Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
What I dislike is the extension of religious exemptions to individuals who practice that religion rather than restricting it to the religions themselves. That’s unfair and impossible for the law to allow. A church shouldn’t have to perform a gay marriage if it goes against doctrine, but a municipal clerk doesn’t have that same right. A clerk is not a church.
I do think you have a point, here. It’s very murky and difficult to enforce. If a worker at a supermarket store refused to check out meat to customers because she was a vegetarian for religious reasons, she probably wouldn’t keep that job. If a man refused to serve a woman because she’s wearing “immodest apparel” which offends his religious beliefs that also wouldn’t fly.
mom3 wrote:I am still processing. I am not clear what the purpose was. I don’t know who was harming the church.
They made an announcement because the Utah legislative session started yesterday and to my knowledge, there are competing bills regarding this topic. No doubt Utah politicians were lobbying to get the church’s stance/approval. The big elephant in the room is always whether the church will support or come out against a bill because that will insure or kill it. This conference really didn’t do much in changing views but did set the agenda for what it will/won’t support in potential laws to be vote on this spring. However, it’s murky. The Legislature will probably pass an anti-discriminatory bill in regards to housing and employment with religious exemptions.
Personally, I don’t like it when the church directly involves itself in politics. Not saying they don’t have the right to (although I do think in certain situations a line can be crossed, and from personal experiences, it bleeds into corruption) but I don’t like it. Unfortunately, people are often asking the church what they should and shouldn’t support and in my opinion, the church has gotten used to giving out answers in Utah. I think the church finds it hard to resist this when it’s become protocol for so long. I just wish they wouldn’t be so involved in politics.
On the other hand, this is good for giving a more moderate perspective to the issue. Even though the church didn’t strike down all discriminatory actions, they at least drew a line with their support of non-discrimination of housing and employment. That’s a good start. Of course, there was a load of defensive language in there. It makes me sad that the church leadership is so disconnected from the trials LGBTQ members face. I’m hopeful they’re not all like that but when they started going on about the threats of “retaliation” by Gay Rights advocates and the hypocrisy of some Gay Rights advocates, I couldn’t help but think these concerns pale in comparison to the trials LGBTQ Mormons face. We have LGBTQ brothers and sisters killing themselves every week. Hearing all the jargon about the “being labeled a bigot” just didn’t feel right.
But they did say, “LGBT.” Isn’t that something new?
I feel like as a woman I need to say something about this. Obviously I don’t have experience with marriage and issues like this. But there’s an assumption out there that women don’t like pornography and marriages suffer just because the wife is jealous and feels like her spouse is cheating on her. I think it’s much more complicated than this and even women themselves don’t understand some underlying issues they have with pornography. Dax brought up several good points that I won’t touch on. Women are socialized beginning at childhood that our value is based on our physical attractiveness. Our deserving of a “happy ending” is largely determined by how pretty we are. It’s highly likely that the most common compliment a woman will receive in her life is, “you look pretty” or “you look cute” or “you look beautiful.” Bottom line: we learn that it’s
veryimportant as women to be psychically attractive. However, the standards of beauty in most societies are crazy and the vast majority of women will never live up to them. We also learn about the dangers of being too physically attractive, or too “sexy.” Girls that are too sexy aren’t taken seriously as human beings. They’re “sluts” and guys just see them as a sum of parts. To men, they’re not even people. These women may get more attention but aren’t valued as human beings. Thus, we have to do this exhausting act of balancing being attractive, being sexy, but not being too attractive or too sexy. There’s a lot of pressure. It’s tough. Even for women who don’t try very hard to conform to beauty standards this might still be in their psyche because it’s been drilled into them since childhood. I think for a lot of women, being deduced to an object is a deep fear.
So a woman finds a man she loves and respects her as a human being. She feels confident about herself with them. And then she finds out he enjoys objectifying women via pornography. From her perspective, he deduces women to sexual objects. It’s scary and throws into question for her if he even really finds her attractive or what sex even means for their relationship. He plays into the same system that she hates.
For me, I absolutely have a problem with pornography and it would hurt my marriage. But my level of outrage would depend on what type of pornography it is. A lot of the pornography out there now (especially the hard core stuff) really degrades women and as a woman, it is offensive to me that my significant other would find it pleasurable to watch. I think the church should have conversations about why pornography is bad instead of “it’s filthy and evil.” Frequent pornographic viewing, especially the hard-core kind, has well documented adverse effects that I won’t get into here.
I’ve seen marriages fall apart because of pornography addiction. I’ve seen husbands change. To me, it’s in the same category as marriages that fail because of any addiction. I do think pornography is like a drug like alcohol. Some people can watch a little and not be that effected. Some go down the rabbit hole and struggle to ever get out.
Heber13 wrote:Mrs. SuperChicken wrote:I have actually seen a little bit of a change in the ward since then. It helped me to have a small glimmer of hope.
I think there is a slow and little bit of change also, MSC. I think it is because some things are inevitable. I know many church members that are smart (including family). The issues that are arising (historicicty, BOA, and other essay topics) will not go away, and people will learn, even from a faithful perspective or apologetic way, they are real issues to make sense of. Most will drink the Kook Aid and take a faithful explanation and then move forward entrenched in their faith. I think there will be more sympathy for questions or doubts in the church. I see it happening. Because truth cannot be dismissed, it only gets painted and dressed up by our different perspectives on it.I agree. It will be a slow process but I have a lot of hope for this. It’s already like this in several YSA Wards in the US East Coast, in my experience; not a perfectly inclusive environment but much more sympathetic to those who have doubts.
Not to make waves, but to my knowledge, some pantheists do organize. There are a few “churches”/movements organized with pantheist even in the name. Also, pantheism is a big part of Hinduism…probably why I identity with that faith so much I didn’t mean to come off as if I was disputing your views, Ray. I apologize. I think trying to read the document divorced from historical understandings and current mainstream interpretation can be valuable for people. Most of my post stemmed out of me coming to terms with the Proclamation and how I need to deal with it as “doctrine.” That document is something I spent a lot of energy trying to make work for me. When I started my faith transition I spent a lot time trying to reason certain phrases in my head so: 1.) Maybe it really didn’t mean what I thought it meant or I could make it work and maintain my traditional testimony or 2.) I would have a leg to stand on if someone asked me how my evolving views were still in line with the gospel. I’ve come to a place now where I can accept, for myself that some of the Proclamation is problematic for me as it written and that some of the intentions behind the proclamation are problematic for me, as well. I’m not going to be able to reason it out to make it work for myself, and probably not for others. You’re right; “other circumstances” is completely open-ended. No restrictions. But it is paired with two extreme circumstances: death and disability. To me, that sets the tone for what are acceptable circumstances for people to deviate from the formula. And it reads that way to me. At this point in my journey, it’s best for me to just acknowledge how it’s interpreted because of how it’s written and cultural factors associated and try to let go for the time being. Since I dislike the document as doctrine, I can only empathize with other people who do as well and tell them it’s okay to feel that way. I think the Proclamation is problematic as it is written and even a close-reading of it really says is still going to render it problematic for me. That’s where I was coming from.
And I am definitely interested in your blog. I’ll look at it. Thanks.
P.S. Sorry for taking this thread more off in a tangent
Eternity4me wrote:My view is a little different. I have watched several couples make this work. In fact they lived within separate boundaries and got permission to attend the same ward. The benefit? The kids have continuity in their church experience and relationships. If you aren’t going to expect your kids to attend a different ward every other week, it won’t matter which ward you are in. But, your kids will feel the brunt of the divorce if they have to alternate wards they attend. This is not as important when they are young, but imagine as youth. They won’t get to serve much in leadership. They will be planning activities and never be quite sure if they can attend. It makes it difficult to forge close relationships with the other youth. I watched my kids struggle with this very issue. Finally, when they were in the youth program I told them to choose a ward to attend every Sunday. The were so relieved when they didn’t feel like the outsider who was only there half the time. I told them it didn’t matter which ward they picked, I would support them. My son picked his dad’s ward and my girls picked my ward. It wasn’t based on where the parent attended, it happened to be the ward where they had the closest friends. They also attended that ward for their weekly activities.
One thing I learned from my divorce–the kids hurt the most. I would do whatever was necessary to help your kids cope with Sundays, and just learn to deal with it. After all, we are the adults, and it isn’t always about us. I wish you the best as you figure this out. Divorce is the ugliest thing I ever endured, and I was widowed after I remarried.
Having been a child of divorced parents who, for a while, went through the church back-and-forth I can also attest that it’s very hard on kids. But it’s also a confusing process to go through the separation of parents when the parents don’t clearly define what is being separated and what is not, if that makes sense? If you aren’t on great terms with your ex, it might be even worse for the kids if you go to same ward as her. And I suspect it will also be worse for you.
Even when parents get a long fairly well, in the beginning stages of the separation, the kids are probably going to feel caught in the middle between you two. If things aren’t great between you and your ex, they will definitely pick up on it. The more tension, the worse it is for them. You may hide it well but you’d be surprised with how well children can recognize the dynamics of their parents and then internalize the feelings. If you’re going to the same ward as your ex, those feelings of anxiety and feeling caught in the middle might follow them to church and it might, either knowingly or unknowingly, become a place of stress for them. I can confidently bet you don’t want your kids to feel that way at church. However, if there’s not that tension, it could be good for your family. I don’t know your full situation.
I think you’re right for choosing to go to a different ward.
Old-Timer wrote:That might be what President Benson taught, and that might be what too many members still believe and teach, but it is not what the Proclamation actually says.
That wording is important, and, linguistically, it makes no sense whatsoever to say it reinforces strict, distinct, exclusive roles.Someone can’t help someone else in a responsibility without participating somehow in that responsibility. We understand now, generally, and teach, explicitly, that men should help with the nurturing of children – and, generally, that includes household duties and diaper changing and all kinds of things. I appreciate your thoughts, Ray and Shawn. I read that thread linked. And just to be clear, I am grateful for the emphasis the church puts on the importance of fatherhood not just equating to resource-earner. I love that fathers are encouraged to “provide” in more ways than protection and resources. I really appreciate how much the church supports families (at least, the “traditional” kind of families). I’m not really disagreeing with what you’re saying but I also feel there is clear doublespeak going on in the proclamation in regards to the roles of men and women. Yes, what it says doesn’t make sense to reinforce strict gender roles, but at the same time, it does. And in my opinion, the proclamation directly contributes to the kind of discussions Eternity4me is referring to. It isn’t just about church culture or President Benson’s talk, or any previous church President’s talk on the matter (just to be clear: I’m not insinuating that’s what you implied, I’m just making a separate point). I feel the proclamation directly contributes to the perpetuation of distinct gender roles in the church. I also think the doublespeak creates confusion in members about what it actually is saying about the roles of men and women.
As the proclamation says, husband and wife are to be “equal” partners but the husband “presides.” How does that even work in an equal relationship? How are the husband and wife to be equal partners when the husband “presides?” I know some may interpret this differently, but “preside” is defined as “to be in the position of authority in a meeting or gathering.” That is also how it is used in church hierarchy. The Bishop of the ward, who has the most authority, “presides.” People can choose to interpret “preside” in different ways, but it still does carry the connotation of authority to many. The Bishop of the ward is not supposed to not be a tyrant, but he still has authority over the rest of the ward. He may be “equal” to the Relief Society President in worth, but not in authority. In the case of power dynamics, there is clearly a disparity between the Bishop and Relief Society President. In that regard, they are not “equal.” I think one reading of the proclamation can present a similar power disparity between husband and wife.
I’m grateful that more members are now having discussions about what “preside” means but to me its place in the proclamation is doublespeak. So husband and wife are equal but the husband is the leader of the home? I do think that most members of the church and church leadership believe that husband and wife are “equal” in worth. But when it comes to power dynamics, members interpret the proclamation meaning different things. And thus there’s that confusion and the perpetuation of the “stay home and do the dishes” talk.
Old-Timer wrote:Over half of Mormon women (even married women) now work outside the home, and there hasn’t been anything from the General Conference pulpit or in the Ensign (or which I’m aware) for decades that forbids it – so, generally, we understand the difference between exclusivity in roles and real life mixing / helping / adaptation / etc.
I understand completely that our culture absolutely still bears the effects of President Benson’s talk about mothers staying home, but the Proclamation doesn’t say men are supposed to be the exclusive paid workers and women are supposed to stay home and do the dishes – and the younger generations in the Church (from my own age of about 50 down) understand it much, much more than the older generations.
Thank goodness it doesn’t forbid it! That just wouldn’t be practical. The church would probably get a lot of pushback from wives that need to work out of necessity, and I believe that pushback is what led them to chance their stance to begin with. However, what the proclamation does say is,
Quote:“Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”
Disability and death are pretty extreme circumstances. I’m glad that they left the door open for other circumstances but the proclamation definitely sets the tone for what circumstances are “acceptable” for adaption. There also have been several conferences talks even in recent years about how the woman’s greatest role is in the home and how “the world” tries to disparage this. I think the Proclamation, and the attitude of church leadership, as well as our history on the subject, has resulted in many members concluding that the ideal place for the woman is in the home and she should only work out of economic necessity or other extenuating circumstances. If she’s working and there’s not a “significant enough” reason for her to, she’s being selfish. I also think their conclusion, based on the proclamation, is not unreasonable (I don’t agree with it but I think it’s a logical conclusion for them to come to, based off the Proclamation and church teachings). Speaking as someone who wasn’t in the Youth program too long ago, I know it’s often taught that way to girls.
I guess the point for me is I have a complex relationship with the Proclamation. It endorses much of what I believe but also things that are deeply troubling to me. It mirrors my feelings for the church. In some cases, it’s held up as doctrine to perpetuate misguided human judgments, in my opinion. I wish it wasn’t doctrine but my understanding is that for our church, people usually take whatever is repeated by the Apostles and Prophets as doctrine. It may not be “official” but is doctrine in the hearts and minds of most members, so might as well be, and it’s really only a matter of time before it becomes official. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share how I feel about this.
I really liked your comments, Eternity4me. I’m trying to be balanced about this. Kate Kelly’s excommunication devastated me more, not because I was a “follower” but because prior to that, I thought the church was progressing in a certain way. The church’s toleration of Ordain Women (even if undermined by a dismal PR department) signaled to me it had moved past its days of the “September Six” and perhaps was on its way to become a more tolerating, accepting church. Then the excommunication happened and it wrecked me. I guess I should have seen it coming. I won’t get into if I think it was ethical etc., but it did have a significant emotional impact on me. This one is less of a blow.
Of course I believe church’s have a right to excommunicate members and set boundaries for acceptable behavior. That does not mean that I have to always agree with those decisions. To be honest, to me, excommunication is an act of spiritual violence. When I was educated in seminary and church, an “apostate” description basically equated a person to the lowest thing a person could possibly be, close if not equal to murderers. Naturally, we had no right to judge people’s hearts but apostasy was a very severe spiritual crime. That’s why, when anyone is labeled an “apostate” I get a little jumpy. It’s a painful word to me.
Of course, who one sees as an “apostate” another sees as a reformer.
The unwillingness of the higher leadership to involve itself in local matters is a double-edged sword. Their unwillingness to offer clarity on what is acceptable and what is not will probably save some but will also surely give some bishops and stake presidents justification to discipline members. I don’t think it’s so simple to blame it on bishops or stake presidents who have let the power inflate them a bit. Kate Kelly’s excommunication as well as John Dehlin’s (I’m one who believes it’s going to happen) will signal to some that those who agree with their line of thinking are out of line and need to face discipline (I feel this has already happened with Ordain Women members and even Mormon feminists). I don’t think it’s a reach for some local leadership to react that way, either. And I don’t always think bishops and stake presidents who react that way are drunk with power at all. They are simply trying to emulate the precedents set by others and be faithful servants to the church. In some cases, they are good people unknowingly doing very hurtful things because they think it’s right. I can’t fault them for doing what they genuinely think lines up with the Church’s views.
Also, I disagree with the idea that Kate was more of an “apostate” than John. Kate’s problem was that she waged a campaign about about women’s treatment in the church: an issue that the press gravitated to and the church was defensive about. However, she was very traditional in her beliefs about the church. Ironically, the church’s stance about ordination now is carefully-worded not to say that women will never get the Priesthood
🙄 John, on the other hand, was very public about stating his unorthodox beliefs and lack of belief in many of the church’s claims. I’m not necessarily saying that John was “worse” than Kate, either.I also understand the TBM justification for John’s excommunication. I do. I even remember watching one of his podcats and at one point thinking to myself, “Wow. I agree with everything he just said…but I wonder…he’s very convincing. Is this what a modern apostate looks like?” But I think part of the problem is people aren’t listening to how badly this is going to hurt struggling members of the church and the implications of this excommunication. That’s what I get frustrated about. People aren’t listening. They’re so committed to their viewpoint as “right” that they write off the pain of others without attempting to understand them.
Overall, in my opinion, this will do more harm than good. But there have been plenty of people in the past excommunicated who were vindicated by history, even if few people remember them. Maybe Kate and John will be two more names. Maybe not.
Thanks everyone for your comforting words. I read all of them several times. DarkJedi wrote:Are there things about the church you do believe? Even if those things aren’t specific to the church but are general Judeo-Christian principles? Focus on those and don’t worry about the stuff you don’t believe.
Thanks. At this point I’d probably self-identity as a Christian/Mormon influenced Universalist. I believe in being kind (especially to those who don’t treat you well), resisting ignorance, minimizing pride, and seeking wisdom. I believe in deity. I’m not sure what form that deity takes. I’m comfortable with the notion of a Heavenly Father, perhaps because I was raised that way and it feels good, but the God of the Bible, even the New Testament, as well as the God of the Book of Mormon, and the God of the Doctrine and Covenants scares me. It feels like he’s all great and good when you’re on “the right side of the fence” but when you’re hanging out on the fence or even heading the other direction, he’s terrifying. Occasionally I’ll be hit with bouts of terror over the notion that the God the Church actively promotes is actually the “real” God. I feel like that would mean an eternity of misery for me and the thought of which gives me anxiety.
On side note, I love Christ. That’s all I can really handle saying about him right now. Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and the other LDS prophets are locked away in a chest right now. However, try as I might, they keep getting out and giving me grief, especially Joseph but occasionally Brigham. I started reading Rough Stone Rolling but put it away because I can’t cope with that right now. Sometimes I just wish I could cover my ears and ignore everything about the Church. But that won’t work. I live in Utah for the time being and the Church touches so much, including my family.
I guess, inside I’ve accepted the Universalist identity, but there’s this part of me that is still so connected and tied up with the church. But I don’t know if I can stay in it and keep my sanity, so I keep looking for reasons to stay. I even have hope that I’m simply not seeing the big picture right now and I’ll be “converted” again to the Church, probably not as TBM but believing in the essence of it that I’m supposed to believe in. But more damming information about Joseph, and other aspects of church organization, just makes things worse. And then sometimes I feel like I’m searching for reasons to justify my heartbreak and unbelieving to all the people in my head who will surely judge me as a “fallen” if I don’t assimilate back into the church.
Heber13 wrote:Listen to your heart, to your spirit. Don’t try to be what others think you should be…be yourself and accept yourself.
Thanks for that. I don’t get told that very often. It’s encouraging to hear.
nibbler wrote:You might say that at the heart of the matter I want to be understood and liked for who I am, not for who I appear to be, it’s a human need and it doesn’t have anything to do with other people.It’s all in my messed up head. I’m certain that it’s the fear of people liking who I appear to be and not who I am that governs most of this. Work in progress. You just hit the nail on the head for me. I’ve never articulated it like that but this is what I’m feeling right now.
Additionally, I don’t know if I can stay participating in this church when it demands people who disagree with some aspects of the theology bear their crosses in silence (at least in my experience, can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told “it’s okay to have doubts, but you need to talk to the appropriate people in the appropriate places about it”), so I feel like I have to keep myself censored, not just at church but around other Mormons even in other environments. I can’t be myself. I’ve talked to three bishops about my struggles. One was absolutely great. He even gave me a calling I loved. I think, honestly, a part of me is hanging on because of the encouragement he gave me. He validated me as a person and didn’t make me feel like I was lost in the dark just for having doubts. He told me sincerely that the church needed women like me and he cared. The others haven’t been so good but they’ve been far from awful. They’re just trying to do their best but can’t offer me answers that don’t upset me. These last two bishops haven’t been able to understand my heartbreak with feeling “muzzled” by the Church. How can I be in an organization that silences dissonance and shames those who have concerns about how some doctrine hurts people? I just see so much fallibility in the church and it breaks my heart. But maybe that’s not really it that hurts me the most. Perhaps it’s that you’re supposed to conform to all of this fallibility enthusiastically or risk shame and in some cases, even discipline. I have no interest in being rejected and shamed by the organization that is supposed to spiritually nourish me. At the same time, I love the Church. My Bishops can’t understand how painful it is and don’t understand me when I say I feel like I am all alone in this and can’t talk to people. They tell me, “You can talk to me.” I don’t know where I’m going with this…another rant I suppose. But thanks for your encouragement.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
A few general thoughts.1 – Don’t underestimate how Mormon you are. It’s really hard to go from being raised in the church to being “not Mormon.” I can’t explain it, but it’s also not comfortable. It’s tough to relate to non-LDS men who’ve been raised completely differently just as it’s tough to relate to LDS men who are conservative or orthodox or sexist or whatever. Neither is a good match. I suspect you will find (as I did and as some others have done) that you are more Mormon, that you have more Mormon baggage than you think you do. It’s not so easy to just drop that and not be Mormon. It’s pretty deeply in us. For examples, read Therese Doucet’s book A Lost Argument or Elna Baker’s book New York Mormon Halloween Singles Dance.
Thanks for all your thoughts, Hawkgrrrl. I think you’re right, I can’t forget how “Mormon” I am. I am very Mormon. It’s a huge part of who I am and I love it. Even if I decide it’s healthier for me to disengage from the church, it will always be a part of me. I also think you’ve touched on one of my fears: I won’t be able to sustain a marriage with someone who’s not a member of the church. I guess I’m just feeling so hopeless about finding an LDS man to marry that finding someone outside of the church has become my glimmer at the end of the tunnel. That’s not to say I’m against marrying an LDS man, but right now, I lack faith that will happen for me. With my tunnel vision, I can’t see it happening. Maybe it will. Maybe I shouldn’t give up hope for that.
Holy Cow wrote:Thanks for sharing, and for being so open about what you’re going through! It sounds like you’re dealing with a lot of the ‘black or white’ thinking that a lot of us struggle with in the church. It’s important to remember that having doubts about certain doctrines doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re turning your back on everything. And not wanting to marry a TBM dude, doesn’t necessarily mean that you want to marry a drugged-up, tattoed-from-head-to-toe, leather-wearing, butt-scratching, long-haired, Harley-riding, throat-cutting, knuckle-dragging thug. Sometimes we’re taught that things are one way or the other, and there’s no in between.
Thank you for your comments. Maybe I am struggling with black-and-white thinking, but I think a part of the problem is that for so long I’ve been struggling to stay in the grey zone and I’m feeling exhausted. I’ve been trying to stay in the church even when I don’t have the traditional believer’s perspective. It feels like a daily battle. But it’s become difficult for me to go to church, which is why I’m on a break. For me, it’s become a matter of trying to determine reasons to stay in the church because I’m feeling stifled. It’s boiling down to fear of what will happen with my family, should I disengage in the long run, and the slight glimmer of hope that this church is where I’m supposed to be. However, my mother’s wishes aren’t going to keep me in the church if I come to the conclusion that it’s better for my progression and happiness to disengage. At this point, I’m becoming increasingly frustrated but haven’t let go of hope that I can be happy in the church.
But I don’t just feel like I’m having doubts in certain doctrines anymore. I feel like I have significant doubts as a member of an organization that has bare minimum tolerance for dissenting thinking. I feel like the church does a lot of great things but it also does some bad things and I don’t know if I can stay in the organization when my opinions about these bad things will result in me being shamed by my community. I want to feel free to try to make a world a better place without the fear of my community rejecting me, if that makes sense? Additionally, in my experience, it’s difficult to be an unorthodox believer in a very orthodox religion that values conformity. This wouldn’t matter so much if I had a spiritual experience which told me I need to stay.
And just for the record, I’m not going to marry a drugged-up, tattoed-from-head-to-toe, leather wearing, butt-scratching, long-haired-Harley-riding, throat-cutting, knuckle-dragging thug. Not my type. I’m more into the stomach-stabbing thugs
Holy Cow wrote:In regard to your concerns with you mother, if you truly believe she could be suicidal, please find some professional help with this. Don’t try to take it on by yourself. My wife spent three months in a behavioral clinic due to suicidal thoughts (and plans), and it made a world of difference. She simply couldn’t find the help she needed from friends and family, no matter how good their intentions were. If she mentions suicide, let her know that you take that serious and go straight to a doctor if you feel you need to. And if she ever does take her life, know that you did not cause your mother’s death, as you were wondering in your post!! If you’re mother takes her life, it is because of a decision that SHE made, and not because of decisions that YOU made. She has just as much free agency as you do. Don’t take that responsibility on yourself.
Thank you. I’ve tried to get her to go to counseling for years. She always has the excuse that she can’t afford it. When I try to push it she won’t have it so I’ve given up. I can’t force her. She’s not suicidal now but I don’t know what would happen if I didn’t enthusiastically return to church at some point. I know eventually she will probably instigate some kind of conflict over it so something will come to a head. She’s never tried to take her life (as far as I know) even though she’s talked about it and is a strong woman. She’s put up with so much abuse in her life that it’s probably a miracle she hasn’t broken down more than she has. But I do worry. I think I have to accept that whatever happens is her choice, like you said, but it is still terrifying to me and worries me. I think about it every day.
countrygirl444 wrote:I’m new to this community and have only been experiencing the faith crisis for about 5 months, but I think I have some advice that could be helpful. While I agree with others that you might need to take things slow and one thing at a time with your mother, there is no reason you can’t ask her to stop pushing you to date.
Thank you. I think if it comes up again I will ask her. I think I can frame it in a way that it won’t hurt her feelings.
I think I should probably say that while yes, I know my mother is worried about me, she’s also really proud of me and loves me a lot. That makes it painful. Every time she says something kind to me, I get a pit in my stomach thinking I’m going to break her heart at some point. I also think it’s made it harder for me to sort out my testimony because I’m internally resenting the church for the potential impact is has on my relationship with my mom.
I wrote up a long response last night and accidentally deleted it :thumbdown: Thanks for your comments. I’ll respond as soon as I can.
I know that I’m bringing this thread out of the dust, but I really appreciate the support you offered me here and offer me everyday (I’m a frequent lurker). I went to the event and really enjoyed it. It was a great experience and I even saw a friend I know from high school. Back in the day he was openly gay but a member of the church (he was even in my seminary class, I’ll never forget the time he answered a question about Laman and Lemuel saying he thinks God will forgive them and they’ll got to heaven in the next life. My seminary teacher was so shocked he almost started crying) although I’m unsure if he still participates in the church.
I think I even enjoyed it more than the person who invited me.
