Last sunday I visited with a former bishop friend, who is now a branch president. We had a nice conversation as he has been a family friend for years and still he is leader to some relatives.

As we discussed about missionaries, he said that about 8 missionaries had been killed or died during the course of this year alone, to which I corrected and said "it has been at least 14 deaths, including a possible suicide in Mexico". Then we went on talking about the pressure of local leaders on the youth to go serve missions and the pressures in the mission field to reach some number goals. Also the depression many missionaries get into because of this. We share the same opinion that no one should go on to serve as a missionary unless they really want to go. If they don't want to go, it is possible they are going to get in or cause more trouble than succeed.

He told me about his three sons, two of them did serve missions and one is serving right now. The first one, where he served, assisted the president by picking up missionaries that where about to be sent home because of breaking serious rules. The president would ask him to "pick them up, bags included". That and other events, my friend told me, would help his son to eventually become inactive. He says he finished school, is succeeding in his profession and has a happy marriage.

The second son came back as TBM as they can be, pushing everyone in the family to read scriptures, keep the sabath, etc. He eventually got married but divorced later on. He is doing good at school but is not too happy about family life. Not so active either.

The third son didn't want to go on to serve a mission but now he is happy serving.

After hearing this stories, I asked him, how a bishop can react to the inactivity of his own son? - He answered that he loves him dearly, he doesn't keep him from the family, in other words, this is an open minded more mature bishop.

Then I asked him what he thinks about those who leave the church. He answered that he understand such people. He thinks some leave because of the things they see or find in the church or because they just want to go sin. But he recognizes that there are doctrines or history that can make people disbelieve and go away.

Then he added "I am a practical person... I don't think or worry about the doctrines, I just serve and help the people or the youth, I just try to do good to others in my calling and in my community. I do not know or pretend to find out what is going to happen beyond the veil... that no one really knows for sure, I don't get into such doctrines. I am a man of doing not studying".

I really appreciate this man, because I can see him doing what he claims, he serves. But I can see where he fails, and that is where he prefers to close his eyes to the negative of the church. To me this that is the only way TBMs can stayh in TSCC; by seen only, or choosing to see only the positive about it.

My bet is that some 90% of members choose that. Why do you think?

I think that's depressing...that's what I think. Sounds like TBM delusion that thinks only Mormons do good in their community, that only Mormons try to help others. I'm a never-MO, but I know plenty of Mormons who are just that mistaken. What this mistaken attitude does, in my mind, is rob many average Mormons of the joy of doing something with the expectation of getting nothing in return. It's always quid pro quo with them...either in their actual relationships (expecting people who they give assistance must show up for church) or in expecting that they're completing one more step to the CK. I could be wrong.

" I don't get into such doctrines. I am a man of doing not studying"

"My bet is that some 90% of members choose that. Why do you think?"

Mormons don't have time for studying their own history - between getting pushed into missions and marriage, having kids before finishing school, having callings that suck all of your free time away, etc.

someone here once put Mormonism something like this: "endless meetings about how to get people that aren't at the meetings to attend the meetings"

there really is no time for any depth

grubbygert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there really is no time for any depth

That sums up Mormonism in my opinion. No time for studying out what the point is in a sign or token, but plenty of time for cleaning the chapel and administering policies and reporting numbers.

I think the reason so many choose to ignore the problems is that they are raised to think of mormonism as an essential part of their identity. Your self worth gets wrapped up in how well you obey the mormon commandments, as arbitrary as many of them may be (*cough* word of wisdom *cough*). Thus when a challenge to the religion comes up, it is perceived as a challenge to your identity, and you throw up the defenses. It can be extremely difficult to separate "you" and "the church." And when the house of cards does come down, you feel like you're falling, and that everything stable in the world has been turned upside down.

Luckily that passes, and the "other side" is much, much better.

I know many members in the same boat, they have recognized the Church is not what it says it is, but to leave it would cause absolute despair because it is so much a part of their identity.

"I am a man of doing not studying"

Or, I am a man of doing not thinking. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

If Mormonism had a loosely defined set of beliefs ("We sorta kinda think there might have been golden plates," "We sorta kinda think Lamanites and Nephites might have been in the Americas," "We sorta kinda think there might be 'three degrees of glory,'") I might see where he is coming from.

But Mormonism isn't that at all. It is pedantic in its requirements on members (see the thread on not being able to kneel or pray as a group in the temple). It demands eight bzillion things. It tells people that THIS is the ONLY kind of underwear they can wear and be found worthy. It says THESE are THE secret handshakes to get into Heaven.

The guy has done a serious partitioning job on the hard drive in his brain. He says he doesn't sweat the little stuff, but is openly part of a religion with no sense of "Don't worry about the details" except when confronted with contradictory facts. I don't see how he can do that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/25/2013 05:56PM by left4good.

my read is that he is AFRAID to study because of what he might learn; he'd rather just march in step to what he is told by the higher-ups at LDS Inc, which is JUST THE WAY THEY'D LIKE BISHOPS TO ACT.

I don't see it either and I totally agree with what you are saying. The church so flagrantly positions itself as the one only truth and that to me is their worst policy. They have no idea on how to be a little humble...
Nope, I don't see a single drop of humility in any of the 15.