As I have gone through my faith crisis and then into my faith transition I have looked for those that have gone through somewhat analogous transitions to see what I can learn from them. I have also looked into the how’s and why’s of belief. My investigations have been quite varied and I have found them very enjoyable and much more relateable than if I would have reviewed the same material back 10 years ago.
One very interesting podcast I have listened to is from Bart Campolo. Bart’s father, Tony is Campolo, is well-known as one of the most influential leaders in the Evangelical left and has been a major proponent of progressive thought and reform within the evangelical community. Bart was following in his father’s footsteps, but then converted to secular humanism. What is interesting about Bart’s story is how well he and his father have continued to have a strong and loving relationship despite their differences. They have even just created a film about it “Leaving My Father’s Faith” (trailer here) that I am interested in seeing.
As warm as this is, it stands in stark contrast to many of the stories from those that have left the LDS faith and the relationships with their believing friends, and especially family. Just pull up the ex-mormon reddit sub and you most likely find at least 1 of the 25 postings on the first expressing some sort of emotion, from sadness to all-caps anger, about how they are unable to have a healthy relationship with their family. It is sad.
There is plenty of blame to go around to both sides. Believing and former members alike are guilty of not respecting boundaries, not showing appropriate respect for others differing beliefs, and not trying enough to “suck it up” a bit for the relationship.
On this subject I was glad to hear what Richard Bushman had to say when Blair Hodges interviewed him on the Maxwell Institute Podcast episode #75 “To be Learned is Good.” At about 40:44 into the podcast you will hear this following exchange:
BH: What do you offer people, what kinds of ideas or thoughts do you offer to people who decide to step away from the church, decide to step away from Mormonism? And also to loved ones of people who have stepped away.
RB: Well, people will often come to me when there is a son in law on the verge of leaving the church and they are hoping I can say something that will turn them around. I have decided after a decade of doing this that I can’t. You know there is no argument I can give. I try to argue with them – It goes nowhere. It is like bible bashing in the mission field. It never gets anywhere. So I don’t do much of that. I agree with the facts of what people say. All these things did happen, so I don’t confute those things. What I wanted at first was to see the possibility there might be another way of looking at them. You don’t have to see them as damning. But now, I think more about this person’s life and what that person’s life and what that person’s life is going to be like if they leave the church. How are they going to fill that hole, mend the relationship with their spouse or their mother or someone or other.
I have seen members that have so much fear of what will happen to their non-believing family members that they push others away with this fear. And it is too common for those that no longer believe to be more invested in convincing believing members they need to stop believing in the LDS church. This reminds me of a comment I read in the Ensign that would be good for these members to read and take to heart.
A prophet of God once offered me counsel that gives me peace. I was worried that the choices of others might make it impossible for our family to be together forever. He said, “You are worrying about the wrong problem. You just live worthy of the celestial kingdom, and the family arrangements will be more wonderful than you can imagine.” (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/08/the-hope-of-eternal-family-love)
We do see examples of members that love no matter what their child’s faith or orientation, such as Tom Christofferson’s family. The Christofferson’s are not totally unique, but not as common as it needs to be.
For most readers of this blog, I could go on and on, but most will all have seen this themselves.
So what can be done about this? How can each side move past this?
I really like what Nate Bagley had to say in a blog he did late last year (and BTW – he has a great podcast “Lovumentary“)
He had a sectioned titled, “What you Should Do” where he is talking to church members.
The answer is simple: Stop trying to get them to come back to church! Just love them.
And this is certainly a case where what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
For those that have left the church, respect where your believing family and friends are in relation to the church. Stop trying to deconvert them. Just love them.
Terryl Givens had several suggestions on this topic also when he was on the LeadingLDS podcast. He suggested 3 items. (a) Try to have empathy and specifically he suggests trying to “feel” and not just “fix” the non-believer. (b) Bearing testimony does not answer questions, which Elder Ballard has said those days are gone. (c) Don’t criminalizing doubt.
I was listening to Hidden Brain podcast a week or so ago and they were covering the topic of “Counting Other People’s Blessings“. They touched on Schadenfreude (the pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others) and I did think how I have seen that in play. I am sure it goes both ways, but I will admit I have seen this more when “life” just occurs to someone that has left the church. When something bad occurs to a member it is explained simply as “a trial of faith” with no moral connotation. But when someone has left the faith a similar occurrence of misfortune is too often explained smugly as, “see what happens when you leave the church and no longer receive the blessings that come with it!”
The steps that can help on both sides of this issue can be hard to do. In most cases it will take both groups backing off a bit if the relationships are to be preserved.
So in your opinion:
Who needs to change more? The believing members or the former/disenfranchised? Or is that not even a question we should spend time on?
What are some suggestions you have seen successful?
Main picture By Tobias Alt – Own work, GFDL, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3064756
Wheat & Tares 
I have always thought that I need to change more. Change is always personal, so that in the larger context it doesn’t matter, since it is one’s own changes that one needs to focus on, and that is a lifetime process.
Other than that, we are part of a chain that is only as weak as its strongest link. Or why:
You are worrying about the wrong problem. You just live worthy of the celestial kingdom, and the family arrangements will be more wonderful than you can imagine.”
Well written Happy Hubby 😊. Both sides need to soften and allow the other side their freedom to believe as they choose. I think the believing LDS member needs to extend the olive branch first, as often the non-believer has already endured a tremendous amount of pain from the church for who they are or what they believe. Love should trump all else ❤.
Half the battle is turning a debate into a conversation. Once you stop trying to “correct” and seek to understand, you’ll get a lot further with the person and learn more about yourself and your own belief.
Many people talk about those who leave the LDS church as “losing their faith,” whereas for many of us we are simply finding a better version of our faith. My faith has never been on a firmer foundation than when I stepped away.
I think there is blame to go around here, though, like Stephen, I focus on myself and how I treat others. It is the only variable I control.
Some families outside the Church have difficult relationships with family members who join the Church, and some families inside the Church have difficult relationships with family members who leave the Church. This is normal, and the same dynamic plays in some other areas of change. Sometimes the family returns to harmony quickly — sometimes it takes a long time — sometimes it never happens.
It’s not just love — but a willingness to accept the facts is important. In the example of a LDS family and a family member who has left the faith, the LDS family has to accept the fact that the family member has left the faith — once they have accepted that fact, maybe they can continue with a healthy relationship. Similarly, the family member has to accept the fact that his or her family remains in the Church. Once he or she has accepted that fact, maybe he or she can continue with a healthy relationship. Right or wrong is irrelevant.
JR in AR – I struggle with who needs to chill a bit to help the situation. The counter to your statement that I have considered is that the person that has had a faith shift has a better understanding of both side – something most believing members don’t. It may depend on the dynamics of each relationship.
Andy – I agree. I probably should have thought to include the famous Stephen R. Covey of, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” And of course this goes for both sides.
I feel strongly and preach at every opportunity that who ultimately sits around our family table in the Celestial Kingdom is a matter far above my pay grade. My task is to make sure that there are no empty chairs around my table here and now. And my grandchildren know that Mama Lynnie has but one rule: Be kind.
I feel strongly it’s my job as the remainer to communicate acceptance and continuing and unalterable love.
Of course the relationship is affected because there are large parts of one’s life that can’t be shared with confidence, and that limits the scope of connection, but re-assurance that the love does not change, neither does the commitment to serve and support in all rational areas of life.
Been working on this for a few years now, and it’s a process to eradicate the anger and blame that are natural when things don’t work according to plan, but we have to remember that it’s our plan for others and may not be theirs.
I think Joseph’s statement that ‘we teach them correct principals and they govern themselves’ seems to be rarely quoted these days, but is the best guide I’ve come across in respecting the agency of others.
Exactly, Handlewithcare! I did not mean to imply any sort of manipulation or coercion in filling my table. Just kindness and love and listening and acceptance and more love and genuine pleasure in the company of all my children and more love and good food and pleasant conversation and yet more love. It’s funny, but the crowd around my table keeps expanding as we gather in strays, some who have uncomfortable relationships with their own believing families. There is so much to my dear ones to celebrate than whether they sit down he,t to me in a particular pew.
Fumble fingers! That should read “next to me”.
I don’t feel like it’s the norm for people to have so much difficulty accepting that other people may choose to live or believe differently. Maybe I’m just lucky but doesn’t every LDS family have people who are active/not active or believers/unbelievers? I don’t see a lot of obvious conflict over this. I could see it being pretty tough when one spouse changes their position after the marriage. It seems strange to ask which “side” should change more. I think it’s whoever is trying to control another person.
E,
You just may not have been around enough lifelong Utah Mormons.
The side that needs to put more effort into understanding is always the side with the most privilege.
On r/exmormon, it’s the unbelievers. (I’ve posted about this there before after seeing some abuse dished out to believing visitors.) Their confidence in their positions is partly due to agreement with their tribe, and partly at the cost of believers’ overall social standing. Their ability to speak without thinking about its effect on believers is due to their tribe’s loyalty to them. If a “TBM” wanders in looking for a respectful discussion, they should recognize their privileges and work against their strong-bordering-on-toxic biases.
In a believing Mormon family or in a ward, it’s the the believers that need to put more effort in. Their confidence in their positions is partly due to agreement with their tribe, and partly at the cost of unbelievers’ overall social standing. Their ability to speak without thinking about its effect on unbelievers is due to their tribe’s loyalty to them. When they talk about people who used to believe, they should recognize their privileges and work against their strong-bordering-on-toxic biases.
Unfortunately, the opposite is what actually happens. Online, in ex-Mormon forums, the believers have to step lightly or be pounced on and retaliated against for the slightest thing. In believing Mormon families and wards, the unbelievers are in the same position – and usually hide their views to avoid this because the real-life consequences are so much greater. I think I know why.
As much as I believe in the privileged putting more effort into understanding, when it comes to my own privilege online, I hate this calculus. I want compassion because I feel like I’m the one grieving the most. I’m the one who has to live in fear. I’m the one whose relationships with family are threatened by powerful people who tell lies about me. I want to be understood first because I feel like I already understand the other side.
And I think believers hate this calculus, too. They grieve the loss of unbelievers – their spiritual intimacy now, and their empty chairs in the hereafter. They live in fear of being tempted and deceived by Satan. Their eternal relationships are threatened by others who believe his lies. They want to be understood first because they feel like they already understand those who lose faith.
All the more reason to do it, then.
I just started listening to “The Hidden Brain” Makes my daily workouts go so much faster! Very good!
Bishop, you will find some brains a bit more hidden since they are so small. 🙂