The Cutting Edge: Joyous Adult Convert Interviews Full-Time Anti/Ex-Mormon
13 Jul 2010 4 Comments
in Anti-Mormon, Civility, Converts, Ex-Mormon, Faith
The ultimate in civil disagreement and public discourse is coming – it looks like I’m interviewing a full-time Anti-Mormon for the blog!
Non-members, there are camps in Mormonland. There are those of us who believe with all of our hearts, which means living an entire way of life 24/7/365, and then there are Antis. They are ex-members who spend much of their time slagging off the Church, its doctrine, its founders, and its way of life. The mystery: why leave a 24/7/365 that is about joy and love only to embrace a 24/7/365 that’s about ridicule, belittling, and insulting? The words and actions anger LDS members (including me), and that has created a compassion chasm.
Mormons tell one another to stay clear of Antis because that negativity is a challenge. Some might disagree with interviewing an Anti, but I’ve been interviewing, writing and building solid legal arguments for long enough that you can trust me. I’m not jumping the fence. If my faith were that weak, I’d sit in a flowery glade humming Monkees tunes the day long. But I have Heavenly Father on my side.
Don’t fear for me; I have prayer on my side too. I want to learn something about Mormon culture and human nature that can’t be taught; I hope you’ll join me for the outcome. Compassion isn’t compassion if it’s not extended to all. Christ lived that; I’ll practice it long enough to learn something different and new; I strive to daily, anyway.
I’ll keep you posted!
Jul 14, 2010 @ 02:54:38
While I can’t really speak for antis who make jobs out of tweeting against the church, I can begin to understand the motivation.
For these people, the church was not about “joy” and “love.” It may have *said* that, but in their experience, it brought them misery, or it exposed them to hatred. Many people feel betrayed, because they found out the church was not what they were led to believe.
…But…at the same time, the church was their life. 24/7/365, as you point out. It made up their culture, their upbringing, their family, their friends, their network. So because of this, you can’t just leave it. It’s a grieving process. It’s like cutting out a part that embedded within you. How can you do such a thing? And how can you do such a thing *without* anger? It would be pretty difficult, I think.
Jul 18, 2010 @ 20:34:18
I think you’re absolutely right. And yet, I will never understand it. Because I come from a background of doubting, requiring proof, and then walking away from something that doesn’t prove out, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand why that last act is so difficult.
Then again, my marriage and divorce show that even I have a hard time conceiving of how to walk away: I was married (for 5 years, granted), but it was my world. I had expectations of a life to be lived a certain way. I expected that I would not be alone, that I would be a mother, and that I would feel safe. I was no picnic, but my ex-husband (who is dear, and whom I count as a beloved friend) changed the rules a few times. With all hopes irretrievably lost, it just didn’t occur to me to leave. I was invested 100%.
My mother watched my marriage become one I hadn’t bargained for (no children, no real emotional security). She had to say to me “If you’re so miserable, why don’t you just get divorced?” before I acknowledged reality and took action.
It took me two or three years to get over my hurt, fury, disappointment and sense of deep offense. The thing is, I DID GET OVER IT. I don’t talk about it much because it doesn’t come up, but I’m not bitter or sad…it is what it is.
So, yes, walking away from a life filled with expectations and seeming guarantees is hard. I was only in that relationship for a total of seven years, not a lifetime. But I chose it, much as kids choose baptism at eight (and I know, it’s frequently NOT an active choice for most children; it’s an expectation). Add seven years of church activity (the length of my relationship) to that eight-year-old’s age and you arrive at age 15. Most inactives I know of, re-activated or still inactive, left the Church around that age, though many waited until 17 or 18.
Maybe my comparison and contrast here is spurious, but I have invested in things. I walked away from seven years with my ex-husband, twenty-five years of total immersion in acting as a career and life, twelve years of hope and expectation that law would be my career and life, and all of those walks were made kicking and screaming. Yet, I have no desire or deep-seated need to write diatribes slamming any of those goals, situations, or professions. I prefer to look to things that make me happy, and to magnify those things in my life. I prefer the search forward and sideways to the look backward.
Perhaps it’s less about situation and more about individual nature. Some people need to be angry and right, others of us prefer to avoid that as much as we can in favor of being of use to self and others. I don’t know, but I want to know more, from everyone!
Jul 18, 2010 @ 20:42:56
I think most people get over things regardless. The thing to note is…loud, angry things are more noticeable than quiet, peaceful things. So, you will likely only hear about most people when they are still venting through their church experiences, and you won’t hear so much when they have stopped and moved on. In fact, the things with ex- and post-Mo blogs is that, for a large number of them, the writer kinda vanishes off the face of the internet after a while. Why? They’ve moved on.
The people who continue on and on and on are a loud and vocal minority.
I still think that “the search forward and sideways” is not necessarily opposed against “the look backward.” We plenty of times reminisce about good (and bad) times from the past. Sometimes, it makes us sad or angry now, but we still have the hopes that we could return to innocence, or good times or happy times.