One of the better discussions I was involved in was about maintaining good relationships with Mormon family members after leaving the church. It seems that there is lots of hostility from members who come across sites like mine, because I really have nothing nice to say in support of their beliefs. To a Mormon who expects 'confirmation of the Spirit' in order to discern truth from lies, my site will come across as packed full of hate. There are no warm fuzzies here.
I also had a chance to briefly discuss my position on an apologetic site during my break. I shared with them my reasons for departing the church, and was met with hostile responses that laid the blame for my unbelief back on my shoulders. It seems that what I had learned about the church's history should never have been a surprise to me in the first place, and if I hadn't been so "prideful, ignorant, lazy, or stupid" I would have known all along about Joseph's polygamy and sharing wives, and his marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball. If I had cared to check out books that are available in EVERY ward library, I would have known all about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and I would have had knowledge of the teachings of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, because these things were taught in every Seminary class, and were always (supposedly) available to every member. Then I was informed that it was my personal responsibility to discover these on my own, and that the church has no obligation to bring out all theses facts to every member. That's the purpose of 'personal study' after all. So, in a nutshell, I was to blame for my failure to learn about these troubling items of history, and I am also to blame for my subsequent departure from the church for my inability to maintain my testimony in the face of it. This is the attitude from the posters on the apologetic web site that I visited for about a week. It is clear to me that no matter what else, the attitude will be 'the church is perfect, the people are not'. Blame the victim, blame the apostate for their own unbelief, but never blame the church for withholding information, or whitewashing history to make it more palatable to investigators. If you have a problem with the church, it's your problem to overcome, not the church.
Now, I will share sippets of conversation and posts from various sites, with my remarks in blue type.
If the LDS church leadership stopped teaching its members that those who leave the church due so due to all sorts of personal failings (like desiring to sin, pride, arrogance, listening to “Satan”) - would that improve relations between Mormons and Ex-Mormons?
So how to stop the cycle of anger between Mormons and Ex-Mormons? It would have to be stopped at its point of origin.
So what is the point of origin?
The point of origin is when we were all in the childhood “home”, which in this case, would be Mormonism. We all heard certain myths repeated over and over. One myth is that “people leave the LDS church for the following reasons:” (insert list of reasons all based on personal flaws, weaknesses, and sins).
Then we grow up. Some of us actually become those who leave. Those myths are still in our heads. Those myths are still in the heads of those who remain in the church.
So what happens?
Still believing Mormons view their apostate friends and family members with suspicion and even fear. Apostates know their family members and friends now view them with suspicion and fear. This makes apostates angry, because they know why they left the church, and it usually had nothing to do with the myth taught in the LDS church. Or perhaps it doesn’t even make the apostate angry. Perhaps it makes the apostate sad and anxious to correct the myth. So the apostate explains his/her reasons for leaving the church, wanting to show the difference between his/her reasons and the myth. For example:
Apostate: I left the church because I no longer believed. I cannot believe God would work through Joseph Smith when he was marrying other men’s wives behind his own wife’s back, when he was marrying young women assigned to his guardianship. I cannot believe in the historicity or divinity of the BoM when JS translated it by looking in a rock in his hat, which is the exact same method he used to find slippery buried treasures in the earth – with no success. I cannot believe in the BoA when the papyrus have been found and are Egyptian funerary documents. (etc)
Believer: You’re attacking the church!! You’re attacking my faith! You are mean and psychologically disturbed because you can’t leave the church alone!!
Then, depending on personalities, the apostate gives up or gets even more defensive.
This is the cycle of anger between Mormons and Ex-Mormons. The only way for that cycle to truly stop (other than band-aids here and there) is for the Mormon church leaders to STOP teaching their bigoted ideas about apostates in the first place.
Continuing to pretend that this is something we can each fix on our own is baloney. The only entity that has the power to fix it will never do so – so we’re all left just trying to figure out how to maintain relationships.
One of the ways some Ex-Mormons deal with this constant frustration is to vent on Internet boards, or personal blogs, often in order to avoid venting in REAL life with intimate associates. And if that upsets you, then think about your beliefs in regards to anyone who chooses to leave the church because of UN-belief. Did you automatically substitute that reason with some hidden sin that hasn’t been resolved? Exactly. That’s the hurdle we have to jump in order to regain acceptance by our friends and family who choose to remain loyal and faithful to the church. Even though this blog is clearly specified to be for personal catharsis, you can’t stay away. You have to keep coming back to see what else the “evil apostate” is saying about your church. It’s like a scab you can’t help pick. And then you whine about the scab bleeding.
In the real world, proven relationship strategies always include identifying the problems on one or both sides of a relationship first, then second, obtaining commitment from the offending party/parties to stop contributing to the problem, and THEN AND ONLY THEN do the two parties move on to reconciliation and moving forward.
What I find interesting is that even after I have left, I have still been victimized by the church because of the attitudes taught and sustained by my family members who remain. As long as they are asked, “Do you associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?” , that tension, hostility, and defensiveness will remain. And it is not MY hostility. It is voiced in the attitudes and beliefs of my family members that are still faithful LDS. In order to justify their answer to the bishop, they go out of their way to make sure they are NOT sympathetic to me. They make sure that their association with me is kept at a bare minimum so that I don’t tarnish their integrity and honesty when they go up to be interviewed for worthiness. This is the most painful, anguishing part of leaving Mormonism, knowing that those who remain see you as someone they must avoid or limit contact with, so that they can truthfully answer the question of loyalty to their church. That is the source of my anger.
Can I change that? NO! The only side in a position to change this is the church itself. Until they stop insisting that there must be a space as wide as a valley between Mormons and apostates, there will never be any bridge building between the two. The church that calls itself the only “true” church has no interest in creating relationships with people who do not hold the same beliefs. They will always be seen as lacking in some way. Even worse for those who left the church, because they are viewed as people who really deep down believe the gospel, but can’t abide by the rules and wish to rebel against them in favor of “wordly “things. This kind of thinking is what keeps the faithful loyal to the church. They don’t want to question, because it is viewed as dis-loyalty. They won’t have discourse with apostates, even if they are members of their own family (husbands and wives, children, grandchildren) because this is association with apostates, which could lead into sympathizing with apostates. They can’t let themselves see it from our point of view, and that’s what keeps real dialogue from happening. Real dialogue is a faith-destroyer. Real dialogue is a chance to see things in different ways than those prescribed as “safe”. Real dialogue can never happen without real effort, and it can’t be shouldered by the apostate alone.
Wanna know what really gets me? Being told that anger serves no purpose and I should move on with my life. This is to shun me into silence and attempt to control me YET AGAIN. I know that I am having an impact on others, and the defenders of the faith want me to SHUT UP about it. So, if they continue to tell me that I don’t seem to be happier, that I have anger issues, that I am spending all this wasted time and effort being angry when I could be out living my life, that is their way of trying to make the anger I feel somehow MY fault, and not the religion itself. After all, they don’t shout from the pulpit that all apostates and non-believers must be shunned and treated harshly at family gatherings (if they are invited at all). The church doesn’t actively tell their members what to do if someone in their family decides to resign. But that interview question that all faithful temple-recommend carrying members have to answer and examine in their own lives still exists.
“Do I associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?”
What does that mean?
Do I sit across the table from my apostate sister at Thanksgiving? If I do, will I appear “sympathetic”?
Will it be seen as “association with an apostate” ?
How about if I call her up on the phone? Is that going to be called “associating with a known apostate?”
Can I answer my interview question faithfully on a Sunday, knowing I just had dinner with my apostate sister last night?
And let’s not forget the central role of the mother, who has been advised throughout her life as a Mormon that her children will not depart from the teachings of the gospel if they are brought up correctly. When a child decides to resign, what does that say about Mom? She didn’t do her job right! Her child is VOLUNTARILY leaving the church, that must mean she wasn’t faithful enough, didn’t work hard enough, didn’t prepare the child thoroughly to withstand the teachings of the world. It is HER failure as a mother that shines through to those around her. And she will try anything, say anything, do anything in order to bring that child back, whether it is by shunning, by guilt, by loud crying and coercion or outright blackmail. It is her duty to make sure that her children come with her to the Celestial Kingdom, and if anyone of them fails to make it, she has failed in her earthly role, the only role God created women to fulfill, and she couldn’t do it fully. She won’t receive her full blessings because of this failure. Her other children may follow suit if they associate with the “apostate child”. The family strife is endless. Don’t even get me started on husbands and wives with apostate-threatening spouses.
We are called sinners, betrayers, fallen-away, troubled, doubting, trusting in the arm of the flesh, unwilling to follow the commandments, having problems with the Word of Wisdom, or masturbation, we are humiliated, marginalized and demoted to second-class EVERY DAY that the church keeps this single question in place on their list of “worthiness measurements” and they only way that true healing is going to occur is for that question to disappear. It shouldn’t be a measure of worthiness on an individual to have those around him choose to leave. Yet it shakes the faithful to the very core by even knowing one person who left the church because of unbelief. This single question is the cause of the divide between us. And until the church stops measuring the worth of its faithful by this standard, nothing will ever change. Ex-Mormons will still be angry because of the treatment they receive from their friends and family, and Mormons will still feel hostile and defensive when someone they know decides to resign and go find another path.
Here's my suggestion for how Mormons and Ex-Mormons can begin to build bridges: Delete the following question from ALL worthiness interviews:
"Do you associate or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?"
This one question in the temple recommend/worthiness-for-any-calling interviews is the major stumbling block between those who leave and those who stay.
Actually it's the terms "associate" and "sympathize". How are they defined? What are you allowed to say and do? What are the limits?
Because the church does not define "associate" or "sympathize" to their members, they are left alone to determine what it means to "associate with" or "sympathize with" an apostate. Many do not know how to define it, so they cut off ties completely. (Which is akin to cutting off a finger for a hangnail). Some make cordial attempts at continuing "association with" apostate members who are family, but stop short of "sympathize" when it comes to hearing anything about their views, their experiences, or their reasons for leaving the church. They are instead choosing to remain true to this question asked of them, and keep the 'association' part surface level only. Then there are those who try to fellowship the apostate family member, in an effort to bring them back to the church so that the question will no longer apply to that individual they are trying to "win back". There is never any real dialogue in this case either, because the expected outcome is that the individual will come back, thus taking pressure off the member so that their answer to the question will remain in tact. It's not about the person who is hurting and in shock, it's about making sure the member won't have to lie when answering this question next time around.
When all else fails, the member doesn't really have a choice but to condemn the apostate, because it's now THEIR fault that shunning and blame have taken the place of companionship and trust. The question is still, "Do you associate with or sympathize with any apostate groups or individuals?" And until that is removed as a marker of worthiness for each member of the LDS faith, no real bridges can ever be built. That is the source of the anger many Ex-Mormons feel. The loss of companionship and sympathy from their former friends and family. It's really tough to realize that all your close relationships were solely based on your adherence to the same belief system. Once that faith is traded in, so is the foundation for any dialogue.
I submit that the church needs to stop requiring their members to limit or stop their association with or sympathy for apostates, and let the truth stand or fall on its own. If people are going to leave, let them do so, and if they can convince others to leave, then the church must not be everything it claims to be. If the church wants only the strongest of the faithful, and the ‘most choice’ spirits among the children of God, those will be the ones who stay no matter what the apostates say or do.
Of course if the church were to do this, people might start talking to apostates and build bridges of trust and understanding, maybe even share some knowledge and ideas. Wow, that would be terrible, wouldn't it?
If you (or anyone else) would embark upon a search for truth, the very first thing you would have to do is dismiss the "warm fuzzies" as an indicator of truth. What we have been taught as Mormons is to "sieve" all information through the Holy Spirit Indicator, and place things that agree with our current world view in the "truth" category, and all things that contradict our current beliefs must be placed in the "lies" category. This is what many of us are taught growing up in the church. Now, once in a while, we break free from that pattern, and come across some book, or web site, or TV special that presents Mormonism in a way that seems unpleasant, shocking, or upsetting. That does not mean it is NOT true. It simply means that it is different than what we have heard before, and may be worth investigating further.
It is very difficult to break the habit of sifting information through this Holy Spirit Indicator, because the pattern has been ingrained in us so constantly. (And is it really any wonder why?) It is our only defense and protection for our testimony in the church, but it MUST be done if you sincerely want to know why it is that those who leave feel the need and compulsion to put up web sites like these. I have spent hours and days researching every conceivable argument, floating back and forth between FAIR and FARMS essays, and all of the web sites out there made by people who have chosen to leave.
There is a vast difference between what the church presents as "true history" and what outside non-secular and un-interested historians would label as "true history". Even when LDS historians attempt to reveal too much "truth", the leadership steps in to curb and control it:
Apostle Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," speech delivered at the 1981 Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium:
“There is no such thing as an accurate, objective history of the Church without consideration of the spiritual powers that attend this work... There is a temptation... to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith-promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful... In an effort to be objective, impartial, and scholarly, a writer or a teacher may unwittingly be giving equal time to the adversary... In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it... The fact that something is already in print or available from another source is no excuse for using potentially damaging materials in writing, speaking, or teaching: ‘Do not spread disease germs!’”
If you really believe that there is such a thing as "learning too much" or "revealing too much", then by all means, continue to scream at those who talk openly about things just because it is shocking, upsetting, or uncomfortable. But consider that it just might be true, even though it isn't 'faith promoting' like the church would present it. Truth does not have to be wrapped up in a bundle of ‘faith’ in order to remain pure. There is no such requirement, unless you are trying to protect your beliefs from changing. This is called “working backwards from a testimony”. Here’s an example of the circular logic necessary to maintain your position:
1. I believe that the church is true.
2. If the church is true, it makes the Book of Mormon true.
3. If the BoM is true, it makes Joseph a prophet of God.
4. If Joseph is a prophet of God, it means God picked him to organize the church.
5. You wouldn’t question God, would you?
6. Therefore the church is true.
This is right in line with a talk given by Thomas Monson (February 2001 Ensign) . . .
"First Presidency Message":
"Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.
Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it'."
This BOTHERS me. I've always really liked Pres. Monson, but he's telling people to just turn off their brains. Don't ask questions, and pretend they don't exist. Shut your eyes, plug your ears and just keep saying "I know the church is true" no matter what.
And isn't he just partially admitting that if you pursue those thoughts, if you think it through critically, that your faith will fail? If faith was well-founded, how could it be harmed by additional information, study, open discussion, and rational thought?
And if testimonies were built SOLELY on the witness of the spirit and NOT at all on personal opinions, couldn't the Holy Ghost STILL give someone a witness of the truth AFTER studying science and asking the hard questions?
The church seems to think that studying and questioning is a sin, (at the very least it's dangerous) because it causes you to lose the spirit. And it does seem that those who question and study DO tend to leave the church. But I have a different explanation. I think the spirit is your own feelings. And your feelings change when you have more information. It's hard to feel the spirit when your brain is telling you it's BS.
So much for "The Glory of God is Intelligence", and seeking after truth.
Monson is imploring people to ignore the best route to intelligence: scientific inquiry. Instead he advocates faith, which is superstitious hope, no matter what other words people use to describe it.
Notice when they fear science is leading people away, they call it "so called science." How preposterous to presume the only real science is that which agrees with their myths.
Why doesn't he just use his faith instead of science to get to his next overseas testimony-fest? Because faith isn't going to get him there. Science will.
His message clearly pleads with people to live in a box, and slap themselves if they start to want a glimpse outside. If they fear investigation and questioning will shake faith, it is an admission that the basis of faith was groundless.
He should feel safe. It is difficult to disrupt the lives of people who live in faith-bubbles. How do you uproot something with no roots?
No comments:
Post a Comment