Feelings And History

[jskains]

I was reading one of the many stories posted on exmormon.org (bored, sorry)... And I hate to say it, but a lot of them are really they didn't like how some member or group of members are treating them, then they get angry at the Church, then they suddenly find all this negative stuff about the Church, believe it instantly, then "escape" the evil clutches.

It's an odd pattern, but I wonder if this pattern style actually goes beyond the Church. I wonder how many people have exited many organizations after having their feelings hurt, but search for dirt to help justify their ultimate decision to quit....

One I saw was an employee of the Church, teaching for CES. After getthing through the usual "I was a bishop, stake president, next in line to be a prophet" typical prolog, you find that they arrogantly decided they would teach how THEY interpret LDS history, and were upset when *gasp*, their employer was not happy. They were suprised that the Church wanted to have a say in his classroom lessons and eventually got pulled into meetings to discuss his behavior. So then he goes on to find dirt, including amazing things like that we teach Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins (news to me), and all sorts of other junk... So he decides to escape from the evil oppressive LDS Church.

I feel like a lot of these stories are racked with justifications. They seek to demonize the Church to be able to tell others, "see, see.. it's evil and that is why I am leaving"... This is followed with trying to get other people they know to do the same... Then they get even more angry that their friends don't run to their side, leaving the evil cult as well, so they use that as evidence of how brainwashed everyone is.

These patterns are so common, I wonder if in some instances they are even fake. If the "groves" of exit stories are not as numerous as we all think and that some of them are created by the same people who left the Church and looking for company. The ol' "misery desires company" effect.

Just thinking out loud..

JMS

[Robert F. Smith]

I was reading one of the many stories posted on exmormon.org (bored, sorry)... And I hate to say it, but a lot of them are really they didn't like how some member or group of members are treating them, then they get angry at the Church, then they suddenly find all this negative stuff about the Church, believe it instantly, then "escape" the evil clutches.

It's an odd pattern, but I wonder if this pattern style actually goes beyond the Church. I wonder how many people have exited many organizations after having their feelings hurt, but search for dirt to help justify their ultimate decision to quit....

One I saw was an employee of the Church, teaching for CES. After getthing through the usual "I was a bishop, stake president, next in line to be a prophet" typical prolog, you find that they arrogantly decided they would teach how THEY interpret LDS history, and were upset when *gasp*, their employer was not happy. They were suprised that the Church wanted to have a say in his classroom lessons and eventually got pulled into meetings to discuss his behavior. So then he goes on to find dirt, including amazing things like that we teach Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins (news to me), and all sorts of other junk... So he decides to escape from the evil oppressive LDS Church.

I feel like a lot of these stories are racked with justifications. They seek to demonize the Church to be able to tell others, "see, see.. it's evil and that is why I am leaving"... This is followed with trying to get other people they know to do the same... Then they get even more angry that their friends don't run to their side, leaving the evil cult as well, so they use that as evidence of how brainwashed everyone is.

These patterns are so common, I wonder if in some instances they are even fake. If the "groves" of exit stories are not as numerous as we all think and that some of them are created by the same people who left the Church and looking for company. The ol' "misery desires company" effect.

What you say makes a lot of sense, and I think all of us have encountered something like this along the way. People may be trying to justify to themselves and to others their migration from one faith to another, or out of faith entirely.

Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 "Americans switch religion as least once" (Moment, 27/4 [Aug 2002], 58), and studies have been conducted as to why people convert to Mormonism (Lavina Anderson in Ensign, 7/10 [Oct 1977], 72-76), as well as leave it (Albrecht & Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 [1983], 366-379; "Why People Leave the LDS Church," Sunstone Review, 4/3 [Mar 1984], 10).

What it seems to boil down to is that people go where they feel comfortable and accepted for who they are -- a guy who likes to use recreational drugs might not want to be Mormon. And we would only expect to find Jack Mormons among the TV-style "Cheers" crowd. Not that they are bad people. Only that they seek a very different life-style.

I recall one friend who left Mormonism telling me that he was glad that he got out before they got too much tithing out of him. Well, of course, if there is no God -- and if Thomas Monson is not his prophet -- then why bother with tithing . . . Mammon is a big deal to many, and building up the kingdom of God on Earth has little meaning for them.

[jskains]

I guess what annoys me is the attitude and abuse of the word "lying". In the case of this CES employee, he demanded that the Church was untruthful. But in reality he simply wanted the Church to promote unnessesary things.

For example, the entire "multiple versions" of the first vision. The Church IMHO only has to promote the one that the Lord has instructed is the correct one. But people demand it promotes all of them and every possible interpretation of them.

I wonder, should Ford be forced to include in its brochures the negative opinions that Honda has about their products? Or can Ford simply highlight what it feels to be the accuracy of its product?

JMS

[thesometimesaint]

I think that most people who leave don't post their reason(s) on the internet. However I do believe you are right in that the majority of the vocal ones are offend by someone, and not some basic disagreement over doctrine.

[Kiviuq]

I don’t care for the term “justification” because it is unfairly judgmental. What is common in many exit stories is that a small crack in faith gave room for a difference of opinion to take root.

It’s true. If you’re praying and reading and working to believe, there’s no room left for doubts or new views to enter in. If you are fully immersed in the lifestyle of reinforcing your current beliefs then you will not see your church as false (whether it is or not). Whatever group you belong to strengthens your beliefs. The same could be said for political views. It’s a phenomenon not necessarily unique to religion. It’s just human behavior.

And that’s the key point. This is just an aspect of human behavior.

But once you allow yourself to entertain a different opinion then there is a chance of growth. Usually there’s some event that opens the door for religious change. From then on, you are willing to contemplate doubts of your current belief structure. New information is allowed in to be weighed and evaluated. It’s at this point that many people have joined the LDS Church. It’s also at this point that many have seen the truth claims of the LDS Church as untenable.

[thesometimesaint]

Kiviuq:

A testimony is not some fixed quantity of information that once derived at is forever at that point. Like a growing bush it needs to be carefully watered and tended to, to bloom into full flower.

[jskains]

I don’t care for the term “justification” because it is unfairly judgmental.

I certainly fail to see how it is unfair. Certainly it is justification when one goes out of their way to demonize something to a point you severely exadurate facts in order to gain favor for your cause. Just look at that other certain group who uses ugly terms, hateful commentary, and goes out of their way to daily say something gross or disturbing about the Church or its people. To me, calling it out as justification is being nice.

JMS

[Kiviuq]

I certainly fail to see how it is unfair. Certainly it is justification when one goes out of their way to demonize something to a point you severely exadurate facts in order to gain favor for your cause. Just look at that other certain group who uses ugly terms, hateful commentary, and goes out of their way to daily say something gross or disturbing about the Church or its people. To me, calling it out as justification is being nice.

JMS

The point of the opening piece is that hurt feelings often lead to a perception that there are problems with church history or doctrines. I attempted to show that yes, this does happen, but not for the assumed reasons.

I see your point but you have taken what I said to an extreme case (and yes, I admit those cases do exist.) What is more common is what happens when an individual finds a reason to reevaluates his beliefs. The point of view that any found problems are not legitimate leads one to use the term “justification” in a negative way. Assuming a problem is legitimate then yes, I have “justified” my stance on that subject.

Thesometimesaint suggested above that testimonies need to be continually carefully cultivated in order to bloom. He successfully paraphrased my premise. And that is that if one immerses oneself in any cause then there is no room for alternate opinions to be entertained. It’s only when we reexamine and reevaluate that there is a chance for real growth. My proposition is that in some circumstances, being offended leads to this reevaluation.

[jskains]

The point of the opening piece is that hurt feelings often lead to a perception that there are problems with church history or doctrines. I attempted to show that yes, this does happen, but not for the assumed reasons.

I see your point but you have taken what I said to an extreme case (and yes, I admit those cases do exist.) What is more common is what happens when an individual finds a reason to reevaluates his beliefs. The point of view that any found problems are not legitimate leads one to use the term “justification” in a negative way. Assuming a problem is legitimate then yes, I have “justified” my stance on that subject.

Thesometimesaint suggested above that testimonies need to be continually carefully cultivated in order to bloom. He successfully paraphrased my premise. And that is that if one immerses oneself in any cause then there is no room for alternate opinions to be entertained. It’s only when we reexamine and reevaluate that there is a chance for real growth. My proposition is that in some circumstances, being offended leads to this reevaluation.

There is a large difference between reevaluation and straight digging. I have seen a lot of people who have left the Church who list their complaints, many of which become across as petty. It seems to me that they are creating volume to frankly "justify" their exit. For example, someone complained that the Church charged for the Ensign. Or that the tiles on the CoB are cracking, hence demonstrating that the Church did not use prophetic powers to determine that they chose a construction method that wasn't perfect....

And not to mention that so many of these start out with the list of how they all were former bishops, stake presidents, etc. etc.... One person claimed he had special access to the secret temple rooms that most memebers did not know about.

There is just intense amount of case building in a great deal of these exit stories that seems as if they really don't actually know that the Church is false, but rather are clinging to anything to justify their leaving.

*Shrug*

JMS

[cinepro]

I feel like a lot of these stories are racked with justifications. They seek to demonize the Church to be able to tell others, "see, see.. it's evil and that is why I am leaving"... This is followed with trying to get other people they know to do the same... Then they get even more angry that their friends don't run to their side, leaving the evil cult as well, so they use that as evidence of how brainwashed everyone is.

These patterns are so common, I wonder if in some instances they are even fake. If the "groves" of exit stories are not as numerous as we all think and that some of them are created by the same people who left the Church and looking for company. The ol' "misery desires company" effect.

If those exit stories bother you, then I would studiously avoid reading the testimonies of people who stay in the Church.

What you're noticing isn't so much a characteristic of disgruntled Em-Mo's, but instead are common patterns of behavior exhibited by people both leaving and joining churches.

Or to put it another way, if you're accusing those who leave the Church of having unclear motives and some form of self-justification for their actions (with a healthy dose of confirmation bias to boot), they may have all gotten those thought-habits from the same place.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I was never a Bishop, Stake President, or secret room cleaner at a Temple. I did serve a fairly successful mission that I enjoyed immensely. I was not offended, abused or ridiculed by anyone. I wasn't perfect, in deed, I was the vilest of sinners. But I was very dilligent in confessing what needed to be confessed, repenting, and seeking forgiveness. I researched the history and found things that contradicted what I had been taught. After further searching and prayer the Lord led me into the Restorationist RLDS Movement. I don't feel angry or decieved- most leaders are teaching what they were taught by their parents, which were likewise taught by their parents. I believe the members and leaders of the LDS Church are good honest people. I don't believe the LDS church is evil, I don't believe its leaders are evil. I just believe it teaches some doctrines that are incompatible with scripture. I fully expect to work alonside many members of the LDS Church in building New Jerusalem, just as I fully expect to work alongside Book of Mormon believers now in the other Restoration churches to build New Jerusalem. "Mormons" are my brothers and sisters in Jesus, and I love them.

[jskains]

I researched the history and found things that contradicted what I had been taught.

No, you didn't. You decided to interpret them differently. I have researched the history too, and I certainly do not agree that Joseph Smith's son was correct. Matter-of-fact, I found it interesting that he seemed to agree that Brigham Young was right in taking charge, but then disagreed with his departure to Utah. But then there it is. Rather than make the claim that your organization (whichever breakaway of a breakaway of a breakaway you are part of) is lying or teaching cotradictory things, I claim that your interpreting things in a different light...

As for Cinepro's comments, to me there is a huge difference between taking positively about things and spending effort to demonize them.

JMS

[Libs]

I think there are as many reasons for leaving the church, as there are people who have left.

I was certainly not offended by anyone in the church. I still have many good LDS friends...same friends I have had for the last ten years.

My problem with the church was not "petty". It was/is very foundational. I came to doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. That's a pretty important item, if you want to claim to be a Latter-day Saint.

[Ariarates]

When a person doesn't believe in Mormonism anymore, why would they feel the need to justify themselves? I think you justify doing something that you know is wrong. If you're in the church looking at those stories, it may look like they are justifying themselves because you believe they are wrong. From their perspective, they're just explaining their reasons.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is a large difference between reevaluation and straight digging. I have seen a lot of people who have left the Church who list their complaints, many of which become across as petty. It seems to me that they are creating volume to frankly "justify" their exit. For example, someone complained that the Church charged for the Ensign. Or that the tiles on the CoB are cracking, hence demonstrating that the Church did not use prophetic powers to determine that they chose a construction method that wasn't perfect....

And not to mention that so many of these start out with the list of how they all were former bishops, stake presidents, etc. etc.... One person claimed he had special access to the secret temple rooms that most memebers did not know about.

There is just intense amount of case building in a great deal of these exit stories that seems as if they really don't actually know that the Church is false, but rather are clinging to anything to justify their leaving.

Sure, some people may leave a religion for very private reasons and provide openly lousy or untruthful excuses for it. Some people just slink away quietly. Many become inactive in any religion, i.e., give up religion entirely. Very seldom do those who leave a religion do so for doctrinal reasons. The same applies to the reasons for adopting a new religion. Doctrine plays almost no role in conversion. Most reasons are actually sociological, or spiritual. Any LDS missionary (and any mission president) can tell you that the bearing of testimony plays a larger role in conversion than any number of lessons given.

Moreover, once that conversion takes place, retention depends upon good fellowshipping, challenges, and callings. Arriba y adelante! One's membership in organized religion must be meaningful in some way, or it will likely be discarded -- unless one's membership is simply based on culture and habit, or, as in the case of Jews, upon birth.

I recall one monk of the Vedanta Society from India telling a group (I was there) that it was not so important which religious path one took, except that a path is not a home, and that one must move forthrightly along that path and fully immerse oneself in that religious endeavor in order for it to have any substantive meaning. I feel so sorry for those who lose their way and end up making selfish hedonism their new religion. How easily people sell their own souls.

Some of the most important (self important?) members of the LDS Church in the 1830s left in a huff when they thought Joseph had gone too far. Some of them saw him as a fallen prophet. Were they correct (Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, et al.)?? Or was humility and obedience a problem for them? Joseph surrounded himself with powerful and independent-minded men, and he taught them to think for themselves -- but to obey God. The early Mormons were constantly tested and winnowed. Those who couldn't measure up were left by the wayside, and those who followed an American Moses to the Great Basin saw the astonishing result.

I am reminded of the early Jewish pioneers in Palestine. Life was hard, the suffering immense, but those who perservered had good reason for satisfaction in raising their Hebrew-speaking children to adulthood and establishing a Jewish state -- which their people had been praying for for almost 2,000 years. Life has continued to be tough there, and not a few Israelis have chosen to leave Israel for permanent residence in America or Europe.

[LDSToronto]

No, you didn't. You decided to interpret them differently. I have researched the history too, and I certainly do not agree that Joseph Smith's son was correct. Matter-of-fact, I found it interesting that he seemed to agree that Brigham Young was right in taking charge, but then disagreed with his departure to Utah. But then there it is. Rather than make the claim that your organization (whichever breakaway of a breakaway of a breakaway you are part of) is lying or teaching cotradictory things, I claim that your interpreting things in a different light...

As for Cinepro's comments, to me there is a huge difference between taking positively about things and spending effort to demonize them.

JMS

Well, there certainly is a pattern of condescension amongst the remaining faithful, when reacting to exit stories. One big circle.

H.

[Duncan]

I was never a Bishop, Stake President, or secret room cleaner at a Temple. I did serve a fairly successful mission that I enjoyed immensely. I was not offended, abused or ridiculed by anyone. I wasn't perfect, in deed, I was the vilest of sinners. But I was very dilligent in confessing what needed to be confessed, repenting, and seeking forgiveness. I researched the history and found things that contradicted what I had been taught. After further searching and prayer the Lord led me into the Restorationist RLDS Movement. I don't feel angry or decieved- most leaders are teaching what they were taught by their parents, which were likewise taught by their parents. I believe the members and leaders of the LDS Church are good honest people. I don't believe the LDS church is evil, I don't believe its leaders are evil. I just believe it teaches some doctrines that are incompatible with scripture. I fully expect to work alonside many members of the LDS Church in building New Jerusalem, just as I fully expect to work alongside Book of Mormon believers now in the other Restoration churches to build New Jerusalem. "Mormons" are my brothers and sisters in Jesus, and I love them.

Where did you serve your mission at?

[LDSToronto]

No, you didn't. You decided to interpret them differently. I have researched the history too, and I certainly do not agree that Joseph Smith's son was correct. Matter-of-fact, I found it interesting that he seemed to agree that Brigham Young was right in taking charge, but then disagreed with his departure to Utah. But then there it is. Rather than make the claim that your organization (whichever breakaway of a breakaway of a breakaway you are part of) is lying or teaching cotradictory things, I claim that your interpreting things in a different light...

As for Cinepro's comments, to me there is a huge difference between taking positively about things and spending effort to demonize them.

JMS

I'm unsure what you are saying here, but it sound a lot like you are condoning mindless patterns when those patterns build allegiance to the church, and you are deriding the same patterns when displayed as an opposing perspective.

Is that correct?

H.

[jskains]

Well, there certainly is a pattern of condescension amongst the remaining faithful, when reacting to exit stories. One big circle.

H.

I don't agree here. I think it is a reaction when peopl exit by stamping their feet and demanding the organization lied, etc. etc. and say it with authority, when some of us read the "lies" and it comes across as demonization.

But I haven't had much respect for "critics" as of late the more I read the comments section of the SLC Tribune's online website. Or the recent ugliy "blog" articles from the tribune either. Or listening for so many years to the folks at the "discussions" board (is it really a discussion?).

LDS, Inc..., Holy Joe Smith... Tommy Monson...... Photos of Monson in a diaper......

And then that recent CES employee story... It bugged me how much of it was manipulation, which built up irony when claiming the LDS church was manipulative.

Anyways... Just expressing my observations...

JMS

[jskains]

I'm unsure what you are saying here, but it sound a lot like you are condoning mindless patterns when those patterns build allegiance to the church, and you are deriding the same patterns when displayed as an opposing perspective.

Is that correct?

H.

What I am saying is there is a huge difference between digging for dirt verses expressing positives. I believe one can cause your actions to pattern differently than the other.

But I would equally condem those who say that an active LDS who dares to ask questions must be wanting to sin.... There is rarely any evidence of such. But again, that is driven by negative, rather than a postive motive.

JMS

[LDSToronto]

I don't agree here. I think it is a reaction when peopl exit by stamping their feet and demanding the organization lied, etc. etc. and say it with authority, when some of us read the "lies" and it comes across as demonization.

But I haven't had much respect for "critics" as of late the more I read the comments section of the SLC Tribune's online website. Or the recent ugliy "blog" articles from the tribune either. Or listening for so many years to the folks at the "discussions" board (is it really a discussion?).

LDS, Inc..., Holy Joe Smith... Tommy Monson...... Photos of Monson in a diaper......

And then that recent CES employee story... It bugged me how much of it was manipulation, which built up irony when claiming the LDS church was manipulative.

Anyways... Just expressing my observations...

JMS

JMS,

I respect your viewpoint here. Some of what you mention does go too far.

However, labeling everyone a critic is not the answer. There are those who have made a journey out of the church that is heartbreaking and emotional for them, and it is possible that those journeys have common themes. Think of it this way - would it be fair to label those who bear testimony on Fast & Testimony day, mindless followers? After all, most testimonies I hear rarely stray from, "I know the church is true, I know Jesus lives, I know that TSM is a prophet of God, I love my family, amen". Shall I call them faithless, or mindless, because they sound the same as the next guy?

H.

[LDSToronto]

What I am saying is there is a huge difference between digging for dirt verses expressing positives. I believe one can cause your actions to pattern differently than the other.

But I would equally condem those who say that an active LDS who dares to ask questions must be wanting to sin.... There is rarely any evidence of such. But again, that is driven by negative, rather than a postive motive.

JMS

What you call 'digging for dirt' others may call 'looking for answers'. I'm interested in hearing, JMS, what an acceptable critical exit story would sound like. Is it silent? Or is their a voice afforded those who have lost faith and feel they've found justification for that loss?

H.

[ozpoof]

I was reading one of the many stories posted on exmormon.org (bored, sorry)... And I hate to say it, but a lot of them are really they didn't like how some member or group of members are treating them, then they get angry at the Church, then they suddenly find all this negative stuff about the Church, believe it instantly, then "escape" the evil clutches.

It's an odd pattern, but I wonder if this pattern style actually goes beyond the Church. I wonder how many people have exited many organizations after having their feelings hurt, but search for dirt to help justify their ultimate decision to quit....

One I saw was an employee of the Church, teaching for CES. After getthing through the usual "I was a bishop, stake president, next in line to be a prophet" typical prolog, you find that they arrogantly decided they would teach how THEY interpret LDS history, and were upset when *gasp*, their employer was not happy. They were suprised that the Church wanted to have a say in his classroom lessons and eventually got pulled into meetings to discuss his behavior. So then he goes on to find dirt, including amazing things like that we teach Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins (news to me), and all sorts of other junk... So he decides to escape from the evil oppressive LDS Church.

I feel like a lot of these stories are racked with justifications. They seek to demonize the Church to be able to tell others, "see, see.. it's evil and that is why I am leaving"... This is followed with trying to get other people they know to do the same... Then they get even more angry that their friends don't run to their side, leaving the evil cult as well, so they use that as evidence of how brainwashed everyone is.

These patterns are so common, I wonder if in some instances they are even fake. If the "groves" of exit stories are not as numerous as we all think and that some of them are created by the same people who left the Church and looking for company. The ol' "misery desires company" effect.

Just thinking out loud..

JMS

I hardly think people leave the church because someone offended them. It takes a LOT to leave the Mormon church, especially if your spouse is still believing and teaches your children that Satan has control of daddy/mommy. People may start questioning because they are told ad nauseum that the leaders of the church are inspired of God, so when one makes a statement that they feel is NOT inspired, they may begin to doubt enough to get the courage to look outside the church for opinions. They may also feel that of the inspired leadership is so wrong on one point, maybe the warnings to focus only on edited, faith promoting history seem to be something to also be questioned.

Justifications? Aren't the claims that people leave simply because they are offended or sinners a way faithful members justify the leaving to themselves? After all, the church teaches people it's always their fault if their Mormon experience is miserable, and there can never be anything wrong with the church. How else can a true believer rationalize someone leaving?

If you read the writing style of the exit stories you see differences between them, but that's beside the point. Many exit stories contain personal details, but some list facts these people found out that convinced them they should leave. Why not try checking these facts out instead of doubting what is said?

Many people are angry with the church. They feel they were lied to all their lives. They have family problems because they must either choose to fake belief and retain family ties, or be honest with themselves and risk being ostracized or worse. In UT, word of a member leaving can result in business partnerships ending or people taking business elsewhere. It's not easy to leave. It's far easier to pretend you still believe.

[urroner]

Many people are angry with the church. They feel they were lied to all their lives. They have family problems because they must either choose to fake belief and retain family ties, or be honest with themselves and risk being ostracized or worse. In UT, word of a member leaving can result in business partnerships ending or people taking business elsewhere. It's not easy to leave. It's far easier to pretend you still believe.

Dang Oz, you seem to have a bone to pick, I just have a nose.

I live in the South and with a few changes in words, if you were talking about Evangelicals and the South, that would ring even more true that Mormons and Utah. Or if you were talking about agnostics or atheists and the New England area or if you were to change it to.....

Sadly, it happens all over dude, in all cultures and societies. Just not Mormons and only to the ones in Utah. Maybe you can't see the forest for the trees or maybe you can't see the trees because of the forest, or maybe you can see neither the forest nor the trees because you are so angry.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Where did you serve your mission at?

Argentina, Neuquen Mission, 1994-1996, under Pres Luis Coronel and later under Pres. Hector Huerta.