73862 - When folks' choices make you sad

[TheBlackSheep]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/73862/

Yada yada disclaimer yada yada not meant to be a Board Hate Board post.

So maybe I'm a little touchy about this since the whole Come-to-Jesus-in-my-front-room thing happened, but it just makes me feel a little confused and frustrated when folks get upset because people make decisions that are safe and sane but with which they do not agree. Everybody is allowed to have their feelings, but feeling sad for a friend who has chosen to drink (probably socially) and have (hopefully) safe sex with her boyfriend just seems condescending at best. I just don't understand how else people like me are supposed to take it when people say they feel sad for me or about me. I live with the Black Ram, who is AS I SPEAK drinking some delightful honey whiskey and with whom I have sex, and I can honestly say I have never been happier. I don't mean to impugn the church or the gospel, but I was miserable when I was an active member of the LDS church. And when I say miserable, I mean the can't-get-out-of-bed, self-injury kind, but I don't think church folks would respond positively if I said that my family's or friends' continued activity in the church made me sad (which it doesn't... most of the time). I honestly don't understand why the reverse is okay. I understand about eternal families and about really believing that true happiness comes only through the Atonement. It just feels so invalidating and condescending and I don't understand the phenomenon.

Sorry, lots of dashes and parentheses. Long day.

[Emiliana]

And from personal experience, fear of rejection or other people's sadness might well be why she's coming across as "very secretive and defensive about all of it and tries to still appear as the good Mormon girl on the outside." Only a handful of my friends know that I'm agnostic (other than ones I've met/become close to in the past 18 months) for that very reason. It's hard, dammit.

[Portia]

First, let me be up front: I think it's awesome that you've found someone who's such a great match, that your sex and professional life seem to be where you want them to be, and that TBR could find honey whiskey behind the Zion Curtain. Especially with what seems to be a legitimately stressful job.

Now, let's examine the case of Rebel Younger Sister. Taking the question at face value, she got fired from her job, possibly for a sexual relationship, possibly for a casting couch situation, possibly absenteeism, possibly an ill-advised Facebook photo and an open Stella Artois. But let's assume that it was indeed for breaking company policy about intra-workplace dating.

I would be freaked out if my younger siblings got fired. I would worry that the lack of sex ed within my Mormon family/culture could lead to unhealthy choices if not confronted up front, and I would feel the need to take on a nagging role. (How does the older sister know? That means they're either close or RYS is indiscreet, or very open, I suppose.) I would be worried that an extreme prohibitive stance on alcohol could lead to binge drinking, as was seen during Prohibition and elsewhen.

Her sister has lost her job, which is a real thing to be worried about, even if smug asides about the happiness that comes from living the gospel are uncalled for.

You seem to have carved out a spot for yourself in life largely apart from the LDS religion (correct me if I'm wrong!) and have found happiness. But just as unhappiness can exist in the Church, it can exist out of it, and I think gainful employment is a good foundation for that.

I don't know what the answer is for either sister. I worry about my brother's bourgeoning faith crisis. There is a certain ... comfort which can come from saying "I have all the answers."

I'm finally in a decent spot in my life now, but hoo boy, I sort of recognize where RYS is coming from. I was very, very unhappy when I first started doubting (the can't function kind), and I wish I could have separated my intellectual doubting from some objectively dumb choices.

We're all rooting for you, though, TBS! I reread that Mortervention story the other day, and ... wow. I think people should act on behavior and not on beliefs, but that's maybe unrealistic. The phenomenon which you find confusing got a big boost from this talk. It references grieving parents, like people like you and I are dead to them. Dead!

As someone who has experienced actual grief, I find it rather insulting. Although I think it's fair to grieve to some degree for a life you once wanted and now won't have, on the other hand, or for lost friendships or connections. Would you agree?

[Portia]

Erratum: We're either righteous or druggies. RAGE.

Addendum: although those answers were awesome.

[Rifka]

I think it's actually very insulting to assume that just because someone has a hard experience that doesn't involve death or break-ups, they can't be grieving over it, Portia. Everyone grieves differently, and for different reasons. Assuming that just because someone grieves differently than you means they're not really grieving is pretty shallow. On Dictionary.com, the definition for grieving is "deep mental suffering often endured alone and in silence." Do you think parents/families who have a child go astray don't suffer deeply, often in silence because it's a social taboo/painful to tell people about a child's poor/dangerous choices?

For many LDS families, a child rejecting the gospel is worse in a lot of ways than if that child had died. That may sound harsh, but a child who dies having stayed faithful to the gospel will be able to join their family in the Celestial Kingdom eventually. A child choosing to reject the gospel is, in the eyes of LDS members, choosing not to be with their family for eternity. That's a lot longer separation to grieve than the temporary separation of physical death.

Grieving comes in many different forms.

For example, one of my good friends just got married in the temple recently and so her non-LDS parents couldn't come to her wedding. A few minutes before the sealing took place, I sat with her as she cried, knowing that she wouldn't get to share the most special moment of her life with her parents. That didn't involve death, but she was definitely grieving.

A second example: My younger brother decided that he no longer believes in the LDS church. He stopped going to church, started doing drugs, and started sleeping around with his girlfriend. It was not a mature, thought-out decision to have a drink now and then, or have safe sex. It was smoking pot hardcore, every day and getting an STD. My whole family was sick with worry and grief. We grieve that he chose to learn things the hard way (including getting arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana). We grieve that he will probably never have the life-changing experience of serving a mission. We especially grieve that if he doesn't repent and come back to the gospel, we won't be able to be with him for eternity. I can tell you without hesitation that I have felt more sorrow and grief over my brother's choices than I have over the deaths of some of my loved ones. Just because he didn't die doesn't mean I didn't grieve over him.

[Portia]

I think what TBS is driving at is that people tell her to her face how sad her choices make them, and that that is unlikely to (A) change her mind (B) make her feel like she can confide in them. TBS is not an addict, a reckless driver, or at risk of losing her job, to my knowledge. You just can't say her choices are "ruining her life."

Your brother could have ended up on the same path whether or not he became disaffected from the LDS church. My brother is on a mission, and is as straight arrow as you can get in his lifestyle, but has serious doubts. He's so much more than a Mormon, although he's that, too.

If I told him to suck it up and shut up and conform, I would feel like a failure as a sister. I want the kind of relationship where he can confide in me. Since he's making good choices and I'm proud of him, berating him about testimony issues would do no good.

I actually said point-blank that we can "grieve for lost relationships." I have sympathy for Mormon families and friends who struggle to understand their loved ones' choices. But acting as if the person is dead to you, or, as Elder Oaks advised, treating your children differently based on cohabitation and such, is overly harsh and counterproductive, in my opinion.

I actually lost a parent. I feared being "dead" to my family and friends when I couldn't believe anymore. How glad I am that I was wrong! How indescribably grateful I am that my family accepted me, welcomed me, never even spoke a word against me or my choices or my doubts! This is the way I see it: if they're right, they succeeded much more at their endgame by loving and supporting rather than judging or criticizing. If I'm right, then the separation of physical death is eternal, vastly, indescribably, irrevocably the end, and had I felt that it was "worse than if I had died" to my family, trust me, there's no way I would have moved back to Zion to be there, much less become active in the Church again.

I don't doubt that your grief is sincere. I don't think I can be as evenhanded as TBS (so admirably) is. I will impugn the Church (not the gospel, discord and division is against everything the best of the gospel stands for) right now: the current Church culture drives good people out by instilling overwhelming anxiety about measuring up. The change has to begin in individual families. I have a difficult time seeing how you can agree with me that it's nothing short of tragic to divide families on their wedding day and yet continue to conflate leaving the Church with an irrevocable tragedy.

I'm not trying to minimize your family hardships or patronize your sincere beliefs. As someone who's essentially agnostic and feels uncomfortable in both irreligious and Mormon circles, I don't want to do the thing (dismissing viewpoints out of hand) I don't like others doing to me. But as someone who feels that I'll never see my mother again, not in any meaningful way, it's just really, really hard when others try to comfort me with a heaven I don't really believe in. I am jealous that you get to be around your brother, as troubled as he is, because he's here, you have the hope that he'll turn around and you can prepare the fatted calf for him.

I'm really lucky to have the family I have. I just value the life we've cobbled together here and now more than the extremely nebulous, unprovable one we may or may not have in the hereafter.

And I don't speak for TBS. She has a very different experience with BYU, her family/friendships, her sexuality, and so on and so forth. In fact, I think it's a little ironic that the Mormon community might sometimes lump the two of us together as The Other. (I hope you enjoy the delicious irony as much as I do, TBS!)

[Portia]

Also, Rifka, I'd be interested in your opinion on the direction of causality. In those I know, 100% of the time, the loss of belief came first, and did not perforce lead to any one lifestyle. I was a tithe-paying, calling-holding virgin (who had tried to work out my own salvation from a young age) when, rather suddenly, I didn't believe anymore. I didn't decide not to believe, I simply didn't. I didn't have a choice in it anymore than I have a choice to be straight. (As an LDS person, I think you can understand the distinction between beliefs and behavior, correct?) From a very early age, I always saw the verbiage of Moroni's promise as seeing if it's true ... or not. I don't think I'm pulling this idea out of the air that it's a testable claim that can pass or fail.

I did not draw this line in the sand. The late President Hinckley did, in 2003: "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." (Emphasis mine.) What would you rather have me do, stay with doubts or leave? I know it's not the One Truth, as I have reason to believe you do, but I'm not going to go around proclaiming it The Great Fraud, either. I have had plenty of time and opportunity to "gain a testimony," if that what was going to happen, but you can't wish something into truthfulness.

I really wish there were a middle ground. If there can't be, I may have to rethink my participation in the LDS community.

[Rifka]

Thanks for clarifying, Portia. I think I misunderstood what you were driving at before. I also admit that I didn't actually go to the talk link you posted before and I assumed it read slightly than it did. I still don't think he intended it to sound like the child was dead to the parents, but I can see how it could come off that way.

I think what TBS is driving at is that people tell her to her face how sad her choices make them, and that that is unlikely to (A) change her mind (B) make her feel like she can confide in them. TBS is not an addict, a reckless driver, or at risk of losing her job, to my knowledge. You just can't say her choices are "ruining her life."

Again, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't meaning to cast any kind of judgment on TBS, and if it appeared that I was, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. I was responding to your (Portia's) comment about grieving, and only that.

Your brother could have ended up on the same path whether or not he became disaffected from the LDS church. My brother is on a mission, and is as straight arrow as you can get in his lifestyle, but has serious doubts. He's so much more than a Mormon, although he's that, too.

I realize that and I never meant to imply that my brother's choices to use drugs and sleep around would not have happened if he had stayed in the church. I realize that he could have doubts without being disaffected. I was just using drugs, sleeping around, and leaving the church as various examples of choices he made that I grieved over; I wasn't necessarily trying to equate the three with each other or equate leaving the church with doing drugs and being promiscuous. I'm aware that there are many people who leave the church or never belonged to the church who don't do those things.

If I told him to suck it up and shut up and conform, I would feel like a failure as a sister. I want the kind of relationship where he can confide in me. Since he's making good choices and I'm proud of him, berating him about testimony issues would do no good.

That makes sense. I admit, I haven't actually talked to my brother at all about his change of beliefs for basically that reason-- I don't want to be overly pushy. If I'm ever in a situation where it feels right to share my feelings with him, I will do so, but I will try not to be in his face about it, and if he doesn't want to continue to talk about it, I won't force the matter. Right now I feel like I mostly just need to work on building up a good non-spiritual relationship with him, so that's what I'm focusing on.

I actually said point-blank that we can "grieve for lost relationships." I have sympathy for Mormon families and friends who struggle to understand their loved ones' choices. But acting as if the person is dead to you, or, as Elder Oaks advised, treating your children differently based on cohabitation and such, is overly harsh and counterproductive, in my opinion.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "grieve for lost relationships." I was thinking you were referring to break-ups, divorces, etc. It didn't occur to me that so many other things (including some of the ones I mentioned) could fall under that umbrella.

Of course it's not appropriate to act as if someone is dead to you, just because they choose not to believe the same way that you do. I would never advocate that, and I don't believe for a minute that Christ or the LDS leadership would. I'm a little confused, though, about your comment on Elder Oaks' statement. What do you mean by 'treating your children differently based on cohabitation and such?'

I'm not trying to minimize your family hardships or patronize your sincere beliefs. As someone who's essentially agnostic and feels uncomfortable in both irreligious and Mormon circles, I don't want to do the thing (dismissing viewpoints out of hand) I don't like others doing to me. But as someone who feels that I'll never see my mother again, not in any meaningful way, it's just really, really hard when others try to comfort me with a heaven I don't really believe in. I am jealous that you get to be around your brother, as troubled as he is, because he's here, you have the hope that he'll turn around and you can prepare the fatted calf for him.

I am so sorry that you have been cut off by family members. I can't imagine how difficult that would be. I understand how the idea of being together in heaven wouldn't be very comforting if you aren't sure if an afterlife exists and I hope I didn't give you the idea that I was trying to erase your pain with that idea; I only brought it up because I was trying to explain why it can be so hard for a lot of LDS people to deal with the idea of a child going "astray". I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was trying to provide a quick fix or be dismissive of your very real pain.

So yeah, basically I misunderstood a lot of you were saying. Thanks for providing clarification. I'm sorry if I came off as overly agressive or antagonistic; I really wasn't trying to be, but this is a sensitive issue for me, and so I sometimes get a little defensive and sound more aggressive than I mean to be.

[Rifka]

Also, Rifka, I'd be interested in your opinion on the direction of causality. In those I know, 100% of the time, the loss of belief came first, and did not perforce lead to any one lifestyle.

I haven't had the chance to talk openly with enough people who have stopped believing to be able to say for sure, either way. I've mostly just heard people's announcements about their decisions, without much background information.

(As an LDS person, I think you can understand the distinction between beliefs and behavior, correct?)

Of course.

From a very early age, I always saw the verbiage of Moroni's promise as seeing if it's true ... or not. I don't think I'm pulling this idea out of the air that it's a testable claim that can pass or fail.

No, you're not. I've always heard it presented that way.

"Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

I don't think that by stating this, President Hinckley was intending to day that it's bad to doubt or question things. Questioning is how we learn and grow. And doubts can help foster growth as well if they lead to further study and learning, rather than just chiseling away at a person's testimony. I think that in this quote President Hinckley was trying to emphasize the truthfulness of the church, not the perfectness of the church. It reminds me of a scripture my parents really emphasized a lot to us kids-- D&C 1:30 "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" (emphasis mine). In other words, the Lord is pleased with the Church, not necessarily the people (or culture) within it. I think that the Church can still be true, even if the people are imperfect, and even if we don't understand everything about it. I think that when people within the Church make it into a black and white statement (either it is true or it isn't), what they are actually trying to do is help those who are struggling with or trying to gain testimonies. Usually when people make it so black and white, they are trying to say "The core of the church-- the gospel-- is true, and that's what's really important. It's okay if you don't have a testimony yet of every piece of doctrine or if you struggle with certain policies or cultural norms-- as long as you know that the gospel is true, hang on to that and let it carry you while you work on the things you don't know yet. You have an eternity to figure out the things you don't know or doubt, and that's okay." Unfortunately, it seems like too often the black and white message swings the other way and leads people to feel that there is no place for doubts-- if you don't know for sure that the church is true, than it must not be. And that's not a helpful message at all. I think it would really help if within the Church there were a more open forum to discuss doubts. Because there isn't, I think people tend to feel like doubts are a sign of being a bad person, or of not having a testimony at all, instead of using them as stepping stones for growth and learning.

What would you rather have me do, stay with doubts or leave? I know it's not the One Truth, as I have reason to believe you do, but I'm not going to go around proclaiming it The Great Fraud, either. I have had plenty of time and opportunity to "gain a testimony," if that what was going to happen, but you can't wish something into truthfulness.

I really wish there were a middle ground. If there can't be, I may have to rethink my participation in the LDS community.

I would much rather have you stay with doubts than leave! Just because there are some things you doubt, doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a topic that hits home for me. Over the last few years, I've struggled with my fair share of doubts about the Church. I've always really been drawn to the story of the man with the sick son (yes, before Elder Holland made it so well-known) because I often feel much the same way ("Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief") One minute I feel strong, the next I feel overwhelmed with doubts. And I like that story because Christ understands that the man is trying, and doesn't condemn him for his unbelief; instead he responds to the man's needs and heals his son. If you haven't read Elder Holland's talk, "Lord, I Believe," I highly recommend it. It's based off of this scripture story and in it, Elder Holland does a great job addressing doubts within the gospel structure.

There are plenty of scriptural support to sticking with the gospel, even if you have doubts, too. Alma 32 says that if you even have a desire to have faith, that's a good start. You don't have to have a perfect knowledge all at once. Another example is Peter. After Christ's crucifixion, Peter seemed to have a lot of doubt and confusion-- so much so that he went back to fishing because he wasn't sure what else to do. Yet, he was able to grow from those doubts and eventually become a great leader of the church. Nephi didn't understand everything, either-- when an angel asked him "Knowest thou the condescension of God," he replied "I know that he loveth his children, nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:16-17). Moses had plenty of doubts, too. Even after seeing the burning bush and talking directly to God, he still had so many doubts that God had to turn his staff into a serpent, make his hand leprous, and give him a spokesman before he felt confident enough to trust God and talk to Pharaoh (Exodus 4). So, if you're having doubts and questions, you're in good company.

(I hope that wasn't too much of the scenario you just described with someone trying way too hard to convince you about something-- if it was, I'm sorry. I just feel so passionate about the gospel that it's hard for me to hold back sometimes-- If I do ever come across as too pushy or in your face, let me know and I'll try to calm down more.)

[mic0]

I don't reeeeally want to get involved here, but here I am anyway. First, my initial reaction to reading this question and answer was somewhat annoyed/angry, much like TBS whose comment I pretty much agree with. The question asker's sister is at least doing something irresponsible - losing her job for being inappropriate (though we don't really know what that means or what happened). But the other example, of the best friend who is sleeping with her boyfriend? There are a lot worse things than being intimate with your boyfriend. I know in the Church that isn't what is taught, but even as a TBM I always felt that was ingenuous. These situations sound fundamentally different. :/

Second, I sometimes feel bad for my TBM family members or friends who are struggling in the Church! Just thought I'd throw that out there. It is a little bit of grieving. I want to tell them about the things that I have learned about the Church, and about how if they could just see that then their lives would be easier and happier and brighter. It is unfair to say that my way is the best, though, and I recognize that and so I'm not going to try and tear down anybody. It is therefore hard to see TBM folks try to do the same to others. We are all allowed to grieve, but unless someone is actually ruining their lives (doing meth? having an illicit affair? I don't know, something actually physically or emotionally harmful) I don't think we have any right to interfere beyond, "Are you alright? Anything I can do for you?"

[TheBlackSheep]

Okay, I haven't yet read even close to everything that's been said, but I did want to drop in and say that I was mostly responding to the first part of The Audience's answer rather than the question itself (hence my referencing a friend instead of a sister). While my same sentiment applies to both, I can understand being concerned for a family member or friend if their behavior has suddenly changed and they have lost a job.

[TheBlackSheep]

And from personal experience, fear of rejection or other people's sadness might well be why she's coming across as "very secretive and defensive about all of it and tries to still appear as the good Mormon girl on the outside." Only a handful of my friends know that I'm agnostic (other than ones I've met/become close to in the past 18 months) for that very reason. It's hard, dammit.

Testify. Why WOULD she act any other way? And going through faith transition is, by itself, very difficult. It is not easier on the person going through the transition than the people watching them do it.

Do you think parents/families who have a child go astray don't suffer deeply, often in silence because it's a social taboo/painful to tell people about a child's poor/dangerous choices?

I noticed that you put the word "astray" in quotation marks later on in this conversation, so I don't want to harp on this, but I think that even using this word in this context is condescending. I, of course, realize that this term is heavily used in Mormon culture and is part of the jargon, but I really struggle with the implications. I realize we may be talking about slightly different cases (your brother's story is significantly different from the one told by The Audience in werf's answer to the actual Board question), but I think it's these little things that add up to create so many hurt feelings and bitterness in the post-Mormon community. Also, when parents, families, and friends decide that their loved one's non-church-going choices are shameful enough that the need to keep them secret (even if the choices are safe and sane otherwise), they are communicating to that loved one that there is something very bit to be ashamed about, which just reinforces the dynamics I'm trying to hit home. Also, their communication and support network is their responsibility, and it is not the loved one's fault that they cannot reach out as they perhaps need to.

For many LDS families, a child rejecting the gospel is worse in a lot of ways than if that child had died. That may sound harsh, but a child who dies having stayed faithful to the gospel will be able to join their family in the Celestial Kingdom eventually. A child choosing to reject the gospel is, in the eyes of LDS members, choosing not to be with their family for eternity. That's a lot longer separation to grieve than the temporary separation of physical death.

Yeeeeeah, this is exactly what needs to change. I cannot tell you how much I agonized about this early in my faith transition because I knew this is what my family would think and feel and I care about them and their pain deeply. It continues to be a significant enough issue that, when discussing church-related issues with my very supportive but never-Mormon boyfriend, he often brings up this issue and its implications before I get there. I stopped going to church four years ago. No person who stops going to church is "choosing not to be with their family for eternity." They are choosing to be true to their beliefs or, usually, something similarly significant. Every choice has consequences and this is a horrible, horrible one. LDS families absolutely can and should process all of their feelings related to a loved one's not going to the temple. I have no problem with the doctrine. What I have a problem with is families using this, even with "good" intentions, to guilt or shame loved ones, or being so besotted with this that the loved one cannot healthily function in the family unit. This happens so, so often. If a family truly feels that a loved one is choosing not to be with them, the loved one knows and suffers for it. If the family is confused about why the loved one will not have a relationship with them, talk about their problems, or admit that they are not going to church, there it is. LDS families should not act as though their loved one is choosing to abandon them; they should act as though their loved one is choosing something important to them, even if it is painful. And, as a note, I don't think that the implication that someone would rather that someone else died rather than make a choice should ever be acceptable.

Also, Rifka, I'd be interested in your opinion on the direction of causality. In those I know, 100% of the time, the loss of belief came first, and did not perforce lead to any one lifestyle.

I haven't had the chance to talk openly with enough people who have stopped believing to be able to say for sure, either way. I've mostly just heard people's announcements about their decisions, without much background information.

If you are interested in finding out, there are SO MANY people who want and need to talk about their faith crises and transitions. They are desperate to do it. I learned this during my own faith transition and while I wrote for the Board. Be open and accepting of their point of view and they will find you, and you will know.

Rifka, I'm not trying to attack you, or anyone else, for that matter. I just know that until I stopped going to church, I had no idea how hard faith transition is or how insulting my attitudes and word choices had been. I'm not accusing anyone of being as closed-minded as I was then (and surely am now), but my goodness, LDS culture in general needs to make some changes in this area for the sake of people who leave and their relationships with their families and friends. I have lost so many friends, and I'm not on speaking terms with one set of my grandparents. Some of my other familial relationships are touch and go. We all just need to try harder.

[Portia]

"The core of the church-- the gospel-- is true, and that's what's really important. It's okay if you don't have a testimony yet of every piece of doctrine or if you struggle with certain policies or cultural norms-- as long as you know that the gospel is true, hang on to that and let it carry you while you work on the things you don't know yet. You have an eternity to figure out the things you don't know or doubt, and that's okay."

I don't struggle with the cultural norms. I like and fit into Utah culture: I'm straight, bourgeois, blonde, and all my close friends (even here in the Midwest!) tend to share the BYU culture. It's definitely the fundamental truth claim of the Church that I don't particularly buy. I also don't believe in a traditional afterlife, although I do believe people have "souls" of a sort (a point of disagreement between me and the vast majority of my agnostic friends, in fact).

I would much rather have you stay with doubts than leave! Just because there are some things you doubt, doesn't mean you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's the actual doctrine of the church I find problematic. If the Mormon religion were more of a social club or a type of quasi-ethnic group, I'd be good.

No person who stops going to church is "choosing not to be with their family for eternity." They are choosing to be true to their beliefs or, usually, something similarly significant.

Yeah, the idea that I'm actively sabotaging my family togetherness is both silly and just confusing. It was fundamentalist eight-year-old me that tearfully begged my parents to be sealed because of my extreme abandonment anxiety drilled home (unintentionally, perhaps) by primary teachers. (My roommate, whose father is not LDS and comes from some podunk Idaho town, has even better stories, where the shaming was intentional.)

My family's awesome, but I think this is pretty much it, so hypocritically going through the motions of the temple or whatever ain't going to save me in the eyes of any God I could respect.

It's just annoying to be painted with a broad brush. Not that the in-group is going to care that much about the particulars of the out-group. But honestly, 50%+ of why I skip church a lot is because it's boring. I'd consider myself something of a Transcendentalist, and I am deeply moved by religious rites, music, and imagery. I have friends who are very rational and eager to be rid of that. I don't particularly get upset by historical issues and doctrinal inconsistencies, but I know that it does bother many friends and family members, in and out, and so I can have sympathy for their feelings. I now choose not to follow a lot of the rules and regulations, but I gave some things up when I went back to BYU. (For example, I now dress less conservatively. If this is going "astray," then whatever.)

I don't "doubt," I simply don't believe. Sometimes I wish I had the courage of my convictions, but as everyone has said, there's a lot of pressure and fear, and I have what I'd consider an unusually close relationship with my family and love of my home state. Frankly, I can't wait to be married and have a good excuse to get out of the YSA world. Now, going completely inactive would feel like rocking the boat. If I marry an "inactive" guy, well, built-in excuse.

What I'd really like is to find a religion that matches up with my beliefs better.

[Portia]

For many LDS families, a child rejecting the gospel is worse in a lot of ways than if that child had died. ... I can tell you without hesitation that I have felt more sorrow and grief over my brother's choices than I have over the deaths of some of my loved ones.

This seems to be related to Bruce R. McConkie's "pine box" statement, which seriously gives me chills. It is incredibly creepy, fundamentalist, and better suited for some crazy Stoic Roman pagan cult than a twenty-first century world.

Do you not see the problem with this? I know that you didn't create this idea, but don't you see how this can drive young people to suicidal thoughts? It definitely did for me! I just don't think it's cute or funny to even go there. I never liked Elder McConkie, even as a believer, and his overwrought rhetoric is reason numero uno.

I choose life.

[UnluckyStuntman]

Second, I sometimes feel bad for my TBM family members or friends who are struggling in the Church! Just thought I'd throw that out there. It is a little bit of grieving. I want to tell them about the things that I have learned about the Church, and about how if they could just see that then their lives would be easier and happier and brighter. It is unfair to say that my way is the best, though, and I recognize that and so I'm not going to try and tear down anybody. It is therefore hard to see TBM folks try to do the same to others. We are all allowed to grieve, but unless someone is actually ruining their lives (doing meth? having an illicit affair? I don't know, something actually physically or emotionally harmful) I don't think we have any right to interfere beyond, "Are you alright? Anything I can do for you?"

I do this same thing, Mico. My little sister freaked out after they lowered the missionary age, because she was suddenly old enough to go, but didn't feel prepared. It's been a struggle for her ever since - feeling like she isn't good enough or doing well enough... it's been really hard to watch. I love my baby sister and watching her berate herself for not living up to whatever arbitrary standards she's set for herself based on LDS doctrine hurts my soul in a big way.

But I understand how important the Church is to her, so I keep my mouth shut and I make myself available to he when she needs me. We've sort of established an unspoken rule between us to respect one another's religious (or non) dedication and choices, and that often means keeping quiet when we'd rather not.

Yeeeeeah, this is exactly what needs to change. I cannot tell you how much I agonized about this early in my faith transition because I knew this is what my family would think and feel and I care about them and their pain deeply. It continues to be a significant enough issue that, when discussing church-related issues with my very supportive but never-Mormon boyfriend, he often brings up this issue and its implications before I get there. I stopped going to church four years ago. No person who stops going to church is "choosing not to be with their family for eternity." They are choosing to be true to their beliefs or, usually, something similarly significant. Every choice has consequences and this is a horrible, horrible one. LDS families absolutely can and should process all of their feelings related to a loved one's not going to the temple. I have no problem with the doctrine. What I have a problem with is families using this, even with "good" intentions, to guilt or shame loved ones, or being so besotted with this that the loved one cannot healthily function in the family unit. This happens so, so often. If a family truly feels that a loved one is choosing not to be with them, the loved one knows and suffers for it. If the family is confused about why the loved one will not have a relationship with them, talk about their problems, or admit that they are not going to church, there it is. LDS families should not act as though their loved one is choosing to abandon them; they should act as though their loved one is choosing something important to them, even if it is painful. And, as a note, I don't think that the implication that someone would rather that someone else died rather than make a choice should ever be acceptable.

A big amen to this, TBS. This is something that continues to hang over my head, even after considering myself an agnostic/atheist for the past four to five years. My family has been understanding about me not attending or participating in Church, but I've never been 100% honest with them about my lack of spirituality. And that's because I realize that telling my very TBM parents and siblings that I'm an atheist (and that I plan to have my name removed from church records at some point) will be a huge blow to them, because I understand how they will interpret that from an "eternal" perspective. I find myself torn between being true to myself and sparing their feelings. I suspect that most post-Mormons deal with this same conundrum to varying extents, and it honestly just sucks, because being an atheist (and having my name removed) - from my perspective - has nothing to do with the relationship that I have with my family members (a relationship that I would like to maintain). Like TBS said, I'm not abandoning them. I'm just trying to live honestly.

[Portia]

My family has been understanding about me not attending or participating in Church, but I've never been 100% honest with them about my lack of spirituality. And that's because I realize that telling my very TBM parents and siblings that I'm an atheist (and that I plan to have my name removed from church records at some point) will be a huge blow to them, because I understand how they will interpret that from an "eternal" perspective. I find myself torn between being true to myself and sparing their feelings. I suspect that most post-Mormons deal with this same conundrum to varying extents, and it honestly just sucks, because being an atheist (and having my name removed) - from my perspective - has nothing to do with the relationship that I have with my family members (a relationship that I would like to maintain).

Hear, hear. I'm not an atheist (I guess I'm sort of a deist? Or a theist who just doesn't care that much?), but my grandma freaks out in a major way if you even say the a-word. My other grandparents are almost certainly atheists, and she can't accept that, though their non-religiousness and other lifestyle choices don't make her bat an eyelash.

I think I'd be happiest in another religion (one that I felt, dare I say it, is "true!"), but I think that is even more of a taboo, which is just confusing to me, considering that we actively send our adolescents out to get people to switch their religions. I hate upsetting people, and I don't even yet know what "true to myself" means (it might be easier if I didn't believe in any god, because going through this again sounds exhausting. I don't think the god I believe in cares if he/she/it is worshiped, because I don't really believe in an embodied creator). But I know that I am incredibly jealous of people who can have nice weddings in beautiful edifices and go to church on Easter and Christmas and be accepted by their community.

I guess if you say you don't believe in anything or just stop going, then the Mormons think you'll come around. I guess if I revert to my family's pre-existing Presbyterianism or something, then it's a little more of an active rejection?

[UnluckyStuntman]

I guess if you say you don't believe in anything or just stop going, then the Mormons think you'll come around. I guess if I revert to my family's pre-existing Presbyterianism or something, then it's a little more of an active rejection?

This is interesting to me, because I've always felt the opposite - us atheists are too "far gone," whereas hopping from Mormonism to another Christian religion (or, any other religion for that matter) would indicate less of a rejection, since you would still share some doctrines with the LDS faith (Christ, the atonement, life after death, or at the very least the acknowledgement of some mystical person or force orchestrating things in the universe).

[Rifka]

Do you think parents/families who have a child go astray don't suffer deeply, often in silence because it's a social taboo/painful to tell people about a child's poor/dangerous choices?

I noticed that you put the word "astray" in quotation marks later on in this conversation, so I don't want to harp on this, but I think that even using this word in this context is condescending. I, of course, realize that this term is heavily used in Mormon culture and is part of the jargon, but I really struggle with the implications.

Good point. I hesitated to even use the word "astray" in this conversation. I mostly just used it to indicate the thought process/terminology of most active Mormons, and for brevity's sake. (It's just easier to type "astray" than to type "chosing a lifestyle in opposition to the values of the Church" or something long like that. But, I did mean to put it in quotation marks every time (to show that I was indicating it as a word choice/perspective of many LDS members in general, rather than my own label of the situation.) I appreciate you reminding me of how it makes other people feel, though. It's easy to forget how other people may feel when using that word choice.

[Portia]

I guess if you say you don't believe in anything or just stop going, then the Mormons think you'll come around. I guess if I revert to my family's pre-existing Presbyterianism or something, then it's a little more of an active rejection?

This is interesting to me, because I've always felt the opposite - us atheists are too "far gone," whereas hopping from Mormonism to another Christian religion (or, any other religion for that matter) would indicate less of a rejection, since you would still share some doctrines with the LDS faith (Christ, the atonement, life after death, or at the very least the acknowledgement of some mystical person or force orchestrating things in the universe).

Hmm. I'll have to think about it. But since there generally isn't a "group" you "join" when you are an atheist (an atheist church is an oxymoron; as one of my best friends put it, "atheism is not a philosophy"), I think that there is sometimes a tendency to wait it out as a Mormon, whereas there would be more of a line in the sand should you be investigating other religions.

[NerdGirl]

So, my brother "left the church" as a teenager, and I'm starting to realize that the way my family coped with it may actually be pretty unusual. I say "left the church" in quotation marks, because he didn't really make a big deal out of it. He was a very thoughtful and philosophical kid, and he didn't believe in some of the stuff about the church being the "only" true church (I don't really believe that either, but I'm still in the church) and some other doctrines, and he also had a really hard time of things socially in the church, so it just wasn't doing anything for him and he stopped going. It wasn't a big deal. It was his choice, and I remember having conversations with my mom about it, and my mom is probably the closest thing to a TBM in my family, and people would say things to her about how he wasn't going to be in our family forever now (which is a sh***y thing to say to someone, BTW), and we just decided that God wants us to be happy and that we wouldn't worry about stuff like that. It wasn't up to Sister Ward Gossip to decide who would or wouldn't be in our eternal family. I think maybe it helps that my parents are both converts, and so it just seems normal to them for people like their children to choose their own religious paths. Anyway, as he became an adult, he started to do things like drink coffee and have a beer occasionally, and he moved in with his wife before they got married. And you know what? Those are things that the majority of normal, highly functioning members of our society do. If you don't have personal religious beliefs that it's wrong to drink coffee or a beer once a week or live with your fiancee before you pay money for a marriage license, then you're really not hurting anyone. The thing I see a lot, though, is that LDS people sometimes have a hard time differentiating between things we don't do because we have very specific beliefs about them (but a lot of people without our beliefs do those things) and things that we don't do because they are bad and destructive. Having a beer with your friends on Friday night is in the first category. Driving drunk is in the second category. Having sex with your fiancee is in the first category. Having sex with your boss and subsequently losing your job is in the second category. But somehow the nuance there just seems to be lost and people think that "sin is sin", and maybe it is on one level, but on another level it's really not. Drinking coffee is just not even on the same spectrum as murder. That's an extreme example, so here's another one. Having sex with your fiancee is not on the same spectrum as what Jeffrey Dahmer used to do, even though both of those things would fall into the category of "sexual sin" according to our beliefs. I would argue that having a sexual relationship with someone you have made a commitment to (even though that commitment isn't yet marriage) is not a big deal IF you don't actually personally hold a belief that sex before marriage is wrong. People can still make ethical sexual choices even if their beliefs about sex are different from ours.