Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[Paloma]

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.

 

Jkwilliams, I don't see you as inconsistent, but as fair-minded (and the pun is unintentional!).

 

I appreciate the kind of communication that includes contradictory examples and anecdotes because it comes across to me as reflective of real life.  There are occasions when it's advisable to be selective about what we mention, if we're trying to convince, promote or argue for one point of view.  But life in general is full of contradictions and compromises as well as commitments to our own positions.

 

Here I see your communication as open and welcoming of other points of view, without defensiveness and polarization.

[Wiki Wonka]

I do not think you have misread him at all; he has been very open and blunt with his attitude toward "ex-Mormons".

I could see the panel going covering several aspects of family members leaving the Church. Assuming the panel members will speak from personal experience.

I could see them discussion how they personally dealt with the inner turmoil or sadness or despair that a family member has left the Church. For someone who believes in the Church it is a very scary and saddening thing for a family member to leave i.e. is this family member lost forever; in Heaven will that family member not be a family member; in Heaven will I have any memories of the family member - these would be difficult and heartbreaking things to think about.

I could also see the panel discussing how to persevere, endure and repent of any antagonism that might develop and linger for awhile.

I could also see the panel discussing a "healing process" whether individually or collectively as the whole family reunites - as it were - as a family, while accepting that other family members are no longer associated with the Church; except by heritage or culture.

To be honest, I do not believe FAIRMormon would hold such a panel if the discussion was only theoretical. I image the panel discussion will be based on real experiences. I also do not believe that FAIRMormon would dedicate time to such a Panel if FAIRMormon did not believe a good portion of the audience has dealt with a family member leaving the Church or MIGHT experience a family member leaving the Church.

The panel will be interesting.

 

This description accurately describes the purpose of the panel. It is to discuss how we interact with and treat loved ones who reject the Church, and will feature members who have had family members leave.

[cinepro]

This description accurately describes the purpose of the panel. It is to discuss how we interact with and treat loved ones who reject the Church, and will feature members who have had family members leave.

 

I thought members weren't supposed to "interact" with loved ones who reject the Church.  Could be a short panel.

[mfbukowski]

I thought members weren't supposed to "interact" with loved ones who reject the Church.  Could be a short panel.

I don't know where you get this stuff.  I don't think I belong to the same church you do.

[Wiki Wonka]

I thought members weren't supposed to "interact" with loved ones who reject the Church.  Could be a short panel.

 

They are our spouses, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces and nephews.

 

You know better.

 

WW

[Scott Lloyd]

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's not demonizing them to suggest that the FairMormon Conference is not an appropriate forum for them to lecture attendees on their "different conclusions" about the Church of Jesus Christ. It's not what I have come to expect from FairMormon, which I see as an unabashed advocacy group that supports the Church of Jesus Christ.

[frank_jessop]

It's not demonizing them to suggest that the FairMormon Conference is not an appropriate forum for them to lecture attendees on their "different conclusions" about the Church of Jesus Christ. It's not what I have come to expect from FairMormon, which I see as an unabashed advocacy group that supports the Church of Jesus Christ.

You have demonized ex-Mormons in others ways unrelated to an being on the panel.

If the panel members have had "success" in their endeavors in maintaining loving family ties with ex-Mormon family members, then the panel is a the perfect place for that ex-Mormon to provide a second witness to the "success". And perhaps to offer insight into what might "going on" in the heart, mind and feelings of an ex-Mormon.

I have to agree with you that you do have a cynical view of ex-Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have demonized ex-Mormons in others ways unrelated to an being on the panel.

 

I can't control your thinking, but that strikes me as a reckless accusation.

 

If the panel members have had "success" in their endeavors in maintaining loving family ties with ex-Mormon family members, then the panel is a the perfect place for that ex-Mormon to provide a second witness to the "success". And perhaps to offer insight into what might "going on" in the heart, mind and feelings of an ex-Mormon.

 

It's the expression of "insights" into the mind of an ex-Mormon that to me makes the whole notion fraught with problems for a conference convened to defend the Church of Jesus Christ. That seems to me only a shade or two removed from providing a forum for a Mormon/anti-Mormon debate, and I don't see that such a thing squares with what I perceive to be the mission of FairMormon, which, again, is an advocacy organization.

 

I have to agree with you that you do have a cynical view of ex-Mormons.

 

Damning me with faint praise is it? To this, I can only respond that some cynicism -- perhaps more accurately termed as skepticism -- can be well-placed.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

It's not demonizing them to suggest that the FairMormon Conference is not an appropriate forum for them to lecture attendees on their "different conclusions" about the Church of Jesus Christ. It's not what I have come to expect from FairMormon, which I see as an unabashed advocacy group that supports the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

That's just it, Scott. FAIR obviously would not invite anyone to lecture attendees on their conclusions about the church. The only way what you are describing would happen is if someone went off-topic and ignored what they had agreed to talk about. You seem to think that an ex-Mormon would be very likely to do such a thing. To me, that suggests that you have a negative opinion of who and what ex-Mormons are, but you're right, demonizing is probably too strong a word.

Edited June 2, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Senator]

 It is to discuss how we interact with and treat loved ones who reject the Church,

 

Really?  There needs to be a panel for this?

[jkwilliams]

Thinking it over, I realize that Scott and Dan may well be right, that the approach I think would help might not line up with the purposes and goals of the FAIR conference.

 

My thought was that in this case--family members leaving--minimizing family conflict is a sort of defense of Mormonism. When someone leaves and there is a lot of conflict, there tends to be a lot of "collateral damage," in that family relationships are severely damaged, and those damaged, divided families are far less likely to develop active, contributing members of the LDS church. To me, that's common sense.

Perhaps others are seeing this panel discussion in terms of making sure that the apostate family member doesn't pull other family members into apostasy. Such an approach would, I imagine, involve protecting family members from the influence of the apostate. I understand that, having experienced something like that myself, when I was expressly forbidden to talk to anyone in the family about my beliefs, but I don't think this approach works well.

 

Whoever is organizing this panel, I wish you well. I think it's great that you're even discussing such a topic, as there are a lot of families out there hurting because of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Here's hoping the panel will help families heal.
 

[escott3564]

Thinking it over, I realize that Scott and Dan may well be right, that the approach I think would help might not line up with the purposes and goals of the FAIR conference.

 

My thought was that in this case--family members leaving--minimizing family conflict is a sort of defense of Mormonism. When someone leaves and there is a lot of conflict, there tends to be a lot of "collateral damage," in that family relationships are severely damaged, and those damaged, divided families are far less likely to develop active, contributing members of the LDS church. To me, that's common sense.

Perhaps others are seeing this panel discussion in terms of making sure that the apostate family member doesn't pull other family members into apostasy. Such an approach would, I imagine, involve protecting family members from the influence of the apostate. I understand that, having experienced something like that myself, when I was expressly forbidden to talk to anyone in the family about my beliefs, but I don't think this approach works well.

 

Whoever is organizing this panel, I wish you well. I think it's great that you're even discussing such a topic, as there are a lot of families out there hurting because of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Here's hoping the panel will help families heal.

 

 

I completely agree.  I think it's great that this topic is being discussed.  I would actually love to attend this conference.  If I lived in Utah, I would definitely make it a goal.

 

Does anyone know if these conferences have transcripts or videos available?  I would seriously be interested in purchasing a copy of some of the workshops posed for this conference.

[Tacenda]

Thinking it over, I realize that Scott and Dan may well be right, that the approach I think would help might not line up with the purposes and goals of the FAIR conference.

My thought was that in this case--family members leaving--minimizing family conflict is a sort of defense of Mormonism. When someone leaves and there is a lot of conflict, there tends to be a lot of "collateral damage," in that family relationships are severely damaged, and those damaged, divided families are far less likely to develop active, contributing members of the LDS church. To me, that's common sense.

Perhaps others are seeing this panel discussion in terms of making sure that the apostate family member doesn't pull other family members into apostasy. Such an approach would, I imagine, involve protecting family members from the influence of the apostate. I understand that, having experienced something like that myself, when I was expressly forbidden to talk to anyone in the family about my beliefs, but I don't think this approach works well.

Whoever is organizing this panel, I wish you well. I think it's great that you're even discussing such a topic, as there are a lot of families out there hurting because of misunderstanding and miscommunication. Here's hoping the panel will help families heal.

Or maybe Scott and Dan think a panel like that is too much like the panels in Sunstone Symposiums, sort of like when the church, or a leader, I'll not name names, long ago, felt like we shouldn't be like the Catholics and wear crosses.

[jkwilliams]

Or maybe Scott and Dan think a panel like that is too much like the panels in Sunstone Symposiums, sort of like when the church, or a leader, I'll not name names, long ago, felt like we shouldn't be like the Catholics and wear crosses.

 

Maybe. I'm just saying I don't know the goals of the panel, who's going to be on it, or what the format will be, so my thoughts were based on what I think would be positive and helpful. It should have been obvious to me from the beginning that my thoughts and goals may not line up at all with what they're trying to do.

 

I'm still interested in hearing from FAIR what they're planning, but I'll leave it at that.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

Just to be clear, your sister came to you four years ago and said something to the effect of "I'm leaving the church because I can't get married," but has subsequently changed to "I left the church because it isn't true"? 

[stemelbow]

Maybe. I'm just saying I don't know the goals of the panel, who's going to be on it, or what the format will be, so my thoughts were based on what I think would be positive and helpful. It should have been obvious to me from the beginning that my thoughts and goals may not line up at all with what they're trying to do.

 

I'm still interested in hearing from FAIR what they're planning, but I'll leave it at that.

I'd wager the goal would be to get a conversation started about how to treat others. While I'd agree it'd be nice to have a panel from all sides to discuss, this is a good move on FAIR's part. Maybe down the road they can include more.

[jkwilliams]

I'd wager the goal would be to get a conversation started about how to treat others. While I'd agree it'd be nice to have a panel from all sides to discuss, this is a good move on FAIR's part. Maybe down the road they can include more.

 

Agreed. I was just curious, but in the end, I'm glad they're doing this.

[stemelbow]

Agreed. I was just curious, but in the end, I'm glad they're doing this.

WEll after reading a few more posts in this thread, I hope one issue covered is to suggest it is best not to pin certain motivations on leavers. Even if you think you really do know, to treat others like you know something different than what they describes is the opposite of charitably dealing with others. If someone says one thing at one point in their life, describing why they are doing something, it is not wise to take that as "the answer" or a full explanation or accurate explanation of their motivations.

Best not to judge one's motivations. I love my close friends who have left and would not think it helpful at all to treat them as though I know their reasons behind their actions.

[jkwilliams]

WEll after reading a few more posts in this thread, I hope one issue covered is to suggest it is best not to pin certain motivations on leavers. Even if you think you really do know, to treat others like you know something different than what they describes is the opposite of charitably dealing with others. If someone says one thing at one point in their life, describing why they are doing something, it is not wise to take that as "the answer" or a full explanation or accurate explanation of their motivations.

Best not to judge one's motivations. I love my close friends who have left and would not think it helpful at all to treat them as though I know their reasons behind their actions.

 

Well said. My wife once said to me that, through it all, she never doubted that I was doing what I thought was the right thing. If she had thought otherwise, we would not have been able to work things out. I also had to learn that, despite what I thought, she wasn't putting loyalty to the church ahead of me or our family. She was just trying to figure things out as I was.

[Mystery Meat]

Just to be clear, your sister came to you four years ago and said something to the effect of "I'm leaving the church because I can't get married," but has subsequently changed to "I left the church because it isn't true"? 

 

Yes. And similar experiences with the other 7 individuals also occurred. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes. And similar experiences with the other 7 individuals also occurred. 

Fascinating. 

[Mystery Meat]

WEll after reading a few more posts in this thread, I hope one issue covered is to suggest it is best not to pin certain motivations on leavers. Even if you think you really do know, to treat others like you know something different than what they describes is the opposite of charitably dealing with others. If someone says one thing at one point in their life, describing why they are doing something, it is not wise to take that as "the answer" or a full explanation or accurate explanation of their motivations.

Best not to judge one's motivations. I love my close friends who have left and would not think it helpful at all to treat them as though I know their reasons behind their actions.

 

Since this is a passive aggressive response to what I have said, I thought I should respond. 

 

In the examples of the people closest to me, I really do know why they left. They told me why they left. I love the people in my life who have left as well. They are good people. I think they are very misguided, but they are good people nonetheless. I stand by what I said. 

[Mystery Meat]

Fascinating. 

 

Very.

[jkwilliams]

Just to be clear, your sister came to you four years ago and said something to the effect of "I'm leaving the church because I can't get married," but has subsequently changed to "I left the church because it isn't true"? 

 

Apparently, I left because I never had a testimony, wanted to sin, was too lazy to do my own research into church history, was proud, and tried to intellectualize the gospel.  

[stemelbow]

Since this is a passive aggressive response to what I have said, I thought I should respond. 

 

In the examples of the people closest to me, I really do know why they left. They told me why they left. I love the people in my life who have left as well. They are good people. I think they are very misguided, but they are good people nonetheless. I stand by what I said.

Ok. Sorry about the dig. Didn't mean to make it about your posts in particular. But generally I really do feel it best in dealing with others to not describe, allude to, mention what you think their motivations are. They could have described them, they could have suggested something that was not a full disclosure of their motivations at the time, or they also may have not come to realize their own motivations at the time. It's better to leave them to judge their motivations and leave it at that. But if you know then you know. Still probably best to treat them as though their current explanations accurately describe their motivations and leave it at that.