I wouldn't go. If it's important enough for him to have a talk with you, it sounds serious.
Unless you're ambiguous about leaving, and just needing a nudge one way or the other, what's the point of going? To be threatened with church court?
Or another attempt to love bomb you back?
When I was ready to leave, I just left. Didn't need anyone calling me in for any meetings, nor would I have gone. I was done with the morg. And I haven't looked back since. No explanations were needed, other than the verbiage I gave Salt Lake over the heathens at the local level running a ward.
I complained, in other words, loudly - even if my words fell on deaf ears. I would not resign myself to their terms and conditions for one second.
You owe him nothing. Whatever you do, is because you haven't really left it yet, and it still has some control over your actions and your decisions to sit down with the SP, on his terms.
The Mormon church is all about control. Of your time, your resources, and your mind. Your choice is: how much control are you relinquishing each time you agree to a meeting, or something else?
I know a bit about some of these people and I have no problem with him going to a meeting. He knows what he is doing, well prepared, and is not intimidated. With his particular situation, it's probably a good idea to be upfront and honest with the leaders rather than refusing to meet. He is establishing his control by meeting with the new stake pres. (I am totally out of the loop and don't know who they all are now, but I was in the same stake.)
I don't understand this mentality of feeling like he has to meet with them at all.
If he's already outed himself, why is there any need to defend his position?
All I see happening is him being put on the defensive, because he is not the one with authority over his life when he allows the SP to be his authority figure.
Mormonism is all about control of others. If he really wants to break free, the last place to be is in a meeting with a SP. What's the point of going? To exchange niceties?
They've already done that. If his beliefs are important enough for him to want to get up and leave, it doesn't help to back track to the SP office for a one on one, when the SP clearly has an agenda.
Rutubaga needs to define his own agenda clearly and concisely, and stop letting others have control over his time, or his life - if he's serious about leaving.
This going back and forth just makes it seem to me that he hasn't made up his own mind yet, and can be persuaded into staying given the SP stance on the matter.
As far as it being the same stake you once attended, aren't they all the same? They operate from the same mentality, and the same instruction manual.
Taking the high road doesn't mean buckling to going to yet another meeting, which could be used to threaten, cajole, or otherwise intimidate rutabaga into submission. The act of going itself suggests submissiveness, on rutabaga's part. Not taking dominion over his life, which is his supposed primary objective.
Perhaps. But think about who else summons you to their office. Your boss? The IRS? The local court? Responding to a summons puts you in the inferior position of having to answer to someone. When in reality you don't have to answer to a bishop, SP, etc. They have no real power over you.
I think that most other church ministers would *ask* for a meeting, if necessary, realizing that your time is valuable and that you don't have to show up. A meeting time would be negotiated, not imposed.
Good points. At work we allow ourselves to be subjected by authority, it's our livelihood at stake.
With a church cult like Mormonism, it's a system of patriarchy, that people are not able to disapprove of for any reason.
There are no "civil rights" freedom of speech in Mormonism. None whatsoever.
That freedom (precious that it is,) is on the other side of the doors to the church. Once you find that freedom, there is no turning back, unless you prefer slavery. Plus, your freedom to practice whatever religion you choose, not what you're spoon fed.
Time for the walking papers, for rutabaga. Why wait for a kangaroo court ie, disfellowship or excommunication, or the threat of one?
Leave with your dignity while you still can. Do not subject yourself to ridicule or chastisement. You've done nothing to warrant it. You owe them nothing, but what you're willing to sacrifice.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 10:38AM by amyjo.
I leave for a couple hours and y'all start talking behind my back! :-)
Here is SP's email invite made hilarious by his autocorrect:
"I actually wasn't trying to meet with you and your wife together. And I don't have a calling or assignment in mind. You are on my list of more prominent people in the stake that I am know by reputation, but with whom I am only periferally aquatinted. I really just wanted to touch base with you informally to get to know you a little better. I hope you will accept my invitation."
Of course its phony and transparent. He's known me for 35 years and suddenly wants to get aquatinted?
Like many of us on this board I still attend for some very good reasons. If it were just me, I'd be gone yesterday.
Amyjo, I'm considering taking a resignation letter with me just in case things go south.
I'm going because I want to. I'll listen to what he has to say. I'll explain in no uncertain terms what my situation is. Then I can walk out with a clear conscience.
Personally I wouldn't trust a thing he's saying in his "informal" e-mail. He's baiting you.
He wants to meet with you personally because you're the one on the chopping block. No matter what else appearances suggest, you are being subjected to an interrogation of sorts.
Where will it lead? I realize you've been in it for your lifetime. It is hard to walk away.
I just know how deceptive those people really are. But if you stop to think about it, he is following the handbook exactly as proscribed for someone in his position. You are an unbeliever, on his turf.
Being a Mormon not an investigator, that automatically puts you on the "outs," where he's concerned.
Please don't assume he's there for congenial business. He's there to see whether you need to be summonsed to the official kangaroo court.
amyjo, I am in a similar but not the exact situation as rutabaga. I have no fear of church authorities. I am confident in what I've learned. I will not, however, meet them at their office. If they want to chat, they must set an appointment and come to my home.
Those I've met with already know where I stand. All they've been able to do is bear testimony (aka spout feelings) and I provide rebuttal via fact backed by evidence.
The difference is stark.
To my point of view, if church authorities wish to endanger their testimonies by having a conversation with me, it's their choice. Maybe rutabaga feels similarly, but I don't pretend to speak for him. This is just my own take.
Do you have any reason to believe you might get called into a church court for your dissenting voice of reason?
So you set the boundaries for where you're willing to meet with them, and does it work to your advantage that may be why they're leaving you alone?
Maybe if they started offing more unbelieving members, the church rolls would become much much sparser than they are right now, so they're willing to concede and make concessions for those not voicing their dissent too loudly.
There's several guys on this thread right now attesting to what you're noting - you don't believe, but you remain a member without asking to have your names removed.
As long as you don't feel pressured one way or another, I kind of understand. I only had my records removed once I became pressured to do so by my local ward busybody leaders. Then I couldn't move fast enough.
Enough was enough. When I saw what they were up to, I knew it was time.
The damage they've caused my family has been irreparable. I should've left sooner, but didn't know how evil they are until it was too late to undo.
If hindsight were 20/20, I would not have returned for any length of time.
Should I curse them, or God for having me born into the cult? I've decided not to blame God, because I still fear the Lord. I do blame the cult for the damage it has done to my family.
God provided me an exit strategy, and a window opening when the door to Mormonism closed. For that I give thanks. The church teachings instilled in me some family values from early in my childhood on. And then trounced my family to death for all it could, and then some.
I have nothing to indicate church action will become involved, amyjo. Not yet, anyway.
As I mentioned in one of my posts, the Area Seventy who came to visit with our Stake President sent me a letter, to which I have composed a reply that may turn on the hot water.
Having been through an excommunication once before, it truly matters not which way I go out. There are myriad opinions on this board on resign vs excommunication. I've expressed my own, in fact.
I've changed.
Whether or not I resign or am excommunicated, I will be out. Bottom line. The route to that matters not to me.
As a matter of fact, if they decide to excommunicate, they will hear my story. This may be a more appetizing way to go, given my current state of mind.
For now, inactivity suits my wife. That's good for me, too.
It just seems awful, and like having to carry a heavy weight around, living with even the "threat" of a kangaroo court with the cult.
For as far as we've come on our individual journeys, it's seems like another cruel tool from the "toolbox" that the cult places this albatross and weight on any of its members. This alone is disruptive and causes great harm to otherwise believers.
Failing to remain in "good standing" in their eyes just compounds the harm to those who are leaving, for whatever reason being identified.
First off, I love the comment in the original thread that you should tell him you lost your car keys (can't post there--it's been closed)!
But...
I understand you essentially want to negotiate a truce, for your own reasons, and I can respect that. And that you're still attending, so you probably don't want to make waves or draw undue attention to yourself. But I'd suggest reversing the power dynamic: ask him to meet at your home, or at least meet at a neutral location (like a Starbucks).
Get used to everyone being able to make thier own path. I know it is hard being a Mormon for so long that you might think everyone needs to follow the same path.
I'm not going into Shelob's Lair. This guy learned some information about my activity level and wants to find out for himself. I honestly don't think there is any more to it than that.
Am I making a mistake by going? Maybe. But I'm tired of looking over my shoulder. The confrontation is inevitable and I want to get it over with. You can mock me for a wide-eyed idealist, but I'm hoping to negotiate a truce. I'll keep quiet, they leave me alone.
I'm doing homework, preparing talking points today. I think I've got some stuff that will bring out the crickets.
I've had a few meeting like this with bishops and a stake president. My wife is still a TBM, so I think it is important for me to have a good relationship with the leaders of her church. Like you rutabaga we have called a truce. I don't bother people in their ward, they don't come harass me.
I have found the majority of church leaders to be nice people that have been understanding of the situation. I treated them with respect, they treated me with respect.
So maybe I'm just an outlier but I've had to deal with very few jerk bishops my local units.(I can't say the same about EQ presidents, I've had a few jack@sses there)
I'm surprised it doesn't ruffle your feathers when getting called into a church "court" type of a hearing. SP is on a fishing expedition, make no mistake about it.
He wants to hear it from the apostate himself, what's up with his beliefs aka testimony (aka absence thereof.)
I find that demeaning and impersonal. Because they really don't give a horse's ass what anyone else thinks or feels - all they're doing is fulfilling the obligations of their calling.
He isn't there to actually minister anything but castor oil, LDS flavor. If someone has truly made up their mind about the untruthfulness of Mormonism, it makes no sense to continue on with the charade of pretending that it does.
Of course I have a personal bias. I've seen how damaging trusting anyone in the church can be to our family. I have zero trust in what it says or purports to be about. They're there to take your money, and blind faith and trust. Once that's gone, there isn't anything left but the tears and the crying.
If you don't believe, why pretend in the first place? Why even play that damning, stupid game? Heads you win, tails you lose. Is it even worth the gamble?
I haven't resigned. Although I no longer consider myself a member. Why go through with something unnecessary that would cause unneeded heartbreak to my wife?
I've never been called into a church "court" type hearing. Most of my meetings with any bishop have been at my own request. My wife is fully active, holds a calling, and takes the kids with her the majority of the time. I find it is helpful to know the people she interacts with at church and to be on a friendly level with them.
I also find it to be helpful if I talk to the bishop and let him know where I stand and that I am firmly there. I don't pretend to believe, I let him know I am an atheist. It makes it so he doesn't send ward people my way on fishing expeditions trying to fellowship me and find out where I stand.
I have found the vast majority of bishops in the various areas we have lived to be nice people. In the first five minutes they find they aren't going to sway me on church things so we usually talk about work and keep things on a superficial acquaintance level, kind of like when I talk with my wife's coworkers.
I don't do it for myself. If I wasn't married I wouldn't bother with the church at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 03:00PM by oneflewwest.
Well I take it you aren't being threatened with church court because you haven't "gone public" with your unbeliefs.
You do realize if you were more vocal about them, that is exactly where you'd end up?
I understand your ability to compartmentalize church and home, & family. I doubt very much the church has the same ability to do that.
If push came to shove, it wouldn't hesitate to sully your reputation or your marriage. They really don't care about protecting the family. Just its image - which is tarnished as we all know.
Congrats to being able to walk a fine line! That has to take some navigating, for sure.
I think we're all missing that Rutabaga is going into this eyes wide open and actually wants this interaction. Personally I'm looking forward to the return/report. Can't wait to see what kind of havoc he manages to cause for the yutz of a SP.
Have fun Rutabaga and please let us know how ye'old sp takes it when he realizes that his imagined power over you is exactly that. Imaginary.
Would you trust someone into your home you know is a liar or a thief?
These guys are manipulating liars, even as they put their best foot forward, their fingers are crossed behind their backs.
Whether that's a SP, or other 'higher up.' They're there because they're stoolies for the common cause of Moism. That is their first allegiance. People are second place to their blind faith.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2015 12:00PM by amyjo.
Each situation is different. There are specific concerns we all need to address when making a decision about talking to any church leader about our membership.
One of the considerations I made was whether I wanted to speak to anyone about how I changed my mind and my position. Did I need to do that to preserve my family relationships? Did I know the person well enough that I would not be bullied? Did I have a need to justify my change? My husband was still an active believer and I knew they would talk to him about me (the wife does not have to be talked to directly!) and he would protect me and assure them that everything in our lives was fine.
I made sure my husband was OK with my choice to resign. He was. He knew I came from a different background, was a new convert when he married me. He understood all of that. He agreed that resignation (name removal - they can't make their mouth form the word; resignation!) was the best thing to do.
If the person has not resigned, and keeps their membership on a type of low status, that works for some also, especially if they have family to protect.
I had finally learned to be judicious about what I said to a leader and not answer everything ....just because they asked like nearly everyone else does. I'd learned to say: "that's private" also.
Considering that I am familiar with some of the people in this particular stake and a little of the situation, I don't see a problem with the meeting. In fact, they are going to get informed about what is real and important to members and why they cannot accept it.
Believe it or not, DSH seemed like a pretty good guy and rather moderate when I lived in his ward (down the street from SusieQ#1). His wife was definitely on the more progressive side, and he does have at least one child that is exmo, who would be about 30-35 right now.
While I was a doctoral student at the nearby campus, several of us began having doubts and one student openly declared disbelief, while another openly disagreed with the Prop8 bullsh*t. As the bishop at the time, DSH was concerned and met with each of us and seemed genuinely interested in our well being. During my 'interview' he talked quite a bit about this child who had left the church. He was a pretty down-to-earth guy.
Good luck to you! Whatever happens, at least you get to live the most beautiful place in the world.
skanderteabag Scratching my head... lived down the street from me? Hmmm... student...@ the univ I suspect. Not ringing a bell, I'm glad you had a good experience with the stake pres. I know people who have had some very, very difficult experiences with him, "off the charts" .... !!
Some years ago I finally agreed to meet with the SP. I offered to meet on neutral ground, but in the end I went to his office. However, I did not buy into his office power structure dynamics. He sat behind his desk, then I sat to one side of the office. This compelled him to come out from behind his desk and meet me face to face without a desk between us. And with his back to the door.
Say "how about we get together over breakfast or lunch? I'll buy." Will totally change the power dynamic.
Never forget, he is just a volunteer just like you have been in the past.
I get together once in awhile like this with my old bishop. Really good guy and we have mutual respect for our differences and turns out some common interests. One way I try to keep in the loop as some of my family still goes.