This is not a happy post, merely one of those data points that adds to our understanding of ourselves and our Church by recognizing our history.
As Church members, we’re supposed to care for each other, and “labor” with those who are struggling, for whatever reason. Yet sometimes we oh-so-casually invite each other to leave the Church if something doesn’t exactly suit us. We’ve heard that a lot in the past few weeks, in fact.
That “disinvitation” has a long history, and has come not just from thoughtless, annoyed strangers on the internet, but even from high ranking Church officials. Here’s an example from 1896; the specific occasion is an editorial defending the Church’s right to require its leaders to obtain permission from the Church before running for public office. I’ve posted the entire editorial for context but bolded the only relevant line. Presumably the editorial was written by George Q. Cannon as editor of the Juvenile Instructor, although it is unsigned.
Discipline of Church Members.
Because the Latter-day Saints adopt a rule of discipline, or announce a rule that has been in vogue from the foundation of their Church until now, a great hubbub is raised, as though it was anybody’s business but that of the members of the Church, so long as that discipline does not interfere with the rights of citizens. If members of the Church are not suited with the discipline of the Church, the door is as wide open for them to withdraw from the Church as it is for others to enter in. It is for the church itself to prescribe its own rules of discipline and fellowship. There is nothing compulsory, nothing arbitrary in this. What right has anyone to meddle with this or to quarrel with the Church or its officers or members on this account? The Church asks that its principal officers, whose duties are of a character necessary for the maintenance of the Church and its perfect organization, should devote themselves to the ministry that is assigned to them and which they accept in taking office. The Church asks that if at any time they are invited to assume other duties, the Church, through its authorities, shall be consulted as to the propriety of these officers accepting these or not. Is there anything improper in this? Is there any interference with the rights of free men? Not in the least. But the ant of confidence, of which I have spoken, is exhibited in the allegation which is made that the Church, through its leading officers, would take some kind of advantage of this! If any officer should think that his rights are interfered with by this rule of discipline he is at perfect liberty to resign his ecclesiastical office. But I am prepared to say that no man of any party would be refused permission to accept office if it were at all possible for him to hold it consistently with his ecclesiastical duties.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not consider that it is wrong for its officers to hold civil office. It is a different organization in many of its features from any other religious organization, and there is nothing inconsistent in its ecclesiastical officers performing their full duty as citizens in or out of civil office.
– Juvenile Instructor, 15 June 1896, 362-63
So inviting each other to leave has a long history and a notable pedigree. I wish it would disappear from our rhetoric, though. There may sometimes be necessary reasons, both for the good of the Church and for the individual, to break official ties, but that is a serious and solemn thing, and not something any of us should casually resort to in a moment of disagreement.
1896 is early enough in the church for presumed author George Q. Cannon (and others) to remember or have at worst second hand knowledge of some of the damage done by those whose opinions differed from church leadership, and who later either apostatized or were excommunicated. Not to mention that he could well recall Brigham Young and other leaders desire to control the political and economic policies of the entire church membership. So I can understand this sentiment, even while not agreeing with it.
But yes, it does feel divisive and hurtful to hear someone say “Maybe you should just leave the church.” My limited understanding of the Godbeites is that they would not likely be considered apostate in these times for most of the ideas that they held.
Suppose that in sacrament meeting we had some members who started bringing pickets in to denounce the prophets. Do you suppose the bishop would ask them to leave? Why then is it any different then for good standing members to ask the vocally militants who vehemently decry church leadership and authority and policy?
I appreciate your point. Those making the invitation may not always appreciate just how hard it is to leave Mormonism, even if the person leaving has lost all belief in God, priesthood, prophecy, or the Church’s unique claims of salvific power. Suggesting someone should “just leave” ignores the very real social and personal influence the Church can have on an individual life, wholly apart from questions of whether its teachings are true or its organizational practices are healthy.
“Why don’t you just leave” is a much more sympathetic question when asked by a Christian of another denomination, unfamiliar with Mormonism. People change denominations all the time to find one that fits them better — why stay, if it’s not working for you? It’s either an information question (really, why?) or a gentle suggestion that you do what’s best for you.
It’s so different to be disinvited by a fellow Mormon. In that context, “why don’t you just leave” isn’t a question, or a suggestion in your own best interest, but a suggestion that if that’s how you think, the rest of the Church really would be better off without you. I, also, wish we’d stop doing that. There’s something in the Bible about members saying “I have no need of you,” but I seem to recall that that was specifically discouraged, for for those who are “baptized into one body.”
Let’s see … In your fanciful scenario, Rob, we have an authorized agent of the Church, acting in his stewardship over that congregation, asking rowdies to step out of a physical building because they are disrupting a worship service.
On the other hand, we have you, without authority, acting for the Church on your own evaluation of your superiority, telling people over whom you hold no stewardship, to leave not just a building but the entire Kingdom.
Riiiiight. There’s no difference at all.
ankle, while what you say may be true, I’m far less concerned about one person suggesting another leave a merely social institution than I am about someone who is presumably a believer “in God, priesthood, prophecy, [and] the Curch’s unique claims of salvific power” telling someone else to abandon his participation in all that. Saying “Walk away from your covenants” is a far nastier thing, with more serious and long-lasting consequences, than telling someone to find another club whose decor and menu suits him better.
A couple of years after I graduated from high school, I dropped by to visit some of my former teachers. One of them asked me about a rather high profile ex-communication from the church that had been covered in the local papers. One of the leaders involved worked for the FBI or CIA–because this was Washington, DC–and that was played for its full dramatic value. My former teacher was puzzled and said, “I don’t want to be a Mormon, so I’m not. It’s not that hard. I don’t understand the fuss.) So there is certainly that view from the outside.
From the inside, it is easier to see how devastating that could be. The church has too many aspects in our lives, and having an issue in one area doesn’t negate everything else.
Of course, someone who is actively disrupting church meetings or is harming someone would need to be asked to leave. A church member was stalking my sister, and finally our bishop told him that if he ever showed up in our building again, the bishop would call the police. My sister was worried that this would make him leave the church. The bishop said, “His behavior has crossed a line, and that is no longer your problem.”
I knew a young man who decided to die his hair some wild color. His mother tried to dye it back to its original color, and instead turned it bright orange. She then announced that her son couldn’t attend church until his hair grew out and returned to its normal color. She was afraid of being embarrassed by his appearance. Regrettably, it was the last time he ever attended church. Personally, I always told my kids that if they needed to do something stupid, PLEASE do it to their hair–rather than piercing, tattooing, etc.
I do remember once telling someone to just leave church. My co-teacher was acting very strange and finally admitted to having a migraine. I told her to just leave, and I offered to find someone to drive her home. She was feeling much better by the next day.
I have never personally heard of someone being asked to leave the church like that.
I can understand insisting a person leave the premises if they are causing a disruption or are being disorderly. It wouldn’t hurt to let them know they can come back when they get themselves under control. But that is not what this article is really about.
I went to church run schools. There were a number of students that hated the rules, the quirks and honor code. I have to admit I sometimes wondered why they came there when there are so many other schools out there that might be a better fit. . .
Those making the invitation may not always appreciate just how hard it is to leave Mormonism, even if the person leaving has lost all belief in God, priesthood, prophecy, or the Church’s unique claims of salvific power.
I’m a convert, so I look at the Church specifically for belief in God, priesthood, prophecy, and the Church’s unique claims of specific power. I do not want to look on the Church as merely a social club. People who have lost all faith and so forth and yet choose to remain members may do so, but I hope they will not try to destroy the faith of others. Some do, and that is sad — maybe they really should leave rather than staying and purposefully destroying the faith of others. No one calling him- or herself a Latter-day Saint should try to destroy the faith of others. And honestly, some people are so unhappy on the Church, maybe they should leave for their own mental health. They can always come back after they have worked through their anger or other issues.
Even so, I have never heard anyone ask someone else to leave the Church. I have seen such invitations on some blogs, though. Those comments are inartful, but some or many if them are more kind than the comments to which they’re responding.
Our call is faith, hope, and charity.
I typically see that comment when a person or group of people is criticizing and wanting to change something the commenter loves.
While I agree that it’s not a good approach, I think those who make it often shouldn’t be condemned wholesale. They are often speaking out of bafflement or defensive frustration, which is completely understandable, given the depth of denigration heaped upon something they find sacred and dear.
Those who go around trumpeting it pridefully, as is occasionally the case, are utterly out of line, and no different than those they preach against.
Ooh! Here’s a post that I can actually contribute to the discussion. It adds a new wrinkle of meaning to know that those being invited out of the Church by Geo. Q. were other General Authorities!
The proximate cause was B.H. Roberts, who ran (unsuccessfully) for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives a year earlier. In response, the Church issued a new policy requiring all church leaders to obtain permission from their priesthood leader prior to running for any public office. Roberts and Moses Thatcher–who had also run for a state office–saw this as an infringement of their agency, and politically motivated as well, as the 1st presidency was composed of Republicans and they ran as democrats. They were extremely outspoken in their opposition.
After several, day-long meetings with the combines 1st Presidency and Q12, Roberts eventually capitulated, but Thatcher never did, and was dropped from the Quorum of the 12 over the issue.
Is this why Mitt Romney met with the first presidency prior to his 2008 run? Inquiring minds want to know!