Is It Really So Hard To Love Those Who Leave?


Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
23 minutes ago, Vort said:

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

Okay. The writer made it up and it doesn't exist? 

1 hour ago, Mores said:

  Something like 5% of Americans still believe Elvis is alive. 

It's closer to 10%. Sad but true. In fact, every time I see someone post about a flat earth or become an anti-vaxxer, I want to say that the Elvis factor is closer to 20%. 25%. 30%. 40%. Maybe even 99%. 

Remember that we're all a bunch of people who believe in the church. If we brought someone into the conversation who actually left the church and lived through that experience, it might give us fresh information and a fresh perspective. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Remember that we're all a bunch of people who believe in the church. If we brought someone into the conversation who actually left the church and lived through that experience, it might give us fresh information and a fresh perspective. 

Perhaps.  But we have @Godless.  I'm sure he could weigh in and tell us his experience.

There was also another (infrequent) poster who talked about some interesting family dynamics during holidays.  It didn't seem she was shunned.  It seemed that sometimes people just didn't know how to behave around her for fear of upsetting her any time the gospel was brought up.  In my family growing up sometimes we didn't know how inactive members would behave when we simply prayed over our meal.

But none of that was really "shunning".  It was just awkwardness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Remember that we're all a bunch of people who believe in the church. If we brought someone into the conversation who actually left the church and lived through that experience, it might give us fresh information and a fresh perspective. 

Because the best evidence that something is true is personal perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
18 minutes ago, Mores said:

Perhaps.  But we have @Godless.  I'm sure he could weigh in and tell us his experience.

There was also another (infrequent) poster who talked about some interesting family dynamics during holidays.  It didn't seem she was shunned.  It seemed that sometimes people just didn't know how to behave around her for fear of upsetting her any time the gospel was brought up.  In my family growing up sometimes we didn't know how inactive members would behave when we simply prayed over our meal.

But none of that was really "shunning".  It was just awkwardness.

I hope I'm wrong. Nothing would make me happier than hearing that families are still close and communicate all the time after one has a change in world-views. 

If I'm wrong, great. I hope I am. But I doubt it. The other issue is that even if I'm dead wrong and it never happens-a lot of people think it does. So we need to be more open with the fact that it doesn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I hope I'm wrong. Nothing would make me happier than hearing that families are still close and communicate all the time after one has a change in world-views. 

If I'm wrong, great. I hope I am. But I doubt it. The other issue is that even if I'm dead wrong and it never happens-a lot of people think it does. So we need to be more open with the fact that it doesn't. 

Well, my parents are moderate liberals.  My brother is further liberal.  My other brother is moderate conservative, and he's left the Church.  I've never asked him if he has formally done so or not.  My sister is a liberal capitalist which should make her a libertarian.  But not really.  She's difficult to categorize.  (the rest of my family, unknown).  I'm for libertarianism as far as governmental authority.  But I'm extremely conservative on many levels, so I can't really say I'm a Republican or Libertarian.

We don't really have problems because of our world-views.  We have problems for other reasons.  So there.

No, I'm quite aware of the fact that differences in politics and religion cause a lot of tension in and among family and friends.  But that doesn't mean it's "shunning".  It's just a different issue.

And just to be clear, I'll reiterate.  I'm sure it is a problem on some level with some percentage of the population.  But have there been any statistics gathered on the topic?  How do we know how widespread it is?  I tend to think it is a very small percentage.  However, regardless of this dearth of information, the article gives the impression that is is a system-wide epidemic that happens almost all the time.  Notice the title:

Quote

Is it really so hard to love those who leave?

No.  No it's not.  Question answered.  Next!

I spoke of my friend who is a former member of the Church.  I quoted him when I posted about the recent thread regarding the Trinity.  He and I get along great.  We are both mature adults who recognize that religion and politics have the potential to be touchy subjects.  But we do our best to be polite about it and have civil conversations about them when appropriate.  

No, it's not that hard.  You just need to be aware of the potential.  You both need to decide that being civil is important and possible.  Then we both make a decision to be civil.

To many this means avoiding hot topic subjects.  This is the easier and more common route. 

But I'm able to actually have civil conversation with him because we can both understand the difference between suspicion and proof (or preponderance of evidence).  We understand the difference between characterization and literal actions and words.  We understand when we get to a level so basic that we simply are not going to go any deeper or further on a topic.  IOW, we know when we have to simply agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Mores said:

We don't really have problems because of our world-views.

We have problems because we look at things through our subjective, human eyes/mind. Which includes our worldview. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
Just now, MormonGator said:

We have problems because we look at things through our subjective, human eyes/mind. Which includes our worldview. 

Fair enough.  I'll re-word.

We don't have tension in our family because of religion or politics.  We tend to have personality conflicts due to plain old human stupidity.  Is that any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Fair enough.  I'll re-word.

We don't have tension in our family because of religion or politics.  We tend to have personality conflicts due to plain old human stupidity.  Is that any better?

It's actually very interesting to consider.

In my family we have conflicts due to the same kind of stupidity/selfishness, etc. too. But we also have a crazy amount of closeness. Where does that closeness really come from? The gospel. There's no ifs ands or buts about it.

My family (and I'm talking about my brothers and sisters and their spouses and my parents) get together monthly and have a spiritual fireside type gathering (with food), for example. Every time, I go away from these get-togethers feeling closer to my family. The same sort of closeness doesn't grow at the secular 4th of July/Christmas party type gatherings. I can only imagine what would happen to the closeness of the family if one of my siblings decided the church wasn't true. Would they still come to the monthly spiritual meetings? Hardly. If they did would we temper our spiritual ideas to accommodate them? Probably not? Would they start debating against the church and God and religion if they were there? If so, do we stop having the spiritual gatherings? Dis-invite them? Just start having eating-and-nothing-more gatherings?

All of the above would drive us apart. There is, simply, no getting around it.

I've seen (even in my own family (extended---meaning cousins, etc)) "closeness" that's based on the shallow things in life. Waterskiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling, movies, board and card games, food, etc., etc. These things don't actually create closeness. They're shallow and lack any real depth. They may create a level of family bonding. But in the end, what good does that sort of bonding even really do?

There only one path to follow the injunction to be one. That is to be one in Christ. If some choose to not become part of that one, then being one with them is an impossibility. The only viable method to become one with them again is to help them return to Christ. Sometimes the shallow things are a method to that end. So I'm not suggesting that we disengage in such things by any means. But I, personally, do not believe that is enough or, in any regard, the example the Savior and the prophets set for us. Christ didn't go waterskiing and play cards with the people he ministered too. His methods involved service, preaching, healing, succoring, and such. It is these thing, primarily, that I believe are the way we show love to those who've left the church. Getting together to awkwardly not talk about religion while we play a card game doesn't strike me as particularly useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same issue with LGBT and the Church.  Somehow, when you don't support the sin, articles get written to say "is it really so hard to love the sinner?".

My mother has no problem yelling at me, even after 18 years, for leaving the Catholic Church.  I have ZERO DOUBT that she loves me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
31 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Saul Pieman says there's 50 ways to love a leaver.

That's Pimon.  As in the Greek letter "Pi" and the Jamaican "mon".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mores said:

That's Pimon.  As in the Greek letter "Pi" and the Jamaican "mon".

THAT's right. He used to be part of a duo.

 

Pimon and Tumba.

 

No wait, wasn't he one of the Funkle Brothers? Pimon and Gar?

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Pimon and Tumba.

That was back when they meerly had warts on their faces.  They'd try to hog the spotlight from each other. A kat's gotta eat.

Quote

No wait, wasn't he one of the Funkle Brothers? Pimon and Gar?

Idunno.  Could be a diamond in the rough.  But it sounds fishy to me.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Okay. The writer made it up and it doesn't exist? 

Maybe. More likely is that the author is talking about a relatively rare phenomenon of those who leave the Church being treated as outcasts—rare, that is, when compared to the far greater number of those who leave the Church, cut off and actively sabotage relationships with LDS family and (former) friends, and then lyingly complain about being cast out.

How many do you personally know who have left the Church? Of those, how many have become bitter and descended, at least for a time, into antiMormon activities? On the other hand, how many do you know personally who, having left the Church, have been abandoned and cast out by the very people who used to call them "Brother" or "Sister"?

In my lifetime experience, the former is vastly more common than the latter, like ten-to-one or twenty-to-one, maybe much more. In point of fact, I know of no one in my circle of acquaintances who fits the latter description. I am sure that somewhere, at some time, someone has experienced that.  But to treat that anomaly as if it's the common condition and lecture the faithful Saints on how they ought not act in such an evil way falls flat on my ear. If the Church's leadership sees that problem and wants to address it publicly, they will have nothing but my support. But when Joe Saint decides to take upon himself the duty of righteous accuser, I find myself less than impressed.

Such false (or at least exaggerated) allegations do actual damage. They lift the responsibility off of those who should rightfully bear it—those who have left in bitterness and, forsaking their friends, whine about being forsaken—and wrongly place it on the Saints. Likewise, the onus is on the leavers to heal the breach. We as Saints take that onus on ourselves, and we should, because the Master has required it of us. But we should never lose sight of the fact that doing so is an act of love and mercy on the part of the Saints, not an act of contrition or repentance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

Such false (or at least exaggerated) allegations do actual damage.

We agree on that. And so does ignoring or downplaying problems because they make us uncomfortable. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree on that. And so does ignoring or downplaying problems because they make us uncomfortable. 

But no one here is doing that. We aren't saying, "That's baloney" because it's uncomfortable. We're saying, "That's baloney" because it's baloney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

We agree on that. And so does ignoring or downplaying problems because they make us uncomfortable. 

Fair enough.  And yeah, the notion that maybe some people leaving the Church have had bad experiences, should lead sensitive Church members to do a gut-check and ask whether we ourselves have done anything to exacerbate that.

But, if I do that gut check and come back with “nope, can’t think of anything”—it’s not helpful for me to know that some disenchanted person, somewhere in the world, claims to have been mistreated by a person he cannot or will not identify.  I (hope I) repent of stuff I actually did, and I hope the folks I offend will feel empowered to call me on the harm that I do.  But I will not grovel and self-flagellate because of some unverifiable accusation that I know has nothing to do with anything I’ve done.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair enough.  And yeah, the notion that maybe some people leaving the Church have had bad experiences, should lead sensitive Church members to do a gut-check and ask whether we ourselves have done anything to exacerbate that.

But, if I do that gut check and come back with “nope, can’t think of anything”—it’s not helpful for me to know that some disenchanted person, somewhere in the world, claims to have been mistreated by a person he cannot or will not identify.  I (hope I) repent of stuff I actually did, and I hope the folks I offend will feel empowered to call me on the harm that I do.  But I will not grovel and self-flagellate because of some unverifiable accusation that I know has nothing to do with anything I’ve done.

Spoken like an overprivileged white man. Don't you know that your very existence is a burden upon the psyches of the oppressed non-white-men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And yeah, the notion that maybe some people leaving the Church have had bad experiences, should lead sensitive Church members to do a gut-check and ask whether we ourselves have done anything to exacerbate that.

I have a perfect solution for people who've had bad experiences leaving the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's because you're whiter than Hitler.

 

What are you talking about?  I am tan.  And I have excellent photographic evidence that Hitler was gray.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share