Who has read Jeff Strong why people leave and what we can learn from them?

[BlipBlap]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not all of these Churches former members decide to join claim their leaders are currently receiving direct revelation from God.  The title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator sets up high expectations, especially if one has been taught a belief that is close to inerrancy for the Prophets.  Many from what I read go to more liberal theologically speaking denominations that don’t create such difficulties for their leaders. 

It would be interesting to find out how many seek out churches that have some form of inerrancy of scripture or leadership in them.

Yet that doesn't do much to the point.  Take the Roman Catholic church for example.  Their history is still a long one of corruption and violence against not only former members, but those who were never part of their church to begin with.  They claimed it was God's will despite denying the existence of direct revelation.

The issue of leadership is still one for the more theologically liberal churches, which tend to be some flavor of Reformed Protestant church.  Reformed churches appeal to an inerrant, complete scripture as the ultimate authority, but that creates a whole host of problems.  If extant scripture is inerrant, how does one explain different interpretations?  Some would answer this question by claiming that said scripture is self-interpreting, which ends up not answering the question at all.

This goes into something that doesn't seem to want to be touched on, and it's similar to what I encounter in my career (currently a medical technologist, but aspiring medical doctor).  People love to blame the institution, but never want to consider that the problem may lie with those the institution serves.  Patients can set unreasonable expectations of their doctors and have said expectations spawn primarily or even entirely out of their own conceptions of how they think things should be.  Sometimes those conceptions are born out of general human problems (pride, ego, etc.).  Sometimes the patient has genuine psych problems that prevent them from fully understanding.  Sometimes the patient is just dumb and easily swayed by fiery rhetoric or fancy ceremony.

I'd argue that the LDS church is very open about its history, certainly moreso than many others, and that those who use history as their reason were already out in all but name.  The material is both publicly available and easily accessible from the church itself on many controversial topics, but those who go looking with preconceived notions often end up perpetually unsatisfied when what they find doesn't match said notions and they never think to ask themselves "Am I the one that's wrong here?".

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

The material is both publicly available and easily accessible from the church itself on many controversial topics

How old are you? And have you ever lived outside the Mormon corridor?

Edited yesterday at 10:32 AM by Calm

[BlipBlap]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How old are you? And have you ever lived outside the Mormon corridor?

I'll be 37 in a month, grew up in the Florida panhandle, and have lived in southern Alabama since 2011.  My mom is from the Florida panhandle and my step-dad is from the same small south Alabama town I currently live in.  The only connection to Utah I have is that my biological father was from Spanish Fork, but he was stationed in Florida when he was in the Navy (where he met my mom) and was institutionalized from the time I was 4 or so until the time he died in 2003 due to Huntington's disease.  I barely knew him or most of that side of the family, as out of the 5 children on that side (him, his two brothers and two sisters), 4/5 died from HD.  My paternal grandfather committed suicide when my biological father was 14, so I never knew him either.  I only ever had a little contact with my one living paternal uncle (plus his wife and two daughters) and my paternal grandmother due to them living in Texas.

So yeah, trying to insinuate me growing up and/or living in a LDS-majority area for many years as coloring my perception on the church isn't going to work.  The internet is a wonderful thing though, and as I said, the church publishes a great deal of material that is accessible through it without being gatekept behind making an account, requesting access, etc.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

Church history being an issue always seemed to be an interesting line, especially if those that leave over it go to larger churches who have much bigger problems in their pasts or want to act as if things were "kept from them".

I think a lot of it comes down to expectations and assumptions verses realities of morality.

We claim truth, prophets, revelation, etc. It sets the standard high naturally but if members also have assumptions and expectations about what the standard means that differ from what they find in church history, that’s no small thing. 

[Notatbm]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

If church history is ever an obstacle for someone in their faith I would highly highly recommend the Church History Matters podcast.  They cover all the hard topics and they lay it all on the line.  Someone somewhere once said that too often we too often make thick conclusions based on thin evidence.  This podcast provides all the evidence anyone could possibly want as they try to figure out what our history means for our faith.

I believe for many to include myself the reason for some of church history being a problem isn’t so much what the history is as we now know it, but it is the lying, gas lighting, obfuscation and concealment of many aspects of church history as it was presented to us prior to the essays being published. Much different story than we know now. 

Some would  say well that was a long time ago and they are all open about it now. That is certainly possible, but with the news and details from the SEC scandal I and many others cannot trust the senior leadership of the church ( 1st presidency) to be always telling us the truth. I mean how can I trust them when they gave the green light to supplying falsified documents to the government and also engaged in a plan of deception to ensure members continued to tithe ? If they are willing to lie and be so smug about it and leave a paper trail, what else are they lying about? 
 

- probably whatever else they feel will be a stumbling block. The leadership of the church has recently demonstrated ( at least to me) that if there is something they feel is negative about the church, it will be covered up and lied about at all costs if it can be. If it can’t be covered up or lied about all in the spirit of preserving the good name of the church, they will find a way to blame the membership’s lack of faith as the problem. 

Additionally still have not really taken full responsibility as a corporation to address the false teachings of the past in terms of exposing who was behind what and why. Apologies need to be made and that will never happen. Oaks said so himself. 
 

as for me, the church history isn’t all that big of a deal I always knew much of it was wack. It was when it was proven the first presidency engaged in lying to the members and the government about ensign peak was what gave me my personal permission to disengage. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

yeah, trying to insinuate me growing up and/or living in a LDS-majority area for many years as coloring my perception on the church isn't going to work.  The internet is a wonderful thing though, and as I said, the church publishes a great deal of material that is accessible through it without being gatekept behind making an account, requesting access, etc.

Many of those who have issues with history were from growing up preinternet.

I am 65, grew up in California and Illinois and while my parents and grandparents had quite a few church books on their shelves and I read most of them (Journal of Discourse’s print was too annoying for me), there was a mass of church history I never had access to.  My local libraries had few books on our faith, never histories, often antimormon texts.  At BYU I got into FARMS and as soon as the Gospel Library came out on CD (we got our first computer, a Macintosh, in 1984 iirc, could have been 85), we got that, but given by then we had a kid and I babysat to earn money for my and my husband’s schooling, I didn’t have much time to spare for reading old church texts and FARMS articles.  In 1995 we went to Russia, had a laptop and that became my nighttime reading while I waited to sleep (which gave me several hours a night usually).  Even then, most history controversies I never knew about until I joined a message board much like this one in 2001.  I was well aware of Joseph’s polygamy, that is one issue I find it difficult to understand how preinternet people missed given the heading in the D&C and mentions in LDS Institute texts from years before I went to BYU in ‘76.  My husband grew up in Utah and was well aware of some details of the MMM and other atrocities as he was into the history of Utah, but earlier stuff not so familiar with even though he attended seminary (as did I).

Access to information was a very different world preinternet and home computers.  That is going to have a massive effect on anyone’s perception.  It still shocks me what a different life it is with cellphones.  Never being able to get ahold of anyone…and not expecting to once they left the house or work, not being able to know where one loved ones are if its outside of the daily school, work locations, it’s a very different mentality.

Edited 18 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I believe for many to include myself the reason for some of church history being a problem isn’t so much what the history is as we now know it, but it is the lying, gas lighting, obfuscation and concealment of many aspects of church history as it was presented to us prior to the essays being published. Much different story than we know now. 

Some would  say well that was a long time ago and they are all open about it now. That is certainly possible, but with the news and details from the SEC scandal I and many others cannot trust the senior leadership of the church ( 1st presidency) to be always telling us the truth. I mean how can I trust them when they gave the green light to supplying falsified documents to the government and also engaged in a plan of deception to ensure members continued to tithe ? If they are willing to lie and be so smug about it and leave a paper trail, what else are they lying about? 
 

- probably whatever else they feel will be a stumbling block. The leadership of the church has recently demonstrated ( at least to me) that if there is something they feel is negative about the church, it will be covered up and lied about at all costs if it can be. If it can’t be covered up or lied about all in the spirit of preserving the good name of the church, they will find a way to blame the membership’s lack of faith as the problem. 

Additionally still have not really taken full responsibility as a corporation to address the false teachings of the past in terms of exposing who was behind what and why. Apologies need to be made and that will never happen. Oaks said so himself. 
 

as for me, the church history isn’t all that big of a deal I always knew much of it was wack. It was when it was proven the first presidency engaged in lying to the members and the government about ensign peak was what gave me my personal permission to disengage. 

Your interpretation of things makes your conclusions reasonable.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, BlipBlap said:

The internet is a wonderful thing though, and as I said, the church publishes a great deal of material that is accessible through it without being gatekept behind making an account, requesting access, etc.

They do now, which is a wonderful thing.  I believe they have learned from the mistakes of the past on that issue.

[MustardSeed]

I dislike some things about church so I don’t judge folks who leave.  I do judge folks who leave who are nasty and judgy of members.  It’s a judgement fest  really.  😅

 

[MrShorty]

On 8/12/2026 at 11:00 AM, Stargazer said:

They were well aware that God commanded ancient Israel to not eat blood even if it was in a clean animal killed for food (Leviticus 7:26 - 27, 17:10 - 15). They also knew that God promised to punish, severely, those who knowingly broke this prohibition.

Let's look at this particular example of an alleged commandment.

First, we have the idea that they knew what God wanted. It's a significant thing to claim to know God's will with some certainty. How does one come to know God's will with that level of confidence? We talk about significant spiritual experiences, but some people don't seem to be given those experiences. How should we understand this?

Then we have the subject matter -- diet. Such certainty over a morally trivial topic, while morally significant issues like slavery go unaddressed. It troubles me some that we believe God is going about severely punishing people for disobedience to morally trivial practices while leaving weightier moral questions unaddressed.

As far as letting myself be winnowed. I guess we'll see. This is where I think Strong has some important things to say. To be fair, I haven't read the book, but I've listened to enough podcast interviews that I think I grasp the main themes. The theme that most resonates with me is the theme of inclusion and belonging. Yes our history like other churches is messy. Our theology and apologetics fail to answer some of the hardest questions. If we can convince doubters and maybe even dissenters that they are welcome to wrestle with things alongside us while we wrestle with them, perhaps more of them will stay. I find that our high demand religion doesn't always like to extend a hand of fellowship to doubters and dissenters. Strong is asking us to consider whether or not we want to change how we approach those at risk of disaffiliation.

[Notatbm]

49 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I find that our high demand religion doesn't always like to extend a hand of fellowship to doubters and dissenters. 

Yep… lazy learners, lax disciples, taffy pullers, rehearsing doubts, doubt your doubts

where have I heard all that before??? Prophets engaging in name calling and such

[BlipBlap]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

They do now, which is a wonderful thing.  I believe they have learned from the mistakes of the past on that issue.

I mean, they've been doing it for a while.  The Gospel Library app was launched back in 2008-2009.  Before then, published material was disseminated to regular members, and there was nothing preventing them from sharing it with non-members.

[BlipBlap]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Many of those who have issues with history were from growing up preinternet.

I am 65, grew up in California and Illinois and while my parents and grandparents had quite a few church books on their shelves and I read most of them (Journal of Discourse’s print was too annoying for me), there was a mass of church history I never had access to.  My local libraries had few books on our faith, never histories, often antimormon texts.  At BYU I got into FARMS and as soon as the Gospel Library came out on CD (we got our first computer, a Macintosh, in 1984 iirc, could have been 85), we got that, but given by then we had a kid and I babysat to earn money for mine and my husband’s schooling, I didn’t have much time to spare for reading old church texts and FARMS articles.  In 1995 we went to Russia, had a laptop and that became my nighttime reading while I waited to sleep (which gave me several hours a night usually).  Even then, most history controversies I never knew about until I joined a message board much like this one in 2001.  I was well aware of Joseph’s polygamy, that is one issue I find it difficult to understand how preinternet people missed given the heading in the D&C and mentions in LDS Institute texts from years before I went to BYU in ‘76.  My husband grew up in Utah and was well aware of some details of the MMM and other atrocities as he was into the history of Utah, but earlier stuff not so familiar with even though he attended seminary (as did I).

Access to information was a very different world preinternet and home computers.  That is going to have a massive effect on anyone’s perception.  It still shocks me what a different life it is with cellphones.  Never being able to get ahold of anyone…and not expecting to once they left the house or work, not being able to know where one loved ones are if its outside of the daily school, work locations, it’s a very different mentality.

You don't even need the internet, it just helps with elaboration.  I didn't know much about Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball until I was an adult, but anyone who isn't brain-rotted by presentism could understand that much of the "controversy" over that is born out of bad understanding or deliberate use of poor logic and argumentation.

Point being that it's a two-way street.  The church isn't obligated to put everything out on TV or announce it during Sunday meetings.  At some point the individual member is going to have to crack open a book and read on their own time.

[BlipBlap]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think a lot of it comes down to expectations and assumptions verses realities of morality.

We claim truth, prophets, revelation, etc. It sets the standard high naturally but if members also have assumptions and expectations about what the standard means that differ from what they find in church history, that’s no small thing. 

It isn't that "We claim truth, prophets, revelation, etc.", it's that we bluntly and openly claim it.  Every denomination within Christianity claims truth bluntly and openly.  However, they also claim prophets and revelation, but that requires a little working out to get to because they simultaneously deny those two things.  You can look to the popes and ecumenical councils of the Catholic church and see that, while they don't claim the titles of "prophet, seer, and revelator", they behave in much the same way.  They determine what is dogma, which is definitionally a core truth that has been divinely revealed.  That is revelation in all but name.

Protestant churches get slightly trickier as they do not have a magisterial clergy, at least according to them.  However, the inherent problems in the concept of sola scriptura shows otherwise.  If the Bible is complete, inerrant, infallible, self-interpreting, and the ultimate authority, why are there different interpretations at all?  Some would try to claim that some interpretations are of the devil, but all that does is lead to the question being asked again.  Why are pastors in Protestant churches even necessary if the Bible is supposed to be the ultimate, infallible authority?  How is any individual Protestant supposed to determine what is true?  The reality is that at least some of their pastors use this as cover for making their own interpretations authoritatively, as they feel they were "called by God" to be a pastor in the first place.

What is a person who is called by God to authoritatively receive, interpret, and convey the will of God to the people?  A prophet.

[MrShorty]

I agree that all churches have their historical issues and mistakes. That's one main reason I haven't left the LDS church for another. It would just be trading in one set of doctrinal and historical issues for another. As a lifelong LDS, LDSism is my native "language" of religion.

At some point, if there isn't going to be a church that is inerrant, what is church for? Why participate in a church at all? I recall a conversation in this forum where someone asked the value of participating in the church if it isn't uniquely church, and I responded asking if it is necessary for the church to be uniquely true to have value? Is it enough for a church to simply be good? To be found useful for a place to commune with God and other believers?

As I contemplate my future relationship with the church, I find that a main question I encountere is the one I've mentioned -- the question of belonging and fellowship. As long as I feel something a little more than tolerated, I figure I can stay. 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Let's look at this particular example of an alleged commandment.

First, we have the idea that they knew what God wanted. It's a significant thing to claim to know God's will with some certainty. How does one come to know God's will with that level of confidence? We talk about significant spiritual experiences, but some people don't seem to be given those experiences. How should we understand this?

Then we have the subject matter -- diet. Such certainty over a morally trivial topic, while morally significant issues like slavery go unaddressed. It troubles me some that we believe God is going about severely punishing people for disobedience to morally trivial practices while leaving weightier moral questions unaddressed.

As far as letting myself be winnowed. I guess we'll see. This is where I think Strong has some important things to say. To be fair, I haven't read the book, but I've listened to enough podcast interviews that I think I grasp the main themes. The theme that most resonates with me is the theme of inclusion and belonging. Yes our history like other churches is messy. Our theology and apologetics fail to answer some of the hardest questions. If we can convince doubters and maybe even dissenters that they are welcome to wrestle with things alongside us while we wrestle with them, perhaps more of them will stay. I find that our high demand religion doesn't always like to extend a hand of fellowship to doubters and dissenters. Strong is asking us to consider whether or not we want to change how we approach those at risk of disaffiliation.

That's a good question.  

Something I occasionally see when people ask how they should act is people asking, "What do you want the result to be?" I think that is important to ask here. 

 

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

What do you want the result to be?"

In some ways, I think this is part of what Strong's work is doing -- creating a space for the church to ask itself this. I'm not sure everyone is agreed on the answer. In one podcast, Strong talked about a pair of questions in the survey. Who do you think the church is for? A) everyone, B) all in orthodox types, C) sincere seekers if God. First time, the question asked them what they think church culture would say, and they overwhelmingly responded B. The second time, they were asked their personal opinion, and they overwhelmingly responded A. What does the church want the result to be? I think there's a lot of room for discussion.

[BlipBlap]

16 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yep… lazy learners, lax disciples, taffy pullers, rehearsing doubts, doubt your doubts

where have I heard all that before??? Prophets engaging in name calling and such

And yet you can't discount the idea that you can be the issue.

Doctors aren't always to blame for the conditions of their patients.

[BlipBlap]

17 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Let's look at this particular example of an alleged commandment.

First, we have the idea that they knew what God wanted. It's a significant thing to claim to know God's will with some certainty. How does one come to know God's will with that level of confidence? We talk about significant spiritual experiences, but some people don't seem to be given those experiences. How should we understand this?

Then we have the subject matter -- diet. Such certainty over a morally trivial topic, while morally significant issues like slavery go unaddressed. It troubles me some that we believe God is going about severely punishing people for disobedience to morally trivial practices while leaving weightier moral questions unaddressed.

As far as letting myself be winnowed. I guess we'll see. This is where I think Strong has some important things to say. To be fair, I haven't read the book, but I've listened to enough podcast interviews that I think I grasp the main themes. The theme that most resonates with me is the theme of inclusion and belonging. Yes our history like other churches is messy. Our theology and apologetics fail to answer some of the hardest questions. If we can convince doubters and maybe even dissenters that they are welcome to wrestle with things alongside us while we wrestle with them, perhaps more of them will stay. I find that our high demand religion doesn't always like to extend a hand of fellowship to doubters and dissenters. Strong is asking us to consider whether or not we want to change how we approach those at risk of disaffiliation.

Implying that God's commandments have only to do with morals.  It stands to reason that such prohibitions were for health reasons and that the people, for the most part, were unable to comprehend the idea of micro-organisms in blood that could cause food-borne illnesses.  We encountered similar in places like Afghanistan, where a lot of the locals did not go to the bathroom in an area that was separate from where they ate.  You tell them to not crap where they eat and to wash their hands, they see their health improve, and they thank you for it (some do at least).  You don't need to go into microbiology other than "Hey there's bad stuff in your feces and you don't want that in your food", "Hey there's bad stuff in this meat, so either don't eat it at all or make sure it's cooked very thoroughly".

Slavery doesn't go "unaddressed".  It was considered as reparations for war or as a penalty for crime.  That can be easily determined through comprehension of the written texts as well as understanding the context of the time in which these texts were written (if you believe that Moses wrote the original Torah) or the time of which the texts illustrate (if you don't).  So slavery among the Hebrews wasn't initially chattel slavery, but as a form of restitution.

Again, this is the issue with presentism.  You can't ignore that Mosaic Law was for a primitive people, so modern thoughts on certain moral topics are not applicable. This is especially true when context has to be ignored in order to justify any outrage.

[Teancum]

On 8/11/2026 at 2:50 PM, Stargazer said:

I was exaggerating a bit. 

If you spend some time on the Internet among the Ex- and Anti-Mormon crowd, and you'll find that they are very smug about perfectly normal retention rates, which are obviously going to be much less than 100%. 

 

Why do you think they are "very smug" about retention rates? And what does the church say and share about it's retention rates?

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2026 at 2:00 PM, Stargazer said:

The trickster Loki?

As I mentioned earlier, our missionaries were recently teaching a man who seemed happy with what he was being taught, until he was taught the Word of Wisdom and about tithing. Then he was gone. Is there something wrong with those two things? I remember a new convert in my mission who stopped attending because of something that was taught in that year's priesthood manual (back in 1973). It must have violated his sense of morality and ethics. 

Should the Lord give up on his "tricks"? 

The commandments of God are full of things that people just can't handle. Morally and ethically repugnant? By whose morals, and whose ethics? Jesus started teaching something in his mortal ministry that caused many of his followers to leave him. After the feeding of the 5,000 he began to be followed by huge crowds, who were no doubt waiting for the next mass miracle. He entered a synagogue in Capernaum on the Sabbath (John 6:59), and taught the following to the Jews and disciples gathered. 

"I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is even My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world . . . Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves" (John 6:51, 53).

Those assembled to worship God were shocked and offended at what they heard (John 6:60). They were well aware that God commanded ancient Israel to not eat blood even if it was in a clean animal killed for food (Leviticus 7:26 - 27, 17:10 - 15). They also knew that God promised to punish, severely, those who knowingly broke this prohibition.

They were morally and ethically offended at Jesus's teaching. Word of what Jesus said in the synagogue quickly spread to others who had followed him into Capernaum. They too found his statements absurd, unbelievable and offensive. Their lack of understanding led them to leave, to no longer associate with him or acknowledge he was the Messiah.

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?"

Even the Apostles were shaken by this. Jesus detected this and the following ensued:

"Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." [John 6:67-69

Why did Jesus do this? Was he simply exercising his Loki side? No.

It appears that the Lord chose to make his statements when he did because he knew it would winnow out those who did not have their minds open to the truth, who would ultimately reject his message. Those who heard Jesus' statements completely misunderstood his words. They interpreted them in a literal fashion, believing he was crazy for condoning what amounted to cannibalism!

Are you going to winnow yourself out because of your preconceived morality and ethics? Will you allow the Lord to take you only so far, but no farther? 

 

It is really quite simple when one drops the requirement to just have faith. Why would. or what kind of god like being, would ask us to "obey" morally repugnant commands in order to test us, or sift the so called "wheat/tares? Humans can asses and determine morals and ethics on their own. without the need of some imagines god being. Using critical thinking skills it is understandable to conclude that such things are, base ethically sound standards, something that should be rejected.

[BlipBlap]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why do you think they are "very smug" about retention rates? And what does the church say and share about it's retention rates?

Almost like they know that negative news sells.  The church doesn't say much of anything about retention rates, but no church does that at all.

[BlipBlap]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is really quite simple when one drops the requirement to just have faith. Why would. or what kind of god like being, would ask us to "obey" morally repugnant commands in order to test us, or sift the so called "wheat/tares? Humans can asses and determine morals and ethics on their own. without the need of some imagines god being. Using critical thinking skills it is understandable to conclude that such things are, base ethically sound standards, something that should be rejected.

It's almost like context matters and projecting modern morals doesn't work.

[Teancum]

On 8/12/2026 at 6:06 PM, ttribe said:

These broad brush stroke comments about the "Ex- and Anti-Mormon crowd" are always so lovely to read.

The OP brings up Strong's book, but rather than addressing what is actually in Strong's book, there is the same old discussion of how those of us have left having been "deceived" and "wayward" and not "staying faithful." For some reason there is no consideration for the Ex-LDS person who after spending decades living as a faithful member, really wanting it to be true, building a life around the principles taught as the Gospel, and who experiences the heartache of unfulfilled prayers, prophecies, and scriptural promises, combined with studying the un-sanitized accounts from Church history and simply concludes that it just isn't true.

I desperately wanted it to be true. So much so that my brain went into dangerous places for my own safety under the fear that I was destroying eternity for an entire family. Being compared to a person of bad "soil" or to being a "tare" or being called a "covenant breaker" (not in this thread) after spending 40 years trying to do everything right as a member is not just insulting, it is just plain hurtful. If you want to learn something from Strong's book and from us as former members, how about you try learning that we are still pretty much the same people, that we didn't take this decision lightly, that it was a painful and terrifying experience, and that we are neither traitors nor enemies. Just as the stages of grief suggest, many of us may go through periods of anger and lashing out. Some may even become antagonistic. But the vast majority of just fade away and try our best to navigate family relationships, friendships, careers, and other daily concerns that are still impacted by the Church.

Well said @ttribe