Did we throw away years of our lives?

[_Mephitus]

I feel that i wasted that time. I Spent many years attempting to be or become something that was not me. I wasted alot of time being uncomfortable and lying about who i was. Rather than spending that time figuring out who i really was. Its taken me a while of being out to really find who my authentic self was. And not the lie.

Not that it matters much, but I am a little confused. How could you lie about who you were if you hadn't yet figured out who you really were (since you hadn't taken the time to figure that out)?

Anyway, it is typical for people your age to still be figuring out who they are. Even people my age are still trying to figure that out--or at the very least, they are in the process of re-defining who they are.

You will, though, come to realize that you are, and have always been, the sum of your own choices.

And, who it is that you will be in the future is your choice as well.

As explained to VegasR, you can choose to look distortedly backwards, and define yourself and your future by that distorted view of the past. Or, you can look realistically to what you wish to be in the future, and work towards becoming that kind of person. In other words, you can decide now whether you will continue to define yourself as a pawn and a victim who is persistently stuck in the past, or you can choice to become your very best self (whatever you determine that to be)--hopefully, you will choose to be the kind of person that improves the human condition for yourself and others, and who enables mutual love, value, and respect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Put very simply, everything i did felt very oddly wrong. almost like, if had i a choice in the matter, i would have done things differently. But since any of those innate feelings where always shot down by how i was told to act. I did what i could to ignore them.

[_Runtu]

Put very simply, everything i did felt very oddly wrong. almost like, if had i a choice in the matter, i would have done things differently. But since any of those innate feelings where always shot down by how i was told to act. I did what i could to ignore them.

Yes, it's that belief that what you want, what you think, are inimical to God (think: the natural man) so you spend a lot of your time trying to suppress your desires and thoughts, thinking them unworthy. Years ago I worked on a missionary health manual, and under the heading for depression, they said that one cause was living a lifestyle that is in conflict with your values. To me, that's a succinct way of saying what you said above: when your desires and beliefs conflict with what you're supposed to desire and believe, you're going to end up confused and depressed--"oddly wrong" is a good way of describing that life.

[Gadianton]

I was born and raised in the church. Like it or not, the self-esteem is very closely entertwined with the Mormon doctrine that one is an embryonic God, and will spend their entire life as a God-in-training. When my belief unraveled, it caused havoc with my esteem and I was forced to reconstruct my purpose as a human being. I questioned myself. I questioned my place and importance in my family. I questioned my goodness, I questioned my entire existence. So I disagree that my years in the church did take a part of what was uniquely me because I was unable to tell what of me was actually unique. It has taken literally years for me to decipher and rebuild.

One's self esteem may be inextricably tied to one's belief system (though not always tied in functional or reasonable ways). So, when one CHOOSES to change beliefs, and depending upon how one CHOOSES to change their beliefs, and to what belief one CHOOSES to change to, that may have an effect on one's self esteem--whether positive or negative. From what I have observed of converts to the Church, their esteem is often, if not always, improved.

And, when one CHOOSES to change beliefs, that unavoidable changes who they are, and how they perceive themselves in relation to others.

I have capitalized the word CHOOSES in order to bear out the point that who one is, and who one will become, is a CHOICE that one makes. In other words, it is not the Church that took away who you were. Rather, it was you CHOOSING to change who you are and how you perceive yourself.

The importance in understanding this, is that it restores a sense of self-empowerment and agency. Who and what you were or will be, particularly as an adult or young adult, was not or will not, nor should it be, the perview of the Church or any other institution or group or persons. That power rest entirely with you. You may CHOOSE to shoulder that full responsibility, or abbrogate, to one degree or another, that responsibility and shift it to the Church or other people or things. But, you are still the one empowered to make that CHOICE.

Your experience, though, raises several critical point that I believe deserves further exploration. First, there are effectual and ineffectual ways of changing belief systems. Think of it as analogous to changing jobs. If I quite my job because I no longer believe in or fit within the company that I have been working for, and I don't have another job already in waiting to step into, that can create some real challenges for me and those I am supporting. In other words, those who lose faith and leave the Church without having another belief system already in place (in other words, they simply disbelieve, rather than change beliefs), will have more challenges (in terms of personal direction, guiding principles, system for assessment and evaluation of self and others, etc.) than those who already have another belief system in place. Again, converts to the Church who have come from other faith traditions, tend to make the transition with less intra-personal challenges, than those who leave the other faiths with no faith to turn to.

Second, and related to the previous point, there are effectual and ineffectual ways of changing fundamental beliefs about oneself (i.e. self-esteem issues) when changing belief systems. If one has no belief system to change to, one may experience greater challenges in changing and formulating foundational beliefs about oneself. In such cases, there isn't the perceptual framework and evaluative structure in place to effectively formulate new foundational self-beliefs. And, even when one changes from one belief system to another, if it is not clear how the new belief system frames one's self-perceptions, etc., there will be challenges as well.

In short, the self-esteem challenges you experienced were not so much a function of your CHOISE to leave your old LDS self behind (not to be confused with what may have allegedly been taken from you in terms of who you were or are), but the way in which you CHOSE to transition to your new belief system.

Thankfully, though, you were finally able to CHOOSE a suitable way of viewing yourself.

The beauty and efficacy in all of this is, it is under your control. This isn't about the Church. It is about you. You have the power to CHOOSE. And, the hope is, that the CHOICES that you make, will be responsible, healthy, and functional. However, when they aren't, there is still the power to change and CHOSE the workable way.

These PRINCIPLE mentioned above, I believe, apply to all who experience a change in their belief system. And, I think those currently undergoing this change may benefit from understanding them. So, I hope you and others will spread the word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm halfway with you here, Wade. It does no one any good to remain mired in the past. As Pumbaa said, "Put your behind in the past" (I have lots of kids, you know). But I don't believe you can realistically define what you want to be in the future unless you have dealt with the past.

We don't learn from history if we ignore it or force ourselves to put a positive spin on it. But we also don't learn from it if we keep stewing over it.

To some degree I am with you there as well.

I am all for learning things from our personal histories that will improve our lives in the present and future.

To my way of thinking, such valued things to learn, however, are often PRINCIPLES that we can put into general practice going forward.

Too often, though, in addition to counterproductively stewwing over the past, the way one may distortedly revisit one's personal history (hyper-critically, imbalanced negatively, victimologically, etc., rather than charitably, empathetically, balanced positively, etc.), and the areas one may tend to distortedly focus on in one's personal histories (grievences, perceived wrongs, disappointment, regrets, etc., rather than also the good times, the blessings, the personal progress and enrichments, etc.), may tend to stur the sediment of discontent, disallusionment, and alientation, and muddy the self-esteem and relationship waters. Rather than looking to extract generalizable principles from the past that will improve the future, many look to rejudge specific events, organizations, and people, with little or no positive affect on anyone, and perhaps even often an ill-effect on all. I personally don't find such historical "learning" at all helpful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

To some degree I am with you there as well.

I am all for learning things from our personal histories that will improve our lives in the present and future.

To my way of thinking, such valued things to learn, however, are often PRINCIPLES that we can put into general practice going forward.

Too often, though, in addition to counterproductively stewwing over the past, the way one may distortedly revisit one's personal history (hyper-critically, imbalanced negatively, victimologically, etc., rather than charitably, empathetically, balanced positively, etc.), and the areas one may tend to distortedly focus on in one's personal histories (grievences, perceived wrongs, disappointment, regrets, etc., rather than also the good times, the blessings, the personal progress and enrichments, etc.), may tend to stur the sediment of discontent, disallusionment, and alientation, and muddy the self-esteem and relationship waters. Rather than looking to extract generalizable principles from the past that will improve the future, many look to rejudge specific events, organizations, and people, with little or no positive affect on anyone, and perhaps even often an ill-effect on all. I personally don't find such historical "learning" at all helpful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think "rejudging" is particularly helpful, but the specific incidents and people are what make us develop good or bad principles, so it may behoove us to revisit the specific incidents and people, not to stew upon them, but to figure out what we can learn from them and then move on.

Who's to say that trying to focus only on the positive is any less distorted than stewing on the negative?

[_wenglund]

I don't think "rejudging" is particularly helpful, but the specific incidents and people are what make us develop good or bad principles, so it may behoove us to revisit the specific incidents and people, not to stew upon them, but to figure out what we can learn from them and then move on.

Who's to say that trying to focus only on the positive is any less distorted than stewing on the negative?

My point about distorted focus is secondary to and dependant on my main point--that being: the only positive value in looking back at the past is when it enables us to improve things for ourselves and others in the present and the future. If revisiting specific incidents and people helps accomplishes that worthy objective (and I believe in some cases it may), then I am all for it.

I am of the opinion, though, that this worthy objective may best be occomplished when one looks to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable, and when one focuses on meaningful things that are within one's control to improve, and when one focuses in a way that best enables that improvement.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience. I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience. I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree, Wade. It's important to take a good, hard look at our lives and figure out why we are the way we are and try to improve. Of course, it's much easier to do that when you aren't still in deep pain.

[_wenglund]

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience. I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree, Wade. It's important to take a good, hard look at our lives and figure out why we are the way we are and try to improve. Of course, it's much easier to do that when you aren't still in deep pain.

Perhaps you are right, though I am not sure that figuring out why we are the way we are may be as useful as figuring out what kind of people we want to be, and working towards that end. However, I would think it most important and helpful to consider these things when people are in deep pain. For, therein may lay the solace.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view--not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience. I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.

Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree, Wade. It's important to take a good, hard look at our lives and figure out why we are the way we are and try to improve. Of course, it's much easier to do that when you aren't still in deep pain.

Perhaps you are right, though I am not sure that figuring out why we are the way we are may be as useful as figuring out what kind of people we want to be, and working towards that end. However, I would think it most important and helpful to consider these things when people are in deep pain. For, therein may lay the solace.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I really, truly have to hand it to you. I have been nothing if not impressed by the decency, kindness, and spirituality of your recent posts. Honestly, you have been a model of civility and generosity, and my hat is off to you.

That said, I found something striking about your final paragraph above. What is the "people we want to be" happen to be critics of the Church? I am curious as to how such a scenario would fit in with your newfound philosophy....

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wade, first i concure with Scratch. You've come a long way from the guy who started special threads to make fun of, and be-little those you "CHOSE" as targets of your disdain. Recall those darker days ;-)??? However, pasted from one of your above posts:

I am of the opinion, though, that this worthy objective may best be occomplished when one looks to the past with the intent to extrapolate useful principles that may be generalizable, and when one focuses on meaningful things that are within one's control to improve, and when one focuses in a way that best enables that improvement.

RM: I think you might be supposing that all folks have the same capacity to "extrapolate"(whatever meaning You attach to that word?) As you know, we all "generalize" from our own experiences and conditioning: + or --. At what stage in a persons life can they begin to CHOOSE meaningfully? And under what environmental conditions and circumstances? As well taking into consideration their genetic limits?

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that one take an unrealistic, Pollyanna view of the past. Rather, I am suggesting a charitable, empathetic, reasonable, realistic, balanced, and even grateful view RM: That's the ideal! Not easily achieved if one has been psyche mutilated in their developmental years. And to what degree of love/hate they have experienced... --not unlike how Viktor Frankl viewed his concentration camp experience. RM: VF tells an inspiring story. One must wonder why there weren't more 'Viktors' among 6,000,000? I have my theory. What is yours? I am not advocating delusional thinking, but rather healthy and functional thinking--thinking that not only enable people and relationships to survive, but also thrive. RM: I heartily agree! Simplistically we're talking "the Good News". Unfortunately, to this point in time, "...people and THEIR relationships..." (to paraphrase you) have not, generally speaking, been the focus of Christianism, and Mormons as one of the Christian sects. To/too many religious types were/are more concerned with a Jesus-relationship. Which is an escape mechanism from reality, IMSCO.

If the way you or I or others look back at the past, and the lessons we each draw therefrom, improve our lives and those around us over the long run, then I encourage that. RM: Yes-but... However, if it does the opposite, or does nothing at all, then I think it advisable to change the way we may look back, and perhaps even focus more on the future.
RM: I respectfully suggest, "...NOW is the time...procrastinate not your moment of joy or service...sufficient for today is life... Live it and Love it, tomorrow you may be dead, Warm regards, Roger


Therein lay one of the keys to intra-personal and inter-personal success. RM: The tense of "lay"? Your experience?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-