NOM

Long title, I know. I wrote this article over the last several weeks and finally felt like it was ready to publish today. It’s kind of long, but I hope it helps somebody. It was cathartic to kind of let it all out.

https://medium.com/@srpeters18/what-i-w ... b838cf542d

My running commentary as I read through the article on things that jump out at me:

People are accused of giving up too early or too easily.

Even if said people were steadfast members for 40 years. It's an easy and pointless accusation since in the TBM mindset where enduring to the end is the only acceptable path everyone who leaves the church gave up too early and too easily.

It is very often not a fast process — nor is it painless.

I'm not sure how many TBM think it is painless, they just think the pain is deserved and your own damn fault being as it is punishment for rejecting the church. Telling them it is painful is more likely to get a triumphant smirk rather than sympathy.

As a result, I spent many years trying to “doubt my doubts.” When those efforts led away from belief and not toward it, I entered a severe depression. I thought that my wife and kids might be better off if I died and my wife found someone that could believe after I was gone. I never went so far as to consider taking my own life, but the thought of dying did not upset me.

I wonder why you might think that when we have sentiments in Mormon culture like, "I'd rather you come home from your mission in a casket then unworthy."

If I lost my recommend, how could I tell family and friends why I can’t join them at the temple? Most often, members do not assume that someone is just struggling with testimony when they don’t have a recommend — the assumption among many is that there is a worthiness issue.

Which is part of why it is a farce to insist that sanctions are between a member and the Bishop. Not being able to pray, take the sacrament, or attend the temple, or sudden releases are going to be noticed by lots of people and as he says the first assumption is a grievous sin. Of course despite any sort of assurances to the contrary, doubting is considered a grievous sin. If it was okay to doubt then sharing those doubts with anyone but your Bishop wasn't be something worthy of sanction, and even doing the 'proper' think and reserving those doubts for leadership wouldn't risk sanction.

When someone suggests that I just gave up too soon or that I should have just kept praying and searching the scriptures it is painfully obvious that they don’t understand the heartbreak of my loss of faith.

They are also oblivious to the reality that once you lose your faith such band-aides are not the sure fire cure they think they are. If my wife managed to convince me to read the Book of Mormon with her my thoughts would be on the racism the book teaches, the insanity of the Nephi-Laban story, how General Conference is a modern day Rameumptom, and the epistemological issues with Moroni's Promise. Of course in the eyes of many TBM the reason it doesn't work is I'm sinning and insincere, so even humoring them and failing just cements the idea that you are a horrible sinner.

The assumption among many believers is that lack of belief can ultimately be traced to one of three reasons: 1) they just want to sin, 2) they’re too lazy to keep up in the gospel, 3) they have been led astray by Satan.

Which when you pare it down are all the same thing. Laziness? A sin. Listening to Satan? A sin. Not holding to Mormonisms asinine rules and harmful doctrines? Sin. From the TBM viewpoint there is simply no legitimate reason to leave, you can be raped by your priesthood leader and if you leave you'll be tsk-tsked for not forgiving or if they are a little more charitable for not seeing past the tragedy to hold onto salvation.

They absolutely made me angry — probably a little bit bitter too.

What is interesting is you have the stereotype of the bitter exmormon. Is it any surprise when members closed ranks to shun, discredit, gas-light, and abuse those who leave that people have a bad taste in their mouth? Sure, there would be those who are bitter even if TBM were completely understanding and supportive, but if you abuse people they aren't likely to think fondly of you.

That doesn’t stop the looks of disapproval and disappointment when a believing friend or family member discovers it though. Somehow, partaking of this particular category of beverage means that I am somehow less worthy than those who don’t.

The thing is while I can understand, given how much it is demonized, the issue with a alcohol the complete and utter freak out over things like coffee and tea is just insane. That you go over to r/exmormon and you hear about people having to hide the coffee maker or Starbucks receipts when their spouse or mother or whomever knows they don't believe is just mind boggling.

There is this belief that if anything doesn’t lead one toward the church, it must be of Satan.

Hey, by that reasoning the doctrines and culture of Mormonism are of Satan. :p

Are your interactions based around helping them feel the spirit, or are they based on a mutual friendship?

To be fair to them for many acquaintances in the church the church is the basis of that mutual friendship. How many friendships dissolve with shifting ward boundaries or home teaching changes even in some places like Utah where your former friends are still just three blocks away. Think about that, supposed friendships that may have lasted years basically dissolve over the course of a week because you no longer share a ward. It really isn't surprise that outside of actual close friendships and family that so many relationships just disappear into the wind when someone leaves the church. Just how much more dramatic a separation is non-member-hood compare to a ward boundary moving over two blocks?

There’s nothing wrong with members that choose to leave.

Mormonism as it stands cannot accept that. You are broken, Mormonism is required to fix you, and the awesomeness of Mormonism is so self-evident that only the most reprobate can toss it away. This won't be changing any time soon.

You see bearing testimony as a vital part of who you are. You see bearing testimony as your duty from God to help others feel the spirit and spread His message. I get it — really. I’m just trying to move on from that part of my life.

The funny thing is if you return the favor (that is share your understanding of reality and truth), they'll often do the same thing many exmormons will do, roll their eyes, kvetch with others who share their viewpoint, and distance themselves from you.

Thank you, I appreciate the feedback. To your last point, I've been told by several members that sharing Sam's message, a story about missionaries being sexually assaulted and asking for better training, etc, is me attacking the church. I'm just angry and can't help but tear it down, and so on. I've tried explaining that I'm trying to make the church a better and safer place for my believing family and friends, but they can't possibly comprehend that.

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:56 amTo your last point, I've been told by several members that sharing Sam's message, a story about missionaries being sexually assaulted and asking for better training, etc, is me attacking the church.

I've heard this "attacking the church" excuse in response to stating simple facts about the church. When a believer tries to shut down the conversation that way, I quickly point out to them that I am stating facts, and ask them how stating facts is "attacking the church." No-one has actually been able to answer that question.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:52 am

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:56 amTo your last point, I've been told by several members that sharing Sam's message, a story about missionaries being sexually assaulted and asking for better training, etc, is me attacking the church.

I've heard this "attacking the church" excuse in response to stating simple facts about the church. When a believer tries to shut down the conversation that way, I quickly point out to them that I am stating facts, and ask them how stating facts is "attacking the church." No-one has actually been able to answer that question.

I've asked that question too. They'll dispute the facts (stories can't be verified, etc..) but they can't actually refute them. Then they default to accusing me of only airing dirty laundry instead of considering or promoting the good things about the church. I'm just too negative I guess.

IT_Veteran wrote:

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:52 am

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:56 amTo your last point, I've been told by several members that sharing Sam's message, a story about missionaries being sexually assaulted and asking for better training, etc, is me attacking the church.

I've heard this "attacking the church" excuse in response to stating simple facts about the church. When a believer tries to shut down the conversation that way, I quickly point out to them that I am stating facts, and ask them how stating facts is "attacking the church." No-one has actually been able to answer that question.

I've asked that question too. They'll dispute the facts (stories can't be verified, etc..) but they can't actually refute them. Then they default to accusing me of only airing dirty laundry instead of considering or promoting the good things about the church. I'm just too negative I guess.

Remember it is all about your "tone". Just ask Bill Reel.

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:59 am

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:52 am

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:56 amTo your last point, I've been told by several members that sharing Sam's message, a story about missionaries being sexually assaulted and asking for better training, etc, is me attacking the church.

I've heard this "attacking the church" excuse in response to stating simple facts about the church. When a believer tries to shut down the conversation that way, I quickly point out to them that I am stating facts, and ask them how stating facts is "attacking the church." No-one has actually been able to answer that question.

I've asked that question too. They'll dispute the facts (stories can't be verified, etc..) but they can't actually refute them. Then they default to accusing me of only airing dirty laundry instead of considering or promoting the good things about the church. I'm just too negative I guess.

Well, I guess at that point, I would turn it around on them again and dispute the "good" things about the church.

Or something along the lines of: "That's great that you can see the good in the church. Statistically speaking, the majority of members are either "less active" or have simply left, it seems for them that "the church" has a net negative influence on their lives. For me, and my life, it has been a net negative, and I want to make sure the same thing doesn't happen to my kids." (There I go again with pesky facts about activity rates... )

I seem to be lucky that I haven't had any long, drawn out, back-and-forth discussions like this. Once I have been successful in getting them to actually think about facts, and admit that stating facts is not "attacking LDS/Mormon-Inc." the conversation has basically ended. I guess at some point, back-and-forth conversations need to end with: "Let's remain friends and not discuss religion."

wtfluff wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:52 am I've heard this "attacking the church" excuse in response to stating simple facts about the church. When a believer tries to shut down the conversation that way, I quickly point out to them that I am stating facts, and ask them how stating facts is "attacking the church." No-one has actually been able to answer that question.

I had an apologist friend that had an answer for this. We were talking about the September Six and he was unmoved by any charge that these scholars were simply presenting the facts of history and doctrine. The facts were not in dispute, but since the facts just might reduce the devotion of the believers, the people presenting these facts had to be stopped. This is the one, true church, after all. If your conclusion is that this church might be wrong, then you are are, by definition, in error.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:18 pm I had an apologist friend that had an answer for this. We were talking about the September Six and he was unmoved by any charge that these scholars were simply presenting the facts of history and doctrine. The facts were not in dispute, but since the facts just might reduce the devotion of the believers, the people presenting these facts had to be stopped. This is the one, true church, after all. If your conclusion is that this church might be wrong, then you are are, by definition, in error.

I don't think you're alone in that. One of the high councilors from my wife's stake (it's officially no longer my stake!) told me he knew several of the September 6. I brought up Mike Quinn and that nothing he said was false. He responded that he wasn't responded for reporting the facts, but that he published it anyway after being told not to because it led people away from the church.

So, to get this straight, you can't tell the truth if it's damaging to the church. Even if nothing you've said is false.

Got it.