Posted by:
fallenangela
(
)
Date: August 24, 2011 01:26PM
I think I'm confused. ;-) I went back to re-read what the sitation is as I try to be offer my persepctive from an informed (as much as possible given the nature of a forum) place so in re-reading I'm left wondering - what is it you are looking for? I see the original question is about being supportive but not disingenous but is that possible at this point? Supporting her involvement with the church (knowing it's history, knowing how it changes her) isn't really an option, is it? That's where I was originally coming from, I think. You don't want to be dishonest, yet you don't truly support her current choices. So either you suppress yourself, or you say "hey. I can't really do this." and very few of us want to take that option because it feels intolerant, or unfriendly, which are big cultural no-no's.
Again, I think it really does come down to boundaries.
Since I already likened the situation to someone with a drinking problem, I'll use my experience with my brother as an example. (Full disclosure - I'm 5+ years sober, and 15+ inactive, so I know both sides of each coin).
For years I listened to, commisserated with, and supported my brother through his increasingly dangerous drinking problem. In an effort to be a loving and compassionate sister, I would listen to him complain about his life without challenging him. at a certain point, it got to be incredibley uncomfortable to me to do so because I was being disingenuous. I fully believed that if he quit drinking, and got into some kind of recovery, most of the things that he complained about - money issues, relationship stuff, insomnia, depression, etc. - would, in time, feel better if it weren't for the booze. So I tried to gently encourage him to stop. "yeah, I should," but nothing ever changed.
I got a little more bold with my attempts to encourage sobriety. No dice. Somewhere along the way I decided that until he was willing to help himself, I was no longer willing to listen to the sob stories. That was my boundary. I didn't make an ulitmatum - Quit drinking, or we're not on speaking terms! - but rather - Until you are willing to explore solutions, I can't do this anymore.
The difference may be subtle, but it's huge. I'm not going to be more invested in his well-being than he is! Especially in a totally one sided relationship. He never seemed terribly concerned about my life, or what I had going on.
The circumstances are, obviously, completely different but some of the same things apply - setting boundaries, expecting more out of a relationship and the willingness to walk away if our needs aren't being met, being honest, and maybe more than anything, finding acceptance for myself over what I feared was "intolerance" or "being judgmental." After all, those are Mormon things to be! *sigh*
You're not a bad person if you decide that a particular relationship isn't meeting your needs. You've been clear that it's not about the cooling of the physical relationship, it's the emotional one that's lacking. Who wants to stick around and wait for the fair-weather friend to decide the weather's just right to hang out?
So back the beginning of this post of mine - If you're hoping to find a way to be tolerant of something you just can't tolerate, let yourself off the hook. It doesn't make you "intolerant," it makes you a woman with convictions and there isn't anything wrong with that. <3
And if I'm way off base, at least know I offer all if this with care. :-)