The cost of leaving

[_Chap]

... I'm saying you should do it [speak with God] for yourself and make your own determinations. The point is I'm encouraging you to do it because there is a God. What happens after that is of little concern to me - whether you agree with my positions or not.

Since you give not the slightest indication of how anyone can tell whether or not they have had the experience which you believe you have had, how it happened, or what it was like, you might as well be saying:

"Speak with BLOOFYPANTS for yourself. I'm encouraging you to do it because there is a BLOOFYPANTS. What happens after that is of little concern to me."

I predict a low positive response rate to your suggestion.

Then don't. It's your choice. But I believe you are mistaken in your assertion that God is just a fiction that you can avoid. You will ultimately see and speak with God. I'd just encourage you to seek him and speak with him now because it can be a blessing in your life.

I didn't say what I would do. I simply predicted that most people seeing your suggestion would not think it made any sense to think of following it, for the reasons given.

You, by the way, will not ultimately see and speak with BLOOFYPANTS. I decline to provide any further information on that point, since it is private to me. But I'd encourage you not to seek him and speak with him now either, because it can be a major irritant in your life if you let him have your number.

[_Yoda]

She made it clear that I had to be a Full TBM for her to come back. No faking. No going through the motions.

It seems a little unbalanced that she expects you to be TBM when she is not even TBM herself.

[_Maxrep]

You are aware that Mormon leaders have said things such as this right?

Of course.

Her beliefs about eternal families, priesthood holders, etc, really are secondary issues regarding spousal disbelief.

Her reality is centered around how drastic her social and familial landscape change when the spouse comes clean about their loss of faith. Depending on her family ties, and the area she lives in, almost all of her human interactions change dramatically(Utah for example).

A wife who has no LDS family members, and who does not live in a Mormon saturated area, and has a good circle of non LDS friends, does not experience similar social trauma.

It all boils down to the community of Mormonism. In a social vacuum, the judgmental and competive side of practicing Mormonism, has little traction.

[_Stormy Waters]

Her beliefs about eternal families, priesthood holders, etc, really are secondary issues regarding spousal disbelief.

I believe the years of teaching about the importance of temple marriage and eternal families is a significant factor. How could it not be? I don't understand on what basis you are asserting that it is a secondary factor.

[_harmony]

Her beliefs about eternal families, priesthood holders, etc, really are secondary issues regarding spousal disbelief.

I believe the years of teaching about the importance of temple marriage and eternal families is a significant factor. How could it not be? I don't understand on what basis you are asserting that it is a secondary factor.

Maxrep is correct. Those years of teaching about the importance of temple marriage, etc., have less impact on a spouse/family that lives in a low-concentration of Mormons place. The individual's beliefs may be identical, but due to the construction of social life outside of the marriage, the over all impact of those years of teaching will be much different, depending on the place the couple lives.

In other words, Mormon culture is watered down considerably, once one gets outside of the Zion Corridor. And because it's watered down, the impact of the outside culture, whatever that may be as long as it's not heavily Mormonized, will result in less support for standard Mormon responses to stressors that may have a huge impact in a place heavily dependent on Mormon culture.

[_Buffalo]

I think it's very difficult to find a single cause for divorce among Mormons when one spouse stops believing. Some of it certainly to do with Mormon doctrine and culture, but a lot of it also probably comes down to personality and the health of the relationship itself.

Anyway, no one here is qualified to say what's motivating Southwest's wife here. She might be bluffing, trying to bully him into staying in the church. Or she might be serious. She might be motivated by toxic LDS doctrine, or other factors, or some combination. It's too messy to untangle.

[_Maxrep]

Maxrep is correct.

Ahh well, that made me smile . Someone who gets it.

For many years I was fascinated with church history. Deducting that the church is NOT true is childs play, really. What interests me now are the social motivations within the church and their causes.

Mormonism is a heratige, it is a culture, for all practical intents it can be quite similar to an ethnicity as well. For many who live in high LDS populous regions, it is nothing short of an all encompassing life experience.

The doctrine itself serves as "rules of the game". The game, however, is completely social.

In a high LDS populous environment, a member participates in the game as a competitor, as a spectator, and most importantly, as a judge. Yes, there are all sorts of obvious and subtle clues that tell Mormons how their competition is faring within the ward. Of course, the savvy competitors put on their best poker face to obscure whatever difficulties they currently experience. What sort of poker face does the wife try to wear when it is clear that in the particular tandem race in question, the husband has stopped pedaling?

In a low LDS populous region, with no LDS family members, how often does a member get to "play the game"? Not often, obviously. When one has "few spectators", and when one is "playing the game" not often, how important are the rules(doctrine) of the game?

If reading the Book of Mormon was to be a private matter only, not to be discussed or referred to publicly, would members still read it? If paying tithing was to be done online to SLC in an anonymous fashion, with no reporting or accounting to local clergy, would members still pay?

Mormonism cannot function in a social vacuum. It needs competitors. It has to have spectators. It absolutely thrives on the fact that all get to try their hand at "Line Judge".

Stormy, what is it like for your wife when all the other competitors, spectators, and line judges are pointing at you wide eyed and all. You are the spectacle as well as her embarrassment. Its all social. The doctrine is window dressing.

[_Yoda]

Maxrep is correct.

Ahh well, that made me smile . Someone who gets it.

For many years I was fascinated with church history. Deducting that the church is NOT true is childs play, really. What interests me now are the social motivations within the church and their causes.

Mormonism is a heratige, it is a culture, for all practical intents it can be quite similar to an ethnicity as well. For many who live in high LDS populous regions, it is nothing short of an all encompassing life experience.

The doctrine itself serves as "rules of the game". The game, however, is completely social.

In a high LDS populous environment, a member participates in the game as a competitor, as a spectator, and most importantly, as a judge. Yes, there are all sorts of obvious and subtle clues that tell Mormons how their competition is faring within the ward. Of course, the savvy competitors put on their best poker face to obscure whatever difficulties they currently experience. What sort of poker face does the wife try to wear when it is clear that in the particular tandem race in question, the husband has stopped pedaling?

In a low LDS populous region, with no LDS family members, how often does a member get to "play the game"? Not often, obviously. When one has "few spectators", and when one is "playing the game" not often, how important are the rules(doctrine) of the game?

If reading the Book of Mormon was to be a private matter only, not to be discussed or referred to publicly, would members still read it? If paying tithing was to be done online to SLC in an anonymous fashion, with no reporting or accounting to local clergy, would members still pay?

Mormonism cannot function in a social vacuum. It needs competitors. It has to have spectators. It absolutely thrives on the fact that all get to try their hand at "Line Judge".

Stormy, what is it like for your wife when all the other competitors, spectators, and line judges are pointing at you wide eyed and all. You are the spectacle as well as her embarrassment. Its all social. The doctrine is window dressing.

Very well-said.

[_harmony]

So... to anyone with this sort of scenario, MOVE out of Zion. You may actually save your marriage.

[_Stormy Waters]

Maxrep is correct.

Ahh well, that made me smile . Someone who gets it.

For many years I was fascinated with church history. Deducting that the church is NOT true is childs play, really. What interests me now are the social motivations within the church and their causes.

Mormonism is a heratige, it is a culture, for all practical intents it can be quite similar to an ethnicity as well. For many who live in high LDS populous regions, it is nothing short of an all encompassing life experience.

The doctrine itself serves as "rules of the game". The game, however, is completely social.

In a high LDS populous environment, a member participates in the game as a competitor, as a spectator, and most importantly, as a judge. Yes, there are all sorts of obvious and subtle clues that tell Mormons how their competition is faring within the ward. Of course, the savvy competitors put on their best poker face to obscure whatever difficulties they currently experience. What sort of poker face does the wife try to wear when it is clear that in the particular tandem race in question, the husband has stopped pedaling?

In a low LDS populous region, with no LDS family members, how often does a member get to "play the game"? Not often, obviously. When one has "few spectators", and when one is "playing the game" not often, how important are the rules(doctrine) of the game?

If reading the Book of Mormon was to be a private matter only, not to be discussed or referred to publicly, would members still read it? If paying tithing was to be done online to Salt Lake City in an anonymous fashion, with no reporting or accounting to local clergy, would members still pay?

Mormonism cannot function in a social vacuum. It needs competitors. It has to have spectators. It absolutely thrives on the fact that all get to try their hand at "Line Judge".

Stormy, what is it like for your wife when all the other competitors, spectators, and line judges are pointing at you wide eyed and all. You are the spectacle as well as her embarrassment. Its all social. The doctrine is window dressing.

If this is true, how does the church survive in areas where there are few members? If it's all done for as part as a societal play? I agree that societal pressure is a factor, but you've taken it to an extreme. The reason I stopped paying tithing, the reason that I stopped participating in the church is because I stopped believing. Completely in spite of the social repercussions. I can't imagine paying tithing to the church if I did not believe in the literal truth claims of the church.

Are you suggesting there are masses of Mormons who don't believe in the church, and continue to participate as part of a societal competition? I just don't see it. That they read in The Book of Mormon not because they believe in it, but because they want to impress others?

Let me tell you Maxrep, since I actually know my wife and you don't that most everyone she knows is against her in this decision. She's doing in spite of societal pressure. So in this case your speculation is total BS.