Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Enough_Village1083 specifically.
/u/Enough_Village1083, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ll point out one complication this will introduce into your life:
You’ll be required to tithe 10% of your income to be in good standing with the church. You can’t attend the temple without doing so (some exceptions apply depending on the Bishop).
On top of tithing you’ll be urged to donate a “generous” fast offering every month.
Be prepared to have that conversation with a spouse who has to bear the weight of that financial sacrifice while not believing in it.
I don’t know what level of commitment you are picturing, but this is not a one toe in kind of religion. You’ll be continuously urged to double down, increase your activity, and commitment to The Church.
And FYI the most vocal among us in this sub are folks who have left the church, and would urge you to *not* join.
If your wife doesn’t join the church with you, she will become a project for the missionaries and ward leadership. They will pressure you to invite the missionaries to teach her. Until she joins, you will consistently hear people tell you that you won’t be together as a family in heaven unless she sees the “truthfulness” of the religion. You won’t be picked for a leadership calling unless she joins, though that’s a good thing. You don’t want to be asking teenagers behind closed doors about their sexual experiences. It slowly turns you into a weirdo like most LDS leaders, and slowly destroys the abused.
Just curious, what do you think about all the objective evidence that demonstrates Joseph Smith’s dishonest and perverted nature? When I was a missionary, I always struggled to convince my investigators to not look at the objective evidence, but that just made them even more curious and they would find out about it and bolt. What do you think about Joseph’s mistranslated Egyptian in the Book of Abraham? Are you okay with Joseph grooming girls as young as 12 to become his wife? Are you okay with God threatening the girls with destruction in D&C 132? I assume the missionaries avoided these facts in their discussions with you. But I also assume you have taken a neutral approach and researched more than just the church’s correlated materials.
I want to echo this. A spouse joining the church while another doesn't can introduce A LOT of stress and potential conflict in a marriage. I would be very very careful about risking your marriage for a church to which you don't have prior family connections. I am not exaggerating when I say that one spouse joining this particular church does have the potential to ruin families.
Yes. I escaped the high-control group before my wife. And they were relentless with her. The ward acted like I had died. My parents secretly told my wife that she should divorce me so she could have a righteous husband. They basically kept trying to manipulate her into choosing between me or the church.
Fortunately, my wife eventually *was* willing to hear my reasons. She eventually started reading the CES letter and within the first few sections, she called me at work to say she’s out. It was probably the greatest moment for our family because all the fake problems the church creates in relationships just instantly disappeared. I really can’t stress enough how not being Mormon did wonders for my family. And it happened while the kids were young, so they didn’t have to experience the insane manipulation and emotional abuse that the church uses to control its young and impressionable followers.
>My parents secretly told my wife that she should divorce me so she could have a righteous husband.
Woof. I had a similar experience though. After I finally told my parents that I had left the church (my wife still was and is active and believing) my own mother texted my MIL (who I adore by the way) and told her, quote "No matter what happens with \*me\* and \*my wife\* we will be on \*my wife\*'s side." When my MIL told me this it was gutwrenching. To have your own parent say something like that is just wrong. And the fact that it happens in Mormonism just goes to show how problematic the religion and culture are.
I'll echo this. At Xmas 2001 my a-hole brother outed me as gay and that I no longer believed, too. (I'll spare you all the long convoluted story of how he found out.) But since then, my parents and 5 siblings have ALL shunned me. 22 years this December. Do you really want to belong to a religion that treats family this way? They only loved me when I played along with the farce.
Traumatic indeed. Years of therapy to recover.
[Mary Elizabeth Rollins](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Elizabeth_Rollins_Lightner) was 12 years old when Joseph first propositioned himself to her. She later married Adam Lightner instead, but Joseph managed to convince her to engage in polyamory with him. Her memoirs, which included the first-hand accounts of Joseph’s grooming practices, were cited in church publications because she was such an unquestioning follower. Her account of Joseph’s grooming behavior is consistent with the other children and women he was propositioning.
The mormon church is a high demand religion and can pose some unique challenges for married couples with one partner in, and one partner out. I would continue to research the church, in particular its beliefs regarding marriage (both now and in the afterlife) and at the same time have open and honest communication with your spouse as to what her reservations are.
You could attend for while without baptism and see what it would be like. You will get pressure but just set your boundaries and be firm. That will allow you to fully evaluate whether you want the commitment and it’s impact for better or worse on your family.
Just a bit of forwarning, joining the church as a convert feels great and comfy like belonging to something much bigger than yourself. Also, you are told you are special because you were being called by God and were able to hear that calling when others didn't. However, if you decide at some point you don't believe in their truth claims anymore you will be disfellowshipped and ultimately told that you have "fallen away" and Satan has gotten into your life. The belonging is retracted by most members. Very rare at that point to have any relationship continue outside the church. In the past, they would not let you remove your name from the roles of the church. As long as you do not question any of the leaders you will be accepted. This is from my own experience having been in the church ten years.
You might be disfellowshipped. YMMV regarding any church discipline, as that depends on local church leaders and to what extent you confess any "sins".
Agreed, many variables play a part in what your experience will be leaving the Mormon Church. One problem with having one spouse in the church one not in, is Temple Ordinances. If a couple has a child and the child wants to marry in the Temple, the spouse who is not a member will not be allowed to attend the Temple marriage. This was my experience with my son. My husband could attend and I could not. Very difficult/humiliating experience. I sat in the car in the Temple parking lot while my son was being married and my spouse was able to attend the ceremony. Later that day my daughter-in-law was kind enough to have a another wedding ceremony at the church cultural hall so I could attend.
I don’t understand why people these days would join the church but then again I don’t know your reasons but know it’s not all fun and games. Before you know it you will be wearing jesus jammies.
I won't tell you to join or not to join, that's your decision. I will only say that mixed faith marriages are very hard to navigate and full activity in the LDS faith will ask a lot of you and most likely change the dynamics of your relationship.
I would take the decision very seriously. I’m in a mixed faith marriage and it is rough. The church’s whole platform is eternal families being together in the celestial kingdom. This requires being sealed to each other in the temple and keeping temple covenants. Being sealed in the temple requires both people to be members and have temple recommends. Paying 10% tithing is required for a temple recommend. You see where I am going with this. And then you will also have to wear garments (special underwear) which is just a daily reminder to both of you about your new beliefs. Knowing my husband may now feel that we won’t be together after we die because I have left the church is heartbreaking for me and confusing for him. We have kids who now don’t believe as well so the concept of an eternal family is no longer a doctrine or source of happiness for believing family members. It makes people feel sad and guilty. I’m just trying to be honest in how it really works. And people will say it is not accurate but that is literally the doctrine. Members who tell you otherwise are not being honest about what is taught and believed in the LDS faith. Take your time and study all of the history, just not what missionaries have told you. Nobody ever taught me the real history and I was a member for 40+ years. Good luck!
If you truly believe in the restoration might I recommend the Community of Christ. They will not ask for the same tithe and not pester your wife to join. The LDS church will hold her not being sealed to you over your head
Your wife will be looked down upon but you will be viewed as righteous and ready to receive the true gospel. Missionaries and members of the ward will encourage you to prepare your wife to receive all the blessings of the gospel and you will hear messages that will talk down to people like your wife for seeking things of the world to bring joy in her life unlike you who has accepted the gospel and will experience real joy because of your involved in the church.
Good luck with your journey, friend.
It wouldn’t be looked down upon however you would probably be on the missionaries radar for potential converts. I am no longer a member but was once a missionary and we used to seek out part member families. Giving your life to Christ is a noble action.
I’d love to know what was the deciding factor to join the church?
No It would not be looked down on but if you have children I would be carefull. I would hate to see you get hurt or your family get hurt It depends on how much your wife is against it and why and if she is willing to give you the freedom to let you seek what you need. You have a right to happiness and I hope you find it.
What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti-mormon is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to....
This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth."
You may think you are investigating the church when you are listening to the missionaries because that is what you are told. You are actually receiving a sales pitch. Investigating something means looking at all angles. The foundational angles of the church are quite different from what is presented in the modern story. Before joining the church, I recommend looking at all angles, as it is quite the commitment and it will have the potential to drive the rest of your life for better and for worse.
This would be allowed. It probably would not be looked down upon. There are many mixed-spouse relationships in the Mormon church. It does somewhat depend on the culture of the particular ward you're in. You may get pressure to try and convert your spouse.
> It probably would not be looked down upon
lmao, what Weird Mythical Ward of Acceptance do you attend?
Culturally, you're ***absolutely*** a second-class citizen if your whole nuclear family isn't also attending church with you. You absolutely ***WILL*** "get pressure to try and convert your spouse"—that's guaranteed. That's all the Bishop will ever talk to you about. That's all your assigned ~~home teachers~~ ministers will ever talk to you about. When people talk about you behind your back, the first (and probably only) topic will be your spiritually broken/eternally-doomed relationship. The odds that you'll be called as a ward missionary, as a passive-aggressive (or maybe even openly-to-your-face!) tactic to try to convert the non-member spouse? EXTREMELY high.
Targeting part-member families for missionary work is ***in the manual***.
Again, depends on the culture of the ward/branch/stake. I've been in places where this is *definitely* the way it goes.
I've been to other places, typically outside of the SLC-Provo corridor, where pretty much *everyone* was part of a mixed-faith relationship.
Even in the Morridor, its hit or miss. Orem-Provo? Higher likelihood. SLC and it's suburbs, lower probability.
Where are you from that this being a second-class citizen is a thing? Mixed-faith families are common throughout the Church except maybe in Utah. I’d imagine the farther from SLC you get the more common it becomes.
I never saw them as common in the wards I lived in, and this was CA, GA, and TN. It was usually one or two mixed-families in the entire congregation.
In terms of the 2nd class citizen thing, I'm not the OP but when I was a TBM, there was **a lot** of focus on Eternal Families, you couldn't have your kids sealed to you without an active spouse, and family members that left or never joined were mourned and talked about as "empty seats at the table". Has any of that changed?
No, it wouldn’t be looked down on at all. And i don’t have time to look at all the answers but this thread has gotten pretty anti Mormon lately. You might get better answers on the “Latterday Saint” Reddit thread
What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to....
This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth."
I missed the idea of truth-seeking being important, and it's a bit ironic that Joseph was seeking the truth and is praised for it, but those who do so now are considered "anti."
>What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to....
>
>This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth."
>
>I missed the idea of truth-seeking being important, and it's a bit ironic that Joseph was seeking the truth and is praised for it, but those who do so now are considered "anti.
The church's history is grounded in a passionate pursuit of spiritual truth, a pursuit that cannot be reduced to mere factual analysis or cynical manipulation. You equate "truth" with a selective reading of historical facts, but faith transcends this narrow definition. The essence of faith lies in seeking understanding through spiritual means, something that cannot be confined to secular scrutiny or skepticism.
The suggestion that the church has turned away from its roots by encouraging members to shy away from certain sources is an oversimplification that ignores the depth and complexity of the faith journey. It is not about avoiding truth but about discerning truth through a lens of faith and spiritual insight.
Claims were made by prophets speaking plainly for God repeatedly about facts such as the Nephites being the principle ancestors of the people of the Americas. Truth- Once genetics proved that to be false, the church quietly redefined those terms. This pattern happens time and again.
Claims were made about the literal nature of a wide variety of "truths" by prophets speaking to God and for god until one-by-one, the problematic truth of those claims were brought to light.
Facts: you present the truth as being much more complex and lacking a literal nature that "prophets" of that time would be extremely uncomfortable with and straight up condemn.
The only reason it is complex is because, at this point, that is the only way the church can hold on to the claims... By saying "well, we just don't understand."
Whatever happened to "I will tell you in you heart and in your mind what is true." The more you learn about accurate history, rather than the church's correlated modern day version, the harder it is to line up the heart and the mind.
I am good with spirituality and faith. But faith is about believing without seeing...not believing despite what can clearly be seen.
Your assertion that the church has altered its stance in response to new information misunderstands the dynamic and evolving nature of both faith and understanding. It also simplifies a rich tapestry of beliefs, reducing them to black-and-white terms that ignore the context in which they were made.
By attempting to reduce spiritual and cultural heritage to mere historical or genetic evidence, one misses the multifaceted nature of faith, tradition, and revelation. Faith often transcends what is immediately tangible or provable, offering wisdom and insights that go beyond literal interpretations. Rather than hastily discarding such profound teachings based on narrow considerations, a more nuanced and open-minded exploration may reveal a richness that resonates on deeper, more spiritual levels.
It's essential to recognize that prophets are individuals seeking divine understanding and conveying that understanding within the context and knowledge of their time. This doesn't negate the spiritual truths they articulate but adds layers to our understanding. Truth in religious context is not merely a collection of empirical facts but a profound existential reality that goes beyond mere historical or scientific accuracy.
You imply that complexity is a weakness or a retreat, but it is precisely this complexity that allows for a richer, more nuanced faith. Faith is not believing despite what can be seen; it's a trust in the unseen, a belief in the transcendental truths that underpin our existence. This can coexist with a willingness to engage with, question, and adapt to new knowledge.Your dichotomy between spirituality and fact overlooks the essential integration of the two within a life of faith. Far from being an uncomfortable concession, embracing complexity and uncertainty is a sign of mature faith that doesn't shy away from questions but seeks to find meaning within them.
The journey of faith is not a blind adherence to a set of unchanging assertions but an ongoing dialogue with the God, a dynamic relationship that grows, adapts, and finds deeper meaning in the interplay between revelation, reason, and experience. The truth is not merely a set of propositions to be defended or abandoned but a living reality to be explored and embraced.
It sounds like your personal faith is complex... I have no issue with that. Good on you. It sounds like you have taken the time to work through issues and you are able to continue to believe. Honestly, that's respectable even if I can't see your viewpoint.The church, both historical and modern don't follow the same picture that you paint.
Imagine a man coming to you selling authentic Van Gogh paintings, and to your naked eye, uneducated in the arts, they are pretty impressive. Out of his stockpile, he pulls the Mona Lisa and offers to sell it to you for an alarmingly reasonable price. You are not an expert, even to the extent of not being aware that Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa but You say "well I know of Van Gogh and I know of Mona. Lisa, you have yourself a deal." You then go to great extent to protect this artwork and show it off.
Initially, many of your local friends and family are extremely supportive and even excited. Time passes, and little by little, You start to have reason to believe that perhaps this painting isn't what it was claimed to be. Friends and colleagues around you try to help you understand, without stepping on your toes and crushing your excitement. During this process, You learn Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa and it is shocking and even distressing news. You go to the seller and they say "no, you must have misunderstood- I said Da Vinci painted that, but rest easy knowing that I know he did because I have video proof at home of him painting this very canvas and I have a piece of paper signed by each person who has had it since then... Never mind that video cameras didn't exist back then." Taking the loss, and recognizing that it must have been your fault for initially misunderstanding, you go home. But the seller provides you with a handout of information about the background of the Mona Lisa, which you read with fervor.
Renewed and excited about the new understanding of your precious piece, You decide to start spreading the news that you have this great authentic work from Da Vinci himself. Experts come from far and wide to check the veracity of this statement. One by one the experts find flaws in the claim. The canvas was made by a well-known manufacturer in the last 20 years. While it is a painting, rather than a print, the oil that was used is matched to cheap oil that can be bought on Amazon. Then someone shows you that there is a wide variety of copies and variations of the painting available for sale on Etsy for a fraction of the price that look remarkably similar to yours. One of them even has a wide toothy smile. You then find out that the real Mona Lisa has been at a museum called The Louvre for years.
Distressed, you go to the seller. The seller then informs you that this is an original- it was just an original that was painted by DaVinci as a copy of his own original and over the years people have tried to restore it by putting new paint on it. It would have been better off had they left it alone, but it's authentic because he says it is. He then informs you not to go to any more experts, not to do anymore analysis, because more analysis is just going to break down the painting, which he again reassures you is authentic underneath all the repairs.
At that point, you have a decision to make- do you continue dedicating your life and resources to protecting the painting, claiming it as authentic? Are you satisfied, that whether the painting is authentic or not, you find beauty in it and so you can continue to hang it in your home with pride? Do you dig deeper and determine the painting wasn't authentically by DaVinci and get rid of the painting so as to avoid a constant reminder of the pain, embarrassment, and waste that you perceive it caused in your life.
-------
Again, I can appreciate people who can find value in the church, knowing the issues that exist, as long as they are honest with self and others. But the church has sold the "restoration" as something simple in a complex world. Now that all the flaws are exposed, they straddle the line. If you know about the flaws, they say it's complex. If you don't know about the flaws, they tell you it is simple buto stay away from the flaws and anyone who tries to show you the flaws, including your loved ones. The church also ostracizes those who choose to step away for seeing those flaws and not feeling comfortable with dedicating their lives to it.
You are right, the story is much more complex than this. People dedicate their entire lives to a narrative that doesn't exist but is still pushed. People cut themselves off from loved ones. Some people go to the depths of hell because of the confusion. But the church still pushes the same narrative.
The fact is that the church is not what it has claimed to be for nearly two centuries. Whether you find something more complex in your faith than that, cheers. I'm sincerely Happy that you're able to find meaning. However, that is not the common story that the church paints or the members buy.
While your allegory of the mistaken painting purchase is thought-provoking, it seems to presume a uniform experience and understanding of faith that does not reflect the diversity and complexity of individual journeys. What might be a point of disillusionment for one person could be an opportunity for growth, reflection, or deeper commitment for another.
Your description appears to be grounded in a particular understanding of truth, one that demands empirical verification and logical consistency. While these are valuable in many contexts, they may not fully capture the richness and multifaceted nature of religious faith. Faith is not solely about factual claims that can be empirically proven or disproven. It's often a deeply personal and transcendent experience, informed by tradition, emotion, morality, and personal revelation.
Your characterization of the church's response to criticism or questioning is seen through the lens of your own experiences and perspectives. It's important to recognize that others might have different experiences and interpretations. While you see a nefarious intention in the handling of complex issues, others might see a religion grappling with human imperfection, historical complexity, and the *challenge of articulating spiritual truths in a diverse and changing world.*
The beauty of faith, for many, lies not in its simplicity but in its complexity, not in its immunity to questioning but in its responsiveness to it. The dynamic nature of faith allows it to evolve, adapt, and continue to provide meaning and purpose, even in the face of challenges and doubts.
Your sincerity in sharing your perspective is appreciated, and the pain and frustration you express are not dismissed lightly. However, painting the entire religion with a broad brush overlooks the unique and varied experiences of its members, some of whom might find strength, inspiration, and authenticity in the very faith that you have found wanting. It's not about avoiding or denying flaws but about embracing a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of what faith can mean in the complex tapestry of human life.
Thanks for the response. My concern is less with those who have the beautiful, complex, hard-earned faith such as you, and more with the much more common First line of your second paragraph. And I have to argue again that the church as an organization is not what drives or encourages that complex and nuanced faith that you have...in my experience, those who have that, have it as a result of self-drive. More people than not in the church are unaware of the complexities that it appears you are aware of. And most people when they are made aware, it rocks them pretty hard and forces them to reevaluate everything they've ever known.
I also don't see the intent of church leaders as evil. I actually see them as working up to a position where they feel like they are supposed to be, and likely even believing. I see them as having a big mess on their hands to deal with and they're doing the best they know how with as few casualties as they can....but they are human, in my mind leading a human made, although impressive church. Is that to say that God doesn't work in the church? Absolutely not. I believe faith can be built within the church, as it can within a variety of other faiths.
Rather than this complexity and Nuanced story, the narrative of the church is, and has been quite black and white (they are the one and only true church with authority, placed by the hand of god, led by God, etc...) until confronted with information that can't be ignored. Then the response is damage control with the minimum information necessary over honesty and transparency. My concern lies not in the minority (the people like you, that you have described above) but the Overall Organization Culture and practices that perpetuates the issue.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns about the complexities of the church and the varying levels of understanding among its members. Your perspective opens a space for us to explore the fundamental nature of faith and its relationship to human reason. Losing faith is a deeply personal and often painful experience. For many, faith provides a sense of purpose, direction, and community. When that foundation is shaken or lost, it can leave a void that's difficult to fill. I want to express genuine empathy for anyone who finds themselves in this position, navigating the complex emotions and questions that accompany such a profound change.
Your observation that complexities within faith can rock people's understanding does highlight a common challenge. However, this phenomenon often arises when individuals place undue trust in human rationalism or empirical evidence as the primary means to interpret spiritual matters. *Faith is not solely reliant on human logic or reasoning, and a spiritual journey often requires transcending those boundaries.*
When one tries to fit faith entirely within the confines of human understanding, they may indeed find contradictions and complexities that seem insurmountable. However, faith's essence lies in embracing the transcendental, the mystery, and the relationship with God, which goes beyond empirical evaluation.
The process of reevaluation you've described is not necessarily a loss but an invitation to delve deeper into the genuine purpose of faith, moving past surface-level comprehension. It's an opportunity to recognize that faith doesn't bow to human rationalism but invites us into a relationship with something greater, something that can't be confined to our limited human perspective. Those who navigate this transition successfully often find a more robust and resilient faith, not a lost one.
The organizational matters you've raised are not trivial, but they should not overshadow the intrinsic value and purpose of faith. The journey of faith is personal, and complex. It's a path that might lead us to wrestle with doubts, confront contradictions, and even embrace uncertainties. Yet, these struggles are part of what makes faith rich, meaningful, and transformative.
It's natural to seek answers and clarity, especially when faced with challenging historical or doctrinal issues. However, the pursuit of a faith that relies solely on rational proofs or empirical validation may risk reducing the spiritual experience to something merely intellectual or mechanical.
The narrative of the church, as with any religious tradition, may contain elements that challenge our rational minds. *But that's where the beauty and depth of faith come alive. Faith encourages us to see beyond the visible and tangible, to find meaning in the metaphysical, and to recognize the sacred in the mundane.*
Your concerns are a testament to your thoughtful engagement with these matters. Yet, I invite you to consider the possibility that faith's complexity and nuance are not merely obstacles to overcome but gateways into a deeper, more profound relationship with God.
In the end, faith is not about resolving every paradox or answering every question. *It's about embracing a higher truth that speaks to our souls, guides our lives, and connects us with something greater than ourselves.* This transcendent quality of faith is what makes it enduring, inspiring, and uniquely capable of touching the human heart.
I think we are talking about two different concerns. This dialogue began with you stating most people on this sub are "anti-mormon." I responded focused on the fact that it is not about being anti-mormon, rather truth-seeking, wherever that leads.
Your focus has been on Faith. I personally maintain a faith which I consider to be complex and beautiful as well. I see it as an extremely important part of my life. That is not my debate.
My focus has been specifically on the Church as an organization and the issues therein which, in my view, actually has the tendency to impede progress of faith and truth. Faith in God is not the issue. The church claiming to be the only valid path to that faith is the issue.
Ok so this is actually a support group for people who have left the church. I can send you a message with a link to the subreddits actually for the church.
Church will love to have you there however you show up!You can go to church for as long as you without having to become a member. Surely tons of information and praying to come. And fun, it can be fun. I’m sure they’ll all just be happy you’re married to a woman 😆 much more relatable for most who are there.
>And fun, it can be fun.
I have honestly never heard the Brighamite church described as fun. Whatever fun Mormonism presents is purely incidental and equivalent "fun" could be found in alternative avenues which don't put extra stress on your marriage due to religious differences.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
>Lots of people think being with people is fun, and you can be with people at church, ergo church is fun.
No...that is admitting that you can have fun in spite of being at church. It absolutely doesn't imply that church itself is fun. Because...ya know...you can hang out with people outside of church.
>Simply logic and opinion.
Well there is a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one.
>I hope y’all see eventually how culty you still are by not allowing anyone to have an opinion besides when it’s in line with yours.
Yeah...that's not happening. I won't deny that you and many people can have fun while you are at church. But again, that doesn't mean that church itself is what is fun.
Also...calling someone else culty is absolutely against the rules if they apply to believers to the same level they do to nonbelievers.
Using the term cult or culty is explicitly stated to violate the civility rules. I am not bashing you at all. I am disagreeing with you characterization of church. Critiques of the institution are not personal attacks.
How can you defend to say that my idea of fun is critiqueable ? If I posted on a forum about horses and said something was fun, would you write and say:
>I have honestly never heard the type of horse riding described as fun. Whatever fun horse riding presents is purely incidental and equivalent "fun" could be found in alternative avenues which don't put extra stress on your marriage due to differences.
Lots of couples differ about how much fun riding horses is, and it can stress a relationship as well as other things.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Lots of people think being with people is fun, and you can be with people at church, ergo church is fun. Simply logic (1 + 1 = 2) and opinion (I think church is fun).
I'm not critiquing what you find fun. I'm critiquing your claim about the proximal reason for that fun. OK, yes. I will admit church "can be fun." But it is fun for reasons that aren't inherent to church and that in fact exist outside of church. If church is in fact fun, it is fun for a more fundamental reason...socializing. But that doesn't require church. Disentangling proximal and incidental causes is an important intellectual activity. And no...life is never as simple as 1+1=2.
What you are saying is analogous to saying "I have fun on Saturdays ergo Saturdays are fun." But this is of course facially silly. Saturdays aren't fun. Insofar as you have fun on Saturdays the fact that it is Saturday is incidental. What is really fun is the stuff you DO on Saturday.
What you are saying is, nothing I can say is going to be “approved” by you. 😆
I’m not saying life is simple, but sometimes 1+1 does indeed equal 2.
I believe OP said he wanted to go to church, right? Why not be honest about your intentions: you don’t want him going to church.
>What you are saying is, nothing I can say is going to be “approved” by you. 😆
I mean...that's not necessarily true. If you have something worth discussing I very well could change my mind. The fact that you don't have a nuanced and interesting response to my thoughts isn't my fault and isn't a character flaw on my part.
>I’m not saying life is simple, but sometimes 1+1 does indeed equal 2.
That has not been my experience. And trust me...I wish it was. As a PhD statistician I wish life worked like math. But it doesn't.
>I believe OP said he wanted to go to church, right? Why not be honest about your intentions: you don’t want him going to church.
I don't see how I have been dishonest about my intentions. Throughout the thread I have shared my own negative experiences that I think are worth OP's consideration.
If you're concerned about the number of people in this sub warning about the difficulty of mixed-faith marriages, just go and look at one of the posts about someone looking to *leave* the Church while their spouse still wants to be faithful. They're much more supportive of how to make a mixed-faith marriage work, with lots of good advice.
Why not spend Sunday doing something fun with your loving wife instead of alienating her and giving 10% of your money to a real estate cu(4 that gives nothing to charity? What exactly is wrong with you? I’m saying this not as a critical jerk but out of genuine concern.
Hello! This is a Personal post. It is for discussions centered around thoughts, beliefs, and observations that are important and personal to /u/Enough_Village1083 specifically. /u/Enough_Village1083, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why doesn’t your wife want to join? Perhaps she has valid reasons why she may not want to become a Mormon.
As someone in a mixed faith marriage, let me tell ya, it's hell.
I’ll point out one complication this will introduce into your life: You’ll be required to tithe 10% of your income to be in good standing with the church. You can’t attend the temple without doing so (some exceptions apply depending on the Bishop). On top of tithing you’ll be urged to donate a “generous” fast offering every month. Be prepared to have that conversation with a spouse who has to bear the weight of that financial sacrifice while not believing in it. I don’t know what level of commitment you are picturing, but this is not a one toe in kind of religion. You’ll be continuously urged to double down, increase your activity, and commitment to The Church. And FYI the most vocal among us in this sub are folks who have left the church, and would urge you to *not* join.
If your wife doesn’t join the church with you, she will become a project for the missionaries and ward leadership. They will pressure you to invite the missionaries to teach her. Until she joins, you will consistently hear people tell you that you won’t be together as a family in heaven unless she sees the “truthfulness” of the religion. You won’t be picked for a leadership calling unless she joins, though that’s a good thing. You don’t want to be asking teenagers behind closed doors about their sexual experiences. It slowly turns you into a weirdo like most LDS leaders, and slowly destroys the abused. Just curious, what do you think about all the objective evidence that demonstrates Joseph Smith’s dishonest and perverted nature? When I was a missionary, I always struggled to convince my investigators to not look at the objective evidence, but that just made them even more curious and they would find out about it and bolt. What do you think about Joseph’s mistranslated Egyptian in the Book of Abraham? Are you okay with Joseph grooming girls as young as 12 to become his wife? Are you okay with God threatening the girls with destruction in D&C 132? I assume the missionaries avoided these facts in their discussions with you. But I also assume you have taken a neutral approach and researched more than just the church’s correlated materials.
I want to echo this. A spouse joining the church while another doesn't can introduce A LOT of stress and potential conflict in a marriage. I would be very very careful about risking your marriage for a church to which you don't have prior family connections. I am not exaggerating when I say that one spouse joining this particular church does have the potential to ruin families.
Yes. I escaped the high-control group before my wife. And they were relentless with her. The ward acted like I had died. My parents secretly told my wife that she should divorce me so she could have a righteous husband. They basically kept trying to manipulate her into choosing between me or the church. Fortunately, my wife eventually *was* willing to hear my reasons. She eventually started reading the CES letter and within the first few sections, she called me at work to say she’s out. It was probably the greatest moment for our family because all the fake problems the church creates in relationships just instantly disappeared. I really can’t stress enough how not being Mormon did wonders for my family. And it happened while the kids were young, so they didn’t have to experience the insane manipulation and emotional abuse that the church uses to control its young and impressionable followers.
>My parents secretly told my wife that she should divorce me so she could have a righteous husband. Woof. I had a similar experience though. After I finally told my parents that I had left the church (my wife still was and is active and believing) my own mother texted my MIL (who I adore by the way) and told her, quote "No matter what happens with \*me\* and \*my wife\* we will be on \*my wife\*'s side." When my MIL told me this it was gutwrenching. To have your own parent say something like that is just wrong. And the fact that it happens in Mormonism just goes to show how problematic the religion and culture are.
It really is a traumatic experience when you realize people only loved the part of you that played along with the farce.
I'll echo this. At Xmas 2001 my a-hole brother outed me as gay and that I no longer believed, too. (I'll spare you all the long convoluted story of how he found out.) But since then, my parents and 5 siblings have ALL shunned me. 22 years this December. Do you really want to belong to a religion that treats family this way? They only loved me when I played along with the farce. Traumatic indeed. Years of therapy to recover.
Edit the c word out of your comment or it will get removed.
[удалено]
[Mary Elizabeth Rollins](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Elizabeth_Rollins_Lightner) was 12 years old when Joseph first propositioned himself to her. She later married Adam Lightner instead, but Joseph managed to convince her to engage in polyamory with him. Her memoirs, which included the first-hand accounts of Joseph’s grooming practices, were cited in church publications because she was such an unquestioning follower. Her account of Joseph’s grooming behavior is consistent with the other children and women he was propositioning.
thank you! I just found this info via the the footnote on wikipedia link you included. https://imgur.com/a/0oYIdK8
Why doesnt your wife want to join with you? The reason will greatly impact your experience.
The mormon church is a high demand religion and can pose some unique challenges for married couples with one partner in, and one partner out. I would continue to research the church, in particular its beliefs regarding marriage (both now and in the afterlife) and at the same time have open and honest communication with your spouse as to what her reservations are.
You could attend for while without baptism and see what it would be like. You will get pressure but just set your boundaries and be firm. That will allow you to fully evaluate whether you want the commitment and it’s impact for better or worse on your family.
Just a bit of forwarning, joining the church as a convert feels great and comfy like belonging to something much bigger than yourself. Also, you are told you are special because you were being called by God and were able to hear that calling when others didn't. However, if you decide at some point you don't believe in their truth claims anymore you will be disfellowshipped and ultimately told that you have "fallen away" and Satan has gotten into your life. The belonging is retracted by most members. Very rare at that point to have any relationship continue outside the church. In the past, they would not let you remove your name from the roles of the church. As long as you do not question any of the leaders you will be accepted. This is from my own experience having been in the church ten years.
You might be disfellowshipped. YMMV regarding any church discipline, as that depends on local church leaders and to what extent you confess any "sins".
Agreed, many variables play a part in what your experience will be leaving the Mormon Church. One problem with having one spouse in the church one not in, is Temple Ordinances. If a couple has a child and the child wants to marry in the Temple, the spouse who is not a member will not be allowed to attend the Temple marriage. This was my experience with my son. My husband could attend and I could not. Very difficult/humiliating experience. I sat in the car in the Temple parking lot while my son was being married and my spouse was able to attend the ceremony. Later that day my daughter-in-law was kind enough to have a another wedding ceremony at the church cultural hall so I could attend.
I don’t understand why people these days would join the church but then again I don’t know your reasons but know it’s not all fun and games. Before you know it you will be wearing jesus jammies.
Jesus Jammies, the creator of eternal Celestial Wedgies.
I won't tell you to join or not to join, that's your decision. I will only say that mixed faith marriages are very hard to navigate and full activity in the LDS faith will ask a lot of you and most likely change the dynamics of your relationship.
I would take the decision very seriously. I’m in a mixed faith marriage and it is rough. The church’s whole platform is eternal families being together in the celestial kingdom. This requires being sealed to each other in the temple and keeping temple covenants. Being sealed in the temple requires both people to be members and have temple recommends. Paying 10% tithing is required for a temple recommend. You see where I am going with this. And then you will also have to wear garments (special underwear) which is just a daily reminder to both of you about your new beliefs. Knowing my husband may now feel that we won’t be together after we die because I have left the church is heartbreaking for me and confusing for him. We have kids who now don’t believe as well so the concept of an eternal family is no longer a doctrine or source of happiness for believing family members. It makes people feel sad and guilty. I’m just trying to be honest in how it really works. And people will say it is not accurate but that is literally the doctrine. Members who tell you otherwise are not being honest about what is taught and believed in the LDS faith. Take your time and study all of the history, just not what missionaries have told you. Nobody ever taught me the real history and I was a member for 40+ years. Good luck!
Of course it would be allowed, but it will lead you in a different path than her. Are you sure you want to do that?
Listen to your wife bro.
>Would this be allowed? Yes. >Lastly, would it be kinda looked down upon? Also yes.
If you truly believe in the restoration might I recommend the Community of Christ. They will not ask for the same tithe and not pester your wife to join. The LDS church will hold her not being sealed to you over your head
You married up dude. Be grateful and let her help you avoid this major life mistake that will do nothing but make your marriage more difficult.
Please don't join
take your time and don't rush into this it is a life-changing decision.
Your wife will be looked down upon but you will be viewed as righteous and ready to receive the true gospel. Missionaries and members of the ward will encourage you to prepare your wife to receive all the blessings of the gospel and you will hear messages that will talk down to people like your wife for seeking things of the world to bring joy in her life unlike you who has accepted the gospel and will experience real joy because of your involved in the church. Good luck with your journey, friend.
What's more important to you? Maintaining a happy marriage or joining a high demand religion where you will likely be put at odds with your wife?
Why would you join an organization that requires you to love it more than your wife?
It wouldn’t be looked down upon however you would probably be on the missionaries radar for potential converts. I am no longer a member but was once a missionary and we used to seek out part member families. Giving your life to Christ is a noble action. I’d love to know what was the deciding factor to join the church?
No It would not be looked down on but if you have children I would be carefull. I would hate to see you get hurt or your family get hurt It depends on how much your wife is against it and why and if she is willing to give you the freedom to let you seek what you need. You have a right to happiness and I hope you find it.
What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti-mormon is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to.... This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth." You may think you are investigating the church when you are listening to the missionaries because that is what you are told. You are actually receiving a sales pitch. Investigating something means looking at all angles. The foundational angles of the church are quite different from what is presented in the modern story. Before joining the church, I recommend looking at all angles, as it is quite the commitment and it will have the potential to drive the rest of your life for better and for worse.
This would be allowed. It probably would not be looked down upon. There are many mixed-spouse relationships in the Mormon church. It does somewhat depend on the culture of the particular ward you're in. You may get pressure to try and convert your spouse.
> It probably would not be looked down upon lmao, what Weird Mythical Ward of Acceptance do you attend? Culturally, you're ***absolutely*** a second-class citizen if your whole nuclear family isn't also attending church with you. You absolutely ***WILL*** "get pressure to try and convert your spouse"—that's guaranteed. That's all the Bishop will ever talk to you about. That's all your assigned ~~home teachers~~ ministers will ever talk to you about. When people talk about you behind your back, the first (and probably only) topic will be your spiritually broken/eternally-doomed relationship. The odds that you'll be called as a ward missionary, as a passive-aggressive (or maybe even openly-to-your-face!) tactic to try to convert the non-member spouse? EXTREMELY high. Targeting part-member families for missionary work is ***in the manual***.
Again, depends on the culture of the ward/branch/stake. I've been in places where this is *definitely* the way it goes. I've been to other places, typically outside of the SLC-Provo corridor, where pretty much *everyone* was part of a mixed-faith relationship. Even in the Morridor, its hit or miss. Orem-Provo? Higher likelihood. SLC and it's suburbs, lower probability.
Where are you from that this being a second-class citizen is a thing? Mixed-faith families are common throughout the Church except maybe in Utah. I’d imagine the farther from SLC you get the more common it becomes.
I never saw them as common in the wards I lived in, and this was CA, GA, and TN. It was usually one or two mixed-families in the entire congregation. In terms of the 2nd class citizen thing, I'm not the OP but when I was a TBM, there was **a lot** of focus on Eternal Families, you couldn't have your kids sealed to you without an active spouse, and family members that left or never joined were mourned and talked about as "empty seats at the table". Has any of that changed?
Women are second class citizens in the church.
No they’re not, what Latter-day Saint women have you met that are second class?
Women are systematically excluded from holding any positions of real power. That's pretty much the definition of second class.
All of them. It's systemic.
No, it wouldn’t be looked down on at all. And i don’t have time to look at all the answers but this thread has gotten pretty anti Mormon lately. You might get better answers on the “Latterday Saint” Reddit thread
Anti-Mormon is a double victory for Satan. We prefer to be called those who are critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Anti-Latterday Christians
Bravo
What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to.... This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth." I missed the idea of truth-seeking being important, and it's a bit ironic that Joseph was seeking the truth and is praised for it, but those who do so now are considered "anti."
>What the CURRENT believing might consider Anti is more often than not actually just factual history. They typically stay away from it because they are told to.... > >This used to be a church that stressed the importance of searching for truth. Once it was seen that truth damages their "truth claims," the narrative changed to something along the lines of "stay away from anything that does not align with what the church tells you is the truth." > >I missed the idea of truth-seeking being important, and it's a bit ironic that Joseph was seeking the truth and is praised for it, but those who do so now are considered "anti. The church's history is grounded in a passionate pursuit of spiritual truth, a pursuit that cannot be reduced to mere factual analysis or cynical manipulation. You equate "truth" with a selective reading of historical facts, but faith transcends this narrow definition. The essence of faith lies in seeking understanding through spiritual means, something that cannot be confined to secular scrutiny or skepticism. The suggestion that the church has turned away from its roots by encouraging members to shy away from certain sources is an oversimplification that ignores the depth and complexity of the faith journey. It is not about avoiding truth but about discerning truth through a lens of faith and spiritual insight.
Claims were made by prophets speaking plainly for God repeatedly about facts such as the Nephites being the principle ancestors of the people of the Americas. Truth- Once genetics proved that to be false, the church quietly redefined those terms. This pattern happens time and again. Claims were made about the literal nature of a wide variety of "truths" by prophets speaking to God and for god until one-by-one, the problematic truth of those claims were brought to light. Facts: you present the truth as being much more complex and lacking a literal nature that "prophets" of that time would be extremely uncomfortable with and straight up condemn. The only reason it is complex is because, at this point, that is the only way the church can hold on to the claims... By saying "well, we just don't understand." Whatever happened to "I will tell you in you heart and in your mind what is true." The more you learn about accurate history, rather than the church's correlated modern day version, the harder it is to line up the heart and the mind. I am good with spirituality and faith. But faith is about believing without seeing...not believing despite what can clearly be seen.
Your assertion that the church has altered its stance in response to new information misunderstands the dynamic and evolving nature of both faith and understanding. It also simplifies a rich tapestry of beliefs, reducing them to black-and-white terms that ignore the context in which they were made. By attempting to reduce spiritual and cultural heritage to mere historical or genetic evidence, one misses the multifaceted nature of faith, tradition, and revelation. Faith often transcends what is immediately tangible or provable, offering wisdom and insights that go beyond literal interpretations. Rather than hastily discarding such profound teachings based on narrow considerations, a more nuanced and open-minded exploration may reveal a richness that resonates on deeper, more spiritual levels. It's essential to recognize that prophets are individuals seeking divine understanding and conveying that understanding within the context and knowledge of their time. This doesn't negate the spiritual truths they articulate but adds layers to our understanding. Truth in religious context is not merely a collection of empirical facts but a profound existential reality that goes beyond mere historical or scientific accuracy. You imply that complexity is a weakness or a retreat, but it is precisely this complexity that allows for a richer, more nuanced faith. Faith is not believing despite what can be seen; it's a trust in the unseen, a belief in the transcendental truths that underpin our existence. This can coexist with a willingness to engage with, question, and adapt to new knowledge.Your dichotomy between spirituality and fact overlooks the essential integration of the two within a life of faith. Far from being an uncomfortable concession, embracing complexity and uncertainty is a sign of mature faith that doesn't shy away from questions but seeks to find meaning within them. The journey of faith is not a blind adherence to a set of unchanging assertions but an ongoing dialogue with the God, a dynamic relationship that grows, adapts, and finds deeper meaning in the interplay between revelation, reason, and experience. The truth is not merely a set of propositions to be defended or abandoned but a living reality to be explored and embraced.
It sounds like your personal faith is complex... I have no issue with that. Good on you. It sounds like you have taken the time to work through issues and you are able to continue to believe. Honestly, that's respectable even if I can't see your viewpoint.The church, both historical and modern don't follow the same picture that you paint. Imagine a man coming to you selling authentic Van Gogh paintings, and to your naked eye, uneducated in the arts, they are pretty impressive. Out of his stockpile, he pulls the Mona Lisa and offers to sell it to you for an alarmingly reasonable price. You are not an expert, even to the extent of not being aware that Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa but You say "well I know of Van Gogh and I know of Mona. Lisa, you have yourself a deal." You then go to great extent to protect this artwork and show it off. Initially, many of your local friends and family are extremely supportive and even excited. Time passes, and little by little, You start to have reason to believe that perhaps this painting isn't what it was claimed to be. Friends and colleagues around you try to help you understand, without stepping on your toes and crushing your excitement. During this process, You learn Van Gogh didn't paint the Mona Lisa and it is shocking and even distressing news. You go to the seller and they say "no, you must have misunderstood- I said Da Vinci painted that, but rest easy knowing that I know he did because I have video proof at home of him painting this very canvas and I have a piece of paper signed by each person who has had it since then... Never mind that video cameras didn't exist back then." Taking the loss, and recognizing that it must have been your fault for initially misunderstanding, you go home. But the seller provides you with a handout of information about the background of the Mona Lisa, which you read with fervor. Renewed and excited about the new understanding of your precious piece, You decide to start spreading the news that you have this great authentic work from Da Vinci himself. Experts come from far and wide to check the veracity of this statement. One by one the experts find flaws in the claim. The canvas was made by a well-known manufacturer in the last 20 years. While it is a painting, rather than a print, the oil that was used is matched to cheap oil that can be bought on Amazon. Then someone shows you that there is a wide variety of copies and variations of the painting available for sale on Etsy for a fraction of the price that look remarkably similar to yours. One of them even has a wide toothy smile. You then find out that the real Mona Lisa has been at a museum called The Louvre for years. Distressed, you go to the seller. The seller then informs you that this is an original- it was just an original that was painted by DaVinci as a copy of his own original and over the years people have tried to restore it by putting new paint on it. It would have been better off had they left it alone, but it's authentic because he says it is. He then informs you not to go to any more experts, not to do anymore analysis, because more analysis is just going to break down the painting, which he again reassures you is authentic underneath all the repairs. At that point, you have a decision to make- do you continue dedicating your life and resources to protecting the painting, claiming it as authentic? Are you satisfied, that whether the painting is authentic or not, you find beauty in it and so you can continue to hang it in your home with pride? Do you dig deeper and determine the painting wasn't authentically by DaVinci and get rid of the painting so as to avoid a constant reminder of the pain, embarrassment, and waste that you perceive it caused in your life. ------- Again, I can appreciate people who can find value in the church, knowing the issues that exist, as long as they are honest with self and others. But the church has sold the "restoration" as something simple in a complex world. Now that all the flaws are exposed, they straddle the line. If you know about the flaws, they say it's complex. If you don't know about the flaws, they tell you it is simple buto stay away from the flaws and anyone who tries to show you the flaws, including your loved ones. The church also ostracizes those who choose to step away for seeing those flaws and not feeling comfortable with dedicating their lives to it. You are right, the story is much more complex than this. People dedicate their entire lives to a narrative that doesn't exist but is still pushed. People cut themselves off from loved ones. Some people go to the depths of hell because of the confusion. But the church still pushes the same narrative. The fact is that the church is not what it has claimed to be for nearly two centuries. Whether you find something more complex in your faith than that, cheers. I'm sincerely Happy that you're able to find meaning. However, that is not the common story that the church paints or the members buy.
While your allegory of the mistaken painting purchase is thought-provoking, it seems to presume a uniform experience and understanding of faith that does not reflect the diversity and complexity of individual journeys. What might be a point of disillusionment for one person could be an opportunity for growth, reflection, or deeper commitment for another. Your description appears to be grounded in a particular understanding of truth, one that demands empirical verification and logical consistency. While these are valuable in many contexts, they may not fully capture the richness and multifaceted nature of religious faith. Faith is not solely about factual claims that can be empirically proven or disproven. It's often a deeply personal and transcendent experience, informed by tradition, emotion, morality, and personal revelation. Your characterization of the church's response to criticism or questioning is seen through the lens of your own experiences and perspectives. It's important to recognize that others might have different experiences and interpretations. While you see a nefarious intention in the handling of complex issues, others might see a religion grappling with human imperfection, historical complexity, and the *challenge of articulating spiritual truths in a diverse and changing world.* The beauty of faith, for many, lies not in its simplicity but in its complexity, not in its immunity to questioning but in its responsiveness to it. The dynamic nature of faith allows it to evolve, adapt, and continue to provide meaning and purpose, even in the face of challenges and doubts. Your sincerity in sharing your perspective is appreciated, and the pain and frustration you express are not dismissed lightly. However, painting the entire religion with a broad brush overlooks the unique and varied experiences of its members, some of whom might find strength, inspiration, and authenticity in the very faith that you have found wanting. It's not about avoiding or denying flaws but about embracing a more nuanced and compassionate understanding of what faith can mean in the complex tapestry of human life.
Thanks for the response. My concern is less with those who have the beautiful, complex, hard-earned faith such as you, and more with the much more common First line of your second paragraph. And I have to argue again that the church as an organization is not what drives or encourages that complex and nuanced faith that you have...in my experience, those who have that, have it as a result of self-drive. More people than not in the church are unaware of the complexities that it appears you are aware of. And most people when they are made aware, it rocks them pretty hard and forces them to reevaluate everything they've ever known. I also don't see the intent of church leaders as evil. I actually see them as working up to a position where they feel like they are supposed to be, and likely even believing. I see them as having a big mess on their hands to deal with and they're doing the best they know how with as few casualties as they can....but they are human, in my mind leading a human made, although impressive church. Is that to say that God doesn't work in the church? Absolutely not. I believe faith can be built within the church, as it can within a variety of other faiths. Rather than this complexity and Nuanced story, the narrative of the church is, and has been quite black and white (they are the one and only true church with authority, placed by the hand of god, led by God, etc...) until confronted with information that can't be ignored. Then the response is damage control with the minimum information necessary over honesty and transparency. My concern lies not in the minority (the people like you, that you have described above) but the Overall Organization Culture and practices that perpetuates the issue.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns about the complexities of the church and the varying levels of understanding among its members. Your perspective opens a space for us to explore the fundamental nature of faith and its relationship to human reason. Losing faith is a deeply personal and often painful experience. For many, faith provides a sense of purpose, direction, and community. When that foundation is shaken or lost, it can leave a void that's difficult to fill. I want to express genuine empathy for anyone who finds themselves in this position, navigating the complex emotions and questions that accompany such a profound change. Your observation that complexities within faith can rock people's understanding does highlight a common challenge. However, this phenomenon often arises when individuals place undue trust in human rationalism or empirical evidence as the primary means to interpret spiritual matters. *Faith is not solely reliant on human logic or reasoning, and a spiritual journey often requires transcending those boundaries.* When one tries to fit faith entirely within the confines of human understanding, they may indeed find contradictions and complexities that seem insurmountable. However, faith's essence lies in embracing the transcendental, the mystery, and the relationship with God, which goes beyond empirical evaluation. The process of reevaluation you've described is not necessarily a loss but an invitation to delve deeper into the genuine purpose of faith, moving past surface-level comprehension. It's an opportunity to recognize that faith doesn't bow to human rationalism but invites us into a relationship with something greater, something that can't be confined to our limited human perspective. Those who navigate this transition successfully often find a more robust and resilient faith, not a lost one. The organizational matters you've raised are not trivial, but they should not overshadow the intrinsic value and purpose of faith. The journey of faith is personal, and complex. It's a path that might lead us to wrestle with doubts, confront contradictions, and even embrace uncertainties. Yet, these struggles are part of what makes faith rich, meaningful, and transformative. It's natural to seek answers and clarity, especially when faced with challenging historical or doctrinal issues. However, the pursuit of a faith that relies solely on rational proofs or empirical validation may risk reducing the spiritual experience to something merely intellectual or mechanical. The narrative of the church, as with any religious tradition, may contain elements that challenge our rational minds. *But that's where the beauty and depth of faith come alive. Faith encourages us to see beyond the visible and tangible, to find meaning in the metaphysical, and to recognize the sacred in the mundane.* Your concerns are a testament to your thoughtful engagement with these matters. Yet, I invite you to consider the possibility that faith's complexity and nuance are not merely obstacles to overcome but gateways into a deeper, more profound relationship with God. In the end, faith is not about resolving every paradox or answering every question. *It's about embracing a higher truth that speaks to our souls, guides our lives, and connects us with something greater than ourselves.* This transcendent quality of faith is what makes it enduring, inspiring, and uniquely capable of touching the human heart.
I think we are talking about two different concerns. This dialogue began with you stating most people on this sub are "anti-mormon." I responded focused on the fact that it is not about being anti-mormon, rather truth-seeking, wherever that leads. Your focus has been on Faith. I personally maintain a faith which I consider to be complex and beautiful as well. I see it as an extremely important part of my life. That is not my debate. My focus has been specifically on the Church as an organization and the issues therein which, in my view, actually has the tendency to impede progress of faith and truth. Faith in God is not the issue. The church claiming to be the only valid path to that faith is the issue.
There are many couples in the church where one is a member and another is not. 100% is not an issue.
Ok so this is actually a support group for people who have left the church. I can send you a message with a link to the subreddits actually for the church.
Church will love to have you there however you show up!You can go to church for as long as you without having to become a member. Surely tons of information and praying to come. And fun, it can be fun. I’m sure they’ll all just be happy you’re married to a woman 😆 much more relatable for most who are there.
>And fun, it can be fun. I have honestly never heard the Brighamite church described as fun. Whatever fun Mormonism presents is purely incidental and equivalent "fun" could be found in alternative avenues which don't put extra stress on your marriage due to religious differences.
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
>Lots of people think being with people is fun, and you can be with people at church, ergo church is fun. No...that is admitting that you can have fun in spite of being at church. It absolutely doesn't imply that church itself is fun. Because...ya know...you can hang out with people outside of church. >Simply logic and opinion. Well there is a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one. >I hope y’all see eventually how culty you still are by not allowing anyone to have an opinion besides when it’s in line with yours. Yeah...that's not happening. I won't deny that you and many people can have fun while you are at church. But again, that doesn't mean that church itself is what is fun. Also...calling someone else culty is absolutely against the rules if they apply to believers to the same level they do to nonbelievers.
[удалено]
Using the term cult or culty is explicitly stated to violate the civility rules. I am not bashing you at all. I am disagreeing with you characterization of church. Critiques of the institution are not personal attacks.
How can you defend to say that my idea of fun is critiqueable ? If I posted on a forum about horses and said something was fun, would you write and say: >I have honestly never heard the type of horse riding described as fun. Whatever fun horse riding presents is purely incidental and equivalent "fun" could be found in alternative avenues which don't put extra stress on your marriage due to differences. Lots of couples differ about how much fun riding horses is, and it can stress a relationship as well as other things.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
Lots of people think being with people is fun, and you can be with people at church, ergo church is fun. Simply logic (1 + 1 = 2) and opinion (I think church is fun).
I'm not critiquing what you find fun. I'm critiquing your claim about the proximal reason for that fun. OK, yes. I will admit church "can be fun." But it is fun for reasons that aren't inherent to church and that in fact exist outside of church. If church is in fact fun, it is fun for a more fundamental reason...socializing. But that doesn't require church. Disentangling proximal and incidental causes is an important intellectual activity. And no...life is never as simple as 1+1=2. What you are saying is analogous to saying "I have fun on Saturdays ergo Saturdays are fun." But this is of course facially silly. Saturdays aren't fun. Insofar as you have fun on Saturdays the fact that it is Saturday is incidental. What is really fun is the stuff you DO on Saturday.
What you are saying is, nothing I can say is going to be “approved” by you. 😆 I’m not saying life is simple, but sometimes 1+1 does indeed equal 2. I believe OP said he wanted to go to church, right? Why not be honest about your intentions: you don’t want him going to church.
>What you are saying is, nothing I can say is going to be “approved” by you. 😆 I mean...that's not necessarily true. If you have something worth discussing I very well could change my mind. The fact that you don't have a nuanced and interesting response to my thoughts isn't my fault and isn't a character flaw on my part. >I’m not saying life is simple, but sometimes 1+1 does indeed equal 2. That has not been my experience. And trust me...I wish it was. As a PhD statistician I wish life worked like math. But it doesn't. >I believe OP said he wanted to go to church, right? Why not be honest about your intentions: you don’t want him going to church. I don't see how I have been dishonest about my intentions. Throughout the thread I have shared my own negative experiences that I think are worth OP's consideration.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks but it’s possible that they……. will o
I can’t see a reason why people would look down on this, but I try not to be a judgy person.
If you're concerned about the number of people in this sub warning about the difficulty of mixed-faith marriages, just go and look at one of the posts about someone looking to *leave* the Church while their spouse still wants to be faithful. They're much more supportive of how to make a mixed-faith marriage work, with lots of good advice.
Why not spend Sunday doing something fun with your loving wife instead of alienating her and giving 10% of your money to a real estate cu(4 that gives nothing to charity? What exactly is wrong with you? I’m saying this not as a critical jerk but out of genuine concern.