Gordon Monson’s recent article concerning the mourning of loved ones who leave the Latter-day Saint faith seems to ignore the powerful social role of religion. Monson’s approach to religious engagement seems to be one of complete agency where individuals can simply opt-in and opt-out, void of relationship effects. While I agree that we should approach religious evolutions with open-mindedness and respect, it is also true the role of religion in social relationships is not so easy to displace as the columnist suggests. Religion is real and visceral. Its presence in nearly every civilization is the best argument for religion’s fundamental role in human evolution and, therefore, nature.
As such, it’s reasonable to assume that self-extraction from such an integral social institution will provoke strong responses. In this sense, Monson’s proposal of grief as the default opposite of love seems misbegotten.
Is it selfishness or love that grieves an empty home after the children are gone to college or mourns the empty desk of a work friend who leaves for a better job?
While those relations can continue under a new guise, the changed dynamic offers its own loss. Why should religious relations be any different?
It’s fair to be sad, and it’s honest to mourn. I understand some Latter-day Saints produce callous or cold responses, but the antidote is not to ignore the strength and validity of religious ties and their accompanying emotions. Institutional religion, and people of all faiths, deserve better.
Jason Bonham, Chicago
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible