Leaving Church Because Of Hypocrites

[Give It Time]

This turned up in my Facebook feed, last night. It had been liked by my neighbor.





Thoughts?

[Palerider]

The hypocrisy/offensive behavior by members was never a big thing for me. It just goes with the territory of being human and I'm sure that I've offended people though never with the intention of doing so. So, not a big deal or worth leaving the church over at all.

An aside to this issue is when people ASSUME that hypocrisy or offense is the reason for leaving the church. It very well may not be and it is an over-simplification and a show of a little bit of ignorance to think so.

However I don't see myself as being nursemaid to corrupt people and after my experiences in the Bishopric, I can assure any doubters out there that there are some really corrupt people in the church. Those are the ones who need to be limited in their access to other unsuspecting church members and church funds intended for the truly needy. Sometimes showing them "love" is indeed showing them the door.

[EternityIsNow]

That post seems to conflate 'hypocritical' with 'imperfect'. Definitely you will never find a perfect person in this life, and one of the many imperfections people have is to be hypocritical. So in a sense it is playing with words, accusing those who leave of letting trivial problems drive them away. In other words, if the only crime of those members who were awful to you was that they were imperfect (a little rude, hypocritical), then holding those members accountable for their imperfections by treating them the way we all treat rude people, is just punishing them for being human.

What a way to marginalize and minimize the suffering of church members who are so harmed by the church and its members that they chose to leave their church, friends, and sometimes even lose their jobs and families.

Leaving a church can be complicated, I can understand why TBMs may want to oversimplify the complaints of those who leave, facing the truth that there are real, serious problems in Mormonism and people leave for very good reasons, must be challenging for those who have centered their own faith and belief around the idea that the church is in essence infallible (lead by God, who will not let the Prophet misguide the church, etc).

Hypocritical. Yea, that was there, but I could live with a little imperfection. Hypocricy was just the tip of the iceberg that sank my faith in Mormonism.

[Korihor]

imperfect people never bothered me. I had plenty I could have been offended about.

Lying, conniving and misleading leadership for 175+ years is another matter entirely.

[moksha]

Blaming a whole class of people based on the action of an individual is often heard when discussing the topics of racism, sexism, antidisestablishmentarianism, etc.... I would be more upset with the Pharisees than the hypocrites, but I hope I could refrain from saying woe unto them.

[Give It Time]

I'm divided on this. That's why I asked for thoughts.

On the one hand, if the church says it absolutely does not support abuse, but in the other sends very clear messages there's no good reason for divorce. Or continues to teach doctrines that enable abuse, then I choose to limit my participation. I suppose I don't see it as hypocrisy at the ward level, but as cluelessness and wilful blindness. The higher up the chain of command and I know there are discussions at the top about these topics and how to treat these issues and I see no change. From one of those brethren, I see statements of not supporting abuse as hypocrisy. Of course, they don't attend my ward, but I do hear them quoted and we circle back around to my limiting my participation, because of the doctrines taught.

On the other, I do agree that the people mentioned in the meme do need spiritual support, but I'm not sure an average bishop will be up to the very real challenges, may not recognize when they're being manipulated. The sinner needs grace as well as the one the sinner made suffer and yet...

It is anything but grace for the one who suffered from the sinner's behavior to have to continue to interact with that sinner. As I recently discussed with my bishop, he would try to work with my ex to try to heal him and part of that work may include a temple recommend or blessing the sacrament, etc. I didn't go in to how this was a mistake. I simply said that to our sons, this is seen as rewarding the man who terrorized them and is a slap in the face to me and them. I recognize the need to be a spiritual hospital, but maybe victims and perps need to go to separate wards. The bishop agreed with me on that and we both acknowledge his hands are essentially tied, there.

I believe in being kind to everyone. Period. There are ways to assert yourself without being a jerk. I know members want to help people, but they need to realize they aren't mental health professionals and there's only so much help they can give. Also, I believe it is perfectly reasonable and wiser to assess that the environment at church, for whatever reason, may actually impede healing and to either cut back or stop attending, altogether.

The person who wrote this meme is conflating participating at church with God and that just isn't always the case.

A person's participation should be owned by that individual. That's it. I'll tell you, I've gotten to a satisfying enough spiritual place that I can attend church and actually be happy I'm there. It's good to be around my neighbors and enjoy their company. They are usually happy and that rubs off on me. I have strategies for certain toxic situations. I know there are certain topics that simply will not be nourishing, so I do something else. I do carve a Sabbath into my week. I'm not strict in the observance. My Sabbath is made for me, not me for it. On the day's I do attend, when I feel spiritually satisfied, I leave. It might be after one meeting or two or I may do the marathon. The point is, if I feel fed and staying won't be diminishing returns, I stay. If not, I go.

I guess what I don't like about this meme is the diminishing way it treats wounded people who are simply trying to move toward self-care. If a situation is toxic and harmful (and some ward atmospheres can be), I think it's perfectly reasonable to withdraw. Especially, if one is recovering from trauma. Giving those people a verbal spanking as if the author as scolding a child just shows to me that perhaps that author needs to walk in the shoes of the people being scolded.

However, she does make some good points about people not being perfect and we just need to get along.

Yes, I'm torn in this.

[Give It Time]

Blaming a whole class of people based on the action of an individual is often heard when discussing the topics of racism, sexism, antidisestablishmentarianism, etc.... I would be more upset with the Pharisees than the hypocrites, but I hope I could refrain from saying woe unto them.

If you did say wow unto them, I'd want to see that.

[Give It Time]

I've had a chance to sleep on it and this is what I don't like about this meme. I understand that people aren't perfect. I know there will be conflicts and tensions. However, this is a church that claims to not condone abuse in any form, yet memes like this excuse abusive behavior and shame the victim for drawing healthy boundaries.

If this were a church that didn't excuse abuse, then there wouldn't be talks and lessons shaming people leaving because they're offended. Walking away from a toxic situation--especially if it's a religion--is a healthy thing to do. Now, there are people who will see offense where none was intended, but our church already does an excellent job of shaming those people. If this were a church that truly didn't condone abuse in any form, that's the standard of behavior they would expect during any church function. They would say, in your personal lives, you may accept all kinds of mistreatment and you may pull all kinds of crap on each other, but the standard of behavior here is we will follow the two great commandments of the Savior. Period.

Wanna do crap? Do it elsewhere. What you do in your homes, we can't control, but this church is a safe zone.


I have learned that how we treat one another truly does matter.

[deacon blues]

Hypocrisy isn't the problem, pharisaic legalism is. The church excludes people for nitpicky things, like caffeine and earrings. They exclude people from weddings and blessings, etc. There are wonderful LDS people, but the institution is seems a lot like the Pharisees.

[oliver_denom]

I've never known anyone to leave the church because someone was acting like a hypocrite. This sounds more like the reasons believing members invent for why people leave. It's a way of deflecting even the shadow of concern off of the institution, its leaders, and doctrines.

[Hagoth]

I've never known anyone to leave the church because someone was acting like a hypocrite. This sounds more like the reasons believing members invent for why people leave. It's a way of deflecting even the shadow of concern off of the institution, its leaders, and doctrines.

That was my thought too. If there's a particle of truth to whatever inspired this statement it probably had something to do with the hypocrisy of the institution itself, not the local members.

If there is any hypocrisy here it might be from the person who is casting the judgement. Maybe it simply isn't any of their business why anyone leaves or stays.

[Just This Guy]

Something else that they fail to notice is the cost/benefit analysis that people do.

At work, you get paid to deal with Hippocrates. If you don't think you get paid enough to cover your effort, you can always find a new job.
For school, you can pull out and go elsewhere. It maybe another school or home school, but there are options.
For shopping, you can go to a different store.

People weight the pros and cons of institutions all the time.

I find it interesting that they are not complaining about people who do go to a different job or school, or store when they don't like the one. They are okay. That is perfectly normal. But you cannot choose a different or no church. Now you are a sinner because you don't like that institution.

[Give It Time]

Something else that they fail to notice is the cost/benefit analysis that people do.

At work, you get paid to deal with Hippocrates. If you don't think you get paid enough to cover your effort, you can always find a new job.
For school, you can pull out and go elsewhere. It maybe another school or home school, but there are options.
For shopping, you can go to a different store.

People weight the pros and cons of institutions all the time.

I find it interesting that they are not complaining about people who do go to a different job or school, or store when they don't like the one. They are okay. That is perfectly normal. But you cannot choose a different or no church. Now you are a sinner because you don't like that institution.

This is how I look at it, too. It was shortly after I became NOM that there was a brief discussion on NOM 1.0 of viewing church as a consumer. I had never considered that. You're putting money and time into this institution, are you receiving benefit you consider commensurate? If I had heard that as a TBM, I would have been scandalised, but I think that's an approach members should take. It's your money. It's your time (even if one were too say the Lord's money and time, I think it no less applicable), are you receiving benefit from this experience. Frankly, this is when I started going home when I felt spiritually fed, rather than stay for all the meetings out of obligation.

If a family is toxic, it's possible to move away from them and seldom see them. The same applies for the situations you mention.

Why shouldn't this apply for a religion? If there's one place a person should absolutely be able to be uplifted, it's church.

[NOMormon]

Agreed. It's discovering that the church does not really, after everything is considered, provide all that much value to one's life. A Mormons life is exhausting and repetative and for some people it is not worth the cost. It isn't anything sinister; it just doesn't work for everyone.