More than feeding roots

Uncategorized

I feel like it’s important to share my experience and thoughts regarding a recent talk Elder Ballard gave in the Marriott Center to the Utah South Area. Why do I even care when I no longer believe or attend church? I have close family members that do believe and accept what LDS Church Leaders say as inspired, accurate and true. When he says things about people that no longer believe he is talking about me and others I care about. When he relays the experience of those that have left the church, and why/how that happens, he is talking about me and others I care about. When he implies knowledge about why I and others have left, and states these after reminding folks that he is a special witness, he is implying his perspectives/conclusions are accurate. That impacts people I care about and are close to. The only way to add to this, since I can’t have my experiences printed in the Ensign, is to engage in my own personal circle of influence. I want those that know me, interact with me and matter to me to understand my choices and life because I am one of those people he’s discussing.

Elder Ballard relates a story about a grove of sequoia trees on BYU campus and how one that use to be tall and strong died because its feeding roots were affected. He says:

What happens when stalwart church members, the very elect for all appearances that seem to stand tall and erect in faith, die spiritually? Like the dead sequoia those church members once received their spiritual nourishment from the well of living water offered by Jesus Christ. But having been disconnected, for one reason or another from that source, their spirit was dulled and they eventually died spiritually. How can we ensure that our spiritual feeding roots are always connected to the well of living water? The Lord outlines simple personal habits that keep us rooted, grounded and connected to him.

He goes on to say those habits are: daily prayer, fasting, regular study of scriptures and words of living prophets, Sabbath day, partaking of the Sacrament, attending the temple and reaching out to others. He says:

When someone stops doing these simple but essential things they cut themselves from the well of living water and allow Satan to muddle their thinking. Sin and guilt cloud their mind.

Elder Ballard you are making the assumption that all who stop believing weren’t doing these simple things. You imply that members who stop believing (those very elect) were perhaps not strongly rooted. You imply that sin and guilt are factors. These are enormous generalizations and you are stating them as if they apply to everyone. I continued to read, pray, fast, go to the temple, serve in my callings (which required lots of studying/preparation). In fact those increased for me during the years I continued to attend and participate. I read every night. I prayed every night. I read and studied for months about the church more intently than I had during my entire life. I had no guilt about sin weighing me down and clouding/dulling my mind as I continued to live my life as I had done as an active, believing, temple worthy member. My experience is shared by many who were solid, active, serving members. Members who weren’t slackers in these simple things. Your entire focus is on what the member who stopped believing did/didn’t do and is based on all kinds of assumptions/generalizations. In this church relationship there are two parties – the member and the church. Your discussion completely focuses on the member. Why? Do you feel the church bears no responsibility in the decision a member makes to leave or stop believing? What about the member like me who spends enormous effort, energy and time studying and comes across all kinds of problematic issues within the church? What about the member like me who for 45 years learned church history from the church only to discover this history was often incomplete and at times inaccurate? What about the member who finds very real problems in the theology, doctrine, truth claims and historical narrative they were taught which have significant impact on church authority/restoration claims? What role does the church play in all of this for the member that is in fact making the decision to leave based on very real legitimate concerns? When you portray members who leave like your story in the sequoa tree you are attempting to devalue and delegitimize many like me and our experience and decision. Not only that you avoid recognizing and discussing the church’s part in this entire thing.

He also says:

One thing that is constantly on my mind is knowing that individuals that don’t stay focused on the simple doctrines of the gospel will eventually listen to false teachers, self-proclaimed prophets and adopt worldly philosophies. These alternative voices include viewing podcasts and internet sites that raise questions and doubts without being intellectually honest and that do not adequately and honestly present the Lord’s perspective.

Elder Ballard many members, myself included, were studying the gospel, church history and doctrines when we began learning things we weren’t familiar with. It’s not that we weren’t focused on the simple doctrines enough. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t have studied so much? Is the restoration narrative a simple doctrine? Is early church history a simple part of the gospel or something we should avoid studying? What constitutes alternative voices: LDS.org, FairMormon, Maxwell Institute, old church historical documents and books written by apostles/prophets/respected leaders? Which podcasts: FairMormon, A Thoughtful Faith, Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters? Which websites? The reality is once you become aware of the uncorrelated material you have to go outside of the easily accessible Sunday church material in order to study and learn more. Do you feel the correlated church material is intellectually honest? The reality is it’s often incomplete and sometimes contradicts the historical record. When studying historical information what does it mean to “adequately and honestly represent the Lord’s perspective”? Does this mean if you are researching something that doesn’t match what you learned at church, or are hearing over the pulpit, you should discount it or view it as inaccurate or dishonest? The reason someone might feel muddled is often not due to a lack of solidly placed feeding roots, but rather because what we learn at church, from official correlated church material, so often doesn’t match what we find in deeper study.

It sure would be helpful for mixed faith families, and those of us trying hard to maintain positive interaction with our active LDS family/friends, if these talks weren’t filled with generalizations and assumptions. If they weren’t all focused on painting the member as someone weak, not rooted and negligent/lacking in the simple necessary things. It sure would be nice if they also recognized folks like me that tried for years to make it work, studied and made great effort in their decision. It sure would be nice if recognition was made that there are in fact some of us that have navigated this in a very thorough, conscientious way utilizing the methods we were taught our whole life to use when studying the gospel. It would be nice if the church’s roles and responsibilites in this process were discussed as well. If the church recognized and openly discussed how the correlated material we’ve used for years is lacking in some instances in accuracy and detail. It would be wonderful if the church recognized this may be a very conscientious decision someone makes after study instead of portraying people like me like your sequoa tree story because honestly it’s a helluva lot more complicated than feeding roots.

12 thoughts on “More than feeding roots

  1. I spent four years absolutely IMMERSING myself in scriptures, prayer, church and temple attendance, etc. in an attempt to regain my struggling faith. His comments really anger me. Thank you for speaking out!

  2. Thank you for speaking out. I was not aware he had given this talk. Every time I hear a General Authority say things like this in a talk it is a gut punch.

    One thing that really bothers me is that I truly bought into talks like that. I couldn’t imagine any other reason someone would leave the church.

    It hurt even more after the polygamy essays came out and they justified it by saying that long time and “well read” members have always known these things. I trusted that the church was being completely honest with me in all its dealings.

  3. There is a reason sequoias do not grow in Utah. It simply is not the proper CLIMATE that is needed to thrive.

  4. I had a 25 year battle with trying to figure out why the church was telling us how to be good wives and honor our husbands priesthood,all while dealing with a very unrighteousness husband who was hiding behind the same priesthood. This same “club” knew about and condoned his very serious sins, unrighteousness dominion and actions that should have resulted in serious legal charges.

    Instead of supporting the family unit by forcing him to make changes or face bishop’s council, when I finally filed for divorce my bishop told me “if I had been a better wife and communicator my husband wouldn’t have been so unhappy” so basically I was blamed for his bad decisions.

    Yet I still continued to pray, attend the temple, go faithfully to church, even after faced with a ridiculous restraining order he filed, the divorce being final, and uprooting my life and my 3 young boys and going 350 miles away for a fresh start, I still believed.

    10 years after the divorce I have a bishop who has never asked me about my divorce, hasn’t asked why I have stopped wearing my garments, hasn’t even asked me why I stopped going to church.

    My conclusion is that the brethren focus on the wrong thing and when faced with a faithful member who challenges the status quo, they decide to hide behind the condescending and unkind words contained in this speech. Maybe it’s how they justify not getting down to the brass tacks of why faithful members are be becoming more and more disillusioned.

    I recently got married to a non member. He is kind and generous and raised my boys to be valiant and righteous. He is the best “Mormon” man I know. He is content never being convinced to join the happy throng.

    My roots were strong. I am a direct 4th generation descendant of President Wilford Woodruff. I am one of his granddaughters.

    I loved the church dearly. I never saw myself as an ‘apostate’.

    I can not in good conscious teach my boys that accountability don’t matter for all members.

    I have never been given answers and feel placated. I’ve been metaphorically patted on the head and brushed aside, because this is a difficult conversation. But it needs to be had, and leaders of the church need to do a better job of having honest conversations about the real issues.

    I am not a sinner. I haven’t left because of guilt. I felt alone and betrayed by the church I loved for 40+ years

  5. Thanks for this. I liked how you are trying to engage a personal circle of influence to counter negative things said by these silly leaders. Fortunately, my kids don’t seem to pay any attention what people like Ballard say. But my wife’s perception of me is definitely influenced, and this has been frustrating. I can only work to counter the influence if she shares with me what she heard (sometimes she has). I do think she can easily see me as someone who has guilt and sin after hearing this type of message.

  6. So true, and beautifully stated!

    When he implies knowledge about why I and others have left, and states these after reminding folks that he is a special witness, he is implying his perspectives/conclusions are accurate. That impacts people I care about and are close to. The only way to add to this, since I can’t have my experiences printed in the Ensign, is to engage in my own personal circle of influence. I want those that know me, interact with me and matter to me to understand my choices and life because I am one of those people he’s discussing.

    This is one of the main reasons I’m still blogging about Mormonism after all these years. The leaders of the CoJCoL-dS pretend that it’s totally reasonable for them make up any narrative they want and attribute it to non-believers. In talks and manuals, they promote the idea that former believers who are still talking about Mormonism (even recounting one’s own personal memories) must be motivated by hate. So, effectively, they are using their influence to teach my Mormon friends and family members that they (the leaders) are more qualified to recount my story than I am. And I’m here to challenge that idea.

    I talked about this at Sunstone a few years ago — here‘s the transcript.

  7. Very nice effort but you are missing the critical word “simple”. If you want explicit, complete, nuanced, accurate, unflinching, or historical you are wandering away from the simple, pre-digested “truths” that the living prophets are anxious to feed the believers.

    I wonder if he meant to be saying that their version of “truth” doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If he did, he might save everyone a lot of angst by just warning people a little more directly.

  8. ” If you want explicit, complete, nuanced, accurate, unflinching, or historical you are wandering away from the simple, pre-digested “truths” that the living prophets are anxious to feed the believers.”

    Interesting take on the word “simple”. Accurate and historical studying of the gospel/church doeesn’t fit in with what the living prophets are anxious to teach believers? hmmmm we study church history at church. The missionaries lead with the restoration story. BYU has lots of religious studies courses and Maxwell Institute which focuses on deeper religious studies.

    I’m not sure even the church would agree with your views.

  9. This statement from Ballard made me laugh aloud when I first read it:

    One thing that is constantly on my mind is knowing that individuals that don’t stay focused on the simple doctrines of the gospel will eventually listen to false teachers, self-proclaimed prophets and adopt worldly philosophies.

    Given how, as I noted in a comment on another thread, the church has to play Whack-a-mole with embarrassing, inconvenient, clearly erroneous teachings once promoted by the hierarchy and accepted by the membership as eternal doctrine, the people most likely to turn out to be tomorrow’s “false teachers” and “self-proclaimed prophets” are today’s general authorities. They’re the ones espousing ideas the church will someday have to renounce in carefully worded essays.

    That observation is a fairly common one, but it’s just so deliciously ironic that I can’t resist making it here. And I am convinced that even people like Ballard have figured it out, which is why they are trying to restrict, purify, sanitize and correlate the doctrine as much as possible: so that fewer doctrines of today will need to be renounced as tomorrow’s folk belief.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *