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

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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...

I am so sorry that happens, your safety and love should dwell in the hearts of your family. My children safely dwell in my own heart. God bless..

[Guest]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

(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.

The original post spoke of layers, support groups, and made it a point to list the offices held, in an effort I am sure to insert doubt in others. The groups you listed (with the exception of JW's) apparently have simply become atheists, as most other faiths teach that once saved, there is nothing more to do by sit in a pew and listen, in fact since they believe in once saved always saved, you don't even need to come back. If I left the Church, I would just leave...I don't know maybe it is a Utah thing to engage lawyers to help you leave and then seek therapy...to "rant" as the OP suggested. I don't know, when I make a decision (as I did with the Baptist Church, I never look back. 

Edit to add...

People do not devote their entire lives to the Church, they serve when asked, but people devote their lives to their professions, and even more so to their families. Even Bishops devote what seems their lives as so many call them day and night for around 5 years.  Dispte of how it feels, they spend it (again) with their jobs and with their families. I wish I could understand how meeting in groups who lament their membership and decry having been a member...but I cannot. As to your suggesting doing Google search of other Faiths other than Catholics and JW's, all other Churches are independant from one another, but as I said, Baptists (well any Evangelical Church) ask nothing from it's members, except when the plate is passed around. You can come amd go as you please. The Catholic Church (especially) does not call people to be Bishops, as Bishops and Priests must go through Catholic seminary and be ordained...and rely on the Church for food, shelter and money. So in this case...unlike our Faith, what "most of their life" you (we) speaking of? 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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.

I don't disagree, though I think I prefer an analogy to certain 'alternative medicine' practitioners.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Support groups have certainly been very helpful to me in both coming out of my terminal shyness and in dealing with my primary disorder.  Otoh, I have been in support groups where it became a downward spiral of anger and self pity.  I think the key difference was the majority of the positive ones people were actively working towards a goal of greater knowledge and experience and explored feelings and doubts for that purpose.  In the negative ones, the primary purpose was to explore doubts and negative feelings.

I think you would have to be willing to shut down those looking to constantly revisited the negative in order to prevent a group from shifting to that dynamic.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours 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.

Just  saw this TED video and immediately thought of you:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

Edited March 8, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

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.

 

I am sincerely glad that the church is working for you and that you have found a spiritual home within the Mormon faith.  You certainly are facing some difficult odds to find such happiness.  Not everyone is so lucky.  I am one of the unlucky ones.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just  saw this TED video and immediately thought of you:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

Great talk.  I think it would do everyone good to watch it.  I certainly benefitted from what she talked about.  Thank You.

[Johnnie Cake]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Great talk.  I think it would do everyone good to watch it.  I certainly benefitted from what she talked about.  Thank You.

Ditto...  ok .. I love all of you... even Bill "papa" Lee. 

[BlueDreams]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I'm going back and forth on this one, which is apart of the reason I haven't responded. Here are a few of my disjointed thoughts before I head to bed. 

- I do not see the same thing. I do see them trying to address concerns. This may be that I've lived right next to BYU and can attend varying things that include small incremental changes in dialogue. It could also be that my siblings are a lot younger than me. I'm watching them grow up compared to me. And then my own stories compared to some of the older generations here. It's different. My little brother discussed going over parts of the gospel topics essays in sunday school or seminary (can't remember which one). We discussed the multiple versions of the JS accounts of the first vision in a gospel doctrine lesson, which were on our phones in our LDS gospel library and referenced in the lesson manual. The dissemination of information is happening. Around me I see change. Some more consistent than others. But I see it nonetheless.

- I keep going back to the lives I've seen right in front of me. Sometimes narratives gel, they become a consistent story with strong easy trends to follow. That isn't the case with my people struggling with their faith or church to one degree or another. I've tried to think of a catch-all that may have helped at least half of them. I can't. A number of these by the time I saw them, were well on out. There was basically nothing in their current positions that would persuade otherwise. Some still had some form of desire towards their Mormon faith. Some of those were reachable and were receiving contact from their ward as much as they (the individual) would allow. A number of those I was in contact with the bishops and knew they had good caring leaders trying their best to meet the needs of their struggling members. There is one thing that did seem to have a trend: all-or-nothing, black and white thinking. Not all of them, just a trend consistent with many. Nuance was not their forte. And the church, members, etc, were also seen in these black and white lenses. Some really struggled to see how gray would even work. I still remember one being surprised that I was honestly happy in the faith considering several traits/labels that describe me that they felt were contradictory to being such.

- I think of me and my 2 cousins. We're all intelligent and all of us received higher degrees. We've all been exposed to the same basic information about the church. Both pretty independent and prefer to do what we want to do. The two grew up in the very same family with the same faithful parents. We've all seen several of the controversial areas mentioned. Only one of us has had a faith crisis over it...and still is. Ironically he was the one who at least initially fit more of the usual mormon mold..he was also the last one exposed to this stuff. I hold some of the things that I've seen here as being labeled as having a difficult time in the church: Democrat, liberal leaning, raised initially by a single mother and then a dysfunctional blended family, Multiracial/cultural, feminist....I could go on.  My other cousin is a lawyer, working mother, feminist, philosophy major, Socially liberal-leaning, super close to her lesbian sister who's left, etc. By the narratives I've seen WE should have been the ones to flounder and lose it. We're both 100% in. And for me, at this point in my life if God asked me to something, I would do it, even if it were insane. I just did. Not for the first time for months. 

So basically, your questions felt too basic. Yes, I think they should reach out and often have. I think that's easier said than done and may not be appropriate in certain circumstances. And I feel that the focus I would give would initially be a struggle, not simply because of "the church" but because of "the culture."  Look at the thread about Oak's statement about climate change. Look at those who have immediately picked apart the statement to basically make it a less pointed statement. I've seen it with people on color changes in the book of mormon in spite of the statement in the gospel topics library that basically flat our says skin color wasn't a sign of a curse and that's disavowed. Heck, on ostracizing non-members, the church has repeatedly come down against that...and yet some still do. Again, I could go on. The point is, members can be reticent to change. Family traditions and beliefs attributed to the church can be very hard to change. And I've heard some pretty stupid ones that could easily be picked apart using church teachings. But they're there. Still. 

If I were to do something, I would focus on black and white thinking, on gently prodding the focus on predominantly negative narratives and wording that place a further wedge, I would help them refocus on the parts that they still do believe and work on building from a positivist stance. I'd work on prioritizing information in level of importance to their current faith and learning to focus first on building on their faith and working through their emotions, then carefully taking one thing at a time to understand and work through. It would be cool if that were a program and I think it would be important to have believers in there. And I would personally choose a number that don't fit the normal mold to remove a sense of isolation of believing in absolute difference from the believers. But I wouldn't necessarily have missionaries trained in all the random controversial points out there. For one it leads to a jack-of-all trades problem where they know a little about everything but nothing really deeply. If someone had a major issue in one topic and studied deeply on it, they wouldn't be useful. For another, I think it perpetuates a problem for those in a faith crisis: being overwhelmed with information. I also don't know how feasible a group like this actually is. For one people interested would probably vacillate and in some areas there may not be basically anyone. For another it may NOT be a good use of limited time and man power. For another, if this is an area that is more culturally rigid, that's again easier said than done.  

Lastly, the things that have helped me stay solid in the church wasn't information. What's kept me solid is ironically a number of the things that people ascribe as "watered down" or "basic" in the church. Read your scriptures, pray, attend the temple, keep the sabbath, positive leaders, etc. And one other thing that you can't just make a person experience: need. I like and want information. I need my faith. I need God. I'm more consistently choosing faith. When one thing starts to take over or reduces my focus I cut back on it. When I can't because circumstance dictates struggle or pain, I rely more heavily on faith. When I was exposed to these materials and problems that have tanked people, my life and family were a mess, I was taking on more burdens than a teen should, I was very very angry, and its there that I realized that peace did not have to be contingent on circumstance. When my family blew up it was faith and hope that saw me through....doing what little I could do to show my intention to God. It fueled need, priority, and desire. It left me whole in a way that I shouldn't have been. I can't bottle that up and give it to another and that's not a popular answer. For some it may not even feel like a useful answer for the questions involved. But it is the one thing I can note as consistent. Nothing has overshadowed that. It doesn't mean I don't see problems, concerns, issues, etc. It's just not my highest priority. One niggles at my insatiably curiosity another fuels my soul. 

 

I don't know if that helps, but that's all I've got for now.

With luv,

BD 

Edited March 8, 2017 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Great talk.  I think it would do everyone good to watch it.  I certainly benefitted from what she talked about.  Thank You.

Funny, I watched that today before reading this and thought the same thing. Glad it found its way here. 

Edited March 8, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Meadowchik]

18 hours 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.

 

I can understand, at least to some extent  (because I think that saying "completely" about something so complex and personal is presumptious) and I am happy for you.

[rongo]

Another bishop in our stake asked me last night to meet with a member of his ward who is reeling from the CES letter. They are new to his ward, and he scheduled to meet with him to let him know where he was and to ask for help. I told him this was a very good sign. Based on the conversation (twenty minutes or so --- he pulled me out of pack night), this brother is very early in his "time window." If the "time window" had already passed, he wouldn't have bothered meeting with his bishop to try and get some answers. So, fingers crossed. 

Another good sign --- he wanted to meet as soon as possible, so we're meeting tomorrow night (I have the death penalty debate tonight  ). That shows me that he really wants to hear what we have to say. I don't know much about him/them, but from what I was able to gather last night, he was sent the CES letter by a friend who has left the Church, and is evangelizing with it. He read the whole thing, and is in the panic/outrage/got-a-pile-of-bricks-dumped-on-him stage. His wife is devastated, and he has told his family about his faith crisis and they are in scramble mode. They are young (two really young kids). 

[JulieM]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

Another bishop in our stake asked me last night to meet with a member of his ward who is reeling from the CES letter. They are new to his ward, and he scheduled to meet with him to let him know where he was and to ask for help. I told him this was a very good sign. Based on the conversation (twenty minutes or so --- he pulled me out of pack night), this brother is very early in his "time window." If the "time window" had already passed, he wouldn't have bothered meeting with his bishop to try and get some answers. So, fingers crossed. 

Another good sign --- he wanted to meet as soon as possible, so we're meeting tomorrow night (I have the death penalty debate tonight  ). That shows me that he really wants to hear what we have to say. I don't know much about him/them, but from what I was able to gather last night, he was sent the CES letter by a friend who has left the Church, and is evangelizing with it. He read the whole thing, and is in the panic/outrage/got-a-pile-of-bricks-dumped-on-him stage. His wife is devastated, and he has told his family about his faith crisis and they are in scramble mode. They are young (two really young kids). 

Wow.  Rongo, you really are so willing to spend time helping others and I think you're amazing.

Do you know how you'll approach this with him?  IMO, with the CES letter, it may be best to focus on the different conclusions one can come to rather than trying to attack the information presented.  From what I remember (it's been awhile), most of what is in the letter is factual, just maybe not complete plus always the worst or most negative conclusions are assumed.

Please let us know how it goes...good luck!

Edited March 8, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wow.  Rongo, you really are so willing to spend time helping others and I think you're amazing.

It's really not a sacrifice. It's a lot of fun for me to talk to people about Church history, sources, concerns, etc.

Do you know how you'll approach this with him?  IMO, with the CES letter, it may be best to focus on the different conclusions one can come to rather than trying to attack the information presented.

It really all depends. I asked the bishop what his main concerns were, and he really didn't know. I suspect Joseph Smith polygamy will be up there (it's usually a big one), but everyone's different. It will totally depend on the person.

From what I remember (it's been awhile), most of what is in the letter is factual, just maybe not complete plus always the worst or most negative conclusions are assumed.

Much of it has a factual basis, but it's very "Mike Norton-ized," like you said. Context is key, and where the man is himself plays a role.

Please let us know how it goes...good luck!

Will do!

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm going back and forth on this one, which is apart of the reason I haven't responded. Here are a few of my disjointed thoughts before I head to bed. 

- I do not see the same thing. I do see them trying to address concerns. This may be that I've lived right next to BYU and can attend varying things that include small incremental changes in dialogue. It could also be that my siblings are a lot younger than me. I'm watching them grow up compared to me. And then my own stories compared to some of the older generations here. It's different. My little brother discussed going over parts of the gospel topics essays in sunday school or seminary (can't remember which one). We discussed the multiple versions of the JS accounts of the first vision in a gospel doctrine lesson, which were on our phones in our LDS gospel library and referenced in the lesson manual. The dissemination of information is happening. Around me I see change. Some more consistent than others. But I see it nonetheless.

- I keep going back to the lives I've seen right in front of me. Sometimes narratives gel, they become a consistent story with strong easy trends to follow. That isn't the case with my people struggling with their faith or church to one degree or another. I've tried to think of a catch-all that may have helped at least half of them. I can't. A number of these by the time I saw them, were well on out. There was basically nothing in their current positions that would persuade otherwise. Some still had some form of desire towards their Mormon faith. Some of those were reachable and were receiving contact from their ward as much as they (the individual) would allow. A number of those I was in contact with the bishops and knew they had good caring leaders trying their best to meet the needs of their struggling members. There is one thing that did seem to have a trend: all-or-nothing, black and white thinking. Not all of them, just a trend consistent with many. Nuance was not their forte. And the church, members, etc, were also seen in these black and white lenses. Some really struggled to see how gray would even work. I still remember one being surprised that I was honestly happy in the faith considering several traits/labels that describe me that they felt were contradictory to being such.

- I think of me and my 2 cousins. We're all intelligent and all of us received higher degrees. We've all been exposed to the same basic information about the church. Both pretty independent and prefer to do what we want to do. The two grew up in the very same family with the same faithful parents. We've all seen several of the controversial areas mentioned. Only one of us has had a faith crisis over it...and still is. Ironically he was the one who at least initially fit more of the usual mormon mold..he was also the last one exposed to this stuff. I hold some of the things that I've seen here as being labeled as having a difficult time in the church: Democrat, liberal leaning, raised initially by a single mother and then a dysfunctional blended family, Multiracial/cultural, feminist....I could go on.  My other cousin is a lawyer, working mother, feminist, philosophy major, Socially liberal-leaning, super close to her lesbian sister who's left, etc. By the narratives I've seen WE should have been the ones to flounder and lose it. We're both 100% in. And for me, at this point in my life if God asked me to something, I would do it, even if it were insane. I just did. Not for the first time for months. 

So basically, your questions felt too basic. Yes, I think they should reach out and often have. I think that's easier said than done and may not be appropriate in certain circumstances. And I feel that the focus I would give would initially be a struggle, not simply because of "the church" but because of "the culture."  Look at the thread about Oak's statement about climate change. Look at those who have immediately picked apart the statement to basically make it a less pointed statement. I've seen it with people on color changes in the book of mormon in spite of the statement in the gospel topics library that basically flat our says skin color wasn't a sign of a curse and that's disavowed. Heck, on ostracizing non-members, the church has repeatedly come down against that...and yet some still do. Again, I could go on. The point is, members can be reticent to change. Family traditions and beliefs attributed to the church can be very hard to change. And I've heard some pretty stupid ones that could easily be picked apart using church teachings. But they're there. Still. 

If I were to do something, I would focus on black and white thinking, on gently prodding the focus on predominantly negative narratives and wording that place a further wedge, I would help them refocus on the parts that they still do believe and work on building from a positivist stance. I'd work on prioritizing information in level of importance to their current faith and learning to focus first on building on their faith and working through their emotions, then carefully taking one thing at a time to understand and work through. It would be cool if that were a program and I think it would be important to have believers in there. And I would personally choose a number that don't fit the normal mold to remove a sense of isolation of believing in absolute difference from the believers. But I wouldn't necessarily have missionaries trained in all the random controversial points out there. For one it leads to a jack-of-all trades problem where they know a little about everything but nothing really deeply. If someone had a major issue in one topic and studied deeply on it, they wouldn't be useful. For another, I think it perpetuates a problem for those in a faith crisis: being overwhelmed with information. I also don't know how feasible a group like this actually is. For one people interested would probably vacillate and in some areas there may not be basically anyone. For another it may NOT be a good use of limited time and man power. For another, if this is an area that is more culturally rigid, that's again easier said than done.  

Lastly, the things that have helped me stay solid in the church wasn't information. What's kept me solid is ironically a number of the things that people ascribe as "watered down" or "basic" in the church. Read your scriptures, pray, attend the temple, keep the sabbath, positive leaders, etc. And one other thing that you can't just make a person experience: need. I like and want information. I need my faith. I need God. I'm more consistently choosing faith. When one thing starts to take over or reduces my focus I cut back on it. When I can't because circumstance dictates struggle or pain, I rely more heavily on faith. When I was exposed to these materials and problems that have tanked people, my life and family were a mess, I was taking on more burdens than a teen should, I was very very angry, and its there that I realized that peace did not have to be contingent on circumstance. When my family blew up it was faith and hope that saw me through....doing what little I could do to show my intention to God. It fueled need, priority, and desire. It left me whole in a way that I shouldn't have been. I can't bottle that up and give it to another and that's not a popular answer. For some it may not even feel like a useful answer for the questions involved. But it is the one thing I can note as consistent. Nothing has overshadowed that. It doesn't mean I don't see problems, concerns, issues, etc. It's just not my highest priority. One niggles at my insatiably curiosity another fuels my soul. 

 

I don't know if that helps, but that's all I've got for now.

With luv,

BD 

I really enjoyed reading your post.  thanks for taking the time to post it.  I think you made some very important and valid points...and although it doesn't do what you wrote justice to distill it down to a summation in my words I'm going to do that anyway, so please forgive me...but what I hear after all is said and done is that you choose to have faith  and also that you feel a need to maintain belief .  This that a fair assessment?

I know with my wife, who remains a believer, she has told me on many occasions when we discuss the disparity in our belief paradigms...that despite it all...she chooses to believe and in choosing she has found happiness in the gospel, she serves in an important stake calling, she attends her meeting religiously, she keeps the commandments etc...so I get that...she's a true saint by any definition.   And for me its not that I don't choose to believe...my mind is much more analytical and logical than how I perceive my wives mind to work...for me its not that I wouldn't want to believe...its that for me to believe it has to add up and make sense...the various puzzle pieces need to fit...and for me they don't.  So were I to choose to believe I would be ignoring reality to do so...it would be a false belief and I would be living a lie...so its not really a choice I can honestly make.

With respect to the black and white thinking...again I believe this is true for many but not everyone.  Some people do have the capacity to form a nuanced belief system...and I believe that others find this difficult to do.  Again as to myself, I'm capable of adding nuance into a belief paradigm...for example I could easily brush off teachings of a universal flood or even a literal earth timeline.  I do however find it difficult to blend the reality of our human evolution into an Adam and Even garden narrative, or to view the BoM as anything but an 19th century work of fiction...so I guess I personally fall somewhere in the middle with the B&W thinking.

 

 

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Another bishop in our stake asked me last night to meet with a member of his ward who is reeling from the CES letter. They are new to his ward, and he scheduled to meet with him to let him know where he was and to ask for help. I told him this was a very good sign. Based on the conversation (twenty minutes or so --- he pulled me out of pack night), this brother is very early in his "time window." If the "time window" had already passed, he wouldn't have bothered meeting with his bishop to try and get some answers. So, fingers crossed. 

Another good sign --- he wanted to meet as soon as possible, so we're meeting tomorrow night (I have the death penalty debate tonight  ). That shows me that he really wants to hear what we have to say. I don't know much about him/them, but from what I was able to gather last night, he was sent the CES letter by a friend who has left the Church, and is evangelizing with it. He read the whole thing, and is in the panic/outrage/got-a-pile-of-bricks-dumped-on-him stage. His wife is devastated, and he has told his family about his faith crisis and they are in scramble mode. They are young (two really young kids). 

Oh Boy you have your work cut out for you...good luck

[Johnnie Cake]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's really not a sacrifice. It's a lot of fun for me to talk to people about Church history, sources, concerns, etc.

 

 

It really all depends. I asked the bishop what his main concerns were, and he really didn't know. I suspect Joseph Smith polygamy will be up there (it's usually a big one), but everyone's different. It will totally depend on the person.

 

 

Much of it has a factual basis, but it's very "Mike Norton-ized," like you said. Context is key, and where the man is himself plays a role.

 

 

Will do!

Funny you mention Mike Norton,  I once met with Mike, bought him lunch ( I like to meet folks IRL and chat made a similar offer to Scott Lloyd he declined)  I found Mike to be quite nice, but I do not care for any of his methods.  He claims to have influenced nearly 500 people out of the church.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Oh Boy you have your work cut out for you...good luck

I've done it before. I'm hopeful that he's early in his "time window." I see a lot of good signs based on how he's handled it to this point. 

We'll see how it goes.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I've done it before. I'm hopeful that he's early in his "time window." I see a lot of good signs based on how he's handled it to this point. 

We'll see how it goes.

The chickens have come home to roost.

[Rain]

On Monday, March 06, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Meadowchik said:

I agree that you do not understand.

Do you realize that many who leave, acting in good faith and honesty, are shunned by family and friends? 

 

I honestly don't.  I know there are some,  but I've never known anyone that shunned someone who has left.  

I have, however, experienced people who tell me and others that they know I will shun them so they are leaving the group first. I have experienced people who avoid contact with me when leaving even if I say nothing about the church. I have had people think I am preaching if I say ANYTHING about the church, expecting that church shouldn't be a part of who I am when I am with them. I have had people go on and on negatively and ugly about the church till I could no longer be with them except on a limited basis , but it was the actions, not the topic nor the fact that the person left, that I chose to avoid. 

I also know how hurt can make you want to curl up in a ball and hide. That some of us are reeling when our loved ones surprise us with information like they are leaving the church. I was recently surprised by something (not someone leaving) and it took me several days to be able to extend an arm of love towards that person even though I shouldn't have been surprised at all given the history. I wanted to, but I was shocked and so very hurt that I had to process it. I suspect there are loved ones of those who leave the church have that same experience. This shouldn't be considered shunning. Obviously, one should work past that hurt, but the one leaving needs to understand that the person staying also needs to have a mourning period.

[Johnnie Cake]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've done it before. I'm hopeful that he's early in his "time window." I see a lot of good signs based on how he's handled it to this point. 

We'll see how it goes.

Well if he needs any of his conclusions confirmed feel free to give me a call..  :-)

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I honestly don't.  I know there are some,  but I've never known anyone that shunned someone who has left.  

I have, however, experienced people who tell me and others that they know I will shun them so they are leaving the group first. I have experienced people who avoid contact with me when leaving even if I say nothing about the church. I have had people think I am preaching if I say ANYTHING about the church, expecting that church shouldn't be a part of who I am when I am with them. I have had people go on and on negatively and ugly about the church till I could no longer be with them except on a limited basis , but it was the actions, not the topic nor the fact that the person left, that I chose to avoid. 

I also know how hurt can make you want to curl up in a ball and hide. That some of us are reeling when our loved ones surprise us with information like they are leaving the church. I was recently surprised by something (not someone leaving) and it took me several days to be able to extend an arm of love towards that person even though I shouldn't have been surprised at all given the history. I wanted to, but I was shocked and so very hurt that I had to process it. I suspect there are loved ones of those who leave the church have that same experience. This shouldn't be considered shunning. Obviously, one should work past that hurt, but the one leaving needs to understand that the person staying also needs to have a mourning period.

You are the exception, IMO. 

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

I honestly don't.  I know there are some,  but I've never known anyone that shunned someone who has left.  

I have, however, experienced people who tell me and others that they know I will shun them so they are leaving the group first. I have experienced people who avoid contact with me when leaving even if I say nothing about the church. I have had people think I am preaching if I say ANYTHING about the church, expecting that church shouldn't be a part of who I am when I am with them. I have had people go on and on negatively and ugly about the church till I could no longer be with them except on a limited basis , but it was the actions, not the topic nor the fact that the person left, that I chose to avoid. 

I also know how hurt can make you want to curl up in a ball and hide. That some of us are reeling when our loved ones surprise us with information like they are leaving the church. I was recently surprised by something (not someone leaving) and it took me several days to be able to extend an arm of love towards that person even though I shouldn't have been surprised at all given the history. I wanted to, but I was shocked and so very hurt that I had to process it. I suspect there are loved ones of those who leave the church have that same experience. This shouldn't be considered shunning. Obviously, one should work past that hurt, but the one leaving needs to understand that the person staying also needs to have a mourning period.

Well...Let me introduce myself.  I have personally experienced shunning from members of the church.  In one public shunning that comes to mind, I was in our local grocery store, soon after I left the church.  As I was walking down one of the shopping isles, a friend and former member of the same high council both of us had served together on entered the isle from the other end.  As soon as our eyes met, he turned around and walked the other direction.  I was quite takin back from the shunning.  I get that it was probably an awkward moment for both of us...but it was such an obvious calculated action on his part.  The sad part is that he died recently...and we never did have a conversation after that interaction in the store.  I could give additional examples but this will suffice.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are the exception, IMO. 

Her experience mirrors mine.  

I've had family and friends leave the church and in every instance, if we no longer have a relationship, it's because they cut me off and not the other way around.  It has never happened with family thankfully (i have more family out of the church than in), but with friends it has.  I've never un-friended a friend on Facebook after they have left the church but i've had some unfriend me, for example.

 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Her experience mirrors mine.  

I've had family and friends leave the church and in every instance, if we no longer have a relationship, it's because they cut me off and not the other way around.  It has never happened with family thankfully (i have more family out of the church than in), but with friends it has.  I've never un-friended a friend on Facebook after they have left the church but i've had some unfriend me, for example.

 

Same here.  

But since my own serious doubts, I reached out to the one who unfriended me. I apologized that I wasn't there for her more during what must have been a difficult time. She said she cried reading it and that she had unfriended because with friends and family being contrary at best and hostile at worst, it was just too much for her.

Now she is supporting me during my pain.