probablyHagoth7 Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: You are kidding me?
BlueDreams Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 9 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I sincerely believe that church members do not know the pain many people endure as a product of church life. I 100% agree that church life can lead to people experiencing pain in one way or another. I've witnessed it in others and felt it in my own ways before. That wasn't what was in question nor was it the concern I brought up. With luv, BD 2
Popular Post Rain Posted May 13, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JulieM said: This may be a better starting point for an open discussion on here (maybe start a new thread presenting the topic with those exact words?). I just learned this week that my 5th sibling is leaving the church (meaning I'm the only one of 6 who is still active and we were all BIC, married in the temple, etc.). I talked to my sister a lot this week (who just decided she could no longer attend with what she now knows). She is in tremendous pain and has been for months. I had no idea as she'd kept it hidden. I do believe that very few leave who haven't been or who aren't still in pain. It's like a death for them almost. So what you suggest above could be a beneficial discussion, IMO. I can understand this. It makes sense to me. Where I have struggled with is when it seems that some of have left want to inflict that pain on to those who have not. I know that usually isn't intentional, but it still happens. Some of their pain comes from beliefs being a very important part of who they are and have been for a long time. Those beliefs are still a very important part of who I am. My marriage and husband are a very important part of who I am as well. While I get that my best friend (if I had one) might see some things that may not be good in my husband or the relationship I have with him, I'm not going to appreciate her constantly putting hIm or my marriage down or even sometimes claiming he is abusive when he is not. Sometimes I feel like that with the church. I get that others are hurting, but my beliefs are still very dear to me. I can deal with those who have left expressing their hurt like someone expressing their hurt over a marriage. Just remember that I am still in it and don't see things the ways you do. Edited May 13, 2017 by Rain 7
JulieM Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Rain said: I can understand this. It makes sense to me. Where I have struggled with is when it seems that some of have left want to inflict that pain on to those who have not. I know that usually isn't intentional, but it still happens. Some of their pain comes from beliefs being a very important part of who they are and have been for a long time. Those beliefs are still a very important part of who I am. My marriage and husband are a very important part of who I am as well. While I get that my best friend (if I had one) might see some things that may not be good in my husband or the relationship I have with him, I'm not going to appreciate her constantly putting hIm or my marriage down or even sometimes claiming he is abusive when he is not. Sometimes I feel like that with the church. I get that others are hurting, but my beliefs are still very dear to me. I can deal with those who have left expressing their hurt like someone expressing their hurt over a marriage. Just remember that I am still in it and don't see things the ways you do. Yes, I am "still in it" too. And, I agree with your thoughtful post completely as I've seen this done at times as well. I don't agree with anyone trying to destroy another person's testimony. There is pain that needs to be acknowledged from both sides when someone leaves. The person leaving is hurting and usually has been for awhile, and family members and friends hurt when someone they love leaves. My poor Dad is in agony and blames himself for so many of his kids leaving (and he's the most loving, stalwart member of the church I know). Your comment along with what Meadowchik is expressing are good examples of having a great discussion here and keeping insults or name calling out of it. Edited May 13, 2017 by JulieM 3
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 There is a field of study in sociology of religion that researches leave takers/apostates/etc. (These are academic labels for certain behaviors.) The brainwashing accusation was soundly defeated, including in court. The myth making after the 70s cult scares was demonstrated to be false. So I suspect that gas lighting is going to be the new trend in the apostate narrative. I don't have access to my database on this computer but Seth Payne did a paper on it. He used to post here (and is also a leave taker so don't blame sociology of religion on apologetics.) http://www.academia.edu/30915877/Ex-Mormon_Narratives_and_Pastoral_Apologetics Ex-MormonNarrativesandPastoralApologetics Seth Payne Introduction The personal exit from any organization, especially those which are socially controversial, tends to produce a very specific type of narrative or story which gives an account of the individual’s expe-rience within, and eventual withdrawal from, the organization.This is especially true in the case of modern Mormonism. Vocal ex-Mormons are often motivated to produce and disseminate exit narratives, often written in the context of pop-psychological ter-minology such as recovery (e.g. “Recovery from Mormonism”),which describe in various ways their victimization at the hands of Mormonism generally and their subsequent movement from be-ing victims to victors. Indeed, an entire ex-Mormon movement has emerged in the past eighteen years, developing its own unique social structure,language,and culture in the process.Ex-Mormonism,as a sub-cul-ture, has long existed as a subset of a larger, and largely Evangeli-cal counter-cult movement. 3
Guest Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 10 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I sincerely believe that church members do not know the pain many people endure as a product of church life. I did not grow up in the Church, it is the same in all Faith's and Churches of which I am familiar. The question is; why? Does it mean that those who are members are the cause of that pain, or the doctrines? Either way, all that any of use can do is live of Faith, love one another and do not give nor seek out offense. Anyway, I just "try" to live in such a way as to not be that source of pain. But, I also cannot be afraid of the possibility of hurting someone that I forget how to live. Forgiveness is a requirement of forgiveness, that means forgiving others and ourselves when offence is given or pain is caused. 1
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) On 5/12/2017 at 9:29 AM, Meadowchik said: Argue the point. This is the point, from the same article: Quote In only rare casesare doctrinal concerns and problems described as the genesis of the exit process. Rather, doctrinal and historical issues functionto solidify or widen the gap between the author and Mormonism.However, doctrinal and historical concerns do seem to producethe most anger and frustration in the narratives because theyevoke a sense of betrayal in the author. Such angst can be de-scribed thus: an author has been taught a particular version of Church history or has built a conceptual world-view based onLDS truth claims only to discover that (at least in the author’smind) he/she has been “lied to” regarding key elements of Mor-mon history and doctrine. The author generally blames Churchleadership for the supposed cover-up and is apt to describe thewhole affair in conspiratorial terms. It is this perceived cover-up that creates the vitriolic and often irrational criticism that is pres-ent, not only in these narratives, but also in the RFM communityin general. By decrying a supposed LDS Church conspiracy andcover-up,someofthesenarrativeauthorsactuallycreateorinventsecret Church motives and begin to interpret every Church ac-tion, both past and present, in terms of this conspiratorial frame-work. The adoption of this conspiratorial framework impedes or prevents a complete understanding of some of the issues at hand. You cannot come into a group of Mormons with conspiracy theories and expect to develop or encourage understanding (let along dialog.) As you can see, we are quite aware of the pain and struggle involved in leaving the church. We probably all have family and close friends who are going through it...or have battled ourselves. So it only adds further insult to insist we are ignorant. I don't see anyone trying to proselyte you, yet that is what you are demanding we submit to. You are still in the process of developing your exit narrative. It is little different than developing a conversion narrative. I think this article may be helpful to you. Edited May 13, 2017 by juliann 4
JulieM Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) Did Seth write this before or after he left the church, do you know? Here's a narrative written by someone who critiqued his paper. I'm still reading through both (the one you posted and this one), but thought in fairness, I'd post this. There are always two sides or opinions, it seems, and this may not have been so "soundly defeated" by Seth (?). (At least not for everyone.) https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V47N02_117.pdf Title: "Apostates,” “AntiMormons,” and Other Problems in Seth Payne’s “Ex-Mormon Narratives and Pastoral Apologetics” ETA: Has someone accused the church of "brainwashing" here? I agree that's a strong accusation if they have. I'll try to read both of the papers posted before I have an opinion on them... Edited May 13, 2017 by JulieM 1
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 The article looks updated which would put it closer to his formally leaving. Not that that matters. The letter to the editor is little more than someone lashing out. Notice he does little but swat things down without support. A look at his footnotes shows little engagement with sociology of religion, he seems stuck at arguing over terminology. When there is a standard academic term and someone spends that much time objecting to it...it is a bit bizarre. I have many of these sources, including the Bromley book. I don't think this letter to the editor guy is well acquainted with it. But I do have to say that when I first began talking about this field of study, before Seth's paper, I have never seen such outrage from the critics. They did not like having their own side of things analyzed academically. 3
Rain Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, JulieM said: Yes, I am "still in it" too. And, I agree with your thoughtful post completely as I've seen this done at times as well. I don't agree with anyone trying to destroy another person's testimony. There is pain that needs to be acknowledged from both sides when someone leaves. The person leaving is hurting and usually has been for awhile, and family members and friends hurt when someone they love leaves. My poor Dad is in agony and blames himself for so many of his kids leaving (and he's the most loving, stalwart member of the church I know). Your comment along with what Meadowchik is expressing are good examples of having a great discussion here and keeping insults or name calling out of it. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to use "you",meaning you JulieM. I slipped out of the wrong wording and neglected to note that meant a general you for those who have left. I know that while you have your struggles and are trying to work them out, you have not left. 1
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, juliann said: This is the point, from the same article: You cannot come into a group of Mormons with conspiracy theories and expect to develop or encourage understanding (let along dialog.) As you can see, we are quite aware of the pain and struggle involved in leaving the church. We probably all have family and close friends who are going through it...or have battled ourselves. So it only adds further insult to insist we are ignorant. I don't see anyone trying to proselyte you, yet that is what you are demanding we submit to. You are still in the process of developing your exit narrative. It is little different than developing a conversion narrative. I think this article may be helpful to you. I don't see why you say I am demanding anything except that you argue on point. Can you please clarify?
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I don't see why you say I am demanding anything except that you argue on point. Can you please clarify? As you said, argue the point.
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 1 hour ago, juliann said: This is the point, from the same article: You cannot come into a group of Mormons with conspiracy theories and expect to develop or encourage understanding (let along dialog.) As you can see, we are quite aware of the pain and struggle involved in leaving the church. We probably all have family and close friends who are going through it...or have battled ourselves. So it only adds further insult to insist we are ignorant. I don't see anyone trying to proselyte you, yet that is what you are demanding we submit to. You are still in the process of developing your exit narrative. It is little different than developing a conversion narrative. I think this article may be helpful to you. Also, I've actually not accused the church of conspiracy. And I am talking about all, not just you guys. Me included, at a different time, I think it is quite common for adult believing members even leaders to not be aware of the pain some experience as a product of church life. Recently a speaker at BYU conference characterized leavers as having lesser character. I think all of us, including ex-Mormons, do not completely understand all the types of pain. But anyway, there is legitimacy in saying believing Mormons are ignorant of a significant amount of exMormon thought. Even if you read their commentary and understand what they say in a theoretical sense, it's not the same as experiencing it yourself. It's not unlike how people who've never been Mormon are ignorant of what that's like. Statistically a sea change is very likely occuring and I think as society shifts more away from religiosity the science will inevitably change. But I'll let you know if I can read Rogan's paper if I have specific thoughts on it. Thanks. 1
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, juliann said: As you said, argue the point. I was asking you to clarify this: "I don't see anyone trying to proselyte you, yet that is what you are demanding we submit to. " What proselytizing have I demanded you to submit to? Edit: BTW, as I understand it this is a group of people of various backgrounds who come together to talk about Mormonism, rather than merely a group of Mormons. Unless I'm mistaken we are all guests here. Edited May 13, 2017 by Meadowchik
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I did not grow up in the Church, it is the same in all Faith's and Churches of which I am familiar. The question is; why? Does it mean that those who are members are the cause of that pain, or the doctrines? Either way, all that any of use can do is live of Faith, love one another and do not give nor seek out offense. Anyway, I just "try" to live in such a way as to not be that source of pain. But, I also cannot be afraid of the possibility of hurting someone that I forget how to live. Forgiveness is a requirement of forgiveness, that means forgiving others and ourselves when offence is given or pain is caused. I do think that churches can have much in common but also differences. Some are more rigid and controlling than others, some are less dogmatic and less tied to doctrine. I think you have described a beautiful process. Imo repentance and forgiveness are journeys without end. When we know better, we do better! That's one of the most enjoyable parts of living! 1
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Also, I've actually not accused the church of conspiracy. I appreciate your explanation, but this "There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting" is the very definition of a conspiracy. Quote What proselytizing have I demanded you to submit to? Post members who debate members with accusations like the above are trying to convince them of the errors of their believing ways. That is proselyting. The sociological research is helpful to both sides because it makes it quite apparent we are different sides of the same coin. Just as church members testimonies are almost paint by number in F&T meeting, so are "apostate" testimonies. They are meant to convince and persuade as well as signal loyalty to respective groups. Certain elements are required for trust and acceptance by said groups which is why they all end up sounding the same. 3
Pete Ahlstrom Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 3 hours ago, juliann said: The brainwashing accusation was soundly defeated, including in court. The myth making after the 70s cult scares was demonstrated to be false. Could you give me some references and case cites where the brainwashing accusation was soundly defeated, including in court? 1
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, juliann said: I appreciate your explanation, but this "There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting" is the very definition of a conspiracy. Post members who debate members with accusations like the above are trying to convince them of the errors of their believing ways. That is proselyting. The sociological research is helpful to both sides because it makes it quite apparent we are different sides of the same coin. Just as church members testimonies are almost paint by number in F&T meeting, so are "apostate" testimonies. They are meant to convince and persuade as well as signal loyalty to respective groups. Certain elements are required for trust and acceptance by said groups which is why they all end up sounding the same. On this and the other thread I have subverted the notion that institutional gaslighting requires conspiracy, and many times. I think I can with confidence say that wanting to mitigate abusive potential of church is not dependent on my disbelief in it. I have tried to do so from an early age even while defending the church. If you're saying I have tried arguing a point, I'm guilty of that. I'm getting the impression that some are just less comfortable with debate. I've had many rewarding experiences debating religious topics, even highly controversial ones, with different believers while still maintaining good will. This board does seem more in line with its name, though. I'll try to adapt to that. Edited May 13, 2017 by Meadowchik
juliann Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Could you give me some references and case cites where the brainwashing accusation was soundly defeated, including in court? A quick Google: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-31/local/me-2058_1_court-rules https://books.google.com/books?id=K88rADq7mxoC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=amicus+brief+against+brainwashing&source=bl&ots=Z26-CwH_pg&sig=v_oYrVbiQr0CGzJI9RFg6eJV3i0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMsM-_4-3TAhVO_mMKHQhrBycQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=amicus brief against brainwashing&f=false Two federal courts have disallowed brainwashing based testimony. p 129 Here is some background, starting pg 3 https://books.google.com/books?id=GTjaBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=american+sociological+association+amicus+brief+supreme+court+brainwashing&source=bl&ots=Arud_NhdtD&sig=pyuEi09gdXREy9_26B_dQJE5UTY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy7fOz4e3TAhUF6GMKHdBaDg8Q6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=american sociological association amicus brief supreme court brainwashing&f=false
Pete Ahlstrom Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 20 minutes ago, juliann said: A quick Google: http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-31/local/me-2058_1_court-rules https://books.google.com/books?id=K88rADq7mxoC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=amicus+brief+against+brainwashing&source=bl&ots=Z26-CwH_pg&sig=v_oYrVbiQr0CGzJI9RFg6eJV3i0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMsM-_4-3TAhVO_mMKHQhrBycQ6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=amicus brief against brainwashing&f=false Two federal courts have disallowed brainwashing based testimony. p 129 Here is some background, starting pg 3 https://books.google.com/books?id=GTjaBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=american+sociological+association+amicus+brief+supreme+court+brainwashing&source=bl&ots=Arud_NhdtD&sig=pyuEi09gdXREy9_26B_dQJE5UTY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy7fOz4e3TAhUF6GMKHdBaDg8Q6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=american sociological association amicus brief supreme court brainwashing&f=false Thank you. I will review these. However, are you saying that brainwashing can never exist because of the above or merely that in these cases, the plaintiff could not prove it or use certain experts? 1
Guest Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 3 hours ago, juliann said: I appreciate your explanation, but this "There is a very strong argument institutional church participates in gaslighting" is the very definition of a conspiracy. Post members who debate members with accusations like the above are trying to convince them of the errors of their believing ways. That is proselyting. The sociological research is helpful to both sides because it makes it quite apparent we are different sides of the same coin. Just as church members testimonies are almost paint by number in F&T meeting, so are "apostate" testimonies. They are meant to convince and persuade as well as signal loyalty to respective groups. Certain elements are required for trust and acceptance by said groups which is why they all end up sounding the same. If I may add just one note. For post-Mormons (we'll post any faith) it can be like ex-smokers. They not only seek to change the way those who are still happily attending Church (or to extend the metaphor) still happily smoking. But they are not successful, they become aggravated and begin browbeating until others submit. It always begins in a loving manner, but soon goes down hill quickly. Truth is, be it those inside or outside the Church, they all need and crave converts to reinforce their beliefs, or lack of belief.
Guest Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I do think that churches can have much in common but also differences. Some are more rigid and controlling than others, some are less dogmatic and less tied to doctrine. I think you have described a beautiful process. Imo repentance and forgiveness are journeys without end. When we know better, we do better! That's one of the most enjoyable parts of living! I grew up in a very fundamental Baptist Church, one room (even though a very large room) that sat about 400. It was a place where (in some part but not all) sermons were shouted, and Pastor would walk up and down the main isle seeking to make contact. This served to be a very persuasive form of control, even though they meant it in love, I truly believe. So upon taking the missionary discussions while in the Army in Germany in the late 70's, looking back I thought..."these guys never get excited, never browbeat, never loud and certainly never controlling. Almost four decades later, I see the Church as even less controlling, if such a word could be used. I have known many members living here in Georgia, just 20 miles from my childhood Church, for thee of those decades. The Church still sends home teachers, still seeks (as the scriptures tell us) to bring them into the fold, "by gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned" D&C 121) If there is another LDS Church maybe I have just been lucky, because I don't know it. But, I am not big on control, because much like a mule, when I feel pushed or pulled I just sit down and wait for others to come to their senses. Edited May 14, 2017 by Bill "Papa" Lee 1
Danzo Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: On this and the other thread I have subverted the notion that institutional gaslighting requires conspiracy, and many times. The problem is that it seems that you have so twisted and modified the meaning of 'gaslight' into something only you know the meaning of. Of course we 'gaslight' because whatever it is we do, you have defined it as 'gaslighting'. What's the point of any discussion? 1
Tacenda Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/2016/06/spiritual-gaslighting/ Replace "Catholic" with "Mormon", some of the description applies...and in the comment section it is the same in other religions as well.
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 8 hours ago, juliann said: ..seems stuck at arguing over terminology...I have never seen such outrage....did not like having their own side of things analyzed... Which is why my overall assessment of this thread stands. One day, I would genuinely love to see an actual good faith discussion of such things progress to become a great faith discussion.
Recommended Posts