Last week we had a really good conversation on Blaming Parents vs. Mourning with Those Who Mourn. I asked an online friend Robert Trishman (@RobTmanJr on Twitter), who is a convert from Catholicism, to share some of his thoughts with me about what happened when he left his childhood faith. I think the way he described changes to his faith and dealing with family apply to my own shift in gospel perspective, as well.
Nobody can control what you believe. You can’t control what anyone else believes. What can we control? How we react when someone takes a different path than we would.
It’s natural to have a visceral reaction when someone disagrees with something we hold dear, especially faith — and especially when someone who once agreed with your faith no longer does. I shouldn’t have been surprised that my family was shocked that I was making such a drastic change. Their reaction wasn’t “oppression” or “persecution” it was natural. My conversion came seemingly out of nowhere.
So across the spectrum, we need to allow for that initial reaction. But after that, I believe that faithful Latter-day Saints can be challenged to do better — just like I could have done better in the way I reacted back to my family, much better. Among the biggest regrets I have in life are some of my actions and words toward them at the time.
A child/friend/relative says he or she is leaving the LDS Church. OK, get that initial reaction out of the way. Then, do your best to understand — you don’t have to agree, just do your best to understand. As St. Francis of Assisi (doing the “bring all the good you have” thing from my Catholic background here) said in his famous prayer: “O Divine Master, Grant that I may not so much seek to be understood, as to understand.”
Mormon families send their sons and daughters out to serve missions in the hopes of bringing people into the Church. When that happens, there is much rejoicing. But that most often means that the person who has come into the Church leaves another faith to do so. That will sadden some of the convert’s family and friends, while those supporting the missionary are celebrating. But when the journey of faith leads one out of the Church, there is sorrow among Mormon family and friends. Is the sorrow necessary?
We revere those who endure hardship, ostracism, disowning — someone I taught on my mission found a place to live before he told his family he was joining the LDS Church, he knew it was coming — and other challenges to accept the restored gospel. But people who leave Mormonism face those same things. People call it out as hypocritical, and I believe they’re correct. I would obviously be a hypocrite if I were angry with my children over a change in faith.
If, as the adage goes, you will face opposition for doing the right thing, and if leaving the Church is the one of the most wrong things to do, then by that logic leaving should be the easiest thing in the world with no opposition whatsoever. But the harrowing experiences of many with the negative reactions people have endured from family and friends show that’s clearly untrue.
If you think my opinion is oversimplifying, so be it, but here it is: The only possible need for sorrow when someone departs from your faith is if you think they have sealed their fate of damnation. I do not see this being the case in LDS theology. I do not see a call for despair merely because someone’s beliefs have changed. God is bigger than that. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is more powerful than that.
LDS teaching on baptism, particularly that little children do not need it and are basically guaranteed salvation, was a major doctrinal factor in my conversion. Mormon’s words in Moroni 8 seem harsh toward the practice of baptizing little children. It’s my opinion that it he’s not necessarily railing against the rite in and of itself, but rather any lack of trust in God. This is the same prophet who, in the previous chapter, decries any attitude that says miracles will cease or that angels will cease to minister among the children of men. He’s not a fan of beliefs that put limits on what the Lord Omnipotent can do.
So let’s temper the doom and gloom over those who leave the faith. I’m not saying anyone has to do cartwheels or throw parties, but we should never ostracize, disown, or make unfair assumptions about people’s actions just because their beliefs have changed or — for whatever reason — they decide they don’t want to be part of the Church anymore. Respect the principle of agency — it’s what allows you to believe as you do, and others to make their own choices. Respect the fluid nature of faith — do you believe the exact same things you did 10 years ago?
And above all, trust in God and His matchless LOVE and power.
Wheat & Tares 
As someone who feels like my faith journey has taken an unexpected turn but is one that Heavenly Father wants me on, Robert’s words have a lot of meaning for me. I wonder if we could ever really learn to embrace this attitude of respecting others’ agency when they make faith choices they believe are right for them.
My feelings and reactions on people leaving depend on 2 things:
1) My relationship with them
2) My position or stewardship
In all cases, loving them is always the key. Whatever they need to be happy is what I care about most. For everyone.
But…if it is a close relationship I may be more motivated to speak openly, ask more personal questions, understand their history and situation more and why they may be leaving. My sister walked away from the church. I truly felt her issues were not really about the church or doctrine or even that she wanted to be in the church. It was about her feeling judged and offended. That is a different reaction than a person who is leaving because they don’t believe it is true or has found some happy religion elsewhere.
My stewardship also plays a role. Just another member of the congregation leaving would not create the same reaction as a member of my quorum, if I was Quorum President. I would almost feel a responsibility to go and talk and ask them why they want to leave, and perhaps invite them back (as so many times we are trained to do in the church to help lost sheep).
But…I don’t know that I see them as lost sheep when I have a personal relationship, I just care about their happiness and see them as a fellow flock member or friend.
I personally don’t beleieve anyone NEEDS to be in the church. So if people leave for good reasons, I support them, and care more about them.
But there are times when I can understand leaders in the church visiting and preaching to invite peoplel not to leave.
I don’t understand families or members that would shun, unless the actions justify it (like crimes, abusive behaviors, or apostacy with vigor and hate).
There are always different situations.
I think fear is the motivator when doom and gloom or stern warnings are given to those who leave. Love is the motivator when we care enough to ask why and if they can work things out to stay when that is healthy (like my sister who appreciated my talks with her).
The church doesn’t do a good job of training us or allowing us to let people go. But common sense should help us know we are all in “the middle” as Pres Uchtdorf put it…and a person’s choice now may be best for them, even if not final. They can always come back. And some are better off never coming back to be happy. We should be allowed to accept that.
Love itself is not a function of the behavior of others. Look at how the Savior loved (and still loves) us all by giving of Himself, his very life, for us. The Father, likewise, b/c to let His Only Begotten suffer, bleed, and die for us…one can only imagine in a small part the agony of the Father in the process of the Atonement. Yet not all whom know of the sacrifice(s) made requite that love with appreciation. Does this stop the Savior from persevering with us?
If I had but the smudge of a smidge of that degree of love and service to others, I’d have to be beatified. Methinks I’m in no ‘danger’ of THAT. Still, I’ll do my best to follow His example, clumsily and stumbling along.
“God is bigger than that.””
Is he really? If so, why have religion at all? Why have a heaven, or hell for that matter?
He does not live his children unconditionally. No where in the scriptures is the term unconditional love mentioned. As President Nelson taught:
“While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional.”
God is a conditional being and everything about him is conditional: entering the kingdom, requirements for baptism, marriage in the temple, advancement in the priesthood, repentance, taking the sacrament and above all entrance into any of the infinite number of kingdoms (there are not just three, but an infinite number as outlined in D&C 88)
Just because people quit believing it move to another faith does not mean God approves. The place we go hereafter is conditional as is the state of our resurrection.
When we follow our own beliefs or disobey does it mean God does not live us anymore? Of course not, but the fact he still loves us does not change our final destination. That is up to us and our faithfulness.
Ken, good questions. What I’m trying to ask is whether a change in beliefs is what dooms someone. I am LDS and I agree that all those things you said are requirements for salvation.
When people choose actions that deliberately harm others, or self-destructive behavior, etc., then that’s when I feel their salvation is in jeopardy. Someone who has a change in belief and is striving to be a good person in all aspects of their lives, it’s hard for me to believe that that person has sealed their eternal fate, just because they’re not part of a specific faith group. I believe in a strait and narrow path with a big picture background. I like to lean on the side of mercy for those who are sincere in their hearts.
If you don’t see it that way, that’s OK.
“God is bigger than that.””
“Is he really? If so, why have religion at all? Why have a heaven, or hell for that matter?”
Darn that God, wanting to save more people than Ken wants to! If God knew better, God would have listened to Ken and made even *more* rules and *more* impossible commandments, and perhaps cut back a little on the grace to make sure heaven didn’t get too full. Heck, maybe God could end up damning everyone if God listens to Ken closely enough!
Ken I think Rob was speaking more about how all of our paths back to heavenly father are individual journeys, and we stumble when we judge someone based on a glimpse/look of the one spot they are currently on. My belief and faith will ebb and flow and grow and bring me places I wouldn’t have expected . . . just like others’ do. I think Rob is more advocating in trusting God that if the person is trying to do what’s right they will be eventually be brought where they need to be.
“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive.”
-Joseph Smith
“What I’m trying to ask is whether a change in beliefs is what dooms someone”
If what you believe does not matter, than why believe anything at all?
There are millions of people (Muslims) in this world that believe killing people that don’t agree with them is God’s will. Millions believe abortion is fine; while, others openly believe having sex with children or animals is appropriate. Millions more believe it is appropriate to batter their wives, or have them executed if THEY get raped. Millions also believe God approves of genital mutilation, human trafficking is fine and selling harmful drugs it appropriate.
So yes, what we believe matters. It matters to God. If it did
not, he would not have sent his son down to correct the Pharisees and Sadducees; to teach the beatitudes. He felt teaching the Gospel was so important, it was his last impression on his Apostles.
Well Ken, you are reading into it something that is not there. Rob didn’t say there’s no need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, did he?
He said the only time to be sorrowful when people have sealed their fate in damnation. Well as long as people have time to repent and find where God wants them to be then we don’t need to despair, do we? Trust that God can lead that person where he/she needs to be.
Ken, I’m wondering why it is necessary for you to take what little comfort there may be away from those who find little to encourage them? I think you can probably trust that there are many in authority who will do that job for you.
“Rob didn’t say there’s no need for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, did he?”
I never said that, or even implied that he said that; I was addressing his comment “whether a change in beliefs is what dooms someone”
ALL of horrible beliefs that I pointed out are from groups (speaking collectively) that profess a belief in Jesus; with a good share having a belief in Jesus Christ.
I belief that someone with a firm testimony of Jesus Christ, who changes that belief to include killing infidels simply because the don’t believe is doomed and I don’t think God would “lead that person where he/she needs to be.”
“Ken, I’m wondering why it is necessary for you to take what little comfort there may be away from those who find little to encourage them?”
I apologize if my comments came across that way, I am simply saying what we believe matters. And, more importantly not all paths lead back to God. He is a God of order and his way is the only way back.
I firmly believe people stray and can and do come back into fold. I have witnessed it in my own family.
“God is bigger than that.”
God set up the church to believe in its own exclusivity: “The only true and living church on the face of the earth which which I am well pleased.” So Ken is correct that God’s favour is conditional upon conversion and retention within the Mormon church. This, like many other LDS truth claims, seems absurd and offensive, so we try to ignore it and imagine a God which is bigger than that.
While I personally believe God is bigger than that, I also believe that He makes Himself small for Mormons, so Mormons will think He is only just-so big, and insist that that is the case. It’s God’s fault ultimately if Mormons are wrong about the exclusivity of their particular religion. Mormons like Ken and Elder Nelson are just parroting what the scriptures say, what God Himself revealed to them, in His strait-and-narrow personality. So God has doomed Mormons to see apostasy as an eternal tragedy, albeit with hope that the apostate might someday repent.
Mormons are still better off than Muslims and other exclusivists, because we have a get-out-of-jail-free card: spirit prison. We can avoid the absurdity of exclusivity by saying “it will all get sorted out in the next life,” a place where we imagine the truth, OUR truth, will be obvious to everyone, and everyone will be beating down the doors to get in, even the apostates.
In the story of the prodigal son, the point is made to a Pharisee that all of God’s children are valuable to him, even the sinners. So although the word unconditional may not appear in the scriptures, the father’s love for the younger son was clearly not conditional on that son returning to him. Even when the son was “lost,” the father was watching and waiting for him.
I guess I am comfortable allowing people to exercise their agency and leave the church. They just don’t need to flip the rest of us off on the way out.
Yes, Ken, maybe I should have been more specific. If someone takes on the horrible beliefs you mentioned like killing/raping/abusing people, then that is very serious. Those are clear evils against God’s children, and should be met with intense disapproval, and it’s my belief that God should eternally punish the perpetrators of such atrocities if they don’t repent (how that happens is up to Him, not me).
What I’m talking about is say someone who is LDS leaves the church for whatever reason(s) and becomes Episcopalian, Unitarian, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever, and lives a decent life according to what we as Mormons believe is the light of Christ within all people. Is that person to be condemned?
The Christian protesters outside of General Conference would see Latter-day Saints burn in hell for differing interpretations of doctrines about things nobody can empirically quantify. That’s what I’m saying God is bigger than.
“The only possible need for sorrow when someone departs from your faith is if you think they have sealed their fate of damnation.”
No, there is an intimacy and trust that comes from shared beliefs that is lost when one party rejects those beliefs. Even if that doesn’t mean any other assumption about the relationship needs to be re-evaluated (which is the knee-jerk reaction), there is still something lost. Sorrow and even grief seem natural and not inappropriate.
Martin, that’s a valid point, and I probably could have worded that better. I would just hope people don’t dwell on that sorrow.
Rob,
“Those are clear evils against God’s children”
Not to them. To them, they are doing God’s will and they are about as committed as you can get. One that straps a bomb to themselves and detonates it in a crowded market is 100 percent committed to their cause.
What we call evil, they call righteous. My point, if a billion people believe in a dumb idea, it is still a dumb idea. And, in God’s eyes (which is all that matters) is wrong.
“What I’m talking about…Is that person to be condemned?
One of the most attractive things about the LDS church, to me anyway, it is view on the distribution of the souls of men. On the other end, one of the turn-offs of other Christian faiths is the binary nature of heaven or hell. There is no middle. Thus, under other Christian faiths, non-believes are condemned.
As you know, in the LDS faith, there is a top and a bottom; however, there is an enormous middle. The Apostle Paul taught ‘One star differs from another in glory”. Likewise, the 88th Section of the D&C indicates (22-30) there are an infinite number of kingdoms – “where there is space there is a kingdom”
This has always rang true for me – a merit system that will reward all based on how they progressed to the day “wherein no more labor can be performed”. Of all the time we have existed, and all the time we will exist this life is a fraction of our existence – we only get one mortal probation. Although I believe this is where most of our judgement from God will come, to me it is not the day “wherein no more labor can be performed”. We can and will progress after this life until that fateful day.
Furthermore, ALL of God’s children regardless of the faith they expressed in this life will have the ability to choose their ultimate destiny.
LDS doctrine allows for us to preach in the spirit world and do temple work for others.
While our sorrow and worry and preaching to our friends and family that leave are as great as the other religious families you encountered on your mission, the advantage we have as Mormons is to believe all is not lost by lack of faith in this life alone.
That message of hope cannot be overlooked.
It becomes more about foregoing blessings you could have in this life instead of really losing exaltation and being damned to burn in hell for eternity.
I don’t want my sister to leave the faith, but I know there is always a way. God has a plan.
I think the OP is a little harsh with the “let’s temper the doom and gloom.” Mormonism is less doomy and gloomy.
I’ve also find that those who leave quite often like to be left well alone without the guilt being poured on or the need to justify their actions. My son certainly hates to be contacted by active members, even though I explain to him that their intentions are good and that he’s not being ‘stalked’. Interesting to see ourselves as others sometimes see us.
Ken, I do fundamentally disagree with your reading of the gospel.We cannot judge others, the Lord looketh on the heart.
I am aware from the experiences of my children how different their world is. Each of us experiences the world in an entirely different way. One of my daughters found the narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection horrific and traumatising from her earliest experiences of being taught in a gentle and loving home-it had never occurred to me that this witness of both the Father and the Son’s love would be so disturbing for her. I offer that as an example of how we cannot judge the internal world of another, not even as parents. I believe my loving Father in heaven will look upon the hearts of my children and understand them far more generously than I can. I don’t believe that loving understanding will cease at their deaths, but be extended by grace.
My job is to strive to extend the depth and breadth of my love to understand the obstacles that my children face as individuals and to both mourn with them and rejoice. The father of the prodigal son never ceased to look for him.
I agree that there will be limitations on relationships that have not been developed with Deity, but not that God limits those as punishment, rather that it is a consequence.
It is my job as a parent to seek the grace that enables me to love my children without conditionality, even though I might not experience the joy of connecting to them that I would have if we were able to connect in relation to the gospel. That is a limitation that they impose, but it is my place not to retaliate but be posessed of greater grace that seeks not it’s own ends. I think if I can conceive of such love, though barely, then God is indeed possessed of it.
I think occasions where believing family members unofficially shun or ham-handedly try to rescue their apostate relatives are usually well-meaning consequences of internalizing messages about the importance of faith, the church, and the dangers of apostasy. It’s a bit like how the focus on the family can end up leading to judgment and pain for those who do not fit the mode. It’s an indirect and perhaps unintentional message that is serves a faith-promoting purpose to the core believing membership.
Most of the direct advice about how to react to people who leave the church is pretty good: continue to love, invite to return, but respect choices. The thing that most apostates would really appreciate – acceptance of their decision – is perhaps unattainable and unrealistic for most, given the doctrine of the church.
I remember listening to a Mormon Expositor podcast where a panel of former Mormons talked about how they would want to be treated by TBM family and friends. Some of it was good, but it became exhausting as they dissected every possible interaction. There ought to be some basic principles that people can follow, and everybody needs a little patience and forgiveness.
I think the advice in the OP is sound. How would you want the Catholic family of a Mormon convert to react to their conversion? Then try to react the same way when a Mormon leaves the faith.
This is a difficult topic. One analogy I’ve considered is that if the church is an actual third party in our relationships, then it really does get in the way of developing a personal relationship with our child or spouse without that third party’s advice or opinions intruding. If the church were an actual person, we would see it more clearly and we could stop it from intruding on every interaction in the way it sometimes can. It’s not really that the church does that, just that our affiliation with the church is so personal that it is ever-present in our thinking. Yet this is not so for the disaffiliated one. And that does alter our ability to connect if we let it.
The person we are apart from the church (which is tied up in our hopes, fears, dreams and wishes – sometimes stuff that’s just too emotional and unspoken) is the person who can connect with another person and forge a real relationship. Our feelings for the church can get in the way of that, and it’s hard to learn to set that aside so that we can connect.
If members want to have a meaningful conversation with those who leave, it needs to start with, “Why did you leave?” The reasons you assume people leave probably aren’t the real reasons and that question will help the other person feel like you are equals and maybe you even care. Preaching just pisses people off. Having been preached to and NEVER asked why I left, trust me.
To #8. Rob,
You do realize that when Joseph Smith said those words about the liberality of God, he was doing so to convince a resistant woman that she should be his plural wife, right?
Hawkgrrrl I think that your post was really insightful. I’ll add that I think that having so many rules on general behavior, appearance, etc… makes it difficult to forge normal relationships with those who leave. At least that is how it feels in my experience.
With rules that demand “modest” dress(i.e no tank tops or shorts above the knee), no swearing ever, no tattoos, no drinking very average beverages like coffee or tea, etc, etc… every little normal part of my life is “a slap in the face” to my mother if I do them around her. Its hard to feel like the only way you can have a relationship with another person is if you hide yourself and pretend that nothing has changed.
“I think the OP is a little harsh with the ‘let’s temper the doom and gloom.’ Mormonism is less doomy and gloomy.”
Heber13, you have a good point with that. Mormonism certainly is less doomy and gloomy.I do believe it’s up to us as members to live up to that fact, IMO.
28 jayman, is that correct? Well, so it is.
I do believe that no matter when/why he was saying it, the quote itself fits perfectly with the doctrine of the Atonement and gospel plan as put forth inteh scriptures.