How to talk to TBMs?

[Corsair]

This is hard. Do I just interact less with TBMs and find a new family and friends?

In my experience, yes, you should interact less with TBM family and friends, but with an important caveat. Simply try not to talk about Mormonism in any way unless the context demands it. And when you do talk about Mormonism, talk like you were a non-member. Congratulate your TBM friends when they baptize a child or a son gets home from a mission. Congratulate them on temple sealings or a new calling.

This tactic is a practical application of the central problem of introducing apostasy to someone. If there was one issue that could consistently and reliably lead someone out of the LDS church, the church would have collapsed long ago. Obviously the long list of silliness and tragedy surrounding Mormons has not affected the critical mass of orthodox believers. If any one person is going to become an apostate then it will initiate from having an emotional reaction to an intellectual issue. And their is usually no way to know what that issue will be.

Even more insidious is that even if you somehow magically "knew" what that hot-button issue of apostasy was going to be, it will backfire on you if you introduce it as a known unbeliever. The Sunk Cost Fallacy combined with your status as a philosophical outsider will very often cause a believer to retrench even in the face of evidence.

Believers rarely want to talk about their actual beliefs, even when deep down they are bothered by them. The institutional LDS church quietly knows this, which is why the recent Gospel Doctrine lesson on D&C 132 spent 99% of the time talking about treating your spouse righteously and glorifying the temple sealing. The lesson treats the discussion of 19th century plural marriage like it was as appealing as a condom filled with fire ants. Better that no one talks about it at all rather than putting on that issue.

When you are with believers, talk about their job, their hobbies, and their children. Talk about politics, world events, and science. Talk about upcoming movies and the last season of their favorite show. Discuss problems to be faced and solved. Talk about loved ones that have passed on and babies yet to be born. Let them bring up the issues so that the burden of proof rests squarely on the believer. Let them see that well-adjusted, happy unbeliever you actually are striving to become.

[Linked]

Have you looked into "Street Epistemology" at all?

Maybe you could start using some of those methods to turn the conversation to your family's beliefs, and try to get them talking about "why" they actually believe what the believe...

I just looked it up here. It shares some similarities with the commitment pattern they taught me at the MTC, at the beginning anyway. I will have to give it a try. I like that it focuses on the epistemology people use. I would feel like I was being manipulative if I over-use it though.

The commitment pattern??? [PUKE]

Street Epistemology has nothing to do with getting someone to "commit" to something. As I understand it, it's basically using the Socratic Method to try and get someone to actually think about WHY they believe something.

I guess leading questions could be manipulative, but I'm not so sure "WHY?" is a manipulative question. When I was a believer, I don't think I EVER asked myself WHY I believed something.

The first item was basically BRT (Build Relationships of Trust), and the next couple were identifying their concerns. It gave me mission flashbacks, as that was the last time I talked to random people about their beliefs and concerns. That's why it felt like the commitment pattern, although the end game is certainly different. For the commitment pattern you are trying to get them to do things that will get them to believe the way you do and comfortable doing the things you do. For this you are basically trying to break that; show them that the reasons for belief are invalid. Don't get me wrong, I agree that mormon belief is an epistemological travesty and I wish TBMs would see that, but I just thought this methodology has some commonalities with what I was taught to do as a missionary.

It feels manipulative to me because you are trying to reduce the level of confidence someone has in their beliefs without telling them that beforehand. At least that is what the brief overview I read said, that a measure of success is reducing the interlocutor's confidence level in their beliefs. I have a friend who does this and he is generally manipulative and it is really annoying.

[Linked]

This is hard. Do I just interact less with TBMs and find a new family and friends?

In my experience, yes, you should interact less with TBM family and friends, but with an important caveat. Simply try not to talk about Mormonism in any way unless the context demands it. And when you do talk about Mormonism, talk like you were a non-member. Congratulate your TBM friends when they baptize a child or a son gets home from a mission. Congratulate them on temple sealings or a new calling.

This tactic is a practical application of the central problem of introducing apostasy to someone. If there was one issue that could consistently and reliably lead someone out of the LDS church, the church would have collapsed long ago. Obviously the long list of silliness and tragedy surrounding Mormons has not affected the critical mass of orthodox believers. If any one person is going to become an apostate then it will initiate from having an emotional reaction to an intellectual issue. And their is usually no way to know what that issue will be.

Even more insidious is that even if you somehow magically "knew" what that hot-button issue of apostasy was going to be, it will backfire on you if you introduce it as a known unbeliever. The Sunk Cost Fallacy combined with your status as a philosophical outsider will very often cause a believer to retrench even in the face of evidence.

Believers rarely want to talk about their actual beliefs, even when deep down they are bothered by them. The institutional LDS church quietly knows this, which is why the recent Gospel Doctrine lesson on D&C 132 spent 99% of the time talking about treating your spouse righteously and glorifying the temple sealing. The lesson treats the discussion of 19th century plural marriage like it was as appealing as a condom filled with fire ants. Better that no one talks about it at all rather than putting on that issue.

When you are with believers, talk about their job, their hobbies, and their children. Talk about politics, world events, and science. Talk about upcoming movies and the last season of their favorite show. Discuss problems to be faced and solved. Talk about loved ones that have passed on and babies yet to be born. Let them bring up the issues so that the burden of proof rests squarely on the believer. Let them see that well-adjusted, happy unbeliever you actually are striving to become.

Great insight. I have done what you recommend before coming out to them as disaffected. We had great discussions about VR and how the universe could be a simulation and video games and how to build stuff and data science and human origins and stuff. Now that they are aware that I am not TBM there is this big weight hanging over our interactions, and it is difficult to connect as deeply.

Also, I really want to have these religious discussions. Then after I have them it feels sad and like we are more distant. It was jarring to have them tell me that they just don't see the issues I bring up, or the fears I have about being non-mormon in mormonland. I mentioned that being an apostate is the worst thing in mormonism and that was swatted aside with "Our neighbor resigned and we chat all the time! We don't think less of her." and "But you can't really be an apostate unless you have a sure knowledge, so you aren't evil." and "I don't know that we teach that."

I don't pretend that I will convince them their faith is misplaced, though I would be lying if I said I didn't have some hope that seeds I plant will blossom someday. I mainly want to connect with them in these discussions like we used to. But they may not be capable, and honestly I may not be capable anymore.

And a condom filled with fire ants? That sounds like medieval torture! Just those teenage wives must have been for our poor, faithful ggg grandparents.

[trophywife26.2]

That sounds like a very tough situation and I'm sorry you have to deal with it.

My first thought was you need to create boundaries. They will be uncomfortable at first, but they will make your relationship stronger if both parties want the relationship to last and grow.

When you said that conversation revolves around deep dialogue about the church and you will lose a huge part of your relationship with your family that made me sad and I think makes it more understandable that you weren't wanting to make church off limits, e.g. set boundaries.

When it comes to these types of conversations I personally go case by case. I try to decipher if the person who wants to dialogue can listen to me to understand or if they are simply listening to rebut. It's okay for them to counter/challenge me, but if they have no plan at all to attempt to understand, then I don't want to dialogue. I also try to be very vague and nonspecific about criticisms with the church and give people the benefit of the doubt. It's a fine line to walk. I hope you can find a way to make things work and have happy positive relationships.

[moksha]

If your family is Pastafarian, you should enjoy the noodles when offered and then be glad when you are able to enjoy non-noodle dishes by yourself and in the presence of strict carnivores. Man does not thrive by noodles alone.

[wtfluff]

I just looked it up here. It shares some similarities with the commitment pattern they taught me at the MTC, at the beginning anyway. I will have to give it a try. I like that it focuses on the epistemology people use. I would feel like I was being manipulative if I over-use it though.

The commitment pattern??? [PUKE]

Street Epistemology has nothing to do with getting someone to "commit" to something. As I understand it, it's basically using the Socratic Method to try and get someone to actually think about WHY they believe something.

I guess leading questions could be manipulative, but I'm not so sure "WHY?" is a manipulative question. When I was a believer, I don't think I EVER asked myself WHY I believed something.

The first item was basically BRT (Build Relationships of Trust), and the next couple were identifying their concerns. It gave me mission flashbacks, as that was the last time I talked to random people about their beliefs and concerns. That's why it felt like the commitment pattern, although the end game is certainly different. For the commitment pattern you are trying to get them to do things that will get them to believe the way you do and comfortable doing the things you do. For this you are basically trying to break that; show them that the reasons for belief are invalid. Don't get me wrong, I agree that mormon belief is an epistemological travesty and I wish TBMs would see that, but I just thought this methodology has some commonalities with what I was taught to do as a missionary.

It feels manipulative to me because you are trying to reduce the level of confidence someone has in their beliefs without telling them that beforehand. At least that is what the brief overview I read said, that a measure of success is reducing the interlocutor's confidence level in their beliefs. I have a friend who does this and he is generally manipulative and it is really annoying.

See, that's the thing. You don't need to BRT with your family, and you don't need to identify their concerns, or manipulate them. (Although: they seem to be doing everything in their power to "manipulate" you back to being a believer.)

When they ask you why you "don't believe" just turn it back around and ask them why they "do believe". Since they've probably really never actually thought about it, try and get them to actually think for a change.

[Linked]

The commitment pattern??? [PUKE]

Street Epistemology has nothing to do with getting someone to "commit" to something. As I understand it, it's basically using the Socratic Method to try and get someone to actually think about WHY they believe something.

I guess leading questions could be manipulative, but I'm not so sure "WHY?" is a manipulative question. When I was a believer, I don't think I EVER asked myself WHY I believed something.

The first item was basically BRT (Build Relationships of Trust), and the next couple were identifying their concerns. It gave me mission flashbacks, as that was the last time I talked to random people about their beliefs and concerns. That's why it felt like the commitment pattern, although the end game is certainly different. For the commitment pattern you are trying to get them to do things that will get them to believe the way you do and comfortable doing the things you do. For this you are basically trying to break that; show them that the reasons for belief are invalid. Don't get me wrong, I agree that mormon belief is an epistemological travesty and I wish TBMs would see that, but I just thought this methodology has some commonalities with what I was taught to do as a missionary.

It feels manipulative to me because you are trying to reduce the level of confidence someone has in their beliefs without telling them that beforehand. At least that is what the brief overview I read said, that a measure of success is reducing the interlocutor's confidence level in their beliefs. I have a friend who does this and he is generally manipulative and it is really annoying.

See, that's the thing. You don't need to BRT with your family, and you don't need to identify their concerns, or manipulate them. (Although: they seem to be doing everything in their power to "manipulate" you back to being a believer.)

When they ask you why you "don't believe" just turn it back around and ask them why they "do believe". Since they've probably really never actually thought about it, try and get them to actually think for a change.

Good points. Yes, they would like me to come back, as expected. If the situation is right I will give this a try.

Have you tried the street epistemology approach with your family before? How'd it go?

[Linked]

That sounds like a very tough situation and I'm sorry you have to deal with it.

My first thought was you need to create boundaries. They will be uncomfortable at first, but they will make your relationship stronger if both parties want the relationship to last and grow.

When you said that conversation revolves around deep dialogue about the church and you will lose a huge part of your relationship with your family that made me sad and I think makes it more understandable that you weren't wanting to make church off limits, e.g. set boundaries.

When it comes to these types of conversations I personally go case by case. I try to decipher if the person who wants to dialogue can listen to me to understand or if they are simply listening to rebut. It's okay for them to counter/challenge me, but if they have no plan at all to attempt to understand, then I don't want to dialogue. I also try to be very vague and nonspecific about criticisms with the church and give people the benefit of the doubt. It's a fine line to walk. I hope you can find a way to make things work and have happy positive relationships.

Thanks for your comments. I am pretty good at setting boundaries if I need to, but like you noted, I would prefer not to set boundaries around religious discussion. If I have to I will.

Good point about going case by case with people. There are definitely people in my family who are incapable of really listening to anything I have to say regarding church or my relationship with it going forward. But my brother and SIL are pretty open; I think they might be able to do it. Or they are able to play the long game of pretending like they are really listening but deep down they are just trying to maintain the relationship so they can have a better chance of turning me around. I guess we'll see!

[wtfluff]

Good points. Yes, they would like me to come back, as expected. If the situation is right I will give this a try.

Have you tried the street epistemology approach with your family before? How'd it go?

With my family of origin? Absolutely not. I'm still under cover with them, and even when the cat gets out of the bag (probably within a year or so) I highly doubt there will be any religious "discussions". They'll do everything in their power to avoid such discussions.

There are not many other believers in my life with whom I have religious discussions, but I have used the basic Socratic Method on some of them. For instance, at one point when I was in the middle of my shelf imploding, I was having a discussion with a believer about getting teenagers to attend, and the believer brought up the "You get out of it what you put in to it" platitude. I actually called him out on it. I said: "How do you put more into it? We literally teach the same exact things, over and over and over. We literally give the same exact answers over and over and over, and if you give an answer that doesn't fit the mold, you get shot down immediately. So HOW do you put more into it?" I could see the wheels churning in his head as he actually thought about it and he answered: "That's a good point. I don't really know."

I've also used the same approach with acquaintance who believe in conspiracy theories. One friend got off on a tangent about GMOs and Monsanto once, and said: "I think Monsanto is doing all of this GMO stuff to try and kill us." To which I replied: "Why would Monsanto want to kill all of their customers? How are they going to make any money as a corporation if we're all dead?" And again, I could see his brain trying to figure out what was going on with his confirmation bias.

So, long answer short, I have had success with simply asking how and why questions to get people (not my family) to think about their beliefs.

[Hagoth]

When they ask you why you "don't believe" just turn it back around and ask them why they "do believe". Since they've probably really never actually thought about it, try and get them to actually think for a change.

Brilliant.

Here's my little trick to keep my sanity. I smile and nod when someone is spewing groupthink talk and I remind myself that they have exactly the same right to believe what they believe as I have to not believe it, and I have no more power or right to deconvert them than they have to reconvert me.

As a bonus, if believing wacky stuff (in my opinion) makes someone happier than not believing wacky stuff, more power to 'em, right up to the point that they expect me to join the parade. If they ask me how I feel about something (they almost never do) I say that I have a different way of looking at it now and give a general non-scary summary (e.g. I believe there is a force of good in the universe but I don't necessarily define it as a physical guy on a throne). It's up to them to ask for more detail but they NEVER do.

My sweet wife is so reasonable and appropriately religious, and so supportive of my heresy that I try to avoid causing conflict for her. When she talks about her religious feelings it often starts with a defensive or apologetic (as in I know you think I'm gullible) tone and I try to alleviate that and validate the positive aspects rather than criticize them. This has worked to relieve so much tension that my earlier, snarkier behavior just intensified.

The thing I hear myself saying more and more is that the church works really well for some people but not so well for others. We can't simply chose what we believe and don't believe.

[Linked]

Well, my mom responded to my email I sent finally. It was a nice letter. She expressed a lot of love and support and wasn't preachy, though she said a few things you would expect from a life long TBM.

Nice:
- She acknowledged that she tried to scare me back to faith, but said that it is because she is really scared for me because that's how she thinks.
- She was vulnerable but not defensive, noting that some of my email hurt her feelings, particularly being called intellectually dishonest.
- She used "to me" and other non-universal truth language.
- Lots of love and attempting to understand.

TBM:
- I don't quite know how to respond to the statement that I avoid negative things about the church and turn them around to a positive about the church. Because that is exactly what I do... to me the negative things are a positive because we are living in the last days and we know that there is going to be a lot of mud-slinging.
- The church changes, but the gospel doesn't.
- The bad stuff you hear at church is just people that don't understand, the church is still good.
- I don't understand all your feelings as I have really never had a negative thought about the church. To me it is true. If there are mistakes, the Lord will take care of it and the people who make the mistakes will have to pay for their "sins" or their not doing what they should have.
- I have had too many experiences in my life which have been felt by me that lead to its confirming truth to me.
- The church putting people in difficult situations is the Lord helping them to grow.

Ugly:
-She signed off with Mommy...

Fortunately the TBM stuff wasn't particularly preachy, just her sharing her feelings. I have been traveling so I had some time to write up a really long response, but I am wondering if I should send it; I'm honest and open and I imagine quite abrasive to a faithful TBM.

[Red Ryder]

I think you should accept the score at 1-1 and focus on other things. She's accepting and still loves you. Quit while you're even.

It's amazing reading someone else's experience and hearing the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE coming from your mother as I did from from mine. Word for word.

What does that say about the response? The culture? The person?

[RubinHighlander]

You can learn two very effective ways to communicate with TBMs.

1. Don't
2. Don't

+100

I've never won a conversation with a TBM, no matter how much fact you throw at them. It's best not to go there and shut them down when they want to go there. You stay in control that way and they can't treat you like a broken lost child, like they treat each other. You just act happy and in control and don't let them think they can fix you because there ain't nothing to fix. When they do try to go there just remind them you are an adult and are happy with where you are with what you choose to believe or not believe, end of convo!

Your confidence and lack of need for any of their approval will cause them cogdis. You throwing any facts and figures at them will make them hunker down and wrap their TBM jackets tighter around them and only make you look like an anti-bitter NOM.