Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[jkwilliams]

Since no one asked, I don't think I'd talk about the church at all if I were on such a panel. I would just say what I always do: Every relationship has good parts (love, companionship, etc.) that are not related to shared beliefs. When we focus on the differences in belief, we are making those differences the center of everything, and it's easy to forget about the other good parts of the marriage or family relationship. In my experience, people have a fighting chance if they put the relationship first and focus on loving and respecting each other and maintaining and building the good parts of the relationship; if they focus on the religious differences, they're far more likely to destroy the relationship.

[CA Steve]

I find the assumptions that such a panel cannot be held without someone becoming offended exactly the reason why such a panel should be held.

[name]

As I read how this thread/discussion continues to travel deeper and deeper south (getting really close to crush depth at this point), I find myself thinking of the many human beings within Mormonism (both Mormon and ex-Mormon).

 

The human beings - remember them?

[jkwilliams]

I find the assumptions that such a panel cannot be held without someone becoming offended exactly the reason why such a panel should be held.

I wish the organizers well. I sincerely hope that, whatever the makeup, the panel treats both the faithful and their formerly faithful family members as human beings deserving of love and respect.

[frank_jessop]

One might do so without even realizing or understanding or agreeing that he had done anything inappropriate, especially if he had reached the staunch conclusion that "the evidence against the Church is overwhelming in the negative."

Why is a testimony of the Church necessary for offering insight on maintaining family relationship between believers and non-believers? It seems absurd to suggest that only a believer could offer such insight.

He could be oh so polite about doing so, but in the end, it would still be at cross purposes with the FairMormon organization (as I perceive its mission).

Again, what does a testimony of the truth claims of the Church have to do with offering insight in maintaining family relationships between believers and non-believers.

And since the stated purpose of the panel appears, in some degree, to be about maintaining family relationships between believers and non-believers, then the presence of a non-believer would not be at cross purpose with FairMormon.

Or is it that, you think, a non-believer should never speak on any subject at gathering sponsored by FairMormon?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep. You think people like me are likely to attack the church if given the chance. But at least we'll try to be "nice" about it.

Seems like it always ends up being about you.

[jkwilliams]

 

Seems like it always ends up being about you.

It's always about me.

 

In the end, what matters is that I think we both hope that the panel in question is positive and helpful to a lot of families in pain.

[jkwilliams]

Scott,

 

What would you say if you were on the panel that might help such families heal?

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is a testimony of the Church necessary for offering insight on maintaining family relationship between believers and non-believers? It seems absurd to suggest that only a believer could offer such insight.

 

 

Why is the presence of an unbeliever necessary?

 

Again, what does a testimony of the truth claims of the Church have to do with offering insight in maintaining family relationships between believers and non-believers.

 

 

Since "believers" presumably ar those who have a testimony of the truth, it would seem their presence is essential.

 

And since the stated purpose of the panel appears, in some degree, to be about maintaining family relationships between believers and non-believers, then the presence of a non-believer would not be at cross purpose with FairMormon.

 

It would if the discussion drifted into his reasons for falling away and he started to take an advocacy stance. Such a thing would be less likely to happen if it were someone who had left and then returned, as I suggested earlier.

 

Or is it that, you think, a non-believer should never speak on any subject at gathering sponsored by FairMormon?

 

Not in a situation where his unbelief is germane to what he is talking about.

[jkwilliams]

I'll throw out the same question I asked of Scott to everyone else: What would you say if you were on the panel that might help such families heal?

 

Given the results of the poll on the other thread, it seems that most of us have some experience dealing with a family member leaving the church. What has worked in your family? What has not?

 

I've already said what has worked for me. What didn't work was trying to get my spouse and other family members to come around to my way of thinking. I had to let go of the notion that I was "right" before things could get better.

[Mystery Meat]

I'll throw out the same question I asked of Scott to everyone else: What would you say if you were on the panel that might help such families heal?

 

Given the results of the poll on the other thread, it seems that most of us have some experience dealing with a family member leaving the church. What has worked in your family? What has not?

 

I've already said what has worked for me. What didn't work was trying to get my spouse and other family members to come around to my way of thinking. I had to let go of the notion that I was "right" before things could get better.

 

I would advise not to discuss religious beliefs with them. That is hard for many. My father is a missionary and wants to help his misguided daughter. My sister is a missionary and wants to help her naive father. In the end, every time they talk, no matter how respectful and cordial it starts, it always ends the same. In anger on one side and hurt feelings on the other. I think at least for a time there needs to be space and time. Remember that you had more in common with them besides your faith. You both liked baseball before? I don't see why that would change so go to a baseball game. Find time to do the little things (and big) that let them know you care. 

 

My sister knows I love her. And I know she loves me. We have always been close. But its off limits. Probably will be for a long time. When we talk about it, it inevitably turns into a "you just don't know what I know about Church history" and "yes, I do, you just didn't want to believe any more" discussion. Which, as I have mentioned, is damaging. Not healing.

 

Now, I am not sure there will ever be complete healing for my parents, or my other family members, in this life so long as my sister maintains her current position. But there can be good relationships and love.

[MorningStar]

I would say to focus on the things you have in common and find a hobby for the family to do together.  Don't try to talk the other into seeing things your way or they will just become resentful.  Show lots of love and don't expect your spouse to change for you.  When my uncle left the church, he grew to resent how much my aunt spends doing temple work and family history, but that was the woman he married.  He couldn't expect her to be less religious for him. 

 

I've also had female relatives whose husbands suggested they should stop wearing their garments because they weren't "sexy".  This is crossing a line.  Compromise by wearing something sexy in the bedroom, but don't compromise the covenants you've made.

 

In my family, one gesture we showed my dad was to go to sacrament only on Father's Day and then come home to spend the rest of the day with him. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by MorningStar

[wenglund]

Just out of curiosity, what would some of the ex-Mormons here have to say to faithful members who have family that have left the Church?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

I'm just curious as to why one would think an organization dedicated to defense of the Mormon faith should have on its speakers lineup one who had rejected the Mormon faith.

I think they might do so to have more perspectives. My guess is you might both be wrong. Even more perplexing is why the panel at all, as it will run the risk of offending persons on both sides. I am the parent of a child who does not attend and feels like an outsider because of SSA. I am guessing I won't be on the "A List". I think these are deep waters that are best left alone.

[Calm]

"Even more perplexing is why the panel at all, as it will run the risk of offending persons on both sides"

Because FairMormon gets a lot of questions on "how should I handle this situation where my loved one has left the Church"

Wouldn't be the first time we've offended someone with a topic.

[jkwilliams]

"Even more perplexing is why the panel at all, as it will run the risk of offending persons on both sides"

Because FairMormon gets a lot of questions on "how should I handle this situation where my loved one has left the Church"

Wouldn't be the first time we've offended someone with a topic.

 

I really appreciate what you are trying to do here. I'm sorry if my questions and suggestions have detracted in any way from your goals.

[jkwilliams]

I would say to focus on the things you have in common and find a hobby for the family to do together.  Don't try to talk the other into seeing things your way or they will just become resentful.  Show lots of love and don't expect your spouse to change for you.  When my uncle left the church, he grew to resent how much my aunt spends doing temple work and family history, but that was the woman he married.  He couldn't expect her to be less religious for him. 

 

I've also had female relatives whose husbands suggested they should stop wearing their garments because they weren't "sexy".  This is crossing a line.  Compromise by wearing something sexy in the bedroom, but don't compromise the covenants you've made.

 

In my family, one gesture we showed my dad was to go to sacrament only on Father's Day and then come home to spend the rest of the day with him. 

 

I like that a lot. In our family, we respect each other's beliefs. My wife keeps her covenants, and I wouldn't dream of asking her not to. We have worked very hard to focus on what we have in common, not on how we differ. It has made a world of difference for both of us.

[MorningStar]

I also really appreciated it when my dad atttended Daddy Daughter activities even though he felt uncomfortable at all church events.  I didn't want to be the one girl without a dad there or be left out. 

[cinepro]

Similarly, I expect that others, secure in their own religious faith, could at the same time recognize good arguments defending the Church of Jesus Christ against attacks leveled against it.

 

The difference is in how believers and non-believers classify which arguments are "good".

[Scott Lloyd]

The difference is in how believers and non-believers classify which arguments are "good".

I see the dichotomy being between the fair-minded and not-so-fair-minded.

 

A believer who is fair-minded can and does recognize a good argument wherever he sees it, regardless of whether he believes in the thing that is being argued for or against.

 

FairMormon content does not stop being solid and persuasive just because someone rejects Mormonism.

 

To state the contrary is to support the "perception-is-reality" dogma, which I have always found ludicrous.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

I see the dichotomy between the fair-minded and not-so-fair-minded.

 

A believer who is fair-minded can and does recognize a good argument wherever he sees it, regardless of whether he believes in the thing that is being argued for or against.

 

FairMormon content does not stop being solid and persuasive just because someone rejects Mormonism.

Do you think that someone totally unfamiliar with Mormonism would look at FairMormon and find it solid and persuasive evidence in favor of the church's truth claims? Would, for example, someone look at FairMormon and believe there is solid and persuasive evidence of Nephite and Lamanite civilizations?

Even when I was a believer, I would have agreed with cinepro that one's viewing the arguments as good depends on one's prior belief.

[Spammer]

"Even more perplexing is why the panel at all, as it will run the risk of offending persons on both sides"

Because FairMormon gets a lot of questions on "how should I handle this situation where my loved one has left the Church"

Wouldn't be the first time we've offended someone with a topic.

 

 

If I may offer my own biased, anecdotal experience and point of view, I'd like to suggest that the only appropriate response to the question of "how should I handle this situation where my loved one has left the Church" is "even though you're disappointed and don't understand, tell your loved one that you love them anyway and that their relationship with you is more important than anything else, even the church".  It's ok to tell them you're disappointed, that the church is true and that you wish they wouldn't go, but they need to respond to their departing family member that though they disagree, they respect the decision, love them anyway, and it won't change anything about the relationship.  

 

Above all, they must not say things like "if you no longer believe, then our relationship can never be the same" (like my dad told me) or try to second-guess the departing member's spiritual experience or lack thereof, offering one of the stock explanations that seek to account for the assertion that s/he has never felt the spirit and doesn't have a testimony:

 

"I don't believe you.  you felt the spirit but didn't recognize it"

"did you sin or do you want to sin?"

"you must find living up to the church's standards too difficult"

"are you sure you prayed sincerely?"  

"you weren't listening when the spirit whispered".

 "your faith must hot have been strong enough", etc.  

 

(I got one or more of those from both parents, a grandparent, aunts and uncles, cousins. bishops, close friends).  

 

If the response to a departing family member is anything other than "we love you no matter what", then it's the wrong response and does nothing but create heartache and alienation and pushes the departing family member even further away.  Pres. Uchtdorf seems to understand the danger of this approach, however well-meaning the family member might be in employing it.

 

Of course, the feelings of alienation I acquired after departing are tied to my own self-perception of leaving in order to follow the dictates of my conscience and my heart.  What I've recommended above requires that family members treat their departing loved one as if they're similarly leaving for honest reasons, even if family members privately hold to a different opinion.  In other words, respond with love and keep your opinions and guesses about why someone's leaving to yourself.  Responding with love and understanding is always best, on the departing member's part and on the faithful family's part.  

Edited June 4, 2014 by Spammer

[wenglund]

I'll throw out the same question I asked of Scott to everyone else: What would you say if you were on the panel that might help such families heal?

 

As indicated on the other thread, I would focus my comments on the 11th Article of Faith. I would also stress the paramount importance of families as well as the presumed mutual intent of each party becoming better people. Additionally, I would warn against unforgiveness and locking people into or damning others in the present (i.e. decisions made in the here and now and heat of moments) and instead seek to be heroes in the relationship, as Dr. Phil is fond of saying. And, Strive to avoid argument traps and be liberal with humorous distractions, and be intent on doing things that uplift each other and make each other's lives better.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited June 4, 2014 by wenglund

[jkwilliams]

As indicated on the other thread, I would focus my comments on the 11th Article of Faith. I would also stress the paramount importance of families as well as the presumed mutual intent of each party becoming better people. Additionally, I would warn against unforgiveness and locking people into or damning others in the present (i.e. decisions made in the here and now and heat of moments) and instead seek to be heroes in the relationship, as Dr. Phil is fond of saying. And, Strive to avoid argument traps and be liberal with humorous distractions, and be intent on doing things that uplift each other and make each other's lives better.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That may be the best thing you've ever written, Wade. Thank you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I see the dichotomy being between the fair-minded and not-so-fair-minded.

 

A believer who is fair-minded can and does recognize a good argument wherever he sees it, regardless of whether he believes in the thing that is being argued for or against.

 

FairMormon content does not stop being solid and persuasive just because someone rejects Mormonism.

 

To state the contrary is to support the "perception-is-reality" dogma, which I have always found ludicrous.

I see a little bit of both. In the field of Mormon apologetics in general, I think many articles can stand on their own and provide a solid defense of certain Mormon beliefs and practices (say the recent Church essay on Theophony, or defenses against the charge that Mormons aren't Christian). Other defenses depend greatly on your point of view. Just one example: Many people attach Joseph Smith and early mormons because they practiced polygamy. One defense of this is comparing Joseph to biblical patriarchs who also practiced polygamy. While this might be a good argument for someone who believes Old Testament polygamy was inspired, not many secular humanists are going to find this as a decent defense.