Leave It, But Can't Leave It Alone

[Robert F. Smith]

Glenn L. Pace, then a member of the LDS Presiding Bishopric, said:

 

"You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."  April 1989, LDS Conference Address, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng .

 

Does this notion comport with the view of philosopher Max Scheler, that “an apostate is not a man who once in his life radically changes his deepest religious, political, legal, or philosophical convictions – even when this change is not continuous, but involves  sudden rupture.  Even after his conversion, the true ‘apostate’ is not primarily committed to the positive contents of his new belief and to the realization of its aims.  He is motivated by the struggle against the old belief and lives only for its negation.  The apostate does not affirm his new convictions for their own sake, he is engaged in a continuous chain of acts of revenge against his own spiritual past.  In reality, he remains captive of this past, and the new faith is merely a handy frame of reference for negating and rejecting the old.”  Scheler, Ressentiment, ed. L. Coser, trans. W. Holdheim (NY: Schocken Books, 1972), 66-67, cited in James Breech, Jesus and Postmodernism (Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 83 n. 40. 

 

Is this merely an affectation, or is it a more serious psychological disorder? Indeed, is it more characteristic of ex-Mormons than of ex-Christians of other sorts?  If so, why?

 

[Rivers]

I think its just human nature.  A similar thing happens when people join the church.  They want to tell everyone about it. 

[Palerider]

I think Rivers is close to the truth here. The real psychological disorder is when people who are confronted with the truth about their current worldview don't know how to handle the cognitive dissonance that follows. See some of Festinger's studies.

In some cases even when the validity of the belief system is utterly shattered, the members will build constructs that allow them to keep believing, sometimes more vehemently than before.

So to address your original question, even in the animal kingdom once a possible threat has been recognized or identified, the alarm is raised to protect others of the group who may not be aware and in some cases an effort is made to drive off or harass the intruder.

It's a very natural reaction in the human family to "call out" someone whom is perceived as a "flim flam" artist. No one wants to see others fall prey to something or someone who has been less than trustworthy in the past.

Bro. Pace's response is typical but if looked at in a clearer light, it's more of a scare tactic used to terrify members, rather than allow them to wonder, "Would someone leave the church for reasons OTHER THAN SIN?

"IT'S THE DEVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Edited September 14, 2013 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

Palerider you're spot on! Maybe the ones that leave it alone are those that wanted a change of lifestyle or in some people's opinion, want to sin. Usually called a Jackmormon. I'd venture to say the ones that can't leave it alone are the ones that were once fully invested in it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think Rivers is close to the truth here. The real psychological disorder is when people who are confronted with the truth about their current worldview don't know how to handle the cognitive dissonance that follows. See some of Festinger's studies.

In some cases even when the validity of the belief system is utterly shattered, the members will build constructs that allow them to keep believing, sometimes more vehemently than before.

So to address your original question, even in the animal kingdom once a possible threat has been recognized or identified, the alarm is raised to protect others of the group who may not be aware and in some cases an effort is made to drive of or harass the intruder.

It's a very natural reaction in the human family to "call out" someone whom is percieved as a "flim flam" artist. No one wants to see others fall prey to something or someone who has been less than trustworthy in the past.

Bro. Pace's response is typical but if looked at in a clearer light, it's more of a scare tactic used to terrify members, rather than allow them to wonder, "Would someone leave the church for reasons OTHER THAN SIN?

"IT'S THE DEVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!"

A thoughtful response, Palerider, but does this apply as well to ex-Methodists?  Would it even matter to an ex-Methodist?  Is Mormonism a special case, calling for the bunco squad to take on the case?  Does the nature of the claims being made set the Mormons apart for special treatment?

 

Should Mormons accept their special status as a badge of honor?

[Tacenda]

A thoughtful response, Palerider, but does this apply as well to ex-Methodists? Would it even matter to an ex-Methodist? Is Mormonism a special case, calling for the bunco squad to take on the case? Does the nature of the claims being made set the Mormons apart for special treatment?

Should Mormons accept their special status as a badge of honor?

What are you talking about? And forgive me for horning in. The Methodists believe similarily to other non-LDS Christians, I see a big difference in how an ex Methodist would feel. They are still Christian so no problem there. But to a Mormon, an ex Mormon is a whole different ballgame for having left the one true church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

A similar thing happens when people join the church.  They want to tell everyone about it. 

 

I have seen hundreds of converts excitedly tell others about what they have found. I have never once -- not even as a missionary -- heard a convert to 'Mormonism' seek to tear down, disparage, or warn against his previous faith, and I have known converts from almost every imagineable branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, agnosticism, and atheism.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

I have seen hundreds of converts excitedly tell others about what they have found. I have never once -- not even as a missionary -- heard a convert to 'Mormonism' seek to tear down, disparage, or warn against his previous faith, and I have known converts from almost every imagineable branch of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, agnosticism, and atheism.

That should tell you something.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That should tell you something.

 

It does. See the OP.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[jwhitlock]

Given the hatred some apostates demonstrate not only against the church, but also against its members, I'd say Elder Pace is spot on.

 

Interestingly enough, when someone embraces the restored gospel, they often are filled with the peace that comes from making the covenants. It's why they typically don't denigrate what they have left behind.

 

On the other hand, the fruits of believing that anti-Mormon tripe is some kind of "truth" exposing the church as some kind of "flim-flam" are often the kind of hatred described in the OP. It's evidence of the rejection of the testimony once received.

 

I suspect that those who leave the church but who do not fight against it often still retain at least some vestiges of their spiritual testimonies that hold that hatred at bay. Only when the testimony is rejected do we tend to see the kind of stuff true apostates demonstrate.

[Storm Rider]

I think Rivers is close to the truth here. The real psychological disorder is when people who are confronted with the truth about their current worldview don't know how to handle the cognitive dissonance that follows. See some of Festinger's studies.In some cases even when the validity of the belief system is utterly shattered, the members will build constructs that allow them to keep believing, sometimes more vehemently than before.So to address your original question, even in the animal kingdom once a possible threat has been recognized or identified, the alarm is raised to protect others of the group who may not be aware and in some cases an effort is made to drive of or harass the intruder.It's a very natural reaction in the human family to "call out" someone whom is percieved as a "flim flam" artist. No one wants to see others fall prey to something or someone who has been less than trustworthy in the past.Bro. Pace's response is typical but if looked at in a clearer light, it's more of a scare tactic used to terrify members, rather than allow them to wonder, "Would someone leave the church for reasons OTHER THAN SIN?"IT'S THE DEVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!"

You example of warning others of danger does not seem very good. The apostate is enraged with anger and must destroy the Church. That is not human nature, but something else.

[mfbukowski]

Glenn L. Pace, then a member of the LDS Presiding Bishopric, said:

 

"You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."  April 1989, LDS Conference Address, online at https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng .

 

Does this notion comport with the view of philosopher Max Scheler, that “an apostate is not a man who once in his life radically changes his deepest religious, political, legal, or philosophical convictions – even when this change is not continuous, but involves  sudden rupture.  Even after his conversion, the true ‘apostate’ is not primarily committed to the positive contents of his new belief and to the realization of its aims.  He is motivated by the struggle against the old belief and lives only for its negation.  The apostate does not affirm his new convictions for their own sake, he is engaged in a continuous chain of acts of revenge against his own spiritual past.  In reality, he remains captive of this past, and the new faith is merely a handy frame of reference for negating and rejecting the old.”  Scheler, Ressentiment, ed. L. Coser, trans. W. Holdheim (NY: Schocken Books, 1972), 66-67, cited in James Breech, Jesus and Postmodernism (Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 83 n. 40. 

 

Is this merely an affectation, or is it a more serious psychological disorder? Indeed, is it more characteristic of ex-Mormons than of ex-Christians of other sorts?  If so, why?

It's incredibly hard to give up deeply-engrained thought patterns even after one knows they are wrong, and it's hard to admit that.

To quote those deep thinkers, Jefferson Airplane

 

When the truth is found

To be lies

You know the joy

Within you dies.

 

Don't you want somebody to love?  Don't you need somebody to love?

 

[CA Steve]

 

Is this merely an affectation, or is it a more serious psychological disorder? Indeed, is it more characteristic of ex-Mormons than of ex-Christians of other sorts?  If so, why?

 

After watching Dateline tonight, which featured a two hour special on the FLDS, it seems that the exFLDS have the same problem.

[omni]

A thoughtful response, Palerider, but does this apply as well to ex-Methodists?  Would it even matter to an ex-Methodist?  Is Mormonism a special case, calling for the bunco squad to take on the case?  Does the nature of the claims being made set the Mormons apart for special treatment?

 

Should Mormons accept their special status as a badge of honor?

Robert,

I think it has to do with the efforts expended to be a devout LDS, which in general are considerably more than that of the Catholic or mainline protestant churches. It really is a way of life for us that encompasses every aspect of it. We believe we're the one true church, obey the WoW, dress distinctly, pay tithing, have high moral values, all of which can help create tight niche communities, but lead to being clannish.

Once one loses their faith in the church it can really turn their world upside down because for many members most of the major decisions in their life were made based on LDS principles. They often begin to question if they had made the right decisions in the past and will they make the right choices in the future-their entire world view may change.

Obviously every major faith has it's own cultures and adherents that practice to varying degrees, but it seems that those that require the most commitment (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) create the most critical exmembers.

[Questing Beast]

Belief that is shattered produces the same effects depending on the dependency of belief. The deeper the dependency the greater the sense of betrayal. I don't think that Mormons have any especially deeper sense of betrayal. Look at Richard Dawkins, now there is an angry man who hates all dogmatic religion....

[Stargazer]

Dawkins does not hate dogmatic religion, he hates religion.  And it was Darwin and evolution that turned him into an atheist.

[Palerider]

 

A thoughtful response, Palerider, but does this apply as well to ex-Methodists?  Would it even matter to an ex-Methodist?  Is Mormonism a special case, calling for the bunco squad to take on the case?  Does the nature of the claims being made set the Mormons apart for special treatment?

 

Should Mormons accept their special status as a badge of honor?

 

Having had a little more contact with members of other churches since "leaving" the LDS faith (moreso I just disagree with some, but not all of their doctrine and foundational stories), It seems that in the general christian world, meandering from one protestant faith to another where one feels more comfortable is not an uncommon or totally unexpected thing. A little dismay from family members perhaps but not a huge deal.

The issue which sets Mormonism apart, definitely has to be the claim that, "We are the one and only true church on the earth and we have God's ear and he whispers in ours."

That claim puts the church in the position, and I think the temple "covenants" bear this out, of literally being able to require the member's life to be sacrificed for the church if need be. At the very least it is implied. And let us not forget that the individuals' salvation is at stake here.

When you have and wield that kind of power over someone and at some point they reach the conclusion they're being taken for a ride, then yes, you're going to have a relationship more akin to that of Luther and the Pope in the 1500's than just switching from the baptists to the methodists.

And I see it as interesting that the Pope leveled similar charges against Luther, as Bro. Pace does against Mormon "apostates". I'll leave it to all of you to determine who was devilish and who wasn't in that case.

I did think though, that Luther started out attempting to be a loyal dissenter and was framed as an apostate rather than choosing to be one. Might be wrong there.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Palerider

[Hamba Tuhan]

Obviously every major faith has it's own cultures and adherents that practice to varying degrees, but it seems that those that require the most commitment (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) create the most critical exmembers.

 

The very last person I taught as a missionary was a woman who'd been reared in the Jehovah's Witnesses church. (She was baptised the Sunday after I left the mission.) Again, I never once heard her speak ill of her former faith.

 

It seems to me that those who are truly at peace with their current location have little need to disparage where they've been or the journeys they've taken to get there.

[canard78]

I've often considered the example of the pendulum.

 

I've known members who only seem to be a little 'in' (some might call them 'semi-active'). They swing, on a shallow arc, between activity and inactivity. It takes only a little for them to get out of the habit of attending. But equally only a little effort on behalf of friends or home teachers to get them attending again.

 

In contrast I recognise the description in the OP of people who are on a pendulum that has swung far further 'into' Mormonism. For them to leave the faith it often appears to need a stronger 'swing' in the other direction, the momentum of which has the ability to make them go further 'out' and as such against Mormonism.

 

But this is not inevitable. There are those who seem to have the maturity to be both deeply in, but in leaving, do so with dignity. Something is able to 'catch' their swing out so they leave quietly and without venom or antagonism. That 'something' might be their own spiritual/mental maturity. It might also be the reaction from a spouse or church leader. When a spouse who leaves is put under a lot of pressure by the still active spouse then it's probably more likely that this ads to the pressure that increases the momentum of the swing and the distance 'out.'

 

I've known several people who have been able to do this. They have left the church (after being 'deeply in') and yet are also very comfortable leaving it alone. I'm related to at least two.

 

It should be borne in mind by those who participate on these boards that the type of people you interact with, due to your apologetic interests, are more likely to be those who won't 'leave it alone.' Those who participate in, for example, the RfM message board are probably not representative of the people who leave the church. They are a minority group (a few 1000 at most) of a group that numbers in the multi-millions of people who have left Mormonism.

 

Those who leave and leave it alone do so quietly and are therefore not noticed. Those who leave and make a noise about it are those who are noticed. As a result we assume that this is the experience of all who leave. Confirmation bias is also a risk.

[Tacenda]

Robert,

I think it has to do with the efforts expended to be a devout LDS, which in general are considerably more than that of the Catholic or mainline protestant churches. It really is a way of life for us that encompasses every aspect of it. We believe we're the one true church, obey the WoW, dress distinctly, pay tithing, have high moral values, all of which can help create tight niche communities, but lead to being clannish.

Once one loses their faith in the church it can really turn their world upside down because for many members most of the major decisions in their life were made based on LDS principles. They often begin to question if they had made the right decisions in the past and will they make the right choices in the future-their entire world view may change.

Obviously every major faith has it's own cultures and adherents that practice to varying degrees, but it seems that those that require the most commitment (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) create the most critical exmembers.

Exactly. But some should definitely move on and not hurt testimonies, unless they are prepared to take the fallout. I'm not advocating for the anti mormon. And have a lot of respect for those that don't try to tear down those testimonies. It would be like an Atheist coming in and destroying a person's faith in God. That's why I think it's so great that the church is becoming transparent with things they worried may be faith crushing. The anti's won't really have anything to warn anyone about. It will be up to the individual or member to decide if they'll move on with the church authorised information. Edited September 14, 2013 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

Bro. Pace's response is typical but if looked at in a clearer light, it's more of a scare tactic used to terrify members, rather than allow them to wonder, "Would someone leave the church for reasons OTHER THAN SIN?

 

I don't think that is what Br. Pace is saying at all. As has been pointed out many leave the church and do leave it alone. He is referring to those who can't leave it alone and having personally knowing some of those people their hostility cannot be explained by needing to deal with the cognitive dissonance or even seeking to protect others. I think of Shakespeare's line "The lady doth protest too much."

 

I really think the other quote given in the OP describes it quite well "Even after his conversion, the true ‘apostate’ is not primarily committed to the positive contents of his new belief and to the realization of its aims.  He is motivated by the struggle against the old belief and lives only for its negation." In other words the lady doth protest too much.

[Damien the Leper]

Would it be safe to say that there are different kinds of apostates? From a general standpoint, I would be considered an apostate, right? But I'm not seeking the destruction of the LDS church. I will agree that I can't leave the LDS church and Mormonism alone. Mormons mean a great deal to me. I like running interference on the antis that go to the temple to "witness". It's so much easier to defend Mormons and Mormonism than it is to fight against it. Defending Mormonism, to me, is like a natural love.

[AndyDnom]

I think this is a non starter. The fact is, the LDS church bothers inactive / former members much more than members sit around complaining about / attempt to tear down the church.

 

Example a: every year, in my Elder's Quorum, we go around and contact everyone on the "Do not contact list" just to make sure they still want to be left alone.

Example b: many inactives don't even know they are members, or have not been to church much after being baptised. What is more likely? that they sit around complaining about the church, or that the various missionary and reactivation programs hit them up.

 

There are a few very vocal ex mormons, and thus the phrase was born. A catchy phrase doesn't equal truth.

[Deborah]

There are a few very vocal ex mormons,

 

Which is what we've been saying but those who are are very hostile and angry in many cases.

[sdc999]

Robert,

I think it has to do with the efforts expended to be a devout LDS, which in general are considerably more than that of the Catholic or mainline protestant churches. It really is a way of life for us that encompasses every aspect of it. We believe we're the one true church, obey the WoW, dress distinctly, pay tithing, have high moral values, all of which can help create tight niche communities, but lead to being clannish.

Once one loses their faith in the church it can really turn their world upside down because for many members most of the major decisions in their life were made based on LDS principles. They often begin to question if they had made the right decisions in the past and will they make the right choices in the future-their entire world view may change.

Obviously every major faith has it's own cultures and adherents that practice to varying degrees, but it seems that those that require the most commitment (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) create the most critical exmembers.

Robert,

I would change 'have high moral values' to 'have high moral expectations'.  I could go into a list of members that have spent money in my business asking me to 'farm use' an item that was not allowable by law.  In rural America, where people have farms, this is a possibility on 'true' farm purchases - not for mama's Cadillac.  Yes, they do know the difference but, just like most individuals, willing to bend/break the law to get a little ahead.  

On your last statement, " but it seems that those that require the most commitment (LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) create the most critical exmembers.",  I wouldn't stop at saying they require the most commitment,(which I agree they do) but they state emphatically that theirs is the ONLY true way and straying is NOT acceptable.