Ex-Mormons find community
Posted on October 21st, 2005 by Bryce Inouye
The title of this post links to an NPR story on ex-Mormons and the ways they are building community. The story itself is fairly uninteresting, but the fact that it is a topic of interest at all is noteworthy. It’s amazing to me that the Church is powerful enough not only to create strong communities among its believers, but among its former adherents as well.
» Filed Under Any
Comments
48 Responses to “Ex-Mormons find community”
Leave a Reply
I just listened to it — it was actually a rather benign piece.
The reporter gave the ex-Mormon web site address. I suppose that can only be a good thing, because any rational person who goes there will see how hateful and profane the RFM crowd is. There are scarcely any arguments on the site at all, let alone convincing arguments. It’s mostly attitude, sneering, paranoia, whining, personal attacks, and crowing over how stupid Mormons are and how vastly superior apostates are. I can’t see how a rational person could be positively impressed, let alone persuaded, by RFM.
Read some of the “stories of ex-Mormons” and they will have you (or any dispassionate reader, rather) in tears. Ex-Mormons are not all vile and venom, any more than all Mormons are goodness and light. it’s only when people lay off the hyperbole and cartoonish generalities that they begin to find common ground and understand each other.
i’ve been rather cynical about a number of posts and people on this site in the past, but we definitely should ‘leave well enough’ and just ignore anything to do with http://WWW.EXMORMON.ORG, it’s a bad thing!
these folks will be the amailikites in our generation.
not a good thing.
The bigger issue is that most people need “community”. When they are shunned like lepers or considered devil-spawn, it’s no wonder they’d want to band together for their own breed of “(un)testimony-bearing” or just let-the-hair-down chit chat.
Many members feel they have to be on their best behavior at all times, never letting their guard down, etc. I’d guess that when people leave the church, they just sometimes want to “let it all hang out” and say what they want without fear of being hauled into the bishop’s office or gossiped about by nosy ward members.
There are many post-Mormon or ex-Mormon boards with various degrees of monitoring. The fact that one of them seems poisonous to virgin eyes doesn’t negate the efficacy of all post-Mormon boards, nor should it indicate that all ex-Mormons are evil.
I see no problem with letting people have their communities for bonding and healing purposes, or for jovial chatter or entertainment. What on earth is wrong with that???
Responses to two posts:
Read the posts at the RFM board, and you will see that a majority of them are, in fact, “vile and venom.” Believing Mormons are constantly ridiculed and castigated. The only reason people remain in Mormonism, according to RFM-ers, is they are stupid or willful liars. Profanity is frequently employed. There is nothing positive about the Church or its teachings — it’s all lies and manipulation.
I agree that not all Mormons are “goodness and light,” but at least there is some balance on M* and other LDS boards. RFM is filled bitterness, hatred, and vitriol.
RFM-ers are free to do what they choose, but let’s not pretend there is any “healing” going on there. It is a place where they curse their believing friends and family, and any objective reader will find it a place of bitterness and anger.
There is no “recovering” going on at “Recovery from Mormonism.”
Well, there’s more to the exMo board than the posts. Reading the biography board or the ex-Mo stories board is very enlightening. The short topics section is interesting too. The posts on the bulletin board seem to be playful and a free-for all, but that doesn’t seem to be what the entire site is about.
But to each his own. Some people obviously find it helpful and some obviously do not. Not everyone has a squeaky-clean experience of Mormonism, and not everyone wants to use careful language to describe their life in the Church. The ex-Mo board can be entertaining and instructive in the way that some LDS boards can never be. Again, to each his own. Bitterness and anger are sometimes USEFUL. To those for whom bitterness and anger are never useful, I agree: don’t go there. Sometimes it can help, though. Sometimes people get “mad as heck and can’t take it anymore.” It’s better to blow off steam than bottle it up.
Shelly:
The “exit stories” on the exMo web site typically follow the pattern of “I expected Church leaders to be infallible and Church members to be perfect and when I found out they weren’t I was so angry, hurt, and disappointed that I had to leave.” If that’s “enlightening,” then, as you say, to each his own.
They don’t seem playful and free-for-all. They seem ugly, vicious, meanspirited, and crude. Believing Mormons are constantly belittled and insulted. It surprises me that you see this as “playful.”
I disagree, and so, I suspect, would many psychologists. If one’s spouse has committed adultery, it’s normal to feel anger and betrayal, but it’s unhealthy to wallow in that anger, reliving the experience over and over, and building that anger into hatred. It’s even worse to participate in “bash” sessions with others who have experienced the same thing.
The way to “recover” from a bad experience is to take control of your choices and choose to be happy. None of the people on the RFM board are doing this; they are lashing out at people and an institution they believe have hurt them. Meanwhile, some of the “big names” on RFM — Steve Benson, Tal Bachman, Bob McCue — serve as exMo celebrities, finding a willing audience to stroke their egos when the believers would not.
It’s a pathetic existence, and I have great pity for them.
Nothing to add, but I’m curious about why you “pity” those who seem to enjoy posting there–one man’s trash is another’s treasure. What harm is it doing anyone for you to pity them? As far as I can tell, people use the board and move on. My brother-in-law used it for a few months before leaving the church; some others read it and decide they want to stay in. There are few outlets for doubting members or for those who want more than the party-line. I say give ‘em their rant board and let people do what they want with their own lives.
I may regret jumping into this fray. I have not been to the exmo site but I have visited other sites by Mormons who are struggling with their faith and their experience in the church, and I do not think the above quote accurately reflects the point of view of the majority of these folks, many of whom are every bit as rational, intelligent, and educated as the regulars who post on M* and T&S (if not more so). Many of them raise legitimate, difficult questions on a number of topics dealing both with the history of the church (i.e., Joseph Smith’s polyandry, problems with the Book of Abraham, etc.) and with the current church environment that, from their view, stifles the slightest nonconformity.
I think that’s true Eric. And it is a struggle, although I am convinced that if people struggle in the spirit the rewards are always worth it. In my experience those who struggle end up with much stronger testimonies at the end than those who don’t. The danger is those who struggle, but in their struggles cut off revelation.
But I do agree that labeling all people who leave the church on the basis of those who tend to flock towards the ex-Mormon activist sites is unfair. Those people don’t represent most people who leave the church anymore than the protesters around temple square represent Protestantism.
Perhaps an example of the playful, free-for-all experience at the exMo.org community:
So exiting Mormonism can rationally be compared to exiting the Klan?
One man’s trash is another’s treasure, right?
Eric:
The problem with the “exit stories” is not that these people dealt with Joseph Smith’s polygamy and other difficult historical issues. It’s that they encountered them and then accused believing Saints of lying about Church history or being dupes of those who did.
I once stumbled onto the ex-Mormon board for about a half-hour a few years ago. What struck me was the absolute absence of the Spirit. I kept on having the image come to mind of Heber Kimball’s visions of demons berating him for an hour and a half when he was on his mission in England circa 1840. That seemed to me what the board was all about — people who were wallowing in self-pity angry at those who were not. So I would tend to agree with Mike Parker’s take based on my one experience. I cannot speak intelligently on if the board is still like that, and I avoid places like that as a general principle.
I’m routinely — by name — the object of RFM “playfulness,” which frequently consists in calling me a conscienceless sociopath, mocking (what they suppose to be) my appearance, lampooning my purported eating habits, speculating about my sexual practices, calling me dishonest, doubting my sanity, labeling me with obscene epithets, caricaturing things I’ve written or said, distorting and misrepresenting my positions, and, occasionally, making cracks about my wife, but essentially never honestly dealing with anything I’ve actually published.
It’s all good clean fun, no doubt, and very healthy. (See Alma 14:21.)
I think we can all agree that the type of thing Prof. Peterson describes above is reprehensible, and it may be what goes on at RFM (never visited that site and from the sound of it, don’t plan to). I just think that we active members sometimes paint with too broad a brush–not all disaffected Mormons are vile and venomous. I think what Shelley and I were saying is that there are many people who are leaving the church (or curtailing activity therein) not because they are “demon-filled” as Geoff B suggests but because they feel like they have been (deceived, let down, insulted) by the “faith-promoting history” that has resulted from the zealous application of “correlation.” Others see an increasingly corporate, dogmatic, and bureacratic church that is, quite frankly, failing to provide an environment conducive to spiritual growth. I daresay many of their compplaints and criticisms might be shared by many who tarry in the Bloggernacle (how many of us long for the kind of stimulating conversation we get here in Gospel Doctrine or Sac. Mtg.)
I think it is time for us to seriously consider how we view those who have fallen away. We need to go beyond the two questions we so often smugly ask with relation to such members (1. Who offended them? 2. What commandment did they not want to keep). Just MHO.
I agree with Eric that there is a great deal to be learned from those who fall away, simply go inactive, or actually become disaffected and in some cases bitter. It is worthwhile to listen to their stories to see if there is something that might be done either to help them or to make repetition of their cases less likely. (Human agency and human cussedness being what they are, there will never be a way to guarantee no apostasy at all. The premortal heavens were presumably a fairly nice place, but a third of the heavenly host became alienated anyway.)
Certainly not all, or even most, or even a large proportion of those who become inactive or leave the Church are nasty, vicious people. Not even all of the participants on the ironically-named “Recovery” board are venomous and full of bile. But plenty of them are, and it is a pathological and deeply sad place. I’m re-reading Dante’s Inferno right now, and . . . well, enough said. What’s really depressing is that most of those who regularly participate on the “Recovery” board, I’m guessing, cannot sense how truly horrendous the place is, how cacklingly hateful and bitter. It’s the old fish-in-water principle, I suppose.
Eric S.:
I agree with you, but the subject of this blog entry was an NPR segment on a specific web site and people who ally themselves with it, and it was that site and those people upon whom I was commenting.
My original comment still stands: I’m somewhat glad NPR gave the URL for the site, because that only means that uninformed listeners will visit it and see what a vile place it is. And, hopefully, they will not judge Mormons — and most ex-Mormons — by the warped RFM standard.
“how many of us long for the kind of stimulating conversation we get here in Gospel Doctrine or Sac. Mtg.”
Wow, not me. The bloggernacle is entertaining and a good venue for learning, but the pure article, the Holy Ghost, is much more present at church where I know the people, sacrifice for them, and they for me.
That’s a great statement, Adam.
Bitterness and anger are sometimes USEFUL.…Sometimes it can help, though. Sometimes people get “mad as heck and can’t take it anymore.” It’s better to blow off steam than bottle it up.
From a psychological perspective, this is probably not the case. There’s very little evidence that explosively expressing violent emotion manages to ‘release’ such emotions or diffuse them—rather, it just predisposes one to act in similar ways later.
Can anyone really see a ‘recovery’ group for some other malady—be it Alcoholics Anonymous, a bipolar support group, survivors of rape, Vietnam veterans support group—go at things the way RFM does?
The therapist running such a group would be hauled up for malpractice.
The posts on the bulletin board seem to be playful and a free-for all, but that doesn’t seem to be what the entire site is about.
I have seen the following threads on RFM. (Reading it is sort of like seeing a horrid accident on the highway—it’s horrific, but you somehow can’t look away.)
* how former members are “sick and tired of being subject to the filthy germ-ridden hygiene practices of mormons. [sic]†[I guess nits do make lice…]
* why Mormons shouldn’t be journalists because “They’re not honest enough. Their religion expects them, teaches them, and trains them to lie.â€
* discussions of how best to dishonestly acquire or forge an LDS temple recommend
* how kidnapped teen Elizabeth Smart ran away because “some LDS wanted her for his seraglio (harem)â€
* why “terrifying†your LDS spouse is a good way to make her “see the truth about Mormonismâ€.
Child abduction and rape. Marital psychological warfare. Filthy habits. Rampant dishonesty. Theft or forgery.
Will the fun and playfulness never stop? (And, bear in mind that I steered clear of the ones whose subject line suggested they were about speculating about the sexual peccadillos of several general authorities. That was more fun than my Morgbot self could handle.)
The most amusing—which alternates with pity—thing about RFM is that many of the ‘leading lights’ fancy themselves free-spirited intellectuals. Yet, even the slightest ‘pro-Mormon’ comment will be ruthlessly suppressed.
RFM: only the irony-impaired need apply.
This is furthered by the seeming complete incapacity of most of these former members to articulate what LDS doctrine actually is. They always seem to run it through some bizarro-transmogrifier with some hideous mutant doctrine as the result.
In fact, I heartily recommend comparing what some of the key alternate voices there say about LDS doctrine now with what they wrote about it _before_ their apostasy. The contrasts are, well, illuminating. You might change your opinion about doctrine, but surely you’re not allowed to lie about what the doctrine _is_ when you leave and retain your intellectual bona fides?
But, pointing that out on RFM will get your post deleted in a New York minute. Wouldn’t want to rock anyone’s intellectual boat.
You’d think the locals would enjoy the spectacle of some misguided Morgbot being decimated, or some apologist deconstructed before their eyes. But, I guess shadow-boxing is more entertaining.
In fact, as an experiment, I logged on under a pseudonym. I made _one_ post correcting something posted by a RFM regular. It had nothing to do with religion or Mormonism—it was a scientific issue, about which there is no debate regarding the facts.
I was soon vilified and attacked by the regular, with a variety of presumptions made about my professional and personal life (about which I had said nothing), and none of which were correct.
The attack post also attributed a number of claims to me which I did not make—my words were totally inverted. I replied _once_, pointing out the distortions with exact citation from the attack post. The moderators removed my post within 30 minutes, destroying any evidence that this regular would lie, distort, and attack after his/her distortion was pointed out in unmistakable terms.
And, this is a group that claims the LDS Church is ‘repressive.’
I actually think the so-called naive version of LDS history is a bit of a misnomer. If people would just check out any LDS bookstore they’d find a lot of these issues dealt with. Heavens Rough Stone Rolling was in volume at the Costco here in the Provo area. It was flying off the shelves and there must have been several hundred copies.
Certainly people can be ill informed about LDS history and so forth. However I think blaming the church for this is rather silly. The alternative is to turn church into a history class and stop teaching the gospel. But I think the church is fairly clear that one ought be doing study on ones own. If people don’t do this and then complain when they finally do hear some of it. Well, I’m not sure what to say.
Greg’s post #21 sounds about right. Heber Kimball’s vision once again. Or, for comparison’s sake, the lives of John C. Bennett and other apostates once they left the Church.
I do agree that the Recovery from Mormonism Bulletin Board is often crass and often juvenile. This is the nature of a fast-moving board (on or two new posts a minute, at times) that sometimes thrives on outrageousness. But as I said before, this is not the totality of the Recovery from Mormonism site. This is one of many boards or sections on the site itself. The more thoughtful, reasoned, and well-written posts or essays are often elsewhere on the site.
Even on the Bloggernacle–with posters and permabloggers who self-identify as active LDS–there are sometimes crude posts and unorthodox ideas that find voice on the web. Mormon Open Forum, for example, had more than 60 posts of Nantucket-type limericks; one of its active Mormon posters often opines that a certain apostle is sexually confused and may be gay. Another regular commenter on several LDS blogs (including this one) stated that LDS single men and women over 30 should just break down and have sex even though it’s against the law of chastity. This poster insisted there were several (married and single) men who would oblige these inexperienced singles if they needed any help! The LDS blog Trap, No Trap, is laden with the f-word, and on the MOF blog previously mentioned, I saw the c— word in print for the first time on the web!
So outrageous behavior and writing is not only the province of evil ex-Mormons.
Once again, the RFM bulletin board is but a fraction of the offerings on that board. Also features are exit stories of previously-affiliated Mormons, testimonials on non-Mormons (i.e. people who never were Mormons but have some kind of relationship or knowledge of Mormons). It’s very instructive and often heartbreaking. These stories challenge the popular idea that sin and offense alone cause inactivity and loss of membership.
In fact, some of the stories on the RfM boards resemble some of the stories found on the Bloggernacle. I’m sure if I lifted some stories from there and put them side by side with comments from Feminist Mormon Housewives or Various Stages of Mormonism, you’d never know the difference.
Yes, but my point is simply that for every John C. Bennett or Ed Decker there are [insert number greater than 1 here] disaffected Mormons who do not gnash their teeth or spew venomous hate and lies about the church–they often have legitimate questions, concerns, experiences from which the church could benefit from a little bit of undertsanding and compassion. That’s all.
Shelly: Your misguided apologetic for the RFM board (”there are other boards that are just as filthy”) isn’t helping to redeem it. There is a difference between “thriving on outrageousness” and slander, distortion, and maliciousness.
Eric S: Your point has been made and acknowledged. There should be a place where people with questions can turn. But this blog entry is about the exMo.org board (please read the original post again), so the discussion is focusing on that.
When I read the “exit stories” on exMo.org, a few thoughts come to mind:
Many of these people have had a bad experience within the Church. Some were offended by something someone said. Some had honest questions and were told to stop asking them. Some questioned the decisions of leaders and were reproved. I think that all of us, at one time or another, have had such experiences. The difference between those who remain active and those who leave is those who leave see these experiences as evidence that the entire Church is wrong, evil, repressive etc., while those who stay see it as evidence that the Church is run by fallible people who make mistake or are sometimes just rotten people. In other words, is a bad experience the rule or the exception?
Another thing I notice is that RFM-ers frequently accuse the Church of distorting its history and suppressing embarrassing historical documents. Yet they themselves constantly do the same thing, by misrepresenting LDS teachings and history, and by deleting message board posts that attempt to refute false information (as Greg mentioned above; I have personally experienced the same thing).
Finally, what disturbs me the most is the outright viciousness expressed toward believers. Eric calls for tolerance and compassion toward those who leave the Church (and I agree with him), but there is none of that given in reverse on RFM. Every Mormon is an idiot, a liar, a hypocrite.
Sorry, but Mike, your last paragraph is just not true.
This from a recent post on that “malicious” bulletin board:
“But anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by the encounter with the bishop. He was kind and non-judgemental. He did not try to exert any authority or control. He didn’t issue any challenges or threats. He basically just listened and seeemed sympathetic, especially when I talked about all the problems this has caused in our marriage. My wife had been under the impression that once I told the bishop, I would be disfellowhipped or something along those lines. I think she was probably disappointed at how little the bishop seemed to have to offer us in terms of reassurance and guidance.”
~poster #1
“The bishop suggests that I choose one of the recent conference talks as a guide. Even though I don’t believe, I will give the talk on Sunday in order to avoid any more contact for the next year or two.
Have any of you given talks in church as a non-believer?
Do you have any advice?
Do you know of any talks from conference that I could easily adapt into a palatable do-good-unto-others kind of message?”
~poster #2
“~My father wrote first. He basically bore his testimony of the church. His letter was actually addressed, and a copy sent, to each member of our family and not a specific or direct response to my letter. I guess he took it as an opportunity to just clarify and let us know how he feels. I respect his beliefs although I still respectfully disagree.
My mother wrote later and I received her letter yesterday. She starts by referencing my father’s letter and states that she’d like to be able to ditto his reply, but can’t. She acknowledged the difficulty in speaking up and going public about my doubts, when my whole life has been directed towards something else to this point and she stated respect for me doing so. She realized while serving as Relief Society Pres., that she couldn’t truthfully bear a testimony of the truthfulness of the church. She’s been plagued by doubts and questions most of her life but always got the answer to “just have more faith.†She goes on to state that she understands my position and is doing the same and attending church just because of my father, that she’s contributing as the ward organist, but won’t accept any calling that entails teaching or leadership because she’d feel like a hypocrite.
The part I hope DW takes to heart, near the end of Mom’s letter … “A testimony is a very personal thing, and it doesn’t happen just because someone else wants it to. So we support our family and loved ones in their beliefs as much as we can.”
Although, as I see it, the main purpose and advantage of this BB is to realize that “I’m not alone,†it sure is nice to find out that, in another venue of my life as well, I’m really not alone.”
I culled these in 2 mins from the first page
Shelly,
I think if you read the majority of RFMs out there, you will find that they are very vindictive, but again there are exceptions as you have pointed out.
On to the main gist of what I am trying to say here…
There seems to be common point being missed with regard to RFMs herein, and that is that there are a good number of them, if not all, that have broken serious covenants whether it be from temple to baptismal, and so with that in mind, how could they ever be anything but bitter about their lives and how the church has handled them, or in other words, because the church didn’t conform to their thinking they are quite upset, but then again the church never will conform anyways no matter what they think.
I know a sister, but very inactive and almost apostate who was quite offended that she was invited by the Bishop to attend a disciplinary council to address a serious transgression. Her response: “How dare he approach me about those things, there is no need to repent of those things, I needed to find out to justify my thoughts in regards to that part of my life!!” To this day, she hates the Bishop for that approach. Even worse, she’s a return missionary but has been able to justify sin somehow and so is mad at the church because the church will not justify her the same way that she has justified herself and so on she goes inactive as ever and so bitter about all of this.
It is too bad that this is the case as they were mostly good members once and yet they have decided, and I use the word ‘decided’ with finality, they have decided to walk away, but they blame the church for their decision which is totally against agency and how it is defined, and then we see again that they are in the grasp of Satan, plain and simple because they have literally denied their agency!
I should also say that I have no animosity toward RFMs because why waste my time going where they are, a very dark side of life!!
Sure, you can find community anywhere, gangs do it, people do it in general, it’s a natural tendency of ours to be with people of the same ilk, and perhaps the community of RFMs prehaps represent a mortal view of what the lower realms of the Telestial Kingdom, or even perdition, may be like from a sociality point of view, and that is fine, but who really wants all that bitterness just oozing out of ourselves and the rest of the people we socialize with? What a horrible place to exist! Not me! I think Mormon 9:4 applies considerably here in that they will be comfortable in the end with their choices, but they will end up less happy than those that are, well, happy!
I would however not want to hear them weep and wail when they conclude how wrong they had been in this life and that so what if polygamy happens and that Joseph Smith wasn’t perfect, and that the Priesthood leader who excommunicated them was actually inspired to do so, that is really really going to hurt more than they know (D&C19:16-19)…’They must suffer even as I’…this last paragraph is perhaps the one that makes this so tragic that they will answer for all this grief they have caused themselves and it will not be pretty.
Shelly:
I don’t doubt there are respectful posts on the RFM board. I’m saying that they are the exception, rather than the rule.
I just pulled up the first page of the board topics. Here are that ones that presume evil, lies, or idiocy on the part of Mormons, mock believers, or distort Church teachings (and these are just topics):
To anyone who thinks the RFM board is, on balance, a thoughtful and respectful place, I invite you to spend 30 minutes there perusing the postings. I think any impartial observer would conclude that it’s not just about “realizing ‘I’m not alone.’”
Even this example of Shelly’s points to the underlying problem:
The presumption, of course, is that all Church leaders will be:
* unkind
* judgmental
* attempting to exert authority
* attempting to exert control
* unsympathetic
* unwilling to listen
* unconcerned about the ‘trauma’ the “evil” Church wreaks on its members’ marriages
The poster is “surprised” that this wasn’t the case. Why would he/she be surprised? This can only be surprising if one considers dishonest, manipulative, powermongering to be the order of the day among Church members and leaders.
So, this is an ‘exception,’ but it ironically an exception that proves the rule.
Shelly, you’ll not find an argument from me that exmormon.com isn’t the only group that do this. I can think of lot of email lists and forums I left because of how people conducted themselves. As for the shenanigans at Mormon Open Forum, I can but say that the people involved in that discussion had pretty much been banned from all the regular forums and we can see what resulted. I’ll not judge them any more than I’ll judge the people who frequent RFM. But I strongly feel that such behaviors aren’t healthy and definitely aren’t healthy to constantly immerse oneself in. Why some people desire to do so I simply don’t understand and will leave them and their decisions to themselves. It’s their life.
What a bizarre thread this has been to read.
A - Nazism is evil.
B - Don’t mischaracterize Germans!
A - I’m not talking about Germans. I’m saying that Nazism is evil.
B - Some G.I.s weren’t always nice, you know.
A - I don’t dispute that, but Nazism is evil.
B - My grandfather once met a Nazi soldier who wasn’t such a bad guy!
A - Understood, but Nazism is evil.
B - How can you be so judgmental??
This thread is officially over! Close the comments.
That will teach me to link to a story about ex-Mormons again.
I think Nathan has got it right.
Bryce: Why do you regret running the story? This is an important subject.
Shelly, I’m sort of with your mom. I mean, I could bear my testimony, but it would be more on the grounds of “I think it’s true” or “I believe” rather than I know.
That “know” thing just bugs me. And when leaders tell me I have to know, I just want to stand up in church and say, “bite me, this is a free country and I believe.”
annegb,
I think you’re being overly harsh. Latter-day Saints use that word to describe a belief that is backed by personal spiritual experience. Because we don’t have a middle-word between “belief” and “knowledge,” many have used the word “know” in the sense of knowing by the Spirit, an experience stronger than belief.
In short, it’s an issue of semantics. Latter-day Saints understand what we mean when we use the term; it’s part of our religious vocabulary. Go easy on your leaders.
I’m not familiar with the rules of participation on this bulletin board, whether written or unwritten, but I hope my post will be permitted.
I came to my own conclusions about the church almost two years ago. I am still nominally a member, but have effectively left the faith. Left to my own devices, I would have formally resigned by this point, but I have to balance that with family considerations. Basically, it’s more important to me to have my family catch up to where I am than it is to get further ahead of them. Fortunately (from my point of view), they seem to be coming along nicely.
Anyway, I am what you would describe as an apostate. I have participated in the Recovery from Mormonism bulletin board from time to time over the past couple of years. I agree that a lot of the criticisms leveled against the bulletin board here are well-founded. I’m often frustrated with the degree of axe grinding that goes on there. I don’t care for personal attacks on Daniel Peterson either. There is no filter at Recovery from Mormonism. You have to bring your own. There are a lot of posts there that I find neither constructive nor helpful, so I ignore them.
I have, however, found the board to be a great resource for me in many ways. There are a lot of issues and challenges involved in totally redefining my ideas about the meaning of life. I’m at peace with my conclusions about Mormonism, but still have difficulties when it comes to relationships with family and friends who still believe. For many of us, those relationships mean that we will be connected to Mormonism forever, regardless of what we believe personally. I know it has become a cliche on this thread, but the RfM bulletin boards helped me realize that I was not alone, and allowed me to develop some real world connections with people who are facing the same issues. Within my own extended family, I have had all kinds of reactions to my apostasy. I’ve had an active Mormon family member who is currently in a bishopric who was totally respectful, who cited the 11th Article of Faith and said that he was bound to live it. On the other hand, I’ve had another family member get downright hysterical at my initial disclosure, complete with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. I wouldn’t presume to generalize about the way the faithful react to this kind of thing, but I do know that it can be a very difficult thing to get through for the person who is leaving the faith. Community can be a great help.
I don’t want to generalize about believing Mormons because I have been one and I know better. I think it’s reasonable to expect the same courtesy in the way Mormons view apostates. I can tell you that, in my case, leaving Mormonism was the result of an honest and sincere quest to learn what is true and meaningful for me.
Thanks for your time. May you all find peace along the paths you choose.
As a post-script, I don’t know if I’m allowed to do this, but I’m happy to share my email address. w35grays@yahoo.com
Visiting Apostate –
Thanks for sharing your story with us. It brings a perspective I don’t have to an issue I don’t understand well.
As one of the people actually interviewed in the NPR story referenced, I can tell you that our “support group” is full of delightful, interesting, caring people in various stages of ‘recovery’ and it IS very healing for us.
Some have been out for many years, some are just finding their way out. Some are still bitter and angry about the time wasted, or the way they were treated by church leaders or family members when they left, but many are not. (Sometimes, even when we think we’ve completely ‘moved on’, something will happen that reminds us that we still have ‘issues’ to work through : ) And some are there simply there to offer support to those just making their way out - wanting to ‘pay it forward’ like those who were there for them.
But of the 40 people attending that gathering, only one “sinned” his way out of the church. The rest of us made our way out for intellectual or spiritual reasons. Most did so while trying to strengthen testimonies - with study, prayer and a great deal of thoughtfulness. It’s a very difficult, personal spiritual journey - taking no small amount of courage. The assumption that most of us leave because we are ‘offended’ or had a problem with ’sin’ is offensive and simply not true.
The group is healing, but is also a good social resource. For active members, the church is a major aspect of ones social life - and when cut off from that it can get lonely. Some go on to join other churches - but many of us do not, and miss the sense of community we enjoyed. We find that community with each other - even though we’re a very, very diverse group with many different lifestyles. Can you imagine how great it feels to spend time with people who care for you and accept you JUST AS YOU ARE… don’t care if you drink, or if you don’t…. if you’re attending a church, or not. Don’t care if you’re gay or straight, atheist or christian, buddhist, or pastafarian? The only thing some of us even HAVE in common, is that we were once memebers of the LDS church - and it IS therapeutic to share our experiences. And we have new members at every gathering.
It’s been a few years since I found exmormon.org and realized I wasn’t alone in my doubts and concerns. Several of the heartfelt personal stories brought me to tears. When I met my first “apostates” - I was shocked at what normal, nice, moral people they were! Totally NOT what I had expected. It was a life changing (for the better) discovery for me, which led me to have the courage to stand up and say ‘I don’t believe!’ - and finally live a congruent life.
Most of us DO go through an angry stage (which is typically the time we need the support of the message boards… a place to vent and feel validated, which is why you’ll find a lot of anger there)... we may feel betrayed, lied to, deceived…. For many, leaving the church feels like a death in the family - and the stages of grief must be experienced. There is no ‘one size fits all’ method/timeframe or appropriate way of getting through it. Some of us come to terms with it and can let it go more quickly than others - and I think it often depends on the support we get from our loved ones.
I consider myself one of the lucky ones - though it has been difficult for them, my mother and children recognize how much happier I am since leaving the church, and completely support me - just as I support them. I laugh when I read comments about apostates ‘living in the darkness’ and how unhappy and miserable we’re supposed to be.
For me, mormonism was killing me - I was spiritually dying in its confines, and I have never felt so spiritually grounded, connected and happy as I have since I left (as does my sister & her husband - who have also left). And as much as they might hate to admit it (because it goes against what they’re taught) my Mormon family sees this and agrees that I am. Oh, I’m sure they’d prefer I return to the fold (it seems that most mormons would rather we be miserable believers than happy apostates : ), just as I would prefer they see the truth from my perspective - but in reality - we all just want joy and happiness for each other. As long as they find it in the church, I support them being there. It really does seem to work for some people…. but not for all of us : )
Two years ago, reading some of the narrow-minded comments by a few of the posters here would have really upset me, and I’d probably have headed off to the exmo board to vent my anger at the injustice and intolerance. Now, it makes me more sad than angry. I shake my head and think “you just don’t get it….”
I really appreciate that some of you DO get it
The oozing antagonism in the above comment, from one who is supposedly well on the path to healing, tells you well enough what the ‘recovery’ groups do and encourage. And, of course, he’s right–he is pretty mild and ‘healed’ when compared to most of what you see at the RFm site.
Adam - I’m not seeing the antagonism in either comment #41 or comment #38. These commenters seem to be working through (or have worked through) very difficult spiritual issues and have dropped by to share their stories with us.
I’ll agree with you that many of the “ex” or “recovery” websites are decidedly negative (and ooze with antagonism), but these commenters don’t fit in that category. I enjoyed the NPR broadcast, and wish them (and the others in their situation) the best.
Adam, what so antagonistic about #41? I find it to be a thoughtful, respectful comment.
I was an active mormon for years and years. I attended institute all through college, was young women class president before that, taught sunday school for some time, and was not mistreated by the church or any of its members. All my life my involvement in the church was mostly a very positive experience. I came upon the exmormon website by chance and began to learn all kinds of things that I had never heard before, like Joseph Smith didn’t have a first vision in 1820, DNA and BoM, problems with the B of Abraham and such. I really wanted to know how such things were being said, and started consulting a variety of sources and checking their references. I found that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the position that Joseph Smith was a fraud and the church is not what it claims to be. I don’t think members are liars, I think that most of them are uninformed and if they would be open to the scholarly research out there they would learn some surprising things. The church only encourages members to read the standard works and listen to conference talks. Nothing controversial will ever be raised there. If I had a bias in reading these sources it was certain pro-mormon. I really wanted to feel that the opposition was wrong and that the church was really true, it has been devastating to me to learn that everything I have been taught about the church was a lie. I am an open minded person and posess an advanced degree. I left the LDS church because the historical facts cannot support the claims of the church. And even though I miss the hymns and the sweet members, I cannot accept its teaching as revelation anymore.
I was a member of the Church for 39 years. I decided to undertake a fun and interesting project. I bought a copy of Joseph Smith’s unedited journals and went about cross referencing the major events in the early years of the Church with Joseph’s journals. I thought it would be interesting to see his personal reactions and thoughts regarding those events. Unfortunately, after 2 solid years of research, I came to the same conclusions as cf above…”the historical facts cannot support the claims of the Church”. Even more unfortunate, the historical facts cannot either support the claims of Christianity, or any other religion.
I fully believe in God, or a Creator. I believe in “the Spirit”, the Force, whatever you want to call it that gives strength to man from beyond. However, it is not for history to conform to the stories of the New Testament or the Book of Mormon. History stands. The books, when scrutinized, do not support historically known facts. Whether they teach good things, or make one feel “good” is not the issue. Hallmark commercials do the same thing.
I do not think Church members are stupid, or sheep, or weak. My wife is still a member, and yes, she feels sorry for me. If the organization of the Church, which teaches great things and does good things in the world, is where you want to be, then be there. There is no better group of people in the world. That does not make it true, however.
http://www.PostMormon.org is totally different from the exmo site. Some need to vent, some don’t. Most find the type of group they need as individuals. Personally, I can’t stand the board at exmo. But, the individual stories are often of value.
http://www.postmormon.org
I just took a look at postmormon.org at your recommendation. I didn’t find the supposedly ’satirical’ article about the Bishopric and Aaronic priesthood leaders getting stoned on marijuana brownies to be cleverly written, let alone more respectful than the other ex-mormon sites out there. What a load of juvenile rubbish!