3 ms·

> For the record I left several years ago, but have many family members still heavily involved. It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your

> For the record I left several years ago, but have many family members still heavily involved. It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your dignity intact. I've seen people leave with and without. As to why they've not left with dignity, it's sometimes not one-sided. Edit: For those who are making many negative guesses and assumptions about my comments. My comment had nothing to do with the OP's personal life at all (as I know nothing about their personal experience). My comment was simply to make a counter-claim to the blanket statement that the church allows no one to leave with dignity. The OP has since shared more details about their personal experience, which was absolutely a terrible experience in every way. It's awful that they, and their family, had to go through that. If I feel so awful about it, have I ever attempted to reduce the likelihood of such things happening? Yes! I have. I have also seen people leave the church without any great undue process or negativity—or loss of dignity (in my interpretation of what was meant by dignity). Edit [2]: There has already been more than 1 other person comment, who has left the church, who didn't experience any of the negative things that the OP did. That doesn't mean that OP is lying, exaggerating, or anything, it's simply my point—OP's experience is not the universal experience, nor the officially designed experience. Is OP's experience more common than it should? Absolutely yes.

tomrod 7y ago
Given that we haven't met, dorian-graph, this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. For decency sake I ask you to reconsider this as a default position. In order to get my records at least flagged as no longer a Mormon, thus to keep random visits from local congregations from occurring, I had to get a lawyer involved. In order for my children to not be repeatedly hounded by some parents at school to come back with their kids over the weekend so they could attend the local congregation, we needed legal action. I didn't speak out or speak up vocally when I left. I just stopped going to the local congregation. Not a single person there chose to continue friendship. My wife attended a few more years, and had to constantly deal with rumors that I had an affair (I did not). When we moved and I was no longer known to the new congregation, she had to deal with the the local leadership trying to instantiate romantic relationships with widowers and unmarried gentlemen in the congregation because they assumed I was either dead or because since she still attended our marriage was on the rocks. My story is not unique, and I can say with confidence that the social pressures on the members result in them feeling justified performing actions intended to take away dignity of former congregants ("apostates").
- samdoidge 7y ago
  > this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. I did not read it as that, and don't believe that is what his statement conveys.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    The part "it's sometimes not one-sided", taken literally and minimally, tells us only that there are some people whose own actions reduce their dignity. Given a sample population of any size, this provides no additional information about the topic under discussion: there are some asinine people everywhere. What information could the poster have been conveying, then, if not nothing? In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod, or that they were baiting tomrod into responding at length (if so, success!), or that they genuinely didn't consider the implications of their comment, or something else entirely that was too subtle for me to catch. Probably only they will ever know. :)
    - dorian-graph 7y ago
      > Probably only they will ever know. :) Today's your lucky day ;) > In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. It wasn't in reference to tomrod's experience at all. Mystery solved. > It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod Absolutely not! And I find that suggestion reprehensible.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      > In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. Not at all. You are assuming another's thought process and motive, and doing so without any charity.
- dorian-graph 7y ago
  > Given that we haven't met, dorian-graph, this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. For decency sake I ask you to reconsider this as a default position. What indicated that I thought it was trivial? It's not my default position, nor has it ever been my position that it's trivial—I know absolutely that it's not. Speaking of assumptions? Edit: For others, there's been substantial additions to the parent comment of this comment.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomrod 7y ago
Regarding your edit, I believe I more properly characterize my thought in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276276

tomrod 7y ago

Given that we haven't met, dorian-graph, this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. For decency sake I ask you to reconsider this as a default position. In order to get my records at least flagged as no longer a Mormon, thus to keep random visits from local congregations from occurring, I had to get a lawyer involved. In order for my children to not be repeatedly hounded by some parents at school to come back with their kids over the weekend so they could attend the local congregation, we needed legal action. I didn't speak out or speak up vocally when I left. I just stopped going to the local congregation. Not a single person there chose to continue friendship. My wife attended a few more years, and had to constantly deal with rumors that I had an affair (I did not). When we moved and I was no longer known to the new congregation, she had to deal with the the local leadership trying to instantiate romantic relationships with widowers and unmarried gentlemen in the congregation because they assumed I was either dead or because since she still attended our marriage was on the rocks. My story is not unique, and I can say with confidence that the social pressures on the members result in them feeling justified performing actions intended to take away dignity of former congregants ("apostates").

samdoidge 7y ago
> this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. I did not read it as that, and don't believe that is what his statement conveys.
- randallsquared 7y ago
  The part "it's sometimes not one-sided", taken literally and minimally, tells us only that there are some people whose own actions reduce their dignity. Given a sample population of any size, this provides no additional information about the topic under discussion: there are some asinine people everywhere. What information could the poster have been conveying, then, if not nothing? In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod, or that they were baiting tomrod into responding at length (if so, success!), or that they genuinely didn't consider the implications of their comment, or something else entirely that was too subtle for me to catch. Probably only they will ever know. :)
  - dorian-graph 7y ago
    > Probably only they will ever know. :) Today's your lucky day ;) > In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. It wasn't in reference to tomrod's experience at all. Mystery solved. > It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod Absolutely not! And I find that suggestion reprehensible.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    > In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted. Not at all. You are assuming another's thought process and motive, and doing so without any charity.
dorian-graph 7y ago
> Given that we haven't met, dorian-graph, this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. For decency sake I ask you to reconsider this as a default position. What indicated that I thought it was trivial? It's not my default position, nor has it ever been my position that it's trivial—I know absolutely that it's not. Speaking of assumptions? Edit: For others, there's been substantial additions to the parent comment of this comment.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomrod 7y ago

Regarding your edit, I believe I more properly characterize my thought in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276276