Real and present limitations to integration

[Anonymous]

It’s a given that those of us here are exploring, considering, or committed to Staying LDS. And we are supporting each other in that idea. It’s also a given that being an odd duck isn’t generally ideal. What’s not a given is just what the different flavors of staying LDS might be.

I am 100% for staying LDS (for some people). But it’s my belief that the real, running, everyday church today (as good as it is) includes some things that are not good to participate in.

I’m going to propose that, for some of us at least, there are some real and present limitations on the level of integration we can or should achieve. And I’m opening this thread for exploration of those limitations. This is important because if we are going to successfully stay LDS, it needs to be a good thing that makes the world a happier place.

Limitations that come to mind for me are:

1. Being a conscientious objector may put limitations on service in Scouting unless leadership were willing to wink at non-patriotism.

2. New beliefs about priesthood and salvation may put conscientious limitations on the number of hours dedicated to temple service.

3. Beliefs about agency and diversity may limit participation in proselytizing efforts, or make them look conspicuously non-conforming.

[Anonymous]

Those are valid points. I think people naturally gravitate to the areas where they feel most comfortable. Personally I don’t see any problem with any of those – meaning limiting participation to the comfort level.

[Anonymous]

I’ve always said that individual members should be engaged at whatever level and in whatever activities with which they are comfortable.

More later, perhaps.

[Anonymous]

You know in some ways it would be good over the longer term if the LDS church CULTURE was to become a bit more like the other churches out there (eg mainstream Catholic)….that is they have a whole rainbow of member types, and all seem to be accepted etc…they have some that attend every Sunday and often mid week without fail, take communion, express confessions to leaders etc etc…then they also have those that only attend a service that is part of Xmas, Easter, a christening or whatever…then of course they have many in the middle.

However it has been my experience that one can very easily been “classed” in the mormon culture….tbm, nom, less active, spouse of non-member etc etc etc. It goes back a little to the all or nothing topic we discussed….the culture is very much if you are not ALL, you may very easily and frequently be judged as being inferior….this is a sad but real fact.

I mentioned earlier how I said no to a calling recently as I didnt feel comfortable teaching of JS due to the manuals skimming over so many things that can cause grief to members when they find out on the internet etc. I also recently had my brother instead of my dh baptise my son as my dh has recently become fully dissaffected. So over the past month I have felt that people now see me differently….and I can only imagine this may become more obvious when people start to recognise that I too only want certain involvement at this point in time.

I am a fairly strong personality, so much of this I can ignore. I still hope to continue attending but my realist side knows that at times I may not feel very “included” (for lack of a better word). I certainly dont want to be a project, I dont wish to have people pretend to include me…Im trying to say that I would find it refreshing if people in the future continue to treat me as they have in the past dispite the fact now that I dont wish to be so full-on with my LDS activity etc. Thats my ideal….only time will tell….one Sunday at a time…that is my motto for the moment!

Its really annoying when Ive had other sisters say “hi, i havent seen you for ages in RS”….the tone spoken was really weird….little did this dumb woman know that I had in fact been serving in Primary (which is in the downstairs part of the building) for the past 3 years…so her comment just reinforced that if she genuinely wanted to know where I was she would not of had to look very far!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Orson and Ray,

Your comments are very validating. I think it may be difficult to state strongly enough, and perhaps difficult for Ray to immediately and always appreciate (based on the life history you’re presenting), the immense void and discomfort that a person faces when he or she has lived for decades in an All-or-Nothing LDS world and now desires to renegotiate the relationship.

I get the feeling that Ray in particular is quite comfortable (based on decades of experience?) taking an a la carte approach to LDS life. And even more key, this to him is his LDS life. Ray isn’t faking anything. He is living the LDS life he knows and lives among. Contrast that with a converted absolutist like me who only knows that conscientious objection, a la carte callings and temple service, low pressure response to leadership, and general indifference to outside judgement are not the LDS life he or she knows or lives among.

The NOM prototype wounded soul who wanders by here or by NOM may desire not to be angry, may pray for peace, may want it all to work, but simply doesn’t know how with integrity it can. I think it is very important and loving to acknowledge the discomfort and the perceived limitations together with the good intentions of the wounded. Along with the mantra, “It can work out”, there need to be other mantras that say, “The church will survive your newfangled participation”, “You can do it your way with their language,” “You can bear your own testimony”.

I’m rambling now, I guess, and I don’t really know what to suggest. Perhaps I should just validate the best thing I have taken from this site:

“I’m here, it’s my church, and I am not leaving.”

In other words, we say for all the world to hear:

1. “I am active LDS and I’m a conscientious objector.”

2. “I am active LDS and I don’t want to convert you.”

3. “I am active LDS and I don’t want to baptize your ancestors.”

4. “I am active LDS and I love my church.”

Saying 1 through 3 frees me to say number 4. And that, I think, is the goal of this site.

KM

[Anonymous]

kupord maizzed wrote:

The NOM prototype wounded soul who wanders by here or by NOM may desire not to be angry, may pray for peace, may want it all to work, but simply doesn’t know how with integrity it can. I think it is very important and loving to acknowledge the discomfort and the perceived limitations together with the good intentions of the wounded. Along with the mantra, “It can work out”, there need to be other mantras that say, “The church will survive your newfangled participation”, “You can do it your way with their language,” “You can bear your own testimony”.

It may be a Christ-like ideal that we seek, where members would accept each other at whatever level they are on: temple attending, NOM, inactive, etc. but then there is reality. When you have been in leadership meetings and heard judgments (even well-meaning) on people’s level of activity, where programs are planned with the intention to change someone’s activity, then you know that this judgment is real. I know the potential of appearing on some “list” if I downsize my activity due to this conscientious objection of which you speak.

So, how to become comfortable with a different approach to participation? This is what worked for me (so far). One thing is to become confident in my own agency and accountability for the choices I make. When I became aware that it was my agency and not the church’s then I was able to set boundaries and not feel guilty. Then it doesn’t matter what someone else thinks. Another change of thinking is to be charitable in my relationships. If someone says they miss me, I believe it at face value. I try not to look for hidden motives for others’ behaviors towards me. “It can work out” will likely become true, if we make choices that lead to working it out, rather than choices that breed defensiveness and anger. Go slow is also a good mantra. YMMV, recognizing that I am one who is comfortable with a background level of participation.

[Anonymous]

I try to approach this from two perspectives: my own and that of quite a few family members and friends. Honestly, it’s a fine line between allowing people to make their own decisions based on absolutely no “pressure” and providing opportunities for growth to those who would gain from them but wouldn’t pursue them on their own. Often, it’s as much in the manner of presentation (knowing the person and being sincere and honest and open about motives) as it is about the actual request.

I’ve said often that the thing I love most about the Church is the amazing growth-producing structure for each and every member, but the fact that we deeply flawed mortals are the ones who are charged with administering that structure leads to lots of really bad implementation and far too much unrighteous dominion. If all unrighteous dominion was imposed by “evil” or even “bad” people, that would be rather easy to handle. The problem, however, is that many good, sincere people end up exercising unrighteous dominion simply because they care and/or believe so much that they can’t recognize their own actions that overstep righteous boundaries – or because they are thrust into leadership positions for which they are not prepared and are forced to learn on the job (much like a new parent who screws up with the first couple of kids before getting it right with the next two).

That’s why I really like what Nonny said about finding charity. I know I am going to look back 40 years from now and be astounded about the ignorance of some of what I have said (and be mortified at some of what I have done), and I hope those who read what I have written publicly and know of what I have done incorrectly are charitable in their view of me despite my many mistakes. I desire that for myself, so I try very hard to give that same courtesy to others. I still have a ways to go with that effort, but I can say honestly that it has become a strength – largely because I have focused on it so carefully for so long.

[Anonymous]

KM, thanks for bringing out these important points. Nonny and Ray I have enjoyed your perspectives as well.

All of our journeys are so unique, even though we share some basic parallels. The ward of my youth was much different from the ward I am currently in. I had been thinking that time was the major difference, that the church as a whole has evolved in the past couple decades. That may be true to some extent but hearing the experiences of others makes me wonder. I am feeling very fortunate at the moment – my bishop has read RSR, we have personally discussed much of the difficult early history. While he may be more inclined to pull the “we can’t really know ALL the details of what happened” card, at least he understands that situations exist in our history that are very difficult to explain logically with the absolutist mindset. I think this basic awareness lends to a more charitable outlook overall. I remember visiting with the previous bishop, telling him I just can’t believe things literally the way I used to, and he said firmly “you have done nothing wrong, we are supposed to ask questions.” As I explained (to the current one – who is a good friend ) how I felt the need to embrace a figurative view of everything as I begin to rebuild a new relationship with the church, he seemed to understand the need for “baby steps” and was more concerned with orientation (the desire to build a positive relationship) than specific position. Several months later, when I expressed a desire for a TR he assured me that a desire to know can be called a testimony and had no hesitation in giving me one. So I know “the luck of the draw” has as much to do with your leaders as anything else.

I certainly don’t share this to gloat, I hope it offers more hope for the future. I think the issues are becoming more widely known in the church, and I think that will help overall in cultivating a more charitable attitude. I hope it will at least.

[Anonymous]

I, too, have been blessed with charitable and generous leaders. While I don’t doubt I am discussed in meetings, I haven’t been pushed in interviews. All the pushing has come from myself as I have tried to be honest and exploring of my new place. Through it all I have had callings and a temple recommend. An interview with my priesthood leader resulted in my having at present no home teaching assignment, but I look at that as a relatively minor casualty so far, and my own fault.

If I weren’t so insistent I’m an odd duck, I am certain nobody would be the wiser, since I still practice nearly identically with the exception of the pledge of allegiance, less temple attendance, and no commitment to stake missionary goals. I think my own conscience is the biggest obstacle, and greater wisdom and perspective will help me understand how to honor my conscience without alienating brothers and sisters.

[Anonymous]

I’m right there with you KM. It is so much easier to write nice things on the internet (which I always try to do) than to react the right way in everyday life. In my view at least – the desire is 80% of the growth; the other 20% takes 80% of the time.

[Anonymous]

Yup, Orson. Not to wave away the weight of the issues that trouble us, but the biggest limitation may be the one typing at the keyboard right now.

KM

[Anonymous]

Rays said this very well:

Quote:

The problem, however, is that many good, sincere people end up exercising unrighteous dominion simply because they care and/or believe so much that they can’t recognize their own actions that overstep righteous boundaries – or because they are thrust into leadership positions for which they are not prepared and are forced to learn on the job (much like a new parent who screws up with the first couple of kids before getting it right with the next two.

I am glad this thread exists, I agree that this is probably the source of what ends up being abusive at times. I think that the most important thing is when one does make mistakes, however, is that the there is effort to repair or make restitution for one’s behavior when it has hurt someone, especially if your SP calls you on it and you confess it was wrong and you were sorry. Why can’t the same person, he was a bishop in my case, go to the person who he did it to and say the same and make an effort to restore trust? Some, I guess, are just incapable of doing so or try to justify it, regardless we need to release them to the Lord and let it be resolved between them. Are they truly ashamed and just want to forget? I remember wanting to have a pure heart and release this person who had hurt me repeatedly to the Lord, as quick as I could after it happened to me, within a matter of a few weeks. I did not want to be bitter, so I prayed for that transformation of heart and even for the pain to go away. I had not completely healed or grieved over the loss it created at the time, so it resurfaced at times, until it was all out but the but the other ill feelings such as the temptation to mutter under my breath that he was a insensitive j*rk, were gone, at least and I knew that Christ died for his sins too. Realizing this, meaning what Ray said above and releasing him to God enabled me to seek out a new ward and eventually try again within the church as I refused to completely lose my LDS connections, even while I was in profound crisis of my faith.

[Author]

Posts