NOM

I began loathing WC during my faith crisis. I was the EQP when I told the bishop I didn’t have a testimony anymore. I probably should never have accepted the calling, but I was terrified someone would find out I didn’t have faith.

WC became almost intolerable toward the end though. Our ward had it twice per month and the bishop and SP were the only ones in the ward that knew I was struggling. So to everyone else I was just the same faithful guy I’d always been.

The worst ones though were where we talked about how to bring other people back. I’d just gotten to a point where I wanted to leave and everybody else is trying to keep people in.

And then they’d assign me the spiritual thought...

The gossip is what gets me.

After I found out all this stuff a year ago, the missionaries stopped by. They were like "Oh we're just in the neighborhood" and then acted like they had no idea we lived here. It was so disingenuous, but I was nice to them and didn't even mention how obvious it was why they came. I was more annoyed that my family was now a project to fix from a ward that has no real idea *why* people are leaving.

And then people would come by to drop off cookies/etc w/ DW and then at the doorstep talk about how they're always around if she wants to talk about 'her situation.' They do this as I'm two rooms away and they're talking right into the ring doorbell... I expect to be gossiped about from afar, but don't do it when you're being recorded at my door.

I have another update for this.

This past week we had another WC meeting. The agenda was emailed out beforehand and included a line that said something like the following...

• Continued discussion on strengthening personal testimony in light of challenging information
  • Teach youth to learn from spirit, not outside sources

Once we finally made it to that point one of the youth leaders noted that they had added this topic, wanting to continue the conversation from a few weeks ago. They specifically raised concerns about the youth finding "anti-mormon" literature and falling victim to the lies. They wanted to know what could be done to shield or insulate them or protect them from those damaging claims.

The conversation bounced around for a few minutes very much like it did a few weeks ago. I mostly sat with my hands shaking, but eventually, I couldn't sit quiet.

I very plainly told them that shielding the youth from damaging information was not the way to go about this. The church uses the term "inoculation" which I have mixed feelings about, but that is still better than "insulation." I explained that the church has set itself up, and we have reinforced the idea, that it is the standard for truth in the world. The church is the one entity we are taught to trust above all others. So when, not if, when the youth find out about difficult parts of history, if they feel that those things have been hidden from them, it will undermine everything they have been taught up to that point. It will leave them completely unsure of who to trust, but they almost certainly won't trust the church anymore.

I mentioned that much of the church history is available in a softened tone in Saints and the topic essays, but it is not in the standard lesson manuals. We never discuss Saints or the essays in depth, and the youth will likely not read those sources on their own.

I told them that "shielding" the youth will backfire. The only way to go forward is to know the essays, know the history, and discuss it with them, openly. By that point I'm sure the emotion was pretty visible on my face and in my voice, but it had to be said.

The HC member in attendance spoke up at this point for the first time during the meeting and agreed with me "whole heartedly." And then... silence.

The meeting just moved on with no one willing to add to the discussion after that.

On one hand, I feel like it is a win to confront some members of the WC and let them know that business as usual will not work. On the other hand, I now feel somewhat complicit in the "inoculation" of the youth. However, I feel that if they are given actual data to work with, the majority of them will come to reasonable conclusions, or at the very least, be able to make better informed decisions about why they do what they do.

You have my vote for Ward Inoculation Minister!

Our extended family always gets together post conference to have a "favorite talk" conversation. It's apparent that something is in the water and my in-laws can't seem to figure it out but came to the same concerned conclusion of your ward council member wanting to shield the kids.

The truth crisis cancer is setting in and attempts like Ballard's self described "full disclosure and transparency" are falling short.

The more they try to inoculate the more it becomes known that they've been whitewashing the narrative since 1830.

The only way out of this is to focus on Jesus Christ and move the narrative beyond Mormon doctrine and history. The only problem is the church leaders can't stop worshipping themselves long enough to allow people to forget about JS, BY, and up through RMN.

Move along and find Jesus in the church and that will stop the truth crisis from spreading.

The Laurel's class had a lesson on dealing with faith and testimony questions on Sunday. The material they presented was just as sterile and short on specifics as you might imagine. Hopefully(?) the Young Men will get the directive to have a similar lesson and that will be high comedy for me since I still serve in the YM presidency.

I will have to casually talk to the YW presidency and see how this line of thinking arose. I don't attend Ward Council but I can imagine that they had some discussion about it. My bishop is a good man that I would trust to be as Christlike as possible. However, I have no idea how he would deal with some mouthy youth or adult coming to him with weapons grade apostasy from Mormon Think or the CES Letter.

Good job speaking up. Those meetings are hard.

I worry about the idea of teaching the youth to learn from the spirit, not outside sources. The closest to crazy I've ever been was caused by me trying to follow the spirit in all things. I was clinging to feelings about what can of soup to buy and random thoughts about needing to go into the mountains late at night. Giving kids nothing to go on and telling them to learn by the spirit can cause problems. Not to mention the issues with problem solving caused by not providing sufficient answers to real questions and telling kids they have all the information they need.

Linked wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 1:23 pm Good job speaking up. Those meetings are hard.

I worry about the idea of teaching the youth to learn from the spirit, not outside sources. The closest to crazy I've ever been was caused by me trying to follow the spirit in all things. I was clinging to feelings about what can of soup to buy and random thoughts about needing to go into the mountains late at night. Giving kids nothing to go on and telling them to learn by the spirit can cause problems. Not to mention the issues with problem solving caused by not providing sufficient answers to real questions and telling kids they have all the information they need.

That's the fundamental problem with the concept of following the spirit. It's confirmation of whatever is in the person's head that they feel good about. Here's the rules:

The first three bind the member to the church.

1. If it supports your time commitment to the church, it's of the Spirit.

2. If it supports your time commitment to the brethren, it's of the Spirit.

3. If it further deepens your bond to the church or the brethren, it's of the spirit.

The remaining one, completes the feedback loop.

4. If your concern causes you to seek the spirit, you're on the right path so keep asking and it's of the spirit. If you don't seek the spirit in all things, you're not worthy to have the spirit and must repent. See rule #1 - 3; else repeat rule #4.

The spirit confirmed I should write this post and confirmed it is true. The spirit also confirmed I should eat lunch at Taco Bell. The bout of diarrhea received from eating lunch at Taco Bell confirmed the spirit is a liar.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 2:23 pm The spirit confirmed I should write this post and confirmed it is true. The spirit also confirmed I should eat lunch at Taco Bell. The bout of diarrhea received from eating lunch at Taco Bell confirmed the spirit is a liar.

This saga (and thread) will never end.

My first post in the thread mentioned that 3 families had left from our ward. Technically, one of those wasn't a whole family. Just the wife/mother and one of the sons of that family. Well, roughly one year later, the other shoe has dropped and the husband has also indicated that he is done. They have turned in the letter and asked that their names be removed from the church.

That is all well and good. So long as your not a closeted non-believe sitting through WC meetings... Here are some of the points mentioned yesterday by various council members:

• "We all need constant reminders to keep our testimony strong. We should journal and re-read our spiritual experiences regularly."
• "They all give in to the 'All or Nothing Logical Fallacy'. They don't understand that life just isn't like that."
• "They read some literature with partial truths and then give in to anti-mormon lies."
• "Why don't they come talk to us? We are friends, if they have questions, why don't they say anything to us? Does the literature they read tell them not to talk to people? It sounds like some kind of conspiracy to get people to leave without giving them a chance to find the truth."
• "Why can't they just doubt their doubts? How do we get them to do that?"
• "These people must be the low hanging fruit. The very elect shall be deceived."
• "How can the just give up on their eternal families? On the Holy Ghost? On the priesthood?"
• "My dad told me about the peep stone years ago, it's never been hidden."
• "They study for a few weeks, or a few months and assume they know enough to make a decision like that." Ironic right?

Through most of the discussion I sat with my eyes closed, headache building, arguments forming in my mind.

• They are right, indoctrination doesn't work without constant reminders to reinforce things that don't otherwise add up.
• President/Prophet/Seer/Revelator Hinckley is one of those guilty of perpetuating the all-or-nothing paradigm... pbs.org
  

  Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.

  Although, I do give this individual one point for knowing about the all-or-nothing fallacy.

Someone brought up a new family that had just moved in. The husband comes once or twice a month with one young daughter. But the wife is very angry at the church and is very vocal about it with anyone who will listen.

Eventually, the SS president (who was one of the more vocal members of the discussion and does know a small bit of my... studies) quietly asked if I was doing OK. I told him I was getting a headache, to which he responded "I know these conversations are hard for you."

...

I later learned that my DW had told his wife that I had a hard time with how we gossip and speculate behind closed doors about people who have left. My DW says that is all she told her, but... the story continues.

I managed to keep my mouth shut for most of the meeting. I did speak out against the conspiracy theory idea. I also re-iterated a past remark I had made that once they learn new information their trust for the church drops or disappears completely.

Once the meeting ended, a few of the people left, but the RS pres, primary pres, YM pres, SS pres, Bishop, 1st C, and myself all stayed seated.

The SS pres asked me again how I was doing, and I decided to let some of the pressure go. I spoke out Hinckley and other "prophets" establishing the all-or-nothing paradigm. I told him again about how damaging it is to learn troubling parts of church history after being in the church for 30+ years an never hearing it before then.

He argued that things aren't hidden, "they were in the history of the church books." I told him that I know of those books, but most don't. To this day they are hard to buy if you don't live in UT. I brought up Dr. Paul Cheesman who published on the 1st vision in 1971. That paper was cited as proof that the multiple versions weren't hidden. The problem is, that paper isn't available outside of BYU campus unless you're willing to visit "anti-mormon" websites. I told him it is disingenuous to say things aren't hidden if they aren't really available either. I was glad that his dad read the church history books and told him about the peep stone. Most people didn't have that.

He asked me how I have held on to my testimony despite reading all these things, and at that point I became aware the the YM pres and the other bishopric members were likely listening.

I told him that over the past 3-4 years my testimony has had to evolve. I could not let go of the church in a few weeks or a few months, because it defined so much of my life and honestly I loved it. But that said, I do not know things that I once thought I did. I told him that I would have liked to reach out to several of the families who have left but because I'm in the bishopric I feel I'm expected to be in a certain place, and I know that my testimony is not as orthodox as most people would assume or expect.

He told me that he didn't really know what I meant by that. I don't know if he doesn't think there are expectations or if he just doesn't understand the word "orthodox".

I said there is so much good to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but the struggle for people who leave is not as simple as we try to make it seem.

And then... crickets. No one else in the room was talking. I looked around the room and found most people looking at the floor. One by one everyone started leaving. Until it was just me and the bishop.

He asked me how I was doing and I told him I was really doing well. (At that moment I think I was on a bit of an unloading high.) The conversation from that point was very superficial, but ended on a good note.

The rest of the church day was completely normal, but with a slightly more annoying headache.

After church I had a few interviews and as I was finally leaving the building about 45 minutes later, SS Pres came running up to me. He asked if I wanted to go to lunch sometime this week.

Stay tuned.

Wow. That's tough to keep doing. I know you are threading the needle with your wife and this calling. This is very interesting to me though, keep us posted.

If you are anything like many of us, eventually sitting through the rhetoric literally becomes unbearable and you will have to make a change to less participation.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 2:36 pm Wow. That's tough to keep doing. I know you are threading the needle with your wife and this calling. This is very interesting to me though, keep us posted.

Threading the needle is really the perfect description for this whole situation.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 2:49 pm If you are anything like many of us, eventually sitting through the rhetoric literally becomes unbearable and you will have to make a change to less participation.

My slow-fade plan has been to remain in the bishopric while slowly bringing DW up to speed. There are several reasons for that. These meetings take a toll on me, but they do open up avenues for discussion with DW, which have been productive. You may be right though, I may break long before I can complete my indentured servitude.

Death by a thousand papyrus cuts!

Reading your posts reminds me of my past.

The long game is exhausting. I honestly can't say I'm any further along. Sometimes I think ripping the band-aid off is the best route.

Glass shelf once told me it hurts at first but people adjust pretty quickly.

I can relate to being the one with their mouth closed in a TBM meeting. Last month’s meeting was all about how satan is tricking our kids with misinformation and the solution is exact obedience, being sinless and strengthening testimonies.

It’s getting harder and harder to fake it.

Looking forward to more updates-this has been a great thread.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 9:03 am Death by a thousand papyrus cuts!

Apt. Very apt, indeed.

So, I met with our ward's SS president for lunch today. He and I are good friends, although we do have some very contrasting opinions on things. All in all it was a good, respectful, conversation. He appears to be very steadfast in his TBMness, but he was willing to listen while I spoke, and vice-versa.

My aim in the conversation was not to disprove mormonism to him, but to at least get him to recognize that parts of it are messy, and we are in no position to judge those who have left. We spoke about Symonds Ryder, Thomas Marsh, The three boys carrying pioneers across the frozen Snake River, Brigham's "transfiguration", seer stones, racism, and probably more. None of it was incredibly in depth, but enough to show that the church's truthfulness is not so black and white as we like to think.

Two things he said specifically stood out to me.
1. He is absolutely convinced that archaeology has proven that horses existed here during Nephite times and that archaeology continues to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is correct.

2. He just cannot believe that the husband from our ward who left the church this past week (or any other spouse in a mixed-faith marriage) would choose their spouse over the church. In his words, "Why would you give up eternity [as a God] for a relationship with a spouse who will not be with you after this life?"

In regards to the first point, nothing can be done about willful ignorance. I asked him to send me the papers proving that pre-Columbian horses have been dated to Nephite times. I imagine I'll be waiting for a while.

As for the second point, I feel so bad for his wife. If she ever has reason to leave the church, he's going to drop her like bag of bricks. I did not engage him on this point at all, the premise falls apart once the church is no longer what it claims to be. Why wouldn't you choose your spouse if the church is false anyway?

But I have since started to wonder, other than 1 Corinthians 7:12-13, is there any council or teaching given anywhere that gives hope to TBMs in a mixed-faith marriage? The Corinthians verse says that advice is from Paul and not the Lord, so even that has a loophole. And I can't for the life of me think of any other scripture, teaching, statement, story, or anecdote that indicates that my SS Pres friend is wrong from a doctrinal viewpoint.

I think most TBM spouses in mixed marriages just assume that things will work out somehow. Whether that means they'll be happy with someone else in eternity, or that the apostate one will eventually repent and return (which idea seems to provide diminishing comfort as life goes on and repentance doesn't happen).

Do any of you have anything on this one? I'd like to have something to give spouses that show its ok to have hope, that peace can be found in mixed marriages.

græy wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 2:14 pm Two things he said specifically stood out to me.
1. He is absolutely convinced that archaeology has proven that horses existed here during Nephite times and that archaeology continues to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is correct.

This is just not true. Archaeology has shown the possibility of horses thousands of years before BoM times (I think?) but nothing around that time until after Columbus. There's just nothing whatsoever that shows horses were possible... hence the tapir jokes.

græy wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 2:14 pm 2. He just cannot believe that the husband from our ward who left the church this past week (or any other spouse in a mixed-faith marriage) would choose their spouse over the church. In his words, "Why would you give up eternity [as a God] for a relationship with a spouse who will not be with you after this life?"

I think most TBM spouses in mixed marriages just assume that things will work out somehow. Whether that means they'll be happy with someone else in eternity, or that the apostate one will eventually repent and return (which idea seems to provide diminishing comfort as life goes on and repentance doesn't happen).

Do any of you have anything on this one? I'd like to have something to give spouses that show its ok to have hope, that peace can be found in mixed marriages.

There isn't much from a doctrinal standpoint and Nelson made that clear at GenCon. Speaking for my situation, my wife said that she believed I'd have time to figure it out before we're resurrected, but now says that she's pretty sure I am not going to change my mind.

She rejects the idea she will be given to another, and I am genuinely curious as to what she thinks is going to happen? I assume she thinks she will be allowed to just be alone in the CK with our son, which makes no sense for a number of reasons... and certainly sounds like a pretty awful eternity especially if our kid gets married in the church and leaves to go do his own planet.

And that's why the default is "it will all work out in the end," because we all know if you try to map it out on the doctrine things get ugly really quickly.

græy wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 2:14 pm So, I met with our ward's SS president for lunch today. He and I are good friends, although we do have some very contrasting opinions on things. All in all it was a good, respectful, conversation. He appears to be very steadfast in his TBMness, but he was willing to listen while I spoke, and vice-versa.

My aim in the conversation was not to disprove mormonism to him, but to at least get him to recognize that parts of it are messy, and we are in no position to judge those who have left. We spoke about Symonds Ryder, Thomas Marsh, The three boys carrying pioneers across the frozen Snake River, Brigham's "transfiguration", seer stones, racism, and probably more. None of it was incredibly in depth, but enough to show that the church's truthfulness is not so black and white as we like to think.

Two things he said specifically stood out to me.
1. He is absolutely convinced that archaeology has proven that horses existed here during Nephite times and that archaeology continues to "prove" that the Book of Mormon is correct.

2. He just cannot believe that the husband from our ward who left the church this past week (or any other spouse in a mixed-faith marriage) would choose their spouse over the church. In his words, "Why would you give up eternity [as a God] for a relationship with a spouse who will not be with you after this life?"

In regards to the first point, nothing can be done about willful ignorance. I asked him to send me the papers proving that pre-Columbian horses have been dated to Nephite times. I imagine I'll be waiting for a while.

As for the second point, I feel so bad for his wife. If she ever has reason to leave the church, he's going to drop her like bag of bricks. I did not engage him on this point at all, the premise falls apart once the church is no longer what it claims to be. Why wouldn't you choose your spouse if the church is false anyway?

But I have since started to wonder, other than 1 Corinthians 7:12-13, is there any council or teaching given anywhere that gives hope to TBMs in a mixed-faith marriage? The Corinthians verse says that advice is from Paul and not the Lord, so even that has a loophole. And I can't for the life of me think of any other scripture, teaching, statement, story, or anecdote that indicates that my SS Pres friend is wrong from a doctrinal viewpoint.

I think most TBM spouses in mixed marriages just assume that things will work out somehow. Whether that means they'll be happy with someone else in eternity, or that the apostate one will eventually repent and return (which idea seems to provide diminishing comfort as life goes on and repentance doesn't happen).

Do any of you have anything on this one? I'd like to have something to give spouses that show its ok to have hope, that peace can be found in mixed marriages.

For my husband it is simply, “Do you trust God or don’t you?” Because if you trust God, then God understands that you are doing the best you know how under the circumstances. He isn’t going to judge someone harshly for loving and trusting their spouse. And staying with the person they love rather than dumping the spouse and harming the spouse and children. You know, the Jesus of the NT wasn’t very forgiving of people who hurt children, and after seeing the hurt my grandchildren went through with their parents divorce, I don’t think Jesus would be happy with someone divorcing over something other than abuse or adultery.

Or, Let’s take a hypothetical. Say that Brigham Young’s nasty accusation about Thomas Marsh was correct. Thomas listened to “the brethren” judge his wife and he disagreed with the brethren and left the church over the false accusation leveled against his wife—-not “milk strippings” but false judgement. He had know this woman longer and more intimately than he knew the brethren who were judging her as a liar and a cheat. He may have also SEEN her bring in the milk and skim off the cream and knew she was dealing fairly with the neighbor. So, who is he supposed to trust? Really? He is supposed to believe these men judging his wife when he KNOWS his wife to be honest? *IF* it was true that Thomas believed his wife in this case and left the church over milk strippings, instead of the polygamy he really left the church over, how do you really think a loving God would judge him? Guilty for trusting the woman he knew and loved? Only if God is an a**hat.

So many Mormons think God is an a**hat. They think he is going to doom them for eternity for loving and trusting. Or they think he will doom their spouse for doing their very best to find truth and after all the facts are in, they decide that on balance they cannot believe the church is true. Say, the church is true, and us apostates in our search for truth have made a bad judgement. Well, we did the best we know how. I simply cannot worship a God who would condemn your average NOM who has researched the church and found the majority of evidence says it is false. Well, then God has a hell of a lot of xplain’n to do.

If this is REALLY God’s church, and the evidence honestly says otherwise, then God did a piss poor job of picking his prophet for the latter days.

“graey” wrote: Do any of you have anything on this one? I'd like to have something to give spouses that show its ok to have hope, that peace can be found in mixed marriages.

Here’s how I have navigated this in my journey.
I point out that there’s plenty of lame examples of hope found in the scriptures.

The Prodigal Son
Heavenly Father losing Satan and the 3rd
Lehi’s own children etc
Every other story of good vs bad laced with hope and a happy ending.

I point out that every loved one can hope their wayward spouse/child comes back. The problem with this that it breeds false hope and resentment

Then I point out the cafeteria option specifically tied to polygamy. Nearly all LDS women will adamantly point out that they will have a choice to live polygamy in the next life and that God won’t make them do it. This option to choose applies to everything. I’ll just choose to live with you for eternity. God won’t make us separate because I gave up church here on earth.

The problem with these two examples is that they are both shallow and end with “neener neener neener no girls allowed in the treehouse” endings. Both parties are left hurt and disappointed.

The best option is to choose love.

Love wins.

Then point out that we could all easily be wrong regarding the after life anyways so choose Love now and not worry about the rest.

Love wins.

Thanks for the update Graey. Of course you can't convince him the horses in the Americas went extinct before the supposed time of Adam, anymore than you can convince a flat-Earther the world is round.

DW and I are still wrestling with the eternal marriage concept. It was sold to both of us and ingrained from our days as sunbeams, so its tough to process, and disturbing to relinquish.