Stuff that happened a long time ago – invalid?

For a lot of people, the old adage “time heals all wounds” is very true. However, that’s not necessarily the case for all people and one thing the aphorism doesn’t capture is the adjustments in behavior that result. In other words, you may no longer feel bitter but that doesn’t mean you are suddenly chummy with someone who has offended you. Years ago, my mother in law had a falling out with one of her sisters which resulted in a bitter split between the two of them. For a while, my MIL was very upset about it. It’s now been nearly twenty years since it occurred. My MIL isn’t particularly bitter anymore but that doesn’t mean she is best friends with her sister again. She doesn’t try to avoid her sister (she attends family reunions, attended the funeral of her sister’s husband, and is good friends with a couple of her sister’s children) but she doesn’t seek her out either.

Of course, my MIL doesn’t bring it up much. Maybe it’s not so much the behavior but how much the incident is talked about that makes people feel that a grudge is held. However, some people need to talk about it as a way to cope (my wife does this), some cope by never bringing it up (my MIL). Maybe you just have to clarify (at least to yourself) that this is a legitimate way to cope provided it’s not overwhelming your life (which I assume these issues aren’t.)

People sometimes disagree about what’s in the past. People might acknowledge that something happened 20 or 30 years ago but disagree when it comes to acknowledging that the same types of things are happening today.

Then there’s the adage that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it/those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.

I think many of us are acquainted with the slow fade approach when it comes to putting unsavory things from the past behind us. There’s no big announcement that something we taught or did in the past was incorrect, we just stop teaching something and wait 100 years for it to finally fall off the radar. Certainly not in every case but in some cases. I think that approach doesn’t give people closure on some subjects. For some subjects you might run into some “that was ages ago” people or you might run into some people that are still teaching it. Correlation could ferret out some of that but correlation is a double edged sword.

I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule. If something that happened 20 or 30 years ago is important to someone should people be trying to invalidate that? I think it’s healthy to move on, to not get stuck in a rut, but we move on when we are ready to move. If the circumstances are just right someone telling me to move on might translate into me taking longer to move on because after the comment I find myself wanting to push back a little. :crazy:

I guess I don’t get it. Perhaps you can enlighten me why people think time nullifies past, pattern-based experiences…and to what extent the past should influence present behavior, particularly in a church context.

I’ve found that time does indeed heal all wounds but only if whatever entity is causing the wounds is addressed, uprooted, and also left in the past. A wound that is constantly being reopened won’t heal.

In the context of the LDS church, let’s say someone’s issue is the MMM. That’s over 150 years ago! Yes, but what if someone’s issue is with an emphasis that is placed on obeying authoritative figures. Is that something we left 150 years in the past? Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the modern church is in a place where that could happen today, I’m not even saying this is unique to the church. I think Milgram and the social sciences would say that this is something that is baked into the human condition. I just wanted to point out that things that are in the past aren’t always in the past, the human condition is every bit as flawed today as it has always been, we just have a little more history to learn from as time goes on.

I think that’s often what’s at the heart of someone’s issue with history, the worry that things aren’t just in the past. Does it happen today? Could it happen tomorrow?

It’s very easy for people who never experienced the anguish of past “abuses” to use the “its in the past” argument. They have no skin in the game. Even myself, I can’t experience, the way Roy has, the effect of a stillborn child. I have often tried to understand and it don’t see it, probably because I have not been in that situation. But I consider his feelings and response to those feelings valid nonethless, unlike many TBM’s…

What prompted this thread was a discussion with someone last night about whether there was support for my current stance of “boundary setting and limited influence” in my return to church, among family members.

The grudge-holding thing came up again rendering my feelings invalid, but tolerated.

I personally feel that the same attitudes that led to the various abuses I’ve suffered, and the church’s egocentric policies in general are still alive and well today. To the point I can’t serve within the context of the LDS Church at this time. They simply are not there for you willingly when you need them in significant, even non-financial ways — and this is in spite of being a fully active, serving, TR-holding member. They take, they take, they take, but when it is time to give, my experience is that they are tight fisted and seem to think they are making a monumental sacrifice in which you owe them…

I can’t let myself accept a calling forever with no end date, to feel like a leper if I want out of it, or just get tired of it…Even my Bishop, who is probably the best one in the last few years, can’t see how egocentric it is to look at people who return to church as fresh meat — fresh meat to simply fill slots and solve organizational problems without any thought or investigation into their inner thoughts.

The fact is, certain contexts and experiences that once brought us joy in this life, just don’t bring joy anymore. We change, the organizations change, circumstances change — and the arguments about it being “true” and how misalignment with your own behavior means you are “kicking against the pricks”, defying God don’t wash anymore with me. There are times when certain experiences just don’t fit your worldview any longer, and its not the fault of the individual either. Sometimes it’s just a bad match.

What makes this particularly hard is how your family gets wrapped up in it, how church commitment is a lifelong commitment — in your work, community contexts, etcetera, turnover is expected, and you can leave situations that no longer work for you without any criticism. But in the church — it’s a lifelong thing and the church is literally everywhere. And everyone thinks there are long-term consequences for you if you back away from it.

And they have an answer for EVERY concern you might put forward. And if you rebut those answers, you are apostate.

I am seeing now that my plan to reengage with the church on some level is causing me a lot of pain and anguish. My peace has been disturbed and will be for as long as I make it part of my weekly regiment. Now I have to deflate expectations, openly say “no” to things expected of me, while being at church all the time listening to cultural norms into which i no longer buy. It certainly isn’t a way of happiness for some people. And if my phone number gets on the ward list, I’ll be inundated with annoying things I dont’ want to do, like move people.

I fully understand why, when I was a leader, members would make statements that made no sense. They would give reasons for not being involved that make no sense. Or they would contradict themselves. I get it now — they know the standard responses, the ostracization and labeling that will occur if they are honest about their feelings, and the go to MSU (Making Stuff Up), and some are not particularly good at it.

It’s nice to see that people here acknowledge that past experiences can influence the here and now — in different ways — by acting in ways that prevent trauma, through boundary-setting or lack of passion or even indifference toward the hurtful people. Too bad the New Testament seems to imply you have to go and embrace the person/situation again or you are the greater sinner!

I’ve seen Christians do this to people who have murdered their family members before — on TV shows about real life situations. It seems absolutely ridiculous that someone whose relative had been brutally murdered by someone would go to the person in prison, and express love for them, and even visit them repeatedly.

To me, it’s not healthy. It would be better to be thankful the person is no longer in a position to hurt other people now that they are in prison. And then try to forget the person and move on with accepting the death of the loved one. That seems normal to me.

It was a community norm – their “way.” It made me mad that she was not being permitted to be angry. OTOH, some people seem to need to reach out and actively forgive the perpetrators in order to gain a sense of closure.

That makes me sort of upset too. I remember when we were wronged by LDS Social Services, and the very person who did the wronging reminded me that if I didn’t start forgiving him soon, my sin was greater than his. OUCH! Even if that principle turns out to be true (and I question if it is), the wrongdoer is NOT the person to be stressing that you are worse than they are if you don’t forgive. I also find it REALLY HARD to believe that an unforgiving person is doing worse than a murderer or someone who has committed a serious crime. That is just outrageous.

Closer to my own experience and areas of expertise – I remember Rick Santorum being criticized for having a family portrait with his deceased baby. As weird as that may sound, it is actually a pretty normal part of grief. The heart/inner voice is pretty good at telling you what it needs – in most cases I believe we just need to give it more heed.

I like this personalized version of recovery from trauma. We are all different and have different needs. It is refreshing, like when I heard that Winston Churchill and Abe Lincoln both sufferred from depression, but they lived productive lives. I have learned that is a good way to look at any deficiency of character or malady — that yes, there is a problem/angst, handicap, or just unresovled feelings with a person’s psyche, character, worldview, but they go on to live productive lives in spite of it. It’s the productive life that matters in spite of the weight they carry, whatever that might be. And if painting a deceased child into a family portrait helps ease that pain, then fine, so be it…

I think there is an element of accuracy with time. The further out the time, it feels like it is more tainted by humans retelling what happened and what was intended by what was said. But I don’t believe it just doesn’t matter. We are encouraged regularly to study and remember so we don’t repeat mistakes that apply to my life today. THings that don’t apply to my life because the world has changed probably don’t matter as much or apply as much, or at least become more figurative my life.

Unfortunately, I think this also means that I dismiss things that I don’t think apply. And in doing that, I sometimes am wrong. I heard rumors of Joseph Smith lying about his practicing plural marriage and dismissed it. That circled back to become more interesting to me when I was more seriously studying the topic.