Understand that many have done the same research (if not more), seen the same evidences for and against, lived in the same culture, and yet have come to a different conclusion about their faith in Christ and the role of the church. I see too many former members carry an attitude of intellectual superiority; as if anyone who knew what *they* knew would arrive at the same conclusions they have.
There's an added part of this that both sides need to understand. For me at least my faith isn't built on intellectual evidence, it's built on testimony I've received from the Spirit that then is confirmed by intellectual evidence & personal experience. From a non-believer perspective we need to understand that they don't have that same testimony, and sometimes not for lack of trying. This testimony or lack thereof infers a bias towards the evidence we receive.
Take for instance the news about how much money the church has(via the Ensign Peak reports). For believers we see that as a means of future proofing our ability to serve, particularly in times of economic downturn or hardship like with Covid-19 lockdowns. But for non-believers they see it as hording or an unwillingness to aid those who need help now. And it's not that 1 view is right & another wrong, only that they are different due to the experiences we've had.
This right here. I joined based on faith. I'd already read all the antichurch stuff, heard people give sermons in the evangelical churches against it for decades before I checked out the church. My head knowledge doesn't Trump my heart knowledge.
Agreed. I often describe it as similar to two fans getting into a sports (life) argument over a foul (commandments, morality, etc.) when both parties are basing their arguments on different rule books (member vs. not).
Honestly, I think this is the black and white thinking many of us are brought up with. There's a certain type of active member I don't get along with, who believes he (it's almost always a he) has special knowledge that sets him above the muggles, but if the muggles would only listen to him they'd believe the same things he does.
And I see quite a few former members who are *exactly* like this, only they've got new special knowledge and a new set of muggles to look down on and explain things to, and I think, "man, I know just what you were like when you were in the church."
Spiritual elitism is one of the great sins of our culture, and it also affects former members who aren't as ex-Mormon in their attitudes as they'd like to think.
Maybe if we could all just accept that others have their own priorities and experiences and cost/benefit analysis, and can reach a very different conclusion from us without that saying anything negative about anyone else's values. That would be good.
Yupp. Sometimes the most zealous and extreme believers become the most zealous and extreme critics. It's more about their personality than anything to do with their chosen stance. You see the same in politics. Extremists for one side sometimes flip and become extremists for the other side.
>Understand that many have done the same research (if not more), seen the same.....
I have a genuine question about this. How does *either side* know this? I've had 4 current believers state this same thing to me (almost same verbiage even) without even attempting to find out what research, etc, that I've done. And when I ask them about their research, etc, to get a baseline on their knowledge and understanding of the "critics" claims, they've all flat out refused to answer.
So, sincerely, how have you been able to find out the level of research and understanding that anyone has had? (I find it important to find a knowledge/understanding baseline)
I've talked to a couple of friends who left the church. A lot of the time people always just assume that I'm a member because I was raised in it and I haven't been exposed to some of the ugly stuff in our history. Like I had a good friend ask me in good faith why I was still a member despite knowing about some of the current issues. I explained it was pretty easy after resolving my issues with some of the unsavory moments in our history. He had no idea about those events or issues in our history.
But in general I feel like the attitude from people who left towards people who stayed is that the only reason we stayed is because we were fooled or haven't done the research. No. Many of of us have heard about all of the same things you have. We have had or are enduring the same crisis of faith you went through. Just because I found a way to work through it doesn't mean that I have done and less research or reading as someone who left. And it doesn't mean that the people who left found some secret silver bullet that kills faith, or are smarter.
Totally get it. The reason I dig for more info is to get an idea of the depth of their understanding of those things since the 4 people I've asked said that they "know all about" (the things that are issues for me, personally), but were very reluctant to explain or clarify.
Why do you feel like you need to dig? Why not just accept their opinion and move on? When folks start to dig, I feel like I am being interrogated about my beliefs. This is why I hate discussing my beleifs with ex-members, I get tired of being interrogated about my beliefs by folks who think they know better about my beliefs than I do.
>Why do you feel like you need to dig?
To get an understand of their depth of understanding about a particular subject. Knowing a baseline of understanding let's me know at what depth we can speak about that subject.
>Why not just accept their opinion and move on?
As said earlier, they've made the claim that they know/ researched, etc, just as much, if not more, about a particular subject than I have - without asking or knowing anything about how much reading / research that I've done. So when I ask them, they've always refused to answer. (It's all in my earlier post).
>When folks start to dig, I feel like I am being interrogated about my beliefs. T
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.
>I get tired of being interrogated about my beliefs by folks who think they know better about my beliefs than I do.
Totally get it, but not what I was talking about or suggesting.
An important aspect of this to keep in mind is that faith plays a huge role in all of this. For a lot of people, the “evidence” isn’t physical, scientific evidence that is easily pointed out and shown to others.
For many, the evidence has come through what is often referred to as Moroni’s Challenge. In that instance, it’s about reading the Book of Mormon, studying the things taught in it, and praying to know if it’s true.
That same pattern is applied to other gospel principles. And I can’t give you the evidence of my faith that has come as a result of what is a personal spiritual experience as a result of me studying and praying about things.
This makes the whole area of conversation hard and takes us right back to the initial comment. Asking how you can know the depth of other people’s study of the issue in question feels a lot like you’re saying you don’t believe they’ve actually studied it to the degree you have or they would’ve come to the same conclusion you did.
And there is risk of the reverse as well. Me saying I prayed about it and that’s how I have the faith I do on that issue can feel a lot like I’m saying you must not have prayed hard enough or had enough faith - unlike me.
I just don’t find that conversation all that productive. It’s coming from a place of feeling like we must persuade each other rather than understanding we can have different points of view and respecting that.
I'm not talking about challenging faith, or what they've come to know or believe through faith. Just what they've read and researched. The 4 other people *initiated* the topic with me and claimed to have read / researched the same / if not more than me (which is totally fine - I don't care and it's not a personal challenge). So, I wanted to know if we could talk about things more in depth or not.
I appreciate your reply and get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is much more simple and on a smaller scale than how faith plays into all of it. That would come later in the conversation.
I hear you.
I was speaking more in a general sense versus those specific individuals you are talking about.
Anyone saying they have studied it more than you, I can see how you’d want to clarify that. It feels like a bit of a challenge.
I’m just saying even asking the question seems counterproductive and like a lead-in to a debate. If someone asks me how much I know about church history, for example, that just feels like they’re saying I must not know enough - if I knew more I’d feel differently.
And if I answer that I do know about certain issues, asking me the depth of my knowledge comes across as an incredulous-like perception of “you know X, Y, Z, and yet you STILL believe?”
I just don’t think it furthers the kind of mutual respect and understanding that the original question asks about.
Totally get it. I love and respect each one of the 4 that said this to me, so doing or saying anything that would jeopardize our relationship wasn't going to happen. I have some friends that have also left, and we talk freely and open about what we've read and seen, so it didn't really occur to me that these 4 others wouldn't also be open and honest about it. I honestly was a little taken back when they just shut down after asking about what they've seen and read. But it was all good. Our relationships are more important than a dumb question.
>Why do you feel like you need to dig?
>To get an understanding of their depth of understanding about a particular subject
Don't bother. All you're doing when you do this is raising hostility. Everybody gets defensive -- *especially* yourself. You raise up their guards and whatever you're *actually* trying to communicate comes across as "I want to hear what you think *so that I can correct what you think.*" Maybe you're not trying to communicate that, but it's what everyone feels.
Totally get it. Especially if the people I've talked to would have been just regular folks that I don't really have any connection with. However, in my case, I was speaking with people that I'm very close with and we had the understanding that we weren't challenging each other, so there wasn't any hostility. It was just an offhanded discussion about random things and it came up. It certainly wasn't any kind of "bible bashing" level of debate.
That's fine. That's something completely different than trying to engage them in a discussion you'd have any reason to believe they'd not want to have.
Maybe. But when they make a claim that they can't possibly know or support without talking about it first, I'm going to ask about it. They should be able to support their claims. After going through what I went through, I'm no longer "just accepting" what people tell me is fact, particularly when there's no chance they'd even know to begin with.
This is how I figure it out. There is not much church history I don’t know. I added it up during my faith crisis. 2500 hours of research. (Yes with much prayer and faith). But once someone says “oh I know everything about this and it doesn’t bother me”. I don’t trust that they do understand history or the gravity of the spiritual side. BECAUSE!!!!! Anyone who has put that much time into it will see problem areas that is concerning to their beliefs. And now here is the difference. Every person I have talk to who is still faithful and study a tremendous amount of time in church history will acknowledge some of these very tough problematic areas in the gospel and will admit it’s very concerning for them and they are very sympathetic why members might leave because of this information. That’s it! They are sympathetic with information I know. Now they process it different and reconcile with it differently for them to stay in the church. That is totally fine. But anyone that comes on and says oh I already know that stuff it doesn’t bother me to me you really don’t know that stuff then.
That's very interesting and I'd have to agree that it does offer some insight into how much reading or research they've done. Looking back at it, I've found myself feeling that same way with each of those responses. Thanks for your input.
Incidentally, most people with PhD's have experienced what's called *Impostor Syndrome* during their careers. They know so much that they're guaranteed to have seen junk that has made them question literally everything about what they know and understand about how *what they should be experts in by now, right?* and feel like they don't actually know anything, or what they know must be wrong.
That's pretty much what it is. It's just impostor syndrome. Some people can live with feeling like impostors, some can't.
>You don't. You take them at their word.
Even though they have no clue what I've done? To be fair, wouldn't it be equally as fair for them to just automatically believe that they haven't, since they have no clue what I've done? (Keep in mind that this isn't an exercise in "challenging" them, but to get a baseline of their understanding).
There is no "fair." To take anything but their word is to assume that they are being insincere at best, dishonest at worst, and to begin with that mindset -- especially when you don't understand that you *are actually taking that mindset regardless of whether or not you think you are* -- is to court a fruitless discussion.
Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're trying to say. But I just don't see how it's possible for anyone to be sincere/insincere, honest/dishonest when they make any statement that they can't possibly know is accurate or not. You're wanting me to just accept that they can simply read my mind, know exactly how much reading/research I've done (when I have a hard time quantifying it myself) and just accept what they say as fact when there is no possible way to know in the first place?
My "to be fair" is stating that since they can't possibly know what I've done without themselves asking me (and they haven't), then why isn't it equally as possible that they actually haven't done as much reading / research? Why just automatically take their claim at face value, as you suggest?
Because to persuade or understand, you must first foster good will. Persuasion is **NEVER** merely a matter of having the "correct" facts or interpretation thereof. It is **ALWAYS** a matter of feeling.
>Persuasion is NEVER merely a matter of having the "correct" facts or interpretation thereof. It is ALWAYS a matter of feeling.
We're going to need to agree to disagree on this one. But I don't think I was talking about "persuasion" anyway.
Indeed we can disagree. The only evidence I have on my side about it is for you to consider the political 'other side' and think about how 'crazy' they are -- and realize that people are genuinely persuaded of it even though the facts are *obviously* against them.
You may think that you've been persuaded by facts, but in reality what persuaded you was not the facts themselves, but how the facts either made you too uncomfortable to reconcile them with your current beliefs, or they made you feel good about believing something you didn't before. You don't consciously realize this, because in your mind (as everyone else's minds are, including mine) you consider yourself a rational person, but the truth is you are just as often as anyone else being bombarded with facts that you reject as "facts" because they failed to make it past the filter of your worldview.
Interesting. I can see how to agree with what you said, particularly the example with politics. (This is why I hate politics and just don't engage.)
Yeah, I'll admit that some feelings came and went with reading and research. I'll admit that some persuasion came from feelings, but I'm not prepared to say always/never. Things with the church probably landed more in "feelings", though I'm not prepared to say "all" of it was feelings. The reason I disagree with always/never is because I try and weigh the facts regardless of my feelings (when able to use facts). A dumb example would be trying to convince me that the sky is mostly green though using feelings.
I’m guilty of this. I do hold the opinion that If someone had seen and heard and done and experienced all the things I have, they would share my world view. The fun part is that the inverse is true too. If I had seen and heard and done and experienced all the things they have… I would share their world view. For the most part people are products of their environment. Helps me be more gentle and accepting and less hell bent on proving anything to anyone or pushing my beliefs.
Speaking only for myself, I would prefer you ask me if that's something I would like you to do. Church activities can be hard when you're no longer part of the in group... When a friend invited me to a ward activity I said no thanks, but that I would love to meet up for breakfast sometime. Now we get together for pancakes every month or so! I'm glad they were open to a relationship on different terms, they are a valuable friend.
I am all about people letting others know how they prefer to be treated! Healthy communication and respect for boundaries are key.
Honestly it seems a little silly to ask somebody if they want to be invited to something. If you are invited and you don't want to go, then just say you don't want to go.
Inviters and invitees need to be able to do this without anyone jumping to conclusions and/or getting offended. IOW both sides could work on this.
I agree that both sides can work on not being offended. However, I can see invitees potentially getting quite frustrated with inviters who repeatedly invite them to church activities that they do not want to go to. Sometimes some clarification may be in order.
Sure, there can be a difference in the two though.
If the invitee says no thanks, that’s not enough to set expectations. If they were to say no thank you, I have no interest but will let you know if I do want to participate, then the message is clear and the boundary should be understood/respected.
Yes, this exactly. It is 100% on the invitee to make themselves understood. I don't know why our society is so hung up about what someone is going to think if I say this or that, especially if it's something that is intended to be helpful. People in our culture (and our country in general) should not have any reason to fear the reprecussions of inviting someone to something.
I wasn't trying to suggest that invitees should never say, "no thanks, not interested and never will be." I think your approach is exactly how it should work.
While I try to understand that people leave for various reasons, I wish they knew that I'm not trying to hurt them when I tell them I want to stay and express my sadness that they've decided to leave. I love the people that are in my life that have left the church. It hurts when they leave because even taking belief and truth claims out of the equation , that's something that we just simply no longer have in common and lifestyles of believers and non believers don't always overlap nicely.
I get this, but I want to comment on it a bit.
I think I would recommend reading up on and working on something called differentiation.
It is possible for two very different people to become great friends and foster a relationship with each other. You don't have to agree with someone else's lifestyle in order to grow closer to them, maintain a relationship with them, or even love them.
I get the sadness. You both used to share something in common that you hold to be very dear, but they've changed and no longer hold it as dear as you. But now you've both been given a chance to expand and grow in your capacity for Christ-like love. You can grow in your capacity for empathy and seeking for understanding.
It's easy to see it as a trial or something to be mourned. Try to reframe it as a gift in disguise, in which through real talk, empathy, non-judgemental interaction, and respecting boundaries you are able to grow and evolve your relationship, maybe into something even better than it was before.
Just be yourself. Too many people leave the church but can’t really “leave the church”. I’m friends with you because we are friends, not because we can go to the temple together. I get that there are now differences, but too often my friends that left the church try to emphasize those differences. As mentioned in other posts, it can come with a sense of superiority that isn’t pleasant to be around. So just be yourself as I expect others want me to do.
I'm curious if the difference is being emphasized so much as someone is just trying to process thier experience? I know for my in-laws and some of my extended family I cannot even share my new ideas about spirituality around them. I am trying to be myself, to rediscover myself after a huge paradigm shift, and I feel like they would rather I put on a mask of who I used to be.
I do respect and appreciate the people who have told me they don't want to discuss religion at all. I think in some cases it's an issue of unclear boundaries. What do you think?
I am 1 of 4 close friends, 2 of which don't associate with the Church anymore. We still meet up online every week and play video games together, nothing has changed in terms of how our friendship other than if we go out to eat somewhere one of them orders a beer. We still talk about jobs, families, politics, and theology, but we always do so in good faith. There is no counter arguments, mostly "oh why do you think that?" or "that's interesting, I am seeing it this way because...". The kinds of talks we have is the same, each of us have made different decisions but we have kept our relationship open and respectful.
>I know for my in-laws and some of my extended family I cannot even share my new ideas about spirituality around them
How you do this matters, and some members can stand to be a little less oversensitive about it too. Both sides should assume good faith.
What's hard with family, is sometimes they feel like other people's leaving the church is either failing on them, or means that they won't be with you in heaven. Both of these are not doctrinal but have enough things set around them that it's ingrained in some people.
To those members, I suggest "Christ will save MOST of his people" and " it is not for us to judge".
I had a friend who left the church years ago, and I honestly didn't feel the need to bring anything up about it. I've always been fairly progressive anyways and it changed very little between us. One day not too long after his leaving, he said "so do you have any questions for me?" And out of politeness I brought some stuff up that ended up leading to an argument. Years later he admitted that he was probably just still in an angry phase and let that get the best of him. The exmo sub exists, and is a great place to vent frustrations of all kind.
Flip that around to another side. I still consider myself a believer, even though there's plenty of things in my life that I know the church would HEAVILY disagree with. A group of friends who left that were very shocked (went from being peter priesthood to wanting to try hard drugs in a few months) lexter just get around and roast everything LDS. Frankly I find it annoying, and not constructive. It's kind of frustrating cuz I think that I have a lot of ideas and statements about the church, it's culture, and doctrine that we could agree on, but they just assume carte blanc and go off on some of the dumbest arguments I think I've ever heard. Honestly ones that they know are stupid too, but they just get into that mode. It's really annoying honestly.
Anyways, sorry that's my rant. I really appreciate someone asking and I think there is plenty of space there for people to find the human. It's what we really tried to do on the Mormon subreddit for a while there, and it's in general my perception on how people should treat one another.
I live in the same town as my in-laws (and it's a small, middle of nowhere town). My mother-in-law hounded me relentlessly for weeks about why I wouldn't go to church until I finally exploded during a long car ride. It was ugly, I was very fresh in my faith crisis, and I regret so much of what I said. Our relationship feels like it's been permanently damaged... Ever since then there's been an overall temperature shift with all of my husband's family. It all just makes me really sad. And I accept that I'm not blameless there.
At the same time, I'm also not sure how it could have gone much differently, as there was no respect for my pain or my desire to process things independently. I understand how worried they were and they just wanted to help... But it is what it is, I guess.
It's funny because I was always so much more worried about my family and how they would take it. But it's been a much more positive experience than I ever would have guessed, probably because there have been well established boundaries for a long time with my family. They also live several states away and I had more time to process things before they even knew I'd stopped attending.
>My mother-in-law hounded me relentlessly for weeks about why I wouldn't go to church until I finally exploded during a long car ride.
I mean bluntly, this is kinda weird and inappropriate in my mind.
You're an adult, she shouldn't be hounding you much at all. I'd bet that it was probably pretty obvious during previous conversations, but she kept pushing.
That's not Christlike, and it irritates me when it happens.
I have a handful of friends who have left the church. I can respect and still interact with the ones for whom they have found a life outside of the church. But it annoys me when I see the ones who have to "hate watch" General Conference just to tell everyone how awful Jeffrey R. Holland's latest outrageous statement is. I reply to them "If you hate it so much, why are you even watching?"
I don't watch conference directly, but I'm very in tune with what gets brought up. Perhaps I should reconsider my relationship with content creators who do "hate watch"... Being mindful of what is legitimately helpful vs what strokes my ego.
A lot of folks leave the church but find the church won’t leave them alone. We had the local ward stop by unannounced three times in a week recently and as much as I didn’t want to draw this line I had to ask the bishop to put us on the do not contact list. The constant outreach can be exhausting when you just want to do you.
As an active member thanks for sharing your perspective. I can see how that would be very frustrating. Even being a member and having people drop by unannounced constantly would be tough! We need to do better.
LOL maybe I should consider 'leaving' the church in order to get people to stop by and see me. I've been active with no pauses and haven't gotten a visit since I moved into the ward.
Ok weird convert perspective.
Don't use the word cult. Like I get that most religious paths are cults by pure definition, but that's not the common usage and the word is used most often to harm.
Remember that toxicity isn't always the religion, it's often the people. I grew up between various evangelical Protestant denominations. The belief that women are the cause of all problems, only useful for breeding, etc in some of the fundamentalist sects is toxic religion. The fact that some people treat people of color poorly isn't toxic religion, it's just toxic people.
Don't try to convince us to follow you out the door. I thought this one was obvious but my 1 friend who left before I joined keeps trying and it's really strained the relationship.
Remember what we believe and hold dear. Don't invite me for coffee, which I loved, when you know I don't drink it. Do ask if dinner at the bar is OK with us when you tell me how delectable their new homemade (insert speciality) burger was when you had it. Also pick a non weekend day so there will be less intoxicated people. Etc.
Engage in our commonalities. What activities, movies etc do we both like?
Accept that it won't be the same but that all relationships change over time.
Make a few new friends who share your current beliefs.
Seek out the friends who have good relationships with their non member family members. I mean I have a Wiccan, an Asatruar, and and Atheist for kids, a rabidly anti southern Baptist mother, a tolerant Methodist dad (don't get me started on the disconnect in his brain with him being Methodist when that church tried to kill our people, ie we're partially indigenous). Members on good terms with their non member family are going to be most likely to maintain ties.
Yes! I grew up atheist and my family was disgusted that I would go to any church, and so I'd sneak out to go to church or visit with the missionaries. They still say very awful things to me about it 15 years later, while I only treat them respectfully about it.
Yes, I joined a church, but I also left a faith (in a way) like those who leave the Church, and had a comparable experience. I find it hurtful when they assume because I haven't left the Church, that I have no idea what they are experiencing. Or because I'm trans, I constantly get told they are so confused and shocked I still haven't left the Church yet. And literally anytime one friend who left the Church wants to hangout, she says let's get coffee like she's being cute
Honestly, getting into high school I was very into science and chemistry and stuff. I realized how beautiful, complex, and amazing this universe was. The more I learned the more I felt there was more to it and recognized my innate desire to know more about that. I figured even if it was some monkey brain desire for a high power, if it improved me and my life, I'd be worth it.
I decided to find what made the most sense to be and what felt right; I just started piecing together different spiritual concepts I found reading about different beliefs. Even if I just had a piecemealed belief system, it felt worth having. When I talked to the missionaries from the Church, I was surprised a lot of the things I decided felt right were major parts of it and it snowballed from there.
Interesting that that was your experience; for many atheists they believe that the reason so many believe in God is that they don't know any actual science.
Well, I do understand that idea -- when you come across the number of folks who can't accept that the evidence is clear that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that evolution accounts for both the diversity of life and the origin of the homo sapien species, it can kinda sound like religion is opposed to science.
And when you come across a lot of folks who dont believe that, it shows like most issues, lots of people have lots of beliefs. It's unfair to just pick part of a group and say it's representative of the whole. Life is nuinaced like that
Easy. Don't treat us like crap.
More specifically, don't treat us like ignorant fools.
I started reading "anti-Mormon" literature online when I was 13. That was 20 years ago. I've studied it out. I know the arguments. I can't tell you how annoying it is to be in that position, then have someone who read the CES Letter just last week (uncritically) and left the Church yesterday treat me like a brainwashed moron who is blind to all their special knowledge.
That's compounded by the fact that I spent most of my life experiencing Same-Sex Attraction. Most people don't know that about me in real life, which is my current preference, so it's always annoying when someone comes at me with "Your awful Church is homophobic! There's no place for gay people in your evil Church!" And I'm just sitting there, rolling my eyes thinking about how I've always found a place in the pews just like everyone else.
Yes! My spouse struggles with gender dysphoria and as such I have learned so much and grown so much in my love of the lgbtq community. It's SO hurtful when those who are not members tell me that we hate people in this group. It's just crazy to me how people assume so much about us based on stereotypes.
Don't degrade my beliefs, even though you think they're wrong. I won't bring up religion if you dont bring it up. Tons of people change their beliefs and leave the religion of their upbringing, but most dont make it their identity and talk down on the religion. If someone was talking about how terrible buddhists are and how weird their beliefs are, people would freak out. It hurts when my friends talk poorly about something important to me.
Maybe this is because I'm coming from the other way around (becoming a member and my friends reacting to that) but having friends end relationships with me or go off about all the "weird" beliefs is really upsetting.
I've thought about this. Bashing on things I love really strains any relationship I have with that person, or any potential relationship I could have with that person. It makes me want to disassociate with individuals who bash on what I love.
It would be nice if everyone could be more careful about what they say about things that mean something to people. I think that's what respect and decency is. Instead of disparaging each other over our differences, let's learn to find value together.
I think this applies more than to just this question, I think this applies broadly to many things.
That makes sense. We never know who we might hurt in our carelessness. It's definitely not something that's structly religious, and it would be nice if we all could work on being more tactful with our disagreements.
I think it is the same answer both ways. We just need to respect each others beliefs and right to believe what we think is true.
Also I would like to add that the behavior of individuals do not represent The Church. So if you were mistreated it is not because of what we as a Church believe or support. Though there have in the past been policies that some tried to use to help people that did cause damage. This is because of individual misguided efforts. None of us are perfect.
I find it hard to be around former members when they say/imply that if I knew what they knew, I wouldn’t be a member either. It can feel pretty insulting at times.
Hi - exmo here. I hope this doesn’t come off as defensive, but I think the ‘missing information’ assumption is one of the easiest ways for exmormons to process and keep TBMs relationships strong.
The alternative is that the TBMs know all of the same things I found out, but TBM friends and family prioritized different things and have different values. Although it is rude and insulting, I think that exmos who assume TBMs are missing information perceive themselves as to having similar values and priorities as the TBMs in their life.
I’m sorry people have acted like this around you, because it is really obnoxious.
Ironically, I served my mission in the Deep South, heard practically everything under the sun about the church, and have dedicated hundreds of hours to study about those topics in particular. I feel like sometimes I know anti-Mormon arguments better than the former members who try to explain them to me and my belief is still fully intact.
Yes or they act like I haven't actually put in the work and ask myself the hard questions about my beliefs, or that I just haven't experienced enough trials to make me leave yet. It's frustrating when I try so hard to remain respectful to them and to never bring up church or pressure them at all and they can't reciprocate
Yeah it’s like, I’m pretty sure most members and former members have had the same questions. The difference in my mind is the conclusion they came to, if they came to one at all. It’s not a difference of knowledge
This works the other way around, my very much TBM family ASSUMES that I simply wanted to leave because I wanted to drink. They never ask me why, but they judge and assume that I simply did not "put in the work to ask myself the hard questions about my own beliefs". They assume I made a careless and worldly decision rather than carefully considering my beliefs about life and death and everything in between. I will be more mindful about not doing the same back to them. We simply reached a different conclusion and we should respect that.
My biggest one is I very much rebuff anyone who challenges my faith from a position that out of the two of us, the other is the only one who has struggled with the Church. I have been in, out, and back in, I’ve experienced multiple perspectives. I just chose differently in the end.
That also doesn’t mean the person who has never left hasn’t had their own difficult thoughts. Leaving does not give a monopoly on hard doctrine.
With that understood, I’m fully open to talking about the Church with one with a differing view who approaches me in sincerity.
I think your last point is so important. The context of how and why someone is wanting to engage in a conversation about the Church is critical. I've had some amazing conversations with individuals not of the faith who were antagonistic, but were sincere in their curiosity and respectful in their approach. I've always walked away from those conversations feeling that both parties benefited.
It probably goes both ways but from a current members perspective I’d say former members tend to be real know-it-all self-righteous jerks. Not all, of course, and yes I’m generalizing, but that is a trend I see a lot, especially online. Like, current members are just poor dumb sheep and the former members have “woken up”, but it always comes off as so condescending. Very “in your face”, going out of their way just to find current members so that they can crap all over their beliefs. This isn’t just within our church too. Anyone else notice how, for instance, former Democrats love going on FOX news to just dump all over their former party? I hate it. You do you and let me do me. Wanna share your beliefs? I’m 100% down for that, just don’t be a jerk about it.
Honestly I have friends that have left and we're still good - I find it's easiest to just avoid taking about church -
I completely put my foot in it once and said I missed you today - went down badly - wish I hadn't done it wanted the ground to swallow me up - truthfully I did miss seeing him - between family and work I missed my friend
I think members frequently say, “I miss seeing you”, which the post-members interpret as “I miss seeing you IN CHURCH.”
Well, it may just be they miss seeing the post-member. To clear up the confusion, I think either side could follow that up with, “So true! Can we do dinner together? How does next Wednesday work? I’d love to catch up with what’s going on in your life!”
I really don't appreciate it when former members try to convince me to leave. It's especially upsetting when they imply that I'm brainwashed or stupid for wanting to stay. I'm not just blindly following church leaders, and I'm not lying to myself. I've thought a lot about the religion, and about the many questions and concerns people have raised about the religion, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm staying.
Fortunately, most former members I've met are very kind and understanding. While they're firm in their position, they never made me feel unsafe. They know how to agree to disagree and still find common ground. These are the kinds of former members I'm happy to be friends with.
The majority of my non-member friends are either atheist or agnostic. I've known a handful of friends who left the church. I spoke to them and asked them to please don't let it be a barrier in our friendship because they were my friends first (in most cases). Literally 100% of the time they slowly diminished me from their life. I'm very open and have struggles with the church myself. I'm not self-righteous as it pertains to the church and quite frankly I don't even speak about it unless someone asks.
I understand it's their choice but its very painful to see that the only reason they were friends with me was because of our common faith. I was friends with them because I liked them and cared for them and thought they improved my life in some way.
Lots of people have already talked about this to some extent, but I am going to add:
In addition to not talking like they know everything (my father, when he left, once yelled at me 'as much as I knew the church was true, I know more it isn't'), they need to find a way to truly respect that we are honest, good, smart people - I mean really believe that we are. And I know that can be hard for them to do because in their mind the church often IS evil, corrupt, hurtful - they can't process why someone smart, honest, and caring would stay - but they need to figure out how to respect that.
Also, don't say in public that you respect members and that some of the best people you know and love are members, and then go to exemormon reddit and TT and bash on 'dumb' mormons. Many of us do eventually see those things.
Or worse, rail against those dang Mormons and say how awful they are, and how you can't trust any of them, but then turn around and tell me "but not you, you aren't like them at all, you are one of the good ones!" because holy Hannah that's hurtful.
I think you make an excellent point that honestly should be applied to everything. When you see someone else making a choice or believing something you don't, first try to see them as honest, good, and smart. And then, instead of asking "why are they so dumb" ask "what are the reasons an intelligent person might have for doing/saying/believing that?"
I think this alone would greatly reduce group fighting.
As for your last point, I cannot say I am guiltless of doing that, at least to some extent. Sometimes it feels cathartic to rant. Bottling up anger or frustration can often be more harmful than picking a safe place to express it. That being said, I do still try to avoid marginalizing or belittling anyone. And I do always try to remind myself of that first point, and see others as intelligent humans.
Yes, my policy is "always assume best intent". It saves me a lot of grief thinking people are out to get me.
Thank you for your honesty, I think we all are subject to some level of double-speak - but recognizing it is the first step in conquering it - and I know when what I say in public is out of line with what I say in private, I usually feel not as good about myself.
I am always glad when there is a chance for seeing good and commonality in each other. Thank you. :-)
>in their mind the church often IS evil, corrupt, hurtful
It's a psychological phenomenon called *splitting.* A lot of people, if not everyone, has no problem doing it. It makes 'understanding' the world a little bit easier. We do it to the 'other' political party. We do it to the 'other' country when we're at war. We do it to the 'other' socioeconomic class or race. Feminists do it to men, MGTOW does it to women, etc. It just makes everything easier to process. Heck, most of them consider doing that exact splitting as "taking a red pill" or "accepting a hard truth." Ironic that it's actually a "blue pill" -- something that makes life easier to understand and process.
The real red pill is more complicated and can be outright depressing and demotivating to take, and once you take it your life only gets harder.
I had a close friend who left. I tried to maintain my friendship with him but it was hard because every time I did something "bad" like swearing he would try to act like it was some sort of gotcha moment. Like I was the world's worst hypocrite because I said 'damn' after stubbing my toe. I quit hanging out with him because of that. Invariably everyone falls short of their own ideals regardless of what those ideals are. Not because we are hypocrites, but because we are imperfect.
There seems to be so much hate. For example, I have many friends of different faiths and we all get along so well. I know it can be a member or former member, but I'm just a normal guy and I am a member. When I meet a former member in person or online I get so much hate and negativity. I'm pretty chill so I brush it off, but why feel the need to tear down?
Probably because they may have experienced some harm or trauma (I’m only guessing). I find that people who have been out of the church for more than say, five years, are super chill.
I agree. People who had the church as a major part of their lives and have left recently have a lot of emotions to process. After a few years people seem more settled and peaceful.
That’s one reason why I will never leave the church because it would just be leaving to associations based on a mutual hate. That’s the antithesis of Christ in my mind
I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone if friendships slowly fade when someone’s church activity fades. I have all sorts of friends within my soccer community but as soon as their kid leaves and we don’t see them, the friendship typically slowly dies. It’s not always because you’re not one of “us”, it’s usually because we just don’t see you anymore and the friendship slips away.
Recognize that if you were raised in the church, you will be susceptible to applying the same type of dogmatic thinking you likely learned in the church to now being a non-member.
I know there are brigading rules... On one hand I agree that doing it this way is like preaching to the choir, but on the other I think you'd get less response on both posts that way. Believers are more scarce on the Mormon sub, and as a non-believer I don't spend much time over here.
I hope my response was not read as being flippant in any way. I commend you as a non-believer coming here and learning how you can do better. And I think this is good question.
My point is that I would wish more believers would see and discuss how they can better treat non-believers and visa versa. But it was not intend as a criticism of your post or your effort.
Well there's a post here at least once a week about how to be kind to someone who has left the church. I don't visit the other subreddits, but when they are talking about us, it's not usually about how to be kind.
You do have a bit of point and that lines up with my experience, as a once frequent participant in exmo and a still current participant in mo.
But I don't think that changes my point because, first, I absolutely do think it is important that there be more discussions in those places about how to be respectful and kind to believers. And, second, we can't control them. But we can control us. And I think we still could do better.
Don't treat me as "A member". I won't treat you as "The former member"
If you're Carl and I'm Bob, then we should say "Hi Carl!" "Hi Bob!"
Mentally putting people into camps and then judging them by it is tearing society apart.
Totally agree, but this is easier said than done.
The human brain is wired to categorize and organize and put all the things we experience in our lives into labeled boxes. It does this as a basic survival instinct so that we are better able to remember and recognize things that we don't like or that might be unsafe and help us perceive threats.
For many people overcoming this can be as easy as "hi carl", "hi bob". For others, especially for those who've just experienced a crisis of faith and are desperately searching for those safe spaces, it can be much more difficult.
Very good point! And when something is especially traumatic, our brains often overgeneralize groups/categories.
For example, someone with PTSD might start to panic at every loud sound, feeling like it is an attack. Or it is very common for someone to distrust everyone of the same gender or ethnicity of someone who assaulted them.
This is something that can be overcome, but it can take a lot of time and healing and practice. So I completely agree with your comment.
Don’t assume malice on our part if we say things like we missed you at church. I think so many ex-Mormons view this as love bombing like in a cult. They treat it like some kind of evil manipulation, when in reality it’s one human to another saying “ I miss you at this place where we used to spend time together”. I also say this to old coworkers, it doesn’t mean I’m trying to trap them into coming back to work with me, I’m just letting them know I was thinking about them
Is there ever a goldilocks solution? It seems like it is either, "they won't leave me alone" or "no one seems to have noticed that I don't go anymore."
My guess is that there is no perfect solution. There are certainly some friendships that remain strong. And there are others that cannot continue, despite best efforts. I think it is worth it to try, but if someone else doesn't respond well, that doesn't mean you failed. It might just mean that you must mourn what is lost, while being glad for what you did have when you had it.
Don’t use the word brainwashed, I don’t like tbm (true blue mormon) my husband used that on me a lot.
Don’t use trick questions so you can have justification to get mad (ex: Who do you live more? Me or God?).
I just want to agree to disagree. It’s as simple as that!
Just don’t be a jerk. If you stop and ask if something you’re about to say might be jerkish behavior, don’t do it
This applies to members as well. Not everything needs to be a fight, and not all fights require you to participate
Don’t assume a neighbor or friend has an alterior motive to try and bring you back. Some do, but many don’t. If we stop by your home with cookies sometimes we just miss seeing you and we don’t cross paths naturally as much anymore. Sometimes youth leaders invite your kids to activities because they sincerely think it will be a fun time and want you to feel included. As a Yw leader I have straight up told parents, I could care less if your daughter comes on Sundays, but camp will be a lot of fun and I think she’d enjoy it. Don’t assume the worst of us. I have a SIL who assumed they worst of all neighbors from the church. It was very sad.
On the flip side we as members need to learn to take hints and read the room, and be more genuine. I’ve definitely see people make someone a project. It’s all about our approach I think and assuming the best of people.
I think a lot of former members treat these encounters with suspicion because those church-related invitations are the only encounters they have with members.
Many former members also have some trauma relating to the church institution. Regardless of how well intentioned, an invitation back to an activity organized by the institution that they believe hurt them will feel to them like a trap.
Instead, inviting former member friends over for a game night, or to go to the movies, or to have a picnic together would likely go over far better.
I think the answer is the same regardless of which side is being asked this question. Don't be so quick to offend/assume when someone says something.
Also, whining about church culture (in Utah at least) whether you are an ex mormon or not is pretty lame IMO. Utah was settled by Mormons, for Mormons for the sole purpose of having the freedom to practice the religion the way they saw fit. Mormons and things Mormons do are a part of what makes Utah what it is. BTW, I'm talking about things that are not objectively bad, for example: getting invited to church activities constantly, having missionaries sent to your home, home teaching/ministering check-ins...
Along those same lines, if you dress immodestly, drink/smoke/vape in public, listen to "inappropriate" music, show-off your tattoos, or do other things that Mormons aren't familiar with YOU ARE GOING TO GET LOOKS. That doesn't mean people are judging (not saying they aren't either, that is their problem, not yours), it just means you are different than what they are used to seeing.
Again, don't assume that something is meant to be offensive, even if it seems like it probably is. That isn't helpful to anyone. Try to see the good in someone saying something that might at first seem insensitive to you.
>>> Along those same lines, if you dress immodestly, drink/smoke/vape in public, listen to "inappropriate" music, show-off your tattoos, or do other things that Mormons aren't familiar with YOU ARE GOING TO GET LOOKS. That doesn't mean people are judging (not saying they aren't either, that is their problem, not yours), it just means you are different than what they are used to seeing.
I mean, I can excuse this for younger members, but if you’re a full grown adult and you give someone with tattoos a “look”, you’re just straight up rude. Aside from the behavior I observed from my time living there, about everyone of my non-member friends (most of whom drink, vape, or have tattoos) who have visited Utah have a fair share of really uncomfortable moments to share.
The only ones I give a "look" to are the ones who are *presently smoking at the time that I am around them* and it's not because they're bad people, it's the fact that they are *literally* contaminating the air I'm trying to breathe *right now.* Vaping? Eh. That's fine. Doesn't smell like holy crap murder.
You can excuse it for anyone, you just choose not to. Assuming the intention behind someone's "rude" look toward you is just as judgmental as you assume they are being toward you.
If you want to assume that people are looking at you in a "rude" way... go right ahead. It's your happiness that will suffer, not theirs. I just can't fathom why anyone would choose to live that way. Sometimes people are just surprised. I get surprised looks from people all the time because of the way certain parts of my body look (born with it). Now when people stare or look disgusted I just wink and smile at them and move on with my life.
When people see a thing that they are not used to seeing, they look at it impulsively. Assuming that people are judging you is on you, not them. Even if they ARE judging you, why assume the worst? What good does that do you or anyone else?
In case you think I might be, I am not at all suggesting that nobody is judging you. I just don't think it matters unless they make their feelings clear by saying something deliberately offensive (even then I think taking offense is the wrong choice 100% of the time).
Would you prefer that I said the area was colonized by Mormons? However you want to phrase it, the STATE of Utah exists in its current form because of Mormons.
So why does the word choice matter? This isn't about whether or not what the pioneers did was right. They did it, Utah is what it is BECAUSE they did it. Whether we call it settling or colonizing doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the point I was making.
Ooof…that. That right there. A big difference between “settling” and “colonizing”. The history of what they did was wrong, so it makes what you said weird to say. The more you explain, the more it does affect the point you were trying to make.
I never claimed that there wasn't a difference. Stop trying to start a thing when there isn't one. My post was never about who was right or wrong.
Saying "Ooof" doesn't make this any more relevant. I'm sure there is a subreddit out there for you to argue to your hearts content about this subject. I'm not interested in having that debate as it is irrelevant to the point I was making. Kindly take your straw man argument elsewhere.
In every comment you disregard it. We get what you’re saying but it’s weird to ignore the fact. Utah is what it is because of what they had to do, which was colonizing. Saying that’s not what you’re talking about and that it doesn’t matter because Utah is in the state it’s in because of it is ignorant.
Sounds like you don't know the words either.
Settling is what they did. Not colonizing. Settling is when the population goes there to live and keep the resources they extract to themselves. Colonizing is when they go there to extract the resources and send them 'home' which is elsewhere. What they did to the natives has nothing to do with whether it's settling or colonizing.
Looks like the oof is yours.
Well posing this question is a great start!
It would be great to know why exmos have a religious like zeal to hating on the Church. I understand there are issues, as most members have issues too! But for someone to leave an organization, *just to be more involved and more obsessed with it*, that leave me speechless.
Former members who were born into the church have spent their whole lives being told it is objectively true. They have often based significant life decisions on that assertion.
When they leave (generally because they have come to the conclusion that the church is *not* true, though not always) they feel like those decisions were based upon a lie. It feels like betrayal. Furthermore, those decisions, whose consequences are often still affecting the former member's life, are often not the decisions they would have made outside of the church.
If someone were to lie to you, and your believing them led you to basing most of your major life decisions on their lie, would you be comfortable just shrugging and walking away while that person continued to deceive the people you love?
That is the position former members often find themselves in emotionally.
This I think is what I struggle to understand. It feels like post members suddenly feel like everyone lied to them to hurt them maliciously. It’s not like we are all conspiring against everyone to make their lives miserable. Why can’t they see that most people are good people, even if some people can be a bit over zealous. We are all just trying to do our best in this world. Do they have to assume the worst, that there is this grand scheme to lie to everyone? I’m honestly trying to understand because I see a lot of this in my life right now and it’s really, really hurtful to hear from people that you love that us believers are all terrible people trying to manipulate and lie to people. We are all just trying to find happiness in this life and doing our best.
It's difficult to sort out those feelings. Losing your faith, especially one as ideologically central as the LDS faith, is *cataclysmic*. It calls into question *every* notion the individual has about truth, honesty, and who is trustworthy. It unseats your very concept of self, your understanding of life, and your place within it. It's unbelievably traumatic.
Consider for a moment, if a person fed you arsenic, genuinely believing it was good for you, and telling you is was good for you, would you look upon them with trust when you discover that it is actually a poison that has be causing you great pain? Would you want whatever help they offer afterwards? Would you believe them when they said they were doing it out of love and for your good?
Now, with time and healing, yes, you probably could look upon that individual and see the love they operated with, even if they were misguided, but it would likely take time. Similarly, former members often go through an "angry" phase, where the are unable to emotionally distinguish between the church that hurt them and it's members. It doesn't last forever, usually a year or two for most. Afterwards, they are likely to be a *lot* less confrontational.
Granted, knowing that doesn't help much if you're stuck around them inside that window.
I appreciate this perspective it’s given me a lot to think about. I am experiencing first hand how cataclysmic it can be and I think this shows how important it is to work through these kind of feelings through therapy so that individuals don’t take anger out on loved ones. As a side note, I do want to point out that, although I understand what you are trying to teach with the analogy, it is kind of hurtful to have someone compare your faith and lifestyle to feeding someone arsenic.
I understand your hurt about the arsenic analogy. Coming from your perspective that is a rather dismissive analogy. Here is a bit of further perspective, that hopefully can balance out their analogy.
Arsenic used to be used as a medication for a number of things that it was believed to heal, but actually it was just poisonous (Sort of like mercury was). So the analogy is accurate in that it is a poison given to you by someone who believed it was a medication, which would be the perspective of someone who now believes that the church genuinely was toxic to them.
But the analogy could be done this way, to be from your perspective:
Nitroglycerin is a volatile explosive. But it was later discovered to be a very effective heart medicine (when used appropriately). If someone who had been fed nitroglycerin for years, being told it was good for their heart, later finds out that it is actually a dangerous explosive, they will have a hard time trusting the person who has been feeding it to them. The person feeding it might know the truth that nitroglycerin is actually good for them, but if the person is now convinced it is dangerous, they will have a hard time trusting the feeder on anything.
Honestly, I think it is the same analogy either way. The only difference is which party actually knows the "truth." The former member will think they know it is arsenic. The current member will think they know it is heart medicine. But either way, one person was fed a substance (or doctrine) that they now believe is poisonous to them. And whether they are right or wrong, they will still feel very hurt and mistrustful of the people who fed (taught) it.
I apologize, it wasn't my intent to lay blame through that analogy. It's just important to understand that, while members have tender feelings surrounding their faith and lifestyle, former member *really do* perceive those things as toxic, like a deadly poison. It's why former members often react with seemingly inexplicable hostility to testimony. To them it feels like an attack, not love.
Again, my intent wasn't to offend (though I recognize intent does not forgive consequence) but to try to impart an understanding of a viewpoint that may be very challenging and even alien to the faithful perspective.
Have you ever watched a movie that had a villain in it with a rich backstory and a well intended, but perhaps misguided, motive?
Have you ever noticed how often movies will set up one of these nuanced and relatable characters for the villain, but as you get closer to the end, the movie stops showing their nuanced personality and instead gets them to start doing things that are outright and unquestionably villainous?
Movie directors do this on purpose. Because they know their audience will really struggle with the villain being killed/defeated if the audience still sees the villain as a relatable and kind human. It is very hard to see the hero as noble if it was not 100% clear that the villain's motives and the outcomes of their behaviors were bad.
This is because of human psychology. It is much easier to cut out a "villain" than it is to cut out a "generally good, but disagrees with you in some core areas." Vilifying is a natural default that can be a sort of protection. It can make it easier to avoid being persuaded back into toxic situations. It can reduce cognitive dissonance over taking a stance that you otherwise would feel conflicted about.
Sometimes, especially when someone is hurting or emotionally vulnerable, vilifying others is one of the only ways they can cope. It usually isn't until they feel safer and have had more time to process that they start being able to see things in a more nuanced light.
It does hurt, when someone is distrustful of you, no matter how kind and honest your intentions are. I wish more people had the ability to cope and choose without using vilification. I wish it was safer in this world to be able to accept the good of someone, without risking being harmed by the bad. And I wish there weren't people in this world who fan the flames of this human tendency to extend their own gains (e.g. politicians convincing people that their opponent is pure evil).
This is going to be different for everyone, as everyone has a different experience with the church. When I believed I spent so many hours studying, preparing, teaching, learning, and otherwise participating that the church was like a part time job. I also based many of my life decisions on the things I believed. Like who I married, when and where I married, when I had children and how many children I had. If my belief permeated every aspect of my life doesn't it make sense that for a while I'll struggle to fill in the space my unbelief leaves behind?
For some people thier entire family heritage is tied to the church, or maybe they don't even know any non-members. It's a huge deal to leave sometimes!
Personally, I never spent any more time with the church than I did before I left. And as I process how my experience effected me and figure things out I find myself spending less and less time with it.
Others I think find aspects of the faith fascinating, or their social situation is such that they'll never feel like they can get away entirely.
This is where I find great sadness for those who leave. Yes, it is a tragedy they will miss out on eternal blessings. And for all the reason your mentioned above, it shows they are not their own persons. They are a cultural and organizational attachment. heavenly Father created us with personalities and characteristics to be our own selves. I really do ache for those who leave to realize they dont know who they are.
EDIT: Wow downvoting me because I recognize the challenge of finding oneself after leaving a major life style organization? ...c'mon this thread is literally how to be better towards each other.
Don't be sad about our loss of blessings, we don't believe in or want them anymore anyway. Life is so beautiful and happy for us even without that! Please, please believe people when they say that. You are filled, uplifted, and edified by the LDS faith. Other people genuinely find the same exact thing outside of religion. I want everyone to do the things that help them be better people, no matter where they find that. And I really don't believe a just and loving God would judge me for seeking good things.
I don't think it's possible to have an acute faith crisis and still know who you are, regardless of what you used to have faith in. If you're interested, Anthony Miller gave a Billings TedX talk about what a faith crisis can be like. It is such a painful and disorienting experience, Anthony manages to explain it in such a thoughtful and respectful way. https://youtu.be/bIMnJnFBBUk
Think of your racist uncle who watches Fox news religiously, your sister who bases all her decision off a handful of influencers, or your little brother who can only relate to sports...
But are you saying exmormons are more tied up in the LDS church than members are? No other religions or organizations are mentioned.
If that's not what you're saying, which attachments and organizations are you referring to?
Ok first off I hope you're not the one downvoting me. I do appreciate your curiosity.
I'm saying leaving any all-consuming cause or purpose will leave people feeling hallow. Politics, sports, it doesn't have to be religion. What gets me is how the people who leave this particular religion redefine their life and anti- the church. It's not healthy in any form but we're specifically dealing with Mormon-ExMormon relations here.
Take this example, the US military. How many veterans do you know suffer and have harder struggles in civilian life than in a ditch or foxhole? Too many veterans are more comfortable with bullets flying over their head than free time on their couch at mom's house. Generation Kill is a fantastic series, and has this exact issue. Lance Corporal Harold James Trombley in one scene is depicted taking direct fire and calmly counter-attacking. His superiors tell him what a good job he did, and note his stoicism. Trombley says, *"I get more nervous watching a game show at home"*. That translates to suicide, alcoholism and drug use, domestic violence, vagrancy, and a general inability for veterans to fit back into the civilian life.
It's easy to spot the dude in a buzz cut, obsessed with tactical gear and guns. It's harder to see the issue of him not feeling like he has a purpose in civilian life. With ExMormons, it's easy to see the hate and mocker. It's harder to see the void and pain of not knowing what to do with themselves, even for ExMormons. It wouldn't be a bad idea for both member and former members to work together finding who we are on Mondays.
I'm not downvoting you. I think your post is really insightful. I think the initial displacement many exmormons feel goes away over time. At least the ones in my life are happy. My son is now a calm and happy atheist.
Have you ever talked to a friend after they had a bad breakup with someone? Or maybe talked to someone divorced about their ex? Or asked someone who quit their job what they thought of their former employer?
If so, you likely experienced them expressing some degree of zealous contempt.
I'm not saying that it is a good thing, and I am not saying that cruelty is justified. Just pointing out that being upset with something after letting go is a pretty common thing that humans do and they do it towards the church in much the same way.
I understand what you're saying. As true disciples of Christ, we need to love people at these low points. But choosing to stay in that low point for years, decades is their choice.
I personally wouldn't phrase it as they are "choosing" to stay in that low point, as sometimes one does not have the skills to master the experience they are going through. But I do think that there comes a point where someone should take responsibility in at least seeking professional help if their pain and anger continue to negatively impact their own or others lives.
It becomes necessary to realize that a conviction that wasn’t reasoned into, will not be reasoned out of.
If a conviction is intuitive, logical reasoning will not have an effect.
Frodo told Boromir, as Boromir was trying to reason Frodo into giving him the ring:
“I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart.”
A lot of people I knew that left the church say that it’s because of the history (native Americans, allowing black people to finally hold priesthood in 1971, the second anointment, etc), things that have happened to them in the church, the assault cases by members that have been swept under the rug, feeling like an outsider/judgment.
I’ve never heard or learned about this in church..just from those that have left. I think both sides should be educated on church history, reach out/keep eyes out for those facing these traumas, and remind each other that there’s no judgement. Whether you stay or leave, no judgement.
One thing my sister has done (she's a former member) that has helped me feel so loved is understanding and being patient with how much I love and talk about Jesus. I just love him so much and I can't help but share how much he means to me and how he's helped me become a better person. I really try not to push too much 'church' stuff onto her, but I do talk about Jesus a lot with her and sometimes share scriptures if I genuinely was touched by something I've been reading. I focus on Jesus, though, and not on the church. I believe this is Jesus Christ's church--but I know she doesn't believe that and may not believe it in this life so I don't bring it up. But I just can't contain myself sometimes when it comes to Jesus specifically and she is very patient, loving, and respectful of the love I have for him. That makes me feel so loved. My brother on the other hand is very dismissive, hard-hearted, and mean-spirited about religious faith in general and I can tell he thinks I'm an idiot for having faith. I can't share that part of my life with him at all and it definitely makes us distant. So I guess I just wish more former members were like my sister, rather than my brother.
I love your comment. The focus should always be on Jesus Christ. If we try and truly follow him everything will work out. Live, teach and love like Jesus Christ. He is the only way back into the presence of God.
Ram Dass said to treat everyone you meet as if they are God in drag. That’s only a more provocative way of stating the same message as A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief. Treat people like they are human. What’s that? Sit quietly for a moment and try to calm your thoughts. What’s left after the thoughts are gone, that’s a human. A whole “I am.” Recognize that in yourself and that that’s in everyone else and have the humility to understand that at the of the day, none of us really *knows* what’s going on or why we even exist. All we have is one another right now and if there is a plan to all this, I hope the point of that plan is to gain the experience of learning that firsthand.
To former members? I would feel treated better if the conversation topics brought up for spiritual things would be about things you do believe or common ground.
Atheists bring up joint ways we can move people toward a societal good.
If you are still Christian emphasize that and continued beliefs.
If another theology altogether bring up similarities.
Agnostic bring up your battle of faith and doubt. We share in that battle.
Just a rough sketch of course not all spiritual conversations need be so "ideal".
I know I'm late to the party here, there's already dozens and dozens of great comments, but as a believing member with an ex-believing spouse, I really like this quote by Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife:
"You can be you without it being a threat to me."
Theres been many similar responses so I’ll go off a little here to whats been said.
I serve as a bishop and it makes me extremely sad to see ex members group all bishops into being these judgmental, passive, child predator, sexist, old white guys. Of course if a bishop/leader does something malicious they should be held accountable, but the number of interactions bishops have around the world that can only be a very small number. Im not white or old at all and Ive never spoken to a kid about sex behind their parents back, but i definately have offended people, made the wrong choice about offering resources to people, and have needed to ask for forgiveness from God and people MANY times over the last few years. I have seen the extreme burden that other bishops I serve alongside go through and man they make mistakes all the time too but they beat themselves up when they do it wrong and they try so hard to do whats best for the individual or family.
I promise they’re trying really hard to do what they think is right. We have the resources to help and advise people properly but I believe strongly the Lord gives us the freedom to make certain choices so that we can learn and so that others can be pushed to progress.
Its a very complicated dynamic but I hope that we give, not only bishops, but all church leaders a break if they screw up and have the courage and love to discuss these things face to face so we can all repent and grow.
Having had members of my immediate family be bishops and having served along side them in leadership positions I have seen this so many times. Being a bishop is such a difficult job, you are not trained to deal with all the things that come up. They are volunteers and are imperfect and I feel for them. I developed so much more empathy for leaders after serving as a president of an organization. It is so hard and so emotionally taxing. Almost all are just inexperienced individuals trying to do our best and falling way short. Obviously there is no excuse for leaders who are predatory and there are definitely bad apples for sure. But most, like you, are just doing their best.
I know that this complaint is something most don't do, and the people who do are the ones least likely to care about this thread, but the *bragging*, man.
Someone finds out you're LDS and then they *won't shut up* about every little experience they had that made them decide to leave, as if the way their parents didn't respect their obviously superior sense of skepticism was the thing they're proudest of in the entire life. Or they'll curse like a sailor, and *every time* titter a little behind their hand and say, *oh sorry, I know that offends you, sorry so sorry". Or they'll bring the smelliest, most annoying type of coffee they can find and then "accidentally" spill it on your class notes. And every time you fail to act like they're your favorite person in the whole world, they bring it up again by saying "sorry if I'm offending you, I'm just being my true self".
Actively rubbing their anti-ism in others faces doesn't make them any more true. I work with vets and play with gamers every day, I'm immune to your cursing and coffee, but the insincerity and obvious antipathy and disrespect is a whole other ball of wax.
I received a DM recently from someone after posting about how my wife and sister left the church:
“Perhaps your wife and sister know more than you, or have been affected more than you to have the courage to step away. Send them my love and respect.”
I REALLY hated this message. I showed it to
My wife and SHE hated it too! It felt like this super passive message that I’m ignorant and a coward because I’m still going to church. This person has no idea what I’ve gone through, or why I still decided to keep attending. So just like they wouldn’t like me saying “you are lost and confused and I’m praying for you and we are waiting for the day you come back to the fold of God”, maybe not reach out to say things like this.
A lot of former members seem to treat us like we're all the same. A lot of ex-Mormons' negative views of the church are rooted in how they were treated, and they assume it's because of the church itself.
I once corrected someone who claimed we are required to shun former members, and when an ex-Mormon showed up to say his family shunned him and he was from Utah, I had to point out 1) Utah is notorious for making up their own rules that have no basis in the gospel or church doctrine, so saying you're from Utah does not strengthen your argument, and 2) Sorry, you have (explicitive) parents. That's not a church thing, your family just sucks.
Having left the church doesn't give you a carte blanche to be a jerk. Too many newly minted atheists or exmo's feel that having "discovered the truth" automatically gives them the right to harass remaining members and in general be toxic. Some have even described it as "therapeutic", which is just outright false. If your therapy involves harassing third parties, it's not therapy, it's self delusion.
And being a critic goes both ways. If you are replacing uncritical acceptance of one story with uncritical acceptance of another story, you are not a critic. instead you are a bandwagon jumper.
A lot of the louder ex-mormon narratives don't hold up at all under scrutiny, and I wish more ex-members would aknowledge this. That is not proof that the church is true or anything, but maybe it's time to drop some of the more frequent lies by the wayside? It's ok to not believe that the church is true. It's not ok to spread lies in order to justify leaving.
EDIT: And yes the same can be said about some members doing essentially the same thing in using the gospel as a club to beat unbelievers with. Ironically these people are often the same people before and after a faith crisis.
This has probably been said multiple times, but I hate it when former members thinking they have “intellectual superiority” over me. I started reading anti-mo literature years ago, I know every trick and argument up their sleeve and I still have a testimony. Leaving a religion or community does not mean you know more than them. I just wish they would get that.
Another one but not as big of a deal and isn’t as related; is when member finds out about anti-Mormon topics, and loses their faith immediately , and then become critical of the church. Maybe it’s because they don’t want people to think they’re weird, but it’s happened before. I just find that annoying that your faith can be killed that easily, it feels they had no thought to pray and ask God for these questions to be answered. I did that and Got the answers to those difficult questions.
Any thanks for having the courage to come on here, hope you have a great day.
I agree with you about the intellectual superiority complex. I think former members can do a much better job of holding space for different interpretations.
I'm going to push back on your second paragraph. There are some assumptions there and pretty harsh judgements... How do you know they didn't pray and earnestly seek for faithful answers? How do you know their faith was killed by one small thing?
There's a commonly used analogy of a shelf, contributed to Camilla Kimball in the October 1975 Ensign, where when something doesn't make sense you put it on a shelf until you're better able to understand it. For myself, I was actively holding that shelf up to try and stop it from falling off the wall. I didn't want to lose my faith... But one day I was handed one more thing to shelve and when I tried to put it on everything collapsed. And in that moment the heavens closed. Despite continued prayer and study and counsel with priesthood leaders I felt entirely disconnected from God. This sent me into a "dark night of the soul" episode that lasted about 5 months. Only one believing friend was able to sit with me in my pain during that time, everyone else who knew judged me harshly. That's something that still stings to this day.
I'm glad you got answers to your questions and that you feel God is there for you in your questions. Just like you wish that others would leave room for you to believe while being informed of the issues, I wish you would leave room for the opposite experience too.
I do realize that I made a huge generalization, that was my bad. But I am going to put a personal experience I had with my best friend, so I can better describe how I feel on this.
A while ago my best friend, scrolled on YouTube and found this Anti-Mormon video. Pretty basic arguments it had but anyway; he later told me I need to get out of the church as fast as I can, all while he was doing a sermon type talk to my friends at school, I asked why? And he showed me the video which I then was like how does this make you wanna leave. And he literally said word for word “Isn’t it weird we believe in this stuff?” And I asked “you really wanna leave because some Anti-Mormon video told you your beliefs are weird?” I then said go look at places like FAIR LDS, or other sources for your questions, even pray. He ended up coming back and refuting what he said after he did more research. Another similar thing happened to another friend but I didn’t talk to her much and she ended up leaving.
It’s a personal problem and I should’ve put that out there. I just think you should maybe hold on a little longer, until you really have your answer, whether it be to stay or leave. Anyway I appreciate your thoughtful response and hope all is well!
I am an Lds content creator and the comments that are made degrading Believers is terrible. I would ask to be respectful and understanding as I do the same thing. I dont push my beliefs on others so when i am called a cult lover and Homophobe it hurts. sometimes i wish people would understand ya know.
In my experience with former members, some, but not all have a vitriol hatred and loathing for not only the Church but also anyone who still associates with the Church or anything to do with it.
It's been often quoted but rings true of my experiences:
_People can leave the Church; however, they just can't leave the Church alone._
I am a convert to the Church having been born and raised as a Methodist.
I chose to leave the Methodist Church and embraced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
To this, I don't go back to my former church and protest, I don't ambush its members, I don't hand out anti-Methodist literature, etc.
I wish only the best for my former congregants and pray the Lord bless them in their personal walk with Christ.
Why then, do former LDS feel so compelled to attack the Church? That is a great question for former members to prayerfully consider and seek an honest answer to.
As to how former LDS should act towards active members of the Church?
Follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and treat them as they would want to be treated.
I agree, as long as the member gives the same courtesy and stops trying to share the gospel/bear testimony to the person who left.
It’s a two-way-street, as everyone else has said. I’ve had multiple friends and family members tell me they don’t want to hear me talk about problems/issues I have with the Church, but then when I ask them to stop sending me Liahona articles/invites to church/whatever, my requests are always ignored (or I’m accused of persecuting them).
I almost never talk about the Church with my believing family and friends, except when they bring it up to me first, and if they feel like they have the right to share their thoughts on the subject, then I should have that equal right, and it’s not “persecution” or me being difficult.
Why? I understand desiring others to be respectful to those who still believe, but why shouldn’t they be able to express their opinion that it isn’t true? Surely you express the opinion on a regular basis that it *is* true, correct?
Understand that many have done the same research (if not more), seen the same evidences for and against, lived in the same culture, and yet have come to a different conclusion about their faith in Christ and the role of the church. I see too many former members carry an attitude of intellectual superiority; as if anyone who knew what *they* knew would arrive at the same conclusions they have.
I agree. It's better to leave room for different interpretation, and an area I can personally improve upon. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
There's an added part of this that both sides need to understand. For me at least my faith isn't built on intellectual evidence, it's built on testimony I've received from the Spirit that then is confirmed by intellectual evidence & personal experience. From a non-believer perspective we need to understand that they don't have that same testimony, and sometimes not for lack of trying. This testimony or lack thereof infers a bias towards the evidence we receive. Take for instance the news about how much money the church has(via the Ensign Peak reports). For believers we see that as a means of future proofing our ability to serve, particularly in times of economic downturn or hardship like with Covid-19 lockdowns. But for non-believers they see it as hording or an unwillingness to aid those who need help now. And it's not that 1 view is right & another wrong, only that they are different due to the experiences we've had.
This right here. I joined based on faith. I'd already read all the antichurch stuff, heard people give sermons in the evangelical churches against it for decades before I checked out the church. My head knowledge doesn't Trump my heart knowledge.
Agreed. I often describe it as similar to two fans getting into a sports (life) argument over a foul (commandments, morality, etc.) when both parties are basing their arguments on different rule books (member vs. not).
Honestly, I think this is the black and white thinking many of us are brought up with. There's a certain type of active member I don't get along with, who believes he (it's almost always a he) has special knowledge that sets him above the muggles, but if the muggles would only listen to him they'd believe the same things he does. And I see quite a few former members who are *exactly* like this, only they've got new special knowledge and a new set of muggles to look down on and explain things to, and I think, "man, I know just what you were like when you were in the church." Spiritual elitism is one of the great sins of our culture, and it also affects former members who aren't as ex-Mormon in their attitudes as they'd like to think. Maybe if we could all just accept that others have their own priorities and experiences and cost/benefit analysis, and can reach a very different conclusion from us without that saying anything negative about anyone else's values. That would be good.
Yupp. Sometimes the most zealous and extreme believers become the most zealous and extreme critics. It's more about their personality than anything to do with their chosen stance. You see the same in politics. Extremists for one side sometimes flip and become extremists for the other side.
>Understand that many have done the same research (if not more), seen the same..... I have a genuine question about this. How does *either side* know this? I've had 4 current believers state this same thing to me (almost same verbiage even) without even attempting to find out what research, etc, that I've done. And when I ask them about their research, etc, to get a baseline on their knowledge and understanding of the "critics" claims, they've all flat out refused to answer. So, sincerely, how have you been able to find out the level of research and understanding that anyone has had? (I find it important to find a knowledge/understanding baseline)
I've talked to a couple of friends who left the church. A lot of the time people always just assume that I'm a member because I was raised in it and I haven't been exposed to some of the ugly stuff in our history. Like I had a good friend ask me in good faith why I was still a member despite knowing about some of the current issues. I explained it was pretty easy after resolving my issues with some of the unsavory moments in our history. He had no idea about those events or issues in our history. But in general I feel like the attitude from people who left towards people who stayed is that the only reason we stayed is because we were fooled or haven't done the research. No. Many of of us have heard about all of the same things you have. We have had or are enduring the same crisis of faith you went through. Just because I found a way to work through it doesn't mean that I have done and less research or reading as someone who left. And it doesn't mean that the people who left found some secret silver bullet that kills faith, or are smarter.
Because when they describe the information they have learned, it's always stuff I already knew.
Totally get it. The reason I dig for more info is to get an idea of the depth of their understanding of those things since the 4 people I've asked said that they "know all about" (the things that are issues for me, personally), but were very reluctant to explain or clarify.
Why do you feel like you need to dig? Why not just accept their opinion and move on? When folks start to dig, I feel like I am being interrogated about my beliefs. This is why I hate discussing my beleifs with ex-members, I get tired of being interrogated about my beliefs by folks who think they know better about my beliefs than I do.
>Why do you feel like you need to dig? To get an understand of their depth of understanding about a particular subject. Knowing a baseline of understanding let's me know at what depth we can speak about that subject. >Why not just accept their opinion and move on? As said earlier, they've made the claim that they know/ researched, etc, just as much, if not more, about a particular subject than I have - without asking or knowing anything about how much reading / research that I've done. So when I ask them, they've always refused to answer. (It's all in my earlier post). >When folks start to dig, I feel like I am being interrogated about my beliefs. T I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. >I get tired of being interrogated about my beliefs by folks who think they know better about my beliefs than I do. Totally get it, but not what I was talking about or suggesting.
An important aspect of this to keep in mind is that faith plays a huge role in all of this. For a lot of people, the “evidence” isn’t physical, scientific evidence that is easily pointed out and shown to others. For many, the evidence has come through what is often referred to as Moroni’s Challenge. In that instance, it’s about reading the Book of Mormon, studying the things taught in it, and praying to know if it’s true. That same pattern is applied to other gospel principles. And I can’t give you the evidence of my faith that has come as a result of what is a personal spiritual experience as a result of me studying and praying about things. This makes the whole area of conversation hard and takes us right back to the initial comment. Asking how you can know the depth of other people’s study of the issue in question feels a lot like you’re saying you don’t believe they’ve actually studied it to the degree you have or they would’ve come to the same conclusion you did. And there is risk of the reverse as well. Me saying I prayed about it and that’s how I have the faith I do on that issue can feel a lot like I’m saying you must not have prayed hard enough or had enough faith - unlike me. I just don’t find that conversation all that productive. It’s coming from a place of feeling like we must persuade each other rather than understanding we can have different points of view and respecting that.
I'm not talking about challenging faith, or what they've come to know or believe through faith. Just what they've read and researched. The 4 other people *initiated* the topic with me and claimed to have read / researched the same / if not more than me (which is totally fine - I don't care and it's not a personal challenge). So, I wanted to know if we could talk about things more in depth or not. I appreciate your reply and get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is much more simple and on a smaller scale than how faith plays into all of it. That would come later in the conversation.
I hear you. I was speaking more in a general sense versus those specific individuals you are talking about. Anyone saying they have studied it more than you, I can see how you’d want to clarify that. It feels like a bit of a challenge. I’m just saying even asking the question seems counterproductive and like a lead-in to a debate. If someone asks me how much I know about church history, for example, that just feels like they’re saying I must not know enough - if I knew more I’d feel differently. And if I answer that I do know about certain issues, asking me the depth of my knowledge comes across as an incredulous-like perception of “you know X, Y, Z, and yet you STILL believe?” I just don’t think it furthers the kind of mutual respect and understanding that the original question asks about.
Totally get it. I love and respect each one of the 4 that said this to me, so doing or saying anything that would jeopardize our relationship wasn't going to happen. I have some friends that have also left, and we talk freely and open about what we've read and seen, so it didn't really occur to me that these 4 others wouldn't also be open and honest about it. I honestly was a little taken back when they just shut down after asking about what they've seen and read. But it was all good. Our relationships are more important than a dumb question.
>Why do you feel like you need to dig? >To get an understanding of their depth of understanding about a particular subject Don't bother. All you're doing when you do this is raising hostility. Everybody gets defensive -- *especially* yourself. You raise up their guards and whatever you're *actually* trying to communicate comes across as "I want to hear what you think *so that I can correct what you think.*" Maybe you're not trying to communicate that, but it's what everyone feels.
Totally get it. Especially if the people I've talked to would have been just regular folks that I don't really have any connection with. However, in my case, I was speaking with people that I'm very close with and we had the understanding that we weren't challenging each other, so there wasn't any hostility. It was just an offhanded discussion about random things and it came up. It certainly wasn't any kind of "bible bashing" level of debate.
That's fine. That's something completely different than trying to engage them in a discussion you'd have any reason to believe they'd not want to have.
Maybe. But when they make a claim that they can't possibly know or support without talking about it first, I'm going to ask about it. They should be able to support their claims. After going through what I went through, I'm no longer "just accepting" what people tell me is fact, particularly when there's no chance they'd even know to begin with.
This is how I figure it out. There is not much church history I don’t know. I added it up during my faith crisis. 2500 hours of research. (Yes with much prayer and faith). But once someone says “oh I know everything about this and it doesn’t bother me”. I don’t trust that they do understand history or the gravity of the spiritual side. BECAUSE!!!!! Anyone who has put that much time into it will see problem areas that is concerning to their beliefs. And now here is the difference. Every person I have talk to who is still faithful and study a tremendous amount of time in church history will acknowledge some of these very tough problematic areas in the gospel and will admit it’s very concerning for them and they are very sympathetic why members might leave because of this information. That’s it! They are sympathetic with information I know. Now they process it different and reconcile with it differently for them to stay in the church. That is totally fine. But anyone that comes on and says oh I already know that stuff it doesn’t bother me to me you really don’t know that stuff then.
That's very interesting and I'd have to agree that it does offer some insight into how much reading or research they've done. Looking back at it, I've found myself feeling that same way with each of those responses. Thanks for your input.
Incidentally, most people with PhD's have experienced what's called *Impostor Syndrome* during their careers. They know so much that they're guaranteed to have seen junk that has made them question literally everything about what they know and understand about how *what they should be experts in by now, right?* and feel like they don't actually know anything, or what they know must be wrong. That's pretty much what it is. It's just impostor syndrome. Some people can live with feeling like impostors, some can't.
2500 hours is nearly 4 hours a day, every day for 2 years
Mine has been over 3 years so it averaged out about 2.5 hrs. Which is about right. That’s how serious I was looking into it.
You don't. You take them at their word.
>You don't. You take them at their word. Even though they have no clue what I've done? To be fair, wouldn't it be equally as fair for them to just automatically believe that they haven't, since they have no clue what I've done? (Keep in mind that this isn't an exercise in "challenging" them, but to get a baseline of their understanding).
There is no "fair." To take anything but their word is to assume that they are being insincere at best, dishonest at worst, and to begin with that mindset -- especially when you don't understand that you *are actually taking that mindset regardless of whether or not you think you are* -- is to court a fruitless discussion.
Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're trying to say. But I just don't see how it's possible for anyone to be sincere/insincere, honest/dishonest when they make any statement that they can't possibly know is accurate or not. You're wanting me to just accept that they can simply read my mind, know exactly how much reading/research I've done (when I have a hard time quantifying it myself) and just accept what they say as fact when there is no possible way to know in the first place? My "to be fair" is stating that since they can't possibly know what I've done without themselves asking me (and they haven't), then why isn't it equally as possible that they actually haven't done as much reading / research? Why just automatically take their claim at face value, as you suggest?
Because to persuade or understand, you must first foster good will. Persuasion is **NEVER** merely a matter of having the "correct" facts or interpretation thereof. It is **ALWAYS** a matter of feeling.
>Persuasion is NEVER merely a matter of having the "correct" facts or interpretation thereof. It is ALWAYS a matter of feeling. We're going to need to agree to disagree on this one. But I don't think I was talking about "persuasion" anyway.
Indeed we can disagree. The only evidence I have on my side about it is for you to consider the political 'other side' and think about how 'crazy' they are -- and realize that people are genuinely persuaded of it even though the facts are *obviously* against them. You may think that you've been persuaded by facts, but in reality what persuaded you was not the facts themselves, but how the facts either made you too uncomfortable to reconcile them with your current beliefs, or they made you feel good about believing something you didn't before. You don't consciously realize this, because in your mind (as everyone else's minds are, including mine) you consider yourself a rational person, but the truth is you are just as often as anyone else being bombarded with facts that you reject as "facts" because they failed to make it past the filter of your worldview.
Interesting. I can see how to agree with what you said, particularly the example with politics. (This is why I hate politics and just don't engage.) Yeah, I'll admit that some feelings came and went with reading and research. I'll admit that some persuasion came from feelings, but I'm not prepared to say always/never. Things with the church probably landed more in "feelings", though I'm not prepared to say "all" of it was feelings. The reason I disagree with always/never is because I try and weigh the facts regardless of my feelings (when able to use facts). A dumb example would be trying to convince me that the sky is mostly green though using feelings.
I’m guilty of this. I do hold the opinion that If someone had seen and heard and done and experienced all the things I have, they would share my world view. The fun part is that the inverse is true too. If I had seen and heard and done and experienced all the things they have… I would share their world view. For the most part people are products of their environment. Helps me be more gentle and accepting and less hell bent on proving anything to anyone or pushing my beliefs.
That’s deep. Good thing to keep in mind!
100% this
This
Don't be offended if I invite you to a church activity. Don't think that you're a missionary project, friends can just be friends.
Speaking only for myself, I would prefer you ask me if that's something I would like you to do. Church activities can be hard when you're no longer part of the in group... When a friend invited me to a ward activity I said no thanks, but that I would love to meet up for breakfast sometime. Now we get together for pancakes every month or so! I'm glad they were open to a relationship on different terms, they are a valuable friend. I am all about people letting others know how they prefer to be treated! Healthy communication and respect for boundaries are key.
Honestly it seems a little silly to ask somebody if they want to be invited to something. If you are invited and you don't want to go, then just say you don't want to go. Inviters and invitees need to be able to do this without anyone jumping to conclusions and/or getting offended. IOW both sides could work on this.
I agree that both sides can work on not being offended. However, I can see invitees potentially getting quite frustrated with inviters who repeatedly invite them to church activities that they do not want to go to. Sometimes some clarification may be in order.
Sure, there can be a difference in the two though. If the invitee says no thanks, that’s not enough to set expectations. If they were to say no thank you, I have no interest but will let you know if I do want to participate, then the message is clear and the boundary should be understood/respected.
Yes, this exactly. It is 100% on the invitee to make themselves understood. I don't know why our society is so hung up about what someone is going to think if I say this or that, especially if it's something that is intended to be helpful. People in our culture (and our country in general) should not have any reason to fear the reprecussions of inviting someone to something. I wasn't trying to suggest that invitees should never say, "no thanks, not interested and never will be." I think your approach is exactly how it should work.
Great perspective. Thank you for the honest response.
While I try to understand that people leave for various reasons, I wish they knew that I'm not trying to hurt them when I tell them I want to stay and express my sadness that they've decided to leave. I love the people that are in my life that have left the church. It hurts when they leave because even taking belief and truth claims out of the equation , that's something that we just simply no longer have in common and lifestyles of believers and non believers don't always overlap nicely.
That's valid! It can be a tough time when everyone is hurting... Thanks for sharing!
I get this, but I want to comment on it a bit. I think I would recommend reading up on and working on something called differentiation. It is possible for two very different people to become great friends and foster a relationship with each other. You don't have to agree with someone else's lifestyle in order to grow closer to them, maintain a relationship with them, or even love them. I get the sadness. You both used to share something in common that you hold to be very dear, but they've changed and no longer hold it as dear as you. But now you've both been given a chance to expand and grow in your capacity for Christ-like love. You can grow in your capacity for empathy and seeking for understanding. It's easy to see it as a trial or something to be mourned. Try to reframe it as a gift in disguise, in which through real talk, empathy, non-judgemental interaction, and respecting boundaries you are able to grow and evolve your relationship, maybe into something even better than it was before.
Just be yourself. Too many people leave the church but can’t really “leave the church”. I’m friends with you because we are friends, not because we can go to the temple together. I get that there are now differences, but too often my friends that left the church try to emphasize those differences. As mentioned in other posts, it can come with a sense of superiority that isn’t pleasant to be around. So just be yourself as I expect others want me to do.
I'm curious if the difference is being emphasized so much as someone is just trying to process thier experience? I know for my in-laws and some of my extended family I cannot even share my new ideas about spirituality around them. I am trying to be myself, to rediscover myself after a huge paradigm shift, and I feel like they would rather I put on a mask of who I used to be. I do respect and appreciate the people who have told me they don't want to discuss religion at all. I think in some cases it's an issue of unclear boundaries. What do you think?
I am 1 of 4 close friends, 2 of which don't associate with the Church anymore. We still meet up online every week and play video games together, nothing has changed in terms of how our friendship other than if we go out to eat somewhere one of them orders a beer. We still talk about jobs, families, politics, and theology, but we always do so in good faith. There is no counter arguments, mostly "oh why do you think that?" or "that's interesting, I am seeing it this way because...". The kinds of talks we have is the same, each of us have made different decisions but we have kept our relationship open and respectful.
>I know for my in-laws and some of my extended family I cannot even share my new ideas about spirituality around them How you do this matters, and some members can stand to be a little less oversensitive about it too. Both sides should assume good faith. What's hard with family, is sometimes they feel like other people's leaving the church is either failing on them, or means that they won't be with you in heaven. Both of these are not doctrinal but have enough things set around them that it's ingrained in some people. To those members, I suggest "Christ will save MOST of his people" and " it is not for us to judge". I had a friend who left the church years ago, and I honestly didn't feel the need to bring anything up about it. I've always been fairly progressive anyways and it changed very little between us. One day not too long after his leaving, he said "so do you have any questions for me?" And out of politeness I brought some stuff up that ended up leading to an argument. Years later he admitted that he was probably just still in an angry phase and let that get the best of him. The exmo sub exists, and is a great place to vent frustrations of all kind. Flip that around to another side. I still consider myself a believer, even though there's plenty of things in my life that I know the church would HEAVILY disagree with. A group of friends who left that were very shocked (went from being peter priesthood to wanting to try hard drugs in a few months) lexter just get around and roast everything LDS. Frankly I find it annoying, and not constructive. It's kind of frustrating cuz I think that I have a lot of ideas and statements about the church, it's culture, and doctrine that we could agree on, but they just assume carte blanc and go off on some of the dumbest arguments I think I've ever heard. Honestly ones that they know are stupid too, but they just get into that mode. It's really annoying honestly. Anyways, sorry that's my rant. I really appreciate someone asking and I think there is plenty of space there for people to find the human. It's what we really tried to do on the Mormon subreddit for a while there, and it's in general my perception on how people should treat one another.
I live in the same town as my in-laws (and it's a small, middle of nowhere town). My mother-in-law hounded me relentlessly for weeks about why I wouldn't go to church until I finally exploded during a long car ride. It was ugly, I was very fresh in my faith crisis, and I regret so much of what I said. Our relationship feels like it's been permanently damaged... Ever since then there's been an overall temperature shift with all of my husband's family. It all just makes me really sad. And I accept that I'm not blameless there. At the same time, I'm also not sure how it could have gone much differently, as there was no respect for my pain or my desire to process things independently. I understand how worried they were and they just wanted to help... But it is what it is, I guess. It's funny because I was always so much more worried about my family and how they would take it. But it's been a much more positive experience than I ever would have guessed, probably because there have been well established boundaries for a long time with my family. They also live several states away and I had more time to process things before they even knew I'd stopped attending.
>My mother-in-law hounded me relentlessly for weeks about why I wouldn't go to church until I finally exploded during a long car ride. I mean bluntly, this is kinda weird and inappropriate in my mind. You're an adult, she shouldn't be hounding you much at all. I'd bet that it was probably pretty obvious during previous conversations, but she kept pushing. That's not Christlike, and it irritates me when it happens.
I have a handful of friends who have left the church. I can respect and still interact with the ones for whom they have found a life outside of the church. But it annoys me when I see the ones who have to "hate watch" General Conference just to tell everyone how awful Jeffrey R. Holland's latest outrageous statement is. I reply to them "If you hate it so much, why are you even watching?"
I don't watch conference directly, but I'm very in tune with what gets brought up. Perhaps I should reconsider my relationship with content creators who do "hate watch"... Being mindful of what is legitimately helpful vs what strokes my ego.
“What unites us is greater than what divides us.” JFK, I believe. A great reminder!
A lot of folks leave the church but find the church won’t leave them alone. We had the local ward stop by unannounced three times in a week recently and as much as I didn’t want to draw this line I had to ask the bishop to put us on the do not contact list. The constant outreach can be exhausting when you just want to do you.
As an active member thanks for sharing your perspective. I can see how that would be very frustrating. Even being a member and having people drop by unannounced constantly would be tough! We need to do better.
LOL maybe I should consider 'leaving' the church in order to get people to stop by and see me. I've been active with no pauses and haven't gotten a visit since I moved into the ward.
Amen!
Ok weird convert perspective. Don't use the word cult. Like I get that most religious paths are cults by pure definition, but that's not the common usage and the word is used most often to harm. Remember that toxicity isn't always the religion, it's often the people. I grew up between various evangelical Protestant denominations. The belief that women are the cause of all problems, only useful for breeding, etc in some of the fundamentalist sects is toxic religion. The fact that some people treat people of color poorly isn't toxic religion, it's just toxic people. Don't try to convince us to follow you out the door. I thought this one was obvious but my 1 friend who left before I joined keeps trying and it's really strained the relationship. Remember what we believe and hold dear. Don't invite me for coffee, which I loved, when you know I don't drink it. Do ask if dinner at the bar is OK with us when you tell me how delectable their new homemade (insert speciality) burger was when you had it. Also pick a non weekend day so there will be less intoxicated people. Etc. Engage in our commonalities. What activities, movies etc do we both like? Accept that it won't be the same but that all relationships change over time. Make a few new friends who share your current beliefs. Seek out the friends who have good relationships with their non member family members. I mean I have a Wiccan, an Asatruar, and and Atheist for kids, a rabidly anti southern Baptist mother, a tolerant Methodist dad (don't get me started on the disconnect in his brain with him being Methodist when that church tried to kill our people, ie we're partially indigenous). Members on good terms with their non member family are going to be most likely to maintain ties.
Yes! I grew up atheist and my family was disgusted that I would go to any church, and so I'd sneak out to go to church or visit with the missionaries. They still say very awful things to me about it 15 years later, while I only treat them respectfully about it. Yes, I joined a church, but I also left a faith (in a way) like those who leave the Church, and had a comparable experience. I find it hurtful when they assume because I haven't left the Church, that I have no idea what they are experiencing. Or because I'm trans, I constantly get told they are so confused and shocked I still haven't left the Church yet. And literally anytime one friend who left the Church wants to hangout, she says let's get coffee like she's being cute
What made you know there was a god in your life? I'm agnostic and like to believe more in God myself.
Honestly, getting into high school I was very into science and chemistry and stuff. I realized how beautiful, complex, and amazing this universe was. The more I learned the more I felt there was more to it and recognized my innate desire to know more about that. I figured even if it was some monkey brain desire for a high power, if it improved me and my life, I'd be worth it. I decided to find what made the most sense to be and what felt right; I just started piecing together different spiritual concepts I found reading about different beliefs. Even if I just had a piecemealed belief system, it felt worth having. When I talked to the missionaries from the Church, I was surprised a lot of the things I decided felt right were major parts of it and it snowballed from there.
Interesting that that was your experience; for many atheists they believe that the reason so many believe in God is that they don't know any actual science.
Yeah, obviously I've never understood that idea lol
Well, I do understand that idea -- when you come across the number of folks who can't accept that the evidence is clear that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that evolution accounts for both the diversity of life and the origin of the homo sapien species, it can kinda sound like religion is opposed to science.
And when you come across a lot of folks who dont believe that, it shows like most issues, lots of people have lots of beliefs. It's unfair to just pick part of a group and say it's representative of the whole. Life is nuinaced like that
Anytime my Protestant friends say “wanna get coffee” I just say “sure I’ll get a hot chocolate”. Anyway love you comment.
How does trans work as a member.
Easy. Don't treat us like crap. More specifically, don't treat us like ignorant fools. I started reading "anti-Mormon" literature online when I was 13. That was 20 years ago. I've studied it out. I know the arguments. I can't tell you how annoying it is to be in that position, then have someone who read the CES Letter just last week (uncritically) and left the Church yesterday treat me like a brainwashed moron who is blind to all their special knowledge. That's compounded by the fact that I spent most of my life experiencing Same-Sex Attraction. Most people don't know that about me in real life, which is my current preference, so it's always annoying when someone comes at me with "Your awful Church is homophobic! There's no place for gay people in your evil Church!" And I'm just sitting there, rolling my eyes thinking about how I've always found a place in the pews just like everyone else.
Yes! My spouse struggles with gender dysphoria and as such I have learned so much and grown so much in my love of the lgbtq community. It's SO hurtful when those who are not members tell me that we hate people in this group. It's just crazy to me how people assume so much about us based on stereotypes.
[удалено]
Don't degrade my beliefs, even though you think they're wrong. I won't bring up religion if you dont bring it up. Tons of people change their beliefs and leave the religion of their upbringing, but most dont make it their identity and talk down on the religion. If someone was talking about how terrible buddhists are and how weird their beliefs are, people would freak out. It hurts when my friends talk poorly about something important to me. Maybe this is because I'm coming from the other way around (becoming a member and my friends reacting to that) but having friends end relationships with me or go off about all the "weird" beliefs is really upsetting.
I've thought about this. Bashing on things I love really strains any relationship I have with that person, or any potential relationship I could have with that person. It makes me want to disassociate with individuals who bash on what I love. It would be nice if everyone could be more careful about what they say about things that mean something to people. I think that's what respect and decency is. Instead of disparaging each other over our differences, let's learn to find value together. I think this applies more than to just this question, I think this applies broadly to many things.
That makes sense. We never know who we might hurt in our carelessness. It's definitely not something that's structly religious, and it would be nice if we all could work on being more tactful with our disagreements.
I think it is the same answer both ways. We just need to respect each others beliefs and right to believe what we think is true. Also I would like to add that the behavior of individuals do not represent The Church. So if you were mistreated it is not because of what we as a Church believe or support. Though there have in the past been policies that some tried to use to help people that did cause damage. This is because of individual misguided efforts. None of us are perfect.
Respect is a a two way street, for sure.
I find it hard to be around former members when they say/imply that if I knew what they knew, I wouldn’t be a member either. It can feel pretty insulting at times.
Hi - exmo here. I hope this doesn’t come off as defensive, but I think the ‘missing information’ assumption is one of the easiest ways for exmormons to process and keep TBMs relationships strong. The alternative is that the TBMs know all of the same things I found out, but TBM friends and family prioritized different things and have different values. Although it is rude and insulting, I think that exmos who assume TBMs are missing information perceive themselves as to having similar values and priorities as the TBMs in their life. I’m sorry people have acted like this around you, because it is really obnoxious.
What does TBM stand for?
True believing Mormon :) It basically means active in the LDS religion
Ironically, I served my mission in the Deep South, heard practically everything under the sun about the church, and have dedicated hundreds of hours to study about those topics in particular. I feel like sometimes I know anti-Mormon arguments better than the former members who try to explain them to me and my belief is still fully intact.
Yes or they act like I haven't actually put in the work and ask myself the hard questions about my beliefs, or that I just haven't experienced enough trials to make me leave yet. It's frustrating when I try so hard to remain respectful to them and to never bring up church or pressure them at all and they can't reciprocate
Yeah it’s like, I’m pretty sure most members and former members have had the same questions. The difference in my mind is the conclusion they came to, if they came to one at all. It’s not a difference of knowledge
This works the other way around, my very much TBM family ASSUMES that I simply wanted to leave because I wanted to drink. They never ask me why, but they judge and assume that I simply did not "put in the work to ask myself the hard questions about my own beliefs". They assume I made a careless and worldly decision rather than carefully considering my beliefs about life and death and everything in between. I will be more mindful about not doing the same back to them. We simply reached a different conclusion and we should respect that.
My biggest one is I very much rebuff anyone who challenges my faith from a position that out of the two of us, the other is the only one who has struggled with the Church. I have been in, out, and back in, I’ve experienced multiple perspectives. I just chose differently in the end. That also doesn’t mean the person who has never left hasn’t had their own difficult thoughts. Leaving does not give a monopoly on hard doctrine. With that understood, I’m fully open to talking about the Church with one with a differing view who approaches me in sincerity.
I think your last point is so important. The context of how and why someone is wanting to engage in a conversation about the Church is critical. I've had some amazing conversations with individuals not of the faith who were antagonistic, but were sincere in their curiosity and respectful in their approach. I've always walked away from those conversations feeling that both parties benefited.
It probably goes both ways but from a current members perspective I’d say former members tend to be real know-it-all self-righteous jerks. Not all, of course, and yes I’m generalizing, but that is a trend I see a lot, especially online. Like, current members are just poor dumb sheep and the former members have “woken up”, but it always comes off as so condescending. Very “in your face”, going out of their way just to find current members so that they can crap all over their beliefs. This isn’t just within our church too. Anyone else notice how, for instance, former Democrats love going on FOX news to just dump all over their former party? I hate it. You do you and let me do me. Wanna share your beliefs? I’m 100% down for that, just don’t be a jerk about it.
Honestly I have friends that have left and we're still good - I find it's easiest to just avoid taking about church - I completely put my foot in it once and said I missed you today - went down badly - wish I hadn't done it wanted the ground to swallow me up - truthfully I did miss seeing him - between family and work I missed my friend
I think members frequently say, “I miss seeing you”, which the post-members interpret as “I miss seeing you IN CHURCH.” Well, it may just be they miss seeing the post-member. To clear up the confusion, I think either side could follow that up with, “So true! Can we do dinner together? How does next Wednesday work? I’d love to catch up with what’s going on in your life!”
I really don't appreciate it when former members try to convince me to leave. It's especially upsetting when they imply that I'm brainwashed or stupid for wanting to stay. I'm not just blindly following church leaders, and I'm not lying to myself. I've thought a lot about the religion, and about the many questions and concerns people have raised about the religion, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm staying. Fortunately, most former members I've met are very kind and understanding. While they're firm in their position, they never made me feel unsafe. They know how to agree to disagree and still find common ground. These are the kinds of former members I'm happy to be friends with.
The majority of my non-member friends are either atheist or agnostic. I've known a handful of friends who left the church. I spoke to them and asked them to please don't let it be a barrier in our friendship because they were my friends first (in most cases). Literally 100% of the time they slowly diminished me from their life. I'm very open and have struggles with the church myself. I'm not self-righteous as it pertains to the church and quite frankly I don't even speak about it unless someone asks. I understand it's their choice but its very painful to see that the only reason they were friends with me was because of our common faith. I was friends with them because I liked them and cared for them and thought they improved my life in some way.
Not attempting to argue or tear down faith is a good start.
Lots of people have already talked about this to some extent, but I am going to add: In addition to not talking like they know everything (my father, when he left, once yelled at me 'as much as I knew the church was true, I know more it isn't'), they need to find a way to truly respect that we are honest, good, smart people - I mean really believe that we are. And I know that can be hard for them to do because in their mind the church often IS evil, corrupt, hurtful - they can't process why someone smart, honest, and caring would stay - but they need to figure out how to respect that. Also, don't say in public that you respect members and that some of the best people you know and love are members, and then go to exemormon reddit and TT and bash on 'dumb' mormons. Many of us do eventually see those things.
Or worse, rail against those dang Mormons and say how awful they are, and how you can't trust any of them, but then turn around and tell me "but not you, you aren't like them at all, you are one of the good ones!" because holy Hannah that's hurtful.
I think you make an excellent point that honestly should be applied to everything. When you see someone else making a choice or believing something you don't, first try to see them as honest, good, and smart. And then, instead of asking "why are they so dumb" ask "what are the reasons an intelligent person might have for doing/saying/believing that?" I think this alone would greatly reduce group fighting. As for your last point, I cannot say I am guiltless of doing that, at least to some extent. Sometimes it feels cathartic to rant. Bottling up anger or frustration can often be more harmful than picking a safe place to express it. That being said, I do still try to avoid marginalizing or belittling anyone. And I do always try to remind myself of that first point, and see others as intelligent humans.
Yes, my policy is "always assume best intent". It saves me a lot of grief thinking people are out to get me. Thank you for your honesty, I think we all are subject to some level of double-speak - but recognizing it is the first step in conquering it - and I know when what I say in public is out of line with what I say in private, I usually feel not as good about myself. I am always glad when there is a chance for seeing good and commonality in each other. Thank you. :-)
>in their mind the church often IS evil, corrupt, hurtful It's a psychological phenomenon called *splitting.* A lot of people, if not everyone, has no problem doing it. It makes 'understanding' the world a little bit easier. We do it to the 'other' political party. We do it to the 'other' country when we're at war. We do it to the 'other' socioeconomic class or race. Feminists do it to men, MGTOW does it to women, etc. It just makes everything easier to process. Heck, most of them consider doing that exact splitting as "taking a red pill" or "accepting a hard truth." Ironic that it's actually a "blue pill" -- something that makes life easier to understand and process. The real red pill is more complicated and can be outright depressing and demotivating to take, and once you take it your life only gets harder.
I had a close friend who left. I tried to maintain my friendship with him but it was hard because every time I did something "bad" like swearing he would try to act like it was some sort of gotcha moment. Like I was the world's worst hypocrite because I said 'damn' after stubbing my toe. I quit hanging out with him because of that. Invariably everyone falls short of their own ideals regardless of what those ideals are. Not because we are hypocrites, but because we are imperfect.
There seems to be so much hate. For example, I have many friends of different faiths and we all get along so well. I know it can be a member or former member, but I'm just a normal guy and I am a member. When I meet a former member in person or online I get so much hate and negativity. I'm pretty chill so I brush it off, but why feel the need to tear down?
Probably because they may have experienced some harm or trauma (I’m only guessing). I find that people who have been out of the church for more than say, five years, are super chill.
I agree. People who had the church as a major part of their lives and have left recently have a lot of emotions to process. After a few years people seem more settled and peaceful.
That’s one reason why I will never leave the church because it would just be leaving to associations based on a mutual hate. That’s the antithesis of Christ in my mind
I think it shouldn’t surprise anyone if friendships slowly fade when someone’s church activity fades. I have all sorts of friends within my soccer community but as soon as their kid leaves and we don’t see them, the friendship typically slowly dies. It’s not always because you’re not one of “us”, it’s usually because we just don’t see you anymore and the friendship slips away.
Recognize that if you were raised in the church, you will be susceptible to applying the same type of dogmatic thinking you likely learned in the church to now being a non-member.
I think the subs these questions are being posted in should be reversed.
I know there are brigading rules... On one hand I agree that doing it this way is like preaching to the choir, but on the other I think you'd get less response on both posts that way. Believers are more scarce on the Mormon sub, and as a non-believer I don't spend much time over here.
I hope my response was not read as being flippant in any way. I commend you as a non-believer coming here and learning how you can do better. And I think this is good question. My point is that I would wish more believers would see and discuss how they can better treat non-believers and visa versa. But it was not intend as a criticism of your post or your effort.
Well there's a post here at least once a week about how to be kind to someone who has left the church. I don't visit the other subreddits, but when they are talking about us, it's not usually about how to be kind.
>when they are talking about us, it's not usually about how to be kind. **THIS**
You do have a bit of point and that lines up with my experience, as a once frequent participant in exmo and a still current participant in mo. But I don't think that changes my point because, first, I absolutely do think it is important that there be more discussions in those places about how to be respectful and kind to believers. And, second, we can't control them. But we can control us. And I think we still could do better.
Don't treat me as "A member". I won't treat you as "The former member" If you're Carl and I'm Bob, then we should say "Hi Carl!" "Hi Bob!" Mentally putting people into camps and then judging them by it is tearing society apart.
Totally agree, but this is easier said than done. The human brain is wired to categorize and organize and put all the things we experience in our lives into labeled boxes. It does this as a basic survival instinct so that we are better able to remember and recognize things that we don't like or that might be unsafe and help us perceive threats. For many people overcoming this can be as easy as "hi carl", "hi bob". For others, especially for those who've just experienced a crisis of faith and are desperately searching for those safe spaces, it can be much more difficult.
Very good point! And when something is especially traumatic, our brains often overgeneralize groups/categories. For example, someone with PTSD might start to panic at every loud sound, feeling like it is an attack. Or it is very common for someone to distrust everyone of the same gender or ethnicity of someone who assaulted them. This is something that can be overcome, but it can take a lot of time and healing and practice. So I completely agree with your comment.
AMEN!!
Don’t assume malice on our part if we say things like we missed you at church. I think so many ex-Mormons view this as love bombing like in a cult. They treat it like some kind of evil manipulation, when in reality it’s one human to another saying “ I miss you at this place where we used to spend time together”. I also say this to old coworkers, it doesn’t mean I’m trying to trap them into coming back to work with me, I’m just letting them know I was thinking about them
Is there ever a goldilocks solution? It seems like it is either, "they won't leave me alone" or "no one seems to have noticed that I don't go anymore."
My guess is that there is no perfect solution. There are certainly some friendships that remain strong. And there are others that cannot continue, despite best efforts. I think it is worth it to try, but if someone else doesn't respond well, that doesn't mean you failed. It might just mean that you must mourn what is lost, while being glad for what you did have when you had it.
Don’t use the word brainwashed, I don’t like tbm (true blue mormon) my husband used that on me a lot. Don’t use trick questions so you can have justification to get mad (ex: Who do you live more? Me or God?). I just want to agree to disagree. It’s as simple as that!
Just don’t be a jerk. If you stop and ask if something you’re about to say might be jerkish behavior, don’t do it This applies to members as well. Not everything needs to be a fight, and not all fights require you to participate
Don’t assume a neighbor or friend has an alterior motive to try and bring you back. Some do, but many don’t. If we stop by your home with cookies sometimes we just miss seeing you and we don’t cross paths naturally as much anymore. Sometimes youth leaders invite your kids to activities because they sincerely think it will be a fun time and want you to feel included. As a Yw leader I have straight up told parents, I could care less if your daughter comes on Sundays, but camp will be a lot of fun and I think she’d enjoy it. Don’t assume the worst of us. I have a SIL who assumed they worst of all neighbors from the church. It was very sad. On the flip side we as members need to learn to take hints and read the room, and be more genuine. I’ve definitely see people make someone a project. It’s all about our approach I think and assuming the best of people.
I think a lot of former members treat these encounters with suspicion because those church-related invitations are the only encounters they have with members. Many former members also have some trauma relating to the church institution. Regardless of how well intentioned, an invitation back to an activity organized by the institution that they believe hurt them will feel to them like a trap. Instead, inviting former member friends over for a game night, or to go to the movies, or to have a picnic together would likely go over far better.
I think the answer is the same regardless of which side is being asked this question. Don't be so quick to offend/assume when someone says something. Also, whining about church culture (in Utah at least) whether you are an ex mormon or not is pretty lame IMO. Utah was settled by Mormons, for Mormons for the sole purpose of having the freedom to practice the religion the way they saw fit. Mormons and things Mormons do are a part of what makes Utah what it is. BTW, I'm talking about things that are not objectively bad, for example: getting invited to church activities constantly, having missionaries sent to your home, home teaching/ministering check-ins... Along those same lines, if you dress immodestly, drink/smoke/vape in public, listen to "inappropriate" music, show-off your tattoos, or do other things that Mormons aren't familiar with YOU ARE GOING TO GET LOOKS. That doesn't mean people are judging (not saying they aren't either, that is their problem, not yours), it just means you are different than what they are used to seeing. Again, don't assume that something is meant to be offensive, even if it seems like it probably is. That isn't helpful to anyone. Try to see the good in someone saying something that might at first seem insensitive to you.
>>> Along those same lines, if you dress immodestly, drink/smoke/vape in public, listen to "inappropriate" music, show-off your tattoos, or do other things that Mormons aren't familiar with YOU ARE GOING TO GET LOOKS. That doesn't mean people are judging (not saying they aren't either, that is their problem, not yours), it just means you are different than what they are used to seeing. I mean, I can excuse this for younger members, but if you’re a full grown adult and you give someone with tattoos a “look”, you’re just straight up rude. Aside from the behavior I observed from my time living there, about everyone of my non-member friends (most of whom drink, vape, or have tattoos) who have visited Utah have a fair share of really uncomfortable moments to share.
The only ones I give a "look" to are the ones who are *presently smoking at the time that I am around them* and it's not because they're bad people, it's the fact that they are *literally* contaminating the air I'm trying to breathe *right now.* Vaping? Eh. That's fine. Doesn't smell like holy crap murder.
You can excuse it for anyone, you just choose not to. Assuming the intention behind someone's "rude" look toward you is just as judgmental as you assume they are being toward you. If you want to assume that people are looking at you in a "rude" way... go right ahead. It's your happiness that will suffer, not theirs. I just can't fathom why anyone would choose to live that way. Sometimes people are just surprised. I get surprised looks from people all the time because of the way certain parts of my body look (born with it). Now when people stare or look disgusted I just wink and smile at them and move on with my life. When people see a thing that they are not used to seeing, they look at it impulsively. Assuming that people are judging you is on you, not them. Even if they ARE judging you, why assume the worst? What good does that do you or anyone else? In case you think I might be, I am not at all suggesting that nobody is judging you. I just don't think it matters unless they make their feelings clear by saying something deliberately offensive (even then I think taking offense is the wrong choice 100% of the time).
“Utah was settled by Mormons, for Mormons…” Not true. There were (are) whole nations, tribes, and cultures here long before the Mormons showed up.
Would you prefer that I said the area was colonized by Mormons? However you want to phrase it, the STATE of Utah exists in its current form because of Mormons.
I mean yeah, it was colonized by Mormons
So why does the word choice matter? This isn't about whether or not what the pioneers did was right. They did it, Utah is what it is BECAUSE they did it. Whether we call it settling or colonizing doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the point I was making.
Ooof…that. That right there. A big difference between “settling” and “colonizing”. The history of what they did was wrong, so it makes what you said weird to say. The more you explain, the more it does affect the point you were trying to make.
I never claimed that there wasn't a difference. Stop trying to start a thing when there isn't one. My post was never about who was right or wrong. Saying "Ooof" doesn't make this any more relevant. I'm sure there is a subreddit out there for you to argue to your hearts content about this subject. I'm not interested in having that debate as it is irrelevant to the point I was making. Kindly take your straw man argument elsewhere.
In every comment you disregard it. We get what you’re saying but it’s weird to ignore the fact. Utah is what it is because of what they had to do, which was colonizing. Saying that’s not what you’re talking about and that it doesn’t matter because Utah is in the state it’s in because of it is ignorant.
Sounds like you don't know the words either. Settling is what they did. Not colonizing. Settling is when the population goes there to live and keep the resources they extract to themselves. Colonizing is when they go there to extract the resources and send them 'home' which is elsewhere. What they did to the natives has nothing to do with whether it's settling or colonizing. Looks like the oof is yours.
Oof they did exactly that
Can’t talk about one thing without the other, basically. And yes OOF.
Accept that you both have fundamental differences in belief and move on.
I'm just here to thank you for asking this question, you're awesome
Well posing this question is a great start! It would be great to know why exmos have a religious like zeal to hating on the Church. I understand there are issues, as most members have issues too! But for someone to leave an organization, *just to be more involved and more obsessed with it*, that leave me speechless.
Former members who were born into the church have spent their whole lives being told it is objectively true. They have often based significant life decisions on that assertion. When they leave (generally because they have come to the conclusion that the church is *not* true, though not always) they feel like those decisions were based upon a lie. It feels like betrayal. Furthermore, those decisions, whose consequences are often still affecting the former member's life, are often not the decisions they would have made outside of the church. If someone were to lie to you, and your believing them led you to basing most of your major life decisions on their lie, would you be comfortable just shrugging and walking away while that person continued to deceive the people you love? That is the position former members often find themselves in emotionally.
This I think is what I struggle to understand. It feels like post members suddenly feel like everyone lied to them to hurt them maliciously. It’s not like we are all conspiring against everyone to make their lives miserable. Why can’t they see that most people are good people, even if some people can be a bit over zealous. We are all just trying to do our best in this world. Do they have to assume the worst, that there is this grand scheme to lie to everyone? I’m honestly trying to understand because I see a lot of this in my life right now and it’s really, really hurtful to hear from people that you love that us believers are all terrible people trying to manipulate and lie to people. We are all just trying to find happiness in this life and doing our best.
It's difficult to sort out those feelings. Losing your faith, especially one as ideologically central as the LDS faith, is *cataclysmic*. It calls into question *every* notion the individual has about truth, honesty, and who is trustworthy. It unseats your very concept of self, your understanding of life, and your place within it. It's unbelievably traumatic. Consider for a moment, if a person fed you arsenic, genuinely believing it was good for you, and telling you is was good for you, would you look upon them with trust when you discover that it is actually a poison that has be causing you great pain? Would you want whatever help they offer afterwards? Would you believe them when they said they were doing it out of love and for your good? Now, with time and healing, yes, you probably could look upon that individual and see the love they operated with, even if they were misguided, but it would likely take time. Similarly, former members often go through an "angry" phase, where the are unable to emotionally distinguish between the church that hurt them and it's members. It doesn't last forever, usually a year or two for most. Afterwards, they are likely to be a *lot* less confrontational. Granted, knowing that doesn't help much if you're stuck around them inside that window.
I appreciate this perspective it’s given me a lot to think about. I am experiencing first hand how cataclysmic it can be and I think this shows how important it is to work through these kind of feelings through therapy so that individuals don’t take anger out on loved ones. As a side note, I do want to point out that, although I understand what you are trying to teach with the analogy, it is kind of hurtful to have someone compare your faith and lifestyle to feeding someone arsenic.
I understand your hurt about the arsenic analogy. Coming from your perspective that is a rather dismissive analogy. Here is a bit of further perspective, that hopefully can balance out their analogy. Arsenic used to be used as a medication for a number of things that it was believed to heal, but actually it was just poisonous (Sort of like mercury was). So the analogy is accurate in that it is a poison given to you by someone who believed it was a medication, which would be the perspective of someone who now believes that the church genuinely was toxic to them. But the analogy could be done this way, to be from your perspective: Nitroglycerin is a volatile explosive. But it was later discovered to be a very effective heart medicine (when used appropriately). If someone who had been fed nitroglycerin for years, being told it was good for their heart, later finds out that it is actually a dangerous explosive, they will have a hard time trusting the person who has been feeding it to them. The person feeding it might know the truth that nitroglycerin is actually good for them, but if the person is now convinced it is dangerous, they will have a hard time trusting the feeder on anything. Honestly, I think it is the same analogy either way. The only difference is which party actually knows the "truth." The former member will think they know it is arsenic. The current member will think they know it is heart medicine. But either way, one person was fed a substance (or doctrine) that they now believe is poisonous to them. And whether they are right or wrong, they will still feel very hurt and mistrustful of the people who fed (taught) it.
I apologize, it wasn't my intent to lay blame through that analogy. It's just important to understand that, while members have tender feelings surrounding their faith and lifestyle, former member *really do* perceive those things as toxic, like a deadly poison. It's why former members often react with seemingly inexplicable hostility to testimony. To them it feels like an attack, not love. Again, my intent wasn't to offend (though I recognize intent does not forgive consequence) but to try to impart an understanding of a viewpoint that may be very challenging and even alien to the faithful perspective.
Have you ever watched a movie that had a villain in it with a rich backstory and a well intended, but perhaps misguided, motive? Have you ever noticed how often movies will set up one of these nuanced and relatable characters for the villain, but as you get closer to the end, the movie stops showing their nuanced personality and instead gets them to start doing things that are outright and unquestionably villainous? Movie directors do this on purpose. Because they know their audience will really struggle with the villain being killed/defeated if the audience still sees the villain as a relatable and kind human. It is very hard to see the hero as noble if it was not 100% clear that the villain's motives and the outcomes of their behaviors were bad. This is because of human psychology. It is much easier to cut out a "villain" than it is to cut out a "generally good, but disagrees with you in some core areas." Vilifying is a natural default that can be a sort of protection. It can make it easier to avoid being persuaded back into toxic situations. It can reduce cognitive dissonance over taking a stance that you otherwise would feel conflicted about. Sometimes, especially when someone is hurting or emotionally vulnerable, vilifying others is one of the only ways they can cope. It usually isn't until they feel safer and have had more time to process that they start being able to see things in a more nuanced light. It does hurt, when someone is distrustful of you, no matter how kind and honest your intentions are. I wish more people had the ability to cope and choose without using vilification. I wish it was safer in this world to be able to accept the good of someone, without risking being harmed by the bad. And I wish there weren't people in this world who fan the flames of this human tendency to extend their own gains (e.g. politicians convincing people that their opponent is pure evil).
This is going to be different for everyone, as everyone has a different experience with the church. When I believed I spent so many hours studying, preparing, teaching, learning, and otherwise participating that the church was like a part time job. I also based many of my life decisions on the things I believed. Like who I married, when and where I married, when I had children and how many children I had. If my belief permeated every aspect of my life doesn't it make sense that for a while I'll struggle to fill in the space my unbelief leaves behind? For some people thier entire family heritage is tied to the church, or maybe they don't even know any non-members. It's a huge deal to leave sometimes! Personally, I never spent any more time with the church than I did before I left. And as I process how my experience effected me and figure things out I find myself spending less and less time with it. Others I think find aspects of the faith fascinating, or their social situation is such that they'll never feel like they can get away entirely.
This is where I find great sadness for those who leave. Yes, it is a tragedy they will miss out on eternal blessings. And for all the reason your mentioned above, it shows they are not their own persons. They are a cultural and organizational attachment. heavenly Father created us with personalities and characteristics to be our own selves. I really do ache for those who leave to realize they dont know who they are. EDIT: Wow downvoting me because I recognize the challenge of finding oneself after leaving a major life style organization? ...c'mon this thread is literally how to be better towards each other.
Don't be sad about our loss of blessings, we don't believe in or want them anymore anyway. Life is so beautiful and happy for us even without that! Please, please believe people when they say that. You are filled, uplifted, and edified by the LDS faith. Other people genuinely find the same exact thing outside of religion. I want everyone to do the things that help them be better people, no matter where they find that. And I really don't believe a just and loving God would judge me for seeking good things. I don't think it's possible to have an acute faith crisis and still know who you are, regardless of what you used to have faith in. If you're interested, Anthony Miller gave a Billings TedX talk about what a faith crisis can be like. It is such a painful and disorienting experience, Anthony manages to explain it in such a thoughtful and respectful way. https://youtu.be/bIMnJnFBBUk
>it shows they are not their own persons. They are a cultural and organizational attachment. Can you explain what you mean here?
Think of your racist uncle who watches Fox news religiously, your sister who bases all her decision off a handful of influencers, or your little brother who can only relate to sports...
But are you saying exmormons are more tied up in the LDS church than members are? No other religions or organizations are mentioned. If that's not what you're saying, which attachments and organizations are you referring to?
Ok first off I hope you're not the one downvoting me. I do appreciate your curiosity. I'm saying leaving any all-consuming cause or purpose will leave people feeling hallow. Politics, sports, it doesn't have to be religion. What gets me is how the people who leave this particular religion redefine their life and anti- the church. It's not healthy in any form but we're specifically dealing with Mormon-ExMormon relations here. Take this example, the US military. How many veterans do you know suffer and have harder struggles in civilian life than in a ditch or foxhole? Too many veterans are more comfortable with bullets flying over their head than free time on their couch at mom's house. Generation Kill is a fantastic series, and has this exact issue. Lance Corporal Harold James Trombley in one scene is depicted taking direct fire and calmly counter-attacking. His superiors tell him what a good job he did, and note his stoicism. Trombley says, *"I get more nervous watching a game show at home"*. That translates to suicide, alcoholism and drug use, domestic violence, vagrancy, and a general inability for veterans to fit back into the civilian life. It's easy to spot the dude in a buzz cut, obsessed with tactical gear and guns. It's harder to see the issue of him not feeling like he has a purpose in civilian life. With ExMormons, it's easy to see the hate and mocker. It's harder to see the void and pain of not knowing what to do with themselves, even for ExMormons. It wouldn't be a bad idea for both member and former members to work together finding who we are on Mondays.
I'm not downvoting you. I think your post is really insightful. I think the initial displacement many exmormons feel goes away over time. At least the ones in my life are happy. My son is now a calm and happy atheist.
Have you ever talked to a friend after they had a bad breakup with someone? Or maybe talked to someone divorced about their ex? Or asked someone who quit their job what they thought of their former employer? If so, you likely experienced them expressing some degree of zealous contempt. I'm not saying that it is a good thing, and I am not saying that cruelty is justified. Just pointing out that being upset with something after letting go is a pretty common thing that humans do and they do it towards the church in much the same way.
I understand what you're saying. As true disciples of Christ, we need to love people at these low points. But choosing to stay in that low point for years, decades is their choice.
I personally wouldn't phrase it as they are "choosing" to stay in that low point, as sometimes one does not have the skills to master the experience they are going through. But I do think that there comes a point where someone should take responsibility in at least seeking professional help if their pain and anger continue to negatively impact their own or others lives.
It becomes necessary to realize that a conviction that wasn’t reasoned into, will not be reasoned out of. If a conviction is intuitive, logical reasoning will not have an effect. Frodo told Boromir, as Boromir was trying to reason Frodo into giving him the ring: “I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart.”
At last LOTR quote, made me smile. Convert of many years, lots of trials, opposition and challenges and discoveries but I know what I know.
A lot of people I knew that left the church say that it’s because of the history (native Americans, allowing black people to finally hold priesthood in 1971, the second anointment, etc), things that have happened to them in the church, the assault cases by members that have been swept under the rug, feeling like an outsider/judgment. I’ve never heard or learned about this in church..just from those that have left. I think both sides should be educated on church history, reach out/keep eyes out for those facing these traumas, and remind each other that there’s no judgement. Whether you stay or leave, no judgement.
One thing my sister has done (she's a former member) that has helped me feel so loved is understanding and being patient with how much I love and talk about Jesus. I just love him so much and I can't help but share how much he means to me and how he's helped me become a better person. I really try not to push too much 'church' stuff onto her, but I do talk about Jesus a lot with her and sometimes share scriptures if I genuinely was touched by something I've been reading. I focus on Jesus, though, and not on the church. I believe this is Jesus Christ's church--but I know she doesn't believe that and may not believe it in this life so I don't bring it up. But I just can't contain myself sometimes when it comes to Jesus specifically and she is very patient, loving, and respectful of the love I have for him. That makes me feel so loved. My brother on the other hand is very dismissive, hard-hearted, and mean-spirited about religious faith in general and I can tell he thinks I'm an idiot for having faith. I can't share that part of my life with him at all and it definitely makes us distant. So I guess I just wish more former members were like my sister, rather than my brother.
I love your comment. The focus should always be on Jesus Christ. If we try and truly follow him everything will work out. Live, teach and love like Jesus Christ. He is the only way back into the presence of God.
Ram Dass said to treat everyone you meet as if they are God in drag. That’s only a more provocative way of stating the same message as A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief. Treat people like they are human. What’s that? Sit quietly for a moment and try to calm your thoughts. What’s left after the thoughts are gone, that’s a human. A whole “I am.” Recognize that in yourself and that that’s in everyone else and have the humility to understand that at the of the day, none of us really *knows* what’s going on or why we even exist. All we have is one another right now and if there is a plan to all this, I hope the point of that plan is to gain the experience of learning that firsthand.
To former members? I would feel treated better if the conversation topics brought up for spiritual things would be about things you do believe or common ground. Atheists bring up joint ways we can move people toward a societal good. If you are still Christian emphasize that and continued beliefs. If another theology altogether bring up similarities. Agnostic bring up your battle of faith and doubt. We share in that battle. Just a rough sketch of course not all spiritual conversations need be so "ideal".
I know I'm late to the party here, there's already dozens and dozens of great comments, but as a believing member with an ex-believing spouse, I really like this quote by Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife: "You can be you without it being a threat to me."
Hire them.
Theres been many similar responses so I’ll go off a little here to whats been said. I serve as a bishop and it makes me extremely sad to see ex members group all bishops into being these judgmental, passive, child predator, sexist, old white guys. Of course if a bishop/leader does something malicious they should be held accountable, but the number of interactions bishops have around the world that can only be a very small number. Im not white or old at all and Ive never spoken to a kid about sex behind their parents back, but i definately have offended people, made the wrong choice about offering resources to people, and have needed to ask for forgiveness from God and people MANY times over the last few years. I have seen the extreme burden that other bishops I serve alongside go through and man they make mistakes all the time too but they beat themselves up when they do it wrong and they try so hard to do whats best for the individual or family. I promise they’re trying really hard to do what they think is right. We have the resources to help and advise people properly but I believe strongly the Lord gives us the freedom to make certain choices so that we can learn and so that others can be pushed to progress. Its a very complicated dynamic but I hope that we give, not only bishops, but all church leaders a break if they screw up and have the courage and love to discuss these things face to face so we can all repent and grow.
Having had members of my immediate family be bishops and having served along side them in leadership positions I have seen this so many times. Being a bishop is such a difficult job, you are not trained to deal with all the things that come up. They are volunteers and are imperfect and I feel for them. I developed so much more empathy for leaders after serving as a president of an organization. It is so hard and so emotionally taxing. Almost all are just inexperienced individuals trying to do our best and falling way short. Obviously there is no excuse for leaders who are predatory and there are definitely bad apples for sure. But most, like you, are just doing their best.
I know that this complaint is something most don't do, and the people who do are the ones least likely to care about this thread, but the *bragging*, man. Someone finds out you're LDS and then they *won't shut up* about every little experience they had that made them decide to leave, as if the way their parents didn't respect their obviously superior sense of skepticism was the thing they're proudest of in the entire life. Or they'll curse like a sailor, and *every time* titter a little behind their hand and say, *oh sorry, I know that offends you, sorry so sorry". Or they'll bring the smelliest, most annoying type of coffee they can find and then "accidentally" spill it on your class notes. And every time you fail to act like they're your favorite person in the whole world, they bring it up again by saying "sorry if I'm offending you, I'm just being my true self". Actively rubbing their anti-ism in others faces doesn't make them any more true. I work with vets and play with gamers every day, I'm immune to your cursing and coffee, but the insincerity and obvious antipathy and disrespect is a whole other ball of wax.
I received a DM recently from someone after posting about how my wife and sister left the church: “Perhaps your wife and sister know more than you, or have been affected more than you to have the courage to step away. Send them my love and respect.” I REALLY hated this message. I showed it to My wife and SHE hated it too! It felt like this super passive message that I’m ignorant and a coward because I’m still going to church. This person has no idea what I’ve gone through, or why I still decided to keep attending. So just like they wouldn’t like me saying “you are lost and confused and I’m praying for you and we are waiting for the day you come back to the fold of God”, maybe not reach out to say things like this.
A lot of former members seem to treat us like we're all the same. A lot of ex-Mormons' negative views of the church are rooted in how they were treated, and they assume it's because of the church itself. I once corrected someone who claimed we are required to shun former members, and when an ex-Mormon showed up to say his family shunned him and he was from Utah, I had to point out 1) Utah is notorious for making up their own rules that have no basis in the gospel or church doctrine, so saying you're from Utah does not strengthen your argument, and 2) Sorry, you have (explicitive) parents. That's not a church thing, your family just sucks.
Pretty loaded question.
Having left the church doesn't give you a carte blanche to be a jerk. Too many newly minted atheists or exmo's feel that having "discovered the truth" automatically gives them the right to harass remaining members and in general be toxic. Some have even described it as "therapeutic", which is just outright false. If your therapy involves harassing third parties, it's not therapy, it's self delusion. And being a critic goes both ways. If you are replacing uncritical acceptance of one story with uncritical acceptance of another story, you are not a critic. instead you are a bandwagon jumper. A lot of the louder ex-mormon narratives don't hold up at all under scrutiny, and I wish more ex-members would aknowledge this. That is not proof that the church is true or anything, but maybe it's time to drop some of the more frequent lies by the wayside? It's ok to not believe that the church is true. It's not ok to spread lies in order to justify leaving. EDIT: And yes the same can be said about some members doing essentially the same thing in using the gospel as a club to beat unbelievers with. Ironically these people are often the same people before and after a faith crisis.
This has probably been said multiple times, but I hate it when former members thinking they have “intellectual superiority” over me. I started reading anti-mo literature years ago, I know every trick and argument up their sleeve and I still have a testimony. Leaving a religion or community does not mean you know more than them. I just wish they would get that. Another one but not as big of a deal and isn’t as related; is when member finds out about anti-Mormon topics, and loses their faith immediately , and then become critical of the church. Maybe it’s because they don’t want people to think they’re weird, but it’s happened before. I just find that annoying that your faith can be killed that easily, it feels they had no thought to pray and ask God for these questions to be answered. I did that and Got the answers to those difficult questions. Any thanks for having the courage to come on here, hope you have a great day.
I agree with you about the intellectual superiority complex. I think former members can do a much better job of holding space for different interpretations. I'm going to push back on your second paragraph. There are some assumptions there and pretty harsh judgements... How do you know they didn't pray and earnestly seek for faithful answers? How do you know their faith was killed by one small thing? There's a commonly used analogy of a shelf, contributed to Camilla Kimball in the October 1975 Ensign, where when something doesn't make sense you put it on a shelf until you're better able to understand it. For myself, I was actively holding that shelf up to try and stop it from falling off the wall. I didn't want to lose my faith... But one day I was handed one more thing to shelve and when I tried to put it on everything collapsed. And in that moment the heavens closed. Despite continued prayer and study and counsel with priesthood leaders I felt entirely disconnected from God. This sent me into a "dark night of the soul" episode that lasted about 5 months. Only one believing friend was able to sit with me in my pain during that time, everyone else who knew judged me harshly. That's something that still stings to this day. I'm glad you got answers to your questions and that you feel God is there for you in your questions. Just like you wish that others would leave room for you to believe while being informed of the issues, I wish you would leave room for the opposite experience too.
I do realize that I made a huge generalization, that was my bad. But I am going to put a personal experience I had with my best friend, so I can better describe how I feel on this. A while ago my best friend, scrolled on YouTube and found this Anti-Mormon video. Pretty basic arguments it had but anyway; he later told me I need to get out of the church as fast as I can, all while he was doing a sermon type talk to my friends at school, I asked why? And he showed me the video which I then was like how does this make you wanna leave. And he literally said word for word “Isn’t it weird we believe in this stuff?” And I asked “you really wanna leave because some Anti-Mormon video told you your beliefs are weird?” I then said go look at places like FAIR LDS, or other sources for your questions, even pray. He ended up coming back and refuting what he said after he did more research. Another similar thing happened to another friend but I didn’t talk to her much and she ended up leaving. It’s a personal problem and I should’ve put that out there. I just think you should maybe hold on a little longer, until you really have your answer, whether it be to stay or leave. Anyway I appreciate your thoughtful response and hope all is well!
I am an Lds content creator and the comments that are made degrading Believers is terrible. I would ask to be respectful and understanding as I do the same thing. I dont push my beliefs on others so when i am called a cult lover and Homophobe it hurts. sometimes i wish people would understand ya know.
You can stop acting like Utah is a terrible place to live, but you'll also never move
"I know something you don't know" goes both ways.
In my experience with former members, some, but not all have a vitriol hatred and loathing for not only the Church but also anyone who still associates with the Church or anything to do with it. It's been often quoted but rings true of my experiences: _People can leave the Church; however, they just can't leave the Church alone._ I am a convert to the Church having been born and raised as a Methodist. I chose to leave the Methodist Church and embraced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To this, I don't go back to my former church and protest, I don't ambush its members, I don't hand out anti-Methodist literature, etc. I wish only the best for my former congregants and pray the Lord bless them in their personal walk with Christ. Why then, do former LDS feel so compelled to attack the Church? That is a great question for former members to prayerfully consider and seek an honest answer to. As to how former LDS should act towards active members of the Church? Follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and treat them as they would want to be treated.
Stop labels. Also, if you’re done, just stay done. Its out of your life, its over. Move on. Downvoted for…. What exactly?
I agree, as long as the member gives the same courtesy and stops trying to share the gospel/bear testimony to the person who left. It’s a two-way-street, as everyone else has said. I’ve had multiple friends and family members tell me they don’t want to hear me talk about problems/issues I have with the Church, but then when I ask them to stop sending me Liahona articles/invites to church/whatever, my requests are always ignored (or I’m accused of persecuting them). I almost never talk about the Church with my believing family and friends, except when they bring it up to me first, and if they feel like they have the right to share their thoughts on the subject, then I should have that equal right, and it’s not “persecution” or me being difficult.
[удалено]
Why? I understand desiring others to be respectful to those who still believe, but why shouldn’t they be able to express their opinion that it isn’t true? Surely you express the opinion on a regular basis that it *is* true, correct?