You might remember my recently posted leaving story, "An End to Cognitive Dissonance" (posted online at http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/2589/ ). Anyway, for whomever's amusement, I'm including in this post my recent response to my former bishop's reply to my leaving letter (if that makes any sense). For those who need a recap, my bishop responded like this to my leaving letter:
I write to express appreciation for your thoughtfulness in providing me [with] advance notice of your decision to withdraw from the Church & for sending along [with] that notice a full explanation of why. Far too often, I receive such requests out of the blue from Church [headquarters] & [without] any explanation. Your discussion was thorough, earnest and overall well stated. I read [with] considerable interest your list of intellectual objections to determine if you had identified some challenge that had failed to come to my attention during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history, subscribed to Dialogue and Sunstone [liberal LDS publications], and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys. After careful review of your explanation, I can say that those items listed did not add to my own list of anomalies and puzzlements.
You are right that the issue is one of cognition. Where we stand determines what we see. You have shown admirable principle & integrity by acknowledging where you are and what you see. The conclusion that you have reached flows from what you see. That being the case, I commend your courage to act consistent with your convictions.
Rest assured, I count both of you as good friends, no less now than when you were on a path more in keeping [with] my way of thinking. Be kind enough to keep me posted on the progress of your lives. You are always welcome to participate in ward activities [without] fear of any pitch or pressure.
Below is my reply. I'll post his response if I ever receive it. Enjoy!
Shiggy
See attachment below. The posting would not submit when I included it in the posting body itself.
I think you were a little hard on him, Shiggy. His letter to you was remarkable in its restraint. But that's just my outsider's reaction. You apparently have the relationship to push things a little. I'll be interested to hear how he answers.
I didnt feel you were hard on him. To me it looked like a correspondence between two adults about their respective beliefs. It was quite refreshing and showed your ex bishops ability to step outside of the 'authority position.' If a bishop had decided the church was not true but was convinced that based on "Where (he) stand(s)" it is in his best interest to go along with everything, and then that bishop got a letter like yours, i would imagine that bishop might respond with a letter like the one this man sent to you...
Your letter was very well stated. I could not help but notice a bit of passive aggressive writing on his part, but that is to be expected.
I too am in great amazement that people like him cannot accept reality, but in the end the cost may simply be too high to pay for certain people. Like you, I was once a great imbiber of the apologetic brew, but eventually the hangover of cognitive dissonance was simply too much to bear. I put down my glass containing the drug of Mormonism, and walked away.
I enjoyed your intelligent writing very much. The world is better having someone like you on the outside of Mormonism, rather than being stunted within the confining walls of Joseph's Myth.
Reading between the lines, I would say your Bishop agrees with your conclusion completely, and envies you.
Daryl
I caught the same feeling Daryl. I'm sure he feels very trapped, being bishop and all. Say he does agree with Shiggy, what's he going to do? Stand up and tell the ward they are all mis led? Maybe he wants out too. He's trapped pretty deep in the muck and mire.
I think you did a great job pointing out to your bishop that he is not being true to himself (his wallowing in his cog dis), it is obvious that you are being true to yourself. I'm pleased he still counts you as a friend and you him. I have this relationship with my former stake president even having resigned my membership. It's nice we can still shoot the bull when we run into each other and be civil.
ElGuapo:I think you were a little hard on him, Shiggy. His letter to you was remarkable in its restraint.
Yeah, I think so a little too. That's why I put in a tiny apology about the message ending up so "controversial." Ah well. Like I also said, I'm sure he's heard much more belligerent than I.
dwight shrute: If a bishop had decided the church was not true but was convinced that based on "Where (he) stand(s)" it is in his best interest to go along with everything, and then that bishop got a letter like yours, i would imagine that bishop might respond with a letter like the one this man sent to you...
I fully agree. It really made me think. What made me think even more, though, was the letter from my Elders Quorum president. "Do I have cognitive dissonance? Of course! I eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. I feed it to my children. Oh, but Joseph Smith and his wives are still my holy prophet and prophetesses." I mean, come on.
Chad (Swedeboy) Spjut: I enjoyed your intelligent writing very much. The world is better having someone like you on the outside of Mormonism, rather than being stunted within the confining walls of Joseph's Myth.
Why thank you, Chad, that's a very kind thing to say. But you know, I'm really just a nerdy teenage priest who has been appointed by my bishop to spy on apostates like yourself. You're going in my weekly report, buddy! Right after I surf some porno . . . er, I mean, check out some enlightening apologetic material related to blood atonement and plural marriage.
skeptic: I'm pleased he still counts you as a friend and you him. I have this relationship with my former stake president even having resigned my membership. It's nice we can still shoot the bull when we run into each other and be civil.
I guess we'll see after I receive a reply from him--if I do. I sent the message a week ago and haven't heard anything back, but he's a busy guy (an attorney).
I think you were a bit hard on him. He was being very accepting. I think if Mormons are accepting of our beliefs we shouldn't push it much further unless they ask about it. Then we are just where pushy Mormons sometimes are, sharing our new "religion" with those who do not want to here about it.
Just my 2 cents based on responses. I did like parts of your letter, but the overall tone was harsh considering the very respectful and open tone of the bishop.
Drift Away:
I think you were a bit hard on him. He was being very accepting. I think if Mormons are accepting of our beliefs we shouldn't push it much further unless they ask about it. Then we are just where pushy Mormons sometimes are, sharing our new "religion" with those who do not want to here about it. Just my 2 cents based on responses. I did like parts of your letter, but the overall tone was harsh considering the very respectful and open tone of the bishop.
Yeah, that's a good point. I do think about it every now and then, and I do have some regrets about how I approached that letter to him--in particular with respect to the tone.
I write to express appreciation for your thoughtfulness in providing me [with] advance notice of your decision to withdraw from the Church & for sending along [with] that notice a full explanation of why. Far too often, I receive such requests out of the blue from Church [headquarters] & [without] any explanation. Your discussion was thorough, earnest and overall well stated. I read [with] considerable interest your list of intellectual objections to determine if you had identified some challenge that had failed to come to my attention during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history, subscribed to Dialogue and Sunstone [liberal LDS publications], and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys. After careful review of your explanation, I can say that those items listed did not add to my own list of anomalies and puzzlements.
You are right that the issue is one of cognition. Where we stand determines what we see. You have shown admirable principle & integrity by acknowledging where you are and what you see. The conclusion that you have reached flows from what you see. That being the case, I commend your courage to act consistent with your convictions.
Rest assured, I count both of you as good friends, no less now than when you were on a path more in keeping [with] my way of thinking. Be kind enough to keep me posted on the progress of your lives. You are always welcome to participate in ward activities [without] fear of any pitch or pressure.
This is off topic and I apologize...
Regarding some of the words in [ ]: You added all these words in or replaced other words to make this make sense....right?
In the sentence, "and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys."...what word was there instead?
In the sentence, " during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history"...what did it originally say?
I don't mean to split hairs and ultimately, it matters very little in the grand scheme. I was just reading the response letter and these questions came to mind.
Regarding some of the words in [ ]: You added all these words in or replaced other words to make this make sense....right?
In the sentence, "and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys."...what word was there instead?
In the sentence, " during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history"...what did it originally say?
I don't mean to split hairs and ultimately, it matters very little in the grand scheme. I was just reading the response letter and these questions came to mind.
Regarding some of the words in [ ]: You added all these words in or replaced other words to make this make sense....right?
In the sentence, "and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys."...what word was there instead?
In the sentence, " during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history"...what did it originally say?
I don't mean to split hairs and ultimately, it matters very little in the grand scheme. I was just reading the response letter and these questions came to mind.
Oh, nothing sinister at all. In fact, mainly I was expanding abbreviations to their full-length equivalents. For instance, "[with]" was probably "w/" in the original letter from the bishop. And "[years]" was probably "yrs" or something. Catch my drift? I just wanted the letter to be clear, but I guess I also introduced ambiquity.
Regarding some of the words in [ ]: You added all these words in or replaced other words to make this make sense....right?
In the sentence, "and rubbed shoulders [with] the Signature Books boys."...what word was there instead?
In the sentence, " during the last 35 [years] in which I have read up on Church history"...what did it originally say?
I don't mean to split hairs and ultimately, it matters very little in the grand scheme. I was just reading the response letter and these questions came to mind.
Oh, nothing sinister at all. In fact, mainly I was expanding abbreviations to their full-length equivalents. For instance, "[with]" was probably "w/" in the original letter from the bishop. And "[years]" was probably "yrs" or something. Catch my drift? I just wanted the letter to be clear, but I guess I also introduced ambiquity.
Reply_to_My_Former_Bishop.pdf (File Size: 88KB - Downloads: 676)
