NOM

Fellow NOMS, I am seeking advice on how to respond to my very TBM father! Months ago I came to him with questions and concerns about what I was learning about church history. We had many conversations, none of which were validating in any way. I would bring up various events of the past, and he would either dismiss them with a "well I don't know about that" or a "we can't trust everything we read on the internet" type of response. He would never read or watch anything I suggested. I wanted him to understand what I was learning so we could have a real discussion about it. Instead he continued to use dismissive lines and claim truth from his throne of ignorance. Eventually things died down and we stopped discussing things because of how frustrating it all was.

Recently we had a discussion again and I explained how the fact that he refuses to learn about any of this has hurt my testimony significantly. I have often wondered, "if my testimony is so important to my parents, and if they are as confident in their testimonies as they say, why won't they engage with me on these topics?" He is a stake president, so I explained that not knowing about these topics is a major issue, because people like myself have no one to discuss them with at church. Leaders, parents, teachers...they are all too afraid to engage. If they have the truth, then why are they so afraid?

My questions for you friends are -
How do I help him understand the importance of learning about the issues in order to engage people meaningfully?
How do I respond to people that continually dismiss issues without attempting to inform themselves?

I think that many TBMs know that even if it is all a bunch of BS they are going to continue for family, community, culture, and Pascal's wager. Why put yourself in a touch position with CogDis and stuff?

Be an ostrich with your head in the sand. What you don't know can't hurt you. Or at least it won't be a conflict internally.

I don't blame them. Many NOMs have said if they could go back to ignorance they would. Your dad probably sees that whole road, doubts his doubts, and trusts the church.

I feel my parents and to an extent DW have done the same. They all know the monsters exist but they don't explore how real they are. They just fear the consequences of knowing they are real, and tell themselves it will all work out.

I feel your pain.

First, let me say that you have asked THE question that many of us NOMs would like to answer. As you say, it is overwhelmingly frustrating to deal with these people. In my case it is my DW. In one breath she'll say she already knows about all the issues, then with the next she'll exclaim that she doesn't want to talk about any of them!

What we're dealing with here, as you also pointed out, is fear. To you and I a fear of learning and knowing is as much evidence as anyone should need to show that they know some things just aren't right. That all is not well in Zion. Why else would they so adamantly insist that they WILL NOT talk about it?? They've experienced some level of the cognitive dissonance already and they run from it as if it was the Satan the church tells them it is. You know, the "dark feeling" they get when learning or hearing about disconnects and problems. Just like a testimony, they're conditioned to it. Their revulsion is a conditioned response.

However, you may have an in with your dad that many of us don't have with our TBM's. Your dad has an important leadership calling. He has a stewardship. He owes it to his small piece of the flock to be aware of not only their challenges and frustrations, but the answers to those challenges and frustrations as well. So, I would say you have a great place to start. Say "dad, the church published these essays on lds.org so people would have answers to these difficult questions". Of course you and I know their answers are full of BS and the type of spin that only the most corrupt politicians could appreciate, but that doesn't matter now. Just getting him to read the essays and realize that he has to take some level of ownership of all that in order to lead his flock would be huge. There you learn that the anti-Mormon lies are not lies after all, and you also learn that the church's apologetic answers are crap in a bucket for all except the most irrational and delusional Mormons (aka apologists). If he reads the essays, suggest that he follow the references and for most it's straight down the rabbit hole from there. You may not necessarily want him to follow you down the rabbit hole, but the church put the essays there for a reason. I would use that to your advantage. If you and/or he hasn't seen them, it's best (for TBM's) to get to them thru searching on lds.org, but the easier way is this website:

www.mormonessays.com.

Oh, also, I really love this line:

Instead he continued to use dismissive lines and claim truth from his throne of ignorance.

"Throne of ignorance" is a perfect way to describe it!

I'm sure many of us here held onto our beliefs much longer than was healthy. I know I did. I think if you asked ten people, you'd get eleven answers.

I can't speak for your father. I would suggest carefully, respectfully and, yes, prayerfully asking him yourself. Be prepared for some uncomfortable questions from him, in return. I would suggest consulting with an expert in communication (someone with a degree and you pay them for their expertise) how to phrase the discussion lovingly and do a role play practice conversation. Maybe even the two of you attend a counseling session together and the counselor provide some mediation and insight.

Best wishes.

In many ways it is willful ignorance. My father also said something similar when confronted with church history problems - "I find it's better just not to read that stuff" ("stuff" said with severe distaste). If you don't know about it, you don't have to address it and it won't be messing with your world view (and social status, family dynamics, and etc). You can also de-legitimize anything you hear about with the tools the church provides - it's just "anti", it's not pertinent to your salvation, the source is unreliable, and so on. These are the antibodies that protect the mind from truth viruses.

fh451

When I got engaged to my ex-wife, I loved her. She was exciting, wonderful, gorgeous, and spiritual. She was the whole package deal and I couldn't wait to both get her on the altar of the temple to marry her and carry her to the honeymoon suite. She dealt with a general anxiety disorder, and I saw a major panic attack while we were engaged. I dealt with severe OCD and she dealt with that through our engagement as well as I seriously stressed over the upcoming change in life and moving arrangements. We overlooked these issues as we were excited in the moment. What incompatible traits we had were overlooked.

When we got married, we were blissfully married for 4 years. We had a few children, I was doing well in my career, and we got along really well. Despite the occasional fight and issues that all married couples run into, we overlooked all of these minor issues. She still dealt with her general anxiety disorder and I still fought with my OCD. For some, these would be deal-breakers, but we were in love, comfortable, and happy. We overlooked these things as we built this wonderful life together. What incompatible traits we had were worked through.

Then something happened in 2008 in my extended family that put a tremendous amount of stress on the family. Life became increasingly uncomfortable during that period of time and it went from 2008 until about 2012. A four year period of constant stress and heart ache in our lives. During this period of time, my career became more pressing, more children became more stressful, money started getting tighter, extended family was creating a miserable situation, and a crisis of faith in one of us (me) added even more stress. During that period of time, we were unhappy and very uncomfortable in our relationship. Her general anxiety disorder became a major issue for me, and I could no longer look over it. My OCD was a major issue for her and she couldn't stop looking over it. What incompatible traits we had became further stresses.

From 2012 to 2014, our relationship completely broke down. My OCD was destroying her and her general anxiety disorder was destroying me. We were both miserable and quite frankly hated each other during that period. If I cleaned the house and left the sink drain filled, it would be a major issue. Likewise, if she went to the grocery store and forgot my favorite granola bars, that became a major issue. Fights were constant, and we were both looking for fuel to go after the other constantly. What incompatible traits we had were deal breakers.

During the period of our divorce, I would look at the negatives of her, focusing on her general anxiety disorder, and say "good riddance". There were times that I would think back to my engagement with her and say, "I knew it was there, but I buried my head in the sand, what an idiot I was". In conversations we have had since, she was doing the same. She would look at my OCD and say, "good riddance to that jerk and his OCD" and then "I knew it was there, but I purposefully ignored it".

Now, after we built a relationship together, not one of romantic love or of marital love, but one of friendship and as co-parents, we have spoken on this very subject. Now that we have a mutual respect and mutual reliance (due to us having children together), we start to realize that the OCD and the general anxiety disorder were not the core issues that were at play. My mutilation at the beginning of our marriage was the same mutilation that occurred at the end. Her massive panic attacks where she would shut down for days were the same at the beginning of our marriage was the same at the end. What had changed during was our attitudes towards each other. We fell out of love and the stresses of life drove us apart, our foibles, depending on our attitudes were received in different ways.

The further I am from the LDS church, the more I think of it in terms of a relationship rather than a religion. Mormonism is such an engulfing culture and institution, that it is difficult to see it any other way. Church history is very much the same. I have ever since my mission, read Mormon history like mad. I didn't shy away from the "bad" materials, I read it all. Way before my crisis of faith I read Bushman to Brodie to Roberts to Quinn. The bad signs, the troubling history, the polyandry, all of that was brushed aside because I was happy and comfortable in my faith. When I became uncomfortable in my relationship with my church, when I was unhappy in my relationship with them, the troubling history became a major issue.

It isn't so much "choosing ignorance" as it is that they are in that happy relationship with the church and are minimizing the negatives. So long as they are not in an abusive relationship where the church is making them unhappy, leave it alone. They are happy and they aren't hurting anyone. If they become uncomfortable or unhappy, they will focus on the negatives and react accordingly.

It sounds like what you really want is some sort of validation or acknowledgement from your father that your conclusions, or decisions, concerning the church are legitimate. Maybe the thought has crossed your mind, "If only he were to read what I have read, then he'll see where I'm coming from." The truth of the matter is that at a certain point, those who remain in the church are doing so because of choice. It's not that they've never seen the evidence, it's that they've chosen to ignore it. The problem is that he can't validate your decisions without renouncing his own faith, because Mormonism doesn't allow for this sort of doubt, and as long as he chooses to remain in the faith, even reading those sources won't get you what you want.

Children, teenagers, and even young adults have little decision in what they believe. If they were indoctrinated and sheltered, then they probably have little reason or opportunity to doubt. But at some point, most human beings see enough of the world to where the contradictions between faith and reality become too big to ignore, and they are faced a decision. I've seen some people go through a very deliberate process, and others who simply ran away from the decision because it was too painful. Either way, once a choice is made concerning what you will believe, how you will determine truth, and what constitutes "the good", it is very difficult to go back and revisit the issue as if it were new.

Mormonism is first and foremost and experience, not a theoretical framework. To live the experience requires a certain suspension of disbelief. For you father to "get you" on that level, he would have to suspend his disbelief and look at the issue from your perspective. Doing that would destroy his Mormon experience, and he's probably unwilling to do something like that.

Here's a neat write up about the benefits of delusional belief:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... l-beliefs/

Here's how I see it.

Ultimately, believing members realize that the people who fall away are those who seriously research the issues. They recognize, even if at a subconscious level, that if they were to do the same they might succumb to that fate that is worse than death: loss of testimony.

The underlying concept that keeps them from looking into the dark corners of our religion is that we were all deeply indoctrinated in the concept that anything that leads to questioning the High Sheriffs is the work of Satan. We have also heard those same High Sheriffs repeatedly vilify reason, logic and the philosophies of men in General Conference.

That leaves a truly devout believer with only one option, which is to plug their ears to anything that causes personal dissonance (aka spiritual darkness), endure to the end, and trust in the glorious overarching promise that everything will make sense after we die.

document wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:29 am The further I am from the LDS church, the more I think of it in terms of a relationship rather than a religion. Mormonism is such an engulfing culture and institution, that it is difficult to see it any other way. Church history is very much the same. I have ever since my mission, read Mormon history like mad. I didn't shy away from the "bad" materials, I read it all. Way before my crisis of faith I read Bushman to Brodie to Roberts to Quinn. The bad signs, the troubling history, the polyandry, all of that was brushed aside because I was happy and comfortable in my faith. When I became uncomfortable in my relationship with my church, when I was unhappy in my relationship with them, the troubling history became a major issue.

It isn't so much "choosing ignorance" as it is that they are in that happy relationship with the church and are minimizing the negatives. So long as they are not in an abusive relationship where the church is making them unhappy, leave it alone. They are happy and they aren't hurting anyone. If they become uncomfortable or unhappy, they will focus on the negatives and react accordingly.

I won't quote the whole thing, but I loved your analogy Doc...

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:06 pmInstead he continued to use dismissive lines and claim truth from his throne of ignorance.

Loved this line just because I have run into it so many times.

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:06 pm How do I help him understand the importance of learning about the issues in order to engage people meaningfully?
How do I respond to people that continually dismiss issues without attempting to inform themselves?

It helps me to realize that some people really, really, really WANT to believe. Their entire lives are wrapped up in believing. Their friends, relationships, etc. All of it. They can't afford to not believe, especially if he was a past stake president and his friends and family admire him because of that. He can't give that up. His subconscious mind won't let him consider the possibility that the church might not be true.

Yes, he is less concerned about finding truth than he is in what works for him in his life. It's a human weakness that we all have.

I think you have to respect his place and his position and realize to yourself that yes... learning the church wasn't true probably would make his life worse than better, and respect his desire to not learn that the church may not be true. They need their faith and us taking it away from them is not a very kind thing to do. The best we might do is to help them be a little more tolerant and empathetic. That means that people like you and I essentially get to deal with our faith transitions on our own, and with people judging us unfairly. Venting on NOM helps.

Vlad the Emailer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:48 pm However, you may have an in with your dad that many of us don't have with our TBM's. Your dad has an important leadership calling. He has a stewardship. He owes it to his small piece of the flock to be aware of not only their challenges and frustrations, but the answers to those challenges and frustrations as well.

Yes I mentioned this to him and asked how he can counsel people who come to him with issues. He tried to use an example of how he counseled a lady after her husband died even though his own wife hasn't died...[crickets]. He is familiar with the essays and he actually agreed to read the CES letter, although I'm sure he won't read much of it. He only agreed because I backed him into a corner by asking him why he won't do it to understand me and other people he counsels. I honestly don't care if he reads it, but I want the self-righteous responses to my concerns to stop. I think a big first step for him is getting a taste of what he doesn't know.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:43 am It sounds like what you really want is some sort of validation or acknowledgement from your father that your conclusions, or decisions, concerning the church are legitimate. Maybe the thought has crossed your mind, "If only he were to read what I have read, then he'll see where I'm coming from." The truth of the matter is that at a certain point, those who remain in the church are doing so because of choice. It's not that they've never seen the evidence, it's that they've chosen to ignore it. The problem is that he can't validate your decisions without renouncing his own faith, because Mormonism doesn't allow for this sort of doubt, and as long as he chooses to remain in the faith, even reading those sources won't get you what you want.

Children, teenagers, and even young adults have little decision in what they believe. If they were indoctrinated and sheltered, then they probably have little reason or opportunity to doubt. But at some point, most human beings see enough of the world to where the contradictions between faith and reality become too big to ignore, and they are faced a decision. I've seen some people go through a very deliberate process, and others who simply ran away from the decision because it was too painful. Either way, once a choice is made concerning what you will believe, how you will determine truth, and what constitutes "the good", it is very difficult to go back and revisit the issue as if it were new.

Mormonism is first and foremost and experience, not a theoretical framework. To live the experience requires a certain suspension of disbelief. For you father to "get you" on that level, he would have to suspend his disbelief and look at the issue from your perspective. Doing that would destroy his Mormon experience, and he's probably unwilling to do something like that.

Here's a neat write up about the benefits of delusional belief:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... l-beliefs/

Very insightful response! Yes some validation would be great and this is part of what I am seeking. After swimming through the rabbit hole for 6 months now I see the many contradictions and desire all to receive it. I get frustrated by the denials of reality and mental gymnastics required to make it all work (no doubt you all have felt similarly frustrated). I feel he is living a lie by telling me and others he cares but is not willing to learn what it is that is affecting our faith. I want him to admit that he is afraid. TBMs don't know what they don't know. I would be satisfied if he either stopped pretending to know the issues or learned about them and still maintained faith. He could maintain more of his integrity that way.

Instead of choosing ignorance, I like to think ignorance chose me.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:43 am Here's a neat write up about the benefits of delusional belief:
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... l-beliefs/

I like this line:

"Delusions may be playing the role of an emergency response, partially deceiving you but at the same time allowing you to continue engaging with the world around you."

I find it hard to blame anyone for hanging on to beliefs that give life significance, offer hope of being reunited with those who have died, promise ultimate justice and fairness, and so on. I imagine that for some it might be more an unconscious defense mechanism than intentional stubbornness.

GoodBoy makes an interesting point that unraveling one's belief system may not be the best path for everyone, regardless of what is or isn't true. And I suspect that everyone maintains delusions, even those who have deconstructed religions belief. I sure do.

For better or for worse, my approach has been kind of the opposite extreme, not wanting to open the door by mentioning any concerns at all when talking with devout family or friends. I sometimes imagine how such conversations might go, but it's all hypothetical for me at this point. I always appreciate hearing how such things have gone for others.

Ghost wrote:
GoodBoy makes an interesting point that unraveling one's belief system may not be the best path or everyone, regardless of what is or isn't true. And I suspect that everyone maintains delusions, even those who have deconstructed religions belief. I sure do.

This is something that if we were to focus on, would help us develop more empathy towards others. We deceive ourselves as much as anyone, the only difference is that we've recognized that deception in the context of the church. Human beings in general do not accept responsibility, make excuses for ourselves and believe personal narratives of blamelessness. We tend to overestimate our ability to reason, see the future, and objectively judge past actions. It's that very defect the church exploits by showing us faults we didn't know we had, and then selling itself as a cure. Ultimately we can only temper our cognitive biases through practice and recognition, we can't shed them completely.

didyoumythme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:06 pmI would bring up various events of the past, and he would either dismiss them with a "well I don't know about that" or a "we can't trust everything we read on the internet" type of response.

[emphasis added.]

A few months ago, I hit a deer, totaling my car. My DW decided to look at a couple different options while I was at work. At the local ***** dealer, she was looking at their midsize sedan. The sales man gave her a sales line about how Consumer Reports listed the car as the most fuel efficient one in it's class. After a while she asked about some transmission issues that the car was known for. The salesman replied with "You can't trusy everything you read on the internet." She replied it was Consumer Reports that did not recommend the car because of the transmission issues and even when so far as to show him the article. Her reply was "Why is one okay and not the other?" It went down hill from there with the sales man being thoroughly embarrassed.

The great thing about the internet is everyone has access to it and it will work both ways. However, you have to establish what the ground rules are for a discussion. both need to agree on how will you determine what is acceptable and the validity of a given site prior to discussing any content.

If the person you are talking to won't accept something from the internet because he doesn't agree with it, then you have every right to throw out anything he brings up from the internet. because they already established the rule.

I do think the church is like a relationship. I often think of it like a parent relationship (an abusive one, in my opinion, but other people have other experiences).

For young children, parents can do no wrong. Then a stage evolves where parents are bad, but a lot of people work through it and come back to see their parents as flawed but good people (this doesn’t apply of course to parent/child relationships that are truly bad). I went through this, and as a young adult I would have thought I saw my parents in a “true” light. However, I had some experiences later where I had to reevaluate what I believed about my parents. When I became a mother I had to reevaluate my mom and see her as a very flawed human. I’m still reconstructing (for myself), my relationship with her, how I view her, what she means to me, and where I go from here. It’s hard and it’s difficult – and it’s like finding out the church isn’t what it claims to be. I have a sister-in-law who is the stereotypical oldest daughter who believes her parents are the most wonderful people in the world and can do no wrong. It drives my husband nuts. She’s the TBM who can’t stand to see or hear anything that doesn’t say, “Mom and Dad are the best!”, even if the criticism is true.

Change is hard. Empathy is painful. And this may sound condescending and I don’t mean it to, but I think there is a stage of development where a person is able to look at something they love and admit it is flawed. Some people just can’t get there. And some of us do it in one aspect of our lives (such as the church, but can't with another area, such as our political convictions). We all have biases and it's easiest to go through life accepting and reinforcing the story we've told ourselves.

The church means something different to all of us. Some members believe it is true. Others find comfort, community, emotional attachment, identity, life path. Most often it’s a combination of meanings. My husband and I have completely different relationships to the church. We’re on different planes or running different operating systems. I simply do not understand what he sees/gets from the church. And he can’t understand me either.

I read a lot of online postings that go something like this: Just read/give them the CES letter. Honestly, the CES letter does nothing for me. I get that it works for some people, but I imagine that had it been around ten years ago I would have dismissed it. I did dismiss things many, many times. What works for you may very well not work for someone else because the relationship they have with the church is not the relationship you have.

Just as the LDS church isn’t a one size fits all application of religion, neither is the path that deconstructs it. Neither is the need to deconstruct it. I understand the desire to show a person what others believe in order to have more empathy for those who have troubles, but I don’t think it can be forced. That isn’t very helpful, but know I feel for you. I really do.

Ghost wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:47 pmI find it hard to blame anyone for hanging on to beliefs that give life significance, offer hope of being reunited with those who have died, promise ultimate justice and fairness, and so on. I imagine that for some it might be more an unconscious defense mechanism than intentional stubbornness.

Me too. Some care more about what works best for them personally, and some care more about what the truth is regardless of how it might affect them. I bet 95% of people are in the former category. How many people truly investigate all religions on an equal footing and bias that they give the religion of their upbringing?