Here’s an online article at The Verge that you should read: The Mormon Church vs. The Internet. Let me summarize it in a few words:
- Mormons make good neighbors.
- Unless you are an Ex-Mormon, then it’s completely different.
- Exiting the Church is a traumatic experience for most people.
A few highlights from the article. There’s this quote from FDR, in a letter to Churchill: “I have a very high opinion of the Mormons — for they are excellent citizens.” I wonder what Winston Churchill, noted for his withering ripostes, muttered under his breath on reading that line. Maybe nothing, as there were thousands of Latter-day Saints in the armed forces fighting alongside the British.
See if you can spot the new word in this paragraph:
In recent years, the Church has been embattled by the efficiency of the internet. It’s never been easier to stumble across information that contradicts the pillars of faith. That’s true for many religions but especially Mormonism, which has a very recent history. Where the unsavory specifics of an older faith’s origins may have been eroded by time, reduced to a handful of too-old-to-question texts and some shriveled relics, the early years of Mormonism are well-documented and easily examined online. The internet has also given Mormons new platforms, from forums to podcasts, where they can share their findings. The result has been a mass undoctrination.
Undoctrination. Now there’s a word we have needed for a few years. Once upon a time the Bloggernacle talked about “inoculation.” The idea was that by incorporating some treatment of difficult historical and doctrinal matters into the LDS curriculum, the membership and particularly younger members would be less likely to go ballistic as a result of stumbling onto that information from other sources. The Gospel Topics Essays and the new Saints historical volumes seem to adopt that approach, but they waited too long. Instead of inoculation, what younger Mormons are getting is undoctrination. They cruise the Internet for information long before they search LDS.org (where the Essays aren’t easy to find) or slog through the four volumes of Saints. I think Internet Undoctrination is the biggest challenge the Church is facing right now.
The balance of the article features discussion of the Exmormon subreddit, Quitmormon, unbaptized children of record, and Kirton McConkie, along with responses from a variety of disaffected or departed Mormons.
Normally I throw out a prompt to spur productive discussion in the comments. This time I’ll just invite you to respond to something in the essay that catches your interest. If you find nothing in the article that’s very interesting, maybe you’re reading the wrong blog.
Wheat & Tares 
I think it’s embarrassing that the church feels they need to be obstructionist about it. If people want to move on with their lives what’s the point of heel dragging and involving lawyers and notaries?
Churchill was instrumental in getting legislation passed that allowed missionaries to proselytize, for what it’s worth.
alice – That is a good question. But if you look at the church it does seem to hold membership numbers as something of great importance. I don’t know how much is verifiable, but I have heard that they have started including children of record (which is not unreasonable) and also not removing someone in the “location unknown” category until they are like 100 (or is it more? This information isn’t released). So given that, I can see that they are worried about losing not only the individual (no “blessings” that come with church membership as you enter into the afterlife), but the also are worried about the stats looking bad. So given how QuitMormon has started making more noise about how many have used his service, the church would like to discourage that route and instead have people contact their bishop. I assume they hope this 1×1 contact with a person will give the church a chance to try and reason the person out of quitting. I have heard others thinking the same thing. I do think the whole thing of requiring notarized requests via QuitMormon could backfire if that is picked up. It does seem a bit like asking your girlfriend for a notarized document for ending your relationship. I think the number of fraudulent resignations being pushed through QuitMormon probably isn’t huge. If an active member finds they have been maliciously resigned, it shouldn’t be that hard to push an “UNDO” button. Some might even ask if they could get baptized again for a “clean restart.”
David B – Undoctrination. That is a good catch and I agree that it perfectly describes the issue. I did skim the article and my main thought was, “interesting even though not much new information, but this isn’t the New York Times. So I am not sure if this means much unless the story gets picked up by other (larger) outlets.”
I can recall an informal, independent study a few years ago that concluded the internet was a net wash-out for the Church overall. Yes, people are leaving all the time, but people are finding out about it on the internet where they never would have before. In general, the only publications one will find those stories is the Ensign. I doubt it’s tantalizing media material otherwise.
Honestly, I sympathize with the “shunners” almost as much as I do those who feel shunned. You’ve made the Gospel the fabric of you’r entire life and a fundamental essence of who you are. A friend of yours has managed to remove that fabric from his or her own life almost entirely. Do you continue to impose your true nature on a friend who more or less despises all that that lifestyle stood for, or do you give him or her space to be themselves? Additionally, how keen is your friend on hanging out with someone who still holds to faulty beliefs and a corrupt church? Those may not be rational thoughts, but I think they go through the minds of active members more often than we might think. And yes, there are real shunners out there. Personally and fortunately, I’ve met very few of them in my life.
Scott Kenney wrote an interesting reflection for Sunstone in 2014 indicating that one of his regrets is resigning his membership decades ago. (https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/memories-and-reflections/)
Verge excerpt: When I ask her [vh65] if she ever feels disingenuous, moderating r/exmormon without being, officially, an ex-Mormon, she pauses for a second before answering. “Originally I just wanted to resign,” she says. “I want to be separated completely, but how can I do this without hurting my mom, who I really care deeply about?
I was amused by the writer’s take that it is disingenuous to be exmormon without “officially” being an exmormon (i.e. having your name removed). I consider myself exmormon but I too haven’t taken my name off the records either – for the same reason vh65 gave above. I’m tied into a number of post-mormon groups and there is a mix between those who’ve had their names removed and those who haven’t but I’m unaware of anyone who thinks you have to have your name removed to be considered a “real” exmormon.
I was active until the day I decided to leave. Unlike the accounts in the Verge, however, when I texted the Bishop to release me because I decided not to come back he sent one text back and that was the last time anyone from the church ever contacted me. That was six months ago.
For what it’s worth, the account of Joseph Smith’s blessing to Sarah Ann Whitney, promising unconditional eternal life to her whole family and father’s descendants if she married Joseph Smith, was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. No way I could regard Joseph Smith as anything but a sexual predator using the name of God in vain to satisfy himself after that. I later read worse accounts, such as his marriage to Lucy Walker – thanks internet. When I realized there was no way I could answer yes to the temple recommend questions about believing the restoration and sustaining the Q-15 as prophet, seers, and revelators with keys from God – that relied on Joseph Smith’s say-so, I knew it was time to leave.
Jana Riess has a new commentary up concerning her research on church defectors. https://religionnews.com/2019/07/02/why-cant-ex-mormons-just-leave-the-lds-church-alone/
She says that the majority of people leaving are in their teens and early 20s. They leave, bother no one doing it and never look back. At least by indicators so far. The smaller contingent who served missions, got married in the temple, met all the milestones. and now want to be cleanly and definitively separated from the church are the ones who are waiting in Mark Naugle’s queue. They’re making a lot of noise and showing their contempt for being thwarted in their efforts. The Josephs of The Verge article, in other words.
So why prolong the process and maintain a combat zone of unhappy, unwilling and uncompanionable people in this legalistic limbo? The Josephs are not happy about the situation. In their frustration they’re not contributing to the peaceful worshipful atmosphere for those who are and want to remain faithful. Their families can’t be thrilled with the needlessly drawn out struggle. And everyone knows they’re not really swelling the church’s ranks to the 16million member number which no one in their right mind could possibly take at face value.
Wouldn’t it be better to accept reality with a bit of humility and grace and then get on with servicing the community of people who choose to live a peaceful Mormon life in a peaceful Mormon community? Something is very wrong if church leaders can’t see this and chart a more honest path.
Personally, I think that the day will come when we’ll all look back and (to one degree or another) declare that the Internet and “easy access to information”…. really did gut the church we once knew. And for me at least, that’s not an entirely bad thing. For why would anyone want to live their entire life based upon a foundation of lies, half truths and cultural mythology. “The Church” made this meal….and I think they’re now being forced to eat it; distasteful as it might be. They just might starve before this is all through….
Interesting the undoctrination vs indoctrination dichotomy, especially when indoctrination was openly advocated at the BYU Women’s conference in May by Joy D. Jones, General Primary President
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/05/03/latter-day-saint-womens/
Two thoughts:
First, the photographs in that article are ridiculous polemics — every person outside the Church is looking out to the left (and into the future). Its the same kind of photos that a third-world political campaign would stage for their forward-thinking candidate.
Secondly, the article couldn’t have come up with worse examples if it had tried. Joseph was molested as a child — heartbreaking, to be certain, but also making him vulnerable for the manipulative tactics of Sam Young.[1] Mark’s family took him out the Church when he was 14 — no further information given as to why. Josh left the Church shortly after he was sent home off of his mission. Jamie’s experience lays clear that she has substantial cultural concerns about the Church (Molly Mormon, porn-shoulders [seriously, who says that?], and Game of Thrones).
I get that online isn’t the best environment in general, but I know a number of former members who have exit narratives far more rational than these — if I had left the Church, I would be frustrated that these are the templars they selected to represent me. And, even with that, I find their stories non-credible based upon my conversations with others who have left the Church. I suppose there could be some Member somewhere who cuts off face-to-face contact with them when they leave, but I have never heard anyone offline complaining about that happening — it appears to be strictly an online complaint.
That being said, I do imagine that happens online. I have heard of Members unfriending ex-Members online — but only because of constant negative posting towards the Church. One Member who was ready to unfriend someone reminded me of a joke as she explained her reasoning: ‘An atheist, a vegan, and a cross-fit enthusiast walked into a bar…and they made sure everyone knew it.’ Ironically that may, through self-selection, mean that those most upset about the Church are those most likely to find themselves isolated after leaving the Church (online, at least) as their hostility towards the Church leads to isolation which leads to increased hostility in a continuing negative cycle. But, I suppose, the people with more rational approaches aren’t the ones lingering on reddit pages daily multiple times a day, as Josh admitted doing.
[1] I have no doubt Sam Young has his defenders on this site, but having read his blog from beginning to end it is clear he is disingenuous. He was opposed to the Church for years based upon his interpretation of common consent, he acknowledged losing his testimony long before he found publicity with his cause for interviews, and when he first mentioned the interview issue on his blog he declared they weren’t a big deal. Eventually, though, he recognized he had found in the topic the hammer he had long sought to pound his particular nail.
The linked article claims several times that people who have left the church have been “harassed” by church members. But it also claims several times that people who have left the church were then ignored or shunned by members. Members are put in the impossible position of being damned for reaching out and being damned for not reaching out.
These contradictory desires are made more explicit by the story of the guy in charge of QuitMormon. It says that when people use the QuitMormon service, “…the letter also forbids further contact between the Church and his client. Mormons never have to reach out to their bishops to explain their decision to leave, and they won’t receive well-meaning visits from their former peers.” Yet even the founder of QuitMormon later laments the “shunning” his family felt when they left the church.
@KLC, I believe there is a clear distinction between receiving no contact from “The Church” and no contact from friends in my local congregation. As a less active member I appreciate when my LDS friends reach out to see how I’m doing or to ask me to join them when they are seeing a movie. Just because I don’t believe in the LDS church doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. I do not appreciate it when people reach out and try to get me to come back to church. And I would feel a significant loss if people I feel are friends started shunning me. You will receive no condemnation from former Mormons for reaching out in love and friendship; you will anger former Mormons if you reach out and try to “fellowship” the former Mormon back to church. It’s all about motive.
In short it is possible to simultaneously not ignore former members and not shun them.
Articles like this one often unquestioningly tout the Internet’s ability to get truth to people, with the implication that people leaving the Church have finally found previously undiscovered truth. What these often fail to point out is that the Internet has also spurred renewed interest in flat earth “science”, the anti-vaccination movement, and a host of conspiracy theories. In the context of Mormons, it means the CES letter, which has a ton of misleading information, ranging from uncharitable interpretations of facts to blatantly false claims.
The Internet has increased our access to information. That’s awesome when it’s reliable information, even if it’s uncomfortable. It’s truly unfortunate when the information is unreliable.
Jonathan-
I wonder if any of your exceptions to The Verge article explain why it’s reasonable, effective or desirable to stonewall people who want to leave the church by embroiling them in an unresponsive legal morass. I also wonder is it necessary to require notarized documents when the church itself doesn’t make that requirement for processing the same request to be dropped from church records. The church, after all, has been processing such requests for over a decade now.
I recently read that families outside the US are being required to go to American embassies where they’re charged as much as $50 per document by staff notaries. Is that a reasonable or necessary requirement for Kirton McConkie to run families through?
The question isn’t whether or not people have a right to choose their associations. And it isn’t whether or not the church can set up delays and roadblocks. It’s clear they can and did in the era between 2008 and when Mark Naugle set up shop in response to the delays and hoop jumping. The real questions are 1) is this what we expect from HF’s representatives on earth and 2) how does it represent the church to the general population who are becoming acquainted with church policies from the growing number of articles and news stories that are spilling into the general media. …often because they are so outrageous to the sensibilities of ordinary Americans.
People have wanted to leave the church in growing numbers since 2008 and the CA Prop 8 that the church got caught meddling in. Why not let them go? I can see concern for the eternal effects of such a decision. I can see making more efforts to reach out to people to demonstrate the preferability of staying within the church community and finding there what is greater than the exceptions that inspire a leave-taking. But, when the decision is made, who or what is served by making the process difficult? And does making the last contact so unpleasant reduce the possibility that anyone who is presently disaffected could change their mind and choose, at some point, to reaffiliate with what they’ve discovered they’ve lost?
I find it somewhat troubling that some commenters here cannot understand that there are options other than shunning on one hand and love-bombing on the other hand.
Both shunning and love-bombing assume that one can only interact with another based on the church. That is, you spend time with someone based on the idea of their being a member, or on the prospect that if only you treat them nicely enough, they’ll come back.
Shunning is the idea that if someone will not come back, then they should not be interacted with *at all*.
No, people who leave the church want to be able to engage with their family and friends, but on topics *other than the church*. Why is that such a strange concept, considering members of the church are supposedly able to do it all the time with their never-member coworkers and friends (even if the church may want these to turn into missionary moments as well.) I really do consider it one of the biggest socialization failures of the church that many folks literally see this as a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. Like, have you really been socialized to believe that these are your only options for interacting with people???
Regarding the article itself, it’s difficult to say whether the church is adding more requirements before it processes membership resignations just because it wants to make things harder for people, or if there actually were any fraudulent resignations. The issue is, as far as I know, QuitMormon has no audit trail — but neither does the church, really. Disaffected members want a way to quit with no questions asked, but the church wants to be able to ask questions to at least confirm the veracity of the request. From a disaffected member’s perspective, that certainly looks like stalling.
MT0dd, the problem with your comment is that you want to be the judge of what acceptable contact from church members will be, you want to be in charge of determining appropriate and non-appropriate contact that comes from other people. But you aren’t in charge of what other people will do. If you want contact you have to accept that some of that contact will not meet your standards. And if you don’t want contact you have to accept that will mean that some people will then ignore you. It’s not up to them to live up to your standards.
Andrew, I guess I find it troubling that you cannot understand what I said. The linked article and the comments from members it quotes do not make the nuanced distinctions you, like MTodd, want to impose on church members. If you have a problem with that then I would suggest you complain to them and not to someone who is only pointing out the inherent contradictions in their desires.
My takeaway from the article is the importance of community. The internet has been a lifeline for those who feel like outsiders in communities they once thrived in (whether they are just outside mainstream or have opted to leave the Church). Of course we would hear a higher percentage of accounts online of people being shunned in real life – there’s a reason these people are reaching out and finding solace in these online communities. Those who’ve been able to adjust their relationships IRL to still fit their communal needs aren’t going to be quite as traumatized and virulent.
The notary thing is weird, but I agree that there has to be some sort of quality check. From what I’ve heard in our stake, the names just drop off the rolls when the members resign. Unless the individual contacts local leaders themselves, the leaders have no clue what caused the member to make that decision.
The fact that the Church taught people to be suspicious when anyone voices concerns is honestly the reason we are in such a toxic situation with this subgroup. It’s too easy to demonize members in faith crises, treating them as infectious and putting them in quarantine when they need the strength of community the most. Then, when they’ve finally been able to find a different community that actually embraces them, we are surprised to find them resign.
@KLC, yes I get to be the judge of what is acceptable when people interact with me. It’s not fair to other people if I don’t set clear expectations of what I find acceptable. It’s not fair to me if they don’t abide by what I find acceptable. (That’s harassment.)
Let me give you an example. I told my home teachers (which shows you how long ago this was) that they were welcome to come and visit and get to know my family but I made it clear that I didn’t want any gospel message. They came and visited and after 20 minutes asked if they could share a gospel message. That’s unacceptable.
Long ago (mid- to late- 1990s), I was a ward clerk. When a member wanted his name removed and followed the Church’s instructions, our kind-hearted bishop didn’t want to do it for all sorts of genuine and honest (but paternalistic and do-gooder) reasons. I reminded him of President Packer’s instructions to process the name removal promptly, and the bishop was sincerely torn between following President Packer’s (and the Church’s) instructions and his own genuine and honest (but paternalistic and do-gooder) inclinations. He did not process the name removal, notwithstanding Elder Packer’s (and the Church’s) instructions. The next bishop did, but the stake president felt conflicted for the same reasons. Bishops and stake presidents are not Church employees — they are our neighbors — and they often find it difficult to administer the Church’s simple administrative instructions — they think they are helping save to soul of the person seeking name removal.
MTodd, I honestly think we’re talking about two different things here. The cited article in the OP talks in broad brush strokes and I responded to those broad strokes. You and Andrew replied with specific situations. Both are valuable and I don’t think either invalidate the other.
When I read the cited article two themes jumped out at me that are so common in Mormon exit stories they almost constitute creation myths. Both themes imply elements of bad intent on the part of church members and victimhood on the part of those leaving. The first one is, “Those terrible Mormons won’t leave my innocent family alone just because we left the church.” The second one is, “Those terrible Mormons totally ignored my innocent family just because we left the church.” Those two themes are just not compatible. My comments are solely directed at those two broad and almost universal themes present in this article, on exmormon reddit, and in so many of John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories.
You and Andrew are both correct that universal themes are not enough when dealing with specific situations and actual people but that is not what I was addressing.
Very poor journalism “He canceled the automatic payments that withdrew a 10 percent tithe from his income each month.”
An automatic tithing withdrawal is literally impossible, even if you work for the Church.
You have to push the tithing yourself, from you bank account or go to LDS.org each time.
@JPV, perhaps he had the automatic payment set up through his bank account to withdraw 10% of his income and push it to the church.
“what younger Mormons are getting is undoctrination.”
That’s part of their “opposition in all things”.
If you were not converted, you must still face a test, just as Luke Skywalker faced a test in a cave on Dagobah: https://www.starwars.com/news/studying-skywalkers-figuratively-exploring-the-dagobah-cave
What’s in there?
Only what you take in there with you.
Who benefits from the result of the test? Each person that takes the test. It helps me make choices.
Andrew S. writes “I find it somewhat troubling that some commenters here cannot understand that there are options other than shunning on one hand and love-bombing on the other hand.”
Whereas I find it worth responding to someone that complains about the limitations of other commenters. As it happens many people are “binary” and really do have exactly two choices in any particular realm of activity. I believe good reasons exist for that behavior but stretch the topic slightly.
My grandmother was one such person. She wanted me to love and adore her, which I did, but her measure of that was how many cookies I ate. When as a child I could eat many; as I approached middle age I found it prudent to stop after three or four of her very rich oatmeal cookies. She was offended that I didn’t eat the entire plateful of at least a dozen.
In her mind I was still her grandchild, with emphasis on “child” and she could not see that I was now an adult. She simply couldn’t go there; her brain wasn’t wired for it. Being unable to craft a new relationship we ended up with none.
My other grandmother, on the other hand, after a bit of difficulty establishing my adulthood, adapted to the new reality and we got along famously until she died at the age of 96.
This simple fact of life (among others) is why assigned Home Teaching sometimes did not work well when one person requires behavior that another simply isn’t equipped to perform; or its converse, requires never performing a behavior that to the other is automatic and instinctive.
Jonathan: Dude, you really put your ignorance, self-righteousness and condescension on full display today. I hadn’t had you pegged as a full blown “Mormon Chest Pounder”…..but your comment today – brought me back to the startling reality. May you never have someone close to you (whom you love) leave “the Covenant Path”. I’d be worried about them….
MTodd writes “In short it is possible to simultaneously not ignore former members and not shun them”
In some circumstances I can see this, but in many circumstances I do not. Back east when converts are friends, and one un-converts, they can still go golfing together as they did before any of them converted. They MIGHT even be able to have a conversation about religion (and politics) without a presumption of proselytizing.
But in Zion, church is infused in rather a lot of ordinary social activity. Suppose you have a “block party”. What do you suppose is going to become topics of conversation? That’s right; genealogy, family, and do you really say “ministering” at home like suddenly we are evangelical Christians?
Or go to an “R” rated movie. Elsewhere, who cares? They’re usually better movies. PG-13’s are the worst. But in Zion, admitting to seeing “R” rated movies is enough to trigger shunning or at least a very uncomfortable embarrassment since nobody is going to talk to you about Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Terminator”.
Quite frankly, religion is an important part of my life. Not “church” per se, but religion as it impacts my place and purpose in the universe. If you are my friend, we will talk about religion (and a great many other things).
Michael2, your comment makes me sad for people who live in so called Zion.
Lefthandloafer asks “why would anyone want to live their entire life based upon a foundation of lies, half truths and cultural mythology.”
I have no idea; its your straw-argument, you answer!
“Jonathan: Dude, you really put your ignorance, self-righteousness and condescension on full display today”
I found Jonathan’s comment direct and unequivocal; refreshing in that sense. People leave church for any reason or no reason. Online complainers are by necessity a self-selected subset that “bleed so you can hear the splashes” (to quote Poul Anderson).
For what its worth (not much) I cannot read the Verge article: “An error occurred during a connection to http://www.theverge.com. Peer reports incompatible or unsupported protocol version. (Error code: ssl_error_protocol_version_alert) “
The internet merely speeds up the process described in D&C 88 by making it easy to find your own “kingdom” right now. 100 years ago you were pretty much obliged to conform to whatever society you happened to be born into.
DC 88:33 what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift?
Consequently, a vast array of lifestyle choices are presented thanks to the internet, making it easy to choose your style. What is interesting is the authority still granted “the church” even upon leaving! You cannot leave until the church says you can leave. Really? That’s an implicit grant of authority to someone else to make your life choices. Amazing!
So here’s a woman (probably) that has waited on this authority for permission to leave, and is happy to finally have it; it’s almost like receiving her mission call:
Harold B. Lee: “If you couldn’t live the law of the gospel here, you wouldn’t be very happy in the celestial kingdom where that is required over there, would you? You would have to be more comfortable in another place.” https://gospeldoctrine.com/doctrine-covenants/sections-81-100/section-88
Well that was unexpected. I posted a link, didn’t expect it to actually post the picture and text!
KLC,
No, I am serving as your exmo whisperer when I tell you that you are incorrect.
Here am I, an exmo, long-time listener to Mormon Stories, and participant (heck, even colleague to vh65) on /r/exmormon, telling you, that these two themes are entirely compatible *because* exmormons understand what you continue not to: that there is a middle ground between love bombing and shunning.
When people say, “Those terrible Mormons won’t leave my innocent family alone just because we left the church,” this is written in response to attempts of *love bombing* — communication aimed to try to shame someone for leaving the church or to convince them to come back.
When people say, “Those terrible Mormons totally ignored my innocent family just because we left the church,” this is written in response to shunning — cutting off *all* communication because they believe the former member to be out of reach, unable to be reconverted, or dangerous to still faithful members.
Michael 2,
I actually think the question of authority is actually very meaningful, but I’d complicate it.
I, like, vh65, have not resigned my membership, but for me, it’s because I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t have to worry about upsetting family members or anything like that — I just haven’t experienced it to be of much consequence to get my name taken off the rolls
But I understand that other people have different circumstances that make formally cutting ties have importance. For many, if they are still on the rolls, then they will *continue* to be contacted as “less active members” in an attempt to reactivate them.
It’s not that exmormons need permission to *leave*. It’s that our wishes are often not respected unless we formally tell the institution to stop. It’s kinda like if you have to get a restraining order on someone else. Does that mean that you need their “permission” to leave them? No, that’s not what a restraining order is for. A restraining order is because someone else won’t respect your wishes. It is a document that legally enjoins them to respect your wishes EDIT: or face legal consequences.
@jpv – My tithing is paid automatically from my bank account each month.
Andrew is so right (as usual). Mormons need to do better at being able to converse with each other about non-church related topics. We went to dinner with two other Mormon couples recently and conversation always drifted back toward the church, despite my efforts to steer it in a different direction. My annual ski trip with my friends (a mix of Mo, kind of Mo and ex-Mo) also features lengthy discussions on church topics, which for a while I really liked, but now am ready to move on.
Andrew your status with the church is irrelevant for this discussion. I’m here to tell you as a reader of assorted exmormon stories on the internet for the last two decades and pre internet for at least that long that these two opposite desires are regularly lamented in tandem, in all of their broad brush glory, with no accompanying nuance. Again, if you want nuance please demand it of your exited friends making the arguments and not from someone who is just pointing out that the these two ubiquitous talking points, when presented as some kind of argument for the heartlessness of Mormons, are mutually exclusive.
And actually believing that I don’t understand the nuances that govern these two desires when applied to real world human interaction between members and exited friends and family just shows you haven’t tried to understand what my objection is. I’m not saying that people don’t overstep boundaries or that people may ignore. I’m saying that as talking points, as evidence given for just how terrible mormons are, you can’t demand to be left alone and then lament that people left you alone.
@KLC, please provide specific examples of exmormons lamenting these two opposite desires in tandem.
KLC,
And I am telling you that these two opposite desires have no inconsistency. There is utterly no inconsistency with someone wanting not to be lovebombed and also not to be shunned.
You think that without some sort of “accompanying nuance” that these two statements are incompatible because you’re reading it from a perspective that sees these two ways of interacting as being the only two ways some can be interacted with.
I am saying there is no need for nuance in these statements because ordinary people understand that there are more ways to interact with people other than Mormon lovebombing or Mormon shunning.
Let me try to break it down again for you
You said, in a quote of an exmormon perspective
I am telling you that this statement needs NO further nuance. It is clear from this statement alone that what is wanted is that Mormons will leave exmormons alone *with respect to church*. What is lamented is the fact that many Mormons do not, in fact, know how to leave Mormons alone *with respect to church*. They constantly try to reactivate, lovebomb, re-engage *regarding the church*.
So, when you counter that to:
I am pointing out straightforwardly that the first request is not a request for Mormons to “totally ignore” people on every aspect. It’s ONLY a request for Mormons to leave a family alone regarding the church.
So for a Mormon to interpret a request to leave a family alone regarding church matters as a request to “totally ignore” them is a socially stunted interpretation.
MTodd go back to my first comment, I quoted from the article that is cited in the OP, Andrew, we’re not getting anywhere but let me leave with a final thought. If you represent the wisdom and experience of an exmormon with this issue (although I don’t understand how you think that your personal experience should represent truth for all who have left the church) then I represent the wisdom and experience of someone who stayed in the church and has dealt with friends, family members and ward members who have left and who both want to be left alone and not ignored. It’s not nearly as logical or as simple as you portray it. People generally aren’t logical or simple, not the ones who stay or the ones who go. But, again, specific examples of what and what not to say and do are not what I’m talking about. It’s an important and valid conversation but it’s not what I’m talking about. But you don’t seem interested in what I’m talking about, you’d rather call me socially stunted and think you’ve said something profound.
@KLC, I have already responded to the example in your first comment. You just didn’t like my response because it requires seeing nuance where you don’t want to see it. I imagine that this is the case with most other examples you would cite.