Renegotiating Marriage and Faith (Our Journey)
Seventeen years ago today, Jana and I kissed for the first time. Like many young couples, we were full of faith, in God, in the world and our place in it, and in each other. I was a new convert and a prospective missionary who was willing to sacrifice my family for the truth–my dad disowned me when I was baptized the day after I turned eighteen. Jana had LDS ancestors going back to the earliest days of the Church.
When I came back from my mission I proposed to Jana. We were married in the temple within six months (and spent a healthy chunk of our honeymoon there), and reasonably expected that we would stay as true to the Gospel as we would to each other.
During my undergraduate years my testimony began a steady slide. I was working full-time while Jana and I struggled towards our degrees. I took science courses that made me question the conservative Creationist beliefs that I had acquired in the mission field. I didn’t struggle with the Church history issues that many of my friends grappled with–my wrestle was with my belief in God and the atonement. By the time I got to grad school, my faith was falling like a stone in deep water. It hit rock-bottom after a tsunami battered the shores of New Guinea tearing children from their parents’ arms life. Later, when five little girls from West Valley died in the back of the car the mother (of two of the children) was driving while desperately searching for them, my testimony was buried in the muddy sea-bottom. For several years I immersed myself in prayer, service, and scripture study, seeking the confirmation of the Spirit, asking in faith and suspending disbelief as much as I felt I honestly could.
I occasionally leaked some of my concerns to Jana. She did not take these revelations very well. At first she worked hard to rescue me, and later she consoled herself with the belief that as long as she kept herself righteous, God would “sort things out” in the eternities (one in which I was likely not close at hand). Neither of these approaches proved very healthy for our relationship.
Eventually, our depression and sense of mutual isolation reached a crisis point. Over the course of a year or so, we reexamined our relationship and renegotiated our marriage by consciously removing the Gospel foundation. We found that the expectation that we both be believing Mormons undermined, rather than strengthened, our relationship. Because I knew that Jana could love me for me and not for my Mormoness, I no longer felt insecure with her. I maintained activity in the Church for her sake and for our children. I left the corporate rat race and began working in a low(er) stress public sector job. We committed to returning to graduate school. We both became involved in the Sunstone community as a happy middle ground (Jana now sits on the board of directors).
Jana surprised me (and our friends, family and local leaders) last year when she decided that she could no longer support the priesthood. Things were exacerbated when our son was ordained a deacon (his sister is a couple years younger). The story is complex and is hers to tell, but it opened up a space where we felt that we both could leave the Church. Last summer we stopped going to our LDS ward and began attending the local Quaker meeting. We are becoming more and more involved in that community, but at the same time choose to remain involved in Mormonism, through Sunstone, through supportive LDS friends, and through the Bloggernacle. For all the flak that the Bloggernacle gets, it’s one of the things that keeps marginal Mormons like our family feeling connected to (and valued by segments of) the LDS community.
So this is where we are in our journey now. We are writing new chapters as we go along (quite literally, on our blogs).
As I look back on where we’ve been, I balk at trying to guess where we’ll be in fourteen years from now. We’re happy with where we are at this moment. And I wonder how many other couples have had to change their expectations, to renegotiate their marriages because the change in faith they experience over time. How much are we allowed to change our beliefs? How much is too much?
I am grateful that my path could intersect with the bloggers, commenters and lurkers in the fMh community. I’ve learned a lot from all of you and am deeply impressed with the respect with which you are able to discuss difficult topics from such diverse perspectives. Most of all, I’m grateful to fMhLisa for this marvelous opportunity to guest blog. I wish you all the best on your respective journeys. Namaste.
Ive only been a member a year and a half, and im already
contemplating leaving possibly.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 14, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
I read an interesting book a while ago about how God and science and harsh tragedies can fit into a worldview of faith. It’s called The Language of God, and is written by Dr. Francis Collins. He was the lead scientist on the project to map the human genome. He calls his idea “BioLogos”. I found it very insightful, both large enough and complex enough to handle the terrible questions, hard scientific fact, and a belief in God.
As to your main question, I don’t have much experience. I haven’t been married very long.
God bless you in your journey.
Comment by Melinda — January 14, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
it reminds me of my best friend, she has a lot of questions and concerns about the church (she was converted at 19 by the recently returned missionary who she married a few months later). her husband constantly uses the church as a stick to beat her with, he says things like “maybe I should marry someone else, someone who will be more faithful to their covenants!”
like that is supposed to help?
so many of our young married friends are getting divorced… and so often it is related to “they weren’t being faithful in the church”
John I am so glad you guys weathered that storm. And I wish you the best of luck. what is sad is that so many people will be watching, waiting in anticipation for your divorce (which they see as the next inevitable step after your ‘apostasy’)
another way to use the church as a stick to beat someone.
Comment by G — January 14, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
John, your experiences sound so much like ours, it’s scary
We have been transitioning from the Church to…something else, we’re not quite sure yet…for about two years now, and it’s been hard sometimes, but ultimately rewarding for us. It’s just so good to know there are other couples out there who are going through/went through things similar to what we have experienced. Thank you. I’ve really enjoyed your posts over the past little while, especially this one.
Though our paths (mine and my husband’s) were starkly different leading away from the traditions of the Church–his were questioning the existance of God, things of that nature…and mine were concerning the history and truthfulness of the church–we are now more accepting of change within our relationship. It taught us that change isn’t the end of the world, and a lot of the time, it’s inevitable. We learned to adapt with love and make what expectations we did have very clear with one another.
The strange thing–and what we never expected when we were in the thick of it–is that we’re happier now. Few of our LDS friends and family can understand that, though many have been accepting (but we have lost a few, and it haunts me.) Essentially, we still feel like the same people, but we’re not seen that way. I just had a good friend call my husband a moron the other night on the phone (because he believes in evolution). And she blamed his education and our secular university for it (as if his testimony would have been “safer” at a church school–I highly doubt that, considering his straight-as-an-arrow, rational, hard science personality). I didn’t expect it, and it stung. I still don’t know how to respond to things like that, because I get the sense that people feel betrayed somehow–like we aren’t who they thought we were. I don’t know what to do about that.
So anyway. Excuse the rambling. Just wanted to say that I appreciate you sharing your story, and I wish you and Jana the best, keep up the great writing (both of your blogs are great!)
Comment by Anna A. — January 14, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Lovely.Ishtar - I’m a “lifelong” member, but like you I have had my struggles with doubt and unbelief. Nurturing a testimony is an ongoing process, not matter how long you have been a member of the church.
For what its worth, I’d like to share a link to a conference talk by President Faust that really touched me at a time when my testimony was very fragile.
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-401-6,00.html
Regarding my marriage, I have been blessed to have a very understanding husband. When I have expressed to him my reservations about aspects of the gospel, he has shown me increased love and compassion, never judgement or ridicule.
My marriage has been stregnthened by the knowledge that, come what may, he loves me for me. That said, I think that when husband and wife are both living the gospel and looking to the Lord, it can only serve to stregthen their bonds to each other.
Comment by Patti — January 14, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
As a side note, despite what some members believe about evolution and creationism, the church has never declared an official stance on the issue. It is not an issue central to our salvation, and as such has not been revealed.
As far as I’m concerned, evolution was the method the Lord may very well have employed to bring about the creation of mankind.
Comment by Patti — January 14, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
This is an excellent and well written entry -and I do appreciate that everyone follows different paths in life. I’m just confused as to why a member leaving the church is being posted on a LDS blog site? It just struck me as a touch out of context. But perhaps I don’t frequent the sites often enough to see your postings.
Good luck to you in all your endevors. I wish you happiness and a fufilling spirtual life.
Comment by Lindsay — January 14, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Patti,
I don’t know how you can say that creationism isn’t central to our salvation. A good chunk of our time in the temple is learning about the creation. I remember from a class at BYU that there were many comments about evolution by GAs (often contradictory).
This is an interesting topic for me, as I am in a fragile place right now. My husband (YM pres) gave a great talk in church today that showed me again how rock-solid his testimony is.
For me, I guess, I am trying to understand how to sort through what is a “testimony” and find out what makes sense/feels right to me. I am only recently discovering that it isn’t an all or nothing proposition.
I do feel like my husband has been more understanding of my struggles over the last few months. I hope that is a good indicator of how we’ll do in the future.
John and Jana, it’s interesting that you’ve been meeting with the Quakers. Our bishopric member is a former Quaker and his dad and brother-in-law are preachers in that faith. They have had a difficult time with his conversion to the Mormon church, but are slowly coming around.
Comment by Jessawhy — January 14, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Jessawhy,
You are right that the creation is a central theme in the temple. A key component we are taught is that the world, and everything on it is a creation of the Lord. What I meant is that the specific methods employed by the Lord in the creation are not addressed or central to our salvation.
Regarding the periods of the creation, the Lord says that they shall “call” their work for each creative period a “day.” For all we know, the periods could well have constituted millions of years.
From the wikipedia entry on the church and evolution
Despite the fact that the Church has no official position on evolution beyond those expressed by the First Presidency (above), some general authorities and lay members have considered evolution to be at variance with scriptural teaching.This view is well summarized by Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s statement, “There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution.”[1] Other authors, including Joseph Fielding Smith, held similar views. Other Church authorities and members have seen much of value in evolutionary theory, even if they have not endorsed every aspect of it. Examples include James E. Talmage, John A. Widtsoe, and LDS chemist Henry Eyring.
Comment by Patti — January 14, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
Lovely Ishtar (#1), I’m sorry that you are struggling so. I hope you have friends or family who are respectful and supportive of you as you find your way.
Melinda (#2), thank you for the reference. I have read some of and respect Collins’ work.
Lindsay (#7), good point. I’m hoping that the conversation in the thread will focus more on the problems that arise because of differences between spouses’ faith journeys (Ana, G, Patti and Jessawhy are taking the conversation where I hope it will go). You can be TBMs but have similar struggles. But I also wanted to draw attention to the diversity of fMh readers and their experiences, and that blogs like fMh can be a lifeline to those who might otherwise feel completely cut off from Mormonism.
I’m glad that some of you have spouses who are supportive and that you have (or are) successfully negotiating change. I think it’s especially difficult when one spouse condemns any questioning, doubt, or deviation from their interpretation of the straight and narrow.
On evolution: I realize that in the Church there is a wide range of opinions on evolution and creation that are held by TBMs. I just wanted to show that that is where my questioning started. There are a lot of venues for discussing evolution in the context of Mormonism, and it’s certainly an important topic that people have strong opinions about, but could we keep this thread at least generally focused on spouses and convergent/divergent faith journeys? *gentle nudge*
Comment by JohnR — January 14, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Not to rain on anyone’s personal journey, but I think it’s a bit of a copout when they say that they wish to remain connected with Mormonism but yet leave the Church. You don’t support basic Church principles — that’s fine, and you have every right. But continued involvement with the fringe cultural elements — what does that prove? That someone who doesn’t have a testimony of the Church wants to stay connected via Sunstone — that doesn’t seem to reflect very well on Sunstone itself…
If you want to leave the Church, why not just make a clean break and leave? Are you waiting for the Church to change? Are you expecting to learn new truth through the ethno-Mormon community (but yet reject the core principles of the community you’re rejecting)?
At any rate, things like “I don’t believe in creationism” and “God must not exist because of terrible tragedies out there” reflect a fairly amateur understanding of the Church.
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade, and I am hardly a rose-colored glasses idealist (my emnity toward Utah Mormonism has been discussed before), but I just don’t get it. What’s the benefit of hanging around the Church after you’ve left it?
Comment by queuno — January 14, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
Sorry for the earlier threadjack.
Comment by Patti — January 14, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
It’s reassuring to read of your soft landing with the Friends, John. For a little more than a year now, DH and I have been contemplating leaving the church. One of the big questions is how to navigate the void beyond.
The thing is, it’s not a void at all. The world is full of beauty and things to learn and wonderful people to get to know.
It’s a funny thing–after the terrible anguish of losing faith in the LDS church, our marriage is far stronger than it was before, when we acted in our prescribed roles, saying things we were taught to say. We’ve been through a crucible that’s forged a new honesty and level of trust.
Thanks for all your posts and the glimpse into your life and your journey.
Comment by Ashley — January 14, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
I love the blogosphere. It is so great that we can unburden ourselves like this. I too am a convert (10 years) and it is very lilekly that I will be resigning from the church this year. I am prepared to rejoin the Anglican Communion of my youth. My TBM wife isn’t too happy about it, but she will accept it.
Comment by Phouchg — January 14, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
Queno - I think any time you have a religion with distinct cultural guidelines, you will have “cultural” members. For instance I have friends who are “cultural Catholics” or “cultural Jews” - they may not believe or they may not believe fully but they still identify with and want a part of the culture of their faith. I think especially in places like Utah, where the church is such a strong part of daily life, “cultural Mormons” definitely exist. Whether or not you think that is a strength or a weakness is a personal choice.
John - When I was dating my non-member now-husband, I made it very clear to him that I did not want him to convert for me. I believe it is fundamentally dishonest to conver to any religion for any reason other than “I believe it is true” - and somehow it seems more wrong to lie about the nature of your belief in God than about other things. My husband is supportive. He is respectful. I am very grateful and very fortunate to have him in my life. Right now I’m at a part of my journey where I don’t think I’ll leave the church; I’m reconciling and pulling through. I know my husband would never ask me to leave, just as I’d never ask him to join.
Comment by Quimby — January 14, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Well, this whole thing risks morphing into a thread debating the evolution issue in Mormon thought.
But I don’t really think that’s what it’s really about.
Evolution is really a non-issue for me. As is the whole American Indian DNA thing, as is the “steel weapons” in the Book of Mormon, ditto on the “horses.” Etc., etc.
I’ve read FARMS stuff, and I can see how these problems can be explained away. I also am very well aware that to outsiders, much of the work of FARMS seems to be going to very great lengths to explain away troubling scientific issues in Mormonism when the simplest explanation is “obviously” that Joseph Smith made it all up.
It really just depends on where you are coming from. For a faithful person like me, the FARMS stuff has persuasive value. For JohnR, apparently not as much.
But even the FARMS stuff isn’t an essential element for my own attempts to safeguard my faith. I’m willing to go further than that. I’m not really troubled by the possibility that we may find out in the future that (horrors) Joseph Smith actually made a few goofs when translating the Book of Mormon, or even invented some parts in entirety. I’m also willing to allow for stories being proved allegorical at some future time. On the other side, I’m also willing to entertain the prospect that it all might just be literally true, no matter how improbable that may seem to some. God is vast, and human understanding is limited.
It’s all good as far as I’m concerned, and overwrought handwringing about DNA evidence, Egyptology, and whatever else just really fails to get me all that worked up, even when I understand the charges being made.
In the end, it really isn’t about the evidence. My feeling is that JohnR’s “slide” was never primarily about the evidence. The evidentiary issues started the slide, true, but they weren’t the most important ingredient (I’m sure John will correct me if I’m being presumptuous here). I imagine the truth is that Mormonism just wasn’t doing it for him on many different levels. The undermining had been going on for years. It just decided to come out in evolution class. When you are truly secure in our Gospel, these things don’t shake you.
When your participation in Mormonism leaves you spiritually malnourished however… Well then, you’re a “ticking time bomb.” Most anything could set you off, from an unrighteous bishop, to an unkind ward member, to DNA evidence, to no-female-clergy, to sheer burnout, to whatever else.
We cherish that which spiritually nourishes and renews us. When that renewal ceases, then the trivial stuff starts to matter.
Comment by Seth R. — January 14, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Apologies for my bitter little tangent regarding evolution and those who agree or disagree, etc. It had been bugging me and just came out, but it wasn’t my intent to knock the thread off it’s track, if I did. If anything, I was attempting (poorly!) to illustrate the issues my husband and I have been dealing with over the past little while, with varying degrees of sucess. It has been a bit of a struggle between my husband and I on how we deal with the questions/comments our change in belief has produced–he’s better at letting things slide whereas I take it more personally than I probably should.
To #7- Though my husband and I don’t attend church anymore, because of the belief of dear family/friends it is still a big part of our lives, and I’m more than ok with that. I live in Utah, it’s a part of my culture, and it interests me. There are many things about the church that I will always love and appreciate, and I like to see them expressed here on this website. I am grateful for a place like FMH–the discourse here has opened my eyes to many different points of view that I may not have otherwise run across. And I’m happy that it has been made clear on many occasions that people in my situation are allowed to comment here, and posts like John’s are welcome.
Comment by Anna A. — January 14, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
queuno,
Here’s one NOM’s answer for you:
it’s the people, not the organization (and not the doctrine!) that keeps me connected
my family (parents, siblings, etc) are all LDS
it is my heritage
It is, IMHO, the mark of a mature and forgiving person to put aside feelings of frustration with the organization and maintain relationships with actual people.
Comment by Ashley — January 14, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
John - “TBM” is a polarizing and problematic term, and you ought to know better than to use it. First, because the “TBM” distinction does not really exist; we all exist on different points of the continuum between orthodoxy(ies) and hereterodoxy(ies) and people tend to be in motion, anyway, from point to point along these continuums. Second, because it’s used (almost?) exclusively as a designator of “other”-ness. (I mean, come on, have you ever heard an average Mormon self-describe as “TBM”?).
Lindsay, queuno,
Not to try to speak for John or Jana or anyone else, but I don’t see why John or Jana are less members of the community than you or I or anyone else. One’s Mormon-ness is a matter of self-identified desire to use truths from the Mormon tradition to draw closer to God. John loves his family, attends institute regularly, owns and reads more Mormon- and religion-themed books than most people in my ward, regularly discusses spiritual matters with family and friends, respects the beliefs of others . . . I really don’t see why I would want to exclude him from a conversation about the church, or about religion or spirituality in general. But perhaps that’s just me.
Comment by Kaimi — January 15, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Over the past year, as I have been struggling with my faith, this has been increasingly hard for my husband and me. My husband gets frustrated because he doesn’t know how to handle my doubts– a common reaction I think. (John, I am glad you and Jana have written about your journey.) And while this doesn’t make me very excited to discuss my doubts with him, I realize our marriage is dependent on my being open and honest with him. Lately, he and I have designed a better plan for our spiritual discussions so it doesn’t end in tears (on my part) and frustration (on both parts).
I know the thing that concerns my husband the most is where my doubts will lead our marriage. He is worried that if I don’t figure them out, I will leave the church: a very likely possibility. Sometimes it’s like walking on eggshells, for both of us. Since our marriage was largely based on temple covenants, similar spiritual goals and ideals, etc. it is a very legitimate concern. That’s why I think it’s important to develop the non-gospel aspects of your relationship. My boss’s husband left the church while their kids were teenagers. (He actually introduced their son to drugs and alcohol, which was probably the #1 reason for their divorce) but she told me, once they lost the church, they no longer had anything in common. I’ve thought about that a lot. You never know what will happen, and if you only have the gospel in common, that will lead to problems– even if one of you doesn’t leave the church.
There have been many days and weeks this past year that I know the only thing keeping me in the church is my husband. I don’t know if that’s good or bad right now. I’m glad to know he supports me, loves me, and wants me to figure stuff out– I just hope I do.
Comment by cmac — January 15, 2007 @ 12:13 am
#18, and queno, to a degree:
I fully agree. This is where DH and I are coming from. Most of our family are active members, and a “clean break” would probably damage some relationships. I want to hear about their lives, (even their religious lives) and vice versa I’m sure, and I don’t want them to feel like we can’t talk about such things and confide in each other just because we happen to disagree on a little doctrine
In addition, I’m ok with staying connected because, well, religion interests me. All of it, but especially the stuff I have experience with. So I’m going to continue to hold on to the ties I have left, because they’re part of who I am.
Comment by Anna A. — January 15, 2007 @ 12:19 am
Can someone tell me what the heck TBM stands for? I’m lost.
Comment by stacer — January 15, 2007 @ 1:07 am
On the broader question of renegotiating:
I think that most couples renegotiate in some way or other during marriage. It may not be seismic changes relating to religion or relationship, but people evolve, people mature. I’m not the same person I was a year ago, or five years ago, or ten; a year from now, I’ll be a different person as well. We all find new interests, new friends, new places, new ideas.
Some parts of every relationship are foundational, and not really negotiable. And there will be questions, if one person’s personal growth or change threatens things the other person views as foundational. In that case, the question will be, what are the foundational values.
Comment by Kaimi — January 15, 2007 @ 1:07 am
I have a hard time reading about John and Jana’s marriage and how happy they are, because sadly I have had the opposite experience. My marriage has been in trouble for quite a while. I think my husband married me thinking I would be a sweet compliant faithful wife, when I was really a free-thinking feminist liberal Mormon. And I guess I thought he was a radical Mormon historian but as the years have gone by he has revealed himself to be a conservative Republican priesthood-holding chauvinist. I don’t blame our troubles on the Church, I just feel that he doesn’t see that there is another valid point of view on the planet besides his own. And on my part, I seem to be unable to just go along with some things for the sake of peace.
In his post, John asked:
“…how many other couples have had to change their expectations, to renegotiate their marriages because the change in faith they experience over time? How much are we allowed to change our beliefs? How much is too much?”
I think that first of all, most of us marry someone we don’t really know and we have to learn who that person is and come to accept them as they really are. Then, we all change over time, if not with respect to faith issues, then a myriad of other things. It’s important to renegotiate from time to time. In my idealistic view of true love, I would hope that there would never be so much change that the other could not try to empathize and understand if not to completely agree.
I see my relationship with the Church in the same way. Perhaps I didn’t quite grasp the full nature of this religion when I first joined myself to it. But as I have learned more, I have embraced the unusual history and sometimes convoluted doctrines and renegotiated and come to terms with my membership.
I think John and Jana know that I respect their journey and I uphold the place of NOMs in the Church, but I can’t help wishing that they could negotiate their Church membership as well as they have their marriage–that they could hold on to that beautiful love of the gospel as they have their mutual adoration!
Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 15, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Ashley, amen!
cmac (#20), I think that spouses often get fearful (Phouchg, maybe your wife is feeling some of these concerns?)–if your relationship is founded in large part on the Church, there is a (legitimate) concern that a rejection of doctrine will lead to rejection of your spouse. You said that “it’s important to develop the non-gospel aspects of your relationship” and I agree–if the church is problematic for one person, then it’s very important to find and build on other common values, goals, interests, and relationships. Quimby, it sounds like you and your husband have build on these common values as well as on a fundamental respect for each other.
queuno (#11), we make a distinction between the Church and the greater Mormon community. Basically, we love our Mormon friends and family members and appreciate the struggles that those on the margins go through.
Ironically, the Church encourages the hanging on of cultural Mormons. Whatever the rhetoric, at the local level it really tries to reach out to and keep fringe types like us in orbit, if not in the pews. I find this approach healing and holistic. My friends who have encountered the “in or out” attitude often leave feeling rejected, bitter and angry. And if you’ve read my other posts here, you’ll see that I don’t live by strict binary definitions very well.
Patti (#12) and Anna (#17), no problem!
Kaimi (#19), I have been properly chastened. I’ll be more careful in the future.
Plus, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Comment by JohnR — January 15, 2007 @ 1:11 am
I like the theme in John’s original post addressing faith changes throughout a marriage. I’ve been married for slightly over a year so I can’t claim much wisdom on the subject. But I anticipate that my husband’s and my faith/worldviews/opinions/spiritual experiences will grow together in some ways and apart in other ways over the coming years. The question seems to be how a couple handles these coming togethers and going aparts. Handled with love, respect, and a true desire for understanding, it would seem the relationship would grow stronger regardless of which direction one moves in. Then again, for most people I think there are some fundamental truths for which that person is not willing to budge, compromise, or tolerate. When a spouse crosses one of these boundaries, what happens?
I like the closing word. Of course I didn’t know what it meant without a quick peak at Wikipeda, but namnaste brings up the following: “it recognizes the equality of all, and pays honor to the sacredness and interconnection of all, as well as to the source of that interconnection.” Whatever spiritual directions my husband and I move in, whether together or apart, I hope we can always recognize our equality and pay honor to the sacredness of our interconnection. This is the example I feel couples who join or leave a religion - and all the stepping stones and various levels in between - set for the rest of us.
Comment by Elise — January 15, 2007 @ 1:13 am
I’ve a hard time negotiating many that share their experiences of drift. The hardest part for me is a general front I’ve encountered of not wanting to address key issues they’ve taken with the gospel. I’ve looked into all the issues i hear people place as being bariers to belief but I have difficulty seeing exactly what they claim to see.
I don’t want to be either abbrasive or patronizing but I feel to say that I hope and pray those who feel a rift will come to reconcile it and be able to ultimately obtain a greater peace in reconciliation.
Comment by HiveRadical — January 15, 2007 @ 1:18 am
Why not? Sure, i’ve encountered folks at Sunstone who have treated me harshly because I still go to church, but they are the minority and John hasn’t indicated this is his desire. I like that an organization exists which makes liminality a less lonely place. I don’t want to threadjack, but I do want to stick up for Sunstone. It can make transition out of the church less painful; it can also make remaining less painful. Either way it fosters understanding when approached with the desire to augment that lovely little quality.
Comment by Janet — January 15, 2007 @ 1:26 am
As for the question of marital renegotiation–surely ever marriage involves such a thing? The only things in stasis are dead, and a dead marriage? Not much of a marriage at all, now is it? Of course, not everyone consciously dissects their marital changes, but I’m sure they exist nontheless.
My Dh and i remain LDS , but our beliefs have changed over time and so has our marriage. The changes aren’t always on parallel lines, either–he remains a linear thinker who wants clarity and I remain comfortable with doubt. The crucial intersection occurs where we conjoin our combined love for Jesus Christ and for each other. The struggles with ancillary things have actually strengthened this, but that’s a long story and not just mine to tell.
The part of our marriage which truly required “negotiation” was figuring out how a person like me (for whom doubts often augment faith) and a person like him (for whom doubts cause all sorts of trauma) can reconcile our faith methodologies rather than trying to convert the other person’s personality entire. I think we make a better team when we recognize these different approaches–I’m hoping we’ll make better parents someday, too. Cookie cutter faith and cookie cutter marriage–bleah. Living things are messy, but I still prefer mess to dead tidiness.
Comment by Janet — January 15, 2007 @ 1:43 am
John, thanks for that great post! I’ve really enjoyed your posts here. I’m a scientist and engineer, and never believed in Creationism, and have not found any of that to be at odds with the gospel at all. I converted from a lifelong atheism, so there was never any question, for me, of rejecting any scientific explanations of how the cosmos has evolved, the laws of physics, math, biology, geology, astrophysics, or biochemistry. Our faith is one of the few (that I’ve studied about) that holds that we don’t know everything yet, that we should study and learn as much about science and nature as possible, and that everything true is part of our religion. I love that we’re encouraged to gain as much knowledge as possible, and told that we take that along with us on our eternal journey. It’s my belief that we will eventually learn how to construct our own perfect bodies, and how to resurrect our families into their perfect bodies as well. I believe that we will eventually, if we are faithful and continue our eternal progression, learn to build big bang universes of our own, and populate them with our own spirit children.
None of this seems odd from the standpoint of science fiction. It fits right in with my former worldview. The only thing that changed is that when I received a powerful witness that God lives, that he loves me, and that he has the power to know my thoughts, and the future, then I realized that my potential was much greater than I had known, and that total healing is possible, and eternal life, through the atonement. Before I knew that, I wouldn’t have wanted to live forever, because of the accumulation of hurts that I had not the power to overcome, and the damage to my self that seemed impossible to fix.
Anyway, hopefully you’ve been able to take the good parts of the gospel with you, that saving grace and the knowledge of your own worth and divine potential. I hope you’re able to reconcile everything in such a way that you don’t lose the amazing blessings of the gospel which have made such a miraculous change for the better in my life.
Comment by Tatiana — January 15, 2007 @ 3:20 am
I’m kind of tired of people asking me why I remain involved in the church even I don’t believe everything. Would people ask someone who is Jewish why they still called themselves Jewish even if they were not religious? I’m seventh generation Mormon, not something you just decide to remove from your personality one morning. Another answer I’d give to people who want to ask about this is that in some ways the church has left me. There’s a huge change in church culture since I was small– much more hard right political conservatism, much more emphasis on pure obedience. Maybe I’m just hanging around waiting for the pendulum to swing again.
Comment by Paula — January 15, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Paula, I’d suggest that the Church really is about something deeper and more important than the American political spectrum.
But just the same, you are right. You are one of us and always will be - like it or not. I suppose that idea can be both troubling and comforting at the same time.
Comment by Seth R. — January 15, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Friends:
I’ve enjoyed the comments on this thread. Thank you for your support in our journey. And to those who question our continued orbit around Mormonism, do know that that might be a temporary thing, too. Perhaps in 5 years we’ll have all of this need to grapple with Mormonism out of our systems. But perhaps not? I’ve learned that the future is awfully hard to predict.
For those of you who would like to learn more of the details of the difficulties I’ve had with John’s questioning over the years, you can read more about it on my blog.
For John: it was lovely to be awakened yesterday morning by your remembrance of our first kiss. Seventeen years is nearly half a life ago now, but it all still feels so new.
Comment by jana — January 15, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Oh, and about the initials, TBM is true Believing Mormon, and NOM is new order mormon (more liberal interpretation of the church.) Hope this helps.
Comment by Kerri — January 15, 2007 @ 10:43 am
what a loaded topic!
to answer someones question as to why this is being discussed on a Mormon blog. it’s very simple, there are many folks just hanging out on the fringe that need to know that their doubts and concerns are normal and being experienced by many others.
Comment by mfranti — January 15, 2007 @ 11:28 am
The timing of this thread is pretty ironic for me and I have enjoyed everyone’s thoughts. Just 2 weeks ago I was experiencing yet another of those lovely “dark night of the soul” moments, trying to figure out what to do about my marriage.
My DH and I closely mirror J&J’s origins (met 19 years ago, missions, temple marriage, and 2 kids). We’re a textbook example of extreme opposites attracting, glued together by the church.
within a year of our marriage, DH started looking into some of the doctrinal issues that were more controversial, just because he wanted to know more about them (not because he had any questions or doubts at that time.) Through this innocent exploration, within about a year, he’d gone from TBM (true believer Mormon) to not only doubting the church, but not believing in Jesus, questioning whether or not there was anything beyond this life etc.
He kept this all to himself, never breathing a word of this to me as it happened. He is a man with only one regret in life, which is that he didn’t share it with me at the time.
We had our first child when we’d been married 6 years. The second when we’d been married 9 (and we were together 3 years before marriage). It was during my pregnancy with #2 that he finally divulged his position–all at once in a long and very memorable conversation.
I freaked out.
I mean, I wasn’t deluded that he was rock solid in his beliefs…we’d long since stopped praying together etc. I thought it was out of laziness (my excuse) or mixed up priorities—but never guessed it was because of change in core beliefs. We still both attended church every week (we still do, actually). The reason I freaked out was that I assumed at the time, that since he was a scientist and a seeker of knowledge and truth, that he must be right. that if I had read and studied all that he’d read and studied, that I’d have arrived at the same conclusions he had, and that it was all wrong and I’d spent my whole life thinking I “knew” stuff, but realized that it was only acceptance or belief, not knowledge. I was emotionally unstable, (in the throes of morning sickness) and my whole life paradigm was shattered.
It’s taken me years to move on from that point. I realize now that I’m a different person, with different experiences of my own, and that it was a false assumption that I’d conclude what he’d concluded. I think I would have talked about things that I read with him and others, and processed them differently than he had in his solitary search for answers.
But since then our relationship has definitely struggled. I felt betrayed in so many ways-we’d always had a policy of sharing everything that mattered to us with each other, and he’d kept this big secret for years without mentioning it. Waiting till I was pregnant with child number two seemed like a betrayal. If we weren’t going to be united on the platform that brought us together, it would have been a lot simpler to break things off without kids…but the fact is we have these two amazing people entrusted to our care and nurture, and we’re both very committed to them and our responsibilities.
Sometimes I forget that though, and then I get miserable inside and try to figure out what to do. it was 2 weeks ago as I wrestled with this yet again, that I realized that when we said “for better or worse etc. etc. etc.”, I expected a certain amount of change in life, but I hadn’t built into my “I do” an expectation of major foundational changes. there wasn’t any flexibility in terms of my expectations at that time, so every time I evaluate my present situation, I’m comparing it to the expectations I had in 1990…and find myself frustrated at the discrepancy between what I expected marriage to be like and how we actually are.
So I’m trying to update my expectations, and bring them into the current century. I love and respect him as a person and he me. I want him to be happy and vice versa. We love our kids and don’t want to drag them through the pain of divorce if at all possible to avoid it. He willing to “be Mormon” and does a great job of attending/serving in the church. Sometimes he’s more reliable than I am! I’ve stopped worrying about his salvation. I’ve stopped (as Jana did) offering myself as some kind of sacrifice to god in exchange for him having an “alma the youngeresque” experience. I’m learning to accept him as he is. I’m supportive of him in all the ways I can be, and he is the same for me. We’re not really “in love” with each other any more and I miss that kind of relationship, whereas he’d be content as a single person but is making the best of our situation.
There are a few other major complications that I haven’t even hinted at that make remaining committed really hard at times, but I’m grateful that we’re hanging in there and have hope that we’ll eventually pull through this and be closer for it.
J&J’s journey has always interested me because as I look at the paths others I know have taken, I’ve never come across any couples who seemed to make things work out both spiritually and relationship-wise…without leaving the church. It made it seem inevitable that we’d either divorce or both leave the church—neither option is desirable to me (well, most of the time ). I still feel like I need to remain active and faithful, so that’s what I‘m trying to do. My DH is supporting me in that because it’s important to me, even though he doesn’t believe any longer.
J&J I am grateful you’re sharing your experience with us, and am enjoying the comments of many others as well. Sorry for the book…I should have written this out a long time ago so it’s good to have it down in print now at least.
Comment by Blue — January 15, 2007 @ 11:31 am
My husband and I first converted to a radical form of Catholicism together before becoming Mormons together. Neither one threatened the relationship much. Our golden rule is to never pressure each other, yet we seem to follow the same path so there hasn’t been too much dissonance.
Comment by cchrissyy — January 15, 2007 @ 11:46 am
i am a convert and married to a Lutheran
unlike many i know, our marriage wasn’t based on our shared faith nor our culture. it was based in our friendship.
so before we could get to the point that we were even considered a couple, we had to negotiate our faith and cultures. he is lutheran from a small Midwest town with both parents. i cam from a broken home in so cal. we are very very different.
marrying outside of the church has been difficult for my spiritual well being. but i also never bought into that crap that if ” i married in the temple…( i’m a laurel advisor, this is always a tricky subject to teach too.) But as we change as individuals, and as our dynamic as a couple changes, we have to renegotiate our marriage and our friendship to make it work
there are times when i question the validity of this bit of history, and roll my eyes at that bit of doctrine.
there have been times when i think some of the leaders are whacked on the social/political views. (leaning a little to right for me).
i think we have traded the teaching of Christ and his doctrine, for
the Corporation and correlation.
The “image” that the Church portrays makes me cringe because the reality is, nobody is that happy, not everybody is that clean, and marriage is damn hard!
so. after all that, even with the doubts and dislikes i stay in the church because when i go to the distribution center to buy garments, i know.
when i see the missionaries on the street, i know
and when i read 2Nephi, 31:20, i am reminded of that night secven years ago that the Holy Ghost said, Melanie, this is the word of God.
Comment by mfranti — January 15, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
#33, I get what you are saying when you speak of a need to “grapple with Mormonism.” I had my name removed from the records of the LDS church a year ago, because (a) I had grown to reject traditional ideas of “sin” and “atonement,” (b) I had finally reached a “tipping point” where the history was just too far from the faith claims, and (c) after 18 years of struggle, I came out as a gay man—-and my reasons for leaving were actually in that order of influence.
I still find myself intellectually interested in Mormonism, from both historical and sociological viewpoints. I find myself haunting the bloggernacle, partly as a means of keeping up on these aspects, but I think it’s also a bit of therapy. I became LDS at the age of 13, and remained in the church for 26 years. I voraciously studied its history and doctrine. I went from the most obnoxious of TBMs, to near-Fundamentalist, to liberal Mormon, and eventually ex-LDS. In some ways, I am still “Mormon,” though not very LDS at all (a big distinction, in my experience). Travelling the borderlands has been a social weaning process, and continues to help me process a very large piece of my life.
Leaving the LDS church after years of membership is much like a divorce. It takes time to look back, analyze, plan, and move forward in a healthy way.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 15, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Seth R. You are very right about the church being more than the American political spectrum– the trouble is, at least in my particular area, there’s been a heaping helping of politics along with religion at church the last few years. It’s not always overt, but still there in the way that prayers are said, or talks, or sometimes it’s more obvious like the folks in the parking lot handing out yard signs for the local Republican candidate after church. I’m mostly still fairly happy to be recognized a mormon, but my kids find it embarassing.
Comment by Paula — January 15, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Well, kids never really appreciate stuff like tradition, heritage and culture until they’re older anyway.
Comment by Seth R. — January 15, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
mfranti - I think you hit the nail on the head. I have struggled with the politics, history and lots of other things but that I can’t deny that answer I recieved, despite everything else. So, in the rough times I cling to that.
Faith issues have never been an issue for me and my husband, I think we’d go to hell for each other. Im not sure which extreme is worse.
Comment by Veritas — January 15, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
veritas,
isn’t that what “enduring to the end” really is?
Comment by mfranti — January 15, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
The question eventually arises though, “endure” what, and to what end? For most of my years in the LDS church, I was absolutely certain, and every grumble was subsumed by that certainty. I “knew too much” to ever leave, or so I thought. It was only after I spent about three years researching for a book on Freemasonry and early Mormonism, traveling throughout the country and digging up original sources that had never been consulted by other researchers, that my views changed enough to destroy that certainty.
Much of what I was seeing, I dared not tell my then-wife. When I began to share my changing views, I can assure you she was not amused. I think it was very difficult for her to see her once-absolutist husband suddenly start changing the playing field. If not for other struggles in our relationship, we might have been able to get past that challenge. As it is, my “denial of the faith” remains a significant sore spot, as she feels it’s a bad influence on our children.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 15, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
enduring to the end is different for for everyone.
maybe what keeps me going is that i don’t take myself to seriously.
i wonder if that equals not taking the church to seriously. i don’t say that to be light.
i think that if we all wanted and we took anything to do with all religion and with God– Geez anything that had to do with anything… we could find holes. and we will be let down. Sorry!
we aren’t dealing with math and science here that have a formula that works out the same every time.
we are dealing with God and History, and imperfect men. that means no formula, no perfect answer, no proof, and certainly absolutes.
Comment by mfranti — January 15, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Wow. A very interesting discussion, and I’m glad that there are blogs available to discuss such issues. I really liked Seth R’s comment (#16).
I myself have come upon a realization that makes living with the many questions I have about the Church bearable. I had previously taken a very selfish outlook on my existance here. I essentially lived life for me until I realized that I had no right to. In my belief God created everything, so everything I have is borrowed from God. The only thing He’s actually given me is my spirit, or my will. All He asks is that I do what He wants me to do while I’m here on His planet, and when I’m done, then I can do whatever else I want, plus He’ll give me an immortal body to boot! That’s a deal! Heck, from what I understand, my temporal existance is a drop in the bucket compared to immortality, so I essentially get the immortality for free! In exchange what does He want me to do? Not drink alcohol? Read the BoM? Not have intercourse before marriage or with those of my same sex? Do temple work (which I completly don’t understand)? Even if it’s to follow imperfect, fallible, at times offensive, occasionally inspired leaders, is that such a big deal? I do the same thing at work.
I guess for me it comes down to two aspects of my testimony, 1) I believe that there is a God who is trustworthy, and 2) I believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is the means by which He wants us to organize and carry out His work. If after I’m dead I decide I don’t want to be a part of the Plan, that’s fine, I’ll take my body and go, but in the meantime, during this life, I’ll try my best to do what He has asked me to do, whether I think it makes sense or not, because it’s not mine to begin with.
Comment by Guest — January 15, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
This post came at an opportune time for me. My husband and I haven’t been married for very long, but the issue of “renegotiating” our marriage due to changing faiths is already very much a part of our lives.
I started dating my husband within weeks of him returning from his mission, and at the time, he was very rigid in terms of certain beliefs. I convinced myself that I could handle converting and living “the LDS life” - very naïve, I know. I didn’t go into it blind, though - I spent the better part of a year researching the church and finding out everything I could, both positive and negative. And for the first little while, I was okay. Over time, however, I came to realise that it just wasn’t working. Shortly after our marriage, I “outed” myself to my husband.
He took it pretty well, although I sometime need to return to issues again and again until he finally gets what I’m saying. In fact, he handled it better than I ever could have imagined. The difficulty lies in not blaming myself for any crisis of faith he has himself. He always tells me that he’s having his own struggles, but I tend to feel that he would be drifting along quite blissfully if I was active, or if he’d married a “real” Mormon girl. It’s taking time to realise that it’s not fair to blame myself for him not going to church on Sunday, just because I know he’d go if I did. He’d go with me to a quilting exhibit, too.
As a side note, I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts!
Comment by Shannon — January 15, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
to #19
I am not talking about leaving anyone out. I am talking about leaving out off topic discussions. It just seams *to me* that the point of this blog was to talk about the church, not about leaving it or reasons for leaving it. But, perhaps I misunderstood. *shrug*
I really think comments #11 and #16 were right on.
Comment by Lindsay — January 15, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Shannon, your husband is a big boy and he’s perfectly capable of getting himself to church every Sunday. Don’t blame yourself that he isn’t going. On the other hand, how in the world would you get your husband to go to a quiliting exhibit with you? Mine wouldn’t go if I put a gun to his head!
Comment by Quimby — January 15, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
I am so impressed by the quality of comments on this thread. Thank you all so much.
My dh and I have had to go through many shifts like this. I think it helped a bit that he knew that I was in a transition of sorts, uncertain about my feelings on most everything, and I was honest with him about that when we married. But still negotiating the differences hasn’t always been easy. I think for marriages to survive these shifts, really both parties have to allow the other their own spiritual and inner journey. Allow the other to think and feel and believe something seperate and not take it as a comment on your own seperate decisions.
I too have found that our marriage has grown deeper as we learn to give and take on “issues”. It’s actually a lot harder for me than it is for him. You should have heard me giving my poor dh the what for for daring to vote against a measure I was very much in favor of in November. The poor dear takes a political stand (the first in my memory) and I freak out. What a hoser.
And obviously, the religious and spiritual issues are even more sensitive. But we manage it somehow. I honestly don’t understand the way dh’s brain works. His faith just seems to be part of his DNA, nothing seems to ever shake it, he doesn’t ever have crisis of faith, it never occurs to him to do so. And it isn’t that he is blindly following anything or ignorant or uniformed. In everything except faith he is the most doubtful cynical paranoid person I know. (In the nicest way possible).
Comment by fMhLisa — January 15, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
lisa,
other than my husband, you are the only person i now who uses th word hoser. Excellent!
Comment by mfranti — January 15, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
Every marriage suffers from disappointed spouses. Through prayer I have learned to put loving my husband in a Christlike way as my main goal in our marriage.
As much as a spouse’s loss of faith can hurt, it should not destroy a marriage or affect my feelings for him, or my actions as a wife.
As long as he is being a good husband and father, I can have a good marriage. If he cheats–that’s a problem. If he is abusive that’s a problem. If he doesn’t go to church, or if he decides to smoke that is not a deal breaker!
People these days need to commit a little more to marriage. The traditional words “sickness or health, richer or poorer” mean that you deal with whatever together. When you get married you don’t know what your challenges are going to be…..infertility, unemployment, depression, cancer, problems with children, etc. You commit to being the one person in the world that Heavenly Father can count on to love that person. (Keeping in mind that loving and serving does not mean letting them abuse you).
In reading Jana’s blog, I was saddened by the difficulty she had in adjusting to your changes. I am glad that she has recommitted to your marriage.
I obviously don’t think that discarding your testimony is necessary for a happy union. I think that when people truly understand the gospel, and their marriage commitment, they can be more loving spouses and less concerned with their “disappointments.”
None of us married a perfect person.
Comment by jks — January 15, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
If you can, try to get the audio feed for Garrison Keillor’s Prarie Home Companion for this last Thanksgiving. His “News from Lake Wobegon” talked about a woman who has ultimately become disappointed with what she got for a husband.
His advice to married couples?
“Go for the bronze!”
Yes, sometimes, tolerable is sufficient. And that can be true of marriage as well.
Comment by Seth R. — January 15, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
As far as evolution goes, i have studied both sides.
Microbiology has alot to say about whether evolution
is possible.
I would recommen you all do some research on
the 1960s meetings held by the Wistar Institute.
Dr. Murray wrote a very compelling paper
on how Evolution is pretty improbable.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 16, 2007 @ 1:05 am
Huh, my microbiologist father seems to disagree with you there, Lovely Ishtar. Then again, we’re friends with a guy who has an MD/PhD in biology and who really believes the earth is 6,000 years old, so I’ve stopped expecting people within science to even agree on the issue. But are you suggesting that a 40 year old scientific paper be considered cutting edge? The cutting edge “pro” evolution stuff wasn’t exactly written on The Beagle.
I don’t mean to sound snarky–I hope that didn’t sound that way. I’d be interested to see the paper and discuss it with my scientist father and hubby. I simply don’t see why the concept of evolution offends or shocks people–we do accelerated evolution in labs all the time, after all. Is it the idea that Adam was a chimp? (NObody really thinks that, though, right?)
I’m not asking why you disbelieve in evolution so much as why the concept itself seems suspect or scary. I don’t have a reference frame since I was raised, after all, by my scientist dad.
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 1:27 am
jks, i appreciate your thoughts (#52) and the valid reminder about commitment. still, as a person who has many of the struggles that J&J faced, and a number that I they’ve never mentioned, I just want to add for those who might feel bad for struggling with their situation, that it’s simplistic to assume we just need to better “understand our marriage commitment”. lots of factors play into the deeply personal struggle J&J and others face. it’s partly a coming of age (many of us married very young), and the process of forming identity and learning to love unconditionally (a struggle even in ideal circumstances), among other things.
I try to view my spouse as the perfect labratory for me to gain all the experiences and knowledge I needed to acquire during my sojourn here on life. he’s a terrific human being, loyal and kind. we don’t connect on most matters spiritual/intellectual/physical, which i kind of expected to with my spouse (being that he’s the only person I can safely connect with on that last one). but he teaches me patience, tolerance, long-suffering, gives me opportunities to humble myself when i get up on my holier-than-thou perch, forgives me and inspires me to forgive others, and is a great example of a wonderful human being.
it’s hard for him to live with the knowledge that his drastic changes have hurt me…and it’s hard for me to know he feels bad about disappointing me. but we plug along. it’s complex. and the LDS paradigm that is often reinforced is “church first, then marriage”. I yearn to hear of stories where loss of faith occurred BUT THE COUPLE REMAINED TOGETHER–HAPPY. my SIL told me “i’d rather see you leave my brother than leave the church.” comments like that don’t really help. meanwhile, DH says “i’d hate to see a beautiful family ripped apart by something as pointless as religion.” he’s hung in there and i owe him a lot of credit for not just leaving me…even though it’s always been me who has struggled with what to make of all the changes. The kids are the motivation to stay together right now, but we’re trying to use this time to get to a place where we’re staying for us. They’ll be gone in another decade, and i want to be in a marriage, not just married. J&J’s relationship is inspiring in that way (thought from my reading, I don’t sense they’ve ever been out of in-love).
Comment by Blue — January 16, 2007 @ 1:33 am
Well, it’s taken me a couple of hours to read all of this and I find it very interesting….. When my husband and I got married, I was a Baptist and he was Presbertarian (that’s not spelled right), Neither one of us went to church but he had a general knowledge of God and Jesus Christ. We were married about six years when we decided that we wanted to have children. We decided that we wanted to bring them up in a good Christain home so we started checking out churches. We couldn’t find any answers in the churches we had attended in our youth. To make a long story short, we found the missionaries, joined the church and have been here ever since. We are happy with our decision and hope to have an eternal marriage. We have three children, one active and two inactive. We were disappointed that our two youngest children fell away from the church, but I have to remember that we changed churches in our young married life. As adults we make our own choice and we have to live with our own decisions. I guess I am lucky that my husband and I are both commited to each other and the church. I can’t even think of not having him for time and all eternity. We were married “till death do us part” the first round and were very grateful that we found the church. My middle daughter thinks we are following the church with blinders on, but I tell her we went looking for it and are grateful we found it.
For those of you who are having doubts or just don’t believe any more, good luck in finding your way.
Comment by Lucy Stern — January 16, 2007 @ 3:16 am
About the evolution thread - my 14 year old daughter gave a talk in sacrament a month ago about how she brings together her beliefs as an “amateur scientist” and as believing member of the church. She talked about evolution, the Big Bang theory, Darwin, etc. I was so proud of her. Many adults came up to her and told her that what she said was how they believed. She was doing this partly for a school project (a “risk project” for TAG class), and her teacher said it wasn’t risky enough. I told that to one man who commended her and he said she was the bravest teenager he’d ever heard for speaking like that. I’d like to think that some investigator gave the church another look because here was someone talking about not the same old-same old and it made sense.
Lisa said: #50 - “But still negotiating the differences hasn’t always been easy. I think for marriages to survive these shifts, really both parties have to allow the other their own spiritual and inner journey. Allow the other to think and feel and believe something seperate and not take it as a comment on your own seperate decisions.” I’m struggling right now and my husband is struggling with my struggle. I think I’ll print out this quote and post it on our fridge!
#47 - about not blaming yourself for a crisis of faith your husband may have - what about a crisis of faith your 16 year old daughter has? That’s what I’m struggling with, and I *know* it’s my fault.
Comment by TAG — January 16, 2007 @ 10:04 am
was driving in the car when more thoughts popped in my head (happens all the time)
I have been going through a ‘renegotiating’ of my faith… really looking at what I believe, what the church teaches, etc…
I am still in the church, in spite of feeling differently about certain things (this website is one of the main reasons I feel okay about still being in the church… but that is another story altogether)
but the bottom line was, I wasn’t so sure about staying in the church last year… and I was open with my husband about my questions and concerns. he was loving and understanding, although he didn’t share my concerns he supported my need to question and search.
but I think he felt a measure of guilt… he made a couple of comments to the effect that if he were a ‘better church member’ he would be doing more to ‘correct my thinking.’
he has a hard time not equating his willingness to let me question with not being a good priesthood head of the household. (was that a double negative? did that make sense? hope so.)
bottom line is, there is a lot in the culture of the church that perpetuates this myth of the happy ‘faithful’ couple.
Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
i have been troubled by this topic for close to 24hrs now and i cant figure out why it is still in my head.
most of us and one time have received a witness of the Holy Ghost confirming that this is Christ’s church on earth or that the BOM is the word of God. I would dare to say that for those of you who have received an Answer, that you experienced a confirmation of that truth many many times throughout your membership.
for arguments sake, one could say that now you know more of the “truth about the Church” or that this particular aspect of the Religion just rubs you the wrong way. You might even say that you did all you could to remain active, read scriptures, prayed, ect.. but it just wasn’t working for you.
so heres my problem with this, if this church isn’t true and it’s not working out because your current beliefs are not in sync with it, do you think you are going to find another true church of Christ out there?
i think you may find one that suits your current needs/beliefs/comforts, but i ask you, when you kneel down and ask your father in Heaven for a confirmation of what is correct, do you think you will experience the same answer as you did when you joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
i am not making any apologies for the church and it’s government or it’s history (read #38) i am just saying that you can find all the fault you want with this church, but you wont find the perfect church somewhere else. you will find something wrong with it–if you choose to. so the bottom line is, if this aint the true church, it aint out there.
Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
mfranti-
those are pretty much the reasons that I have stayed within the church. the history, the doctrine, the scriptures… in spite of my problems with some of it… there is also so much that is a pivotal part of my spiritual identity. could i openly share a B of M verse that has touched me in any other religious venue?
but I also think that this is a pretty personal decision, everyone who ‘grapples’ with this must come to their own solution.
Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Dear mfranti, (#60 & #61)
Exactly! I’ve often said that this is not the church of the easy way. Or that this certainly isn’t the church I would have designed. But I am forced to consider that I am but an egg, a speck of intelligence with a veil over my mind.
It isn’t about what I want, think, or even feel comfortable with. It’s about what is true. I’ve received many witnesses of the spirit that this is the true and living church. I know that Christ stands at the head of it, and ministers to select members from time to time.
As Peter said to the Lord, (and I have to paraphrase, having no bible handy) “Where else should we turn, Lord? Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
It wasn’t about whether Peter thought Christ was just what Peter would like him to be. Many in that day wanted Emmanuel to lead the revolt against Roman occupation. But what mattered was what Christ was about.
There is doctrine in the scriptures that say a husband is to preside over his wife, and that she is to be “subject” unto him. Do I want to bear that role all the time. I do not. And it is especially challenging with stepkids in the family, as they don’t really care about the stepdad as head of the family, they are only concerned with what momma has to say. It would be so, so, so much easier to let momma take the lead. If fact, she has to, to a great extent. But God has called us to different paths to exaltation and eternal glory. I must work out mine as I’m called, and so must the sisters. Hopefully, we can support one another and find joy in mortality and life eternal someday. I’ve no doubt that we’ll have to learn to be truly humble, repenetant and loving along the way.
Lately I’ve been fascinated by the theological arguements used by the several fundamentalist LDS-polygymous sects. There seems to have been some strong statements made by prophets that made issuing the manifesto a pretty difficult thing, and made accepting difficult also. But look. By their fruit ye shall know them. Did the main branch die out, or loose the inspiration of deity in guiding the church. No, it has not. So it’s not about whether I like it, and certainly not whether I like every little part of it. As mfranti said, but in my own words: If this isn’t the true church, then it isn’t upon the earth. Or as Peter said, Where else shall we turn? For thou (the Christ) hast the words of eternal life.”
Comment by Trueheart — January 16, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
g.
thank you for sharing that. i too have found that this site has helped me in my faith. i came across the ‘nacle at just the right time and since then found that i can be a active Mormon and have these thoughts and ideas. ( i was borderline and frustrated)
“there is a lot in the culture of the church that perpetuates this myth of the happy ‘faithful’ couple.”
and there my friend, lies the problem. there is this idea in the church of how we are to look, think, act. i mean how many of us would dare strike up a conversation with any of our friends from the ward that includes a word like feminism?
how many of us feel comfortable to be who we really really are? and talk the way we talk on this blog? a few? i know i am hesitant to “offend”
at the risk of sounding trite, we really need to trust our HF and be the our own kind of Mormon. however funky, or inquisitive, doubting. if we could let know of the stereotype, and feel like we could really be who we are, we might do better to accept the other stuff a little better.
unfortunately, we suppress so much of who we are for so long trying to be the perfect mormon that…
i will have to fill that in later because i can’t think of the right words.
anyone want to try?
Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
mmmm….
these are really nice thoughts and all, but I am enjoying the original theme of the post, that being dealing with a spouse’s changing faith.
Comment by anon — January 16, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
YES!!
here, mfranti, let me give it a try…
“we suppress so much of who we are for so long trying to be the perfect mormon that…” we find ourselves saying things just because it is what you are supposed to say in spite of the fact that we really feel another way.
how many times do I catch myself doing that? I mean, I know all the appropriate phrases and sometimes they just slip out like I am a robot or something!
are we threadjacking? sorry
Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
yes, maybe? just a little threadjack.
we are discussing the reasons why we might leave the church (we are the spouse)
sorry folks.
Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
This post is coming at a good time for me as well. My DH and I married within a year of his coming home from his mission. I was attending one of the church’s universities and was very taken still on all things taught in the religion building. Our marriage got off to a rough start when DH “failed” to be the one to initiate prayer, scripture reading, FHE, etc. I felt like he was going back on his temple covenants, not honoring his priesthood, etc. (yes, I know. I was psychotic). Anyway, as far as I was concerned at the time, our marriage would fail without those aspects and it was his job to make sure they were a reality.
That said, even though my faith was rock solid at the time, there were questions in the back of my mind that I didn’t dare ask because rock solid people don’t ask questions, we just believe. However, as our marriage began to get shakier, I couldn’t help but ask questions. That’s where I started to question authority as a means of knowing. I had insisted on a few things in our marriage because of what GAs from fifty or more years ago had said in a devotional. These things weren’t making things better, only worse and so I decided that maybe I could know things for myself and not have to rely on authorities to tell me how to live my everyday life.
After I started questioning authority in general, I began taking philosophy classes for my minor. My teachers were faithful LDS men who apparently had testimonies in spite of the questioning they did on a regular basis and so I decided that I could question more without being a bad person. That’s where things really started to slide for me. My questions, combined with post partum depression, made me absolutely despair of ever coming to any resolution.
Now, after many talks with some of these teachers, counseling, and finding this blog, I’ve realized that I’m not alone and I’m not a bad person. As for my marriage, my DH has been very supporting of my questions, doubts, and fears. Indeed, it’s been alarming for me to hear him say that if I leave, he’ll follow me (but without his own search–it scares me that he trusts me that much).
Unfortunately, the only thing keeping me right now is fear of reprisal if I do leave. I think I’m projecting too much of my own parents onto God right now, but still I can’t get past fear of being punished for earnestly seeking truth no matter what venue I find it in.
Also, something that keeps me staying is the doubt that I’ll find anything else less problematic elsewhere. I’ve looked at a lot of other religions (Christian and non Christian) and all of them have their metaphysical problems. I have yet to find one that clicks for me and says, “nope, no holes here–sign on the dotted line”. I’m also hard pressed to find one that doesn’t have an equally troubling history in its own way. I guess my attitude is something like, why leave? You won’t find anything better. Or if I do leave, why look for something else? Why not just quietly continue my search and structure my belief and my “religion” for myself and practice it privately and practically?
Lastly, and this is probably slightly off the subject, some of the concerns I’ve read about seem to center on dealing with moral and natural evil. How do we reconcile the two with and omni-God? I read a book by Sterling McMurrin called “The Philisophical Foundations of the Mormon Religion” that I thought offered a refreshing twist on this dilemma. However, as I said, it didn’t answer all my questions or fit together without its own problems and so while I pull from bits of it, I still have questions about the explanation given me and I don’t feel the need to accept it in its entirety (just as no other religion in its entirety has seemed to be any more effective for me that the one I’m in).
So, yeah, that was a ramble, but I guess my question is, why stay anywhere? Why not just have your private faith and live it? That’s where I am right now in my thoughts.
Comment by Lessie — January 16, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Lessie - I think that you’re right with respect to one’s faith and relationship with God being private. That is something that each of us needs to develop individually over time. As to the question why stay anywhere? I think it has to do with the purpose of having a church. I often see church as a type of university, a place of learning and discovery, and became disenchanted when I felt like I wasn’t learning anything anymore. I’ve come to realize that church is more like an emergency response center, where we can go to receive strength from our fellow saints and receive assignments and instruction on how to care for those that are ailing. I think that HF would be more pleased if we took a more proactive stance in helping our neighbor at church, instead of looking out just for number one (and however many other little numbers that you’re actually looking out for during the services).
Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
So many good comments–I’m grateful that so many are sharing their marriage experiences. Being spiritually out of sync seems to be a fairly common problem, and one that can cause considerable guilt and friction, so I wonder why it’s not brought up more often in the Bloggernacle. (It was the subject of one of the most popular Sunstone presentations last summer.) I hope that some of you can find a bit of strength simply in being aware that others are struggling similarly.
Blue (#56), I enjoyed your comment. One of the most helpful awarenesses that Jana and I arrived at is that yes, we have grown up together (meeting at 18, marrying at 21, first child at 22, and realizing that we’ve spent half our lives together now).
On the “why leave” thread–mfranti (#60) and Lessie (#68): I personally don’t think that there is a “true” church (think pre-1830), so our desire was to find a community that welcomed Jana and I as whole spiritual beings and valuable contributing members. The Society of Friends fit our needs (they are highly spiritual, non-hierarchical, gender equitable, non-dogmatic and highly focused on social justice).
Lessie (#68): I love the questions you ask–I shared many of them (including reading McMurrin). Do you blog about them anywhere? I wish you the best in your journey.
Comment by JohnR — January 16, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
wow, lessie (#68) that was like you were channelling me, but with much better writing skills. thanks
and guest (#69) I really liked your comments as to the church as a emergency response center, but I am not sure as to the implication of the last part. it seemed like you were saying that those who question are not doing a very good job of serving those around them (”looking out for number 1″.)
I mean, I think everyone should be more proactive and service oriented and all, but it seems a common misconception that people who go inactive, or question their faith would not have done so if they had served better in the church (and all that “taking a more proactive stance in helping our neighbor at church” entails.)
Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
I am finding more and more that a peacable journey in my life requires examining and adjusting expectations. When my DH started law school, we just had our first child and he was nearing the end of semester finals. We sat down and had an expectations talk, which is the best thing we’ve ever done and we continue to have them. I wanted to know what he expected of me during that rough month and what I could expect of him as a husband and father. I had to lower my expectations of his involvement for a while, but because I expected that, I was OK. Perhaps it helped that I knew it would just be for a short time, but it sure helped set a pattern for us. Whenever either one of us seem to be going through charater/spiritual/personal changes, we sit down and explain to each other what we can expect with our new views or to just expect to be patient. At first read, it would seem that this is an easy formula, but it’s not, as there is a wrestle of communication involved in verbalizing what our feelings are and how we can still be helpmeets to each other while we are evolving.
I’ve thought about the expectations I have for other facets of my life as well. How do I expect my six-year-old to behave? What do I expect my neighbor to act like? What do I expect God to be like? What do I expect of myself (which actaully is what I battle with most frequently and most passionately)? What do I think others expect of me and do I care? Some things require much study and prayer to determine what I expect. Some things I try not to have any expectations or low expectations, in order to just roll with the punches of humanity. I think having low or no expectations is often viewed as negative, but I sure save myself a lot of disappointment and frustration when I start from the bottom and work my way up.
I just read over my post and it seems poorly explained and ambiguous, but there it is, for what it’s worth.
Comment by Nutty — January 16, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
John R.–Just a few thoughts as I ponder the question of whether or not a church can be true. They’re probably obvious, but here I go anyhow:
1) “true” means different things to different people. “Mythos” means “a true story” but certainly not “a story which necessarily grounds itself in historical reality.” I think a church can be “true” in the sense that it assists self and community-betterment even if some of its historical claims are shoddy or filled with convenient ellision. I think the big point you make regarding the LDS church and you and Jana is that you reached a point where your organized religion deterred rather than augmented your spiritual journey, right? So in that sense, it wasn’t “true” for you. Fair? Certainly I’ve never witnessed you dismissing Mormonism’s ability to offer spiritual solace to others–a concession I appreciate and don’t always receive from other ex-mo friends.
2.)This is HUGE for me. Mormon authorities don’t claim the Mormon church is the only true church. They claim it is the “only true AND living church.” I know, I know, the second part gets left off all the time (grrr), but it’s quite important to me. I think it refers to priesthood authority. I don’t understand all the gender issues with the priesthood, but I do believe in its power. So I agree with the full aphorism, just not the truncated one. We’ve got apples, but look! We’ve got oranges too! Or something. Wasn’t it Joseph Fielding Smith who talked about all the truth in religions all over the world, and how “even” we don’t have the full scope and thus we should avoid snottiness? (And wouldn’t it have been cool if he’d used the world “snottiness”?) Durnit, now I’m going to have to go find the quotation.
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Nutty: I adore your phrase “roll with the punches of humanity.” Great bit of metaphorical double entendre.
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
janet.
i forgot that last part, …and LIVING CHURCH. insert that into my posts. thanks.
Comment by mfranti — January 16, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
wow… I had never really made the distinction between the two sayings (’true’ church vs true and living church).
I’m still not sure I really understand the difference you make… it is the only church with the real priesthood? therefore… ? And I would LOVE the full quote by JFS
this has been a real issue for me so I am really curious.
Comment by G — January 16, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
Janet, that’s a fair representation of our situation and our feelings towards the Church. In fact, I think you said it better than I did.
Comment by JohnR — January 16, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
G - I can’t address all the reasons why people go inactive, but I feel that a large part of it is in getting sidetracked from our basic objectives: obedience and service (I gather this from Matt. 22:36-40). I find that in my life it is difficult to become distracted when I am actively engaged in the service of God. Not impossible though, and for this reason I feel that the church organization is important. The question of which church organization has been ordained by God to carry out His work here on Earth has been answered for me, and without appearing a simpleton, that’s really all the information that I need to continue in dedicated and active service. In obedience to God, I serve my brothers and sisters in His church. Should I become weary, they in turn serve me. Everything else is superfluous. If I have a testimony of this being His church, then any breakdown in that cycle is understood as the natural effect of any temporal organization being run by mortal beings. I find it interesting that people can accept themselves as being children of God with all their faults and failings, and yet not be able to accept the church of God with it’s faults and failings. Each is striving for perfection, yet neither has achieved it. Hope that helps clarify my statement.
Comment by Guest — January 16, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
JohnR, it’s good to know I’m not alone. No, I don’t currently blog–I wouldn’t even know where to start. I’m just now getting into to blog culture (this is currently the only one I read–and already I’m sure my three year old thinks Mommy doesn’t love him as much as she used to because of the time I spend glued to the computer).
Reading yours and Jana’s comments on this post have made me feel better about my questions. They’ve also reminded me of about a gillion others that I have.
I’m glad I’m not the only one whose read McMurrin–most people get defensive as soon as they hear the title and I can almost see them begin to pity my apostate state.
Anyway, thanks for your post and your well wishes. They’ve been very helpful.
Comment by Lessie — January 16, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
I totally agree with Janet. It’s an ongoing process, and at least for our family has been quite the roller-coaster ride. When we got married, I had a very clear idea of what our lives would be like….only it didn’t turn out that way.
I never in a million years would have dreamed that my husband would be a bishop, nor I a RS president. And accepting those callings took long and painful renegotiations regarding our marriage and faith.
Comment by Naismith — January 16, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
When my ex and I first met, he told me he was gay. We spent a lot of time together and quickly fell in love. We wished we could get married but figured it would not be wise. As we stood on the precipice of that decision, we were each promised in powerful, personal priesthood blessings that if we married in the temple, prayed together as a couple daily, studied the scriptures, attended church, and fulfilled callings, we would be blessed with a normal sexual relationship. We immediately believed this promise and were immensely grateful for it. We fulfilled the conditions with gusto, we were deeply in love with each other, but we were not able to have a normal sexual relationship by any stretch of the imagination–not even normal for 60-year-olds, not even in our first year of marriage. Turns out sexual orientation was foundational. We didn’t have kids. My ex is still a dear friend, but I can’t say the same about the person who gave the blessings.
Comment by Beijing — January 16, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Nai, I totally understand! I used to be in a Stake primary presidency and when the SP extended the calling I felt sure it must be desperation rather than inspiration, since I have the organizational skills of a Tazmanian devil. Then I was released from that calling to be in a RS presidency. I’ve happily given speeches in front of literally thousands of people before, but I swear that whenever I conducted RS I feared some woman who knew how to scrapbook and always did her VTing was going to stand up and scream “FRAUD”!
My introverted DH did not enjoy my tenure in either calling, I fear. I sensed he didn’t like going to church alone the many weeks I was off visiting other primaries, and he hated the visibility thing with me in the RS presidency. He felt sweetly defensive of me when people got pissy at variously weird things. Most, though, the callings added the odd dimension of people assuming I was more righteous than he because I had “important” calling while, for a short time, he had none. Maybe nobody really assumed that–but a few made jokes and I think it hurt him. Anyhow, the whole thing exacerbated our pre-existing extrover/introvert divide. Of course we learned stuff, but it did require negotiation! I’m happy to serve and so is he, but growing pains are painful.
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
#81, Beijing, it is good to hear other exes that remained friends. My ex wasn’t gay, although a chef and he did want the floral couches..hmmmm?
We remained best friends until his death in 2000.
Comment by LAGirrrl — January 16, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
G–
Since you mentioned you weren’t clear on what I meant entirely with my parsing of Mormonism’s two-part truth claim, I thought I’d expand a little. For me, the “true and living” phrase is cumulative rather than circular (does that even make sense? I just mean that in addition to being “true,” it is also “living”–rather than true being defined by “living” or vice versa). I believe other churches have copious amounts of truth, but that Mormonism is the only religion with God’s priesthood and a living prophet who holds its keys. Thus, I believe it’s the only religion with the authority to make organization changes /receive revelation for the institution itself. Which means that the body of “true” canonical material can grow.
By contrast, I believe other faiths, while chock-full of goodness and light, have no institutional apparatus for revelatory change. Obviously the congregation members can think of great ways to alter organization. Obviously individual members can receive divine revelation (or at least I think that’s obvious). Because I believe God has often used prophets to reveal HUGe things to the world, I find the “true + living” equation important. I don’t, however, think that LDS people necessarily receive clearer or more frequent communication with God. In fact, the Quakers I’ve know seem unusually gifted in that arena. I’m a little afraid that the capacity for institutional revelation sometimes renders individual members (myself included) personally lazy.
I can’t find the JSF quote, alas. I’ll look some more later since I know I read it in one of our many books, but Google has failed me :(. I did find a FAIR document that has a decent Boyd K. Packer quotation granting that other religions have lots of truth, though the author of the document doesn’t have exactly the same “take” as I do.
I hope that’s a little clearer! Cheers!
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Guest, I like what you say about service and being served as being near center of religious life, but I wanted to mention that I’ve known a good number of people who’ve left Mormonism and who, up until the moment they left, tirelessly served. If you look at Jana and John’s personal blogs, you’ll see that they’ve given a great deal to the LDS community over the years. I know my own doubts seem less important when I’m helping others, but observance has taught me that service and doubt–even dissent–aren’t mutually exclusive.
Comment by Janet — January 16, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
#60,
Your comment presupposes the LDS teaching that there actually is “one true (christian) church.” You also presuppose that Jesus of Nazareth was everything that tradition says he was. Not all of us share these basic foundational beliefs. Personally, I believe that he was a tradesman who became an influential rabbi, and his followers adopted a whole lot of already-ancient myths to turn him into a deity. (Yes, I realize I’m not part of the majority opinion here–that’s okay with me, and I respect your right to believe what you do.)
Looking back on what I may have once interpreted as spiritual confirmations certainly does raise interesting questions. Ultimately though, I feel very much at peace when it comes to my current spirituality, basic and simplistic though it may be.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 17, 2007 @ 1:06 am
I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one- on the one hand, if you marry someone regardless of their faith, that will definitely cause some problems, because of your different beliefs. On the other hand, if you marry someone of the same faith because of your mutual deep commitment to it, and you base your marriage on it, and one of you falls away, that will cause some problems. To me, the best answer is that religion is very very personal and private. I think that agreeing on values and ethics is the most important, even if those values and ethics take place in two different religions. Because, for the most part, even if one of you undergoes a radical shift in belief, the core values you have of honesty, integrity, how to treat others, will probably remain the same- I know plenty of now atheists who are fantastic, loving, kind people without their religion. I just remember thinking “what a terrifying proposition, it’s like you’re both marrying the church together, instead of marrying one another”. I’ve seen this cause problems just in a difference in *activity* levels, much less all the way to a spouse leaving the church. I think sometimes this emphasis on the church as a foundation for marriage, and placing so much importance on the eternal marriage and family, is in the hopes that, “hey, if one falters in their faith, they’ll feel so guilty about letting down their spouse, or worried about a divorce, they’ll stay anyway”. This may have good intentions behind it, but it seems set up to close off any options that may, through the re-negotiation being talked about, foster a deeper commitment and new understanding of marriage.
Comment by sophia*rising — January 17, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Beijing (#81),
Is the person who gave you the Priesthood blessing “no longer your friend” solely because he gave you a blessing that didn’t come true? Or is there more to it that you aren’t sharing here?
Comment by Seth R. — January 17, 2007 @ 9:56 am
This thread is timely for me. My DW and I are going thru many stuggles. I identify so much with cmac’s comments (#20), as well as others here, that a marriage must be based on something other than our mutual religion. I think that was a problem for us. We both loved the gospel/church at the time of our marriage, but that isn’t enough to build upon. The minute any doubts set in, it rocks that foundation.
I’m a convert of 30 years. Only within the last year have I started to have some doubts. Most of my doubts are not over doctrine (not all of them though), but over the dumb cultural issues we deal with in the church week-in and week-out. It finally wore me down. Over the course of a year, my entire world-view has changed. I don’t fit in anymore; and worse, I don’t want to it appears. I am much more liberal when I used to be conservative – primarily, I was echoing the church line of thought on most issues. I’m not blaming my previous views on the church, but I think I was an automaton, smothering what I was really thinking inside. Does any of what I’m saying make sense?!?!
My questioning has been very difficult on my DW. I also have three teenagers. My oldest girl is planning on going on a mission mid next year. It’s a possibility that I could not go to the Temple to see her take out endowments if I’m honest in answering the questions. I’m sad to think I might end up doing to her what my non-member parents at the time did to me: they weren’t able to see me married in the Temple. Things like that hurt – a lot!
I’m so grateful for this site - to realize that others exist who are struggling. I’m just taking things one day at a time.
My DW has said she’ll stick by me no-matter what I do. I’m grateful for that. However, I’m not sure that will be enough. We are very different in temperament and personality. However, it is depressing for us both. We realize that there must be a more solid foundation than our religious beliefs if we are to make it through. I hope we can.
Comment by yogaman — January 17, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
to yogaman…
I want to extend my sympathies. your concerns are a close mirror of mine, including the horror of “what about the temple recommend interview? What would it do to my family if I didn’t have one?” (I should state it wasn’t failure of keeping commandments like tithing or chastity, but being unsure of the whole “one true church” and the leaders speaking for God and things like that.)
I have since found a great measure of comfort and peace with these issues that once were once anguishing for me. (for me, it means I am still in the church, and still a temple recommend holder.) I hope that you too will be able to find peace and resolution, and closure with God (is that the right term? I am not sure, hope you understand what I mean.)
Good luck.
Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
g
such kind words you offer. i think you are great. do you live in utah?
Comment by mfranti — January 17, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
I heartily recommend that you visit the web site http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/ and read the author’s archives on evolution/religion/transcendence etc. The author of the blog is not LDS and probably not very sympathetic to our faith but he does have some ideas that I can fit into a useful subset of what I call the gospel.
One image that resonates with him is his notion of the observable world as horizontal and the transcendent realms as vertical.
I believe that most of us try to comprehend the creation/gospel/atonement/etc/etc/ strictly horizontally. It even causes us to teach it horizontally . Even the scriptures use horizontal images to teach us. For example the Garden of Eden is a horizontal explanation of a transcendent concept. If we take the transcendence out of it, it becomes a pretty lame explanation of the observable world. And so on for the atonement, resurrection, restoration, millenium etc. These are all things I believe in literally but my literal includes the transcendent vertical elements.
I believe that the scriptures give us huge cues of the transcendent vertical nature of God but we are constantly trying to bend it into a horizontal. It doesn’t bend so intellectuals just tend to break trying. We act as though eternity is just an infinity of time but it is really a vector in another direction.
Comment by Al_Miller — January 17, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
mfranti- nope, I’m in Az (Tucson). but we will be visiting Provo sometime this summer. where are you?
Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
salt lake. i wish i could say something fun like Laguna Hills (former hometown) or Vancouver, BC (dream hometown)
do you have authored any posts?
Comment by mfranti — January 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
I’m the one who did the current death penalty post.
Comment by G — January 17, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Thanks “G” (#90). It’s sometimes hard to know where I’m heading. I do not want these problems. I never wanted to question or upend my family relationships. Who would wish such things upon themselves or their loved ones? I still have a testimony but I’m conflicted. I just take things one day at a time as I said. What is nice to know is that some of you have been able to negotiate these trecherous waters and come out ok. I hope the same.
Comment by yogaman — January 17, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Seth R., there’s more to it that’s related. Rather than admit that he had led us to do something unwise because he mistook something that wasn’t inspiration for inspiration, he made ugly accusations that my ex was too selfish and lustful to put forth the effort to make the blessing come true.
And there’s more that is unrelated, but that alone should be enough.
Comment by Beijing — January 17, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Linked in Carnival of the Veil
Comment by gunner — January 18, 2007 @ 10:31 am
If you haven’t dipped in try this from One Cosmos.
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/01/understanding-understanding-scripture.html
Comment by Al_Miller — January 19, 2007 @ 10:57 am
#89 Yogaman (& G):
On the subject of temple recommend interviews:
my dh was “in the closet” about his doubts for years, and when he would go to his interviews he would kind of play” word games” in his mind to answer the questions “properly” (yes, the grownup version of crossing your fingers when you say something not true) For example: on the question about Gordon B Hinckley being the prophet…well, no one else holds that position, so “Yes”. And so forth.
He played this little game for a few years, till I finally encouraged him to just be honest with the bishop. He doubted the outcome would please me, but decided to tell it straight…prepared mentally for the possibility of being disfellowshipped (I laughed later when I found out that’s what he thought they’d do). Mind you, he’s been living the gospel, paying tithing, serving diligently in his callings, wearing G’s, and all the other stuff…he just has sure doubts and was fairly convinced there is nothing after this life, but felt like if there is, then God understands why he’s where he’s at and won’t hold it against him.
So he went to the interview, explained his feelings, and the bishop told him he felt like he could still have a recommend. This has happened the last 3 times, with different bishops. YMMV, depending on the bishop of course.
His main reason for doing this is he had the same concerns about one day not being able to baptize or attend the marriages of our children etc., because of his doubts, even though he’s still conducting himself like a TB (true believer). There are undoutedly hundreds of “believing” members who aren’t temple worthy who have recommends…so this really is a personal decision. But IMHO if you’re trying to live righteously, and seeking light/truth in whatever way you can muster, you’ll know whether or not you should go to the temple.
Just my .02 FWIW
Comment by Blue — January 19, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
This subject is interesting for me. I am unmarried and have dated quite a bit. About 4 years ago I was suprised to find out the girl I was dating, who I met at institute (she was taking 2 classes at the time), didn’t really believe the doctrine of the church. I was pretty inexperianced at the time and was completely flabbergasted. I grew up in a predominantly mormon community and was shocked that someone who went to church paid her tithing and attended institute classes could feel like that. I am grateful that she was honest with me. I would much rather someone tell me something like that before things had progressed too far. My brain nearly short circuited. In my dating since I have come across the full spectrum of beliefs. It has been a growing experiance for me. My family members have always been rock solid and I had just come to expect that from everyone else (especially if they are living the standards). After that experiance I have been much more weary about beliefs and haven’t taken them for granted. Still it is hard to say if anyone is going to remain rock solid. This is a difficult and confusing world we live in. I do ask myself if I think the person I am dating really has a firm testimony. This forum has made me realize that even with that, people have trials and things happen that can really shake a persons testimony. I guess that is why I have been dating for the last 4 years and haven’t really make much progess in the marriage department.
Comment by lonewolf — January 19, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
An interesting quote. Go ahead and substitute intellectual for scientist
Wanting to believe only what they see, scientists condemn themselves to seeing only what they believe; logic for them is their desire not to see what they do not want to believe. –F. Schuon
Comment by Al_Miller — January 22, 2007 @ 10:33 am
I started to question the church about two years ago. When I first told my husband about how I felt he freaked out. We almost got divorced a few times. It was a very rough time that we went through. It took me about a year just to go to church just to make him happy. I tell him that I have a testimony, but I really dont. I know that sounds dishonest but we get along now. I just figure that there is no point to leave one kooky church to just go to another one.
Anyway, it seems like alot of people question the church. way more then I thought there was. I know that alot of people stay int the church for one reason or another. But it seems like true believers are hard to find now days
Comment by shelly — January 23, 2007 @ 2:08 am
lonewolf 101, you’re in a good positoin compared to many of us who don’t have the realization before we married that you expressed here. my DH was the last person i’d have expected to lose his faith. there were no “signs” to warn me (even with 20/20 hindsight). life’s like that–you can do your best to avoid certain trials, and they’d sneak up from behind. you can’t avoid what’s yours, and in retrospect, i’m grateful for what this has (and is) teaching me about faith, unconditional love, forgiveness, priorities etc. these are all lessons i had to learn one way or another…this is a pretty obvious way of learning them.
not that you’re looking for advice, but here it comes anyway
just find someone you can be friends with, who shares as many of the core values you have as possible (keeping in mind these can change). your faith is like a river…sometimes you hit rapid or still spots where you get trapped. but it is always flowing and may give you the ride of your life at times. that seems to be part of the process.
and shelly (103), i no longer thing being a TB is desirable. much as it has hurt to go from being one, i’d rather be a “true faither”…far too many questions without answers to be a TB. and i’m grateful for the process of changing from someone who just believes without question, to someone with a fragment of bonafide faith, and a heart willing to hang in there and keep learning and growing. that faith is based on Christ, and is different in nature from acceptance/belief or the non-questioning of yesteryear. there’s a shimmer of power to it that can sustain me through the uncertainty that i now live with. it’s harder, but it’s better. your journey may vary, but hang in there! it may surprise you someday…in a good way!
Comment by Blue — January 23, 2007 @ 2:59 am
I, like lonewolf, am unmarried (hopefully this is not too much of a threadjack,), but i find it hard to navigate the dating world in light of some of my doubts, etc. I have many of the same doubts and questions of many who have posted here on fmh, and yet i want to remain active membership of the church. I find myself dating/wanting to date guys who are active members, I guess because that’s where i think i can find people i will relate to, and who will have similar christian values (some of the positive characteristics that were posted on the Mormon men posting, for example). However, I find it hard to relate to them in a doctrinal way, and I find myself not being honest with them about who i am, and I wonder how far a relationship can truly progress if I am in this stage of questioning. Do i look for someone in a similar state of doubt? Someone with “rock solid faith” who accepts my confusion from the beginning (although this seems unlikely)? Someone outside the church who doesn’t understand the gospel and mormon-ness at all? These are the questions i ask myself.
Comment by Chelle — January 23, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
fMhLisa, I think the questions Lonewolf (101) and Chelle (105)raised deserve their own post.
Something about how to go through a faith revolution while trying to find a spouse. There’s probably plenty of people who have experience they can share on this topic. Maybe there are other sites that are aimed more at this topic. . .
Comment by jessawhy — January 24, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Allowed by whom? Too much for whom?
Seeing you post your story as a response to a thread would have been interesting, would have been participating in a mormon community. But posting this as an actual thread implies that someone considers you some sort of leader in the mormon community, and that bothers me a great deal. That would be like asking you to bear your testimony in church. I’ve been generously invited to attend a Quaker meeting, but I would not expect to walk in and set the agenda at such a meeting (or sue to prevent Quakers from commemorating their dead according to their own beliefs, but that’s a somewhat separate issue).
I’m sorry to hear that you associate your LDS affiliation with a need to hold creationist beliefs to be a corporate drone. I’m glad that you’ve found a faith and way of life that you’re willing to put your heart into. And I’m glad that you’ve chosen to keep your friendships and ties to people who are members of the church. But I can’t imagine anything more useful to the hardline anti-intellectual conservatives than to see your story leading the discussion in a place like this.
“Jewish” is a false analogy. Jewish specifically refers to ancestry, and only has become associated with a religious tradition by implications since the most Jewish religious groups (the Sadducees and the Essenes) dissapeared. Mormon refers to the book of Mormon. If you reject the book of Mormon, you have no reasonable claim on that word. I agree that there should be a word to describe our shared culture, our shared community (which you are still a part of), but I reject any attempt to hijack the name of our defining book of scripture for some blatantly secular purpose. Let’s find another word. Sounds to me like you’re describing Utah culture, or more precisely, Sunstone culture.
Comment by Christian — January 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
I reject that construction for several reasons.
First, your misconstruction of the word mormon insults the vast majority of persons who seek to draw closer to God, and yet do not call themselves mormons.
Second, your construction by implication cuts atheists off from our community. There’s no reason that an atheist should not feel welcome among mormon friends. I had a mission companion who (I was shocked to discover) did not believe in God. He left the mission, and his father called me up saying that he’d get his son back out, no worry. I told him to leave his son alone. The guy shouldn’t be a mormon if he rejects belief in God, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not our family member, friend, or neighbor. Rejecting belief in God is not the same thing as knowing God and rejecting him.
Third, the word mormon means belief in the Book of Mormon, or it means nothing at all.
Let’s not insult the prophet Mormon and his work by turning that name into an excuse for ex-LDS theists to say that they are better than ex-LDS atheists.
Comment by Christian — January 30, 2007 @ 3:19 pm