- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SomeUsername84 wrote:
I did have a very uncomfortable meeting with the bishop yesterday, however. My wife felt like she needed someone to talk to and asked if I would be ok with her talking to the bishop. I decided that it was a sacrifice that I was willing to make. I knew it would bring many uncomfortable discussions with him; but, I also knew that she needed someone who might be able to help her with her side of the situation. Let me just vent for a second and say that I DO NOT FEEL LIKE I NEED TO BE “SAVED” FROM THIS. I feel better for it. And it made me really uncomfortable and frustrated to try to explain my concerns while he tried to “reconvert” me. I felt so alone and angry afterward that I just went home and sobbed. It was absolutely awful for me.
That’s tough… However, it sounds to me like you did the right thing, because in doing so, you are supporting your wife in the difficult situation she is in. I can offer that I think it gets better over time. I have had that first-time conversation with various leaders numerous times. The first time, they pretty much always try to help me regain faith. The next time, the discussion can be framed, by you, as your needing support to help you stay connected with the Church even though your beliefs are different, and eventually the attempts to save are remolded into attempts to help you with what you need. Also, FWIW, I no longer get frustrated in situations like those, because I know they are trying to offer what they truly believe is in my own best interest. My mom has occasionally expressed a desire that I would be able to come back someday. I must say that rather than feeling frustrated, I just enjoy that she cares that much about me.SomeUsername84 wrote:it made me really uncomfortable and frustrated to try to explain my concerns while he tried to “reconvert” me.
Mormon tactics 101 – If you make no effort on the part of a wayward soul, you do not love them. It is a fallacy and an unfortunate habit to decide that since we love someone, we ought to shame them into coming back to the fold. Perhaps your wife and/or the Bishop should read this Ensign article:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/finding-joy-with-my-less-active-spouse?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/finding-joy-with-my-less-active-spouse?lang=eng SomeUsername84 wrote:I have always been kind of an “a la carte Mormon,” accepting that not everything that proceedeth forth from the mouth of a man is the will or opinion of the Lord. The only thing that has really changed is my definition of the word “prophet” and my perspectives on the literality of the Book of Mormon. I still believe that there are many good and inspired things in the church. I just don’t believe that all things are/were. If that makes me apostate in some people’s eyes,
I’m ok with that. My faith is my own.As I have gotten over my feelings of disillusionment and confusion, and as my wife and I have continued to talk about the way I feel, things are getting easier every day. I feel like my personal religion is becoming purer again and that is one of the best feelings in the world.
I did have a very uncomfortable meeting with the bishop yesterday, however. My wife felt like she needed someone to talk to and asked if I would be ok with her talking to the bishop. I decided that it was a sacrifice that I was willing to make. I knew it would bring many uncomfortable discussions with him; but, I also knew that she needed someone who might be able to help her with her side of the situation. Let me just vent for a second and say that I DO NOT FEEL LIKE I NEED TO BE “SAVED” FROM THIS. I feel better for it. And it made me really uncomfortable and frustrated to try to explain my concerns while he tried to “reconvert” me. I felt so alone and angry afterward that I just went home and sobbed. It was absolutely awful for me.
First of all I want to applaud your statement “I am OK with that. My faith is my own!”. I love that. I wish I have been more a-la-cart than I was. It may have made this transition a little smoother for me. It is wonderful to hear your how open you and your wife are. That is so key! You are blessed to be able to talk so openly with her.
Regarding your convo with your bishop, I am soooo sorry that it was so frustrating! I can only imagine. I am dreading the day. I am finally opening up more and more to my husband. It has been amazing and he has been a so patient and loving, and I am learning how to communicate more than I ever have in my life. He asked me to talk to our bishop. I told him I just can’t because of how he treated a friend of mine (not accepting middle way). And I just am not ready for someone to try to re-convert me because just as you feel, I don’t feel I need to be saved from this!
It looks like you have reached a point that many of us have – being comfortable in your own skin. That’s great. Many of us refer to what you’re going through as a rebuilding of our faith and it sounds like you are on the path to doing so. I especially like how you refer to it as your personal faith – that’s a great description and I have discovered that despite the uniformity expected in the church we each have our own faith and it can be very different. Were I you I might consider sharing Pres. Uchtdorf’s October talk with my bishop, perhaps even with some points highlighted. Thanks, guys and gals! It’s good to be here! Your support has already been so helpful.
Much love!
science_saint wrote:I know you still attend, etc, but the points the anonymous author brings up to not “nag, needle, threaten, or belittle your spouse” is priceless.
I am observing a trend in the Ensign. Many times a piece that involves life difficulty (divorce, addiction, betrayal, faith crisis of a loved one, etc.) are anonymous. I love these pieces because they point out how not everyone gets the happily ever after. But I wonder about the anonymous thing. Do the editors of the Ensign not know who submitted them or are they witholding the names based on some policy (written or unwritten)?
I’m pretty sure it’s a matter of policy. I don’t believe one can submit items anonymously. I doubt it’s a secrecy thing. I’m sure it’s more of a respect thing. It keeps people from feeling shunned, called out, feeling the pressure of bad attention, etc. People need the support that hearing other people’s stories can provide. But, knowing the names of the individuals isn’t important. There aren’t many people here who use their real name, but the support we feel from hearing one another’s stories is priceless in breaking down the barriers of loneliness in personal difficulty. Hi SU84! I think I’m a little late to the “welcome party” because It looks like there’s already a conversation going on. 🙂 I don’t have a lot to say but I did want to stop by and welcome you. So…WELCOME!
:wave: Thank you for the warm welcome! It’s good to be here! SomeUsername84 wrote:I doubt it’s a secrecy thing. I’m sure it’s more of a respect thing. It keeps people from feeling shunned, called out, feeling the pressure of bad attention, etc. People need the support that hearing other people’s stories can provide. But, knowing the names of the individuals isn’t important. There aren’t many people here who use their real name, but the support we feel from hearing one another’s stories is priceless in breaking down the barriers of loneliness in personal difficulty.
I think it’s sort of like the old “the names have been changed to protect the innocent” thing on those old cop shows. Except they don’t really change the name, they eliminate it.
DarkJedi wrote:SomeUsername84 wrote:I doubt it’s a secrecy thing. I’m sure it’s more of a respect thing. It keeps people from feeling shunned, called out, feeling the pressure of bad attention, etc. People need the support that hearing other people’s stories can provide. But, knowing the names of the individuals isn’t important. There aren’t many people here who use their real name, but the support we feel from hearing one another’s stories is priceless in breaking down the barriers of loneliness in personal difficulty.
I think it’s sort of like the old “the names have been changed to protect the innocent” thing on those old cop shows. Except they don’t really change the name, they eliminate it.
I agree but it may be a symptom of our church culture that seems to encourage us to keep it all together or at least fake it. I’m really glad that these stories get printed at all – but at some point it becomes hard to support people in their infirmities if we don’t know who they are. I see this as a manifestation of our tendency to project an image that is as close to perfection as possible. I would hope that people experiencing loss would be buoyed by the membership – rather than needing the protection of anonymity to prevent being “shunned, called out, feeling the pressure of bad attention, etc.”
Maybe they editors are doing the only responsible thing in a culture where the notice of someone being a reformed drug addict or prostitute could destroy their standing in the religious community.
I agree, Roy. Sadly, if someone here were to write an article that got published they would likely have to have it be anonymous because there would be a stigma attached to having even had to question the faith. There are so many other things that fall under that category as well, like drug abuse or alcoholism. That is seriously why some church members don’t like Glenn Beck. I respect that he is open about his membership and that he is an alcoholic and I think it’s good for the church for members and non-members alike to realize that we’re human and have human frailties – we’re not all cookie cutter perfect. TBF given the nature of some of the stories, I understand the anonymity, it’s like an agony column. But it always irritated me when I see stories in the textbooks which have the names removed, especially if they’re miraculous or faith promoting. It’s as if the writers don’t want the story to be investigated further.
It would be nice if GAs could talk about genuine trials but that’s not faith promoting is it?
SamBee wrote:TBF given the nature of some of the stories, I understand the anonymity, it’s like an agony column.
But it always irritated me when I see stories in the textbooks which have the names removed, especially if they’re miraculous or faith promoting. It’s as if the writers don’t want the story to be investigated further.
It would be nice if GAs could talk about genuine trials but that’s not faith promoting is it?
I do research into those now. Some reach a dead end. Others I have found seem to be faith promoting stores in others faiths told in a literal context as real. Others appear to be like a “based on a true story” event but as with a “based on a true story
Movie” much has changed.
The last anonymous story I heard by the SP. In priesthood was a man who lost a watch and a person who found it and sold his home, left his family and traveled the world to find the rightful owner, until faster many decades and he was nearly dead. He found the rightful owner of the watch and he accomplished his purpose in life.
The outage was that we must literally be like that literal man I pursuit of our priesthood and service in the church.
Turns out I had a baptist friend who heard the same story as an allegory some 17 years ago.
Nice allegory. But as a real interpretation it can be devastating to “really” live up to that ideal which is beyond healthy or realistic. No one will ever measure up to that if presented as serious. Good story, bad execution of the literalness. Leads to unhealthy examples of not “measuring up”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.