I have a dear friend - I have known him for many years - who is a Mormon bishop. He is basically a good man, and I am certain he has never questioned the truth of Mormonism. He is the most faithful Mormon I know. We generally avoid discussing religion because we each know that there is no chance of changing the other's views.
Recently in a note he asked what I was doing to keep busy, and so I told him about how much time I spend corresponding with people - Mormons and exmormons - and trying to help them deal with the problems created by that church. He asked, so I told him. I begged him not to be an ostrich about the problems in his church.
He wrote me back, and I was somewhat surprised by the openness of his response:
Knowing, as you do, the things that cause people to become disenchanted with their life in the LDS church, in what areas would you counsel me, as a bishop, to help and strengthen my congregation? Know that I firmly maintain the doctrine of the church and sustain the leaders as prophets, so I would not be a reformer. Picture yourself, if you can, believing as I do, but needing to fortify the members against losing faith in some concept or practice. It's kind of like the bank hiring the robber as their security adviser.
But treat me tenderly. Come in the attitude of a friend, not an antagonist, because you'll be talking about the one thing that means more to me than anything else. If I were to be compared to a fowl, I'm not an ostrich, hiding its eyes from a world that it considers threatening. My eyes have been opened to many of life's ills and woes as I have tried to magnify this call. I'm not ignoring or hiding from what I see, I'm trying to evaluate its potential danger. If I'm a bird, I'd see myself soaring above the earth-bound ostrich, finding nesting in a safer, more beautiful world. So, can you temper your remarks so that I can help those I love within the context of our beliefs? I'm sure that you would be up to it.
[Here is part of Richard's response to this bishop]....I think the first suggestion I would make to you is that you will understand the potential apostate better and be in a better position to prevent an apostasy if you realize that most devout Mormons and Mormon leaders have an inaccurate picture of the apostate and the reasons that the apostate left the church. Most Mormons believe that someone leaves the church for one of the following reasons:
- they never really had a testimony;
- they did not live the gospel (and therefore lost their testimony by opening themselves up to Satan's power);
- they desired to indulge in forbidden things (immoral sex, alcohol, etc);
- they were rebellious, proud, not humble enough to have faith without proof;
- they did not really understand the gospel;
- they took offense at some slight or insult by someone in the church;
- they have been reading lies in anti-Mormon literature;
I can assure you that, among the exmormons I know, probably only 1% left the church for any of those reasons. If I'm correct, and if my group is typical of the potential apostates in your ward, you will not solve any problems by operating as if those are the reasons for apostasy.
Among the former Mormons I know are hundreds of returned missionaries (who were good missionaries - probably among them they baptized thousands of people into the church), elders' quorum presidents, Gospel Doctrine teachers, Relief Society presidents, dozens of high council members, quite a few temple workers, and almost a dozen bishops. Many (like me) suffered the breakup of a marriage because of their leaving the church. They are intelligent, sincere, thoughtful, good people. And 95% of them were good Mormons, I am sure. They are people who, at least at one time, did have a testimony of the truth of the gospel and devoted a good deal of energy to spreading and promoting it. They lived the gospel. They had temple recommends. They did their home teaching, fulfilled callings, and taught their children the gospel.
What happens to cause good Mormons like that to begin to doubt? One writer called it the "double bind" of Mormonism. The church promises happiness, joy, salvation, blessings, and a good life as a good person. Whether the church actually promises these things, members understand that living the gospel 100% will bring them close. When the Mormon does everything the church asks him to do, work, pray, study, tithe, go to meetings, do genealogy, do temple work, fulfill callings, etc., etc., etc., and somehow he does not feel that it's working the way it should, the response he gets from the church is that he isn't really doing it right, or often enough, or faithfully enough. The solution suggested to him is to study MORE, pray MORE, read MORE scriptures. The double bind is that the church places the blame for not fulfilling its part of the bargain on the member. It's the member's fault.
This can be psychologically devastating, especially to someone who is really devout, who is really trying, and who really does not see what he is doing wrong or how he is not living the gospel as completely as he can. It destroys a person's self-esteem, puts tremendous guilt on him, and he sees no way to solve his problem.
Some Mormons have problems because they do not fit into the life-mold that the church says is really the only mold: mission, marriage soon after, husband works, wife stays home and raises large family, everyone a good Mormon. This image of what the ideal life should be is often especially hard on young women, who have yearnings for a professional life, or who are not particularly fond of children. To be told that God wants them to do something they have no real desire to do can be shattering and depressing. And it is fatally devastating to those with homosexual natures. This leads to chronic depression, alcoholism, and suicide......
......Another problem that started many people to doubt the claim that the church is led by God-inspired leaders is that old truth: power corrupts. Authority over others can so easily be misused. It is a very heady thing to believe that you have power from God, and that God is telling you what to do, and therefore what you are doing is sanctioned by God. It may be the returned missionary announcing to some girl that God has revealed to him that she is supposed to become his wife; perhaps it is the bishop who appoints the child molester to teach the young children in Primary; maybe it is the bishop who counsels the battered wife that it is her fault that her priesthood-holding husband beats her; or perhaps it is the bishop who pries into a teenager's masturbation practices in too great a detail... (These are all actual cases.) We have seen hundreds of people start to question the church when they see that these priesthood holders, these men "in authority over them," are not truly inspired by God, but are rather arrogantly deceiving themselves into believing that they are. And they are in positions in which they can do real harm.
Another aspect of this is the tremendous responsibility which a bishop has to counsel his ward members in so many ways, especially in domestic matters. Marriage counseling, counseling depressed people, counseling problem children, - these are such sensitive areas, where great harm can be done. And yet the bishop's only source of wisdom is his own experience and "inspiration." In other words, the bishop is really not trained or qualified to give the kind of counseling which his calling requires. If a ward member has an appendicitis attack, the doctor is called in before the bishop. But if a ward member is having marital difficulty which requires serious attention, all too often the psychiatrist or marriage counselor is called in only as a last resort, because the folks have been trying to work out their problems by meeting with the bishop.
When this happens, when a bishop advises someone with serious problems to pray more, or read the scriptures more, or "examine yourself and see if there aren't some areas of the Gospel where you are not keeping the commandments," i.e., "you would not be having this problem if you were living the gospel," the member quite naturally begins to doubt that this advice is from God, that God is inspiring this advice......
......Actually, the advice to pray more and to read the scriptures more often has exactly the opposite effect. Someone who is praying as often and as faithfully and sincerely as they know how, and still getting no response, must begin to wonder about whether prayer really works the way it is supposed to. They often begin even to question whether there is a God listening, especially when those who are supposed to know about these things keep insisting that if you pray right and your request is righteous, God will answer.
And it has often happened that reading the scriptures more avidly, and studying the words of the prophets has merely served to draw attention to the contradictions and absurdities there and to create even more unanswerable questions. That is, rather than assuaging doubt, it nourishes it. Many, many Mormons (I, for one) began the journey out of the church with a sincere effort to strengthen their testimony by study of the church writings.
So the obvious suggestion, I would think, is don't advise someone to pray more and to read more. It may actually put them out of the church....
....What, then, can I give you as advice or suggestions to help you in your calling as bishop? (I think I can do this honestly - when asked, I have given advice to Christians on how to be better Christians, or how to help their Mormon friends become Christian, even though I myself am an atheist.)
First, my attitude is that for some people it is better for them to be Christian, or Mormon (or whatever they are now). They are happier, life makes more sense to them, it fulfills some need that they have........But, by the same token, I think you should recognize that there are Mormons who would be better off if they were not in the church. Keeping them in the church is causing them major unhappiness and may even endanger their lives (suicide). Admit that not everyone will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Ease the pain for those who will be in lesser kingdoms, and let them go in peace. Learn to recognize who they are, and do what you can to ease them into life outside the church.
For example, we have heard hundreds of stories of how bishops harass, harangue, and bully people who they think are going to leave the church. Emotional threats ("You will not be with your children in the Celestial Kingdom!"), spreading innuendos of sexual transgressions, delaying the processing of name removal requests, etc. Occasionally we hear also of bishops who are gracious and kind and understanding, and who say, in effect, "Go in peace, and I wish you happiness." I hope you would be the latter kind.
Second, to insist that the church is 100% true, that there are no contradictions, no material historical problems, is going to drive people out of the church who know enough about the doctrine and the history to see that such a position is unjustified. At least it seems so to them (as it does to me). But I also know dozens and dozens of people who are "secret apostates," that is, people who are active members in good standing, but who don't believe it any more. I think probably most of their bishops do not know their true feelings. These people are playing a role, and playing it very well (with callings, temple recommends, teaching Gospel Doctrine class, etc.). They stay in the church primarily because of their families, because they don't want to pay the price of leaving, and because the church does give them a sense of community. As Thomas Ferguson said (the Mormon authority on Book of Mormon archeology, who was just such a secret apostate), "The LDS church is the greatest social club in the world!"
So, my suggestion is that you will keep such people by not pushing them, not questioning their loyalty or their doctrinal purity, allowing them to have their own views privately and to remain in the church on their own terms (if they can do it without causing problems for other members, of course). After all, doctrinal purity was never such an important matter - Brigham Young and Orson Pratt disagreed over many fundamental doctrinal questions (Adam-God, whether God progresses, etc.). In fact, my impression is that the church is easing up gradually on many doctrines that don't directly have to do with how one lives one's life... I see more often statements such as "it doesn't really matter, after all, whether there really was a Flood... the important thing is the example we have to follow in the figure of Noah..." The stance on the Book of Abraham has had to change, in light of the embarrassing translation by Egyptologists of the papyrus; it is now a "revelation" and not a "translation." President Hinckley is backing off on the "God was once a man" doctrine, it seems. The Reorganized Church is even going so far as to see the Book of Mormon as a book of inspired teaching, but not necessarily history. So, if that is the direction the church doctrine is taking, go along. Don't insist on doctrinal purity; just help people to live good and happy lives. Let God worry about their souls and their salvation or exaltation.
People carry enough guilt around, and if one had to summarize the message of Christianity in its finest and most humane form, I think it would be that "God forgives you! You are his child! Bask in the love of God, freely given!" Now, I know that idea is modified in Mormonism by requiring the sinner to repent, do penance, wait, work, and "earn" salvation. But for those who cannot meet the rigorous standards of the church, consider that Jesus said to the woman taken in sin (John 8): "neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." Jesus' message everywhere was "Thy sins are forgiven thee." It was the Pharisees who condemned him for forgiving sins; don't be a Pharisee bishop, but - as one who claims to represent Jesus - forgive every chance you can. Those whom you forgive will stay in the church. Those whom you do not forgive will leave and find their forgiveness and peace of mind from some Christian pastor. Remember what Micah said (6:8) "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" If you can teach people that, you will have accomplished a great deal.
Another suggestion is that you be extra-extra-extra humble in interpreting your feelings and hunches as being God's messages to you for your ward members. If even President Hinckley admits that when God is talking in his loudest voice to his number one mouthpiece on Earth, it's only by means of a "feeling" he gets, I would think that you would have to be extremely cautious about the great risk of interpreting a feeling of yours as a special-delivery letter from the Creator of the Universe. To put it another way, I would think the best advice you could give 99% of the people who come to you for advice and counsel is to tell them that it's between them and God, and there is no reason why they can't ask God themselves.
Also, I think it's important for a bishop to understand clearly what are church matters and what are not. That is, what the church can deal with appropriately and what not. Some things require professional intervention. Some behaviors are crimes. Those should not be dealt with primarily by church personnel. To try to handle a rape as a "sin" rather than as a crime is, in itself, a crime. The same goes for child abuse, or spousal abuse. I probably don't really have to tell you that. But I know people who have left the church because they were victims of such behavior and the bishop insisted that it be kept quiet and dealt with by the church, and it seemed to them that more concern was shown for a priesthood-holding culprit than for the victim.
I think you cannot hope to convince people to accept "some concept or practice" - especially one of a fundamental nature - if they really find it objectionable. As bishop you probably have no control over such concepts and practices, and so your only argument is to say that the Brethren have Spoken. When the Brethren have Spoken something that people really find wrong, you are going to have increased doubt among the people, and there is nothing much you can do about it. In other words, the faith in the leaders (in any organization) depends on the leaders leading where the people want to be led. The flap over the "Defense of Marriage" campaign in California is a good example; we are aware that many people who were still active in the church are now leaving because they think the church's position in this matter is so wrong. But you, as bishop, cannot help that. You are in a bind. If you are too aggressive in defending the church's position, you may lose members who find it wrong. If you are too lax (so as not to lose those members), you may be disciplined yourself.
My Thoughts Are:
If only I could have met such a bishop on my way out! When it came time for me to leave, I felt as if I had no alternative; Pay, Pray, and Obey just was not cutting it for me.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
The pressure to conform, to mold oneself according to the structure set in place by the Mormon prophets, and to keep all doubts tucked deep inside is so immense, it's no wonder to me that some individuals end up needing lots of extra psychological intervention due to the splintering and compartmentalization of their minds, separating the logical reasoning mind from the faith-promoting mind.
I was unable to maintain my testimony in the face of all the information available to me. I guess my fatal mistake was attempting to get an answer from someone other than my "inspired" bishop. I went over his head in search of my answers, and only found more questions to ask. So, rather than keep pestering my bishop for a moment of his time, (when he could spare it away from his own troubles) I decided to handle it on my own and go to the church sponsored websites like FairLDS, and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Between the two of these sites, and my daring to question, I actually stumbled upon topics that I had never heard of, like Mountain Meadows Massacre, Kinderhook Plates, the Salamander Letter, Adam-God theory, etc. Had these sites not argued these topics to their critics, I as a Latter-Day Saint would not have become aware of the miriad of problems that face the Mormon Apologetics squads. And to think that I actually thought I could become an apologist myself!
I couldn't believe the mental gymnastics one has to perform in order to maintain a testimony, DESPITE all the evidence that shows the church is not what it claims to be. And, I chose not to become one of those people who sacrifice all logical knowledge for the sake of maintaining my beliefs at all costs.
No, I did not HAVE to resign. I could have dropped out quietly and just went inactive. But, who would have benefitted from that? Would I have been able to remain silent on my reasons for not attending ?[no] Would I have been able to convince anyone that I was serious about my issues with the church's teachings if I had NOT resigned? [doubtful]. And why should I allow the church to continue counting me and my family as members when I no longer believed their church is "true"? I think that if I had simply gone inactive, it would have provided more of a basis for being labeled as an individual who "really still believes it, just denying it right now" that I hear from time to time.
I was not about to be kicked out either. Nobody had any idea what I was learning and what I was about to do when I wrote my exit letter. And, to their credit, I have not been bothered, tagged, pestered, re-invited, or otherwise acknowledged in the four years since my resignation. I have my suspicions as to why that is, but I will not detail it here.
I am merely trying to exercise my freedom of speech, and my abilities to raise these issues to anyone who reads my blog, because they may not go through the trouble of discovering these on their own. I am bringing out copies of other's information here, because I don't have the time to write entire dissertations and essays on these topics, when others have already tread this path. So I borrow from the many sources available, copy and paste, notate and credit the sources, provide the links to those who might press on, and then place my humble little opinions at the end. I hope to demonstrate that I have real legitimate reasons for my resignation, and not the made up ones that others would project on me in order to justify it in their own minds. And I will continue this course until I feel that I have been sufficiently heard and understood, if not wholly agreed with.
See, this blog is only for those who keep coming back. It's only for seekers, whether it's discovering about Mormonism, or discovering about me personally. I have no problem with either situation, and anything I post here I would freely discuss openly with anyone who asks. I am not attempting to hide behind anonymity here, and I could care less what the church thinks of me and my little 'ole blog. Their control over me has ended. Anyone who doesn't like what I am saying can QUIT READING at ANYTIME. I am not forcing anyone to come here, or read my rants and I don't answer comments, [unless I am personally attacked]. I'm not looking for kudos, awards, congratulations, a shoulder to cry on, sympathy, a pat on the back, or adoration. I blog because I can, and because I know who my audience is. That means you. You're here, aren't you? You made it this far, right? Ask yourself what you are looking for.....holes in my stories, or a way to condemn me maybe? How about just dealing with my posts for what they are and stop looking for a way to consign me to the depths of hell...
The pain that is caused by dealing with opposing facts is called cognitive dissonance. I didn't create the opposing facts. I didn't come up with this information out of nothing. I made my choice to side with the facts as they make sense to me. Anyone who wishes to maintain their beliefs at all costs must cast aside all information that doesn't conform. I am not one of those people. My beliefs change base on what makes sense to me, and I am perfectly comfortable with changing my beliefs and opinions in the light of new information as it is presented and as it becomes available. At this point, I think the only thing that would bring me back to Mormonism is a personal manifestation of Moroni, or Joseph Smith, or Jesus. And since I'm a girl, that probably isn't going to happen.
Do my posts cause bad feelings? Probably. Does that become my responsibility? No, it's the responsibility of the church and its leaders to deal with these problems honestly and directly instead of obfuscating and lying for the Lord. If reading my posts causes pain, anxiety, doubt, hostility, or fear...then by all means, you should quit reading them. But every time you come back to check it out, you take the responsibility for your own pain.
Go ahead and print off a couple of these topics and take them back to your bishop. Let your 'ecclesiastical leaders' take a stab at it. Ponder their advice as they jump to the tried-and-true Read, Study, and Pray formula. Listen as they point the blame at you for even entertaining such doubts and chastising you for your failure to maintain a testimony. Then come back and blame me some more for creating this mess. When all you have to do to shut off this valve is quit coming back...
No comments:
Post a Comment