"... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...
I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.
There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church -- firmly, in their mind, in this church -- and the church isn't going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn't going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: "Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve." At that point, we're going to have a conversation. A little of that is more tolerated than I think a lot of people think it should be. But I think we want to be tolerant any way we can. ... "Patient" maybe is a better word than "tolerant." We want to be patient and charitable to the extent that we can, but there is a degree beyond which we can't go. ..."
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, LDS Apostle, PBS Interview, March, 2006
This essay is intended for LDS Church members who have recently (or not so recently) encountered a major trial of their faith, are contemplating leaving the church, and are trying to figure out what options for church engagement are still available to them given their circumstances. In our experience -- the two most obvious options for folks in this situation are either: 1) remaining a traditional, literalist, conservative member (not an option for many in this scenario), or 2) leaving the church altogether, either formally by resigning or informally by "going inactive" (an option which many choose -- some with relative success, but many with much regret).
While we fully support those who choose orthodoxy, and while we continue to strive to understand those who feel the need to leave -- we write this essay to let people know that there can also be a "middle way" within Mormonism that lies between orthodox, literalistic observance and complete abandonment.
This essay explores approaches to navigating a middle way within Mormonism.
If you are completely content with your membership in the LDS Church, or if you have left the church and feel no desire to return -- this essay is not for you.
Finally, the main body of this essay was written 4 years ago -- and could seriously use an update. If there is any text in this essay that comes across as highly offensive to believing church members, or that could be worded better -- please do not hesitate to email us with suggested corrections.
These points will appear obvious to most of you, but we must include them to address past misunderstandings:
When someone becomes disaffected from the LDS Church, it is quite common for them to be accused by family, friends, and fellow ward members of lacking faith and commitment. It is also common for them to be accused of grave sin or disobedience to church teachings. While we're sure that this is true of some people, as we've communicated with over 1,500 disaffected Mormons over the past several years, it has been our experience that most disaffected LDS Church members were "guilty," if anything, of caring too much about the church, not caring too little.
We receive at least two or three emails a week recounting basically the same story -- your story:
At some point between adolescence and adulthood, you became very serious about Mormonism. You were likely among the most committed, devout, observant church members in your family or peer group. You held a literalistic view of LDS doctrine, took statements by LDS General Authorities (past and present) very seriously, and perhaps even went a bit overboard in your level of Church service.
Over time, one of several experiences, or a combination thereof, happened to you:
As you traveled down this shocking road of discovery, you began to feel as though the framework for your entire world was falling apart. Your family relationships, your friendships, your code of ethics, even your identity -- virtually everything about you was anchored in Mormonism. Where could you go from here?
Because you had been taught to view Mormonism (and the world, for that matter) in a binary fashion -- as either completely true or completely false -- your immediate inclination was to now declare the LDS Church as "false" or as fraudulent, and to abandon it completely. However, there was still a great deal that you loved about the Church, and abandoning it did not feel quite right either.
In our experience, for someone who has reached your level of commitment and devotion to the LDS Church, it is almost impossible to simply "un-Mormon" yourself. As we mentioned before, your entire identity, moral code, sense of spirituality, family and social structures, and even framework for life have been built upon the foundation of Mormonism.
It is the same for us. Mormon is simply who we are. This is our tribe: our people. We are Mormons through and through. We could (in theory) leave the church, but we could probably never leave it alone (as they say).
Consequently, if you are like us, you may find the task of trying to comprehensively extricate yourself from Mormonism as comparable to trying to remove the wooden frame from a standing house, and expecting the house to remain in good stead. It is likely impossible to do so in any constructive manner.
Think for a moment about what it would take to completely eliminate Mormonism from your life -- the identity, the community, the familial expectations, etc. For many, it is akin to completely ripping their life apart - piece by piece - until there is little remaining.
This alone is a compelling reason (for many....not all) to consider finding a way to stay within Mormonism.
While we could write an entire book on the many benefits of LDS Church membership, let us share with you a few of them:
"I don't think I'm no better than any body else....but I'll be danged if I ain't just as good!"
So...in conclusion....if you can truly replace all of these things by leaving the church, then by all means follow your truth. Just make sure that (warts and all) you are trading up, not down.
Now, on to the major purpose of this document: more than 30 tips on how to remain in the LDS Church after becoming disaffected.
First of all, remember that losing idealistic perceptions or expectations, and replacing them with more realistic ones, are two very important components of human maturity. For example, our parents are much more limited in their capacity than we thought they were when we were children. The same is true with our teachers and leaders. The founding fathers of the USA were much more complex than we were taught growing up (Jefferson held slaves, and may have fathered children with a slave, Benjamin Franklin was a philanderer, etc.). Businesses can do both great and terrible things. Same with governments, schools, and even charities. The world is imperfect. Any organization that is comprised of (imperfect) people is going to have serious flaws.
Even though it might strike really close to home, it's a fair question to ask: why should it be any different with religions, or with religious leaders (past or present)? If perfection (or anything close to it) is the standard for any organization or individual, who will ever measure up? No one will.
Finally, if you already find yourself severely disappointed with, or even disaffected from the LDS Church, it should be completely logical for you to no longer expect perfection from it in any real sense. You can simply drop this unrealistic, unhealthy expectation.
Eventually, you may be able to replace your anger at the behavior of imperfect church leadership and members with compassionate understanding for their positions. If you try, it's not hard to do. They come by their positions and decisions quite honestly, it turns out. Think back to your earlier years as a "true believer" in the church -- you yourself may have even been dogmatic, or boring, or judgmental, or even bigoted at one point on another. So if this was once true for you, then you, of all people, should be able to understand their position(s) now.
Regardless, this one issue of understanding pretty much encapsulates the essence of Christianity: to love, to forgive and to look for the good in imperfect people. It is also the central theme of Eugene England's classic essay, "Why the church is as true as the gospel."
If you can, try to avoid actively pursuing reasons for annoyance or offense, even when you feel that you are being marginalizes by people who do not understand you and/or possibly fear you. If you can find a way to love them and forgive them, even as Christ did, you will be a better person for it. We promise.
In our experience, most dogmatic, orthodox people are so for a good reason. Maybe they've had a death in the family, and cling to religion as their only hope for seeing that loved one again. Maybe they are struggling with addiction, or depression. Maybe they suffer from abuse at home, or a horrible marriage. Some of the people who cling to dogmatic religion most tightly, are the ones who are least happy, and most scared in their lives. This situation -- above all others, perhaps -- deserves our love and respect. Even for the purely sincere -- do you really want to run around trying to disabuse them of their beliefs? Isn't that like running up to random children to tell them that Santa Claus is a fraud? People cling to belief for all sorts of reasons -- and thoughtful, kind people will respect this. If you really want to emulate Christ, start with empathy.
Many disaffected folk expect LDS General Authorities to constantly apologize for all the past errors of the church, and to actively promote awareness of the most controversial aspects of LDS Church history. These are unfair and unrealistic expectations.
While none of us have close relationships with high-ranking LDS General Authorities -- we've spent some time trying to "walk a mile in their mocassins", so to speak. And while we can't accurately speculate as to what they do or don't know about church issues, we do ask ourselves the following questions:
One of the most common attacks made by critics is that the church hides or denies its most troubling history. While it's certain that the church does not spend a great deal of time discussing the tougher issues in public, it is important to note that the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have made numerous attempts at openness and disclosure of tough LDS Church history throughout the years. For those of you who aren't aware, there was a ten-year period of LDS Church history (1972 to 1982), under the leadership of Church Historian Leonard Arrington, where the church made a significant effort at candor regarding church history. Unfortunately, according to Leonard Arrington, this particular experiment was deemed a failure by church leadership. After a 10 year stretch the department was closed down -- and Brother Arrington seemed to indicate (in his autobiography) that the brethren feared that too much of an emphaisis on controversial topics, more often than not, leads to decreased church activity and commitment. As many members today continue to be challenged in their faith through exposure to the Internet, this conclusion seems to be validated.
Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that the church continues to make great strides in candor through its promotion of books like Rough Stone Rolling and Massacre at Mountain Meadows at Deseret Book, and through things like the Joseph Smith Papers project. Also, it is important to note that most of what we do know about church history today has been provided NOT by enemies of the church, but instead through the church's own publications. As we learn from FairLDS.com, some examples include:
"One Mormon, Sampson Avard, formed a group, called the Danites, to seek revenge on the Missourians. But when the Danites attacked the nonmembers, it only gave them more reason to distrust the Saints."
—Sherrie Johnson, “Persecutions in Missouri,” Friend, Jul 1993, 47 off-site
"Furthermore, what people heard about the Mormons as they gossiped over the back fence or sat in the barbershop was often twisted and shaped to appeal to the popular appetite for the lurid and sensational: secret rites, priestly orders, blood atonement, polygamy, and white slavery."
—Neal E. Lambert and Richard H. Cracroft, “Through Gentile Eyes: A Hundred Years of the Mormon in Fiction,” New Era, Mar 1972, 14 off-site
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."
—Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77 off-site
Fore more examples, see the following chronologies of polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, and Joseph's use of folk magic as examples of additional, undeniable church candor via it's own publiations as to the tougher aspects of its history.
If you consider the significant responsiblity the brethren have of governing a worldwide church - it is only reasonable to expect them to govern the church in a way that maximizes commitment and happiness for the greatest number of its members. Consequently, the brethren clearly have had to ask themselves this question: recognizing that the vast majority of members know little of the tougher elements of church history, and only a relatively small group of LDS intellectuals do, which is preferable: 1) To lose some of the intellectuals on the margins by not directly confronting the historical issues (at the most 2% of total members -- and would they really be satisfied with apologies anyway?), or 2) To risk losing and weakening the core base of church membership (60%?) by making them all aware of the tougher aspects of our history and doctrine through an official apology?
Also, if you step back and think about it, if President Monson were to start saying publicly today, "Joseph and Brigham were wrong on a, b and c, but all of you need to continue believing and obeying x, y and z," it is not difficult to predict the outcome. Many members would simply say, "Well, if Joseph or Brigham were wrong back then about a, b and c, why should we believe or follow you about x, y and z?" For the average member, such overt admissions/statements would very quickly weaken the prophetic mantle, and reduce member commitment to LDS Church leadership. It makes no sense to expect LDS Church leaders to erode their own basis of authority. Humans simply do not function this way.
In summary, if you were in their shoes, and the future of the church were riding on your shoulders, would you seriously seek to invite doubt and skepticism with the church membership, and risk destroying an organization that you loved, believed in, and knew was an asset to literally millions of families worldwide? In our opinion, to do so would be grossly irresponsible.
Thus, their dilemma.
You might feel as though the church has a responsibility to be completely open with all of its major flaws and weaknesses, but in the real world, this is probably not very realistic. For example, do you live up to this standard in your own life? Do you tell everyone you meet, or even everyone close to you, all of your deepest, darkest secrets? While it's true that the LDS Church claims to be God's one and only true church, we also acknowledge that in reality, it is run by imperfect men, in less-than-perfect circumstances. Given that realization, why would we expect the church to be any different? It is unreasonable to expect complete transparency from human beings and human organizations -- even ones that claim divine authority. Humans simply don't work that way.
We are not saying it is right for anyone to withhold information about their own wrongdoing from those who depend on them. Ideally, we should all be willing to confess the things we have done wrong and try to make amends. That is the ideal for individuals and for institutions. But we all fall short of that ideal sometimes, in some areas. We can come to understand the human institutional impulse to remain silent about missteps. We may eventually look with compassion on the ways in which humans and institutions seek to hide their flaws, we may forgive, and we may leave ultimate judgment to a higher Judge. Even while we do all that, we do not need to say that hiding one's flaws is right or blameless.
Strive always to be thoughtful, respectful and temperate in your desires to "educate" others, especially in group settings at church. Treat devout Mormons with the same level of respect that you would a devout Muslim or Catholic, in terms of respecting their knowledge and beliefs. You would never remind a Catholic whom you didn't know well about the controversial aspects of their church's history, such as indulgences or child molestation (unless you were just plain rude). You would never mock or question a Muslim about the historicity of Mohammad and the Koran. So why would you treat devout Mormons any differently (unless you got to know them on a personal level, and built up a relationship of trust with them)?
Wholeheartedly resist the temptation to disrupt Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society with controversy. Even though these meetings are promoted under the guise of education, education is clearly not what they are about. They are primarily about convincing members to be obedient to church commandments, and to promote (as much as possible) wholesome living. Learning is far from the primary or even secondary goal. Try your hardest to respect the actual, unstated purpose of the gathering. Instead of disrupting, simply don't attend if you are unable to maintain your cool. Over time, perhaps after some distance, you may find yourself able to attend again with more patience and empathy.
The binary world view denotes thinking that something is either completely true, or completely false. It rarely allows for middle ground, and often does not account for the natural complexities of life and the universe.
If you are unable to continue existing in this paradigm, you may decide that you need to find a healthier way to think about things. Yes, the church pushes this paradigm, for example by saying that the Book of Mormon is either the most marvelous work ever revealed or the vilest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind, but try to not let statements like that get you down. Church leaders sincerely believe that "it's all true, or none of it's true," and virtually all growing churches do the same. Teaching the "true/false" paradigm is what growing churches do. Did the Catholic church grow in its heyday by claiming to be just one good option among many? No. They killed people by the thousands who didn't believe in their way as the one and only way. Same with Protestant religions in the 17th and even 18th centuries. Same with Islam.
If you think about it, what's the point of a denomination at all, if it doesn't consider itself to be "God's one true path?" Or at least the best of all possible paths.
In our assessment, the churches that have let up on emphasizing their "one trueness" have not grown as quickly as churches that continue to trumpet themselves as the one and only. Growth means living; anything less means the church is dying. LDS Church leaders believe that emphasizing the church's "one trueness" is an essential component of survival. They may be right -- just see the growth rates of the Reorganized LDS Church (now Community of Christ), Unitarian Universalists, or Episcopalians for counterexamples.
Once you move past the "true/false" paradigm, you can dramatically lower your expectations of the church. If you expect perfection from the LDS church, or if you dismiss all other churches as abominations -- you will likely be disappointed on both fronts. If the church leadership falls short at times in your estimation -- try to realize that they are all trying their best to fulfill their callings while balancing work, family, and personal stuff -- and stumbling a great deal along the way. As Paul said, "we see through a glass, darkly."
For many, many years in the LDS Church, the conditioning for children, and the heavy emphasis for teenagers, has been to say, "I know this church is true." There are at least two very important things going on in that phrase:
This is not a bad thing. Again, it's simply what religions do. It may be exactly what many young children need to give them reassurance and certainty through the insecurities of young adulthood.
Still -- never forget that faith is the first principle of the gospel. It is foundational -- and it is glorious. Christ Himself said, "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." He didn't say "blessed are those who know." He said "believed." In other words, it is actually a "blessed" state to hope and believe, and not know. We should not in any way feel embarrassed by the fact that we don't know the church is true, or that God and Jesus live. We should feel proud to be believers, in spite of our lack of knowledge.
In addition, the Doctrine and Covenants clearly describes "faith" and "testimony" as a gift -- something that people are either given, or not given (at least to begin with). Consequently, it's perfectly scriptural for some members to have a strong testimony, and for others to simply hope or even not believe (in the conservative sense). The church (and its membership) must allow for this.
Try not to feel pressured into thinking that you are inadequate, or in any way a second class citizen in the church. Be proud of your hope and belief. Be proud of your faith. Stand up and take your place in the church as a proud, faithful, non-knowing believer. You are in every way as legitimate as the "knower" sitting next to you.
A "buffet Mormon" is someone who does not believe every doctrine the church might teach and does not do every task the church might ask of them, but chooses among what is offered and leaves the rest. The term "cafeteria Mormon" means the same thing.
Proudly embrace the title "buffet Mormon." No one can eat everything in a buffet. And no one (including the prophets) can do everything that is expected within Mormonism. So, if you think about it, all Mormons are "buffet Mormons." It's just a matter of to what degree, and how guilty we make ourselves feel about it. Sure, we should all try our best to be as good as possible. But we all fall short, prophets and apostles included. Believe us on this. No one can do everything required by the LDS gospel with perfection (gardens, journals, scripture study, all the prayers, temple, callings, perfect parent and spouse, earn a living, genealogy, etc., etc.) So instead of feeling guilty about it, embrace it. Decide your limits, and balance your life to the healthiest extent possible. Several recent conference talks have even encouraged this.
While we fully support compliance with the traditional LDS interpretation of tithing -- we acknowledge that some people who are struggling with their faith decide that they simply cannot or will not pay 10% of their income to the church any longer -- at least until they work through things in a satisfactory way. Once people arrive at this place, it is also quite natural to want to avoid tithing settlement altogether.
These feelings are completely natural....and for many, the law of tithing becomes something that they simply cannot approach in the same way they used to. That said -- we recommend you think carefully before you discard the law altogether.
For example, if you or your family are still attending church, and benefiting therefrom, it seems ethical (to us) that you not become complete freeloaders w/ the church. In that case, if you're not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can't muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the spirit of the law, and instead divert the other X% to other worthwhile charitable organizations (e.g. cleft palate repair, children with AIDS, homeless shelters, the Red Cross, environmental movements, NPR and PBS, or other forums, publications, or programs that are important to your spiritual development). The LDS Church Humanitarian fund and the Perpetual Education Fund also seem like very worthwhile places to contribute, if you are comfortable doing so.
Again -- we encourage nothing less than the paying of a traditional LDS tithe. But if you are unable to pay a full tithe to the church -- consider maintaining as much of the spirit of the law as you can.
If attending 3 hours of church every Sunday is too much for you right now, instead of quitting church altogether, consider going as often as you feel comfortable. We acknowledge that at times -- if you are struggling with your faith -- sitting through Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society can be very difficult...especially when church history is not always discussed thoroughly or accurately. If you find that certain meetings do you more harm than good -- you may find that you need to take a break from some of them from time to time.
If you do stop going to church altogether, make sure to replace it with something more uplifting for you. Some examples might include: a hike in the canyon, a family-centered devotional at your home, or even a visit to another church. The key is to increase spirituality and connectedness to family and community, not decrease it.
For many of us, stepping back from church attendance for a while helped us realize how much we valued Sunday services.
If you find yourself uncomfortable with certain callings (e.g. teaching callings during a time of intellectual crisis), instead of turning down all callings, consider asking for the types of callings that would work for you. In an ideal world, you could accept any calling and you would magically have the time and testimony needed. But if a calling isn't healthy for you or your family, God (and even the brethren) would clearly want what's best for you, right? And who knows what's best for you more than...you? They can't possibly know your entire situation, so just be honest with them if you can't serve in the way they'd like. We don't mean tell them your entire situation (see "Be really careful what you tell others" below). Just tell them that calling isn't right for you, and maybe suggest a calling you would be more likely to accept. Trust us, they'll take whatever service you are willing to offer (eventually, anyway). If they won't, then, bonus! More free time! That said, meaningful service is irreplaceable for healthy living, as you know.
If the temple makes you feel uncomfortable, take a break for a while -- and don't sweat it. You can come back to the temple once you've had a break, if you actually miss it. Many of us are surprised at how much we enjoy the temple once we re-engage with it in our own terms, at a frequency that is comfortable to us.
If you find a particular gospel teaching that feels offensive to you (e.g. Blacks were less valiant in the preexistence) -- don't ignore that feeling....listen to it. If you don't want to believe that God caused a worldwide flood that killed innocent men, women and children, then don't feel compelled to take it literally. If you don't think proxy work for the dead makes any sense for an all-powerful God, then focus on other areas of church doctrine or theology that work for you..
Students of LDS Church history will confirm that a number of LDS tenants that were considered by most members to be hard, unchangeable doctrine have been largely wiped from the books (e.g., polygamy as a requirement for salvation, blacks as less valiant in the pre-mortal existence, dynastic sealings, multiple baptisms, Adam-God theory, Native Americans as descendants of Lamanites, etc.). So if a certain tenant of LDS doctrine doesn't appeal to you -- don't worry. Chances are that the church has already chosen to distance itself from the particular distasteful doctrine -- and if it hasn't, you should have much reason to hope that it will (relatively) soon.
In support of this approach, in May of 2007 the church put out a press release called "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" which should be encouraging to folks like us. It reads (in part):
To us, this press release provides clear signals that outside of the core tenants of Christianity (faith, hope, charity, love, repentance, etc.) -- there is a very high degree of latitude for personal beliefs about what constitutes Mormon doctrine, and what does not.
In summary, embrace what works for you and your family, and reject (or at least put down for now) what doesn't. Throw away all of the guilt. And most importantly, know that God would really want it this way.
Seriously. You are the captain of your ship. Free agency was given for a reason.
At the judgment day (whatever that is), God won't accept, "Well, they told me to do all this, and even though I felt bad about it, I did it anyway, and it goofed up my life," as an acceptable answer.
Instead, He's likely gonna say, "I gave you a brain. I gave you emotions. I gave you instinct. I gave you experience. I expected you to use them."
As Bonner Ritchie is fond of saying: only you can protect yourself from organizational abuse. Try to remember this truth at all times, as you would with a job, school or marriage. Make sure to never allow yourself or your loved ones to be put in a position of being taken advantage of.
Never let your "good sense" safety guard down -- not even with the church, or church leadership. Not with scoutmasters. Not with Young Men's or Young Women's leaders. Not with home teachers. Not even with bishops.
Detach your care, concern, and self-esteem from the judgment of other church members. To become a buffet Mormon, it means that you must not care what orthodox people think about you from a religious perspective. Religion is ultimately a private thing. It's nobody's business but your own. Don't get defensive when people talk badly about you and judge you. Don't become paranoid at what they are saying. Get to the point where you love folks, but seriously don't give a hoot about what they think of you in terms of how you display your religiosity. One thing's for certain -- they are most likely hiding their weaknesses, and putting their best foot forward. They have their weaknesses, too. It's only a matter of what they allow you to see or think. In the end, most people just try their best in private (often falling short), and in public, they put on as good a face as they can.
At church, focus on the people, and not on the "hard to swallow" teachings or doctrines. Get to know people, and find out what makes them tick, why they think the things they do. Even the most dogmatically obnoxious members can actually become wonderful friends if you take the time to get to know them on a personal basis. Work to uncover what's behind the posturing.
This might not work for all of you -- especially those who generally don't like people. But because we're "people people" (for the most part), this really works for us.
Don't judge the church purely by the actions and words of the most vocal, obnoxious members. In pretty much every ward we've attended, the majority of LDS members are quiet, reasonable, practical, sensible folk. Focus on them -- and ignore the blowhards if you can't make them your friend.
Try to keep in mind that the general membership of the church is often completely out of step with the LDS Church leadership. Culture is very hard to change with 5,000,000 active members. Sometimes it just takes time.
If you listen very carefully to General Conference these days, you will find that a great deal of what is taught today by LDS authorities is actually quite positive, uplifting, and even progressive. Long gone are days when General Authorities waxed on about Kolob, Adam-God, Quakers on the moon, and the "darkies." Here are the days when General Authorities often urge compassion, tolerance, and basic, clean Christian living.
So keep that in mind. Large ships sometimes take a long time to turn around. The brethren really are trying. We church members are sometimes slow to see and hear the gradual changes.
Many of us actually teach our kids (and this is kind of tough, we'll admit) that we don't go to church because we think our church is better than others. We tell them that we go to the LDS Church because:
In addition, we never discuss the church with them in terms of it being "true" or inherently superior to other churches.
Early in our transition the middle way, we would use Sunday dinner time to ask the kids what they were taught on Sunday, and to "de-program" or "disabuse" them of any bad teachings. This was valuable because it re-trained them to realize that they didn't need to blindly believe everything they were taught in church.
While there are several traditional LDS or Christian teachings that we reject, here is a short list of a few examples:
To summarize, teach your kids to do in church what you teach them to do with everything in their lives, including TV, movies, books, school, friends, etc. Seek out the good in these things (for there is great good in all of them). Avoid the bad in these things. Teach them to never blindly believe or follow everything they're told in any of these areas -- church or otherwise. Should your children demonstrate respect? Of course, for those who deserve it. Never blind obedience.
Teach them to use their heads, hearts and spirit -- together -- to determine for themselves what's right, and what's wrong. The church is actually a wonderful laboratory to help practice, and eventually instill this teaching within them.
When we first started sitting our kids down for Sunday dinner and asking them to enumerate all that they learned in church that day, we would then start picking it all apart. We tried to systematically analyze and criticize all of the bad stuff.
As you might imagine, this ended up being a very negative experience for all, and tended to amplify the negative aspects of their church experience in their minds. Simply put, this was a disaster.
It took us a while to realize that cynicism and negativity were more harmful to our souls than dogmatic religious tenets and observance. Consequently, we have tried to teach our kids correct principles, tell them they don't have to believe all things they are taught, and encourage them to focus on the positive aspects of church in our conversations, wherever possible.
In summary, we strongly recommend keeping your focus on the good in the church, because there is much good. Kids should definitely feel comfortable talking openly about their frustrations. But they also need to be reminded to seek out the good in imperfect situations: in church, and in all other aspects of their lives.
Many (not all) of the people we see leave the church are struggling emotionally, in addition to whatever they are feeling about the church. Maybe they have poor health, a really cruddy marriage, a job that makes them miserable, etc.
We're not saying that these folks don't have good cause to be frustrated with the church at times. Many of them clearly do. What we are saying is that some people who leave the church (like many of those who remain within it) might also have personal problems that extend way beyond the church. Instead of facing those difficult problems, they might focus all their anger at the church. The church is an easy scapegoat because it's a human organization being expected to live up to "only trueness." So, of course it let them down.
In the areas where you're seriously disappointed by the church, We're sure you have cause to feel that way. But in addition to dealing with your church-related frustrations, consider looking very closely at your personal life unrelated to the church. Try to determine if there are any personal issues eating at you from the inside. Jesus taught, "if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." This teaches us to deal first with our personal and interpersonal issues, so that we do not drag the church into the situation. Buddha taught: Fix yourself, and make peace with your faith tradition before you ever consider abandoning it for something else (even if the "something else" is Buddhism). If you do not resolve the issues that trouble you, you will just bring the anger and issues with you wherever you go. All you have to do is look at the RFM board to know that healing is not necessarily on the other end of the journey away from the church.
Oftentimes, leaving the church turns out to be an exercise in "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In many instances we've personally witnessed, the church has served as an imperfect means of bringing about genuine healing in people's lives. By discarding the church, you may risk discarding one potential path to resolving your personal problems.
To borrow a metaphor, an immunization is not perfect. It hurts your arm (or other body part). It causes you to bleed. Sometimes it can even make you feel "woozy." But it can also heal you, or prevent you from getting sick.
So it can be with the church. Not always, but definitely sometimes. The church, warts and all, can be a wonderful place to inch towards perfection. See Eugene England's essay on "Why the church is as true as the gospel" for more insight in this regard. It's definitely worth the read.
If you are not feeling spiritually filled at church, consider supplementing your spiritual study with other non-LDS sources. I know many, many active LDS Church members who look to "the best books" and even to other faith traditions to supplement their spiritual needs. We don't suggest this as a means to replace LDS scipture, doctrine and theology, but instead to inform it with new light, and new angles of understanding.
This approach is even encouraged by LDS scripture, doctrine, and statements by LDS General Authorities.
As stated in D&C 88:118:
Also, as published in "God's Love for All Mankind" a by the First Presidency in February 15, 1978:
"The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God's light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.
The Hebrew prophets prepared the way for the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who should provide salvation for all mankind who believe in the gospel.
Consistent with these truths, we believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation, either in this life or in the life to come.
Our message therefore is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. "
Another great quote on this comes from President Ezra Taft Benson in a 1972 address (words of Orson F. Whitney from a 1928 general conference address):
“Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)
Somehow, many of God's children (regardless of race, religion, etc.) seem to be working towards a common goal of love, peace and enlightenment. We have much to learn from our non-LDS brothers and sisters.
Think of the church as a place to serve, not a place to be served.
Without the church-supported community, how else would you find out about the sister who is pregnant, on bed rest, and needs a meal for her family? Or the good brother, or child, who has cancer? Or the widow? Or the father who has lost his job?
Chances to serve are chances to love, to build meaningful relationships, and to build your own sense of worth and self-esteem. They are even chances to "lose yourself" in service and put your own problems in perspective.
Nonetheless, in giving service, you do not need to run faster than you have strength. You can respond to many service opportunities by silently saying, "if I could help, I would. But my needs and my family's needs come first, and I do not have the emotional or financial resources or time to help in that particular situation."
Still, the church can be a great place to find out about opportunities to serve that will fit your ability to give. And who knows, every once in a while (especially if you've paid your dues by serving others), that service just may come back to you in a time of real need.
Don't think of the church as a place to "receive." Think of the church as a place to give. Eventually you will find that in giving, you receive.
We never advocate lying, but we would encourage you to use extreme caution when speaking to church members -- especially church leaders -- about your issues regarding church history, doctrine or culture.
Do not unnecessarily introduce topics or issues to church leadership that will threaten their faith, or cause them to question your loyalty. Resist the temptation to go into the bishop's office and dump all of your doubts and fears upon him. Frankly, the overwhelming majority of bishops are not trained or equipped to handle tough church history or doctrine, or even simple nuance for that matter.
Most of the time, LDS bishops are just trying to keep their own jobs and families from falling apart and keep the ward running, while trying to convince Sister Jones to not leave Brother Jones. Tackling polyandry and peep stones are about the furthest things from their minds -- and should probably remain so.
If you never bring this stuff up, it likely will never come up. If you do bring it up, it can lead to really uncomfortable, and even highly discouraging situations.
Also, realize that there can be a huge variation in approaches and reactions depending on the bishop. We've seen super-tolerant bishops who will accept virtually any type of faith as valid (even a hope) -- and We've seen bishops who are hard liners, and will actively seek to prevent you from baptizing your own children if you happen to express the wrong concerns.
Be very careful before you open up to your bishop about these matters. Once you do, there is likely no "stuffing the genie back in the bottle."
The temple recommend interview process is very intimidating to folks who have become disaffected from Mormonism. More often than not, we hold in our minds an extreme, literalistic, orthodox (and I'd add dramatically unrealistic) expectation as to what the bishop, or even the brethren expect us to believe when they ask the recommend questions. For example:
Truth be told, there have been numerous LDS General Authorities who differed among themselves on a whole host of fundamental aspects of Mormon doctrine -- from the nature of God and man, to the atonement, to Word of Wisdom observance.
We should not assume that our interpretations of church doctrine and policy must align perfectly with those of Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie. Apostles themselves have differed greatly over issues like evolution, birth control, age of the earth, Book of Mormon historicity, valiance of blacks in the pre-mortal existence, etc.
Consequently, you might consider lowering the pressure that comes from assuming your answers to the bishop's questions have to line up exactly with the most literalistic and extreme interpretations of LDS doctrine. There's a reason why David O. McKay stopped publication of Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine; it's because much of it actually wasn't.
Before we address some of the specific temple recommend questions - we must begin this section by emphasizing something very clearly. We do not encourage or condone lying or deception of any sort during the temple recommend interview. If you do not feel like you can answer the questions with integrity, then (in our opinion) you should not in any way try to deceive your ecclesiastical leadership.
The following section is merely an attempt to acknowledge and explore both the existence of uncertainty, and the diversity of views that clearly dwell within the broad LDS community with respect to doctrine and theology. Another way to say this is -- we would hate for folks to unnecessarily exclude themselves from the blessings of temple worship based on rigid or incorrect perceptions that are more culturally or mythologically based -- than they are substantive.
When they ask about belief in God, they don't ask if you believe in an anthropomorphic God. At a minimum, perhaps you believe in some divine power, force, and sense of meaning or purpose in this life. If so, is it dishonest to label that indescribable power "God," and to then answer this question in the affirmative? Perhaps it's something to consider.
Also, it would be silly to deny the possibility of an anthropomorphic God. Who really knows (in the end) what is out there? We might even be surprised. This is what we call "faith" or "hope" -- and certainly it meets Christ's bar of worthiness (as mentioned above).
Once someone begins studying the process by which the New Testament was compiled (not actually written by the apostles, but handed down by oral tradition sometimes generations before it was actually written down), it becomes quite natural to begin questioning one's assumptions about a historical Jesus.
Fortunately, when church leaders ask about Jesus and the Atonement, they don't go into this detail. Instead, they simply ask if you have a testimony of Jesus as your savior (or something to that effect).
Well, at a minimum, we do believe that a man named Jesus once existed, that his teachings have "saved" us from much trouble, pain, and sadness in our lives, and that He ultimately died as a martyr for these teachings.
So again at a minimum, we feel comfortable accepting Jesus as our personal savior in this manner. We're also very open, and even hopeful, that there is much, much more to the story. Again, this is called faith and hope (to us).
Now, we will admit that there is much about the mechanics of the Atonement and the afterlife that we do not understand, but fortunately we are not alone in this regard (by any stretch). Who really understands the Atonement? We would argue that no human really does.
Restoration, as you will notice, is one of the broadest terms of all. What exactly is meant by The Restoration? The articles of faith? The Book of Mormon? Dynastic sealings? Adam-God theory? Polygamy? Theosis?
We can assure you that you could say to virtually any bishop, "I don't believe that polygamy is doctrinal, nor that blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence," and you would still qualify for a recommend, even though Joseph or Brigham "restored" these teachings, and taught them as doctrine.
And so it is with other aspects of the Restoration. In our mind, there are core teachings of the Restoration, and then there are peripheral ones. For us, the core teachings of the Restoration are: faith, repentance, baptism, service, charity, love, families, clean living, etc.
In addition, we feel very comfortable believing that the teachings and theology taught by Joseph Smith in many important ways drastically improved upon, and in some cases even restored truth and goodness to the world, relative to the prevailing Christian teachings of the day. Just take a few of the 13 articles of faith as examples:
For us, there is enough goodness and truth in the "Restoration" to allow us to say that we have a testimony of it.
We do not understand, nor do we agree with every teaching uttered by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. But then again, neither did President Hinckley. See his comments to Larry King about polygamy ("not doctrinal"), and his comments to Time magazine about God once being a man ("I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it") as two examples. Didn't President Kimball himself say that Adam-God was not doctrine? If Presidents Hinckley and Kimball have clearly taught us that not all that teachings by Joseph and Brigham are to be blindly believed, it is our opinion that we should believe take them at their word.
In conclusion, there is much good in the "Restoration" that we can stand behind. That said, we don't feel compelled to believe all that has been associated with it from 1830 to now.
When they ask about our support of President Monson, we feel very comfortable accepting him as our prophet, for two main reasons. First, we no longer expect perfection from any man, prophets included. Second, we listen very carefully to his conference talks, and virtually everything he teaches today we feel very good about, including staying out of debt, avoiding pornography, being a good husband and father, etc.
We're not crazy about the church's stance on gays and women, but we see the church as making positive progress (relatively speaking) on these fronts. As long as they continue to march in the right direction, we can easily take the good with the bad, and accept President Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator for the church..
That said, we are not required in the interview to denounce Buddha, Ghandi, Martin Luther, or even David Wilcox as being uninspired, so we don't feel compelled to read this into the question.
We used to feel troubled a bit by the keys and authority part of the question, but we now feel very comfortable accepting that President Monson has the "keys" or authority to lead members of the LDS Church. We don't feel compelled to deny that God may have made other provisions for the remaining 99.95% of His children.
And again, who knows for sure? Maybe the church does have some uniquely special and specific role to play in the "salvation" of the world. If not spiritually, then maybe temporally. This, again, is where faith (or hope) comes in to play.
We agree that official members of anti-Mormon or apostate organizations should not be members of the church in good standing.
Also, as a group, we are huge fans of the Word of Wisdom, law of chastity, honesty, absence of abuse, tithing and garments, etc.. Throughout our lives, we have tried to obey all of these commandments, even during the times we felt disaffected from the church. So our recommendation to all of you is: never let up on these practices. Clean living is the way to go.
That said, it is fair to say that at least some of these items are open to some personal interpretation. For example:
Please know that we are not in any way advocating dishonesty or deception here. We are simply noting the undeniable reality that many of these questions are subject to at least some private interpretation. We should feel assured in knowing that the brethren ultimately and wisely have left this decision between us and God -- and for good reason.
In conclusion, always answer honestly, but do not unnecessarily exclude yourself from the blessings of temple attendance because of rigid interpretations -- if it's something that you feel might be good for you spiritually.
Resist the tendency to abandon all faith, just because you have become disappointed by certain aspects of your faith tradition.
What's wrong with believing that there is both inspiration and imperfection in all things, including our church? And just because the LDS Church has fallen short of your expectations, can you not also objectively acknowledge that there is still inspiration and goodness within?
So, resist the temptation to deny that truth, goodness and spirituality within Mormonism.
Every rose has its thorns. Every beauty queen or high school hunk has a pimple or two.
Some people struggle with the complexity of crafting an approach to church that feels right to them and the difficulty of maintaining their convictions when the tide of the church community sometimes seems to be moving in another direction. Many say, "why bother?"
For us, aside from all that we and our families gain from membership in the church, it helps to know that in many small ways, we're doing our part to eliminate ignorance, pain, and insularity within Mormonism.
In general, the way to positively impact the members of an organization is to do so from within. Once you've removed yourself from the community, it is far too easy for them to tune you out, so to speak.
For the past several years, our collective mantra has been:
...within Mormonism.
The church needs more voices in support of these tenets -- not fewer. In the "body of Christ" analogy, all body parts are needed, even the backside, so to speak. By remaining a legitimate member of the group, you can play an integral role in helping making it better for those who remain within.
They need us, and we need them. It's that simple.
There's an old saying that is pithy, but nonetheless valid: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." In our experience, this has been true.
Think of your engagement with your ward as a credit/debit system. Try to focus the bulk of your time and energy on serving those around you. Be at as many service projects as you can. Show up for every move you can. Bail the high counselor out when his car breaks down. Take meals to your bishopric and Relief Society presidency. Be the type of Christian you want the church to represent.
Then, once you've done all you can to build up a bank account of love, respect and credibility within the ward and stake, you may be able to slowly, gently, and in a non-threatening way let both your leadership and select members know you are not a typical Mormon, in some ways you are unorthodox or different. Over time, you will not only be able to discover others like you in this regard (and there always are -- they are usually among the quiet or "inactive" ones), but you will eventually find people who are willing to open up to you, and discuss things freely (though maybe only in a one-on-one setting).
Over time, if you keep your bank account of ward service "in the black," you will change hearts and minds. You can literally transform an entire quorum or Relief Society or even a ward community into a more loving, open minded, informed, and compassionate place.
The potential is limitless.
The "Middle Way of Mormonism" is not for everyone, and is definitely not likely to be sanctioned by church leaders anytime soon.
Nonetheless, we have corresponded with literally hundreds of disaffected Mormons over the past several years, and it always amazes us that an astoundingly large percentage of those who have left the church have not (in the long run) found the peace, solace and spirituality that they thought they find would upon leaving. Some have, we will admit. But a heavy percentage to this day write us to say, "I wish I could go back. I thought I wouldn't miss it, but I do. I desperately miss the church. I just don't know how to return, or how to make it all work."
We hope that for at least some of you, these suggestions will prove useful in this journey back.
Regardless of your choices, if you've made it this far in the essay, we are connected.
As fellow travelers on this wonderful and bizarre Mormon journey, we wish you Godspeed. Please keep in touch.
Some additional resources you may find valuable in this context:
Classic essays on staying in the church as a different sort of Mormon:
For audio programming that deal with topics on "How to Stay", check out this link.
An audiovisual screencast on why people leave the LDS Church, and what family, friends, and community can do about it:
From the "How to Stay in the LDS Church after Losing Your Faith " Workshops:
Please let us know your thoughts, and how we can improve.