Jana and I have left the Mormon Church and are in the process of becoming Quakers. This has caused some confusion (and concern) among our LDS friends, family and former leaders. Normally I try to work things out on this blog, but I’ve held back out of respect for Jana’s privacy. She’s given me the go-ahead to write about our experience, so I’d like to write a series of posts describing and analyzing our journey thus far. Through this process, I hope to illuminate our actions for those who may be hurt and confused by our actions and to show solidarity with others who are struggling with the same. One of the struggles of being different in the conformist Mormon subculture is the loneliness; the panacea for this isolation can be found in blogs like ours and by other New Order, post- and ex- Mormons.
In a nutshell, we left because the Church was suffocating our souls, stunting our spiritual growth. While we loved the people at Church, so much of the doctrine, institution and culture was in dissonance with what was dear to our spirits. LDS meetings often left us angry and emotionally exhausted. Quaker meetings, by contrast, left us feeling a deep, abiding peace (for you Mormons out there, President Monson has said that peace is the one feeling that Satan cannot counterfeit). We found our core values in sync with the Quaker testimonies:
Simplicity: While Mormon teachings aren’t in conflict with the value of simplicity, the current Church culture in America most definitely is. We have felt very little support for our single-car, small apartment lifestyle from Church members (some have been openly critical). This is definitely one of Jana’s fundamental values, and I struggle to follow her example.
Peace: There are few pacifists in Mormonism. There are few non-pacifists in Quakerism. Again, this is another value that Jana embodies more deeply than I do, though I try (I’m a pacifist, but a cynical one).
Integrity: My personal experience of Mormonism is that it does not support integrity. It’s easy to be honest when you agree. The Church cares more for the health of the institution than of its individual members. It demanded my docile agreement, my silence, or my absence. It got the latter. Quakerism has plenty of room for disagreement, within and without.
Compassion: Many Mormons are wonderfully compassionate. Many of its teachings, however, are exclusive. Quakerism is both compassionate and inclusive. Quaker people are pretty cool, too.
Equality: Men and women ARE NOT EQUAL in the Mormon Church. Any suggestion that they are is short-sighted bullshit. Women confess only to men; men sit in ecclesiastical judgment over women; fifteen men control the coffers, policy-making, doctrine and wield the bulk of the symbolic power in the Mormon Church. Also, the LDS Church has a well-defined hierarchy. Quakerism, by contrast, is radically egalitarian, and this is definitely visible in our local meeting.
Where Jana may emphasize the peace and simplicity testimonies (and the nature/environment testimony that is often added), integrity and equality are the big ones for me (she’s asleep right now, or else I’d ask her to confirm this–I may be editing this post later). It’s amazing to me how invisible structures of authority pervade the LDS Church. This was especially visible to us when we were called in to a meeting with the bishop earlier this year. Even though Jana and I agreed that we needed no human intermediaries between us and God, we felt ourselves deferring to the bishop’s authority. When we sat in his office, we were complacent; truer to how we thought the Church wanted us, but false to our best and truest selves. The hierarchy impeded integrity.
After assessing this experience, Jana and I felt that the best thing would be to cut ourselves off from any authoritarian reinforcement that illicited such conditioned responses. We carefully composed an email requesting “no official contact” from the Church and sent it to the bishop. It is one of the most productive decisions we’ve ever made. It gave us room to manuever. It also empowered us to define the terms for any potential contact with Church officials (and such a meeting may be in the works).
I think that one of the hardest things for (some of) our LDS friends to understand is that we are living richer, more satisfying spiritual lives as Quakers than as Mormons (though a number of people have commented on how much happier Jana looks now). Those who know us best, however, have been very supportive, and I am grateful.
60 responses so far ↓
1 Watt Mahoun // Nov 1, 2006 at 9:30 am
I am happy to now call you my Quaker friends. I’ve always adored the term “Society of Friends” … it’s so humanly compelling as contrasted with the “Latter-day Saints”. The term “Saint” begs for authoritative definition while we need no one to dictate what it means to be a friend.
Love you two for following your hearts and minds.
Watt-
Your friend and fellow single-car apartment dweller.
2 Amber // Nov 1, 2006 at 10:34 am
I read enough at Jana’s blog to suspect that was your big secret. Very happy for you.
And, not that this matters, but in studying U.S. history in high school? I always did think the Quakers were the coolest immigrant group.
3 Keith B // Nov 1, 2006 at 12:38 pm
When I read Heidi Hart’s article in Dialogue, I found myself agreeing with the Quaker point of view, and it scared me a little. I remembered years previously taking an online belief questionnaire which recommended religions based on an individuals beliefs. For me the #2 result was liberal mormonism and the #1 result was Quakerism. When my family took a trip this summer without me I had time to further study Quakerism and attend meetings in Santa Monica and LA. I went there expecting to not really see a strong community because I had been influenced by people such as Lawrence Foster. However to my surprise I did see a strong and healthy community. I heard people disagree and respectfully listen to each other, it was beautiful.
A sort of mild epiphany occurred to me while studying about the quaker tradition of “plain speaking”. I had told my wife years previously that she should be careful about expressing true feelings to others, especially people at church. I told her that not everybody is trustworthy and it can cause problems or show your weakness. Now I think this was as much a commentary about myself as it was advice: every week I go to church and remain silent. I have been trying to implement plain speaking more in my life. Sorry for the rambling. I guess my point is that I want to say that I understand some of the reasons for your decision.
4 Elise // Nov 1, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Thank you for sharing this, John. I think it’s great that you and Jana have reached a point where you are more comfortable making this big part of your lives public - I feel that your decisions show the integrity you described above.
(Disclaimer: not to say that staying in the LDS church lacks integrity - you mentioned it is easy to be honest if one agrees, but I also know several people who make the difficult decision to stay but to also live with integrity and endure the pains that come with living within the church and being honest about doubts and disagreement at the same time.)
Thank you for setting an example of peace as you exit. Part of what makes it so difficult to disaffiliate with the LDS church is the stigma that is attached to it - turning in to a bitter anti-mormon, or the idea that you must have committed some grave sin. I’m so glad every time I hear of someone who gives the church credit where credit is due, objectively and respectfully acknowledges disagreements and differences, and refrains from angry and bitter dialogue. Thanks for recognizing that you’ve appreciated a lot of the doctrines the LDS church does have, even if you don’t appreciate them all.
Your description of both of your reasons for deciding rang true to many of my experiences as well. I really admire your family for your courage, sincerity, and kindness.
I hope to visit a Quaker meeting with you and Jana someday!
5 Reg // Nov 1, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Ganbate to both of you. Leaving a church is always difficult; I’ve found that often, the church members take it personally. But this is between the Divine and you. May you be blessed, wherever this leads you.
6 John Dehlin // Nov 1, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I love the Remys.
7 John Dehlin // Nov 1, 2006 at 3:08 pm
P.S. “Take me home” has always been one of my favorite Phil Collins songs. Nice choice.
8 pilgrimgirl // Nov 1, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Thank you to all who have responded so generously. John has written what I don’t yet have the courage to put down into writing yet. I’ve spoken with several of you about our new path in person and have expressed how bittersweet this choice is for us.
I am afraid of making a mistake, but I am leading with my heart & by the confirmation of the Spirit. In the past I have found these to be reliable sources of wisdom, so I am acting on my faith in them. But it is _so_ hard to leave the supportive community of Mormonism. The hardest part is that there is so much goodness there.
A quotation from a famous Quaker that expresses the feelings of my heart:
“I felt myself under the shadow of the wing of God …. After the meeting my heart felt really light and as I walked home by starlight, I looked through nature up to nature’s God …. I know now what the mountain is I have to climb. I am to be a Quaker.” ~ Elizabeth Fry
9 Matt Thurston // Nov 1, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Congratulations. And yet it feels strange and inappropriate to use that word, probably because it is usually trotted out for job promotions, graduations, weddings, etc‚Ķ. and this decision feels weightier than the occasions for which we usually invoke that word. And yet its definition, “to express sympathetic pleasure at…” or “to express vicarious pleasure to (a person)…” is how I feel.
At the same time I can’t help but also feel some melancholy. My sadness is not of the variety some of your Mormon friends and family probably feels‚Äî the sense that they have somehow ‚Äúlost‚Äù you, or the sense that your relationship with them is now irrevocably different. I realize that what little friendship we have (so far) is not mediated by a shared belief or participation in an institution, but in a sharing of ideas unfettered by institutional claims.
No, my sadness is the recognition that the Mormon Church, so complicated, so full of both beauty and decay, cannot accommodate the Remys. Of course I realize the Church didn’t push you out, you left voluntarily… but that is my point. Why are people with such high values and integrity leaving?
So my sadness is personal, I guess— I see my own struggle to balance personal beliefs/integrity with strict institutional beliefs in you, and your decision to leave is further testimony that such a reconciliation may ultimately be impossible. My sadness is personal; for me. For you I feel nothing but “sympathetic” or “vicarious pleasure.”
Of course I have a hundred questions I hope you’ll address. I’m not sure what is blog-worthy and what will be off limits. In no particular order, I’m wondering:
1.) What you told your kids. What was their response?
2.) The response of your immediate family?
3.) The response of fellow ward members? Bishopric?
4.) How you see your future interaction with the Church, if any?
5.) If you still have interest in the Liberal Mormon community… Sunstone, Blogs, Miller-Eccles, etc.
6.) Did you feel “angry and emotionally exhausted” by the Liberal Mormon community, or did you feel unconditionally accepted.
7.) I’m also curious to hear of your further adventures in Quakerism.
I’m sure I’ll have other questions, but that is good for now.
Oh, and nice post John.
10 John // Nov 1, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Thank you, all of you, for your love and support. I struggled with this post–I deleted the whole of it and rewrote it several times, and still wasn’t satisfied with the final product. It’s a struggle to send something like this into the ether, where I know that it will be read by those who are less supportive and who may feel hurt, betrayed and angered by this (e.g. I know that some in the ward/stake leadership read this blog). I don’t intend to provoke, but I’ve decided that these aren’t the people I’m writing to.
I think I wrote this post for those who feel isolated, ostracized, alone in their questioning, doubt, rebellion. They are often in my mind, because I was one of them.
Keith, thank you for sharing your experiences and reactions to Quakerism. I’ll try to post more, and I’d love to hear more from you. Jana and I met Heidi last summer–a wonderful experience. I recommend her memoir, Grace Notes, if you haven’t read it.
Elise, I agree with you that there are those who stay and do so with integrity. I think they’re a rare breed, however–most doubters stay and stay silent, stay and lie, or speak and leave. I don’t condemn any of these–it’s a terrible place to be, and the Church makes the social costs of leaving very, very high.
If I’m pissed at anyone, it’s those who discourage any open questioning in the Church.
Matt, great questions. Thanks for outlining my posts for the next few weeks!
Matt, I’m not sure that such reconciliation is impossible. I think it’s highly individualized. In my case, I think that I could only do it by destroying the core of what makes me who I am, though.
11 Dora // Nov 2, 2006 at 9:32 am
Hmmm … this post makes me feel so many things.
I feel a sense of relief, both for myself and for you, that you’ve finally permitted yourselves to give voice to something that has been so troubling to you. You’ve reached a climax, and it must feel good to let some of that tension out.
I feel sorrow, for multiple reasons. I sorrow for the pain you’ve felt over the years. I know how you’ve struggled, and how unkind interactions have hurt you. And yet, if it weren’t for the pain, you might not have felt impelled to seek out and accept Quakerism. I also feel (selfishly) sad because I wonder if this will change our friendships. I have loved, enjoyed and admired you both for over a decade. There haven’t been many things you’ve done that I haven’t been interested in doing myself. But I am very reluctant to follow on this path. And I wonder how it will change our dialogue. Now that you’ve put Mormonism behind you (as opposed to being thrust out), will you still be interested in discussing and writing about it?
I also feel fear. Fear that maybe I will someday feel the need to leave Mormonism behind as well. There are times when I believe that the Mormon church is too inflexible to retain those who question. I fear how the church will change if those like you continue to leave. I fear the demise of my community within a community.
And finally, I feel hope. I want such good things for you all, and I hope that this new spiritual direction will help you attain the peace and love and relief that you’ve been missing.
12 Caroline // Nov 2, 2006 at 9:33 am
I feel much like Matt does. I am so happy for you and Jana, that you’ve found a community and an institution whose values resonate deeply with yours.
I am sad, however, for the Mormon community. They are the losers here. They are the ones who won’t be enlightend and expanded because you won’t be there to give your thoughtful comments. Because you won’t be there on Sunday to stand as living examples of a Mormonism that doesn’t fit the conservative, orthodox stereotype.
But regardless, I understand that following your conscience is paramount. Nothing is worth having your soul stifled. I, as you know, am planning on a life in which I remain an active LDS. And I hope to God that it won’t crush my soul. I’m hoping my presence and my openness about my pain over women’s subordination will minutely help the church move forward. It will be interesting, at the end of my life, to look back and figure out if my staying was worth it, if it did any good in the end.
John said: “Men and women ARE NOT EQUAL in the Mormon Church. Any suggestion that they are is short-sighted bullshit.”
I couldn’t have said it any better.
13 John Dehlin // Nov 2, 2006 at 10:49 am
My biggest question is…..have you told Armand Mauss yet, and if so, what was his response?
I’d be scared/sad to tell someone like Dr. Mauss, and I know you guys are friends w/ him. I’m dying to be a part of that conversation (fly on the wall), just because it would be so interesting (or painful, maybe).
Sorry, I don’t mean to trivialize. I’m just curious this way.
14 AmyB // Nov 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm
I don’t have much to add to what everyone here has already poignantly said. I think you are brave to publicly share your journey. I very much look forward to reading more about it. Your thoughts about the church hit close to home and are similar to my own. Thank you for voicing them.
15 pilgrimgirl // Nov 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm
JohnD: I haven’t chatted with Armand about it yet, as he hasn’t been to our weekly group lately. I suspect I know how he’ll react because I’ve talked to him about those who leave before–we’ll see if I’m right.
16 John Dehlin // Nov 2, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Jana,
What is his usual response? I actually have never tried before.
Does he get defensive? Frustrated? Compassionate?
17 pilgrimgirl // Nov 2, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Hmmm….I believe his take is that people should stay in the church, even those with unorthodox beliefs. And that the struggle of having to reconcile one’s personal beliefs with the church institution is important, is the very stuff that makes us grow & progress. He’s also told me that he thinks the Mormon church, despite its flaws, has more truth than any other church.
At least that’s what he said to me about his own decision to stay and why he has encouraged me to stick with things when I’ve expressed discontent.
That said, I don’t think he would get mad about someone choosing to leave. Armand’s always been quite civil, even tender, when we’ve discussed my “church issues.” If anything it is the Armand-types in my life that have made me want to stick with Mormonism for so long.
18 Elise // Nov 2, 2006 at 8:21 pm
In response to Pilgrimgirl’s description of Armand’s philosophies - I tend to lean toward believing that the Mormon church may have more truth than any other church, as well. But like John, I also feel “the Church was suffocating [my] soul, stunting [my] spiritual growth.”
If I were to reconcile my personal beliefs with the church institution, it would absolutely be due in large part to the Armand-types in my life, as well. Sometimes I feel sad for the goodness pieces of truth left behind, too, but I can’t deny that I feel much more alive and much more at peace in non-LDS communities.
I am excited to see how the mindonfire/pilgrimgirl family deals with this transition as we are in about the same place and still trying to figure it all out too. We’re hoping to spend a few late evenings sprawled out around the living room talking each other’s ears off again in the near future.
19 Johnny // Nov 2, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you for your courage, integrity and honesty. As you know I have just made a similar decision and it is nice to know that others have had the same struggle. I haven’t tried a Quaker church, for the most part I feel like I have gone through a bad break up. This blog has really meant a lot to me, thanks for sharing your story.
20 Reg // Nov 3, 2006 at 10:38 am
I had a similar affinity to the church I left (Catholic). It was all I knew and there were so many great things about it (love your neighbor as your self, &c.) that I felt like I was betraying my family by pointing out the not-so-great things about it (scandles, sexism, cannibalism…). I still define myself as not-Catholic; more because it defines my worldview so much (or did), that it’s difficult to just be not-religious. Good Omens said it right, “When it came to avoiding going to church, the church he stolidly avoided going to was St. Cecil and All Angels, no-nonsense C. of E., and he wouldn’t have dreamed of avoiding going to any other.”
My wishes for you is that you define yourselves by your beliefs, not your past beliefs or affiliations (like me :-p). May you never be not-Mormons.
21 Deborah // Nov 3, 2006 at 11:44 am
It seems like a good fit, and I wish you peace.
At some point, I think the question becomes not “Is this THE right path?” but “What is the best path for me at this juncture in my journey?” By switching the question, I have found myself able to embrace my Mormoness with more delibrate (if unconventional) devotion.
I’m curious: John — you converted to Mormonism and thus have made the journey “out of/into” before. How do you think this has affected your perspective on faith journeys in relation to Jana, who is making her first such course change?
22 Zhenya // Nov 4, 2006 at 5:26 am
Wonderful post and beautiful responses! The overarching bond I sense in everything thus far is that of Love in Light. Bless you both for sharing your example.
23 Jonathan // Nov 4, 2006 at 8:00 am
John, Jana,
Sounds like such a good step with a lot of good thinking and wisdom behind it. I really like the values the Quakers stand for too. After John told me about their values in a previous comment, I did a little research and was really impressed. I like the value of simplicity, which I agree isn’t too prevalent in church culture these days.
I can’t believe you took criticism for living a less materialistic-centered life!? Any bible-based belief system seems to be against it… ah, oh well.
I’d like to say I know how you feel since my wife and I left our church on very bad angry conditions, but I don’t. In the end, I’m a non-centralized denominational protestant, so I can just walk down the street to the next church and be welcomed with open arms, which is not at all like your situation or Reg’s who come from centralized religious backgrounds. Leaving them is a whole lot harder because it seems like you are leaving a whole community and culture instead of just rejecting bad dogma.
I do remember the loss of most friends, a lot of anger, confusion, and loneliness that came in the wake of my decision that took years to recover from. I pray that you will find wonderful people in your new church to build you up in this difficult period of transition and that it won’t take as long as it took me (I’m stubborn).
I’m rooting for the both of you! (and praying too, if it’s OK) that your new church will have a supportive community and be a spiritually fulfilling place for the both of you and your family.
24 pilgrimgirl // Nov 4, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Jonathan: I appreciate the prayers on our behalf. Thank you
25 Dave // Nov 4, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Yes, exiting a Mormon congregation for Quaker meetings will tend to raise an eyebrow or two. But then, exiting a Mormon congregation for any alternative is generally (invariably?) frowned upon. People don’t even know how to talk about it. We have a well developed discourse about conversion, but not much conversational experience with deconversion. Which is too bad, since deconversion stories are often as interesting as conversion stories.
But I digress. I hope your new direction brings positive spiritual vibes to you and your family. I’ll be reading your blog reports with great interest.
26 One of the Sad and Confused Ones // Nov 5, 2006 at 5:46 am
I must say I am touched by the obvious love and care in your marriage. And I thought Jana’s recent SunstoneBlog post was beautiful.
And I am sad. First, I’m always simply sad when someone leaves. (And I’m sad to sense what feels like some ambivalence in Jana.) Second, I find it sad that there can be so much hostility toward the LDS faith from someone who otherwise appears and presents himself to be loving and sensitive (which you usually are). I’m sorry you have been hurt, but it hurts to hear your bitterness, (even though you may think you are not, I sensed some). To criticize others’ beliefs as “bullsh**” feels not peace or compassion filled at all. I suppose that is part of the journey for you as you work through your feelings and all. But it feels in some ways opposed to what you are seeking for, and seeking to be, even preaching. It feels inconsistent. I hope time will alter that for your sake and also those you love who are still in Mormonism.
I also am a bit confused, as to roles you have played up until now, acting sometimes in the role of mormons (e.g. I read that you guys were part of the panel talking about “mainstream mormon” blogging during the summer. That feels like a breach of integrity to me on your part — isn’t it? If you knew you were leaving, why participate at all? Or did you both not know then?)
I do wish you the best in your journey, I really do. But I feel some conflict in that journey that has felt to violate some of the principles you hold dear. And that saddens me.
I’m also very interested to know your answers about your children. I am sad for them, but I suppose you are sad for Mormon children, so what can you say, right? (And why should you care what a passerby feels anyway…)
Thank you for bringing this into the open. I think it was an important step toward integrity, as someone said above. I hope you can find ways to move on without pulling down the beliefs of others in your wake. Just as you deserve respect for your decisions and beliefs, so do Mormons deserve respect for believing in what you are leaving behind.
27 Parker // Nov 5, 2006 at 6:18 am
J & J,
I just finished the book Leaving Church by Barbara Brown Taylor. She says some things that remind me of the two of you. Speaking of churches she ask what I think are provocative questions: “What if people were invited to come tell what they alread know of God instead of to learn what they are suppose to believe. What if they are blessed for what they are doing in the world instead of chastned for not doing more at church? What if church felt more like a way station than a destination? What if the church’s job were to move people out the dorr instead of trying to keep them in, by convincing them that God needed them more in the world than in the church?”
We are on the journey together.
28 Mike A. // Nov 5, 2006 at 9:52 am
John and Jana,
I hope you find peace throughout your journey.
I echo to some extent the feelings of both Matt, Dora, and Caroline. I am sad that the Church is losing such a fine family.
However, I think that we have an obligation to follow what we believe to be right and to listen to the inner voice that guides us as well as to evaluate what seems to be logical and make the most sense, in short to act in a way that tries to bring those two into harmony.
I am very grateful for the Dr. Mausses within the Church. I sometimes in the past have felt frustrated with those who felt they should leave becasue I believed the Church needed them so that it could become the institution it can be (and that I believe God wants it to be.) Now I feel that the Church needs both those like Dr. Mauss and those who leave on somewhat good terms but who do so because it is clear the Church no longer includes them. I think that having some obviously good people trying to follow the spirit who aren’t angry and anti-mormon and who haven’t been offended or deceived and who are leaving because they feel an obligation to do so is needed. Hopefully this happening will be recognized, considered, and a true matter of prayer for all of us who have a part in making our church community what it is and in making our institution what it is.
29 John // Nov 5, 2006 at 11:29 am
Thanks again, for the support and prayers. I find it heartening to hear these things from good, good people whom we respect deeply.
Deborah(21), Jana and I have touched on this difference a number of times. It’s one reason I tried hard not to pressure or convince her out of the Church–it’s part of her upbringing, heritage and earliest world view. (I just asked Jana and she feels that I did respect her in this way). But you ask a good question–we may make it the focus of separate posts or a podcast.
Parker(27), I just looked up Taylor’s book on Amazon–it looks very intriguing. And I find it very comforting to be journeying with you.
S&C(26), thank you for your thoughtful comment. I acknowledge that how I presented myself in Church was always a few steps behind where I was spiritually. The journey out of the Church is a messy one–there are lots of ups and downs, and no single line that we crossed where we were no longer active, faithful Mormons. The Church institution and culture puts some pressure on its members to portray themselves as believing even when they’re not (e.g. “bear your testimony even when you don’t believe, and the Spirit will bear witness”, and the emphasis on not harming others’ faith). I’m not sure about your “mainstream Mormon blogging panel” reference (I was part of a feminist blogging panel at Sunstone, which is far from ‘mainstream’).
You bring up many good points, and there’s not enough room in the comments to address them all. I think that I will avoid criticizing Mormons in faithful Mormon spaces (like at Church, or on faith-promoting blogs), but this is a blog about doubt and spirituality, so I feel free to address such issues here, and hope that at least a few questioning Mormons who are struggling with their faith feel at home here.
Mike A., thank you. We need Mausses and Remys and everyone in between!
30 amelia // Nov 5, 2006 at 6:46 pm
i want to comment. and i want to first say that i feel like i know you and jana well. and i know that you are genuine seekers. that you are sincere. and that you would not make a change such as this unless you felt you had truly found a spiritual home in your quaker congregation. for that i am happy. i wish nothing more than peace for all people and if you have found it through this change, i am happy for you.
however, i have to agree with sad & confused (comment 26) a little bit. in your reasons for leaving i see bitterness and anger as much as i see finding a new system of belief that you adhere to or that better matches your core values. and that makes me sad. because i believe such changes should be made from a place of enlightenment and contemplation, not insecurity or anger. and regardless of forum, i find it bigoted to criticize people of faith for believing differently than you do. yes. i know. bigoted is a harsh word. but i think it is the correct one.
i’ve been thinking about whether i should say anything at all here for several days. i don’t want my comments to be misinterpreted. you know i value your friendship. that i respect both you and jana as people of integrity and intelligence. and as people full of laughter and the joy of living. i love each of you. and i’ve bounced back and forth on saying something. i truly hope that you have found a more peaceful spiritual home. but i am concerned that the change appears to be born in part out of the kind of blind criticism i see here (for instance, such a complete anti-hierarchy conviction that you perceive all members of the hierarchy as “less supportive,” “hurt, betrayed, and angered” when they are just as likely to be acting out of true compassion and concern; my experience with some of these leaders tells me that the compassion and concern is a much more likely reaction than anger or hurt).
i’m sorry if this feels like i’m raining on your parade or not being supportive. i truly want nothing more than your happiness. i just don’t believe that can be achieved when the change is informed by some of what i see here.
i love you all.
a.
31 John // Nov 5, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Thanks, Amy for your comments and your love. I can understand how you might interpret my criticism as bitter and angry. I continually try to evaluate where I’m coming from (one reason I blog about such private things so publicly). So I asked Jana, who knows me better than anyone (and who is my most perceptive critic), if she thought that anger is a big part of where I am in my spiritual journey. She replied that rather than anger, I lack patience with things I once endured. I think I agree with her. My angry phase is in the past now. I look at the Church as a human institution worthy of praise in some instances, and of criticism in others (esp. from a feminist perspective).
That said, you are way too dismissive of the anger element. Disaffected former believers have every right to feel anger towards religious institution they may feel betrayed or deceived them. I respect the experience of those who feel this way. I think that anger is actually an appropriate response–though I think that everyone should ultimately move past this phase if they are to find healing.
Amy, I’ve heard many harsh critiques from your lips in the time that we’ve known each other (as you are someone who admirably and fearlessly speaks your mind), and I’ve never dismissed any of it as bigoted, as strongly as I’ve disagreed with you. Even when they’ve struck at my cherished values, I’ve always thought that your arguments were well founded. So I don’t think that you are bigoted for criticizing me even though I believe differently than you. But it does make me feel like a gulf has opened up in the understanding between us.
One last note: I used the “hurt, betrayed, anger” in reference to specific people who Jana and I know (based on encounters) feel that way, but was deliberately vague out of some respect for their privacy.
32 Mike A. // Nov 5, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Oh, one thing I failed to ask:
Is the particular congregation of friends one which practices unprogramed worship, or is it pastoral? (I’m assuming it is one of the two rather than evangelical. The Friends church in Oklahoma City is evangelical, and there isn’t significant difference between them and most conservative protestants)
After making some friends through college speech and debate from a Menonite school I’ve always been interested in Menonite theology. Though they don’t have common roots there are certainly some common themes between the Menonites and the Friends. I have often thought that were I to study religion at the graduate level I would likely want to do it at a Menonite University.
33 Asara // Nov 6, 2006 at 7:58 am
John, thank you for your honesty and willingness to share your spiritual journey here on this blog.
34 amelia // Nov 6, 2006 at 8:45 am
oh john. i’m sorry if it feels like i’ve opened a gulf. it’s why i resisted commenting in the first place. i did not mean to. maybe i should have kept my virtual mouth shut.
and i do not intend my comments so much as criticism as i intend them as concern. as i said, i am glad if you have found a peaceful spiritual home. and i do not intende to dismiss anger as a stage in such a change. i’ve experienced enough anger at the hands of religion that i know it is not only unavoidable but often ultimately productive. but only when it is examined and overcome. because my epxerience also tells me that any decision made out of anger is bound to create hurt, not peace. and i spoke out of concern that this would be part of your experience. if you explain the tone of some of your comments as lack of patience–i can see how that can be.
please believe that i am not criticizing you for your beliefs. i have nothing but respect for the values and beliefs you explain here. they are beliefs and values i share in large part. but i cannot help but balk at the latent criticism of individuals that comes with your criticism of the institution of the mormon church. i do not believe, for instance, that someone is lacking in integrity for choosing to profess belief rather than doubt. why does expressing doubt qualify someone as possessing more integrity than expressing belief? the implication of your statement is that those who remain in the institutional LDS church are either hypocritical or unthinking.
as i said before, i know you to be a person of sincerity and integrity. i do not doubt that you are making this decision after much thought. may the peace you feel now continue.
35 John // Nov 6, 2006 at 10:07 am
Mike A.: Our meeting is unprogrammed. There’re a bunch of Evangelical Friends in southern Cal–I think the main difference between them and many conservative Protestants is their emphasis on the Quaker peace testimony (though I hear that some even equivocated this for the Iraq war). Mennonites are fascinating–you might be interested in a blog by a former Mennonite, Hugo Schwyzer. His Christian pacifism is deeply informed by his Mennonite experience.
Asara: I’m grateful for your support–I also appreciate your courage in the decisions you’ve made recently. Hang in there!
Amelia: Darn my use of the passive voice! Your comment didn’t open up any gulf; I feel like it may already be there since we haven’t had any meaningful communication for so long, and much has changed over the past year or two (though this can be remedied, perhaps over Thai).
the implication of your statement is that those who remain in the institutional LDS church are either hypocritical or unthinking.
Amy, you have to understand the context of my comments here–I am not speaking to you or to others who are defending the Church and their place in it. My audience is those who are on the fringes, who feel isolated, and whose integrity is constantly questioned. We live in an environment where the integrity of belief is rarely questioned and where doubt is typically demonized. My blog is meant to be an alternative. My ministry is to the marginalized skeptics who feel the way that I do. I agree that there are intelligent, unhypocritical people who are committed to the Church. You are one of those. My posts are not always carefully nuanced (Emerson said that “sometimes a scream is better than a thesis”), but I hope they’ll be considered with their intended audience in mind and in the context of my ouvre.
36 Matt Thurston // Nov 6, 2006 at 11:44 am
I had a few thoughts about the comments from One of the Sad and Confused Ones and Amelia…
Both commented on John‚Äôs “anger issues”
and at least one commented on “integrity” (i.e. “the roles you have played up until now, acting sometimes in the role of Mormons”).
For an active (and presumably happy) Mormon, both reactions are totally normal. I’ve felt them myself towards those that leave Mormonism. I think the reactions stem from sadness, but also from a combination of insecurity or discomfort — i.e. the need to somehow “explain” the seemingly unexplainable: “How can someone no longer believe what I so strongly believe, what makes so much sense to me — it must be “anger” or _______(fill in the blank).”
While I remain an active Mormon, I share many of John‚Äôs concerns and doubts. I can assure you that “anger” (or resentment, bitterness, etc.) and the inclination to “hide one’s doubts” are just as normal as the emotions you express, if not completely unavoidable. When a relationship goes bad, asking one to skip the “anger stage” is just as impossible as asking a sinner to skip the “guilt stage,” or asking a car crash victim to skip the “pain stage.” Such reactions are just endemic to the human experience.
Certainly, the level of anger one feels will vary from person to person, and is something one can control to a certain extent. I don’t know John all that well, but compared to most people I’ve witnessed leaving Mormonism, I‚Äôd call him a model of civility and restraint. (Spend a couple of minutes perusing RFM [Recovery from Mormonism] or the Blogs that belong to so-called “Outer Blogness” and I think you‚Äôd agree.)
Finally, with regards to hiding one’s doubts, what is the model for doing otherwise? A person hides his doubts for a variety of reasons: 1.) he doesn’t want others to worry; 2.) he doesn’t want others to think ill of him (i.e. the common LDS refrain that doubts are often the result of sin or other personal shortcomings); 3.) he doesn’t want to disrupt Sunday School or Priesthood Meeting (or whatever); 4.) he doesn’t want to potentially lead others to doubt; 5.) he doesn’t think anyone will really care or “get” it; 6.) he already knows what the advice or answers will be; 7.) he changes his mind daily and doesn’t want to commit to changing his public persona until he is sure; 8.) its his own darn business (i.e. between him and God); and so on‚Ķ
Again, John seems to be the model doubting Mormon in regards to his “openness” too. I understand he shared his doubts a few years ago from the pulpit in a Testimony Meeting (his “Doubtimony”), and anyone who has read his blog or heard him speak at a Sunstone Symposium could not possibly NOT recognize his doubts and concerns. What else could he possibly do?
Though it looks like I’m rushing to John’s defense, I am not. (He hardly needs it.) I’m simply explaining that the feelings/reactions of faithful Mormons (i.e. questioning someone’s anger and integrity) and the feelings of doubting Mormons (i.e. anger, pain, the inclination to “hide” one‚Äôs doubts) are pretty natural, and with regards to the latter, probably unavoidable. I’ve been on both sides and have experienced both emotions.
I hope I have not misinterpreted One of the Sad and Confused Ones and Amelia’s comments — I realize both of you were being honest and coming from a place of love and desire to understand.
37 amelia // Nov 6, 2006 at 3:24 pm
thanks for speaking to the point of the hypocrisy of expressing belief or doubt, john. the way you have clarified goes a long way to helping me understand where you are coming from. and it makes perfect sense that those on the fringes of mormonism are made to feel like they lack integrity because they experience doubt. i do not believe that is true. i do not think integrity is about existing without conflict, but rather attempting to live by those principles and ideas and values you hold most dear, in spite of the fact that often we subscribe to conflicting values and beliefs. it’s part of the challenge of being human.
matt– i do not mean to imply that anger is not natural. nor that there is something wrong with someone feeling anger in such a situation. simply that anger is a poor place from which to make a life-changing decision. perhaps the poorest place from which to make a decision. and therefore when i see indications of anger as a source of this decision, i am concerned for john’s well-being.
38 Chili Pepper // Nov 7, 2006 at 2:15 am
As pilgrimgirl already mentioned, this must be a really bittersweet transition for the two of you. Congratulations Jana, for following your own heartfelt desires to find peace of mind on a new, but probably already familiar path.
Personally speaking, as a former teetering believer in the LDS faith myself, my exit out of Mormonism wasn’t as graceful as I hoped. Going through my own self-deceptive motions while living a mormon life, I found myself sometimes at night living in these fantasy dreams that would nearly convince me not to fear the consequences of my decent. Right before my departure I hoped that my family and LDS friends would at least somehow be sufficiently understanding and supportive. The results were disappointing, but when I finally decided to face my future and no longer neglect the lingering evidences, impression and feelings of the lack of my own faith, I then began to live a life with more clarity, purpose, and joy. Even when the social costs weighed in on me, I still managed to keep my head up high and compassionately embrace the so-called betrayed who had always been so close to me. To this day my love for my LDS friends and family is still unwavering, though largely unrecognized, …but I actually couldn’t be any happier with or without their involvement, support, etc.
So personally speaking again, I understanding how the social costs are sometimes heavy to bear for such a pivotal, life-changing decision. I also believe the gains of pursuing one’s own sense of integrity become a very rewarding and worthwhile endeavor.
For those who do not know the Remy’s very well, this isn’t a spiritual dilemma. Reasons I’m sure go far beyond flaws mentioned about hierarchy. Additionally, I think something is to be said when it’s been noted that Jana appears more lively, robust, and generally happier in life. The positive consequences of Jana’s decision are evident, and apparently even radiant through her own countenance and living. How wonderful is that? Smile.
Going back to my own perspective, I want to mention that I love my LDS friends. And in the very least I think it should be understood that for some doubters long-suffering isn’t just long-suffering, but actually torture. And torture is by no means a catalyst for honest spirituality, nor a catalyst for honestly representing God’s church, …whatever institution that may be or form of spirituality that may take. That’s all I have to say for tonight.
39 nee // Nov 7, 2006 at 4:11 am
I’m going through the same thing, though my journey took me away from christianity entirely. I applaud you for posting such a well thought out explanation of how you got there. People have told me, too, that I look happier - those who don’t even know about church or what’s went on. I wasn’t even unhappy as a member though I can see in retrospect there were internal compromises I made which may well have reflected on my countenance. I do feel happy and free now.
Yay for living simply! Everything I own can fit in a 10×10 storage unit (which is where most of it is right now, save for a pc and clothes which is how I know. lol). I read the book “Affluenza” a few years ago and it changed my life.
40 Bored in Vernal // Nov 7, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Well, dang it, I have to say that I am pretty angry about it all. Not that I don’t admire you for your convictions and your peace, etc, etc. But how dare all the free thinkers leave the Church and leave us one in a ward, two in a city? I can never leave and I can never feel at home. I weep, I weep. Selfish me. You wonderful Remys, don’t ever stop talking about Mormon issues, some of us need a lifeline.
41 Oborosama // Nov 8, 2006 at 9:20 am
A thoughtful wellwishing to the Remys…..
Love,
Oborosama
42 John // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Chili Pepper, I’m glad we have you and Elise as companions on the road together (esp. since you are the more experienced one). It’s not good for wo/man to be alone.
Nee, I followed the link back to your blog, and I’m really looking forward to reading about your journey. I wish you the best. And yes, hooray for simplicity!
BiV, we do feel bad leaving you and our other friends behind. I really should rename this post though–we’re not leaving the greater Mormon community so much as we’re just leaving the institution. We wouldn’t want to lose our contacts with wonderful, brilliant people like yourself.
Oborosama, you are the pioneer, my friend. I only follow in your footsteps.
43 Mary Ellen // Nov 13, 2006 at 7:16 am
Wishing you well on this next stretch of road.
Since grad school, I’ve felt like there’s some Unitarian in me.
44 Forrest Curo // Nov 14, 2006 at 10:48 am
Interesting, interesting. Much of my family was Mormon, on my mother’s side, but she had left long before marrying my heathen father. My uncles liked to do long prayers asking God to do things that God is inclined to do anyway, concluding with “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen” or similar magic words (It’s been awhile.) And so when my best friend in high school invited me to his meeting, it made much more sense to me to sit silently giving God space to speak for Godself. (Since I was an atheist at the time, and didn’t get God’s tap on the shoulder until later, I did not continue with the Friends and it was a long time before I joined.)
Around 1970 I met a prophet, who said he had been sent to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake. His message had been that they would need to behave better by their own teachings or suffering a devastating earthquake; they arrested him but while he was sitting in a cell another impressive bearded man in an army blanket promptly showed up with the same message, whereupon they released him.
I don’t know whether there was any subsequent reform or not; what struck me was that the issue was not how many of their beliefs were valid, so much as whether they were living up to the beliefs they’d accepted. (I afterwards tried to read the Book of Mormon, and found it pretty implausible. On another hand, I may have inherited a tendency to react badly to coffee. So it goes.)
All this tickles my sense that while religious doctrines, their objective truth or falsity, does matter to me, God doesn’t feel the need to correct our errors immediately, but uses them as teaching tools for whatever people happen to respond to them. The main thing is whether we realize that direct contact with God, whereupon we can learn better and learn to see deeper. I don’t find the Quaker thing providing much of a “community” in my area, but it’s a form of disorganization that gives God space to work, with explicit room for new insights. You may get frustrated with Quakers, too, but it sounds like a positive change, for now.
45 Kaimi // Nov 14, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Okay, I really definitely need to read your blog more often.
Thanks for your thoughts, John and Jana. I share some of the same concerns, and will definitely be keeping an eye on your journey.
46 piotr // Nov 15, 2006 at 4:09 am
Leaving a church is very difficult; I’ve found that often, the church members take it personally. But this is between God and you. May you be blessed, wherever this leads you.
John 14:2
In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
Piotr
47 Kirk W // Nov 15, 2006 at 11:14 am
Hey there! Your blog post has been linked from “Quaker|Quaker” which tracks posts relating to “the Quaker conversation.” So I’m a Friend, stopping by to say hello.
A couple of thoughts. One is, I think Quakerism and Mormonism have similar roots — culturally and historically — for all of the differences. So you may not have made as much of a jump as you might think.
I guess in some of the social aspects of your experience — in-groups and hierarchies, etc. — it’ll feel like a big change, but you might want to watch for how experiences before and after are sometimes congruent.
My other thought is, as many Friends would tell you in a private moment, we’re not perfect. There’s always a gap between theory and practice. I see people here commenting on what I would call the “theory” of Quakerism, saying it’s appealing in various ways. In practice, it does vary from one meeting — in place and time — to the next. In the end it comes down to a group of people walking “in the Light” as best they/we can.
The testimonies spell out the word SPICE, by the way, but just to point out, they’re not doctrines in the way that other denominations may have them. The ‘C’ usually stands for “Community,” when I’ve seen them listed that way. Sometimes it’s “SPICES,” adding the concern for Sustainability…
48 John // Nov 15, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Kirk: welcome, Friend! Thanks for the link and for stopping by. Our meeting seems to be open about its imperfections, even in public.
I agree that there is a divide between theory and practice, ideals and implementation. We are leaving Mormonism because of its doctrines and institution, but in spite of our love for its people. Quakers are every bit as quirky as Mormons are, but our ideals, values, aspirations are more in sync.
I hope you’ll visit on occasion–we need all the Quakerly advice we can get!
49 Bob // Nov 15, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Kirk:
I am glad you found your spiritual journey leading you to the Religious Society of Friends. Even though I am not a “card carrying” member, yet (LOL)…I have been very Quaker-identified for over 2 to 3 years, and have regularly attended my local monthly meeting for over a year. I regularly attend worship, and enjoy it very much (it’s an unprogrammed, meeting)…and I enjoy the many Friends I have made by going to meeting. I pretty much agree with all of the major testimonies of Friends, especially simplicity, integrity, equality, and especially the testimony of Peace. May I suggest that you get a copy of your Yearly Meeting’s Faith & Practice and become very familiar with it. I did. And found it to be very informative. May I also suggest reading books such as: The Quaker Reader, Quaker Spirituality: Selected Writings, Barclay’s Apology, Friends for 350 Years, Silence & Witness, Holy Silence, The People Called Quakers, Quaker by Convincement, Plain Living, and No Cross, No Crown. Other authors you might find informative are: Thomas Merton, Richard Foster, Thomas Kelly, to name just a few. All my best to you and yours on your continued spiritual journey to Quakerism.
50 Richard // Nov 15, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Welcome to the Quaker faith! I grew up Presbyterian but could not agree with its elitist Calvinist theology so I left to find a Christian denomination that was more in sync with my views of God and mankind. I tried the Baptists, the Roman Catholics, the Pentecostals, etc. (I must admit that I never checked out the Mormons. But I read about their theology and it did not appeal to me.)
But then I tried the Religious Society of Friends and felt right at home. I attend an unprogrammed meeting and the silence helps me get closer to God. Two books that made a really big impact on me were “Holy Silence” by J. Brent Bill and “Essays on the Quaker Vision of Gospel Order” by Lloyd Lee Wilson.
I wish you the best on your journey and, once again, welcome aboard!
51 pilgrimgirl // Nov 15, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Kirk, Bob, Richard and other Friends:
What a delight to have your feedback! It’s nice to be welcomed into the Quaker blogging community. I especially appreciate the recommendations of books to read. I’m currently working my way through Faith & Practice and Friends for 350 Years.
I’ve also just requested a ‘Clearness Committee’ to help me transition from Mormonism to Quakerism. We’re meeting tomorrow night for the first time. Do you have any advice on how to enhance my Committee experience?
Thanks, Jana (Ms. Mindonfire)
52 Kirk W // Nov 16, 2006 at 4:46 am
Friends in the Philadelphia area, where I live, have their book of Faith and Practice on the web, for those who are interested. It’s mostly descriptive rather than prescriptive. In the parts where it leans toward prescriptive, the main approach is with probing questions called Queries, to which it’s understood the answers may vary.
We recently had a visitor at our Friends meeting from a meeting in Utah. He was telling me about his involvement with a local project spun off from the AFSC’s “Eyes Wide Open” (the boots) project. I got the impression then, which I’m also getting here, that pro-war fervency in your part of the country is stirring up a sort of counter-reaction in people’s hearts. (I’m not sure that’s the best way to put it, but perhaps you know what I mean.)
I’m struck by John’s appeal for Quakerly advice, and Jana’s for thoughts on enhancing the experience with the Clearness Committee. I guess the best I can offer right now is to point out that Quakers tend to look at things as more of an open-ended process, and to seek Divine guidance all along the way. Success is measured, in a sense, by how closely we feel our rapport with the Divine guide, and how well that spirit manifests in the texture of what we do. Not so much in specific outcomes like “becoming a member,” but in the process itself — “getting clear.”
53 Been There // Nov 17, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Jana and John — Welcome to the small community of Quakers with Mormon backgrounds! I made this transition myself a few years ago, but in two steps (first deciding to take a break from the LDS church, then coming among Friends a year or so later), rather than the all-of-a-piece transition you have described. I recall vividly the challenges of trying to process all the emotions and experiences without knowing anyone else who had done the same. I felt that my new Quaker friends, sympathetic though they were, did not and could not really understand what I was thinking and feeling, since they had never been steeped in Mormonism. My LDS family and friends had no interest in hearing about or discussing my explorations into Quakerism. I longed for not just a listening ear, but a truly understanding one. So, with my own experience in mind, I write to express a sympathetic support for your journey and the hope that you are finding understanding and friendship among the way. I will hold Jana’s clearness committee in the Light, praying that they may be blessed with wisdom, sensitivity, and discernment.
54 Paul K // Nov 17, 2006 at 10:38 pm
My wife and I are returning to Quaker meeting after seven years at an Episcopal Church. I feel the same dynamic of love for the people but the need to leave nevertheless.
My wife grew up in Utah, a non-Mormon with a Morman heritage and a mixed family. She grew up in a Presbyterian Church (to which her parents have returned after a hiatus between children leaving home and retirement). One aunt was Catholic and the other Mormon. The rule in the family was always that cousins went to church with whichever family they were visiting. The long-term result has been a real appreciation for others’ faith.
Though I love my wife’s Morman cousins, I confess I have a hard time respecting many of the specifics I hear about Mormon beliefs. Though you’ve now left Morman membership, I sense that you also appreciate many things about Morman beliefs and practices. I wonder if you might be willing to share with some of us on the outside what is/was compelling to you about Mormonism. A big topic, and it may not be your calling to answer, but thought I’d ask. I know there are many things I now have an appreciation of that earlier in my life just seemed wierd and foreign.
55 John // Nov 18, 2006 at 11:56 am
Been There, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your empathy and understanding. You’ve explained much of my rationale for blogging.
Both Been There and Paul K: Have you read Grace Notes by Heidi Hart? It’s a poetic memoir of a Mormon woman who becomes a Quaker.
56 Elise // Nov 18, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Paul K - Thanks so much for asking what is compelling about Mormonism. Though I know the question was directed at John, I have a few things I could list quickly. Maybe we could turn it into a longer discussion later.
**They value familiy. No doubt there are doctrines and attitudes within the Mormon church (such as unfair treatment to women) that could be argued detrimental to the family. But they do also teach and value that family is more important than money, careers, and things, and Mormon teachings foster a sense of duty, commitment, and loyalty to family that is dwindling in today’s society.
**The doctrine/idea of eternal progression. The thought of an eternity of learning and getting better is very appealing to me.
**The idea that God is attainable. Though I have mixed feelings about the trinity vs. the Mormon God, I think it is a compelling and comforting idea that we can become like God. Blasphemous to say in a Christian nation, I suppose, but it makes me feel more closeness to diety when I think that God is probably more like me than Protestant Christianity teaches.
**The doctrine of pre-existence (that we existed prior to this world but can’t remember where we were before birth).
**The well-oiled network. You move somewhere, you make one phone call, and instantly have a congregation to meet with, friends welcoming you, help moving in, and someone to call if you need a helping hand.
57 Paul K // Nov 19, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Elise -
Thanks for your points on what you find compelling in Mormonism. As the parent who has been home-based with our girls for the past dozen years, I certainly appreciate the concern for family.
I don’t think there is a parallel for pre-existence, but there are, perhaps, rough parallels in Quakerism for eternal progression, the attainability of God, and even the well-oiled network.
Quakers are very open to the idea of learning throughout life. “Live up to the light that thou hast, and more will be given to thee,” is an old Quaker saying. They are also open to the idea that God’s full will, or the fullness of truth, may only be revealed progressively over time, through history. True, the emphasis is not so much on the individual soul getting better and better through eternity, as you characterize the Morman belief.
Quakers have also had an intimate sense of God’s presence within us and power to work in and through us. Though it is not frequently talked of these days, early Friends had a sense of perfectibility. George Fox, the spark of the whole Quaker bonfire in mid-seventeenth century England, said provocatively, “I am in that state in which Adam was before he fell.” The sense that we are not simply doomed in this life to sin, but, turning steadfastly to the Light of Christ within us, can live in righteousness, has its dangers of presumptuousness. But the result, which remains, has been a real focus on actively seeking to live a life of faith and goodness in action.
Finally, the Quaker network is certainly not as robust or well-oiled as the Mormon one, but it is very real. Quakers’ small numbers and continuing sense of being a “peculiar people”–or just not in the mainstream–means that Friends traveling or moving to a new place will be warmly welcomed in a distant meeting house, and will often bring greetings from their home meeting. Though far less developed than the bishops’ storehouses and such, Friends also have (still available in some places) an old tradition of the fund for sufferings (originally to help those among them suffering persecution). Such assistance might or might not go through official channels. My father lost his father when he was just 4 years old. He is quite certain that a certain older woman, to whom he was introduced once a year, paid for his schooling.
My father-in-law (the Presbyterian), who has lived in Utah all his life, has been troubled by what he sees as a Morman lack of emphasis on grace. He feels he has seen an emphasis on works righeousness, which leads, at times, to making everything look good on outside, even when there are real problems in someone’s personal life or in the family, and at other times to a devastating sense of failure when things don’t go well, in a marriage, professionally, or personally. Do Mormons have a particular take on grace, and do you see the problem that my father-in-law feels he sees?
Again, thank for your thoughts.
John, do you have any sense of parallels between Quakerism and Mormonism?
58 Paul K // Nov 19, 2006 at 8:53 pm
John,
Thanks for the referral to Grace Notes.
59 John // Nov 19, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Thank you, Elise, for answering Paul’s question.
Let’s see: Mormonism and Quakerism…a very Quakerly question, by the way–much less divisive than focusing on the differences.
I’m still a newbie in Quakerism, but I find similarities due to Mormonism’s complexity. The strict hierarchy is balanced somewhat by the lay nature of Mormon ministry–there is no special training for leadership.
Mormon testimony meetings are much like Quaker meetings for worship, except that Mormons tend to get uncomfortable with the silences which are usually filled quickly with vocal ministry. They are akin to Quaker ‘popcorn’ meetings. Anyone, from child to adult, can get up to speak.
Both Mormons and Quakers value continuing personal revelation. Mormons place great importance on becoming convinced by the Spirit–their personal conversion experience.
That’s the best I can do right now–maybe Jana can come up with a few more.
60 Miko // Nov 20, 2006 at 9:01 am
What do the kids think of Quaker meetings? (The “anyone can get up” thing made me think). I think I would’ve stayed longer in Catholocism if I had thought that adults felt I had anything to add to the discussion. That’s part of what I like about judo: there are people in our dojo who undisputably outrank me (and who I outrank), but our daily practice is very conversational. Sometimes someone who just learned a throw comes from a better place than someone who has known it for years. And we’re all on the path together, taking it where it leads us, rather than on seperate paths.
Huh, I guess I didn’t think of it as such, but judo’s very much like a church to me: I go once a week (when I can, more often if I can), pratice with like-minded people about something that none of us are experts in, hang out afterward, and then go home, hoping that it’s made an impression on the rest of my life…
Leave a Comment