- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for sharing. I have to admit, my first reaction while reading was, “man, our culture sucks.” But I didn’t find anything in the article that was surprising.
I realize that it takes lots of words and stories to help people understand another person’s point of view but if I had to take one thing from the article I’d take:
Quote:There’s nothing wrong with members that choose to leave.
It’s really that simple.
There’s a section in the article about how relationships often dissolve when people leave the church. That’s going to be a tough thing to correct in our culture because I often see relationships dissolve among extremely active members just because a ward splits or some boundaries are redrawn. This is where I point out that it takes effort from both sides to maintain a relationship. It’s hard for us to do that. Maybe we’re all too busy with our assigned friends, I don’t know.
Quote:My internal dialog goes something like this:
Quote:Is everybody going to assume I cheated on my wife? Do they think I’m looking at pornography? What do I say when I don’t feel like I should participate in the sacrament? How do I tell a 16-year-old I can’t help him with it, but not have him assume that I’m just unworthy? Do my kids think I’m unworthy? Am I doing irreparable harm to their testimonies by not participating?
Yes, it’s difficult. I can’t say that I hear the community voice say these sorts of things every Sunday but I do hear it at least once per month… and I’m down to attending only one hour each Sunday, I might hear it more if I attended the full 3 hour block. I hear harsh judgments being pronounced on people that leave. I hear very harsh judgments being pronounced on members that hold different opinions on certain subjects. The thing is, you’re not talking about Brother Hasn’tBeenToChurchInFiveYears, you’re talking about me, the guy sitting in the front row. It doesn’t feel good.
That internal dialog? The culture contributes. We can imagine all the sorts of things being said about us because we’ve heard them said of others. Heck, we’ve probably said or thought those things ourselves when we were more orthodox to the culture.
This isn’t commentary on me thinking the author of the article should return, but I would like an article, “what I wish Mormons knew about those that struggle to stay.” This article did include some insights on that front.
I suppose it will come as no shock to anyone here, but I think this article is far too negative toward people in the Church. There are a lot of examples of expecting believers to give him considerations he doesn’t seem interested in giving them: To the faithful: “Don’t distance yourself from us”
About the disaffected: “former members tend to create some distance from believers. This is a protection mechanism, nothing more.”
To the faithful: “Simply love your family and friends that leave the church. Don’t judge them for taking a different path than you chose. Try and view your relationship from their point-of-view.”
Note: Great advice. It is equally great if taken in reverse, which this article does not do.
Author: “There’s nothing wrong with members that choose to leave.”
Note: Yet, the author provides several examples of what is wrong with those who choose to stay.
To the faithful: “Whatever else you do, please don’t bear your testimony
atthose that have left. “ Note: This is an an open letter to the faithful, which is the best possible example of stating a position
atsomeone of a different opinion. A parable: “Imagine a close family member that converted to another religion that you don’t agree with.”
Note: This is a better metaphor if taken in the reverse meaning and conclusion than presented by the author, because it is the disaffected who are more like a close family member who has converted to another religion.
Last lines: “We all become better people as we learn to love each other as we are. I hope we can all learn to empathize with each other.”
Note: These are the concluding lines in an open letter that expressed no empathy toward others, but continually called for it. To keep with the style and message of the entire article, the author should have concluded with: “You all become better people as you learn to love us as we are. I hope you can all learn to empathize with us.”
I understand the loss-of-faith part. I feel for this man and the crushing realizations that accompany a FC. I think we’ve all experienced some awful wounds that continue to hurt.
But eventually, somehow, we have got to get past the deep-rooted anger and suspicion toward other people. We’ve got to see others the way we hope to be seen.
I can relate to a lot of his story. The only exception is, I haven’t had my records removed from the Church. Sometimes, I honestly wonder why I haven’t left. I think many of the reasons why active members believe people leave, could be the reasons I have stayed. Maybe I’m too lazy to resign. Maybe I stay because I’m being deceived. Maybe I’m too weak, too uncommitted, too faithless to leave… Maybe I’m too sinful, and if I was a better person I could just bite the bullet and leave. The article made me really sad. I empathize quite a lot with the author, but I don’t have much hope of things getting better. Like Nibs:
nibbler wrote:
I hear harsh judgments being pronounced on people that leave. I hear very harsh judgments being pronounced on members that hold different opinions on certain subjects. The thing is, you’re not talking about Brother Hasn’tBeenToChurchInFiveYears, you’re talking about me, the guy sitting in the front row.
In fairness, I don’t think it’s the whole of the Church. I wouldn’t say it’s most members. But with some of the most vocal condemning those like me on a consistent basis, I reach the point where I get angry and nearly snap at even the most well-intentioned members. I swear, the LDS Church has given me severe PTSD. I
wantto stay. I really do. I want to find reasons to stick with it, and hope that things will get better. But today, I feel like I’m only a member because I feel to weak and lazy and scared to go through the process of leaving. dande48 wrote:
In fairness, I don’t think it’s the whole of the Church. I wouldn’t say it’s most members.
I can say the same. In my experience I’d say it’s even limited to the same small group of people. Some of the higher profile callings will eventually be staffed by people in that small group and when that happens it creates the impression that that particular voice is more authoritative and more present than it actually is. When people in relative positions of authority hold those attitudes they tend to spread.
Thanks for sharing. I understand where the guy is coming from, I have felt the pain (I can see the thestrals). When I first saw the article title I thought “Oh, good, I haven’t shared something like this with the SP lately.” Again, I totally understand where the guy is coming from and I relate to everything he says. But I have to agree with OON – I think it’s a bit too negative in tone to actually share with the SP or any of my more true believing friends (including my wife). I think it’s good for us though, if only because it continues to confirm “I am not alone.”
I felt deeply for this person as I read this post. I have shared so many of those emotions. And yet, I also agree with OON about the general lack of empathy shown by the writer towards members. It is easy to forget after a faith transition how one used to feel as a traditional believer. Many of the things this writer shares are thoughts he very well might have had before his transition. Those of us who have gone through one would do well to remember this. Also, I feel for him because he seems to still be very dependent on external validation for his own personal peace and satisfaction. As I learned from Brene Brown (and many others), we need to brave our own wilderness. When we can be confident and at peace with our decisions without worrying what others think, when we don’t need that external validation, we will be better off. It’s not easy and definitely easier said than done, but as I’ve worked towards that goal, I have cared less and less about what others think but also have felt greater empathy and love towards them.
On Own Now, I’m not sure how to phrase this, please have patience with me.
Where’s the equilibrium? Often when I see people hurting and desperately trying to be understood I see them get reprimanded for being too negative. Are we not then being negative towards the people we view as being negative? Does that approach perpetuate the us vs. them suspicions or alleviate them?
It’s got to be super difficult to seek validation and healing after experiencing something negative. Recounting negative experiences can put people on the defensive. Someone says, “I experienced this horrible thing.” and the insinuation is that the community is responsible for doing this horrible thing, which is then perceived as being negative towards or an attack on the community.
How does one say, “This is my pain.” without opening themselves up to people saying, “You’re too negative.”
I don’t know that we can. Things can
alwaysbe negative or positive, depending on the vantage point from which they are viewed. I am aware of how it goes both directions. People outside the church viewing people in the church as being too negative in relating their truths. People in the church viewing people outside the church as being too negative in relating their truths. Maybe the lesson is to… give people space? Allow people to be negative? Recognize that negativity happens and extend people the grace to cover it? Extended towards people in all camps.
Quote:When that pain is expressed, there is an implication that the pain is my fault anyway, so it’s mine to deal with.
I felt that this line was insightful. We sometimes say that it was us that changed – not them. Yes, we did change but that does not mean that it is our
faultthat we changed. Just saying that my state of belief is not my fault makes me wary that someone will think that is an excuse. Maybe it is. Maybe I am trying to come up with excuses to defend my belief when it does not need defending. Maybe my belief is just as valid, worthy, and empowering as anyone else’s. Perhaps we are all reacting defensively. The people that leave defending being made to feel less than, justifying their decisions and thereby devaluing the commitment of those that stay and continue to believe. The People that stay feel attacked by those that leave and react defensively … and so it goes. Hurt for hurt, insult for insult, and misunderstanding for misunderstanding.
nibbler wrote:
How does one say, “This is my pain.” without opening themselves up to people saying, “You’re too negative.”
I state that in small, very individual cases “This is my pain”.
If people come back saying I am too negative, I tell them “Fine. This is my pain. This is how it feels to me (briefly). And then point out the ways I am purposely striving not to be too negative. At that point I switch to common ground language and/or move on to a different subject.
nibbler wrote:
I don’t know that we can. Things canalwaysbe negative or positive, depending on the vantage point from which they are viewed. I am aware of how it goes both directions. People outside the church viewing people in the church as being too negative in relating their truths. People in the church viewing people outside the church as being too negative in relating their truths. Maybe the lesson is to… give people space? Allow people to be negative? Recognize that negativity happens and extend people the grace to cover it? Extended towards people in all camps.
Negativity is a form of grief – of mourning (at least expectations if nothing else) and of expressing anger (another stage of grief). I treat negativity as an “opportunity to mourn” and cleanse the system of letting go of thought processes I don’t want to be at anymore by going forward through the experience. Sometimes expressing it this way helps others to sense the profound- ness of my experience and not to blow it off because it doesn’t fit into their paradigm or narrative.
But then, I am weird in that I think that the grief process is a daily experience rather then a formal once-a-year-funeral-event.
To the remainers, I’d like to point out far fewer people leave because of being offended by someone than you think. To the hardcore exmormons, I’d like to point out far fewer people leave because of reading up about history than you think.
To both of them I’d suggest the evidence points towards most people who leave not making a scene and not actively campaigning for others to do so.
But I’m going to be controversial and suggest many people just can’t be bothered with it all. Mormonism is time intensive, labor intensive, can be expensive in both senses and restricts your sex life and leisure activities… how many have left just because they’re bored or want a Sunday morning lie-in? I suspect a lot.
Three weeks ago, I attended an Open Stories weekend seminar. Even though I am a middle wayer, I really struggled with the pain both sides are experiencing. Both sides are equally guilty in my opinion. For years the believing camp has painted a picture of leavers that is discourteous to them. They are weak, they were offended, they had social testimonies. The stories even roll down into life choices – drinking, smoking, losing the light. It’s been in lessons, church magazines, videos, etc. That is a story telling problem in the worst way. Very un-Godlike.
Recently, as faith crisis blossom like weeds, the leavers take on an attitude of their own. They walk out steeped in equal judgement about believers. Believers are sheeple, blind, ignorant. “If only they knew the truth”.
At that moment the conversations stop.
Adding to that, as I have watched family members and friends who leave, habits do creep in – coffee is good. A beer here or there. A tattoo long yearned for. No garments. From a believer’s point of view the leavers are living up to the very stories they have been told forever.
For any of this to change – people on both sides need to be the change agents. If you still attend, but understand the pain, you can represent those who leave, by making loving comments and softening the hard edged comments.
I was lucky enough to grow up with Grandparents who left the church over an offense. They had been wronged. When they left (long before I was even born) they continued to be wonderful people (and drink coffee, battle alcholism, and smoke). I use them again and again as my models of wonderful disaffected people. They were my hero’s and I love to share their story, their truth, and it’s impact on me.
Every timeI do, people thank me for it. They also usually spend 15 minutes telling me about their friends, family, children who’ve left the church but are good parents, so on and so on. When my Grandparent’s story won’t do, I talk about my uncle who was excommunicated, then later returned. I’ve talked about Laurels that I grew up with that were shunned because they didn’t make the right life choices. I do every one of these with love, clarity, and biblical story support. It works.
Have I saved the world? Not yet. But I have saved hearts. I have softened callous statements. I have left a plank of thought in people ‘s minds. Which hopefully they will build a bridge with.
If leavers really want to be embraced or have their opinions considered they might do well to fill their time doing community service, hosting friendly events in their homes, being extra warm and kind to believers. A little honey goes, a long, long way.
nibbler wrote:
On Own Now,I’m not sure how to phrase this, please have patience with me.
Where’s the equilibrium? Often when I see people hurting and desperately trying to be understood I see them get reprimanded for being too negative. Are we not then being negative towards the people we view as being negative? Does that approach perpetuate the us vs. them suspicions or alleviate them?
It’s got to be super difficult to seek validation and healing after experiencing something negative. Recounting negative experiences can put people on the defensive. Someone says, “I experienced this horrible thing.” and the insinuation is that the community is responsible for doing this horrible thing, which is then perceived as being negative towards or an attack on the community.
How does one say, “This is my pain.” without opening themselves up to people saying, “You’re too negative.”
I don’t know that we can. Things can
alwaysbe negative or positive, depending on the vantage point from which they are viewed. I am aware of how it goes both directions. People outside the church viewing people in the church as being too negative in relating their truths. People in the church viewing people outside the church as being too negative in relating their truths. Maybe the lesson is to… give people space? Allow people to be negative? Recognize that negativity happens and extend people the grace to cover it? Extended towards people in all camps.
nibbler brings up a great and very necessary question for this site. I’ll try to give my thoughts on the subject, but this will be a very lengthy response out of necessity, so please be patient and hang in. I’m going to talk about some generalities and I’m going to talk some specifics in the referenced article as examples. These are my thoughts alone; others may disagree and I respect their right to do so.First off, over the years, I have had many opportunities to soften the dialog. This has been in discussions about the disaffected, about same-sex marriage, about women’s issues. I’ll give one example that sticks in my memory, only to illustrate, but there have been many of these. After Kate Kelley was excommunicated, we had an EQ lesson in which the teacher brought it up. I applaud him for doing so. He wanted to have a real discussion. His general message was apologetic, but at least he was bringing it up. I raised my hand. I talked about how we, the men, had to try to be more empathetic. That whether or not the women could or should have the priesthood, that we have created a culture in which we treat our women like second-class citizens and that a lot of women rightly struggle within the Church because of that. At no time did I mention KK or OW, their tactics, what they should have done differently… I was talking about what WE can do. There were lots of nodding heads and agreement from the guy teaching. I think every time I have opened my mouth under these circumstances, whether in a meeting, while teaching a class, while giving a talk, or while conversing with a Church member, it has always been how WE can do better; never how somebody else can do better.
Now, I have to define what group I am even a ‘member’ of. I am a member of the Church… kind of. So, I kind of have opportunities to do the above, but for the most part, I’m simply a guest there. My connectedness with the Church is limited. I go to SM maybe slightly more than 50% of the time, SS almost never, PM very occasionally. I hold no calling, having turned down a few opportunities recently. I haven’t held a temple recommend since the 20th century. So, in the article in question, when the author says, ‘you’ I don’t consider him to be talking to me. There is nothing for me to be defensive about. I’m not doing the things he says. I consider myself primarily to be part of an entirely different group: Disaffected LDS. It’s a loose confederation, for sure, but in many ways it is more my ‘tribe’ by now than the Church is.
So, the article in question has a target audience and represents a particular voice. The audience is Believing Church Members. Its voice is that of the Disaffected. When the author uses words like “we” and “us” he means my tribe: the Disaffected.
With that in mind, my view is that this article is trying to present MY view to faithful members in order to get them to behave better. But because of this, I can’t simply stand idly by any more than I can when I am in a Church meeting and feel that I have to stand up for people who aren’t there. This article is trying to portray me as being in agreement by association, yet it uses an approach that I would never use: telling OTHER PEOPLE (believing church members) what they should be doing instead of introspectively considering what WE (the disaffected) can do better.
That’s just the background. If you are still here, thank you for sticking with it so far, maybe stand up and stretch a little bit, and please keep reading.
The question of negativity (or anger or frustration or…). It’s understandable, it’s warranted, I get it, and I support those who feel that way at times. My personal hot-buttons are: 1) Polygamy, 2) Gender Issues, 3) Draconian Tithing Policies, and 4) Same-sex Marriage Doctrine/Policies/Practices. I get frustrated by those… I can get angry at times. Read my posts on this forum and you should be able to find plenty of negativity. However, two things.
1) nibbler eloquently said on a recent thread in which anger was considered:
nibbler wrote:
I feel like anger can be an important step towards healing but I also feel like we should be tourists in angerland. It’s probably not a good idea to buy blueprints and start laying a foundation there.
I think the same can be said of negativity.2) I draw a line with too much negativity aimed at someone in another group. From my perspective, this article presents a critical and negative view from the disaffected (my group) toward the believing members of the Church (not my group). I don’t agree with doing that. Over the years, inside the Church and out, and from the perspective of whatever group I am a part of at that moment, I have stood up for Muslims, Catholics, Atheists, Disaffected LDS, Believing LDS, Trump voters and Hillary voters.
Are believing members of the Church often in the wrong with how they treat us? Sure, some of them are. But that’s out of my sphere. Since, in the context of this article, I am not one of them it’s not up to me to make declarative statements about how they should behave. Since I am one of the disaffected, then when one of us writes an open letter using my voice, but with which I don’t agree, I’m going to stand up and say, that’s too much. The reason I think it is too much is simply that it is focused outward instead of inward. It is telling someone else that they are wrong and need to change their ways, instead of searching peace within ourselves.
The most recent statement by the Church on this subject was in a recent article on lds.org:
https://www.lds.org/blog/who-do-i-choosegod-or-my-husband?cid=HP_TH-26-7-2018_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL2 The tone and intent of the lds.org article is the polar opposite of the article that started this thread.
So, within my tribe (the Disaffected), I fear that we sometimes have a culture that has become no better than the culture we claim to run away from. The article is a public shaming of public shaming. I want our culture to be different… to be better… to follow Christ the way we all say that we do. Jesus didn’t say, “Treat others the way they treat you.” He said, “Treat others the way you hope to be treated.” In fact, it’s clear if you read the Sermon on the Mount that he had no expectation of others being deserving of our kind treatment of them, but thought of it as a better way to live and love, to hell with whether it is reciprocated. (And before the admins censer this statement, I will mention that although Jesus probably did not use profanity in this particular case, he seems to have done so on other occasions). I will mention, though, that I have tried to treat believing Church members with kindness and respect and it HAS been reciprocated.
Negativity, anger, frustration? All natural and even cathartic at times. Living in them? Not helpful. Pinning these on our neighbors, whether ‘deserved’ or not is not the way to peace, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the clarification. Don’t let the relative brevity of the thanks be an indication of the sincerity or depth of the thanks. I seriously do appreciate the clarification. I really struggle to express myself on this topic. But if I had to try.
On Own Now wrote:
The article is a public shaming of public shaming.I
feelthat sometimes we’re doing just that in our reactions to what some disaffected people are doing, especially lately with the Sam Young excommunication. Shaming people that shame people that have been shamed… and now I’m doing it, so add another layer to the pile. :crazy: On Own Now wrote:
Negativity, anger, frustration? All natural and even cathartic at times. Living in them? Not helpful. Pinning these on our neighbors, whether ‘deserved’ or not is not the way to peace, in my humble opinion.I agree, but I think where we may differ a little is that I feel like we’re also pinning it on our neighbors. Maybe it’s a difference of how we’re delimiting our groups or perhaps I identify with a different group? I’ll try to clarify.
On Own Now wrote:
Since I am one of the disaffected, then when one of us writes an open letter using my voice, but with which I don’t agree, I’m going to stand up and say, that’s too much. The reason I think it is too much is simply that it is focused outward instead of inward. It is telling someone else that they are wrong and need to change their ways, instead of searching peace within ourselves.
If the group is the tribe of disaffected members, looking inward would include disaffected members, looking outward would include members of the church that are contented. If the “group” is an individual, looking inward would be self, looking outward would be everyone else.
So if I’m understanding correctly, when we identify with a group it would be considered inward focused to tell another member of the group that their approach is wrong if they misspeak while attempting to speak for the group. Makes sense.
I think my concerns are because I may be looking at it from a framework of individuals. If we tell someone else their approach is wrong that’s focusing externally, telling someone else they need to change, regardless of larger context or group membership.
Mom – I too just attended a Mormon Stories retreat a few months ago. I found it to be better than expected. Quite a bit of time was spent by John Dehlin in explaining (not in what I thought was a condescending way) why TBM’s act the way they do and how you need to not push their buttons as that only hurts relationships. He really emphasized trying to get past working against the church and figure out what you want your life to be – not what were you against. There was a large amount of what I have found that works for me (from podcasts, blogs, and books) that was suggested. I actually find it rather interesting to look as people go through stages of a FC. The retreat members have a secret facebook group. Several that were in the retreat are still posting tons of, “Can you believe the church is doing XYZ!!!!!” I realize that have come to the point where I look at it rather objectively and just say, “Mormon’s are going to Morm”. I read of people on reddit xMormon that say, “thanks for this group, but now that it has been 10 years, I don’t feel I need to come here as it just doesn’t interest me.” I think that is helpful. There are those that continue to stay like Mom and they are an undesired blessing to the church nudging it to be better from the ground up. There are those that turn to another religion. And there is a sizable crowd that are atheist / agnostic. I am sure there are quite a few PhD papers that could be written on various aspects. I have less emotion tied up in this area, but I still find it fascinating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.