What To Do When Loved Ones Leave the Church

[cherryTreez]

The people in my life that have lefr the church, become very anti- anything church related. My brother got upset that our niece got married in the temple. He gets upset that we do baby blessings and baptisms. Our family is all over the place. We gather together for big things. Much of our family get togethers are around church things.  He makes a big deal about how it's wrong. 

  So I am a bad guy if I don't invite him and I am a bad guy if I do invite him. There is no winning with him. He will only be happy if all the family leaves the church. It makes being around him very hard. I find myself walking on egg shells around him. 

I don't know how to find a happy medium. I am happy for the people who can. 

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

The people in my life that have lefr the church, become very anti- anything church related. My brother got upset that our niece got married in the temple. He gets upset that we do baby blessings and baptisms. Our family is all over the place. We gather together for big things. Much of our family get togethers are around church things.  He makes a big deal about how it's wrong. 

  So I am a bad guy if I don't invite him and I am a bad guy if I do invite him. There is no winning with him. He will only be happy if all the family leaves the church. It makes being around him very hard. I find myself walking on egg shells around him. 

I don't know how to find a happy medium. I am happy for the people who can. 

It's hard.

For many, the Temple is a very sensitive because some people aren't allowed to participate. So if there is a big family wedding at the temple, some people are sitting outside because they're not allowed to witness it. Making no comment about whether that's right or wrong, I think it's understandable that people could be hurt by the exclusion. It can also feel awkward and painful for a person to be at other family ordinance events where they aren't able to participate.

Like others have said, faith crisis/transition is often like going through the grief process. There is often an anger stage and sometimes people get stuck in the anger phase. It's no fun walking on egg shells but I think the approach of the article in the OP is a good framework for rebuilding trust and relationships.

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard.

For many, the Temple is a very sensitive because some people aren't allowed to participate. So if there is a big family wedding at the temple, some people are sitting outside because they're not allowed to witness it. Making no comment about whether that's right or wrong, I think it's understandable that people could be hurt by the exclusion. It can also feel awkward and painful for a person to be at other family ordinance events where they aren't able to participate.

Like others have said, faith crisis/transition is often like going through the grief process. There is often an anger stage and sometimes people get stuck in the anger phase. It's no fun walking on egg shells but I think the approach of the article in the OP is a good framework for rebuilding trust and relationships.

I agree with the grief process for many. I had to go through grief just leaving an organization I was a part of when I moved.

I finally hid posts of facebook from people in that organization till I could deal with my sorrow. I had to do that as well with friends who posted news a LOT constantly about their missionaries when my oldest decided not to go. (Coincidentally to this post I posted last night that my youngest got his call).

I have wondered why people react so differently though. Sometimes I feel the anger is greater than for those losing a spouse or a child. From what I have seen and read the anger dwarfs by a long shot the anger over losing family members. And I have never seen someone in deep grief attack over and over for years like I have with some leaving the church.

And then for others they quietly walk away and by their own words, they never feel those strong feelings.

What makes the difference? Is it just personality? Some say it is the church culture or the church's fault that they have such a hard time, but if that's the case why is it not so hard for others?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Symbolic (although it would work for me.)  Walk a mile in their shoes.  If you cannot admit your own doubts, are not openly "imperfect",  do not show you are able to think and act for yourself outside the confines of the church - then most others will not be open with you either.  There are some in the church -  at least for me, who feel like those lyrics "they say jump, and you say how high?" kind of folks in which case it feels as if you are not talking to an individual person, but rather to an organization - kind of a wall there...   If I find someone who watches R-rated movies, supports LGBT, supports Sam Young, or is in some other way "rebellious" to the institution - who shows they are capable of acting and thinking for themselves outside the confines of what they have been told, that feels like a more authentic conversation could be initiated - that you would be talking to a person rather than a puppet.  

It has to be more than just words though - more than someone saying "I'm open, I'm authentic, I'm not a sheeple" - they have to actually do something - like drink coffee - or participate in a protest or something, to show they really are able to think critically for themselves and act for themselves.  It is easy to have polite superficial conversations with people... but if a real conversation is desired - vulnerable etc.  it takes being vulnerable to get back something real, authentic, and vulnerable.  

 

Communities where everyone is required to think and talk and act the same - it is not real.  The strange thing - those who do what they can to "fit-in" will find themselves emotionally alone and disconnected because they are not allowed to share themselves.  Isolation is only broken through vulnerability - not through "fitting in".  

I struggle with the bolded part.  It doesn't seem very fair to suggest that someone has to do something they don't believe in or agree with before another will accept that they aren't a 'sheeple'.   How would doing something they don't believe in show that they are authentic?  That would seem to be contradictory.   I agree that someone must be vulnerable to get vulnerability back but I don't agree with outlining to another exactly how that vulnerability should look for it to be acceptable.

It also kind of seems like you are saying that people should do things to try to 'fit in' with people who are struggling in the church, while at the same time lamenting how lonely it is for people who are not allowed to be their authentic selves but must instead pretend to "fit in".  I'm unsure of which perspective you are actually championing.  Should people do things to fit in with the group they want to be friends with (like you suggest in the bolded part above) or should they be their authentic selves even if they don't fit in with that group (like you seem to be suggesting in the underlined part)?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think it's tongue in cheek. The way I read that is that once you seem to be a safe person, then people will open up. Coffee and G's are outward signs many might look for to know that someone is likeminded or has similar experiences. We all generally look to be a part of groups of people like us. If you're not in the group it's sometimes easy to not even recognize that the group exists.

I was recently having a conversation with a member of the ward who said something like "We don't have any gay people in the ward." This person literally thought there weren't any gay people in our ward even though a couple are pretty open about it. Personally I know of 6 (mostly youth). This person simply wasn't aware of a group he wasn't a part of. That's pretty normal, but also silly to assume that just because he wasn't aware, the group didn't exist. I think it's the same for people who struggle with belief in the church. Once I became a "safe" person for people to confide in about that topic I too was shocked by how many people came out of the woodwork.

I think I struggle with the idea that someone must accept or even mirror the beliefs of the group before they can be trusted to be kind and loving.  That seems like an unfair thing to ask of anyone.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I agree with the grief process for many. I had to go through grief just leaving an organization I was a part of when I moved.

I finally hid posts of facebook from people in that organization till I could deal with my sorrow. I had to do that as well with friends who posted news a LOT constantly about their missionaries when my oldest decided not to go. (Coincidentally to this post I posted last night that my youngest got his call).

I have wondered why people react so differently though. Sometimes I feel the anger is greater than for those losing a spouse or a child. From what I have seen and read the anger dwarfs by a long shot the anger over losing family members. And I have never seen someone in deep grief attack over and over for years like I have with some leaving the church.

And then for others they quietly walk away and by their own words, they never feel those strong feelings.

What makes the difference? Is it just personality? Some say it is the church culture or the church's fault that they have such a hard time, but if that's the case why is it not so hard for others?

I've wondered that too. Obviously, different personalities will respond differently, but beyond that I think with regard to the church, people feel betrayed by the organization, therefore there is a target for their anger. When someone loses a loved one, other than maybe blaming God, there's really no one to unload on. I also think that it's not just about one loss. It's about continued loss. There may be anger at the feelings of betrayal because of a historical issue, or a leader treating them badly, or... so many things. But it doesn't stop, especially when the individual who left sees/feels continued harm. Not being able to see a loved one married could be viewed as continued harm. Seeing LGBT friends and family excluded or hearing harsh words spoken about their loved ones could be viewed as continued harm, so the anger may also continue or be renewed from time to time.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, bluebell said:

I think I struggle with the idea that someone must accept or even mirror the beliefs of the group before they can be trusted to be kind and loving.  That seems like an unfair thing to ask of anyone.

Maybe, but every group has criteria for being trusted. The church certainly does. I think a person can definitely be loving and open and inclusive without mirroring the behavior of the other group, but it's sometimes hard. Shared behaviors and beliefs make people comfortable so it's harder for a person outside of those shared behaviors and beliefs to be accepted into the group. I wouldn't expect anyone to drink coffee to fit in, but at the same time, I've known people who wouldn't ever consider stepping inside a coffee shop to visit with someone. To the coffee drinker that can feel quite judgmental, whether it's intended that way or not.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe, but every group has criteria for being trusted. The church certainly does. I think a person can definitely be loving and open and inclusive without mirroring the behavior of the other group, but it's sometimes hard. Shared behaviors and beliefs make people comfortable so it's harder for a person outside of those shared behaviors and beliefs to be accepted into the group. I wouldn't expect anyone to drink coffee to fit in, but at the same time, I've known people who wouldn't ever consider stepping inside a coffee shop to visit with someone. To the coffee drinker that can feel quite judgmental, whether it's intended that way or not.

It's true, but then the people who are saying that members must accept their beliefs to be trusted seem to often be the same group that get angry they aren't trusted by members because they don't believe the same things they do.  That seems to be a bit hypocritical.

I agree with your story about being willing to meet in a coffeehouse.  With the way that members practically live in the starbucks around here, that might not be a problem for every area.   

[changed]

1 hour ago, cherryTreez said:

The people in my life that have lefr the church, become very anti- anything church related. My brother got upset that our niece got married in the temple. He gets upset that we do baby blessings and baptisms. Our family is all over the place. We gather together for big things. Much of our family get togethers are around church things.  He makes a big deal about how it's wrong. 

  So I am a bad guy if I don't invite him and I am a bad guy if I do invite him. There is no winning with him. He will only be happy if all the family leaves the church. It makes being around him very hard. I find myself walking on egg shells around him. 

I don't know how to find a happy medium. I am happy for the people who can. 

 

By niece - are you saying your brother's daughter?  If you were not able to attend your own daughter's wedding, wouldn't you be upset?  Aren't civil marriages allowed prior to temple wedding now with no waiting period?  I think the point of that change was to allow everyone to participate in weddings, rather than excluding anyone.  I would think it was sad if the couple did not civilly marry prior to the temple for those within their family.... but then I love the " in sickness and in health, promise to love and cherish and be loyal to one another (absolutely NO polygammy EVER!!) covenants, prior to the... "DC132 new and everlasting covenant" later

I think it is good to make sure everyone feels included by doing things like - creating a "best wishes" book for children who are being baptized in which everyone can provide their blessings (mother's blessing, fellow atheists blessings and well-wishes etc.)  Allow everyone to share their love - make everyone feel appreciated and loved.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And currently my ministering people, he's a CES teacher at LDS Business College, knows the warts and wants me to discuss them, but I don't usually, because I have this board. But my sister won't go near the subject

So you have someone you want to discuss things with, but she doesn't want to discuss it with you and someone who wants to discuss it with you, but you aren't interested.

I get why you want family to understand that your choice isn't just a whim, but how would you feel if your minister kept pushing for you to discuss it with him?  

Maybe it would be helpful to put yourself in your sister's spot, perhaps she wants to avoid situations where she feels she will more likely judge you or she doesn't want you to feel her sadness because of your disbelief (her being sad because she sincerely believes you would be happier if you believed).  She may not be protecting herself, but trying to protect you.  And if she is trying to protect herself, is there real harm in that?  Would you not want her to respect your choices of protecting yourself?  As long as she is there for you in other ways, it might be best for both of you if you learn not to care as much about sharing personal beliefs and instead share what makes that relationship important to you, the love and caring for each other.

[changed]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle with the bolded part.  It doesn't seem very fair to suggest that someone has to do something they don't believe in or agree with before another will accept that they aren't a 'sheeple'.   How would doing something they don't believe in show that they are authentic?  That would seem to be contradictory.   I agree that someone must be vulnerable to get vulnerability back but I don't agree with outlining to another exactly how that vulnerability should look for it to be acceptable.

It also kind of seems like you are saying that people should do things to try to 'fit in' with people who are struggling in the church, while at the same time lamenting how lonely it is for people who are not allowed to be their authentic selves but must instead pretend to "fit in".  I'm unsure of which perspective you are actually championing.  Should people do things to fit in with the group they want to be friends with (like you suggest in the bolded part above) or should they be their authentic selves even if they don't fit in with that group (like you seem to be suggesting in the underlined part)?

 

ok - so I will bold part of the above

not "someone has to do something they don't believe in" but "someone has to actually believe in something that comes from their own mind instead of the church"

- let me re-write it:

someone has to do something "the church" doesn't believe in or agree with

not "they" but "the church".  If there is no difference between the person and the church, then that feels very much like "sheeple" going on  

As for those I personally know who have left - I know quite a few who are atheist, some who are Buddhist, others who are Unitarians, others who are meeting with a stoicism group, one who is now Catholic, another Baptist - it is a very diverse group.  The one thing that binds us all is our Mormon past, and doing something like drinking a "beverage" together (some still keep the word of wisdom and prefer chocolate etc.  - I still do not drink alcohol due to family history with that one).  is just a social event that any group would do.  Those who are invited, and come, also have the common bond of not believing all the truth-claims of the church as well though.  The diversity of the group makes for interesting conversations.  

I guess one more thing - everyone is very careful to use "I" statements rather than "you" statements.  No missionaries, and no Pharisees - atheists are not trying to make others into atheists etc. etc.  I think everyone would be open to believing church members attending if - and that is a big if - information was kept confidential, and the intentions were not to criticize but instead to understand. 

I think quite a few who have left would love if someone was brave enough to ask them "Why did you leave" - and have that conversation   

Edited June 13, 2019 by changed

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Great article. 

Both sides can do better. This article focuses on the still Mormon side. I think a lot of defenders want to focus on the other side, which is just as real. When you leave, don't be a jerk about it. The people that complain the loudest about how cult-like the Mormon church is because of how impossible they make it to leave, causing all your friends and family to disown you, usually seem like total jerks, and it's not that difficult to guess why they have fractured relationships in their life. 

 

I do agree that both sides can do better...but when I am putting in an effort..the conversations are shifted and it is a "shut up" moment.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I'll tell you why I don't discuss things with my daughter-in-law. She is incredibly angry at the church. She quotes things and takes them completely out of context or  says they say things they very much don't.  On her facebook she rants and raves. 

My relationship with my son is somewhat precarious. There have always been things that haven't been great between us since he was fairly young. So many times he refused to communicate with us about what we said and totally misunderstood what those things were.

Those two cling to each other. I'm grateful they try to cleave together. However, if I try to discuss the gospel with my DIL, even if I just ask questions to understand better and make no statements, I have no doubts at all that some of my questions will be misunderstood as accusatory and it will eventually pull my son further away from me than he already has after all of the work I have done to just "love him' as God as directed me.

You bet I'm afraid. Knowing my son and how often he totally has read people wrong all his life and how much communication he misses ALL the time I have little doubt that he thinks I can't handle "the truth" and little doubt that a discussion with DIL will be seen, no matter how I present myself, as an attack on her. 

I'm absolutely afraid to have those discussions with her. I don't want to lose my son in the process. Little by little I am gaining his trust* back and maybe someday those discussions can take place sometime, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

*His mistrust was not lost over the church.

I do understand how you feel because I get it from another side...that being said, she should be able to rant and rave on facebook or wherever.  With you, as family, she might want to be more respectful and gracious.

[changed]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've wondered that too. Obviously, different personalities will respond differently, but beyond that I think with regard to the church, people feel betrayed by the organization, therefore there is a target for their anger. When someone loses a loved one, other than maybe blaming God, there's really no one to unload on. I also think that it's not just about one loss. It's about continued loss. There may be anger at the feelings of betrayal because of a historical issue, or a leader treating them badly, or... so many things. But it doesn't stop, especially when the individual who left sees/feels continued harm. Not being able to see a loved one married could be viewed as continued harm. Seeing LGBT friends and family excluded or hearing harsh words spoken about their loved ones could be viewed as continued harm, so the anger may also continue or be renewed from time to time.

 

Yes - knowing how to direct anger to the right place is so important.  Through abuse, I have tried re-directed anger at the laws of nature - at the disease - rather than the person.  

Through leaving the church I have tried to re-direct anger towards the organization, and away from individual people.  I'm in a mixed faith family - so have to set down boundaries for the kids etc. have meetings with church leaders concerning the kids - and I try to establish that I want to talk with them as a person - not talking to "the bishop" or the "Stake so and so" - I do not recognize them as being led by God any more than any other person, do not view them as "special" in any way - but I do appreciate them as a person - if they can allow themselves to be that.  To talk with them as parent to parent, or find something within our careers we share, or some piece of them the church does not own... 

For a scouting trip a few other kids have joined and I was in a conversation where they were called out and talked about as "non-members" and someone said "they are not my brother - I will not call them brother so and so as they are not a member of the church" - and I did react to that - I said they are too your brother - we are all brothers and sisters on this earth, our spirits all came from the same place.  

The "us" vs. "them" judgement comes through.  Some members do not talk or judge like that, which is very much appreciated.  

 

 

[changed]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I do agree that both sides can do better...but when I am putting in an effort..the conversations are shifted and it is a "shut up" moment.

 

Some deliberative dialogue training would be good for everyone to go through - if it is political, one party vs. the other, there are those who can have polite and thoughtful discussions, and others who are not able to.  Laying out some ground rules which give all involved fair representation and agree to listen to one another with understanding can be created.  I do think conversations can be healing and healthy if they are set up, and done correctly.  

[MustardSeed]

I think judgement is something we all avoid. 

I don’t like being assumed to be a sheeple because I am faithful. 

I don’t like being referred to as edgy liberal because I am open to things. 

I don’t like the word “wayward”. 

 

[MustardSeed]

I do love this thread. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard.

For many, the Temple is a very sensitive because some people aren't allowed to participate. So if there is a big family wedding at the temple, some people are sitting outside because they're not allowed to witness it. Making no comment about whether that's right or wrong, I think it's understandable that people could be hurt by the exclusion. It can also feel awkward and painful for a person to be at other family ordinance events where they aren't able to participate.

Like others have said, faith crisis/transition is often like going through the grief process. There is often an anger stage and sometimes people get stuck in the anger phase. It's no fun walking on egg shells but I think the approach of the article in the OP is a good framework for rebuilding trust and relationships.

Thankfully, much of these sensitivities surrounding temple weddings will be tempered with the recent changes allowing temple sealings directly after civil weddings.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Good point, but at the same time I think its important for the still Mormon side to try and be empathetic towards the person transitioning who in many cases is suffering from significant pain and loss in the process.  I know people who compare the level of angst they experienced to what it felt like to the death of a close loved one or a divorce.  This is not small stuff and many people will experience those difficult stages of grief which include anger.  For someone going through anger, it is crucial that they find trusted people who are safe to talk with in order to process their pain.  Not everyone is mature enough to listen to someone's anger and not take personal offense to it.  That space is where relationships are sometimes harmed, but I hesitate to place the blame on either party. 

The reality of the situation is that the tradition of Mormonism, going way back, has created this mess.  All the stories about apostates over the years and the black and white true or false dichotomy has created an environment for significant conflict on this issue.  

It is easier to offer empathy for one of your kids, siblings, friends, etc.  If the person leaving is your spouse, on the other hand, that is a different story.  This is what has happened with my in-laws.  My brother-in-law was born into the church, served a mission, married in the temple, had two kids that he blessed and baptized, then decided to leave the church.  He feels disillusioned and is angry, and is suffering a loss. His wife feels disillusioned in him and is angry and is suffering a loss.  They both have lost something and deserve empathy.  He feels cheated, she feels cheated.  She honors the sealing covenant, he doesn't anymore.  This leaves her feeling eternally abandoned by her spouse.  She feels like he is being disloyal to the original vision that they shared for their family, which is partly why she chose to marry him.  All of her expectations, hopes, and dreams of having an eternal companion in him, a priesthood holder in the home to preside and offer blessings etc. feels dashed. She expected her kids to be raised in the church, he doesn't want that now.  You can see how this can be a very difficult situation for both and how empathy may not come easy when you feel cheated.  Despite the initial struggle, they are doing remarkably well now. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's true, but then the people who are saying that members must accept their beliefs to be trusted seem to often be the same group that get angry they aren't trusted by members because they don't believe the same things they do.  That seems to be a bit hypocritical.

I agree with your story about being willing to meet in a coffeehouse.  With the way that members practically live in the starbucks around here, that might not be a problem for every area.   

I suspect there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around  

 

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thankfully, much of these sensitivities surrounding temple weddings will be tempered with the recent changes allowing temple sealings directly after civil weddings.

I'm not sure about that. The only change is that the couple can now choose to do the wedding separately and then be sealed, but so far what I've seen is that the couple still choose to be married and sealed in the temple which still excludes family members. It simply shifts the responsibility on who is doing the excluding. Before, the church was excluding because it required couples to marry and be sealed. Now that couples have the option, they are the ones intentionally excluding family when they decide to still do the wedding and sealing together. I'm not saying they're wrong, but the decision does leave some people out even though they don't need to. IOW-  the couple becomes the jerk that doesn't invite people to participate instead of it being a church requirement. But until the culture catches up and it seems socially acceptable to marry and then get sealed, many still choose to do it as a package deal and in so doing leave people out.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure about that. The only change is that the couple can now choose to do the wedding separately and then be sealed, but so far what I've seen is that the couple still choose to be married and sealed in the temple which still excludes family members. It simply shifts the responsibility on who is doing the excluding. Before, the church was excluding because it required couples to marry and be sealed. Now that couples have the option, they are the ones intentionally excluding family when they decide to still do the wedding and sealing together. I'm not saying they're wrong, but the decision does leave some people out even though they don't need to. IOW-  the couple becomes the jerk that doesn't invite people to participate instead of it being a church requirement. But until the culture catches up and it seems socially acceptable to marry and then get sealed, many still choose to do it as a package deal and in so doing leave people out.

I hope that changes.  My brother-in-law was overjoyed when he heard about the change.  He was angry that he will likely not be able to attend his daughter's future wedding, this change gives him comfort that she can chose to include him. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

Yes - knowing how to direct anger to the right place is so important.  Through abuse, I have tried re-directed anger at the laws of nature - at the disease - rather than the person.  

Through leaving the church I have tried to re-direct anger towards the organization, and away from individual people.  I'm in a mixed faith family - so have to set down boundaries for the kids etc. have meetings with church leaders concerning the kids - and I try to establish that I want to talk with them as a person - not talking to "the bishop" or the "Stake so and so" - I do not recognize them as being led by God any more than any other person, do not view them as "special" in any way - but I do appreciate them as a person - if they can allow themselves to be that.  To talk with them as parent to parent, or find something within our careers we share, or some piece of them the church does not own... 

For a scouting trip a few other kids have joined and I was in a conversation where they were called out and talked about as "non-members" and someone said "they are not my brother - I will not call them brother so and so as they are not a member of the church" - and I did react to that - I said they are too your brother - we are all brothers and sisters on this earth, our spirits all came from the same place.  

The "us" vs. "them" judgement comes through.  Some members do not talk or judge like that, which is very much appreciated.  

 

 

I like your comments about redirecting anger. IMO it would seem preferable for people to direct their anger at the church rather than God.

I sometimes attend a Methodist church and I have some Mormon friends who are appalled by that. I have been told that it would be better for me to not go to church anywhere than to go to a different church. When I've suggested that to me it is more important to maintain a testimony and relationship with Jesus than with a church, they act like I've said the most ridiculous thing in the world. "If I don't go to the Mormon church, I wouldn't go anywhere" is something I've heard more than once. And for many that is true, but I think it's too bad. Again, I think it better to maintain a relationship with God, even if the relationship with a church suffers.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I hope that changes.  My brother-in-law was overjoyed when he heard about the change.  He was angry that he will likely not be able to attend his daughter's future wedding, this change gives him comfort that she can chose to include him. 

I hope so too. Just think how much it will hurt if she still chooses to exclude him. ;(

[Calm]

2 hours ago, changed said:

there is no difference between the person and the church, then that feels very much like "sheeple" going on

Do you believe using "sheeple" seriously or semiseriously is nonjudgmental and tolerant?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t like being assumed to be a sheeple because I am faithful. 

Jesus Christ is my Shepherd (Psalm 23: 1) so why should I be insulted by being called one of His sheeple? 
Can't we turn the word into a compliment instead of an insult?