Completely Surprised

[tjohnson]

Well, today I stepped out on a limb... :D

One of my best friends from high school is also one of my current customers. We talk weekly about items he needs and what he wants to buy from my company, etc. Never much "personal" stuff. We attended 4 years of Seminary together, and he was married about a year after me in the temple.

His marriage was not a good one, and he was excommunicated about 8 years later. I knew he had been living on the "wild side" and yet he never really seemed all that happy.

He remarried about two years ago to a completely different "type" of person. Neither of them really wanting anything to do with the church.

So today, I decided I would email him and just see "where he was at" in the church. Well, to my surprise, he is now VERY active (full tithe payer, Gospel teacher, etc.). Part of his email was "in only two more years, I can be sealed to my family". :Puking

He claims he lived the "other" life outside the church and wasn't as happy as he is now. :eek:

I am still in shock. He claims he received a "definate answer" to his prayers about the BoM after reading it cover to cover. So he now will do ANYTHING the church asks or demands of him, without question. :Puking

Still in shock in Idaho...

[free thinker]

I had a similar experience. After being inactive for a number of years, and living on the wild side, I came back. I went strong for 15 years. I was as TBM as one can be!! Well, here I am on post-mo! :) Guess it is just different for each person. I am thinking through having my name removed from the church records. I really dont want any connection at all.

I am glad I am not your friend. I am so glad to have a normal life now!! :p

Free Thinker

[silverfox]

It's okay. He'll catch on.

What is it they say? The grass is always greener?

I, too, remember coming back strong after my first few bouts of inactivity. And each time I didn't think anything could shake my "testimony".

[Born Free]

Well, today I stepped out on a limb... :D

One of my best friends from high school is also one of my current customers. We talk weekly about items he needs and what he wants to buy from my company, etc. Never much "personal" stuff. We attended 4 years of Seminary together, and he was married about a year after me in the temple.

His marriage was not a good one, and he was excommunicated about 8 years later. I knew he had been living on the "wild side" and yet he never really seemed all that happy.

He remarried about two years ago to a completely different "type" of person. Neither of them really wanting anything to do with the church.

So today, I decided I would email him and just see "where he was at" in the church. Well, to my surprise, he is now VERY active (full tithe payer, Gospel teacher, etc.). Part of his email was "in only two more years, I can be sealed to my family". :Puking

He claims he lived the "other" life outside the church and wasn't as happy as he is now. :eek:

I am still in shock. He claims he received a "definate answer" to his prayers about the BoM after reading it cover to cover. So he now will do ANYTHING the church asks or demands of him, without question. :Puking

Still in shock in Idaho...

I had a fundy Christain working for me many years ago, and he was over the top. Everything had to have some Christian take to it. It was bloody painful, frankly.

I decided to get his story, and the pattern that emerged I find is frequently apparent.

He had been born and raised into a fundy Christian family, who were not very sophisticated, or well read, or educated. In his late teens he started to rebel and kick over the traces. That process culminated in a very serious car accident when under the influence of alcohol. You will never guess what happened when he got out of hospital! Surprise, surprise, he "Got God" - big time.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that pattern here, but how many times do you see it?

So, from my perspective, the person has reacted based upon instilled fear, and limited knowledge and run, helter-skelter back to Church, in the process stuffing down any disquiet (for the time being anyway), for fear that without the Church their life will spiral out of control. And of course it will, UNTIL they get some higher skills and knowledge on board (which they will rarely get from Church).

Like the child of an alcoholic, they either become one too, or become a wowser, because their life is still dictated by their fear of booze. Booze is calling the tune, to which their react defensively, until they learn what moderation looks like and learn to confidently walk a middle road.

And there are few as devout as the recent convert or reclaim!

Daryl

[free thinker]

The above is a very good point. When I returned to the church I was going back partly out of a fear I had concerning abusing alchohol. I was a pretty heavy drinker at the time. I figured the church would be a good place for me, as I was out of control, and in need of some sprituality. The fear that Daryl mentioned!! That was me!

Now I am post-mo, and have expanded my horizons of reason, and learning, and this has in fact reduced some of the fear based model I had based my life on. Different paradigm. Free your mind and your butt will follow!! :D

Now I have a six pack of Bud Light in my fridge. It is cold, and it looks so good. I will probably have one this weekend. Maybe two!! :D But I will not be getting sauced!! Moderation, Moderation, Moderation , !!!

I am a living specimen of what Daryl just stated!!

Free Thinker

[noodle]

When I quit going to church, the few that approached me about my inactivity had been previous inactives themselves, and had led pretty rowdy lives. I wasn't living a rowdy life, hadn't committed any "sins," with the exception that I no longer believed. I had a relative who grew up as a non-Mo in Utah, and was pretty anti-Mo, however, he married a Mo, and the kids were raised Mo. He was an alcoholic. His wife eventually left him. Well, he remarried, joined the church, and now serves in the bishopric. Go figure.

[peter_mary]

To keep it ridiculously simple, there are two kinds of people who are "inactive," those who have a hard time living the standards, but still think they ARE the standards, and those who reject the paradigm and so the standards may or may not matter. Your friend was apparently the former...he wasn't attending church because it wasn't where he wanted to be. He wanted to be doing other stuff, but he probably didn't have any other world-view--he just knew he was living contrary to the only one he knew. It's easy to repent and go back when your life changes, because your "mind" has not expanded beyond the borders, it was just your body wandering around out there. When your mind expands beyond the Church, that's a different story, and as someone brilliant and famous (and whose name escapes me) once said, "a mind once expanded cannot return to its original shape." I'm guessing the return to activity rate for THOSE people is tiny, whereas the return to activity rate for those who just struggled with life-style issues is probably quite high.

Paul

[lsands]

As I've learned from bigeddy, the church rules do provide security and standards that are helpful for people who have not matured to the point where their rules come from their own internalized values. Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral development. I am including here a section from a website that explains more about it.

"Kohlberg believed...that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.

Kohlberg's classifications can be outlined in the following manner:

Pre-conventional
Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment
Stage 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,and Exchange

Conventional
Stage 3 "Good boy/girl"
Stage 4 Law and Order

Post-conventional
Stage 5 Social Contract
Stage 6 Principled Conscience

"The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

"The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

"The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

"Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not 'jump' stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction."http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

It is easy to see, according to this theory, that Mormonism as it is taught is heavily mired in the pre-conventional stage, although there are many who progress to conventional morality. Think about the whole Mormon teaching construct: heavy emphasis on quoting authorities and authoritative texts (the scriptures), with moral stories on people who kept the commandments and were blessed vs. those who broke them and were punished.

This would also explain the thinking (or lack thereof) of people who would never drink a cup of coffee but who have no problem scamming the elderly. Of course, Mormonism teaches that both are sinful, but in their moral construct, one is not worse than the other! Robert Kirby, an LDS humor writer for the Salt Lake Tribune (he calls himself an oxy-mormon) wrote a great column that addresses this principle about the idea that sex outside of marriage is NOT next to murder (I'll try to find a copy of it and post here. Here's a link to a website that has several Kirby columns. http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/KirbyClassics.htm

I believe it is impossible for people who are Mormons to progress to the post-conventional stage because those who do so are their OWN AUTHORITY. These ideas are behind the statement that Mormons are kept eternally in the fifth grade.

With this background, it seems to me that your high school buddy did not have the internal values he needed. When he violated the church's rules, he was unhappy. So the solution is to go back to following the church's rules to the letter! It is entirely logical that he IS happier now than when he wasn't following any rules. That, however, does not compare with the happiness and peace of those of us who have moved through Mo'ism's control and authority and developed our own value system and the rules for living that make US happy.

Laraine

[Born Free]

As I've learned from bigeddy,
[COLOR=Red]
[COLOR=Sienna]"Kohlberg believed...that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.

Kohlberg's classifications can be outlined in the following manner:

Pre-conventional
Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment
Stage 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,and Exchange

Conventional
Stage 3 "Good boy/girl"
Stage 4 Law and Order

Post-conventional
Stage 5 Social Contract
Stage 6 Principled Conscience


Laraine

Laraine,

Kohlbergs work is strongly complimentary of the values/world view model I am very familiar with. When I came across this material, it offered a great leap foward in my understanding of what I had experienced in Mormonism, and what was on offer beyond.

To me that was freeing. I am most interested to see what the impact on you was of sighting this material/model? I am inclined to believe that if post-Mo.org offered that sort of material to any wavering Mo visitors, then they might feel more confident in seeing that they don't go into freefall when they depart Mormonism.

A penny for your thoughts!

Daryl

[lsands]

To me that was freeing. I am most interested to see what the impact on you was of sighting this material/model? I am inclined to believe that if post-Mo.org offered that sort of material to any wavering Mo visitors, then they might feel more confident in seeing that they don't go into freefall when they depart Mormonism.

A penny for your thoughts!
Here they are---hope they're worth the price! The impact on me of learning about this was that it gave me more understanding of myself and the reasons that I left. Personal authority was the primary reason that I left Mo'ism. The catalyst for me was a run-in with my stake president when I left my husband. I had faithfully followed the church's teachings to pray before I got married, and also when I decided to divorce. Both times, after sincere and heartfelt prayer, I felt that my decisions were correct. [BTW, I still feel that I was divinely inspired in BOTH cases.]

When I met with the stake president, he told me that he had prayed about my decision as well, and that his inspiration told me to go home and try again. His inspiration was correct; mine was not. The message: Don't trust yourself; trust me (the priesthood.) The stake patriarch, who lived in my ward, gave me advice (unsolicited) in a similar vein. Thus, the personal authority issue became a crisis for me: Do I choose them or me? I chose me---and my own authority.

I came across a copy of my exit letter a few days ago, submitted in January 2003. Part of it reads: "I now take back the authority over myself and my life which I gave the church, believing that it represented God's authority over me. I know now that God has given me authority over my own life which need not, and indeed CANNOT, be shared with anyone else."

So, learning about Kohlberg's theories only validated my own feelings and experience. I never worried that I would lose a moral compass, as it were, by leaving. I was faced with the challenge, however, of questioning all of my previously held beliefs and values to figure out what was really mine and what no longer applied. And in some areas of my life I'm continuing that process even now! What fun! :eek:

You will also be interested to hear, if you are not already aware, that some Mormon psychologists have challenged the validity of Kohlberg's theory. In an article in BYU's alumni magazine, these efforts are related in a tone of the usual persecution complex. I'll quote a section of the article here, with the link for those who want to read the full story:

"...Richards has had his own battles with biases. While in Minnesota he encountered research, sponsored by a prominent professor, that seemed to show that highly religious people were deficient in moral development.

Richards recalls his initial response: "I had just come from BYU, and I thought 'Well, this is disturbing. Church leaders and administrators at BYU wouldn't be too happy if they realized that LDS theology is stifling people's moral reasoning development.'

'So Richards, as he says, 'got into' the research and examined the test used to measure moral reasoning. It was based on a theory of moral development proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg, a well-known psychologist. Kohlberg hypothesized that people function on six different levels or stages of moral reasoning. The highest level, what he called 'principled moral reasoning,' is achieved when a person makes moral decisions without consulting any authority outside the self. So in the view of that theory (and, consequently, in the testing instrument that Richards questioned), people who appeal to God or the scriptures when making moral decisions are considered, as Richards says, 'less adequate in their moral thinking.'

"In his dissertation Richards 'argued that there was a bias built into the theory and measure,' he says. 'It penalized conservatively religious people and was not sensitive to the conservative, theistic world view.' His analysis showed that almost one-third of the questions used to assess moral reasoning carried a bias against devoutly religious people.

'And it got me into all sorts of controversy,' he says. The professor whose work Richards had debunked was on his dissertation committee, and until that professor was replaced, things were tough. 'I remember one or two visits on the phone with Allen [Bergin] that helped me hang in there,' Richards says. http://magazine.byu.edu/article.tpl?num=24-Sum99

Of course: if the test produced a conclusion that didn't support Mormonism, there must be something wrong with the test!
Laraine

p.s. Jeff, if you agree that an article on this topic would be helpful, I'd be willing to work on one. Or maybe Daryl could, or we could work together on it. :)

[free thinker]

This seems to me a lot like Maslows hierarchy of needs, and the ultimate level of SELF ACTUALIZATION. I can see a lot of this in my move out of the church. I just felt so very stiffled!! Leaving has confirmed to me that it was a good decision.

I find it interesting that mormons often emphasize agency, but are sadly disappointed when someone actually excersizes it! It seems very threatening to them when someone leaves the confines of mormonism ,yet remains happy, or even happier than they were before. :o

Free Thinker

[Born Free]

Here they are---hope they're worth the price! The impact on me of learning about this was that it gave me more understanding of myself and the reasons that I left. Personal authority was the primary reason that I left Mo'ism.

So, learning about Kohlberg's theories only validated my own feelings and experience. I never worried that I would lose a moral compass, as it were, by leaving. I was faced with the challenge, however, of questioning all of my previously held beliefs and values to figure out what was really mine and what no longer applied. And in some areas of my life I'm continuing that process even now! What fun! :eek:

p.s. Jeff, if you agree that an article on this topic would be helpful, I'd be willing to work on one. Or maybe Daryl could, or we could work together on it. :)

Laraine and Jeff,

I will put up my hand to co-operate on this, provided we can confirm that this material is perceived as of value by others. I get my rocks off on it, but it might not do a thing for others, so I will let others be our guide. I know I have a preference for conceptual thinking that appeals to less than 10% of the population and maybe these conceptual level models are meaningless to some.

BTW, it is my understanding that most of these models grew out of Jungs work, but I have not researched that personally.

Thanks for posting the Mo Kohlberg reframe story. How typical! "The whole world is out of step except me and thee!" They are so convinced they are the pinnacle of human (on their way to Gods) development. What they refuse to countenance is that scenes like Mountain Meadows do not get initiated by self-actualized people. You need sheep to engage in that sort of fear-based frenzied carnage and the sebsequent centuries old game to hide what went down. And Mormonism breeds, and nutures them every day: passive-aggressive sheep.

Their religion cannot countenance a wide discourse; indeed what passes for Mormon discourse is more like a monologue/propaganda, and even that, the sort you get after you have stifled the liberals, leaving only the conservatives in play. In style it is so reminscent of Communist under Stalin.

They fantasise that they want to join mainstream Christianity. They are in for a shock, because out in the bigger Christian world issues like women and leadership, homosexuality, and the reliability of scriptural texts get vigorously (and messily) debated. Mormonism has no tradition of that. The children cannot see the authority figures disagreeing. That might damage their cred!

Daryl

PS: On a Kohlberg related note, I always found it interesting that Covey never mentions any of this material. His whole 7 Habits Empire whips people into a frenzy about "Values Based Living", but instead of offering research based information, he provides motherhood statements. I have suspected for a long time that if he went near that, his large Mormon audience might discover that they are not the pinnacle of human development and values. Bummer that! So don't let research findings get between him and the cash register! (BTW, that is a value statement in itself!)

[miss taken]

"The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

"The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

"The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.


It is easy to see, according to this theory, that Mormonism as it is taught is heavily mired in the pre-conventional stage, although there are many who progress to conventional morality. Think about the whole Mormon teaching construct: heavy emphasis on quoting authorities and authoritative texts (the scriptures), with moral stories on people who kept the commandments and were blessed vs. those who broke them and were punished.

This would also explain the thinking (or lack thereof) of people who would never drink a cup of coffee but who have no problem scamming the elderly. Of course, Mormonism teaches that both are sinful, but in their moral construct, one is not worse than the other! Robert Kirby, an LDS humor writer for the Salt Lake Tribune (he calls himself an oxy-mormon) wrote a great column that addresses this principle about the idea that sex outside of marriage is NOT next to murder (I'll try to find a copy of it and post here. Here's a link to a website that has several Kirby columns. http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/KirbyClassics.htm

I believe it is impossible for people who are Mormons to progress to the post-conventional stage because those who do so are their OWN AUTHORITY. These ideas are behind the statement that Mormons are kept eternally in the fifth grade.

With this background, it seems to me that your high school buddy did not have the internal values he needed. When he violated the church's rules, he was unhappy. So the solution is to go back to following the church's rules to the letter! It is entirely logical that he IS happier now than when he wasn't following any rules. That, however, does not compare with the happiness and peace of those of us who have moved through Mo'ism's control and authority and developed our own value system and the rules for living that make US happy.

Laraine

Good stuff. Please do an article on it. Very interesting. I spent the last two years doing a masters in child developement that covers most of this stuff, and there are certainly correllations between this and Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

I disagree with K on a few issues though, especially his stage theory of development as it applies to moral development. Piaget said the same thing about intellectual/social development and he has now been discredited in the main. To give some evidence, My son has never ever ever ever ever been a people pleaser. He has always had a mind of his own right from the word go, and if he believes something is right there aint no way he is changing his view. I also wonder where Asperger/Autistic children fit into this view, because they will not be effected so much by the opinions of others.. Just a rambling thought...feel free to correct me!!!

I have posted elsewhere that I always felt on the first rung of a spiritual ladder while I was active in the church, most of K's theory describes why, because we are actively commanded not to follow the God of our own eyes, but in effect the mormon God. It took me a long time to realise that when I left the church I was not leaving God himself but a Mormon God who I am now happy to know exists only in the minds of the Mormon Faithful.

Interesting also is the dichotomy that God gave us Free Agency, at the same time as the Mormon View that we give up our right to Free Agency when we are baptised, and that if we then leave the church we will NOT be getting to the CELESTIAL kingdom because we have rejected the church with full knowledge of it, whereas others are merely ignorant of the truth. What a mind bind!!! :( :eek:

[nikki]

As I've learned from bigeddy, the church rules do provide security and standards that are helpful for people who have not matured to the point where their rules come from their own internalized values. Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral development. I am including here a section from a website that explains more about it.

"Kohlberg believed...that people progressed in their moral reasoning (i.e., in their bases for ethical behavior) through a series of stages. He believed that there were six identifiable stages which could be more generally classified into three levels.

Kohlberg's classifications can be outlined in the following manner:

Pre-conventional
Stage 1 Obedience and Punishment
Stage 2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,and Exchange

Conventional
Stage 3 "Good boy/girl"
Stage 4 Law and Order

Post-conventional
Stage 5 Social Contract
Stage 6 Principled Conscience

"The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

"The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

"The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

"Kohlberg believed that individuals could only progress through these stages one stage at a time. That is, they could not 'jump' stages. They could not, for example, move from an orientation of selfishness to the law and order stage without passing through the good boy/girl stage. They could only come to a comprehension of a moral rationale one stage above their own. Thus, according to Kohlberg, it was important to present them with moral dilemmas for discussion which would help them to see the reasonableness of a "higher stage" morality and encourage their development in that direction."http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

It is easy to see, according to this theory, that Mormonism as it is taught is heavily mired in the pre-conventional stage, although there are many who progress to conventional morality. Think about the whole Mormon teaching construct: heavy emphasis on quoting authorities and authoritative texts (the scriptures), with moral stories on people who kept the commandments and were blessed vs. those who broke them and were punished.

This would also explain the thinking (or lack thereof) of people who would never drink a cup of coffee but who have no problem scamming the elderly. Of course, Mormonism teaches that both are sinful, but in their moral construct, one is not worse than the other! Robert Kirby, an LDS humor writer for the Salt Lake Tribune (he calls himself an oxy-mormon) wrote a great column that addresses this principle about the idea that sex outside of marriage is NOT next to murder (I'll try to find a copy of it and post here. Here's a link to a website that has several Kirby columns. http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/KirbyClassics.htm

I believe it is impossible for people who are Mormons to progress to the post-conventional stage because those who do so are their OWN AUTHORITY. These ideas are behind the statement that Mormons are kept eternally in the fifth grade.

With this background, it seems to me that your high school buddy did not have the internal values he needed. When he violated the church's rules, he was unhappy. So the solution is to go back to following the church's rules to the letter! It is entirely logical that he IS happier now than when he wasn't following any rules. That, however, does not compare with the happiness and peace of those of us who have moved through Mo'ism's control and authority and developed our own value system and the rules for living that make US happy.

Laraine

Kohlberg's Theory and another is Piaget moral development, Piaget adds in an amoral stage in young children.

In Stage 2 development where many members (adult) might be at, it is important to remember that when one wishes to conform to expected norms of the peer group, there will be also found "clocked" behaviors among some. People will do behaviors which do not fit into the peer group expectaions in secret when outside of the peer group, in their public peer group image they may give the 'appearance' of conformity to the groups norms, but in real behavior which is hidden from the group will do otherwise.

It is a good post to have people to read a begin to think about.

The stages of Moral development are a good theories to begin to gain an understanding of human development in moral thinking and judgement.

I think history also, is a great teacher as to the moral development of society, people and culture.

Others to look at our Morris Massy in where you fit in at is where you values may lay.

another is on female, male gender view difference which Carol Gilligan focused on in relationship to moral values.

and reading histroy with the above view points, can broaden one's out look, and gain a better understanding of the develpement of 'advanced' mankind. ( if we wish to call them advanced :rolleyes: )

Thanks for the post, enjoyed reading it.

[Alicia]

So, from my perspective, the person has reacted based upon instilled fear, and limited knowledge and run, helter-skelter back to Church, in the process stuffing down any disquiet (for the time being anyway), for fear that without the Church their life will spiral out of control. And of course it will, UNTIL they get some higher skills and knowledge on board (which they will rarely get from Church).

Like the child of an alcoholic, they either become one too, or become a wowser, because their life is still dictated by their fear of booze. Booze is calling the tune, to which their react defensively, until they learn what moderation looks like and learn to confidently walk a middle road.

And there are few as devout as the recent convert or reclaim!

Daryl



This is a very interesting comment. I have been thinking a lot about why I joined the church at 15. When I joined I thought it was absolutely true and I remember when my family moved away from Utah I wished that I didn’t know the truth. But maybe I ran to the church partly out of fear. My life had been a bit out of control. I started partying very young. Even though my family wasn’t religious or strict I got a lot of heck from the active Mormon kids at school, who were a bit jealous I think. I also came from a family of multiple divorces and this scared me and since the church claims family is first for them and the whole eternal family stuff. Interesting. Thank you for giving me something to think about.

Alicia

[lsands]

Please give me more info, either by posting here or by e-mail, as to what specifically about this issue is helpful to you, or you think would be helpful to others. It will help me (and Daryl, you listening?) to write an effective article.

Laraine

[Born Free]

Please give me more info, either by posting here or by e-mail, as to what specifically about this issue is helpful to you, or you think would be helpful to others. It will help me (and Daryl, you listening?) to write an effective article.

Laraine

With you and watching the feedback!

Daryl