Observations About Returning

[hotrod]

Over the decades I have seen a number of family members leave the Mormon Church. Also, I have seen some return after years of inactivity. The primary differences I see between the two groups are: Those who left and have not returned studied the history and doctrine of the Church and came to the conclusion that it was false. For the most part, they moved on with their lives and formed lasting relationships in their communities. On the other hand, those that left and returned left during a period of youthful rebellion and never did find a reason to really study the Church. Their return was generally seen as a return to their root values or a return to a faith community they understood. Their return has not prompted them to give the Church any serious study.

Is this a pattern that any of you have observed?

[noodle]

Hotrod, I think that your observations are generally correct. I believe that I've seen this discussed in other threads.

Your comments jive with discussions that I've had with my TBM son. I don't like to describe myself (or others to describe me) as an inactive member. I'm an apostate. While I know that I'm stating this rather simply, I think of inactives as those who are taking a sabbatical (usually physically) from attending church. They may still believe some of the fundamental doctrines. Apostates, in my mind, are those who have studied church history, doctrine, etc., and have concluded that the doctrine is false. I no longer participate, but I DO know some apostates who are still attending, merely to keep the peace.

I've never read any of his stuff, but isn't this sortof what Jeff Burton addresses in his Borderlands book and discussions in Sunstone?

mamajama

[hotrod]

Mamajama, thanks for the distinction between inactive and apostate-I have never thought about it before. Perhaps that explains why I never describe myself as inactive.

I wonder what the record is for inactivity? One of my family members spent about 50 years on a sabbatical.

[noodle]

I've known a few inactives who have had extended sabbaticals as well, in fact, most of their lives! Again, I've stated my comments above rather simply, and there are Postmo members who can discuss this more deeply, I'm sure. I would say that there are sub-categories of apostates and inactives.

mamajama

[peter_mary]

I think mamajama hit the nail on the head. There are lots of people who are "uncomfortable" at church not because of the overall paradigm of Mormonism, but because of a variety of circumstantial issues: they were offended, they can't keep one or more standards, they are shiftless and lazy by nature, they've done some ebarassing things, they don't line up with the traditional imiage of Mormon family...whatever, but they have NOT ever explored other ways of being. They have not evolved out of the "plan o' salvation" mindset, they just feel uncomfortable at church...so they don't go.

Those are the inactives. And many, many of those, when something happens in their life that is destabilizing (that should trigger some thoughts...), will come running back to the security of church. Be it their own aging that brings them closer to their death, the death of a loved one, a frightening experience, whatever...they will find security in old, familiar paradigms and repent in order to find themselves in the full embrace again, and therefore safe.

Those of us who have developed a NEW paradigm, regardless of whether that paradigm is with or without religion, there is no "old" to which we really can return. Once that paradigm has shifted, it's pretty damn difficult to rearrange that thinking back into an old mindset. Those are the apostates.

And they would have a very, very hard time coming back.

[jamech]

I've known loads of inactive people according to mamajama's definition, but a precious few apostates (five to be exact), besides all of you who I really like a lot! ;) I guess I would have sympathy for someone inactive "returning to the fold". But, I have to admit, I'd have a difficult time understanding an apostate who returns. As p_m said, after developing a new paradigm there is no "old" to return to. Admittedly this is a very frightening place to be. I've often felt like my safety net has been taken out from under me. BUT, I don't think I could respect myself if I ever returned, knowing what I do now.

Personally I prefer to call myself a non-mormon. Maybe it's not completely accurate as I still haven't had my records removed, but it's FAR more accurate than calling myself a mormon and it's a label that's easier for my kids to get a grip on. When my 9-year-old asks why I drink coffee, and wine (yes, I DID recently take my first sip :p), I tell him that I'm not a mormon. That's all he needs...no prob. He likes to tell his friends that his Mom's not a mormon...makes him feel a little different...special somehow :)

By the way, I've recently started attending the Universalist Unitarian church on Sunday. It's about the only congregation I can handle since you don't have to accept any set of beliefs or doctrine. They pretty much just take everyone and support each individual in his/her own personal spiritual journey. However, I think a true believing christian would have a difficult time in the meetings as they do tend to have a fairly agnostic bent to them. They are also EXTREMELY liberal and are very vocal in the political arena. Anyway, it gives me something to do on Sunday and it's nice to be among people who don't think I'm going to hell.

Anyway, my two youngest (ages 4 & 7) have been attending with me and it's been SOOOO fun! They LOVE going to their class where they learn stories from the many different religious traditions. They especially love the coffee hour afterwards complete with hot chocolate and snacks (primary just doesn't even come close). It's interesting how easily my kids, who've spent every Sunday of their lives in a mormon church, have become comfortable in a very different environment. My older kids, however, tend to find it somewhat disturbing. My 15-year-old son expressed concern today for the two youngest. I can totally see his worry since from his perspective I'm keeping the little ones away from salvation. He was relieved when he found out that at least they were learning Bible stories.

My older kids stay with Mormonism. Why? Because that's what they've been taught to believe their whole lives (and, ironically, their most influencial teacher was ME!). Wow.

I like what John Buehrens says in his book "A Chosen Faith" Buehrans talks about the world being kind of like a cathedral with lots of beautiful stain-glass windows that refract the light in endless and beautiful ways. Each of the world's religions are looking out of a particular window. Everybody is looking at the same earth, existence, truth, whatever, but each window is reflecting it in different ways. The danger is that many religions teach that people should worship at one window and then throw rocks through other peoples' windows. "Tightly drawn, their logic makes a demonic kind of sense; (1) religious answers respond to life and death questions, which happen to be the most important questions of all; (2) you and I may come up with different answers; (3) if you are right, I must be wrong; (4) but I can't be wrong, because my salvation hinges upon being right; therefore (5) short of abandoning my own faith and embracing yours, in order to secure my salvation I am driven to ignore, convert, or destroy you.

[miss taken]

If I ever returned to the LDS faith, it would have to be mainly because I believed the foundation claims of the faith. I don't.

I would have to be happy to put myself into an exclusive truth claim religion again. I don't believe I could.

I don't know that I could ever limit my thinking or be told who and what God is. I prefer to work this out for myself.

I don't believe that my perceptions of the truths within the LDS faith gave me a good grounding in the nature of reality.
(akin to that scripture that says that truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come)

Of course if I had some kind of personal epiphany that suggested that that was where I should be, I might go back, it being a completely authentic religion or not. (I wonder if a religion truly exists that might represent God as he really is, maybe Jesus came as close as we are going to get? I don't know? I don't like everything he is quoted as saying)

Maybe sometimes there is something internal that knows what is best for us, no matter whether the religion is partly in error or truth, and of course the 'devil' you know is sometimes better than the 'devil' you don't.