Leave It, But Can't Leave It Alone

[Calm]

That would be so nice, and I can't say enough how being on this board helped me. Though there are some like me that are very frustrated here. They go on boards where there are more like minded people. I guess I need scolding/come backs, to help me see the errors of my ways/information. As long as they are truthful. I can almost live with all the stuff as long as it's fact, as well as can be.

The message board will be limited to those looking for help, I believe and offer some kind of mentoring if that is desired including private conversations if they are concerned.  Someone who wants to come simply to challenge apologists' POV...not going to last but will likely be directed elsewhere, probably here, imo.  However, I am not directly involved in its creation and am just reporting what I remember from a month or two ago, so I might be wrong.

 

Here is a link to the current one which has some issues and looks like it is not being used, but I believe there will be an update soon which will render it as functioning in the way intended.

 

http://www.fairmormonsupport.org/

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As I ponder my early dealings with my LDS brothers and sisters after leaving the institution. I believe one of the reason I engaged in heated debated with LDS members is a need to defend my reasons for leaving precisely because of the labels thrown about by LDS folks towards those who leave.

I have since found it better to try to find common ground and work together where I can with other Restorationist in spreading the Book of Mormon around the world and speaking of the hope of Zion- instead of focusing on all the traditional differences our spiritual forefathers were so focused on. It is ridiculous that we have generally been able to get along with Protestants easier then we could get along with our fellow belivers in the Restoration of the Gospel.

But, I am sure I am different then others who have left because I retained a testimony of the Book of Mormon, Zion, and the Restoration of Priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

Considering the audience, I think Elder Pace is presenting a principle that applies to all, no matter the level of faithfulness: Satan’s goal is not complete until a person comes out in open rebellion against the Church. The adversary works on us all, but obviously some succumb to a greater degree than others. Yet he will never stop trying to get to all of us, in this life anyway.

 

Dr. Scheler seems to be describing an aspect of human nature and is not talking about our need to be cautious about keeping our testimonies. but as religious people, we can construe his ideas to say that this tendency in turn can affect our susceptibility to the adversary’s efforts, but also our susceptibility to the Light of Christ. With the latter, for example, the ex-smoker who doesn’t progress beyond hating and campaigning against tobacco may not advance into loving his fellow beings. The same with politics!

 

I'm wondering if there are studies anywhere about people leaving other faiths. I quick Google showed a "Testimonials of Ex-Christians" and similar support and anti-type sites. On this basis, where this behavior seems to cross sectarian cartegories, it could also be rooted in either the work of the devil or an aspect of human nature that can have its extremes. Whatever leads us to good is of God, and whatever leads us to do evil is of the devil. But I think that whatever we actually do with those enticements can only be judged by God as rooted in our moral responsibility or psychological deficits.

A lot of anti-cult deprogramming went on several decades ago, including kidnapping and behavior-modification techniques.  The "normal" people were desperately trying to prevent their children from falling prey some cult somewhere.  I haven't heard much about that sort of thing lately.

 

There has actually been a lot of research about people leaving one faith for another, or for none at all.  

See Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; cf. J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. 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.  Sociologist Gary Tobin now says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

[Helen47]

I have heard a variety of notions along these lines, with one  side claiming that the horrible apologists only made it worse, or that (as in your case) they react with fear and trembling in the face of cognitive dissonance.

 

The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, perhaps the most effective and intellectually capable anti-Mormon I have ever met, was a friend of mine.  Whenever I would go to a Sunstone or Mormon History Association meeting, he would be there and we would have a good conversation about the latest historical discoveries or arguments.  He always had a lot of great jokes (as a Presbyterian minister must) and stories.  He was very gregarious and personable.  He considered himself a  missionary to the Mormons.  He was also very large and imposing.  Most Mormons at those meetings made a point of not talking to him, as though he were the carrier of some dreaded disease ("Typhoid Mary" comes to mind).

 

Of course, you have put your finger on it.  They were deathly afraid of what they might learn by talking to him.  Perhaps they thought that he might sow the seeds of apostasy in their vulnerable minds.  Not much faith evident in that sort of response, but understandable nonetheless.

 

Aside from that, you clearly had very poor instincts as to who to take your questions to.  If you had to do it over again, who would you ask the second time around?  Larry Porter, or John Dehlin?

 

 

Amazing. I am using my wife's name here, cannot seem to log on as Noel00. I loved your comments about Wes. I had a long letter exchange with him. He took the time to write to me, someone with no standing in the LDS scholarly community and half way through a BA.. He was always annoyed that Backman failed to cite his work. I scanned his letters to myself for a guy over there who wants to write a paper on his work. I understand both Dan Vogel and Michael Quinn visited with him. I also noticed that Larry Porter in his review of Inventing Mormonism that whenever he went to some archive location there was always evidence that Walters had already been there.

[CV75]

A lot of anti-cult deprogramming went on several decades ago, including kidnapping and behavior-modification techniques.  The "normal" people were desperately trying to prevent their children from falling prey some cult somewhere.  I haven't heard much about that sort of thing lately.

 

There has actually been a lot of research about people leaving one faith for another, or for none at all.  

See Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552; cf. J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977); Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995); Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.  See also S. L. Albrecht & H. M. 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.  Sociologist Gary Tobin now says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

Thank you--

 

Obviously there's been a lot of work done with regards to the more extreme attitudes expressed through religious behavior (and I suppose that would include the kind of apostate behavior mentioned in your OP) and personality or psychological disorders.

[ERayR]

 

 

I don't believe this is a strawman arguement. To quote you:

"And what if the staying member doesn't find a particular truth uncomfortable but rather understands it in the context of history or understands that the history is incomplete."

I've seen this concept crop up repeatedly in your responses, that the history is not complete enough to reach any conclusions (especially those that might put the church or Joseph in a negative light).

I seems to be a place of refuge when the going gets tough. And that's o.k. I understand it. It's a common defense mechanism.

 

And it always seems the same thing with the critics.  If someone does not agree with them thenthey either don't understand, haven't gotten the correct information or have some kind of mental failing.

 

Sorry Palerider but there are intelligent, reasonable and thinking people who do not agree with your interpretation.

[Helen47]

I have heard a variety of notions along these lines, with one  side claiming that the horrible apologists only made it worse, or that (as in your case) they react with fear and trembling in the face of cognitive dissonance.

 

The late Rev. Wesley P. Walters, perhaps the most effective and intellectually capable anti-Mormon I have ever met, was a friend of mine.  Whenever I would go to a Sunstone or Mormon History Association meeting, he would be there and we would have a good conversation about the latest historical discoveries or arguments.  He always had a lot of great jokes (as a Presbyterian minister must) and stories.  He was very gregarious and personable.  He considered himself a  missionary to the Mormons.  He was also very large and imposing.  Most Mormons at those meetings made a point of not talking to him, as though he were the carrier of some dreaded disease ("Typhoid Mary" comes to mind).

 

Of course, you have put your finger on it.  They were deathly afraid of what they might learn by talking to him.  Perhaps they thought that he might sow the seeds of apostasy in their vulnerable minds.  Not much faith evident in that sort of response, but understandable nonetheless.

 

Aside from that, you clearly had very poor instincts as to who to take your questions to.  If you had to do it over again, who would you ask the second time around?  Larry Porter, or John Dehlin?

 

I am using my wife's ID somehow i cannot get the email sent to me to change my password. Noel00. Walters was also a friend of mine,We had long letter exchanges for a number of years and he was kind enough to give me long responses to my questions (eg his comments about Nibley's "passing" remarks in Church History. Wes was when it came to the FV/revival debate annoyed about some comments Backman made in his book on the FV. BT Walter's paper was not even mentioned. I chuckled when I read Larry Porters review of Inventing Mormonism where he said whenever he visited a particular archive he was told Wes had already been there.

[Johnnie Cake]

So Robert....Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

 

"You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone.

Most attribute this comment to Joseph Smith; are you sure he was not quoting?

[Calm]

So Robert....Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

I am not Robert, but given my reactions to slightly similar circumstances where I changed my mind dramatically about supporting an organization, I suspect I would have a short time (a week to a month) of anger which I would discuss with my family and possible friends if they knew of my involvement and would be interested and then after that, I would put it behind me and get on with life rather than putting any more of my valuable energy into it.  And I would in future encounters set things up so my contact was as limited as possible and keep emotional distance as well.  I find anger to be a very useless emotion after the first few hours where I get a lot of housework done blowing off steam.  Talking about it generally just prolongs the agony so I try not to in most cases and in the ones I have to talk about, I give myself a limit on how much time to process it and then refuse to allow myself to do more.  I was able to do this even in the case of a very close family member so I am thinking if with that case, I could manage it with the Church.

[Glenn101]

So Robert....Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

 

 

I am pretty much seconding Calmoriah's take on the situation. But I did not realize that you were a former GA or such that had indeed devoted all of your time to the church?

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know if this counts as an intellectual reason, but how do you reconcile the fact that millions of people all over the world are receiving the same spiritual confirmations we are for a belief system that often times is in complete contradiction to ours?

Although interesting, I wouldn't consider that an intellectual reason -- unless and until it was systematically examined by a large, scientific project.  Even then, personal belief is inherently subjective.  For example, who's to say that God doesn't speak to different cultures and peoples according to their language and traditions?  Wait, that is a Mormon principle (II Nephi 31:3, D&C 1:24)!!

 

You might be interested in the works of the late Joseph Campbell.  Perhaps you saw his great PBS series, "The Power of Myth," which is available on DVD, and in book form (Doubleday, 1988).  He constantly demonstrates the archetypal quality available in diverse cultures.  We need to understand that and drink deep of it.

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F7Wwew8X4Y

[Robert F. Smith]

I am using my wife's ID somehow i cannot get the email sent to me to change my password. Noel00. Walters was also a friend of mine,We had long letter exchanges for a number of years and he was kind enough to give me long responses to my questions (eg his comments about Nibley's "passing" remarks in Church History. Wes was when it came to the FV/revival debate annoyed about some comments Backman made in his book on the FV. BT Walter's paper was not even mentioned. I chuckled when I read Larry Porters review of Inventing Mormonism where he said whenever he visited a particular archive he was told Wes had already been there.

Your comments make me chuckle as well.  However, Porter was exaggerating a bit.  I recall breaking news to Wes that he hadn't heard before, and I could see the excitement on his face as he contemplated his next research foray.  He had so much information in his excellent memory that he could draw immediate correlations and conclusions.

 

I can see how, if I had been much younger and poorly informed (as I was in my youth), I might very well have been traumatized by the array of anti-Mormon information which Wes could dredge up.  Fortunately for me, I had been brought up with broad-minded views by very well-educated parents who were never overprotective or hidebound.  I knew I was Mormon, but I was often the only one, and I was never persecuted for it.  I got on well with a wide variety of other types of people, and gained a particularly strong affection for the Jews (I lived in Israel for 4 years) and for evangelical Christians (I've attended their services for years).  The school of hard knocks was also very helpful ("whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth," Hebrews 12:6)..

.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Most attribute this comment to Joseph Smith; are you sure he was not quoting?

No, I am not aware that that is so.  Do you have a source?  Hard to tell whether Bishop Glenn thought he was quoting it.

[Robert F. Smith]

So Robert....Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

Reminds me of some of Bob Seger's lyrics:

 

And you're still the same

I caught up with you yesterday

Moving game to game

No one standing in your way

Turning on the charm

Long enough to get you by

You're still the same

You still aim high

There you stood, everybody watched you play

I just turned and walked away

I had nothing left to say

 

My only question, Johnnie, is Did he walk away in disgust?

 

I've walked away a couple of times in disgust, but there's no use cryen over spilt milk.  Betrayal, disappointment, and failure are an integral part of life.  If you haven't experienced them then you haven't lived in the real world.

 

Everyone needs to wake up and smell the postum.  Whatever . . .

[why me]

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?

I think that it seems to be an affectation, if I understand it correctly. If we go back to the early days, there were people who left the church but could not leave it alone. They attacked the early members and the leadership both verbally and physically. And these attacks were very serious. And we can also see this today on a different level with the use of words. There are many exmembers who are now involved in attempting to destroy the lds church. And they do this under a number of excuses of why. And their words are often extremely hostile.

 

I believe that something has gripped them and made them this way. But if we would see these same members as active members when they were active, they would be bearing their testimony, feeling and experiencing the spirit, giving spiritual talks and never seeing themselves on the other side of the fence. It must be a shock for them.

[why me]

So Robert....Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

I think that the lds church claims the true church. So far, nothing that I am aware of as refuted that claim. Also, no one to my undestanding as proven the church as not true. So, we are speaking as a matter of opinion when one claims that it is not what it claims to be. Not fact. Then, I have to ask just where the problem is and why such an opinion that the church is not what it is claimed to be would send someone into antimormon rants.

[why me]

LDS.org didn't have the answers when I looked and the questions, a lot them, were because I read FAIR. I at first thought it was more harmful for people like me who knew very little church history, only really read the 'Work and the Glory' series. Now looking back, I know how necessary FAIR was in combating the anti stuff online.

What were you searching for on lds.org. When my daughter was defending the church on a different board, she found many of the answers on lds.org. She was responding to the claim that the church hides this or that fact. But there it was on lds.org.

[why me]

It would be wonderful if somehow we could avoid the cases of damage while still fulfilling the need for accurate and thorough information from a faithful perspective. We are constantly examining better ways in which to meet varied needs, including soon a message board for a more ongoing personal interaction for those who feel the need to talk with others as many do.

Great idea. I think that it is wondeful that the church and church related organizations are now much to help people who have fallen victim to the antimormon propaganda out there.

[Glenn101]

   When it comes right down to it, turning on the church after leaving it is an emotional response rather than a logical response. If one truly leaves the church after a "logic and reason" exercise, that same logic and reason should keep one going "forward". That same logic and reason should tell such an one that kicking against the pricks is an exercise in futility and ultimately a waste of time.

 

   Think about it.

 

Glenn

[Deborah]

Imagine you were to come to a conclusion that an organization you had devoted all of you time, talents, energies to and to whom you had made substantial financial contributions to was not what it claimed to be.  Would you simply smile and walk away with a whimper?

 

I would think about the positives I got from such devotion. I think too often people throw it all out without remembering the good things they experienced and the postive feelings in serving others. It is like a divorce where one thinks about all the bad things and forgets there were some good times too. After all you wouldn't have kept doing those things if you weren't getting something positive out of it. Why should coming across something that upsets your paradigm change what went on before?

 

Of course my argument with this reasoning is that when people say the church isn't what it claimed to be I wonder what it is they expected that it's not what it claimed to be in their minds. The fact is what it claims to be is the restored church of Christ with the Priesthood and ordinances previously lost. The fact that some come to a different conclusion doesn't mean that the church isn't what it claims to be but that they have had a change of mind. After all there are a lot of us who see the same things they do but still don't draw such a conclusion when we put things in perspective.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Deborah

[sdc999]

What were you searching for on lds.org. When my daughter was defending the church on a different board, she found many of the answers on lds.org. She was responding to the claim that the church hides this or that fact. But there it was on lds.org.

To go directly to lds.org would be a great idea but I think it would cause some disconnect.   "Bishop, can you answer a question for me?  Oh, wait, there's a good chance you do not have the accurate answer so I will rely on lds.org and not you."    I say this in jest, but there is much truth to this.  Some of the most erroneous information I have received over the years has be lore passed down from one generation to another; and bishops, high priests, missionaries are not immune.  

So, it does sting a little when one has gone to someone or several whom were expected to be trusted with knowledge only to find, at a later date, nothing could have been farther from the truth.

[Tacenda]

What were you searching for on lds.org. When my daughter was defending the church on a different board, she found many of the answers on lds.org. She was responding to the claim that the church hides this or that fact. But there it was on lds.org.

What did your daughter look for?  I vaguely remember now, because it was so long ago.  It most likely centered on Joseph Smith's polygamy/polyandry and may have included Masonry in the temple, Mountain Meadows Massacre, typical stuff that members find new.  Yes, I had no stinkin' idea about Mountain Meadows until I was in my late, late 40's and I live in Utah! 

[mercyngrace]

Just wanted to add my random and rambling .02 even though I haven't caught up reading the entire thread yet.

 

I think divorce is a great analogy and I think it explains why ex-Mormons are often more angry than say ex-Methodists. 

 

The more exclusive a relationship is, the more wounded you are when there is a breach of trust. Most of my protestant friends move from denomination to denomination based upon the pastor's style, the convenience of the church's location, demographics and availability of programs that fit their family needs. A family may go to one church for regular worship and then send their kids to another one for VBS in the summer or change churches entirely to attend one which offers robust teen programs or caters to the needs of the elderly (a van which picks older folks up for services, for example).

 

Our covenants bind us specifically to the COJCOLDS where many protestant baptisms/ordinances refer to the family/church of Christ, not a specific denomination. We give our babies a name by which they are known to the church, we confirm our children members of the church, and so on. 

 

Back to the divorce analogy. If you've given your all to a relationship and then come to believe that you have been defrauded, that's devastating. I've watched people close to me (as I imagine most of us have) go through difficult divorces but the worst, by far, are those when one faithful partner discovers they've been thoroughly deceived. I know two women who were absolutely shocked to find their husbands were adulterers,  one who is over ten years and another more than twenty beyond their divorces and they are still hurting - something which often manifests as anger.

 

Is this unhealthy? You bet. Is it unnatural? Nope.

 

Another apt analogy would be to compare death and grieving to the loss of faith. This is especially true for those most committed to the church who then fall away.

 

Think of the woman who has longed to conceive and after many attempts and medical intervention finds she is pregnant. She carries the baby to term, all her hopes and dreams pinned to the growing bundle. Then just weeks before the due date, she discovers the child has died within her womb. Many women never fully recover from this kind of loss (personal experience talking - not statistics). It's not just the loss of the baby. It's the loss of innocence, hopes, dreams, and all the baggage you had bound to the child from the moment you knew he existed. 

 

For someone who is 100% invested in the church and has pinned his/her entire life (here and hereafter) on promises they come to doubt, this is earth shattering. It is a tangible loss that leaves a huge void. 

 

Again, unhealthy but not abnormal.

 

I think it's reasonable to discuss whether your spouse really is a lying, cheating, [expletive deleted] or whether there is hope that your child still lives, but I don't think you can dismiss how people react to feelings of betrayal or loss. Feelings aren't rational like that. 

[Deborah]

Feelings aren't rational like that. 

 

And that is the problem, which is why I think sometimes before making a big leap, whether it's leaving the church or leaving a spouse we should give ourselves a period to really examine what it is we were expecting or thought we knew and not make an emotional jump. Sometimes divorcing is the answer for the health of the family if the situation is toxic. I have a hard time imagining how staying in church could be toxic even when one thinks some piece of knowledge is disturbing, but if a person finds he really can't reconcile his feelings he is probably better off to leave it.

 

To continue the comparison, many stay in marriages even when the spouse is unfaithful and are able through time and effort to learn to trust and love again. I've stayed in the church even when I didn't have the answers to the questions that came up and through the years have received the answers and gained a greater love and faith as a result. I've just seen too many people give up too soon and come to regret it later.