Musings and Thoughts from My Meeting with Members of the Ex-Mormon Community

[rongo]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats good, thanks for clarifying.  But what if I wasn't actively attending church (I just recently started attending again).  I personally don't consider inactive members apostate, and honestly don't find that word even useful anymore. 

I don't either, unless the shoe fits. Most inactive members, even those who are inactive because of testimony concerns, are simply inactive.

Apostates, in my book, are those who tear down the Church and try to tear down others' belief in the Church. Many people who don't believe or who have doubts don't fall into this category.

I think you're onto something about how these people feel, hurt, betrayed and deceived by the Church.  I see these as emotions with great validity.  Just as much validity as those members who have testimonies of the truth of the church also primarily through positive emotions of gratitude, love, peace and trust in the institution.  I see both sides of experience as equally valid.  Someone who's converted to Mormonism for these emotions, and someone's who's converted through similar emotions.  If you accept those members who align themselves because of their emotional(spiritual) witness solely, can you not see the flip side of that coin for those who've decided to leave for the opposite experience.  It seems to me that its two sides of the same coin.  

I do, too, and --- surprising as this is for many LDS, think we need to take people at their word when they are guided by their feelings away from the Church. I even believe that when David Whitmer says that the voice of God told him to separate himself from the Church in Far West, it is possible that God really did (this is hard for many LDS to accept). I don't reject out of hand that God never would have told him to do that --- there are a number of reasons why God could have, even with me being a fervent believer.

It was the whole window of time where these people are open to influence concept you talked about.  I just don't understand why you say that, because it presupposes that someone learning new information and processing that learning, that at some stage along the path they become outside of the influence of the "truth" after a certain amount of learning.  That if you can't get to them early enough in the process that Mormonism has no answers for those who've learned too much.

I think people's ability to process and weigh evidence and information is susceptible to emotion (critics could point out the same with people joining the Church hastily out of emotion without weighing everything), and often the emotional reaction of hurt, rage, outrage, betrayal, etc. becomes too much for many people to dispassionately set aside. Often, after the fact, people will acknowledge that the answers are solid, but it no longer matters --- the emotional impact lingers (realizing that not all answers are solid or good ones, too . . .  ). 

It sounds like some of the bad stereotypes of the past about people being deceived by satan and becoming past feeling and unable to be influenced by the spirit after they are deceived so much.  I don't want to put words into your mouth if that's not what you're saying, but if it is what you're saying then can you please explain how that old stereotype is even legitimate, because I find that perspective very immature and judgmental.

 

Thanks for clarifying! I can see how "past feeling" could raise hackles in people. I believe that people can become past feeling, but I more believe that people can and do come back after enough time has gone by for the emotional effects to have worn off and blunted a little. When I have met with people in that boat, sometimes we don't see things the same way, and all I can say is "I understand. I don't feel the same way, and here's why, but I understand why you feel that way and why you see things like that." And it's sincere --- not channeling the old "show empathy" drills out of the Missionary Guide.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're an asset for your stake...but wouldn't it be wonderful if every stake had someone like you who could acknowledge the concerns, address the concerns and offer a plausible solution to the concerns.  The church needs an army...not an individual...and yes I agree that a local would be preferred.

I don't think it's possible to "train" people for it. You are either organically interested in the issues enough to know in-depth about them, and genuinely empathetic (bedside manner, personality, etc.), or you're not. 

Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if correlation put out an apologetics primer or set of discussions? It would be like a cross between Preach My Gospel and the Gospel Topics Essays --- not really making either side very happy. 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I agree with you here, good to come to an understanding about this.  To be fair though, church leaders teachings about grace in the past have lead to these perceptions, so any members who come by these misconceptions about grace do so by following the dominant narrative often espoused by the brethren.  

I attribute that mostly to members misunderstandings of what Church leaders meant when they said something, although there are or may be some instances when one or more of the "brethren" got something wrong or didn't say something correctly.  And all of that becomes a moot point when we understand that we should be relying on God to let us know when something is right and when we have discovered the truth.

[Johnnie Cake]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's possible to "train" people for it. You are either organically interested in the issues enough to know in-depth about them, and genuinely empathetic (bedside manner, personality, etc.), or you're not. 

Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if correlation put out an apologetics primer or set of discussions? It would be like a cross between Preach My Gospel and the Gospel Topics Essays --- not really making either side very happy. 

Which goes back to my OP point about the risks the church would enter into should they decide to provide apologetically trained missionaries...could the church be successful in training missionaries in the intricacies of the CES letter, a Nuanced approach to church history or one that involved a new non historical approach to the BoM?  Its wishful think on my part...I just know that people are hurting and personally I put the blame at the feet of the church.  they created the mess...I look to them to fix it.   

Another solution would be for those who have matured past the available window when intervention would have been helpful...would it be too much to ask the church to simply wish those who end up leaving, who have given so much...god's speed on their new journey?  yeah probably is

 

I want to add...that these people hurt and are in pain during the transition from believer to non...as they face the consequences of non-belief...but once they have settled...and life begins within their new world view...life is amazing, happy and free.  I don't want to tap into the believers stereotypical view point that those who leave are in a permanent state of misery...because that is not the case...those that have fully transition...are happy and go onto live rich fulfilling lives outside of the influence of the church. 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't either, unless the shoe fits. Most inactive members, even those who are inactive because of testimony concerns, are simply inactive.

The correct terminology is "less" active now, bro. Less active than they were or less active than some other member.

No member is to be regarded as an inactive member anymore.  Sorry I don't have the book, chapter and verse on hand for that.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't either, unless the shoe fits. Most inactive members, even those who are inactive because of testimony concerns, are simply inactive.

Apostates, in my book, are those who tear down the Church and try to tear down others' belief in the Church. Many people who don't believe or who have doubts don't fall into this category.

I think that you're right, but that how we define tearing down the church will vary significantly by perspective.  We are a very evangelical tradition meaning that we are taught to share our religious convictions in bold ways with family, friends and strangers.  To say that this should stop when our religious convictions change to something different seems like an unfair standard to set.  If we are truly egalitarian on this subject, in fairness shouldn't those people who's convictions are contrary to the traditional narrative have the same lead way to espouse their newly found convictions with others?  I don't expect this to happen in a Sunday School setting, but surely with social media, neighbors and others outside of the building, I don't see why those with convictions one way or the other should be held to a different standard or be considered apostate for following the same standard that the church encourages in its missionary efforts.  

Think about the messages that our missionaries send (and I was one who at times sent this message as well), our church is the only church with the authority to save you.  You can have an eternal family in our church (implying that those outside our church won't be with their family in the next life) or we have the gift of the HG in our church (implying that others don't have this gift).  These kinds of teachings are very arrogant and judgmental of other faiths.  If we are willing to espouse such ideas in public, why not someone else espousing that they believe differently, that these claims at superiority aren't valid for them, that they don't believe that God has privileged Mormonism through its priesthood or through its doctrines.  

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I do, too, and --- surprising as this is for many LDS, think we need to take people at their word when they are guided by their feelings away from the Church. I even believe that when David Whitmer says that the voice of God told him to separate himself from the Church in Far West, it is possible that God really did (this is hard for many LDS to accept). I don't reject out of hand that God never would have told him to do that --- there are a number of reasons why God could have, even with me being a fervent believer.

I love this acknowledgment, and find the David Whitmer example a great one.  We typically want to cherry pick DW for those things that promote the LDS narrative, but completely discount those things he said that run contrary to the selective history we teach.  

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks for clarifying! I can see how "past feeling" could raise hackles in people. I believe that people can become past feeling, but I more believe that people can and do come back after enough time has gone by for the emotional effects to have worn off and blunted a little. When I have met with people in that boat, sometimes we don't see things the same way, and all I can say is "I understand. I don't feel the same way, and here's why, but I understand why you feel that way and why you see things like that." And it's sincere --- not channeling the old "show empathy" drills out of the Missionary Guide.  

Yes, this is what I've found as well, and this is what I have hope for.  That if we can truly accept those who've gone through a faith deconstruction and not view them as flawed or broken, but honor that path and actually understand this as part of a human journey that many people travel down, this dark night of the soul, these feelings of questioning authorities is a completely valid and understandable part of the journey of life for many people.  If we can honor, accept and empathize with them truly, that they can have a place within big tent Mormonism, and actually add significant value to the community as they choose to participate, whether that participation is through active Sunday attendance, or just participation on the borderlands, that their perspectives are legitimate and helpful and we want them to continue to engage in the broader Mormon experience.  This would be my hope.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I attribute that mostly to members misunderstandings of what Church leaders meant when they said something, although there are or may be some instances when one or more of the "brethren" got something wrong or didn't say something correctly.  And all of that becomes a moot point when we understand that we should be relying on God to let us know when something is right and when we have discovered the truth.

Some leaders like McKonkie and others have painted very stark terms about the concept of grace in larger Christian thought, I personally don't think their ideas were misunderstood, I think they themselves were teaching incorrect principles.  Flawed humans, making very flawed human mistakes is my opinion.  

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The correct terminology is "less" active now, bro. Less active than they were or less active than some other member.

No member is to be regarded as an inactive member anymore.  Sorry I don't have the book, chapter and verse on hand for that.

Interesting....I am hoping that "jack mormons" go away too!!

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Think about the messages that our missionaries send (and I was one who at times sent this message as well), our church is the only church with the authority to save you.  You can have an eternal family in our church (implying that those outside our church won't be with their family in the next life) or we have the gift of the HG in our church (implying that others don't have this gift).  These kinds of teachings are very arrogant and judgmental of other faiths.

First of all, it's not arrogant or judgmental (at least not in a bad way) to state our beliefs or to give reasons for why we believe what we believe.  In this case because we understand the authority of God and how he gives it to others.

Second, we don't or at least shouldn't say that we save people.  We administer the ordinances of the gospel, and teach the first principles and some other facets of the gospel, but only our Savior does the saving.  At best we are only doing what he has told us to do.

Third, it's okay that some people don't know the truth on some issues or that they misunderstand some things. That's how we get people to teach.

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So if I read you correctly you are looking for more of this kind of attitude from the Church:

• I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn't prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. - Joseph Smith

I could agree with that.

wow.  That is not a vibe I am getting from the church at all.  Do you?

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

All the more need for timely response to legitimate questions from an informed knowledgeable person who can offer real answers to honest questions

I agree.  I think that something like that would be beneficial for many.  I think a faith-based support group which acts as an alternative to less-than-faith-promoting support groups for people would be invaluable.  I think these members need to feel validated in their concerns and loved in non-judgement by the community of saints.  Once someone feels attacked or judged and/or feels the need to defend their concerns, it becomes difficult to extricate oneself from that rabbit hole once they are on the defensive.  I think there can be a bit of pride on both sides which becomes a barrier to understanding and spiritual healing.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

wow.  That is not a vibe I am getting from the church at all.  Do you?

Well, the Church may be less willing today to allow its members to be wrong than Joseph was...

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

wow.  That is not a vibe I am getting from the church at all.  Do you?

Yep, I'm getting it.  I've sat through a lot of F&T meetings, and regular Sacrament meetings, with many speakers who have said things I know are not true and not once seen a bishop or somebody else get up to correct what the speaker said.

No shouts of "blasphemy!"

Nobody to even say "objection" to the judge.

Nada.  Zip.  They just kept on talking.

It is sometimes a little frustrating to me. 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's possible to "train" people for it. You are either organically interested in the issues enough to know in-depth about them, and genuinely empathetic (bedside manner, personality, etc.), or you're not. 

Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if correlation put out an apologetics primer or set of discussions? It would be like a cross between Preach My Gospel and the Gospel Topics Essays --- not really making either side very happy. 

I agree.  But I do think it would be helpful to provide a support group for people who are questioning, where they can feel supported and validated in their concerns.  Most members don't agree on what the "answers" are, so I don't think it would be wise to train people to just give all of the "answers", but it would be good to have someone assist/support people  in a safe environment with an emphasis on a spiritually based pursuit to truth and intellectual satisfaction.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Obviously you should NEVER be called to administer to anyone with doubts and questions...you will only push them out the door.

Wow, rude and uncalled for...

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Often people who have been in an abusive relationship require therapy to fully recover.  The fact that you didn't require recovery from The Baptist Church speaks well of that church...However the question we should all ask is why do so many who leave Mormonism need time to process their experience inside Mormonism with like minded individuals?  The easy answer is just to point a finger at the individual and blame them for the level of devotion & dedication they had while in the church...yeah they just believed it too much...shame on them for being such devoted members and buying into it all.  Or you can take the OP in the spirit it is offered...and learn from it.

The LDS church claims to be the One  true Church on the face of the earth.  When some make discoveries that put that claim into question worlds fall apart, dreams and families relationships crumble and dreams of celestial glory is lost...and you wonder why people would want to talk about it?  Frankly I find your post offensive, insensitive and typical of what many face when they seek answers to their legitimate questions.

 

Returning is easy...the prodigal sons story come to mine...but leaving is oft time fraught with pain, loss and many challenges

Obviously you should NEVER be called to administer to anyone with doubts and questions...you will only push them out the door.

Rude is thinking that those of us who still have family members who shun us..or who on a daily basis preaches..should just dry up and blow away...

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

First of all, it's not arrogant or judgmental (at least not in a bad way) to state our beliefs or to give reasons for why we believe what we believe.  In this case because we understand the authority of God and how he gives it to others.

Second, we don't or at least shouldn't say that we save people.  We administer the ordinances of the gospel, and teach the first principles and some other facets of the gospel, but only our Savior does the saving.  At best we are only doing what he has told us to do.

Third, it's okay that some people don't know the truth on some issues or that they misunderstand some things. That's how we get people to teach.

I do think these teachings are arrogant assertions and come across that way to other faiths.  You stating that you believe they are true assertions doesn't refute my point that they are arrogant.  The idea that institutionally we have a greater understanding than others and greater access to authority is arrogant and divisive.  Whether it's true or not (personally I say not), is another question. 

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I do think these teachings are arrogant assertions and come across that way to other faiths.  You stating that you believe they are true assertions doesn't refute my point that they are arrogant.  The idea that institutionally we have a greater understanding than others and greater access to authority is arrogant and divisive.  Whether it's true or not (personally I say not), is another question. 

Yeah, well. Those of other faiths who think our assertions are arrogant don't have the best track record of correctly understanding what the truth is 

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Yesterday I attended a gathering of what I’ll refer to as transitioning Mormons.  A group of people consisting of every demographic one would expect to find on the Mormon belief spectrum including resigned Mormon’s, In the process of resigning Mormon’s, inactive/non believing/non-attending Mormon’s, non-believing but still attending Mormon’s and questioning/doubting but still attending Mormon’s.  Some like myself, were veterans of having faced and dealt with the ramifications of a Mormon faith crisis while others were just beginning the process of discovering that the Mormon narrative was in reality more messy and complicated with many loose ends than the promoted correlated narrative that the church teaches. Within the group there were former bishopric members, high council members, primary presidents, elder’s quorum presidents, young men and young woman presidents as well as your average salt of the earth members.  Truly the finest the church has to offer. The group consisted of every social economic demographic one would expect to find along the Wasatch front ranging from financially successful to those less fortunate.  In other words it was a board cross section of what one would find with in a sampling of the wards along the Wasatch front.  The common thread in this group was that each attendee had at one time been an active believing member of the church and currently was not finding fulfillment within their home wards.  The group offers the one thing that these people are not finding in their home wards, support and someone who understands the pain they are going through in a non-judgmental safe environment.

Along the Wasatch front there are dozens of such groups meeting weekly.  When added to groups from around the world, there are hundreds of such support groups meeting weekly.

During this informal gathering attendees were allowed to ask questions, vent frustrations, process their Mormon experience without judgment and share their individual stories.  Many of these people are hurting, others are still angry with discovering the messiness of Mormonism’s truth claims. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre, but I also understood where they were coming from…having experienced much of what many expressed. 

These people are the so called lost sheep, the ones that bishops, stake presidents and so far even general authorities are clueless in how to reach or support.

As I sat and listened I thought …how many of these people would have remained in the church had there been someone who could have provided support, a listening hear and answers to their difficult questions.

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize that many of the questions these people agonize over and are concerned with, that lead to a faith crisis, do have answers, while not necessarily all believable or satisfactory, but at least there is something that provides a safe harbor where belief could be maintain under the right frame of mind.  But the task that the church faces in reaching these lost sheep is overwhelming and is getting even more so with the passage of each day.  It is a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  Bishops are already overwhelmed in their current duties just addressing the needs of believers and the youth. And for understandable reasons their support leaders ,such as home teachers, EQ leadership and HP leaders, all seem ill equipped to address the specific needs of this doubting member demographic.

As I listened to the stories I thought...many of these lost souls could still be benefitted by participation in the church but the current organization is ill prepare to deal with them.  I then thought that what the church needs is a new set of educated, informed, apologetic missionaries assigned to every stake in the church…who have been brought up to speed on every concern and issue that impacts those who doubt....perhaps missionaries taught by the members of the MD&D posting community.

The problems as I see it is that by getting your average member up to the level necessary to be able to  address the needs and concerns of these people…the church would actually risk losing these same believers to the group they are attempting to save. They risk breaking other mental shelves...so the process is a complete mine field of unknown concerns...due to so many harboring their own mental back burner issues.

So should the church go after the 1 or stay with the 99? Should they even risk the attempt? Are these former believers even worth the effort it would take to attempt such a massive task?

I know from having met with several GA’s myself that whatever the church is currently doing is not working…at least not for those who are in the throes of a faith crisis.  Anyway thought I's share.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the church is way too black and white in many areas, especially concerning its doctrine and truth claims.  Either you believe 100% or you lack faith.  I continue to go to church (maybe once a month) because I enjoy the people and sense of community; I don't accept/believe most of the truth claims.  

With regard to the church's history and transparency, I think they have only scratched the surface in some areas -- and haven't really admitted to anything wrong at all.  Instead of just admitting the church made a mistake or was wrong, sometimes apologists/leaders go to great lengths to cover for the church or caste every single issue in a positive light.  For me personally, it would be better if the church said, we were 100% wrong here with this doctrine--and now we can move on.  There has been no reconciliation at all because, unfortunately, the church doesn't give apologies.  

Additionally, I think a real problem for the church is (and will be) the younger generations inactivity and unwillingness to accept many of the truth claims.  With the internet today, a young kid can google all of the controversial issues and come to his or her own conclusions.  There is so much information out on the church's history now, but the leaders still try to push a correlated narrative in many of its manuals, classes and teachings.

I do think that the LDS people are reseliant and can embrace change.  I think the church needs to go through its own awakening and embrace charity more...not some meaningless checklist to get into the celestial kingdom.   

Edited March 7, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, well. Those of other faiths who think our assertions are arrogant don't have the best track record of correctly understanding what the truth is 

Ha!  Well, I still see the position as arrogant independent of its truth.  

[Black Moclips]

As someone in the demographic as the OP describes, I find peace by remaining completely inactive. Once you decide to do that, the anxiety over church issues quickly starts to fade. Soon your realize that your relationship with god is completely independent from what the LDS church is and does. You realize that you can still believe in god, Jesus, and even in Joseph Smith, and that you don't have accept whatever rationalizations the church wants you to believe. You realize that you are more likely to be judged on what type of person you are and how you treated others, rather than how many meetings you attended, what callings you had, or what you believe about doctrines. Then you wake up one Sunday morning at 10:30 am, sunlight streaming through your window, and you just enjoy the day and rest and think "Why didn't I do this sooner?"

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha!  Well, I still see the position as arrogant independent of its truth.  

Oh well.  Maybe we just don't agree on what it means to be arrogant, generally.

[Ouagadougou]

36 minutes ago, Black Moclips said:

As someone in the demographic as the OP describes, I find peace by remaining completely inactive. Once you decide to do that, the anxiety over church issues quickly starts to fade. Soon your realize that your relationship with god is completely independent from what the LDS church is and does. You realize that you can still believe in god, Jesus, and even in Joseph Smith, and that you don't have accept whatever rationalizations the church wants you to believe. You realize that you are more likely to be judged on what type of person you are and how you treated others, rather than how many meetings you attended, what callings you had, or what you believe about doctrines. Then you wake up one Sunday morning at 10:30 am, sunlight streaming through your window, and you just enjoy the day and rest and think "Why didn't I do this sooner?"

You do worry about being judged over little things that don't really matter in the long run.  I find that those outside the active LDS community (from my experience) are way less judgemental and just treat you like a regular person, regardless of your actions.  If you don't believe me, try drinking a cup of tea in front of active Mormons and just look at their responses (I have done this).  You don't have to walk on pins and needles in order not to offend somebody; you can really be your own person and fully develop your own personality with independent thought.  Independent thought that is expressed only exists in the church, as long as it aligns with the correlated narrative.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It should be of no surprise, then, that many benefit from the support of other humans who affirm that yes, they're not crazy, where they are assured that, yes, Christ alone is the author and mediator of their salvation..

Do you believe that most of the transitioning groups are Christ centered as opposed to agnostic?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Lots of devils conform  

Not to God, they don't.  To each other, sure.