Article: Confessions of an Ex-Mormon

[Commando]

Part of not being bitter is to be happy in your own skin, some advice I've given to BYU football fans.

[SeattleUte]

I don't get it, SU. Like you, I prefer McCarthy, but Kirn is a quality writer.

I never criticized his writing. I said he was a bit of a phony, and like a soldier who spent the Vietnam war in his college campus national guard -- humping coeds, smoking pot and getting drunk, thinking about calculus and Socrates -- later picking up some veteran's benefits -- then waxing about what a wonderful experience the Vietnam war was.

[SeattleUte]

The actual truth of it all was mostly irrelevant. I think that's something to keep in mind.

Not hard to keep in mind here. It could be Cuf's epigraph.

[Donuthole]

Let me try to focus you on what I am claiming. I am claiming that it is difficult for lifers who disaffect, as well as their loved ones, to go through someone leaving the church. I have said this in response to the idea that plenty of people just leave without a peep and no one in their families really cares or even notices and that maybe this is ideal.

I don't see where Jacob has said there no one in their family would notice or care. I believe he said they would notice and care, and that he would expect the family to still love the person, but that loving the person would become more difficult if the person acted like a jerk.

Do you want to try to defend the ground that Jacond seems to have staked out that most lifers slip away quietly, think affectionately of the church and that this has no real impact in their personal lives unless they act like a jerk? You can call it a narrow slice if you want to (did I mention 100K downloads a month on one podcast alone that is pretty negative?) and equate that Jacob basing his opinion on what he would like to be true as well as the zero people he knows who are as he describes, but I don't think it is fair to.

Again, I don't think Jacob has said this. In fact, I think this is the first time you have made it abundantly clear that you are only talking about life-long, died in the wool, true blue, Pioneer-ancestry Mormons. I don't think anybody will disagree that such a Mormon's disaffection from the Church will be more eventful than that of a recent convert or someone whose family is not particularly active.

[RobinFinderson]

I never criticized his writing. I said he was a bit of a phony, and like a soldier who spent the Vietnam war in his college campus national guard -- humping coeds, smoking pot and getting drunk, thinking about calculus and Socrates -- later picking up some veteran's benefits -- then waxing about what a wonderful experience the Vietnam war was.

Except all of that dry humping and pot-smoking is happening to Kirn when he is a teenager (not a college coed who chooses to avoid life experience) whose family is struggling financially because the primary breadwinner is a failed lawyer who comes to Mormonism from a position desperation. That sounds pretty authentic to me.

[Moliere]

I think UD has a valid point in that TBM families, like the one I grew up in, have a difficult time with a kid who strays and it ultimately makes it difficult both involved (the family and the wayward son/daughter). A lot of the identity of TBMs is within the bounds of the church, which can lead to some isolation for the wayward person.

However, it's been my experience that TBM families have always shown love and respect for the wayward person, in fact they go out of their way to love and respect them. My parents never treated my brother or my sister (both have strayed and one came back) any differently than they treat the believing kids.

It's also been my experience that most of the animosity comes when the wayward person tries to explain why they left, complete with pushing literature or "facts" that made them leave. Or equally the animosity comes when the TBM family continues to send church literature or continues to publicly solicit for them to return to the church. Both scenarios are disrespectful, at least IMO.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think UD has a valid point in that TBM families, like the one I grew up in, have a difficult time with a kid who strays and it ultimately makes it difficult both involved (the family and the wayward son/daughter). A lot of the identity of TBMs is within the bounds of the church, which can lead to some isolation for the wayward person.

However, it's been my experience that TBM families have always shown love and respect for the wayward person, in fact they go out of their way to love and respect them. My parents never treated my brother or my sister (both have strayed and one came back) any differently than they treat the believing kids.

It's also been my experience that most of the animosity comes when the wayward person tries to explain why they left, complete with pushing literature or "facts" that made them leave. Or equally the animosity comes when the TBM family continues to send church literature or continues to publicly solicit for them to return to the church. Both scenarios are disrespectful, at least IMO.

I don't think a single person here has argued that leaving the church isn't difficult for many people. Rather, what we are reacting to is the notion that non-bitter ex-mos are so rare as to render the essay in question as unbelievable. That's just nonsense.

[Non Sequitur]

You should do more than skim. There is some good stuff here.

I read every post. JL must have deleted the good stuff.

Most of this stuff is pretty ridiculous...nothing more ridiculous than the circular assertion that all Ex-Mos are bitter and then people like AthiestCoug informing us that Mormons who just stop going to Church and leave it behind are not really Ex-Mos. You have to "actively" leave -- whatever that means -- to be an Ex-Mo.

[lambdacoug]

I think UD has a valid point in that TBM families, like the one I grew up in, have a difficult time with a kid who strays and it ultimately makes it difficult both involved (the family and the wayward son/daughter). A lot of the identity of TBMs is within the bounds of the church, which can lead to some isolation for the wayward person.

However, it's been my experience that TBM families have always shown love and respect for the wayward person, in fact they go out of their way to love and respect them. My parents never treated my brother or my sister (both have strayed and one came back) any differently than they treat the believing kids.

It's also been my experience that most of the animosity comes when the wayward person tries to explain why they left, complete with pushing literature or "facts" that made them leave. Or equally the animosity comes when the TBM family continues to send church literature or continues to publicly solicit for them to return to the church. Both scenarios are disrespectful, at least IMO.

My family attempts to show their love and respect, but it is on their very mormon terms. That's fine, I understand it and I'm always grateful and gracious. The thing that makes it difficult for me is that I cannot be honest with them for fear of how it will affect my relationship to them. It is difficult to sit there silently while everyone shares their accomplishments and feelings about things, but I have to censor everything that I value so as to not offend. So while they are loving, I find it to be a very shallow thing. I listened to my friend's MoEx podcast where he interviewed his dad, and it was very difficult to listen to. I would like the church to officially soften the way it speaks about those of us that have disaffected, it is the only way I will be able to have an honest relationship with my parents again. This is why mormonism remains relevant in my life and it is the one thing that still angers me, the church stands between me and my relationship with my loved ones.

[Surfah]

I haven't had time to read through this thread, but if it hasn't been pointed out yet I thought I'd just remind you all that UtahDan and SU aren't ex-Mormons. Technically speaking.

[SeattleUte]

I don't think a single person here has argued that leaving the church isn't difficult for many people. Rather, what we are reacting to is the notion that non-bitter ex-mos are so rare as to render the essay in question as unbelievable. That's just nonsense.

I think more what I'm skeptical of is some here's simplistic reading of the essay.

There's a subtext and he gave you a lot of clues. Not bitter? Apparently he had his name removed from Church records. He said he was sickened and angered by Prop 8. I wonder if asked what he'd say about the priesthood ban and the continuing cowardice in dealing with it forthrightly. It's not too hard to guess. He dismissed the magic world view, in fact in a sort of folksy graceful way he ridiculed the lore about the Garden of Eden and the Second Coming of Christ occurring in Jackson County MO.

He never mentioned reading the Book of Mormon or made any personal connection with the Mormon story or its canon. In fact he said Mormonism is all about the people. Yes, so are many other things. What he praises about Mormonism is hardly unique to it, though that lore feeds the Mormon ego.

In Beverly Hills, he was experiencing his breakthrough after a lot of tough times times as a struggling artist (a novel of his being made into a film with George Cloony); the bad credit rating and being broke probably are true facts (he even met his girlfriend on the Internet!); most writiers even ones book published multiple times don't make a lot of money, a lot less than the median income of lawyers (I'm not jealous, it's just a fact). He was grateful for the little bridge he got from the pretty LDS kids there, but didn't hesitate to set up his fuck pad and quaff his beers (I sense a smirk on his face while he did this) as they ate their chocolate sundaes and cookies and lemonade (which are a lot less healthy than beer in moderation).

[RobinFinderson]

I haven't had time to read through this thread, but if it has been pointed out yet I thought I'd just remind you all that UtahDan and SU aren't ex-Mormons. Technically speaking.

UD&SU Surfah

[lambdacoug]

IMO, there is a vast difference between those that just don't attend and those that actively leave, and which I would classify as exmo/postmo. If you are including people that haven't been to church in forever and slowly faded away, then I agree that I know far more of these people, and they are not angry, bitter, etc... However, that isn't the group I think of when I think of exmormon.

I read every post. JL must have deleted the good stuff.

Most of this stuff is pretty ridiculous...nothing more ridiculous than the circular assertion that all Ex-Mos are bitter and then people like AthiestCoug informing us that Mormons who just stop going to Church and leave it behind are not really Ex-Mos. You have to "actively" leave -- whatever that means -- to be an Ex-Mo.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't making a categorical statement of what it means to be an exmo, rather that, to me, there is a big difference between people that passively stop attending and people that become disaffected. Perhaps I should add some more qualifiers to make it clear that it was my opinion, not a statement of fact...you know things like "IMO" or "I think".

[Pheidippides]

I don't think a single person here has argued that leaving the church isn't difficult for many people. Rather, what we are reacting to is the notion that non-bitter ex-mos are so rare as to render the essay in question as unbelievable. That's just nonsense.

And I think we should also remember that the Internet representation of a person is not the real person. I am much less of an asshole in real life, as people who have met me will attest. I'm also much more private about my religious beliefs - nobody in the world outside of the people here know what I believe, except my wife (a progmo like me). Moliere and I chatted too, but I knew him here first.

So perhaps the exmos I know IRL are the same exmos assholes on rfm. It's hard to be offensively in your face about something when the face is actually there and no anonymity is afforded. Unless you are a missionary - I was offensive all the time back then.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think more what I'm skeptical of is some here's simplistic reading of the essay.

There's a subtext and he gave you a lot of clues. Not bitter? Apparently he had his name removed from Church records. He said he was sickened and angered by Prop 8. I wonder if asked what he'd say about the priesthood ban and the continuing cowardice in dealing with it forthrightly. It's not too hard to guess. He dismissed the magic world view, in fact in a sort of folksy graceful way he ridiculed the lore about the Garden of Eden and the Second Coming of Christ occurring in Jackson County MO.

He never mentioned reading the Book of Mormon or made any personal connection with the Mormon story or its canon. In fact he said Mormonism is all about the people. Yes, so are many other things. What he praises about Mormonism is hardly unique to it, though that lore feeds the Mormon ego.

In Beverly Hills, he was experiencing his breakthrough after a lot of tough times times as a struggling artist (a novel of his being made into a film with George Cloony); the bad credit rating and being broke probably are true facts (he even met his girlfriend on the Internet!); most writiers even ones book published multiple times don't make a lot of money, a lot less than the median income of lawyers (I'm not jealous, it's just a fact). He was grateful for the little bridge he got from the pretty LDS kids there, but didn't hesitate to set up his fuck pad and quaff his beers (I sense a smirk on his face while he did this) as they ate their chocolate sundaes and cookies and lemonade (which are a lot less healthy than beer in moderation).

You are just repeating yourself. Over and over.

Fascinating that an essay like this would strike such a nerve with you. Speaks volumes.