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

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea that doctrine should change to be more inclusive.

That doesn't seem like such a bad idea.  Also, there is precedence for this.  The church became more inclusive after it dumped polygamy and the priesthood ban.  Both were doctrine that was changed after enough outside pressure was applied.  

Edited March 7, 2017 by sunstoned

[Calm]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

 Once the damage has been done, it is unlikely that they are going to be open to listen to the church who "betrayed" them. 

In a personal relationship, if you have lost your trust, it may never be restored to what it was even if the person has proven trustworthy after all.  This makes sense because a new perspective has been added and it cannot be removed as if it never existed, but only moved forward by adding additional information and trying to process that in an appropriate way.

Generally though, a slow deliberate approach will have a lesser impact on emotions than an acute, strong blow.  Think of the difference between being surprised by a nasty punch in the stomach as opposed to being pushed against with slowly increasing force.  One can brace against the one, anticipate and adjust with the change while the other one is knocked off one's feet even if the force amounts to the same.

Emotions are much the same in my study and experiences.  It is going to take a much stronger force to restore faith (in a person, organization, belief system or whatever) than it took to destroy it if the restoration attempt is anticipated and prepared for.  If by chance, there is something that startles the disbeliever to faith just as they were shocked to disbelief (say a Paul like vision), then a complete turnaround might again happened due to a smaller effort.  But I suspect this is unlikely to happen in most cases simply because building a relationship tends to require a slower, more deliberate effort that disconnecting a relationship.

Often times the loss of faith comes after a persistent rain of mild 'blows', pressure built up, but able to stay balanced until a stronger blow lands.  In some cases, because pressure has slowly built up and not been able to be dissipated, the deciding blow doesn't have to be that much stronger, it is more the surprise of it, from what I have seen, than the strength that matters.

I am not suggesting a model of weakness not being able to resist mental and emotional blows.  To me it is more about balance and whatever one uses to maintain stability.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

That doesn't seem like such a bad idea.  Also, there is precedence for this.  The church became more inclusive after it dumped polygamy and the priesthood bad.  Both were doctrine that was changed after enough outside pressure was applied.  

Priesthood ban removal seems more inclusive, but the polygamy ban seems less.  You had allowance for all monogamous and polygynous marriages.  Then you only had allowance for monogamous.  How is that more inclusive rather than less?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

. I really think a big part of the current problem with Glaubensverlust is the electronic age. Not necessarily access to hidden information (the critics' party line --- though that is certainly a factor), but the fact that so much is impersonal electronically. People get thrown for a loop, and read all sorts of takes on things (mostly critical), and if they don't have people they can talk to who can help them, the problem festers and the panic and outrage build. 

Somewhat like reactions to self diagnosing what is wrong with one by reading online material as opposed to hearing it from your doctor.  The doctor can give you reassurance at the same time as the shock so one can feel one can handle it, at least one won't be alone in the struggle.  Finding out negative info without that reassuring presence is harsh.  So different to hear "there is a blip on your CAT scan, we are scheduling you for an MRI" over the telephone and being told by a doctor in person "you have a mass, but it is well defined, so probably not cancer and if it is, will be relatively easy to remove, though there may be other concerns we will be looking into to be sure we catch everything".  In the first case, it is time to write the will; the second, it is "sure, cut it out, no problem" with a bit of a sick stomach.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 

Also, people and Preacher or Pastors and deacons leave other Churches all the time, but those who no longer attend do not obsesse over percentages and call them droves. They don't hav support groups, and whine about how bad the Church is. Also, when I see threads like this that list callings of persons in leadership, it seems it is for the purpose of making others question their faith as well. Not to mention the county and "front" that is the most Mormon are on the planet. 

 

(bolding is mine)

A simple google search disproves your statement.  I won't link to them here, but a simple search pulled up many recovery blogs/sites for Baptist, JWs, Catholics, and Christianity in general.

When you have given half your life to an organization that you now feel has (for whatever reasons) betrayed you, then you have the right to choose your own path to recovery and healing. Often times this means meeting with others to share similar experiences.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can only speak on this subject through my own experience.  I believe that IF there had been someone familiar with the difficulties at the right time along my faith crisis...I may not have continued down the rabbit hole.  But as I went searching from my bishop to my stake president to a member of the top 21 GA's in my quest for answers...no one offered anything other than reading the scripture, praying and keeping the so called commandments.  While each of those could have been helpful at an earlier time...I had long since passed the point where that was helpful advice.  What I needed was acknowledgement of the difficulties I was dealing with, that what I had discovered were legitimate issues and concerns, that I was not crazy for coming to some of the conclusions I had arrived at  and helpful understanding and believable answers to the questions I was asking.  None of that happened in my case.  In hide sight the lack of acknowledgement drove me to a community that confirmed my greatest fears.  While I proudly wear my ExMormon designation with pride...I know from experience that my path is not the only path.  Some do better remaining within the comfort of the church.

Thanks for sharing Johnnie. I was also in a similar place.  I just don't think the church leadership can give what you are asking for.  Case in point is the Sweetish rescue effort. The Q15 sent over their heavy hitters in Elder Marlin Jensen (Church historian) and  Elder Richard Turley (assistant Church historian).  This was a golden opportunity to deal with many of the questions and concerns that members are now facing.  That didn't happen.  For whatever reason, they didn't directly address the members questions.  Their answer was to read the scriptures and pray.  

If these guys could not directly address the struggling members questions, then what chance does a typical stake president or bishop have?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

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.  

My experience, one on one is better.  Negative experiences, emotions, and ideas seem to flourish better in a group setting when a significant number are expressing doubt, no matter where someone is on the scale..  If one could guarantee that everyone was at a point where they were truly open and able to take the time to explore, but life isn't like that.  Most are at different stages and it is too easy for negative feelings to dominate.   One doesn't have to be right or understood to be negative even though many put effort into being so; otoh, to be effectively positive in my experience requires accuracy, understanding, and patience and being able and willing to take all the time that is needed.  Few have that time to spare, either of those trying to help others believe or those doubting.  If one has to share time with others, it makes it harder, not easier.

[sunstoned]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Priesthood ban removal seems more inclusive, but the polygamy ban seems less.  You had allowance for all monogamous and polygynous marriages.  Then you only had allowance for monogamous.  How is that more inclusive rather than less?

IMO by divesting itself of polygamy the church became more inclusive because that principle did not have to be practiced by the membership. Many struggled (and still do) with the idea of sharing their partner with others. We need to keep in mind that polygamy at the time was considered the new and everlasting covenant, with BY stating that it was a necessary practice to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom.

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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 have a problem with this and the first part that mentioned here:

Quote

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

I'm concerned that these can become echo chambers with a narrative focused on one specific area of concern. I've had a number of people who I've seen that were in the category of left, leaving, or struggling with their faith. They all mentioned truth claims and concerns mentioned here and feeling at odds with the church, etc. But almost all of the stories I've heard have never been as straight forward as the narrative I read here/online about leaving/doubt. I can think of one that really was purely an intellectual concern. Having more nuance church history or an apologetic missionary or 3, may help....but I have a feeling that it would be only cutting at stems more so than plowing into the roots of their problems: having relational problems, emotional struggles, black and white thinking, influences that tore down their faith in unexpected ways, trauma/abuse that left them reeling and their faith in tatters, and yes, even the errant justifications for sins or problematic behaviors were sprinkled in (I know this is a sensitive one and should say it's not super common, but it does happen). Without looking at these and working through these there isn't much the church as an entity can do. All the logical reasoning and posturing over historical information in the world won't fix emotional baggage.     

I'm concerned that focusing on this narrative just make a rallying cry that people can bond over, but not really move through/past while ending up in a place of healing faith. Of course those who need to leave or want to find a course that better suits them should. But for those who are wavering because of pain, the rally can leave the actual pain unexplored and un-shared. They can't grow without a little push-back and exploration and inevitably change.

This isn't to lay it strictly on their feet. I have had several stories where I couldn't say that if I had their cognitions, their emotional pains, and their life struggles and perspectives, that I may end up just like them. No one's faith is fully bullet proof. And not all pains are our own making. Some of the saddest were ones who were suffering because of something that happened to them. But I wish this narrative about leaving would broaden. In the push to legitimize concerns about doctrinal or historical concerns and move away from the over-stereotyped sinful leavers I worry that we're missing huge parts of the faith struggle. It can be disempowering, further isolate members unnecessarily because of differences (both real and perceived) between them and the average member, and lead to blame shifting where the bulk of all woe lays in The Church. Capitalized, homogenous, and unapproachable in description.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

IMO by divesting itself of polygamy the church became more inclusive because that principle did not have to be practiced by the membership. Many struggled (and still do) with the idea of sharing their partner with others. We need to keep in mind that polygamy at the time was considered the new and everlasting covenant, with BY stating that it was a necessary practice to obtain the highest level of the celestial kingdom.

The majority of the membership never lived polygamy. Iirc.  Only in some areas for a short time did it become a majority (and never a large majority, again iirc).  One of my ancestors from Logan area talked about how the monogamously married women pitied the poor plural wife for having to share their husband, while she showed a nice bit of arrogance by claiming the monogamous married women never had as clean or cared for homes (implying laziness as if having a full time husband encouraged taking advantage of him and other forms of sloth).  Lots of plural marriages in the area, lots of monogamous ones as well.

BY said it was needed to accept the principle, not necessary to live it to achieve exaltation.

Feelings of inclusiveness probably depend mostly on where one is standing.  Fundamentalist polygamist communities probably feel the Church is not inclusive enough.  Those who feel polygamy hurt women hurt the relationship between husband and wife probably see the Church as being more inclusive by barring polygamy.  Even the Priesthood Ban...the vast majority I believe saw it as opening doors and welcoming in people who in some ways had been stuck outside looking through the windows (that was apparently literal in South Africa in the past).  A few (thankfully) who rejected the removal of the Ban probably saw the Church as closing its doors against them.

Those who want the Church to broaden its standards to allow more varied behaviour see it as opening doors.  Those who see it as important for the Church to maintain what they see as high standards see a change as removing their opportunity to be with similarly goaled peopled.

I am not sure using the term "inclusive" to apply to change in standards is all that helpful.  It is similar to Prolife and ProChoice.  Both see themselves as the one protecting humanity.  They are both right and both wrong in my view.  

It is unfortunate that few cases are overwhelmingly satisfied with change in the Church as happened with the Ban.  For me the Church has something unique.  In its efforts to open doors, I prefer the Church remain very cautious in changing to avoid losing what makes it unique in positive ways.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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

No, and I don't know. But I do think that those who are still Christian are more likely to view Christ that way. But even sharing with a handful of people who agree with that among a large group who are still welcoming can be helpful.

[Calm]

I would agree.  I think it might be difficult in some exmormon groups from what I have seen to find others who held Christ as central still though.  I hope I am wrong, but I have seen a lot of mocking of any religious faith unless they were specifically an evangelical exmormon group (and then I have seen on occasion some weird celebration that someone has become agnostic because not believing in Christ in their view was better than believing in the "Mormon" Christ, never could understand that).

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I have a problem with this and the first part that mentioned here:

I'm concerned that these can become echo chambers with a narrative focused on one specific area of concern. I've had a number of people who I've seen that were in the category of left, leaving, or struggling with their faith. They all mentioned truth claims and concerns mentioned here and feeling at odds with the church, etc. But almost all of the stories I've heard have never been as straight forward as the narrative I read here/online about leaving/doubt. I can think of one that really was purely an intellectual concern. Having more nuance church history or an apologetic missionary or 3, may help....but I have a feeling that it would be only cutting at stems more so than plowing into the roots of their problems: having relational problems, emotional struggles, black and white thinking, influences that tore down their faith in unexpected ways, trauma/abuse that left them reeling and their faith in tatters, and yes, even the errant justifications for sins or problematic behaviors were sprinkled in (I know this is a sensitive one and should say it's not super common, but it does happen). Without looking at these and working through these there isn't much the church as an entity can do. All the logical reasoning and posturing over historical information in the world won't fix emotional baggage.     

I'm concerned that focusing on this narrative just make a rallying cry that people can bond over, but not really move through/past while ending up in a place of healing faith. Of course those who need to leave or want to find a course that better suits them should. But for those who are wavering because of pain, the rally can leave the actual pain unexplored and un-shared. They can't grow without a little push-back and exploration and inevitably change.

This isn't to lay it strictly on their feet. I have had several stories where I couldn't say that if I had their cognitions, their emotional pains, and their life struggles and perspectives, that I may end up just like them. No one's faith is fully bullet proof. And not all pains are our own making. Some of the saddest were ones who were suffering because of something that happened to them. But I wish this narrative about leaving would broaden. In the push to legitimize concerns about doctrinal or historical concerns and move away from the over-stereotyped sinful leavers I worry that we're missing huge parts of the faith struggle. It can be disempowering, further isolate members unnecessarily because of differences (both real and perceived) between them and the average member, and lead to blame shifting where the bulk of all woe lays in The Church. Capitalized, homogenous, and unapproachable in description.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

I would imagine that these gatherings, especially if there is some informal mingling and not just speakers, frequently addresses issues of emotional pain and relational problems as they relate to disenchantment with the Church. I haven't attended one but I have seen several, taped, where the tone of the speakers invited such reflections and the speaker explicitly addresses such issues.

I've seen many exmos reference the infantilisation occuring in Church and it's culture. 

Btw, Grant Palmer reminds me of my TBM dad.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I believe the church should have not put up the LDS Gospel Topic Essays with all the warts and should have kept a low profile, keep all the ex Mormons looking like they wanted to sin or were offended.

The fact that the church is transparent may just be their downfall. But maybe they want to weed out the truest LDS, such as the Refiner's Fire mentality. I believe the church wants to have members that have bulletproof testimonies. 

ETA: After reading my post it sounds kind of like I'm downing ex Mormons. But what I tried to do was show that what the church is doing might be exposing things a little too well now, and members will read the essays or learn of truth and it scares them off. I guess the church is up against the internet and must be as transparent as possible. And I guess that will leave them with the most stalwart members ever that know everything yet still believe.

At first I thought that you were holding the LDS faith up to ridicule or sarcasm, Tacenda, but then you appeared to sincerely believe that transparency is not the answer.  Your conclusion seems to be contrary to fact.

My own view is that the LDS faith, as with most other faiths, will continue to be messy.  Life is messy.  We are not here to find easy answers, and no one's faith and testimony will ever be bulletproof.  Indeed, it is precisely the most rigid members who are most likely to fall into apostasy.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

.................. transitioning Mormons............................. The group consisted of every social economic demographic ........................ non-judgmental safe environment.

.................................. Many were very cynical of the church or held positions that even I found bizarre,...............................

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.

......................................................

From my participation here on MD&D I’ve come to realize .................................... a problem that is beyond the current church organizational structures ability to deal with.  .................................

.............. 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.

........................................................

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. 

That is an extraordinarily well-written and thoughtful summary.  Thanks for sharing.

I recommend that you send a copy along to your favorite Apostle.  However, you probably ought to delete this absurd notion:

Quote

 ........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.

 

[Calm]

"At first I thought that you were holding the LDS faith up to ridicule or sarcasm, Tacenda, but then you appeared to sincerely believe that transparency is not the answer.  Your conclusion seems to be contrary to fact."

Tacenda is in the middle of the mess.  I hope I understand her wistfulness for days long gone where she remembers herself as relatively blissful in her ignorance.  I feel blessed that unlike her, I can't think of anything in my life, even bad stuff or stuff that makes me unhappy, that I wish I didn't know...but then at this point of my life the important things I have control over, I do want I want to do.  I am not confused about the important things in life or who I am, though at a loss what degree I want to go for if I ever get close to going back to school.  It may be helpful to have a very limited life in some ways (in terms of choosing what I can do, not being limited in making great things of what I choose to do).  I 'knew' I didn't belong in my youth and that hurt, hurt a lot, but I learned I was wrong because I could create my own community.  There was also a time I had a shock that maybe I was not really the person I thought I was, that my relationships were based on chance, not by choice because I had learned my sisters had made choices that I saw as very self destructive and I couldn't understand why I hadn't made the same choice since I saw myself as closely linked to them through our upbringing...I had assumed we at the core looked at life the same way...we might be tempted to veer from time to time, but we were always heading in the same direction; so maybe I would have made those choices if I had been in the same situation, but then that would mean me wasn't me because me would never do those things.  Took me a couple of days to calm down (it was their trauma, not mine so quite a bit of confusion, but that was it so easy to deal with).  And the answer came to me, that yeah, if I were in their situation I would likely make those choices since they were rational to people who put themselves there.  But me not being there wasn't by accident, it wasn't because I ended up with a guy who I can trust to the ends of the earth and back again adinfinitum, I was't there because I went looking for my guy and lucked out on finding him early.  My sisters went looking for a very different kind of guy (they, more reasonably, wanted a man who paid attention to them; I wanted one who paid attention to kids in general, our children specifically, I didn't want my children to have one moment of doubt that they were interesting people that others liked and wanted to be with and that was going to start with parents that just as often followed the kids as the kids followed along after them).  He also thought I was very hot.  What a winner, right?

Anyway, those experiences of feeling my worldview of myself, my life, my value was all a farce were long enough for me.  I can't imagine wondering if my faith was a farce for years on end.  I couldn't do it.  I wouldn't invest time in such an unknown.  I also know if it happens again, I am good at moving forward and using it as the next foundation and thus it gets me that much higher.  But people have to find what anchors them and for some reason it may not be obvious.  I feel like Tacenda's one who just can't put her hands on her anchor and she isn't certain what it should look like to even try.  Must be the most frustrating place to be.  Hope she finds it soon.  So yeah, I think I can see why she might be ambivalent about the Essays if she sees them as possibly pushing people into the deep end before they know how to swim...while I see them as the time to do some great cannonballing and deep diving.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Somewhat like reactions to self diagnosing what is wrong with one by reading online material as opposed to hearing it from your doctor.  The doctor can give you reassurance at the same time as the shock so one can feel one can handle it, at least one won't be alone in the struggle.  Finding out negative info without that reassuring presence is harsh.  So different to hear "there is a blip on your CAT scan, we are scheduling you for an MRI" over the telephone and being told by a doctor in person "you have a mass, but it is well defined, so probably not cancer and if it is, will be relatively easy to remove, though there may be other concerns we will be looking into to be sure we catch everything".  In the first case, it is time to write the will; the second, it is "sure, cut it out, no problem" with a bit of a sick stomach.

This is helpful as long at the patient is being diagnosed by a qualified doctor... but in questions of faith crisis's in a ward oft times the patient is being treated by witch doctors steeped in mystical traditions instead of modern up to date information.

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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.  

 

13 hours 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 wake up one Sunday morning at 10:30 with the sun streaming through your window and you realize you can have a wonderful life even if you are gay. You love your spouse and want to share your life with him.  Your children have value.  You can be a Democrat and not feel guilty.  You can be a single parent and not feel like you are a second class person who will never have the happiness that "real" families have.  In fact you find out that families come in a lot of different forms.  You find out the love of God is not based on dogma like who can marry and who can't.  Or if you don't believe this book came from peeping at a stone, then you are less worthy.  Or that you have to believe in a man who claimed he translated book of the dead writings into translating of the actual writings of Abraham.  Your dogma changes to being more kind to others, giving of your self to others caring for the unfortunate.  Not because it is an Elders Quorum assignment, but because it is what God compels you to do.  You no longer have to defend things that just don't seem believable.  You start to forge your life more centered on how Christ taught us to interact with our fellow men most of which you learned while being a member.  You feel a heavy burden of unnecessary baggage is lifted.  You also find there is a heavy price you must pay.  Loss of your biological family.  Loss of friends you thought loved and cared for you.  Loss of a place to join together for a common cause.  Loss of belief.

This is my truth.  And I realize those caught up in activity of the church have no idea what I am talking about.  It is easier to label me an apostate or an anti Mormon, or a sinner, and ignore most of what I say.  The church is far too black and white.  Labels become more important than the person.  There is no place in it for me and many others that find so much goodness in the church but also find so much that is required to believe the unbelievable.  So we leave. You wish you could stay and partake of all the goodness of the church, but the policies of the church prevent that from being much of an option.  So you take the core beliefs of the church with you and thank the church for all it has given you and how much it has enriched your life over the years.  And you count your blessings that you were fortunate to have spent some time in your life with the saints.  With some of the best people in the world.  I will in debt to the church for all it has given me.

 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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

There is a time of complete lack of trust in anything religious and whether there is even a God.  But the core of what the gospel teaches is true.  Your heart tells you that.  The Spirit whispers to you that God loves you.  You realize that the lack of trust was of organized religion and not a lack of trust in God.

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I have a problem with this and the first part that mentioned here:

I'm concerned that these can become echo chambers with a narrative focused on one specific area of concern. I've had a number of people who I've seen that were in the category of left, leaving, or struggling with their faith. They all mentioned truth claims and concerns mentioned here and feeling at odds with the church, etc. But almost all of the stories I've heard have never been as straight forward as the narrative I read here/online about leaving/doubt. I can think of one that really was purely an intellectual concern. Having more nuance church history or an apologetic missionary or 3, may help....but I have a feeling that it would be only cutting at stems more so than plowing into the roots of their problems: having relational problems, emotional struggles, black and white thinking, influences that tore down their faith in unexpected ways, trauma/abuse that left them reeling and their faith in tatters, and yes, even the errant justifications for sins or problematic behaviors were sprinkled in (I know this is a sensitive one and should say it's not super common, but it does happen). Without looking at these and working through these there isn't much the church as an entity can do. All the logical reasoning and posturing over historical information in the world won't fix emotional baggage.     

I'm concerned that focusing on this narrative just make a rallying cry that people can bond over, but not really move through/past while ending up in a place of healing faith. Of course those who need to leave or want to find a course that better suits them should. But for those who are wavering because of pain, the rally can leave the actual pain unexplored and un-shared. They can't grow without a little push-back and exploration and inevitably change.

This isn't to lay it strictly on their feet. I have had several stories where I couldn't say that if I had their cognitions, their emotional pains, and their life struggles and perspectives, that I may end up just like them. No one's faith is fully bullet proof. And not all pains are our own making. Some of the saddest were ones who were suffering because of something that happened to them. But I wish this narrative about leaving would broaden. In the push to legitimize concerns about doctrinal or historical concerns and move away from the over-stereotyped sinful leavers I worry that we're missing huge parts of the faith struggle. It can be disempowering, further isolate members unnecessarily because of differences (both real and perceived) between them and the average member, and lead to blame shifting where the bulk of all woe lays in The Church. Capitalized, homogenous, and unapproachable in description.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Needless to say... a faith crisis is complicated and consists of many factors...that said...what could the church do to help those who are discovering that the narrative they once believed was rock solid in reality is filled with cracks.  Should the church even care about these souls?  Should they even make an attempt to reach out and offer a more nuanced narrative and the assistance needed to help make the adjustment in world view?  All I'm suggesting is that there may be some who would benefit from such an approach...but from my perspective the church is currently ill prepared to meet the needs of those who question

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Priesthood ban removal seems more inclusive, but the polygamy ban seems less.  You had allowance for all monogamous and polygynous marriages.  Then you only had allowance for monogamous.  How is that more inclusive rather than less?

Weren't members made to feel guilty if they were not in a polygamist marriage?  Weren't members called into the bishops office and told to find another wife?  

Quote

The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)

It is the same kind of guilt that exists in the church today. Conform to the church's current beliefs, or you are considered less than.  Marry someone of the opposite sex or you are considered less than.  Does that sound more inclusive?

 

[Hestia]

1)  Knock off the personal insults.

2)  Non-believers are not entitled to special treatment.  Don't expect believers to tip toe around your feelings, to need to give you the benefit of the doubt, etc. when you feel justified in not returning the expectation towards them.   This is obviously true for believers as well, but lately we seem to be having more trouble with non-believers getting personal and then whining when someone get's personal back.   

Everyone needs to knock it off.  When the urge to feel like the victim starts to take over, first review the golden rule and see if you aren't causing the problem in the first place.

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

You wake up one Sunday morning at 10:30 with the sun streaming through your window and you realize you can have a wonderful life even if you are gay. You love your spouse and want to share your life with him.  Your children have value.  You can be a Democrat and not feel guilty.  You can be a single parent and not feel like you are a second class person who will never have the happiness that "real" families have.  In fact you find out that families come in a lot of different forms.  You find out the love of God is not based on dogma like who can marry and who can't.  Or if you don't believe this book came from peeping at a stone, then you are less worthy.  Or that you have to believe in a man who claimed he translated book of the dead writings into translating of the actual writings of Abraham.  Your dogma changes to being more kind to others, giving of your self to others caring for the unfortunate.  Not because it is an Elders Quorum assignment, but because it is what God compels you to do.  You no longer have to defend things that just don't seem believable.  You start to forge your life more centered on how Christ taught us to interact with our fellow men most of which you learned while being a member.  You feel a heavy burden of unnecessary baggage is lifted.  You also find there is a heavy price you must pay.  Loss of your biological family.  Loss of friends you thought loved and cared for you.  Loss of a place to join together for a common cause.  Loss of belief.

This is my truth.  And I realize those caught up in activity of the church have no idea what I am talking about.  It is easier to label me an apostate or an anti Mormon, or a sinner, and ignore most of what I say.  The church is far too black and white.  Labels become more important than the person.  There is no place in it for me and many others that find so much goodness in the church but also find so much that is required to believe the unbelievable.  So we leave. You wish you could stay and partake of all the goodness of the church, but the policies of the church prevent that from being much of an option.  So you take the core beliefs of the church with you and thank the church for all it has given you and how much it has enriched your life over the years.  And you count your blessings that you were fortunate to have spent some time in your life with the saints.  With some of the best people in the world.  I will in debt to the church for all it has given me.

 

California Boy.  The only point I really sympathize with - and it is a BIG sympathy on my part - is the fact that being gay will never fully mesh with the LDS doctrine.  It would be harder than I am sure I can imagine to be gay and know that the only way to be fully accepted in the church would be complete celibacy and abstinence.  Any "moral" reasons for feeling less than in the church are real and not easily overcome.  

The rest of it though, I can attest to overcoming myself.  Being more liberal minded, being a single divorced dad, longer hair, beard, professional musician etc.  I have learned that the church is a tool for me to facilitate my spirituality, but has no real authority or sway over me in matters of culture.  In matters of 'morality' however, I see how making peace with that without leaving would be immensely tough.

 

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I would imagine that these gatherings, especially if there is some informal mingling and not just speakers, frequently addresses issues of emotional pain and relational problems as they relate to disenchantment with the Church. I haven't attended one but I have seen several, taped, where the tone of the speakers invited such reflections and the speaker explicitly addresses such issues.

I've seen many exmos reference the infantilisation occuring in Church and it's culture. 

Btw, Grant Palmer reminds me of my TBM dad.

I would hope, but to be honest, I'm a little doubtful about how it. Based in part by accounts I've heard from those I mentioned. And in part from online forums. 

I'm not familiar with grant palmer beyond name recognition. And definitely not you dad I don't think So I'll take your word for it. 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

My experience, one on one is better.  Negative experiences, emotions, and ideas seem to flourish better in a group setting when a significant number are expressing doubt, no matter where someone is on the scale..  If one could guarantee that everyone was at a point where they were truly open and able to take the time to explore, but life isn't like that.  Most are at different stages and it is too easy for negative feelings to dominate.   One doesn't have to be right or understood to be negative even though many put effort into being so; otoh, to be effectively positive in my experience requires accuracy, understanding, and patience and being able and willing to take all the time that is needed.  Few have that time to spare, either of those trying to help others believe or those doubting.  If one has to share time with others, it makes it harder, not easier.

I agree that there are some potential challenges. But my experience with addiction recovery support groups leads me to believe that it could be very beneficial in restoring hope to many.  There is no one-on-one that I have ever received from the church or church leaders that has come close to being as helpful as the support groups.  Yes, there is a large group of people sharing negative experiences, emotions, frustrations, etc. but the support that I received from those who identify with me and from those who have recovered was immeasurably beneficial in restoring hope in my life when it felt like all hope was lost and long gone.  The group would only be for those who wish to restore hope and desire to work towards that goal.  This would unify the group in the common cause and goal of hope, spiritual healing, and further enlightenment, rather than doubt and struggles.  The group would support and encourage each other to that end.  I believe that there are many who desire to feel that hope again, but don't have the support and direction that they need.  It would be a place where people are working through steps together to restore that lost hope.  It could be modeled in a similar fashion where personal accountability is emphasized over finger-pointing and blaming for true healing to take place.  I believe that one could come up with something similar to the 12 step group which is adapted for people struggling with their testimonies rather than addiction.