- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wendy Ulrich writes the following about the phases that I think describes many of us in the Church: Quote:
The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood.This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4. She then describes the next phase, which, personally, I don’t see much of in my life at this point. The parts in bold are definitely things I would like to aspire to, but which seem far distant.
Quote:The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived,
that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer. Has anyone achieved any of these emboldened or other parts in the second quote? If so, how did you get there?
SilentDawning wrote:Wendy Ulrich writes the following about the phases that I think describes many of us in the Church:
Quote:
The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave.We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy…We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood.…the fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change…we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship… we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth takingHas anyone achieved any of these emboldened or other parts in the second quote? If so, how did you get there?
I don’t know that I would really want to move to this renewal stage quite the way she described even if I could because I’m not sure that would be real progress in every case. Expanding on her committed relationship analogy, the way I see it some relationships are more trouble than they are worth and maybe the best solution would actually be a divorce or at least a trial separation in some cases especially if one side constantly makes unreasonable demands and refuses to even consider the possibility that they could ever be wrong about anything. I’m not saying everyone should leave the Church, I just don’t think it would hurt anything for more members to call the Church’s bluff and say no to some of their expectations because there’s not much the Church can really do about it in that case. Basically the Church isn’t going anywhere but people can walk away from it at any time without owing them anything so there is no need to grovel and agree with everything they say just because they act so adamant about their position.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:don’t know that would really want to move to this renewal stage quite the way she described even if I could because I’m not sure that would be real progress in every case. Expanding on her committed relationship analogy, the way I see it some relationships are more trouble than they are worth and maybe the best solution would actually be a divorce in some cases especially if one side constantly makes unreasonable demands and refuses to even consider the possibility that they could ever be wrong about anything. I’m not saying everyone should leave the Church, I just don’t think it would hurt anything for more members to call the Church’s bluff and say no to some of their expectations because there’s not much the Church can really do about it in that case. Basically the Church isn’t going anywhere but people can walk away from it at any time without owing them anything so there is no need to grovel and agree with everything they say just because they act so adamant about their position.
Yes, but for some the costs of leaving are as high as the costs for staying. If I left, my kids would feel lost as they are connecting well with the value system of the Church. My wife would think our relationship was in the toilet, and once, she threatened to divorce me if I wasn’t strong in the Church. Even now, we can’t talk frankly about my feelings toward it or she gets upset; this would be worse if I left. Then, there is the cutting off of options if you resign or even grandstand your concerns locally — that has its own aftermath.
So, in the cost-benefit analysis, it may be better to just stay for many of us who have created a web of Mormon relationships around us.
Yes, I hear what you’re both saying. You bring up valid points. To DA I would echo SD’s thoughts about it is often more complicated than just “my views vs. the church.” I also love Wendy Ulrich’s article, I have read and reflected on it many many times. I do feel I understand more about what she is saying than I did – say, 3 or so years ago. I feel some form of personal progress in that direction, it may be illusion, but I think I’m more at peace today than I was before. I do feel I relate more to some of the things she describes in your second paragraph — “we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarras andsed or ashamed of our Church” as one example. I think I’m actually “less embarrassed” of the church now than I was growing up. Maybe that comes with a sense of personal space: I am me, it is the church – it doesn’t speak for me, I don’t speak for it as a whole. I speak as one member of it, it doesn’t dictate all my beliefs. I find it interesting that I am now more likely to be comfortable defending it where I see fit than I was in my youth.
Some of the things that I personally found helpful are the writings of “free thinking” faithful and prominent Mormons of the past. Some of the thoughts from Leonard Arrington, Lowell Bennion, Henry Eyring (Pres. Eyring’s father), Richard Bushman, Eugene England, Hugh Brown, etc have helped me understand that I can accept truth as it is revealed to me (as opposed to ideas that may be dictated to me) and still be, or actually TO be a faithful Mormon.
Separate all ideas, deconstruct all compounds to the individual components, then reconstruct “what works” through the aid of the spirit. Humans can pass around all kinds of imperfect ideas, that is rule #1. The gospel is eternal, the church is a tool for mortal life, imperfections are to be expected. The most confusing may be the implied idea that God would weed imperfections out of the church. If we can see that idea as an imperfection itself then I think we are a good step down the road of reconciliation.
Keep posting, we’re bound to turn something up!
I feel similar to Orson, and believe I’m at more peace than I was 2 yrs ago. SilentDawning wrote:Has anyone achieved any of these emboldened or other parts in the second quote? If so, how did you get there?
I think I’m getting there. How?
1) Let go of literal thinking about spiritual matters. I think the whole program falls apart eventually for individuals if viewed literally and too simplistically (at least, it does for me…I’ve moved on)…learn to accept metaphors and paradox and find richer meaning in them.
2) Engage in church as a partnership – I have terms, they have terms. They either work together, or as DA stated, it may be more pain than it is worth and the partnership could possibly be ended…I have not felt that is necessary for me. But I allow myself to set the boundaries, as the Church is there for me…I wasn’t created for the Church. I’ve noticed my ward does just fine without me, so I don’t feel obligated to go…I want to find the right agreement to make it meaningful to go and contribute.
3) Accept that I am not blazing a trail never before trod. Generations and generations of mormons (and ex-mormons, and catholics, and other religious groups) have gone through these stages, and there are as many ways to make it work as there are colors in my font palate (or more). I know it can be done, because it has been done by many gone before us. I just have to figure out how I want to do it for my situation. (Remember, one way to make it work is to end the partnership, I have accepted that is an option and I do not fear that).
To me, what captures the essence of Dr. Ulrich’s beautiful article is that these doubts are not unique (the NT speaks of it), they are not a result of lack of faith or intelligence, and there are ways to repair the relationship, depending on one’s desire and willingness to do it. That goes for marriages, and for participation at Church.
I like the partnership idea. I like Brian’s comment in another thread that you have to get to the point where you are at peace with other people’s traditional ideas, even if they were inflammatory to you at one time. Not being in that place is what makes Church hard sometimes. I like the idea of not taking things literally anymore… How about the stigma you get from not being a “righteous priesthood holder” because you’re not serving at the tip top level that is normally expected? I feel that badly now. A Bishopric member cornered my wife and she shared the secret sauce regarding my lack of interest lately in the Church. And you know how it goes — issues become simplistically presented and then get categorized into standard buckets, with standard responses which place full responsiblity on the back of the disillusioned person. Her version of my reasons were met with judgmental comments in her conversation with the Bishoprice member and now, the Ward leaders just ignore me. Makes it an even more sterile Church experience, unfortunately. So, how do you deal with that?
SilentDawning wrote:How about the stigma you get from not being a “righteous priesthood holder” because you’re not serving at the tip top level that is normally expected?
That is an absolutely real, valid, and tough thing to handle. Don’t kid yourself that expanding your ideas to new areas that others don’t agree will not cause a ripple. And sometimes it gets serious.
SilentDawning wrote:So, how do you deal with that?
I could go on and on about this…as I think of it often. There are lots of directions this could go…but I’ll sum it up by saying the biggest thing is that I exemplify love as best I can. Those that truly want to understand me and know who I am, should see that I am at peace, that I love others, that I tolerate others (as Brian stated), and I focus on developing Christ-like attributes more than the rules at church. They feel it from me, I don’t debate it with them.
It often plays out as someone calls or visits me because they are concerned from what they’ve heard of me. After talking to me and feeling of my spirit (whatever that means?), I want them to walk away respecting me as a person for what I stand for and who I am trying to become…and that is not dependent on my calling or participation in church.
If they see I’m a good person, their worries subside. If they sense my angst, anger, pain, or bitterness, they become more worried for me. Regardless of whether they agree with my opinions or not, I want to exemplify the principles of the gospel…not debate tenets of doctrine.
Most of that comes when I put people in one of three categories:
1) I don’t know them that well, so I’m just me and don’t care much what they think of me or what they say;
2) I respect them, and focus on positive things I’m doing or things I share in common with them to dispel unwarranted fears, even if I keep some thoughts to myself that I don’t think they need to know about;
3) I love them enough to want them to know my heart, and I open up fully to them in all honesty of my doubts and fears, and my strategies to focus on love and Christ despite my doubts and fears. This is the most risky, but usually closest friends or family (very, very, small group of trusted people).
And then I let things play out, and see if those people move from my #3 group to #2, or my #2 group to #1.
Also, be open to hearing others’ concern and love for you, and appreciate it. Find out why the bishopric member talks to your wife with concern. Ask him specifically what he is worried about. Calmly listen…perhaps he has something to teach you. If not, appreciate his concern, even if it is misguided. Sometimes their worries and fears are about them…not about you. Sometimes they are valid concerns, but they just label them wrong and associate service in callings or church traditions to some fear, when really the problem is something else (your anger, your lack of patience, your insecurity, your sins, etc etc etc).
I am me – and I’m ok with me. My wife is she – and I’m ok with she. The Church is the Church – and I’m ok with the Church. Anti-Mormons are anti-Mormon – and I’m ok with anti-Mormons (usually, with the exception of some true buttheads). Many Mormons are radically different than I am – and I am ok with radically different Mormons. Don’t get me wrong. People still frustrate me greatly in many situations. However, when I step back from the initial frustration, I can take a breath and find ways to look more charitably than I did in the heat of the moment.
I’m dealing with just such a situation right now. I whipsaw back and forth a bit, going from deep frustration to peace to frustration to peace – but the biggest reason why I can find peace is that I’ve given up thinking I can change others. I still try to the best of my ability, but I don’t expect it. That alone is a HUGE part of my own ability to continue to be productive in frustrating situations.
Yes, accepting everyone for who they are is important. I do go out of my way to serve certain people, and I do, do my hometeaching pretty faithfully. If they see that, maybe that mitigates the problem a bit, indicating I have a heart somewhere. But ultimately, I guess you have to say “who cares”. I don’t want leadership anymore, don’t want the stress of always trying to do more than my heart is capable of, or time wasting activities that I dread. Those are the benefits, I guess, and the price is the loss of acceptance in your Ward and Stake. I kind of think the problem with these descriptions is that we are personifying “the church.” The church is not a person. We don’t really have a relationship with some entity called “the Church.” Whatever we think it is, it’s our own perspective of it. I think the key is to continually question that assumption of what the church is. I meet people at church who are great, genuine, non-literal, nice people with a fun sense of humor and common interests. I also meet people who are closed-minded, judgmental, not that smart, dogmatic, etc. I spend more time with the former than the latter. As to “the Church” I basically don’t think it exists as such in my mind. It’s a collection of people. The authority side, leadership or whatever – that’s not in my view right now. I don’t really deal with the church on that basis. I think you can have relationships with people, not organizations, despite the way people tend to talk about them. hawkgrrrl wrote:I kind of think the problem with these descriptions is that we are personifying “the church.” The church is not a person. We don’t really have a relationship with some entity called “the Church.” Whatever we think it is, it’s our own perspective of it. I think the key is to continually question that assumption of what the church is. I meet people at church who are great, genuine, non-literal, nice people with a fun sense of humor and common interests. I also meet people who are closed-minded, judgmental, not that smart, dogmatic, etc. I spend more time with the former than the latter. As to “the Church” I basically don’t think it exists as such in my mind. It’s a collection of people. The authority side, leadership or whatever – that’s not in my view right now. I don’t really deal with the church on that basis. I think you can have relationships with people, not organizations, despite the way people tend to talk about them.
I see it differently. Both are valid elements of a person’s schema. There are individual people,yes, many of whom can provide many rewarding relationships. Then there is the organization as a whole, with its consistent behavior patterns born out of culture, policy, tradition etcetera.
I currently have a really good relationship with a leader in one of the Wards. He is the drummer in our band. He does NOT personify the types of behaviors that have caused so much hardship over the years. Nonethless, he’s unusual compared to the most of the leaders I’ve associated with. And by the way, I was one of those leaders and for periods of time, personified the angst-producing behaviors I now shun. I realize now the cause of them….rooted in certain policies, doctrines and habits in our religion that I assimilated unconsciously, without self-awareness. I’ve said this before, but the Seven-S model of culture is alive in well in most organizations, including our Church, and it creates an overall personality for the organization as a whole as it elicits fairly consistent behavior across a wide variety of people.
I like what Roy said to me once a while ago, “The Church is a lumpy brown vessel in which the living waters dwell”. The key is to try to focus on those living waters and nurture them, and not to be put off by the lumpy brown vessel, which has its own personality.
I agree with you SD, and I also recognize Hawkgrrrl’s point that the metaphor can only be taken so far. It does have some limitations, but it can be a useful metaphor. SilentDawning wrote:…Yes, but
for some the costs of leaving are as high as the costs for staying.If I left, my kids would feel lost as they are connecting well with the value system of the Church. My wife would think our relationship was in the toilet, and once, she threatened to divorce me if I wasn’t strong in the Church.Even now, we can’t talk frankly about my feelings toward it or she gets upset; this would be worse if I left. Then, there is the cutting off of options if you resign or even grandstand your concerns locally— that has its own aftermath…So, in the cost-benefit analysis, it may be better to just stay for many of us who have created a web of Mormon relationships around us. Orson wrote:Yes, I hear what you’re both saying. You bring up valid points. To DA I would echo SD’s thoughts about
it is often more complicated than just “my views vs. the church.”I understand the idea that there are some practical advantages to just going with the flow and that sometimes getting along with people is more important than being right. I definitely don’t want to be a martyr for the truth in most cases and that’s one reason I still haven’t told anyone other than my wife that I don’t believe in the Church and I’m not sure I really want to tell anyone because I don’t expect most members to understand very well.
In the worst case if people know I am less active then I don’t think it is really that important for them to know exactly why so I’m not going to volunteer this information if I don’t have to. Maybe it sounds better to me to say I just don’t believe it rather than accept the typical explanation that it is supposedly mostly because I am a lazy slacker looking for excuses to disobey the Church and justify my sins but it seems like seeing members lose faith in the Church is one of the most threatening things for TBMs to face and they often have a hard time dealing with it appropriately.
What I get out of these comments by Wendy Ulrich is that it sounds like she is basically trying to say it is normal for some members to go through a rebellious and/or skeptical phase but if they will simply repent of their selfishness and pride and stop expecting answers that make sense in every case or for Church leaders to be perfect then they will feel better about the Church the way it is. Making excuses for the Church used to help me feel better about it but it doesn’t really help much anymore.
Now I’ve reached the point where I can’t really go back to the limited view I had before the way many Church members expect because I already know too much about what is outside this perspective that I can’t unlearn. Because of this, I am never going to feel truly happy about something like tithing again as long as they continue to let people believe that God expects 10% of their income and if they don’t pay this exact amount then they will supposedly lose out on blessings and be condemned in the next life. The only thing that makes me feel a little better about this doctrine now is not paying it and venting about why I think it is wrong. If people want to pay the Church some money as membership dues or mostly to get a temple recommend then I would still rather see them pay much less than what the Church is asking for.
Quote:if they will simply repent of their selfishness and pride and stop expecting answers that make sense in every case or for Church leaders to be perfect then they will feel better about the Church the way it is
I think she’s saying if we stop expecting answers to everything and stop expecting people and organizations to be who and what they aren’t, we will be happier. Again, differing perspectives – and probably lots of seeing what we want to see, in both cases.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.