Feelings And History

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No, you didn't.

JMS

Alrighty then.

[ozpoof]

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.

...or maybe it's because I was born in the Mormon church and haven't much experience with other religions. I can say that a lapsed Catholic or Anglican isn't treated like a lapsed Mormon.

[Mudcat]

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....

Bold mine.

People have left my own particular Southern Baptist church over hurt feelings on some topic. Typically though they don't loose faith over it. Rather they find another church, typically a Baptist one on the other side of town or something like that.

I don't know the exact specifics of how wards/stakes and that sort of thing work. But I was thinking the CoJCoLDS has a particular place they want each person to go based on where they live. If that is the case, an LDS person who was hurt by someone to the point they no longer wanted to be around them, their situation might be very different.

I suppose they might feel a bit trapped by their circumstances and leave them looking for other plausible exit strategies from the situation.

[urroner]

...or maybe it's because I was born in the Mormon church and haven't much experience with other religions. I can say that a lapsed Catholic or Anglican isn't treated like a lapsed Mormon.

I've been around the block a couple of times and I can say that I have seen Catholics really mistreat a fallen Catholic. I don't know too many Anglicans so I can't much about them personally, though I think that the same could be said of them as of any culture.

People are people anywhere and the more things change, the more they stay the same. Applying a characteristic that is shared by all groups of people to just one of the groups and demanding that that group be rejected as evil for that characteristic is, at the least, naive, or, if meant purposefully, extremely disingenuous, hypocritical, and mendacious.

I don't know where you stand in that continuum, so I am not judging you especially since I have been known to do the same thing. All I'm saying is that one shouldn't be so quick to point the finger at one group for doing X while ignoring the fact that all groups do X, especially if one belongs to one of those other groups.

[Ariarates]

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

In my earlier post, I only addressed the second part of this sentence. Afterwards, something occurred to me about the first part: what's so bad about leaving an organization (any organization) that hurts your feelings?

[thews]

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

No, you didn't. You decided to interpret them differently.

This is a very judgmental statement for you to make about the belief of someone else.

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...

Your example doesn't encompass all that people find contradictory. Would you say the translation method of the book of Mormon teaches is accurate?

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

JMS

Why must an alternative opinion be deemed evil in its intent? In your example of attempting to categorize ex-Mormons and their motives as somehow being rooted in evil (anti-Mormon), can you acknowledge that they believe something different than you do and are merely expressing their thoughts? I've spoken with many Atheists and I don't need to categorize them as "anti-Christian" because they reject what I believe. Their responses are sometimes laced with sarcasm and disrespect for what I believe, but in that vein, my opinion of Scientology would follow the same level of disbelief (without the need to patronize what a Scientologist believes). I just don't see how the beliefs of others can be categorized as evil if they differ from mine.

[Deborah]

When a person doesn't believe in Mormonism anymore, why would they feel the need to justify themselves?

Well, why do they then? When I left the church I was attending to become Mormon I felt no need to go back to those in charge telling them how they lied to me and deceived me. I was just happy I found the truth and realized that it was what I had been searching for and others may not be searching for the same thing.

I do understand how all encompassing Mormonism is in one's life but I know too many people who have just dropped out without the need to explain and condemn. They might share their reasons with close friends but they aren't out there actively proselytizing against and trying to justify to the world their decision. In most cases it's not even a conscious decision, but a very gradual dropping off. Very often these people come back to church once they get that wake-up call of where they are heading.

[Deborah]

Many people are angry with the church. They feel they were lied to all their lives.

This really is the most bizarre of claims. The more I study the more I recognize that the basic things taught are the truth. There may be other stories that go along with the most simple explanation but that is for one to discover on further study and in the end it still comes out to the most basic principles being the most accurate. The Joseph Smith Papers project is demonstrating that.

I don't understand people who insist on telling "everything" when everything hasn't even been accurately documented. That was a great problem in the early days of the church, one which Joseph Smith recognized and tried to correct, even while being persecuted, falsely imprisoned and receiving revelation after revelation and keeping the church together.

[Deborah]

I suppose they might feel a bit trapped by their circumstances and leave them looking for other plausible exit strategies from the situation.

I think you make a very good point. For many people church is a once a week event. For Mormons it is their entire lifestyle, from what they eat and drink to how they react to their families and neighbors. It is a hard thing when one has lost faith and the family does mourn and probably reacts in ways that aren't helpful, leaving that person to look for ways to justify his leaving rather than just stop going to church. But that solution alienates a person further from family and friends and leaves bitterness in its wake.

[Ariarates]

Well, why do they then?

They don't, that was my point. They merely explain why they left, they give their reasons for this important decision. Only those who think the decision is wrong, interpret these reasons as justifications. If you don't think it's the wrong decision, there's nothing to justify.

[LeSellers]

what's so bad about leaving an organization (any organization) that hurts your feelings?

Nothing, unless the organization is God's one, true Church. Then there is something irrevocably bad about leaving it.

Lehi

[jskains]

I hardly think people leave the church because someone offended them.

Then you appear not to really read these stories. Many of them start with a Bishop doing something they don't like, or them deciding those around them were too judgemental. It's a common theme if you weed through the details And that too me is the key. It seems to have a core, then a buildup. Even in conversation with less active folks, expecially here in Utah, that is a huge theme. I have heard a LOT of people say "if I go back, they'll judge me".

Course quite a few also smoke, or drink, or have cheated on their wives and don't want to hear about it at Church.

JMS

[jskains]

This is a very judgmental statement for you to make about the belief of someone else.

Absolutely, as a response to his very judgemental statement about my own beliefs. When you go up to someone and say "and *I* found that your religion lied", you can't be suprised if you get a counter response.

Perhaps if you read all the way through (a skill known as reading comprehension), you'd see why I made the comment.

JMS

[Sleeper Cell]

Many people are angry with the church. They feel they were lied to all their lives.

Who do they think lied to them? Their parents? Their Sunday school teachers? Their church leaders? President Monson?

[thews]

Absolutely, as a response to his very judgemental statement about my own beliefs. When you go up to someone and say "and *I* found that your religion lied", you can't be suprised if you get a counter response.

A counter opinion explaining why you disagree is far different than one is categorically wrong for why they choose to believe what they do.

Perhaps if you read all the way through (a skill known as reading comprehension), you'd see why I made the comment.

JMS

If you feel justified to tell someone they are wrong for what they believe because it differs from your beliefs, communication has reached a impasse.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that if you are looking for an excuse ANY will do.

[Sleeper Cell]

What's so bad about leaving an organization (any organization) that hurts your feelings?

For starters, it is generally a sign of immaturity.

I have never belonged to any organization (including my own family) or held any job without having my feelings hurt at one time or another.

[Ariarates]

For starters, it is generally a sign of immaturity.

Mmm, I think quite the opposite is true. Getting out of harm's way is an excellent defense mechanism.

[jskains]

A counter opinion explaining why you disagree is far different than one is categorically wrong for why they choose to believe what they do

Again, reading comprehension is key here. I said no, he did not simply find things that were conflicting, rather he interpreted it that way. I attacked his methodology of thought, which is the same methodology that leads people to say they were "lied" to.

I really wish you'd actually read what I said. It would not force me to waste time explaining what has already been explained.

JMS

[jskains]

Mmm, I think quite the opposite is true. Getting out of harm's way is an excellent defense mechanism.

But not recognizing that jumping from a fire to lava fixes nothing is in fact immature and certainly not an excellet defense. The point is you can get your feelings hurt inside or outside the Church, meaning you have invalidated your reason for leaving. And I think building up a case against the Church is part of the justification process for making a very immature decision.

You don't look so silly if you leave cause Little Billy called you a name if you can have some dramatic reason (even if flawed).

JMS

[LDSToronto]

I think one has to view leaving the church, or inactivity, as a complex interaction of emotions and decision points. Boiling it down to 'offense' just doesn't portray the reality of most situations.

Offense has not been a common reason for inactivity, out here in the nether regions of the church. Rather, I've seen people become inactive due to

1. family/social dynamics (the church doesn't work for them in their social space)

2. commitment pressures (feel like too much is expected)

3. lack of original commitment - they got baptised, confirmed, and then withing a year or so, just sort of drift away

4. discovery of new information that brings about a new view on the church

So, I'm not sure why we keep coming back to offense as a prime reason for leaving the church, unless we are redefining offense.

H.

[LDSToronto]

But not recognizing that jumping from a fire to lava fixes nothing is in fact immature and certainly not an excellet defense. The point is you can get your feelings hurt inside or outside the Church, meaning you have invalidated your reason for leaving. And I think building up a case against the Church is part of the justification process for making a very immature decision.

You don't look so silly if you leave cause Little Billy called you a name if you can have some dramatic reason (even if flawed).

JMS

But, JMS, you are assuming that offense is at the bottom of most reasons for leaving the church. That's kind of like saying that naivete is the only reason someone stays a member of the church.

H.

[jskains]

But, JMS, you are assuming that offense is at the bottom of most reasons for leaving the church. That's kind of like saying that naivete is the only reason someone stays a member of the church.

H.

Again, if someone starts digging for dirt because they get mad at their bishop, is offense not at the bottom? Even moreso, cause they piled all this "evidence" on top? In several stories, they even included that they went out to have a beer or an iced tea (seriously) to solidify their rebellion.

A great deal of the "issues" of the Church are perspective issues. I believe in the BoA, feel there is evidence to its validity, so I assume we don't have all the facts. If I was mad at the Church, I could easily turn everything around in my head to prove the Church is wrong and lied.

Everything in the LDS faith (even Christianity... Even the existance of God Himself) can go both ways. Isn't it convenient that God can't be found and we have to use "faith" in order to conveniently explain away why He couldn't just show up at Time's Square and quickly get the world to bow? The entire system of religion can go either way. There is no smoking gun in either direction. So something triggers people to flip the switch and change perspective. And if being offended cause someone did you "wrong" is that trigger, is it not the bottom line of the decision?

JMS

[LDSToronto]

Again, if someone starts digging for dirt because they get mad at their bishop, is offense not at the bottom? Even moreso, cause they piled all this "evidence" on top? In several stories, they even included that they went out to have a beer or an iced tea (seriously) to solidify their rebellion.

A great deal of the "issues" of the Church are perspective issues. I believe in the BoA, feel there is evidence to its validity, so I assume we don't have all the facts. If I was mad at the Church, I could easily turn everything around in my head to prove the Church is wrong and lied.

Everything in the LDS faith (even Christianity... Even the existance of God Himself) can go both ways. Isn't it convenient that God can't be found and we have to use "faith" in order to conveniently explain away why He couldn't just show up at Time's Square and quickly get the world to bow? The entire system of religion can go either way. There is no smoking gun in either direction. So something triggers people to flip the switch and change perspective. And if being offended cause someone did you "wrong" is that trigger, is it not the bottom line of the decision?

JMS

Sure, *some* people may start digging after becoming offended,but can you acknowledge that offense is not a motivator in every case? Can you acknowledge that some people, upon hearing a rumour that the BoA is not what it claims to be, start digging and uncover other facts? And, further, can you acknowledge that upon discovery of these new facts, that some people can make an informed and balanced decision, in either direction, concerning the church?

H.

[Deborah]

They don't, that was my point. They merely explain why they left, they give their reasons for this important decision.

A reason should not involve calling people liars or trying to destroy that which they once believed or their family or friends still believe.