Lending a hand

[Abinidied]

It's been a while since I post on NOM, but have been busy writing a memoir on my atypical journey in the church and rather weird life.

I came across an article that I found most interesting and useful and thought I'd post a link here. Like many of you, I wanted nothing more than to share my newfound wisdom regarding the church truth claims with those I love most, some close friends, and perhaps a few enemies. I assumed that all I had to do was lay the facts out on the table and we would all be navigating this bizarre road together. Not so. It didn't go well for me out of the gate (until I quickly learned to button my lip) and this article addresses why.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advic ... -what-does

[Corsair]

I really enjoyed that article. Every point runs headlong into Mormonism. The article does present 4 main points are here is how they trip us up, particularly when you are married to a believer. This is my take on them and I would enjoy hearing other commentary.

Give the mind an out: Right up front, "The One True Church upon the face of the whole earth" does not want to present an exit. We have to offer an alternative narrative for their consumption consumption that uncouples the sense of identity from the position. An appeal to the teachings of Jesus is one possible way.

Your beliefs are not you: For Mormons, beliefs are virtually the same as identity. Instead of saying, “plural marriage was wrong,” go for “how would we know if plural marriage was right or wrong?”

Build up your empathy muscle: The rhetoric against apostates as sinning and being offended is a huge problem. We should not make arguments against the believers in our lives. We have to present arguments showing how believers will benefit from a proposed shift in belief.

Get out of your echo chamber: LDS ward meetings, stake conferences, and general conferences are echo chambers and priesthood authority sets the tone for the chamber. We would be better off asking, “What fact would change this strongly held opinion?” If the answer is “no fact would change this opinion,” you’re in trouble. Any person, including yourself, who is unwilling to change his or her mind even with an underlying change in the facts is, by definition, a fundamentalist.

[wtfluff]

I dislike blanket statements such as "facts don't change minds". It smacks of the same all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking that religion preaches, that many of us are trying to get away from.

If the statement is actually true, most, if not all of us would still be drinking the LDS-inc. Kool-Aide.

Edit: Facts really are all that we have when it comes to discussing issues with believers. As Corsair mentioned: Perhaps it is the way we present the facts that really matters...

[IT_Veteran]

I dislike blanket statements such as "facts don't change minds". It smacks of the same all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking that religion preaches, that many of us are trying to get away from.

If the statement is actually true, most, if not all of us would still be drinking the LDS-inc. Kool-Aide.

Edit: Facts really are all that we have when it comes to discussing issues with believers. As Corsair mentioned: Perhaps it is the way we present the facts that really matters...

That's a great distinction. However, I think that for many people facts don't actually change minds - emotions, empathy, and connection do. FIL is a great example of this right now. He wrote DW this week and, essentially, said that he won't go through all the sources she provided because he a) doesn't have time and b) would rather accept in faith everything he's been taught than read anything that causes him to doubt or question.

DW tried very hard to present these facts in the best way possible. She acknowledged she was struggling with some of the things she's learned about polygamy and asked him to help her resolve her concerns. Her mom, a person that relies much more on emotional connection than her dad, is going through the essays and struggling to find her own answers now.

After thinking that through as I typed it, I suppose the facts still matter, as evidenced by her mom's own struggle to understand. But often, facts aren't enough on their own. There has to be an emotional connection to the facts, a willingness to accept new information, and acknowledgement that we might be wrong.

That might be the most critical component. Going through college taught me to understand that I can be wrong about things and that there's nothing wrong with that. We're often wrong, we gather new information, and our opinions should be based in fact. As we gain new information, our opinions must necessarily shift. Her mom is one that has always been willing to admit when she's wrong about something. Her dad has a much harder time admitting to error; I imagine doubly so when it's tied to identity and a lifetime of belief.

[Abinidied]

I dislike blanket statements such as "facts don't change minds". It smacks of the same all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking that religion preaches, that many of us are trying to get away from.

If the statement is actually true, most, if not all of us would still be drinking the LDS-inc. Kool-Aide.

Edit: Facts really are all that we have when it comes to discussing issues with believers. As Corsair mentioned: Perhaps it is the way we present the facts that really matters...

Very good point, wtfluff. It's true that the facts changed my mind and I expect most on this site were thusly influenced by facts. I agree that inserting the facts into the correlated narrative has to be surgically precise with respect and a degree of emotional intelligence for it to be an effective healing procedure.

[Red Ryder]

I would argue that facts don't truly matter when you can be influential directionally. Most people make up their own "facts" to support their bias which is what Robert Cialdini is saying. I've read a few of his books and followed his work with the Obama and Hillary campaigns as well as his analysis of Trumps complete disregard for reality.

In regards to the church I've found the best approach is to dilute the Mormonism from your relationships with subtle change to vocabulary.

Family council is replaced with family discussion. FHE is replaced with Family night. Garments are replaced with underwear.

Another tool is to instill criticism into the church narrative coupled with an alternative point of view. Essentially anything to help someone expand their limited view of the church. The best gift we've all been given is the McKenna Denson vs. the MTC rapist.

The secret is to continue to clink away at the church's image and reputation holing one day it may all evaporate in the mind of our spouse!

Clink, clink, clink....

[alas]

I dislike blanket statements such as "facts don't change minds". It smacks of the same all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking that religion preaches, that many of us are trying to get away from.

If the statement is actually true, most, if not all of us would still be drinking the LDS-inc. Kool-Aide.

Edit: Facts really are all that we have when it comes to discussing issues with believers. As Corsair mentioned: Perhaps it is the way we present the facts that really matters...

That's a great distinction. However, I think that for many people facts don't actually change minds - emotions, empathy, and connection do. FIL is a great example of this right now. He wrote DW this week and, essentially, said that he won't go through all the sources she provided because he a) doesn't have time and b) would rather accept in faith everything he's been taught than read anything that causes him to doubt or question.

DW tried very hard to present these facts in the best way possible. She acknowledged she was struggling with some of the things she's learned about polygamy and asked him to help her resolve her concerns. Her mom, a person that relies much more on emotional connection than her dad, is going through the essays and struggling to find her own answers now.

After thinking that through as I typed it, I suppose the facts still matter, as evidenced by her mom's own struggle to understand. But often, facts aren't enough on their own. There has to be an emotional connection to the facts, a willingness to accept new information, and acknowledgement that we might be wrong.

That might be the most critical component. Going through college taught me to understand that I can be wrong about things and that there's nothing wrong with that. We're often wrong, we gather new information, and our opinions should be based in fact. As we gain new information, our opinions must necessarily shift. Her mom is one that has always been willing to admit when she's wrong about something. Her dad has a much harder time admitting to error; I imagine doubly so when it's tied to identity and a lifetime of belief.

But I think we can use their refusal to look into the facts against them, at least to defend oneself. For example, DH once refused to look at the essays. I responded that if he refused to even look at the information, then he had no right to judge me by his uninformed opinion. He shut up real fast. But then, he is very logic and scientifically oriented, so refusing to look at information was way out of normal for him. But I think that his realization that he was really in the church for emotional reasons was a big turning point in our relationship. He already knew that I had good emotional reasons for leaving, and realizing that he didn’t want facts to take away what he needed emotionally made him accept that for some people, the church is not good and if it isn’t good for you, then a loving God would not want you in something that is not good for you.

[IT_Veteran]

I responded that if he refused to even look at the information, then he had no right to judge me by his uninformed opinion.

Thank you for this statement specifically. I am going to remember this and hopefully have the opportunity to use it.

For right now, nobody wants to talk to me directly about my issues. My FIL has, I think, asked DW a little bit about them (without wanting to get into detail). My family has not talked to me about them in any way. Except for my Exmo brother - we enjoy talking about it.

[Reuben]

Huh. I had to have both rational and emotional reasons. I had rational ones for a long time but was decent at mental gymnastics, was really good at focusing on basics, and didn't believe it 100% anyway. I stopped believing entirely when it stopped working for me emotionally.

[deacon blues]

I enjoyed the article. Does the advice to "get out of your echo chamber" mean that I should attend a different church each month? Or maybe that my LDS members should attend a different church at least once a month.