Article: Confessions of an Ex-Mormon

[Jacob]

Fair enough. I assume part of that is time and maybe as SU was saying it is the low exit cost he paid. I don't think many people feel that way on day one or even decade one. But I like the way you have framed it here....gives me something to think about.

Like UD, I've never interacted with an exmo as magnanimous as the author of this piece, and as SU pointed out, its likely because his investment was so limited.

I think you two need to get out and meet more real people.

[UtahDan]

I think the majority of ex-mos very angry at the mormon church are likely just individuals who struggle being happy and struggle taking control of their individual lives. Folks like that always want or need someone else to blame. Obviously, the LDS Church and Culture are very much weblike and obviously it would be unfair for someone to not recognize the trauma and difficulties breaking away would create, but in my very limited experiences I propose that the most bitter ones will always struggle with the temptation to blame others for their challenges. Some people act and others are acted upon and when those who spend much of their lives being acted upon figure out they don't like the directions the winds of life took them they lash out and blame the winds. I hope some learn that lesson but with the religious like reinforcement of the various ex-mo communities that the bogeyman is the Church, it would be hard to have that moment of introspection. I remember when my wife was listening to Dr Laura and she said some people like to be controlled and then want to get upset at how they are controlled.

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying old pal, you are taking a very common, normal, human reaction that I dare say most people have when they leave and sort of looking down your nose at it as though these people are weak somehow. That is just a slightly softer version of people leave because they are weak, want to sin, etc., the gist of it being to put the speaker on a higher plane somehow. I have a lot of respect for people who have been on this road for a while and for people who have walked up to the edge and had to make tough choices about what direction they will go, thought about what they might have to give up, and made a choice to stay in. That takes some brass and comes at a cost.

When someone in that camp says "here is a better way to get at peace" I perk up and listen. Because as Bob Dylan put it, the wheel is still in spin for me. But a lot of the confident assertions that I hear on this board about what people think they would do or what others ought to do are made from a place of profound ignorance, even if it is sincere and well intended. If anyone wants to say to me "when you do X, I feel Y and that is something you ought think about" I should listen because in life each of us experience things in a way valid to us. We should respect that in each other (the best example of this I know of is the holocaust victim proxy work where the church has essentially said, we're not trying to offend you but the fact you are offended is sufficient reason for us to stop). But when someone who has never been in the neighborhood of walking in my shoes says "here's what I'd do, here's what you should do" and the implication is they would do it better....like I say, that is profoundly ignorant.

[UtahDan]

I think you two need to get out and meet more real people.

I think that I will interact with exmormons this week than you will in your entire life.

[lambdacoug]

I think that I will interact with exmormons this week than you will in your entire life.

Indeed.

[jay santos]

Indeed.

I bet I will interact with more exmo's not participating on rfm this week than you will in your lifetime.

[Jacob]

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying old pal, you are taking a very common, normal, human reaction that I dare say most people have when they leave and sort of looking down your nose at it as though these people are weak somehow. That is just a slightly softer version of people leave because they are weak, want to sin, etc., the gist of it being to put the speaker on a higher plane somehow. I have a lot of respect for people who have been on this road for a while and for people who have walked up to the edge and had to make tough choices about what direction they will go, thought about what they might have to give up, and made a choice to stay in. That takes some brass and comes at a cost.

I really don't get it. You say that becoming angry with the church is the reaction most people who leave the church have. Most of us think you are crazy to believe your numbers are correct. Maybe we are all speaking of different subsets of people. I speak of the typical person who stops attending church and stops believing generally while you speak of people who have determined that the church is a fraud. It is obvious that your subset of people is going to be more angry than the average non-believer. This guy who wrote the article, IMO, is your typical non-believer/inactive member. The people you know are a much smaller minority and I won't dispute that they are angry people.

[Jacob]

I think that I will interact with exmormons this week than you will in your entire life.

Headed to a convention? Kinda proves my point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I bet I will interact with more exmo's not participating on rfm this week than you will in your lifetime.

I have already interacted with a non-angry exmo this week. By his own admission, that is more than AC has met in his lifetime.

[UtahDan]

Exactly. I should introduce you to my three sisters and mother. Honestly, it's just because the only people you interact with are the people who can't get over the church (rightfully or wrongfully). Lot's of people just drift away and look on their time as a Mormon with fondness, but it just isn't for them. These are the people who simply identify themselves as non-Mormon or no-longer Mormon, not ex-Mormon.

I'm curious, how old are they? I think the idea that people like me interact with a self selecting group is a fair point. On the other hand, I also think that the whole phenomenon of support communities or places to talk about experiences is relatively new. At very least it is much, much larger than it has ever been and has moved from solely being the extremely angry exmo boards that were the only game in town for a while to a lot bigger variety and a lot more people (still come back to the fact that probably the most critical podcast out there has 100K downloads monthly, give or take, to refute the idea that the critical crowd is actually quite small. All my anecdotal experience is that if anything it is much larger than who we see interacting directly).

I think part of this may be that there is a silent group of people who just slip away and never feel the need to commiserate about. But I am also suspecting that there are a lot of people out there who are perceived to be in that group who simply had no opportunity to connect with anyone else when their disaffection occurred. So in some ways their experience might not be comparable to someone who has left in the last few years, because given the option to commiserate, talk, and yes bitch, they would have done it.

[lambdacoug]

I bet I will interact with more exmo's not participating on rfm this week than you will in your lifetime.

I actually don't participate in any rfm, MoSto, MoEx, etc... communities any longer and my only daily interaction with anything mormon church related is this site, and that is because of my love for BYU football, not anger at the mormon church. That I comment on stories about religion and mormonism is only because they pique my interest as mormonism is still relevant in my life.

[Goatnapper'96]

Here is the problem I have with what you are saying old pal, you are taking a very common, normal, human reaction that I dare say most people have when they leave and sort of looking down your nose at it as though these people are weak somehow. That is just a slightly softer version of people leave because they are weak, want to sin, etc., the gist of it being to put the speaker on a higher plane somehow. I have a lot of respect for people who have been on this road for a while and for people who have walked up to the edge and had to make tough choices about what direction they will go, thought about what they might have to give up, and made a choice to stay in. That takes some brass and comes at a cost.

When someone in that camp says "here is a better way to get at peace" I perk up and listen. Because as Bob Dylan put it, the wheel is still in spin for me. But a lot of the confident assertions that I hear on this board about what people think they would do or what others ought to do are made from a place of profound ignorance, even if it is sincere and well intended. If anyone wants to say to me "when you do X, I feel Y and that is something you ought think about" I should listen because in life each of us experience things in a way valid to us. We should respect that in each other (the best example of this I know of is the holocaust victim proxy work where the church has essentially said, we're not trying to offend you but the fact you are offended is sufficient reason for us to stop). But when someone who has never been in the neighborhood of walking in my shoes says "here's what I'd do, here's what you should do" and the implication is they would do it better....like I say, that is profoundly ignorant.

Would it have been better if I preceded it with a disclaimer that I honestly had no intention of mocking the pussies of this world?

[jay santos]

I really don't get it. You say that becoming angry with the church is the reaction most people who leave the church have. Most of us think you are crazy to believe your numbers are correct. Maybe we are all speaking of different subsets of people. I speak of the typical person who stops attending church and stops believing generally while you speak of people who have determined that the church is a fraud. It is obvious that your subset of people is going to be more angry than the average non-believer. This guy who wrote the article, IMO, is your typical non-believer/inactive member. The people you know are a much smaller minority and I won't dispute that they are angry people.

Of the people in the 25 - 60 age bracket (CUF peers), a very large portion (70%?) of Utah is Mormon or was Mormon at one point in their lives. Yet on any given Sunday, a much smaller portion (30%?) of the state attends an LDS church.

This leaves you with let's say 300K adults in Utah that were once Mormon and are not attending church. Of those maybe half are just wishy washy inactives who still strongly relate to Mormonism and maybe attend church once a month or at least a few times a year.

Of the remaining 150K, how many do you think are fairly represented by the bitter, angry internet exmo? I'm going to say no more than 20%. That number might be high.

[SeattleUte]

This is the source of my mixed emotions. It is really well written. It is also confirmatory of some really negative (IMO) stereotypes about exmos (I know its true, I'm just to weak to stand in the light). I think I have to take him at his word there, but it could also be the case that he is trying to ingratiate himself...though why? And if he thinks its so great, why not reconnect to it? I think he has had a very unique experience, but who knows. He is certainly a believers kind of exmo (the kind that flatters you).

He never said he knew the dogma, the magic world view, was true. On the contrary; he was very dismissive of it. Actually, he's lamenting he doesn't have a fortitude to be your plain vanilla unbelieving progressive Mormon. He's standing on its head my refrain that progmos are weak.

He's a writer in need of an angle. That's all. It's hard to keep saying something new. Just look at all the garbage in magazine and newspaper op-eds.

He's also a fiction writer. I've noticed that even among the most brilliant or successful many are dopes outside their craft, certainly not exceptional. Just look at Orson Scott Card.

[UtahDan]

I really don't get it. You say that becoming angry with the church is the reaction most people who leave the church have. Most of us think you are crazy to believe your numbers are correct. Maybe we are all speaking of different subsets of people. I speak of the typical person who stops attending church and stops believing generally while you speak of people who have determined that the church is a fraud. It is obvious that your subset of people is going to be more angry than the average non-believer. This guy who wrote the article, IMO, is your typical non-believer/inactive member. The people you know are a much smaller minority and I won't dispute that they are angry people.

I'm not making that claim that all people are angry. Let's be clear on that. I am claiming that most people go through a period where they are hurt or upset or angry or some or all of those and they have to work through that. Most people who leave also have some criticism or they wouldn't be leaving. Maybe what this guy is typical of is the convert who is in for a while then drifts off consequence free. So to the extent people are saying, there is a large group who has no negative feelings who just left because it cost them nothing...that makes sense to me. That is probably north of 80% of the people on the rolls on the church in south America. But to then extrapolate that to people who are lifers and call the lifers outliers because of their reaction is not a fair comparison.

I mean, do you know a lot of exmormons who left the church, upsetting their families, damaging their relationships often including their marriages who are serene and philosophical and complimentary of the church? I would love to know how that is achieved without the aid of narcotics.

[UtahDan]

Headed to a convention? Kinda proves my point.

What is your point Jacob? Would you mind restating it?