- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was listening to a Mormon Stories Podcast and John was making the point how the church for some is a grand thing and fits very nicely into their world view and brings them much happiness. He also pointed out for others that it is a source of anxiety and pain and can cause great suffering and heartache. It made me start to wonder about balance, and is the good enough to outweigh the bad. Is there enough good from the church to be willing to deal with the few bad apples it creates. Or is it a few? I really do not have any real idea of how many members feel disaffected to any degree, or find the church more painful than joyful. Without dwelling on the reasons for members feeling good or bad my question simply is “is it worth the pain to get the good?”
Also if there really is as much pain as we sometimes believe caused by the church do you think the leaders have a responsibility to try and address the issues in a meaningful manner, or is that beyond the scope of their responsibility.
Cadence wrote:Also if there really is as much pain as we sometimes believe caused by the church do you think the leaders have a responsibility to try and address the issues in a meaningful manner, or is that beyond the scope of their responsibility.
Nope, I think the leaders will continue to do what is best for the 85% of the members, and us other folk will just have to learn to “deal with it” or move on.
Quote:Without dwelling on the reasons for members feeling good or bad my question simply is “is it worth the pain to get the good?”
Hmmm? Good question. I guess for me it is, at least it still is – as of today/
cwald wrote:my question simply is “is it worth the pain to get the good?”
the pain and the good are sure to be experienced differently by different people in different circumstances, so I think individuals have to make that call. I don’t think I’d stay long if the experience was constant pain with brief flashes of good. I want to be happy in life, and would eventually leave if I couldn’t ever find ways to minimize the pain for the good. But because I have found enough good, it is still worth it for me to keep trying, as I endure some brief moments of pain.
Cadence wrote:I was listening to a Mormon Stories Podcast and John was making the point how the church for some is a grand thing and fits very nicely into their world view and brings them much happiness. He also pointed out for others that it is a source of anxiety and pain and can cause great suffering and heartache. It made me start to wonder about balance, and is the good enough to outweigh the bad. Is there enough good from the church to be willing to deal with the few bad apples it creates. Or is it a few? I really do not have any real idea of how many members feel disaffected to any degree, or find the church more painful than joyful.
Without dwelling on the reasons for members feeling good or bad my question simply is “is it worth the pain to get the good?”
This is a good question. For me, my best effort interpretation of my Church membership meant living a celibate life within a legal marriage for a decade. I suffered a lot. It’s meant creating a huge rift between myself and my family over my marriage in the temple, from which they were excluded. My experiences in the Church have triggered clinical depression — not my work experiences, but the deep hurt I feel when I think I’ve been betrayed within our organization. I feel a lot of angst about things I must do that I would rather NOT do, and I find the day to day habits of being a priesthood holder a burden at times. I also had a miserable marriage for 10 years because I interpreted a sacrament talk as meaning one should never get divorced.
On the other hand, my association with people in the Church led to an advanced education and a good career. AS a priesthood leader, I also gained opportunities to learn about leadership and motivation in ways that weren’t available to me in my work, and I value the knowledge. I’ve also had some really good spiritual experiences that have filled me with brief periods of intense peace. And it’s provided stabiilty in my marriage and home life, as well as avoiding all the problems that come from unrighteous living….the simple idea of FHE has been a really blessing to my life, even recently. And I feel I can trust my wife whole-heartedly because of her commitment to the gospel and our eternal marriage. And our marriage has improved significantly now as a result of our trying to live the relationship advice of the pure gospel. I also avoided an adulterous relationship and all the pain and hardship that ensues from such things — all due to the fear of shame and consequences of excommunication. And I have deep respect for myself for not giving in to those powerful emotional urges to connect with another woman.
That’s my personal Cost Benefit Analysis, and it excludes the unknown of potential salvation as yet another benefit. Overall, I think I’m better off with the gospel than if I was without it….
Quote:Is here really is as much pain as we sometimes believe caused by the church do you think the leaders have a responsibility to try and address the issues in a meaningful manner, or is that beyond the scope of their responsibility.
Yes — there really is a lot of pain associatd with the Church. I won’t list it all, but definitely, it causes pain on many levels.
And yes, leaders do have a responsibility to try to address issues. The problem is that “the world is a tangled ball of interests”, so they simply can’t make everyone happy at the same time. Plus, the local leaders are strapped with day-to-day issues. Nor do they have the priviledge of activism…..and also, the bigger the organization gets, the more complicated it gets with a diverse population with different needs.
The key is to try to be happy without the leaders involvement. Bloom where you are planted. If you have to manage your relationships in the Church in a way to minimize the negative impact of leaders, then do so. Don’t focus on their behavior, focus on those aspects that are good for your spirituality, your family, and that speak to your heart….and at Church, keep silent on issues that are considered heretical or apostate until they pass….lest you invite the leaders into your life in ways that only make your Church experience worse.
Cadence wrote:…the church for some is a grand thing and fits very nicely into their world view and brings them much happiness…for others that it is a source of anxiety and pain and can cause great suffering and heartache…is the good enough to outweigh the bad…I really do not have any real idea of how many members feel disaffected to any degree, or find the church more painful than joyful…my question simply is
“is it worth the pain to get the good?”
My guess is that on average the Church really does provide more happiness than pain for the majority of TBMs and this is why they will continue to put up with some things that they don’t particularly like about it. However, I’m not so sure that this means that all the pain the Church currently causes should just be accepted and tolerated especially by any leaders that become aware of this trend because in many cases the aspects of the Church people like the most are not really dependent on or directly linked to some of the things that average members don’t really care for.
For example, in my opinion the Church causes a lot of pain in the form of unnecessary guilt, shame, and pressure to devote an unreasonable amount of time, money, and effort towards fulfilling various duties and rules that the Church requires as a matter of policy or tradition. On the other hand, it seems to me that what people actually like about the Church is mostly just associating with other members that are trying to do the right thing and feeling a sense of hope that God cares about them and that they will be rewarded for their efforts in this life and the next. Maybe some members also like the meetings and most of the current doctrines as well although others find them to be increasingly tedious and boring.
In any case, it seems like a lot of the pain currently caused by the Church could easily be reduced significantly without necessarily having much of any negative effect on the overall enjoyment people get from Church membership. In fact, some of the pain can easily be alleviated instantly simply by not listening to them if you don’t agree with some of their same old ideas. Of course, the hard part is trying to do this without leaving the Church behind entirely. Some of the self-righteous attitudes where many members basically expect others to just believe all this and do all this and if not then they think it’s not acceptable aren’t really helping the situation. To me this intolerant point-of-view doesn’t seem very Christian at all and it mostly reminds me of the Pharisees. I’m not saying that this is what the Church is trying to teach but this is the end result of the current policies in many cases.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:However, I’m not so sure that this means that all the pain the Church currently causes should just be accepted and tolerated especially by any leaders that become aware of this trend because in many cases the aspects of the Church people like the most are not really dependent on or directly linked to some of the things that average members don’t really care for.
In any case, it seems like a lot of the pain currently caused by the Church could easily be reduced significantly without necessarily having much of any negative effect on the overall enjoyment people get from Church membership.
I think DA – that you’re right on with the theory. However – is not the church TRYING to do some of this already? I mean honestly, I really think the last ten years the church is TRYING to get away from the notion that one has to devout 100% of their lives and time to “the organization?” We were told in World Wide Leadership training meeting in 2008 that “sometimes doing less is better.” And that local leaders need to be more aware of their members and not heap on more and more responsibilities, and that if branches and wards don’t have the resources and people, they need to adapt the church programs to meet their needs rather than risk damaging family relations, and they reminded the church members that “every program in the church is designed to strengthen the family….” They have also made a huge deal about NOT defining what tithing means and what the rules are. I really think SLC IS aware and trying to lesson the pain. The problem I see,
is it is not taking at the stake level.The PEOPLE won’t listen! SLC encourages less meetings and more family time. IMO my stake leaders and local leaders are meeting feigns – almost like if they have extra time they feel guilty and want to spend it doing more “magnifying of their callings.” I can respect that, they believe in what they are doing, great, and they have thoroughly entrenched themselves into the 70-80’s church culture where church WAS LIFE and that is the “way it’s suppose to be.” We have meetings where there is nothing to discuss, but because it is in the CHI we still meet. Plus, we also have meetings that aren’t in the CHI. We also try to run EVERY program and auxillary just because it’s in the CH — it’s absolutely insane what my local leaders are trying to do. … Meetings, meetings meetings, programs programs programs… Then it overflows into the my little free time and my family time and that is where the pain comes for me. I’m able to separate “the church” and “life” – but callings, the guilt, the socials, the interviews, the EQ service projects, the unreasonable expectations — will not stop. DevilsAdvocate wrote:
In any case, it seems like a lot of the pain currently caused by the Church could easily be reduced significantly without necessarily having much of any negative effect on the overall enjoyment people get from Church membership. In fact, some of the pain can easily be alleviated instantly simply by not listening to them if you don’t agree with some of their same old ideas. Of course, the hard part is trying to do this without leaving the Church behind entirely. Some of the self-righteous attitudes where many members basically expect others to just believe all this and do all this and if not then they think it’s not acceptable aren’t really helping the situation. To me this intolerant point-of-view doesn’t seem very Christian at all and it mostly reminds me of the Pharisees. I’m not saying that this is what the Church is trying to teach but this is the end result of the current policies in many cases.Yes I believe there could be many changes that would not significantly alter the doctrine of the church but would make participation more joyful with less pain. The problem may not be the leaders so much as the average member. Much of the pain is perpetuated by well meaning but dogmatic members who may actually not tolerate changes that they see as lessening their commitment.
Me personally I would welcome anything that would take away anxiety for the average member.
cwald wrote:I think DA – that you’re right on with the theory. However – is not the church TRYING to do some of this already? I mean honestly, I really think the last ten years the church is TRYING to get away from the notion that one has to devout 100% of their lives and time to “the organization?” We were told in World Wide Leadership training meeting in 2008 that “sometimes doing less is better.” …I really think SLC IS aware and trying to lesson the pain. The problem I see,
is it is not taking at the stake level.The PEOPLE won’t listen! Cadence wrote:Yes I believe there could be many changes that would not significantly alter the doctrine of the church but would make participation more joyful with less pain. The problem may not be the leaders so much as the average member. Much of the pain is perpetuated by well meaning but dogmatic members who may actually not tolerate changes that they see as lessening their commitment.
That’s the one of the most frustrating things about it; some of these unrealistic expectations are basically the cumulative result of many years of cultural traditions that are really ingrained in members’ minds to the point that it is hard to expect much change in their attitudes overnight.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.