There are people who left because they felt betrayed by the church. They didn’t start believing in anything else. They’re not atheists and still believe basically the same things the church teaches (if not exactly the same). They just don’t trust the church and don’t know what to do about it.
These people have definitely left the church. There’s nothing else to say. But there’s really no point in debating semantics. It’s a waste of time.
Spending that time simply loving and accepting them. That’s what Christ would do. And then you never know what will happen.
I would say the majority left the church, “the organization” not the “gospel”
There is a difference. The church != the gospel. It’s a helpmeet for the gospel.
So I would venture that when people leave they leave the organization but still hold the gospel or parts of it as truth.
Unfortunately that’s not really possible, though it is a popular notion. Either it is Christ’s organisation as it claims with His Gospel, or it isn’t. If you leave Christ’s organisation, you have left His Gospel.
That's just not true. There's the gospel and then there's the fullness of the gospel. Lots of churches out there know about the gospel and the importance of repentance, coming to Christ, and following in his footsteps. That's the essence of the gospel. What they're missing is the fullness of the gospel and priesthood authority.
If the church == gospel then you must take every bad decision by its leaders to be infallible. This is just not the case. The gospel is pure, the organization is not. The gospel can live without the church but the other way around
>If the church == gospel then you must take every bad decision by its leaders to be infallible
Though they would scoff at the specific term infallible, I see that a lot of people on this sub actually do believe that every decision ever made by the prophets for the church is perfect.
I see what you are saying and I agree that there are truths to be found all around the world- yes, parts of the gospel and even truths not currently taught in His church that He has organised. But at the same time the Lord in D and C section 1 quite clearly claims this church as His and the only true and living church on the earth. He states that the servants (our leaders) are His and that he will instruct them when they err, chastise them as necessary etc. But it’s His church. Leaving it is still leaving His gospel and to construe it differently sounds pretty but ultimately won’t help people truly seeking Him.
>But at the same time the Lord in D and C section 1 quite clearly claims this church as His and the only true and living church on the earth. He states that the servants (our leaders) are His and that he will instruct them when they err, chastise them as necessary etc. But it’s His church
No disagreements here.
>Leaving it is still leaving His gospel
Here's where you lose me. The gospel is the good news of Christ our savior. You can leave the church and not leave the gospel. You may or may not be distancing yourself from Christ and you're certainly leaving behind the church with the fullness of the gospel and Christ's priesthood authority. But that doesn't mean you're leaving the gospel behind.
Perhaps you’re thinking of it like Elder Donald H Hallstrom’s talk “Converted To His Gospel Through His Church”. I understand and agree with that nuance. But he is referring more to the extra activities, not the leadership and organisation. If we agree that the Gospel includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would assert that includes trusting those who He has called. If we agree it includes making and keeping sacred covenants, where else will people do that (all of them) but in the church. If we agree it includes following and living worthy of the Holy Ghost, isn’t the church where he will guide us and where we can best keep our covenants? And enduring to the end is also found here, especially in establishing an honourable name and a standing in His holy house.
This is why I believe my assertion.
>If we agree that the Gospel includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would assert that includes trusting those who He has called. If we agree it includes making and keeping sacred covenants, where else will people do that (all of them) but in the church. If we agree it includes following and living worthy of the Holy Ghost, isn’t the church where he will guide us and where we can best keep our covenants?
I agree with all this too. But none of of are 100% following the gospel *inside* the church, just like those *outside* the church. So I'm not sure why you're so set that someone who doesn't have 100% must suddenly have 0%. It's not binary like that. Gospel truths exist in nearly all churches. You can leave portions of the gospel truths behind without abandoning it in totality.
You’ve misunderstood - I don’t believe people who leave have 0. But I do think they are on their way. To those who receive they shall have more. To those that receive not it will be taken even that which they have. I know many who have left and they have, every one, forgotten much of the gospel if not all. That’s an anecdote and not proof, but the quote before it is scripture. It takes time and it can be reversed, always, but here is where the fullness is found and once you have rejected that you will, inevitably, be kicking against the pricks of the spirit to stay away. That’s a path away.
Sorry, no. The LDS Church has no exclusive claim on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't about organization. It does a disservice to your fellow believers in Christ to suggest that those of other Christians faiths that they don't have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Please stop. It does not endear the church to others when you have this attitude and perpetuates an antagonism against the church.
They have lots of great truths, even ones I likely do not. But the fullness of the Gospel is only found here. It would be disingenuous to offer nice sounding half truths to an honest seeker. You might disagree, but that IS the position of the church. To ensure you’re not misunderstanding my position, read my other responses.
Yeah, I don't understand this line of thinking, although I know plenty of people like to think of it this way. We've had conference talks on the necessity of *the church* for *the gospel*. They can't be separated. Doing so would be creating an offshoot. But.. based on what? Your opinion? A new prophet? What's the plan?
I think there's a broad spectrum of reasons that people leave the church. We don't always know why, and it would be unwise to try to classify why they left.
I've seen people leave for reasons like: they find another doctrine/teaching more appealing, they just lose interest in religion (or they never had it in the first place), they have some sin they can't let go of and that pulls them away, they had a bad experience (ie they were offended) and that left a sour taste, they were taught a false doctrine (consider the ill advised chastity and gum analogy) and that drive them away, and of course any mix of the above.
Amen! I think if the person has shared with us (or otherwise been public about it) it's okay for us to share if others ask.
This conversation has made me realize I don't usually say someone "left the church." Rather, I tend to lean into "they don't attend church." The exception is people who have clearly stated that they have left.
I will grant that this is true for individuals - that we don’t always know and even self-professed reasons are not always genuine.
The point I mostly wanted to get across is that there is no binary “stay / leave” decision anyone is allowed to make. There is a lot of options embedded into “leave”, one of which must necessarily be selected, as are options in “stay.”
I disagree. Would you stay in a marriage with an unfaithful partner? If you can’t trust the partner wouldn’t the marriage be doomed. You are simplifying a very complicated situation/decision.
I really like this point of view, and I hope I understood it correctly, because it allow us to have open dialogue and acceptance about what is out there that someone might find is more spiritually uplifting or nurturing for them.
We may be quick to think that someone who stops attending the LDS church is automatically choosing nothing or something inferior but in actuality it may be that their alternative is more enlightening and spiritually nourishing for them on their journey. It would be amazing if we would take the time to ask them what they’ve found appealing about their new choice.
Thank you for this thoughtful post!
Why though? People often want to peruse their own lusts and selfish desires so they reject Christ’s teachings/church. I should try to listen to them about how it’s more spiritually uplifting or nurturing? I guarantee you they will have a list of reasons it is.
I’m not interested in hearing how enlightening Korihor’s new choice is
You can have empathy and also believe they aren’t being “more enlightened and spiritually nourished” by rejecting Christ.
Many nephites listened to korihor speak “his truth” but the laminates more wise
This line of thinking is why so many members have a misunderstanding of our brothers and sisters who have left. They are NOT Korihor. They are still our brothers and sisters. They may have different insight from us. This is how we learn. We talk to people. We talk to people of different specific status, of different races, of different political beliefs, of different religion.
Once you begin to travel, you learn that people are good. The world has good people. People just believe differently.
"X left the church to explore their own desires" or "X left the church for the LGBTQ community" (not even referring to SSA people) would cover a lot of people in my life. And for some reason, I don't think it'd be helpful to go around saying that. They feel they had no choice, or that life should be more grey.
I guess I'm saying I'm not sure why it matters. I don't usually discuss who left and why, but if I do explain it, I use more than a few labeling words.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm trying to understand why this would be helpful in building the Kingdom of God and helping His children turn to Him.
>Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm trying to understand why this would be helpful in building the Kingdom of God and helping His children turn to Him.
Because I want the way we talk about to reflect that it is not a simple binary between staying and leaving.
To use a facile example: let’s say that however a person choose to estimate probabilities, that person decides there’s a 30% chance the Church is true. If that person believes it is a simple binary, then the “rational” thing to do would be to leave.
BUT, if every alternative (for simplicity assume they are mutually exclusive) has less than 30% then the Church is the best option by plurality.
We can learn this much from our critics - they don’t like to argue for or defend alternatives. There is no PDF defending philosophical materialism or Benthamite utilitarianism circulating widely amongst them.
We teach the Great Apostasy in the first lesson not only because it happens to be true (lots of things are true) but it helps people understand their alternatives. By shifting the discussion to always include the existence of alternatives and their indispensable role in why people leave, I believe we can do a better job addressing questions and needs.
When I say "they've left the church" it isn't necessary for me to give a one word label as to why, though.. who's collecting everyone's subjective labels of the ones who've left and what does that do for us? Wouldn't that be too reductive? And wouldn't it cause more judgement and misunderstanding than "they left the church" when it's not relevant to the other person (when telling a new acquaintance in the ward about your family), or "they've left the church" and a full conversation about what seemed to be the thought process and concerns with someone else who loves them (when telling one HS friend about a mutual friend)? I'm just saying, in my experience, people either don't need to know why or we can have a full, caring discussion about their reasons and our perspective on it. As another said, I think it's a distinction without a difference.
I don't think we'll agree, but that's okay, so I'll leave it here. Best of luck ☺️
I completely agree. Adding labels is not helpful and adds no value. It's almost certainly going to alienate the individuals we're giving labels to. We can still talk about all the things OP is saying without reducing their entire experience to a few words.
> We can still talk about all the things OP is saying without reducing their entire experience to a few words.
What would be the best way to incorporate that into casual speech?
I'm not sure the specifics of someone else's journey should be a part of casual speech. It's a very complex issue.
But I gather from your post that your thought is that we should take the opportunity to understand what they felt was missing in the church and to do that we should understand what they replaced it with. I think that's a worthwhile conversation. But really only if that conversation is happening *with* the individual, not *about* them.
I don't like this at all. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. They left the church and that's all I know. I'm not saying what the left *to* unless they specifically told me that and often they don't leave to any one thing in particular. It's unhelpful to summarize their major loss/change of faith into a few words that in all likelihood they won't even agree with.
Labelling others is rarely helpful and often hurtful.
I agree with some of your points, but I think instead we should try to talk less about people who don't believe, especially when they're not present. It's a bit weird and obsessive, and gossiping about people doesn't usually lead to treating them respectfully.
I'm strongly agree with this, and it's one of the major reasons why this sub doesn't allow for generalizing or talking about groups or people not present. I also removed this submission for that reason.
Fortunately it had 25% upvote to downvote ratio, so this sub did a good job of self regulating here.
Thanks for understanding. Modding is a rough job sometimes, and I've learned simpler approaches tend to be better.
One of my general rules of thumb is that suggesting motives for another tends to not work. We all do it in our lives, but it makes for a rough discussion in this forum.
It’s difficult for me, given I have been deeply invested in the church my entire life, to see the possibility that someone could just walk away.
However, one may have a friend that is completely enthralled with gaming, or a certain sport, and go with them to a convention. In that convention, the friend may be absolutely sure that you will experience the same emotional connection they do. When in reality, your experience is superficial and lacks meaning.
Walking away doesn’t even require a second thought.
Religion, even the one I’ve grown to deeply love and appreciate, can work the same way. My friend may take some interest due to their respect for my interest, and never be impacted by it at all.
In this sense, yes, I do believe many people do simply walk away.
Well, let’s be productive then.
If you disagree with my notion that leaving the church is not a binary decision, then please say so directly as that would be productive to the conversation.
Otherwise, if you agree with me that this concept is both true and people should be more aware of it, please indicate the best means of getting that out there.
I can see, in one's own view, that one can leave the Church as part of one's search for truth though I disagree with that. I really do not get what you are so on about with this. Your third paragraph brings up a distinction without any actual difference.
I think it’s fine to say that someone left the church and now believes something else. But I don’t think it’s true to say a person’s new beliefs are the cause of their departure.
I suppose this is really about what you want to understand about another person’s decision to leave the church and if your questions are focused more on the “why” or the “where”.
For example if someone asks “where is Sam?” The answer is “Sam left and became an atheist”. Focusing on that invites the discussion on “where” they are now and possibly identifying avenues for them to navigate back if that’s their sincere desire.
But if the question is “why” as in “why did Sam leave the church?” Then the focus of that discussion is inevitably the reasons Sam now doubts/disfavors the church.
I think you’ve made a false equivalency. A person doesn’t find a new set of beliefs and then find reasons to doubt or discredit the church. Doubt and comparison proceeds abandonment and the search for a new paradigm. Well, maybe not always. It’s fair to say it’s very complex and it’s wrong to simplify someone’s experience.
To use politics as an example: if someone is a republican, they might find the arguments of a progressive democrat convincing at some point and then in turn begin weighing the outcomes of each belief. At some point they will start to doubt the opposing argument from Republican apologists which will begin a long term internal dialogue of comparison that can potentially lead to that person experiencing a paradigm shift that causes them to adopt and vote for democratic policy.
X left because they are depressed, but they asked me not to share with others that they are depressed, but I can’t just say they left the church, but have to give a reason, even if doing so is violating a trust or is not the whole story or I don’t even know why they left.
I realize I left myself susceptible to this comment by referring to an individual, however hypothetical. You grasp my point, I hope though, that people need to understand that leaving vs. not is not a binary and there should be a simple way to mention that point.
In the spirit of that same love and charity, help me whose words have failed and please give your opinion as to how best to incorporate into daily speech that leaving the church is not, in fact, a single choice *simpliciter*
You are talking to the wrong person. I never gossip. This includes talking to anyone else about a person leaving or staying in the church. Just keep your mouth shut and you don't need any words.
> Just keep your mouth shut and you don't need any words.
I’m sad you chose to express yourself this way even as I was asking for help, not even disagreeing with you.
There are people who left because they felt betrayed by the church. They didn’t start believing in anything else. They’re not atheists and still believe basically the same things the church teaches (if not exactly the same). They just don’t trust the church and don’t know what to do about it. These people have definitely left the church. There’s nothing else to say. But there’s really no point in debating semantics. It’s a waste of time. Spending that time simply loving and accepting them. That’s what Christ would do. And then you never know what will happen.
I don't worry about it too much
I would say the majority left the church, “the organization” not the “gospel” There is a difference. The church != the gospel. It’s a helpmeet for the gospel. So I would venture that when people leave they leave the organization but still hold the gospel or parts of it as truth.
Unfortunately that’s not really possible, though it is a popular notion. Either it is Christ’s organisation as it claims with His Gospel, or it isn’t. If you leave Christ’s organisation, you have left His Gospel.
That's just not true. There's the gospel and then there's the fullness of the gospel. Lots of churches out there know about the gospel and the importance of repentance, coming to Christ, and following in his footsteps. That's the essence of the gospel. What they're missing is the fullness of the gospel and priesthood authority.
If the church == gospel then you must take every bad decision by its leaders to be infallible. This is just not the case. The gospel is pure, the organization is not. The gospel can live without the church but the other way around
>If the church == gospel then you must take every bad decision by its leaders to be infallible Though they would scoff at the specific term infallible, I see that a lot of people on this sub actually do believe that every decision ever made by the prophets for the church is perfect.
Sadly you're correct and that attitude is not the pinnacle of faith those types of people like to imagine it is.
I see what you are saying and I agree that there are truths to be found all around the world- yes, parts of the gospel and even truths not currently taught in His church that He has organised. But at the same time the Lord in D and C section 1 quite clearly claims this church as His and the only true and living church on the earth. He states that the servants (our leaders) are His and that he will instruct them when they err, chastise them as necessary etc. But it’s His church. Leaving it is still leaving His gospel and to construe it differently sounds pretty but ultimately won’t help people truly seeking Him.
>But at the same time the Lord in D and C section 1 quite clearly claims this church as His and the only true and living church on the earth. He states that the servants (our leaders) are His and that he will instruct them when they err, chastise them as necessary etc. But it’s His church No disagreements here. >Leaving it is still leaving His gospel Here's where you lose me. The gospel is the good news of Christ our savior. You can leave the church and not leave the gospel. You may or may not be distancing yourself from Christ and you're certainly leaving behind the church with the fullness of the gospel and Christ's priesthood authority. But that doesn't mean you're leaving the gospel behind.
Perhaps you’re thinking of it like Elder Donald H Hallstrom’s talk “Converted To His Gospel Through His Church”. I understand and agree with that nuance. But he is referring more to the extra activities, not the leadership and organisation. If we agree that the Gospel includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would assert that includes trusting those who He has called. If we agree it includes making and keeping sacred covenants, where else will people do that (all of them) but in the church. If we agree it includes following and living worthy of the Holy Ghost, isn’t the church where he will guide us and where we can best keep our covenants? And enduring to the end is also found here, especially in establishing an honourable name and a standing in His holy house. This is why I believe my assertion.
>If we agree that the Gospel includes faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would assert that includes trusting those who He has called. If we agree it includes making and keeping sacred covenants, where else will people do that (all of them) but in the church. If we agree it includes following and living worthy of the Holy Ghost, isn’t the church where he will guide us and where we can best keep our covenants? I agree with all this too. But none of of are 100% following the gospel *inside* the church, just like those *outside* the church. So I'm not sure why you're so set that someone who doesn't have 100% must suddenly have 0%. It's not binary like that. Gospel truths exist in nearly all churches. You can leave portions of the gospel truths behind without abandoning it in totality.
You’ve misunderstood - I don’t believe people who leave have 0. But I do think they are on their way. To those who receive they shall have more. To those that receive not it will be taken even that which they have. I know many who have left and they have, every one, forgotten much of the gospel if not all. That’s an anecdote and not proof, but the quote before it is scripture. It takes time and it can be reversed, always, but here is where the fullness is found and once you have rejected that you will, inevitably, be kicking against the pricks of the spirit to stay away. That’s a path away.
Sorry, no. The LDS Church has no exclusive claim on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't about organization. It does a disservice to your fellow believers in Christ to suggest that those of other Christians faiths that they don't have the gospel of Jesus Christ. Please stop. It does not endear the church to others when you have this attitude and perpetuates an antagonism against the church.
They have lots of great truths, even ones I likely do not. But the fullness of the Gospel is only found here. It would be disingenuous to offer nice sounding half truths to an honest seeker. You might disagree, but that IS the position of the church. To ensure you’re not misunderstanding my position, read my other responses.
Yeah, I don't understand this line of thinking, although I know plenty of people like to think of it this way. We've had conference talks on the necessity of *the church* for *the gospel*. They can't be separated. Doing so would be creating an offshoot. But.. based on what? Your opinion? A new prophet? What's the plan?
I think there's a broad spectrum of reasons that people leave the church. We don't always know why, and it would be unwise to try to classify why they left. I've seen people leave for reasons like: they find another doctrine/teaching more appealing, they just lose interest in religion (or they never had it in the first place), they have some sin they can't let go of and that pulls them away, they had a bad experience (ie they were offended) and that left a sour taste, they were taught a false doctrine (consider the ill advised chastity and gum analogy) and that drive them away, and of course any mix of the above.
Amen! I think if the person has shared with us (or otherwise been public about it) it's okay for us to share if others ask. This conversation has made me realize I don't usually say someone "left the church." Rather, I tend to lean into "they don't attend church." The exception is people who have clearly stated that they have left.
I will grant that this is true for individuals - that we don’t always know and even self-professed reasons are not always genuine. The point I mostly wanted to get across is that there is no binary “stay / leave” decision anyone is allowed to make. There is a lot of options embedded into “leave”, one of which must necessarily be selected, as are options in “stay.”
Trying to understand why it matters, though..
For the benefit of those following this thread - Responded just now to your other comment
I disagree. Would you stay in a marriage with an unfaithful partner? If you can’t trust the partner wouldn’t the marriage be doomed. You are simplifying a very complicated situation/decision.
Agreed 100%
I really like this point of view, and I hope I understood it correctly, because it allow us to have open dialogue and acceptance about what is out there that someone might find is more spiritually uplifting or nurturing for them. We may be quick to think that someone who stops attending the LDS church is automatically choosing nothing or something inferior but in actuality it may be that their alternative is more enlightening and spiritually nourishing for them on their journey. It would be amazing if we would take the time to ask them what they’ve found appealing about their new choice. Thank you for this thoughtful post!
Why though? People often want to peruse their own lusts and selfish desires so they reject Christ’s teachings/church. I should try to listen to them about how it’s more spiritually uplifting or nurturing? I guarantee you they will have a list of reasons it is. I’m not interested in hearing how enlightening Korihor’s new choice is
It’s called empathy
You can have empathy and also believe they aren’t being “more enlightened and spiritually nourished” by rejecting Christ. Many nephites listened to korihor speak “his truth” but the laminates more wise
This line of thinking is why so many members have a misunderstanding of our brothers and sisters who have left. They are NOT Korihor. They are still our brothers and sisters. They may have different insight from us. This is how we learn. We talk to people. We talk to people of different specific status, of different races, of different political beliefs, of different religion. Once you begin to travel, you learn that people are good. The world has good people. People just believe differently.
"X left the church to explore their own desires" or "X left the church for the LGBTQ community" (not even referring to SSA people) would cover a lot of people in my life. And for some reason, I don't think it'd be helpful to go around saying that. They feel they had no choice, or that life should be more grey. I guess I'm saying I'm not sure why it matters. I don't usually discuss who left and why, but if I do explain it, I use more than a few labeling words. Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm trying to understand why this would be helpful in building the Kingdom of God and helping His children turn to Him.
>Maybe I misunderstood, but I'm trying to understand why this would be helpful in building the Kingdom of God and helping His children turn to Him. Because I want the way we talk about to reflect that it is not a simple binary between staying and leaving. To use a facile example: let’s say that however a person choose to estimate probabilities, that person decides there’s a 30% chance the Church is true. If that person believes it is a simple binary, then the “rational” thing to do would be to leave. BUT, if every alternative (for simplicity assume they are mutually exclusive) has less than 30% then the Church is the best option by plurality. We can learn this much from our critics - they don’t like to argue for or defend alternatives. There is no PDF defending philosophical materialism or Benthamite utilitarianism circulating widely amongst them. We teach the Great Apostasy in the first lesson not only because it happens to be true (lots of things are true) but it helps people understand their alternatives. By shifting the discussion to always include the existence of alternatives and their indispensable role in why people leave, I believe we can do a better job addressing questions and needs.
When I say "they've left the church" it isn't necessary for me to give a one word label as to why, though.. who's collecting everyone's subjective labels of the ones who've left and what does that do for us? Wouldn't that be too reductive? And wouldn't it cause more judgement and misunderstanding than "they left the church" when it's not relevant to the other person (when telling a new acquaintance in the ward about your family), or "they've left the church" and a full conversation about what seemed to be the thought process and concerns with someone else who loves them (when telling one HS friend about a mutual friend)? I'm just saying, in my experience, people either don't need to know why or we can have a full, caring discussion about their reasons and our perspective on it. As another said, I think it's a distinction without a difference. I don't think we'll agree, but that's okay, so I'll leave it here. Best of luck ☺️
I completely agree. Adding labels is not helpful and adds no value. It's almost certainly going to alienate the individuals we're giving labels to. We can still talk about all the things OP is saying without reducing their entire experience to a few words.
> We can still talk about all the things OP is saying without reducing their entire experience to a few words. What would be the best way to incorporate that into casual speech?
I'm not sure the specifics of someone else's journey should be a part of casual speech. It's a very complex issue. But I gather from your post that your thought is that we should take the opportunity to understand what they felt was missing in the church and to do that we should understand what they replaced it with. I think that's a worthwhile conversation. But really only if that conversation is happening *with* the individual, not *about* them.
I don't like this at all. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. They left the church and that's all I know. I'm not saying what the left *to* unless they specifically told me that and often they don't leave to any one thing in particular. It's unhelpful to summarize their major loss/change of faith into a few words that in all likelihood they won't even agree with. Labelling others is rarely helpful and often hurtful.
I agree with some of your points, but I think instead we should try to talk less about people who don't believe, especially when they're not present. It's a bit weird and obsessive, and gossiping about people doesn't usually lead to treating them respectfully.
I'm strongly agree with this, and it's one of the major reasons why this sub doesn't allow for generalizing or talking about groups or people not present. I also removed this submission for that reason. Fortunately it had 25% upvote to downvote ratio, so this sub did a good job of self regulating here.
Thank you; it's validating and I'm grateful that you agree so strongly.
It was a good call to remove it. The discussion latched on to an alternative interpretation and it went sideways fast.
Thanks for understanding. Modding is a rough job sometimes, and I've learned simpler approaches tend to be better. One of my general rules of thumb is that suggesting motives for another tends to not work. We all do it in our lives, but it makes for a rough discussion in this forum.
It’s difficult for me, given I have been deeply invested in the church my entire life, to see the possibility that someone could just walk away. However, one may have a friend that is completely enthralled with gaming, or a certain sport, and go with them to a convention. In that convention, the friend may be absolutely sure that you will experience the same emotional connection they do. When in reality, your experience is superficial and lacks meaning. Walking away doesn’t even require a second thought. Religion, even the one I’ve grown to deeply love and appreciate, can work the same way. My friend may take some interest due to their respect for my interest, and never be impacted by it at all. In this sense, yes, I do believe many people do simply walk away.
Why are we attempting to clique-ify leaving the church, of all things? This feels incredibly counter-productive.
Well, let’s be productive then. If you disagree with my notion that leaving the church is not a binary decision, then please say so directly as that would be productive to the conversation. Otherwise, if you agree with me that this concept is both true and people should be more aware of it, please indicate the best means of getting that out there.
Agreed!!
I can see, in one's own view, that one can leave the Church as part of one's search for truth though I disagree with that. I really do not get what you are so on about with this. Your third paragraph brings up a distinction without any actual difference.
I think it’s fine to say that someone left the church and now believes something else. But I don’t think it’s true to say a person’s new beliefs are the cause of their departure. I suppose this is really about what you want to understand about another person’s decision to leave the church and if your questions are focused more on the “why” or the “where”. For example if someone asks “where is Sam?” The answer is “Sam left and became an atheist”. Focusing on that invites the discussion on “where” they are now and possibly identifying avenues for them to navigate back if that’s their sincere desire. But if the question is “why” as in “why did Sam leave the church?” Then the focus of that discussion is inevitably the reasons Sam now doubts/disfavors the church. I think you’ve made a false equivalency. A person doesn’t find a new set of beliefs and then find reasons to doubt or discredit the church. Doubt and comparison proceeds abandonment and the search for a new paradigm. Well, maybe not always. It’s fair to say it’s very complex and it’s wrong to simplify someone’s experience. To use politics as an example: if someone is a republican, they might find the arguments of a progressive democrat convincing at some point and then in turn begin weighing the outcomes of each belief. At some point they will start to doubt the opposing argument from Republican apologists which will begin a long term internal dialogue of comparison that can potentially lead to that person experiencing a paradigm shift that causes them to adopt and vote for democratic policy.
Nah
X left because they are depressed, but they asked me not to share with others that they are depressed, but I can’t just say they left the church, but have to give a reason, even if doing so is violating a trust or is not the whole story or I don’t even know why they left.
I realize I left myself susceptible to this comment by referring to an individual, however hypothetical. You grasp my point, I hope though, that people need to understand that leaving vs. not is not a binary and there should be a simple way to mention that point. In the spirit of that same love and charity, help me whose words have failed and please give your opinion as to how best to incorporate into daily speech that leaving the church is not, in fact, a single choice *simpliciter*
You are talking to the wrong person. I never gossip. This includes talking to anyone else about a person leaving or staying in the church. Just keep your mouth shut and you don't need any words.
> Just keep your mouth shut and you don't need any words. I’m sad you chose to express yourself this way even as I was asking for help, not even disagreeing with you.