Fair Panel On Family Members Who Leave

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I see the role of FairMormon (and Mormon apologetics in general) as being primarily defense against attacks upon the Church. I draw a distinction between this and arguments directly endeavoring to persuade one to believe in Mormonism, although the two are definitely interrelated,

 

And yes, I think a reasonable and fair-minded individual unfamiliar with Mormonism could examine both sides of a given question and agree that FairMormon had provided a solid and persuasive defense against a given attack, even though such a person might not be persuaded to embrace Mormonism's truth claims.

 

Again, I say this because I can easily see myself being impressed by a well-reasoned defense against an attack on, say Catholicism, even though I don't embrace Catholicism as a religious faith.

[jkwilliams]

I see the role of FairMormon (and Mormon apologetics in general) as being primarily defense against attacks upon the Church. I draw a distinction between this and arguments directly endeavoring to persuade one to believe in Mormonism, although the two are definitely interrelated,

 

And yes, I think a reasonable and fair-minded individual unfamiliar with Mormonism could examine both sides of a given question and agree that FairMormon had provided a solid and persuasive defense against a given attack, even though such a person might not be persuaded to embrace Mormonism's truth claims.

 

Again, I say this because I can easily see myself being impressed by a well-reasoned defense against an attack on, say Catholicism, even though I don't embrace Catholicism as a religious faith.

Fair enough.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

But even a secular humanist, if he were reasonable, might recognize it as being a solid defense against an attack by someone who claims to embrace the Bible as God's word.

[Scott Lloyd]

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". 

The part I put in bold strikes me as an unreasonable expectation.

 

No devoted Latter-day Saint is going to sacrifice his faith for anything, even a relationship with a departing loved one.

 

Suppose the member were to say such a thing and the loved one who had left the Church were to respond, "If that's true, then, in order to continue to have a relationship with me, you are going to have to renounce Mormonism."

 

No faithful Church member will to agree to that, nor should he be expected to.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But even a secular humanist, if he were reasonable, might recognize it as being a solid defense against an attack by someone who claims to embrace the Bible as God's word.

Certainly.

[jkwilliams]

The part I put in bold strikes me as an unreasonable expectation.

 

No devoted Latter-day Saint is going to sacrifice his faith for anything, even a relationship with a departing loved one.

I think the point is that no ex-Mormon should ever demand that their believing family members make such a sacrifice. Too often people believe they must choose between the family member and the church, and that is a false choice.

Suppose the member were to say such a thing and the loved one who had left the Church were to respond, "If that's true, then, in order to have a relationship with me, you are going to have to renounce Mormonism."

Any person who would say such a thing is a selfish *** and a fool.

 

No faithful Church member will to agree to that, nor should he be expected to.

Agreed, and the same is true of the unbeliever.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the point is that no ex-Mormon should ever demand that their believing family members make such a sacrifice.

 

Then perhaps I misunderstood Spammer, because I read him/her as allowing for such a thing.

[jkwilliams]

Then perhaps I misunderstood Spammer, because I read him/her as allowing for such a thing.

I would have worded it this way: "Tell your loved one that you love them anyway and that their relationship with you is more important than anything else, even [your disagreement about] the church." I think Spammer would agree with me.

I know a few idiots whose marriages broke up because they demanded that their spouses follow them out of the church, just as I know a few idiots whose marriages broke up because they demanded that their spouses stay in the church. If the difference in belief is more important than the relationship, it's pretty much over, anyway.

Edited June 4, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

I would have worded it this way: "Tell your loved one that you love them anyway and that their relationship with you is more important than anything else, even [your disagreement about] the church." I think Spammer would agree with me.

 

If it were worded that way, I could accept it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The part I put in bold strikes me as an unreasonable expectation.

 

No devoted Latter-day Saint is going to sacrifice his faith for anything, even a relationship with a departing loved one.

 

Suppose the member were to say such a thing and the loved one who had left the Church were to respond, "If that's true, then, in order to continue to have a relationship with me, you are going to have to renounce Mormonism."

 

No faithful Church member will to agree to that, nor should he be expected to.

I agree with what you are saying here, but I do draw a distinction between faith / allegiance to God and service in the church (not saying that you don't but spammer clearly cited the church), though the line can be blurry. If my spouse left the church and was unhappy with the amount of time a particular calling was taking I'd try and work with the bishop to arrange for a more accommodating calling.  I believe someone mentioned ditching church after Sacrament on Father's day to spend time with unbelieving Dad. If I was an unbelieving spouse, despite my unbelief I would attend Sacrament meeting with my wife to help my wife with the kids if desired. I think these types of gestures are important to sustaining the relationship. 

Edited June 4, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Spammer]

The part I put in bold strikes me as an unreasonable expectation.

No devoted Latter-day Saint is going to sacrifice his faith for anything, even a relationship with a departing loved one.

Suppose the member were to say such a thing and the loved one who had left the Church were to respond, "If that's true, then, in order to continue to have a relationship with me, you are going to have to renounce Mormonism."

No faithful Church member will to agree to that, nor should he be expected to.

That's not what I intended to imply. I was trying to say, and failed, that the relationship is more important than whether the person who leaves stays in the church. Family first, church second. I hope that clarifies.

[Walden]

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-

 

Judging from my own family's experience when I left the faith, off the top of my head, the topics I might express include:

 

1. It is not your fault....if you are a parent or sibling of someone who has left the faith, it is not because of any failure on your part (in my experience, I think that my parents felt as if they had "failed" in some way because I had abandoned their faith, when in fact I was still the same honest, loyal, upstanding man that I was while in the church, I had just abandoned belief in the supernatural)

 

2. Continue to love and support this family member.....treat this family member with respect and love, and do not shun him/her for their choice regarding their religion/spirituality, but that being said,

 

3. Set boundaries and expectations as required....do not think that you must constantly put up with someone badmouthing your desire/decision to follow your spiritual conscience......in my own TBM parent's home, I do not badmouth the LDS faith or religion in general

 

4. Back-off and give them some room.....allow family members who have left the faith some breathing room in their new lives; don't send a constant stream of home-teachers, close LDS friends, bishopric members who were "just in the neighborhood," etc. to confront this family member in an attempt to reactivate them....an occasional, subtle hint is fine, IMO, (as long as one is fine with occasional subtle hints themselves) but no need to send a contingency of LDS members in their direction in an effort to persuade them of their foolishness in leaving the faith....this is not like some intervention for alcoholics, after all, it is a very personal decision one makes regarding their own spirituality

[Garden Girl]

Hello Walden...

I liked your points you made in your post #187... during my over 30 years of being inactive, my folks (particularly mom) never gave up hope that I would one day reactivate because we would talk occasionally about how I still had a testimony deep down... but... she did not constantly try and influence me, and they both treated my non-LDS husband wonderfully and eventually came to love him dearly.  Mom even told me one time how thankful she was that I was married to someone like him because she had no worries about me... whereas my sis was in a difficult marriage that eventually ended in divorce.  But I know my mom must have worn out her knees praying for me (for both of us really).

The only thing my mom used to do was forward my records to wherever I lived... and when my husband and I moved to No. Cal she used to mail me the Church News.  Sometimes I wouldn't even open them but would just toss them... now here I am... mailing articles, etc from the Church News to my inactive sister... Ha! 

What I regret most of all is that my mom never had the joy of sitting in Church with either of her adult daughters, or going to the temple together.  She used to yearn for that, when she'd see ward friends and their children together, particularly in the temple.  As most of you know, it was my mom's sudden death that sent me back to the Church (although I was headed that way, that was the final thing).

 

GG

Edited June 5, 2014 by Garden Girl

[Mystery Meat]

Judging from my own family's experience when I left the faith, off the top of my head, the topics I might express include:

 

1. It is not your fault....if you are a parent or sibling of someone who has left the faith, it is not because of any failure on your part (in my experience, I think that my parents felt as if they had "failed" in some way because I had abandoned their faith, when in fact I was still the same honest, loyal, upstanding man that I was while in the church, I had just abandoned belief in the supernatural)

 

2. Continue to love and support this family member.....treat this family member with respect and love, and do not shun him/her for their choice regarding their religion/spirituality, but that being said,

 

3. Set boundaries and expectations as required....do not think that you must constantly put up with someone badmouthing your desire/decision to follow your spiritual conscience......in my own TBM parent's home, I do not badmouth the LDS faith or religion in general

 

4. Back-off and give them some room.....allow family members who have left the faith some breathing room in their new lives; don't send a constant stream of home-teachers, close LDS friends, bishopric members who were "just in the neighborhood," etc. to confront this family member in an attempt to reactivate them....an occasional, subtle hint is fine, IMO, (as long as one is fine with occasional subtle hints themselves) but no need to send a contingency of LDS members in their direction in an effort to persuade them of their foolishness in leaving the faith....this is not like some intervention for alcoholics, after all, it is a very personal decision one makes regarding their own spirituality

 

Good points. 

 

One question. So my sister complains that at family get togethers we inevitably talk about the Church, the gospel, and other church related topics (scouting, callings, crazy people during testimony meetings, etc.). My sister complains about this even though of about 30 people at such get togethers she is the only one who is not a member.

 

Is her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present (and not in any way shape or form to convert her) reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations?

 

That is, in my opinion, where I think a lot of tension comes from in that relationship right now. She feels distanced. We want to be accommodating to her so we don't try and tell her how wrong she is, etc. We do discuss other church related topics when we are together. It's a big part of all of our lives. We don't appreciate her snide remarks, however. 

 

Thoughts?

[Tacenda]

Good points.

One question. So my sister complains that at family get togethers we inevitably talk about the Church, the gospel, and other church related topics (scouting, callings, crazy people during testimony meetings, etc.). My sister complains about this even though of about 30 people at such get togethers she is the only one who is not a member.

Is her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present (and not in any way shape or form to convert her) reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations?

That is, in my opinion, where I think a lot of tension comes from in that relationship right now. She feels distanced. We want to be accommodating to her so we don't try and tell her how wrong she is, etc. We do discuss other church related topics when we are together. It's a big part of all of our lives. We don't appreciate her snide remarks, however.

Thoughts?

I hate religion for this reason. Love my maker though.

[stemelbow]

Good points. 

 

One question. So my sister complains that at family get togethers we inevitably talk about the Church, the gospel, and other church related topics (scouting, callings, crazy people during testimony meetings, etc.). My sister complains about this even though of about 30 people at such get togethers she is the only one who is not a member.

 

Is her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present (and not in any way shape or form to convert her) reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations?

 

That is, in my opinion, where I think a lot of tension comes from in that relationship right now. She feels distanced. We want to be accommodating to her so we don't try and tell her how wrong she is, etc. We do discuss other church related topics when we are together. It's a big part of all of our lives. We don't appreciate her snide remarks, however. 

 

Thoughts?

I would say Walden's points should apply to both sides. I think we've heard tons of stories about family members who leave and how they've caused family problems and the opposite is fairly common too. I think in most of our minds it's not that hard. But in practice and with some people it's just very difficult. We take them for who they are and learn to expect snide remarks and problematic modes of discussion I guess.

[bluebell]

I hate religion for this reason. Love my maker though.

 

Religion can sometimes be divisive.  Even Jesus acknowledged that His gospel would sometimes be as a sword.  We can't shy away from things just because they are difficult or uncomfortable sometimes, though we also certainly don't want to purposefully add to any division and create difficulty where it doesn't necessarily need to be.

 

[Walden]

Good points. 

 

One question. So my sister complains that at family get togethers we inevitably talk about the Church, the gospel, and other church related topics (scouting, callings, crazy people during testimony meetings, etc.). My sister complains about this even though of about 30 people at such get togethers she is the only one who is not a member.

 

Is her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present (and not in any way shape or form to convert her) reasonable? Is it reasonable for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations?

 

That is, in my opinion, where I think a lot of tension comes from in that relationship right now. She feels distanced. We want to be accommodating to her so we don't try and tell her how wrong she is, etc. We do discuss other church related topics when we are together. It's a big part of all of our lives. We don't appreciate her snide remarks, however. 

 

Thoughts?

 

I can only speak for myself, but as the only "ex" member of my active, LDS family, I don't expect everyone else in the family to pretend as if their religion doesn't exist. Just because I chose to leave the faith that I was brought up in doesn't mean that I expect everyone else to walk on eggshells for fear of offending me.

 

I expect to hear a fair amount of LDS chatter at large family gatherings, as almost everyone else in our extended family is LDS. My parents currently spend 1 week a month working at the Los Angeles temple, and I regularly hear about their experiences there (at least those ones that they can speak of). My sister has 6 kids from ages 1-11, and I have over 20 nieces and nephews from my other siblings, so there is always some chatter about baptisms or youth activities, etc at any large family gathering. I treat them as "slice of life" stories, as the LDS faith is part of their life, a big part, and thus it would only be natural that there is conversation about it.

 

Now, if those conversations turn to proselytizing, I will raise an objection. Likewise, once the conversations begin getting political, I will speak up and add my two cents. But I am fine hearing the usual LDS chatter that is common in LDS families and at LDS-dominated gatherings.

 

So yes, I think that "her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present," is wrong and unreasonable. That's like asking a room of politicians to not talk politics. As long as you are not proselytizing or laying on some guilt trip, then I think that she needs to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around her. Her "snide remarks" are her defense mechanism to deflect her feelings of isolation and her role as the "black sheep."

 

Likewise, I think that it is reasonable "for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations," but I wouldn't hold my breath that this will change without confrontation. And if that doesn't work, ignoring her is the alternate option. 

[jkwilliams]

I can only speak for myself, but as the only "ex" member of my active, LDS family, I don't expect everyone else in the family to pretend as if their religion doesn't exist. Just because I chose to leave the faith that I was brought up in doesn't mean that I expect everyone else to walk on eggshells for fear of offending me.

 

I expect to hear a fair amount of LDS chatter at large family gatherings, as almost everyone else in our extended family is LDS. My parents currently spend 1 week a month working at the Los Angeles temple, and I regularly hear about their experiences there (at least those ones that they can speak of). My sister has 6 kids from ages 1-11, and I have over 20 nieces and nephews from my other siblings, so there is always some chatter about baptisms or youth activities, etc at any large family gathering. I treat them as "slice of life" stories, as the LDS faith is part of their life, a big part, and thus it would only be natural that there is conversation about it.

 

Now, if those conversations turn to proselytizing, I will raise an objection. Likewise, once the conversations begin getting political, I will speak up and add my two cents. But I am fine hearing the usual LDS chatter that is common in LDS families and at LDS-dominated gatherings.

 

So yes, I think that "her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present," is wrong and unreasonable. That's like asking a room of politicians to not talk politics. As long as you are not proselytizing or laying on some guilt trip, then I think that she needs to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around her. Her "snide remarks" are her defense mechanism to deflect her feelings of isolation and her role as the "black sheep."

 

Likewise, I think that it is reasonable "for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations," but I wouldn't hold my breath that this will change without confrontation. And if that doesn't work, ignoring her is the alternate option. 

 

Your experience is much like mine (and coincidentally, my parents worked in the Los Angeles Temple for a while). My mother always tells me what's going on in her ward, who's getting married in the temple, and so on. It would be completely unreasonable to expect her to leave her religion, which is obviously a major part of her life, out of every conversation when I'm around. I don't bring religion up simply because it isn't a major part of my life anymore, so I'm unlikely to cause problems in that regard. Likewise, I talk to my sister every week, and she talks a lot about church (she's Relief Society president), BYU (where she teaches), her husband's calling as stake president, and my nephew who is on a mission. In fact, I've been carrying on a great correspondence with my missionary nephew, and there's never been a problem, even though he eats, drinks, and sleeps religion right now.

 

In my interactions with my family, I have to remind myself of my Aunt Helen, who was married to my father's older brother. She had gone from a pretty fanatical Mormon to a Scientologist sometime in the 1970s. We never saw much of them when I was growing up, as they lived on the East Coast, and we were in California. When they came to visit, she would talk endlessly about Scientology and try to convince us it was the truth and would change our lives (I'm sure it would, though not in a good way). She was so annoying because she wouldn't shut up but would badger and hector us for the duration of their visits. My baseline rule, then, in discussing religion, is never to be Aunt Helen.

[Mystery Meat]

 

So yes, I think that "her expectation that the rest of us not discuss religion at all when she is present," is wrong and unreasonable. That's like asking a room of politicians to not talk politics. As long as you are not proselytizing or laying on some guilt trip, then I think that she needs to grow up and realize that the world does not revolve around her. Her "snide remarks" are her defense mechanism to deflect her feelings of isolation and her role as the "black sheep."

 

Likewise, I think that it is reasonable "for us to expect her not to chime in with her "historical perspective" on the church in such situations," but I wouldn't hold my breath that this will change without confrontation. And if that doesn't work, ignoring her is the alternate option. 

 

I think we have gotten pretty good at ignoring her remarks. It still grinds the gears. But I am hoping it will listen in time. We don't proselytize. Sometimes we talk about SSM or OW which sparks a wide range of opinions from everybody (ironically my sister thinks the OW group are stupid, her word not mine). So when those kinds of topics come up we anticipate some push back. And I don't have any problem with it. 

[Mystery Meat]

I hate religion for this reason. Love my maker though.

 

I do not understand your comment at all. Why do you hate religion? I can't spot the reason.

[Kenngo1969]

I hate religion for this reason. Love my maker though.

 

I do not understand your comment at all. Why do you hate religion? I can't spot the reason.

 

Indeed.  I can understand a person having an antipathy toward certain interpretations and applications of religion, but an antipathy toward religion in general, I don't get.

[Tacenda]

I do not understand your comment at all. Why do you hate religion? I can't spot the reason.

 

 

 

 

Indeed.  I can understand a person having an antipathy toward certain interpretations and applications of religion, but an antipathy toward religion in general, I don't get.

I'm kind of immature at times, needless to say.  And I don't express myself very well.  I should have said, I hate when religion can divide or exclude. 

 

IMO lvjd66, your sister must feel pretty lonely around your family, I so relate, but with me I can't be real with people, for fear if I share why, they'll lose their respect for me.  So it's frustrating what religion can do in that respect.  I know it's not just the LDS, but many religions.  It can lead people to curb relationships within families.  That's what I hate, the barriers.  But I do love religion for the good in the world it creates and for the making of friendships alongside worship. 

 

But there again we segregate in groups, maybe it's the titles we put on ourselves, Catholic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Mormon....        

[cinepro]

I see the role of FairMormon (and Mormon apologetics in general) as being primarily defense against attacks upon the Church. I draw a distinction between this and arguments directly endeavoring to persuade one to believe in Mormonism, although the two are definitely interrelated,

 

And yes, I think a reasonable and fair-minded individual unfamiliar with Mormonism could examine both sides of a given question and agree that FairMormon had provided a solid and persuasive defense against a given attack, even though such a person might not be persuaded to embrace Mormonism's truth claims.

 

Again, I say this because I can easily see myself being impressed by a well-reasoned defense against an attack on, say Catholicism, even though I don't embrace Catholicism as a religious faith.

That observation applies to some apologetic "defenses", especially when the "attack" is based on misinformation. And I think that's a valid role for apologetics to play. Certainly, if I heard something untrue about any religion I would appreciate hearing a well-reasoned response from someone to set me straight.

The problem is that not all "attacks" towards religions are based on misinformation. In fact, it seems to me that there has been a huge shift away from the old "Godmakers" style attacks that were based on misinformation and sensationalism to "attacks" that are based on stuff that is true but not well-known to most LDS members.

 

So while I support and applaud any group's efforts to fight falsehoods with truth, I laugh when apologetics broadens in scope to try and defend the Church against everything people have a problem with.

 

For example, someone might have a problem with the Church's dealings with the forger Mark Hofmann, where Church money was used to purchase forged documents.

 

In it's defense of the Church in that embarrassing situation, the FAIR Wiki says this:

 

 

 

However, one should not be surprised if a prophet is deceived. The LDS do not believe their prophets to be infallible.

 

Setting aside the tendency for apologists to seriously overplay the "fallibility" trump card as if they could win every hand with it, it ignores what LDS have been taught over the years about Church leaders (especially the Prophet) having a special power to see people's true motivations.  We even have a name for it:

 

The Gift of Discernment.

 

Here's how Elder Bednar describes it (starting with a quote from Stephen L. Richards):

 

 

President Stephen L Richards (1879–1959), who served as a counselor to President David O. McKay, has provided additional instruction about the nature and blessings of discernment:

 

“First, I mention the gift of discernment, embodying the power to discriminate … between right and wrong. I believe that this gift when highly developed arises largely out of an acute sensitivity to impressions—spiritual impressions, if you will—to read under the surface as it were, to detect hidden evil, and more importantly to find the good that may be concealed. The highest type of discernment is that which perceives in others and uncovers for them their better natures, the good inherent within them. …

“… Every member in the restored Church of Christ could have this gift if he willed to do so. He could not be deceived with the sophistries of the world. He could not be led astray by pseudo-prophets and subversive cults. Even the inexperienced would recognize false teachings, in a measure at least. … We ought to be grateful every day of our lives for this sense which keeps alive a conscience which constantly alerts us to the dangers inherent in wrongdoers and sin.”²

 

As we integrate the teachings of Presidents Cannon and Richards, we learn that the gift of discernment operates basically in four major ways.

 

First, as we “read under the surface,” discernment helps us detect hidden error and evil in others.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/12/quick-to-observe?lang=eng

 

The Mark Hofmann scenario presents serious problems for a Church that teaches that its leaders have a supernatural ability to detect the motivations of others, and it's situation like this that spur apologists to write "defenses" or explanations that are only convincing to believers. 

Edited June 5, 2014 by cinepro

[Mystery Meat]

I'm kind of immature at times, needless to say.  And I don't express myself very well.  I should have said, I hate when religion can divide or exclude. 

 

IMO lvjd66, your sister must feel pretty lonely around your family, I so relate, but with me I can't be real with people, for fear if I share why, they'll lose their respect for me.  So it's frustrating what religion can do in that respect.  I know it's not just the LDS, but many religions.  It can lead people to curb relationships within families.  That's what I hate, the barriers.  But I do love religion for the good in the world it creates and for the making of friendships alongside worship. 

 

But there again we segregate in groups, maybe it's the titles we put on ourselves, Catholic, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Mormon....        

 

In that case see Bluebell's response. The Savior himself came to divide.