Today, we present a guest post by Brian, a commenter to the site and a non-believer with active LDS family members.
I received a letter from my brother-in-law the other day. I am a convert to the church of 41 years and currently inactive. I went on a mission a year-and-a half after joining. From there, I was married in the temple and have had five sons, three of whom served missions. I have served in three bishoprics, have been an EQP and stake clerk.
My brother-in-law is a life-long member of the church, married in the temple with four children. He is in his 60s, a graduate of BYU and has a Masters degree in business from UCLA. He is not good with people — a fact that his wife fully acknowledges. That is partially the reason that even with his education he works only part-time at a local nursery, although the family has significant financial problems.
I have a gay son and live in California. We lived through Prop 8, although my wife and two sons did not spiritually survive it. My disaffection from the church coincided with Prop 8, but stemmed from historical and doctrinal problems of the church that I have studied extensively for most of my church life.
My brother-in-law and I have exchanged two letters before this current one. His first letter was a very nicely worded letter stating that he wished I would reconsider my activity in the church and consider the ramifications on my family. He wrongly assumed it was Prop 8 fallout and was certain I would return to the fold once the raw nerves of that situation healed. I responded to him a year or so later explaining that my disagreements with the church went deeper and had been developing for decades. As part of that letter, I told him I was not interested in discussing the issue further because the feelings on the church are so intense for both of us and those feelings are so different.
What follows is the text of the recently-received letter of October 3, 2011:
“This is in answer to your last letter. I appreciate your filling me in on what’s been going on with you over the past couple of years, and I of course respect your right to believe what you will believe. At the same time, it tears me up to witness your loss of testimony. It’s like a death in the family to me. I feel more comfortable putting my ideas in writing than discussing them with you in person—I think it’s easier to stay calm and respectful this way. Just as I chose not to take offense at your comment “…I felt like I had to check my brain at the door (at church)”, I ask for your indulgence with my perhaps clumsy wording and/or arguments. I don’t mean to give offense.
“I find that the Church’s influence in society is overwhelmingly positive, life-affirming, and beneficial, more so than any other religious or secular organization I can think of. Likewise, it demands and receives from its lay members a (voluntary) level of commitment unmatched, as far as I know, with any similar organization. We are always going to have problems and challenges; that is part of life and growth. If you look for negativity, you will find what you are looking for. But to concentrate on the negative while overlooking the positive is to me short sighted. It seems like you have a particular axe to grind.
“I know that I have not read all that you have read that led you to your present system of belief, or lack thereof. And frankly, I’m not interested in doing so. You state that you don’t believe that Joseph Smith was who he claimed to be. It seems to me that there is little or no middle ground among scholars on the issue of Joseph Smith. If you are LDS with a testimony of the Restoration, you treat him with reverence and gratitude. If you’re a non-believer, especially if you are an ex-Mormon (a la Fawn Brodie), you have “scholarship” based on anti-Mormon sources, some of which have been around since the 1830s, while ignoring all the positive evidences that point to his divine calling. Actually, this is one more fulfillment of prophecy. As you recall, Moroni told Joseph that his name would be had for good and ill among all nations of the earth. When modern “scholars” reference their works about the church to some of the 19th century works, I would have to take them with a grain of salt.”
At this part of the letter, he addresses some of my arguments regarding man’s 6,000 year existence and the Universal Flood, citing God’s omnipotence. He then gives a couple of testimony-related experiences.
He concludes:
“The Lord is certainly directing His work. These experiences (the testimonial experiences he related in the prior paragraphs not included here) are not at all unusual among those who are engaged in His work.
“I believe, as you once believed, that spiritual discernment must occur through study, fasting, and prayer. I know you have read much and studied much. What would you say would be the ratio of the hours you spent reading the writings of worldly authors versus the hours you spend in studying the scriptures, fasting, and prayer? Or did you give up early on tuning in to the Spirit for inspiration regarding truth and light and substitute the pursuit of worldly knowledge for spiritual effort: If you chose a worldly methodology, it’s not surprising that you came to a worldly conclusion. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but if this is the case, then you closed the door to spiritual knowledge and hardened your heart to the promptings of the Spirit.
“Again, I certainly don’t dispute your absolute right to believe what makes sense to you. But please answer one question—what if you’re wrong? What if the Gospel which you believed in for decades is, in fact, true and you are letting worldly writings destroy your faith? What damage are you doing to your family to your wife and the boys and to your grandchildren?
“I admit that when you first hit me with your experiences, my first reaction was to question my own faith. But when I thought about the sum total of my experiences, the knowledge I have of the Church’s history, doctrine, and benevolent influence in the world, the questioning was cut short. My faith in the truthfulness of the Gospel is rock solid. I pray that you may reconsider your position.
“I remain always your brother.”
It should be stated that he has no idea what I have read to arrive at where I am today. I have never shared that with him. When I first read this letter, I was not going to reply. When I briefly discussed it with his wife — an active LDS member — and explained to her how some of the things mentioned bothered me, she said I viewed the letter negatively because I am “negative”.
I realize that the readers of Wheat and Tares don’t have all the background between family members, but I am interested in your feelings on this correspondence and how you would respond if you were in my position.
Wheat & Tares 
Well, it (the letter) is better than I expected from someone who has an MBA from UCLA but has a personality so bad he can only hold down a part-time job at a nursery …
Otherwise, two things.
First, if he is engaged in “arguments regarding man’s 6,000 year existence and the Universal Flood” then he isn’t at a very high level of discourse, all in all.
Second, so much of the “facts” on both sides of the argument are about as reliable as the “facts” that allow people to calculate that the earth was created on a Thursday, in the year 5042 B.C. …
But it seems he was concerned. It all comes down to what people want to give primacy in their lives.
Brian,
The family is eternal and the church is not. I would do everything possible to create peace in the family.
Brothers-in-law have an asymetric relationship as seen in the old population genetics joke attributed to Haldane that he wouldn’t give his life to save a brother, but he would to save two brothers or eight cousins. It is highly likely that the letter-writing brother-in-law is the brother of Brian’s wife, and not the husband of Brian’s sister. In the Haldane calculus, Brian’s five children are worth more to the brother-in-law than his own life is, while the brother-in-law’s children hold no genetic value for Brian.
As for how to manage the relationship – accept his closing remarks, “I remain always your brother” as his best effort to make the best of things, and do likewise.
Were a discussion to continue – I might ask a few questions:
We often hear the comment that there is “no middle ground on Joseph Smith” – I would ask what middle ground is? What would it look like. As conjecture I would say that Fawn Broadie was actually fairly middle ground on him. She more or less argues that he was a good-intentioned, likeable fraud. So again, what is middle ground? He may find that he is just pointing out the obvious, some people believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and the rest don’t.
I would also ask him to clarify what it means to study “worldly authors”. What is an appropriate ratio? He seems to imply that it would be small. Is he then arguing that thoughtful research is harmful to a testimony? Secondly, what are “worldly methodologies”, and how does he verify his spiritual methodologies. He defines “spiritual efforts” all through the use of analogy (“tuning in to the spirit”), and connotative descriptors. I can explain specifically the worldly methodologies, along with their inherent logic and limitations. Can he do the same? Can his methods be cross-examined by others and still meet consensus?
I would keep it positive – you will never change his mind, he will never change yours. As Buddha said, Hatred never ceases by hatred, but by love alone is healed. This is an ancient and eternal law.
I would focus on the good things that you have learned from the Church – values, relationships, etc. I would say that you are thankful for all of those and will continue to be influenced by those for the rest of your life (assuming you feel that way). I would thank him for living a good and virtuous life, and reassure him that you plan on continuing to do the same.
Your best bet is to continue to self-righteously judge him as a lesser human being with poor social skills
Honestly…and maybe this isn’t what you’re looking for at all…you aren’t obliged to respond at all.
The truth is that he isn’t going to change your perceptions (which is what he seems to be trying to do ultimately), and nothing you say will change his. My own experiences with extended family have taught me that, if nothing else.
If you must respond, you can tell him that you appreciate his concern (if that’s true) but that you’re at peace with your decision. You can even ask him, as a friend and family member, not to revisit the topic as you know it’s sensitive and you don’t want to create a division in the family that is utterly unnecessary.
But again, you aren’t obliged. I think we often feel as if we need to defend our depictions (especially on the Mormon fringes), but I think it’s often the case that we don’t. Those who understand or truly love us will accept them, and those who don’t won’t be convinced no matter what you say.
Re Brian-
I don’t know if you know this, but this is really common. With a few small wording changes this letter and situation could almost pass for one I have received in my own life (seriously, the similarities are actually pretty startling).
What I have learned is that most of the time this is a problem with no solution. The right thing to do is to maintain friendship, courtesy, and family relations at the cost of agreement on these issues. You will most likely never find common ground with him. In fact, you might not ever get understanding. And even if you returned to full activity, he will perceive that you have “lost” a testimony and are somehow not on the path of righteousness. I would just respond with a statement of love, compassion, appreciate his concern, and move on. Don’t engage in any religious debate. It won’t profit you, him, or the relationship. I would try diligently to shift the focus of the relationship from the church to other aspects of life.
Seriously, I cannot emphasize this enough, speaking from my own experience I strongly recommend preserving the relationship at all costs! Do not try to go to battle with him over the church. No one will win!
One more thing:
I agree with dpc in #8 with one small warning:
Be careful with this because it backfired on me. I asked this of a family member and the result is that now they won’t talk to me at all. They still continue to discuss my fallen state with other family members, but they don’t talk to me at all anymore.
Oh oops, that was SmallDog in #8 sorry SmallDog and dpc.
If it was my brother, and I wanted him to back off, I would be blunt and might reply with something like, “well, according to LDS beliefs, I have about a thousand years left to make up my mind and accept Christ, or not. Give me time to find my own path!”.
If I wanted to soften things between us, I might attend church with him now and then, just to give him peace of mind.
Personally, I’m not well read on either Mormon or anti-Mormon books and literature. But I did have an experience which shook my faith for a few days. It was after reading the “Adam-God” doctrine written by Brigham Young. It was so strange. I couldn’t imagine a true Prophet writing such a thing, let alone preaching it. But, after a few days of pondering and re-reading the message, I came to an understanding of it. And in that moment I thought, wow, this is amazing. There is no way this man could have composed such a thing without being truly inspired.
Take the time you need. Keep pondering.
@10/11
No worries. I honestly had not pictured negative backfiring! I had a positive experience asking for people to back off, which is why I brought it up. I might have just gotten lucky… Brian! Disregard that bit!
Leave it alone. No one ever wins an argument on religion. Don’t answer his letter. If he brings up religion in person, change the subject.
I’m pretty sure that dpc’s comment was sarcastic, but I think he made a valid point. It’s hard not to be self-righteous in this situation. I also liked SmallDog’s comments.
Be as generous as you can. Acknowledge that the brother in law cares for you, and express appreciation. Point out the fact that you don’t know everything, and you are holding out hope that you could change your mind in the future, but as gently as possible, state that you have prayed, fasted, etc without any answer that leads you to have the same testimony as the brother-in-law.
I’d even state that you think there are good things in the church, and you admire those with faith. Pull out D&C 121 that talks about gifts of the spirit, and say that you hope to attain that gift someday, but acknowledge that you may never receive the gift. Tell him you admire his testimony, but that you are currently comfortable with the decisions you have made.
As SmallDog said, tell him you don’t want any divisions in the family, and say that perhaps you and he need a “time-out” so that no feelings get hurt.
I will also add if being generous feels inauthentic, perhaps it is better not to answer the letter at all. The letter does not need to have a response–only respond if you feel it shows love for him, and is not defensive.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/haters-gonna-hate#.TqmLnpuIkXk
But seriously, it hurts when it comes from family. If you can get to a place where you understand and respect that he’s just (mostly) acting out of love (and ignorance), it becomes easier to forgive. Like Jesus on the cross (“Forgive them, Father…”). It’s not your job to explain to your brother all the reasons why you left (or took a hiatus, or whatever). Its none of his business, really, what factors played into that decision, and he’s ultimately not responsible for those decisions, either. If you have to respond, you can say something like “I appreciate your concern as my brother, and I’m glad you care enough about me to have written this letter. However, this is something I’m working through, and ultimately am solely responsible for, so try not to be overburdened by my decisions.” Sometimes time and unwavering respect and love from more TBM loved ones are the only things that can be offered to those who think and act differently. I know the love and respect I feel from my wife is a major factor in my continued participation in the life of the Church, even as I no longer share many of the same core beliefs. Best of luck.
My response to “the Church’s influence on society is overwhelmingly positive” would be something like, “yeah, except all the gay people who kill themselves because they’ve been taught all their life that they are defective and evil.”
(I’d probably word-smith it a bit to smooth it out, but that’s the gist.)
Oh, and that pesky incident at Mountain Meadows doesn’t seem very positive.
But, then again, my wife would probably tell me that I react negatively because I’m a negative person.
As to the “what if you are wrong” argument, would an all-knowing God who gave us the ability to reason punish us for using that ability. (Search youtube.com for Mr. Deity and the skeptic, with guest appearance by Michael Shermer.)
This agency stuff is tricky…we firmly believe it, until They choose to find a different path. I too, see much good, along with a whole lot of bumbling humanity, and I hope you choose peace.
As for your bother-in-law—wowo, he must really care, to put that much effort into such a long letter! I’d be gracious, thanks him for his concern, appreciate his ongoing prayers (we all need a cheering section, whatever the game), and go on nicely. I hate it when people close doors, as in “don’t mention it ever again.” You are a big boy; if it comes up, you can steer a conversation as needed, I’m sure.
Be courteous and polite, and recognize motive. He’s not really out to get you, is he? He just cares, from his own viewpoint. How can that be bad??
Ever since my husband and I lost our faith in the Church and told my family about it a couple years ago, (we received similar heart-wrenching responses from my parents) my husband reminds me often that the best thing we can do now is to live as happy and fulfilling of a life as we possibly can. We can’t try to convince them we left for legitimate reasons, because it would be impossible for them to acknowledge that without affecting their own faith- we have no desire to make them question. But what we can do is beat the stereotypes of the bitter, angry, “axe to grind” ex-Mormons and show our family and friends that we live lives filled with joy. Joy, service, family, love, and more peace than we had when we were in the church. How can anyone argue with that??
I would write a simple letter in response, emphasizing that you are following your heart and that your path feels right to you. You are creating your own life based on serious study and pondering, forging a new road much like Joseph Smith did. Emphasize that you are happy (or on your way to be)- and that it is not superficial happiness. Emphasize that you do not wish to try to get him to change or even question his beliefs, and that the least he can do is respect you similarly. And definitely share what you like and appreciate about the Church (simple doctrines, service, hymns, community, etc.). He may find it confusing that you speak so positively yet don’t believe– since believers tend to expect former-believers to hold grudges and be ‘negative’, as his wife said. So don’t be like that- in a way it’s what he wants. Surprise him with positivity- toward his faith and the Church itself. Be firm and kind, without giving him specific points to disagree with.
Oh and as far as the “what if you’re wrong?” question..it would go against my integrity to live a religious life out of fear, without fully believing in it. An understanding, loving God would rather that I live honestly and do the best that I can, given the very limited knowledge that we all have, than follow the crowd and go to church every Sunday *just in case* the LDS Church is true. I may not have faith that the Church is true, but I DO have faith that God will see that things work out in the end in a very logical way. And believing for the sake of believing (“fake it til you make it”) is not logical.
(One last last point, regarding the reading ‘anti-mormon sources’ thing…my dad did the same thing, encouraging me to only read “Church-Sanctioned Materials”. A saying I’ve heard for a long time states that a smart person buying a car doesn’t go to Ford for information on Ford, nor do they go to Toyota for information on Ford…but rather they go to ConsumerReports.org. If an LDS person doesn’t see the logic in that, there’s really no point in trying to argue with them anymore…just my opinion. Also, regarding spiritual experiences…people all over the world in every religion have felt the same spiritual feelings that Mormons feel in a million different religious and non-religious circumstances. Spiritual experiences are as varied as the people who receive them, and they all reveal different truths, most not supporting LDS theology.)
I’m an active member but have two sisters who have left the church. I would find things to be positive about.
1. Thank you for reaching out to me.
2. I realize that you care about me and my wife and children and that means a lot
3. Our family is so important to me and I’m grateful for the love and support I feel
4. I have so many good experiences with the church, the people, my previous service
5. I don’t mind talking about this, because our beliefs are so much a part of who we are and so I love that we can be open in a supportive way and I don’t want you to feel like you can’t talk about church around me
I would also look for ways to ease fears and look to give the “message” for what you believe that still lines up with church beliefs in a lingo members can understand:
1. I believe that God is someone I can turn to in prayer
2. I believe that our mortal life is a time to try to become a better person and to do good (rather than saying I don’t believe in an afterlife, here is all I’ve got so I’m going to make the best of it)
3. I believe in personal revelation (you might phrase it differently to a nonmember, but to a member go ahead and use it)
4. I believe that God understand each of us, even if our path seems more difficult or has more detours. (Mormonism doesn’t work for me and causes me pain so I’m finding my own path)
5. I believe that knowledge comes “line upon line” and everyone is learning different things at different points. (Definitely gives the idea that you are trying to learn and progress in life and discover truth, rather than just rejecting the truths that they are familiar with)
6. Avoid trying to give the message to your family members “I refuse to go to the celestial kingdom” this is very hurtful to those who truly believe it exists.
It is NOT a compromise to use Mormon lingo to represent ideas or explain ideas in ways to try to approximate understanding.
I believe that peace comes to active, believing family members when they frame the inactivity and disbelief as part of a slower journey toward heaven (with detours), not a rejection of heaven.
Good luck!
I think your brother-in-law’s letter says much more about him and where he is on his faith journey than anything else. I sense fear (“what if you’re wrong”), I sense frustration, and I sense that your position feels threatening to him. I even sense a bit of dysfunctionality, and thus when you “break out” of the family “circle” (of religion), it impacts him much more than it should.
I love having interchanges with people about religion, and usually they are quite positive and I learn a lot. But it takes a mature relationship to do that without anger, unintended offense, and unpleasantness, especially with family members. It takes people who can be “real,” and who can acknowledge, truly and fully, that the other person’s positions are valid and sincere. Maybe it even takes people who are willing to open their minds to all the facts that are out there.
From what I read in the letter you quoted, I am not sure your brother-in-law is there yet. I would recommend that you simply affirm your affection for him, agree to disagree at this time, but let him know that you would welcome honest discussion sometime in the future, if a point comes where that can happen. I think that it might be unlikely, given his personality and strong feelings, but certainly he should be able to agree to disagree and have the most positive, loving relationship possible given this one issue.
I see the brother in law being concerned for his loved ones.
This post represents what is going on all over the church (USA). Letters or conversations like this are occurring more and more frequently.
The internet has impacted the LDS church in a major way. Are we experiencing the early stages of a sifting?
It appears to me that we’re living in the day Heber C Kimball spoke of when he prophesied:
“This Church has before it many close places through which it will have to pass before the work of God is crowned with victory. To meet the difficulties that are coming, it will be necessary for you to have a knowledge of the truth of this work for yourselves. The difficulties will be of such a character that the man or woman who does not possess this personal knowledge or witness will fall. If you have not got the testimony, live right and call upon the Lord and cease not till you obtain it. If you do not you will not stand.”
I believe that nearly every member of the church gains some degree of testimony at one time or another, but a testimony is insufficient for many due to the nature of the difficulties we’re experiencing today.
A testimony needs to mature into conversion in order to stand against the challenges of the last days (church history is just one of the challenges coming in the last days), just as Elder Kimball said.
I urge all of those who are serious followers of Christ to do whatever it takes to move from testimony to conversion.
My conversion came when I was in a crisis and turned to the Lord with full purpose of heart. I didn’t doubt he would hear me, but it required a great deal of effort, tears, persistence, and most of all repentance to gain access to the desired blessing. Enos called it a “wrestle”, I agree.
If you respond aggressively, it will just confirm to him in his mind you are negative and lost the spirit and have been blinded.
I don’t hear anywhere in the letter him wanting to understand you, just to change you. That doesn’t work, and it isn’t worth your time to respond to any issues because of it.
A response to thank him for taking time and for caring about you would be appropriate, I think. But you won’t get anywhere on issues.
Joseph Campbell wrote:
“Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief, better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery.”
That could apply to you by not worrying about defending yourself to him, or that you are not negative. But if you show him you are happy, spiritual, respectful, and kind…your radiance dispels fears. Most likely devout, literal mormons will believe you need the church and are sacrificing eternal glory by not thinking like them, but that is really about them and what they think.
Build on common ground (family, love, good things the church does), avoid discussing the rest.
I’m sorry. It isn’t fun having anyone, especially family, try to change you in an unloving way.
I would simply response to the B-I-L that I appreciate his concern but I am good with where I am at at this point. And there is no need to have a debate with me about the Church.
John M, you lost me (it’s not hard to do).
Brian,
I feel for you and your brother-in-law. For you because it seems your choices did not come easily to you, and yet there you are having made them. For your BIL because I suspect he feels the stakes are very high indeed.
Your BIL seems well-intentioned, if not well reasoned. And I suspect your own point of view is (at least for you) very well reasoned and comfortable for you.
Should you wish to respond, I think #3 Will’s advice is good: the family relationship is really important. A kind note thanking him for his concern is probably sufficient, and perhaps an invitation to engage on another more neutral topic in some other way.
In my own family, as my sibling or my wife’s have chosen to separate from the church, often the initial period is difficult as we all wonder what we talk about now that we don’t have the church in common. I was pleased to learn that our disaffected siblings were still interested in our doings, including children’s baptisms and ordinations and missions. It took effort for us as the stayers to find bridges of commonality beyond the church with them.
Clearly direct communication on your disbelief is not helpful to you. At some point it may not hurt to say that out loud.
I liked Cowboy’s response in #5. You have my respect for serving in 3 bishoprics, Brian. I’m not sure I could survive a second one. I was really put off by the comment about the ratio of study comment. It’s true for my own life that when I do commit more time to study of books about the gospel, that my spirituality grows, but I wouldn’t feel right about challenging another with a metric of some kind. It’s like the example of saying maybe you should fast for 35 days for a spiritual manifestation, and then if one was not received, the retort would come that maybe you should have fasted 36 days.
But instead of viewing his comment that way, I would try to view it as I first framed it. When your brother in law studies books about the gospel, he tends to feel more spiritual and leave it at that. His attempt to transfer his experience to you was unsuccessful and that is all.
I would hope that close friends and relatives of mine who chose different pathways will state that they remain always my brothers. I can never have too many brothers or sisters.
I’m a fairly private person. Concerns from siblings or BILs just seem like overstepping the bounds of the relationship. I would not respond.
People who call other people to repentance whether warranted or not do not do so from a desire to understand that person. They are clinging desperately to the need to be right on this issue. That has nothing to do with me.
People who call other people to repentance whether warranted or not do not do so from a desire to understand that person. They are clinging desperately to the need to be right on this issue. That has nothing to do with me.
Is it every appropriate to call people to repentance? Isnt that what missionaries do?
Thank you all for the comments. I didn’t know when this post might appear on the website and I needed to get it off my chest, so I decided to talk to my brother-in-law.
#8 Small Dog-“Honestly…and maybe this isn’t what you’re looking for at all…you aren’t obliged to respond at all.”
I thought a long time about not responding. In the end, I wanted this to be the last letter I got from him on the topic of my non-belief.
#26 Paul-“You can even ask him, as a friend and family member, not to revisit the topic as you know it’s sensitive and you don’t want to create a division in the family that is utterly unnecessary.”
He and I had a previous battle regarding an investment he managed for me and misappropriated funds. Eventually, we worked it out. Didn’t want that to happen again. Unnecessary sums it up.
#19 Deb-“Be courteous and polite, and recognize motive.”
Courteous and polite, hard. Snarky, easy.
#3 Will-“The family is eternal and the church is not. I would do everything possible to create peace in the family.”
First time I have agreed with you, although the “eternal” is up in the air.
#5- Cowboy-“As for how to manage the relationship – accept his closing remarks, “I remain always your brother” as his best effort to make the best of things, and do likewise.”
Interesting that you would mention that because that ultimately is why I didn’t go off on him. In reading the letter, I was very irritated because of what I perceive as common Mormon assumptions about unbelief. Read the wrong things, didn’t try hard enough, etc., etc. The “scholarship” and “scholars” in quotes really got under my skin, as did the “worldly authors” comment and the ratio of study/prayer idea. Those were all assumptions on his part. I’m thinking somewhere in the 40 or so years of activity, I must have done something in the search for the spirit.
Anyway, as I finished reading the letter for the umpteenth time, I focused on “I remain as always, your brother.” I envisioned him writing this letter being completely oblivious of the fact I may be bothered by anything in the letter and that he really doesn’t want me to separate from “the truth”. All of my immediate family told me to consider the source of the letter and let is slide. We all know he is who he is and tact is not a quality he possesses.
I decided to visit him. As I walked up to his house, my home teacher was arriving home from work. I invited him to come since he has never asked me why I don’t go to church any more. The three of us sat down. I explained to my home teacher that my brother-in-law had written me a letter asking me to reconsider my belief in the church and I was there to discuss it. I told BIL that I didn’t really want to discuss the letter but I wanted to explain where I really was in my unbelief and that any efforts to reclaim me were pointless. I explained the extent of my unbelief after which there were no real questions, although the home teacher tried to slip in some spiritual examples of people who changed their mind after a period of unbelief. I replied that “Yes, people do change their minds, kind of like Bruce McConkie when the blacks received the priesthood.” Like I said, snarky easy.
It was time to end the discussion. BIL said, “So we are good.” I said, “Yeah, we are good.” If I were more gracious, I would have thanked him for his concern. But I’m not and I didn’t.
Henry: “Is it every appropriate to call people to repentance? Isnt that what missionaries do?” Between “calling people to repentance” and inviting people to come to Christ, I’ll pick the latter every time.
Like my Mission President used to say, “it’s really hard to preach repentance when all you Elders are constantly masturbating”.
Come unto Christ does seem to have a better ring to it, methinks.
Cowboy–
LOL!
Brian,
From your comment it seems like you did the perfect thing
Though personally, the whole “you’re a negative person” comment from his wife would bug the living daylights out of me. Am I suppose to be pooping rainbows and smiling 24/7 to be ‘positive’?
#34 newlyhousehwife–“the whole “you’re a negative person” comment from his wife would bug the living daylights out of me.”
As it did me. When it comes to the church, it is pretty accurate, but I still went off on her. I think her comment hurt worse than her husband’s because I actually respect her opinions. Because of all the grief her husband has taken over the years, she has become fiercely defensive of him. Didn’t stop me. She pushed a button.
I think you handled it as well as it could be handled.
From here on, I would avoid religious discussions – period. Right now, it might not be about him in any real way; rather, it might be about how you learn to see and interact with others who disagree with you, despitefully use you and persecute you. It might be less about convincing and mutual understanding and more about loving and accepting — and letting go of unrealistic expectations even if he can’t. It might be about “becoming” rather than “solving”.
Fwiw, one of my favorite scriptural verses is, “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
Nomination for best comment of the year (LOL):
“Like my Mission President used to say, “it’s really hard to preach repentance when all you Elders are constantly masturbating”.
Thanks to the permas who posted this, and to everyone who made thoughtful replies. I just received a very similar letter from my mother-in-law, and this thread has given me many ideas on how to respond constructively and respectfully. 🙂
And I nominate Ray’s comment as the best comment of the year for helping bridge the divide between questioners and non-questioners. Very well said Ray.
I read this post when it was first posted, and not having anything to contribute that I felt was significant enough moved on. However, I have just looked back over the comments and they are just overwhelmingly good. So many of them are really inspiring and thoughtful. Thank you for sharing this letter and for all the comments.