Anti-Mormon from a Mormon perspective?

[Leif Erlingsson]

Jeff Ricks asked: ``Has anyone ever been given a good explanation of what [anti-Mormon] means from a Mormon perspective?''

Short reply: No.

Though I think you put the finger on it real well with your text.

Maybe an anti-Mormon is simply someone who's priorities has shifted from "Love Truth" to rational truth. From living to please others to living authentically. From being loyal to the community to being loyal to oneself and truth. From hypocrisy to honesty. From prioritizing the feelings of others to prioritizing truth and honesty.

From the perspective of the believing an anti-Mormon might be anyone who doesn't put the Mormon agenda before all other moral considerations, and who also discuss this with others? I don't know.


Perhaps the following reply previously posted in Curt Allred's new forum might give some inspiration (and Hi Jeff, long time no see...):


Dear Grace,

what you point out is something very important -- THE JOY OF LIVING AUTHENTICALLY. I almost feel a little bad for having posted the following lines in Curt Allred's new forum:

BEGIN QUOTE

What's relevent to some isn't to others. [That was quoting another member of the forum.]

I feel this is a very important observation. For some people -- at least for some of the time -- truth, rationality, etc, is very important. At other times -- or for other people -- other values are more important. Like LOVE. There is nothing greater than love. Life is complex. We need to keep loved ones together. Families, communities, etc. There is an eternal struggle between different loyalties, loyalties to truth, to family, community, etc.

In fact, this may be the key to why people manage to break off from LDS Inc.. If someone misuse their loyalty and they feel betrayed ("offended", as the TBM's say), THEN they (well, I) will eventually (it took it's time!) start to use reason and search for truth, use rationality, etc.

Do you see that the TBM's may actually be right when they say that noone leaves the Church unless "offended"? Because it takes a feeling of being betrayed to make one's priorities shift enough towards the loyalty to truth, rationality, etc? To actually choose truth before "community with the Saints"?

So, what d'yall say about this hypotheses of mine?

END QUOTE

In a later post I wrote:

BEGIN QUOTE

the same person can have different priorities at different times in his/her life between rational truth and love truth...

(I PROMISE, I did NOT intend to write that last word of the last sentence, but it just naturally fitted it and there was no way I could not write it even though this was not my intention. Must have been "demonic revelation". )

END QUOTE


Now I want to go back to what Grace pointed out about the need to be LIVING AUTHENTICALLY. If we keep denying ourselfs for "love truth" and this makes us not live authentically, that's hardly healthy, right?

Just my 2 1/2 c.


/ Leif Erlingsson, Tullinge, Stockholm, Sweden, Europe.

[Nancy]

I stumbled upon your new website during the late night googling. Congratulations of using the 'post' instead of anti. Post has a future- an adventure. Anti is too busy looking backwards.

Sharing some a reflection I wrote in the past. I have made my peace with my former Mormon life. As Mary Oliver says in another poem
“I give them –one, two, three, four – the kiss of courtesy, of sweet thanks, of anger, of good luck… But I will not give them the kiss of complicity. I will not give them the responsibility for my life.

The kiss of courtesy, I am courteous and respectful of my former community. Living and laughing well is the best revenge.
The kiss of sweet thanks - I do give the church sweet thanks for the hours of experience in teaching, leading, and organizing. I give them thanks for communities I have been part of. And I give them thanks for structure and order during chaos.
I give them the kiss of anger
That kiss is directed towards two things – the years lost when my pain was considered equivalent to sin or lack of spirituality. It took professional help to get that straighten out. And the other is my anger towards “Kind intolerance; hate the sin but love the sinner intolerance”. That makes me angry. Dividing the world into black and white, in and out, gay and straight. The table is set and there isn’t room at it for people who are different.
The kiss of good luck.

And I wish them good luck, although they seem to be doing quite well enough on their own.
“I give them –one, two, three, four – the kiss of courtesy, of sweet thanks, of anger, of good luck… But I will not give them the kiss of complicity. I will not give them the responsibility for my life.
A lifetime isn’t long enough for the beauty of this world. Scatter your flowers over the graves, and walk away. Be good natured and untidy in your exuberance.

I have scattered my flowers, I have walked away, I am hopefully good-natured, and untidy in my exuberance. My life is not tidily tied up. I do not have everything logically laid out, and some pieces of my life do not fit together. In fact sometimes my life is a mess, but it is my exuberant mess.


I hope you succeed here. I'm studying process theology which I find helpful to reconcile my past spiritual experiences with where I am today. I can laugh at the cartoons but I would much rather learn what I learned and how it changed my perspective.

Nancy

Link: http://www.nancyproctor.com

[Jeff]

I've never realized before that I left the church because I was offended but after reading your post I have to admit that I was. I was offended not by a person in my ward but by the church itself. Their blatant rewriting of history offended me. And their scare tactics and subtle threats to keep people from questions offended me. Their irresponsible reaction to rampant child abuse and abuse of women in the church by supposedly good priesthood holders of the church offended me. Their unwillingness to come clean on its embarrassing history offended me. Yeah, I admit was offended.

[Andrea]

You mentioned the church's "irresponsible reaction to rampant child abuse and abuse of women". I cannot tell you how much I agree with that statement. I know how previlent that is in the ward here, although they won't admit it. But how common is this throughout all wards

[Nathan]

The church's "irresponsible reaction" to child abuse is not only irresponsible, but even somewhat encouraging to the perpetrator; mainly because it can barely be considered DIScouraging.

In my parent's ward, a few years ago, there was a member that was arrested for child molestation; more than one count.

I had a brother in prison at the time, for a drug offense, or some other petty crime. Meanwhile, my Mother had this person writing letters to my incarcerated brother. She thought that it would be good for my brother to receive letters from a member of the church that knew what he was going through (incarceration); letters from someone who had repented, and perhaps could help bring him back to the flock.

This person, this pervert, had only spent a couple of months in county jail, and directly afterwards was once again a prominent member of my Mother's ward, accepted by all, sending letters to my brother, via my Mother, urging him to repent.

The disturbing thing, the thing that captures the horror of the whole situation, is that my Mother would not send off letters to my brother from his own friends; because they had tattoos. They were "bad influences".

Would my good, Mormon Mother have allowed a child molester to write to my brother if he/she was not a church member? Definitely not!

Yes, this is one member's reaction to a child abuser, but her ideals, her actions, ALL OF THEM, are fostered, grown, and encouraged by her church.

[Jeff]

I'm no expert on the subject but it appears that with regard to child sex abuse the church's so called "family values" offers nothing over other value systems in the country. It appears that the rate of child sex abuse within the Church is about equal to the rate out of the Church. In other words, the Church's programs are a failure in that important area.

[Leif Erlingsson]

Thanks, great text.

[nikki]

Thanks, great text.
It is going to take me a while to feel post-mormon and not anti-mormon...... maybe when time is given to heal, if the time is allowed, which to date it is not being extended.

The abuse of women and children........it takes time to heal from this form of betrayal, not only physical scars, but the spiritual and emotional........

Blame the victim, and discredit for speaking out..... it is going to take awhile, to feel post and not anti.

It is not the forgiving which is the issue, it is the acceptance this treachery is done.

Nikki

[Jeff_Ricks]

It is going to take me a while to feel post-mormon and not anti-mormon...... maybe when time is given to heal, if the time is allowed, which to date it is not being extended.

The abuse of women and children........it takes time to heal from this form of betrayal, not only physical scars, but the spiritual and emotional........

Blame the victim, and discredit for speaking out..... it is going to take awhile, to feel post and not anti.

It is not the forgiving which is the issue, it is the acceptance this treachery is done.

Nikki


Welcome to the community nikki. I hear what you're saying. I think most people who find it necessary to leave Mormonism go through a period of anger and disgust with regard to Mormonism.

Sometimes I like to say that I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm anti-Mormonism. It's the "ism" not the people that at times still angers me. I see Mormons as victims of the "ism." I'm sure you make the same distinction nikki.

I don't think you or anyone should feel at all apologetic for having anger toward Mormonism. If it would just be honest with the facts as well as face up to the personal harms it perpetuates in order to hide reality so it can keep looking good, it would be easier to accept it and give it space to be what it is -- but it's doesn't.

I too join with you as one still healing from the influence it had on me for most of 40 years. Nine years have passed since I walked away from Mormonism. Those nine years began with a good deal of pent up anger toward Mormonism but has faded to almost nothing. Only once in awhile now when I drive by one of Mormonism buildings (especially the obscenely ornate new conference center) do I feel the urge to give it the one finger salute, and I oblige the urge! It still provides some therapeutic benefit!

Jeff

[nancyp]

I think an anti-mormon is someone who spends too much anger, bitterness, war in their relationship to Mormons or the Mormon Church. I think moving to Post-Mormonism one has to process those feelings. Part of the grieving process. It may take some people years to do this. It isn't a very healthy way to live.

I don't dispise Mormons. I can see some good things. I have respectful relationships with exMormons - especially my active husband. He doesn't hassel me about my faith and I don't hassle him. It isn't the easiest way to live, but it is the most compassionate way. I am a member of a very liberal faith now. One thing I preach is we don't bash - don't bash Christians, ecospirituality, pagans, humanists, etc.

Take care,

Nancy



Jeff Ricks asked: ``Has anyone ever been given a good explanation of what [anti-Mormon] means from a Mormon perspective?''

Short reply: No.

Though I think you put the finger on it real well with your text.

Maybe an anti-Mormon is simply someone who's priorities has shifted from "Love Truth" to rational truth. From living to please others to living authentically. From being loyal to the community to being loyal to oneself and truth. From hypocrisy to honesty. From prioritizing the feelings of others to prioritizing truth and honesty.

From the perspective of the believing an anti-Mormon might be anyone who doesn't put the Mormon agenda before all other moral considerations, and who also discuss this with others? I don't know.


Perhaps the following reply previously posted in Curt Allred's new forum might give some inspiration (and Hi Jeff, long time no see...):


Dear Grace,

what you point out is something very important -- THE JOY OF LIVING AUTHENTICALLY. I almost feel a little bad for having posted the following lines in Curt Allred's new forum:

BEGIN QUOTE

What's relevent to some isn't to others. [That was quoting another member of the forum.]

I feel this is a very important observation. For some people -- at least for some of the time -- truth, rationality, etc, is very important. At other times -- or for other people -- other values are more important. Like LOVE. There is nothing greater than love. Life is complex. We need to keep loved ones together. Families, communities, etc. There is an eternal struggle between different loyalties, loyalties to truth, to family, community, etc.

In fact, this may be the key to why people manage to break off from LDS Inc.. If someone misuse their loyalty and they feel betrayed ("offended", as the TBM's say), THEN they (well, I) will eventually (it took it's time!) start to use reason and search for truth, use rationality, etc.

Do you see that the TBM's may actually be right when they say that noone leaves the Church unless "offended"? Because it takes a feeling of being betrayed to make one's priorities shift enough towards the loyalty to truth, rationality, etc? To actually choose truth before "community with the Saints"?

So, what d'yall say about this hypotheses of mine?

END QUOTE

In a later post I wrote:

BEGIN QUOTE

the same person can have different priorities at different times in his/her life between rational truth and love truth...

(I PROMISE, I did NOT intend to write that last word of the last sentence, but it just naturally fitted it and there was no way I could not write it even though this was not my intention. Must have been "demonic revelation". )

END QUOTE


Now I want to go back to what Grace pointed out about the need to be LIVING AUTHENTICALLY. If we keep denying ourselfs for "love truth" and this makes us not live authentically, that's hardly healthy, right?

Just my 2 1/2 c.


/ Leif Erlingsson, Tullinge, Stockholm, Sweden, Europe.

[nancyp]

Nikki,

It is a process, especially for women. Getting away from a male hierarchy is very liberating. But it is scary and sometimes empty. Just keep caring for yourself. and read positive literature - meditations for women that emphasize the power and independence of your soul. You are already courageous.

Nancy


Welcome to the community nikki. I hear what you're saying. I think most people who find it necessary to leave Mormonism go through a period of anger and disgust with regard to Mormonism.

Sometimes I like to say that I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm anti-Mormonism. It's the "ism" not the people that at times still angers me. I see Mormons as victims of the "ism." I'm sure you make the same distinction nikki.

I don't think you or anyone should feel at all apologetic for having anger toward Mormonism. If it would just be honest with the facts as well as face up to the personal harms it perpetuates in order to hide reality so it can keep looking good, it would be easier to accept it and give it space to be what it is -- but it's doesn't.

I too join with you as one still healing from the influence it had on me for most of 40 years. Nine years have passed since I walked away from Mormonism. Those nine years began with a good deal of pent up anger toward Mormonism but has faded to almost nothing. Only once in awhile now when I drive by one of Mormonism buildings (especially the obscenely ornate new conference center) do I feel the urge to give it the one finger salute, and I oblige the urge! It still provides some therapeutic benefit!

Jeff

[nikki]

Nikki,

It is a process, especially for women. Getting away from a male hierarchy is very liberating. But it is scary and sometimes empty. Just keep caring for yourself. and read positive literature - meditations for women that emphasize the power and independence of your soul. You are already courageous.

Nancy

Nancy,

You were lucky to have a husband who did not abuse you, but that is not the case for everyone. Bitter is not what I am... angry, yes to some degree. More than the feelings you mentioned, is fear. I have learned they are frightening people with the ability of high levels of abuse.

Anti- to me means I cannot agree with the horrible behavior and the abuse done to someone to discredit them, which has been done.

Some may have left the church due to difference in doctrine, I left because of abuse, unbelieveable abuse.

It will take a while to become post-mormon, and no they do not even allow someone to heal. They play good cop/bad cop when discrediting someone.

[seanross]

Jeff Ricks asked: ``Has anyone ever been given a good explanation of what [anti-Mormon] means from a Mormon perspective?''

Short reply: No.

Let me say first that I am still an active latter-day saint. My wife recently left the church but I am still attending largely to provide support for my teen-age daughter. I think the LDS experience will be a good thing through her teen years.

What makes a person an anti-mormon, for me, is when they are so obviously consumed by anger that they will believe any fact that makes the LDS church look bad.

The LDS church, like any church, has a myth around which they are based. These myths often have a basis in historical fact but are often embellished significantly. It is a characteristic of Western, monotheistic religions that one must accept the historicity of the myth to be a member of the faith community. Significant effort is expended by the church to defend the historicity of their myth.

If someone says, "I don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet because of his behavior related to polygamy." I would not consider that an anti-mormon statement. If one were to say "Joseph Smith was a filthy liar and all his successors have been engaged in a cover up to keep people subjected and the entire church is engaged in the subjection of women." Now they have crossed into anti-mormonism with broad, sweeping statements largely intended to vent their own personal anger and frustration. In many cases, these people have had personally difficult experiences and have painted the church as an institution with the behavior of a husband or leader.

My own stake president is not my or my wife's favorite person. Personally, I think he is a phony, but that is largely because I don't like salesmen and he is a wealthy real-estate agent and acts like one even when he is at church. It is not fair of me to paint the entire church for this fellow. I have my own problems and I would assume that were I in a leadership position, I would rub a bunch of people the wrong way too.

[seanross]

The LDS church consistently teaches against abuse of women and children. This is often the subject of statements in conference and in priesthood meetings. Are you saying that in-spite of this teaching, it is still being tolerated at some levels? That has not been my experience.

I will give you a personal anecdote. There are very few youth in my ward and the leaders have been active in attempting to proselyte young people. In many cases, these kids are from homes without fathers and the leaders will not correct their antisocial behavior for fear they won't come back. We had one such young man in my ward that would consistently beat on the other kids. One night, he went around offering to shake hands with everyone and then squashing their hand, including my wife, who was at the chapel that evening. He grabbed her hand and squeezed it so hard it cut her finger on her wedding ring.

When I found out about it, I found the young man, put my arm around his shoulders, holding his head firmly in place and gave him my best 90 decibel Navy style lecture about not mis-treating women.

Now, whatever you think about me grabbing a kid and yelling at him, the response of the church leaders was unmistakable. I was disfellowshipped for a couple months and lost my calling as financial clerk. I had no callings for over a year. I have finally been asked to lead music in sacrament meeting.

This experience just does not jibe with a church that ignores abuse issues. In my opinion, they over-reacted but they certainly didn't let it pass by.

[why me]

Jeff Ricks asked: ``Has anyone ever been given a good explanation of what [anti-Mormon] means from a Mormon perspective?''

Short reply: No.

Let me say first that I am still an active latter-day saint. My wife recently left the church but I am still attending largely to provide support for my teen-age daughter. I think the LDS experience will be a good thing through her teen years.

What makes a person an anti-mormon, for me, is when they are so obviously consumed by anger that they will believe any fact that makes the LDS church look bad.

The LDS church, like any church, has a myth around which they are based. These myths often have a basis in historical fact but are often embellished significantly. It is a characteristic of Western, monotheistic religions that one must accept the historicity of the myth to be a member of the faith community. Significant effort is expended by the church to defend the historicity of their myth.

If someone says, "I don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet because of his behavior related to polygamy." I would not consider that an anti-mormon statement. If one were to say "Joseph Smith was a filthy liar and all his successors have been engaged in a cover up to keep people subjected and the entire church is engaged in the subjection of women." Now they have crossed into anti-mormonism with broad, sweeping statements largely intended to vent their own personal anger and frustration. In many cases, these people have had personally difficult experiences and have painted the church as an institution with the behavior of a husband or leader.

My own stake president is not my or my wife's favorite person. Personally, I think he is a phony, but that is largely because I don't like salesmen and he is a wealthy real-estate agent and acts like one even when he is at church. It is not fair of me to paint the entire church for this fellow. I have my own problems and I would assume that were I in a leadership position, I would rub a bunch of people the wrong way too.
Thanks for the post. I appreciate your views. I hope that you will continue to post here. We have one active member on the forum and I think that many on the forum would consider me active in the church...although I am actually inactive. You have an interesting take on the matter...more comments please as you see fit. (Only remember forum policy rules!) Take care...
PS: I have the same feelings about my own teenage daughters but after reading the posts in these threads I am very careful with them now and their attitude toward church and life. I don't want them to have any bitterness or anger in the future as some members of the forum do. I would like to guard against that. This has been very valuable knowledge which I have gleamed from the forum....I never recognized the bitterness before my contact with the forum...but now I know that it exists....

[why me]

The LDS church consistently teaches against abuse of women and children. This is often the subject of statements in conference and in priesthood meetings. Are you saying that in-spite of this teaching, it is still being tolerated at some levels? That has not been my experience.

I will give you a personal anecdote. There are very few youth in my ward and the leaders have been active in attempting to proselyte young people. In many cases, these kids are from homes without fathers and the leaders will not correct their antisocial behavior for fear they won't come back. We had one such young man in my ward that would consistently beat on the other kids. One night, he went around offering to shake hands with everyone and then squashing their hand, including my wife, who was at the chapel that evening. He grabbed her hand and squeezed it so hard it cut her finger on her wedding ring.

When I found out about it, I found the young man, put my arm around his shoulders, holding his head firmly in place and gave him my best 90 decibel Navy style lecture about not mis-treating women.

Now, whatever you think about me grabbing a kid and yelling at him, the response of the church leaders was unmistakable. I was disfellowshipped for a couple months and lost my calling as financial clerk. I had no callings for over a year. I have finally been asked to lead music in sacrament meeting.

This experience just does not jibe with a church that ignores abuse issues. In my opinion, they over-reacted but they certainly didn't let it pass by.
Interesting happening. I have realized that a person's history and experience is very individualized. Those who have suffered abuse can use the word 'the church' in a broad general sense when actually it can be a local matter with the bishop or stake president or with the wrd or branch. I suppose that we are used to speaking of the church as 'the church' regardless if it is local or salt lake. Thanks for the post...seanross.....

[dogzilla]

<snip>
This experience just does not jibe with a church that ignores abuse issues. In my opinion, they over-reacted but they certainly didn't let it pass by.

At the risk of losing my head and acting like an "anti," may I instead simply suggest that you perform a search on "abuse" at this web site and read about some others' experiences with abuse in the church.

As I've said before to a co-worker who hates the Harry Potter books, without having ever read a word in one of them: I'll respect your opinion when I'm sure that you have an informed one.

[Born Free]

<snip>

PS: I have the same feelings about my own teenage daughters but after reading the posts in these threads I am very careful with them now and their attitude toward church and life. I don't want them to have any bitterness or anger in the future as some members of the forum do. I would like to guard against that. This has been very valuable knowledge which I have gleamed from the forum....I never recognized the bitterness before my contact with the forum...but now I know that it exists....
Why Me,

I found the text I have bolded interesting. How do you go about being "careful with them now and their attitude toward church and life", so they won't "have any bitterness or anger in the future as some members of the forum do"?

Daryl

[Born Free]

<snip.

Now, whatever you think about me grabbing a kid and yelling at him, the response of the church leaders was unmistakable. I was disfellowshipped for a couple months and lost my calling as financial clerk. I had no callings for over a year. I have finally been asked to lead music in sacrament meeting.

This experience just does not jibe with a church that ignores abuse issues. In my opinion, they over-reacted but they certainly didn't let it pass by.
seanross,

You and I seem to read something different into what you describe.

You appear to see consistent, non arbitrary treatment (and have the maturity to cop that sweet, even if you were on the receiving end).

I guess I see something more like, they follow the rules, when it suits them - in this case you must be quite active, and they don't appear to risk losing you. So you got the law applied to you (pretty harshly, I would have thought).

The kid on the other hand, who sounds like he really needs treatment for at least mild anti-social behaviour, up to worrisome pathology, appears to have been treated with kid gloves, inspite that he beat up on the less powerful, and in a very broad impersonal way.

I also see a group of people who hold the niave belief that 'love' will fix all. Sorry certain people who engage in seriously abusive behaviour, have mental problems that need professional treatment, and serious abusive (including sexual) behaviour fits in that.

Now, did I miss something while I blinked? One rule for one, and a different one for someone else is called arbitrary where I come from - not consistent.

Further, what message has this kid learnt? This (Mormonism) is a great place if you want to beat up on the less powerful, particularly women, because they will turn a blind eye, provided you have something they want.

BTW, what did your wife feel about this sequence of events?

Seanross, I am sure this is the first time I have interacted with you in Post-Mo, so I regret that our first interaction is one where I disagree and challenge. That said, welcome here, and you sound like a guy who isn't afraid to think and express an opinion, and that I respect and value greatly.

Daryl

[hamar]

NancyP:"I don't dispise Mormons. I can see some good things."

I don't think most of us here, even the radical and outspokens ones like me dispise those who remain trapped in the tenacles of the church either voluntarily or because of some unfortunate family situation.
I do harbor a lot of anger toward an organization that I trusted and had faith in for nearly 30 years, only to find that they were lieing to me and hiding things from faithful members that they have no right to hide. They are deceitful and do not deserve the faith that I put in them and their great and abominable church.
The members however, for the most part, are loving, trusting and kind individuals, both of my children included. I'm happy to be finally free, and, as time goes on, I will put this anger behind me and will just shake my head and say I can't believe I fell for that crap. In the meantime you'll see me here frequently ranting about the evil empire in SLC.

[why me]

Why Me,

I found the text I have bolded interesting. How do you go about being "careful with them now and their attitude toward church and life", so they won't "have any bitterness or anger in the future as some members of the forum do"?

Daryl
Well...this can be a problem because I no longer live with my girls. But I try to set an example in my own way by living my life as I see fit. For example, I shop on sundays for food when I am with them. Also I ask them questions about what they are learning in seminary and young women and try to have a conversation with them. But mainly they know who I am as their father. I can sometimes talk about guilt in a light kind of way and how we are all not perfect and god is a loving god and how important it is to forgive yourself and remember that you are just a human being on a human journey. When I say forgive yourself I mean that we are all human and we all make mistakes in our lives regardless what we may consider to be a mistake. But mainly I teach by example in having the attitude that I do with the church. And also the members here have taught me that there is deep bitterness about finding out information that they believed were hidden from them etc. Eventually I will need to talk about that too. But in general, I want to be there for them when they might be experiencing the problems that some people in the forum have had. I want to be their 'cushion' and all that that may entail and that is perhaps the best thing that I can do for them if the situation arises at some point in their lives and if I will still around to be and do it.
I never recognized the bitterness before in the church...I just thought that people get tired and just leave and live life. Usually when a person is inactive...it can be rather difficult to latch on to other inactive members because they just disappear...somewhere. And so for me it has been a road of disconnection. But with my children I worry that the bitterness will be there someday....if they wish to leave the church I would just want them to do with a smile on their face....and look to life as a new beginning...no regrets and no anger. And so I do my best for this to happen if it happens. Oh...I also will talk about moderation with them...to believe in moderation when it comes to church and not indulgence in activities etc...I don't know Born Free I am just a divorced dad trying to do my best...that's all....thanks for asking.... :)

[miss taken]

Seanross, I am sorry, but you were disfellowshipped for bringing a young lad to task for hurting your wife.

I am sorry, but what...........................

In my very humble opinion you SHOULD NOT have been disfellowshipped for that action.

I knew of a bishop, who gave a little of 'his own medicine' to a young boy who was continually bullying other children. The situation came to a head when the said bishop caught this child pushing down to the ground, forcibly and dangerously his own child.

Know what the bishop did, he did the same thing to the bullying child. Said bullying child didn't ever do it again.

It taught him a valuable lesson.

Listen, I am not saying this reflects on the organisation of the church in any way, it is human. We are all human. I am not saying the bishop was right. The boys mother certainly didn't think so, and felt he could have handled it by discussion rather than the 'a dose of your own medicine' tactic. She was angry at him, privately brought him to task, but never took it any further..

But to disfellowship you for such a thing as you did, is really rather wacky. Are you sure they weren't upset at something else, and used this as a...don't know the word....reason I suppose, when really there was something else up.

[why me]

Seanross, I am sorry, but you were disfellowshipped for bringing a young lad to task for hurting your wife.

I am sorry, but what...........................

In my very humble opinion you SHOULD NOT have been disfellowshipped for that action.

I knew of a bishop, who gave a little of 'his own medicine' to a young boy who was continually bullying other children. The situation came to a head when the said bishop caught this child pushing down to the ground, forcibly and dangerously his own child.

Know what the bishop did, he did the same thing to the bullying child. Said bullying child didn't ever do it again.

It taught him a valuable lesson.

Listen, I am not saying this reflects on the organisation of the church in any way, it is human. We are all human. I am not saying the bishop was right. The boys mother certainly didn't think so, and felt he could have handled it by discussion rather than the 'a dose of your own medicine' tactic. She was angry at him, privately brought him to task, but never took it any further..

But to disfellowship you for such a thing as you did, is really rather wacky. Are you sure they weren't upset at something else, and used this as a...don't know the word....reason I suppose, when really there was something else up.
I thought the same thing but I suppose it all depends on the situation. Seanross might have done something extreme or something to that effect. Or maybe, the elders involved in the situation just had low tolerance for that kind of thing. Or maybe times have changed and the priesthood leaders were thinking of lawsuits etc and the sensitivity of the abuse charge if one were to be made. America is a different place than the UK in this regard. But is seanross from the states? Who knows what were the details...but I did have the same reaction as you but with also the thought process I just described above to get some understanding of it...

[hitchiker]

Thanks for the post. I appreciate your views. I hope that you will continue to post here. We have one active member on the forum and I think that many on the forum would consider me active in the church...although I am actually inactive. You have an interesting take on the matter...more comments please as you see fit. (Only remember forum policy rules!) Take care...
PS: I have the same feelings about my own teenage daughters but after reading the posts in these threads I am very careful with them now and their attitude toward church and life. I don't want them to have any bitterness or anger in the future as some members of the forum do. I would like to guard against that. This has been very valuable knowledge which I have gleamed from the forum....I never recognized the bitterness before my contact with the forum...but now I know that it exists....it does exist , and its very very real , and its caused by a very real problem . thinking about my own anger , i supressed it for a long time , then one day in priesthood i could not hold back the frustration any longer so i blurted out, why doesn,t the church tell us about JS other versions of his first vision , that was my last visit to priesthood , i have never been back and i never will , somebody in that conversation said , who really cares , the church is true so we do not need all the facts , my anger grew as i said , i really care , i am not going to be part of flobbing people off with some half pie story , if you can imagine a conflict like that erupting in a priesthood meeting you can imagine the emotion that was involved , perhaps even more hurtful since that time 8 months ago is that not one single person has ever spoken to me about it , i was exspecting a interview from the Bishop to discuss my frustrations , nothing happened , i was ignored, being alone is very difficult , it takes a lot of courage to face life and death without a close nit community behind you , i have had dreams where i am walking alone down country roads surrounded by lonliness and loss , i am sure these are a reflection of the truama of of making a break , my latest revelation , the greatest gift god could give me , is freedom