You're moving your horsey wrong

[UtahDan]

I hope my question is not simplistic (I think it is merely simple): Why can't someone who is not "all in" just tell the bishop, "I have major belief issues but I'm going to come to church now and then anyway. I don't want [a calling/home teachers/whatever]. I just want to be involved at the level I feel comfortable with. I'll let you know if anything changes." Our bishop (and every bishop I've ever known) would say, "Okay."

I suspect that you think I am missing something. What is it?

I think they can. But what I understand a lot of people to be attempting is much more ambitious than that. They want institutional and cultural acceptance for that approach beyond one bishop, if that makes sense. In your hypothetical, I think the person is deciding that they are okay with the church being what it is and will engage at the level the want to, living with whatever negative consequences of that which might come (and in the right ward or family they may be few). That seems fine to me. Trying to get the church to be something else is just a waste, IMO. Not solely (or even primarily) because they church is not terribly malleable (it's not, of course) but also because my experience is that the people who think they want a church like that move on from that idea before long among other reasons.

[UtahDan]

Membership clerk, that way, they can see who else has an asterisk.

Or executive secretary. Keeping your enemies close and all that.

[UtahDan]

Worse yet, they probably won't be able to participate in any ordinances involving their kids and they won't be allowed to attend temple weddings for friends and family. This would likely lead to lots of stress on a marriage and family relationships.

Right, and if I thought there was some way to sort through that so that a person could have their cake and eat it to (not be fully in, but still get all the benefits) I would be all for that, to avoid the things you are talking about. But then you are talking about a different sort of organization. I think the more realistic approach is not to change what the institution is, but to get people on both sides to accept that they are different from each other and that is okay.

[Moliere]

I agree. I don't understand why a person who felt that way would want to have a calling that required him/her to teach or espouse (or publicly disavow) key teachings or beliefs. I also think it would be unreasonable to expect that -- it's a case of wanting to "have your cake and eat it too."

However, I think that someone who struggles with these issues, but genuinely seeks for faith should be granted full fellowship, including a TR, leadership positions, and teaching positions. IMO, which I'm sure is somewhat wrong, just the ability to express doubt without any sort of repercussion would be enough to spread the tent big enough for my liking. I think it would be great to have a bishop or EQP that can stand up and say they don't know for a surety the church of Christ has been restored, but they have faith that it is and they hope someday their faith will be rewarded with knowledge. If such an event happened today I bet word would get back to the stake quickly and that person would be released shortly thereafter. The release would be followed up with other leadership trying to resolve the "concerns" of the person.

There's a reason I'm not fully open about my doubts. There are repercussions I'm not willing to take in spite of the fact I'd likely still be a full fledged member given that I'm still a believer. But in this church, the use of specific language ("know", "beyond the shadow of a doubt", "every fiber of my being" ) goes a long, long way. Some people try to mentally get around this by redefining what we mean when we say "know", but ultimately that process falls flat for me the same way redefining the term "preside over the family" and "patriarch" fall flat. Sure I don't doubt some people "know" but I doubt every person in the church that consistently uses that term "knows".

There are many degrees of "struggle", so the answer to that question is hard to provide without knowing the magnitude of their struggles.

I agree. See above.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Right, and if I thought there was some way to sort through that so that a person could have their cake and eat it to (not be fully in, but still get all the benefits) I would be all for that, to avoid the things you are talking about. But then you are talking about a different sort of organization. I think the more realistic approach is not to change what the institution is, but to get people on both sides to accept that they are different from each other and that is okay.

Yes. A more Christlike one, I think.

[UtahDan]

How would you define this? Or moreover, what would it look like? It seems like in many of these situations, there is always some kind of string attached to acceptance really on both sides. So I'm curious to know how something like this would work.

It is tough to generalize about. But for example it is more fruitful for me to accept that, to you, I will probably always be wrong and that you hope for my own good I will realize it at some point, as opposed to trying to get you to see the world through my eyes. You and I have spent endless hours talking about these issues and while I'm confident you understand much better where I am coming from, I doubt very much that I have make any progress in getting you to think my choices are correct or wise. And why should I expect you to think that? I shouldn't. Rather, I should accept that you have a right to your view of things, even if that includes some judgment directed at me, and that this is perfectly fine. It is better for me to work on not holding our differences against you (this requires little if any effort in your case, by the way) and to just have the most positive relationship I can, again as opposed to hoping you will somehow change.

It might just be as simple as people continuing to see the good in each other and focusing on that.

[Portland Ute]

Membership clerk, that way, they can see who else has an asterisk.

Or a ward financial clerk...

[Portland Ute]

I initially had the same response to UD, but ultimately I think what he is saying is that you can't be a full on member if you did that.

Take for instance your example above, although let's change it and say that the person has belief issues and tells the bishop they struggle with the First Vision, or BoM historicity, or other things like that. Let's also say this person wants to come every week and hold a calling. Now, what calling will you give this person? There's probably a good chance they'll spend their church life as a primary worker or ward sports director.

I suppose one could take the approach that they will forge their niche without advising the bishop of such beliefs.

Get a recommend. Turn down callings that you are not comfortable with. Attend as you feel comfortable.

I guess what I am saying is that it is plausible that someone can arrive to a participation arrangement that is comfortable to them without really delving into the reasons with a Church leader.

[creekster]

One of the things that often gets lost, IMO, in this type of discussion is that the very fact that the church is so demanding is precisely why it is so integral to so many members' lives. Changing that would leave the church a shadow of itself and changed in a way that would make it of less value to most. It's like owning a sports car and then wishing it had a pick up bed so you could bring home the plywood you need from home depot. If you got your wish you would lose what you had.

[Jeff Lebowski]

One of the things that often gets lost, IMO, in this type of discussion is that the very fact that the church is so demanding is precisely why it is so integral to so many members' lives. Changing that would leave the church a shadow of itself and changed in a way that would make it of less value to most. It's like owning a sports car and then wishing it had a pick up bed so you could bring home the plywood you need from home depot. If you got your wish you would lose what you had.

That's an excellent point. But I think the church can still have high standards and high demands on the membership while at the same time being more loving and accepting of sinners and doubters. Maybe I'm wrong. SU always tells me I am nuts.

[SeattleUte]

One of the things that often gets lost, IMO, in this type of discussion is that the very fact that the church is so demanding is precisely why it is so integral to so many members' lives. Changing that would leave the church a shadow of itself and changed in a way that would make it of less value to most. It's like owning a sports car and then wishing it had a pick up bed so you could bring home the plywood you need from home depot. If you got your wish you would lose what you had.

Yes, many people like being told how to think and what to do. The LDS Church as presently constituted is valuable to such folks.

By the way, there's a sweet exchange between Pelagius and me in this thread. But I rarely read old posts and think, shit, I wrote that, how embarrassing.

[Northwestcoug]

One of the things that often gets lost, IMO, in this type of discussion is that the very fact that the church is so demanding is precisely why it is so integral to so many members' lives. Changing that would leave the church a shadow of itself and changed in a way that would make it of less value to most. It's like owning a sports car and then wishing it had a pick up bed so you could bring home the plywood you need from home depot. If you got your wish you would lose what you had.

I'm not saying that demanding a rigid adherence to standards is necessarily a bad thing. And I think the argument that if the church were to relax its standards it would lose members has some merit. But whenever I hear it, I am reminded of other less orthodox faiths that seem to attract significant followers. They participate in service, go to activities, probably go to church most weeks, and self-identify as church members. If they don't give as much time to their church as mormons do to theirs, they may not view it as integral to their lives as we do. But is that necessarily a bad thing? There's plenty of good ways to occupy your time, if you're not at the church more than once a week.

[creekster]

Yes, many people like being told how to think and what to do. The LDS Church as presently constituted is valuable to such folks.

By the way, there's a sweet exchange between Pelagius and me in this thread. But I rarely read old posts and think, shit, I wrote that, how embarrassing.

I won't deny that this is true for some people. but in your headlong rush to be cute and critical you ignore that a demanding organization that requires sacrifice and commitment also tends to generate great loyalty and connection, even for those that are independent thinkers. These are the types that just can't leave it alone. Know anyone like that?

[creekster]

I'm not saying that demanding a rigid adherence to standards is necessarily a bad thing. And I think the argument that if the church were to relax its standards it would lose members has some merit. But whenever I hear it, I am reminded of other less orthodox faiths that seem to attract significant followers. They participate in service, go to activities, probably go to church most weeks, and self-identify as church members. If they don't give as much time to their church as mormons do to theirs, they may not view it as integral to their lives as we do. But is that necessarily a bad thing? There's plenty of good ways to occupy your time, if you're not at the church more than once a week.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it wouldn't be the same thing. but if you want something different, then go join something different.

[SeattleUte]

I won't deny that this is true for some people. but in your headlong rush to be cute and critical you ignore that a demanding organization that requires sacrifice and commitment also tends to generate great loyalty and connection, even for those that are independent thinkers. These are the types that just can't leave it alone. Know anyone like that?

I think it's about identity and belonging (not really the same things but internal and external features of the same phenomenon).