church consequences in other places — like church-owned Brigham Young University. A recently returned missionary, who asked not to be named for fear of school reprisals, no longer wears her garments. After she stopped wearing them, her mental health improved, she says. When the BYU student told friends about discontinuing garment-wearing.
In every ward I've attended, the majority of LDS members are quiet, reasonable, practical, sensible folk. Focus on them -- and ignore the blowhards if you can't make them your friend.
Try to keep in mind that the general membership of the church is often completely out of step with the LDS Church leadership. Culture is very hard to change with 5,, active members. Sometimes it just takes time. If you listen very carefully to General Conference these days, you will find that a great deal of what is taught today by LDS authorities is actually quite positive, uplifting, and even progressive.
So keep that in mind. Large ships sometimes take a long time to turn around. The brethren really are trying. We church members are sometimes slow to see and hear the gradual changes. My wife and I actually teach our kids and this is kind of tough, I'll admit that we don't go to church because we think our church is better than others. We tell them that we go to the LDS Church because:. In addition, we never discuss the church with them in terms of it being "true" or inherently superior to other churches.
Early in our transition the middle way, we would use Sunday dinner time to ask the kids what they were taught on Sunday, and to "de-program" or "disabuse" them of any bad teachings. This was valuable because it re-trained them to realize that they didn't need to blindly believe everything they were taught in church. While there are several traditional LDS or Christian teachings that we reject, here is a short list of a few examples:.
To summarize, teach your kids to do in church what you teach them to do with everything in their lives, including TV, movies, books, school, friends, etc. Seek out the good in these things for there is great good in all of them. Avoid the bad in these things. Teach them to never blindly believe or follow everything they're told in any of these areas -- church or otherwise. Should your children demonstrate respect? Of course, for those who deserve it.
Never blind obedience. Teach them to use their heads, hearts and spirit -- together -- to determine for themselves what's right, and what's wrong. The church is actually a wonderful laboratory to help practice, and eventually instill this teaching within them. When we first started sitting our kids down for Sunday dinner and asking them to enumerate all that they learned in church that day, we would then start picking it all apart.
We tried to systematically analyze and criticize all of the bad stuff. As you might imagine, this ended up being a very negative experience for all, and tended to amplify the negative aspects of their church experience in their minds. Simply put, this was a disaster. It took us a while to realize that cynicism and negativity were more harmful to our souls than dogmatic religious tenets and observance. Consequently, we have tried to teach our kids correct principles, tell them they don't have to believe all things they are taught, and encourage them to focus on the positive aspects of church in our conversations, wherever possible.
In summary, we strongly recommend keeping your focus on the good in the church, because there is much good. Kids should definitely feel comfortable talking openly about their frustrations. But they also need to be reminded to seek out the good in imperfect situations: in church, and in all other aspects of their lives. Many not all of the people I see leave the church are struggling emotionally, in addition to whatever they are feeling about the church.
Maybe they have poor health, a really cruddy marriage, a job that makes them miserable, etc. I'm not saying that these folks don't have good cause to be frustrated with the church at times. What I am saying is that some people who leave the church might also have personal problems that extend way beyond the church.
Instead of facing those difficult problems, they might focus all their anger at the church. The church is an easy scapegoat because it's a human organization being expected to live up to "only trueness.
In the areas where you're seriously disappointed by the church, I'm sure you have cause to feel that way. But in addition to dealing with your church-related frustrations, consider looking very closely at your personal life unrelated to the church. Try to determine if there are any personal issues eating at you from the inside. Jesus taught , "if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Buddha taught: Fix yourself, and make peace with your faith tradition before you ever consider abandoning it for something else even if the "something else" is Buddhism. If you do not resolve the issues that trouble you, you will just bring the anger and issues with you wherever you go. All you have to do is look at the RFM board to know that healing is not necessarily on the other end of the journey away from the church.
Oftentimes, leaving the church turns out to be an exercise in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater. By discarding the church, you may risk discarding one potential path to resolving your personal problems. To borrow a metaphor, an immunization is not perfect. It hurts your arm or other body part. It causes you to bleed. Sometimes it can even make you feel "woozy. So it can be with the church. Not always, but definitely sometimes.
The church, warts and all, can be a wonderful place to inch towards perfection. See Eugene England's essay on " Why the church is as true as the gospel " for more insight in this regard. It's definitely worth the read. If you are not feeling spiritually filled by your affiliation with the LDS Church, do not hesitate to supplement with other sources.
I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. Some look to other Christian denominations or Buddhism to fill a void.
Without the church-supported community, how else would you find out about the sister who is pregnant, on bedrest, and needs a meal for her family? Or the good brother, or child, who has cancer? Or the widow? Or the father who has lost his job? Chances to serve are chances to love, to build meaningful relationships, and to build your own sense of worth and self-esteem. They are even chances to "lose yourself" in service and put your own problems in perspective.
Nonetheless, in giving service, you do not need to run faster than you have strength. You can respond to many service opportunities by silently saying, " if I could help, I would. But my needs and my family's needs come first, and I do not have the emotional or financial resources or time to help in that particular situation. Still, the church can be a great place to find out about opportunities to serve that will fit your ability to give. And who knows, every once in a while especially if you've paid your dues by serving others , that service just may come back to you in a time of real need.
Don't think of the church as a place to "receive. Eventually you will find that in giving, you receive. I never advocate lying, but I would encourage you to use extreme caution when speaking to church members -- especially church leaders -- about your issues regarding church history, doctrine or culture. Do not unnecessarily introduce topics or issues to church leadership that will threaten their faith, or cause them to question your loyalty.
Resist the temptation to go into the bishop's office and dump all of your doubts and fears upon him. Frankly, the overwhelming majority of bishops are not trained or equipped to handle tough church history or doctrine, or even simple nuance for that matter. Most of the time, LDS bishops are just trying to keep their own jobs and families from falling apart and keep the ward running, while trying to convince Sister Jones to not leave Brother Jones.
Tackling polyandry and peep stones are about the furthest things from their minds -- and should probably remain so. If you never bring this stuff up, it likely will never come up. If you do bring it up, it can lead to really uncomfortable, and even highly discouraging situations.
Also, realize that there can be a huge variation in approaches and reactions depending on the bishop. I've seen super-tolerant bishops who will accept virtually any type of faith as valid even a hope -- and I've seen bishops who are hard liners, and will actively seek to prevent you from baptizing your own children if you happen to express the wrong concerns.
Be very careful before you open up to your bishop about these matters. Once you do, there is likely no "stuffing the genie back in the bottle. The temple recommend interview process is very intimidating to folks who have become disaffected from Mormonism. More often than not, we hold in our minds an extreme, literalistic, orthodox and I'd add dramatically unrealistic expectation as to what the bishop, or even the brethren expect us to believe when they ask the recommend questions.
For example:. Truth be told, there have been numerous LDS General Authorities who differed among themselves on a whole host of fundamental aspects of Mormon doctrine -- from the nature of God and man, to the atonement, to Word of Wisdom observance. We should not assume that our interpretations of church doctrine and policy must align perfectly with those of Brigham Young and Bruce R.
Apostles themselves have differed greatly over issues like evolution, birth control, age of the earth, Book of Mormon historicity, valiance of blacks in the pre-mortal existence, etc. Consequently, you might consider lowering the pressure that comes from assuming your answers to the bishop's questions have to line up exactly with the most literalistic and extreme interpretations of LDS doctrine.
There's a reason why David O. McKay stopped publication of Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine; it's because much of it actually wasn't. When they ask about belief in God, they don't ask if you believe in an anthropomorphic God. At a minimum, perhaps you believe in some divine power, force, and sense of meaning or purpose in this life.
If so, is it dishonest to label that indescribable power "God," and to then answer this question in the affirmative? Perhaps it's something to consider. Also, it would be silly to deny the possibility of an anthropomorphic God. Who really knows in the end what is out there. We might even be surprised.
This is what I call "faith" or "hope" -- and certainly it meets Christ's bar of worthiness as mentioned above. Once someone begins studying the process by which the New Testament was compiled not actually written by the apostles, but handed down by oral tradition sometimes generations before it was actually written down , it becomes quite natural to begin questioning your assumptions about a historical Jesus.
Fortunately, when they ask about Jesus and the Atonement, they don't go into this detail. Instead, they simply ask if you have a testimony of Jesus as your savior or something to that effect.
Well, at a minimum, I do believe that a man named Jesus once existed, that his teachings have "saved" me from much trouble, pain, and sadness in my life, and that He ultimately died as a martyr for these teachings.
So at a minimum, I accept Jesus as my personal savior in this manner. I'm also very open, and even hopeful, that there is much, much more to the story. Again, this is called faith and hope. I will admit that there is much about the mechanics of the Atonement and the afterlife that I do not understand, but fortunately I am not alone in this regard by any stretch. Who really understands the Atonement? I would argue that no human really does. Restoration, as you will notice, is one of the broadest terms of all.
What exactly do they mean by The Restoration? Do they mean the articles of faith? The Book of Mormon? Dynastic sealings? Adam-God theory? I can assure you that you could say to virtually any bishop, "I don't believe that polygamy is doctrinal, nor that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence," and you would still qualify for a recommend, even though Joseph or Brigham "restored" these doctrines, and taught them as immutable.
And so it is with other aspects of the Restoration. In my mind, there are core teachings of the Restoration, and peripheral ones. For me, the core teachings of the Restoration are: faith, repentance, baptism, service, charity, love, families, clean living, etc.
In addition, I feel very comfortable believing that the teachings and theology taught by Joseph Smith in many important ways drastically improved upon, and in some cases even restored truth and goodness to the world, relative to the prevailing Christian teachings of the day. Just take a few of the 13 articles of faith as examples:. For me, there is enough goodness and truth in the "Restoration" to allow me to say that I have a testimony of it. But then again, neither does President Hinckley.
See his comments to Larry King about polygamy "not doctrinal" , and his comments to Time magazine about God once being a man "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it" as two examples. Didn't President Kimball himself say that Adam-God was not doctrine?
If Presidents Hinckley and Kimball have clearly taught us that not all that was uttered by Joseph and Brigham are included in the "Restoration," it is my opinion that we should believe them. In conclusion, there is much good in the "Restoration" that I can stand behind.
That said, I don't feel compelled to believe all that has been associated with it from to now. When they ask about my support of Gordon B. Hinckley, I feel very comfortable accepting him as my prophet, for two main reasons.
First, I no longer expect perfection from any man, prophets included. Second, I listen very carefully to his conference talks, and virtually everything he teaches today I feel very good about, including staying out of debt, avoiding pornography, being a good husband and father, etc.
I'm not crazy about the church's stance on gays and women, but I see the church as making positive progress relatively speaking on these fronts. As long as they continue to march in the right direction, I can easily take the good with the bad, and accept President Hinckley as my personal prophet, seer, and revelator.
That said, I am not required in the interview to denounce Buddha, Ghandi, Martin Luther, or even David Wilcox as being uninspired, so I don't feel compelled to read this into the question. I used to feel troubled a bit by the keys and authority part of the question, but I now feel very comfortable accepting that President Hinckley has the "keys" or authority to lead members of the LDS Church.
I don't feel compelled to deny that God may have made other provisions for the remaining And again, who knows for sure? Maybe the church does have some uniquely special and specific role to play in the "salvation" of the world.
Last summer, Joseph chose to stop attending church services. He made his decision in the wake of a protest by Sam Young, a businessman and former bishop from Texas. Young had been fasting for weeks to raise awareness about a policy that allowed bishops to conduct one-on-one interviews with minors, often about sexual matters.
His cause struck a chord with Joseph, who was sexually abused when he was younger. Joseph attended several events Young held, and after one of them, he never went back to church again.
Joseph and his wife also announced their decision to their neighbors. He canceled the automatic payments that withdrew a 10 percent tithe from his income each month. But Joseph has joined a new community, one built of former Mormons who have found each other on the internet and who are committed to helping each other navigate the logistical and existential difficulties of leaving the Church. In recent years, the Church has been embattled by the efficiency of the internet.
The internet has also given Mormons new platforms, from forums to podcasts, where they can share their findings. The result has been a mass undoctrination.
Jensen, who was then the official Church historian, fielded a polite hardball question from a woman in the audience. Mormons struggling with questions about their faith can either seek help from their bishop or, says Church spokesman Daniel Woodruff, they can find scriptures, articles from Church leaders, and video libraries on ChurchofJesusChrist.
The Church began releasing the Gospel Topics Essays in One former Mormon tells me she began to have questions about Church history when she was helping her daughter study scripture ahead of her baptism.
We never hid it from anybody. Some members find the questions raised to be disconcerting and wonder whether it is acceptable to have a question about their faith. Joseph started out as a questioner. Many come just to read. Moderator vh65 tells me that some of those downvoters are now regular posters themselves. Now some of them are very well-known, popular posters who completely swing the other way. While unvarnished accounts of Church history have always been available — Fawn M. None of that social queasiness exists on Reddit.
Sometimes users even include their real names in screenshots from QuitMormon. QuitMormon is a pro bono service run by an unassuming T-shirt-and-jeans Utah immigration attorney named Mark Naugle. The year-old has streamlined the process of resigning from the Church. Crucially, the letter also forbids further contact between the Church and his client. Naugle first began helping friends and family with their name removal requests in after graduating from law school in Utah in He lived out of state for a while before moving back to Utah in That November, there was a surge of requests after Mormons learned, through a leak to the media, that children of LGBTQ couples could not get baptized.
In April, Church president Dallin H. After that day, he received 2, emails in 48 hours. People offered to help him build the website and automate the process, and QuitMormon. Naugle has seen more leaps in requests since then. His inbox is like a seismometer for Mormon discontent.
The next morning, Naugle arrived at work. Over the next two weeks, he received about 2, more resignation requests. Naugle went through the process of resigning from the Church in when he was He grew up in Orem, Utah.
0コメント