My second Blog Post EVER

[amateurparent]

I posted as a guest on Wheat & Tares today.

Below is a link.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/21036/i-have-not-abandoned-you-you-have-abandoned-me/

[Anonymous]

It’s a well-written article. The question at the end — if your church abandons you, are you justified in abandoning your church?

My answer to that is a QUALIFIED yes. By qualified, I mean on the continuum of abandonment. There is outright name removal and no contact at one end of the spectrum, to reduced involvement and commitment at the other end of the continuum.

I am on the “low commitment” end of abandonment. Support my family but personally, have left the church hanging as far as my personal commitment goes. Not much financial support, very little of my discretionary time, and certainly not my accolades to others any longer. I know this frustrates leaders, but in a way, I see it as just side-effect/natural consequence of their own abandonment of me personally in times of non-financial need that I won’t go into.

I don’t think name removal would be beneficial in most situations. I did ask people who resigned from the church why they did so, and there were cases of emotional hardship that came with membership (often from abusive family members) and resignation was a healthy Declaration of Independence. In this case, it seemed justified.

But single people, with no other ties to the church thought it was a good step for removing unwanted visits from the church, but even then, missionaries will sometimes tract into them, or they would run into old church acquaintances. So, even that practical benefit is not always permanent. Others indicated it was a statement of protest, in the loudest terms they could muster. But unless this happens on a large scale with many accompanying resignations, I see it as a momentary “pleasure” with no effect on church policy or culture. Also, with far-reaching, limiting side-effects that last the rest of your life. The church is too big and the voice of one, isolated person too quiet on the Richter scale.

But in most cases, I see resignation as a nearly irreversible step that doesn’t do much good in the long run. It limits one’s ability to return if one wants (and who can predict what we may want to do in the future. Could any of us predict we would be posting regularly on a site for disaffected or unorthodox Mormons years ago??). It can hurt family members who might otherwise benefit from the experience of being a Mormon. It can also hurt marriages that might otherwise survive if abandonment is defined at the lesser side of the scale (lack of commitment).

I also think staying in the church is good for my spirit. I think if I resigned it would amplify the discontent I already feel about the church. It would harden it. And it would create more uncomfortable moments as I do have members in my home (missionaries, home teachers, friends of my wife and daughter).

However, each person needs to make their own decision, and find what brings them peace. The problem with resignation I see is this — after you do it, and find its “peace effect” is neutral compared to being a less active member, you can’t go back without a lot of hoop jumping — and putting yourself directly under the control of the people who you may not appreciate in the first place. I avoid those situations.

Keep options open, and enjoy the leadership’s frustration with the fact that this talented person (you) is around all or some of the time, but can’t be used [just kidding on that last sentence, but I will confess there were times I have looked at priesthood leaders with amusement when they don’t seem to know how to deal with this guy who dances to the beat of his own drum. Operate outside the established procedures/culture, and suddenly, most people don’t have a clue what to do about you. And they are a heck of a lot nicer to your face as they see you someone to be won over.}

[Anonymous]

Excellent article, amateurparent. And I wish there was an easy solution. Our comfort level dealing with those that are different from us varies so much. Good intentions are abundant but not always followed by the best actions. My son is socially awkward. He is currently almost 19 years of age but it is unlikely that he will go on a mission. I question how long he will stay active in the Church. And this is NOT because anyone was unkind to him during his Young Men years. In fact, they were very tolerant and his leaders (well, most of them) supportive. But he didn’t fit in and his peers’ pity was a poor substitute for friendship. However, I understand this from both sides. How do you force egocentric young people to accept those that are different, odd, or just plain weird? My son is NOT an easy person to love though as his father, I believe I can see past his inept manner and belligerent behavior to the good heart inside of him. But if I struggle to accept him and love him (which frankly I do some days), how can I demand that others, relative strangers, do the same?

I think I veered from my original intent but these thoughts came to me as I pondered your blog post. Thanks again for making your experiences and thoughts available to us.

[Anonymous]

I loved this. Such cogent thoughts around the ones we leave behind without another thought. It’s too easy to think they left us, but the reality is often the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, AP. I enjoy reading at W & T, especially when I know more about the posters. Having heard some of your story here only adds to what you wrote.

I think members of all ages and maturity levels are prone to hurt and exclude in subtle or blatant ways. We just hope that our express commitment to not do that will help us catch ourselves before permanent damage is done, before “one by one, the outliers slip away.”

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I am on the “low commitment” end of abandonment. Support my family but personally, have left the church hanging as far as my personal commitment goes. Not much financial support, very little of my discretionary time, and certainly not my accolades to others any longer. I know this frustrates leaders, but in a way, I see it as just side-effect/natural consequence of their own abandonment of me personally in times of non-financial need that I won’t go into.

This. I know I’m not the only single adult in my ward that pops in every couple of months to see if the current round of leaders has matured a bit, and will reevaluate the whole thing again after a change of leadership to see if it goes differently. Of course that brings in the issue of having to filter for a Prodigal Son effect: there’s pressure to focus on reactivating inactives at the moment, so you’re likely to see very different treatment for a few weeks until you’re off the “returning from inactivity” special projects list.

[Anonymous]

I am wondering if part of this doesn’t have to do with the nature of volunteer organizations. You gave a great description of the girl scout troop and the new leader that essentially converted the troop into a vehicle to further the socialization opportunities for her daughter and her daughter’s friends. Part of my motivation for accepting a calling in scouting is that I would be part of the organization to help shepherd my socially awkward son through both the programs and the social interactions.

If other leaders are similar to me then they may have blinders on to the youth on the margins. Perhaps they are mostly focused on their own children, getting them through young adulthood, off serving missions, going off to college, and safely married in the temple.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I am wondering if part of this doesn’t have to do with the nature of volunteer organizations.

Interestingly, growing up, I didn’t see this issue with my non-LDS Scout troop. While the Scoutmaster and assistants probably did give their own sons a bit more attention at times, there was a significant, constant effort to make sure that everyone was included. Some of the kids who were most unpopular at school were very successful in the troop. We had what is, in retrospect, an extremely low attrition rate because of it too. Would be nice to see a lot more of that kind of leadership.

Thankfully, that Scoutmaster is now following in his dad’s footsteps, serving in council and district leadership positions for BSA, having seen his grandsons through Scouts a few years ago, and is waiting for his first great grandson to start Cub Scouts.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I am wondering if part of this doesn’t have to do with the nature of volunteer organizations.

I have found the same thing in my community efforts. I joined one organization, got it into non-profit status, got it income (with a partner) but got a bit disenchanted with the limits that my partner/organization president put on what I could do. No volunteers outside our geographical area, could not take the reigns and run with stuff. She took over the marketing of an event that went well, even though it was my responsibility and I was doing pretty well. Weird stuff would happen in the background that would overturn my plans. I started my own non-profit, and started making huge inroads, tons of community visibility with a project that overlapped with the first non-profit’s mission, but which they had not yet developed.

The old president moves on, and the new president asks to meet me, and talks about a partnership agreement where our two organizations — the one I started, and left that he now heads, and the second one I started — partner on a project. Words like empowerment, autonomy, partnership and a hands-off approach permeated his conception of how it would work. Night and day.

On the other hand, I have heard that cliques exist in certain wards, particularly those that have wealth in them. I think AP could judge whether this was simply an expression of volunteer “values” or even “incompetency” or a conscious exclusion of certain kinds of youth.

[Author]

Posts