Is It Really So Hard To Love Those Who Leave?

[Third Hour]

Have you ever thrown a football to a pregnant woman? One day early in my marriage, my wife and I went to a park to play catch with a football (#provolife). She was pregnant with our first child and was just starting to show (see previous hashtag). We took our positions on the grass, and I spiralled the football in her direction. Surprisingly, as the football came closer, her face was racked with uncontrollable conflict. While her eyes carefully tracked the football, her arms were fully extended with her palms out as if willing the football to stop in midair. Being pregnant with her first child had instilled a healthy sense of “mama bear” syndrome and she was determined to keep the football as far away from the growing embryo as possible while attempting the catch. What ensued was a not-so-graceful attempt to catch the football with her extended fingertips as she pulled the rest of her body back as far as possible. Not surprisingly, the football bounced off...

View the full article

[person0]

Perhaps it is different for the folks in Utah, but I think the premise of the article is inherently flawed.  The reason I choose not to associate with those who leave the Church is almost exclusively because I no longer have anything in common with them worth maintaining an association.  I even have a hard time getting along with many of the active members of the Church who, in my view, seem to delude themselves into supporting and upholding certain beliefs that are clearly contrary to gospel standards.

The people I know who have left the Church generally fall into the following overly generalized categories: too 'smart', too ignorant, or too apathetic to embrace the truths of the Restored Gospel.  Aside from that there are those who either are, or who view themselves to be too weak; so long as they don't shift into one of the other categories, then I can easily remain hopeful and motivated to promote their return.  In my experience, however, over time they tend to delude themselves and move into one of the first three categories.

I'm not saying someone like this is not worth our time, but I am simply truthfully saying I have difficulty finding any interest in hanging around them.  Of course, I am limited in the topics of discussion and activity that interest me, so that is certainly a contributor as well.

Edited May 8, 2019 by person0

[The Folk Prophet]

This article, though well intended, and certainly not harmful, is woefully naive in my opinion.

First, it strikes me that the assumption that most people won't interact with people who've left the church over fear of losing their own testimony is just silly. It's just not the way "faithful" saints think. Those with strong testimonies don't worry that other's lack of testimony will hurt theirs. Because it won't. That is just simply not the reason.

What is the reason then?

Well it's not a one and done thing. There are lots of reasons, and a lot a psychology comes into play. First and foremost, it shouldn't be surprising that there is a natural fallout when two people who previously held common core values no longer do. Friendship is based on shared interests. When one party's interest changes is it any surprise that the other party struggles a bit to relate or understand. Sure, we can still find common interests in other areas, but these things often tend towards the shallow. True, deep relationships are more typically based on deeper things. For those who are truly faithful, the most important thing in their lives is that faith, and therefore they naturally are going to click more with others who have that same faithfulness as the most important thing in their lives.

That means that in order to maintain a relationship with one who's left their faith, it can sometimes take forced effort where there wasn't a need for forced effort before. It becomes uncomfortable. That doesn't necessarily justify a discontinuation of the relationship. But it's a large difference from cutting them off over worry that they're wolves.

The implication that it's because the faithful are bitter, circling the wagons, and intentionally excluding is, as I said, silly. I'm sure it's happened here and there. But that just isn't how we, the faithful, actually think. The reality is it's probably much more related to simple apathy and laziness because maintaining such relationships is hard work, less entertaining, and requires a fair amount of uncomfortable tip-toeing.

Secondly, in my experience (not to say my experience is worth more than the author's...except maybe in that I've lived longer...), the animosity that develops between those who are disaffected seems to primarily come from the disaffected. It's not, typically, the disaffected speaking about their disaffection and the faithful being offended -- but rather the faithful speaking about their faith and the disaffected being offended. Obviously that's not always true. And there are disaffected I've known who just get so nasty about religion that I have purposefully chosen to cease interacting with them as much. But that isn't necessarily common.

What, exactly, do we expect in a relationship where one party speaks passionately about the love for something while the other speaks passionately about their distaste for that same thing? Some frustration is bound to occur. So either you both agree to keep that discussion off the table (awkward), or the faithful just shuts up (awkward), or the disaffected just shuts up (awkward), or you debate about it all the time (awkward for everyone).

Third, pitting defense of the flock against loving one's neighbor implies mutual exclusion where none exists. The commands are both important and should both be followed. It's not a matter of choosing one or the other.

Finally, loving one's neighbor isn't just about hugs and hand-holding and singing kumbaya. Sometimes the most loving thing we can do will, indeed, cause hurt feelings of animosity and rejection. The idea of casting off true love for one's neighbor in favor of warm, fuzzy feelings is, in my belief, a significantly larger problem.

Edited May 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

The reason I choose not to associate with those who leave the Church is almost exclusively because I no longer have anything in common with them worth maintaining an association.

You beat me to it. I typed too slowly.

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, person0 said:

Perhaps it is different for the folks in Utah, but I think the premise of the article is inherently flawed.  The reason I choose not to associate with those who leave the Church is almost exclusively because I no longer have anything in common with them worth maintaining an association.  I even have a hard time getting along with many of the active members of the Church who, in my view, seem to delude themselves into supporting and upholding certain beliefs that are clearly contrary to gospel standards.  The people I know who have left the Church generally fall into the following overly generalized categories: too 'smart', too ignorant, or too apathetic to embrace the truths of the Restored Gospel.  Aside from that there are those who either are, or who view themselves to be too weak; so long as they don't shift into one of the other categories, then I can easily remain hopeful and motivated to promote their return.  In my experience, however, over time they tend to delude themselves and move into one of the first three categories.

I'm not saying someone like this is not worth our time, but I am simply truthfully saying I have difficulty finding any interest in hanging around them.  Of course, I am limited in the topics of discussion and activity that interest me, so that is certainly a contributor as well.

I get what you are saying, but I'd like to add one little thing-

When I joined the church, some of my friends didn't agree with my new religious choice. In fact, with some, I didn't have old beliefs in common with them. They thought I was deluded, and upholding certain beliefs that they no longer shared. 

 You know how many stopped talking to me or associating with me? Zero. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by MormonGator

[Midwest LDS]

I've never really had this problem personally. While I'm saddened when someome chooses to leave, I've never had a problem interacting with them. I've had the opposite happen, where some people I thought were good friends left the church and ghosted me. It was upsetting and I'm still somewhat bothered by it. 

However, one of my good friends left the church when he was younger. He was still officially on the roles when I met him. I was assigned as his hometeacher. He told me he wasn't a member anymore, he attended a Pentecostal church, but I was welcome to visit. He was a great guy, and we had a lot of good conversations about Christ. 

Are there active members that shun disaffected members? Undoubtedly, the church is made up of human beings, and all of us make mistakes from time to time. But in my personal experience, it's not the norm. Just like my personal examples you can probably find just as many former members who shun active members. Human relationships are very much based on the individual rather than the aggregate.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

. It was upsetting and I'm still somewhat bothered by it. 

 

It happened to me too, but it has nothing to do with the church. I was hurt by it (I still am, even though it's been a long time) but it taught me a very good lesson. Real friendship is secondary only to love. Hang on to it. Thank God I've found real friends in my life. Even though we :: gasp :: believe different things. 

If you (generic!) want to set conditions and contracts on friendship, you owe it to someone to tell them upfront "Look, if you no longer believe X, we can't be friends." Tell them right away, it's only fair. And you won't waste their or your time. 

[Midwest LDS]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If you (generic!) want to set conditions and contracts on friendship, you owe it to someone to tell them upfront "Look, if you no longer believe X, we can't be friends." Tell them right away, it's only fair. And you won't waste their or your time. 

Agreed. I am not super social so when I make a friend, you are my friend unless you choose to end the relationship. Don't just drop out of someone's life because they make a different choice from you. At least that's how I look at it.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Agreed. I am not super social so when I make a friend, you are my friend unless you choose to end the relationship. Don't just drop out of someone's life because they make a different choice from you. At least that's how I look at it.

Agree totally. 

And I'm sure someone will misread what I said and say "So, I should be friends with someone who smokes meth or robs banks?" Of course not, and you can be friends with whoever you want to and whoever you choose to. But I feel slightly sorry for you (again, generic) if you place conditions on friendships like religious/political beliefs (because again, real friendship is rare and precious) , and I feel very happy for your potential "friends" because they can move on and invest emotionally with people who deserve better than you (again, generic) . 

Edited May 8, 2019 by MormonGator

[person0]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

In fact, with some, I didn't have old beliefs in common with them.

I think this is an important difference.  In my association with you here on this forum, I tend to interpret that you are a very easy going guy and that it is likely easy for you to enjoy yourself in the company of others, associating based on a variety of topics.  If I am correct, I think that is an excellent thing about you, and is in fact a personality trait I wish I had.  For me, such associations are difficult, not because I don't want them, but because they become shallow and difficult for me personally to maintain.

For example:  I enjoy watching an occasional sports game, but I have almost no interest in sports (and know almost nothing on the subject) unless I am playing with a team; as a teammate it is easy to learn, focus, and work together toward a common goal; leave the team setting and I have to find something else in common, which becomes complicated.  This is just one example, but almost everything I do and enjoy outside of religion and politics follows this type of pattern.

There a lot of people out there who can discuss superficial matters for hours on end; I don't last very long. I find it difficult to continue frequent communication without core common ground that I feel is deep and meaningful.  The best man at my wedding fell away from the Church and embraced a lifestyle I cannot condone; if he were to call me today and ask for a favor, I would be out the door ready to help.  In that sense, I am his friend and will never abandon him.  That said, I haven't spoken to him in over two years, not because I don't want to, but because I can think of nothing to discuss.  Going back to what I was saying at first, I think that perhaps you may find it easy to converse and relate with people on a variety of commonly popular topics, that is an excellent skill to have.

Edited May 8, 2019 by person0
clarification

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, person0 said:

 If I am correct, I think that is an excellent thing about you, and is in fact a personality trait I wish I had.

Thank you for the compliment, really appreciate you saying that. 

 

13 minutes ago, person0 said:

  Somehow I ended up the 'bad guy' for that.

Anyone who calls you a "bad guy" should be ashamed of themselves. You are anything but. 

14 minutes ago, person0 said:

Going back to what I was saying at first, I think that perhaps you may find it easy to converse and relate with people on a variety of commonly popular topics, that is an excellent skill to have.

Thanks again. Very nice of you to say. 

I hope you find deep and meaningful friendships @person0, in fact, I hope and pray you already have them (and I mean that, 100%). Nothing I said here was directed at you with the exception of my first post quoting you. God bless you my brother. 

[The Folk Prophet]

58 minutes ago, person0 said:

I think this is an important difference.  In my association with you here on this forum, I tend to interpret that you are a very easy going guy and that it is likely easy for you to enjoy yourself in the company of others, associating based on a variety of topics.  If I am correct, I think that is an excellent thing about you, and is in fact a personality trait I wish I had.  For me, such associations are difficult, not because I don't want them, but because they become shallow and difficult for me personally to maintain.  I think part of the reason that happens is because I am kind of like a 'Jack of all trades, but master of none' and an extroverted introvert.  I find it easy to empathize with most people, and yet I harbor little sympathy for most.

I enjoy watching an occasional sports game, but I have almost no interest in sports (and know almost nothing on the subject) unless I am playing with a team; as a teammate it is easy to learn, focus, and work together toward a common goal; leave the team setting and I have to find something else in common, which becomes complicated.  This is just one example, but almost everything I do and enjoy outside of religion and politics follows this type of pattern.

There a lot of people out there who can discuss superficial matters for hours on end; I cannot.  I remember a comical situation where my in-laws were discussing something and someone asked a question to which the answer was ultimately unimportant.  I don't remember the specific question, but I do remember that everyone threw in their best 'I don't really know but . . .'  before I encouraged them to look it up through google on their phone, and then, when they didn't, I took all of 5 seconds to look it up and give them the actual answer.  Somehow I ended up the 'bad guy' for that.

I find it difficult to continue frequent communication without core common ground that I feel is deep and meaningful.  The best man at my wedding fell away from the Church and embraced a lifestyle I cannot condone; if he were to call me today and ask for a favor, I would be out the door ready to help.  In that sense, I am his friend and will never abandon him.  That said, I haven't spoken to him in over two years, not because I don't want to, but because I can think of nothing to discuss.  Going back to what I was saying at first, I think that perhaps you may find it easy to converse and relate with people on a variety of commonly popular topics, that is an excellent skill to have.

I'm not sure that's the difference here.

Example:

Scenario 1: You and I are football watchin' buddies. We get together and talk football all the time. Then one day, you decide you don't like football, think it's a stupid waste of time, and that I'm wasting my life watching it. We now have very little to talk about.

Scenario 2: You and I are football watchin' buddies. We get together and talk football all the time. Then one day you tell me that you've decided that you want to get into water polo. I think water polo is silly...but oh well. We continue talking football.

What the difference is is that Gator's talking about Scenario 2.

Now I know it's not perfect, because he probably had some things that he was no longer interested in that his buddies still are...but they certainly had lots in common still as well. But a lot of people who are close in the gospel are close because of the gospel and may not have a ton of other things in common. I know of several people who I consider good friends, but our friendship is based mostly in our shared faith. Granted, they're not my best buds. But if some of them left the gospel we would have very little in common.

If I had a good friend who shared convictions of faith with me but we also got together and talked football all the time, if they left the gospel I think we'd still probably talk football. (Not that I talk football with people...but you get the point.) The article is implying that faithful Latter-day Saints un-invite their football buddies from watching the game with them because they're worried about losing their testimonies over it. That just doesn't typically happen.

Edited May 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[person0]

36 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I hope you find deep and meaningful friendships @person0, in fact, I hope and pray you already have them (and I mean that, 100%).

Thank you 🙂

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Nothing I said here was directed at you with the exception of my first post quoting you.

I did not interpret it that way.  We have had enough conversations here that I don't ever feel offended by what you say/post.  I am naturally a debater;  I was basically trying to show how what we each said can be true using my personal experience, but TFP did a better job with his scenarios.

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What the difference is is that Gator's talking about Scenario 2.

You explained it better, but I recognized exactly that.  I was intending to point out to Gator that scenario 2 examples rarely exist for me, hence what he is saying can be true without affecting my point.  With few exceptions, almost all of my relationships that have communication on a regular basis (especially in the church) are similar to your scenario 1.

36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The article is implying that faithful Latter-day Saints un-invite their football buddies from watching the game with them because they're worried about losing their testimonies over it. That just doesn't typically happen.

I agree completely.

[Vort]

My first impression on reading the article:

Thoughtful and well-written examination of a non-existent problem. The un-friending (literal, not Facebook-style) of those who leave the Church is at the behest of the leavers, not the stayers. Those who leave the Church and who then feel they are "shunned" are invariably too smart and too hostile to tolerate the stupid sheeple who stay. Maybe "invariably" is wrong, but I bet it's not far from the truth.

[Guest Mores]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

My first impression on reading the article:

Thoughtful and well-written examination of a non-existent problem. The un-friending (literal, not Facebook-style) of those who leave the Church is at the behest of the leavers, not the stayers. Those who leave the Church and who then feel they are "shunned" are invariably too smart and too hostile to tolerate the stupid sheeple who stay. Maybe "invariably" is wrong, but I bet it's not far from the truth.

Totally agree. 

I have many friends and relatives who have left the Church both formally and informally.  I still keep in contact with them.  I still work with some of them.  I still have them over for game night.  I had no idea that this was "a thing".  I certainly don't see this "shunning" in any of the experiences I've had or personally witnessed.  Jacob seems to have it backwards. This is what is so confusing about this article. 

I have one inactive family that I minister to.  I can never get them to even pick up the phone, much less return my call.  And they never had cause to leave.  This family was inactive.  They had barely started coming back to church as I moved into the ward.  I didn't know their history.  I just knew them as part of the ward.  They eventually came back to full fellowship to the point that they got sealed in the temple (the couple as well as to their kids).  Then they had a baby (BIC) and blessed them in Sacrament Meeting.  Then they disappeared.

I had been assigned to them a week or two before the blessing.  But I had already known them.  I had conversations in the hall with them.  I talked business with the father.  We arranged for our kids to hang out together.  So, being assigned as their ministering brother made a lot of sense.

But when they disappeared, I had no idea what happened.  No one did.  I spoke with the EQP and he told me that they have done this a lot.  They get really active for a few years, then they just disappear for no known reason.  We reach out to them and they don't respond.  All we can do is love them, pray for them, and hope they come back.

I've also known one who left because they "could not look into our judgmental eyes" anymore.  Who was judging?  I just wanted my friend back.  But he separated himself from me and our other friends.  I also heard that one of my friends did that to his family after I had lost contact with him.

I've personally never seen anyone shunning others because they left the Church.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

My first impression on reading the article:

Thoughtful and well-written examination of a non-existent problem. 

It's obviously not non-existent, or else the writer wouldn't have written about it. 

Maybe it falls back into a worldview issue. If we are still in the church, we'll blame those who left for breaking a friendship. If we are out of the church, we'll blame those still in it. Sort of a like a bad marriage ending. After all, it's rare to see a woman talk positively about her ex-husband. 

 

Not being funny, not scoring points. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

For some folks, their testimony is fragile or immature.   Or they think they have a testimony, but really it's just habit and peer pressure mixed with never having thought much about stuff.  Those folks get buffeted by winds from all directions, not just by talking to other people who have left the church.  If you're one of these people, yeah, you gotta watch out when going out into the wind.   Thing is, many, many of us start out with these sort of proto-testimonies.  Not everybody has had a rock solid defining moment in their life that guides them, or has had spiritual experiences. Yet.  I'd say most of the kids born into the church start out running off their parent's testimonies, and finding their own is part of growing up.  (I think there have been some good general conference talks about this, but links to them escape me right now.)

Something else to mention - not just friends leave the church.  Sometimes kids or spouses or parents leave.  You don't run out of things to discuss with those folks usually.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something else to mention - not just friends leave the church.  Sometimes kids or spouses or parents leave.  You don't run out of things to discuss with those folks usually.

I remember reading about a school shooter who killed about five people. His father said "He's still my son, I despise what he did, but he's still my son." 

The parent-offsprings stories are the most heartbreaking to me. Yes, I've heard stories of offspring refusing to talk to their parents because of religious views, but in fairness I have heard of parents cutting their kids out of wills and more sadly, out of their lives because of a refusal to adhere to religious tradition. I'm not a parent, so obviously take this with a huge grain of salt, but I simply can't fathom a parent doing that to their child. 

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The parent-offsprings stories are the most heartbreaking to me. Yes, I've heard stories of offspring refusing to talk to their parents because of religious views, but in fairness I have heard of parents cutting their kids out of wills and more sadly, out of their lives because of a refusal to adhere to religious tradition. I'm not a parent, so obviously take this with a huge grain of salt, but I simply can't fathom a parent doing that to their child. 

Which is interesting, because from a certain point of view, that is exactly what our Father in Heaven does -- cuts us out of His will if we refuse to follow Him.

[Midwest LDS]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which is interesting, because from a certain point of view, that is exactly what our Father in Heaven does -- cuts us out of His will if we refuse to follow Him.

True, although he does make provision for those of us who do via the various kingdoms. In addition, that's never by his choice it's always our own decision. I can't even begin to fathom God's heartbreak over how many of his children willingly refuse to return home to him, so that's somewhat different from parents who refuse to talk to their children ever again over one of their decisions.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

True, although he does make provision for those of us who do via the various kingdoms. In addition, that's never by his choice it's always our own decision. I can't even begin to fathom God's heartbreak over how many of his children willingly refuse to return home to him, so that's somewhat different from parents who refuse to talk to their children ever again over one of their decisions.

I'm not suggesting that establishes a model for our interactions. The Lord was quite clear. "“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

[Guest Mores]

47 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's obviously not non-existent, or else the writer wouldn't have written about it. 

Virtually any bad behavior will be found in any demographic to some level.  But just how bad and how common is this behavior among Latter-day Saints?  Has this author personally experienced it?  Or has he simply "heard" about it?

As a parallel: Larry Elder told of surveys taken of young blacks asking how bad is racism in this country today. 

• About 90% said it was really bad.
• Only 11% said it was a big problem in their own lives.

Do you think that maybe the bad experiences of a few people get spread around enough that people get the impression that it is a more widespread problem than it actually, statistically, is?

Yes, it would be better if that 11% were zero.  But we live in a world where 2% of the Americans are flat earthers.  An additional 30% are unsure or were uneducated on what the earth's shape was.  Something like 5% of Americans still believe Elvis is alive.  I don't know if we can humanly get much better than 10% in a free society.

I'd be willing to bet that if we took a real survey of how often this shunning actually happens we'd find similar results.  i.e. 90% say it is a big problem.  But only 10% or less say that they've actually seen it happen in their own lives.  I'd reckon that the most common response would be "What's shunning?"

47 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Maybe it falls back into a worldview issue. If we are still in the church, we'll blame those who left for breaking a friendship. If we are out of the church, we'll blame those still in it. Sort of a like a bad marriage ending. After all, it's rare to see a woman talk positively about her ex-husband. 

I really wonder if people who have left want to blame those they left for cutting off contact.  Is the reality that those who left cut off the contact.  I see too many instances where those who are inactive keep ignoring and slamming the door in their home teachers/ministering brother's face.  Where's the shunning?

I also see some instances where people left the Church simply because they were never really "accepted" into the fold.  That is a truly sad story.  I do feel sorry for those cases. But were they shunned for leaving?  Or did they leave because they felt shunned?  If the latter, that is a completely different issue than what the article addresses.  And we certainly need to address it.

Someone on this board talked about a friend who went inactive and refused contact because of a single misspoken sentence.  And the person who left was the one who cut off contact.

[person0]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You don't run out of things to discuss with those folks usually.

Perhaps to an extent, but I can't really call my dad about most life issues, or rely on him for spiritual advice because our our worldview and religious paradigms are so different.  Without a specific activity planned, or need to address, it can be awkward/dull to spend time with him and/or his side of the family.  I usually do not have the same experience with my mom's side of the family who, for the most part, are members of the Church.  I would not consider myself to be the norm, but I am at least one example to the contrary.

[Midwest LDS]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not suggesting that establishes a model for our interactions. The Lord was quite clear. "“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

Agreed, that's what I was pointing out.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

It's obviously not non-existent, or else the writer wouldn't have written about it.

MG, that's the very definition of a circular argument.