What To Do When Loved Ones Leave the Church

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have you taken a survey of members' houses or just assuming that this is part of church culture?

I have known only a small percentage of members who go to this level in all the places I have lived (California, Utah, Kansas, Canada, Illinois, Russia).  Many have had one or two, many have none. In my current small town Utah Valley neighborhood, the five homes I have been in most don't have any in the living area save one with a wedding picture with the temple, the two I have been in their bedrooms don't either.  All are very active and devout members, including two families of BYU professors.   Most religious art I have seen in members' homes are pictures of Christ that could appear in any Christian household as opposed to "church pictures" though pictures of the temple parents were married in or their current temple are popular (Greg Olsen was the number one Christian artist up in Canada when I worked at a church related bookstore...a local art dealer had run out of prints and stopped by to pick some up during the Christmas rush and I discussed this with him, his customers likely had no clue Olsen was a Saint).

Extreme caricatures are not persuasive.  They just make you look like you have a grudge.

I've seen it in my home growing up in slc, in my friend's homes, in our ward neighbor's homes, etc.  Perhaps it is so common that you don't notice?  But of course, if I point out something that might be viewed as negative, I must have a grudge.  Again, maybe this is part of the problem?

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The assumption that the church is true and that the non-believer needs to be rescued is the source of a lot of the problems.  The church, through its leaders, projects the message that it is the source of authority and wants to show that whenever it can, as in having the members paste church pictures all over the house, the control of marriage, and the pledges of loyalty required at certain times.  So, of course when someone chooses not to follow any longer, the church wants those who remain to think that the person who left is somehow in need of rescuing. Sorry, but this adds to the problem.  I understand that you cannot see these things, but perhaps this is part of the problem, too?

I agree with you in that our beliefs (as members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are part of the problem.  But, those are our sincere beliefs so not behaving as if we believe those things is not an option.  Wanting members to behave as if we don't believe those things causes a lot of problems too.

Whatever the solution is, it can never be 'stop doing what you sincerely believe is right' regardless of what side it's coming from.  It's not reasonable.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you in that our beliefs (as members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) are part of the problem.  But, those are our sincere beliefs so not behaving as if we believe those things is not an option.  Wanting members to behave as if we don't believe those things causes a lot of problems too.

Whatever the solution is, it can never be 'stop doing what you sincerely believe is right' regardless of what side it's coming from.  It's not reasonable.

And maybe it means that there isn't a solution to this, other than a cordial break-up.  I have a better relationship with my ex now that we have been apart for some time.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I've seen it in my home growing up in slc, in my friend's homes, in our ward neighbor's homes, etc.  Perhaps it is so common that you don't notice?  But of course, if I point out something that might be viewed as negative, I must have a grudge.  Again, maybe this is part of the problem?

I have a good visual memory and pay close attention to how people's homes are decorated because of interest in coming up with new ideas and just because I enjoy homes that are well laid out, but find it hard to relax in homes that aren't.

And generally I do notice when there is a plethora of church art in homes because it feels awkward to me in most cases as it often doesn't fit in with the rest of the decor or comes across as shrine like.  It takes a fine hand to actually make religious art work with other decorations.

Perhaps it is a localized phenomena where a few families do it in attractive ways and others follow suit (sometimes attractive, sometimes not) or pictures get handed out in the ward to kids at birthdays as happened in one of my wards.  You happened to have hit neighbourhoods that have it, I haven't.

Quote

I point out something that might be viewed as negative, I must have a grudge. 

No, it is the consistency of how you do it and the phrasing you use that leads me to view many of your comments as negative ('pasting up church pictures', suggestive of slapping up flyers randomly on walls, is not an attractive portrayal of using church art in the home, have you ever known someone that actually pastes pictures on their walls at home rather than hanging or maybe taping if unframed?).  I hear negatives from members all the time and say negatives enough myself (half the decorative stuff on the shelves and walls at the Church bookstore I worked at should have been in the dumpster out back imo, but my mom was an artist and every room was balanced no matter how little she had to work with; I am probably a bit of a snob when it comes to knickknacks, the Moroni Christmas tree topper is my number one "why does it have to exist" and those pictures of Christ with the false quote of "I never said it was easy..." makes me cringe every time I see them).  I don't assume they have grudges against the Church because they said plenty of positives as well and when they describe their negative, it is more or less realistic avoiding extremes, though sometimes pushing boundaries if colorfully described for entertainment.

I don't know if you have a grudge or there is another reason you go to caricatures so often.  I said it makes you look like you have a grudge, not that you do.  I don't pretend I read minds and tell people what they think as you are doing to me and others, I speak about appearances only.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a good visual memory and pay close attention to how people's homes are decorated because of interest in coming up with new ideas and just because I enjoy homes that are well laid out, but find it hard to relax in homes that aren't.

Perhaps it is a localized phenomena where a few families do it in attractive ways and others follow suit (sometimes attractive, sometimes not) or pictures get handed out in the ward to kids at birthdays as happened in one of my wards.  You happened to have hit neighbourhoods that have it, I haven't.

No, it is the consistency of how you do it and the phrasing you use that leads me to view many of your comments as negative ('pasting up church pictures', suggestive of slapping up flyers randomly on walls, is not an attractive portrayal of using church art in the home, have you ever known someone that actually pastes pictures on their walls at home rather than hanging or maybe taping if unframed?).  I hear negatives from members all the time and say negatives enough myself (half the decorative stuff on the shelves and walls at the Church bookstore I worked should have been in the dumpster out back imo, but my mom was a artist and I am probably a bit of a snob when it comes to knickknacks, the Moroni Christmas tree topper is my number one "why does it have to exist" and those pictures of Christ with the false quote of "I never said it was easy..." makes me cringe every time I see them).  I don't assume they have grudges against the Church because they said plenty of positives as well and when they describe their negative, it is more or less realistic avoiding extremes.

I don't know if you have a grudge or there is another reason you go to caricatures so often.  I said it makes you look like you have a grudge, not that you do.  I don't pretend I read minds and tell people what they think as you are doing to me and others, I speak about appearances only.

I like to make conclusions like others do. I don't think they are deliberately exaggerated as you obviously think. 

Haven't the leaders urged the family proclamation and pictures of the temple be put up in the house? So, I don't think it is surprising that some members follow these suggestions.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, I don't think it is surprising that some members follow these suggestions.

 If you had said this, I wouldn’t have argued with you because I agree with that. 

Added long after to pass time :  It is the extreme, unrealistic framing of what the Church encourages .I take issue with.  the Church does encourage families to place the Family Proclamation and/or the Living Christ on our walls.  They also suggest having some religious art will create a sacred space of our home.  Having it all over the house...I don't recall much, if any teaching from leaders though I have see a few houses like that (well, religious pictures in each bedroom, religious art in main gather rooms besides kitchen).  The Church bookstore offers inexpensive art.  One of the big profits for the church related bookstore all year was the ton of art we sold during the holiday season. The manager said it was the biggest moneymaker for the store.  I would not be surprised if the majority of members' homes had at least one item of religious art in their home.  If they have junior Primary kids I would add maybe one for each kid, but that may be from my experience of having my now agnostic daughter beg for a picture of Christ in her bedroom and my rule is to let kids drive the decoration in their room...since I was never consulted, though loved Mom's work.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Calm

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 If you had said this, I wouldn’t have argued with you because I agree with that. 

Of course. Well maybe there is hope for us after all. 🤣

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Couldn't this be simplified into realizing that either side doesn't have a monopoly on truth?  I'm right and you are wrong seems to create division that then can devolve into break-ups.  Perhaps the believer can take a look at how the outside world views mormonism and maybe take things down a notch, and the non-believer and realize that there are some good aspects to mormon beliefs that are good for almost anyone?  Anyway, I like the approach you take by trying to find common ground and dwelling on that ...

No. This simplified message may feel comfortable to someone who has left the church and now subscribes to a viewpoint that's heavier into relativism or every religion/belief system is the same-ish. But for the believer it may be more off putting than helpful. For someone who's really struggled with a loved one's transition the wording could be its own form of triggering. Especially if they've felt or had their partner/friend/relative try to convince them they're wrong to hold their values or beliefs.  What would be asked of them in this scenario would be inherently unequal (they're being asked to move their world view/paradigm while the non-believer is just being asked to remember the good things in mormon beliefs/practices).

My points do not assume what you're describing. I'm saying help them learn how to communicate and hear the other person while also finding common truths and values to recement their relationship. When I have the believing spouse on their own, I'm not asking them to look at outside world views about their beliefs (especially if they don't want to) but helping them reframe their experience founded on their beliefs in such a way to foster (realistic) hope and a greater peace with their current experience....especially when the believing spouse is very obviously not entering their own faith crisis and note their faith as a main source for strength and solace. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Exiled]

48 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

No. This simplified message may feel comfortable to someone who has left the church and now subscribes to a viewpoint that's heavier into relativism or every religion/belief system is the same-ish. But for the believer it may be more off putting than helpful. For someone who's really struggled with a loved one's transition the wording could be its own form of triggering. Especially if they've felt or had their partner/friend/relative try to convince them they're wrong to hold their values or beliefs.  What would be asked of them in this scenario would be inherently unequal (they're being asked to move their world view/paradigm while the non-believer is just being asked to remember the good things in mormon beliefs/practices).

My points do not assume what you're describing. I'm saying help them learn how to communicate and hear the other person while also finding common truths and values to recement their relationship. When I have the believing spouse on their own, I'm not asking them to look at outside world views about their beliefs (especially if they don't want to) but helping them reframe their experience founded on their beliefs in such a way to foster (realistic) hope and a greater peace with their current experience....especially when the believing spouse is very obviously not entering their own faith crisis and note their faith as a main source for strength and solace. 

 

With luv,

BD

So, you obviously assume the believing spouse is correct here, right?  What do you ask of the non-believer if their believing spouse continually makes comments, or sighs, or continually pressures the non-believer to return to something the non-believer thinks is untrue?  Is a rescue mission not allowed? Should the non-believer just accept the continued pressure to return?

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, you obviously assume the believing spouse is correct here, right?  

Maybe you should reread what she said.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe you should reread what she said.

I understand what she said and maybe she should be the one answering for herself.  If she doesn't priviledge belief, I don't think she would discount what I said regarding having both relax over who is right and who is wrong. If it is fine to be triggered when the non-believer suggests that the believer might not have such a strong position, obviously belief is favored. That's fine. However, I wonder if she has problems counseling the non-believer if belief  being correct is assumed from the beginning?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I understand what she said

I never assume I understand completely what someone has said/meant to say.  From what I have seen the majority of communication issues are caused by people assuming they understood when they didn't and others assuming they were understood when they weren't.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I never assume I understand completely what someone has said/meant to say.  From what I have seen the majority of communication issues are caused by people assuming they understood when they didn't and others assuming they were understood when they weren't.

Ok. But at a certain point, words have meanings that are understood by the population at large and meanings can be presumed and thoughts therefore understood. Again, if Blue Dreams thinks I don't understand her, she is capable of letting me know and explaining where I am in error.

If she decides to further engage, I would like to know if she tackles the problem presuming that the church is true and if this can ever be an issue with her couples. Or does the non-believer need to remain quiet while pressured to return?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Or does the non-believer need to remain quiet while pressured to return?

I would like to know what she said that makes you think she could believe this.  Trying to follow your thought process.

Quote

What would be asked of them in this scenario would be inherently unequal (they're being asked to move their world view/paradigm while the non-believer is just being asked to remember the good things in mormon beliefs/practices)...

What do you think she is saying here?

Edited June 16, 2019 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Not speaking for BD but a skilled therapist knows how to manage their biases. 

Finding common ground is crucial. 

I don’t think an active member should need to drink coffee or bend values to have a relationship with an ex member.  If so, it’s a false relationship. I also don’t think an ex member should need to feel like a project.  

If two people want a relationship they can meet in a place and talk about and do things they have in common.  Ideally they should be able to talk about their lives “yesterday I went to the temple” and “yesterday I drank my stress away at the bar” and the listener not lose their mind. 

Imo. 

[sunstoned]

This may be a simplistic and superficial solution.  But with my family, after some arguments, the unspoken word is to not discuss religion with me.  We stick to other topics.  Yes, there is still the Elephant in the room, and at times the conversation is strained, but overall it works.  I still have a relationship with my family. 

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would like to know what she said that makes you think she could believe this.  Trying to follow your thought process.

What do you think she is saying here?

Terming the "problem" as a faith "crisis" assumes non-belief is a problem, not continued belief.  Also, I suspect non-believing psychologists, from my experience, would perhaps take the tact of telling both spouses to relent a little in order to find common ground. (If belief isn't that big of a deal, why not have both accomodate?) However, Ms. Blue Dreams pushed back on that a little, saying it was unfair for the believer to relent on his/her belief.

So, what is the non-believer to do? Is the "counseling" then really about getting the non-believer to not evangelize and be patient with the attempts to get the "prodigal" to return?

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Terming the "problem" as a faith "crisis" assumes non-belief is a problem, not continued belief.  Also, I suspect non-believing psychologists, from my experience, would perhaps take the tact of telling both spouses to relent a little in order to find common ground. (If belief isn't that big of a deal, why not have both accomodate?) However, Ms. Blue Dreams pushed back on that a little, saying it was unfair for the believer to relent on his/her belief.

So, what is the non-believer to do? Is the "counseling" then really about getting the non-believer to not evangelize and be patient with the attempts to get the "prodigal" to return?

I don’t see why a believer would need to relent their belief to come to an understanding between the two that allows for a healthy relationship. Maybe I’m not following. 

IMO many attend therapy with an agenda of changing the other person.  In reality, that is not what therapy is. 

I think many believers (imo) hope that non believers will “come around”.  Sometimes that makes the relationship feel like it is motivated by agenda, for the non believer.  That cannot feel good. 

I think believers often feel afraid of offending (further?). 

In truth, there is much miscommunication and assumption that happens between believer and nonbeliever.  Therapy can facilitate clarity. Good therapists are non biased in their approach. 

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t see why a believer would need to relent their belief to come to an understanding between the two that allows for a healthy relationship. Maybe I’m not following. 

IMO many attend therapy with an agenda of changing the other person.  In reality, that is not what therapy is. 

I think many believers (imo) hope that non believers will “come around”.  Sometimes that makes the relationship feel like it is motivated by agenda, for the non believer.  That cannot feel good. 

I think believers often feel afraid of offending (further?). 

In truth, there is much miscommunication and assumption that happens between believer and nonbeliever.  Therapy can facilitate clarity. Good therapists are non biased in their approach. 

Here is what I mean be relent: believers are encouraged to have their families with them because families can't be together forever if one leaves. How about relenting on the rescue mission? How about leaving the unbeliever alone as Sunstoned suggests? I think it is highly problematic if the unbeliever is continually pressured to return or subjected to guilt, etc. just because the believer is embarrassed. I don't mean that the believer needs to have a beer or not wear garments, etc. The unbeliever would be overstepping if these demands were made.

Non-belief should be just as valid as the believer wants their beliefs to be.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Exiled

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

This may be a simplistic and superficial solution.  But with my family, after some arguments, the unspoken word is to not discuss religion with me.  We stick to other topics.  Yes, there is still the Elephant in the room, and at times the conversation is strained, but overall it works.  I still have a relationship with my family. 

Solutions can be simple.  Often that is good because it is easier for all to get on same page.  It is reducing complex problems (which most major problems are) to simple that can cause issues, imo. (Breaking the problem into smaller pieces easier to digest is good as well as long as no one starts assuming that is all there is and resolving that will make the whole issue go away).

We try to do the same thing (no talking) with politics with my husband and daughter...and I always regret it when we stray from that (though both can talk to me generally speaking, though my more middle of the road approach bugs each of them in turn, lol).  We know their talking with each other will persuade neither of them.

One close relative we included in discussions a few times when his son was preparing to go on a mission.  We thought it would be a great idea for preparation as well as creating a specific time to discuss issues rather than them popping up and derailing other family encounters.  I thought it went well.  I don't know his opinion.  It just happened a couple of times though.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is highly problematic if the unbeliever is continually pressured to return or subjected to guilt, etc.

There are few things more likely to drive people away than that, imo.

Quote

 just because the believer is embarrassed.

I don't know too many believers who only care about having family with them at church, etc. because of avoiding embarrassment.  Even my grandma who was so obsessed with appearance and status she cut a curl off a wig and glued it into my mom's baby bonnet so the neighbours would think she had lovely curls primarily wanted her 'wayward' son to come back to the faith because she thought he would be happier.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

And maybe it means that there isn't a solution to this, other than a cordial break-up.  I have a better relationship with my ex now that we have been apart for some time.

If one person (or both) is determined to be upset when the other acts on their personal beliefs, then yes, I think a cordial break up is probably the only way.  Some people are able to allow others to follow their beliefs without taking it personally though so for those, I think that remaining in the relationship, and having the relationship be healthy, is very possible. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Terming the "problem" as a faith "crisis" assumes non-belief is a problem, not continued belief.  

Or she could be talking about those who describe their experience as a "faith crisis", which is currently the most common way nonbelievers or doubters describe their change of belief and ongoing issues arising from that change in my experience (which is emails sent into FairMormon as well as discussions here and elsewhere)

Edited June 17, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Here is what I mean be relent: believers are encouraged to have their families with them because families can't be together forever if one leaves. How about relenting on the rescue mission? How about leaving the unbeliever alone as Sunstoned suggests? I think it is highly problematic if the unbeliever is continually pressured to return or subjected to guilt, etc. just because the believer is embarrassed. I don't mean that the believer needs to have a beer or not wear garments, etc. The unbeliever would be overstepping if these demands were made.

Non-belief should be just as valid as the believer wants their beliefs to be.

Two questions.   Why assume that someone wants their family with them at church out of embarrassment?  That's a very uncharitable assumption and I'm wondering why that is the perspective you immediately go to.  And, do you really believe that my beliefs (such as that someone can only gain a fullness of joy by accepting and following the gospel of Christ as taught by the church), are just as valid as your's?

I ask because, from reading your posts on here, I would be incredibly surprised if you actually believed that.  That is not the vibe that your posts give off.

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

don't know too many believers who only care about having family with them at church, etc. because of embarrassment.

No way to know what percentage of a believer’s pain is shame,  but if I were to guess based on human behavior as well as  personal observation , I would say that shame plays a part. 

We are taught to raise our children in righteousness.  When our children leave the church it’s reasonable for us to feel a sense of failure and to feel shame in the presence of those who have not yet failed. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by MustardSeed