- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If you’re less active or semi-active, could anything have been done on a local level, or a Church-wide policy level that would have prevented your less or semi-activity? Or do you think you would’ve ended up less-active or semi-active regardless of local actions, or Church policy in general? Based on your experience, what could the Church or local leaders do on a systematic basis that could prevent people from having the various faith or commitment crises people like you have experienced? I know that we usually don’t look outside ourselves for solutions to our problems, but I often wonder if the Church as a whole could focus more on prevention than trying to bring people back they’ve already lost.
I guess if the church would have stopped making all kinds of promises about blessings attached to obedience it might have made a difference. If the church did not promise revelation when it had none to offer might have made a difference. If the church and local officials would have stopped insisting things were true when they are obviously not it might have made a difference. If they could have made membership in the church less tedious and boring maybe it would have made a difference. If the WofW would have been practiced as it was initially intended that would make a difference. If somehow we got more than platitudes and anecdotal stories, but some real substance on the nature of the universe. and what is heaven really like so we have a goal to shoot for and who is God and where did he come from, that would have made a difference. Shall I go on? My point being it was not a matter of better programs or more fellowshipping that would have kept me a faithful member. The church is pretty good at that stuff. It was simply that the church has no answers to the big questions other than pray, pay, and obey. For all the talk of modern day revelation there is precious little of it. No the church would have to produce something more than real estate holdings and unfulfilled promises to get me to believe again. I would need substance beyond what I can get on my own.
If the bishops and church leaders, even my home teachers had accknowledged the John Dehlin video I had sent them about why people leave the church, it would have helped. If they would have shown me some respect and intelligence and willingness to talk about my questions and problems in the church, it would have helped. Instead, it was either stopping all contact or asking us to come to a stake conference or watch general conference. It was always we are the ones with a problem. The church is true and has no problems was the message. Mine could have been prevented but it would have required me keeping my head in the sand. The “follow the head of the corporation” (that’s not exactly how they put it) mentality I guess was my awakening/contention. I guess the #2 reason was the exclusionary (sp?) attitude of the members. I must admit to being that way myself. I really don’t think that’s the way the Lord wants us treating each other…He certainly didn’t. No. Yes. If the ward of my past ten years had kept my membership record and made it clear I was expected to continue active there instead of driving me away to a new assigned ward (a perfectly nice ward, but new is the last thing I need right now) when I couldn’t afford housing in the old ward boundaries due to having forsaken all in my unfortunate divorce for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, I probably would still be active and serving as the membership clerk today.
That said, I am happy with things as they are, I am enjoying attending with my parents, and I don’t ask for things to be any different. I’m simply answering the question factually, not that what was done was bad or good.
SilentDawning wrote:If you’re less active or semi-active, could anything have been done on a local level, or a Church-wide policy level that would have prevented your less or semi-activity? Or do you think you would’ve ended up less-active or semi-active regardless of local actions, or Church policy in general? Based on your experience, what could the Church or local leaders do on a systematic basis that could prevent people from having the various faith or commitment crises people like you have experienced? I know that we usually don’t look outside ourselves for solutions to our problems, but
I often wonder if the Church as a whole could focus more on prevention than trying to bring people back they’ve already lost.Yes, I think the Church should try to serve members more and morph into a kinder gentler organization rather than expecting members to always sacrifice so much for the Church. If they had already done that then I could have easily shrugged off any crisis of faith with an approach similar to Pascal’s Wager where I would say that it doesn’t matter that much whether the doctrines are true or not as long as I like the other members, enjoy the meetings, and they are trying to do something positive so I can feel good about supporting it. However, what has happened instead is that the costs of being a practicing Mormon have become way out of proportion compared to the benefits in this life if you try to do everything the Church asks for and expects out of members.
To counteract this imbalance the Church has relied on promised blessings in this life and the next, fear, public shaming, guilt-trips, peer pressure, sense of duty, etc. to try to motivate people to constantly go against the grain. So far they have made no apologies about these heavy demands and still expect inactive members to repent of their supposed rebellion and conform to all these strict standards rather than ever making any reasonable compromises. I understand that there are many members that would probably be inactive regardless of what the Church does but I definitely think they haven’t done nearly as much as they could to try to retain as many as possible. It seems like many of these inactive members stay away from Church not so much because they are convinced it is false but simply because they didn’t like the boring meetings and/or being told what to do in so much detail and the thought of returning to full activity just doesn’t look very attractive to them.
The Church already has the theological framework where they could implement significant reforms without really needing any major canonized “revelations” like we had to reverse their stance on polygamy and the racial priesthood ban. All they would really have to do to make some positive changes in my opinion is simply shift some of the emphasis in lessons, talks, etc. to focus more on Christian principles like faith, hope, love, forgiveness, etc. and start to de-emphasize things like temple worthiness, testimony, unquestioning obedience to prophets, etc. Even if they continue to talk about prophets, temple marriage, etc. I still think it would be an improvement if they stopped treating all these points like they need to be an absolute deal-breaker if you don’t agree with all of them at the same time. Also, I think they should try to make the meetings a better experience for the average member/investigator and eliminate some of the unnecessary work required for callings by combining meetings and maybe switching to a 2-hour block.
I second DAs comment. I third his comment mostly. I’m not considered less active right now, although in my heart, I am. My TR expired last month and I have no desire to renew it, unfortunately….but I might if I can get myself back to Church.
Anyway, for me, I think the tithing requirement is the one that gets me the most. Also, if there could be less corporate-like behavior, and a sense of real appreciation for the gobs of free labor and money the members put out, that would be appreciated. This would address the three commitment crises I’ve experienced:
a) The Stake President who told me to stay home and get married when I approached him about serving a mission. And his attitude was as if I was asking for a financial handout, rather than trying to sit down and do some problem solving on how a non-member 20 year old convert, without family support or job search skills, might get the cash together. In my view, he just threw me out of his office.
b) The LDS Social Service agency who told me they wouldn’t let myself and my wife adopt a child because thought I would commit adultery given her problem with intimacy. This showed me all the covenant keeping was for the members personally, and didn’t really matter when the chips were really down; there was no faith in my clean living all the way up to the temple and beyond. Corporate interests in avoiding law suits eclipsed faith in, and reward for faithful living and personal righteousness.
c) Experiences where they treat you badly if you want to be released from a calling.
I think being less fixated on the money, less corporate-like behavior, and a kinder, more appreciative attitude toward the service of others would help.
I agree that making Church service less tedious would help, although for me, it would not be a deal-breaker.
Cadence wrote:…
Shall I go on?
No, that won’t be necessary. I think you pretty much nailed that aspect of it. There are simply some things in church doctrine that are and always will be troubling, and lots of weird stuff in it’s history that can’t ever be whitewashed away.
But there are some who know all about those things and yet are still willing to commit fully to the church, whereas others won’t. I can’t help thinking that the difference has a lot to do with our personality types, and of course our own personal experiences. The church, like most social organizations, is an organization of, by, and for the dominant mainstream personality type in our society. For good or ill, a lot of us don’t fit in that category, and that fact can easily tip the balance.
Speaking of silly things that the church does that might put people off, I couldn’t help but be struck by the admonition today in SM, supposedly transmitted at the express request from our SP, that stake conference is not an excuse to go to the Bahamas, play golf, watch TV, or otherwise goof off of a Sunday. We are all expected to be in attendance just like on regular Sundays, and playing hookey is not going to be acceptable. I always attend SC, and even though I know I still will, I will be doing so less willingly than usual. What am I, a naughty two-year-old? Is it just me, or is this an example of bizarre behaviour by church leaders that would never be tolerated in other contexts?
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Yes, I think the Church should try to serve members more and morph into a kinder gentler organization rather than expecting members to always sacrifice so much for the Church. I
“The church” is the members, though. Who serves the members if all the members are waiting to be served?
Quote:The Church already has the theological framework where they could implement significant reforms without really needing any major canonized “revelations” like we had to reverse their stance on polygamy and the racial priesthood ban. All they would really have to do to make some positive changes in my opinion is simply shift some of the emphasis in lessons, talks, etc. to focus more on Christian principles like faith, hope, love, forgiveness, etc. and start to de-emphasize things like temple worthiness, testimony, unquestioning obedience to prophets, etc. Even if they continue to talk about prophets, temple marriage, etc. I still think it would be an improvement if they stopped treating all these points like they need to be an absolute deal-breaker if you don’t agree with all of them at the same time. Also, I think they should try to make the meetings a better experience for the average member/investigator and eliminate some of the unnecessary work required for callings by combining meetings and maybe switching to a 2-hour block.
These are great ideas, but we do have to be willing to serve each other more. I agree it should not be so much busy work, though, and more real Christ-like caring for each others needs.
Brown wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:Yes, I think the Church should try to serve members more and morph into a kinder gentler organization rather than expecting members to always sacrifice so much for the Church. I
Brown said: “The church” is the members, though. Who serves the members if all the members are waiting to be served?”
Brown — the Church is partly an extension of the Church handbook of instructions and the talks we hear in conference. These drive a huge amount of behavior in the local leadership. It’s those things that prompt the need for a kinder, gentler Church. BKP’s talk on “the unwritten order of things”, and the “never say ‘no’ to a calling” philosophy in that talk is the kind of tough leadership that I think needs to be muted. That same talk says we should never asked to be released from calllings either. Those kinds of statements create a culture where individual needs are DEFINITELY secondary to the needs of the organization.
I’m all for showing commitment and sacrifice for a worthy cause. So I don’t see the comments here as evidence of “Serve Me Syndrome”. I see them as pleas for a different kind of organization that cares about its own interests, and the interests of the members, equally, and at the same time. Personally, I feel it’s out of balance right now. The organization comes definitely comes first. And if you assert yourself by saying you need time away, or a break, then you’re a bit of a leper.
Now, I did hear that at the last WW Training meeting that one of the GA’s said that we shouldn’t look at members as simply units to staff the Church, which is a step in the right direction. But in my experience, the prevailing culture is that you sit where you’re told to sit, and you stay there until you’re asked to get up and sit somewhere else — whether it’s good for you or not. (I know that sounds a bit harsh, it came to me and I mean it for effect, but I think there is some truth to that given The Unwritten Order of Things).
Brown wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:Yes, I think the Church should try to serve members more and morph into a kinder gentler organization rather than expecting members to always sacrifice so much for the Church. I
“The church” is the members, though. Who serves the members if all the members are waiting to be served?
What I meant by that was that I think they should pay more attention to the needs of individual members but it looks like many of these sacrifices the Church currently asks for mostly benefit the institutional organization and they don’t directly benefit most members as a whole quite as much if at all. For example, tithing, callings, missionary work, reactivation efforts, and even the counsel to not wait to get married and have children all look like they are mostly geared around what is typically convenient for the organization first and foremost without much regard for any unnecessary inconvenience these policies could cause individual members. I wouldn’t mind making some sacrifices to serve other members but I just don’t believe that some of these heavy demands will really accomplish that goal very well. I realize they depend on some sacrifice by members to survive as an organization, I just think they expect too much out of members at this point and that they should start to be more realistic about what exactly they are asking people to do and why.
Exactly my thoughts. Unfortunately, you can look at anything two ways — from the armchair of pure motives, or from the armchair of self-interest. My experiences have me in the latter position. I have long felt that plural marriage, the emphasis on having children, getting married young, missionary work, activation, tithing, never saying no to a calling, never asking for a release etcetera is for the good of the organization first.
I’m sure someone could look at each of these feature of our Church and come out with beautiful reasons why they are for the good of the members, taking the armchair of pure motives, but anymore, I don’t believe it unfortunately.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:[To counteract this imbalance the Church has relied on promised blessings in this life and the next, fear, public shaming, guilt-trips, peer pressure, sense of duty, etc. to try to motivate people to constantly go against the grain. So far they have made no apologies about these heavy demands and still expect inactive members to repent of their supposed rebellion and conform to all these strict standards rather than ever making any reasonable compromises. It seems like many of these inactive members stay away from Church not so much because they are convinced it is false but simply because they didn’t like the boring meetings and/or being told what to do in so much detail and the thought of returning to full activity just doesn’t look very attractive to them.
The Church already has the theological framework where they could implement significant reforms without really needing any major canonized “revelations” like we had to reverse their stance on polygamy and the racial priesthood ban. All they would really have to do to make some positive changes in my opinion is simply shift some of the emphasis in lessons, talks, etc. to focus more on Christian principles like faith, hope, love, forgiveness, etc. and start to de-emphasize things like temple worthiness, testimony, unquestioning obedience to prophets, etc. Even if they continue to talk about prophets, temple marriage, etc. I still think it would be an improvement if they stopped treating all these points like they need to be an absolute deal-breaker if you don’t agree with all of them at the same time. Also, I think they should try to make the meetings a better experience for the average member/investigator and eliminate some of the unnecessary work required for callings by combining meetings and maybe switching to a 2-hour block.
I love what you wrote DA. You are so brillant to me. I also wish the church would have a Sunday School class for ‘doubters.’ Maybe use the video by John Dehlin on Why people leave as discussion base. There has never been a place in the church for those who struggle with serious questions or doubts. They consider us trouble makers or apostates I guess.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.