Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[jkwilliams]

Your view of what it means to "cope" with the departure of a family member from the Church is very likely to differ to some extent or another from the view of a committed believer.

 

An ex-Mormon's opinion as to how to make such a situation "better" is almost certainly going to vary, at least somewhat, from the opinion of an active, faithful Mormon.

 

To suggest that, if the panel's aims don't fully accord with your view of what constitutes "coping" or with your judgment of what would be "better," it's not intended to help make things better or to assist people in coping, seems to me somewhat myopic.

 

--"DCP, no less"

 

Of course my view is going to differ from a believer's, but if it's myopic to believe that having the perspective from both "sides' of the equation is better than just having one, then I guess I'm myopic.

[Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, I don't think the fairly recent "panel discussion" (fairly recent at the FAIR Conference) format is a good fit for the FAIR Conference. It's more "Sunstone" than FAIR.

 

How good was Bill Reel's panel discussion a couple of years ago? And look at the water under that bridge since then . . .

 

I tend to agree.  But some really like the idea.

[jkwilliams]

I'm already scheduled to lie, mock, and slander . . . er, to speak at the conference.

 

But, yes, that would be a good topic for a panel somewhere at some point.

 

I didn't realize you were scheduled to lie, mock, or slander. If past performance is at all indicative, I do suspect you'll aim some of your good-natured ribbing at the author of the CES letter. I'd be disappointed if you didn't.

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course my view is going to differ from a believer's, but if it's myopic to believe that having the perspective from both "sides' of the equation is better than just having one, then I guess I'm myopic.

 

It depends on what the purpose of discussion is.  A hammer is sometimes "better" than a screwdriver -- but only for some purposes.  For other purposes, it's worse.

 

--"DCP, no less"

[Daniel Peterson]

I didn't realize you were scheduled to lie, mock, or slander.

 

Then you haven't been following the threads you launched.

 

--"DCP,  no less"

[jkwilliams]

It depends on what the purpose of discussion is.  A hammer is sometimes "better" than a screwdriver -- but only for some purposes.  For other purposes, it's worse.

 

--"DCP, no less"

 

Which is why I asked my questions in the first place. So far, no one has said what the purpose of the panel is, and my myopic vision that I insist is the absolute right way to handle this was based on the assumption that this panel is intended to help people deal with a difficult situation in a positive way.

[jkwilliams]

Then you haven't been following the threads you launched.

 

--"DCP,  no less"

 

I launched one thread, and I said two things in the OP: I was surprised that a well-known apologist of stature--you, no less--would spend any time on the CES letter because I didn't think the CES letter was particularly well done and in need of response. And I said I thought the panel discussion on apostate family members signals that this is becoming more of an issue for families than it had in the past.

 

And yes, I guessed you would take time to poke fun at the CES letter's author. I would be shocked if you didn't.

[Daniel Peterson]

Which is why I asked my questions in the first place. So far, no one has said what the purpose of the panel is, and my myopic vision that I insist is the absolute right way to handle this was based on the assumption that this panel is intended to help people deal with a difficult situation in a positive way.

 

I didn't conceive or organize the panel, so I can't help you on that.  Nor, perhaps, did anybody here.  So you'd have to ask somebody else what the purpose of the panel is.  I can think of several different purposes, all of them quite good and honorable.

 

You seem to have missed my point.  I'm sure that the panel is "intended to help people deal with a difficult situation in a positive way."  But precisely what that means to an active and believing Latter-day Saint may intersect only partially with what it means to a disaffected former believer.

[jkwilliams]

I didn't conceive or organize the panel, so I can't help you on that.  Nor, perhaps, did anybody here.  So you'd have to ask somebody else what the purpose of the panel is.  I can think of several different purposes, all of them quite good and honorable.

 

You seem to have missed my point.  I'm sure that the panel is "intended to help people deal with a difficult situation in a positive way."  But precisely what that means to an active and believing Latter-day Saint may intersect only partially with what it means to a disaffected former believer.

 

Of course. But I am quite sure that there are a lot of ways to help that all of use could agree on. I would be saying the same thing if this were a conference of ex-Mormons talking about what happens to families when someone leaves the church.

[Daniel Peterson]

I launched one thread, and I said two things in the OP: I was surprised that a well-known apologist of stature--you, no less--would spend any time on the CES letter because I didn't think the CES letter was particularly well done and in need of response. And I said I thought the panel discussion on apostate family members signals that this is becoming more of an issue for families than it had in the past.

 

And yes, I guessed you would take time to poke fun at the CES letter's author. I would be shocked if you didn't.

 

I had a couple of people -- not Church leaders, not Public Affairs, nobody to justify much speculation -- ask me to respond to it.  I thought, sure, that might be a good topic.  I hadn't really decided, but now I see that that topic has been publicly announced for me.  Fine, I suppose.  I guess I'll do it.

 

And it isn't a matter of FairMormon choosing to devote attention to the letter at the annual conference.  I was scheduled to be the keynote speaker anyway.  The topic is up to me.

 

Prepare to be shocked, by the way.  I might or might not poke fun at, or even mention, the letter's author.  I haven't thought about the presentation yet.

 

Incidentally, I know of two (2) threads that you've started on the topic.

[jkwilliams]

I had a couple of people -- not Church leaders, not Public Affairs, nobody to justify much speculation -- ask me to respond to it.  I thought, sure, that might be a good topic.  I hadn't really decided, but now I see that that topic has been publicly announced for me.  Fine, I suppose.  I guess I'll do it.

 

And it isn't a matter of FairMormon choosing to devote attention to the letter at the annual conference.  I was scheduled to be the keynote speaker anyway.  The topic is up to me.

 

Prepare to be shocked, by the way.  I might or might not poke fun at, or even mention, the letter's author.  I haven't thought about the presentation yet.

 

Incidentally, I know of two (2) threads that you've started on the topic.

 

Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I'm surprised the CES letter is getting as much attention as it is, and I'm doubly surprised that you're spending time on it.

 

I started this one about the panel discussion and the one over there, which discusses your presentation on the CES letter as well. Do you have something else in mind?

 

I stand corrected. I started one on RfM, same topic.

Edited May 31, 2014 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

I don't concede that it is a fair reflection of what I wrote, but alas, it is the sort of thing I would expect from an ex-Mormon being placed on a panel at the FairMormon Conference. And why I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to work out very well.

 

John Williams's posts here, by contrast and to his credit, have been mostly restrained and positive. I fear that John is very much the exception.

 

I suspect it depends on how you look at things. If you want ex-Mormons to be evil and mean-spirited, that's how you will see them. Believe it or not, ex-Mormons, generally speaking, are just good people who have reached different conclusions about the LDS church than you have. I don't understand the need to demonize them.

[frank_jessop]

I suspect it depends on how you look at things. If you want ex-Mormons to be evil and mean-spirited, that's how you will see them. Believe it or not, ex-Mormons, generally speaking, are just good people who have reached different conclusions about the LDS church than you have. I don't understand the need to demonize them.

It is ridiculous to affirmatively conclude, as he has, that his experience on antagonistic message boards (e.g. apologetic boards; and whatever mormondiscussions would be considered) reflects the interactions with family members. Notwithstanding the fallacious argument presented by asserting "all" act the same way based on the observation of a few.

[jkwilliams]

It is ridiculous to affirmatively conclude, as he has, that his experience on antagonistic message boards (e.g. apologetic boards; and whatever mormondiscussions would be considered) reflects the interactions with family members. Notwithstanding the fallacious argument presented by asserting "all" act the same way based on the observation of a few.

It's very easy to become jaded by online interactions. It doesn't really matter if it's a discussion of Mormonism or a message board about quilting; people are people, and some people like to argue, mock, insult, whatever. It's a huge mistake to think that the personality types you meet online are representative of the world at large. Me, I'm evil, but not every ex-Mormon is as blackhearted as I am.

Edited June 1, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Peppermint Patty]

I'm very excited to be attending the conference this year, it will be my first.

 

Some of these posts sadden me. I thought after Uchdorf's talk, people had moved on from labeling ex-Mormons as evil, or as having left the church to sin. If the results of this poll are to be believed the majority of us have family members who have left. Far from being evil apostates and sinners, these people are our husbands, wives, sons, daughters and parents.

 

It's hard to falsely demonize someone when they are beloved members of your family. Looking forward to meeting several people here. 

[mfbukowski]

I'm sorry if I misread you. You seemed to assume that an ex-Mormon would be likely to attack the church and behave badly if invited to such a panel. As I said, I think it could be very helpful to get an ex-Mormon's perspective.

I wonder why he thinks that.

I was on a panel at Sunstone a couple of years ago with some other ex-Mormons, and I was surprised and dismayed at some of the hostility from both sides. I guess I always separated what I see online from the way people treat each other in person. It was a revelation to me, and also one of the reasons why I'm not interested in panel discussions anymore.

[jkwilliams]

I wonder why he thinks that.

 

Ya got me, Mark. I set this whole thing up so I could make sure there would be a massive fight at the FAIR conference.

 

I still feel bad about that experience at Sunstone. As I said, this guy came up in the Q&A and went after us with real anger and, it seemed to me, genuine hatred. And some ex-Mormons responded as you might predict. I don't think it has to be that way, but you know, you seem to read everything I say as having some evil intent. Oh, well.

Edited June 2, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Mystery Meat]

Honestly, and I don't mean this to be a post that ends all discussion, but I have found only one rule need be followed with my close family members, extended family members, and friends who have left the church. 

 

Rule 1. Once someone, has made a decision to leave the Church, you don't get to talk about Mormonism with them at all anymore. Ever. Period. End of Discussion.

 

I was actually given this rule by a person who had left the Church and told me he was still bitter decades later. I asked him for advice about my relationship with my sister who had left the church and how it had effected our relationship. He knows my sister rather well. He told me that "she is going to tell you she is not angry or bitter, because no ex-mormon wants that label, but as an ex-mormon, we are all bitter. We are all angry. That anger may go away after time, but its going to take a lot of it. So as important as defending your faith is to you, justifying her reasons to leave the faith and why everything about it is awful is just as important for her."

 

I thought that was good advice and when I have followed it, me and her have had a great relationship. The two times since that advice that I didn't follow it, have not been pretty.

 

The problem is I know why my sister left the church. Because she told me why four years ago when she started down that path. She forgets that she told me why back then, but now tries to reframe history. That her motivations have always been a quest for truth. They have not. In fact of all my friends and family that have left the church exactly 0 have left after some quest for truth. Every. Single. One. left after life didn't go the way they wanted it to. Couldn't get married. Couldn't fit in. Couldn't stop sinning. Couldn't get the right job. Couldn't get a job. Couldn't get pregnant. Couldn't stay married. They blamed their bad life on the Church in every single case. And in every single case they wanted the church not to be true. They went looking for reasons for the church not to be true. They found them. And in most cases their opposition to the Church is mind boggelingly illogical.

 

That is probably harsh sounding. But it is true. Many of them, like my sister, want to go back and try and deny they ever said their anger had anything to do with any of the reasons I listed above (in her case, 'couldn't get married). I am sure there are those who have left the church after a truth journey, but if my experience is any indicator, they are few and far between.

Edited June 2, 2014 by lvjd66

[jkwilliams]

Honestly, and I don't mean this to be a post that ends all discussion, but I have found only one rule need be followed with my close family members, extended family members, and friends who have left the church. 

 

Rule 1. Once someone, has made a decision to leave the Church, you don't get to talk about Mormonism with them at all anymore. Ever. Period. End of Discussion.

 

I was actually given this rule by a person who had left the Church and told me he was still bitter decades later. I asked him for advice about my relationship with my sister who had left the church and how it had effected our relationship. He knows my sister rather well. He told me that "she is going to tell you she is not angry or bitter, because no ex-mormon wants that label, but as an ex-mormon, we are all bitter. We are all angry. That anger may go away after time, but its going to take a lot of it. So as important as defending your faith is to you, justifying her reasons to leave the faith and why everything about it is awful is just as important for her."

 

I thought that was good advice and when I have followed it, me and her have had a great relationship. The two times since that advice that I didn't follow it, have not been pretty.

 

The problem is I know why my sister left the church. Because she told me why four years ago when she started down that path. She forgets that she told me why back then, but now tries to reframe history. That her motivations have always been a quest for truth. They have not. In fact of all my friends and family that have left the church exactly 0 have left after some quest for truth. Every. Single. One. left after life didn't go the way they wanted it to. Couldn't get married. Couldn't fit in. Couldn't stop sinning. Couldn't get the right job. Couldn't get a job. Couldn't get pregnant. Couldn't stay married. They blamed their bad life on the Church in every single case. And in every single case they wanted the church not to be true. They went looking for reasons for the church not to be true. They found them. And in most cases their opposition to the Church is mind boggelingly illogical.

 

That is probably harsh sounding. But it is true. Many of them, like my sister, want to go back and try and deny they ever said their anger had anything to do with any of the reasons I listed above (in her case, 'couldn't get married). I am sure there are those who have left the church after a truth journey, but if my experience is any indicator, they are few and far between.

 

No offense, but that advice doesn't apply to everyone. My sister and I talk about the church a lot. Heck, my email conversations with my missionary nephew would be pretty brief if we didn't talk about the church. Assuming we're all so bitter and angry that we can't talk about it again, ever, is, well, crazy.

 

And it kind of sucks that you think we're all like your sister, who left, according to you, for reasons that had nothing to do with what she thought was right. That would be like me saying everyone who joins the church just did so to make a missionary happy.

Edited June 2, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Mystery Meat]

No offense, but that advice doesn't apply to everyone. My sister and I talk about the church a lot. Heck, my email conversations with my missionary nephew would be pretty brief if we didn't talk about the church. Assuming we're all so bitter and angry that we can't talk about it again, ever, is, well, crazy.

 

And it kind of sucks that you think we're all like your sister, who left, according to you, for reasons that had nothing to do with what she thought was right. That would be like me saying everyone who joins the church just did so to make a missionary happy.

 

I said I don't think everyone leaves for that. But I have a close relationship with no less than 8 such individuals who have left the church. They all left for at least one of the reasons I stated in my post. I can only base my perceptions on the interactions with the people I know. If you are one of the exceptions, I say great. 

[jkwilliams]

I said I don't think everyone leaves for that. But I have a close relationship with no less than 8 such individuals who have left the church. They all left for at least one of the reasons I stated in my post. I can only base my perceptions on the interactions with the people I know. If you are one of the exceptions, I say great. 

 

And I have close relationships with more than 8 people who have left, as I did, because they thought it was the right thing to do because they concluded the church isn't true. Unlike you, I don't think everyone leaves for the same reasons I and my friends have left.

[cinepro]

That her motivations have always been a quest for truth. They have not. In fact of all my friends and family that have left the church exactly 0 have left after some quest for truth. Every. Single. One. left after life didn't go the way they wanted it to. Couldn't get married. Couldn't fit in. Couldn't stop sinning. Couldn't get the right job. Couldn't get a job. Couldn't get pregnant. Couldn't stay married. They blamed their bad life on the Church in every single case. And in every single case they wanted the church not to be true. They went looking for reasons for the church not to be true. They found them. And in most cases their opposition to the Church is mind boggelingly illogical.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, three of my five siblings no longer go to Church (but they're still on the records as far as I know).  While I've never actually discussed the reasons they don't go, from what I can glean from their comments over the years it has nothing to do with Church history or the usual stuff people complain about online.  The best way I can describe it is that the Church just did not help them spiritually.  They grew up in the Church but as they reached adulthood, they just phased out of activity because they didn't get anything out of going.

[Mystery Meat]

And I have close relationships with more than 8 people who have left, as I did, because they thought it was the right thing to do because they concluded the church isn't true. Unlike you, I don't think everyone leaves for the same reasons I and my friends have left.

 

I respect that.

 

The only thing that gives me some pause, is the fact that if you met my sister you would be convinced she left for reasons other than she did. She has gotten very good at tell her story (I think she believes it herself). She would come off as cool and calm, when in reality she is angry. She might be for a long, long time. I think people can do a very good job of obfuscating the truth.

[mfbukowski]

Ya got me, Mark. I set this whole thing up so I could make sure there would be a massive fight at the FAIR conference.

 

I still feel bad about that experience at Sunstone. As I said, this guy came up in the Q&A and went after us with real anger and, it seemed to me, genuine hatred. And some ex-Mormons responded as you might predict. I don't think it has to be that way, but you know, you seem to read everything I say as having some evil intent. Oh, well.

No evil intent at all, just inconsistency.  I never know what you are saying because you seem, from my perspective, to keep contradicting yourself.  It's always "... but on the other hand....." and when I cite John on one hand, the other hand contradicts it, so that whatever I say, you can read it as evil intent because there seem to be two of you reading it.

 

I am just trying to help communication with you.  We have probably written a hundred pages or more of dialogue between us and I still cannot tell you one thing we agree on or disagree about. For me, it's like fighting with a pillow- you push one side and it poofs out on the other, with one of us apologizing for having pushed on anything at all.

[jkwilliams]

No evil intent at all, just inconsistency.  I never know what you are saying because you seem, from my perspective, to keep contradicting yourself.  It's always "... but on the other hand....." and when I cite John on one hand, the other hand contradicts it, so that whatever I say, you can read it as evil intent because there seem to be two of you reading it.

 

I am just trying to help communication with you.  We have probably written a hundred pages or more of dialogue between us and I still cannot tell you one thing we agree on or disagree about. For me, it's like fighting with a pillow- you push one side and it poofs out on the other, with one of us apologizing for having pushed on anything at all.

 

I've tried to be consistent and clear here. I think discussing how to deal with family members who leave is a good and positive thing, and I think it's entirely appropriate to have someone from the other side of the equation involved in the discussion. I used the example of the panel I was on because I understand why Scott thinks it would be a bad idea, but I do not for a moment believe that such confrontations are inevitable. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer.