Leave It, But Can't Leave It Alone

[Tacenda]

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. 

I think I'd be institutionalized right now if my husband was staunch TBM.  He sees the problem I've had in finding things that weren't taught to me and having given so much time, money and doing things that may have affected my relationships with several in my family that aren't active.  How someone might feel after finding out the church wasn't all that they'd believed at one time.  It makes one angry and sad at the same time.  Or I might have ended my life if my husband just thought I was ruining our family.  HF helped me in that regard I guess.  Along with apologetics that acknowledged what anti's were saying is factual but that there were reasons and things may have been taken out of context, they helped too.  I was able to show my husband things he never would have believed.  For many years, usually at night in bed, we would argue, fight and then be in tears over my disbelief or lost testimony.  It was the worst thing that has ever happened to me bar none, besides the death of my parents.

 

So I totally agree with you mercyngrace.        

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are seriously comparing someone who chooses to stay with the church to battered women who stay in relationships? That would be laughable if it weren't so absurd a comparison.

 

It is not a matter of rearranging the truth. It is quite simply accepting the truth we already have received and realizing that people are human and historical facts by themselves don't tell the whole story.

So much for his line of reasoning.

[mercyngrace]

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.

 

And many don't.

 

Ultimately, only the individuals directly involved can run the cost benefit analysis on their relationships.

 

And I definitely agree that some people are too quick to abandon relationships (both marriages and faith/church) however, just because I have strong feelings about the negatives of divorce doesn't mean I can speak to the specifics of someone else's dissolved marriage. Just because we've all heard the same conference talks and participated in the same ordinances doesn't mean we've all had the same church experiences or even the same experiences with God in the church. There are just so many variables we each bring to the table. We can't correlate those out of existence. Binary statements like Elder Pace's just can't encompass all the gray that exists between being "in" the church and being "out". (I would argue that many who might be termed "apostates" are still "in" the relationship with the church in the form of a very unhappy marriage.)

 

I do think a relationship with the church can be toxic. Toxicity is like a chemical reaction and some elements just come together in a dangerous, unhealthy way. Further, the nature of the church makes it so that all/most concessions in the relationship must come from the individual. For some folks, that may be more of a sacrifice than they are able to make. 

 

I guess my point is simply that this is such a complex issue that the black/white statements we commonly make aren't all that helpful. 

[mfbukowski]

I wholeheartedly agree, but I will go even further and say what I have said before on this Board:

 

I have yet to hear a valid intellectual reason for leaving Mormonism.  That is not to say that there are none, just that I haven't heard one expressed (and I have been around the block a few times).

Likewise, I don't meet people who convert to Mormonism for intellectual reasons.  Which is not to say that there are not valid intellectual reasons for Mormon belief.  I think that there are.

Totally agree.  When I was converting, it was first the underlying philosophy which caught my eye, which in my perception agreed totally with my own,  but then it was the spiritual experiences which really made me a convert

 

I think oftentimes we do not understand the strength of our intellectual position - we have all the ammo we need to go out and truly become the "stone cut without hands which will fill the earth", if we could ever learn to harness the strength of our position, and leave the pre-Restoration, pre-modern and modernist, and Scholastic philosophies behind.

 

Sigh.

Edited September 17, 2013 by mfbukowski

[sheilauk]

 

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. 

 

I don't know about all churches, especially those in the USA of course, but in my personal experience of protestant churches, this is not really accurate.  There is no specific denomination mentioned in the (for want of a better description) membership ordinances (christening/baptism/confirmation) that I recall, but actual membership is not so easily transferred.  I was christened in one denomination as a child.  That christening was accepted as a baptism by the second denomination I joined, but I still needed to undergo their own investigative stage and be confirmed a member of that denomination.  My name then went on their roll.  When i left that Church and joined another, even though it was a denomination which worked very closely with my previous one, i had to again go through a period of study and be confirmed a member of the third denomination and my name was subsequently removed from the roll/list of membership of the second denomination.  Otherwise, i would not have been a member of the Church, simply a fellow worshipper.  If I had wanted to join my mother's denomination, I would have had to be baptized.  My sister was christened when I was and later, as an adult, joined a different denomination - again she had to be confirmed to be a member.  All of those denominations have ordinances for babies when they are given their 'Christian' name and become members of the denomination as well as the family of Christ - it may be called a baptism, or a christening or blessing.  It is indeed very easy to attend and worship between the denominations, and for a number of reasons, as they have very similar doctrines and practices but they are not identical and membership is not given simply because you attend the church.  Additionally, members can be just as exclusive, committed and active or inactive as LDS as there are a number of activities and callings for volunteers, even when they have a paid minister.  My grandfather was staunchly committed to his denomination and didn't really approve of the others!  I've known people consider it a breach of trust and leave when their pastor has been moved on and replaced!

 

It's not so simple as saying the LDS are exclusive or covenant differently.  It may be that it can be easier to find somewhere else to worship on leaving a protestant denomination than with the CoJCoLDS because of the similarities between them (fewer restoration denominations around) and that may make it easier to deal with leaving - you have somewhere to go.  In addition, you can go to another church in the same denomination and find it a very different place, something which isn't so with the CoJCoLDS i find.  The divorce analogy may still be useful though because really it comes down to how any individual will react to change.  Some divorce amicably.  Some divorce painfully but find it relatively simple to move on and some can never really let their spouses go!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

I was asking a question, no saying otherwise. He said the same in our Stake Conference long ago and I thought he was quoting Joseph. I talking with in the hallway after, but not about his talk, I gave him a copy of something I had been reading...don't remember what it was, that was 25+ years ago. So I was asking hoping someone here knew.

[mercyngrace]

I don't know about all churches, especially those in the USA of course, but in my personal experience of protestant churches, this is not really accurate.  There is no specific denomination mentioned in the (for want of a better description) membership ordinances (christening/baptism/confirmation) that I recall, but actual membership is not so easily transferred.  I was christened in one denomination as a child.  That christening was accepted as a baptism by the second denomination I joined, but I still needed to undergo their own investigative stage and be confirmed a member of that denomination.  My name then went on their roll.  When i left that Church and joined another, even though it was a denomination which worked very closely with my previous one, i had to again go through a period of study and be confirmed a member of the third denomination and my name was subsequently removed from the roll/list of membership of the second denomination.  Otherwise, i would not have been a member of the Church, simply a fellow worshipper.  If I had wanted to join my mother's denomination, I would have had to be baptized.  My sister was christened when I was and later, as an adult, joined a different denomination - again she had to be confirmed to be a member.  All of those denominations have ordinances for babies when they are given their 'Christian' name and become members of the denomination as well as the family of Christ - it may be called a baptism, or a christening or blessing.  It is indeed very easy to attend and worship between the denominations, and for a number of reasons, as they have very similar doctrines and practices but they are not identical and membership is not given simply because you attend the church.  Additionally, members can be just as exclusive, committed and active or inactive as LDS as there are a number of activities and callings for volunteers, even when they have a paid minister.  My grandfather was staunchly committed to his denomination and didn't really approve of the others!  I've known people consider it a breach of trust and leave when their pastor has been moved on and replaced!

 

It's not so simple as saying the LDS are exclusive or covenant differently.  It may be that it can be easier to find somewhere else to worship on leaving a protestant denomination than with the CoJCoLDS because of the similarities between them (fewer restoration denominations around) and that may make it easier to deal with leaving - you have somewhere to go.  In addition, you can go to another church in the same denomination and find it a very different place, something which isn't so with the CoJCoLDS i find.  The divorce analogy may still be useful though because really it comes down to how any individual will react to change.  Some divorce amicably.  Some divorce painfully but find it relatively simple to move on and some can never really let their spouses go!

 

 

That is interesting, Sheila. Thanks for posting that!

 

I think it boils down to the level of exclusivity and commitment the denomination demands and how wedded the individual is to the doctrinal specifics. 

 

Both my husband and my mom are converts so in my own family, I'm a religious minority. LOL. Of my extended family, I think only the Mormons and Catholics have shown a great deal of brand loyalty. Same for neighbors and friends. Years ago, it was different. Our area was predominantly Southern Baptist and there was a lot of sectarian loyalty among them also. Nowadays, I hear many more of my family and friends saying they are trying out a new church.

[Johnnie Cake]

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.

 

 

 

And...what if this organization continued to seek your return even after multiple attempts on your part to establish boundaries and repeated communications on your part with its leaders asking that they leave you alone and to stay away...yet they still continued to ignore your requests...and continued to send its representatives seeking and asking that you reconsider and return...what and how would you react to this organization? Trust me you can leave some organizations but some organizations will not leave you alone.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

And...what if this organization continued to seek your return even after multiple attempts on your part to establish boundaries and repeated communications on your part with its leaders asking that they leave you alone and to stay away...yet they still continued to ignore your requests...and continued to send its representatives...what and how would you react to this organization?

 

I would ask them to take my name off their records.

[mercyngrace]

accidental post

Edited September 17, 2013 by mercyngrace

[ERayR]

I would ask them to take my name off their records.

 

Yes but you know how those telemarketers are.

[sheilauk]

I don't know about all churches, especially those in the USA of course, but in my personal experience of protestant churches, this is not really accurate.  There is no specific denomination mentioned in the (for want of a better description) membership ordinances (christening/baptism/confirmation) that I recall, but actual membership is not so easily transferred.  I was christened in one denomination as a child.  That christening was accepted as a baptism by the second denomination I joined, but I still needed to undergo their own investigative stage and be confirmed a member of that denomination.  My name then went on their roll.  When i left that Church and joined another, even though it was a denomination which worked very closely with my previous one, i had to again go through a period of study and be confirmed a member of the third denomination and my name was subsequently removed from the roll/list of membership of the second denomination.  Otherwise, i would not have been a member of the Church, simply a fellow worshipper.  If I had wanted to join my mother's denomination, I would have had to be baptized.  My sister was christened when I was and later, as an adult, joined a different denomination - again she had to be confirmed to be a member.  All of those denominations have ordinances for babies when they are given their 'Christian' name and become members of the denomination as well as the family of Christ - it may be called a baptism, or a christening or blessing.  It is indeed very easy to attend and worship between the denominations, and for a number of reasons, as they have very similar doctrines and practices but they are not identical and membership is not given simply because you attend the church.  Additionally, members can be just as exclusive, committed and active or inactive as LDS as there are a number of activities and callings for volunteers, even when they have a paid minister.  My grandfather was staunchly committed to his denomination and didn't really approve of the others!  I've known people consider it a breach of trust and leave when their pastor has been moved on and replaced!

 

 

 

That is interesting, Sheila. Thanks for posting that!

 

I think it boils down to the level of exclusivity and commitment the denomination demands and how wedded the individual is to the doctrinal specifics. 

 

Both my husband and my mom are converts so in my own family, I'm a religious minority. LOL. Of my extended family, I think only the Mormons and Catholics have shown a great deal of brand loyalty. Same for neighbors and friends. Years ago, it was different. Our area was predominantly Southern Baptist and there was a lot of sectarian loyalty among them also. Nowadays, I hear many more of my family and friends saying they are trying out a new church.

You're welcome. 

 

As I said, its just my experience in the UK - but I think that there is still a lot of loyalty to a denomination here, if one is in a church at all.  Church attendance has hugely declined so that those who do go are very committed.  i certainly can't know anyone who has been a member of as many different denominations as me and usually my fellow members had only been a member of the one denomination until I met a few other 'travellers' in the LDS!  This, of course, is neither good or bad!  Each of us has our own unique journey.  I do think that if we leave anywhere (people, places, organisations, churches, whatever), we should let it go and leave it behind, I think it makes us happier if we do, but not everyone can and they can be very bitter.  I have no hard feelings for my previous churches, they were good places with great people. I left each one for different reasons and none because I no longer believed them so can't speak about a loss of faith or breach of trust re. a church from a personal experience but I have experienced something similar in relation to a secular organisation.  I was very angry and hurt but ultimately, I didn't like feeling that way and made a conscious effort to let it go - I'm happier but, as you said, it is not black/white and is complex - each person is different.  Personally, i feel that anger/bitterness towards anything is counter-productive but it can be hard to let it go.

[sheilauk]

And...what if this organization continued to seek your return even after multiple attempts on your part to establish boundaries and repeated communications on your part with its leaders asking that they leave you alone and to stay away...yet they still continued to ignore your requests...and continued to send its representatives seeking and asking that you reconsider and return...what and how would you react to this organization? Trust me you can leave some organizations but some organizations will not leave you alone.

 

 Should the above be the case, how would me responding negatively in a different forum help?  Would it not simply increase my connection with something I was trying to get rid of?  i would continue to seek a way to stop them and still work to get rid of my anger - I don't like feeling that way.  Its up to others to decide for themselves. However, I have a friend who left and she has never been bothered by representatives of the organisation since she did so it is possible to avoid the above scenario.

[mercyngrace]

Sheilauk,

I couldn't agree more about holding on to anger and bitterrness. It's counter productive and very unhealthy.

 

edited for typo

Edited September 17, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Johnnie Cake]

 

I would ask them to take my name off their records.

 

Some organizations are quite persistent and don’t seem to understand the meaning of no contact when it involves spreading the dogma of the organization…and yes Nehor, some organizations keep seeking your return with random visits and telephone calls even after removing your name from their membership rolls…

Edited September 17, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[why me]

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.

But it is still amazing that much is on lds.org. Of course, the site links to old ensigns etc. For example, the multiple vision accounts. My daughter put it into lds.org and she got ensign articles about it. Joseph's head in the hat translation was also there. Not to to mention polygamy by Joseph, including a quotation by one of his polygamous wives who the ensign article stated was living at the mansion house. MMM was also there. Much was there. Bishops are just human beings who have a full time job doing other things outside of being a bishop.

[why me]

And...what if this organization continued to seek your return even after multiple attempts on your part to establish boundaries and repeated communications on your part with its leaders asking that they leave you alone and to stay away...yet they still continued to ignore your requests...and continued to send its representatives seeking and asking that you reconsider and return...what and how would you react to this organization? Trust me you can leave some organizations but some organizations will not leave you alone.

However there is a problem. If the local ward would leave them alone from the very beginning, they may complain about being shunned. No win for the church in this regard. I think that this is a local problem. Many wards leave the person alone after being told not to disturb. Of course, one way to get rid of the church is just to resign from it.

[Alvino]

Might also have to do with how identifiable the leadership of the Church and its structure are. I've personally don't think the vitriol thrown at the LDS Church even comes close to that leveled against the Catholic Church because of that. What omni pointed out in his first post here has also much to do with it, I think. A corollary factor that stems from what omni stated is that many of the ex-Mormons' acquaintances continue to participate in the LDS faith and culture (and participate a lot) and seeing a bunch of your people so immersed into what you think is very wrong and caused you pain may easily fuel even more attacks.

 

 

Though I come here and discuss stuff I don't think I'm particularly into the "can't leave it alone" camp. I was always interested in discussion and debating ideas so, maybe, it could also be that people who tend to attack the Church harshly when they leave it also tended to attack other positions harshly before they did.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Alvino

[why me]

And many don't.

 

Ultimately, only the individuals directly involved can run the cost benefit analysis on their relationships.

 

And I definitely agree that some people are too quick to abandon relationships (both marriages and faith/church) however, just because I have strong feelings about the negatives of divorce doesn't mean I can speak to the specifics of someone else's dissolved marriage. Just because we've all heard the same conference talks and participated in the same ordinances doesn't mean we've all had the same church experiences or even the same experiences with God in the church. There are just so many variables we each bring to the table. We can't correlate those out of existence.

 

I think that this is the problem. Too many people want their validation for their experiences. I think that people have been influenced by this postmodern notion that all personal feelings need validation and confirmation. When it comes to the lds church, I know of no other church with so many postmodern exmembers looking for confirmation that their negative experience can be validated. This must be a critic strategy: to get members to question their lds experiences.

Edited September 17, 2013 by why me

[why me]

 

Though I come here and discuss stuff I don't think I'm particularly into the "can't leave it alone" camp. I was always interested in discussion and debating ideas so, maybe, it could also be that people who tend to attack the Church harshly when they leave it also tended to attack other positions harshly before they did.

I think exmembers attack the lds church harshly because they can't believe that they are in the situation that there are in at this moment: outside the church after years of spiritual experiences and spiritual confirmations that the church is true. They have a hard time dealing with their new situation.

[ERayR]

Some organizations are quite persistent and don’t seem to understand the meaning of no contact when it involves spreading the dogma of the organization…and yes Nehor, some organizations keep seeking your return with random visits and telephone calls even after removing your name from their membership rolls…

 

And if you formally request your name be removed "some" organizations will comply and then PRESTO no more contacts.

[Johnnie Cake]

And if you formally request your name be removed "some" organizations will comply and then PRESTO no more contacts.

Well...that has not been my experience...

[ERayR]

Well...that has not been my experience...

 

You submitted a written request and it didn't happen?  That totally goes against anything I have experienced. 

[omni]

You submitted a written request and it didn't happen?  That totally goes against anything I have experienced.

You submitted a request to have your name removed? Huh, I never would have figured you for an exmo.

[Alvino]

I think exmembers attack the lds church harshly because they can't believe that they are in the situation that there are in at this moment: outside the church after years of spiritual experiences and spiritual confirmations that the church is true. They have a hard time dealing with their new situation.

 

I don't see how that would fuel anger or harsh attacks. I personally find it VERY astonishing that I ever believed in the stuff I used to believe in (I was LDS). It may be that I'm more focused on other things now, but I can't express how weird it looks from the outside that people actually believe they talk to a person like God or believe in demons or that Jesus will come back again; it's bizarre to me now yet there is not a trace of anger or desire to criticize harshly. I can see how disillusionment and regret and the like could produce anger but not that I was wrong or that I now find it hard to believe I could have been so wrong for so long.

 

Something I found curious about my case, though, was that I saw, say, Protestants and Catholics as being wrong since the LDS Church was the one with authority and now that I'm an atheist I believe they are wrong as well but the sense in which I take them to be wrong is a much more tolerant one and with the eyes of someone interested in such social phenomenon as the religious experience. So, if anything, it was the exact opposite for me as what happens to the apostates Robert talked about. When I left I felt liberated both intellectually and emotionally. Maybe I'm one of the few that can truly say, "Thank God I'm an atheist!" without reservations.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Alvino