Blog Post: "angry Ex-Mormon-Anti-Mormons"

[Mystery Meat]

Try coming out of your box also. Be open about your situation, joke and kid to break the ice about your differences now. It's crucial that you're all open, don't let it be an elephant in the room.

 

Trust me. I've tried. Usually that just starts a big, long rant about how the Church couldn't be true. Then it is no longer light hearted. 

[Mystery Meat]

No I think you missed my angle. I was pointing out an irony for rhetorical effect. The idea was simply that many exmormons effectively agree with GB Hinckley in that they feel that if the church isn't true then it must be effectively an evil fraud.  No principle of reason forces them to agree with him but based on their own considerations and own reasoning, they ironically do agree on at least that dichotomy. 

 

On the other hand, while in general the opposition between simply true and outright fraud is a false dilemma, my own opinion given the details of the particular case of historical Mormonism is that it does boil down to that dichotomy with very little remainder. So ironically, I agree with President Hinckley. 

 

Does that mean I think there is nothing good in Mormonism? No because even with a system that began in fraud or fantasy and even if some of that continues, it may well be that as long as there are enough members that are basically good people and bring that to bear in the way they interpret the religion, then there can be many reliable positives in being a member. But, even if there we no obvious negatives at all, many of us would still not prefer to remain if  it is not true in every relevant way. That is it matters whether there really were Nephites and whether Joseph Smith really had a unique authority from a living God. Maybe the love of factual truth is a character flaw but what can one do?

 

I love factual truth. I am still a believing Mormon.

[sethpayne]

No I think you missed my angle. I was pointing out an irony for rhetorical effect. The idea was simply that many exmormons effectively agree with GB Hinckley in that they feel that if the church isn't true then it must be effectively an evil fraud.  No principle of reason forces them to agree with him but based on their own considerations and own reasoning, they ironically do agree on at least that dichotomy. 

 

On the other hand, while in general the opposition between simply true and outright fraud is a false dilemma, my own opinion given the details of the particular case of historical Mormonism is that it does boil down to that dichotomy with very little remainder. So ironically, I agree with President Hinckley. 

 

Does that mean I think there is nothing good in Mormonism? No because even with a system that began in fraud or fantasy and even if some of that continues, it may well be that as long as there are enough members that are basically good people and bring that to bear in the way they interpret the religion, then there can be many reliable positives in being a member. But, even if there we no obvious negatives at all, many of us would still not prefer to remain if  it is not true in every relevant way. That is it matters whether there really were Nephites and whether Joseph Smith really had a unique authority from a living God. Maybe the love of factual truth is a character flaw but what can one do?

 

Ah.  I see where you are coming from.  My personal experience has been that once I have made a choice regarding believing this or that .... the discussion is kind of over in the sense that I'm usually not one to try and persuade someone of my particular religious views -- especially those who hold the views I used to share with them.  

 

I find your phrase "love of factual truth" to be interesting.  What theory of truth do you ascribe to, generally?  

[sdc999]

Ah.  I see where you are coming from.  My personal experience has been that once I have made a choice regarding believing this or that .... the discussion is kind of over in the sense that I'm usually not one to try and persuade someone of my particular religious views -- especially those who hold the views I used to share with them.  

 

I find your phrase "love of factual truth" to be interesting.  What theory of truth do you ascribe to, generally?  

Every member a missionary - except you!  Well, there goes that theory.

[sethpayne]

Every member a missionary - except you!  Well, there goes that theory.

 

 Let me clarify.

 

I am, quite openly, a non-traditional Mormon.  My theological views diverge from traditional Mormon doctrine in some key respects.  So, when I say I am not trying to persuade people to my views, it is these particular views I have in mind.  If belief in a historical Book of Mormon, for example, works for someone -- who am I to come in and try and convince them otherwise?  

 

But, in other areas I am happy to share my faith.  And, if a ward or family member happens to ask about my opinion on some subject, I'll give them an honest answer.

[Tarski]

 

 

I find your phrase "love of factual truth" to be interesting.  What theory of truth do you ascribe to, generally?  

I resist commiting to any specific systematic epistemology though I think the subject is interesting. There is an essay you should read that captures my attitude.

Before I give you the link, let me say that the notion of truth that matters for our discussion is that hard to articulate but intuitively obvious notion that would matter to you if you or a family member were falsely accused of a serious and very concrete crime such as stabing someone to death.  You should hope the jury members employ that basic notion (as opposed to some fancy counterintuitive postmodern theory of truth).

 

If your theory of knowledge has a difficult time distinguishing between fictional characters like Bilbo Baggins and historical persons like Robert E. Lee or Richard Nixon, then we would not be communicating well when we discuss Nephi or the angel Moroni.

 

 

Put another way, if your theory of knowledge, be it a correspondence theory, a coherence theory or something else, leaves you feeling that the meaning of "I shot the sherrif" has changed radically rather than remaining intact but a bit clarified, then your theory is probably one I could not endorse. Could a change in which epistemology you endorse change the truth value (T or F) you associate to any of the following?

 

John Wilkes Booth assisinated Lincoln.

 

Bees are involved in the production of honey.

 

Cats are mammals.

 

Bilbo Baggins (The Bilbo Baggins) stole my guitar.

 

If a switch in your theory of truth alone could change whether you think the church is true or not then I would find that quite troubling and suspicious.

 

Take a look at  http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/faithint.htm

[Mystery Meat]

If a switch in your theory of truth alone could change whether you think the church is true or not then I would find that quite troubling and suspicious.

 

I agree with this. Fortunately I don't think faith in the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints depend on the adherence to one or more truth theories.

Edited October 8, 2014 by lvjd66

[sethpayne]

I resist commiting to any specific systematic epistemology though I think the subject is interesting. There is an essay you should read that captures my attitude.

Before I give you the link, let me say that the notion of truth that matters for our discussion is that hard to articulate but intuitively obvious notion that would matter to you if you or a family member were falsely accused of a serious and very concrete crime such as stabing someone to death.  You should hope the jury members employ that basic notion (as opposed to some fancy counterintuitive postmodern theory of truth).

 

If your theory of knowledge has a difficult time distinguishing between fictional characters like Bilbo Baggins and historical persons like Robert E. Lee or Richard Nixon, then we would not be communicating well when we discuss Nephi or the angel Moroni.

 

 

Put another way, if your theory of knowledge, be it a correspondence theory, a coherence theory or something else, leaves you feeling that the meaning of "I shot the sherrif" has changed radically rather than remaining intact but a bit clarified, then your theory is probably one I could not endorse. Could a change in which epistemology you endorse change the truth value (T or F) you associate to any of the following?

 

John Wilkes Booth assisinated Lincoln.

 

Bees are involved in the production of honey.

 

Cats are mammals.

 

Bilbo Baggins (The Bilbo Baggins) stole my guitar.

 

If a switch in your theory of truth alone could change whether you think the church is true or not then I would find that quite troubling and suspicious.

 

Take a look at  http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/faithint.htm

 

Like you, I do not subscribe to any single theory or philosophy.  Day-to-day I would say I favor instrumental, or Pragmatic, truth when it comes to questions of morality or metaphysics.  But I also embrace the correspondence theory as a matter of course.  Coherence .... meh.

 

But let's take your example of Bilbo Baggins.  Is Bilbo Baggins true?  Well, that's not a very helpful question.  How about: Was Bilbo Baggins a living being in history?  Did this being occupy spacetime in our universe?

 

To that question I would say no.  Emphatically.  There is no correspondence between any of those statements and an occurrence in what we would call reality.

 

Is Bilbo Baggins real?

 

This is an entirely different question and has, of course, many many answers.  Even at the material level, Bilbo Baggins is real in that Tolkein's brain occupied a position in reality and of course he is "real" in the same way all ideas are real.

 

Of course religion is different.  People don't read the "Lord of the Rings" and begin living underground and hanging out with elves.  They do, however, act according to mandates drawn from narratives.  And so if a religion makes the claim that Nephi was a real person, someone may act as Nephi.  Historical claims are used to substantiate present demands of the faithful.  

 

I think the case could be made that if one strongly believes Nephi is an ahistorical person and that his ahistoricity directly impacts the demands made of the present day faithful in a negative sense, that he/she should work to debunk or undermine the claim of historicity.  I think there is some logic in this.

 

However, I also think a more Pragmatic approach may work too.  If someone is acting like Nephi by being a strong leader, faithful, a hard worker, etc... then great.  It would seem that belief is working out.  In this case who cares about Nephi's historicity?  

 

But let's say we can draw a straight line from a belief in a historical Nephi and the practice of disowning a gay or lesbian child.  In this case I think the problem isn't Nephi, it's the practice of disowning a gay or lesbian child that's the problem.  Let's focus on solving that problem.  That may involve seeking to undermine Nephi's historicity if it so happens that the changing of this belief will eradicate the bad practice.  

 

I have nothing more than my own experience to go on, but it seems that when people act badly, they tend to be bad people.  Meaning, it doesn't matter what context you place these folks in, they will behave badly.  So in that way the context is less important than the bad behavior.

 

Of course, we can see that certain religious groups/cultures have different characteristics in the real world.  The Seventh Day Adventists have a very long life span.  A group in the late 90's thought they were going up on a space ship by committing mass suicide.  So there must be connection be belief and behavior.  So it is better to promote some beliefs and undermine others.  Jenny McCarthy will always be known as the woman who brought back Whooping Cough.  

 

I think Mormon Culture has a lot of great things and a lot of not-so-good things.  From my viewpoint, many of those not-so-good things can be addressed without reference to any motivating belief.  

 

(thanks for the link..... reading now)

[Scott Lloyd]

Trust me. I've tried. Usually that just starts a big, long rant about how the Church couldn't be true. Then it is no longer light hearted.

I suspect what often happens is the following scenario or some variation thereon:

Disaffected one, feeling bitter, betrayed and bamboozled, with missionary-like zeal tries to spread his newfound "enlightenment" to close family member. Family member won't cave in and indeed feels shock and grief at what has transpired. Disaffected one takes it personally. Harsh words fly from both sides as the matter escalates. What follows is a tense and acrimonious silence and a predictable breach in the relationship. Disaffected one, looking for reasons to feel victimized and blame the Church, now has a big one to add to the list: His family member won't talk to him anymore. This fuels a common meme: Mormons are a cult because they shun people who abandon the faith.

And so it goes.

[sdc999]

I suspect what often happens is the following scenario or some variation thereon:

Disaffected one, feeling bitter, betrayed and bamboozled, with missionary-like zeal tries to spread his newfound "enlightenment" to close family member. Family member won't cave in and indeed feels shock and grief at what has transpired. Disaffected one takes it personally. Harsh words fly from both sides as the matter escalates. What follows is a tense and acrimonious silence and a predictable breach in the relationship. Disaffected one, looking for reasons to feel victimized and blame the Church, now has a big one to add to the list: His family member won't talk to him anymore. This fuels a common meme: Mormons are a cult because they shun people who abandon the faith.

And so it goes.

Newly enlightened member, feeling the spirit, with missionary-like zeal tries to spread his newfound "enlightenment" to close family member.  Family member won't cave in and indeed feels shock and grief as what has transpired.  New enlightened member takes it personally.  Harsh words fly from both sides as the matter escalates. What follows is a tense and acrimonious silence and a predictable breach in the relationship.  Newly enlightened one, looking for reasons to feel betrayed, blame the family.  Their family member won't talk to him anymore.  This fuels a common meme:  Newly enlightened Mormons "Know" the truth while family wanders in outer darkness and will not achieve the highest level in the kingdom.  

 

Okay, so it happens your way more than mine. But I know I tried to talk to a lot of my family when I joined and, for the life of me, could not understand why they just couldn't get it.  Things were awkward at times.  But they actually never quit talking to me.  Silence and ostracizing, That usually is reserved for a departing member.

 

A new member and an exmember are both "newly enlightened" and want to share with the ones they love and want to protect.  Some on both sides take it way too far.

Edited October 9, 2014 by sdc999

[HappyJackWagon]

 

some members might act badly but so do some of the ex mos.

No question this is true. There could be more civility on every side.

 I probably would not want my kids hanging around with the kids of parents that have left solely with the negativity I have experienced in the past and the shear onslaught at my beliefs.

 

How would your kids feel if neighborhood kids or classmates from school weren't allowed to play with them because they're Mormon?

[Scott Lloyd]

Newly enlightened member, feeling the spirit, with missionary-like zeal tries to spread his newfound "enlightenment" to close family member.  Family member won't cave in and indeed feels shock and grief as what has transpired.  New enlightened member takes it personally.  Harsh words fly from both sides as the matter escalates. What follows is a tense and acrimonious silence and a predictable breach in the relationship.  Newly enlightened one, looking for reasons to feel betrayed, blame the family.  Their family member won't talk to him anymore.  This fuels a common meme:  Newly enlightened Mormons "Know" the truth while family wanders in outer darkness and will not achieve the highest level in the kingdom.  

 

Okay, so it happens your way more than mine. But I know I tried to talk to a lot of my family when I joined and, for the life of me, could not understand why they just couldn't get it.  Things were awkward at times.  But they actually never quit talking to me.  Silence and ostracizing, That usually is reserved for a departing member.

 

A new member and an exmember are both "newly enlightened" and want to share with the ones they love and want to protect.  Some on both sides take it way too far.

It's not a comparable situation, and I think you have illustrated why here in your post, with your concession, "OK, so it happens your way more than mine."

 

When a newly minted Latter-day Saint finds his relatives don't share his enthusiasm for his new faith, he may feel frustrated, but his frustration typically doesn't manifest itself in acrimony, ill will and combativeness. Not if he truly understands the faith that he  has just embraced.

 

You said your family never quit talking to you. I daresay that's because, awkward though the situation may have been, they could see no provocation in your manner or behavior for them to do so.

 

What I've tried to convey here is that what you call "silence and ostracizing" in many cases is very likely not as one-sided as you make it seem with that phrase, but rather, is a manifestation of the breach in communication and relationships that understandably follows discord and heated argument.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

How would your kids feel if neighborhood kids or classmates from school weren't allowed to play with them because they're Mormon?

There's no functional equivalency here, for the obvious reason that neither I as a Mormon nor my children are apt to denigrate another family's religious faith.

 

I would not feel so confident if it were a matter of my children associating with children from a family of bitter ex-Mormons.

 

For the situation to be comparable, it would have to be a question of my kids associating with kids from a family of non-Mormons (not ex- or anti-Mormons), in which case I would have no qualms, unless there were other factors to consider.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

There's no functional equivalency here, for the obvious reason that neither I as a Mormon nor my children are apt to denigrate another family's religious faith.

 

I would not feel so confident if it were a matter of my children associating with children from a family of bitter ex-Mormons.

 

For the situation to be comparable, it would have to be a question of my kids associating with kids from a family of non-Mormons (not ex- or anti-Mormons), in which case I would have no qualms, unless there were other factors to consider.

If that makes you feel better, fine. But in both cases, one group is judging the other and restricting access of their kids to other "unworthy" kids.

[Scott Lloyd]

If that makes you feel better, fine. But in both cases, one group is judging the other and restricting access of their kids to other "unworthy" kids.

Everyone judges.

 

You can't get through a day in your life without making judgments.

 

What's more there is nothing wrong with judging, per se. You make a judgment when you deliberately avoid hiring a convicted child abuser to babysit your kids. You make a judgment when you refuse to take your car to a certain garage for repairs because the mechanic there has ripped you off in the past.

 

It's a misconception that Christ said not to judge. What He actually said was not to judge unrighteously.

 

Refusing to let your kids associate with kids from a Catholic family because they are not Mormon would arguably amount to unrighteous judgment, especially as Church leaders have counseled Church members not to do such things -- as recently as this past general conference, in fact.

 

On the other hand, being guarded about having your impressionable kids associate with a family who won't shut up about their hatred of Mormonism might not be unrighteous judgment. It might, in fact, be prudent. Not because you judge the family to be "unworthy" but because you are trying to protect your family.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

On the other hand, being guarded about having your impressionable kids associate with a family who won't shut up about their hatred of Mormonism might not be unrighteous judgment. It might, in fact, be prudent. Not because you judge the family to be "unworthy" but because you are trying to protect your family.

 

I agree that we all make judgements and that some judgements are more appropriate than others. It's a very thin line between protecting our kids from kids with parents who are anti and other families protecting their kids from Mormon families whom they believe are anti-Christian.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that we all make judgements and that some judgements are more appropriate than others. It's a very thin line between protecting our kids from kids with parents who are anti and other families protecting their kids from Mormon families whom they believe are anti-Christian.

Knowing Mormons and Mormonism as I do, and having observed the behavior of vitriolic anti- or ex-Mormons, I can't accept that the line is all that thin.

 

Again, it's not merely a matter of having differing religious beliefs; it's a matter of avowed enmity of one party toward the religious faith of another.

 

That's a substantial and qualitative difference.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Knowing Mormons and Mormonism as I do, and having observed the behavior of vitriolic anti- or ex-Mormons, I can't accept that the line is all that thin.

 

Again, it's not merely a matter of having differing religious beliefs; it's a matter of avowed enmity of one party toward the religious faith of another.

 

That's a substantial and qualitative difference.

I've known ex-Mormons who want nothing more than to be left alone. End of story. And I've seen church members shun them and their kids, not inviting them to birthday parties etc because they are ex. It's sad. Be careful not to lump all anti-ex into one category. Even so, my daughter has a baptist friend who goes to church  and is taught about how Mormons will go to hell for blasphemous beliefs. That baptist doesn't just have different beliefs but there is a level of anti-mormon sentiment taught in that church, yet I'm happy the parents don't forbid their child to interact with mine.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've known ex-Mormons who want nothing more than to be left alone. End of story. And I've seen church members shun them and their kids, not inviting them to birthday parties etc because they are ex. It's sad.

 

Well, you're right, that is sad. But that's not really what I've been talking about here, is it?

 

Be careful not to lump all anti-ex into one category.

 

I don't believe I've done that.

 

I note, however, your use of the term "anti-ex." Doesn't the prefix "anti-" denote aggressive antagonism? Yet you say the people in your own example "want nothing more than to be left alone. End of story." I perceive a disconnect here.

 

Even so, my daughter has a baptist friend who goes to church  and is taught about how Mormons will go to hell for blasphemous beliefs. That baptist doesn't just have different beliefs but there is a level of anti-mormon sentiment taught in that church, yet I'm happy the parents don't forbid their child to interact with mine.

 

 

I don't really see a problem here, and I don't think it's comparable to what we've been talking about. People shouldn't be blamed for false things they might hear at church, especially if they behave decently in spite of it.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

I've known ex-Mormons who want nothing more than to be left alone. End of story. And I've seen church members shun them and their kids, not inviting them to birthday parties etc because they are ex. It's sad. Be careful not to lump all anti-ex into one category. Even so, my daughter has a baptist friend who goes to church  and is taught about how Mormons will go to hell for blasphemous beliefs. That baptist doesn't just have different beliefs but there is a level of anti-mormon sentiment taught in that church, yet I'm happy the parents don't forbid their child to interact with mine.

Baptists believe the 'Mormons' are going to spend an endless eternity suffering in misery beyond all imagination in hell. On the other hand, Latter-day Saints believe the Baptists will eventually 'come around,' as it were (even if need be in the spirit world) and receive a glorious resurrection to live in peace and happiness in one of our Father's many heavenly mansions of beauty and joy.

LDS beliefs are much more apt to induce a spirit of brotherly love and kindness toward those not of their faith because they are taught, in no uncertain terms, that God really does love His non-LDS children, and He will never give up on them because of that undying perfect love. In fact, He won't be satisfied until His beloved human family are safely beyond the buffeting influence of the hateful devil and safely gathered home to a realm of glory. Therefore, it is far less likely that well-seasoned and knowledgeable Latter-day Saints will develop an "us and them attitude" toward others not of their own faith.

Meanwhile, with Baptist beliefs it is far more difficult to prevent an us and them attitude from creeping into the human mind. After all, those deluded Mormons are only fit for hell anyway, especially the "hardcore" Mormons for whom there is virtually no hope of rescue from their fiery fate of everlasting doom, for these pathetic souls have been irretrievably caught in the devil's snare.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some less mature and fearful Latter-day Saints may exhibit behaviors that are tantamount to shunning. After witnessing those who once believed the very compassionate and merciful LDS plan of salvation, and seeing them scrap the same in favor of a far less merciful plan of salvation, it only stands to reason relationships might get strained.

 

Therefore, it could be that one of the best ways to prevent a shunning type situation from developing would be for the new ex-Mormons to make it clear to their former LDS brothers and sisters that they don't by any means believe God is going to send all Mormons to hell forever. But if our new ex-Mormons cannot honestly assure their LDS friends they don't believe they are hell bound, then there isn't much of a remaining foundation of goodwill upon which to maintain friendships. For you see, if the God of perfect love doesn't care about the Mormons, why in the world should they worry and be concerned about them?

 

Edited to add:

 

The above exercise may seem overwrought, but I feel quite confident the "Mormons are going to hell" theme plays a very significant role in the ill-will so often exhibited on a great many communication outlets.

Edited October 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[sdc999]

 

 

What I've tried to convey here is that what you call "silence and ostracizing" in many cases is very likely not as one-sided as you make it seem with that phrase, but rather, is a manifestation of the breach in communication and relationships that understandably follows discord and heated argument.

 

In my case with my Mother-in-law.  It WAS one-sided as I make it seem.  You see, I never even had a word - well, I take that back.  I did say "hello" when the phone rang.  From there, it was all her.  "you have conned my daughter and you have conned my grandchildren......" and a few more things.  Oh,  and the 'click' as she slammed the phone down.  We never even told her we left the church.  It was an all-too eager sister-in-law, who unfortunately my wife trusted.  We didn't even have bad words with her either.  But, as a result, she had some bad words for us as did the other sister.  They just weren't as gutsy as Mom-in-law.  They would never confront us directly - just with other family members.  

So, I would disagree and say that 'silence and ostracizing' happens way more than your sheltered view might think.  

[Buzzard]

Baptists believe the 'Mormons' are going to spend an endless eternity suffering in misery beyond all imagination in hell. On the other hand, Latter-day Saints believe the Baptists will eventually 'come around,' as it were (even if need be in the spirit world) and receive a glorious resurrection to live in peace and happiness in one of our Father's many heavenly mansions of beauty and joy.

LDS beliefs are much more apt to induce a spirit of brotherly love and kindness toward those not of their faith because they are taught, in no uncertain terms, that God really does love His non-LDS children, and He will never give up on them because of that undying perfect love. In fact, He won't be satisfied until His beloved human family are safely beyond the buffeting influence of the hateful devil and safely gathered home to a realm of glory. Therefore, it is far less likely that well-seasoned and knowledgeable Latter-day Saints will develop an "us and them attitude" toward others not of their own faith.

Meanwhile, with Baptist beliefs it is far more difficult to prevent an us and them attitude from creeping into the human mind. After all, those deluded Mormons are only fit for hell anyway, especially the "hardcore" Mormons for whom there is virtually no hope of rescue from their fiery fate of everlasting doom, for these pathetic souls have been irretrievably caught in the devil's snare.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some less mature and fearful Latter-day Saints may exhibit behaviors that are tantamount to shunning. After witnessing those who once believed the very compassionate and merciful LDS plan of salvation, and seeing them scrap the same in favor of a far less merciful plan of salvation, it only stands to reason relationships might get strained.

 

Therefore, it could be that one of the best ways to prevent a shunning type situation from developing would be for the new ex-Mormons to make it clear to their former LDS brothers and sisters that they don't by any means believe God is going to send all Mormons to hell forever. But if our new ex-Mormons cannot honestly assure their LDS friends they don't believe they are hell bound, then there isn't much of a remaining foundation of goodwill upon which to maintain friendships. For you see, if the God of perfect love doesn't care about the Mormons, why in the world should they worry and be concerned about them?

 

Edited to add:

 

The above exercise may seem overwrought, but I feel quite confident the "Mormons are going to hell" theme plays a very significant role in the ill-will so often exhibited on a great many communication outlets.

My experience is anecdotal,(any studies out there?) but my personal experience is that most ex-LDS that I have known, upon leaving the faith, have left religion and even a belief in God.  When they mock their family and other former coreligionists, it's usually for a belief in fairy tales and fantasy, not because we will be roasting on the spits of demons.

[The Nehor]

In my case with my Mother-in-law.  It WAS one-sided as I make it seem.  You see, I never even had a word - well, I take that back.  I did say "hello" when the phone rang.  From there, it was all her.  "you have conned my daughter and you have conned my grandchildren......" and a few more things.  Oh,  and the 'click' as she slammed the phone down.  We never even told her we left the church.  It was an all-too eager sister-in-law, who unfortunately my wife trusted.  We didn't even have bad words with her either.  But, as a result, she had some bad words for us as did the other sister.  They just weren't as gutsy as Mom-in-law.  They would never confront us directly - just with other family members.  

So, I would disagree and say that 'silence and ostracizing' happens way more than your sheltered view might think.

Welp, sounds like she abdicated her duty to love her children and has cut herself from exaltation. So on the bright side if you are going down she is going down with you.

[sdc999]

Welp, sounds like she abdicated her duty to love her children and has cut herself from exaltation. So on the bright side if you are going down she is going down with you.

Ha, that's too funny.  She has come around though.  That was several years back.  She does call just say she loves me now and what a great husband to her daughter I am and a great father to her grandchildren. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Baptists believe the 'Mormons' are going to spend an endless eternity suffering in misery beyond all imagination in hell. On the other hand, Latter-day Saints believe the Baptists will eventually 'come around,' as it were (even if need be in the spirit world) and receive a glorious resurrection to live in peace and happiness in one of our Father's many heavenly mansions of beauty and joy.

LDS beliefs are much more apt to induce a spirit of brotherly love and kindness toward those not of their faith because they are taught, in no uncertain terms, that God really does love His non-LDS children, and He will never give up on them because of that undying perfect love.

BUT the active LDS view the ex-mo just like the Baptist views the Mormon. They are going to hell.

The ex-mo may mock the Mormon for some beliefs (which I think is wrong and it would be charitable if they did not mock anyone for religious beliefs) but they don't necessarily think they're going to a hell many of them don't believe in any way.

 

Much of the alienation comes from the judgements of Mormons against their ex-mo brothers and sisters.

 

 

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some less mature and fearful Latter-day Saints may exhibit behaviors that are tantamount to shunning. After witnessing those who once believed the very compassionate and merciful LDS plan of salvation, and seeing them scrap the same in favor of a far less merciful plan of salvation, it only stands to reason relationships might get strained.

Yes. Mormons become defensive and judge others to protect their testimony and valued beliefs to a point of persecution of ex-mos who return the favor. BTW- I do not believe this is one sided. There is plenty of blame on both sides. My only attempt is to help others see that there is fault on the side of the church members as well. Lord, is it I?