lostinwater

So sorry for what you are going through. i cannot speak with any degree of certainty, because i don't know the intricacies of the origins of your sense of guilt. But i will say that if the church is a trigger - and it is for many people - then i don't think there is anything wrong with stepping back for a while. Or at the very least, slowing down. Not saying you should step back if you don't want to - just saying that if you feel you need to, you should not feel as if you are abandoning God and His Help by doing so. God and Jesus and the help and hope they provide exist outside the mormon church. We vastly underestimate God and Jesus if we think that they are the sort of Beings that decide to take an active part in a child's death, solely because the parent isn't checking all the boxes in a list that most likely has a bunch of stuff in it that is not that important in the first place. The worst among us in society are almost always better than this - and yet somehow, we assume that the most perfect and kind and compassionate Beings in the universe do exactly this. And that's no beef on you - probably almost all of us do it. Not sure where you are - but if you can perhaps find a grief support group for people who have suffered a similar loss as you? It's very unlikely that anyone else - however well meaning - is going to understand how you are feeling. And please ignore the aspects of my post that feel wrong. Just things for you to consider. Please take care.

Thanks. Good point. Put in those terms, with that motivation, hard to have any qualms with that. i know a few people that that course of action might do more harm than good in - but certainly understand what you are saying.

Happy to be a pansy . Though the symmetry and purity of daisies makes them my first choice every time. i guess everyone's essence sort of focuses on specific traits. Gentleness, kindness, innocence, beauty, and purity are the ones i hope to perfect - ETA of a few trillion years seems an optimistic estimate, though i sincerely respect the traits i do not focus on - they are so necessary, as much as i huff and puff on occasion that they are not. As noted before, my pansy pride is perhaps not always the ideal delivery mechanism. Though i think it's a good thing that none of us succeed in our attempts at homogenization. Perhaps we were always meant to be a bit unacceptable to each other, within the constructs of social acceptability - although there's a lot of discord about what exactly is a tolerable variance.

Thanks - was worried i was going to get piled on for that response of mine. Yes, good point. i guess i don't see an attempt at manipulation. Just a person who is trying to sort through some difficult feelings. And i know for myself, two people can tell me the same thing, and one i react to by thinking , and the other i react to by getting mad and spiteful. But i suppose a lot of it stems out of the fact that i'm a bit of a pansy - and assume other's actions are born out of the same motives that would be required for me to act in a similar way.

Understandable reactions given the assumptions expressed about his motives. But is everyone sure their assumptions are accurate? Was his expectation really that everyone would pat him on the back? This seems a very odd place to go for that. Or was he just hoping to find a less involved third party to express his feelings to (rather than telling his family how he felt), and get someone to reinforce what he sort of already feels? If he were to go in for private therapy, would the therapist say what's been said here? The message might be the same, but i can't imagine the delivery would be. i hope not. i'm not saying what he's suggested is OK. And to be honest, i think he knows it too. But i am just not sure everything that has been said here would make it more likely for him to make a good decision. Who knows though - maybe i'm wrong and harshness is what is required in this situation. But i think there might be a more acceptable middle ground that would better prevent him and his family pain and regret - which it seems like should be the goal.

It seems like the people who run from that feeling are the ones who never become masters of their craft. It'll be just another notch in your belt shortly. My guess is their frustration is as much that you are asking them good questions that make them feel uncomfortable with their level of knowledge.

i have a sister who has 6 kids and just separated from her husband. it's been awful and good for her at the same time. What she was in was not sustainable. She was being made to experience the consequences of his actions. Though in fairness, she had allowed that to happen. He's changed a lot - and it is hard to say what will happen at this point. Divorce or not has to be your decision. But i am not sure you do anyone any favors by continually absorbing the consequences of their actions. People *need* consequences to trigger change. It might be the kindest thing you could possibly do.

You'll find varying levels of bluntness and tact, powered by any one of a number of motivations - especially here. i suppose most of the possible combinations are potentially valid , depending on the person and situation involved. Just keep wanting to make the best choice and communicating with God. God will always work with a willing heart that is wanting to do what's best. And i think there isn't much He can't pull off with it. And don't listen to the demeaning comments. Such a tone is most likely not malicious - though i agree, definitely not right either. And the comments that demean *you* are not born out of real concern anyways. i hope it does not drive you away. i think there are a lot of things that could be different if people just had a safe place to talk through their feelings.

@Subir Valhalla i certainly respect your honesty and acknowledge your conflicted feelings about all this - and i am sure i don't understand the whole situation. You sound like a good person who is doing their best. i won't claim to understand the complexity of your emotions, and ultimately, the choice has to be yours. But surely, given all you have done in your life, you must have seen how, usually, we idealize the things we don't have. Happiness that you possess seems to be worth more than bliss you imagine you could possess - especially when that imagined bliss risks so much. You sound like an intelligent person. i'd recommend Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. i'd recommend reading it before making a decision. One of the things i like about it, is that it is honest in how it portrays people and their intents. It doesn't portray all the characters as either saints or demons. And it's so long that reading it before acting will ensure you don't act rashly. Please take care - and thank-you for sharing your problems. Lots of people may never have done that, just acting one way or the other - and that is impressive for sure.

Thank-you. Well, i want to agree with you. That anger is a sign of no compassion. i wonder at times. But your point is valid. It's basically the reason why i don't read great swathes of the Old Testament. Much of that anger seems inconsistent with the God and Jesus i feel i know, at least a little. So i guess the answer to your question is that i: 1. Justify it as 'for the greater good of the creature' where it doesn't feel to insensitive to do so 2. Reject it when it does feel too insensitive and there isn't a tremendous amount of inner conflict 3. Mostly ignore it when #1 or #2 clearly won't work, and i can't find a balance that feels right. So far, it's worked pretty well. Admittedly, not perfect, though. i guess most of us have things we don't understand that we ignore. Though i figure that if i err, i'd rather err on the side of too much compassion and kindness - even if my understanding of the perfect application of compassion and kindness is no doubt slightly flawed. This is refreshing - thank-you. Maybe self proving is not the right term. Maybe faith is the right word. Everyone has things they take on faith because they've failed miserably to explain it any other way. i know i have those things. i just wrote about one of those things for me in the previous paragraph. True for me too. Honestly, i sometimes look back and realize that i intentionally chose not to allow myself to be exposed to anything that could alter my religious worldview. i painted these demonic faces on those i disagreed with, because it made it easier to justify never listening to what they had to say. And while i can hardly claim any degree of intelligence on my part for the circumstances that forced that questioning upon me, i think it's (very slightly) balanced out the way that i think. The the same goes for everyone here. i could spend lots of time on an ex-mormon reddit board and get plenty of pats on the back for demeaning and generalizing a group of people in a way that's entirely unjustified. But the perspective you have here is, as much as i hate to admit it at times, quite valid. And i think that there are very few people who can really believe something if they just stuff a pricked conscience under rug - which i know is what i did for a long time. OK - you got me here. Sadly, i probably would admit that 'a prick' to me usually just whoever is saying something i don't like in a way i don't think should be said. However, what i should have meant by that is that 'a prick' is not a person, but an idea i can push back against.

Thank-you. But to go back to the original statements i said i respect (still do), but can't quite get behind. i guess this is one. To me, that's more or less what it is. Other stuff i feel to one degree or another is just another law-of-moses-like layer on the way to just pure kindness and compassion. i honestly don't know what love is, so i won't use that term. But that probably is the common one used. No arguments on the math. However, i struggle when religions (or anyone) holds views i disagree with to be self-proving. Yes, i do it too. It's darned hard to reason with a Mormon about lots of things. i mean, i get it. i lived it, talked it, taught it, hoped for it for a real long time. But when someone tells me not to do X because X is senseless, and uses as their defense, 'well, that is as senseless as 2+2 = 5", and then calls me willfully disobedient for not recognizing their opinion or the opinions of those whose authority they recognize as fact. To some extent, we all hold some concepts to be self-proving - have to. But i think you and i have a fundamental disagreement on what those self-proving precepts are. Not wanting to argue or belittle what you believe - and hope that feeling is reciprocated - but just acknowledging the difference. Well, authority is the keyword here. So while i don't disagree with the statement, i am saying that perhaps what you view as kicking against 'the pricks', i view as kicking against 'a prick' . And no, that prick is not you.

Not falling for it. You are too nice to argue with.

Thank-you. It helps me understand that when you say the things you do, you are not doing it out of hate or aggression. i can't agree with most of what you've enumerated - but can respect what you've expressed, and the undeniably good intentions that power that expression.

An excellent discussion. @The Folk Prophet - i'm curious as to what defending means to you? And beyond that, what is the Gospel? Is it kindness and compassion, or is it all that plus ordinances, church structure and organization, tithing, home teaching, etc., Is the expression and spreading of ideas contrary to one's own an unwitting attack that must be defended against? Are perspectives something that will be allowed to persist into the eternities, or is a different perspective merely an indication of deception and lack of knowledge, that must be corrected? At what point does the way in which one worships become a point of trivial importance - almost like one's preference of whether to eat an apple or orange at a meal. Does that never happen, or is that not a fair comparison? Not trying to start an argument, and not trying to dig any pits, to reference a recent thread. But the feeling you cite about how the same action is perceived as valiant defense by one, and as aggressive bigotry by another is very good in my opinion - and want try, in a way that hopefully viewed as respectful, to get a better idea of your frame of reference.

Thank-you. i have often wondered about this. No arguments on our nature - describes humanity (including me) quite well. But i find it quite troubling at times the concept that a person and God are somehow unable to communicate with one another without the assistance of another third party (who is not Jesus). It seems like it results in the third party, in the interests of justifying and thus preserving its existence, creating and encouraging the fixation in attention on all the things that differentiate it that don't matter so much, rather than the things it shares in common with other sects that matter a lot. i'd say i feel this way a goodly portion of the time. Though, consistent with my fallen nature, that perspective entirely ignores the good that the church has effected in my life. i sincerely doubt i would know God and Jesus at all if it were not for it. Or not the same way - but who knows. i just know that before i left, i had no balance in my perspective. And so it was either ignoring the bad and pretending everything was perfect - or vilifying the church completely. And then the thing came along that shattered the glass castle - and kept on shattering it for years and years. And that's not the fault of the person who shattered it - not really. The only thing i can fault in retrospect were my own expectations. When i chat with my brother who is still in the church, i am amazed at how much more balanced his view is than mine. i wonder where he picked it up. Maybe it was taught and my thought patterns just didn't recognize it - but it honestly does not feel that way. And really, that's the only (reasonable) beef i have. That the unwritten 'constitution' of almost every organization - especially religious ones - does not include the separation of self-worth from 'state' - to coin the common phrase. For anyone who allows that separation, in the absence of perfect love (which i think even the best of us human beings are incapable of delivering reliably), lacks the barbaric, yet incredibly effective, tools of guilt and shame that seem almost a requirement to conquer the fall nature @MormonGator has referred to. i think we as human beings have a need to reduce people, organizations, etc., into the simplest state possible. Just makes the world and our view of it less confusing when we're able to generalize large swaths of people, or entire organizations into the binary states of entirely evil, or flawlessly good. And probably also makes it far easier to affirm that our perspective is the only one that could possible be right. i know i do that far too much. This might be viewed as an attack upon religion or the church - but honestly, it isn't meant to be. i'm not wanting an argument - and probably wouldn't win it anyways - with all the sharp minds that congregate here.

Thanks - your way of describing was clearer than mine.

Thank-you i think it would be generally accurate to say the devout mormon would say, 'No', and think 'Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'. Though it's not at all uncommon - and reactions and the state of relationships after the ceremony vary widely. The idea of marrying a member in good standing (aka marrying in the temple) is Molly's equivalent to Peter's needing to serve a mission. Both are quite intense. i think it goes way^10th past your example of a catholic and a protestant getting together - though it does, of course, depend on the families involved. You have to keep in mind that anything but the highest degree of heaven in mormon dogma (Celestial, stage 3) is reserved for people who have been married and sealed in the temple. And marrying a non-member is a rather severe blow to that aspiration. Anything (except hell) less than Celestial stage 3, is pretty much an extremely pleasant damnation, where damnation means they don't progress to Godhood, and can't be with their family who did make it to celestial, stage 3. A lot of motherly tears shed, as you can imagine - at the idea of being eternally separated from their children and grandchildren. Personally, i think a person's character, compassion, kindness and integrity are far more important than which religion they are using to become a better person in - and also far more important to God - but that is hardly part of the mormon dogma, and i don't wish to represent it as such. And as far as interfaith discussions - it's important to remember that membership in the church and espousal to it's doctrines is way more important than most other faiths i've seen. So what might feel like a lack of respect for how another person views things is actually just a protective wall designed to protect from outside influences, manned by member archers who are encouraged in the strongest of ways to shoot missionaries at anything that moves . Though to be honest, as long as you avoid the points held to be immutable by members (structure of the Godhead, prophets, etc., - which i honestly feel are far less important than the similarities of compassion and kindness), you're likely to have some great conversations. Though surely, you know this already. Of course, this is merely the opinion from an inactive mormon/active christian (not mutually exclusive), and is worth significantly less than what you paid for it.

i don't know. my family has some experience with what it's like to be an'unacceptable in the church. And by unacceptable i mean that you are different from the ideal beyond the level of accepted variance. Of course, people won't tell you to leave. At least i've never seen it. Such an action is not permissible - and i am glad for that. But a goodly portion of the neighborhood kids will stop playing with your kids - has happened multiple times to people i know. Or you'll see previously good friendships disintegrate into a series of awkward and rushed interactions. If you're in a singles ward, your chances of getting a date are almost non-existent. It's difficult to describe - almost as if others see you as this dark and frightening thing that cannot be trusted (that cannot be and yet somehow is, to quote CS Lewis) - that is somehow 'wrong'. A feeling of 'you are bad until you change' bleeds from everything. Can hardly come as a surprise that this is at least as effective in communicating the message that 'you, as presently constituted, are not wanted here.' And that feeling of 'i am bad' and the associated inward and outward anger that results from it is particularly toxic in the person who has been taught to believe that membership in the church is the most important thing there is. i've lost 2 ex-member friends, who couldn't reconcile that feeling of 'i am bad' with the lifetime of ideals drummed deep into their psyche from the day they were born - to suicide. One of those friends after they read in the Miracle of Forgiveness that it's better that someone should be dead than be immoral. Don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to spew hatred. It's the Mormon Church, and so they have every right to create their own rules. Perhaps less rules, than culture and a set of characteristics that constitute the ideal. And a great amount of good in the world has come about from the people who hold those ideals sacred. And it would be a ,generally, unreasonable expectation to believe that the church is obligated to change their definition of what is or is not acceptable merely because others disagree with their definition. But i honestly doubt that a lot of the stuff they focus on the most will be all that important in the eternal scheme of things. Same could be true of some of the things i focus on too, no doubt. Though i guess most of us - like Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof - has a line past which those who cross it must be treated differently. Right now, i think for most members it's quite comfortable somewhere around the level of tattoos, decaf green tea but trying to stop, and watching the Superbowl but feeling bad about it. Of course, i know that my perspective on this is completely different from the perspective of most others on this forum. And i also know - and understand why - others have to say that my perspective is actually not really a valid perspective at all. To even admit the possibility that another perspective might be more accurate than the current ideals would send the whole world view crashing to the ground. Anyways, won't comment on this thread anymore. i didn't write this to start an argument. Just to express beliefs.

Thank you. Fair criticism about not being on topic. i guess i saw it as more of a 'would God help someone when helping them would result in XX, where XX is considered generally bad for another person', and commented accordingly. Perhaps it was closer to that earlier, but you are right that the scope has since narrowed. My apologies.

In @Maureen 's defense. i believe the point being made is hardly invalid. The justification for her argument bears great resemblance to the one that i used to comfort my pricked conscience when i would read about Nephi chopping Laban's head off. The company i work for supplies the telecommunications needs of some companies that do some (presumably) evil things. One creates GMO foods, another we tried very hard to get is one of the 4 largest breweries in the world - and then our gem client is probably the world's largest manufacturer of processed foods - which certainly contribute to tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths every year. Don't get me wrong - i hate alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy eating, and all that. But does God not hear my prayers when i ask to keep my job? Or are my prayers doomed for divine abandonment by virtue of my facilitating something that brings about evil? Perhaps it does (really). If not, then how many levels of separation are required to cleanse an evil deed enough to where i can participate in it and remain guiltless? It bears mentioning also that George Washington - at least for a time, and to an extent - supported himself with the farming of tobacco. Please don't get me wrong - i'm not recommending farming tobacco as a good career path - but i think God does act (or allow by not acting to prevent), with the bigger picture in mind. i don't claim to have the formula that lets me answer every hypothetical situation accurately - including my own. But perhaps we can leave the bigger picture to God, and help - however your conscience and beliefs require - in the most generous way possible.

i don't think Jesus ever lets the sin become more important than the sinner. Or bigotry become more important than the bigot, depending on which side of the fence you are on. Easier for Jesus to do, knowing the hearts of people, but for the rest of us, extremely difficult - and for many things, means we have to really think each situation through. Much easier to isolate ourselves from those we disagree with, and justify that isolation by making unilateral assumptions about their motives. Both sides of most hot-button issues do this (myself included).

i don't know. i think it's very unhealthy when a group of people isolate themselves from other groups of people because they believe there is something so toxic in that person's perspective that they are justified doing so. In my view, that isolation creates fertile ground for the hatred between groups that is doing more to destroy our society than the agendas we justify said isolation on. i'm not advocating inviting satanists to lecture in a mormon sunday school (please don't accuse me of that) - but i think perhaps some of the dislike or suspicion of the church as a whole stems from being too isolationist. In fairness, this is changing. And i really think that when a member says they need more people who are not like the average member, what we are really saying is that we need more people who: 1. Are not like me in acceptable ways (drink green tea and are currently fasting to gain the faith to stop, etc.,) 2. Are willing to become like me in the things i feel strong about (have same sex attraction but accept that it is evil and am willing to submit to your efforts to purge it) 3. Are willing to hide something you believe and feel strongly about and never, ever, ever mention it - especially as i lecture you about how it is evil. This is not something i am criticizing. It is the prerogative of the church to do so. But it is hardly something the average member would submit to, if, for example, their Muslim friend were to invite them to a worship service - and hardly something that a member should be surprised that others refuse to do.

Another good read is "Dear Leader". About the poet laureate of North Korea who defected after he accidentally left his work laptop on a train (though he began to become disenfranchised when he was introduced to the upper echelons of society and saw how extravagantly they lived) - which he knew met he would have been sent to a gulag. He personally met the Kim leaders, and it was his job to praise them through poetry. According to him, after Kim Il Sung passed, a government faction called the OGD mostly took control of the government and keep the Kim line going as largely puppet leaders (albeit powerful puppets). Very interesting also to read about Russia's assistance to North Korea - very similar to what we did in Afghanistan back in the cold war and time after - fought with Russia by financing and assisting it's enemies. i suspect there may be more street smarts in that country and those that support it than i'd like to admit.

Thank-you @Grunt. Production. i hope you are not right about that becoming normal. i've read some books about people who've gotten involved in that industry - and have yet to hear one who wasn't severely damaged by it in a way that didn't affect the rest of their lives. In fairness, i guess the ones who aren't do not write books - but i question whether anyone could get come out on the other side without being emotionally and spiritually shredded. i do not mean that to be a judgment on my part about the hearts of people who, for whatever reason, view pornographic material. After all, i no doubt wear clothes that were likely made by people working in sweat shops and horrific conditions - and the parallels between the two are not trivial.

i don't know. i have a really hard time with this. A lot of what i believe is scorned by others (which is fine), and i try not to out of hand write off what anyone else believes (apologies beforehand if i make you feel that way, or if i have inadvertently put words in your mouth). But how would any parent feel if their child (or really anyone they cared about) was one of the people who fed this industry, contributed to this cultural norm - or however a person's wants to define it. @Grunt - i'd be interested to hear your point of view on this.