Okay I know this is gonna get some mixed reactions here. I agreed to sit down with the Stake President and discuss my leaving the church. He’s tried a couple times and never seems to be able to keep his appointment or return an email. Well we set one more date and I’m feeling generous.
Actually the only reason I agreed to talk at all is because I think it’d be good for me. I’ve always tended to avoid confrontations. I just feel like I get walked all over whenever I’m in a situation where I have to stand my ground. I’m so set in my resolve not to go back, and I’ve done so much research that I’m going in with a much more confidence than I ever have. Basically I’m going in as a test of myself, to see if I’ve matured at all in my problem solving and negotiating skills.
I’m also doing this as an intellectual exercise to see if he has anything new to offer. I seriously doubt that anything he could say would surprise me but I’ll stay open –minded to the possibility. The only thing I hope to gain from this is a little bit more of an understanding about what they plan on doing with me from now on. If they are content to leave me alone I can deal with that, but any indication that they won’t leave me in peace from now on will be answered with my official resignation, which I’ve already typed up and will hand them at the meeting if they bring me to that.

You get dirty and the pig likes it.

yeah, but I think I'll like it too on some level.

;)

if that's the route they want to take my letter will save them the effort.

Why give them the power by making your action a reaction to what they do?

Why not take a big move in the right direction and be proactive. Decide what YOU want to do with YOUR spiritual life and to h-e- double chopsticks to what they "plan to do with you."

C'mon Peregrine, you are not their property!

Tell them what you've decided to do with THEM and hand them the letter.

I'm rooting for you!

Anagrammy

You may plant some doubt in his mind... ;)

It's a great idea to have your letter right there. That's what husband and I did when the bishop came to visit us. When push came to shove, we were in control of how we left and it's much better that way.

SP will probably say something like:

The reason you have disagreements with church doctrine is not because of anything you have discovered through research. It is due to some sin you have committed that has damaged your testimony. This you must repent of, and once you do you will have the Spirit with you again and you will want to come back to church.

Now, tell me your sins child ...

Yes this will almost certainly one of the tactics he uses. The bishop pulled this one on me. He even tried to stare me down after making this statement. His eyes dropped first.

He doesn't intend to argue any of your findings...he intends to blame you for finding fault, sinning, pride, and to wield his authority.
He is, by definition, a self-imporant charlatan and is only going to be obstinate to you.
I'd cancel the meeting.
We cast our votes by resigning. The less explanation the better because no matter what you say, it can be spun.

I personally would enjoy an opportunity like that. I was able to have essentially this conversation with both my bishop and a member of the stake presidency. I kept it very surface and kind of wish I had gotten into more detail.

A couple of ways I would (and did) approach things near the beginning of the conversation:

1) Establish that he is not objective; that he has a whole lot personally tied up in his belief of the church. I have payed a lot higher price and live a less comfortable life by leaving the church - his road of not questioning is the easy road.

2) Talk a little about confirmation bias and that we look for reasons to keep believing what we already believe. Miracles are a good example of this.

3) Establish that I believe what I believe as completely as he does; if he tries to bear his testimony, bear mine right back. Say: I have studied it out in my mind and have felt a peace in my mind and heart that it is not true - I have felt the same burning in the bosom and fruits of the spirit that he has felt. I know the church is not true - so which of us is right?

4) Establish that I have looked at more information that he has. (Unless he is one of the rare ones that has actually done some research.) Note that I know essentially everything he knows about the church but by not sticking my head in the sand I also have more information than he does and am in a better position to make an informed decision.

The key I think is to leave absolutely no room for doubt. You can be open to new information but don't be weak in any way about what you believe. Be just as adament that you are confident in your beliefs as he is. Otherwise you can end up in a very uncomfortable demeaning situation - worst case you can always end the conversation if it heads that direction.

Funny things about the conversations I had:

1) With the bishop. His final arguement to me was basically: "You've intellecualized this. You've got to listen to your heart not your head." lol

2) With the stake presidency guy. I used as an example that it was very clear that the Old Testament was a myth and not factual. He actually went on for something like 5 minutes trying to convince me that there was arheological evidence that the wall of Jericho was really knocked down by sound. lol.

I’ve already explained to him how I don’t accept emotional arguments as a valid way to establish truth. Any attempt he makes to share his emotions or get me to rely on my own will be quickly dismissed as irrelevant to maters of fact.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 03:17PM by peregrine.

ronas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2) With the stake presidency guy. I used as an
> example that it was very clear that the Old
> Testament was a myth and not factual. He actually
> went on for something like 5 minutes trying to
> convince me that there was arheological evidence
> that the wall of Jericho was really knocked down
> by sound. lol.

And these people are given positions of high authority in the Church. My response to that would be "see, you are totally insane. How do you expect me to respect the opinion of someone who is that out of touch with reality?"

You will be meeting him on HIS turf.
You don't stand a chance.

But that's exactly one of the reasons I'll feel so much better when he doesn't defeat me.

because he's playing HIS game, not yours.
Your rules are like a formal debate, where the challengers agree to rules beforehand and there's a well-established logical standard.

He's not playing by those rules.

He's going to treat you like a criminal, like a cop or a prosecutor, who is only trying to get to to say as much as possible to be spun against you.

NON MATTER HOW IT GOES HE WILL ACT LIKE HE WON.

You win by not showing up. That's the best way to handle charlatanism. If a bullshitter has no audience he can't bullshit.

Richard Dawkins says he no longer debates creationists because it gives the illusion that the creationsists even have an argument.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You will be meeting him on HIS turf.
> You don't stand a chance.


I talked with both my SP and bishop on their truf. I actually preferred being in their office. I didn't answer any questions I did not want to answer and that bothered them, they got this confused look on their face when I calmly told them I had no questions for them. I held my ground, they understood they had no authority over me or my responses while on their turf and that doesn't happen often in their office. They will now remember our unproductive discussion when they are on their turf and I didn't have the atmosphere of my home ruined by having the bishop or SP sitting in my front room quizzing me. Priesthood leaders think they have authority no matter where you confront them, I prefer to leave the confrontation at their door, not mine. That's my personal experience anyway.

That's how I feel about it too. If I don't like the way it's going, I can always leave. I don't want to be in the position of having an unwanted guest in my house and be forced to ask him to leave.

anonymous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I talked with both my SP and bishop on their truf.
> I actually preferred being in their office. I
> didn't answer any questions I did not want to
> answer and that bothered them, they got this
> confused look on their face when I calmly told
> them I had no questions for them.

Isn't it amazing how acting like a human being that is equal to them completely throws them off stride.

Go for it Peregrine.

Once it is crystal clear that these people have no authority or leverage at all, and once it is possible to gain mastery over the emotionality of belief in the cult of mormonism, I can't see what you have to lose.

If you want to test yourself to see how well you do than have at it! It will be an interesting exercise.

Do me a favor though, just call him Kevin or Randall, but don't call him President.

They came by when we hadn't shown up to church in a long time. They were trying very hard to convince us to come back, and I finally told them that they had no idea how serious the situation was...that I was seriously considering taking my name off the church roles. The councelor asked if he could say a prayer and bear his testimony. I said "sure" and sat back, feeling completely empty. As he prayed, I felt absolutely nothing, which was amazing to me. I used to think these men were such godly men, and used to sit glued to every word they said. We thanked them for coming by and that was that. I removed my name about a year later, only because I didn't want my name being included in that already-inflated figure of 14,000,000 members.

thinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The councelor asked if
> he could say a prayer and bear his testimony.

I'd say, "sure, I'll wait outside and you can tell me when you're ready for me to return."

I was too pissed off in the early stages of leaving to do something like this and keep my cool. But if it helps you on your way, more power to you.

Please return and report your labors.

It's only been a few years that people have been going online and getting the real story about the church.
Most church leaders haven't had to deal with apostates that have more knowledge than they do. I think they start out assuming that they are the knowledgeable ones. Their old tactics no longer work. They are taken off guard. They have done as they were told, and didn't go online to get information. As a result they are left defenseless and in the dark. It's like going to a gun fight, but you've never seen a gun.
I don't think they realize that the things we know about the church gives us a much stronger assurance of the untruthfulness of the church. They can't even imagine being in the frame of mind that we are. This puts them at a huge disadvantage. Most of us have been members for years. We know what they do or don't know. We know their system. We know what's going to come out of their mouth. We know how they think. We know we don't need to pray about it (did that). We know we can't study our knowledge away. They don't understand that we can't unknow what we know. We will never return. We can't. It goes against our standards of truthfulness.

I wouldn't do it, but I'm speaking from another perspective.

In fact way back in my college days, I did go to the institute director to give him a chance to answer some of my concerns. He might have thought his answers about fasting and prayer were good.

I didn't. The meeting made me more determined to think the mormon church wasn't for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2012 06:23PM by Cheryl.

A good and solid reason for hanidng the SP your resignation would be if the sun can be viewed from anywhere on planet earth that day.

At my appt with the SP, he started his arrogant self righteous priesthood leader crap by telling me the anti mormons are filling the Internet with lies about the church and Joseph Smith.

I replied very quietly (in a still small but clear voice) that I KNOW the church is in a pickle. That members are finding out they have been fibbed to by the leaders for years and are leaving in large numbers.

I said having a great capacity for self deception is not a "good" thing and not the way I want to do life.

He told me to read my scriptures more, go to my meetings, and that he will see me and my husband in the temple.


I told him don't count on it and refused to shake his hand or hug him. That was the last time I have ever seen him. I found out later that he moved back east for work within a few months of that visit.

60+ years of brainwashing, good riddance to the organization that duped him and so many others.

"Basically I’m going in as a test of myself, to see if I’ve matured at all in my problem solving and negotiating skills."

You owe him no explanation, let alone any type of negotiating. It's your decision...tell him that..And don't agree to read the BoM and pray for burning bosoms. You've done that and the mormon god didn't answer. Explain to him that it's worthless to be a part of a religion where the main god won't address your concerns you've had an offered up in prayer...because you're not "righteous" enough. Take his cicular logic and turn it around on him..

12 years ago.

My only regret is that I didn't make him come to my house.

The purpose was for him to tell me that I would be excommunicated if I didn't shut up about my heretical views on same sex marriage/prop 22 in CA.

Told him that I wasn't interested in being quiet, and that I disagreed with the church in this matter. He told me that GB Hinckley had prophesied that SSM would be determined by the prop 22 result in CA, and that CA was a harbinger of all states and countries...so he invoked the prophet as the guiding authority of our discussion.

I backed him and his henchman 1st counselor into a corner, where they basically told me that the church was true because they believed in the warm fuzzies.

I figured we'd get there.

It actually was the moment of spiritual jeopardy that helped me realize that the church simply doesn't matter. The SP put his testimony on the line...he cast his pearls, so to speak. I didn't see anything lovely or of good report in his prejudice against gay people in the name of the church/prophet. I certainly didn't believe that he was representing god to me at that meeting.

After that, leaving the church became easy. After leaving, I had challenges in figuring out a new basis for right and wrong, but that came in time as well.

I respect your decision to go meet with him and put yourself to the test. Good luck.

I would still do this in my house, and make sure I had the right to tell him to leave and not the other way around...:).

I also met with my SP - he actually came to my house. He told me he was inspired to drop by - he was on his usual walking route, when the spirit whispered to him to knock on my door.

Here's what he said to me:

1. The SP admitted that the Mormon Gospel makes no intellectual sense to him.

2. That if he hadn't been BIC, he would likely have rejected it if the mishies had contacted him.

3. He believes that the Mormon Gospel is true because it's so unbelievable. Since most people reject the Mormon Gospel, he sees takes this as a sign from God.

4. WIth tears in his eyes, and thumping the BofM which his index finger, (which was on the coffee table) he bore witness that it was true, despite its goofiness.

Here's what he believes of me, Eastbourne, following this interview:

1. That I have rejected the Gospel due to my unwillingness to follow the Mormon thinking algorithm. (This is why Utah is a leader in affinity fraud)

2. I am an enemy of the LDS, and therefore
2.1 He instructed my bishop to release me from my calling as a Teacher's Q instructor.
2.2 Had the Bishop revoke my Temple Recommend
2.3 Instructed my Bish to no give me a recommend to baptize my daughter.

Here's the outcome:

1. I concluded that continuing in Mormonism - as an active non-believer would not be allowed by the current SPrescy - I was pigeon-holed as a non believer, more of a sheep in wolves' clothing in their eyes.

2. My TBM wife and I moved to a new ward several years later, and in meeting the bish, I told him, without embarrassment that I am a non-believer who only attends SM with my spouse; and will not accept callings for anything, to include giving prayers.

Overall, the interview with the SP did me more harm than good f, and would advise fellow readers to simply refuse to meet with anyone.

Stake and ward leaders are looking for a way to prove their loyalty to the Lord at your expense.

Don't give them the pleasure.

I would only meet with him to accomplish your purposes. If you have things you want to tell them, go ahead. You know they view you as diseased and the one who is in need of help.

I felt the need to tell the bishop why I was no longer active. I had him come to my office. I thanked him for coming and told him the reason for the meeting. Told him that I no longer believed in the church and went on for about 45 minutes with the explanation. He was a good listener and barely tried to dispute anything. I think he knew this was an important venting for me and he let me go just that. I had been a counselor in two bishoprics in the ward, lived 20 years in the ward. In that time, I called J Smith a liar and charlatain. We left on good terms. I thought he understood my position.

A month later, he called me saying he wanted to see me. Apparently our ward mission leader had "inspiration" that I should be called to help in his work, as Gospel Essentials teacher. Yeah, that's right. Me (who just called JS a liar) to teach the investigators and newly baptized. Hilarious.

I told the bishop that he somehow did not understand what I had told him in the previous meeting. The sentence that he finally understood was when I told him that not only am I never coming back to church but if I were to die tomorrow, I have told my wife I do not want the church to be involved in my funeral.

For me it was a good thing to meet with our bishop. However, we are good friends. If you have no such personal relationship with the SP and aren't doing it for your own reasons, I would never do it. It will simply be another thing that will gnaw on you later.

brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Told him that I no longer believed
> in the church and went on for about 45 minutes
> with the explanation. He was a good listener and
> barely tried to dispute anything. . . . In that time,
> I called J Smith a liar and charlatain. We left on good
> terms. I thought he understood my position.
>
> A month later, he called me saying he wanted to
> see me. Apparently our ward mission leader had
> "inspiration" that I should be called to help in
> his work, as Gospel Essentials teacher. Yeah,
> that's right. Me (who just called JS a liar) to
> teach the investigators and newly baptized.
> Hilarious.

Notice how disrespectful this is. Basically he's saying to you "That stuff you told me about your deepest feelings and beliefs? Well I think it's a bunch of crap that I can ignore."

I think I would have had fun with him. It would have been cool to say something like, "Bishop, since you know my position I can only assume that you want me to share my knowledge and understanding with the investigators. I'd be glad to accept this calling."

I simply walked away and never turned back without ever giving my power away to a Bishop or SP. Whenever I am tracked down,in new areas, I like to treat them with Kindness, my work schedule, an how happy I am outside of it. Not much for them to say and that's it. No fear and good luck!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2012 12:37AM by runningyogi.

I hope it has some benefits for you. It will be a learning experience! :-)