Faith-Toxic Relationships

[Nofear]

An interesting article: https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/pop-culture/saying-goodbye-to-faith-toxic-influencers/
 

Basic premise is that in a personal relationship (such as with a spouse) the behaviors "criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling" are behaviors that really have a severe negative impact on the relationship often ending up in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. For some who are disaffected with the Church, the same behaviors are present. Not all, certainly, but for many. The article basically presents the idea that if we treat our relationship with the Church with the same care and love that we might have with a spouse (imperfect though they may be) we will be healthier and happier. I don't view the Church as being perfect (we still have a ways to go to be more Zion-like) but I nonetheless find a great deal of happiness and comfort with the relationship.

I guess the question would be what merit or short-comings do you see in this kind of comparison?



 

[Teancum]

42 minutes ago, Nofear said:

An interesting article: https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/pop-culture/saying-goodbye-to-faith-toxic-influencers/
 

Basic premise is that in a personal relationship (such as with a spouse) the behaviors "criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling" are behaviors that really have a severe negative impact on the relationship often ending up in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. For some who are disaffected with the Church, the same behaviors are present. Not all, certainly, but for many. The article basically presents the idea that if we treat our relationship with the Church with the same care and love that we might have with a spouse (imperfect though they may be) we will be healthier and happier. I don't view the Church as being perfect (we still have a ways to go to be more Zion-like) but I nonetheless find a great deal of happiness and comfort with the relationship.

I guess the question would be what merit or short-comings do you see in this kind of comparison?



 

Such behaviours are not just manifest by those disaffected but toward those disaffected quite often by believing members.  Also for many disaffected, since you want to compare this to a marriage, those disaffected view the church as abusive in many ways as well as an organization that betrayed them.  Thus some hostility is not surprising.

[Fether]

I agree with @Teancum. It’s not just a one way street. I have met a handful of toxic leaders in my life. Why those leaders affected others and not me? I have my hunches, but I really don’t know.

I’ve found in my life that toxic people don’t have to be toxic to me. Or rather their insults and opinions don’t have to affect me. What we all need is to develop self respect and confidence and choose what we believe. Once we have that, we are in a real position to avoid the affects of toxic people.

[SwedishLDS]

I think ideally it is like Moses said in numbers 11:37: —Would that all the people of the Lord were prophets! Would that the Lord might bestow His spirit on them all!

Unfortunately, we are all fallen and act based on limited knowledge which is the point of mortality. Struggling is the point, choosing to do the right is the point, not just doing the right thing.

I think your comparison makes sense in terms of working hard while still taking care of ourselves, as in “Do not run faster or labor more than you have strength and means provided to enable you to translate; but be diligent unto the end” (D&C 10:4).

However, we also need to remember that the church is Gods only restored church with the priesthood authority and that we are to follow his ordained leaders and not just trust in our own wisdom. Learning is good if we trust in the Lord. We need to accept that not everyone gets to be leaders, but we can all be followers of Christ. When it comes to the gospel people can take the truth to be hard and apostasy is very often about leaders doing what is popular and not what is true. Its not about us.

Edited April 6, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Nofear]

I asked a similar  question to my Protestant preacher friend to get a feel for the state among that side of the community. Basically he found a lot of agreement with the sentiments, that there was a fair bit of "adultery" with people getting "cozy" with political or activism movements that, in his opinion, didn't really have anything to do with religion. He went further where he derided the rise of "celebrity pastors" as another aspect of the problem. I recall comments from the Brethren that that same sentiment is a seduction that they have to be vary wary of and not succumb to.

[Analytics]

Relationships are a two-way street. Applying the same model to the other partner in the relationship would seem to be in order:

• Is there a perpetual power struggle where the Church tries to control the member?
• Do leaders of the Church voice loathing contempt towards the member?
• Does the Church lack awareness of its own toxic expectations?
• Is the ratio of positive to negative communications about members a healthy 5 to 1, or is it an inverse ratio indicating their relationship with the members is broken?

 

[Nofear]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

• Is the ratio of positive to negative communications about members a healthy 5 to 1, or is it an inverse ratio indicating their relationship with the members is broken?

Perhaps you can do a count of this last conference and report back an answer?

[Tacenda]

I wonder how many dreaded going back to their ward family after things opened up for attending on Sundays again. I know that when I just watch on Zoom, I'm content, I don't miss feeling like I just don't fit in or the constant feelings of not being accepted. But I'm fairly new in my ward, it takes me a good 5 years to feel comfortable in a ward family. But if anyone has a toxic situation with people in their ward, I'll bet it was difficult to go back into that environment again. 

[Kenngo1969]

Disclaimer: Nofear, frankly, I haven't read the article yet.  I'm not sure that my easily-fracturable, fragile attention span is up to making the intellectual investment required to do so.  I'm not responding to the article, but to the general notion that, somehow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or anyone in it is "toxic."  Now, with that out of the way ...

* * *

Do toxic people, and toxic organizations, exist?  Yes.  At a minimum, however, I must take issue with the characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the latter.  From time to time, I may take issue with something the organization does that I don't understand, and I may not agree with absolutely everything that ever has come out of leaders' mouths, but just because a person or an organization says or does something that I don't understand or with which I disagree, that's a far cry from having any credible basis to label either one "toxic."

Even if the organization does something which I don't understand or a leader says something with which I don't entirely agree, seldom, if ever, have I ever reached the rather extreme conclusion that, therefore, the person or the organization is "toxic."  And I say this as someone who, from time to time, has to fight my own battles about whether I do or don't "measure up" in this or that particular way to whatever my perception is (or to whatever my perception is of their perception) that the leaders or the organization expects of me ... and who wonders what, exactly, to do about it if I conclude that yes, that's the case.

Do I fail?  Pretty much constantly.  Do I fall short in one way or another?  Frequently.  Because of those near-constant failures and frequently falling short, Sometimes, do I give in to cynicism and pessimism?  Yes, sometimes, I do.  But are my failures and shortcomings and cynicism and pessimism the organization's fault, or the fault of someone associated with the organization?  Are they my fault?  Perhaps they're neither.  Perhaps they're simply the result of living in a fallen world, and of living in a world in which an Adversary has been given considerable sway to make every attempt to fulfill his desire as "he seeketh that all men might be miserable, like unto himself."  2 Nephi 2:10.

But, somehow, even with all of the near-constant failures and frequent shortcomings and occasional cynicism and pessimism, I've never been able to convince myself that the organization the vast majority of individuals associated with it don't have my best interests at heart.  And I have concluded that, generally, the only thing I can do when I fail, when I fall short, or when I succumb to cynicism or pessimism is pick myself up, dust myself off, and try, try again.  As the chorus to Primary song says so well (singing to, and singing of "little children," but, compared to the Lord of the Universe, all of us are little children no matter how old we are), "So, little children, let's, you and I, try, try to be like Him ... Try, try, try!" "Jesus Once Was a Little Child," No. 55, Children's Songbook (1989), Salt Lake City UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And, frankly, that's what I would have to convince myself of ... that the individual and the organization don't really have my best interests at heart (despite all of their apparently-feigned, putatively-sincere protests to the contrary) ... before I could believe, genuinely, that the organization or anyone associated with it is "toxic."  And that's a pretty high bar.  In my book, true toxicity requires that some element of malice be present in the relationship.  And, frankly (while perhaps I'm simply naive, and I simply don't understand the true extent to which, potentially, toxicity and malice are lurking around every corner even in the Church of Jesus Christ), I have a really, really hard time imputing malice to most any of my brothers and sisters or to the organization to which we belong.

I may believe the organization or that some leader or member of it is mistaken, is misguided, or that, while some particular objective is laudable, the means chosen to pursue it and to obtain it, are, in some way, ill suited each to the other, but that is a far cry from the organization or anyone in it being "toxic."  Whatever else I may believe (or anyone may believe) about the Church of Jesus Christ, its teachings, and its leaders, always have I believed that they have my best interests at heart.  And whatever disagreements we might have, never can I imagine believing otherwise.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Burp!   

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Nofear]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Disclaimer: Nofear, frankly, I haven't read the article yet.  I'm not sure that my easily-fracturable, fragile attention span is up to making the intellectual investment required to do so.  I'm not responding to the article, but to the general notion that, somehow, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or anyone in it is "toxic."  Now, with that out of the way ...

* * *

Do toxic people, and toxic organizations, exist?  Yes.  At a minimum, however, I must take issue with the characterization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the latter.  From time to time, I may take issue with something the organization does that I don't understand, and I may not agree with absolutely everything that ever has come out of leaders' mouths, but just because a person or an organization says or does something that I don't understand or with which I disagree, that's a far cry from having any credible basis to label either one "toxic."

Even if the organization does something which I don't understand or a leader says something with which I don't entirely agree, seldom, if ever, have I ever reached the rather extreme conclusion that, therefore, the person or the organization is "toxic."  And I say this as someone who, from time to time, has to fight my own battles about whether I do or don't "measure up" in this or that particular way to whatever my perception is (or to whatever my perception is of their perception) that the leaders or the organization expects of me ... and who wonders what, exactly, to do about it if I conclude that yes, that's the case.

Do I fail?  Pretty much constantly.  Do I fall short in one way or another?  Frequently.  Because of those near-constant failures and frequently falling short, Sometimes, do I give in to cynicism and pessimism?  Yes, sometimes, I do.  But are my failures and shortcomings and cynicism and pessimism the organization's fault, or the fault of someone associated with the organization?  Are they my fault?  Perhaps they're neither.  Perhaps they're simply the result of living in a fallen world, and of living in a world in which an Adversary has been given considerable sway to make every attempt to fulfill his desire as "he seeketh that all men might be miserable, like unto himself."  2 Nephi 2:10.

But, somehow, even with all of the near-constant failures and frequent shortcomings and occasional cynicism and pessimism, I've never been able to convince myself that the organization the vast majority of individuals associated with it don't have my best interests at heart.  And I have concluded that, generally, the only thing I can do when I fail, when I fall short, or when I succumb to cynicism or pessimism is pick myself up, dust myself off, and try, try again.  As the chorus to Primary song says so well (singing to, and singing of "little children," but, compared to the Lord of the Universe, all of us are little children no matter how old we are), "So, little children, let's, you and I, try, try to be like Him ... Try, try, try!" "Jesus Once Was a Little Child," No. 55, Children's Songbook (1989), Salt Lake City UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

And, frankly, that's what I would have to convince myself of ... that the individual and the organization don't really have my best interests at heart (despite all of their feigned sincere protests to the contrary) ... before I could believe, genuinely, that the organization or anyone associated with it is "toxic."  And that's a pretty high bar.  In my book, true toxicity requires that some element of malice be present in the relationship.  And, frankly (while perhaps I'm simply naive, and I simply don't understand the true extent to which, potentially, toxicity and malice are lurking around every corner even in the Church of Jesus Christ), I have a really, really hard time imputing malice to any of my brothers and sisters or to the organization to which we belong.

I may believe the organization or that some leader or member of it is mistaken, is misguided, or that, while some particular objective is laudable, the means chosen to pursue it and to obtain it, are, in some way, ill suited each to the other, but that is a far cry from the organization or anyone in it being "toxic."  Whatever else I may believe (or anyone may believe) about the Church of Jesus Christ, its teachings, and its leaders, always have I believed that they have my best interests at heart.  And whatever disagreements we might have, never can I imagine believing otherwise.

Despite the very quick declaration of some respondents to say, "but the Church is toxic too!", I quite agree with your sentiments. While there are people who disengage with the Church and didn't and don't engage in relationship destructive behaviors, there are many that do (based on my personal small sample of observation). Anyway, your reply suggests a missed assumption about what I believe. I think and believe the Church is good and that it's fundamental truth claims are authentic and correct and that Christ is its ultimate head and guides it today. Are there imperfections and are its members among those imperfections. Of course. But, for me that doesn't change my stated belief about it being good.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Despite the very quick declaration of some respondents to say, "but the Church is toxic too!", I quite agree with your sentiments. While there are people who disengage with the Church and didn't and don't engage in relationship destructive behaviors, there are many that do (based on my personal small sample of observation). Anyway, your reply suggests a missed assumption about what I believe. I think and believe the Church is good and that it's fundamental truth claims are authentic and correct and that Christ is its ultimate head and guides it today. Are there imperfections and are its members among those imperfections. Of course. But, for me that doesn't change my stated belief about it being good.

No, no, no!  Please don't get the wrong idea!  I believe I know perfectly where you stand!  I stand with you, and if I'm close enough, and if you promise to not slug me, I'll even put a hand on your shoulder (metaphorically speaking)! Everything I've said on this thread is directed toward the "Well, the Church is toxic too!" crowd. 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Relationships are a two-way street. Applying the same model to the other partner in the relationship would seem to be in order:

• Is there a perpetual power struggle where the Church tries to control the member?

No one can control me without my consent.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

• Do leaders of the Church voice loathing contempt towards the member?

 Oh.  Wait.  You were SERIOUS, weren't you?  Sorry.  My bad. 

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

• Does the Church lack awareness of its own toxic expectations?

See my previous reply. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74463-faith-toxic-relationships/?do=findComment&comment=1210089090

 

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

• Is the ratio of positive to negative communications about members a healthy 5 to 1, or is it an inverse ratio indicating their relationship with the members is broken?

 

As much as I might not want to hear something that a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ might feel constrained to tell me, that might be an indication of just how much I need to hear it.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and that's fine, but, in my book, that's why we have a society that is peopled with so many narcissists, because no one ever had the guts to tell them they shouldn't do something or that "Gee, I'm awfully sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but your crap really DOESN'T smell like roses.  In fact, your crap smells just as bad as everyone else's."  Maybe ... perish the thought!   ... Little Johnny and Little Janey actually would be BETTER off if they WEREN'T being told how great they are every five minutes.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, Nofear said:

Basic premise is that in a personal relationship (such as with a spouse)

A marriage is a partnership between equals. Whatever relationship exists between the church and its individual members could not in anyway be described as a relationship between equals. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No one can control me without my consent.

 Oh.  Wait.  You were SERIOUS, weren't you?  Sorry.  My bad. 

See my previous reply. https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74463-faith-toxic-relationships/?do=findComment&comment=1210089090

 

As much as I might not want to hear something that a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ might feel constrained to tell me, that might be an indication of just how much I need to hear it.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and that's fine, but, in my book, that's why we have a society that is peopled with so many narcissists, because no one ever had the guts to tell them they shouldn't do something or that "Gee, I'm awfully sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but your crap really DOESN'T smell like roses.  In fact, your crap smells just as bad as everyone else's."  Maybe ... perish the thought!   ... Little Johnny and Little Janey actually would be BETTER off if they WEREN'T being told how great they are every five minutes.

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, no, no!  Please don't get the wrong idea!  I believe I know perfectly where you stand!  I stand with you, and if I'm close enough, and if you promise to not slug me, I'll even put a hand on your shoulder (metaphorically speaking)! Everything I've said on this thread is directed toward the "Well, the Church is toxic too!" crowd. 

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Burp!   

[MrShorty]

I would say that, in general, I like applying Gottman's 4 horsemen to church (whatever that might mean, members, leaders, institution, not sure what) -- member relationships. The main weakness I see in the usual application (as the OP's link illustrates) is that we tend to assume that I as the member am going to be the only one exhibiting those behaviors, but the Church's response (again, not sure exactly who or what the Church means here) is always benign. I have found that the most useful applications of Gottman's four horsemen to Church--member relationships will talk about how both member and Church exhibit four horsemen behaviors.

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I have found that the most useful applications of Gottman's four horsemen to Church--member relationships will talk about how both member and Church exhibit four horsemen behaviors.

Cool.  Here's me talking about how the Church exhibits 4 horsemen behaviors:

Criticism: The church (defined as it's leaders and publications), absolutely never criticizes individuals or their individual worth.  Any criticism from the church is leveled in generalized directions at specific behaviors, certain cultural winds, or practices.  In short, by valuing the individual, this one doesn't apply.  Anyone who interprets church political activism and speaking out against behavior/practices/cultural forces as an example of Gottman criticism, is either ignorant of the definition of the word, unable to differentiate between facts and their feelings, or being intentionally disingenuous.  

Contempt: The church (defined as it's leaders and publications), holds no contempt for any individual.  The scriptural admonition to forgive all and love all simply prohibits it.  Anyone who interprets the church's  unwillingness to alter policy to accept unacceptable stuff as 'contempt', is either ignorant of the definition of the word, unable to differentiate between facts and their feelings, or being intentionally disingenuous.

Defensiveness: I suppose you could make a good case that the church exhibits defensiveness, but it's a matter of the analogy with married couples breaks down.  Married folk both need to be vulnerable and open to change, sometimes foundational change, as in order to honor the wishes and desires of the spouse.  The church's truth claims involve 'God says so, and the better we change ourselves to be ok with it, the better off we'll be'.  Such a mindset necessitates defending the principles and practices instituted by God against all threats, internal or external.

Stonewalling: Gottman stonewalling is "intentional ignoring", like when a spouse tries to initiate a conversation, and the stonewalling spouse sits on the couch idly clicking on the remote control, intentionally ignoring the other spouse.  The bar for stonewalling is higher than just disagreement, or refusal to engage on a topic, or even name removal.  For those things to qualify as stonewalling, would include willful ignoring, a total lack of acknowledging the other person's worth or even existence.  We don't do Klingon discommodation with a ritualized crossing arms across hearts and turning backs to the petitioner.  The church is just dripping with "we love you and want you back" and "you're welcome to come as long as you're not trying to disrupt or hurt".  We'll bend over backwards to keep the door open for reconciliation, and bishoprics regularly face the wrath of people demanding to be put on a 'do not contact' list in order to contact them and say as much.  The opposite of stonewalling.

Sometimes individual clerks and leaders will end up stonewalling out of cluelessness, human error, human imperfection, or even plain old incompetence.  A request for a sealing cancelation that goes on forever without being acted on, or even lost.  Desperate pleading to be released from a calling that goes month after month with no action.  A bishopric gets fed up with an annoying member who demands much time but is unwilling to take any advice or implement any changes.  When it's intentional, the people doing it ought to repent and do better.  But the church hardly sanctions or urges such behavior.

Some folks who wish to indicate opposition to sustaining church leaders, are unsatisfied with the direction to take it up with the Stake President, or are ticked off with how little the Stake President cares about the person's gripes.  But it ain't stonewalling, unless the SP pretends they don't exist.  And "I've already met with you on these topics, and don't have anything new to say" isn't stonewalling, it's a healthy boundary.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

Anytime there's a toxic relationship whether in church or wherever, I've heard it said that you must break off with that person stat! 

But that's not what Nofear is asking. I guess one should do their best to get along with others in their ward family, just as they would with their spouse. But don't do it to the detriment of your mental health if the toxic person doesn't change, but once again that's still not what Nofear is asking.

Okay, here goes...I keep wanting to return to church, but do feel like it's a toxic situation in the fact that they really seem to not want me there too much. I spoke with my new bishop when we first moved in a couple of years ago and told him of my faith issues and after that he hasn't spoken once to me, I think I'm like a doubt germ that must be kept at bay.

So in that way it's toxic. I would never have gone to him had I not been told by some on this board, to go to my bishop with my issues. So instead of having the bishop be unaware and call me to a position. I thought I should let him know where I stood and wanted to serve in a calling that would be the appropriate one for someone in my position. 

Okay, @Kenngo1969let me have it!

Edited April 7, 2022 by Tacenda

[katherine the great]

14 hours ago, Nofear said:

I guess the question would be what merit or short-comings do you see in this kind of comparison?

I could never see the church as a husband because the church is not a person. There is a certain emotional intimacy that should exist in a marriage but is hard to establish between a person and an organization. The analogy just doesn’t really work for me.

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Anytime there's a toxic relationship whether in church or wherever, I've heard it said that you must break off with that person stat! 

But that's not what Nofear is asking. I guess one should do their best to get along with others in their ward family, just as they would with their spouse. But don't do it to the detriment of your mental health if the toxic person doesn't change, but once again that's still not what Nofear is asking.

Okay, here goes...I keep wanting to return to church, but do feel like it's a toxic situation in the fact that they really seem to not want me there too much. I spoke with my new bishop when we first moved in a couple of years ago and told him of my faith issues and after that he hasn't spoken once to me, I think I'm like a doubt germ that must be kept at bay.

So in that way it's toxic. I would never have gone to him had I not been told by some on this board, to go to my bishop with my issues. So instead of having the bishop be unaware and call me to a position. I thought I should let him know where I stood and wanted to serve in a calling that would be the appropriate one for someone in my position. 

Okay, @Kenngo1969let me have it!

I'm sorry you've had this experience. 

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

... Some folks who wish to indicate opposition to sustaining church leaders, are unsatisfied with the direction to take it up with the Stake President, or are ticked off with how little the Stake President cares about the person's gripes.  But it ain't stonewalling, unless the SP pretends they don't exist.  And "I've already met with you on these topics, and don't have anything new to say" isn't stonewalling, it's a healthy boundary.

I know!  Geez, what fun is that?!   It's much more funnerer to disrupt a sacred convocation where people are endeavoring to commune with the Holy Spirit and to turn one's dissent into a public spectacle!  You thought this was all about you and your attempt to Commune with the Divine?!  Nah!  This is the generation and era of Youtube (they misnamed it: It should be called "MeTube") ... It's all about me, Baby!  It's all about meeeeeeee!!!

[BlueDreams]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:15 AM, Nofear said:

An interesting article: https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/pop-culture/saying-goodbye-to-faith-toxic-influencers/
 

Basic premise is that in a personal relationship (such as with a spouse) the behaviors "criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling" are behaviors that really have a severe negative impact on the relationship often ending up in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. For some who are disaffected with the Church, the same behaviors are present. Not all, certainly, but for many. The article basically presents the idea that if we treat our relationship with the Church with the same care and love that we might have with a spouse (imperfect though they may be) we will be healthier and happier. I don't view the Church as being perfect (we still have a ways to go to be more Zion-like) but I nonetheless find a great deal of happiness and comfort with the relationship.

I guess the question would be what merit or short-comings do you see in this kind of comparison?



 

I’ve scanned the article a little. My first reaction is that he’s over stretching therapeutic models/concepts. Though I think the 4 horsemen aren’t really healthy as any means of relating. if it’s present, one should work to root it out as it won’t help you heal or grow. And one’s usually not interacting really with a real person but a caricature of a person or in this case entity. This includes in relationships that need to end due to some form of abuse. Maintaining bitterness keeps one engaged in the unhealthy relationship, even if the relationship is technically severed. So in general if I’m sniffing that, I’m more leery of what the person is saying about another because their unchecked bias is coloring each and every assessment of the other. That I think definitely applies. 
the biggest problems I see with the article is 1) the church is not a singular entity  but usually a stand in for several different relationships that have accumulated an effect and 2) in this article whatever “the church is” is generally assumed to be a good, if flawed, force. 
 

1) “the church is…” is a phrase I’m not a big fan of. It assumes a homogeny in practice and assertions that don’t fully exist. Think of this board alone. In it you have a range of believing members who differ in practice, assumptions, beliefs, etc. Are there things as members that all of us more or less subscribe to? Yeah. But even then the importance or significance we put on these may still differ. These often start in the home but quickly balloon out to include peers, local leaders they directly interact with, and their own internal processes and decisions that fuel what form of a relationship they have. Which is why you may see a different experience among members in the same family. Note, I didn’t say general leaders. Most people don’t really “relate” to general leaders unless they’re direct family. Instead,  by the time they’re listening to them, it’s usually reflective of several relationships with their local church circles being projected out in the messages they give. 
 

2.)In this umbrella of the church you can get pockets of belief and practice that are simply not healthy. For some that is often front and center to their experiences of said relationship. i remember one woman who was taking a step back from church to reevaluate what it is she actually believed. She had told me several experiences that she’s had in real time over the years that were unhealthy, starting in her family but quickly ballooning out to her regional experiences. It was hyper rigid, hyper image focus, asking inappropriate/invasive questions (for her specifically, it usually had to do with her reproductive choices), extremely unforgiving, and fairly easy to be seen as “circumspect” in practice. When she filled in even more strange practices I told her it sounded like she grew up in a cult. She knew I was active in the church, BTW. We’d spoken about it several times before. She also knew that my experience and attitude strongly differed from what she grew up with. For her “the church” entailed enforcing a way that one must believe and practice the faith down to how many children you should have, what your health said about your faith, what color of shirt you should wear, how many piercings you had, whether it was really a good idea to get an education at most schools, etc. That’s toxic. That’s unhealthy. Finding a 5 to 1 ratio in positive to negative in this scenario is therefore enabling this toxic experience. 
 

one last note: this doesn’t go one way. Sometimes the unhealthy character in these relationship is the one leaving. It’s not easy to tell that, without direct connection and input from their closer circles. There it becomes obvious that the person was engaging with their faith community via several unhealthy thought patterns/behaviors. On the mild end, this may be certain self-centered values that conflict with the church, generally (for example, a hyper focus on money or power as a main value) where church becomes in conflict with pursuing these. In the middle are unchecked mental health issues that just color everything in extremes or bleak outlooks. On the more severe end this can include things like unchecked personality disorders. I would say these are still the minority of cases…but I also wouldn’t say they’re extremely rare either. Same where “the church” is the toxic actor in the relationship. More often it’s a mix of both. 
 

with luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Anytime there's a toxic relationship whether in church or wherever, I've heard it said that you must break off with that person stat! 

 

I actually wouldn’t say that. It’s more that one needs to address the toxicity pronto. This can be by naming what’s happening, learning and setting boundaries, and making sure the toxic person/entity understands those boundaries. Preferably with a third party to help mediate the transition. Breaking off a relationship May be needed, but in many cases that’s not necessarily ideal or realistic or something to be maintained forever. 

 

with luv, 

BD 

[LoudmouthMormon]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, here goes...I keep wanting to return to church, but do feel like it's a toxic situation in the fact that they really seem to not want me there too much. I spoke with my new bishop when we first moved in a couple of years ago and told him of my faith issues and after that he hasn't spoken once to me, I think I'm like a doubt germ that must be kept at bay.

So in that way it's toxic. I would never have gone to him had I not been told by some on this board, to go to my bishop with my issues.

Wait, so you came here, asked for advice, we said "go be open and transparent with your bishop about it", you did that, had sort of a dial-tonish dull-grey unloving experience,  and you're interpreting the experience as the bishop thinks of you as sort of a threat to his flock, instead of a member of his flock that he should leave the 99 to come find?

Well, that sucks.  I'm sorry that happened to you.  You show up, hat in hand, being honest, and it didn't result in a good old love-bombing that us LDS folks are SUPPOSED to be real good at.  Tacenda, you deserved a better experience, and I am genuinely sorry you didn't get it.  I guess I'm supposed to say something about how you shouldn't judge the bishop too harshly or whatever, but Imma stay with just being sorry you didn't get accepted and hugged and loved back into church on your own terms.

All that said, what now?  All I can say is what I think I'd do if I were in your position.  If I was certain of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ, and the truthfulness of the restored gospel, then I'd plow forward back to church in spite of the dang mormons.  There is freedom and joy to be found in just plain old not giving a crap what others say or think about you.  And I can't say enough good things about forgiveness - it's truly freeing.  And I don't go to church to make friends, I go to worship and serve.  The friends just sort of happened along the way, the overall positive reaction most folks have towards me these days is a nice, but optional, extra.  

If you don't believe in Christ or the church, well, whatever you decide is fine with me.   If I ever see you at my ward, I'd be happy to sit with you. 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Buckeye]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:15 AM, Nofear said:

An interesting article: https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/pop-culture/saying-goodbye-to-faith-toxic-influencers/
 

Basic premise is that in a personal relationship (such as with a spouse) the behaviors "criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling" are behaviors that really have a severe negative impact on the relationship often ending up in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. For some who are disaffected with the Church, the same behaviors are present. Not all, certainly, but for many. The article basically presents the idea that if we treat our relationship with the Church with the same care and love that we might have with a spouse (imperfect though they may be) we will be healthier and happier. I don't view the Church as being perfect (we still have a ways to go to be more Zion-like) but I nonetheless find a great deal of happiness and comfort with the relationship.

I guess the question would be what merit or short-comings do you see in this kind of comparison?



 

I believe strongly in this relationship model and use in my counseling of members often. In short, while there will always be faults to see in the "other" (whether a spouse, child, sibling, or organization like the church), the focus must always be on the positives. Once the negatives become dominant, particularly when one's approach is contempt, divorce is soon to follow.

If a member gets solely focused on an issue such as SSM, they will eventually separate themself from the church. That separation may be very understandable and even wise, such as when one's LGBT child is placed in an unhealthy and untenable place by the church community, but members should try to step back and make the decision consciously rather than with contempt.  Likewise, if the church makes the sole focus on a particular member their disobedience to a specific commandment, they will eventually separate themself from the member. As an example, I've seen vastly different reactions to members who do not live the WoW. Wards that embrace the member and try to find ways to work together (e.g., call the brother as an assistant scout master) have much better results than those that try to shun. The successes are not just for the member but their family and the whole ward family.  Here's to continued hope that such an approach can be found with LGBT members, whose numbers will never significantly decrease in our church because we keep giving birth to new ones.