I had an unusual call in which a relative told me of their growing disbelief in the Church and in God. I wasn't really expecting this, and I'm not sure if I should treat this as just grumbling on their part or as an actual breaking down of their beliefs.

They know where I stand, but I still felt obliged to convey to them where they were wrong from the point of view of the Church and to tell them that I was doing this, not because I agreed with it, but because they deserved that respect for their beliefs.

I also told them my views on their problems, but I explained what the Church teaches, because I felt it was their right and privilege to hear the Church's side, even if I don't feel it myself.

I'm waiting to see where this leads. Their other views have changed over the years to align more with mine, so it's not completely surprising that this might change too, but I wasn't expecting it.

I still respect them if they choose to stay in the faith or if they find renewed belief, but I somehow think that they've had the last straw.

I had something similar happen to me. Old TBM friend met me at a bar which I thought was weird and then ordered a mixed drink. I looked at him and said, "what's going on here?". He said the same thing your friend said but I essentially said the same you did. He started telling me about the holes in the LDS story. I just looked at him stoically and said, "Yeah, I known that for a long time".

Anonymous in deference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but I still felt obliged
> to convey to them where they were wrong from the
> point of view of the Church and to tell them that
> I was doing this, not because I agreed with it,
> but because they deserved that respect for their
> beliefs.
===============================


why?



Isn't that being a bit of a parent?



What's wrong with just listening -- in honor of their confidence and respect for their autonomy -- and answering questions, should there be any?

You do you.

Anonymous in deference Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do you.
===============================

Doing me right now (I cannot help being annoyingly curious, having been a cat in my prior life, killed by curiosity . . . nine times!)
(It seems I was not a quick-learning cat)

But why trouble to write this at all, publicly?
What is it ye be seeking, dear friend?
Is something to be demonstrated, perhaps a virtue? To be lauded perhaps? Validated?
Is there interest or curiosity perhaps in novel ideas? Alternate perspectives? Or none of that, simply wishing a display?
All are valid of course.

Genuinely curious.

People are reliably predictable.
Therefore the actions of people generally bore me.
The drive is what fascinates. This is key.

It's why the "why."
To learn if there is thought behind the action.

I wasn’t looking for validation nor a public scolding either.

If this is the shit I get for trying to share, I’ll keep my experiences to myself.

To be approached in confidence is to be Trusted.
To be Trusted is a High Honor.


Yer awwright.

I love this shit!

How do you deal with all of the offended & angry responses? Lol.

Not everyone is qualified to be an exMo. ExMilk before exMeat.

Yes, one should learn to swim before jumping into the deep end of the doctrine!

Or test the green salsa before dumping it on your burrito.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not everyone is qualified to be an exMo. ExMilk
> before exMeat.
===============================
This just cracked me up!

I would just listen, and respond with "you" statements, i.e. "It sounds like you are saying..." or "You seem frustrated," etc.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would just listen, and respond with "you"
> statements, i.e. "It sounds like you are
> saying..." or "You seem frustrated," etc.
===============================

and here's my logic:

Mormons are taught:
"bow your head and say yes."

if someone is questioning the church, it is because they are learning to think for themselves.
They are beginning to see clearly the discrepancies, and question them.
They are learning independent thought.

This is a revolutionary development.

So I would try doing everything possible to optimize this nascent capacity to see and think for oneself, and it would be genuine effort.
They would get few "answers" from me; rather questions, guiding them to look inside for the answers to their questions.
The answers are already within. They know; but have not yet confidence.

This method gives them confidence to think for themselves, independently.
They begin to trust themselves. To trust their own thoughts. To trust their own judgment.

I would be disinclined to encouraging them deeper into the cave from which they are starting to emerge, blinking, into the sunlight.

It is unnecessary to attack the church.
It is equally unnecessary to defend it.

Be possible to do both?

“You seem to be saying that it’s questionable whether Joseph was able to talk to the rock in his hat? Ya, it’s a silly lie and I was a fool for ever believing it. Glad you’re figuring this nonsense out.”