Criticism Of Institute Program

[stemelbow]

If you ever have the misfortune of watching a marriage crumble and a family break apart as the result of a faith crisis, let's come back and revisit your response here.  

 

*I'm not suggesting anyone play the victim.  Everyone must accept responsibility for their own actions.  But we can also not ignore the role of faith and the church in our lives.  And in doing so, the Church must also accept responsibility for its actions.

This only works if invariably a faith crisis results in a marriage crumble. Some marriages work right on through the crisis, as I've seen. if the Church is the cause or to be blamed, then why do not all faith crisis end with crumbled marriages and families breaking apart?

[CV75]

If atheism and agnosticism are perfectly viable options then why do we work so hard to get and keep people in our church?

 

Because we think the Church presents a pretty good option too. Do we really consider anything less than LDS to be unviable (meaning isn't practical or doesn't work)? Seems like a terrible perspective to go from, seeing as more than 99 percent of the world is not LDS.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

 

"In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves^."

[rockpond]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

 

"In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth. It may break our hearts when their journey takes them away from the Church we love and the truth we have found, but we honor their right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, just as we claim that privilege for ourselves^."

  

Because we think the Church presents a pretty good option too. Do we really consider anything less than LDS to be unviable (meaning isn't practical or doesn't work)? Seems like a terrible perspective to go from, seeing as more than 99 percent of the world is not LDS.

We certainly recognize personal agency but let's not pretend that we (church members and leaders, generally) consider church membership and atheism to be equivalent alternatives.

[Tacenda]

To blame the church for a broken marriage is wrong.  If a person becomes disilussioned, it is his/her choice how to react to it.  My brother-in-law has become disillusioned and left the church about two years ago.  While he is angry at the church for certain things, he is still happily married to his active wife.  If this scenario is different for others, it is because of personal reasons.  Does the church teach us to leave our spouse if they leave the church?

There have been cases of spouses leaving on the advice of a bishop, probably very few but it's happened, don't CFR I've read on other boards about this.  It's terribly difficult to maintain a relationship when you have opposing views on something as significant as religion.  

 

And when I say ruin, I'll be more specific, it ruined a lot of would be relationships, don't really communicate well with TBM's around me since we're not on the same page or I just don't care about fluffy things in life, wish I could go back to that way of life, it was a blast!  The biggest regret is it took my focus off of my family for so many years.  I totally lived on the computer, my youngest son will say I sat at the computer too much and that's the relationship that is ruined!  When I couldn't stay away from everything about Mormonism.  This is a strange phenomena but happens to so many, in fact some say they listen to conference better than they had before, or they want to read all about the history when they hadn't before and they know more about the church than they ever had before.  It's all because they weren't told the whole story, if they had they wouldn't have become obsessed like that. 

 

ETA:  My neighbor down the road's brother went from TBM to non believer when learning of some things in the church, she was my VT'er.  I know this because she visited me at the beginning of my FC.  When I shared that I had heard some things about JS that were making me doubt she said, "don't tell me.  I want to keep my testimony", and then explained what happened to her brother.  And soon after her brother killed himself, I guess he had been drinking.  So in this instant I think it ruined several lives, since he left a wife and two children.             

Edited December 5, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

"It's all because they weren't told the whole story, if they had they wouldn't have become obsessed like that."

And yet tons of others, probably in higher numbers given what I've seen, do not become obsessed when the identical thing happens to them but they take it in stride just fine.

What is the difference? It is obviously not the Church itself or the teachings since both are happening to lots of people but a variety of responses are occurring.

[Mystery Meat]

There have been cases of spouses leaving on the advice of a bishop, probably very few but it's happened, don't CFR I've read on other boards about this.  It's terribly difficult to maintain a relationship when you have opposing views on something as significant as religion.  

 

And when I say ruin, I'll be more specific, it ruined a lot of would be relationships, don't really communicate well with TBM's around me since we're not on the same page or I just don't care about fluffy things in life, wish I could go back to that way of life, it was a blast!  The biggest regret is it took my focus off of my family for so many years.  I totally lived on the computer, my youngest son will say I sat at the computer too much and that's the relationship that is ruined!  When I couldn't stay away from everything about Mormonism.  This is a strange phenomena but happens to so many, in fact some say they listen to conference better than they had before, or they want to read all about the history when they hadn't before and they know more about the church than they ever had before.  It's all because they weren't told the whole story, if they had they wouldn't have become obsessed like that.         

 

I honestly cannot see how any of this is the Church's fault. I apologize if that comes off as deflecting blame. I understand that some feel many "blame the victim." But the examples you used here at least, cannot be laid at the feet of the Church. 

 

Now I do not have a hard believing that a stupid bishop would on occasion counsel a spouse to end their marriage due to a faith crises. I don't see it as being terribly common. Things like that are being corrected, in my opinion. 

 

The obsessive behavior, however, is not the Church's fault. I know of one couple where the husband who has become disillusioned actively mocks his wife for reading scriptures with the kids, taking them to church and saying family prayer. Yes, it is taking a toll on their marriage, but whose fault is that? On the other hand, I think the obsessive behavior could be reduced with some validation by those of us who still have faith. I don't think it would completely eliminate the issue, because I don't think it is that simple. 

[ERayR]

  

We certainly recognize personal agency but let's not pretend that we (church members and leaders, generally) consider church membership and atheism to be equivalent alternatives.

 

Of course Church members and leaders do not believe them to be equivalent alternatives but then neither does an atheist consider them to be equivalent alternatives and a true believer in either one would be foolish to present them as such. 

[pogi]

Tacenda, we don't know the whole story behind those bishops who counseled spouses to separate.  We don't know what else was going on.  That certainly is not the church's policy or position.

 

I hope you are able to figure things out in a way that you can still have relationships with TBM members.  I would like to point out that it is your choice to not have relationships with them, not the church's.  You can't really blame the church for ruining a relationship that you chose to leave.

 

It was also your choice to spend so much time on the computer. 

 

All of these life struggles you are or were facing, were brought about by choices that you made, not the church.

[Coreyb]

I honestly cannot see how any of this is the Church's fault. I apologize if that comes off as deflecting blame. I understand that some feel many "blame the victim." But the examples you used here at least, cannot be laid at the feet of the Church. 

 

Now I do not have a hard believing that a stupid bishop would on occasion counsel a spouse to end their marriage due to a faith crises. I don't see it as being terribly common. Things like that are being corrected, in my opinion. 

 

The obsessive behavior, however, is not the Church's fault. I know of one couple where the husband who has become disillusioned actively mocks his wife for reading scriptures with the kids, taking them to church and saying family prayer. Yes, it is taking a toll on their marriage, but whose fault is that? On the other hand, I think the obsessive behavior could be reduced with some validation by those of us who still have faith. I don't think it would completely eliminate the issue, because I don't think it is that simple.

Knew a guy who would destroy his wife's garments. He also made his kids throw their scriptures away.

[pogi]

Knew a guy who would destroy his wife's garments. He also made his kids throw their scriptures away.

 

Well, the church made him do it.

[Mystery Meat]

"It's all because they weren't told the whole story, if they had they wouldn't have become obsessed like that."

And yet tons of others, probably in higher numbers given what I've seen, do not become obsessed when the identical thing happens to them but they take it in stride just fine.

What is the difference? It is obviously not the Church itself or the teachings since both are happening to lots of people but a variety of responses are occurring.

 

I think this is the most important question facing the Church, those who stay and those who leave. My study of Church issues has shifted from the issues themselves to a study of different responses. Why can someone like me learn everything about the Church, have no negative response, and really not care or have it affect a testimony, while others have such a hard time with it.

 

What is the difference?

[Mystery Meat]

Knew a guy who would destroy his wife's garments. He also made his kids throw their scriptures away.

 

That's evil.

[pogi]

What is the difference?

 

It is the narrative you embrace.

[Mystery Meat]

It is the narrative you embrace.

 

Too simple. 

 

And I still don't think it answers the real question. 

 

Why do people embrace that narrative? Take Tacenda, for example. By all accounts she did not ask for this change in outlook. She has claimed that if she could she would go back to how it was. Why then has she embraced (not sure I like that word here) the narrative she has, and I have embraced an entirely different one?

 

(Sorry to use you as an example Tacenda. I hope it doesn't offend)

[ERayR]

There have been cases of spouses leaving on the advice of a bishop, probably very few but it's happened, don't CFR I've read on other boards about this.  It's terribly difficult to maintain a relationship when you have opposing views on something as significant as religion.  

 

 

Tacenda I am aware of some instances of a bishop advising a woman to take her family and leave but only in cases of abuse.  Before you start insinuating something that may not be you should find out if it was wise advice before you intimate otherwise.

[ERayR]

Too simple. 

 

And I still don't think it answers the real question. 

 

Why do people embrace that narrative? Take Tacenda, for example. By all accounts she did not ask for this change in outlook. She has claimed that if she could she would go back to how it was. Why then has she embraced (not sure I like that word here) the narrative she has, and I have embraced an entirely different one?

 

(Sorry to use you as an example Tacenda. I hope it doesn't offend)

 

To answer she did choose her outlook.  She built that outlook by what she chose to believe.  Her uncritical acceptance of anti-Mormon claims built her outlook.

[Coreyb]

To answer she did choose her outlook.  She built that outlook by what she chose to believe.  Her uncritical acceptance of anti-Mormon claims built her outlook.

Just as an uncritical acceptance of apologetic claims might build a completely opposite outlook

[Mystery Meat]

To answer she did choose her outlook.  She built that outlook by what she chose to believe.  Her uncritical acceptance of anti-Mormon claims built her outlook.

 

While I think there is a good amount of truth to what you are saying, I still think we are leaving some issues unanswered. Why did she choose her outlook and I chose mine? 

[ERayR]

While I think there is a good amount of truth to what you are saying, I still think we are leaving some issues unanswered. Why did she choose her outlook and I chose mine? 

 

That would take a lot of speculation of which I am not inclined to indulge.

[ERayR]

Just as an uncritical acceptance of apologetic claims might build a completely opposite outlook

 

That is why we are admonished to study and to use the Moroni test.

Edited December 6, 2014 by ERayR

[pogi]

Too simple. 

 

Let me explain what I mean.

 

By "narrative" I mean our own personal perception (or narrative) of how it all works.  Depending on that narrative you tell yourself, you will react to the church and its history in a myriad of different ways.

 

The way each person reacts to a given stimulus will vary greatly depending on that persons perspective.  For example, let’s compare the way we react to a stimulus to a match.  In the physical world, we need a surface that will generate enough friction to strike a match and cause it light; you might find it difficult if not impossible to ignite a match on a silk shirt pressed against your soft belly.  In the emotional world, we don’t need any real friction to ignite the match; all we need is a perceived friction.  I have witnessed the flare of a temper from a perceived friction in a relationship, later to humble myself at the realization that there was no friction at all.  This example of the match shows how relative truth works; our perceptions create our realities which illicit real reactions.

 

Learning about "difficult" histories drastically alters the narrative for some people in a way that they are not able to recover from.  It becomes too difficult to reconcile their old narratives with these new discoveries.  Unwilling to  alter their narrative slightly, they hold tightly to it while at the same time becoming antagonistic of it.  They believe that their old narrative is the only possible narrative that a member could have.  Either that, or they become the tireless apologist for their old narrative.  A game I don't like to play.  I simply accept that I don't know some things.

Edited December 6, 2014 by pogi

[Mystery Meat]

Let me explain what I mean.

 

By "narrative" I mean our own personal perception (or narrative) of how it all works.  Depending on that narrative you tell yourself, you will react to the church and its history in a myriad of different ways.

 

The way each person reacts to a given stimulus will vary greatly depending on that persons perspective.  For example, let’s compare the way we react to a stimulus to a match.  In the physical world, we need a surface that will generate enough friction to strike a match and cause it light; you might find it difficult if not impossible to ignite a match on a silk shirt pressed against your soft belly.  In the emotional world, we don’t need any real friction to ignite the match; all we need is a perceived friction.  I have witnessed the flare of a temper from a perceived friction in a relationship, later to humble myself at the realization that there was no friction at all.  This example of the match shows how relative truth works; our perceptions create our realities which illicit real reactions.

 

Learning about "difficult" histories drastically alters the narrative for some people in a way that they are not able to recover from.  It becomes too difficult to reconcile their old narratives with these new discoveries.  Unwilling to  alter their narrative slightly, they hold tightly to it while at the same time becoming antagonistic of it.  They believe that their old narrative is the only possible narrative that a member could have.  Either that, or they become the tireless apologist for their old narrative.  A game I don't like to play.  I simply accept that I don't know some things.

 

Interesting commentary. I think this is getting somewhere.

[omni]

To answer she did choose her outlook. She built that outlook by what she chose to believe. Her uncritical acceptance of anti-Mormon claims built her outlook.

I can't speak for Tacenda, but I bet you it was the opposite of what you suspected. For some of us, our loss of faith involved a critical look at the church's claims in conjunction with an answer from God.

Edited December 6, 2014 by omni

[ERayR]

I can't speak for Tacenda, but I bet you it was the opposite of what you suspected. For some of us, or loss of faith involved a critical look at the church's claims in conjunction with an answer from God.

 

But you chose how to react to it.  A lot of us see the same information and for some strange reason come to different conclusions.

Edited December 6, 2014 by ERayR

[rockpond]

This only works if invariably a faith crisis results in a marriage crumble. Some marriages work right on through the crisis, as I've seen. if the Church is the cause or to be blamed, then why do not all faith crisis end with crumbled marriages and families breaking apart?

I didn't say that faith crises always cause marriages to end. That certainly would be false.