Through a link from mormonstories I came across this article in an LDS publication. The author of the article contends that many people who leave the Mormon church do so because they've been offended by another member or by a church leader.
I just wanted to take a moment to affirm that I did NOT cease my activity in the LDS Church because I was offended by any particular leader or by any particular incident/interaction with a church member. My change of heart is due to fundamental disagreement with LDS doctrines, practices, and culture.
Okay, just had to get that off my chest, as some have suggested (including my own leaders) that I left because an offense. Which is simply not the case. If anything, it was my fondness for the people of the church that made it difficult to stop participating. And it is my continued support of my LDS friends that leads me to sporadically attend Mormon-sponsored events.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
If I haven't offended you yet I will simply have to work harder!
Jana,
It's funny, I was just reading that article today.
I know that there are serious problems with the general perception among church members, that everyone who leaves the church does so because they're offended. The old Thomas B. Marsh story, and so on.
On the other hand, I think there's a lot of good in the Bednar talk. Take a look:
"It ultimately is impossible for another person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else.
. . . We have been blessed with the gift of moral agency, the capacity for independent action and choice. Endowed with agency, you and I are agents, and we primarily are to act and not just be acted upon. To believe that someone or something can make us feel offended, angry, hurt, or bitter diminishes our moral agency and transforms us into objects to be acted upon. As agents, however, you and I have the power to act and to choose how we will respond to an offensive or hurtful situation."
That's actually, I think, really good advice and analysis. It's unfortunate that the talk then hits stereotypes about the offended ex-member. But a lot of the talk is quite good, and I was very happy to focus on that when I taught the talk (a few months ago).
i've been incredibly irritated myself over this whole thing. partly because i know you and that you have not made your decisions based on offense. it frustrates me that leaders might allow elder bednar's talk to authorize them into not trying to truly understand each individual's mind and heart and instead simply assume that somewhere they were offended and so therefore their position is their own fault.
i agree with kaimi that there are some truths presented in bednar's talk ultimately i agree that we are not simply objects to be acted upon and that we can control our own response to situations. that said, i think it's dangerous to always look to those offended as the only moral agents who must change. often offense is actually given. and i think that there is often a momentary reaction that is beyond our ability to consciously control. certainly we can, and should, control our extended reactions. but just as certainly those who behaved inappropriately should change so that they no longer give cause for offense (no matter how at fault the person offended is for not choosing the higher path in response).
sorry to go on. :) just know, jana, that i am frustrated on your behalf if you are being treated as if you're obviously just being foolish or misguided because you're offended.
Kaimi, Tanya and Amy:
Thank you for your thoughts and your sympathy. I absolutely agree with everything that you've said here, except that i have to add that if Tanya doesn't make me some cinnamon rolls sometime soon, I will be highly outraged, perhaps even offended. :)
Seriously, though, through the years there have been numerous frustrating and alienating experiences for me at church, but these rarely ever came from the actions of Mormons themselves, and almost never came from those in my local ward(s). Most LDS that I know are kind, generous, and incredibly well-intentioned. Seriously. No hard feelings there at all.
I don't feel like people who think I've distanced myself from the church for a supposed "offense" have any clue what a gut-wrenching, difficult process this has been for me. Why would I alter my life in such a dramatic way simply because someone hurt my feelings? That's just weird and even dismissive of my journey. Is it so hard to accept that I've found another spiritual path that works better for me and my family?
The fact of the matter is that people do leave the church because they were offended, and people do leave the church because they have "sinned" or want to "sin." I'm not making a value judgment here: both may or may not be perfectly legitimate reasons to leave the church; I'll leave that up to the "leavers" to decide.
The point is that in the eyes of the church, while neither outcome is to be hoped for, both outcomes are to be expected given the church's teaching re free agency and the idea that this life is a test. Both outcomes also conveniently put the blame on either the people, either the "leaver," other members, or both. It isn't the church's fault, not the institution, nor the doctrine.
Jana Remy and Richard Dutcher cannot leave the church because of problems with LDS doctrine, practices, and culture because that puts the blame on the institution and the gospel. If the church and priesthood, etc. are "true" -- literally God's only representative institution, and the "power" by which he created the universe -- then the church and its believers cannot accept Jana's and Richard's reason for leaving. To accept it goes against their most cherished and fundamental beliefs. So they force-fit them into awkward categories like "offense" and "sin."
P.S. Enjoyed your Touchstones piece in Sunstone.
Post a Comment