Standard narratives and anger

[_Runtu]

Wade,

It is entirely possible to respect each other without finding each other's beliefs compelling. I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended by my use of "low-rent hoax." I was not intending to offend, just to accurately describe my thoughts, and that's pretty much what I think. I'm not offended by people who think I've been deceived or have an ax to grind against the church. We choose what offends us, right?

But, yes, the trick is to work out ways to deal with others. These days I'm not angry that they don't leave me alone. Most of the time I think it's kind of funny, as well as annoying. But yes, I did get angry at those who treated me harshly when I first discovered the reality of Mormonism. I'm working on it. So far, the only thing that helps is not to take it particularly seriously. I write parodies sometimes to remind myself that this stuff is inconsequential in the end, so I might as well laugh about it. That's what I got out of Coggins's parody. I'm glad to see it.

As far as peace and goodwill, things are going well around here for once. My wife is finally starting to feel a little better. Now that I'm home, she's able to rest, which is a good thing. I did some reading about thyroid conditions, and my wife's doctor easily could have killed her taking her off the medication like he did. Needless to say, we're finding a new doctor.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

It is entirely possible to respect each other without finding each other's beliefs compelling. I'm sincerely sorry if you were offended by my use of "low-rent hoax." I was not intending to offend, just to accurately describe my thoughts, and that's pretty much what I think. I'm not offended by people who think I've been deceived or have an ax to grind against the church. We choose what offends us, right?

But, yes, the trick is to work out ways to deal with others. These days I'm not angry that they don't leave me alone. Most of the time I think it's kind of funny, as well as annoying. But yes, I did get angry at those who treated me harshly when I first discovered the reality of Mormonism. I'm working on it. So far, the only thing that helps is not to take it particularly seriously. I write parodies sometimes to remind myself that this stuff is inconsequential in the end, so I might as well laugh about it. That's what I got out of Coggins's parody. I'm glad to see it.

As far as peace and goodwill, things are going well around here for once. My wife is finally starting to feel a little better. Now that I'm home, she's able to rest, which is a good thing. I did some reading about thyroid conditions, and my wife's doctor easily could have killed her taking her off the medication like he did. Needless to say, we're finding a new doctor.

Hi John,

Yes, it is our personal choice what to be offended and angered by just as it is our choice to be as respectful and unoffending of others as possible. And, those choices extend beyond what may be spoken or written to also include choosing what we may think and to some degree feel about others. After all, the voice and hand are but a reflection of what is in our minds and hearts. If our thoughts and feeling are uncharitable and lack respect for others, then what we say or write may inadvertantly convey the same.

I am pleased that things are "going well" in your household, and I hope and pray that your wife will find an appropriate resolution to her thyroid problem.

As for my suggestion, though, I tossed it out because in my extensive online reading of challenges of those who have lost faith (the narratives and exit stories as it were), not once have I read where people had explored mutually beneficial and uplifting ways of addressing the issue of wanting to be left alone. I figured that the thought may just not have occured to them or you all. I realized from my Cognitive Distortion threads that it doesn't work for me to be the one to intervene and offer assistance on your behalf, and so I just planted that ideational seed and will leave you all to nuture or abandone it as you see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Runtu,

Your favorite apologist essentially created her own theory by cherry picking certain quotes from different authors in The Politics of Religious Apostasy, taking them completely out of context, and then pasting them together as if they presented a cohesive theory that sociologists who study the issue created. As I work my way through the book (I'm about two thirds through) this becomes more and more obvious.

Scratch already pointed out that it was very misleading of Juliann to completely omit the tie between the type of organization and the type of exiters it tends to produce. Although Bromley (who is the main proponent of these types and, so far, the other authors have referenced his study) states that often the boundaries between the types can seem blurred, in general, the type of organization predicts the sorting of exiters. The reasons for this association are not superficial, and it is the nature of the organization itself which lends to certain types of exits.

Absolutely. What makes juliann's distortion even more dishonest is the fact that her motive is so transparent: she is out to vilify people who leave the Church. But as I have been saying for some time now, "apostates" only emerge from the more hardcore, disturbing, "subversive" New Religious Movements.

Bromley defines three organizational type based on how the larger society views the group. Allegiant, in which the organization, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as an acceptable part of mainstream society - in Allegiant groups exits are handled totally within the group without the involvement of any regulatory groups from outside larger society and they produce defectors who do not have the interest or concern of larger society in their stories; Contestant, in which most people view it as mainstream but there is still enough friction that regulatory groups exist that can intervene in the exit process and they tend to produce whistleblowers; and Subversive, - the groups who tend to produce apostates - in which mainstream society views the group as completely counter to the goals and mores of the larger society, and the group tends to remove itself and its members from larger society deliberately (although some members are on the margins and associate more with regular society than core members). Mainstream society is concerned enough about these groups to have or create regulatory groups that can intervene in its affairs. Bromley specifically states that, as far as North America is concerned, the Mormon church is an allegiant group with some areas viewing it as contestant (probably the Bible belt, I would guess). Allegiant groups very rarely create what he terms apostates, and contestant groups generally don't either, although one may pop ou tnow and then.

in my opinion, the LDS Church falls somewhere in between allegiant and contestant. The fact that fundamentalist sects such as the FLDS are linked---be it historically or doctrinally or otherwise---to the Church further complicates these boundaries, I think.

[_Runtu]

Hi John,

Yes, it is our personal choice what to be offended and angered by just as it is our choice to be as respectful and unoffending of others as possible. And, those choices extend beyond what may be spoken or written to also include choosing what we may think and to some degree feel about others. After all, the voice and hand are but a reflection of what is in our minds and hearts. If our thoughts and feeling are uncharitable and lack respect for others, then what we say or write may inadvertantly convey the same.

I am pleased that things are "going well" in your household, and I hope and pray that your wife will find an appropriate resolution to her thyroid problem.

As for my suggestion, though, I tossed it out because in my extensive online reading of challenges of those who have lost faith (the narratives and exit stories as it were), not once have I read where people had explored mutually beneficial and uplifting ways of addressing the issue of wanting to be left alone. I figured that the thought may just not have occured to them or you all. I realized from my Cognitive Distortion threads that it doesn't work for me to be the one to intervene and offer assistance on your behalf, and so I just planted that ideational seed and will leave you all to nuture or abandone it as you see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think my issue was not with Mr. D but with the hypothetical setup. It seemed to me to be designed to show that our leaving the church was all just a misunderstanding and that the church was an honest actor with the best of intentions. Call me resistant, but I don't believe that for a moment.

[_wenglund]

Hi John,

Yes, it is our personal choice what to be offended and angered by just as it is our choice to be as respectful and unoffending of others as possible. And, those choices extend beyond what may be spoken or written to also include choosing what we may think and to some degree feel about others. After all, the voice and hand are but a reflection of what is in our minds and hearts. If our thoughts and feeling are uncharitable and lack respect for others, then what we say or write may inadvertantly convey the same.

I am pleased that things are "going well" in your household, and I hope and pray that your wife will find an appropriate resolution to her thyroid problem.

As for my suggestion, though, I tossed it out because in my extensive online reading of challenges of those who have lost faith (the narratives and exit stories as it were), not once have I read where people had explored mutually beneficial and uplifting ways of addressing the issue of wanting to be left alone. I figured that the thought may just not have occured to them or you all. I realized from my Cognitive Distortion threads that it doesn't work for me to be the one to intervene and offer assistance on your behalf, and so I just planted that ideational seed and will leave you all to nuture or abandone it as you see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think my issue was not with Mr. D but with the hypothetical setup. It seemed to me to be designed to show that our leaving the church was all just a misunderstanding and that the church was an honest actor with the best of intentions. Call me resistant, but I don't believe that for a moment.

Actually, not that it may matter much, but the hypothetical was designed to show that each of you had a CHOICE to view the Church in a hyper-critical, overly harsh, and unempathetic way as Mr. B had; or, to view it in more reasonable, respectful, and charitable terms like Mr. D; or variations inbetween; and depending upon the choice, the consequences were likely to be quite different. Evidently, you CHOSE to view the Church like Mr. B, and your extreme emotional reaction and personal experience was, and to some degree still is, in keeping with that CHOICE.

Essentially, my intent was to take a general principle of effective socialization and apply it to a specific issue that some have with the Church. One has a greater potential for creating and building relationships the more reasonable and respectful and charitable one is in the way one views and interacts with others. Conversely, the more critical, harsh, and unempathetic one's view of and interactions with others, the greater the potential for loneliness, hurt, anger, grief, and so forth.

For whatever reasons, I was not successful in conveying what I had designed and intended the hypothetical to do. I have accepted that, and I have now CHOSEN to move on to more amenible and productive efforts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Gramps,

Your experience is not unique. Although my (convert and liberal) LDS family has largely abandoned their efforts to reclaim me in the fold, my significant other's family just never gives up. His father constantly sends him letters and articles and often seems to deliberately ignore the fact that his son no longer believes.

Of course, LDS are taught that when a family member loses faith, it's not just a problem for that individual, but it becomes a family problem because that member who lost faith will not be in their family unit in eternities. What a cruel teaching.

Both my SO and I did make attempts, early on, to share exactly why we lost faith with our family members. This was not in attempts to deconvert them, but in an attempt to help family members accept the reality which was that this is not a minor burp in our Mormon road, but a total removal from it. We won't be going back. I did it by sending my family members a copy of the letter requesting name removal I sent to my bishop (a three page letter that outlined why I no longer believed) and my SO did so by asking them to read BH Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon. Some family members refused to read the information at all, and those that did ignored it. However, neither my SO nor I continue to make attempts to "explain" our loss of faith to our family members. We just avoid the topic. My family is courteous enough to me to have stopped their constant attempts, but his family will never give up. It's pretty rude, really, in a way, but we're not "allowed" to object.

And we live in the mission field, where there are not many Mormons in larger society viewing us with suspicion or concern. I can't imagine how exmormons who live in places like Utah and Idaho deal with the stress, other than venting on internet boards.

I was sure it wasn't just me. I'm sure my father isn't the only crazy TBM out there. It is a cruel teaching, indeed. My condolences to your SO.

In the last six months, things have calmed down. I chose to have no more contact with them if they persist. Lonely, but better than all the crap I've had to put up with for 20 years.

And I have never tried to de-convert them. I told my father I would always read the things he sent me out of respect. That is finished. One-sided respect for 20 years is enough already.

Thanks for your comments. Oh, by the way, my father gave me the crap about not being together as an eternal family. I suggested to him that he would always be able to come down and visit me from the celestial kingdom, but that didn't seem to cheer him up at all. LOL

Gramps

It has taken me 28 years to realize that no contact is the way to go...even when we lived in the same town
My hubby would tell the less contact I had with my parents the better...I was so beaten down after being around them.

I admire you and a little lonelyiness is worth your mental health....sometimes we have to look out for number one..ourselves...

[_wenglund]

Gramps

It has taken me 28 years to realize that no contact is the way to go...even when we lived in the same town
My hubby would tell the less contact I had with my parents the better...I was so beaten down after being around them.

I admire you and a little lonelyiness is worth your mental health....sometimes we have to look out for number one..ourselves...

What if there were a way to stop or prevent the perceived "beating down" and not have to suffer the unnecessary loneliness?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

How would you suggest???

[_wenglund]

How would you suggest???

It would help to know some specifics about the so-called "beating down". Could you give me an example (preferably the most significant/extreme instance) of what your family said and/or did, as well as how you responded?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Wade,

You seem to dysfunctionalize normal behavior and reactions. It is normal to feel irritated when one's family continues to ignore loss of belief and the desire for that loss of belief to be respected and not trivialized or completely ignored. That doesn't mean that people who express that irritation are dysfunctional in life. People feel anger or irritation and then get over that momentary feeling, and can still accept the people in their lives with all their warts. Or, on the other hand, they can decide whether or not it is worth it to continue problematic relationships. It seems to be that you think that the only healthy route is to never feel anger or irritation, and live in some pablum state of being.

Just because people feel anger, irritation, or sorrow at times does not mean something is "wrong" with them or that they are not functioning well in life, or that they are in some "cycle of anger". And not all relationships are healthy or desirable to continue.