LDS Church failures of trust

[_MormonMendacity]

My exit from Mormonism evolved when I began to question the assertion that Moroni 10:4&5 could actually lead me to truth.

As I began to wonder what brought me to start questioning that scripture -- what I thought was the foundation of my faith -- a few things began to pop up regarding how inspired or uninspired the Church leaders were. Good faith did not seem to matter when their decisions lacked good thinking.

One of the things was the way that there did not seem to be standards for managing Church affairs -- with some now annoying (to me) exceptions.

Selection and training of ecclesiastical leaders was, in my humble opinion, quite poor. I wondered if it was because we were supposed to be led by inspiration instead of good thinking patterns. I knew too many leaders who should not have been trying to provide help to others because they were struggling themselves -- and if it sounds like I have first-hand experience (including myself), I do.

This is not a blanket accusation of all leaders or a questioning of their desire to do well, but it began to appear to me that the Church assumes its weekly training sessions actually prepares leaders to assist with serious life/family issues. For example, I have known leaders who have suggested that people stop using medications or going to professionals and start showing more faith. The constant talk of faith can also move people in that direction...even if it is not said directly.

Church courts were also adminstered haphazardly -- and I mean by that: by inspiration. Some would be brought before a court for sexual improprieties and others wouldn't. Some would be excommunicated for adultery and some wouldn't. Some would be disfellowshipped for petting and some wouldn't. Directions from Salt Lake seemed vague and inspiration-directed decisions seemed arbitrary.

Money handling seemed to be better managed, and because of that it felt to me like there was more interest in that than in the welfare of the Saints. I think that if there would have been more reasoned, intelligent emphasis in the weak areas I might have had fewer questions about the truthfulness of Moroni 10:4&5.

So my question is: am I being too harsh? Do you have similar experiences in this regard?

Thanks.

[_Runtu]

My exit from Mormonism evolved when I began to question the assertion that Moroni 10:4&5 could actually lead me to truth.

As I began to wonder what brought me to start questioning that scripture -- what I thought was the foundation of my faith -- a few things began to pop up regarding how inspired or uninspired the Church leaders were. Good faith did not seem to matter when their decisions lacked good thinking.

One of the things was the way that there did not seem to be standards for managing Church affairs -- with some now annoying (to me) exceptions.

Selection and training of ecclesiastical leaders was, in my humble opinion, quite poor. I wondered if it was because we were supposed to be led by inspiration instead of good thinking patterns. I knew too many leaders who should not have been trying to provide help to others because they were struggling themselves -- and if it sounds like I have first-hand experience (including myself), I do.

This is not a blanket accusation of all leaders or a questioning of their desire to do well, but it began to appear to me that the Church assumes its weekly training sessions actually prepares leaders to assist with serious life/family issues. For example, I have known leaders who have suggested that people stop using medications or going to professionals and start showing more faith. The constant talk of faith can also move people in that direction...even if it is not said directly.

Church courts were also adminstered haphazardly -- and I mean by that: by inspiration. Some would be brought before a court for sexual improprieties and others wouldn't. Some would be excommunicated for adultery and some wouldn't. Some would be disfellowshipped for petting and some wouldn't. Directions from Salt Lake seemed vague and inspiration-directed decisions seemed arbitrary.

Money handling seemed to be better managed, and because of that it felt to me like there was more interest in that than in the welfare of the Saints. I think that if there would have been more reasoned, intelligent emphasis in the weak areas I might have had fewer questions about the truthfulness of Moroni 10:4&5.

So my question is: am I being too harsh? Do you have similar experiences in this regard?

Thanks.

From a believing point of view, yes, inspiration-led decisions would've necessity not be bound by rules and regulations, which is why it seems arbitrary to those of us of the unbelieving stripe. It's clear to me that things like money and employment are very much policy driven, whereas things like church courts and bishops' counsel are left to individual "inspiration." In an odd way, this points to the leadership's actually believing in inspiration; if they didn't believe that priesthood leaders were led by God, they probably would have very specific regulations. Wow, that was some rambling.

[_MormonMendacity]

From a believing point of view, yes, inspiration-led decisions would've necessity not be bound by rules and regulations, which is why it seems arbitrary to those of us of the unbelieving stripe. It's clear to me that things like money and employment are very much policy driven, whereas things like church courts and bishops' counsel are left to individual "inspiration." In an odd way, this points to the leadership's actually believing in inspiration; if they didn't believe that priesthood leaders were led by God, they probably would have very specific regulations. Wow, that was some rambling.

Thanks. I agree. I guess what you're saying is that believing in the inspiration would not make them think they needed to evaluate the outcomes. (?)

I've gotten much more interested in the outcomes in my life than in following some particular process, a.k.a. follow the prophets/leaders. I am interested in what really helps me and then adjusting my behaviors based upon unsatisfactory outcomes to improve the quality of -- and my happiness about -- the results.

[_Runtu]

Thanks. I agree. I guess what you're saying is that believing in the inspiration would not make them think they needed to evaluate the outcomes. (?)

Yes, pretty much. I would imagine they would think that inspiration was paramount in determining what is best in a given situation. And if the counsel was bad and led to poor outcomes, they would say that such was God's will, or it was test, or whatever. So, the means (inspiration) is probably more important than a given outcome.

I've gotten much more interested in the outcomes in my life than in following some particular process, a.k.a. follow the prophets/leaders. I am interested in what really helps me and then adjusting my behaviors based upon unsatisfactory outcomes to improve the quality of -- and my happiness about -- the results.

I think that's right. Once you stop seeing things through the Mormon prism, following a particular "inspired" process seems far less important than figuring out what is going to work.

[_Jason Bourne]

My exit from Mormonism evolved when I began to question the assertion that Moroni 10:4&5 could actually lead me to truth.

As I began to wonder what brought me to start questioning that scripture -- what I thought was the foundation of my faith -- a few things began to pop up regarding how inspired or uninspired the Church leaders were. Good faith did not seem to matter when their decisions lacked good thinking.

One of the things was the way that there did not seem to be standards for managing Church affairs -- with some now annoying (to me) exceptions.

Selection and training of ecclesiastical leaders was, in my humble opinion, quite poor. I wondered if it was because we were supposed to be led by inspiration instead of good thinking patterns. I knew too many leaders who should not have been trying to provide help to others because they were struggling themselves -- and if it sounds like I have first-hand experience (including myself), I do.

This is not a blanket accusation of all leaders or a questioning of their desire to do well, but it began to appear to me that the Church assumes its weekly training sessions actually prepares leaders to assist with serious life/family issues. For example, I have known leaders who have suggested that people stop using medications or going to professionals and start showing more faith. The constant talk of faith can also move people in that direction...even if it is not said directly.

Church courts were also adminstered haphazardly -- and I mean by that: by inspiration. Some would be brought before a court for sexual improprieties and others wouldn't. Some would be excommunicated for adultery and some wouldn't. Some would be disfellowshipped for petting and some wouldn't. Directions from Salt Lake seemed vague and inspiration-directed decisions seemed arbitrary.

Money handling seemed to be better managed, and because of that it felt to me like there was more interest in that than in the welfare of the Saints. I think that if there would have been more reasoned, intelligent emphasis in the weak areas I might have had fewer questions about the truthfulness of Moroni 10:4&5.

So my question is: am I being too harsh? Do you have similar experiences in this regard?

Thanks.

I agree with you that training is sorely lacking. This has been a big compliant of mine to leaders and when I have lead. there is no continuity. It is here is the handbook and go to it. Bishops are trained by stake leaders who are not really trained. There is no continuity among how certain things should be applied. Freedom to lead and run a unit is nice to some extent and a persons style and inspiration should not be hampered too much. But it would seem that some sort of standardized training for bishops and SPs at least should exist.

[_truth dancer]

I'll admit right up front that I'm biased here but...

One of the most difficult issues I had as a believer was church leaders thinking they were inspired while giving horrible, destructive, nonsensical, unhealthy advice to members. Over and over again, Bishops role played a therapist... while they may have thought they were inspired their advice was counterproductive and, in many cases, hurtful. I've seen marriages harmed, mental health issues worsened, children hurt....

It is a huge concern in my opinion!

Having said that I deeply respect those leaders (I have known a few), who know their limits and don't try to be a counselor, marriage therapist, nor do they think they are channeling messages from Christ.

~dancer~

[_MormonMendacity]

I'll admit right up front that I'm biased here but...

One of the most difficult issues I had as a believer was church leaders thinking they were inspired while giving horrible, destructive, nonsensical, unhealthy advice to members. Over and over again, Bishops role played a therapist... while they may have thought they were inspired their advice was counterproductive and, in many cases, hurtful. I've seen marriages harmed, mental health issues worsened, children hurt....

It is a huge concern in my opinion!

Having said that I deeply respect those leaders (I have known a few), who know their limits and don't try to be a counselor, marriage therapist, nor do they think they are channeling messages from Christ.

~dancer~

I agree. I love and respect so many of the people in the Church. So many are great human beings who love their neighbors, sacrifice selflessly, show genuine interest in the happiness and sorrows of the members. I admire people who sacrifice for the welfare of others.

I think the investment in quality training and evaluations and referrals would really enhance the lives of the members. In the same way that members get a priesthood blessing when they're sick and then -- I hope -- are encouraged to seek sound medical advice, I think that should be extended to life training. Not all problems can find solutions through more prayer. It takes a knowledgable and wise leader to distinguish between the two.

Thanks.

[_Roger Morrison]

MM, an excellent topic... Jason B says:

I agree with you that training is sorely lacking. This has been a big compliant of mine to leaders and when I have lead. there is no continuity. It is here is the handbook and go to it. Bishops are trained by stake leaders who are not really trained. There is no continuity among how certain things should be applied. Freedom to lead and run a unit is nice to some extent and a persons style and inspiration should not be hampered too much. But it would seem that some sort of standardized training for bishops and SPs at least should exist.

Readily agreed. That it does not exist begs the question, "why not?" Honest consideration of that puts so much on the table--that might be very difficult to justify or rationalize, even to an Apologist--that one of the chief-corner-stones is made of sand: LDS Revelation. This might not be as clear as i'd like it to be...

But when any institution or individual claims supremacy they do two things: 1. Present themselves as a worthy target. 2. They identify themselves as less than credible...

Someone on this site just recently uttered one of the BEST-EVER statements re church change:

"IT WILL HAPPEN ONE FUNERAL AT A TIME!" That friends IS Revelation! IF patience is a virtue, hopefully it will bring its reward, to those who live long enough :-) Warm regards, Roger

[_Rollo Tomasi]

One of the most difficult issues I had as a believer was church leaders thinking they were inspired while giving horrible, destructive, nonsensical, unhealthy advice to members. Over and over again, Bishops role played a therapist... while they may have thought they were inspired their advice was counterproductive and, in many cases, hurtful. I've seen marriages harmed, mental health issues worsened, children hurt....

I agree that this is a major problem, especially among local leadership. These guys have had it pounded it into their heads that, as Church leaders, they are inspired as they deal with members, which can lead local leaders to assume that whatever advice they give it must have come from God and be right. Often, it is not, particularly in a counseling role. I wish the Church would be more upfront about local leaders' serious lack of training and expertise in counseling situations, and admit that leaders often are NOT inspired or led by the Lord in everything that comes out of their mouths. Members trust these untrained leaders far too much, and many leaders are overconfident in their ability to counsel members on very difficult issues because they think they are always inspired or enjoy greater discernment than the average bear. These types of attitudes can and do lead to terrible results.

[_harmony]

Having said that I deeply respect those leaders (I have known a few), who know their limits and don't try to be a counselor, marriage therapist, nor do they think they are channeling messages from Christ.

~dancer~

This is, more than anything, the thing that bugs me the most: too often, they think they are channeling messages from Christ.

They think they know more, feel more, are more in tune... ARGH!