more debate with myself
Continuing from debate with myself...
I want them to know that I am not just struggling with my testimony, that I didn't wander off the path, that I am not in the dark and dreary wilderness or the great and spacious building. I want them to know that I have made a decision, that I feel good about it, and that I am truly happy. I don't want to die with people thinking of me as an inactive Mormon or a jack Mormon; that is not who I am. I want to stand for what I believe. However, I don't know that they can see me how I see me. They can only interpret my life how they know how--according to the Mormon world view. It is one decidedly different from my own.
My one unhappiness in my decision is this rift with the family--and that is substantial. They will never understand me, they will not know me. We keep up relations; we love each other; we talk and enjoy each others' company. But a huge part of us--their religion and my disbelief in that religion and belief in other things--is never touched. Granted, it's only been months since my "coming out of the closet" and I live thousands of miles away from them; there's not much opportunity to talk. Eventually, we will likely talk. Over the years, there will probably be points of greater pain and points of greater understanding.
Is it better that I pull off the band-aid and disabuse them of the notion that I am coming back? This would force them to confront the issue head-on and begin the healing process, rather than patch over it with their false comfort of my return. Will it help? Will it change anything? Or do I let them continue on interpreting my life according to the only way they know how?
11 comments:
Wow, fta, that pretty much sums up my feelings about my family, too. Our relationship is like the one you describe with yours: we have a great time together and love each other, but there will always be a distance between us. I can't be completely honest about who I am or free with my opinions around them. Only one sister has ever asked me why I left, and I don't think she really understood my answer.
I've reached a place of peace -- pierced occasionally by moments of pain -- regarding it. I feel lucky to have the relationship with them that I do; they have come a long way over the years. And I have lots of other people in my life who I can talk to about the things that are off limits with the family.
Good luck with figuring this all out -- I've been out a lot longer and I still struggle with this stuff. I know that personally, if I tried to talk to them about why I left, it would would likely be seen as an attempt to destroy their faith, rather than to just explain where I stand. That's the really frustrating thing.
rolypoly- Yeah. Yeah.
One sister, the one you know, has been willing to let me be open. I am still very guarded about what I say. I've been a non-believer in God for, what 18 months, and she's only just getting the clue that maybe, could it be possible, is it so, that I don't believe?
This is such a hard question to deal with.
What to tell them -- and how they'll take it -- depends as much on them and where they're at as it does on you and where you're at.
In my experience, a hostile reaction usually indicates that the person is insecure in his/her own beliefs.
In general, I think the best policy is to state directly that you don't believe and you aren't wavering in this position, but not to insist on explaining why unless they ask. On some level you want to be sure that they understand that the problem is not that you're weak or struggling with sin, the problem is that the claims of the church are false. But the thing is that there's nothing you can do to make them understand that because it affects their own deeply-held beliefs. All you can really do is be open about who you are and accept that they're going to come up with their own conclusions...
I wonder if a big part of what gives our LDS friends and family trouble is that we haven't joined some new thing. Mormons seem to expect that if you're no longer a Mormon, you must have found some substitute, usually another organized religion--a Christian church, Buddhism, Scientology, something! Just ask any non-Mormon in Utah how often they hear, "Oh, you're not a Mormon? Then what religion are you?"
As long as you don't have a new church, you're still just a lapsed Mormon. The only possible labels they have for your current world view are couched in terms of Mormonism--Jack Mormon, Sunstone Mormon, inactive Mormon, ex-Mormon, etc. If they could say, "fta is a Catholic now," those mental labels might disappear.
In fact, my mom did ask me, "So what are you now?" (Meaning, what religion.) It's a fair question, but the only term I could come up that I personally agree with is "humanist"--which, to the extent that it means anything to my parents, carries negative connotations. Words like atheist or agnostic are even worse, because they rightly don't see them as alternative religions; they identify what you are not, or what you do not believe. I went ahead and told them I identify most closely with Unitarian Universalism, even though I don't attend and have not taken steps to become a member. I think it helps them make the transition by saying, "Abner is a Unitarian now."
FTA
It is interesting reading this post, especially in light of seeing you after Christmas at your family's house. I kept thinking as I read about Steve's question to you - I think it was something like "What is your spiritual foundation now?" I don't think that was it, but I remember it being something like that. It felt a little to me like he was asking "what is your replacement?" Which Abner brought up. Did it feel like that to you?
Yeah, the whole thing is weird and kind of surreal. I keep remembering back when I was in YW, and I think, "Wow. What would I have thought about me now?" Then I laugh, because I was an idiot at 15.
Abner - Atheist and agnostic don't just describe what a person DOESN'T believe. I mean, I guess it maybe does for some people, but for me agnostic (which is what I consider myself) means BELIEVING that there may or may not be some sort of higher power, but that I don't know and I'm okay not knowing. It's kind of where my logical side and my metaphysical side meet - it's my way of reconciling the two. I like thinking that maybe there is something...else - but I also like knowing that, logically, I can't claim to know that there IS something else. I mostly believe that there isn't a god -- note: it's not that I do NOT believe in god - I BELIEVE that there probably isn't. And I do think there's a difference. One says there is a thing that I am not believing in - the other says I believe there is not anything to not believe in.
FTA - sorry; that has nothing to do with your post. I just wanted to clarify for those of us who don't define ourselves by a lack a belief, but by a belief that there is a lack.
emerging - I had so many thoughts about this that there were too many for the comments space. So I posted about it.
http://acranberryblog.blogspot.com
I wish you luck!
Rebecca-
Thanks for the clarification. I actually agree with you. My wording was bad and I didn't make it clear that it is only where my parents are concerned that those words would be defined as what a person doesn't believe. I consider myself an agnostic in basically the same sense you do, but just try making that sort of distinction to a true believer and see how far you get :)
Abner - Okay, I getcha. And, yeah, I know what you mean (hello, mother!).
cl- I think you summed it up well. They think the problem is me; I think the problem is the church. But since the church is everything to them; the church IS morality, direction, rightness, it can't be the problem.
Zarathustra- I've given up on a letter. I wrote a couple in the early days, but never sent any. This is done better in a dialog. If done at all.
abner- that's interesting. Sometimes I wonder which is worse to them--that I'm a lapsed Mormon or that I'm a secular humanist or Unitarian. I've even debating mentioning that I attend church sometimes (UCC, UU). If it's The Right Church, is it better than not going at all (to them)?
Rebecca & Abner- Telling them I'm an atheist/agnostic would be bad! But I am.
aerin- I'll post on your post!
Mosi- I felt Steve's question was a little different, but basically the same. I don't think he needed me to be in another church, per se, but at least have some sort of spiritual base. Maybe I'm remembering or reading him wrong.
Speaking of writing a letter, I think what you've done is the right approach.
It's useful to write down what you'd like to say to the person in the form of a letter. Your feelings on what you'd like to say will evolve, so writing multiple versions is a good sign.
But I agree that in most cases it's better not to send the letter -- just write it for yourself to get your own thoughts in order about how you'd like to be able to approach the subject with that person. This can be helpful preparation for when the subject comes up in person.
Post a Comment