The Fallout Story

The Fallout Story
Published
by
Hawkgrrrl at http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/29/the-fallout-story/

on May 29, 2008

in Anti-Mormon, Asides, Culture, Humor, LDS, Mormon, Mormons, christianity, church, faith, inter-faith, mormon, religion, testimony and women
. Tags: etiquette, relationships.
the-fallout-story

The Fallout Story is a rule of etiquette (that I made up) that I hold sacred for discussing breakups. The rule is: the dumpee owns the fallout story. The dumper is prohibited from making any disparaging remarks (henceforth and forever) about the dumpee, as a matter of courtesy. As a friend put it: “She keeps the ring; she tells the story.” This is where we get the phrase: “It’s not you; it’s me.” We all know that’s not true (c’mon, if it wasn’t them, why are you dumping them?), but it is good etiquette. The Fallout Story rule applies for all kinds of breakups: romantic, employment, loaning money or credit, and I would like to suggest, leaving the church (it’s usually called an “exit story” in this last case, but the rule applies).

There are rules of etiquette in polite society. Put the tea bag in the cup before the hot water. A used knife should remain on the plate, not be returned to the table. The person to the right goes first at a 4-way stop. But there are other unofficial rules of etiquette not yet adopted that should be. Don’t talk on the phone while you are going to the toilet (public restrooms or otherwise). Don’t use acronyms for the eff word on Mormon blogging sites. Never run over time when you teach a lesson during the 3rd hour. Don’t subject acquaintances to pictures from your mission or vacation without repeated requests to do so.

So, why is the Fallout Story rule just good manners? I realize that most breakups are not all one-sided. Often, it is mutually beneficial to both parties, and there may be blame enough to go around. But, as Sesame Street taught, when you divide a piece of cake, one person gets to cut the cake, and the other chooses which piece s/he wants. That way, the person will try to cut the cake fairly. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t get to cut the cake and also choose the first piece, and then tell everyone that you were forced to eat the cake when what you really wanted was ice cream.

I know, as a person who has been the dumper in a relationship, that being the one to make the call, to decide to walk away, can be deeply satisfying with its own intrinsic benefits. You are prepared to walk away on your own terms and (at least for the moment) may even be willing do whatever it takes to get out. Which is exactly why you should be courteous to the dumpee. The one with the most awareness in the situation, the one who is calling the shots, has an obligation to be courteous to those with less power or awareness. This idea goes to the heart of courtesy. In WWII, Winston Churchill was criticized for his deferential declaration of war written to the Japanese. As Winston Churcill replied, “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

So, in leaving the church, my rule would state that if the church severs the relationship, out of courtesy, the individual owns the rights to the Fallout Story (rather than the church). Obviously, an ex-Mo seeking reconciliation will have different motivation in how the Fallout Story is relayed. But if the post-Mo leaves voluntarily to pursue other interests, that person should only use the most courteous terms in describing the fallout and in referring to the Church they left. And if that person is antagonistic and vocal in attacking the church, the church would own the Fallout Story and be able to explain events from an official perspective.

A wise businessman I know once said (of individuals declined for credit): “We don’t decline people for credit; we only tell them what it will take to obtain credit, and they determine whether they want to do those things.” When it comes to parting ways with the church, some fallout (but not all) is like that. So, (under my made up rule), if you want out, but you want rights to the Fallout Story, you have to get kicked out. We’ve all seen breakups like that, where you make the other person so miserable they finally break it off.

Another reason for etiquette in these situations is that relationships between people (and organizations are people) is very subjective. Your “ex” may be a great partner to someone else. Even though you didn’t really mean it when you said, “It’s not you, it’s me” there is still some truth to that sentiment. As Yasmina Reza put it in the play “Art”: “If I am who I am because you are who you are, then I am not who I am, and if you are who you are because I am who I am, then I am not who I am.” So, assuming that you are right in your negative perceptions of the dumpee (company, church, or any other individual or organization you voluntarily disassociate yourself with) is inherently unfair because your experience with them is always subjective and about you as well as them.

So, do you agree that the Fallout Story rule is good etiquette for those leaving the church (and vice-versa)? Can you think of valid exceptions?

What other unofficial rules of etiquette do you feel should be adopted in the modern LDS church?


41 Responses to “The Fallout Story”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

* 1 The Green Man
May 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Two things,

1. The fallout story / exit story is somewhat of a hybrid of divorce stories and consumer reports: emotionally loaded, filled with inconsistencies yet holding a grain of an experience.

A person who leaves needs to be validated, particularly because the institution places a negative value on the exiting party (the phrase ‘better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the depths of the sea’ was used on me once by a good friend years ago, it still smarts). Shouldn’t a person take action to protest their good name?

A person who leaves ultimately needs to find alternatives and telling stories don’t help that.

But a person like me spent time, heart and energy promoting it and sometimes feel that the institution just isn’t what we worked for - and want to warn those still in, just like we wanted to warn those outside the institution before we left. The learned behavior of voicing our opinion on the institution (however well researched) on unwelcoming parties is just as bad post Mormon and True Believing Mormon.

A code of etiquette? I guess my would be to respect the beliefs of others and insist on respect from others.
* 2 John Nilsson
May 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Hawkgrrrl,

This is a very fair-minded approach.

Of course, there are different dynamics when one person leaves one other person than when one person leaves a group, to say nothing of a global organization, still less of a religious organization which claims the ultimate allegiance of its members.

In general I am inclined to agree with your approach.

Other unofficial rules of etiquette: If dark-suited male General Authorities are going to be the overwhelming majority of speakers in General Conference, ask colorfully-dressed women to offer the opening and closing prayers.

BEFORE calling someone to a position, get their spouse’s permission and support.
* 3 MAC
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Hawkgrrrl,

Very nice analogy. I think many of those who leave the Church and still care enough to describe themselves as Exmo, don’t have the emotional perspective to see how ungracious and crass their screeds can become.

I might add to the analogy, that a good predictor of how a new relationship may go is how the previous one ended. The breakup itself may not be a good indicator of character, but the fashion and style with which one handles it is. Or a little more simply, don’t date someone who still fixates on their ex(es).
* 4 CarlosJC
May 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

‘Put the tea bag in the cup before the hot water.”

How is it that a good mormon girl like you knows about this, hawkgrrrl? :)

Anyway, I think you could add to these rules of etiquette:

‘We can still be friends’

as women usually say to their dumpee’s.
* 5 allaboutmykids
May 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Great post and ideas expressed. I know many who have left the church (permanently or just very less-active). All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission. I know that sounds extreme and I know the organization of the church is not perfect. However, in my experience, it has proven true. It would be great ettquette to hear one of my friends someday say,

“You know what. I didn’t go to church on Sundays. I wasn’t good about serving in the Temple. I didn’t come to church on Sundays with an attitude of bettering myself. I didn’t read my scriptures and pray as much as I should. However- I don’t know that if I had it would have changed the way I think about the church. Maybe so. It’s only fair to see that I could have been part of the problem.” And then they can continue on with their long story of how certain things can’t be proven factually, and how Joseph Smith had a young wife, and how people in the church were discriminatory, clique, fake. . .

There is almost always some tragic story about something lame that somebody said or did to them.

The people in the church can do and say horrible things. Some people in the history of our church have said and done things I don’t understand and don’t agree with. People aren’t perfect and I’m grateful to have a testimony that isn’t founded on the choices of others, but instead a confirmation that when I live the gospel with my whole heart my life is full of joy and when I don’t, it isn’t.
* 6 hawkgrrrl
May 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Carlos JC - “How is it that a good mormon girl like you knows about this (how to make tea), hawkgrrrl?” I had to learn this one the hard way, by waitressing when I was in high school to a Bostonian who lectured me rather publicly on my poor tea making skills. Then he told me it was a good thing I had my looks to get by on (to soften the blow about my lack of waitressing skill). Ah, those were the days.
* 7 alice
May 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

The problem with your otherwise sensitive and compassionate reasoning is that the person making the choice to leave an organization is not the party with the power. Altho they may take back their personal power it is insignificant in comparison to the organizations aggregate and public power.

Further, the person leaving is, assumedly, leaving because they have discovered a personal truth. Truth always wants to be heard. And, conversely, falsehood (which we can assume the leaving party would assess the organization to embody), is best disclosed. So, it follows that someone who feels they had previously been deceived and/or controlled, and has now discovered a liberating truth would, necessarily, want to make that clear.

Not saying politesse isn’t always welcome and appreciated, but I think you’re asking for it where other issues of great belief v. betrayal have other agendas.
* 8 Bill
May 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

#5–”I know many who have left the church (permanently or just very less-active). All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission.”

This is exactly the problem with the ‘dumpee’ owning the story. If someone chooses to leave the church, the church is the ‘dumpee’. According to your rules, the church owns the story and the story that is almost universally told is that the person who left is a sinner. (Technically, this is true–in the church’s eyes, leaving the church is a sin, so if you leave the church you are by definition a sinner).

People generally want to leave quietly, but if the church labels them as sinners, they feel a need to respond.
* 9 allaboutmykids
May 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Bill. In my experience, the church has been very careful not to label any specific friend (speaking of those who have left the church) of mine. As an organization and most people in it, everyone was careful and considerate- not labeling any of them as “sinners”. I recognize that my experience is limited, but I was just saying that my friends happen to have played an equal part in the church not working out for them. It is frustrating to me that the church is hold to a high level of expectation with how they treat anyone who leaves, but that people who leave just get verbal and loud about leaving and why. They own the fallout story. The quote in the post that I was responding to was “So, in leaving the church, my rule would state that if the church severs the relationship, out of courtesy, the individual owns the rights to the Fallout Story (rather than the church).” I just wish that those who left the church would be fair in their fallout stories and see what they may have done to contribute to it not working- and admit it. That’s all.
* 10 Nick Literski
May 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

This whole “you contributed to things not working out” is fine when it comes to a discontinued relationship between two “normal” people. It’s not fine when the “dumper” leaves because the “dumpee” was a child molester. Why should an individual who leaves a toxic, pathological person be obligated to be silent about the “dumpee?” If anything, you might expect the “dumper” in that case to warn others of the dangers he or she perceives the “dumpee” to pose toward others.

Many times, when an individual leaving the LDS church, they do so because they have concluded that the LDS church was not what they were previously persuaded that it was. Such individuals feel they were deceived, and yes, they often harbor some anger toward the institution, at least for a time. In such a person’s view, the institution is just as toxic and pathological as a supposed lover who turns out to be deceptive and/or criminal. They may even feel a sense of urgency to warn others of what they perceive as serious problems in the institution.

The fact that most continuing LDS members disagree with the “dumper” doesn’t mean the “dumper” is somehow obligated to present the institution in the way they would prefer. Those who disagree with the “dumper” are always free to express their differing experience with the institution.
* 11 N.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

The “dumper” vs. “dumpee” distinction (and the accompanying etiquette) is too reliant on point of view to be of use in the broader sense. I could come up with a half dozen scenarios which would easily blur the distinction.

Re: “dumping” or “being dumped by” the church. There is an asymmetry.

1. Excommunicated members get to say whatever they want about the proceedings and reasons. They get to characterize the leaving process however they wish. They fit your model of the “dumpee” because church policy prohibits public statements (or private discussion) of the circumstances of ecclesiastical courts. The ex’d person *owns* the discussion and story as sole proprietor.

2. People who have their own names removed are in a slightly different position. In their case, there’s *nothing to be said* by the church or church authorities except “they asked to be removed, and we did.” Unlike the early days of the church, no one is telling the congregation over the pulpit who’s leaving, why, and what should be thought of them. I’ve been a part of dozens of people leaving the church of their own accord (clerking, mostly; leadership, sometimes). There’s nothing to be said by the church organization or leaders except “they asked to be removed” and that’s what we might say if asked. Usually, no one asks, and so no one says anything. If there’s a “story” or “side of the story” to be told, it’s *also* always done by the leaving party (as far as the church is concerned; if individual members like to gossip, that probably happens and it’s discouraged and also their character flaw, IMO).

So it seems that the leaving party always seems to get the last word in this kind of “breakup.” Asymmetrical, for sure.

IMO, the people with the strongest feelings and the tallest soapbox get to own the story.
In most cases, it’s the leaving party for policy reasons. I also think there’s some wisdom behind those policies. If one might frequent certain ex-Mormon internet discussion forums, one might quickly see a level of bile, filth, and disrespect that I would hate the Saints to lower themselves too. The Saints would, too, if encouraged to gossip/defend/attack/talk about the “breakups.” I’m glad the policy is like my mother’s (”if you can’t say anything nice…”).

Bill says:

People generally want to leave quietly, but if the church labels them as sinners, they feel a need to respond.

You may be mistaken in your assertion here. You may never have been to ex’s discussion forums where they don’t allow the church, it’s active members, or anyone else involved with the “breakup” to say anything, much less “label” anything. They do not leave quietly. They do not “respond” to anyone or anything in any sense of the word.
* 12 Ray
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I’ll take Jesus’ words:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

That’s NOT the natural response; the natural response is to strike back when you feel harmed. Jesus also taught that blessed are the meek and merciful.

It really doesn’t get more complicated than that for me.

(Nick, did that qualify as pulling the ultimate authority card?) :)
* 13 Bill
May 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

#9 - “In my experience, the church has been very careful not to label any specific friend (speaking of those who have left the church) of mine.”

You are right, the church doesn’t single people out–it implies that they are ALL sinners. There have been various conference talks over the years that have implied that people who leave do so because of sin or because of offense. You certainly seem to have bought in to the idea.

#12 - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

For people who feel they have been deceived (as described by Nick #10), the ‘do unto others’ response would be (from #10) that “They may even feel a sense of urgency to warn others of what they perceive as serious problems in the institution.” Warning others of perceived danger is a Christ-like response. After all, ‘it becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor.’
* 14 GBSmith
May 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

First of all people that who have been committed to the gospel and leave have got to have the chance to grieve and to expect them to do so in silence is just not reasonable. It’s like asking someone who has lost a family member or is terminally ill to skip the first 3-4 stages of grieving and go straight to quiet acceptance. Expecting that sort of behavior is rooted in the belief that deep down there’s nothing wrong, untrue or false about the church and if a person believes that to be the case and acts on it they must be stupid, shallow, weak or sinful. To whit:

“All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission. I know that sounds extreme and I know the organization of the church is not perfect. However, in my experience, it has proven true.”

#5. There are a lot of buttons you can push with people who have decided to leave the church and I think the “I know you say it was about doctrine but we really know it’s sinful slothful loathsome behavior and not only that somebody didn’t smile at you and you’re offended is the real and true reason you’ve left the fold” has got to be number one. “In my experience” and $2.50 will get you a short low fat latt (decaff) e at Starbucks. And the term “All” covers a lot of people. If you’re interested in reading a reasoned thoughtful opinion on the subject go to Runtu’s Rincon http://www.runtu.wordpress.com and read his post “The Right Way” on the subject. And remember that for the sake of one to many cognitive dissonances you could be in the same boat.
* 15 Michelle Glauser
May 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Wow, that twist about the church wasn’t expected, even though I was kind of wondering where it was going. That is so true! It’s unfortunate that so many get to rip on the Church or on leaders when the leaders out of politeness and privacy issues can’t defend themselves. The problem with adopting the Fallout Story is that the Church can adopt it, but those once people leave the Church, they don’t and probably won’t live that etiquette. As for other rules, still thinking . . .
* 16 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Nick: “It’s not fine when the “dumper” leaves because the “dumpee” was a child molester. Why should an individual who leaves a toxic, pathological person be obligated to be silent about the “dumpee?” If anything, you might expect the “dumper” in that case to warn others of the dangers he or she perceives the “dumpee” to pose toward others.” I think your analogy goes too far. Child molesters have violated the law and are sick, sick, sick individuals. Even if you don’t believe the church is true, and even if you believe you were “deceived,” only one who truly believes in a DaVinci-esque high level conspiracy could truly believe the church is a deceptive kabal. I realize that idea is the basis of The Godmakers, but since that movie (like the DaVinci Code and other works of fiction) relies so much on bad sourcework and outright fabrication, how can a person who was once believing go down that “total conspiracy” path? And even if it were a total conspiracy (a la Scientology’s attackers claims about that group), does that mean it is illegal and harmful along the lines of child molestation? Most agree (except the evangelical crowd who believe everyone is going to hell) that even if the church were not true, it is a good code of conduct for life and leads to happiness, again, nothing like child molestation. We have to start being respectful enough of other religions (in both directions) to stop telling people they are going to hell for cognitive dissonance, so I disagree this is a sound basis for attack. I know that’s an anti-evangelical statement, but so be it.

N. - I agree with your remarks. In truth, members should not say anything untoward about those who leave unless necessary to clarify their own position (e.g. they are implicated in the Fallout Story).
* 17 Anna G.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am

I tend to agree with Nick. I do think the “child molester” analogy goes too far (or maybe not–in the Catholic church, many people left because of church practices that essentially allowed child molesting; surely they are dumpers who should tell their version of the fallout story). But I think people who feel like they’ve been deceived may be justified in feeling that they have a right or responsibility to tell their story, even if what happened to them falls far short of being an illegal, harmful conspiracy.

Suppose I meet a man who seems like a generally good, nice, decent guy. While he is wooing me, he talks constantly about his great family values and his financial stability, and those things in part persuade me to marry him. But after I marry him, I find out that he has failed to tell me about a lot of very unpleasant details in his past (previous marriages, extreme promiscuity, criminal convictions)–things I find very troubling, things he knows a lot of people would find troubling. I then leave him because even though he still seems like a nice guy, his lack of honesty and up-frontness about his past has made me feel extremely betrayed and misled. I believe he’s likely to mislead others similarly. Does he get to control the story?
* 18 Nick Literski
May 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am

#16:
Yes, it was probably unwise of me to use “child molester” as my analogy. I was not trying to say that the LDS church is engaged in criminal acts, etc. I used the example merely as a “clear case,” but I can see how that could be disturbing to some. I apologize for that. Rest assured that I do not think there is a massive LDS conspiracy out there, just waiting to become a Dan Brown novel.

My original point was simply that if a person leaves the LDS church after concluding that it is not what it claims to be, that person cannot be reasonably expected to be silent about their conclusions. Rather than “bad manners,” as the initial post suggests, the “dumper” in this case may sincerely feel a moral obligation to warn others against what s/he perceives as a false set of faith claims.
* 19 Runtu
May 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I’ve never quite understood this attitude: the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon. If someone leaves, say, the Scientologists, no Mormons will call them bitter or say that it’s bad manners for them to talk about their experience.

Mormonism is part of who I am, and it’s natural for me to talk about something that I live every day. Where I will agree with you is that some people can and do get extreme in their attacks on the church. That’s unnecessary and, in my view, unhealthy.

In my blog (http://runtu.wordpress.com), I talk about things that matter to me, and occasionally that means I’m critical of the church. People can and do disagree with me, and amazingly enough, we’ve had some interesting and helpful discussions.

It’s not bad manners for me to talk about my life and my experiences and my thoughts. What is bad manners is telling me to shut up if you disagree with me.
* 20 Imperfection
May 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I’m sorry but this is a very bad analogy. The church is a very large and influencial organization. An individual is rather small and helples by comparison.

The contention that people leave in order to sin is silly. They leave because the large conglomorate of a church no longer meets their needs spiritualy or otherwise. Yes, some of them are angry and bitter because they have given a lot of themselves to the church. In return they get guilt trips for not attending enough meetings, reading enough scriptures, or going through enough temple sessions.

They have a story to tell, and to suggest that out of politeness they should not has not basis.
* 21 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Nick - “Rest assured that I do not think there is a massive LDS conspiracy out there, just waiting to become a Dan Brown novel.” Unfortunately, there are already several novels out there that cover this territory. Too bad Dan Brown doesn’t take a crack at it; it might at least be interesting.

I think you have a point about being able to say *something* about why you have left (leaving the molester analogy behind). I suppose what I object to most is evangelizing “away from” religions people have left, almost regardless of motivation. I have yet to hear someone express their concern for the welfare of those who remain “deceived” without feeling it is disingenuous and condescending.

Runtu - I certainly don’t feel that dialogue, even critical dialogue, should be silenced, just courteous. Most of the dialogue I see here on MM, even from those who have left the church, is respectful discussion from differing viewpoints. It’s far more healthy to take the gifts that ennoble from our experiences and to focus on the new paths that you hope will add to the positives in your life without making attacks on the past. You can’t live in both the past and in the now.
* 22 Anna G.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Basically, I like the dumpee-tells-the-story rule for some breakups and not others. In some breakups, people (or people and institutions) just aren’t right for each other or have irreconcilable differences, and things don’t work out. No one’s really to blame, or both of them are to blame to some extent. In those situations, the etiquette rule seems fine.

In other situations, someone is at fault, and it’s not necessarily the dumper. What if my husband habitually cheats on me and I leave him? What if I quit my job because my boss sexually harassed me or my paycheck keeps bouncing? Do I owe these dumpees the courtesy of allowing them to describe the breakup as they wish, while I’m just satisfied with being the one supposedly in control of the situation?
* 23 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Imperfection - “The church is a very large and influencial organization. An individual is rather small and helples by comparison.” In what way is the church’s size or influence binding on someone who has chosen to leave? The individual is the only one with any practical control over his/her own life, either in or out of the church.
* 24 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Anna - “What if I quit my job because my boss sexually harassed me or my paycheck keeps bouncing?” Sexual harassment is breaking the law. If your boss sexually harassed you, your company is not at fault unless they knew about it and failed to take action after it was reported or they encouraged or condoned it openly in a hostile work environment. So, your beef is with your boss, not your company, if you quietly leave an otherwise friendly environment without reporting your boss’s crime, and crimes should be reported. I agree that actual crimes cross the line from break-up to something else (e.g. plaintiff and defendant comes to mind, in which case, both stories are heard). If your paycheck keeps bouncing, that is a breach of contract on your company’s part. I think there is some serious question as to who chose to sever the relationship - you or them. They failed to meet their contractual obligations to you. Since neither of these analogies are really relevant to the leaving the church scenario (no paid clergy, etc.), I’ll just leave it at that.
* 25 Bruce Nielson
May 30th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

>>> the “dumper” in this case may sincerely feel a moral obligation to warn others against what s/he perceives as a false set of faith claims.

I agree with Nick on this. However, it would then be inconsistent to allow those that are part of the “dumpee” (the LDS church) to feel the need to spread the word about the “dumper” about why they aren’t a trustworthy source of information. (Assuming they feel that way.)

This is a consistency issue. If we allow for the moral possiblity that the “dumper” might have a moral obligation to spread the word, we don’t also get to get upset over the “slander” of the “dumpee.” I’m afraid it is one and the same.

I like Hawkgrrls proposal not as a hard fast rule, but as an understanding between two parties. But of course both parties may honestly feel the need to spread the word for the sake of morality and, if they really feel that way, they should do so.

One more point: If the person that leaves the LDS church does so on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth, they *should* spread the word about the falsehoods in the LDS church.

But if they did so on the grounds that there are no certainties and/or that religion is just a personal preference, then morally Hawkgrrl’s rule would apply and anything else would be a self-contradiction.
* 26 Ishmael
May 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I think the relationship analogy is deeply flawed. The relationship between church and member is not a relationship between equals.

Besides, whenever the church severs the relationship via excommunication, they immediately poison the well by reminding everyone that since it is their policy to keep details of the proceedings confidential, any account given by the former member will necessarily be one-sided, and by implication, biased and unreliable.

To me, that doesn’t seem like they are ceding “ownership” of the exit story to the former member. So why should someone choosing to “dump” the church cede anything to it?
* 27 Nick Literski
May 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

#25:
One more point: If the person that leaves the LDS church does so on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth, they *should* spread the word about the falsehoods in the LDS church.

I don’t agree that the “dumper” always needs to have a better alternative before they can speak about their conclusions regarding LDS faiht claims, but there certainly are circumstances where one should be cautious about doing so. I have reached certain conclusions about the historical/faith claims of the LDS church, but I don’t discuss them with my children, who are still being raised as LDS by their mother. The vast majority of the LDS church’s behavioral teachings are, in my opinion, excellent guidelines for young people, and will protect young people from many potential dangers. There will come a time for them to make adult evaluations and decisions on their own, but for now, I’m not going to try to eliminate what has been a mostly-successful child-rearing model.
* 28 Just S
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Hawkgrrl,
This is certainly a very well thought out and carefully considered point of view. you have obviously spent much time and careful preparation to be as thoughtful about this subject as possible.
There is, however, an overwhelming flaw in your logic. You have never been in the situation you are describing, and therefore are not qualified to be as directly opinionated about it as you are. You come form a place where in every ‘exit story’ situation, the LDS church is still the good guy, and the ‘ex-mos’ are the bad guys in black clothing. You have no idea what it is like to leave the church under certain circumstances, namely when philosophocal and doctrinal differences are the reason, rather the the too easily assumed cop out of great personal sin on the part of the leaver.
For those of us who have left the church under such reasons, the decision is a difficult, personal undertaking. I never cease to understand why in some cases members of the church take it upon themselves to develop broad sweeping generalizations about those who do leave. It is not personal to you, but it is to those of us who go through it. Not every member can be painted with the same brush, of course, but in my personal experience the lack of understanding and the automatic judgemnt to those who leave the church by members is sad and unChristian. If those who leave need to vent and tell their stories as a way of healing after a very difficult time in their lives, that is their right to do. And you have no right to try to set up rules for them to follow. It has, after all, nothing to do with you.
I mean this respectfully. Please try and understand this from their side, even if you could never understand or condone their actions.
* 29 Terrestrial God
May 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

In my experience, most ex-Mormons are repeated asked why they left by their LDS family and friends so it’s rather difficult for them to remain silent. Most struggle with how much to say because they don’t have a desire to damage the faith of people they love and respect. The ex-Mormons who do rail against the LDS Church, tend to do so in forums where they are among other ex-Mormons like themselves so I’m not sure there is any harm done to practicing Mormons. There is a much needed healing element in venting, especially when venting is done in healthy and appropriate ways.

I guess my point is this, I’m not sure your analagy applies in this situation. It’s not a case of kiss and tell as it were and not being chivalrous and gallant. It’s an achingly emotional experience for the one who leaves. Just as it can be a source of grief and pain for his/her loved ones who remain. I think it’s a shame that there can’t be an open dialog between the two where they whys and wherefores can be expressed with out the faithful Mormon feeling threatened by his/her “apostate” loved one’s reasons for exiting.

One final thought . . . I have been personal witness to the musings of Mormons on the reasons for someone’s departure from the LDS Church and have been appalled to hear them assume that the “apostate” surely must have committed some sin . . . ususally of a sexual nature. In fact, I called my spouse and two close friends on this one night when they were surmising that another close and long-time friend who had resigned must surely be having an affair. They were properly ashamed of themselves. Another popular notion held as an explanation for someone leaving the LDS Church is they were somehow offended and their reaction is petty and unjustified.

No wonder ex-Mormons feel the need to state their case. It’s often a matter of defending their honor and integrity. I think the bottom line is, all too often, Mormons simply don’t want to be confronted with the possibility that someone else could possibly hold something else to be true and hold that belief in the same way they hold their “knowledge” of the truthe of their church. This is viewed as arrogant, naive and very off-putting to those of us who are not LDS and live among the LDS; especially when you are related to and love LDS people. It feels like you live on a one-way street, where you get no genuine respect, and it’s not pleasant.
* 30 Bruce Nielson
May 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

>>> I don’t agree that the “dumper” always needs to have a better alternative before they can speak about their conclusions regarding LDS faiht claims

But that’s not what I said. I said if they leave “on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth.” In other words, if you leave the Church because you think it is false and that people in the church are better off knowing it is false (that would be, by definition, a more correct truth or more certain truth) than you have an obligation to spread the word.

However, it would be silly for such a person to then turn around and make the claim that what they think is “bad” about the LDS Church is that it thinks it has exclusive truths that others don’t because of course they would be claiming the very same thing of themselves at that point. Self-contradictory, in other words. The correct thing is for them to just go on and claim they have more truth than the LDS Church (their views thus become an alternative).
* 31 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

One more word on scientology, since that was mentioned. These guys are the top dogs at controlling the fallout story if Time magazine is to be believed (although as any LDS person should be able to state with authority - they don’t always get their facts straight). According to Time, scientology will ruin your Hollywood career, freeze your assets, and even force you to commit suicide if you speak ill of them.

However, these claims seem a little outlandish to me. People pay enormous sums of money to Scientology which doesn’t purport to be a religion but does ask you to believe some pretty far out things. These ex-adherents knew that going in, and they agreed to those terms. Do you really need someone to “warn” you not to join it? Buyer beware. If scientology is committing crimes, let it be investigated and proven in a court of law.

Having read about the practical application of Scientology, the dogma doesn’t appear inherently harmful to me, and as long as you keep paying, they don’t seem to care what you do really. Frankly, it’s less expensive than tithing.
* 32 Just S
May 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Hawkgrrl, do you see hwhat you are saying here??? If there is something sinister going on in Scientology, “let it be investigated and proven in a court of law.” Are you serious? Assuming momentarily that there is something criminal going on in any organization, do you think it is wise for everyone with a personal experience to just sit back and shut up and wait for the authorities to expose the truth?
What about your responsibility to protect others when you know something bad is going on?
* 33 ZoobieLandia
May 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

“What other unofficial rules of etiquette do you feel should be adopted in the modern LDS church?”

Don’t gossip about people who leave; or people who stay; or people who miss a week; or people who breathe?

Oh, and always try to act Christlike by trying to assume the best of others.
* 34 CarlosJC
May 30th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

‘There is, however, an overwhelming flaw in your logic’

Goodness, people!

Maybe this story is more tongue-in-cheek? folks here seem to be taking it way too seriously, imo
* 35 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Just S - “You have never been in the situation you are describing, and therefore are not qualified to be as directly opinionated about it as you are. You come form a place where in every ‘exit story’ situation, the LDS church is still the good guy, and the ‘ex-mos’ are the bad guys in black clothing.” Your comments have very little to do with my post or my actual stated opinion. You don’t know my situation or what I do and don’t assume about people who have left. As it happens, I have two sisters who left the church many years ago for different reasons, both to pursue what was of greater value to them. I also have a sister whose husband was ex-communicated. None has returned nor is it likely any of them will. I do not ascribe their departures to a desire to commit sin; the situations were all very complex and many factors contributed to the outcome, including mistakes made by local leaders in some cases. I have siblings and friends who have stayed in the church who are more sinful than those who have left. Please do not stereotype me based on a lack of knowledge of my actual circumstances and feelings. My opinion in the post is simply that I value courtesy above defending one’s own honor or enforcing one’s newfound opinions through evangelizing (e.g. spreading the word to “save others from deception”). And Carlos JC is correct that the analogy was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I’m glad if it opens dialogue.
* 36 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

#32 - the criminal complaints (specifically fraud, but hints at far worse) about Scientology have come forward very publicly. If ex-adherents have a complaint of criminal activity, they should go to the police and add it to the body of evidence. The matter should be pursued by the authorities, and if there is merit, prosecuted. I’m not saying people shouldn’t report crimes, just that they should report actual crimes to the proper authorities vs. blogging about it when there’s already a proliferation of accusion out there. It also doesn’t make them look like the sharpest tools in the shed for getting into it in the first place. And if there is merit, it isn’t slander or libel (if in print), but if there is not merit to their claims, then it is.
* 37 jman
May 31st, 2008 at 12:19 am

i think this whole idea/story misses the whole point of freedom of speech and copyright laws based upon authorship. if i write something about the church, i own it. i dont lose my ownership because of some convoluted idea that the church gets to decide how i express my opinions of why i left the church. in this scenario of dumpee v dumper, the church would get the say in both situations. if a person is ex’d the church exerts authority over the dumpee by forcing the break up. the church then, based upon this idea would get the say again if it was what was being the dumpee. this whole idea that the church is what gets to dictate the separation is what has been happening for a long time now. if you don’t agree with me, you must also realize the history behind my statement. joseph smith even went to jail for a time because he decided to restrict the freedom of press by ordering the destruction of the nauvoo expositor. the church in this instance attempted to control the flow of information and the attitude thereof by shutting down opposing views. just because an ex-mo’s view of the church is opposite of a tbm’s sparkling view of the church, it doesn’t mean it is wrong. what is wrong is the attempt to squash ex-mo’s equally valid view points. it is also dissapointing to see how tbm’s still think that us ex-mo’s have left the church because of ’sins’ of any kind, and not by any actions of the church. it not only belittles our opinions, but also makes those who still believe this way seem ‘out of the loop’ of reality. for those of you who think this is the case regardless of what i say need to do a bit more research on why we feel the way we do. next time you feel the need to lump us in to a category like that is the time i start refering to tbm’s in a derogatory way. goodness knows i’ve had enough opportunity to.
* 38 SNB
May 31st, 2008 at 12:45 am

I’m not a huge fan of your analogy. Why can’t everyone with a story tell it? Why do people who leave the church need to censor themselves? My relationship with the church wasn’t like a romantic relationship, it was the relationship between a person and the organization that person thought represented god.

You need to realize that there are a lot of people who have left the church because they have felt used and lied to. Whether or not they are justified in feeling that way, are they going to trust the official story of an organization that they feel is in the wrong? Why wouldn’t they get a voice?

My last point is this. I have left the church, and while I don’t feel like the church did me a huge wrong in any way, their official story that I left because of my sins is absolutely wrong. If the organization of the church is really the only side that gets to tell my exit story, then all you are going to hear is a misrepresentation. I don’t think it is overtly malicious that they claim everyone who leaves does so because of sin (though covertly it is), but the official story isn’t realistic or true for any ex-mormon that I have ever met.

Cheers!
* 39 JPM
May 31st, 2008 at 1:23 am

Ok, lets be frank. I am what you might call an “ex mormon” My experience was largely negative. I was covenant born, served a full honorable but disasterous mission. After my mission I live a temple worthy life. The day I my letter requesting that my name be removed from the records of the church was submitted, I had a valid, and honestly obtained Recommend.

I left however, because I came to the realization that my faith was not in the LDS faith, but in the Roman Catholic faith. The argument, and allusions by the First Presidency, Q12 and others that I left in sin are fallible. I am now 5 years ordained a priest. I still consider myself worthy of a temple reccomend in that I can answer all the questions yes, sans the wine and then I limit my drinking to the bare minimum required for the consecration of the Eucharist (sacrament in LDS terms.) I even pay a full tithe back to my parish of the stipend they pay me.

I am also on many of the “exmo” boards. Yes, there are many with a vitriolic anger and most for good reason. I actually know one guy who was excommunicated because he upheld the rules of the BSA camp where he was Director when the local LDS troop was discharging firearms in an unsafe manner in the camp. To not allow these people the opportunity to vent would only cause the situation to fester. When one has a gangrenous wound you amputate it. YOu don’t tell it to repent of their sin.

Many people leave the church because of abuses perpetrated by called leaders. In this case, the church itself is the infection. When they seek recourse through the appropriate channels they are deffered back to the same authorities that are perpetrating the abuse. How then can you say they are the sinners.

I left b/c i had issue with reconciling known fact with LDS assertion as fact. Its funny that most of my friends from the LDS will no longer even talk to me. I actually saw one of the young men whom I had helped through a very difficult situation, and he said he was not allowed to talk to me any longer because i was a practicing homosexual. The Bishop of the ward had told him (*this was confirmed by 5 other people as it was stated in sacrament meeting and reiterated in priesthood meeting) as much when he, the Bishop, in fact knew that I was leaving to pursue my baptism in the Catholic faith in order to pursue a life in the full time ordained ministry. That hurt. I was lied about, to the congregation from the pulpit. This happened after I left. But it still has a pronounced affect I have when I hear that the church doesn’t do stuff like that.

Dont automatically assume we leave because we sin; don’t assume the church is blameless. Especially when it knows about the situation and allows its perpetuation because the leader in question was called by revelation. I believe that God has revealed. But I don’t believe that just b/c someone is called to priesthood authority that they were actually called by God. Especially when they set about from the start in an injurious fashion and perpetuate the trend. Please becareful about how you view ex LDS members. Some have left legitimately and not because of fornication, tithing or word of wisdom issues.

Romans 8:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Father.”
* 40 flattopSF
May 31st, 2008 at 2:23 am

Your analogy is flawed from the get-go. You want to pretend that you are Miss Manners and that everyone should play nicey-nice with your premise, but this issue isn’t about good manners at all. What you are really doing is trying to smother the exit stories of individuals with justifiable grievances under a moldy stinky wet blanket disguised as good manners. Nice try. You’d be far better off trying to stage a defense with this analogy, which is infinitely more apt, considering the realities involved: if you purchased a very expensive product that is manufactured and sold by a major corporation who purports it to be thus and such, do you not expect that product to be and perform exactly as claimed? Naturally most people would answer: “yes.” If the product were that great, you’d even invite your friends to review it and spread the good word, wouldn’t you? What will you do then, when after a little while you discover the product to be not what its manufacturer purported it to be? Would you put it away on a high shelf and quietly forget about it? Would you hide your discovery from your friends? I don’t know very many people who would do that: most people would broadcast the fraud. Most people would try to get their money back. Most people would sue the corporation for fraud. Most people would NOT “politely” shut up about it: the reason being that the issue has NOTHING to do with “good manners,” it has EVERYTHING to do with exposing a fraud in the interest of the public good.

Cheers.
* 41 samuel l flyinghorse
May 31st, 2008 at 3:56 am

there are those of us, who’ve never sinned as far as church definitions!!

and we’ve done everything asked of us, did above and beyond in what was required and expected, Gave thousands of $, thousands of hours in time, gave away talents and nothing was given in return.

nothing.

your white, racist church just took and took,
and labeled us unfit, of lowly estate.

Basically you’re telling us exMormons, that you’re not a believer in American civil liberties and rights!!

Because you tell us to shut theHal up!!, thinking thats the end of that, and it isn’t.

We who left the cult behind do not live anymore by your manners nor are we bound by your rules of social engagement.

As a military veteran, I don’t take kindly to people telling anyone else, especially me, that I don’t have a right of free speech; ie. to tell my exit story,

and to tell it again and again if I wish.
Basically you tell me, as an Veteran, as an Native American, that I don’t matter at all to you in the grand scheme of things and that I’d better shut up and not tell people

what I think of theCult!!
That offends me.

it’s people like you, that think the way you do, that spoke this way,

that LIVED this way that eventually told me that I was no longer welcome in theCult.

As for me to you or any one of your Cult.
You may speak, you may write,

you may believe anything you wish, because that is your right.
And I, as part of an Warrior Race, whom has served in both military and police uniforms,

whom has seen conflict overseas as well as domesticly (sp?),
whom has seen just how fragile Life is, does not wish to take anything away from you, or your cultPeople.

unlike you, I will not tell you to shut theHal!! up like you are telling us exMo’s to do.

shame on you sister,

luvs,
theSam!! / Abel, my Temple name!!
samuel l flyinghorse
anchorage, ak

The Fallout Story
Published
by
Hawkgrrrl

on May 29, 2008

in Anti-Mormon, Asides, Culture, Humor, LDS, Mormon, Mormons, christianity, church, faith, inter-faith, mormon, religion, testimony and women
. Tags: etiquette, relationships.
the-fallout-story

The Fallout Story is a rule of etiquette (that I made up) that I hold sacred for discussing breakups. The rule is: the dumpee owns the fallout story. The dumper is prohibited from making any disparaging remarks (henceforth and forever) about the dumpee, as a matter of courtesy. As a friend put it: “She keeps the ring; she tells the story.” This is where we get the phrase: “It’s not you; it’s me.” We all know that’s not true (c’mon, if it wasn’t them, why are you dumping them?), but it is good etiquette. The Fallout Story rule applies for all kinds of breakups: romantic, employment, loaning money or credit, and I would like to suggest, leaving the church (it’s usually called an “exit story” in this last case, but the rule applies).

There are rules of etiquette in polite society. Put the tea bag in the cup before the hot water. A used knife should remain on the plate, not be returned to the table. The person to the right goes first at a 4-way stop. But there are other unofficial rules of etiquette not yet adopted that should be. Don’t talk on the phone while you are going to the toilet (public restrooms or otherwise). Don’t use acronyms for the eff word on Mormon blogging sites. Never run over time when you teach a lesson during the 3rd hour. Don’t subject acquaintances to pictures from your mission or vacation without repeated requests to do so.

So, why is the Fallout Story rule just good manners? I realize that most breakups are not all one-sided. Often, it is mutually beneficial to both parties, and there may be blame enough to go around. But, as Sesame Street taught, when you divide a piece of cake, one person gets to cut the cake, and the other chooses which piece s/he wants. That way, the person will try to cut the cake fairly. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t get to cut the cake and also choose the first piece, and then tell everyone that you were forced to eat the cake when what you really wanted was ice cream.

I know, as a person who has been the dumper in a relationship, that being the one to make the call, to decide to walk away, can be deeply satisfying with its own intrinsic benefits. You are prepared to walk away on your own terms and (at least for the moment) may even be willing do whatever it takes to get out. Which is exactly why you should be courteous to the dumpee. The one with the most awareness in the situation, the one who is calling the shots, has an obligation to be courteous to those with less power or awareness. This idea goes to the heart of courtesy. In WWII, Winston Churchill was criticized for his deferential declaration of war written to the Japanese. As Winston Churcill replied, “When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”

So, in leaving the church, my rule would state that if the church severs the relationship, out of courtesy, the individual owns the rights to the Fallout Story (rather than the church). Obviously, an ex-Mo seeking reconciliation will have different motivation in how the Fallout Story is relayed. But if the post-Mo leaves voluntarily to pursue other interests, that person should only use the most courteous terms in describing the fallout and in referring to the Church they left. And if that person is antagonistic and vocal in attacking the church, the church would own the Fallout Story and be able to explain events from an official perspective.

A wise businessman I know once said (of individuals declined for credit): “We don’t decline people for credit; we only tell them what it will take to obtain credit, and they determine whether they want to do those things.” When it comes to parting ways with the church, some fallout (but not all) is like that. So, (under my made up rule), if you want out, but you want rights to the Fallout Story, you have to get kicked out. We’ve all seen breakups like that, where you make the other person so miserable they finally break it off.

Another reason for etiquette in these situations is that relationships between people (and organizations are people) is very subjective. Your “ex” may be a great partner to someone else. Even though you didn’t really mean it when you said, “It’s not you, it’s me” there is still some truth to that sentiment. As Yasmina Reza put it in the play “Art”: “If I am who I am because you are who you are, then I am not who I am, and if you are who you are because I am who I am, then I am not who I am.” So, assuming that you are right in your negative perceptions of the dumpee (company, church, or any other individual or organization you voluntarily disassociate yourself with) is inherently unfair because your experience with them is always subjective and about you as well as them.

So, do you agree that the Fallout Story rule is good etiquette for those leaving the church (and vice-versa)? Can you think of valid exceptions?

What other unofficial rules of etiquette do you feel should be adopted in the modern LDS church?
41 Responses to “The Fallout Story”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

* 1 The Green Man
May 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Two things,

1. The fallout story / exit story is somewhat of a hybrid of divorce stories and consumer reports: emotionally loaded, filled with inconsistencies yet holding a grain of an experience.

A person who leaves needs to be validated, particularly because the institution places a negative value on the exiting party (the phrase ‘better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the depths of the sea’ was used on me once by a good friend years ago, it still smarts). Shouldn’t a person take action to protest their good name?

A person who leaves ultimately needs to find alternatives and telling stories don’t help that.

But a person like me spent time, heart and energy promoting it and sometimes feel that the institution just isn’t what we worked for - and want to warn those still in, just like we wanted to warn those outside the institution before we left. The learned behavior of voicing our opinion on the institution (however well researched) on unwelcoming parties is just as bad post Mormon and True Believing Mormon.

A code of etiquette? I guess my would be to respect the beliefs of others and insist on respect from others.
* 2 John Nilsson
May 29th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Hawkgrrrl,

This is a very fair-minded approach.

Of course, there are different dynamics when one person leaves one other person than when one person leaves a group, to say nothing of a global organization, still less of a religious organization which claims the ultimate allegiance of its members.

In general I am inclined to agree with your approach.

Other unofficial rules of etiquette: If dark-suited male General Authorities are going to be the overwhelming majority of speakers in General Conference, ask colorfully-dressed women to offer the opening and closing prayers.

BEFORE calling someone to a position, get their spouse’s permission and support.
* 3 MAC
May 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Hawkgrrrl,

Very nice analogy. I think many of those who leave the Church and still care enough to describe themselves as Exmo, don’t have the emotional perspective to see how ungracious and crass their screeds can become.

I might add to the analogy, that a good predictor of how a new relationship may go is how the previous one ended. The breakup itself may not be a good indicator of character, but the fashion and style with which one handles it is. Or a little more simply, don’t date someone who still fixates on their ex(es).
* 4 CarlosJC
May 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

‘Put the tea bag in the cup before the hot water.”

How is it that a good mormon girl like you knows about this, hawkgrrrl? :)

Anyway, I think you could add to these rules of etiquette:

‘We can still be friends’

as women usually say to their dumpee’s.
* 5 allaboutmykids
May 29th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Great post and ideas expressed. I know many who have left the church (permanently or just very less-active). All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission. I know that sounds extreme and I know the organization of the church is not perfect. However, in my experience, it has proven true. It would be great ettquette to hear one of my friends someday say,

“You know what. I didn’t go to church on Sundays. I wasn’t good about serving in the Temple. I didn’t come to church on Sundays with an attitude of bettering myself. I didn’t read my scriptures and pray as much as I should. However- I don’t know that if I had it would have changed the way I think about the church. Maybe so. It’s only fair to see that I could have been part of the problem.” And then they can continue on with their long story of how certain things can’t be proven factually, and how Joseph Smith had a young wife, and how people in the church were discriminatory, clique, fake. . .

There is almost always some tragic story about something lame that somebody said or did to them.

The people in the church can do and say horrible things. Some people in the history of our church have said and done things I don’t understand and don’t agree with. People aren’t perfect and I’m grateful to have a testimony that isn’t founded on the choices of others, but instead a confirmation that when I live the gospel with my whole heart my life is full of joy and when I don’t, it isn’t.
* 6 hawkgrrrl
May 29th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Carlos JC - “How is it that a good mormon girl like you knows about this (how to make tea), hawkgrrrl?” I had to learn this one the hard way, by waitressing when I was in high school to a Bostonian who lectured me rather publicly on my poor tea making skills. Then he told me it was a good thing I had my looks to get by on (to soften the blow about my lack of waitressing skill). Ah, those were the days.
* 7 alice
May 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

The problem with your otherwise sensitive and compassionate reasoning is that the person making the choice to leave an organization is not the party with the power. Altho they may take back their personal power it is insignificant in comparison to the organizations aggregate and public power.

Further, the person leaving is, assumedly, leaving because they have discovered a personal truth. Truth always wants to be heard. And, conversely, falsehood (which we can assume the leaving party would assess the organization to embody), is best disclosed. So, it follows that someone who feels they had previously been deceived and/or controlled, and has now discovered a liberating truth would, necessarily, want to make that clear.

Not saying politesse isn’t always welcome and appreciated, but I think you’re asking for it where other issues of great belief v. betrayal have other agendas.
* 8 Bill
May 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

#5–”I know many who have left the church (permanently or just very less-active). All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission.”

This is exactly the problem with the ‘dumpee’ owning the story. If someone chooses to leave the church, the church is the ‘dumpee’. According to your rules, the church owns the story and the story that is almost universally told is that the person who left is a sinner. (Technically, this is true–in the church’s eyes, leaving the church is a sin, so if you leave the church you are by definition a sinner).

People generally want to leave quietly, but if the church labels them as sinners, they feel a need to respond.
* 9 allaboutmykids
May 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Bill. In my experience, the church has been very careful not to label any specific friend (speaking of those who have left the church) of mine. As an organization and most people in it, everyone was careful and considerate- not labeling any of them as “sinners”. I recognize that my experience is limited, but I was just saying that my friends happen to have played an equal part in the church not working out for them. It is frustrating to me that the church is hold to a high level of expectation with how they treat anyone who leaves, but that people who leave just get verbal and loud about leaving and why. They own the fallout story. The quote in the post that I was responding to was “So, in leaving the church, my rule would state that if the church severs the relationship, out of courtesy, the individual owns the rights to the Fallout Story (rather than the church).” I just wish that those who left the church would be fair in their fallout stories and see what they may have done to contribute to it not working- and admit it. That’s all.
* 10 Nick Literski
May 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

This whole “you contributed to things not working out” is fine when it comes to a discontinued relationship between two “normal” people. It’s not fine when the “dumper” leaves because the “dumpee” was a child molester. Why should an individual who leaves a toxic, pathological person be obligated to be silent about the “dumpee?” If anything, you might expect the “dumper” in that case to warn others of the dangers he or she perceives the “dumpee” to pose toward others.

Many times, when an individual leaving the LDS church, they do so because they have concluded that the LDS church was not what they were previously persuaded that it was. Such individuals feel they were deceived, and yes, they often harbor some anger toward the institution, at least for a time. In such a person’s view, the institution is just as toxic and pathological as a supposed lover who turns out to be deceptive and/or criminal. They may even feel a sense of urgency to warn others of what they perceive as serious problems in the institution.

The fact that most continuing LDS members disagree with the “dumper” doesn’t mean the “dumper” is somehow obligated to present the institution in the way they would prefer. Those who disagree with the “dumper” are always free to express their differing experience with the institution.
* 11 N.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

The “dumper” vs. “dumpee” distinction (and the accompanying etiquette) is too reliant on point of view to be of use in the broader sense. I could come up with a half dozen scenarios which would easily blur the distinction.

Re: “dumping” or “being dumped by” the church. There is an asymmetry.

1. Excommunicated members get to say whatever they want about the proceedings and reasons. They get to characterize the leaving process however they wish. They fit your model of the “dumpee” because church policy prohibits public statements (or private discussion) of the circumstances of ecclesiastical courts. The ex’d person *owns* the discussion and story as sole proprietor.

2. People who have their own names removed are in a slightly different position. In their case, there’s *nothing to be said* by the church or church authorities except “they asked to be removed, and we did.” Unlike the early days of the church, no one is telling the congregation over the pulpit who’s leaving, why, and what should be thought of them. I’ve been a part of dozens of people leaving the church of their own accord (clerking, mostly; leadership, sometimes). There’s nothing to be said by the church organization or leaders except “they asked to be removed” and that’s what we might say if asked. Usually, no one asks, and so no one says anything. If there’s a “story” or “side of the story” to be told, it’s *also* always done by the leaving party (as far as the church is concerned; if individual members like to gossip, that probably happens and it’s discouraged and also their character flaw, IMO).

So it seems that the leaving party always seems to get the last word in this kind of “breakup.” Asymmetrical, for sure.

IMO, the people with the strongest feelings and the tallest soapbox get to own the story.
In most cases, it’s the leaving party for policy reasons. I also think there’s some wisdom behind those policies. If one might frequent certain ex-Mormon internet discussion forums, one might quickly see a level of bile, filth, and disrespect that I would hate the Saints to lower themselves too. The Saints would, too, if encouraged to gossip/defend/attack/talk about the “breakups.” I’m glad the policy is like my mother’s (”if you can’t say anything nice…”).

Bill says:

People generally want to leave quietly, but if the church labels them as sinners, they feel a need to respond.

You may be mistaken in your assertion here. You may never have been to ex’s discussion forums where they don’t allow the church, it’s active members, or anyone else involved with the “breakup” to say anything, much less “label” anything. They do not leave quietly. They do not “respond” to anyone or anything in any sense of the word.
* 12 Ray
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I’ll take Jesus’ words:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

That’s NOT the natural response; the natural response is to strike back when you feel harmed. Jesus also taught that blessed are the meek and merciful.

It really doesn’t get more complicated than that for me.

(Nick, did that qualify as pulling the ultimate authority card?) :)
* 13 Bill
May 29th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

#9 - “In my experience, the church has been very careful not to label any specific friend (speaking of those who have left the church) of mine.”

You are right, the church doesn’t single people out–it implies that they are ALL sinners. There have been various conference talks over the years that have implied that people who leave do so because of sin or because of offense. You certainly seem to have bought in to the idea.

#12 - “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

For people who feel they have been deceived (as described by Nick #10), the ‘do unto others’ response would be (from #10) that “They may even feel a sense of urgency to warn others of what they perceive as serious problems in the institution.” Warning others of perceived danger is a Christ-like response. After all, ‘it becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor.’
* 14 GBSmith
May 29th, 2008 at 11:19 pm

First of all people that who have been committed to the gospel and leave have got to have the chance to grieve and to expect them to do so in silence is just not reasonable. It’s like asking someone who has lost a family member or is terminally ill to skip the first 3-4 stages of grieving and go straight to quiet acceptance. Expecting that sort of behavior is rooted in the belief that deep down there’s nothing wrong, untrue or false about the church and if a person believes that to be the case and acts on it they must be stupid, shallow, weak or sinful. To whit:

“All of them played a part by either sins of commission or omission. I know that sounds extreme and I know the organization of the church is not perfect. However, in my experience, it has proven true.”

#5. There are a lot of buttons you can push with people who have decided to leave the church and I think the “I know you say it was about doctrine but we really know it’s sinful slothful loathsome behavior and not only that somebody didn’t smile at you and you’re offended is the real and true reason you’ve left the fold” has got to be number one. “In my experience” and $2.50 will get you a short low fat latt (decaff) e at Starbucks. And the term “All” covers a lot of people. If you’re interested in reading a reasoned thoughtful opinion on the subject go to Runtu’s Rincon http://www.runtu.wordpress.com and read his post “The Right Way” on the subject. And remember that for the sake of one to many cognitive dissonances you could be in the same boat.
* 15 Michelle Glauser
May 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Wow, that twist about the church wasn’t expected, even though I was kind of wondering where it was going. That is so true! It’s unfortunate that so many get to rip on the Church or on leaders when the leaders out of politeness and privacy issues can’t defend themselves. The problem with adopting the Fallout Story is that the Church can adopt it, but those once people leave the Church, they don’t and probably won’t live that etiquette. As for other rules, still thinking . . .
* 16 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am

Nick: “It’s not fine when the “dumper” leaves because the “dumpee” was a child molester. Why should an individual who leaves a toxic, pathological person be obligated to be silent about the “dumpee?” If anything, you might expect the “dumper” in that case to warn others of the dangers he or she perceives the “dumpee” to pose toward others.” I think your analogy goes too far. Child molesters have violated the law and are sick, sick, sick individuals. Even if you don’t believe the church is true, and even if you believe you were “deceived,” only one who truly believes in a DaVinci-esque high level conspiracy could truly believe the church is a deceptive kabal. I realize that idea is the basis of The Godmakers, but since that movie (like the DaVinci Code and other works of fiction) relies so much on bad sourcework and outright fabrication, how can a person who was once believing go down that “total conspiracy” path? And even if it were a total conspiracy (a la Scientology’s attackers claims about that group), does that mean it is illegal and harmful along the lines of child molestation? Most agree (except the evangelical crowd who believe everyone is going to hell) that even if the church were not true, it is a good code of conduct for life and leads to happiness, again, nothing like child molestation. We have to start being respectful enough of other religions (in both directions) to stop telling people they are going to hell for cognitive dissonance, so I disagree this is a sound basis for attack. I know that’s an anti-evangelical statement, but so be it.

N. - I agree with your remarks. In truth, members should not say anything untoward about those who leave unless necessary to clarify their own position (e.g. they are implicated in the Fallout Story).
* 17 Anna G.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:16 am

I tend to agree with Nick. I do think the “child molester” analogy goes too far (or maybe not–in the Catholic church, many people left because of church practices that essentially allowed child molesting; surely they are dumpers who should tell their version of the fallout story). But I think people who feel like they’ve been deceived may be justified in feeling that they have a right or responsibility to tell their story, even if what happened to them falls far short of being an illegal, harmful conspiracy.

Suppose I meet a man who seems like a generally good, nice, decent guy. While he is wooing me, he talks constantly about his great family values and his financial stability, and those things in part persuade me to marry him. But after I marry him, I find out that he has failed to tell me about a lot of very unpleasant details in his past (previous marriages, extreme promiscuity, criminal convictions)–things I find very troubling, things he knows a lot of people would find troubling. I then leave him because even though he still seems like a nice guy, his lack of honesty and up-frontness about his past has made me feel extremely betrayed and misled. I believe he’s likely to mislead others similarly. Does he get to control the story?
* 18 Nick Literski
May 30th, 2008 at 9:36 am

#16:
Yes, it was probably unwise of me to use “child molester” as my analogy. I was not trying to say that the LDS church is engaged in criminal acts, etc. I used the example merely as a “clear case,” but I can see how that could be disturbing to some. I apologize for that. Rest assured that I do not think there is a massive LDS conspiracy out there, just waiting to become a Dan Brown novel.

My original point was simply that if a person leaves the LDS church after concluding that it is not what it claims to be, that person cannot be reasonably expected to be silent about their conclusions. Rather than “bad manners,” as the initial post suggests, the “dumper” in this case may sincerely feel a moral obligation to warn others against what s/he perceives as a false set of faith claims.
* 19 Runtu
May 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

I’ve never quite understood this attitude: the only good exmormon is a silent exmormon. If someone leaves, say, the Scientologists, no Mormons will call them bitter or say that it’s bad manners for them to talk about their experience.

Mormonism is part of who I am, and it’s natural for me to talk about something that I live every day. Where I will agree with you is that some people can and do get extreme in their attacks on the church. That’s unnecessary and, in my view, unhealthy.

In my blog (http://runtu.wordpress.com), I talk about things that matter to me, and occasionally that means I’m critical of the church. People can and do disagree with me, and amazingly enough, we’ve had some interesting and helpful discussions.

It’s not bad manners for me to talk about my life and my experiences and my thoughts. What is bad manners is telling me to shut up if you disagree with me.
* 20 Imperfection
May 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I’m sorry but this is a very bad analogy. The church is a very large and influencial organization. An individual is rather small and helples by comparison.

The contention that people leave in order to sin is silly. They leave because the large conglomorate of a church no longer meets their needs spiritualy or otherwise. Yes, some of them are angry and bitter because they have given a lot of themselves to the church. In return they get guilt trips for not attending enough meetings, reading enough scriptures, or going through enough temple sessions.

They have a story to tell, and to suggest that out of politeness they should not has not basis.
* 21 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Nick - “Rest assured that I do not think there is a massive LDS conspiracy out there, just waiting to become a Dan Brown novel.” Unfortunately, there are already several novels out there that cover this territory. Too bad Dan Brown doesn’t take a crack at it; it might at least be interesting.

I think you have a point about being able to say *something* about why you have left (leaving the molester analogy behind). I suppose what I object to most is evangelizing “away from” religions people have left, almost regardless of motivation. I have yet to hear someone express their concern for the welfare of those who remain “deceived” without feeling it is disingenuous and condescending.

Runtu - I certainly don’t feel that dialogue, even critical dialogue, should be silenced, just courteous. Most of the dialogue I see here on MM, even from those who have left the church, is respectful discussion from differing viewpoints. It’s far more healthy to take the gifts that ennoble from our experiences and to focus on the new paths that you hope will add to the positives in your life without making attacks on the past. You can’t live in both the past and in the now.
* 22 Anna G.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Basically, I like the dumpee-tells-the-story rule for some breakups and not others. In some breakups, people (or people and institutions) just aren’t right for each other or have irreconcilable differences, and things don’t work out. No one’s really to blame, or both of them are to blame to some extent. In those situations, the etiquette rule seems fine.

In other situations, someone is at fault, and it’s not necessarily the dumper. What if my husband habitually cheats on me and I leave him? What if I quit my job because my boss sexually harassed me or my paycheck keeps bouncing? Do I owe these dumpees the courtesy of allowing them to describe the breakup as they wish, while I’m just satisfied with being the one supposedly in control of the situation?
* 23 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Imperfection - “The church is a very large and influencial organization. An individual is rather small and helples by comparison.” In what way is the church’s size or influence binding on someone who has chosen to leave? The individual is the only one with any practical control over his/her own life, either in or out of the church.
* 24 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Anna - “What if I quit my job because my boss sexually harassed me or my paycheck keeps bouncing?” Sexual harassment is breaking the law. If your boss sexually harassed you, your company is not at fault unless they knew about it and failed to take action after it was reported or they encouraged or condoned it openly in a hostile work environment. So, your beef is with your boss, not your company, if you quietly leave an otherwise friendly environment without reporting your boss’s crime, and crimes should be reported. I agree that actual crimes cross the line from break-up to something else (e.g. plaintiff and defendant comes to mind, in which case, both stories are heard). If your paycheck keeps bouncing, that is a breach of contract on your company’s part. I think there is some serious question as to who chose to sever the relationship - you or them. They failed to meet their contractual obligations to you. Since neither of these analogies are really relevant to the leaving the church scenario (no paid clergy, etc.), I’ll just leave it at that.
* 25 Bruce Nielson
May 30th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

>>> the “dumper” in this case may sincerely feel a moral obligation to warn others against what s/he perceives as a false set of faith claims.

I agree with Nick on this. However, it would then be inconsistent to allow those that are part of the “dumpee” (the LDS church) to feel the need to spread the word about the “dumper” about why they aren’t a trustworthy source of information. (Assuming they feel that way.)

This is a consistency issue. If we allow for the moral possiblity that the “dumper” might have a moral obligation to spread the word, we don’t also get to get upset over the “slander” of the “dumpee.” I’m afraid it is one and the same.

I like Hawkgrrls proposal not as a hard fast rule, but as an understanding between two parties. But of course both parties may honestly feel the need to spread the word for the sake of morality and, if they really feel that way, they should do so.

One more point: If the person that leaves the LDS church does so on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth, they *should* spread the word about the falsehoods in the LDS church.

But if they did so on the grounds that there are no certainties and/or that religion is just a personal preference, then morally Hawkgrrl’s rule would apply and anything else would be a self-contradiction.
* 26 Ishmael
May 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I think the relationship analogy is deeply flawed. The relationship between church and member is not a relationship between equals.

Besides, whenever the church severs the relationship via excommunication, they immediately poison the well by reminding everyone that since it is their policy to keep details of the proceedings confidential, any account given by the former member will necessarily be one-sided, and by implication, biased and unreliable.

To me, that doesn’t seem like they are ceding “ownership” of the exit story to the former member. So why should someone choosing to “dump” the church cede anything to it?
* 27 Nick Literski
May 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

#25:
One more point: If the person that leaves the LDS church does so on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth, they *should* spread the word about the falsehoods in the LDS church.

I don’t agree that the “dumper” always needs to have a better alternative before they can speak about their conclusions regarding LDS faiht claims, but there certainly are circumstances where one should be cautious about doing so. I have reached certain conclusions about the historical/faith claims of the LDS church, but I don’t discuss them with my children, who are still being raised as LDS by their mother. The vast majority of the LDS church’s behavioral teachings are, in my opinion, excellent guidelines for young people, and will protect young people from many potential dangers. There will come a time for them to make adult evaluations and decisions on their own, but for now, I’m not going to try to eliminate what has been a mostly-successful child-rearing model.
* 28 Just S
May 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Hawkgrrl,
This is certainly a very well thought out and carefully considered point of view. you have obviously spent much time and careful preparation to be as thoughtful about this subject as possible.
There is, however, an overwhelming flaw in your logic. You have never been in the situation you are describing, and therefore are not qualified to be as directly opinionated about it as you are. You come form a place where in every ‘exit story’ situation, the LDS church is still the good guy, and the ‘ex-mos’ are the bad guys in black clothing. You have no idea what it is like to leave the church under certain circumstances, namely when philosophocal and doctrinal differences are the reason, rather the the too easily assumed cop out of great personal sin on the part of the leaver.
For those of us who have left the church under such reasons, the decision is a difficult, personal undertaking. I never cease to understand why in some cases members of the church take it upon themselves to develop broad sweeping generalizations about those who do leave. It is not personal to you, but it is to those of us who go through it. Not every member can be painted with the same brush, of course, but in my personal experience the lack of understanding and the automatic judgemnt to those who leave the church by members is sad and unChristian. If those who leave need to vent and tell their stories as a way of healing after a very difficult time in their lives, that is their right to do. And you have no right to try to set up rules for them to follow. It has, after all, nothing to do with you.
I mean this respectfully. Please try and understand this from their side, even if you could never understand or condone their actions.
* 29 Terrestrial God
May 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

In my experience, most ex-Mormons are repeated asked why they left by their LDS family and friends so it’s rather difficult for them to remain silent. Most struggle with how much to say because they don’t have a desire to damage the faith of people they love and respect. The ex-Mormons who do rail against the LDS Church, tend to do so in forums where they are among other ex-Mormons like themselves so I’m not sure there is any harm done to practicing Mormons. There is a much needed healing element in venting, especially when venting is done in healthy and appropriate ways.

I guess my point is this, I’m not sure your analagy applies in this situation. It’s not a case of kiss and tell as it were and not being chivalrous and gallant. It’s an achingly emotional experience for the one who leaves. Just as it can be a source of grief and pain for his/her loved ones who remain. I think it’s a shame that there can’t be an open dialog between the two where they whys and wherefores can be expressed with out the faithful Mormon feeling threatened by his/her “apostate” loved one’s reasons for exiting.

One final thought . . . I have been personal witness to the musings of Mormons on the reasons for someone’s departure from the LDS Church and have been appalled to hear them assume that the “apostate” surely must have committed some sin . . . ususally of a sexual nature. In fact, I called my spouse and two close friends on this one night when they were surmising that another close and long-time friend who had resigned must surely be having an affair. They were properly ashamed of themselves. Another popular notion held as an explanation for someone leaving the LDS Church is they were somehow offended and their reaction is petty and unjustified.

No wonder ex-Mormons feel the need to state their case. It’s often a matter of defending their honor and integrity. I think the bottom line is, all too often, Mormons simply don’t want to be confronted with the possibility that someone else could possibly hold something else to be true and hold that belief in the same way they hold their “knowledge” of the truthe of their church. This is viewed as arrogant, naive and very off-putting to those of us who are not LDS and live among the LDS; especially when you are related to and love LDS people. It feels like you live on a one-way street, where you get no genuine respect, and it’s not pleasant.
* 30 Bruce Nielson
May 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

>>> I don’t agree that the “dumper” always needs to have a better alternative before they can speak about their conclusions regarding LDS faiht claims

But that’s not what I said. I said if they leave “on the grounds that they found a higher more certain or more correct truth.” In other words, if you leave the Church because you think it is false and that people in the church are better off knowing it is false (that would be, by definition, a more correct truth or more certain truth) than you have an obligation to spread the word.

However, it would be silly for such a person to then turn around and make the claim that what they think is “bad” about the LDS Church is that it thinks it has exclusive truths that others don’t because of course they would be claiming the very same thing of themselves at that point. Self-contradictory, in other words. The correct thing is for them to just go on and claim they have more truth than the LDS Church (their views thus become an alternative).
* 31 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

One more word on scientology, since that was mentioned. These guys are the top dogs at controlling the fallout story if Time magazine is to be believed (although as any LDS person should be able to state with authority - they don’t always get their facts straight). According to Time, scientology will ruin your Hollywood career, freeze your assets, and even force you to commit suicide if you speak ill of them.

However, these claims seem a little outlandish to me. People pay enormous sums of money to Scientology which doesn’t purport to be a religion but does ask you to believe some pretty far out things. These ex-adherents knew that going in, and they agreed to those terms. Do you really need someone to “warn” you not to join it? Buyer beware. If scientology is committing crimes, let it be investigated and proven in a court of law.

Having read about the practical application of Scientology, the dogma doesn’t appear inherently harmful to me, and as long as you keep paying, they don’t seem to care what you do really. Frankly, it’s less expensive than tithing.
* 32 Just S
May 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Hawkgrrl, do you see hwhat you are saying here??? If there is something sinister going on in Scientology, “let it be investigated and proven in a court of law.” Are you serious? Assuming momentarily that there is something criminal going on in any organization, do you think it is wise for everyone with a personal experience to just sit back and shut up and wait for the authorities to expose the truth?
What about your responsibility to protect others when you know something bad is going on?
* 33 ZoobieLandia
May 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

“What other unofficial rules of etiquette do you feel should be adopted in the modern LDS church?”

Don’t gossip about people who leave; or people who stay; or people who miss a week; or people who breathe?

Oh, and always try to act Christlike by trying to assume the best of others.
* 34 CarlosJC
May 30th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

‘There is, however, an overwhelming flaw in your logic’

Goodness, people!

Maybe this story is more tongue-in-cheek? folks here seem to be taking it way too seriously, imo
* 35 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Just S - “You have never been in the situation you are describing, and therefore are not qualified to be as directly opinionated about it as you are. You come form a place where in every ‘exit story’ situation, the LDS church is still the good guy, and the ‘ex-mos’ are the bad guys in black clothing.” Your comments have very little to do with my post or my actual stated opinion. You don’t know my situation or what I do and don’t assume about people who have left. As it happens, I have two sisters who left the church many years ago for different reasons, both to pursue what was of greater value to them. I also have a sister whose husband was ex-communicated. None has returned nor is it likely any of them will. I do not ascribe their departures to a desire to commit sin; the situations were all very complex and many factors contributed to the outcome, including mistakes made by local leaders in some cases. I have siblings and friends who have stayed in the church who are more sinful than those who have left. Please do not stereotype me based on a lack of knowledge of my actual circumstances and feelings. My opinion in the post is simply that I value courtesy above defending one’s own honor or enforcing one’s newfound opinions through evangelizing (e.g. spreading the word to “save others from deception”). And Carlos JC is correct that the analogy was intended to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I’m glad if it opens dialogue.
* 36 hawkgrrrl
May 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

#32 - the criminal complaints (specifically fraud, but hints at far worse) about Scientology have come forward very publicly. If ex-adherents have a complaint of criminal activity, they should go to the police and add it to the body of evidence. The matter should be pursued by the authorities, and if there is merit, prosecuted. I’m not saying people shouldn’t report crimes, just that they should report actual crimes to the proper authorities vs. blogging about it when there’s already a proliferation of accusion out there. It also doesn’t make them look like the sharpest tools in the shed for getting into it in the first place. And if there is merit, it isn’t slander or libel (if in print), but if there is not merit to their claims, then it is.
* 37 jman
May 31st, 2008 at 12:19 am

i think this whole idea/story misses the whole point of freedom of speech and copyright laws based upon authorship. if i write something about the church, i own it. i dont lose my ownership because of some convoluted idea that the church gets to decide how i express my opinions of why i left the church. in this scenario of dumpee v dumper, the church would get the say in both situations. if a person is ex’d the church exerts authority over the dumpee by forcing the break up. the church then, based upon this idea would get the say again if it was what was being the dumpee. this whole idea that the church is what gets to dictate the separation is what has been happening for a long time now. if you don’t agree with me, you must also realize the history behind my statement. joseph smith even went to jail for a time because he decided to restrict the freedom of press by ordering the destruction of the nauvoo expositor. the church in this instance attempted to control the flow of information and the attitude thereof by shutting down opposing views. just because an ex-mo’s view of the church is opposite of a tbm’s sparkling view of the church, it doesn’t mean it is wrong. what is wrong is the attempt to squash ex-mo’s equally valid view points. it is also dissapointing to see how tbm’s still think that us ex-mo’s have left the church because of ’sins’ of any kind, and not by any actions of the church. it not only belittles our opinions, but also makes those who still believe this way seem ‘out of the loop’ of reality. for those of you who think this is the case regardless of what i say need to do a bit more research on why we feel the way we do. next time you feel the need to lump us in to a category like that is the time i start refering to tbm’s in a derogatory way. goodness knows i’ve had enough opportunity to.
* 38 SNB
May 31st, 2008 at 12:45 am

I’m not a huge fan of your analogy. Why can’t everyone with a story tell it? Why do people who leave the church need to censor themselves? My relationship with the church wasn’t like a romantic relationship, it was the relationship between a person and the organization that person thought represented god.

You need to realize that there are a lot of people who have left the church because they have felt used and lied to. Whether or not they are justified in feeling that way, are they going to trust the official story of an organization that they feel is in the wrong? Why wouldn’t they get a voice?

My last point is this. I have left the church, and while I don’t feel like the church did me a huge wrong in any way, their official story that I left because of my sins is absolutely wrong. If the organization of the church is really the only side that gets to tell my exit story, then all you are going to hear is a misrepresentation. I don’t think it is overtly malicious that they claim everyone who leaves does so because of sin (though covertly it is), but the official story isn’t realistic or true for any ex-mormon that I have ever met.

Cheers!
* 39 JPM
May 31st, 2008 at 1:23 am

Ok, lets be frank. I am what you might call an “ex mormon” My experience was largely negative. I was covenant born, served a full honorable but disasterous mission. After my mission I live a temple worthy life. The day I my letter requesting that my name be removed from the records of the church was submitted, I had a valid, and honestly obtained Recommend.

I left however, because I came to the realization that my faith was not in the LDS faith, but in the Roman Catholic faith. The argument, and allusions by the First Presidency, Q12 and others that I left in sin are fallible. I am now 5 years ordained a priest. I still consider myself worthy of a temple reccomend in that I can answer all the questions yes, sans the wine and then I limit my drinking to the bare minimum required for the consecration of the Eucharist (sacrament in LDS terms.) I even pay a full tithe back to my parish of the stipend they pay me.

I am also on many of the “exmo” boards. Yes, there are many with a vitriolic anger and most for good reason. I actually know one guy who was excommunicated because he upheld the rules of the BSA camp where he was Director when the local LDS troop was discharging firearms in an unsafe manner in the camp. To not allow these people the opportunity to vent would only cause the situation to fester. When one has a gangrenous wound you amputate it. YOu don’t tell it to repent of their sin.

Many people leave the church because of abuses perpetrated by called leaders. In this case, the church itself is the infection. When they seek recourse through the appropriate channels they are deffered back to the same authorities that are perpetrating the abuse. How then can you say they are the sinners.

I left b/c i had issue with reconciling known fact with LDS assertion as fact. Its funny that most of my friends from the LDS will no longer even talk to me. I actually saw one of the young men whom I had helped through a very difficult situation, and he said he was not allowed to talk to me any longer because i was a practicing homosexual. The Bishop of the ward had told him (*this was confirmed by 5 other people as it was stated in sacrament meeting and reiterated in priesthood meeting) as much when he, the Bishop, in fact knew that I was leaving to pursue my baptism in the Catholic faith in order to pursue a life in the full time ordained ministry. That hurt. I was lied about, to the congregation from the pulpit. This happened after I left. But it still has a pronounced affect I have when I hear that the church doesn’t do stuff like that.

Dont automatically assume we leave because we sin; don’t assume the church is blameless. Especially when it knows about the situation and allows its perpetuation because the leader in question was called by revelation. I believe that God has revealed. But I don’t believe that just b/c someone is called to priesthood authority that they were actually called by God. Especially when they set about from the start in an injurious fashion and perpetuate the trend. Please becareful about how you view ex LDS members. Some have left legitimately and not because of fornication, tithing or word of wisdom issues.

Romans 8:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of the Father.”
* 40 flattopSF
May 31st, 2008 at 2:23 am

Your analogy is flawed from the get-go. You want to pretend that you are Miss Manners and that everyone should play nicey-nice with your premise, but this issue isn’t about good manners at all. What you are really doing is trying to smother the exit stories of individuals with justifiable grievances under a moldy stinky wet blanket disguised as good manners. Nice try. You’d be far better off trying to stage a defense with this analogy, which is infinitely more apt, considering the realities involved: if you purchased a very expensive product that is manufactured and sold by a major corporation who purports it to be thus and such, do you not expect that product to be and perform exactly as claimed? Naturally most people would answer: “yes.” If the product were that great, you’d even invite your friends to review it and spread the good word, wouldn’t you? What will you do then, when after a little while you discover the product to be not what its manufacturer purported it to be? Would you put it away on a high shelf and quietly forget about it? Would you hide your discovery from your friends? I don’t know very many people who would do that: most people would broadcast the fraud. Most people would try to get their money back. Most people would sue the corporation for fraud. Most people would NOT “politely” shut up about it: the reason being that the issue has NOTHING to do with “good manners,” it has EVERYTHING to do with exposing a fraud in the interest of the public good.

Cheers.
* 41 samuel l flyinghorse
May 31st, 2008 at 3:56 am

there are those of us, who’ve never sinned as far as church definitions!!

and we’ve done everything asked of us, did above and beyond in what was required and expected, Gave thousands of $, thousands of hours in time, gave away talents and nothing was given in return.

nothing.

your white, racist church just took and took,
and labeled us unfit, of lowly estate.

Basically you’re telling us exMormons, that you’re not a believer in American civil liberties and rights!!

Because you tell us to shut theHal up!!, thinking thats the end of that, and it isn’t.

We who left the cult behind do not live anymore by your manners nor are we bound by your rules of social engagement.

As a military veteran, I don’t take kindly to people telling anyone else, especially me, that I don’t have a right of free speech; ie. to tell my exit story,

and to tell it again and again if I wish.
Basically you tell me, as an Veteran, as an Native American, that I don’t matter at all to you in the grand scheme of things and that I’d better shut up and not tell people

what I think of theCult!!
That offends me.

it’s people like you, that think the way you do, that spoke this way,

that LIVED this way that eventually told me that I was no longer welcome in theCult.

As for me to you or any one of your Cult.
You may speak, you may write,

you may believe anything you wish, because that is your right.
And I, as part of an Warrior Race, whom has served in both military and police uniforms,

whom has seen conflict overseas as well as domesticly (sp?),
whom has seen just how fragile Life is, does not wish to take anything away from you, or your cultPeople.

unlike you, I will not tell you to shut theHal!! up like you are telling us exMo’s to do.

shame on you sister,

luvs,
theSam!! / Abel, my Temple name!!
samuel l flyinghorse
anchorage, ak

# Punky's Dilemma
May 31st, 2008 at 4:10 am

I’m not clear why a mormon who has never had to go through leaving the mormon church should impose (hawkgrrl’s word) appropriate “ettiquette” for this situation.

If the dumper gets stalked by the dumpee (which happens a lot in this case–you can’t leave the church, but it doesn’t leave you alone…and, IME it doesn’t), the dumper probably needs to be able to tell the fallout story.

If the dumper gets repeatedly asked by associates of the dumpee about why s/he left, then the dumper usually needs a fallout story.

If the dumper finds out that s/he is just one of a long list of people who have been taken advantage of by the dumpee, then s/he will want to share the fallout story with sympathetic others who share that experience.

If the dumper realizes that a friend is about to get into a bad relationship with the dumpee, there are some situations where sharing the fallout story is a matter of being a good friend.

If the dumpee goes around accusing the dumper of all sorts of character crimes (even to the point of broadcasting commentary about the dumper to people who don’t even know her/him), the dumper will likely need to share a fallout story, and perhaps broadcast it.

If the dumpee makes it a point to lie about the dumper, and to disrupt the dumper’s relationships with friends and family, the dumper needs to share her/his fallout story.

If the dumpee has committed a crime, the dumper needs to report it. The dumpee may have done something to deserve being put on a public offender registry.

Leaving the mormon church is not usually a case of “it’s just you and me and we just disagree.” Myself, and my two siblings had to leave the mormon church. We did it at different times in our lives, and for different reasons. We never “went negative” about our exit to other mormons. All of us had the unfortunate experiences of being treated badly by mormon family and acquaintances (and we left while living in quite different regions of the USA). This suggests that there is something about the mormon culture that overall has a hard time accepting a break up. I believe it was just the last general conference where the “dumpee” made a general announcement that they wanted their “dumpers” to come back and be forgiven. In a dating/relationship analogy, this kind of behavior looks pretty sick, and is relatively clingy and ungracious.

I think it is reasonable to suggest that if you are looking to reform the “ettiquette” of exiting the mormon church that you, as a practicing mormon, begin by calling for the reform of the ettiquette of mormons in these situations. Imposing your personal rules for behavior on people in whose situation you have never found yourself is somewhat declase.
# 43 I am soooo not going to give you my name
May 31st, 2008 at 4:41 am

Reading all this makes me feel how much I have never been an ex-mormon. I really don’t understand most of what you are talking about. Not hat I can’t read words:o) It is just that although I can “understand” I have a hard time relating to 3/4 of what has been written although I have been excommunicated and therefore I am in a position where I should have something to say.
I just don’t care about what people in the church think of me or what they say. The state of having been excommunicated to me is a great tool to separate idiots from interesting people at first meeting. The smart ones will care for me and the stupid ones will run away from the filth I represent from them. GREAT! Please avoid me losing my time thinking that you’re smart and discovering too late that you’re not!
I understand your etiquette thing but I honestly think it is really too much. Yet, I have been often told that I am “soooooo random” so maybe it is only my little weird way to be.
What I care about is not to talk about ANY situation I know from first-hand experience (aka MINE!!!!) and not to talk about mine with anyone just out of “modesty”. I don’t run butt naked in the street, I don’t pour my heart/bitterness to anyone “willing” to listen. To me these two things are just exactly the same.
Although…I do have a blog on which I share personal experiences with complete strangers. Blogging is a bliss and paradox is my essence. LOL
No need for an etiquette really. And what is great is that it applies to any church or relationship we can meet in our life.
# 44 Zelda
May 31st, 2008 at 6:24 am

I have bitten my tongue for 20+ years about things that I disagreed with in the church, because to speak was akin to heresy. After feeling silenced for so many years, why WOULDN’T I want to talk about it now? I am a woman, which makes me twice silenced in the church. It’s psychologically healthy to finally openly acknowledge what MY values are, and not worry about whether or not they fall within the bounds the church has sanctioned. Many of “my” values mirror those of the church. Some do not. But now I can speak, and before I never could. And it bothers me that I need to “own up” to anything, when the church only paints a rosy, utopian picture of itself and will never publicly acknowledge when it has made a mistake (1978, anyone?). Your suggestion reinforces my feeling that the church is more image-based than anything. That makes me sad; it’s one of the reasons I left.
# 45 fella
May 31st, 2008 at 6:30 am

I was a sitting bishop when I began to learn the facts/truth/history that the church had been intentionally failing to tell me. I would never have joined the church had I known these things. Was I angry when all the truth was told? You bet ya! It is kind of like finding out your wife of 20 years is really …gasp… a Man! Do you feel betrayed? You bet ya! Do you wish you take back all of the time and money spent on a corporation that didn’t have the decency to tell you that Joseph Smith didn’t tell the current first vision story until 18 YEARS LATER!!! I have tried very hard to be nice to others who are currently still trapped in the corporation, but it is difficult. I want them to know what I know because it will set them free.
# 46 Faith
May 31st, 2008 at 6:56 am

As soon as anyone makes “rules” that declare only one side of a story is valid, you know there is much TRUTH being swept under the carpet. Why?

When TRUTH is not allow to prevail, what does? Lies and innuendos. Lies and innuendos are not of God, but of the god of this world.

The question we should all be asking ourselves is - what’s more important to us? A good image, like that celebrated by the god of this world? Or knowing the truth since, last I heard, God hates liars AND only the TRUTH can set any of us free.

BUT truth can only set us free after we allow ourselves to learn and KNOW the TRUTH.
# 47 Alex
May 31st, 2008 at 7:52 am

I’m a Mormon who graduated from BYU and married in the temple. All of my family is in the church and they are generally happy. Sure we have our skeletons in our closet. Lots of churches have them. What’s important for church members to remember is that they should always try to learn all they can. Seek to learn the truth on whatever subject you feel inspired to pursue. And you can know for yourself about the truthfulness of the church as you see how joyously its members and leaders will unjudgmentally help you get the honest, truthful, official answers.
# 48 Don Bagley
May 31st, 2008 at 9:39 am

Hawkgrrl, I had to respond to your post. I was born fifth generation in the church. I do not agree with LDS doctrine in any way. For this, I was punished at the tender age of twelve. Are you going to seriously tell me that I am the agressor and I should lighten up and not complain? What if you were born into an atheist household, and you decided that Mormonism was the way to go? Would you not be upset if your parents ridiculed you and derided your thinking?

Any LDS child will be punished for failure to believe. Don’t try to tell me otherwise, remember that I am fifth generation. I was not permitted to think for myself, and that is the legacy of Mormonism. I have used my real name, because I have poured out my heart to you. This is how things really are.
# 49 Nick Literski
May 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am

And you can know for yourself about the truthfulness of the church as you see how joyously its members and leaders will unjudgmentally help you get the honest, truthful, official answers.

LOL! So it’s the “official” answers that are “honest” and “truthful?” I’m honestly a bit perplexed as to whether you were being sarcastic.
# 50 fella
May 31st, 2008 at 10:08 am

Alex you seem to be implying that the truth can be gained from how you feel about it. If you felt that the moon was really a big ball of cheese in the sky, would that make it true? The church tries very hard to keep its members from knowing its true history. All you have to do is go to the early writings of the prophets of the church. The very prophets we proclaim to be inspired of God said much and wrote plenty; yet you will never see these things in current church materials. Why? Because they contradict the story in numerous, fundamental ways that the church is now telling. Do you know what polyandry is Alex? Google it along with the name of Joseph Smith, read, and be amazed. How did they forget to tell us about that??? Would a true prophet called of God really do such things? The character of the man does not match the stories now being told by the church. Would we, as current members of the church, ever stand for such behavior out of the current prophet of the church? I hope not.

You use the word “official” in your answers. Are you suggesting that the answers/excuses given by the organization that has lied to you for so long are the truth? Can you trust such an organization? My friend, you are naive and misled. Are you really going to suggest that being happy is evidence of truthfulness? I stopped attending the church years ago, and I and my wife have never been happier. We are truly happier than we were when we were in the church. Does that make our position true? I know many other people who are in other religions who are very happy. Does that make their religion the one and only true church on the face of the earth? Of course not. In fact, many of those very people are having spiritual experiences every day that would cause most Mormon’s spiritual experiences to pale in comparison.

You say that it is important to learn all you can. Try learning all you can about the foundations of the church, and then start talking about it to your bishop and stake president; but be careful because the next thing you know they will be warning you if you continue, you could find yourself in trouble with the church. You see, the church is not really interested in you really finding truth. They want you to take their version of “the truth” and not think for yourself. Doesn’t this cause you to at least pause and wonder why? If not, maybe you are not the truth seeker that you were brainwashed to believe yourself to be.

Good luck to you my friend. I hope that you can figure this all out sooner than my family and I did. Countless hours of wasted time and lots of dollars could be put to so much greater use for your benefit; but if not, know that the corporation appreciates you! ;)
# 51 I am soooo not going to give you my name
May 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am

#43 I meant “not to talk about ANY situation I DON’T know from first-hand experience (aka MINE!!!!)”
# 52 AdamF
May 31st, 2008 at 10:42 am

fella (#50) - While there has obviously been plenty of “correlation” and even denial about some things from “the church” (Based on your words here I’m assuming you mean the “corporate” church, which to me is not the church at all, but that has been discussed quite a bit here), my experience has been different than yours. From an early age I was taught about a lot of the stuff that was hidden from you. My intent is not to discount nor disrespect your experience, rather, I wanted to express that there are those in the church that have different experiences and have read the same history. You come off as a little arrogant (suggesting that if we all knew what you knew we would leave, re: “figure this all out sooner than my family and I did” & “know what I know because it will set them free”), and manipulative (re: “Doesn’t this cause you…” etc.).

That being said, I do appreciate your input, and I respect your story, fwiw. And I do agree that there is WAAAAAY more to the church than the so-called “official” answers or history.
# 53 fdr
May 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am

Respect is earned.
If the church instructs members to make untruthful claims and mandates Invalidating Behavior of them, then it is being disrespectful and and has earned no treatment in kind. It deserves every damaging Truism the evacuee chooses to relate.
# 54 Ray
May 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm

One thing only:

The vast majority of the bitter comments here are great exapmles of Hawkgrrrl’s actual post - that the DUMPEE has the right to speak. If you feel like the Church pushed you out (dumped you), it is your right to speak about it. If you left the Church voluntarily and willingly (you dumped the Church), then it is common courtesy to allow the Church to believe whatever it will about your departure.

Of course, there are flaws in this generalization. After all, it is a generalization - and Hawkgrrrl has said so. I just find it **incredibly ironic** that most of the comments that argue the most heatedly that she is wrong actually describe situations her post supports as having the right to the ones who tell the story.
# 55 hawkgrrrl
May 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm

To clarify, I was a self-professed atheist for about a year, yet I did not go about trying to “undeceive” all the believers in God. I considered the possibility that I didn’t know everything, and I mostly managed to be courteous in explaining to people why I didn’t feel the same way they did.

I think Punky’s Dilemma in #42 comes up with some valid exceptions. The ones I like most:
-If the dumper gets stalked by the dumpee (which happens a lot in this case–you can’t leave the church, but it doesn’t leave you alone…and, IME it doesn’t), the dumper probably needs to be able to tell the fallout story. I certainly agree that an ex-Mo should firmly but politely explain why they don’t wish to be bothered (ideally without being discourteous).
-If the dumper gets repeatedly asked by associates of the dumpee about why s/he left, then the dumper usually needs a fallout story. Agreed, one should be firm but courteous; it’s possible to do this without being condescending or rude.

Some caveats on the others:
-If the dumper finds out that s/he is just one of a long list of people who have been taken advantage of by the dumpee, then s/he will want to share the fallout story with sympathetic others who share that experience. “People who have been taken advantage of by the dumpee” actually goes to the heart of the flaw of the analogy as well as the beauty of it–the church is a collective organization of individuals. Who did the advantage-taking? The organization? Some individual? Some sub-set of individuals? And what constitutes taking advantage? Every religion impinges on its adherents in some way, but that is voluntary, at least once one is an adult. Perception of being taken advantage of puts the ex-adherent in the position of victim and necessarily on the defensive; it’s hard to be objective from that position.
-If the dumper realizes that a friend is about to get into a bad relationship with the dumpee, there are some situations where sharing the fallout story is a matter of being a good friend. Possibly, but this assumes that everyone will experience the same thing in that relationship (that the cause of the fallout is overwhelmingly one-sided vs. complex and multi-faceted). This is why I dislike evangelizing “away from,” even when done by the LDS - it implies that there is something inherently wrong with differing perspectives vs. finding the good in them and building on that. I also think the lack of objectivity in evangelizing makes it difficult to do this without being self-serving or self-justifying. I like Nick’s thoughts on this one that he sees the value in it and has a non-interference approach.
-If the dumpee goes around accusing the dumper of all sorts of character crimes (even to the point of broadcasting commentary about the dumper to people who don’t even know her/him), the dumper will likely need to share a fallout story, and perhaps broadcast it. I agree to some extent with this premise, but I would caution that “the church” as an organization does not generally conduct smear campaigns (I can think of rare exceptions), certainly not on this level of specificity. So, yes, individuals who do so should be corrected, but this can be done firmly and neutrally.
-If the dumpee makes it a point to lie about the dumper, and to disrupt the dumper’s relationships with friends and family, the dumper needs to share her/his fallout story. Again, the organization of the church doesn’t do this, but if individuals do, they should be corrected. They are certainly being discourteous.
-If the dumpee has committed a crime, the dumper needs to report it. The dumpee may have done something to deserve being put on a public offender registry. I totally agree with this. Crimes should be reported, investigated, and prosecuted.

Remember that Christ essentially left Judaism. He corrected individuals who were wrong firmly and directly, but he was not belligerent. He didn’t condescend or try to convince them that they were all deceived or deceivers or paint with a broad brush. He pointed out where specific Jewish leaders were not living up to the law of the prophets or didn’t understand them. He pointed out where they were astray, but he didn’t air grievances or even evangelize “away from,” just toward his better way. Just a thought.

Many seem to be assuming that “telling one’s story” is either a basic human right (I won’t disagree with that) or that it is necessary to defend one’s honor (these feelings can run understandably deep). Etiquette to me is more about the person who exercises it; being courteous is a gift you give yourself, not other people. Being courteous is taking the high road. Everyone is free to do what they choose, but being discourteous or self-serving (on either side of the discussion) stunts personal growth and creates barriers between people that don’t serve either side well. I would certainly call for courtesy on both sides.
# 56 KingM
May 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I think the analogy is flawed in many ways. The church has about 12 million girlfriends and knows little about each individual one. Each member, however, has only one church. Very few members are capable of causing either great harm or great benefit to the church, but the reverse cannot be said.
# 57 Thomas Parkin
May 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pm

There are human problems. When I announced that I had returned to the church, I lost some friends and the trust of many others. It was hard to not be bitter about that - but, truthfully, when I truned my back on what seemed to them not only shared good memories but also good happy ways to live, it is understandable that they would be put off and even hurt by that. I note in myself a tendancy to project my own inner conflicts on to other people.

~
# 58 Phouchg
May 31st, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I have the God-given right to say what I want to when I want to about my overwhelmingly negative experiences in the church. I will continue to share my experiences on line and with people who ask me. If that makes people in the church upset, too bad. I can’t do anything about that. What somebody else thinks of me is none of my business.
# 59 MO
May 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pm

This doesn’t work for me and here’s why:

It has been my experience both in my own dating years, and as a friend to men and women who have been dumpers and dumpees at various times of life, that both sides are entitled to discuss their experiences with the friends and family members who can offer them the support they need. Neither party is entitled to spread lies about the other, but they certainly can talk about it to whomever they please.

There is no need for a gag-order. It seems a childish proposition, particularly if one sees truth as something to be valued.

With regard to ex-members of the church or any organization, they own their own stories and it seems controlling and cultish to suggest that they should not talk about their experiences.
# 60 fella
May 31st, 2008 at 6:31 pm

The church is in serious trouble. It is losing members by the thousands of hard-working high wage earners like me. In our area, so many have left the church. Many with whom I am personally acquainted are attorneys. There are many more to come. The church had a fiduciary duty to tell us all the truth, and they chose not to. Shame on them for lying to so many for so long.
# 61 Timothy
May 31st, 2008 at 6:39 pm

I have to agree with the SAM. I’m an ex-Mo who gave far too much of my time to the so-called church and i’m also a military veteran who gave a good portion of my life protecting and defending the right of free religious exercise, free speech and free assembly (amomg other things).

I’ll say what I want no matter who it aggrevates and couldn’t care less if some cultist gets offended. Let tscc tell its side of the story and I’ll tell mine. In the end, the facts will bear-out who is telling the truth.

BTW, I left Mormonism because its a lie. Prove me wrong, oh mighty cult, by demonstrating otherwise,

Timothy
# 62 AdamF
May 31st, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Timothy (and anyone else this applies to)–the purpose of this site is to establish productive dialogue among all types of members, including ex, of course. The type of dialogue you are using (tscc, cultist, mighty cult, etc.) will not build any bridges, imho. Please be respectful and at least make an attempt at understanding or take your story elsewhere. And I mean this with all the respect I have for you and your life experience, which obviously has not been positive (with the church), and I also have great respect for your military service. Peace. :)
# 63 LCMc
May 31st, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Etiquette smediquette. The Dumpee (TCOJCOLDS) needs to step it up and prove what the Dumper says is not true. Show me in human relationships where your view of etiquette really works. More than often it’s me against you so lookout.
# 64 Ray
May 31st, 2008 at 7:40 pm

Adam, when the word gets out, the word gets out. Personally, I think this post has proven one thing very clearly:

Hawkgrrrl was dead-on when she said that courtesy is important. This post also is a perfect lab test for the other post on certainty.
# 65 Matt
May 31st, 2008 at 7:45 pm

If only it were that simple!

I left Mormonism in 1981 or 1982. In 1989 I met the woman who became my wife. Only a couple of years ago she was approached in the street by a Mormon who asked her why she had taken me away from “The church” and upset my mother?

It transpired that my mother -and other members of my family- have been spreading lies about me as to why I left The Mormon Church. Vile, nasty lies. I left because I prayed and was told it was not God’s true church.

According to my family that is a lie and: “We know the REAL reason why you left.” (Etiquette? Yes. Mormon etiquette would be a good idea. When’s it going to happen?
# 66 hawkgrrrl
May 31st, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Okay, Ashton–you can come out, now.
# 67 AdamF
May 31st, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Matt: “I left because I prayed and was told it was not God’s true church.” That is interesting (sincerely). So many people seem to leave because they no longer believe in answers to prayer as a means of discovering truth, yet you left using that method. Interesting.

That’s really lame that your family wouldn’t let you speak for yourself on your own experiences. May we all practice more “etiquette” and kindness, and not try to manipulate, degrade, interpret for each other.

fella (#60) - “The church had a fiduciary duty to tell us all the truth.” I’m assuming you’re still referring to the corporate church here? I linked to the discussion in my previous comment (#52), which you did not seem to respond to, and would recommend checking it out. What I mean is that I think we are all part of the church. Leaders of the church make decisions for everyone in some cases (including choosing not to talk about everything, as you say “lying”), but they are not the church, imo. We all are. Some get disillusioned because of a teacher, or a bishop, or an SP, or a GA or they don’t know who to point to so they just say “the church,” without realizing, imo, that “the church” is really just made up of all those parts.
# 68 sthilda87
May 31st, 2008 at 11:17 pm

This is complete nonsense. Owning the “fallout” story? Be serious. Why on earth do I have to muzzle myself out of some perceived rule of etiquette? And who gets to set these etiquette rules, anyway?

Now, for discussing with my family why I left the LDS Church- I just don’t go there. It just causes upset feelings, stress & division. They believe what they want to believe, I disagree with them, and the subject is ignored.

Polite people don’t discuss religion, politics or money. Unless they know they are in an appropriate situation, with people they can trust?

But owning the “fallout” story? Good grief.
# 69 sthilda87
Jun 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am

Oh, and if the LDS Church owns my story, the story of my life, they need to buy the copyright.
# 70 Oddte
Jun 1st, 2008 at 12:18 am

To me, courtesy means you don’t go on church property and protest. It certainly does not mean that you stay quiet about the church being a scam once you realize that it is.
# 71 Alma Commentin'
Jun 1st, 2008 at 2:11 am

What planet are you from with this fantasy? Everyone knows the victor writes the history. And when it comes to becomeing an ex-mo, beauty as in who is the victor lies in the eyes of the beholder.

And you obviously have never voluntarily left a job because they mistreated you. Either that, you are a patsy who thinks the mistreating employer’s version of the story about why you left is the one which should be told.

Get a grip, break ups always have two sides to the story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth a truth you will never get an inkling of without both sides of the story.
# 72 MAC
Jun 1st, 2008 at 5:55 am

Like moths to a flame.

Seems like a lot of those arguing vehemently against Hawkgrrls original post are doing a pretty darn good job of making her point.
# 73 Tanya Sue
Jun 1st, 2008 at 6:28 am

I think Oddte nailed it. Courtesy is not protesting on the church grounds. I think it is also not trying to tell your friends that still believe why you disagree.

I think that many people feel like they were silenced by the church-as women, intellectuals, people with same-gender attraction, etc. Once they leave they finally feel they can have a voice without the risk of having something important to them taken away. It is painful to lose one’s faith. Yet, active members of the church cannot talk about it out of fear of a church court. Once a member leaves they can finally talk about the pain in the process. Whether that be learning about church history, the disagreement with docterine, or even if someone was offended.

I am also not sure that the church will continue to keep quiet when there are excommunications. The church had a press release when Peter and Mary Danzig were public about their departure.
# 74 Emilie
Jun 1st, 2008 at 8:59 am

That is so simple to me. Etiquette, smettiquette … I own my story.

I have the right to speak it, write it, shout it… and anyone has their own right to refute or rebutt… My story, my copyright, my freedom to speak.
# 75 Visichy
Jun 1st, 2008 at 9:13 am

By your reasoning then, a wife who is abused by her husband (physically, mentally, sexually, emotionally, whatever) and then seeks a divorce from her abuser has no right to speak about what she has been through because she instigated the break up? That’s crap!

People who leave the mormon church often (not always, but often) feel abused by it. They feel they have been conned out of money, time, and talents. They have been subject to judgement by people that the LDS church gives authority to (bishops, SP’s, etc). They have been asked very personal questions that no one, least of all some stranger who happens to be their bishop, has any right to ask. When this is happening to teenage boys and girls it falls under the umbrella of sexual abuse. How dare you suggest that they not be able to talk about their experience because they decided to end it!

If you are ever in an abusive relationship, whether with an individual or an organization, and have the strength to break those ties, I hope you remember what you have written. The pain of being in an abusive relationship is enormous; the strength it takes to break off the relationship is equally huge. The path of healing is a long one and talking about the experience is a vital part of becoming whole again. I’m sorry if you are “offended” by people talking about it but that simply shows your inability to empathize with them.
# 76 hawkgrrrl
Jun 1st, 2008 at 10:24 am

Please read all comments - crimes should be reported, investigated and prosecuted. I certainly never implied that abuse should go unreported out of deference to the perpetrator.

However, actual abuse and “feeling abused” are not the same thing at all. Being conned and “feeling conned” are also not the same thing. I acknowledge that it’s very hard for the person who views him/herself as the victim to see it that way. If individuals within or outside of the church have broken laws or abused or conned individuals, by all means, report it to proper authorities. But if the “abuse” is disillusionment and the “conning” is cognitive dissonance, courtesy is a more enlightened approach and elevates the “victim” to a higher status.

Do the sins of others (e.g. abuse or defrauding) give someone a pass for whatever behavior they want to inflict in their pain? Adult religious participation is voluntary. The “power” we imbue others with due to our religious beliefs was ours to give to them, and is ours to take away. I am not offended by people’s vitriolic outrage; just saddened.
# 77 Anna G.
Jun 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am

“Being conned and ‘feeling conned’ are also not the same thing. I acknowledge that it’s very hard for the person who views him/herself as the victim to see it that way.”

I think this is a good point, and you’ve made the point that when someone is actually conned, or laws are broken, or agreed-upon terms are violated, your dumpee-tells-the-story rule doesn’t apply in the same way. But then the question is, how do we decide whether someone was actually conned or just feels that way? Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?
# 78 fella
Jun 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm

AdamF….I appreciate the tone of your responses, and after reviewing my earlier post, I can see how you might construe my comments as probably more than “a little arrogant”. I apologize if the tone of my response was offensive. I am not sure I buy into your theory that that there is a difference between the “corporate” church and some other ethereal organization that you or others may imagine to exist. My experience with the church over 20 years was an organization that is run like the business that I believe it to be. If you are trying to say that the “corporate” church is the one out there telling all of these lies, and that should somehow excuse the practice, then I would respectfully disagree. If you are saying all of the members of the church are really the church, then I have to say that I have come to believe that most Mormons are basically dishonest people when it comes to the telling of their history or shall we call it “sharing the gospel”. Even those ignorant masses of which I was a member for 20 years are engaged in some level of dishonesty when it comes to “sharing the gospel.” I engaged in it, and it always made me feel guilty and dirty. I knew we weren’t telling people all of the truth when it came to the “gospel message” we were proclaiming to the world, and I was one of the very few I ever met who truly loved sharing the gospel. We were always trying so hard to convince everyone else that we were really Christians just like them, but it simply isn’t true, and I knew it. (Milk b4 meat).

I joined the church when I was about 21 years old. I immediately (one year later) went on a mission. I can remember telling people that whole polygamy thing was something of the past, but it really wasn’t., and I knew it. Mormon doctrine is that Mormons will practice it in the next life. This is just one of many examples. i am glad the church has worked for you, and I don’t run around my area trying to tell people there is no santa claus; however, I am the poster boy for how wonderful life is without the corporation in it. I live life with zeal every day, ESPECIALLY Sundays! Today, our family went together and saw the new Indiana Jones movie AFTER we swam all morning. We have so much more quality family time, and so much more money to do things with now that we stopped the extortion payments of 10%. Our lives are more peaceful, and my 7 children are excelling in every area.

My challenge to those who remain is to think long and hard when they are asked that temple recommend question about whether they are completely honest with their fellow man, especially when it comes to their sharing of “the gospel” with people like me who will wreck their families for their version of the truth. (a whole other story…long).
# 79 Stephen Marsh
Jun 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm

“Seems like a lot of those arguing vehemently against Hawkgrrls original post are doing a pretty darn good job of making her point.”

Interesting, all in all.

BTW, http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm is kind of fun to look at.

The alternate approach reminds me of someone who had never read any gospel other than Matthews and who read the Gospel of John and promptly decided that the Bible was false and that Christ really didn’t exist after all.

But, I think people feel a need for their narratives.

I am not offended by people’s vitriolic outrage; just saddened.

Indeed. Interesting how some people respond to a discussion of what is mannerly, as if the thought of discussing manners would censor them.
# 80 AdamF
Jun 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm

fella – thank you for the response. I am glad we could engage a little bit here. I tend to get annoyed when people hit and run (which has happened quite a bit on this post).

“should somehow excuse the practice” – I agree with you here. It does not “excuse” any practice. I was not suggesting that it does.

“I knew we weren’t telling people all of the truth” – I think that what is “all” is subjective, but fwiw when I talk to others about the gospel and the church I don’t try to hide anything. My friends and acquaintances with whom I have talked with about the church know I don’t try to hide anything, and I’m open about what I believe in and what I think is lame, if that makes sense. There is stuff in the church that I absolutely love and believe in, and has been wonderful in my life, and there is stuff that bothers me (polygamy, as just one example).

What I was saying about the church is not that only “the members” are the church, nor that only “the corporation” is the church. “The Corporation” is made up of people, so I think don’t see it as “the church” anymore than any other “ethereal” aspect–I do appreciate your input, even just a different view because it really makes me think from other angles… Perhaps I am confusing “the Church” with “religion” or “beliefs”… My religion, my beliefs, are wider in scope than “the church”.

If someone says, “Elder so and so in the 70 or the 12 said this lie” then I understand what they are saying, but when they just throw “the church” out there it’s more ambiguous to me.

I believe things like “the Kingdom of God is within you” and feel that the church is a vehicle for my (and my family’s) progress. Whether it is true compared with other churches, or whether leaders have made mistakes (you could start with Moses on that one—didn’t he kill a man?), is not as big of a concern for me as the opportunities for growth it provides, which to me is the ultimate purpose of everything (progress). On that note, I am happy that you are happy in your life and with your family. If the life you are living is fulfilling your purpose in life, then that’s great.
# 81 Stephen Marsh
Jun 1st, 2008 at 5:42 pm

you could start with Moses on that one—didn’t he kill a man?

It is narratives like that which have me convinced that people need to read the Old Testament more often.
# 82 AdamF
Jun 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Yeah, really. There is enough in the OT that if people would read that they wouldn’t be so disturbed by Mountain Meadows or the destruction of the printing press. :)

------------------------------