Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I have heard the term “apostate” used by Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses in a similar way to how it is currently used in the LDS Church.Personally I think it is mostly just another example of the cultish us-versus-them thinking that is so prevalent in the Church. Basically the Church will tolerate members that believe something significantly different from the orthodox LDS doctrines as long as they keep quiet about it but as soon as anyone openly disagrees with the Church it is typically not going to be received very well in the Church. That’s what I think this apostasy label is mostly about, trying to enforce strict boundaries around what the official doctrines are supposed to be and expecting members to go along with what they are told without resistance. Ah, interesting. I’m not surprised about the Jehovah’s Witness use of the term, though. Back when I was TBM, I had a lot of respect for the faith. I considered our religions very similar. Sadly, I’ve learned about some of the experiences of disaffected Jehovha’s Witnesses and the shunning that can happen. I agree with your commentary about the us vs. them mentality.
On Own Now wrote:The key factor in a Mormon sense is opposition…
I agree. Persecution and opposition seem to be fundamental to not only Mormon doctrine and identity, but also as anecdotal evidence to support the divinity of the Church. I’ve found that opposition seems to get exaggerated at times just to make a point of how Satan is against the Church. I think this mentality is also damaging for progress in Church. Any criticism that is not coming from the inside and carefully constructed to be politically correct and non-blaming, is met with a defensive stance (I see this church-wide, although clearly not everyone).
On Own Now wrote:I have no problem with the term “apostate” when it comes to this type of opposition. Actually, I think it is appropriate.
I wish I had the same level of comfort. I simply can’t divorce the inherent condemnation and shame behind the term, even if the person in question is decidedly anti-Mormon. I find “ex-Mormon” or even “Anti-Mormon” more appropriate. And maybe it is this history and legacy of “apostasy” that makes me so uncomfortable with living people being labeled as such. Watching people be put in the same category as people who mobbed and drove out Missouri Saints? That makes me uncomfortable.
On Own Now wrote:I think there is a tendency for the disaffected (like us) to assign ourselves to the label of apostate,
even when the Church means someone else.
I think it’s not so simple for me. I’m beginning to feel like I’m not an “apostate” so as long as I keep my doubts to myself but once I give up living in secret, I’m walking the line. This is basically what I’ve been told by bishops, as well—across the United States. I feel like this line, “It’s okay to have questions, just ask them to the right people at the right place, and most importantly, to God. As long as you’re not out there advertising them.” I do believe these lines—at least for YSA Bishops—are coming from the higher ups. It’s too consistent and uniform to be random opinions of the Bishops.While people I love are in this Church and I’m not about to go out and make anti-Mormon proclamations, the knowledge that I essentially support and identify with apostates has done a number on my ability to feel comfortable in the Church. I feel like I’m secretly fraternizing with the Enemy.
While this is hearsay, didn’t Elder Oaks just talk about what constitutes apostasy at Boise? I thought he said something about it coming down to how you feel about the authority of the General Presidency and Apostles. While he’s just one man, he’s in the leadership of the Church. He may very well be our next President/Prophet (which, to me, is not a positive thought. Maybe that does make me an apostate
😳 ). I know he’s reacting to what happened in Idaho, but it seems to me that the general message is, “If you don’t support our apostles as speakers for God, and say something about it, or consistently disagree with what top leaders have said, you’re an apostate. Whether we excommunicate your or not for it is a different story.”
Roy wrote:On the other hand, when we are dealing with real people with lives of service in the church and loving families – are we not doing spiritual violence to them severing them so?
Roy, I agree with a lot of your insights. I understand an organization needs to have a line for practical reasons. I get that they don’t want people being able to claim, “I’m a Mormon” while preaching what the Church considers false doctrine. But I can’t let go of the fact that excommunication, based on theological differences, is so sad to me. Couple that with the damaging “apostate” label that gets thrown around. I can’t shake off why TBM’s often support these kinds of excommunications so adamantly. It’s almost like they’re reveling in the knowledge that someone has been pushed off the boat because they wouldn’t conform to “the Boat’s” norms.
Heber13 wrote:Apostate is a stage 3 word. There is utility for those in that stage. It is how stage 3 works.
I have a lot of respect for people who are past Stage 3 but are able to stay in a church that is primarily run by Stage 3 individuals, especially if they’re able to make it work well for them and thrive. That respect extends to a lot of people on this site. However, I do think that different people need different things to reach their full potential. Right now, I don’t think I can be in this Church. Oh, wow. That was hard to type. Maybe it will change. But for right now, I can’t step away entirely. I can’t let my mother know about my situation at the present time. So I’m “staying LDS” for her. Additionally, I want to continue thinking these things through and putting my heart, mind, and spirit into these decisions regarding my future in the Church. If my spirit wants to stay in this Church, I will. No general authorities or Church policies are going to prevent me from staying if I believe it is the right decision. But right now, I feel like I’m standing at the doorway on the way out. This process has been very hard for me. This Church means so, so much to me. It’s difficult.SilentDawning wrote:It is a label that describes a person who forsakes his religion or cause.
I think in our church, it is a label that has this meaning. But it is also used by many TBM types to ostracize people or label people who no longer seem loyal to the church.
Ignore it.
I don’t know if I can anymore. I don’t know if I want to live my life trying to ignore things like this. It’s exhausting.I apologize if I come off angry. I’m hurting right now. I was dreading this event. Facebook kept trying to promote it to me and people kept sharing it. People were excited. I had a feeling this wasn’t going to bode well for me. I intentionally didn’t watch this. Sometimes I think about how we got to this position where people are so fixated on the rules of the church and all the little “you’re supposed to’s” of our church, which I feel distract from the gospel. Then I remember we probably did it to ourselves. People often want a detailed list of instructions on how to live their lives so it takes the pressure off of them to have to make those decisions. We’re created this culture where we want answers from the General Authorities and want to hear from them all the time. I understand that this brings peace to some people, but I think it can be problematic. Personally, I’m of the opinion that less is more in regards to “answers” from the General Authorities.
Old-Timer wrote:Based on the overall summary, I am sure they define doubt as “active disbelief and refusal to consider anything not visible” – like “Doubting Thomas”.I am NOT excusing it by saying that, since I dislike that definition greatly, but it helps to step back and realize they probably aren’t talking about uncertainty or questions.
I think that’s a hopeful way to perceive his definition of doubt, Ray. I’m glad that works for you. For me, I wouldn’t go as so far as to say “refusal to consider anything not visible.” Rather, I’d think his definition of doubt is more aligned with what Mrs. SuperChicken articulated Elder Bednar said, ” cynical, disbelieving and mistrusting.” It means something else to me. To me, this goes along the same lines I got fed last year from my Bishop and ward leadership, “The Church wants you to know it’s okay to have questions, just not disagreements. If you don’t understand the Church on this one, that’s okay, as long as you don’t go the other way.” It’s okay to have concerns, as long as you still trust the Church. You can have some reservations, but you need to be on the path to accepting the Church’s positions.
So basically, I can’t even say I have “doubts” anymore to TBM friends without trigging something that implies I am sinning
🙄 
😥 DarkJedi wrote:I think the current younger generations are far more tolerant than any previous generations. To them being openly gay generally carries no stigma, for instance. As we Boomers (I don’t consider myself a Boomer, I was at the very end, but we don’t get our own pigeon hole) die off these people will become the mainstay stalwarts of society and that cannot help but permeate the church as well. I wish I wasn’t dying off, I’d like to be around to see it. (I secretly wish I will be more like LTP than BKP
Agreed…to an extent. I do agree younger generations are far more tolerant but not as tolerant as we get a rap for. I think part of the reason both sides of the Gay Rights debate are so divided is because there’s a lack of understanding. A lot of convervatives/boomers lament that being LGBTQ is the cool thing now, that it’s a fad. Even though that may be true in some areas, in many places in the US (including most of Utah) coming out will still have a huge negative social stigma, and may lead to being severely bullied and rejected by members of your family. Coming out as Transgender is still a nightmarish ordeal for many teenagers across the country and almost half of transgender youth attempt suicide. I recall that these statistics are even worse in Utah.
On another note, I think the article is accurate. Utah, to me, is more mainstream republican than conservative, but it also has its share of staunch conservatives, as well. The Church is undeniably a strong lobbying force in Utah, though. And it’s true that a lot of its lobbying goes on behind the scenes. However, I can tell you there are Mormon Republican leaders that are put off by the Church’s involvement in politics; they’re just not going to say that publicly.
Throwing in my experience: I benefited from having home teachers visit, even the ones who weren’t very “good” at it, so to speak. Their lessons were boring and not planned well. It was clear they were only coming because they felt like they had to. But once they were at our home, they asked if there was anything they could to for us and the answer was always yes. That’s how my mom got help.
DarkJedi wrote:Although there’s no question most of us would help another member in need.From an organizational point of view, the program could be efficient. Is there some other type of program/organization that would efficiently meet the needs of those in need? Unfortunately, not my experience. My mom is a single parent with a physical disability. She absolutely wants the home-teaching visits and needs help. She’s had good home-teachers and bad. The bad ones were devastating for her and did a number on her trust in people. In some cases, her home teachers wouldn’t visit her for months. She’s done the whole process–talked to the Bishopric, talked to the Relief Society President, talked to her visiting teachers…asking for visits and help…
And still no visits. No contact. Nothing.
This wasn’t just a one-time thing. Systemically, there’s been failure to help out a single mom with kids in multiple wards.
I don’t like people being compelled to give service but in my experience, sometimes even when they are, they won’t.
As much as the PR department says they’re trying to get the word out about the essays, they’re simply not. There’s no incentive to bring this knowledge to the faithful TBM’s. It’s not faith-promoting and could hurt the testimonies of devout members. The essays are there to cover the bases of the few struggling Mormons on the fringe and to finally have an answer—be it minimal—to the critics so that the Church can act like it has nothing to hide. Also, if more members become conscious of these issues in the future, the Church can act like they always were open about it and didn’t sweep things under the rug. I suspect in 30 years they’ll be saying they always talked about these things openly. But I don’t believe the church intends to pull these essays into the consciousness of members until it feels forced to. The essays are meant to appease and will stay marginalized until there is enough push for the Church to have to rely on them. Right now, there isn’t enough push. That might change in the next 25 years. I’ve noticed YA wards are more curious about these things, as they are more internet savvy and don’t have as many years investing their lives into the Church, but even then, I don’t want to overestimate that tendency amongst Mormons. Even if YA wards are more open, there still is a line which people won’t cross. However, I’m not too dismayed at this news. It’s the sign of growing pains. If there’s going to be any progress on these issues, they’re going to happen. It’s just going to be a very, very slow process.
I miss feeling loved and cared for by God. It was a personal relationship that has a lot of distance right now. Something I struggle with now, and in a way, have always struggled with, is loneliness. Feeling like I’m on my own to take care of myself, that I’ve always had to look out for myself and can rely on very few people…feeling like I’m not understood or loved. I still have this tendency to assume friends or people won’t help me. I have to work through it.
I miss “knowing” that not only I, but everyone else, would get a happy ending. That in the eternities, people would love and appreciate me and I in turn would love and appreciate them. We wouldn’t be riddled by disagreements and human weaknesses. We’d all just love and understand each other. I had this vision of all of God’s children being happy together. I know Mormon ideology teaches of three kingdoms but for me we’d all be able to visit and be happy together. That’s what I “knew” awaited us.
I still hope for this.
I don’t know if I was raised with the traditional Mormon Doctrine about blessings. But then again, I think there clearly are some contradictions in regard to the teachings of blessings in the Church. Some teach that if you keep the commandments (especially tithing) your spiritual and temporal needs will be taken care of. The scriptures say this. The Book of Mormon points to this. And yet, we also teach about the importance of trials and tribulations—I even was raised hearing that severe trials happen to the strongest people. We’re also taught that we can’t control the agency of others and that we’re here to grow. Naturally we have to suffer and encounter difficult circumstances if we want to grow. And yet, you still hear the testimonies of people finding their car keys and tender mercies. Most often, I think people just see a silver lining and ascribe it to God. Who knows? I grew up essentially being taught that bad trials happen to the best of people. Basically…life is going to be hard but if you endure to the end, it will be okay. God will bless you enough to survive but don’t expect to get everything, even most, of what you want. I’m glad I got this perspective in my childhood because I later didn’t have a crisis about the doctrine of blessings and being “rewarded” by God for good behavior. I didn’t expect my life to be great because I was keeping the commandments. I had a rough childhood, and so did my parents, so, if anything, I expected my life to continue to be hard. The only thing I could count on was for God to sustain me with the spiritual peace to survive it.
I remember after High School, reading the Book of Mormon—or maybe Doctrine in Covenants—in church. It said if you kept the commandments you would be blessed in your physical needs. I’d read that scripture before but it hadn’t sunk in. I was shocked. Since I didn’t want to challenge it in public, I didn’t say anything. I think the girl I was reading with could tell I had issues with it.
I think that many of the church’s teachings lead to happiness. Maybe God does bless his children. But I have a hard time reconciling a God that rewards a “good Mormon” by finding his car keys over someone who is pleading with God to spare the lives of their children.
I don’t know. Sometimes I feel like I’ve been taken care of by God in my life. It’s a scary thought to me that I could be punished in the future for not following the Mormon path. That still kind of terrifies me, but I don’t think God operates that way.
This is a hard topic for me. Growing up, I was the girl with the big testimony and bore it almost every week: seminary, prayer, I ate it all up. Loved the Church and the gospel. But I never had one of those miraculous spiritual experiences people talked about. I figured since I already “knew” I didn’t need one. Yet when I got my patriarchal blessing, I remember distinctly thinking to myself, “Wow…wow. I knew this was going to be a spiritual experience…but this is beyond anything I could have imagined. This is so much more than I ever could have thought.” It shook me to my bones.
To this day I can’t explain it. I don’t know what it means. This faith crisis would probably be much easier if I hadn’t had that experience. But I figure that for whatever reason, I did. And here I am.
Thanks everyone for replying and sending well-wishes. I read through the messages earlier but haven’t had time to reply until now. I like what was said about grieving my literal faith. Thank you for your empathy, suggestions, and reassurance. They were all insightful and helpful. I’m not as angry as I was before. I think now I’m just frustrated as I feel so stuck in the middle of all this. Recently I’ve been reminiscing about what I love about the Church. It’s difficult because as much as I love these things, I don’t know if they can keep me in. And that feels awful. I feel like I have to make a decision whether or not to cut off my arm. I know I don’t need to decide now, but this is impacting my ability to form/maintain intimate friendships with people, especially in light of everything that has happened. I’m also tired of casual dating. I’ve “not been ready” for a serious relationship for a while because of my indecision about my future in the Church.
I feel uncomfortable when I hear these “encouraging messages.” Sometimes, when someone says to me, “He’s on the other side” I feel nothing but almost a patronizing love for them. Like, “Oh, isn’t it cute that you think that and it works out so well for you?” But other times I get annoyed and angry. I think to myself, “Why do you need to say that to me? It’s more for you than for me. Stop.” I know they’re just trying to help. But it gets on my nerves and honestly just makes me feel hollow or even angry.
Thanks for the link to the Rational Faiths article, Sheldon. It was a good read.
It completely makes sense from a retention viewpoint. In my experience, most TBM believe the church is perfect (just not the people, as the saying goes) so under that paradigm, why would the church ever need to issue an apology? If the church is perfect, it doesn’t need to apologize. Also, recalling from my TBM thought processes, I would think that if the church were to issue an apology on something then the anti-Mormon world and media would blow it up out of context and it would be bad PR for the church and hinder missionary work (again, this would be my TBM perspective). For these reasons, I would think church apologies should be few and far between as a TBM.
I feel like TBM’s are the blood of the church. Their faith and testimony drives the work and success of the church. Doing something that had the chance of harming their faith wouldn’t be good for retention purposes. I feel like in this case, it’s organization over individual, the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized.
Even knowing all this, it hurts.
mom3 wrote:I second Ray’s opinion.
In our home 50 shades is a distressing signal. My college age daughter was sexually approached by a male teacher. It caught her off guard. The school did very little to assist her and during one of the interrogations the male teacher said she’d been flirting and asking for it. Because lots of students do approach professors in that way not much was done other than he was dropped as the school club adviser. He still got to teach, no change in status. She still had to finish the semester passing his room, him, and other students who had heard whispers of “her”. For us 50 shades is a pretty horrific tale, made even more horrifying that it is so well received.
How horrible. I’m so sorry to hear that. What a nightmare.
I also second Ray’s opinion. Although I haven’t vocalized my opinion publicly, I’m very much against 50 Shades of Grey because I see it as glamorized abuse. Not the BDSM part–the part about Christian about being blatantly controlling, emotionally abusive, and manipulative of Anastasia. Their relationship pretty much fits all the checkmarks of an abusive relationship. I consider it the modern equivalent of the glamorized rape-tales which have a long history in our culture (even going far back long before Beauty and the Beast). To me, it’s awful that abusive relationships are still being glamorized. It’s tragic for all the women suffering through such horrific relationships and for vulnerable women who are susceptible to the idea that emotional abuse from their partner is okay and that if they “love him enough” they can make it stop.
The book actually started off as Twilight fanfiction online. It became popular and was adapted to be published as a book.
I don’t like posting links to FAIR but that might get you started on a source-hunt. The sources at the bottom are from BYU. I remembered hearing that Joseph drank wine in Carthage Jail so a quick google search led me here. Do what you’d like with it: Quote:Imo, it wasn’t hidden that Joseph and other saints still drank alcohol after the Word of Wisdom so I don’t anticipate you having problems finding sources (even primary sources). Even as a TBM my understanding was that the WOW wasn’t as strictly enforced in the beginning. I think I was taught about it in seminary or it might just have been reading The Work and the Glory
Roy wrote:I agree with Looking Hard.
Quote:John Dehlin also co-founded a website that was originally designed to assist individuals who no longer believed in basic tenets of the LDS faith in maintaining their social ties to the Church through deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops about their commitment to the Church.
[snip]
Dehlin at the time publicly expressed concern about his standing within the Church and he solicited testimonials from individuals he had helped remain socially in the Church to bolster an argument that he was not leading people out of the Church.
I do not know John and I do not listen to podcasts. I do however know StayLDS and a few years ago I wrote a brief write up for John on how the website has helped me work through my faith crisis. I find this characterization to be ill-informed, dismissive, and insulting.
I do not know of any particular quote that the author may have been referencing to state that we advocate “deceitful tactics, such as lying to Bishops” because there was no footnote. I believe that we regularly advocate against dumping or unloading all your doubts wholesale on church members. I know that we have also had discussions to beware of priesthood leader roulette and that once you are “out” to a priesthood leader it can be difficult or impossible to undo.
It is somewhat ironic that John is accused of apostasy for his very public statements of unbelief and yet this also seems to decry individuals staying in the church and being very quiet (“deceitful”) about their unbelief. What would the author suggest those with varying levels of doubts/unbelief do?
Overall the piece seems to have a very specific perspective and then cherry picks information to support that perspective.
That write-up was hard to read. It’s political and dismissive in nature. Unfortunately, I believe the author would suggest that those with varying levels of doubts/unbelief confess to Bishop, endure the doubt privately in the meantime, read scriptures, pray, and naturally become re-converted just as the fairy tale says it should happen. It’s impossible for any other outcome unless the person is not earnest enough or is doing something wrong. After all, we’re promised we’ll get our answers. And the Church is not wrong about anything.
:thumbup: 🙄 That’s one of the things that is so frustrating to me about this process: the need to live in secrecy for fear of what will happen should I reveal parts of my true self to others. It doesn’t matter how reasonable and accepting I try to be. If I don’t believe the way they believe, I am inferior, because…because essentially, church culture (even doctrine, to a point) says. It’s my fault. Even as some Bishops are more accepting than others and even in leadership there are varying styles of accepting disagreements, there’s still this looming fear over my head to keep quiet and bear it in silence. I don’t do well with that. It makes church a stressful place for me. Who can blame people for wanting to keep painful doubts private when there’s such external pressure associated?
As far as the Transcript…well, it’s settled. The Church doesn’t allow certain levels of dissent. It reserves its right to discipline members. I wish it was a church of free speech but it isn’t and in a case like this, when John is blatantly advertising his non-traditional beliefs and crossing several lines…he knew what was coming
Welcome to the site. I think you’ll find a lot of people here that can relate to your experience. I am in a similar situation: at university, surrounded by other members of the church (although not at a BYU Uni) and questioning what to do. metalrain wrote:
I’m having the hardest time reconciling my spiritual experiences, and feelings, with the knowledge, and information I’ve learned. How could I have had such spiritual experiences when the doubts I am having are all related to the foundation of the church?I empathize. I’ve had a spiritual experience that I can’t reconcile with some of my other thoughts and feelings about the church. For many of my other spiritual experiences I can reason out a little bit more. But not this one, not really. I can’t explain what this spiritual experience meant or even was. Maybe one day I will be able to.
I started seriously questioning about 4 years ago, with my doubts getting progressively more serious as time went on. At times the memory of this spiritual experience greatly stresses me because then I get to worrying what will happen to my life if the TBM way of thinking is correct. But in hindsight, I’m glad I’ve had this spiritual experience because it’s tempered my long-term reactions to my faith crisis ( and has given me a complex perspective on these issues that is accommodating and accepting to multiple view points). This experience was also a sacred and special moment to me when it happened, and I can be grateful for that. Also, in the end, it was my experience, not the church’s, if that makes sense? This spiritual experience that I can’t excuse away is something sacred between me and God. I can’t explain it now. Maybe it does have implications for the church. Maybe I will one day be able to wrap my head around it better. Maybe I never will. But that’s okay for now. I know this probably doesn’t help you now. But that’s my experience.
metalrain wrote:My mom knows I’m doubting. She knows the issues I’m doubting. She has never been the most active but she believes the church is good, as do I. However my grandparents were basically my other parent, and are very TBM. I was home over the break and didn’t want to go to church my last day home and my grandpa gave me a chastising scripture as I got on the plane (out of love and concern, of course). I love them as much as I love my mom and I’m afraid of hurting them. I’m their oldest grandchild, first to go on a mission, etc. I’ve never rebelled and always been the “perfect” grandchild. I feel like me falling away would destroy them and cut years off their lives.
Again, I have empathy for you. I am in a similar situation. It’s hard. You caring about their feelings shows love and concern. As you go into this, remember you’re worth.
I don’t have many words of wisdom. I don’t post on this site a lot and usually when I do it’s when I’m in a state of stress. But I will say this: you are not a bad person for wanting to know the truth. The Church has encouraged you to seek for answers and I think the honest pursuit of knowledge is an honorable endeavor. However, if all this searching is hurting you significantly, it’s okay to ease off and take it slow or take a step back. I understand it’s hard to feel like things are out of control right now and the desire to want to figure things out all at once. Unfortunately, I don’t think life works that way. Perhaps it does for some. I don’t know if “the answers” are always meant to come the way that our culture teaches them to. The church happily recites the official version of the First Vision as an example of solution to questions. It didn’t take Joseph long to get his answer. What the church doesn’t as easily refer to is Brigham Young’s two-year examining of the Book of Mormon (the irony of me saying this is my questions about both of those men).
As I’ve said before, it’s been years for me. I know I’ll never go back to how I believed before. That’s okay. What I can say is that I feel so much better now than I did when this all started. About your situation: you are in an environment that, in my opinion, makes things even more difficult for a faith crisis (not that there’s an easy environment at all, I think in any environment a faith crisis can be devastating). There’s a lot of pressure in BYU town associated with faith from societal and external sources. Maybe getting away from all that pressure (eventually) will help you better adjust to these new revelations and knowledge without so much pressure. For now, don’t hesitate to vent and express yourself here. This community is welcoming and willing to lend an ear (and virtual hug).
LDS_Scoutmaster wrote:
It’s ok to be tactful around your mom for her sake. She has her own journey, and that shows that you care for her. Your faith evolution will continue on, so there should be care in burning bridges. You may find that in a year your views have changed again. I would like to say Peace, but at points in the evolution it is anything but peaceful. So here’s to hope for you,Thank you. Since it’s hard for me to articulate how I feel about the church I have tried to avoid the subject with her for the time being. She’s the type that would ask questions like, “Do you even believe in Christ?” and get anxious if I didn’t answer immediately, then want to know why I feel the way I feel, and get upset when she can’t excuse away my doubts. I’m trying not to lie while still keeping things private so I can respect her beliefs. She drops hints all the time but I act like I don’t get them. She does ask if I have been going to church and I’m honest about not going.
Tacenda wrote:It sounds like your mom needs to read all the church essays. And I don’t mean to sound flip about it, but she sounds a lot like my mother in law that constantly worries about her grandchildren if they don’t go on missions or marry in the temple. She has anxiety and gets depressed and lives for the church. I honestly think it’d be good for these people to see some flaws in the church, if only to see why some make the choices they do.
How I wish this could happen. But I think at this point me showing them to her would do more harm than good. She knows about one of them but isn’t the type to research these things on her own. I want to be able to keep my thoughts about faith as private as possible for now and I think if I directed the essays to her that would open the door to her prying into how I feel about the church. She’s very black and white with the church and would ask questions I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking. I can work my way around questions but I won’t lie. She can be very direct. I don’t want to diminish her testimony or attack her beliefs. I don’t want to hurt her and I know doing so would do just that. She’s very committed to the church and I think any criticism of it could be perceived as a criticism of her. Even if she did open her mind up to some of the issues, it probably would hurt her testimony greatly and harm her.
