What NOT to Say (and what TO say) to a Loved One Leaving the Church

[Sky]

I really like this woman and think that her advise is really good.  

In the same vein, I can think of lots of things that disaffected and ex-Mormons probably should and shouldn't say to traditional believers (using words like sheeple, corporation, accusing believers of blind obedience, etc.).  

The way we communicate with each other is really important!  Maintaining loving family relationships depends on it!  

http://www.drjuliehanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/25-Things-Not-to-say-to-a-loved-one-leaving-the-Faith.pdf

http://www.drjuliehanks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/25-Things-Not-to-say-to-a-loved-one-leaving-the-Faith1.pdf

 

[Calm]

I don't have a problem with anything stated save 17 in the second one.

Phrasing that as "I can accept you don't believe it is true" is, imo, less ambiguous.  'I believe you know it isn't true' can convey with the word "know" the idea that their experience is absolute Truth rather than their personal understanding and thus may appear if one is agreeing the Church is not true (whatever that actually means).

20 on the first page might not be a bad thing to say if phrased as "I have studied church history and I am not bothered by it, but I understand that others are and often for very good reasons."

I think I should be able to express my own experience of studying church history and not being bothered by it if that is my reality just as I am being asked to be opened to their reality.  In my case, I am not bothered by it because I am comfortable with saying leaders have made mistakes and at times hurt people (for which I feel sorrow about), sometimes in small ways, sometimes in large ways and members and groups in the church have also screwed up...pretty much constantly from the moment JS walked out of the grove.  This does not prevent the Church from being God's vehicle to spread the Gospel through authorized ordinances, etc. just as making mistakes doesn't prevent any child of God from sharing his love and teachings in other paths.

[Scott Lloyd]

The whole document strikes me as a how-to guide for walking on eggshells -- which, depending on the circumstances, may not be the best approach. As Nephi said, some people take the truth to be hard. that doesn't mean they ought not be told the truth.

Some of the things on the list make sense, others do not. And to present it as a one-size-fits-all directive seems overly simplistic to me.

Take the first one for instance. With some people, the very key to their problem is that they have stopped reading the scriptures and thereby seeking spiritual experiences that nurture a testimony.

Elder Ballard on more than one occasion has told of an experience with one of the returned missionaries who had served in his mission. He said he was losing his faith. He had a lot of concerns he had gotten from anti-Mormon literature. Elder Ballard promised to provide answers, but said he would need time to research them. Then he asked the young man when he had last read the scriptures. It had been some time. Elder Ballard elicited from him a pledge that, in the intervening time, he would read the scriptures daily.

When the man returned after the agreed upon period, he said he didn't need his questions answered. He had fulfilled his pledge, his testimony had been restored, and he knew it was true.

In a humorous vein, Elder Ballard reported that he then told the young man that was fine, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Edited to add:

I found one written source that transcribes a talk in which Elder Ballard recounted this incident. I share it here:
 

Quote

 

Some years ago one of my missionaries came to see me. He said: “President, I am losing my testimony. I have some questions that no one will answer for me. My bishop and stake president just told me to forget them, and they had no answers.”

I asked for his questions in writing and then suggested he come to see me in 10 days, and I would answer every one of his questions.

As he was leaving my office, I was prompted to ask him, “Elder, how long has it been since you have read from the scriptures?”

He acknowledged that it had been a long time.

I said: “You have given me an assignment; it’s only fair that I give you one. You read at least one hour from the scriptures each day until you come back for your answers.”

He agreed to do this.

When he came back, I was ready. He said: “President, I don’t need the answers. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet. I’m OK now.”

I replied: “You will get your answers anyway. I worked hard on them!” All of this anti-Mormon stuff was what we were dealing with.

After our discussion I asked him, “Elder, what have you learned from all of this?”

And he gave me a very significant response: “I’ve learned to give the Lord equal time!”

 

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When the man returned after the agreed upon period, he said he didn't need his questions answered. He had fulfilled his pledge, his testimony had been restored, and he knew it was true.

In a humorous vein, Elder Ballard reported that he then told the young man that was fine, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Edited to add:

I found one written source that transcribes a talk in which Elder Ballard recounted this incident. I share it here:
 

"When he came back, I was ready. He said: “President, I don’t need the answers. I know the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet. I’m OK now.”

I replied: “You will get your answers anyway. I worked hard on them!” All of this anti-Mormon stuff was what we were dealing with.

After our discussion I asked him, “Elder, what have you learned from all of this?”

And he gave me a very significant response: “I’ve learned to give the Lord equal time!”"

muy bueno!

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The whole document strikes me as a how-to guide for walking on eggshells -- which, depending on the circumstances, may not be the best approach. As Nephi said, some people take the truth to be hard. that doesn't mean they ought not be told the truth.

Some of the things on the list make sense, others do not. And to present it as a one-size-fits-all directive seems overly simplistic to me.

Take the first one for instance. With some people, the very key to their problem is that they have stopped reading the scriptures and thereby seeking spiritual experiences that nurture a testimony.

Elder Ballard on more than one occasion has told of an experience with one of the returned missionaries who had served in his mission. He said he was losing his faith. He had a lot of concerns he had gotten from anti-Mormon literature. Elder Ballard promised to provide answers, but said he would need time to research them. Then he asked the young man when he had last read the scriptures. It had been some time. Elder Ballard elicited from him a pledge that, in the intervening time, he would read the scriptures daily.

When the man returned after the agreed upon period, he said he didn't need his questions answered. He had fulfilled his pledge, his testimony had been restored, and he knew it was true.

In a humorous vein, Elder Ballard reported that he then told the young man that was fine, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Edited to add:

I found one written source that transcribes a talk in which Elder Ballard recounted this incident. I share it here:
 

 

I wish I could be in that room and hear the answers from Elder Ballard. 

[Sky]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The whole document strikes me as a how-to guide for walking on eggshells -- which, depending on the circumstances, may not be the best approach. As Nephi said, some people take the truth to be hard. that doesn't mean they ought not be told the truth.

Some of the things on the list make sense, others do not. And to present it as a one-size-fits-all directive seems overly simplistic to me.

Take the first one for instance. With some people, the very key to their problem is that they have stopped reading the scriptures and thereby seeking spiritual experiences that nurture a testimony.

Elder Ballard on more than one occasion has told of an experience with one of the returned missionaries who had served in his mission. He said he was losing his faith. He had a lot of concerns he had gotten from anti-Mormon literature. Elder Ballard promised to provide answers, but said he would need time to research them. Then he asked the young man when he had last read the scriptures. It had been some time. Elder Ballard elicited from him a pledge that, in the intervening time, he would read the scriptures daily.

When the man returned after the agreed upon period, he said he didn't need his questions answered. He had fulfilled his pledge, his testimony had been restored, and he knew it was true.

In a humorous vein, Elder Ballard reported that he then told the young man that was fine, but he was going to get the answers anyway. "I spent a lot of time on this," he said.

Edited to add:

I found one written source that transcribes a talk in which Elder Ballard recounted this incident. I share it here:
 

 

Not downing the importance of prayer and scripture study!  I don't think that everything she said is necessarily a hard and fast rule, either.  But the thrust of what she is saying - to communicate with love - is absolutely essential.  Sometimes we could do better with that in Mormon culture.  

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Sky said:

Not downing the importance of prayer and scripture study!  I don't think that everything she said is necessarily a hard and fast rule, either.  But the thrust of what she is saying - to communicate with love - is absolutely essential.  Sometimes we could do better with that in Mormon culture.  

I agree wholeheartedly but would add the caveat that communicating with love sometimes entails a direct, even reproving, approach. See Doctrine and Covenants 121:43. See also the third and fourth quotes in my sig line below.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree wholeheartedly but would add the caveat that communicating with love sometimes entails a direct, even reproving, approach. See Doctrine and Covenants 121:43. See also the third and fourth quotes in my sig line below.

I don't disagree, but it cuts both ways.  With my friends and family, I never bring up my dissatisfaction with the church and the reasons I left.  I respect their beliefs, and as long as mine are respected, it is all good.  If someone is interested and asks me a direct question and they are sincere, then I will answer them honestly.  This happens sometimes, and the conversations that have followed have usually been respectful.  

There have been few times that someone (this has mainly been family) has confronted me directly, and  has tried to "reprove" me. When this has happened, I have reproved back, and have given my reasons in detail of why I left.  All of which are doctrine and history related.  And I back up my views with evidence.  This is not something that most believers are comfortable hearing and conversations of this type really don't end well for anyone.  I generally think its better not to try to reprove people.

[carbon dioxide]

I don't think I would say any of those 25 things to somebody.  I think I would just say 'That is ok.  I can always use another servant for work for me in a lower kingdom."

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think I would say any of those 25 things to somebody.  I think I would just say 'That is ok.  I can always use another servant for work for me in a lower kingdom."

I hope you are kidding....

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I don't disagree, but it cuts both ways.  With my friends and family, I never bring up my dissatisfaction with the church and the reasons I left.  I respect their beliefs, and as long as mine are respected, it is all good.  If someone is interested and asks me a direct question and they are sincere, then I will answer them honestly.  This happens sometimes, and the conversations that have followed have usually been respectful.  

There have been few times that someone (this has mainly been family) has confronted me directly, and  has tried to "reprove" me. When this has happened, I have reproved back, and have given my reasons in detail of why I left.  All of which are doctrine and history related.  And I back up my views with evidence.  This is not something that most believers are comfortable hearing and conversations of this type really don't end well for anyone.  I generally think its better not to try to reprove people.

I completely agree.  Reproving isn't an effective kind of communication, especially with respect to peers and friends.  It might be necessary (on rare occasion) if you have a position of responsibility over someone, and in that case the way you approach the reproof is very important in order to have an effective interaction with mutual respect given and careful approach to the subject.  

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely agree.  Reproving isn't an effective kind of communication, especially with respect to peers and friends.  It might be necessary (on rare occasion) if you have a position of responsibility over someone, and in that case the way you approach the reproof is very important in order to have an effective interaction with mutual respect given and careful approach to the subject.  

If reproof were never an effective kind of communication, I don't think the scripture would say "reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" followed by an increase of love toward the one who has been reproved.

It does presuppose some degree of humility on the part of the one receiving the reproof and, absent that, I agree that it would be less than effective.

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I think it is even more important the person doing the reproving have a mountain of humility for it to be effective.

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely agree.  Reproving isn't an effective kind of communication, especially with respect to peers and friends.  It might be necessary (on rare occasion) if you have a position of responsibility over someone, and in that case the way you approach the reproof is very important in order to have an effective interaction with mutual respect given and careful approach to the subject.  

Very rarely on this board I have attempted to reprove, albeit mildly. Sometimes it will have the reverse effect and the person will double down in defense of their own behavior. 

But I don't see how you can reprove someone over a difference of belief. That doesn't work at all. Each party believes they are correct, otherwise they would already believe differently. 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Gray

[Jeanne]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is even more important the person doing the reproving have a mountain of humility for it to be effective.

It is a definite plus on both sides.

[Jeanne]

All that is needed is calm, acceptance and respect.  Communication can come later.

[Gray]

This is a pretty good list. But, someone in the exmormon communities needs to write a similar list for how to communicate with believers. 

To whit, for both parties: imagine that the other person is your devout Catholic neighbor. How would you craft your language so as not to disrespect the other person's beliefs? Would you tell them about how ridiculous you think transubstantiation is? Or how their church is "apostate", or how someday they'll learn the "real" truth? No, if you're normally socialized, you wouldn't speak to your Catholic neighbor that way.

I say to Mormons and ex-Mormons, regarding each other - go thou, and do likewise. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think it is even more important the person doing the reproving have a mountain of humility for it to be effective.

As important? Definitely.

More important? I'm not so sure.

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If reproof were never an effective kind of communication, I don't think the scripture would say "reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" followed by an increase of love toward the one who has been reproved.

It does presuppose some degree of humility on the part of the one receiving the reproof and, absent that, I agree that it would be less than effective.

 

Humility is important, but I believe listening is much more important.  The problem I've seen from personal experience is that reproving often starts communication off on the wrong foot instead of seeking true understanding and listening first, the person goes on the attack.  This is rarely an effective communication method, and often erodes trust and exacerbates the situation.  But I hear what you're saying, I would take the humility element and try to apply it through real empathy and understanding.  

I agree with Gray's comment as well, this rarely works well when it comes to someone's belief system.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Humility is important, but I believe listening is much more important.  The problem I've seen from personal experience is that reproving often starts communication off on the wrong foot instead of seeking true understanding and listening first, the person goes on the attack.  This is rarely an effective communication method, and often erodes trust and exacerbates the situation.  But I hear what you're saying, I would take the humility element and try to apply it through real empathy and understanding.  

I agree with Gray's comment as well, this rarely works well when it comes to someone's belief system.  

It depends where one is in the process of leaving the Church. If one is still in the preliminary stages of doubting and has not altogether rejected the teachings of the Church, there may still be time for some well-placed and well-considered reproof as, presumably, both parties are still operating to one degree or another from a standpoint of shared belief.

In the example I shared, the account from Elder Ballard, his asking the returned missionary how long it had been since he read the scriptures and then securing from him a commitment to spend at least an hour a day doing that might be regarded as reproof. Reproof need not be harsh or demanding. It need only be clear and focused (a definition of "sharpness").

And incidentally, I don't concede that reproof can only come from one who is in a position of superiority or authority. I can conceive that, under the right circumstances and with the right kind of relationship, a friend could effectively reprove a peer if the attitudes of both were conducive to it.

 

[emeliza]

When my best friend decided to leave the church, I didn't agree with her decision, but what I said to her was basically, "If you want to stay friends, we both will need to work hard at including the other because we often hang out at church or due to church events or when we VT together."  

She left the church probably 6 or 7 years ago.  Maybe longer. She is still one of my closest friends, but our friendship takes more effort.  She moved about an hour away and it is tougher to see each other.  We rarely discuss the church, but it is nice for me that she knows as much as she does about the church. 

[Mystery Meat]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think it is even more important the person doing the reproving have a mountain of humility for it to be effective.

Not to mention priesthood responsibility. If you haven't authority or stewardship for the person to be reproved, IMO, the verses do not apply.

[Thinking]

26. Just go with the flow so your kids won't be confused.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

This is a pretty good list. But, someone in the exmormon communities needs to write a similar list for how to communicate with believers. 

To whit, for both parties: imagine that the other person is your devout Catholic neighbor. How would you craft your language so as not to disrespect the other person's beliefs? Would you tell them about how ridiculous you think transubstantiation is? Or how their church is "apostate", or how someday they'll learn the "real" truth? No, if you're normally socialized, you wouldn't speak to your Catholic neighbor that way.

I say to Mormons and ex-Mormons, regarding each other - go thou, and do likewise. 

 

I agree with you there.  It works both ways.  The easiest way to remind myself to be thoughtful is to remember those first days of my own disbelief...and of course..those good days that I did.  I believe there is a bridge and we are all more alike than we may seem.  We just need to let each other pass each other on the bridge..with a handshake..a smile and some understanding. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree with you there.  It works both ways.  The easiest way to remind myself to be thoughtful is to remember those first days of my own disbelief...and of course..those good days that I did.  I believe there is a bridge and we are all more alike than we may seem.  We just need to let each other pass each other on the bridge..with a handshake..a smile and some understanding. 

Beautifully said, Jeanne!