Leave the Church, Leave it Alone

I would not want anyone to “disappear” or feel like they had to drop all talk of their former life. I would also hope that someone like Joe would have caring friends inside and outside the church who would react non-defensively and be with him on his journey. I would expect Joe to be in some amount of pain or anxiety, but I would hope that he can make the transition without attacking his former faith. The phrase “can’t leave it alone” should not mean that people should not be allowed to talk about their experiences, but I do have a problem when they can’t do it graciously. As an good example, a friend of mine is currently experiencing a crisis of her faith (not LDS) and is probably going to leave it, but she does not (outwardly, at least) act bitter or go off on long unhelpful rants.

I have to note that while many people do say that the church has hurt them so that is why they are striking back, but I believe in non-aggression, and don’t believe that hitting back is good for anyone.

Let me give you some insight from a person that is no longer a member. The reason we cannot leave the church alone as some have suggested is this – once a person realizes it is all a sham and a fraud and that they have wasted years of their life and close to a $100k in my case, that your children you love are still invovlved in this shenanigan, that church leaders still continue to lie about the church’s history and doctrine further confusing your children, a person tends to be understandable angry. Can you blame a person for this?

Kennie – You clearly have nothing positive to say about the church. Heather’s hypothetical doesn’t sound like that to me. Heather (who is also no longer a Mormon, BTW) is very respectful of her former faith and its adherents. You make some pretty harsh claims based on emotion and opinion above. You ask: “Can you blame a person for this?” You are clearly blaming plenty of people in your statements. Is this civil? Does this make you a better person?

I think our friend Kennie hit the nail on the head. Many ex-members can’t leave the Church alone because they are angry. They can’t just walk away, as some have, and just say “it was not for me.” They have to name call (“it is all a sham and a fraud”), berate others who choose to stay (“your children you love are still involved in this shenanigan”), accuse others of lying (“church leaders still continue to lie about the church’s history and doctrine”), etc. So, it is no wonder that believing members don’t want or need to hear from those with an ax to grind. What real purpose does it serve? I guess you can make a money-making operation out of it like the Tanners, Baer, Decker, et al. Theat is one way to funnel the anger and resentment.

Personally, I will never try to destroy someone else’s happiness just because I disagree with them. People see things differently, as evidenced by Kennie’s and my perspectives. My main concern is gaining the type of charity that is described in Matthew 5:43-47 and 1 Corinthians 13. I’d rather focus on healing than on spreading pain – and that applies to how I act with those who are attacking and belittling my beliefs. I’m a hypocrite to a degree if I preach Christ and ignore his more difficult admonitions. Since I still am a hypocrite to a degree, I still have to work on me and let others find their own joy and peace.

Iow, Kennie, I might not “blame” you, but I would ask you to consider finding a way to overcome your anger and bitterness before you try to convince others that they should leave. Bitter things said in anger rarely if ever do anyone any lasting good – no matter the motivation or circumstances.

Hawk & Jeff,

There is one thing you are not taking into consideration – I have been in your shoes and I know EXACTLY how TBMs think because I used to be one of you. You on the other hand have not been in my shoes. There was a time when I would have given my life for mormonism and it’s so-called General Authorities. There was a time where I would have done ANYTHING Monson or Hinckley asked of me. I was a BP, counselor in the Bishopric, attended the temple, etc, etc, etc. But the realization that everything you believed in with all your heart and soul turned out to be a fraud (I am not using the word “fraud” as an insult I am just stating a fact) is devastating. Imagine trusting someone (in my case the GAs) unconditionally only to discover they lied to you and deceived you all along. And you are telling me not to be angry? I mentioned my children. How would you feel if your children were involved in a destructive organization like the MS-13 street gang in Los Angeles – wouldn’t you be concerned? Anyone in their right mind would be concerned.

ow would you as a faithful member want Joe to behave? How would you accommodate his new beliefs in your own life? Or would you really rather he just disappear?

I would want him/her to behave as I would want anyone to behave: respectfully. As far as accommodating his new beliefs in my own life, I would hope that I would do so respectfully. I have a number of friends who have left the Church but are still very interactive with members. They talk about the Church respectfully because they respect those who still practice the religion. If it’s that difficult to hold back your vitriol (and I’m talking about both those who have left and those who are active) then your problem has less to do with the Church and more to do with your maturity. Of course that’s easy for me to say because I interact with adults.

Kennie makes a legitimate point. If you bought a product and it turned out to be so much less than it promised, most people wouldn’t have any problem saying bad things about that product. You feel like you are doing someone a favor by warning them.

Ray also makes a legitimate point in #7. Kennie’s bitterness isn’t productive–for him or for the goal that he is trying to achieve.

I think that people like Kennie will be less inclined to go negative when members of the church are a little more like this: http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/09/road-trip-conversation. My experience is that most members of the church aren’t anywhere close to this.

AdamF: I agree with you. Hitting back is rarely the answer.

Kennie: I totally understand where you are coming from. I’ve been where the faithful LDS are. I’ve been where you are too. I think that leaving the church is much like the stages of grief that we go through when a loved one dies. Anger and hurt are totally normal. I just think we can’t dwell there forever and let it eat us up. I’m lucky that I was a convert and don’t have to deal with my family being LDS, but my husbands family are very devout, and I have to have the church in my life as long as they are. It’s painful to negotiate at times. I hope I didn’t come across as negating the experience of people like you. I think the fact that you jumped in defending one end of the spectrum and others jumped in on the more TBM side shows that I did a fairly good job of staying neutral, right?

Jeff: I agree that anger is hard to deal with. But what about the smaller issues? I have had LDS tell me that I should ‘leave the church alone’ because I didn’t support Mitt Romney, or don’t support the ban on gay marriage or how the church is involved in it. I’ve had very civil discussions about these things and still had the persecution word thrown around. I’ve had people call me out the same way on this site and others. I should totally cut myself off even though I’m being polite, just because I disagree. How should that be negotiated?

Here is more concrete example to ponder:

We have an LDS family member getting married. We are being expected to stand outside the temple during the ceremony, with our three young children, and wait, and then take pictures, even though we are not welcome to attend. We have done this before and will do it again, even though I honestly find it pretty insulting. (and yes, I was married in the temple and understand the nuisance).

My five year old son is having his first tball game this Saturday. It is very important to him. We are just getting through Ike, and his first two games were canceled. We have invited his grandparents, who declined because of General Conference.

I’m not necessarily talking about new religion here. I’m talking about family events and new traditions and generally being willing to put the church aside sometimes to make room for a family member who has left. Do you think that is possible in the mainstream LDS faith? If we refused the wedding we would be called out as acting ‘anti mormon’. If they refuse our life event, they are just being faithful and we should have to deal. (that has been my experience, anyway)

If I am friend with Joe I hope that our friendship was not based on common belief. I hope that this common faith was one of the thing we shared but not the only one because I can’t call friend someone with who I share just one thing.
Then I would treat my friend Joe as I treat any of my other friends but with a plus since Joe would understand it means to me that he be there when I invite him to a baptism. Joe will be a friend I will hold even dearer because he will be outside the building but will understand better than my other friends outside the building what some things in the building mean to me and I expect him to respect it. Joe will have no issue with respecting it and coming to a baptism to which I will have invited him because respect is probably one of the main quality I will have looked for when I will have chosen him as a friend.
If Joe is a member if my family…wait…let’s call this family member Jane.
I love Jane with all my heart, what she choses and what she thinks does not matter to me as far as our relationship is concerned. Yet the issue is that Jane thinks that she has the right to turn my life into hell each time she talks about the church which always turn into a fight because I won’t let her poison my environment. What Jane does not understand is that I react the same way whether she talks about the church or any other subject the same way. It is not the fact that she left the church that disturbs me nor the way the deals with any other aspect of her life but the fact that she wants to force my approval and eventually force me into making the same choices as hers.
Then I have a problem with Jane.
But this is probably due to the fact that Jane does exist and is not just a theory of how I would love to react.

Kennie uses words like “fraud”, “sham”, “lied”, “deceived”, and “destructive organization” in conjunction with the word “fact”, when in relation to the Church and the brethren these are not objective “facts”.

That’s not to say his opinion is not valid. He has his opinion and I have mine, both valid. But in the case of something like the Church neither is made up of objective fact. Neither of us can objectively prove our opinion in the case of a Faith.

Kennie,

I think you’re underestimating the personal experiences of many of the people who have so far responded to your post. Many who have never left the church know and love others who have left, and have listened to their heartfelt feelings well enough to develop some empathy and understanding in this regard. Just because we haven’t felt betrayed or duped by the church doesn’t mean we haven’t felt those emotions in some other context. Saying we can’t possibly comprehend because we “haven’t been there” isn’t entirely accurate. There’s an awful lot of cross-over in the sum of human experience.

By the same token, I’ve noticed a common thread among some (not all) who have tried to describe their former feelings and activities in the church before learning it was a “lie.” Many have described a past zealousness and stark black and white, fierce loyalty to the church in describing their prior membership. This is very unfamiliar to me in my church experience. I’ve come about my testimony the hard way, with a lot of intellectual and emotional conundrums along the way. The Spirit has replaced my obstinate black and white thinking with some “discernment,” which means seeing things as they are, not how we wish or expect them to be. The increased understanding of human frailty, differences between

I’ve been a faithful member all my life, but there has never been a time where I could truthfully say I would have “given my life for Mormonism” or for the GAs. I’ve never heard words like that exit even the most pious lips. I’ve worked with leaders from time to time who could’ve been trusted with something approaching that kind of loyalty, but I’ve never mustered anything close to that level of actual love and dedication. My spiritual journey has been one long battle against selfishness and pride, and I think I generally serve in the church for the right reasons.

I think you also underestimate the sophistication and knowledge base of those who have so far responded to your posts. Just about everyone who posts on this blog is quite familiar with the arguments and evidence against Mormonism. There’s a wide spectrum of conclusions among frequent posters. Many people who have left the church have no problem acknowledging that the GAs are true believers who are calling it exactly like they see it. If you think what they’re saying isn’t true, so be it. But THEY believe what they are saying. Stating “the GAs lied” as a fact, and all the mind-reading baggage and bad faith assumptions that go along with such a statement, is out of place with the level of discourse generally expected on this forum.

Apologies for the unfinished thought at the end of the second paragraph. I’ll leave it be.

Lorin,

I generally agree with you, but you could show a little more understanding to Kennie. For example, you say “I’ve been a faithful member all my life, but there has never been a time where I could truthfully say I would have “given my life for Mormonism”.” If I’m not mistaken, everytime you go to the temple you say something exactly like that. The phrase is something like, ‘even our own lives, if necessary.’ Maybe Kennie took those things seriously and literally and you never did.

If Kenny chose to leave on his own reasonings, that’s his business. How others choose to live and believe and socialize, that is NOT Kenny’s business. Not anymore. Leave those of us who do believe it alone. I will do the same for you.

Jan,

Are you willing to leave alone those who don’t believe? No more missionary work for you? If you are going to try to convince others that your way is right, don’t you owe them the same opportunity?

Bill, in that last sentence you are doing to Lorin what you chastise him for doing to Kennie. I understand exactly what you mean, and it is a valid point for this discussion and Kennie’s comment, but the last sentence undermines the point you are making.

I think that illustrates the central issue. It’s more than just an issue of leaving the Church; it gets straight to the heart of human nature. It is very natural to blame others for mistakes you make – or things you come to see as mistakes. It is very natural to lash out when in pain of some kind – to try to hurt those who you believe hurt you. I understand that completely; I just don’t think it the way we should strive to act.

Whether inside or outside the Church (or even Christianity as a whole), I think the basic principles of the Gospel outlined particularly in the Sermon on the Mount are worthy of internalization. Again, I resort to Matthew 5:43-47. It addresses this post directly.

Obviously, #19 referred to #16.

#18 – Bill, there is a BIG difference. When you know someone has left the Church and wants nothing to do with it, they should be left alone – as Jan said he would do. Once someone tells me to shut up and not talk about religion, I shut up and don’t talk about religion. If they seem to be interested, I talk religion.

If that’s all you meant, I agree – and so did Jan. If you mean all missionary work (sharing one’s faith/beliefs with others) is inherently wrong, I disagree completely – and so do you, as evidenced by your participation here.

Ray,

I think that you are right about the last sentence of my #16. I think that Kennie DID take those things seriously and literally, but I was out of line in saying that Lorin didn’t. Lorin seems to indicate that he wouldn’t give his life for mormonism, but I should not have implied that he doesn’t take temple issues seriously. My bad. Lorin–I’m sorry.

Ray,

We don’t always leave people alone who want to be left alone–sometimes we do, sometimes we don’t. We’ve been through this already–http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/30/hedging-your-bets-refusing-to-leave-the-church/.

Hey Kenny, you’re the first apostate I have ever met. Most of us sin and know we are sinning but are lucky enough to still hold fast to our testimony. Is that really the way you spell shenanigan? Is the word Irish? What does it mean in the original tong? Oh well. Don’t fight too hard… we all ready have enough to answer for when we pass through the vale.

I meant to put a at the end of #20. I just realized it sounds worse than it was intended. Sorry, Bill.

My wife and son have both left the church. They were angry and that is why they made the change. My ward leaders were even more angry. Very few active members leave the church through a process that is full of joy and that doesn’t have some turmoil. The church is usually a big part of our lives. When members leave it is like a spouse cheating or some other betrayal and that does make people angry.

A friend of ours left the church (not active for years) after he came out of the closet to his family and they could not accept his homosexuality and would not speak to him and sued him to get him out of the family business. The anger around people leaving is not only in those that leave. You kind of wonder how those of us in the church that react badly will be judged when the time comes.

All you have to do is look at some of the recent changes in church policy to know that not everyone fits into the nice little box that is the church. The fact that no one with facial hair can be in leadership, no earrings for men and only 2 for women, no tattoos, all men must wear white shirts and so on. My ward requires all priests to wear suits if they are to participate in the sacrament and anyone participating in the sacrament has to have a white shirt on. I know not all of these have come down as commandments from SLC but I have sat in many ward council meetings with the bishop and stake president and that is the interpretation that all of them (that I know of) are going with.

The good news is my family members are no longer as angry although I still see no chance of them coming back anytime in the forseeable future but they no longer get angry whenever the church comes up. And there is more peace in my home than when they were attending regularly.

Bill,

Thanks — no offense taken.

To clarify: The following I say not to brag but to provide context: I’m one of the guys who visits sometimes more than once a month, if needed, because I actually care about the people I home teach. I help with moves whenever I can. I go to all my meetings because I want to, read scriptures daily because I love it. I’ve served in many prominent callings because I’m considered trustworthy. I take my temple covenants very seriously, and I have a strong testimony.

All I was saying in I know in my heart of hearts that I’d be lying if I said I “would give my life for Mormonism” or for the GAs. It’s not that I don’t aspire to that level of loyalty. It’s just that I know my heart still has plenty of changing left to do. If I were that loyal, there are a lot of grumblings and mummerings that wouldn’t go on in my head when service is inconvenient. My prayers would be less casual so often. I would respond more readily to spiritual promptings, look out for others more than I do. That kind of thing.

Again, my comments were not about my level of seriousness or sincerity. They were about the fact that I know that I’m not putting it all on the altar. I can’t honestly say “I’d give my life for the church” when I decide to watch a football game when the spirit tells me I should be researching my talk. I’m holding something back and I know it. I aspire to be different, but I’m still just a bit unwilling. That’s nothing but refusing to lie to myself.

That’s all.

In my next temple recommend interview when the bishopric member asks me, “Do you keep the covenants you have made in the temple?” I’m going to respond with, “Well, no. Last week God required that I give my life for the Church and I didn’t. I selfishly chose to live. I know, I’m not worthy.”

jj,
I’m in a bishopric and I have a beard (and have had one since I was called 3.5 years ago) and not a single person in the bishopric or Stake Presidency has ever said a thing about it. I also wear blue, pink, light purple, and striped shirts to Church in addition to my white ones. And my wife recently got a tattoo. We don’t even HAVE any priests, but our deacons and Elders wear shirt colors other than white (and rarely are in suits) all the time. You just need to move.

I like Lorin’s attitude. There is nuance in the human experience. Kenny is right that some of us haven’t chosen to leave the Church, but it doesn’t mean that we haven’t felt the feelings of loss, deception, confusion, etc. that Kenny has felt, it just means that we have chosen to stay.

From what I have gleaned, it appears that proper association between family/friends post-Church breakup is a two-way street. My personal experience has borne this out as well. My relationship with family members who currently are not involved in the Church is quite good — although we typically don’t discuss the Church a whole lot because I’m pretty sure they don’t want to. They, too, are respectful of my beliefs and practices, which I suppose is how it should be. I am sure things would be different if either party was openly hostile toward the opinions/choices of the other.

Kennie — I’m sorry that you feel the way you do. I truly am. As has been mentioned in these comments, many of us have digested “facts” and “history” that has been unsettling, difficult, and perhaps faith-trying. I, for one, am glad to have done so, and am grateful for the experience of being forced to search, ponder, and pray with increased diligence as a result. I believe I am a better and more understanding person for it. Your experience was apparently quite different. However, I would have hoped that even as you now disagree with the Church on a number of fronts, you would accept that its core teachings about our relationship with God and how we should view and treat ourselves and others is fundamentally uplifting and good. Mormons are not perfect people. But I think they are, by and large, good people. There has to be something behind this besides just a massive fraudulent enterprise, right?

Bill….You’re kidding. Right? Didn’t I say I would leave Kenny, who does not believe, alone? So yes. If somebody doesn’t want to believe as I want to, the answer is yes. I let them have that choice. You really like to twist words around, don’t you.

#27 Rusty: Hope you were laughing with me, because I answer “yes” to that question with a clean conscience, knowing full well I’m imperfect on that and every other major question. I simply am not familiar with Rusty’s sentiment that he would “give his life for the Mormon church” or the GAs. The point being, it strikes me as either hyperbole or something else that didn’t resonate with me as being part of the character or thought process of the typical believer.

The something else I accidentally deleted in the second paragraph of 14 was what for lack of better words I would call unearned surety. Spiritual confirmation, that’s one thing. But the surety that not only are the basic church claims true, but so are all your assumptions and understandings of church history true, isn’t my experience with how the Spirit works. I’ve heard that kind of verbiage from enough exMos (and not enough TBMs) for me to wonder whether certain personality types just lean toward fierce loyalty toward their beliefs, assumptions, cultural misunderstandings and all. And when they find out they were 180 degrees wrong on some things, and they learn a narrative that ties it all together, they eventually arrive at the same level of unearned surety about their new views, which are now opposite of what they once were.

I know I’m oversimplifying, but the type of loyalty and level of belief that Kennie says he once had toward the church seems substantially no different from the beliefs he now holds about the church, only in reverse. And that’s a pretty common thing to see in many ex-Mo stories. The point is, I don’t relate to any of it, and maybe they don’t know as much about how believers think as they believe they do.

I’m a former Episcopalian (actually, a former Episcopalian-turned-athiest-turned-Mormon), and I’ve never felt anything but fondness towards my former church. In fact, I attended with my mom (St. Andrews in La Mesa, CA) when I was in San Diego for Mother’s Day earlier this year. The people were great, and my mom enjoyed ‘showing me off’. My mom’s still quite a devout Episcopalian, even though she also works at least once a week as a volunteer at the LDS Family History center in San Diego (I got her started in genealogy while trying to find out about my own).

So, yeah, I’ve always been curious at the anger and hostility that a lot of former LDS feel towards the Church. In fairness, I’ve also known quite a few (and met quite a few more online) who are just fine as cultural Mormons (or ex-Mormons) and feel fondness or indifference towards the LDS Church. ..bruce..

On blackberry,more to come later

he Spirit has replaced my obstinate black and white thinking I think that is one of the keys to being able to feel the Spirit.

bfwebster — you make a good point. I’m fond of a number of Churches, I enjoyed Christmas Eve mass every year with my Aunt whenever I was around her, never felt a need to feel hostile. I’ve enjoyed Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah celebrations too.

“How would you have him behave?”
The same way any kind, gracious human being would (assuming he’s normally a kind, gracious person). With dignity, self-respect, respect for others, and kindness. It’s the same way we all try to be, no?

“Is he no longer allowed to mention anything about his past, even though he spent most of his childhood doing church related things, and attended a church sponsored college?”
Not at all, why would he not? Are they not part of his past, and part of what makes him *him*?Maybe the difference is how he “mentions” and why he mentions.
Similar rhetorical questions redacted
“Should he cut off his mormon family, or should he have to live in complete silence around loved ones who will continue to be highly involved in their own faith?”
Really, now, isn’t this just hyperbole for its own sake? Assuming it’s not, I myself have never-Mormon and ex-Mormon family, and one treats them like *family.* My own non-Mormon family treats me like family, too. This doesn’t seem so hard to me. Not. Rocket. Science. No one has to be ostracized, belittled, or attacked for espousing (or denying) any given religious view. As I said, “dignity, self-respect, respect for others, kindness” and dare I say love and compassion are the rule, not the exception.

“What happens at life events like baptisms and weddings and funerals and missions?”
We cheer; we dance, and we cry. Together. I don’t get the problem, I guess. Is Joe somehow hurt or broken hearted that people are getting baptized, married, etc?

“How can those in the church makes these events easier for Joe? Or should Joe just have to suck it up and deal with it, since he is the one who left?”
I assume that if he left, he doesn’t think that baptism or temple sealing, or leaving on a mission are ‘good things’ for the family member to do (admittedly, this is not necessarily the case, depending on Joe’s beliefs). So although he may not like the activities, he’s free to attend and support, or stay away as he desires. I personally think attending and supporting is the best bet, where possible, but if he can’t say anything nice, he might want to consider staying away. I’ve known my share of “Joe’s” who take pleasure in being the drama-queen center of attention at these things to highlight his “outsider” status.I’ve been to many, many confirmations, weddings, baptisms, etc of other faiths (and non-faiths), and though I don’t accept them as saving ordinances for the recipient, it doesn’t stop me from showing love for the recipient. Admittedly, temple sealings are a slightly stickier situation. Since they have admittance requirements, some will go and some will not. And given the size of the particular sealing room, even worthy members may not get to attend. I grew up in Las Vegas, where there are wedding chapels every 80 paces, and the courthouse is busier than any one of those chapels. I’ve been to Elvis-weddings, backyard/park weddings, courthouse weddings, and you name it. I have even been invited to receptions and parties, but not the weddings themselves. I don’t take offense at any of this. I don’t feel put-out that I wasn’t there for the “I do” but I *was* for the cake and dancing. I don’t feel like they’re rubbing their faith in my face, and trying to disrespect me. It’s enough to let the person know I care about them (and have some cake, too ).
For my own temple sealing, I had a large number of people not able to attend for all kinds of reasons (active non-recommend holders, previously-practicing mormons, non mormons, wiccans, etc) in addition to the cadre of believers. I chose to have a ring ceremony for extended family to attend after the sealing at the reception hall before the reception began . I also didn’t ask anyone to stand outside the temple who didn’t want to be there; there would be pictures at the reception instead of the temple grounds. I think it was great; they told me they thought it was great. A couple of them had no idea that they hadn’t attended the “real wedding.” They got treated with dignity, respect, kindness, and love. What more could I have done?

“How would you as a faithful member want Joe to behave?”
I’ve repeated the answer enough, I think you get the idea.

“How would you accommodate his new beliefs in your own life?”
Really, it would be up to him. It would depend on whether he’s willing to follow the Golden Rule, I guess. I know I am (trying anyway). I also think this assumes he finds value in said Golden Rule.

“Or would you really rather he just disappear?”
I can’t take this as anything but a rhetorical flourish. I trust you have the idea by now. I’m sorry to hear that you have problems with people not living up to your (and frankly God’s) expectations of us. That Mitt Romney thing was ‘whack.’

From the viewpoint of one who grew up in a family where those active in the LDS church were in minority I can tell you that live and let live works really well. Everyone just decided without ever saying it, to agree to disagree. I can never remember every talking about religion with my aunts or uncles unless they were active and believing members of the church. Some of them came to my Missionary farewell. Most did not. Some of them came to my wedding reception. Most did not. None of them stood around outside the temple waiting to take pictures.

I have fond memories of my childhood and the people who made up my extended family. I still count them as friends. Do we talk about religion. The closest we came to that was when a cousin thanked me for seeing that her mother’s temple work was done.

“If it’s that difficult to hold back your vitriol (and I’m talking about both those who have left and those who are active) then your problem has less to do with the Church and more to do with your maturity.”

I like that.

How would you as a faithful member want Joe to behave? Or would you really rather he just disappear?

I would want my good friend Joe to tell me everything he has gone through and is going through and feel like he could trust me to listen without casting judgment or abandoning him. I would want him to understand that I may choose to continue my membership in the church in spite of the negative experiences he has had, but that my continued membership is not meant to negate the bad experience he may have had. I would want him to be able to explain his past any way he chose to do so…embracing the things that were church related that were enjoyed, ignoring them or being honest about them. I would expect that having heard his negative experiences, he would not need to try to convince me to change my view of the church as I would not attempt to “prosyletize” him. I would hope he could find wedding pictures did not emphasize the temple or frame them in a way that would not emphasize the temple, if he found that connection to be painful. I would want him to feel like waiting outside the temple for a wedding party ONLY if he wanted to do so. My wife and I missed a family sealing because of a road closure and the family got over it. I would never refer to a loved one as “anti-Mormon” because they chose not to stand and wait outside the temple for anyone. There should be other ways to show love and support and they should be acceptable to those in the temple.

When I was preparing for my mission, there were two good friends of mine that had just finished or were close to serving their missions. While I was on my mission, I heard from my parents that they had gone other ways. It was hard because they were a big motivation for me to go and I was living up to their example. When my mission was harder, that realization became more painful. When I returned, they were initially friendly and came to my “homecoming”, then the closeness ended. I went off to college in another town and rarely saw them. When I did, I always suggested that we get together and do something fun, but it never happened. I tried to call them, but the conversations were always limited. I never asked them about their attitudes toward the church and they always presented an attitude that their separation from the church was not that serious. I believe it was really too personal for them to share with me, or they just didn’t trust me to accept them. Now they both have died, and I will never have that opportunity again. I wish they had trusted me a little more, and I wish that I had been able to tell them that I sincerely loved them and always would love them no matter what their view of the church was.

First, I want to say this is the first day I have posted here and I have to give credit where credit is due. Hats off to the operators of this site for not deleting my comments. My experience has been when I share these ideas on “faithful” blogs, I am quickly shut out. I have read a lot of “live and let live” types of responses. As I mentioned earlier, it is hard to take that approach when my children are still involved in the indoctrination the Church perpetuates on people. Someone mentioned coming to the realization of what the mormon church is can be compared to a grieving process. Disbelief, anger, etc. are all phases. I am still in the anger phase after 2 years mainly because of the impact this continues to have on family and the suffering my loved ones and myself have endured because of mormonism and its deceptive leaders. I have tried to channel my anger at the fraud I was duped by for so many years. For example, a few months ago I taught a class at a local Christian church I attend about mormonism. I had a large attendance in the class and people were genuinely astonished that mormons actual believe what they do. I did not hold any punches in the class and told them everything – from Blood Atonement to the mormon god having physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus, I let them know exactly what JS and BY taught. Suffice it to say there are dozens of people in my local church that will never join mormonism. Honestly, it was therapeutic to be able to educate people.

Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, said that if you tell a lie big enough and tell it often, people will eventually come to believe it as the truth. He hit the nail on the head as it relates to mormonism. Joseph concocted this religion for personal gain and it got bigger than he ever imagined in his wildest dreams and I think he got to the point where he actually believed it himself. One of the big questions in ex-mo circles that comes up frequently is this – do the GAs know mormonism is a fraud and intentionly perpetuate it for personal gain or do they really believe it? I think the answers is mixed. I think people such as Packer do know it is a fraud but are intoxicated by the power but someone like Eyring (who I have a soft spot for) does truly believe it. Am I angry? Yes I am. Someday I will get over it. There are days when I see glimmers of hope with my kids when I take them to my local christian church and see them clapping or listening to what is taught.

I am very much in the same situation as your Joe Mormon. There is a grieving process that happens when your life starts to take a very different direction, even if it is by choice. Grief is usually accompanied by denial, bargaining, anger, and sadness, until finally you reach acceptance and peace.

It was hard for my family to recognize that my anger and sadness were temporary. They blamed me for feeling and expressing anger at some truly awful things I had experienced at church (which were not the only reasons I left). They saw my sadness as proof that the choice to leave the church was destroying my joy in life. As a result, I was angrier and sadder. No one in my family could accept my feelings for what they were; just temporary feelings during a transition. Everyone had to parse the tea leaves of my feelings and say things like, “It looks like you’re feeling despair. You do know that despair is a result of sin, right? Do you think denying the Holy Ghost might be a sin?”

And yet now that I’ve been pretty consistently happy and stable for a few years outside the church, the fam is starting to realize that maybe it’s all going to be OK. They still can’t resist the little attempts to induce guilt, though. The raised eyebrow over the coffee mug, that sort of thing. I can laugh about it now, because it’s pathetic.

JJ #25 Nailed it right on the head. Very well put together and straight to the point. Excellent.

The hostility people feel toward the church after they have left it comes from how they are treated after they left. Loss of employment, family ties, social circles, etc. No one likes to say it but that’s what happens sometimes.

I think that we have to look at Mormon culture and what is taught. What is taught about “apostates?” What was taught about intellectuals who ask too many questions?

If I left the church today, I would be viewed as a heretic and people would wonder what sin I committed. There would be endless visits from people trying to bring me back while completely dismissing or not understanding my reasons why. Heaven forbid if my boss was very “devout.” I would have to find a new job. (Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen, I’ve seen it.)

Another thing would be the family dynamic. People who leave the church and have families who choose the church over them (like the gen. conference example with the grandparents) can feel undervalued and unloved. They feel as if they are less important than the church in the eyes of their loved ones. This can be very unsettling. I don’t know about others, but I would feel pretty angry over that one.

The bottom line is that we should be civil to each other. Sometimes we have to show others how they should behave. The whole returning evil for good type of thing. Our friendship with people should not be based upon their status in the church. That would be counter productive.

Kennie, we try to be caring and sympathetic, but calling the apostles and prophets knowing liars and frauds isn’t part of our agenda. You can’t have it both ways – Packer as a power hungry bastard and Eyring as a good, but duped tool. Also, comparing our apostles to Hitler isn’t going to fly. That’s below the belt – without question. There are places for that type of vitriol; this is not one of them.

I’m telling you this up front, just so you understand. I love open and productive conversation and would love to have you comment here; hyperbolic diatribes are quite another thing, however. This is a forum dedicated to thoughtful discussion, not a dumping ground for bile. I hope you understand what I mean, because I would love to have your constructive input. Saying all of us who believe and stay are stupid or deceived or ignorant or any other condemnatory insult isn’t productive.

and I should add, just for the record, that I believe the exact same thing for how Mormons talk about and treat those who leave. We should treat them the way we want them to treat us – with respect and care, not speculation and hostility.

Ironically, I posted something on my blog this Monday that deals with this general topic. Anyone interested can read it at the following link:

Opposition to the Church: A Charitable View

Let’s face it, anyone who is nasty, offensive and disrespectful to other’s beliefs is going to be marginalized by those offended. Whether it is the LDS church or any other organization or group, the same is true. In a family, turning one’s back on the faith tradition can be seen as a traitorous act by some family members. but yet, it is in the spirit of concern for that person’s welfare that drives their behavior. It may not be welcomed or may come across the wrong way, but typically that is the case.

For guys like Kennie, one can only hope that he gets over the intense anger he feels and finds a more constructive way to express himself. Those ultra-negative feelings eat people up. It’s just not a healthy thing.

I had a two very good friends at BYU who had absolutely zero faith in the Church (one of them had some connections to prominent GA figures–for privacy’s sake, I must withhold the name however). Indeed, she was bitterly angry…HATED talking about the church with most people. I happened to be the exception to that.

Now I generally don’t consider myself to be exceptionally talented in the human relations department. But even though she never did have her heart “pricked” from our conversations, I do know that my insistence on civility and kindness helped them maintain some semblance belief in the idea that people could still intelligently believe. Scholarship alone can’t do that; love can.

And yes, I hurt for my friends. I do my best to stay in contact with them. Even when they have their rant days, I try to listen, love, and express my differing opinion in cool manner. They’ve told me, to my face, that they thinks Mormonism to be, at best, a meaningful myth and at worst…well, pick your poison. Yet from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I am profoundly convinced that we can maintain very good relations with those who have left. If there be a God (I say that rhetorically, not as an expression of disbelief), then he wouldn’t have it any other way.

“You can’t have it both ways – Packer as a power hungry bastard and Eyring as a good, but duped tool.”

I don’t see where Kennie is trying to have anything both ways. He has one opinion of Packer and a different opinion of Eyring. I agree that these aren’t particularly kind ways to describe people.

Kennie, it seems like you have been bitter and angry for the last 2 years over the historical fraud that exists in the mormon church and that you are happier in your christian church. I’m glad that you’ve found a measure of happiness, but to save you any further grief, let me just tell you things as they really are. Is the mormon church somewhat deceptive about its history? Yes. Is there a lot of ‘factual evidence’ that points to the church being ‘false’? Yes. Are christian churches just as deceptive about their history? Yes. Is there a lot of ‘factual evidence’ that points to all christian churches being ‘false’? Yes.

I doubt that you are going to hear your christian pastor preach about how most of the stories in the Bible never happened or that they are stories that are based on myths from other cultures or that they have no historical basis. These things may be true, but your pastor probably isn’t going to tell you these things. For the same reasons, you don’t hear about some of the issues with mormonism in the standard mormon sunday school and seminary lessons.

You seem to find faith and joy in your local christian church, despite the historical issues that exist within biblical christianity. Please understand that others find faith and joy in mormonism, despite the historical issues that exist in mormonism.

@ Mr. Holt:

“How would you feel if your children were involved in a destructive organization like the MS-13 street gang in Los Angeles – wouldn’t you be concerned? Anyone in their right mind would be concerned.”

Nobody in their right mind would consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be the equivalent of “the MS-13 street gang in Los Angeles”.

@ The General Audience:

Unfortunately there is more going on here then just hurt feelings and misunderstandings that might be smoothed over if everyone calms down and talks it out.

As Heather’s examples, of General Conference vs grandchildren’s sporting events, and having to wait outside the temple to celebrate a wedding, point out. There is a substantive issue that creates this conflict.

Namely that members of the church have a certain hierarchy of values that non-members do not share.

Faithful members of the church must place loyalty to God and His church above their loyalty to their family.

This is explicitly demanded by Christ in the gospels.

Thus to a member, obviously attendance at General Conference can not be put off to go see their grandchildren play (as much as they might wish too). Nor can they hold a wedding outside of the temple, for the sake of their non-member family feelings. Loyalty to God comes first, family is second. (Second isn’t bad, as the church does emphasize that family comes before everything except God).

Now when all the members of the family share the same religion this isn’t a big issue, but when they don’t agree this creates unresolvable friction. The feeling is one of betrayal- and it is driven by two occasionally conflicting loyalties (one of which is no longer valued by one of the parties). The non-member feels resentment- because familial loyalties are being betrayed in favor of this loyalty to a (in their opinion) false religion. The member feels betrayed, because the non-member has abandoned their shared family religion, and no longer values the thing the family values most in life.

There are only 3 options (excluding the option of disowning each other and ceasing to be family in any meaningful sense):

1: The non-member makes peace with the fact that the members are going to put their God first. Thus they are going to have to swallow waiting outside the temple at family weddings, and having to schedule around the rest of the family’s dedication to the church. In short- deal with it.

2: The members accommodate the non-members by dividing their loyalty and giving in to non-member family demands to give them higher consideration against God then would be considered normal within an all member family. (Skipping General Conference for example).

3: The non-member and member branches of the family grind and conflict with each other, being unequally yoked, but have sufficiently strong bonds of family loyalty that they continue to be loyal to each other, despite the feelings of betrayal. (While fortunately no member of my family has left the church, it was a near thing once, and I could easily see this kind of situation being the outcome).

Pick your poison.

Kennie: “I did not hold any punches in the class and told them everything – from Blood Atonement to the mormon god having physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus, I let them know exactly what JS and BY taught.”

If this is your conception of Mormonism, then you are cut from the same cloth as the most inflexible TBM. If you approach life with a sense of nuance, sensibility, circumspection, then you won’t be so quick to feel like you got hosed.

Hmm… Nope, never heard that one before…

I only wish I had Kenny’s experience so that I could actually engage my TBM friends in a reasoned discussion about thinking critically about history and religion. I told my bishop that I could no longer believed, and he asks me if I am willing to accept a calling! I continue to hold him in high esteem, especially as a friend who sacrifices his time and talents for the benefit of my TBM friends and family, but I have every right to challenge his religions doctrine, the two can be mutually exclusive.

More to the point, where is it law that we cannot challenge the veracity of anyone’s religious beliefs? And why is it that when it comes to religious beliefs, we have to show respect? Was the 3rd discussion not a lesson on the failure of the catholic church to maintain it’s priesthood authority? Is there anyone who would not look at the heavens gate, hale bop comet religion and question the viability of it’s doctrine? Do we not look at David Koresh and, quite frankly, see a megalomaniac? Kenny was throwing softballs and we cannot dismiss his claims of deceit and fraud just by simply being offended. We all know what he is referring to, and he calls it like it is, and he has the right to challenge it (let’s hope civily, and with rational excellence), especially in a public forum. If your TBM doctrine can’t take the heat, we will not need to worry about Kenny’s poignant remarks, but whether or not it can stand simple and rational thought.

Let’s face it, anyone who is nasty, offensive and disrespectful to other’s beliefs is going to be marginalized by those offended.

Very true, and very sad at the same time.

Heather (way back in #11),

“Jeff: I agree that anger is hard to deal with. But what about the smaller issues? I have had LDS tell me that I should ‘leave the church alone’ because I didn’t support Mitt Romney, or don’t support the ban on gay marriage or how the church is involved in it. I’ve had very civil discussions about these things and still had the persecution word thrown around. I’ve had people call me out the same way on this site and others. I should totally cut myself off even though I’m being polite, just because I disagree. How should that be negotiated?”

Well, being a member of the Church is not a substitute for common sense. Many people don’t have it regardless. So, they say dumb stuff. You can get the same irrationality in a political discussion just as easily. I don’t think this is church-related as much as it is “foot in mouth” related. You cannot reason with hard-headed folks on either side if they are not willing to hear an opposing viewpoint, or even a questioning viewpoint. We had that type of discussion hundreds of times and you will still hear some folks say, “you shouldn’t question.” Which, of course, is against a fundamental tenet of the LDS faith as taught by Joseph Smith.

Best course is to ignore those types.

My best friend is a NOM type. He has left the Church in his heart, and he doesn’t “leave it alone” per se. And that’s okay with me. He can bring up questions with me as I him whenever we want. The crux of the discussion is all about tone. Are you respectful, civil, acknowledge where your argument is less effective than your friend’s? We both approach this with a sense of humility–and IT WORKS! We are still best friends. He can’t talk about this with his family or other friends because they aren’t civil, they feel attacked, etc. and then he get defensive.

If you don’t want to leave it alone, that’s fine. Find people that you can mutually discuss your ooncerns with (it does no good to discuss with a TBM polarist Mormon). And be respsecful. Don’t use attacking workds like “sham,” “fraud,” etc. You can say you THINK its a shame, but that its just your OPINION. That’s what my friend does. You can have opinions that are based on some really sound research, history, etc. but unless you have gone back in time and witnessed first-hand your ideas, you can never be completely sure. You have to have FAITH in what you are reading about the past. My friend understands this. He understands that his lack of belief is a choice because of his Descartian orientation towards physical observation.

Finally he respects me and doesn’t expect me to come to his way of things, and vice versa. Keep the respect.

Jeff, I disagree that we should leave them alone. I’m not advocating going out 2×2, or seeking to interrupt their private practice of religion, but we don’t give a moments thought to dismiss the beliefs of someone like Sathya Sai Baba. Point being that there is no reason to withhold criticism. I don’t care if you’re LDS, Catholic, Muslim, or one of the last remaining Hale Bop devotees, your beliefs are not off limits.

I retract my ccmpliment in #39. This board is like all the rest when it comes to censorship of opposing ideas.

Disagreement is censorship???

No Arthur, the site administrator deleted a comment that I posted. So typical of TBMs.

Only a fraction of site “administrators” here are what you’d call “TBMs,” just so you know. From what I know comments are deleted if they are overly contentious or unproductive, but more than that I can’t tell you.

Bill, In #46 you stole my thunder about things in perhaps all other churches or religions which “prove” them fraudulent.

The Roman Catholic church claims authority, but yet they have plenty more so-called dirty historical laundry than the LDS church.

When people, who grew up in the Catholic church, learn about the Crusades and the selling of indulgences, and sexual abuse by priests, does that cause them to leave and attack the Catholic church as many ex-mos do? Do they run around pointing the finger and yelling “They lied! They lied!”.

What about people who were led to Christ by Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and other fallen evangelists? What about churches that were founded by pastors who later were shown to be frauds or even were sincere at one
time, and later fell?

The same “hammer” that Kennie using against the LDS church is equally applicable to be used on all churches/religions with which one disagrees. If you’re a Catholic, then Mohammed, Luther, and Wesley all lied. If you believe in “X” then all non-X are liars.

Kennie seems to illustrate what I think it “Steve EM” said on other LDS blogs, that “fanaticism leads to apostacy”.

=—-

Kennie, thanks for the reminder to avoid fanaticism and extremism.

Kennie – I deleted it. Your comment was full of bile and simply devoid of anything of value. You are certainly welcome to contribute if you can do so without being hateful and irrational. This site isn’t FLAK or NOM. You’ve been permitted to be critical and engage in a dialogue. The comment I deleted went too far. I’ll be happy to ban you entirely if you can’t be civil.

In her post, Heather asked, “How would you as a faithful member want Joe to behave? How would you accommodate his new beliefs in your own life? Or would you really rather he just disappear?”

Apparently one of the administrators of this blog would rather he just disappear. Yes, Kennie seems extreme in his views. But this is what many of us are faced with when family members and loved ones leave the Church. Is there really no positive way we can engage them, talk them down, reach out in love? I really liked what Peter said in #53. I thought that was what this blog was all about. It really is hard to work together and have discourse when we disagree so radically, but there has to be some way. We have to keep trying.

I just want to make it clear that as a blogger associated with Mormon Matters, I disagree with and was not any part of a decision to delete Kennie’s comment.

Hawkgrrrl, I would have to disagree that Kennie’s comment is devoid of anything of value. I think in the context of this post, Kennie’s experience and feelings are very relevant. It’s just the type of personal story that I hoped to draw out and be able to further discus, from both sides of the fence.

hawkgrrrl, why don’t your forward Kennie’s deleted post to Bored In Vernal and Healther B and see if they still think it should have been allowed. My guess is they won’t. As someone who’s been reined in in the past I’ve come to see the good sense in keeping flaming, vitriol filled rants off Mormonmatters. It the only way you can have the level of civil respectful discussion you do.

This has been an incredible read.

“There is one thing you are not taking into consideration – I have been in your shoes and I know EXACTLY how TBMs think because I used to be one of you. You on the other hand have not been in my shoes.”

Kennie I would like state that I know you have not been in my shoes. If you had ever been in my shoes you would never leave this church which contains the fulness of the gospel. You see Kenny I have been in the church all of my life. Along the way I went through all of the perfunctory motions but at one point I began to strive for a personal testimony.

My greatest desire was to have a personal witness that the gospel was true. Not an intellectual knowledge (that has always been there), but I sought experiences that would shake the core of my very being and it has happened continually in many different ways. It happened as a teenager and as a result my life was spared. It happened numerous times on my mission. It happened as a husband, a father, a Ward Mission Leader, Seminary Teacher and as a Bishop.

Kenny I have witnessed the Atonement work in peoples lives who I thought were beyond change. Thats right people who were so worldly that I asked myself as a Bishop “whose kidding who” There is no way that individual can change”. And then the Lord would make a fool of me and I would watch their countenance change. I would watch them elimanate gross habits and sins. Somedays Kenny I would be so in tune that I would be in the foyer watching the flock between meetings and I would discern issues with indivuduals and would be prompted to approach them and they indeed would need to talk.

But what happened personally to me Kennie was the miracle in my life. It was not to long ago and it was a very personal experience. The best way to describe it is like Cyprian, the Bishop, did from the Apostalic period did when he said. “Into my heart, purified from all sin, there entered a light, which entered from on high. Then suddenly and in a marvelous manner, I saw certainty succeed all doubt”.

My testimony is based on my own personal experience and witness. Do I discount your comments about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young? No. Do I believe them even if they did say them? No. Do I think there are great leaders in the church that have made poor decisions and choices? Yes. Will I be accountable for them? No. Will I be accountable for my knowledge and testimony and how I lead my life and magnify my stewardships? Absolutely!

Kennie, I am sorry you are so bitter. Truly I am. You expect our leaders to be perfect and they just are not. Never have been and never will be. If you wanted to get me going we could talk about other instances where words or actions by our leaders have been questionable. Remember although inspired they are not infallible and they do not claim to be. I hope you find your way back one day but mostly I hope you find peace in your heart because I think you would agree that that it is not there currently.

Cheryl & Heather, I’m sorry you feel that way. I did not ban Kennie (yet); he is welcome to engage in further dialogue. The comment in question was designed to offend as it was written. Frankly, some of his earlier comments were not exactly productive either, but they do illustrate his intentions in commenting here. Calling the church a fraud, its leaders liars, etc., is not exactly intended to create a healthy dialogue. He stated pretty clearly that he takes great delight in preaching to others against the church.

I simply agree with Matt’s assessment: “Kennie: “I did not hold any punches in the class and told them everything – from Blood Atonement to the mormon god having physical relations with Mary to conceive Jesus, I let them know exactly what JS and BY taught.” Matt: If this is your conception of Mormonism, then you are cut from the same cloth as the most inflexible TBM. If you approach life with a sense of nuance, sensibility, circumspection, then you won’t be so quick to feel like you got hosed.”

If that makes me intolerant, that’s not my intention. I care deeply for people who have left the church, and I wouldn’t dream of saying the things about their beliefs that Kennie felt free to say about Mormon beliefs on our site. Saying hateful things neither elevates the writer nor the reader.

Engaging people and having an open dialogue does not mean anything goes. There have to be limits in a civil discussion. “Open to the public” doesn’t mean “anything goes” either. When someone goes beyond the limits of civility, the owners or operators of a venue have the right to excise that which is outside their set limits.

And I see some hypocrisy here. Those loyal to the LDS church certainly don’t get the same carte-blanche (to write whatever they want) on the ex-mo boards as the ex-mos seem to demand on the pro-LDS blogs. (And at times, I wonder how “pro” this blog is.)

I browsed through “History of the Church” and “Discourse of Brigham Young” within two years of joining the church. I read many of those off-the-wall things that JS and BY said, but even as a convert, I was able to process them. There _ARE_ answers to those _seeming_ “problems of history”.

Eventually I got hurt by church leadership and local members, which played a large part in my leaving the church. (Oh, and I guess I ought to mention that I sinned, and didn’t repent of some things.) But after I grew up a bit, I was able to process those hurts that I received at the hands of others in the church. The offenses were real, but there _ARE_ ways to resolve them other than leaving the church or concluding the church is false or fallen.

Kaimi Wenger wrote a great post on Times and Seasons about how some people need to stop whining that they weren’t taught the entire history or the “warts and all” version of history in Primary, or that their teachers weren’t versant in all the nitty-gritty of church history.

Kennie, in one regard, I feel for you because I got hurt by the church, by its leaders and by members, and I suffered 15 years because of the hurt from those offenses. But I also have to admit that I had some problems of my own that prevented me from dealing with things, and with people, and with those hurts.

Fortunately, I had a “burned in” testimony from the Holy Ghost, one so powerful that even by the time I requested name removal, I still knew the church was true; I just didn’t want to have to deal with those people. If God wanted those “bad” people (or so I thought then) in his church, then I didn’t want anything to do with it.

But if you never had one of those miraculous filled-with-fire kind of experiences as a testimony, then I don’t know exactly how to relate. Because I wouldn’t have joined the church in the first place without that level of testimony. Therefore, it’s hard for me to imagine myself as having grown up in the church, or joining the church with a lesser level of testimony.

As a reformed ex-mo myself, I’ve studied some apologetics. Much of what I’ve read online fits in with what I reasoned out back then, even before the Internet. So there _ARE_ answers to all your “it can’t be true” kind of objections. None of the seemingly wacky things that JS or BY said, or even did, disprove the Book of Mormon or the authority of the church.

If you (Kennie) want to disbelieve, fine. You can believe what you want.

But your fanatical insistence that the church isn’t (or can’t be) true (which is typical of the vociferous variety of ex-mo’s), is just as much as a BELIEF as anyone else’s testimony/belief/opinion that it all _is_ true.

What are ‘facts’ when it comes to religion? How can Kenny and ThomasB look at the same object and see things completely differently? I have no doubt that the ‘certainty’ felt by Kenny is as profound and deeply motivating as that described by ThomasB, yet they are polarized.

To use a phrase the Ray uses often, we all see through a glass darkly. In many ways, our experiences shape our vision. We see what we have ‘conditioned’ our minds to see. One looks at the church and sees a fraud, another stands on the other side and sees ‘truth’ in spite of its warts.

My attempt at a resolution is to say that we are all presented with experiences that shape our understanding. When it comes right down to it, I can’t prove anything. I can’t even prove that I existed yesterday; all I can say is that I have a memory of events that were placed in my psyche attributed to experiences that supposedly happened in a timeframe called yesterday. Sorry to go “Matrix’ on you but it reminds me that, in the end, there is no proof that anyone can offer that my yesterday wasn’t simply an implant of manufactured ideas.

With life so uncertain, what does fact and fiction really mean in the context of spirituality and religion? Little or nothing outside our own individual perception. I have found that it is much more healthy to hear another’s perspective and silently ask myself what I could learn from it. I once had a friend tell me that I must be careful about building walls around my belief system because it will impede my view of the horizon. In other words, the more we constrain our thinking by assigning them as ‘fact’ the less we will be able to perceive of the universe.

Spektator,

I very much appreciate your thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

Fwiw, I don’t want comments deleted here – unless they are so out-of-bounds and full of bile that there simply isn’t any reasonable alternative. If we don’t have at least a minimum standard, the poison will flow freely.

I also believe that applies to “TBM” comments. One can be as disgusting and dismissive and vitriolic as a TBM as one can be as an anti-Mormon. My own personal bar for deleting comments is very high (has to be incredibly bile-filled to be deleted), but if Kennie’s deleted comment was exponentially worse than what was left undeleted . . . I can’t argue with it. The point is that I don’t know, since I didn’t see it.

My plea simply is twofold:

1) Everyone, no matter what your perspective, please at least be respectful.

2) Everyone, no matter your perspective, please understand that there has to be at least some level of civility here. I don’t want this forum to turn into just another Deseret News forum – through contributions like can be found there from BOTH sides of the denominational divide. I want good conversations, not condemnatory diatribes.

It really is that simple to me.

Bookslinger – thanks for you comments. I really appreciate your personal story.

To revisit Heather’s original questions: How would I have Joe Mormon behave in these circumstances? As charitably as he can, knowing that it may be limited at times. I have many family members whom I love who are in this very situation. They are given every courtesy, even when those courtesies are not always returned, but they are not loved less for that. Perhaps we love those that are hurting all the more. But that doesn’t mean we enable them to inflict more harm on themselves and others.

“sham…fraud…wasted years…shenanigan…lie…” (#3)

“It’s just the type of personal story that I hoped to draw out” (#62)

I have a hard time relating these two comments. Was it implied somewhere in the introduction that Joe had sheer hatred for the church? There wouldn’t be much a member could do to make events easier for Joe when he is along the sidewalks of the conference center picketing the church.

There are a lot of good replies on this thread…I really liked #12. So I found it odd that #3 was singled out as the one that was the desired outcome of the post. Anger is not an emotion unique to ex-Mormons. Re-activated Mormons can deal with anger that a mistaken perception kept them from fully enjoying the restored gospel in its fullness. Friends of ex-Mormons/ex-investigators deal with anger that twisted perceptions presented as truth by opposing organizations kept their friends from finding the joy that they have. Is it right for active Mormons to bear perpetual hatred to individuals or organizations who continue to distort Mormonism for misleading purposes? Harboring that kind of anger will not make anyone a better person. Those responding to #3 largely have realized this.

I trust Hawkgrrrl’s judgment. The extensive variety of posts that have been permitted to appear on this site indicate that deletion is not something that occurs as a knee jerk.

Yes, this is the type of thing I hoped to draw out and discuss. Why? Because it’s real. Kennie’s experience is part of what most people go through when they leave the church. I would have loved the chance to hear more about his story, and other stories like it. In recent months I feel this is a voice that has been lacking on the blog.

Furthermore, it could have been a great chance to learn about how we can help people in his position. Telling someone they must have never really had a testimony is the exact same kind of emotional response as Kennie’s anger. Maybe a different emotion, but it’s still a gut reaction instead of thinking through and trying to build a bridge. I hoped that we could avoid that and be productive here.

I’m not going to argue the point back and forth any further. I’m asking that the post be closed down for further comment, since it has drifted so very far off topic. I have officially left my position here at MM, and wish everyone well. I’d rather not drag this out any longer. Thanks.

JT,

“Jeff, I disagree that we should leave them alone. I’m not advocating going out 2×2, or seeking to interrupt their private practice of religion, but we don’t give a moments thought to dismiss the beliefs of someone like Sathya Sai Baba. Point being that there is no reason to withhold criticism. I don’t care if you’re LDS, Catholic, Muslim, or one of the last remaining Hale Bop devotees, your beliefs are not off limits.’

If you read the post, I was referring to boorish church members who make rude comments to Heather.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Heather has requested that this conversation end. Personally, I don’t want to shut down comments on this blog, but she is the author of this post – so I think her wishes should be honored.

[...] this issue has been beaten to death. Mormon Matters has succinctly stated my position. But I wanted to talk about it anyway. After all, my very blog is centered around this very [...]