Faith Crisis? Trust Crisis? or Both?

There are various things that we can lose trust in. Example:

You run across information about the peepstone. Leaders tell you that the peepstone is an anti-Mormon lie. You struggle with the information but through fasting and prayer the spirit tells you that the peepstone is something people made up in order to tear down the church. Years later you discover that there was a peepstone.

You could lose trust in the leaders, they initially led you further away from the more accurate portrayal of church history. You could lose faith in god, how did you get that spiritual confirmation that the peepstone stories were made up if the stories turned out to be true?

There are escape clauses. The leaders only spoke from their limited knowledge, just like we speak from our limited knowledge, communication with god is not a science, etc. but those still land you back at square one, how can I trust them? For me the question became, how do I trust myself? I was the one that placed trust in church leaders. I was the one that placed my trust in what I believed to be spiritual confirmations. After the FC the question became, if I can’t trust others and I can’t trust myself, who or what can I trust?

Things get much trickier when you feel like leaders deliberately steered you away from more accurate narratives.

– – – – –

Letting my guard down for a moment:

Where I struggle is that if the 3 hour block had one moral, one idea that we continue to come back to, it’s “trust the leaders.” Every ward is different but that’s the theme we keep coming back to. It can be super hard to listen to that instruction week in and week out when you’ve learned not to place faith in leaders. They’re just regular people doing the best they know to do, and yes, that’s not always the correct thing.

Lately we’ve been spending an increasing amount of time criticizing people that have left the church. In SM talks, in SS, during PH. They put their faith in the leaders and they should have put it in Christ, they need to put their faith in the leaders and come back to church. But time spent on being critical of doubters and critics is just another continuation of the theme to “trust the leaders.” The critics didn’t, and look what happened to them.

Lessons on the restoration. Trust the leaders.

Lessons on the power of the PH. Trust the leaders.

And that all may very well be me projecting but loyalty to the leaders peppers our discourse and I wonder whether we’ll ever move on to discussing principles, not mediums through which principles are received.

I guess I should end in a question. How do you thrive in a community that places a lot of emphasis on trusting leaders when you’ve learned through experience that complete trust in leaders is a dead end? Do you say to yourself, “some people need leaders with where they’re currently at in their spiritual journey” and call it a day?

Should we respect those who do what they feel is right, even when we feel they are wrong? If not, how can we expect Church leaders and the faithful members of the Church to respect us? Are we at an impasse?

I’ll preface this by saying that each side is responsible for themselves, one side telling the other to be respectful is not going to be very productive. That said… :angel:

Should we respect those who do what they feel is right, even when we feel they are wrong? If not, how can we expect people who have left the church to respect us? Are we at an impasse?

I haven’t done a whole lot of disrespecting at church, I keep my mouth shut and my head down, yet I’ll often come out of meetings feeling disrespected. Those critics, doubters, and people that have left the church that we sometimes disparage… some of them haven’t left yet and they’re there listening to everything we’re saying.

And I do realize the irony of my statements.

There are escape clauses. The leaders only spoke from their limited knowledge, just like we speak from our limited knowledge, communication with god is not a science, etc. but those still land you back at square one, how can I trust them? For me the question became, how do I trust myself? I was the one that placed trust in church leaders. I was the one that placed my trust in what I believed to be spiritual confirmations. After the FC the question became, if I can’t trust others and I can’t trust myself, who or what can I trust?

Things get much trickier when you feel like leaders deliberately steered you away from more accurate narratives.

Yup. Silent Dawning taught me that the church is a corporation as well as a church organization. Therefore, it is not in the best interest of the corporation to “rock the boat” by bringing stuff up/instructing the leaders prematurely. I also think that the top down geriatic structure did not do the corporation any favors – because the advancing technology changed the spiritual landscape faster than and more quickly than anticipated – and the leaders making the decisions were not of the same generation of the people running, creating, and advancing the technology.

Heber has taught me that while I may not be able to trust myself, keep practicing and identifying the instances where I do trust myself correctly is a start.

Hawkgrrl taught me to expect that the process of “Becoming an Adult of God” would require myself to learn to act for myself and not wait for God to answer prayers – to trust in my inner divine person.

Letting my guard down for a moment:

Where I struggle is that if the 3 hour block had one moral, one idea that we continue to come back to, it’s “trust the leaders.” Every ward is different but that’s the theme we keep coming back to. It can be super hard to listen to that instruction week in and week out when you’ve learned not to place faith in leaders. They’re just regular people doing the best they know to do, and yes, that’s not always the correct thing.

Lately we’ve been spending an increasing amount of time criticizing people that have left the church. In SM talks, in SS, during PH. They put their faith in the leaders and they should have put it in Christ, they need to put their faith in the leaders and come back to church. But time spent on being critical of doubters and critics is just another continuation of the theme to “trust the leaders.” The critics didn’t, and look what happened to them.

Lessons on the restoration. Trust the leaders.

Lessons on the power of the PH. Trust the leaders.

I can relate to this. I respectfully shut it down in the meetings I am in using the protocols I learned here.

In R.S. one time the atheists/agnostics were getting beat up (as usual), and I reminded the sisters that there is a good chance that that person was in mourning, because (on some level) God died (in their eyes), and that we could show compassion and assistance towards them by mourning with them (if we are in a position to do so).

My husband says that I am a loose cannon in church meetings sometimes – but the sisters loved it when I taught R.S. lessons last year, and no one has ever told me I was out of line. Of course, I have never gotten any theoretical coveted callings either – Primary teacher with a 1 month stint as R.S. teacher. I am also an unofficial nursery leader and unofficially on the Achievement Day board/Achievement Day leader.

If there is a specific purpose for my life, I am sure that it is taking my divergent points of view and communicating them effectively to disperse the “echo chamber” effect.

And that all may very well be me projecting but loyalty to the leaders peppers our discourse and I wonder whether we’ll ever move on to discussing principles, not mediums through which principles are received.

I make the same projections. I redirect the conversations towards principles not mediums whenever possible. Usually someone follows my lead though.

I guess I should end in a question. How do you thrive in a community that places a lot of emphasis on trusting leaders when you’ve learned through experience that complete trust in leaders is a dead end? Do you say to yourself, “some people need leaders with where they’re currently at in their spiritual journey” and call it a day?

Yes, I do say similar things.

But usually, it comes out something like this, “I hear what the leader is saying and postulate reasons why the leader is saying that to lead people. What is the underlying principle the leader is trying to guide the people to, and how does it apply to me? Does it relate to loving others and being more charitable? Y/N. If it does not lead to charity, then I either smile and nod, or plot a way that I can incorporate the principle into being more charitable.”

There is a book on ethical contractualism entitled, “What We Owe To Each Other” (Thank you “The Good Place”). I got through the first chapter (maybe – it’s a really hard read), but I feel the question bears asking at different points and places in my life. I do mentally ask now, “what do I owe this situation in my authentic choices” – and act according to the best of my ability.

I’d say most of the times, you can say a faith crisis means a loss in trust over what someone said about God. So you can’t have a faith crisis without a trust crisis, but I suppose you can have a trust crisis without a faith crisis.

Wonderfully put.

If I can’t trust others and I can’t trust myself, who or what can I trust?

I’ve felt this way before. But honestly, it lead me to distrust others’ spiritual confirmations even more. Because I knew that they could fully “know”, believe, and bare testimony of something that wasn’t true. The most dangerous lies are told by those who honestly believe them. But at the same time, I have to have compassion, because they are doing what they feel is right. It leaves in an uncomfortable position with the Church. “I like you. But I don’t trust you.”

I had never put it that way before, but that is the tension – “I like you but I don’t trust you”.

Part of the tensions between the genders at church I think is connected to this. As a woman, I like most of my male leaders – and have gotten some good counsel and support from them BUT I don’t trust them to know what it feels like to be a woman at church (and I am making peace with that). One of the most touching teachings from Sister Chieko Okazaki was about this subject (indirectly). She taught that in the Garden of Gethsamene, Jesus Christ experienced some of the unique female experiences as part of the Atonement process.

“We know that Jesus experienced the totality of mortal existence in Gethsemane. It’s our faith that he experienced everything- absolutely everything. Sometimes we don’t think through the implications of that belief. We talk in great generalities about the sins of all humankind, about the suffering of the entire human family. But we don’t experience pain in generalities. We experience it individually…Let me go further. There is nothing you have experienced as a woman that he does not also know and recognize. On a profound level, he understands the hunger to hold your baby that sustains you through pregnancy. He understands both the physical pain of giving birth and the immense joy. He knows about PMS and cramps and menopause. He understands about rape and infertility and abortion. His last recorded words to his disciples were, “And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20) He understands your mother-pain when your five-year-old leaves for kindergarten, when a bully picks on your fifth-grader, when your daughter calls to say that the new baby has Down syndrome. He knows your mother-rage when a trusted babysitter sexually abuses your two-year-old, when someone gives your thirteen-year-old drugs, when someone seduces your seventeen-year-old. He knows the pain you live with when you come home to a quiet apartment where the only children are visitors, when you hear that your former husband and his new wife were sealed in the temple last week, when your fiftieth wedding anniversary rolls around and your husband has been dead for two years. He knows all that. He’s been there. He’s been lower than all that. He’s not waiting for us to be perfect. Perfect people don’t need a Savior. He came to save his people in their imperfections. He is the Lord of the living, and the living make mistakes. He’s not embarrassed by us, angry at us, or shocked. He wants us in our brokenness, in our unhappiness, in our guilt and our grief.

Because honestly, as much as many of us hate the November Policy, our prophet fully believes with all his heart, that it came directly from God as revelation. And it’s through that exact same priesthood, and God-given revelation that we have received everything in the Church, right down to the Book of Mormon. It’s through those feelings of the Spirit, that was meant to confirm to us the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, which has also confirmed to many Latter-Day Saints, that the November policy is the will of God.

Should we respect those who do what they feel is right, even when we feel they are wrong? If not, how can we expect Church leaders and the faithful members of the Church to respect us? Are we at an impasse?

I think we keep the tension between the groups (because it can be a source of growth). If we are not there respectfully asking for a second look at policies, protocols, and practices in place, the leadership will not see a reason to change. I cannot see how the leadership “coincidently” started asking for ways women could be more involved in church (in 2015 and 2016 on) without the “Ordain Women” movement in 2014. It took a combination of watching what the Catholic Church as been going through and the pressure brought by organized groups of concerned parents and teachers to get the handbook re-written to include adults in the minor interviewing process.

I don’t expect church leaders and faithful members of the church to respect me – I hope for it, and do my part to be worthy of their respect as long as I can authentically do so. For me, my faith transition took the already nebulously external loci of control (raised by atheists and agnostics – skeptical of following anyone blindly) and pulled it more into an internal loci of personal control. Leadership roulette worked in my favor because I have a branch president who knows in broad terms where I am and has done nothing retaliatory. We are well out of the corridor, so my branch needs me and (by stereotype extension my family) greatly. Being female means that I cannot be excluded from participating in family rites of passage such as baptism (we’ll deal with the temple situation in 4-10 years minimum).

I think that we have always been at an impasse – and that is part of the plan. I think that the church focused on “being one” and “unity” to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people – and it works for them. It has only been in the last 5 years I think that individuals have stopped trying to fit into the unity=equaling homogenous mold (to one extent or another) and have been drifting away in enough numbers that the church leadership is being forced to take notice.

One of the shattering realizations I experienced recently was that in my marriage, my spirituality and faith experiences were always going to be different and always had been different than my husband’s. I had the expectation that they would be the same as we became more united as a couple. Viewing the faith experiences is more like looking at a rainbow (where each rainbow is an illusion formed by the angle of the light hitting the water and the angle of the individual perceiving the rainbow) rather then looking at the same painting.

Topics that people have a difficult time with because it’s harder to tell yourself, “they’re saying that because they don’t know any better” or that they simply believe differently. Leaders are people that say and do stupid things to protect their beliefs, just like we do.

Sort of back tracking on what I said earlier, one thing that does hurt my trust in leaders, is the lengths they will go for their beliefs. I talked about this a while back, in a post I created on “Pious Fraud”, or in other words, acting dishonestly in order to get others to believe something you hold to be true. We’ve seen this a lot outside the Church, with certain political movements (hoping not to get too political here), where fake photos would be taken of the “aftermath” of someone getting “beat up” for holding certain political beliefs or belonging to a certain demographic. Or when racist/sexist/bigoted graffiti gets sprayed in order to demonize the other side, and garner sympathy for their own. People feel the virtue of their cause justifies the deception.

It’s pretty apparent to me, this happened on some level with Joseph Smith and the First Vision. We see in the different accounts, where details were changed or embellished; it’s hard to tell exactly what happened, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Joseph Smith was too sure himself. I think that’s the nature of visions. But without those embellishments, I don’t think many people would’ve gotten as much out of the story, or believed him (and the miracles proceeding) on the same level.

Back to the original topic, I think sometimes church leaders have to claim a certain level of inspiration and revelation, even when it’s not there. Otherwise, how will people have faith and trust in them? Why would most members follow the prophet, if they felt 95% of what they said was simply “personal thoughts with good intentions”?

Sort of back tracking on what I said earlier, one thing that does hurt my trust in leaders, is the lengths they will go for their beliefs. I talked about this a while back, in a post I created on “Pious Fraud”, or in other words, acting dishonestly in order to get others to believe something you hold to be true.

Yes. Looking at the stories of Paul H. Dunn, he would sometimes exaggerate elements of his story to make it more exciting. This had a side effect of making Brother Dunn himself seem “lager than life” in his experiences and accomplishments. Now compare this to the individuals that bore witness during the Utah period of the “transfiguration” event of BY (at least one of whom could not have been there). There is no personal aggrandizement in these later testimonies. It is all for the glory of the church and the assurance of divine approval for the currently constituted leadership.

That type of hyperbole, exaggeration, and faith promoting rumor spreading (to the glory of the organization) appears to me to be pretty normal and seen as “loyalty” in the church.

I believe firmly that church leaders know that they are not telling the unvarnished truth but:

1) Those in leadership believe strongly in the divinity of the system. Therefore whatever obfuscation occurs can be rationalized as “milk before meat” or as the spoonful of sugar that helps the sometimes foul smelling but also eternally necessary medicine to go down.

2) The culture of the system is strong and those that diverge from the more traditional Pollyanna narrative are discouraged in both overt and subtle ways.

For me, my faith transition took the already nebulously external loci of control (raised by atheists and agnostics – skeptical of following anyone blindly) and pulled it more into an internal loci of personal control

I found the doctrines of the LDS to bolster my perception of control over my own destiny. It was an undeniable realization that I have much less control than previosly supposed that was fatal to my previous faith assumptions. How interesting that your faith transition has left you feeling more in control – not less.

I guess that technically, my faith transition has helped me to evaluate how much control I really have.

As a precursor to my faith transition, I watched a lecture where an ADHD researcher presented the concept that the primary factor in self-control and the ability to regulate behaviors/emotions is genetics and how the brain is wired. That was a huge deviation from what I am used to thinking about and being taught (that the spirit is sovereign) – so it was something to mull over. People mull over their family histories, and some people choose to abstain entirely from specific items because they know their heritage predisposes them to certain behaviors they want to avoid.

To be honest, I am not sure how much I trust myself or my authority to make decisions, but the person who stands to loose the most in any decision is me – so I might as well become my own expert and claim my own internal power and authority in my choices that are perceived to be or are really in my control.

Being female means that I cannot be excluded from participating in family rites of passage such as baptism (we’ll deal with the temple situation in 4-10 years minimum).

Ironically, this is because as a female you have always been excluded. You cannot know the shame of having your seat at the “cool table” revoked because you were never invited to the cool table in the first place.

Yup.

Efforts are made to downplay it, “You’ll get your turn, eventually… (ie in the next life)”, and “It’s not that cool anyways”.

There is also the guilt version, “You’re taking away valuable leadership opportunities from someone else”.

I don’t belong to the “cool table” for LDS women either – I don’t do crafts, cute handouts, or home-made cookies. I didn’t go to an LDS college. I helped raise my 8 siblings – and functioned like a 3rd parent for most of my teenage years (Which gave me a depth and maturity at a young age that didn’t really fit with my peers). It is in adapting the description of Asperger’s Autism that I began to see that my perceptions of non-verbal communication created a unique understanding of human relationships in my mind because of what I was analyzing and wasn’t picking up. I still remember my husband’s look on his face when I explained to him that when I walk into a room, I analyze the emotional atmosphere of the room the systematic and clinical way that a doctor diagnoses diseases and illnesses instead of intuitively analyzing the situation the way most people do. NOTE: He was quick to commend me in finding something that works, after pointing out that most people don’t work the way I do in non-verbal communications.

BUT I create my own “cool table” to include those who want to be at my table.

One of the shattering realizations I experienced recently was that in my marriage, my spirituality and faith experiences were always going to be different and always had been different than my husband’s. I had the expectation that they would be the same as we became more united as a couple.

In some ways we are uniquely alone as we percieve our experiences and the world around us through our “one of a kind” lens. OTOH, this makes building diverse communities and relationships all the more beautiful. By comparing and contrasting our unique perceptions we can each get a more full 360 degree understanding of our world and also open up small windows into what it must be like to perceive the world through the “lens” of somebody else.

Yup.

But the greater lesson that I pull from it is that ALL marriages have that difference in perception – we just don’t teach it over the pulpit and look around furtively in our R.S. meetings (and presumably the quorum meetings). The EXPECTATION is that “Be One” sets an unrealistic marital standard to conform spiritually. The REALITY has mileage that varies.

Several times in the last 6 months or so, my husband and I have ended up in quasi-heated conversations where his trust to “preside” over the spiritual well-being of our family and his expectation that we share the same spiritual beliefs overrode what I felt was my personal reality I was presenting. Or my personal opinion.

We finally compromised? settled? into an understanding that he doesn’t preach at me, and I don’t actively counter the teachings of the church or its leaders.