Exmormon Anger Toward The Lds Church.

[ERayR]

The angry ones have continually been abused by situations that cut into their family lives, such as feeling alienated from family. It could be from not being allowed to see a family member marry in the temple, or feeling like you are the black sheep, not feeling part of the mormon conversations that so often happen at family gatherings, feeling like they can't be their true selves because of that blasted church! So many variables.

But I agree, anger will get them nowhere fast. They need to show their friends and family that they're happy or it becomes a vicious cycle. The TBM's will see that the ex-mormon is angry or sad and they will strive even harder to get them back in the church.

Tacenda I must challenge your statement that the angry ones have been abused let alone continually. On occasion perhaps but I have seen it much more the other way. The angry ones are the abusers of family and friends by continually deriding their faith and activity in the church. I have seen many more cases of them cutting themselves of than the other way around. Most family and friends continue to hope for a change of heart until it becomes untenable to continue to suffer the unbelievers mocking and derision.

[teddyaware]

robucan, To clarify: What I should've said is, "It appears to me that what you might be engaging in on this board is an exercise in frustration ..." The word 'doing' is the operative word in the previous sentence. By employing it, in this particular instance, it is meant to convey the action of engaging in an activity that is akin to what the Savior described as "kicking against the pricks." Everyone's different, but if I were in your shoes I'd want to proactively move away from that which has caused so much pain in my life, and move on instead to something new where positive emotions are reinforced and magnified.

So, this begs the question: Have you found a religion, philosophy, or way of life that you believe is superior to the Mormonism you once embraced? If so, I hope you spend much more time paticipating in and learning about it than you do on this board. Otherwise, is it unkind or inaccurate for me to suggest that you appear to be behaving somewhat like Lot's wife, unable to stop yourself from looking back on your former home?

If you've found something that you believe is better than the LDS religion, serving and helping those with whom you share those beliefs is a noble pursuit, rather than spending a lot of time dredging up old LDS-inspired injuries and frustrations on this board You have a sharp, incisive mind; I'm sure it served you well and blessed others when you believed in and were active in the Church. Now, you have the opportunity to use that fine mind, and your good heart as well, to serve and lift others who share your vision -- focusing on the positve, not the negative.

Of course, after all is said and done, you have just as much right to be here as anyone else. And if you want to occupy your time here lamenting about having been 'coned' by Joseph Smith and Morminism, rather than moving on into a new life of positivity, thats your prerogative. This then begs another question: Are you spending time on this board because you subconsciously desire to regain your lost testimony, hoping someone on here can successfully help to quell your doubts disillusionments and fears? If so, I'd like to help you.

[why me]

Of course, after all is said and done, you have just as much right to be here as anyone else. And if you want to occupy your time here lamenting about having been 'coned' by Joseph Smith and Morminism,

It is obvious that Oliver did not consider himself conned. He went to his deathbed confirming his testimony, even in front of wife and child. If this was all a con, his wife and child should have been angry. But they believed oliver.

[Maestrophil]

There is a difference. You were angry at your exwife because you caught her cheating. You had proof. Would you be just as angry based on a feeling or speculation? I don't think so. Exmormons become angry based on speculation and a feeling. But not on proof such as you had. This is why I said that I can understand anger if it were proven that Joseph Smith was a con artist with the book of mormon. Then, anger would be justified and if the church leaders knew it were a con, then anger toward them would be justified too.

Why Me... I agree with what you are saying. I am saying even WITH proof I was decieved - my intitial anger did not become an obsession. If I am still angry years after the incident (especially an "alleged" or percieved one), it is likely a problem with me.

[ERayR]

Worst case scenario, IMO, is when a person leaves for their own reasons but is upset by all the time, money, etc. put into their membership and a faithful members simply replys "Well you didn't have to." or " You joined the church so that's your fault." or anything to that effect because it is an inappropriate means to relieve the church of any responsibility.

I will agree that it is each person's choice to join the church. I'm not disputing that. But when the members are threatened with loss of blessings or blessings withheld then a line has been crossed into spiritual and/or ecclesiastical abuse.

An example that is outside this case would be someone who stops paying their tithe. Okay...the ecclesiastical leaders have a duty to keep the member from entering the temple based on their standards. Therefore, the member no longer pays to enter the temple. And so we call it good...no big deal. The person can still take communion because that sacrament is not based on whether or not someone is a full tithe payer.

However, if a member begins to question and doubt certain claims then it is not appropriate to withhold a temple recommend or church sacraments because the member has done nothing wrong or out of harmony with the church's teachings.

As long as the person answers the temple recommend questions in the correct way a recommend is not withheld unless he/she is lying and the bishop knows it.

[robuchan]

robucan, To clarify: What I should've said is, "It appears to me that what you might be engaging in on this board is an exercise in frustration ..." The word 'doing' is the operative word in the previous sentence. By employing it, in this particular instance, it is meant to convey the action of engaging in an activity that is akin to what the Savior described as "kicking against the pricks." Everyone's different, but if I were in your shoes I'd want to proactively move away from that which has caused so much pain in my life, and move on instead to something new where positive emotions are reinforced and magnified.

So, this begs the question: Have you found a religion, philosophy, or way of life that you believe is superior to the Mormonism you once embraced? If so, I hope you spend much more time paticipating in and learning about it than you do on this board. Otherwise, is it unkind or inaccurate for me to suggest that you appear to be behaving somewhat like Lot's wife, unable to stop yourself from looking back on your former home?

If you've found something that you believe is better than the LDS religion, serving and helping those with whom you share those beliefs is a noble pursuit, rather than spending a lot of time dredging up old LDS-inspired injuries and frustrations on this board You have a sharp, incisive mind; I'm sure it served you well and blessed others when you believed in and were active in the Church. Now, you have the opportunity to use that fine mind, and your good heart as well, to serve and lift others who share your vision -- focusing on the positve, not the negative.

Of course, after all is said and done, you have just as much right to be here as anyone else. And if you want to occupy your time here lamenting about having been 'coned' by Joseph Smith and Morminism, rather than moving on into a new life of positivity, thats your prerogative. This then begs another question: Are you spending time on this board because you subconsciously desire to regain your lost testimony, hoping someone on here can successfully help to quell your doubts disillusionments and fears? If so, I'd like to help you.

Thanks for the lecture, but I'm doing just fine in my life. I enjoy my life, and I enjoy the time I spend here.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda I must challenge your statement that the angry ones have been abused let alone continually. On occasion perhaps but I have seen it much more the other way. The angry ones are the abusers of family and friends by continually deriding their faith and activity in the church. I have seen many more cases of them cutting themselves of than the other way around. Most family and friends continue to hope for a change of heart until it becomes untenable to continue to suffer the unbelievers mocking and derision.

Well...now I am speaking for myself here....Just a few people know of my struggles so far..but two in particular, my husband and a gal that is homebound that I take to Dr's. visits and go on walks with her nearly every day, these two can put me in a tail spin sometimes with their comments. Even though my husband is concerned as well with certain things in our churches history I still place him as a believer. The gal that is homebound only thinks I'm disaffected because of JS polygamy and the racist scripture that has since changed in the BOM, white and delightsome vs. pure and delightsome, and the thing that prompted me to say this is the subject of the "cross" and my mentioning that it is not used much in the church. She continually chides me for wasting time on the internet looking for anti mormon things, been there done that and have moved on though. But the straw that broke the camels back was when she told my visiting teacher who is also the 1st counselor in the RS that I'm leaning on being anti and believe in wearing crosses now, right in front of me and my VT!! It was very abusive. She still gets on my case. And my husband he is hard to be around because he'll jump to conclusions on about everything I do. He doesn't think I'm sincere in GD class and thinks I'm making fun of the lesson or teacher, where in fact I'm actually enjoying the lesson (not always) and love the ward members, but he'll always say I'm against them, where I'm the one that loves VT'ing way more then he ever loved HT'ing. And he has no basis for the accusations, he is just going off the fact that I struggle to believe in the church anymore. I feel emotionally abused in this way. It's certainly not quality of life. And of course I do live in the Mor-cor in Davis County Utah. Not very diverse at all.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Well...now I am speaking for myself here....Just a few people know of my struggles so far..but two in particular, my husband and a gal that is homebound that I take to Dr's. visits and go on walks with her walker, these two can put me in a tail spin sometimes with their comments. Even though my husband is concerned as well with certain things in our churches history I still place him as a believer. The gal that is homebound only thinks I'm disaffected because of JS polygamy and the racist scripture that has since changed in the BOM, white and delightsome vs. pure and delightsome, and the thing that prompted me to say this is the subject of the "cross" and my mentioning that it is not used much in the church. She continually chides me for wasting time on the internet looking for anti mormon things, been there done that and have moved on though. But the straw that broke the camels back was when she told my visiting teacher and the 1st counselor in the RS that I'm leaning on being anti and believe in wearing crosses now, right in front of me and my VT!! It was very abusive. She still gets on my case. And my husband he is hard to be around because he'll jump to conclusions on about everything I do. He doesn't think I'm sincere in GD class and thinks I'm making fun of the lesson or teacher, where in fact I'm actually enjoying the lesson (not always) and love the ward members, but he'll always say I'm against them, where I'm the one that loves VT'ing way more then he ever loved HT'ing. And he has no basis for the accusations, he is just going off the fact that I struggle to believe in the church anymore. I feel emotionally abused in this way. It's certainly not quality of life. And of course I do live in the Mor-cor in Davis County Utah. Not very diverse at all.

Sorry about your experiences but my post was from my experiences over many years.

[Tacenda]

Sorry about your experiences but my post was from my experiences over many years.

I've been going through this for several years and could write a book on it. But chose just a few examples.

[teddyaware]

Thanks for the lecture, but I'm doing just fine in my life. I enjoy my life, and I enjoy the time I spend here.

Glad to hear it!

[CASteinman]

I'm as friendly towards the LDS church as you can possibly be for one who has lost their belief in it. I feel anger from time to time that the church dominated my life for so long. I feel angry that I was tricked and that my parents were tricked and so on before them. I feel angry that I sacrificed a lot of things to the church. Sometimes with a return in the form of character development, but sometimes with no absolutely no return. I feel angry that in my family of origin, people are judged on their standing in the church. Wow, I sound angry. I'm not. This is just an explanation of why even someone like me who loves the church, still participates, hopes my children gain testimonies of it, etc, yet I still feel some anger from time to time on some things.

You sound kinda mixed up. Saying you are not angry.. then detailing the anger that supposedly you don't have and finishing up saying that you still feel some anger.

[robuchan]

You sound kinda mixed up. Saying you are not angry.. then detailing the anger that supposedly you don't have and finishing up saying that you still feel some anger.

Thanks for your concern.

Was this thread an honest inquiry into why exmo's feel anger, or was is a baiting to get an exmo to admit some anger and then bash him for it? I failed, obviously. Well done, guys.

When the chuch is as important to someone as it was to me for a long time, and you come to find it is a false, it is confusing. It takes some time to sort it all out.

[Calm]

We always believe our anger is justified, in the moment.

Maybe it is my psych classes or growing up with a mom who was never angry, but I tend to always think of my anger as unjustified first and only after attempting to examine what is really making me angry do I feel okay about it if I have valid reasons for it (which means most of the time I agree with my first impulse).

Anger can be a great motivator for change but it tends to eat away at one from the inside out, so I don't think the energy surge is worth it and in the end will be more destructive than constructive.

Edited August 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I've been going through this for several years and could write a book on it. But chose just a few examples.

I probably have you beat in years and could probably match you experience for experience but to what avail.

[Tacenda]

I probably have you beat in years and could probably match you experience for experience but to what avail.

(I should have added "if I could only write coherently".)

ERayR, I didn't know you had your own struggles too.

[ERayR]

Thanks for your concern.

Was this thread an honest inquiry into why exmo's feel anger, or was is a baiting to get an exmo to admit some anger and then bash him for it? I failed, obviously. Well done, guys.

When the chuch is as important to someone as it was to me for a long time, and you come to find it is a false, it is confusing. It takes some time to sort it all out.

I know you think you found it false and to your way of thing you really believe it is. However, others have looked at the same evidence that you find so compelling and have been less than impressed with it. When something is as important to you as you say the church was why don't you give at least as great a weight to the evidences in favor as you do those against. However you have been through all this and have decided what you want and for your own reasons. That is fine with me but please refrain from expecting me to take your subjective conclusions as objective fact. Respect my right to my choice to believe and I will respect your right to choose to disbelieve.

[ERayR]

(I should have added "if I could only write coherently".)

ERayR, I didn't know you had your own struggles too.

Do you honestly believe you are the only one who has ever struggled.

[CASteinman]

Rough Stone Rolling is the best source I know of and in it there is an account of JS receiving the MP after a trip to Colesville which would have placed it in 1830, not 1829.

Seems that Bushman does not really conclude it happened then, only presents an argument supporting the idea. However, that argument is also pretty weak -- depending as it does upon weak recollections.

[robuchan]

I know you think you found it false and to your way of thing you really believe it is. However, others have looked at the same evidence that you find so compelling and have been less than impressed with it. When something is as important to you as you say the church was why don't you give at least as great a weight to the evidences in favor as you do those against. However you have been through all this and have decided what you want and for your own reasons. That is fine with me but please refrain from expecting me to take your subjective conclusions as objective fact. Respect my right to my choice to believe and I will respect your right to choose to disbelieve.

Wow, I have been about as respectful and sweet and kind as I possibly could in this thread, yet I was continually jabbed by several including you. And your parting words to me are to tell me to respect your right to believe? OK, done.

[Tacenda]

Do you honestly believe you are the only one who has ever struggled.

Yes, haha

Edited August 20, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

Wow, I have been about as respectful and sweet and kind as I possibly could in this thread, yet I was continually jabbed by several including you. And your parting words to me are to tell me to respect your right to believe? OK, done.

Thanks I did not think I was being unkind but only spelling out the guidelines for for civil discourse. I hope you can see my post not as antagonistic but as laying the ground work for mutual respect.

[ERayR]

Yes, haha

Good, now that has been cleared up perhaps you will understand my posts as experiential insight not empty platitudes.

[CASteinman]

It seems to me that this thread was initiated with too simple a view of anger itself.

Anger comes in different modes and it is possible that some people may exhibit a variety of these modes at different times and for different reasons.

There is a type of Anger that one would claim is "righteous Anger". I suspect we are rarely able to experience righteous anger as flawed human beings because we are so much into ourselves. Righteous Anger would come about as a result of Godly Unhappiness over Sin -- and not merely over Sin but over the effects of Sin on the innocent -- even when we are not in any way remotely able to experience those effects. (And it is pretty hard for us to be in that mode -- since in a way, as Donne said -- no man is an island).

So moving from Godly Righteous Anger... lets focus on the more ordinarily experienced anger in moral humans:

First there is the type of anger that is seemingly just "part" of a persons personality. Sullen or churlish people regardless of the state of affairs comes to mind. It is entirely possible that some ex Mormons are just angry people. I know a person like that -- a woman who could never see any good in anything around her. Certainly terrible things had happened to her, but she allowed those to remain with her and none of the good to sink in. She was angry, bitter and depressed -- as a personality. I don't believe she was always this way, but became this way and then left the Church. The Church was frequently a focus of her hatred though.

Then there are people who are angry at the instant because there is some immediate perceived danger and anger is their uncontrolled reaction to help energize them to resist this threat. I had a friend who, upon certain provocation, would have a strange atmosphere come over him and he told me that his vision would change, he would see things in shades of red and the object of his anger was in sharp focus while other things were somewhat blurred out. This murderous mood would pass in a matter of minutes -- less than an hour for sure. I suspect some ex Mormons might have experienced such moods but to my eye, this cannot be common.

In the middle are people who have a focal point of anger and it may affect their personality to a degree but does not take them over so that their personalities seem to be permanently adjusted. They are not angry in the out of control manner of the maniac, nor are they angry as a condition of existence. Rather they are angry in a sort of chosen way -- choosing to be angry. Typically, this anger, if drilled down carefully by therapists will be found to be focused in some sort of fear. At higher levels it is expressed as anger at injustice -- my spouse cheated.... my boss abused me.... the Church lied to me, etc. But as it is drilled down, it is uncovered as an expression of fear and especially fear of vulnerability. Sometimes a related feeling is shame rather than fear of vulnerability.

I could easily see this as being a mode for ex Mormons as well.

However, as people differ -- and as these various types of anger may exist upon a continuum -- it is not particularly fair to ask "Why are you angry?" when each person may be different in how they respond to the world. There could be a blending and a merging of modes and in heightened emotional states the "why" of things sort of dissolves into "just because".

As a side note, I would add, that sometimes our bodies produced chemicals that "feel" like various emotions. We then react to those feelings and believe we are experiencing those emotions -- and look around for a reason for that feeling. (this has been studied scientifically). So this would be a fourth way that someone might have an anger state -- and not really be totally clear on "why". Yet anger would be the appropriate description for how they feel and act.

One thing that I believe is noteworthy: Mortal Anger is a motivator to action and helps people who feel somehow threatened as though they have an independence and freedom to act that is empowering. I say this is noteworthy because Faith produces the same sense of independence and freedom to act that is empowering but Faith comes from a different source. Anger -- as we humans seem to experience it -- is a form of counterfeit faith and it can be an organizing principle around which people may work to accomplish goals. Even without that organization, it can feel empowering and powerful to people and thus can even be addictive. But, for some people, the energy from it may be harnessed and turned and might result in improvement -- not if it lasts and lasts -- but if it eventually gives way to something positive.

The light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[robuchan]

It seems to me that this thread was initiated with too simple a view of anger itself.

Anger comes in different modes and it is possible that some people may exhibit a variety of these modes at different times and for different reasons.

There is a type of Anger that one would claim is "righteous Anger". I suspect we are rarely able to experience righteous anger as flawed human beings because we are so much into ourselves. Righteous Anger would come about as a result of Godly Unhappiness over Sin -- and not merely over Sin but over the effects of Sin on the innocent -- even when we are not in any way remotely able to experience those effects. (And it is pretty hard for us to be in that mode -- since in a way, as Donne said -- no man is an island).

So moving from Godly Righteous Anger... lets focus on the more ordinarily experienced anger in moral humans:

First there is the type of anger that is seemingly just "part" of a persons personality. Sullen or churlish people regardless of the state of affairs comes to mind. It is entirely possible that some ex Mormons are just angry people. I know a person like that -- a woman who could never see any good in anything around her. Certainly terrible things had happened to her, but she allowed those to remain with her and none of the good to sink in. She was angry, bitter and depressed -- as a personality. I don't believe she was always this way, but became this way and then left the Church. The Church was frequently a focus of her hatred though.

Then there are people who are angry at the instant because there is some immediate perceived danger and anger is their uncontrolled reaction to help energize them to resist this threat. I had a friend who, upon certain provocation, would have a strange atmosphere come over him and he told me that his vision would change, he would see things in shades of red and the object of his anger was in sharp focus while other things were somewhat blurred out. This murderous mood would pass in a matter of minutes -- less than an hour for sure. I suspect some ex Mormons might have experienced such moods but to my eye, this cannot be common.

In the middle are people who have a focal point of anger and it may affect their personality to a degree but does not take them over so that their personalities seem to be permanently adjusted. They are not angry in the out of control manner of the maniac, nor are they angry as a condition of existence. Rather they are angry in a sort of chosen way -- choosing to be angry. Typically, this anger, if drilled down carefully by therapists will be found to be focused in some sort of fear. At higher levels it is expressed as anger at injustice -- my spouse cheated.... my boss abused me.... the Church lied to me, etc. But as it is drilled down, it is uncovered as an expression of fear and especially fear of vulnerability. Sometimes a related feeling is shame rather than fear of vulnerability.

I could easily see this as being a mode for ex Mormons as well.

However, as people differ -- and as these various types of anger may exist upon a continuum -- it is not particularly fair to ask "Why are you angry?" when each person may be different in how they respond to the world. There could be a blending and a merging of modes and in heightened emotional states the "why" of things sort of dissolves into "just because".

As a side note, I would add, that sometimes our bodies produced chemicals that "feel" like various emotions. We then react to those feelings and believe we are experiencing those emotions -- and look around for a reason for that feeling. (this has been studied scientifically). So this would be a fourth way that someone might have an anger state -- and not really be totally clear on "why". Yet anger would be the appropriate description for how they feel and act.

One thing that I believe is noteworthy: Mortal Anger is a motivator to action and helps people who feel somehow threatened as though they have an independence and freedom to act that is empowering. I say this is noteworthy because Faith produces the same sense of independence and freedom to act that is empowering but Faith comes from a different source. Anger -- as we humans seem to experience it -- is a form of counterfeit faith and it can be an organizing principle around which people may work to accomplish goals. Even without that organization, it can feel empowering and powerful to people and thus can even be addictive. But, for some people, the energy from it may be harnessed and turned and might result in improvement -- not if it lasts and lasts -- but if it eventually gives way to something positive.

The light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

I think you're way overthinking it.

Compare it to:

--being angry at an ex who you loved and cheated on you

--being angry at being laid off by a company that didn't appreciate you

--being angry at someone who you trusted in an investment and conned you out of money

--being angry at giving your whole Saturday to help a poor neighbor put in their grass and then see them wasting money on frivolous things

--being angry with yourself maybe for not protecting yourself properly in any of these instances

--being angry that these parties are out there maybe harming others

Maybe the anger stays a while. Maybe just a grrr that made me mad and then you move on.

[CASteinman]

Thanks for your concern.

Was this thread an honest inquiry into why exmo's feel anger, or was is a baiting to get an exmo to admit some anger and then bash him for it? I failed, obviously. Well done, guys.

When the chuch is as important to someone as it was to me for a long time, and you come to find it is a false, it is confusing. It takes some time to sort it all out.

Perhaps you are a bit touchy.

I was just pointing out that maybe there was more anger around than you wanted to talk about or admit. I think recognizing and accepting our feelings is necessary and is even a necessary step toward Godliness.

However, at some point the reptilian and mammalian brains must fall under the control of the human brain for something to be made of that. At that point, even while the reptile and mammals in us would be fearing and raging and angry, the human should resolve: Is this really right? Is this a good thing? Should I change?

At which point it might be useful to no longer simply drench in emotion but also step back and examine things in a light of charity and thoughtfulness.

Which I suspect may be part of the concept behind the OP -- has it been examined in that charitable and thoughtful manner?

I recall that in overcoming his madness, John Nash had to focus on reason and reasoning to make his way to the clarity of sanity. Not that he did not spend a lot of time in thought and rationalization in his insane time -- in fact thoughts and rationalizations filled his mind to the brim and overflowing. No, he had to step back and objectively determine that his emotional reaction to things had to be sublimed to a greater -- gooder -- mind inside him.

His genius made him mad and it made him sane again.

So also, maybe, for people who get angry at the Church.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman