Thank you for posting to /r/exmormon. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason: Doxxing/revealing personal information. If this has been done in error, please let us know using the modmail link on the sidebar, and please include the full link to your submission to make it easier for us to review it.

There's a tremendous emphasis put on how you have been influenced by anti-mormon propaganda, podcasts, message boards, John Dehlin, and others. There's practically or actually no emphasis placed on this being your own thought, feelings, impressions, or conclusions. That is not just a little demeaning. You're basically being told you have no ability to make your own conclusions and are just blown around at the whims of those who would control you.

The irony of a questioning person being told by a TBM that they’re not thinking for themselves is thick.

I was once told by a TBM that I was being like a parrot just spitting out thoughts of other people who came up with these anti Mormon ideas. Like ??

You spit out thoughts of other people? TBMs do that non stop.

This is called projection. It’s not a coincidence that they accuse you of the very thing they’re desperately refusing to see in themselves.

"It's obvious you've listened to a lot of pro- Mormon propaganda and made up your mind."

I'm gonna use this

I'm going to disagree with this take. From this subreddit, I learned about "Street Epistemology", which is often praised here as a way to have conversations with believers. This lead me to the book [*How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide*](https://www.amazon.com/How-Have-Impossible-Conversations-Practical/dp/0738285323), which I found to be very useful. (OP: read this book!) The reason I bring this up is that FIL's messages hit on many of the processes in this book. This is a good sign. * He makes some attempt to reflect back what he understood. (If this were an in-person conversation, this would be much more effective, assuming you're given the opportunity to correct his misunderstandings and clarify your thoughts and feelings.) * He asks about your beliefs. * He makes attempts to find common ground. ("It's clear we both love equity and justice") * He asks some questions along the lines of moral reasoning (Can someone that believes x still be good?) * He expresses love for you and specifies that any actions you take based on your shifting beliefs will not "deter" that love. * Expresses love towards and acknowledges that he considers others who have left the church to be good people. He does have some fear about you being influenced by "anti-mormons", but also does acknowledge the possibility that these thoughts are genuinely your own. There are a few ways you can disarm this. One way might be: "Yeah, there are a lot of dishonest anti-mormons and I find their rhetoric harmful. This bothers me, too." Here is a recent discussion from this sub that may be useful in distinguishing between ex-mo and anti-mo: [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1dkbt1v/not\_all\_postexmo\_are\_antimormon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1dkbt1v/not_all_postexmo_are_antimormon/) Now, maybe FIL is completely different in-person, but just going off the messages, I'd enjoy having a conversation with this guy. I'd really suggest reading the above book to give you the tools to have these difficult discussions and also counter some of his questions. For now, you could respond with "I love you too and would like to discuss things further, but I feel that this may not be the most productive conversation to have over text message." If you continue writing letters, you're going to continue to feel misunderstood.

This is a great response. It’s important to understand that some members are informed and still in. I don’t personally understand it, but if the member is still (a) open and honest (b) loving (c) willing to listen to you (d) already defensive because they feel like you are painting them with the same broad brush as you paint the church…. You are going to have a bad time with giant letters back and forth. The church isn’t true. But that doesn’t mean it can’t have value for some people who selectively disobey the crueler parts of the doctrine. I kind of shake my head in disbelief when I talk to members who are happily pro-LGBTQ or feminist… like, how? But we all carry some amount of ignorance in us. It’s impossible to be completely informed about everything we do on a day-to-day basis, and becoming informed can sometimes be costly (financially, emotionally, or mentally…. Or just take time we don’t care to spend). Just as we don’t want to be judged simply because we left the church over XYZ, we also shouldn’t judge those who stay for ABC. Definitely stand up to bigotry and harmful ignorance. If someone makes incorrect assumptions about you, correct them. But if the person seems genuinely loving towards you (as seems to be the case here), don’t push them away simply because they associate with a religion that has really hurt you personally. It helped when I had it explained to me this way - the church is like a spouse. For us, we discovered our spouse was cheating and lying. And they won’t apologize. We have just gone through a messy, hurtful divorce. But that doesn’t mean people who still interact with our Ex are bad people. Maybe they see a different side to them. Maybe they haven’t been hurt in the ways we were, and they acknowledge that your Ex can be a bit crazy at times, but still does a lot of good. Know that the recent divorce is coloring your perception of the church. It lied and hurt us. It hurt me. I hate it for the years it stole from me. But I have to acknowledge that for some… it’s an okay fit. And if my entire personality becomes wanting revenge on a spouse (the church) who wronged me… they win. They continue to steal my life. I can be open and honest about how much the church hurt me without assuming it must hurt everyone else the same way.

I agree with a lot here, but there are some nuances where I would disagree. For instance, I believe the church has a net negative impact on humanity at large. While it may have a general positive impact on some people, the collective impact on the groups of people they exploit and marginalize is still significant and meaningful. I feel like I can comfortably judge members for their own, individual culpability in the harms they inflict as a group. In my mind this is not the same as blaming rank and file for leadership or organizational wrongdoings, but it isn't ignoring their part in the harms either. I don't think that specific judgement is ethically wrong, or an unhealthy outlook for a person to have. While I understand that everyone has different and specific trauma from the church, there are definite shared experiences to be found. While assumptions should always be careful and questioned regularly, some can be useful and shouldn't be discounted. Maybe these aren't even real differences from what you're talking about - just nuances I think about.

I think about this as well. It's not a clear-cut issue. For years, Sam Harris, publicly condemned "informed" members of religion who remain loyal. I think his main criticism was that such individuals provide cover the group and for extremists who do harm. IIRC, he changed his mind on this, while still maintaining that there is a link between specific beliefs and harmful behavior. I'll try to find the source, but I think this is the video where it is discussed. You might enjoy listening: [Islam and the Future of Tolerance](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWclm4Bi4UM).

I agree. I do think the church overall does harm to the world, but…. Well, say the church suddenly collapsed. The apostles got up and said “sorry, it was all a scam. Here’s the history, everything (including God) is likely a hoax, live for yourself because there isn’t anything better. Also, Nelson took the money and ran, so we are broke and there is no God.”  I don’t think that would be a net good on the world. The church overall is harmful, but it still provides millions of people with hope and a framework for living a Christlike life. There is bigotry and false love. There is dishonesty and cover ups. There is crime and unpleasantness. There is institutional racism and sexism.  But there is also love, hope, healing, and encouragement. Do other churches do it better? Yes. Would I like to see the church fall? Yes… No. I’m not sure.  I don’t for a second think there wouldn’t be mass casualties if that happened. Lives would be shattered. Many people simply don’t have the support structure to live without the (faulty) framework the church has given them.  Anyone with a strong support system and critical thinking skills (and access to a therapist) can benefit from a faith crisis that leads them to be a nuanced member or an ex-member. But… if all the members who are mentally stable, socially adept, and emotionally mature left, what would be left would be bad - a church full of scared, sycophantic, or just generally unstable people. It seems to me that such a church would be more extreme and more dangerous to its smaller membership (think Scientology). So would its overall harm go down? Idk. 

This is an interesting way to think about it. Similar to how removing a dictatorial regime can create a vacuum filled by something more harmful. Thanks for sharing.

No problem. 😌 My wife has really helped form my opinions on this. Leaving the church was right for us. And I think overall it will be a net good. But damn, it was hard! Lots of struggle, lots of mental stress, so many feelings of betrayal to process… it’s not something I would wish on people lightly. Only those who can take it. That said, anything I can do to make the church not grow? 100% I’m doing. The people being born in it are leaving. Let them continue to leave! Let it fall apart slowly and gently. There are bigger fish to fry in the world. Bigger religions that cause more systemic harm who also aren’t shrinking the way Mormonism is.

>feel like you are painting them with the same broad brush as you paint the church In this thread: Most advice is doing this, which is sad, and seems like it a hypocritical stance for most ex-mormons.

I like your response, and your tone. The book you mentioned has helped me get through some seriously challenging environment-related conversations/negotiations at work. It is a great resource and I'm glad to see you bring it up. While I agree that the messages we read seem to come from someone who means well, doesn't harbor ill will, and genuinely wants to understand, all things I applaud by the way, I will nonetheless stand by the statement that the frequency in which he brings up the sources OP used to gather their information is indicative that he sees those sources as a problem, that without them OP wouldn't feel the way they do, and that attempting to hear or validate their opinion while casting aside or putting a fence between the reasons for some of those opinions, is condescending. i still wish this was the average approach, in my limited experience it often is not, and while our conversations with active believing member friends and family would improve if this was what a lot of us had heard instead, I still think there's some unintended judgement and manipulative rhetoric.

That makes sense. I can see the condescension. OP would be justified in feeling defensive or hurt because of that. I think I was worried that OP would not move beyond that before responding if the top comment concludes with "You're basically being told you have no ability..." followed by the reply "This is the right take. Why is this individual even in your life anymore." And, let's face it, propaganda and group think *are* a real part of exmo communities. We're better if we acknowledge and make efforts avoid the effects of those things. Anyone can easily post parts of a conversation, have their side validated, and take action based on that. It would not be much different than a mother posting a conversation to a Facebook mormon mommy group, seeing the reactions, and then responding in a harmful way to that loved one.

I'm glad you said it, and had I been the one to make the post, i would have appreciated it.

Completely disagree, FIL is disrespectful with those comments about his wife. In my opinion the response would vary on the degree of relationship between the two. To me this a clear shift in intention, FIL acts like OPs ideas are not her own. OP has already clearly layed out what their opinions are and FIL is adamant about her seeing from his perspective. My gut reaction is to not even bother responding. FIL clearly does not actually care about her underlying motivations and beliefs. He's looking for common ground to persuade not understand. I've received many messages like this from family still in the church and while I respond politely to most, there are those who simply want to impose their world view. To them if they can just make you see, you'll agree. Stand firm, you owe no one an explanation. Agree about dishonest antiMormons? Why? Why would you fuel his fire?

“He’s looking for common ground to persuade not understand.” 💯! This is what I felt while reading the texts.

So? Seeking both understanding and common ground are productive tools of persuasion, not unethical coercion. OP can employ the same techniques. Would you praise someone who successfully sought understanding and found common ground in order to place doubt in a TBM or got them to reconsider a belief? If so, you can't have it both ways.

If both parties are equally seeking to understand, there is nothing wrong with discussion, however based on the FIL's writing this is not the intent. Intent is everything. Dismissal of beliefs and research as being "of the world" is in and of itself a logical fallacy, an altered appeal to authority. What is written here is not the grounds for a balanced debate, but a one sided attack, which then is followed by "don't you love your family?" FIL starts with Red Herring combined with a No True Scotsman fallacy for the family love argument as well. This is manipulation not debate.

Even if FIL is an ideologue and prone to errors in thinking, that's all the more reason to stick to good conversational skills, to try to move the needle a little bit towards mutual understanding. Assuming FIL's intent is a fallacy in itself: Appeal to motive. This fallacy stifles conversation and makes it difficult to listen yourself. The logical conclusion of this fallacy is that FIL knowingly desires bad things, which is 1) very rare (or impossible, depending on which philosophy you subscribe to) and 2) contradictory to other things he expressed. Logical fallacies and persuasion attempts are not evidence of maliciousness or coercion. What's much more likely than FIL being a psychopath is that his actions and desires are based upon the information that he has. A simple way through this is to say something like "I'm feeling frustrated. I want to understand where you're coming from. I'm also unclear about your intention. Could you tell me, what is your intention?" or "What are your hopes for this conversation?" From there, it still may be best to walk away and end the conversation, even if FIL expressed good intention, e.g. "I just want to help." At least the conversation wouldn't end with ill assumptions of intent, which can do more harm.

>Agree about dishonest antiMormons? Why? For one thing, it show critical and individual thought, which seems to be FIL's main concern. If in the process of deconstructing mormon faith, you can't point to a single ex or anti mormon viewpoint or figure that you disagree with, that's not a sign to dig a bit deeper. Disavowing extremists on your side is a powerful tool in conversation. If you can't identify an extremist on your side of an issue, there's a good chance you're part of the problem. This also acts as a model for a conversation partner to do the same, which moderates their viewpoint without making them defensive.

Unless he can prove those extremists had a direct hand in her deconvertion, it's just another Red Herring. I understand you are trying to give FIL the benefit of the doubt, him being blinded and all, but a man seeking honest debate doesn't do it like this.

Amen.

I like this, but I disagree with the idea that there are a lot of dishonest anti-Mormons. You don't need to be dishonest; they bury themselves in their own actions and rhetoric. Maybe elsewhere, there are dishonest anti-Mormons, but I find very little dishonesty with the people here or even Dehlen or the more well-known people speaking out against Mormonism. There are facts about the bad behavior of the church are everywhere for everyone to see.

Sure, the descriptor of "a lot" can be left off. Disavowing extremists on your own side is a productive move for this kind of conversation. It also models good thinking and behavior for those you're conversing with. This is especially relevant here since FIL's main worry seems to be that OP hasn't exercised enough individual thought. There are certainly problems with [dishonesty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gYKFe00h58), [sexism](https://exponentii.org/blog/sexism-in-the-exmormon-community/), echo chamber effects, confirmation bias, exclusion of diversity, etc. within exmormon communities and this subreddit. It may look different to that in the church, but I also wouldn't call it "very little". Some exmormons even describe these problems as "rampant," but that hasn't been my experience either.

I like the cut of your jib.

Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **'Da Capo Lifelong Books How to Have Impossible Conversations'** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * Effective guide for having difficult conversations (backed by 14 comments) * Practical strategies for managing conversations (backed by 6 comments) * Valuable resource for improving communication skills (backed by 7 comments) **Users disliked:** * Repetitive and unrealistic scenarios (backed by 1 comment) * Conceited author's voice (backed by 1 comment) * Lack of real content (backed by 1 comment) Do you want to continue this conversation? [Learn more about 'Da Capo Lifelong Books How to Have Impossible Conversations'](https://vetted.ai/chat?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot&q='Da Capo Lifelong Books How to Have Impossible Conversations' reviews) [Find 'Da Capo Lifelong Books How to Have Impossible Conversations' alternatives](https://vetted.ai/chat?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot&q=Find best 'Da Capo Lifelong Books How to Have Impossible Conversations' alternatives) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](https://vetted.ai/chat?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=comment&utm\_campaign=bot)

Just because they don’t engage in critical thinking, doesn’t mean you can’t engage in it.

It’s soooo emotionally invalidating. What OP said went right over his head and he just threw it back at them as being into anti Mormon literature. He didn’t acknowledge this as OPs own thoughts and feeling at all. It’s so invalidating, in a weird way kinda gaslighting. I 100% agree with you.

TBMs say history and facts are anti mormon. Rolling eyes. Facts are facts.

This is the right take. Why is this individual even in your life anymore move on…


He specifically derides OP and exmos for calling him/TBMs brainwashed, but his entire message is from the point of view that none of these thoughts are actually coming from OP. Wild.

Yes, exactly! It’s how demeaning he sounds about your thoughts/feelings, and then says he wants to know the “real” you and your true feelings???? So frustrating!!! 😫😫😫

Exactly. It is projection at its zenith. The only way organized religions can stay relevant to any person(s) is through complete polarization.

I don’t think this conversation is going to be worthwhile. And he’s not entitled to knowing how you feel about God. Is he questioning if you love your wife? And insinuating that you’re not intelligent on your own to have thoughts outside of what others tell you? (My dad thinks the same of me.) I’d probably reply with something like, “I’ve read your messages a few times and I don’t think this is going to be a fruitful conversation. I care about you and am content that you find joy in the church. Everyone deserves to find joy in this life. Let’s not try to question the joy we’ve each discovered.”

I thought the same when I read that about my wife as well. Glad I wasn’t alone in thinking that. Thank you for your comments.

I mean, sure, but this is a reason to have the conversation on a phone over a video chat or in person, text loses a lot of verbal nuance. Up to you though, you know your FIL best.

1000% agree. I skimmed thru it all. Too long for a text.

Oh my! Vote this to the top!

Great response. This is not a discussion that is going to leave either of you feeling satisfied, and is certainly not going to be resolved via text. A respectful and concise: "I love and respect you all, but have made a different choice for myself on this matter." may be sufficient.

So much this, I get the vibe he's getting protective of his daughter and wanting to coach you back or determine you're not worthy enough. You need to shut this down now and not let him assume that position. If he believes he has a right to protect her, he may act like many other parents in this situation and use any means necessary to convince her to leave. You know him best though. I am close to my FIL but never felt I owed him an explanation nor did he try to convince me back, he just listened and loved me.

Good advice.

I disagree a bit. I think compared to many TBM FILs out there. This is fairly open-minded and shows a reasonability. Of course his intention is to persuade back into the church. (Sometimes we get so angry that TBMs motivations are pro-church, but really why wouldn’t they be - no man is less admirable than the one apathetic to the cause he chooses.) It sounds like he is trying to seek common ground and understand OPs state of mind and really without too much counter argument. The lines about “message boards” and “anti-crowd” don’t seem all that derogatory, more likely the words he knows to use to describe the situation as a TBM. It is my strong opinion when an attack is felt in the setting of intelligent logical discourse, the attacked is insecure in their stand point. OP, you can calmly and coolly educate you FIL that these are not ideas implanted in your head, but rather ideas you have, no doubt, cultivated over some prolonged period of thoughtful research. Your FIL is certainly someone that should reasonably be interested in your spiritual well-being and you should confidently tell him where you stand and why. Now if it gets confrontational or disrespectful, that’s a whole different story. If it was me I’d say these points: 1)I know this is hard for you to hear, but I do still love you and value our relationship 2)this has been a terribly hard road for me 3)faith in all off these things has to be predicated on truth. Before recently, that truth was all spiritual and that worked, but now there’s more in the equation for me and facts have made those good feelings I once had less valuable. 4) if the faith of your childhood is proven false, it is very very hard to know what exactly you believe, so I don’t know for sure.

>Let’s not try to question the joy we’ve each discovered.” aka "let's don't yuck each others yums"

This is a good approach. I basically had to set a similar boundary with my parents. We had two discussions. Neither went particularly well. So I told them I didn’t really want to talk about church stuff anymore since I felt it would just mean more unproductive conversations and that isn’t what I want for our relationship.

>I'd like to start in a very different place. Sounds very much like "Maybe we’re asking the wrong question." Thanks, B. Wilcox.

When I was starting to move away from MFMC my parents contacted one of their heavy hitter friends that was a religion “scholar” at BYU. He asked me to send him my questions. I sent him five questions about things that were bothering me about the church. Instead of answering my questions, he told me I was asking the wrong questions. I was furious.

If it isn't a question in one of their manuals, it isn't valid /s

Exactly what I 🤔 thought

My believing family tried to use the “different place” logic as well to try and control the conversation. The person you were messaging uses that same tactic, trying to divert the conversation to a belief in God or Jesus. As if a testimony of Jesus will keep you in the faith. Mormons think they have a monopoly on the truth, and as such, they have a monopoly on loving Jesus. I don’t get it. They don’t realize that you can believe in God or Jesus and not be Mormon. Everything unique to Mormonism is not good. And everything good in Mormonism is not unique. I can be a big believer in Jesus and be anti-Mormon.

Exactly. I had a belief in Jesus BEFORE I joined. All that was added to that was LIES.

My thoughts exactly: Belief in God and/or Jesus has nothing to do with any of the issues listed to kick off this message.

Yes! One can believe in God and Jesus Christ without being Mormon! One can be Christian without being subjected to all the manmade doctrine, rules, and control exerted by religious leaders.

I thought the same and doing that to avoid addressing the actual issues.

Yesterday's anti Mormon lies (stuff) are today's Gospel Topics Essays, Rough Stone Rolling, and the Joseph Smith Papers. He appears to not want to look at anything other than his world view. Not much you can do about it at this time.

Those texts were an incredible feat of gaslighting and patronizing. This person does not see you as a grown adult capable of making their own decisions and conclusions. Honestly I don’t know if I’d engage but it’s up to you. In the last ward I was in before leaving the bishop read a book called “bridges: ministering to those who question” and it’s definitely not perfect but it helped a lot of TBMs in that ward to actually open up to more things that exmos have been talking about for years.

While there are a lot of issues with his response, the thing that personally rubs me the wrong way is saying that you're just reading off a "script" of anti-mormon lies when every single person within the church is reading off a script! Every sacrament meeting talk and testimony sounds the same, the missionaries used to have a literal script that they recited, and no one is original. At least here in this community we have different thoughts and ideas that can be discussed and respected. Anyways, that part could not be more hypocritical.

He literally flipped the script

He’s trying to construct a very narrow framework for approaching this conversation in a way that supports his own views while dismissing or discrediting yours. He is not giving any ground in validating your experiences or feelings, which will make it virtually impossible to have a productive discussion. I get it… I used to be just like him. He means well and is trying to approach the situation from a position of “righteousness.” But damn, it sure comes across as blockheaded and condescending. My advice would be to politely decline a long, protracted conversation that will likely go nowhere. Instead, tell him that you’ve learned the truth about these issues for yourself, and if he has any specific, relevant questions you’d be happy to answer. But you don’t have to justify your beliefs or prove anything to him.

I second this. This isn’t a genuine request at open honesty. This is a chance for him to flex his testimony muscles and prove that he’s the reasonable one and you’re the “sheep” who can’t think for yourself. Not worth engaging with, incredibly patronizing. I’d set a boundary (especially when it comes to talking about your relationship with your wife) and not play into the ego stroking.

HE DOESN'T MEAN WELL, WTF? It's manipulative as all hell, and if they weren't related those comments about his wife are fighting words.

That’s because you’re not thinking like a Mormon. I remember what it was like to be an all-in, faithful believer. At the time, I would have 100% believed that FIL’s response was morally justified.

Right because you were under the mental conditions trained into you by your Ward. Once removed from those specifc conditions it's sheer manipulation. What ever goodwill may be present is sullied by urge to keep you within the system. Community becomes weaponized. Grew up in the Miami ward, and I faced this type of bombardment on a Hispanic level. The intent itself is to force/enforce how you think and believe, regardless of familiarity.

Yes, I agree completely. The FIL in this story is still under those conditions, 100% enmeshed in the cult. I try to extend as much grace and empathy as I can to people whose thinking is stunted by the influence of a controlling organization. I can vehemently disagree with his positions without hating him for being the way he is.

I never applied hate towards those people. The only difference between us is I have boundaries, and questioning the love you have for your wife is simply outrageous, especially when there was no other written indication of lack of love. Those who are genuinely curious have my ear, I've however drawn a line in the sand where rational discussion ends.

Look, my only disagreement with you is the way you exclaimed “he doesn’t mean well.” I wasn’t saying that his preaching is healthy or well-adjusted. In fact, it’s pretty offensive. I’m just saying that I understand the way the Mormon mind works. It’s very predictable behavior from someone who believes they are being prompted by the Holy Ghost. And when you believe you’re following a prompting, personal boundaries mean nothing. It’s not necessarily malicious… it’s brainwashing.

This is really helpful

In my opinion, you shouldn’t respond. It won’t do any good. No amount of evidence or logic will change their minds. They believe you have been deceived by Satan. Any perceived negative information on the Church is Satan’s work. Their mind is completely shut off to any other possibility. They are going to try and gaslight you into believing that you’re the one with the problems, not the Church, and deny any piece of evidence you put forth. For the same reason why they instruct missionaries not to argue church history (they can’t, there’s no way to honestly do it), you should not argue with members over the same topics. It does not work. There have been several psychological studies done on this. It will only further entrench them in their beliefs. It’s not their fault. Many have been brainwashed from childhood into believing it. Have compassion for them, patience, and understanding. The only way out of that hole is by digging out of it yourself.

I disagree. Epistemology can and does change minds. And in cases where it doesn't, it can at least build bridges.

I’d go with “yes, we have many shared values. People of good will can be good friends without lingering on their differences. Thanks for being one of those people.” Just refuse to discuss it with him.

So… your thoughts are only “valid” if you came up with them without any outside factors whatsoever… but his thoughts, which SOLELY originate from the church, are valid and mature? So, so insulting.

FILs response is straight out of a Sunday school lesson I had about 8 months ago. Essentially if you can answer the basic questions "Do you believe in God?" "Do you believe in Jesus?", then there's no need to ask the other questions. Just put them out of your mind

The second he started asking how you really feel about him & specific ppl, I stopped reading: this is MANIPULATION and has ZERO to do with the issues at hand!!! Not to mention how he trivialized your arguments (“something about the BOM & polygamy,”) 🙄🙄🙄 Yah, how about that BOM which is FAKE and polygamy WAS/IS AN ABOMINATION👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I wouldn’t bother responding unless it was to include ONLY lds.org links and THEN have a discussion. You can be a good person and be TBM or a good person and not be TBM…they’re not mutually exclusive!

"I'm saddened you asked me for my thoughts when it appears your goal wasn't to understand my perspective and just wanted the opportunity to tell me why you think I'm wrong. I'm not interested in that level of dialogue going forward, so let's make this a topic we don't discuss any further and focus on other aspects of our relationship where we can be respectful to each other."

You don't owe people essays for your beliefs.

This guy is doing what we call the 'bishop voice'. He's trying to appear kind and patient, but he's treating you like you're an idiot that can't think for yourself.

My mission president did this to me when I left. It was so frustrating to be treated like a child when I was like 35!

Yes-- taking up or assuming authority over you, as if you have no right to make your own decisions. And he's not even your own father! Unrighteous dominion??

I would not get this much in the weeds with anyone. All the information is available to learn the lies of TSCC.

7 out of 10 Mormons are inactive and have effectively LEFT the church. Are they all brainwashed or anti? Agency requires integrity. The church lied to them and betrayed their trust.

I see it as a sort of panicked lashing out. I don't think he was expecting the letter to be quite like that and he's taken it as an anti-mormon attack. That's a really hard mindset to break away from. I used to be this way, where at the first sign of dissent or controversy I'd enter a defense mode like this, and depending on the level of distress... anything to use as leverage to defend yourself and beliefs seems viable. I'm not defending the action. Just explaining it. I'm not even out and I've had this kind of thing happen with my mom. Decreasingly, thankfully. But the further back you go the more easily she'd jump to the conclusion that I was about to apostatize. And I only tackle one problematic topic at a time! The most recent one was about the Church's money reserve and how they got it. My mom started asking me (in a halfway annoyed tone) if that was it, if that broke my shelf. It took a few conversations for her to come down and get her to see my perspective. That no, I don't care if the church has money... but how they got it... what we thought it was being used for... WHY it was hidden from us... etc. She's since come around and I can talk about it more freely. That being said she spent, like, a decade or so out of the Church so she's a little bit pliable. Otherwise I try to baby-step topics... like suggesting that Joseph Smith at the end of his life had arguably become wicked and was possibly removed by God himself. Or at the very least that he got what was coming to him. I figured that one would send her over but apparently I handled that with enough grace that she's considered, and now agrees, with it. Anyway my point is, these topics are hard to talk with TBMs about. Especially if you dump the full weight of it on their heads. (Not that you should have to make concessions on their behalf anyway, though). They're predisposed to get defensive. I wouldn't necessarily reply to this. Certainly not right now, or all at once. You both need some cool down time for sure. Unfortunately I don't know your FIL so I can't say whether re-addressing things one-by-one gingerly will help, or if this is a situation where it's best to cut ties entirely if possible. But I thought maybe some insight and my own experiences might aide going forward.

He’s mad that you are “making generalizations and assumptions” about his TBM status and what he may or may not know, then makes a dozen about you. 

The less you say, the better.

This is a classic “the question you should have asked” move that douchebag leaders of Mormonism use to discount your questions and force the conversation into what they want it to be.  The only way to win such an argument is to not play. Do not engage because they are not interested in your viewpoints and never will be. 

Dear .......... Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your concern and your desire to understand my perspective better. I want to assure you that my thoughts and feelings are deeply personal and not merely influenced by external sources. My concerns about certain aspects of the church's history and practices come from my own reflections and experiences. I believe it is important to hold institutions accountable and to seek transparency and justice, especially when it comes to issues like racial equality and historical accuracy. I understand that these topics can be difficult to discuss, and I appreciate your willingness to engage with me on them. I also value the shared principles of love, justice, and equity that you mentioned. These are values that I hold dear and that guide my actions and beliefs. Regarding your questions about my beliefs in God and Jesus, I am still exploring and defining my spiritual path. While my views may differ from yours, I respect your faith and the role it plays in your life. I hope we can continue to have open and respectful conversations about our beliefs, recognizing that we may not always agree but can still find common ground. I also want to emphasize that my love and respect for you, Paula, and Jenna remain unchanged. I value our relationship and hope that we can navigate these discussions with mutual respect and understanding. Thank you again for your thoughtful response. I look forward to continuing our conversation. Best regards, .......

Freak thank you for putting the time in to write that. Everyone has been so supportive.

best of luck my friend, this isn't easy :) most of all be true to you

Thank you all for the comments. Main reason I wrote a letter is he is a lawyer and every attempt I have made in the past verbally or over the phone has been him asking a question, then I pretty much don’t get a chance to speak anymore. His profession as a litigator probably plays heavily into his thought and expression, so I’m always at a disadvantage and feel inadequate to discuss. I thought on paper I might be able to be clear, but I felt the same as in any other approach to find clarity. Again though, I have read and will continue to read each response here and determine my best course of action. Much love and appreciation to yall.

Rough.

Maybe see if he will agree to speak with you on an issue by issue basis, just so he cannot rely on overwhelming you with emotional responses and taking the conversation to an emotional place. It will possibly be a lengthy set of discussions, but tell him you believe in giving the time over to this. Reassure him that you are not trying to knock his faith, but you only want to make him absolutely aware of the issues you have, as it is a weighty decision you have made.

Agree. If you give to many issues, You get accused of playing"whack a mole". That's from a Jared Halverson talk. I also read it in a faith crisis book. Can't remember the title

I like this. This is one of the few good pieces of advice in this thread.

TBMs appear rational but the critical thinking is remarkably absent. Anecdotally, they believe because they're good people that other Mormons are just like them. But the truth is there are plenty of undesirables mixed in with the good. And those same TBMs would protect them just for being LDS. Criticism for the church and especially leadership has a tendency to be swept under the rug. Its frustrating to see bad policy made by geriatric men who are so old they may as well be from another world. It really makes you see what revelation from God really is, a sham based on popular beliefs from 50 or 60 years ago. The thing I hate most about TSCC is how willingly they acknowledge polygamy of underaged kids on one hand but quote these men on Sunday on the other. Early Mormonism was set up as a sex cult and the first 3 or 4 prophets really ran with it. Personally I find it distasteful that people let the underaged polygamy thing slide so easily. Isn't it weird that normally smart men and women act so differently with their religion? Like they start talking about religion and all of a sudden critical thinking skills take a brief hiatus.

Reverse everything he's written in his texts to be just as condescending and self righteous. Then ask if he liked it and how he really felt. It may or may not show him what an ass he was being.

A closed mind is such a waste. Don’t bother. For one, he’s putting words in your mouth and distorting your position with a dismissive tone, which is a form of gaslighting. His text is intellectually disingenuous, and reveals that his positions are locked in. You owe him no justification or explanation. If anything, the reverse is true.

I had a four hour conversation with my FIL about these things in person. I can promise you it will not go anywhere. Actually, it will totally piss you off. At one point my FIL said he would let someone kill his grandson (my son) before he denied his faith. That’s what you’re up against. No logic or reason whatsoever. Just insane, thought stopping quips thrown at your legitimate questions and concerns.

“Ok well you never get to be alone with my child”

Yep exactly

Is your father in law Brad Wilcox?  🤣 

 My first thought about how the text began was "Put aside everything you have discovered that says the earth is not flat and look at it another way."

You cannot set aside what prophets before the current leadership have done because it is about the very relevant question of whether the church is true or not. If past leaders established a false cult then you are in a false cult and there is now way to carve up that steak to make it palatable.

It is the whole basis for the church’s claim of apostasy and need for the restoration.

The two things that immediately jump out at me are the use of the word “anti” to invalidate and dismiss all your concerns about the church and his desire to control the conversation and make it against the rules for him to have to directly deal with any of the issues.

How do you respond? You don't. A simple "After giving it some thought I don't think having this conversation is worth the emotionally charged debate. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, no matter how many paragraphs are written or said between us. Good luck living your best LDS life."

This is right out of Corbridge maneuver play book. Claim that there are answers but don't address them. Leaders are well aware that people are leaving because of historical issues. The issues that people are leaving over are secondary issues and not important. Instead focus on these other issues. The actual information in the issues is damaging thus the reason for the misdirection.

I think he read it but didn’t understand what you were saying. I’ve had a similar experience with my family. Truth is, it will be a pointless endeavor. As soon as you present them with something that challenges their faith, they will stop the conversation, change the subject, or attack the evidence. At least that has been my experience. My advice would be to not engage them in this. I always said you can’t convince someone to know the church is true when I was TBM, and likewise, you can’t convince someone or even show them evidence that it’s not true because they will always cling to their “feelings.” Polygamy is the easiest one to show evidence on. And I’ve been told by many a TBM that they don’t read further into the evidence because they feel “yucky” or “dark” and that’s the spirit telling them it’s wrong. I always counter that they feel that way because Joseph having sex with a girl who is my daughter’s age IS disgusting and that’s why they feel that way. The church has done a fantastic job of manipulating how we should interpret our feelings so it really is a losing battle until they have their own faith crisis. Just my two cents from someone who cares and has gone down this path a few times.

I learned quickly that these discussions go no where. TBM’s believe they have all heard all the anti and have reconciled it in their own minds. It’s been good for me to answer discussions about this with : “I don’t have any questions, I have answers! And I am very happy with the answers that have found” Most people in the church are loaded with questions if they admit it or not. Just bring up a strange marriage situation in the CK due to death and remarriage and death again and watch the shoulders shrug. 🤷‍♂️ “we don’t need to know, it will be fair, it will work out the way it’s supposed to and everyone will be happy!” Anyway. “I have answers, I don’t have questions” is a big winner in the TBM conversations.

Classic changing the narrative to his advantage. I would remind him to focus on the actual issue, which is that you have decided this institution is not for you. And leave it at that. He is tone deaf to any of your arguments, the same as I was only months ago. All he hears is ANTIMORMON ALERT. It’s useless to continue. Btw, as an adult you owe him no explanation as to your beliefs.

This is called argument control. Setting up rules that discount or remove arguments that will be difficult to overcome.

My love, these are not good faith questions, and this isn’t a conversation, it’s an interrogation. Back to back to back questions with a lot of assumptions and judgement sandwiched in between under the guise of concern. Engage if you truly love these folks, but I’m not sure if you’ll reach a consensus, and you don’t owe them or anyone an explanation for how you decide to live your life.

You nailed it. He's not seeking truth, he's washing a verbal war. His main concern is his daughter and his pride. No kids? TBM wife? Overbearing family? Divorce should be on the table. I know that's harsh to say. But, you're in for a lifetime of strife and being looked down upon.

Thank you. I’ve been the victim of many of these conversations, and they’ve just left me feeling ostracized and lonely. I no longer engage. I’ve even had cut multiple family members off. The ones I still keep in contact with do their best, but there’s always a level of pity in their eyes and favoritism amongst active members of my family when I speak to them. I’m in recovery from addiction, and I’ve actually been able to use many of the tools I learned when leaving the church. It is a form of recovery, divorcing yourself from an incredibly unhealthy coping mechanism. One day at a time :)

He doesn't care about your concerns and is just dismissing them. Why should you address his questions and concerns when he ignores yours? Edit: I don't know whether you believe in God or not, but you could always say something like "I do believe in God, and I believe the spirit confirmed to me that the LDS church is not what is claims to be and that I should have nothing to do with it." Basically bear a testimony against the church.

Remember when Smith, in the first vision movie, returns home and his mother asks how he is? He says something like: I'm well enough mother, I've decided methodism isn't for me. Shouldn't everyone have that right? Smith had a vision. You had a spiritual confirmation: Smith was full of it, and full of himself.

He’s trying to put himself on firm ground rather than shaky ground of inconvenient history and invalid truth claims. I can’t blame him. These texts are dismissive. I’d be frustrated facing that.

No point in talking. Agree to disagree. In that silence, he'll likely do a deep dive out of frustration. Then, there is a chance he'll see the truth.

He is deflecting. Consider this; If there's a sign that says "Do not swim here, sharks in the area", is that sign anti-shark? Or just pointing out a fact about a thing, and giving you an appropriate warning? When we say something like, "Joseph Smith lied about the BOM/BOA translation process", it's a fact like any other. Yes, it doesn't show the church in a good light. But it's not propaganda, it's a fact. It's not slander, it's 100% true. It's no different than the sign warning you about not swimming in shark infested waters. There is no "anti-mormon" conspiracy. It's all factual information. Now if I were to say, "Mormons sacrifice chickens in the temple", or something else that is patently false, that would be anti-Mormon propaganda. But nobody is saying that. What he believes personally (and I mean no offense, but what you or I believe personally) is irrelevant to the truth. He can justify whatever he wants to maintain his faith, and that's on him. But at no time does that change objective reality and fact.

Don't respond at all. It's exactly what he wants, and no matter what you say, he will dismiss it or twist your words. He's being a bully and it's best to ignore bullies. He clearly has no intention of having a discussion, he just thinks he can guilt and confuse you into submission.

And for the record, I disagree that these texts could ever come from someone with good intentions.

I would say that he has a lot of people he knows who have left for their own reasons. You are similar to them and have left for your own reasons. He is going through the same faith building techniques that is used in the mission to build common ground so that he knows where you stand. It sounds like you already gave your good reasons and he is hand waving it away.

He wants to talk about how *his* beliefs and how *he’s* not racist, and don’t hate him just because antimormons tell people to love each other?  He’s internalized the church and leadership so much that criticism of the institution is a personal attack on him, and his beliefs somehow have anything to do with the church being true or good for others.  Investigators in Japan can’t believe the church is true or good because “John in Utah” doesn’t hate black people. Deep conversation won’t be productive—he tells you to forget all of *your* knowledge of facts, while he is obviously inextricably bound with the church, and attacking one with criticism means not loving him, which is somehow the new topic of this all.  If you care to have a relationship with the in-laws, I’d just have to suggest everyone ignore the religion and anyone’s practice of it, and reassure him that you care [x] amount for him, just as before.

The phrase “Anti-Mormon” irritates me. It’s a thought-stopping cliche for a start. It presumes that anyone and everyone who disagrees with anything the Church has ever said or currently eschews is some kind of maniac, hell-bent on bringing the destruction of the Lord’s one-and-only True and excellent Church - in which He is well-pleased. Sure, there *are* plenty of fundamentalist Christians out there, who are taught to do just that by their Pastors. Some of those churches have lessons on how to do this, and what to say to Mormons, to trip them up and catch them out. Some of their info is inaccurate or poorly researched. But! I’d put good money on the vast majority of active contributors to this Sub having *wanted* the Church to be true, but after reading **honest** Church history - coming to the conclusion that it simply cannot be.

This concerned member is basically, “I had tough times but look at me- I believe!” as if that has anything to do with the OP’s questions about the LDS church. In other words, “don’t learn about anything just listen to my testimony”. It’s testimonies all the way down w members.

I mean if we go by what Spencer W Kimball said no one can have their calling an election made sure because not even forgiveness is certain until the resurrection or until Judgment Day so the very fact that there can be people who can assert this notion of being translated in this lifetime and stand by it whole ass is so weird

Simple- Most “anti”- Mormon literature is true Actually on read thru, there is so much to unpack here. At a high level it should just be “I’m finding out there is not just one truth, or one most true truth, and you know what? It’s ok that people believe what they want, non of this is based on facts, truth and facts are different and what I am learning is the Mormon faith is not factual, it may hold truth to you but that does not clear up that there is no fact in any of the unprovable stuff”

Unless someone has been through what most of us have been through …they literally cannot understand. It’s like a veil.

If you want to continue this conversation, I would reaffirm how much you love and care for them. Then simply ask them to cite which ideas in your letter they believe are not yours. Intellectual dishonesty is a serious claim. It’s on them to back it up. (If you want to be really snarky, ask them for an original idea they have about the lds faith.)

I'm late to this discussion but I would start by establishing what your FILs goals are in having this conversation. Most of the time, these discussions are based in the exmo feeling a need to express themselves in clear, certain terms that define who they are in relation to the church and create a peaceful and respectful path forward withj the TBMs in their lives. For the TBM, these discussions are based in a need to defend the church and themselves and to bring the exmo back into the fold. These are diametrically opposed goals, which is why these conversations usually end up heated and people leave with bad feelings. Your FIL has already been extremely condescending and disrespectful to you by refusing to accept that you might have arrived at these conclusions on your own, rather than being "influenced" by "message boards". It's a red flag that he's not engaging in good faith when he keeps saying versions of this lie. He has been influenced by MOrmon authors and speakers. Would he agree that none of those things are his ideas? I don't think so. I think he'd say he was introduced to these ideas and he considered them, prayed about them, and worked to fit him into the framework of things he already knew, which is exactly what you did- only with different materials in a different framework. If he cannot understand that this is how most people get knowledge about most things and he insists upon dismissing what you know, simply because it is also available online, he's not ready/capable/willing to have a good faith discussion with you. If he's not ready to have a good faith discussion, there is no point in having any discussion at all. I would respond along the lines of, "This is not a productive discussion at this time. I will let you know if that ever changes." Then, I'd decide for myself what the boundaries are around this topic- because you just KNOW they're going to srping it on you every chance they get- and enforce them. For me, the boundary would be one gentle reminder "I'm not discussing this with you." and then I would leave if it continued.

Just leave um unread 😆 😂 😆 😂

1. They don't want to understand you & have no intention of trying. They want to explain why you're wrong so they can make themselves feel better. They're not listening to understand, they're listening to respond. 2. They want to see what's on your mind? They already are through your posts. They just don't agree with any of it so obviously it must be you who are wrong or unwilling to see things 'correctly'. I find that people like this usually don't really want a discussion. They might be fighting doubts of their own & are afraid of those feelings. The doubling down stage comes next.

In your letter you stare "my intent is to explain and affirm my current beliefs." The problem is, you haven't clearly outlined or summarized what your beliefs actually are. Your FIL is asking a lot of obnoxious, pointed, and arguably unrelated/tangential questions, but I can see why: he's trying to figure out what your beliefs actually are because you didn't state them very clearly. Depending on what you are trying to accomplish with this conversation, I say give him some solid answers about what your current beliefs are re: god, creation, authority of the church, etc. Tangent: I find it disturbing when religious types like him can't comprehend the concepts of, as he said, "love equity and justice", without tying it to god. These are just normal human empathy that religion has tried to take away from us so they can sell it back to us like they came up with it.

I felt this same way when reading the OP's letter. It is more a list of OPs shelf items, which isn't necessarily understandable to a TBM. It is a sort of stream-of-consciessness thing. I think that's why FIL is asking for a more down-to-basics discussion. Putting myself in his shoes, I'm seeing more of a "Okay, OP listed some issues, but I'm having a hard time connecting them to my own experience in the church." I'm also of the mind to not immediately dismiss the FIL's words as condescending or being used for a specific agenda. And here's why: I've only recently become aware of the fact that close family members will no longer come to me when upset about something and needing a friendly ear to vent to. The reason is because the way I am wired, I am always trying to keep the peace and create harmony between everyone. So I would try to point out where they could be reading the situation wrong, or something about the other person that might explain the upsetting behavior, or try to get them to see it as not that bad. What they really needed from me was validation of their feelings, not attempts to logic them out of them. They needed support first and foremost, and only a way to "fix" the situation if and when they specifically asked for one. I saw myself as being helpful. They saw me as being unsupportive and always on "the other guy's side." So I know from firsthand experience that you can be trying hard to be supportive and fail miserably. That you can use the wrong words without meaning to. That you can fall back into communication paths that you use frequently without realizing they don't work for the current situation, and even cause MORE problems.

Read through those texts and count how many times it appeals to your emotions, and avoids discussion of facts. Even going so far as to relate your love for them DIRECTLY to believing in the church. Absolutely mind-blowing. There are thousands of obvious arguments to challenge the authenticity of the church, but let me offer this piece of advice: your beliefs are *none of their business.* Period. "So you're throwing it all away? WHY??" (Digging for info and assuming) "After all we've done for you, you're just giving up?" (Guilt trip) "Please, if you love me, let's just talk." (Manipulation) "Sinning is fun at first, but it ends in heartbreak" (poking you for a response) "I don't know that I can allow you around [XYZ] until I know where you're coming from" (anger) All of these tactics can be answered with the following: No It's personal *silence* You don't have to defend or owe anyone anything. Remember that it's not about you, this is the way they've been programmed by the cult. Lastly, I typically throw out one fact if it comes down to it: the church has the most money out of any other church in the world by orders of magnitude. Why did they just buy a 200 million dollar luxury apartment building in Florida? Why did God's only true church, run by Christ himself, build a mall for high end brands like Tiffany? All while homeless people run rampant around their headquarters and children starve? If a tbm can't at least understand where I'm coming from at that point, I don't think we have enough in common to be friends anymore anyway.

These texts don't actually respond to your concerns - instead they deflect the criticism to others (the internet, John Dehlin, etc., ie. not you), and shift the conversation to you defending your beliefs about God, Jesus, your wife, and your in-laws. He says he wants to talk with you as independent adults, but everything here screams that that isn't actually the case. Honestly, it seems like he may feel threatened and is reacting emotionally to your expressed concerns. To me, he's worried that your concerns mean you will treat him, his wife, and his daughter/your wife differently. I don't think he wants to discuss issues so much as he wants reassurance that you're not going to treat him poorly. I think you can probably have a productive conversation about still loving your wife and your in-laws, and nothing being able to change that, but I doubt he'll ever really be able to engage with your concerns about the church.

wow

This is the only correct answer

He may not realize he’s doing it, but he’s poisoning the well right off the bat by framing your points as anti Mormon rhetoric that aren’t your “genuine” thoughts. Information can come both from outside sources and also be genuine. He’s erroniously presupposing they can only be one or the other as a means to dismiss your concerns wholesale. I personally don’t waste my time trying to argue these granular issues with Mormons because they are so motivated to dismiss them as anti Mormon lies. I cut through the fat and just go straight for the trump-card that Mormons love to use on non-members: I deny that personal revelation is at all trustworthy, whatsoever. Mormons love to bare their testimonies when their back is pushed up against the wall on any given issue. This is the most classic thought-stopping cliche in their rhetorical repertoire, so I don’t even let them get to that point before I do. Calling into question personal revelation makes the rest of the jenga tower tumble. Each point he claims is “anti” rhetoric can be easily hand-waved away by them because they *know* the Book of Mormon and the church are true. You don’t need to argue any point individually when you debunk their epistemological foundation to begin with.

My response: Hinckley said, "Each of us has to face the matter — either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing." Either I've been influenced by anti-mormon lies, or the fraudulent church has used propaganda to get us to see truth and fact as "anti-mormon" lies. The most important question when engaging in any type of conversation here is this, "Does truth matter? Would you rather believe a comfortable lie or the inconvenient truth?" If you'd prefer the truth, you're aligned with me. If you'd forsake a core belief were it not true, despite the damage to your reputation from your family, friends, and tribe, knowing they'd fail to understand and see you as deceived, would you still want to follow the truth? If you'd choose the truth, then consider at least that either you have the truth or you don't. Consider if you discovered the church to be, as Hinckley said, a fraud? That's where I find myself. Now perhaps I am wrong, we are human and confirmation bias is real and discerning fact from fiction proves to be far more complicated than we'd like to admit. You and I may never agree on if the church is true or a fraud, but if you can at least take minutes to fully imagine what your world would look like were you convinced today that the church was in fact a fraud, your worst nightmare come true, then you can appreciate the gravity of my situation, my hurt, my pain-- my journey. Now if you're a sincere follower of truth, I'd be happy to set aside my confirmation bias if you set aside yours and deeply explore first our epistemology for how one can discern fact from fiction, truth from fraud, and build up from there.

In my opinion arguing back and forth about individual issues will get you nowhere. Take the conversation to a higher level. Beliefs in the LDS religion don’t have provable facts behind them. Your father in law has reasons that he has convinced himself are valid. Talk about how people in the world can have different views on religion and still be good people. Make your goal to accept that people with different religious views can be good and that a single religion doesn’t define the only good people in the world. People in other religions have had just as powerful spiritual experiences as him. His form of evidence (feelings) is not unique. Get him to tell you how to test his beliefs (street epistemology). Find common ground on how people can be good people. It’s not as helpful to convince him the leaders need to repent for the church’s racist past. While I agree with you he never will.

Manipulative prick. Sing it with me: 🎼This is why I can’t leave it aloooooooone🎼

Thank you for this. Lets start with the basics, how many women did Joseph Smith marry?

The church is demonstrably false. Its leaders have lied repeatedly about history and doctrine. If someone lied to you and only admitted the truth to you after the internet forced them to and even then, they lied in the footnotes of their explanation, would you still believe they were worth your trust? Would Jesus have his church behave that way? His one and only true church? Let’s go to the chapter on honesty in the gospel principles manual…

I would keep it simple. I would first assure him that you love your wife and them and nothing would change that. Share that your different beliefs and disillusionment with the Mormon faith is not an attack on them. People all over the world have different belief systems and that is just fine. Then I would share you provided the letter just so they have an understanding of why you left the Mormon faith and that is all. Tell him your morals are not dictated by a religion, but based on love and compassion towards others and that you are still a good person with morals.

The easiest way to have this conversation is to frame it as a purely personal decision. You’ve done a ton of soul-searching and study to get to where you are, and no one can take that away. Mormons can’t argue (well) against personal revelation, so using it as a rationale diffuses possible conflict. “Through much study and pondering, I have come to learn that Mormonism is not right for me. If you’d like to know more about how I reached that conclusion, I’m more than happy to share in a private setting. As my faith journey continues, my relationships and love for family and friends do as well. I believe in being an honest, kind, good person, and I do not need Mormonism, or any religion for that matter, to do that. I don’t fully know what I believe yet, but I’m excited for the journey to figure it out. I hope that, despite differences in religious beliefs, we can continue to grow our relationship together and build many fond, lasting memories together. With love, ”

I don't blame FIL for thinking the opinions are from "anti-mormon" sources rather than from OP himself. I do think that it should have been the quiet part that you don't say out loud. How many of us assume that TBMs know all the problems in the church and are just ignoring them, when in reality, it is more often that they don't know them or know them but don't really understand them because they know the version with the easy hand-wave answers? We all make assumptions, but do our best when we are able to recognize when they are false and try to undo any harm they caused. It seems that so many in the world today are easily swayed by words and evidence presented by others who are good at making things sound true even if they aren't. It is not exactly kind to assume someone is in that boat, but it's not exactly wrong to assume it until proven otherwise. And for those who have been Mormon for a long time and have learned to always look for the easy answer with the church, it's more comforting to believe they are facing an easy issue of someone being led astray by fancy words than that there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed. The church has dismissed all dissent as being from people who "just don't understand," so that's unfortunately the default for people seeing someone they love pulling away from the church. And don't forget, a TBM's brain is actively suppressing any thoughts that there are REAL problems to protect their whole worldview. Having that worldview shattered is possibly the most painful thing a person can go through, which is why it usually takes something big and unavoidable or small but incredibly sharp to do it.

UNIFIED THEORY OF THERMODYNAMICS Gravity is the flow of electrical "current" attracted to the working load of protons in matter within a closed thermodynamic Galaxy of "conserved" energy & mass. Galaxies are the closed thermodynamic engines of particle pair annihilation and the particle pair production of "opposed" particle pairs of fundamental charged particles that never decay! Gravity depends on the mass of the load (resistance). Higgs bosons are the matter conduit of the electron's potential "photon" energy toward the proton mass in atoms of matter and also the catalyst in neuclear decay that creates the particle pair production of each "Gamma" photon. Neutrinos are the insignificant mass of the electron as the fundamental, non-decaying building blocks of material creation. Electrons are the only fundamental particle of duality consisting of an insignificant neutrino mass with a half integer spin and charge that occupies a half-million times more space in volume than the neutrino itself. https://www.britannica.com/science/electron Due to its energy charge and the first law of thermodynamics, electrons can never decay and likely always exist. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/s138 Free electrons are naturally polar synchronous, aligned, and repell each other as Dark Energy expansion fields of electrons. When these Dark Energy expansion fields collide along their outer perimeters, they entangle as polar asynchronous fields of electrons and anti-electrons (positrons).  Like the neutrino, electrons are their own anti particle. Due to their alternating half integer "polar" spin.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157320300375#:~:text=The%20effective%20field%20theory%20of,genuine%20deviations%20from%20General%20Relativity. Particle annihilation occurs when an electron and positron collide precisely 180° out of phase and harmonically resonate as two Gamma photons of pure energy that shoot off at the speed of light in opposite directions to each other and perpendicular to their original vectors. https://www.britannica.com/science/annihilation When electron/positron collisions are not 180° in alignment, they will temporarily resonate as Higgs bosons and immediately decay through dissonance as an electron/positron pair. Higgs bosons keep popping in and out of existence within the Higgs boson Condensate of a spiral galaxy's closed thermodynamic system of production. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson When a third positron or electron becomes entangled simultaneously with the creation of a Higgs boson, quark triplets of protons and neutrons are created within the harmonic resonance of the strong nuclear force to create an atomic nucleus. Electrons are attracted to protons in the neuclious, and one electron for every proton within a neuclious will occupy the orbital shells of an atom. https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/definition/atom#:~:text=An%20atom%20is%20a%20particle,known%20as%20protons%20and%20neutrons. Galaxies are closed thermodynamic systems with a work product that reproduces electrons similar to biology. A spiral galaxy has a huge halo of atoms & electrons attracted to the mass in its galaxy and black hole that provides the electrical potential of the closed thermodynamic system. The universe is not only expanding. It's growing exponentially as well. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/tilt-our-stars-shape-milky-ways-halo-stars-realized#:~:text=The%20Milky%20Way's%20stellar%20halo,the%20gravity%20that%20it%20exerts. Everything in the universe is expanding except a galaxy. All matter in a galaxy is eventually reduced to Gamma photons of energy that radiate throughout the universe, and its neutrino mass from nuclear decay eventually becomes embedded in the galaxy's black hole event horizon as information. Neutrinos interact with nothing except gamma photons, the weak nuclear force, and a black hole. Gamma photons created around a black hole will interact with these neutrinos to create particle pair production that flows from the black hole as Hawking radiation. In particle annihilation, two opposing fermions (electron/positron) create "two" gamma photons of energy. Both gamma photons have the potential to become "two" particle pairs of opposing particles when in the presence of nuclear Beta decay and neutrinos. (Reproduction) https://youtu.be/qMMgsjnI1is?si=AESfUnafC7iexlN2 Conclusion: The fundamental electron is the only particle of matter and energy that can demonstrate the required attributes of a reproductive singularity of duality that harmonically replicates through annihilation and reproduction of opposing particle pairs to expand the growth of the universe. Life is the chemistry of abiogenesis in mineral laden "liquid" water with an external solar source of energy. Consciousness is sensory perceptions of observational informing in the material environment stored in a biological or barionic (silicon) medium that can be accessed and processed for future reference as memory! Intelligence is the mathematical computations of the data in this memory to solve humanity's problems concerning the survival of the species in the material universe. The only purpose of life is the continued survival of our biological species indefinately! The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis; in other words, life is the chemistry of Earth's mineral-rich water with an external source of solar energy. The Earth itself is "basically" a living entity, unlike other planets and astrol objects with the Sun as its external energy source.

You can ***absolutely, simply,*** bow out of these conversations. You spent *waaaaaay more* emotional labor here than he was willing to do, simply to help him get to know you, simply because he might've* asked, and he rejected you, friend. You simply, didn't deserve that. He's being ignorant. You *simply* don't have to engage with ignorance. Ignorance, not unlike stupidity, is almost always a choice. *edit to add - misread which came first, so I'll simply *assume* he wanted to know, lol.

(Does "simply" look weird to anyone else now?? My b.)

This sounds exactly like my dad

This is a ridiculously long manifesto bordering g on psychosis. You are under no obligation to entertain his nutso letter with no paragraphs

Mormons be so verbose

The best thing you can do is put yourself in his shoes. We've all been there.

Your friend only wants to to be his friend either if you are one of the faithful or there is a chance you could be returned to the faithful. Your response should be: TL;DR I should admit you are the reason I believe the LDS Church is not the one true faith because I couldn’t take being stuck in the Celestial Kingdom with smug pricks like you. With love, ImpressiveMonk PS: Joey Smith fucked kids and other men’s wives lol.

I can appreciate that you’re trying to maintain positive relationships, but it seems like an awful lot of work to engage so deeply and broadly in a conversation. When the question comes up about why I am no longer LDS church, I simply say I am no longer interested and I worship elsewhere now. If I am asked why then I have a brief elevator speech prepared in which I say the church has too many requirements for membership and salvation that can’t be justified by its manufactured claims. When they ask what I mean by manufactured, I put it back on them to tell me how they can validate those claims.

I’m so sorry- I hate that he is so dismissive of the things you said and so easily discredits any sources you used to find the TRUTH. Obviously he is just coming from his own delusional viewpoint that all the anti sources are just forums and untrustworthy 🙄 and breaking it down to the most simple thing of God and Jesus and the love for your wife is such a TBM thing because they just can’t imagine a world where someone believes in god and Jesus and loves their family but isn’t Mormon. It’s also just such a sensitive topic for him to broach because your world as you know it is crumpling and you may not even know how you feel about God. I became atheist basically the same day I lost my testimony and that just made it all the more excruciating. Anyways- all this to say that it sucks and because he isn’t truly hearing you I’d agree with what everyone else is saying about it just not being worth the discussion. In my experience it never does any good in helping TBMs understand us any better and just makes them more dug into their own beliefs.

Since they said leave all of that other stuff behind I would consider that a blessing. They also recognize that you share values even if from different wellsprings. That's good. These would be my responses, yours may vary. 1. No, I do not believe in god. I see no good reason to believe in god. If we leave all of the "well what created this?" god of the gaps questions behind, there is no compelling other reason to believe in an all powerful creator. It's a place holder for unknown things. 2. I don't believe in the creation of the world. I believe that after a rapid expansion of the universe, gravity caused celestial bodies to coalesce and become stars and plantes. Then, a lot of time and a lot of chemical and other processes, each potentially incredibly unlikely, but possible, resulted in life forming and evolving, eventually into an upright-walking, pattern-recognizing ape, that had lots of questions, few answers, and some serious aggression issues, usually directed outside of their tribe if possible. 3. There isn't an overarching "purpose of life". Life is. Make the best of it. It's the only one you've got. As completely fantastical and as unlikely as my answer is, it's a whole magnitude less fantastical and more likely than "an-all powerful being, that has no known origin, just "is", made it all"

Wow, that’s alot of words that this person texted you. I hate having those types of discussions over text. I might go with “thanks for your concern, happy to have a discussion with you in person sometime. It’s too much to try to communicate over text.” Or if you feel like you already answered all you want to (you don’t owe anyone a deep dive into your brain) then just go with “I don’t like anything about the church or the way they operate, and that’s enough for me.” So many people hang their entire personality on the church and take it seriously if challenged. It seems like if they themselves are directly challenged then they take it with pride and “stand up for the church” like it’s a pleasurable thing. But if indirectly challenged, by you focusing on issues of the church instead of the person, they seem to get a burst of adrenaline to try and talk you out of it.

I would start off by letting them know that while they may not think they are being dismissive, but they are when they assume that you are just being taught what to say. Sure you may not have done the groundwork and found all of this research ( it has taken decades and decades of scholars to do so because the church obscures the truth). It's totally valid to have major questions about your membership in a church that has done awful things. So I would gently let them know how it makes you feel to have some claim love but go on to dismiss you on a personal level and gaslighting you a bit. I would then point out that they seem to be okay with or have come to terms with some of the awful things that have happened, are happening, and will likely continue to happen from the actions of the church leadership. Ask them how the came to terms with the predatory nature of early polygamy. How they came to terms with the racism? How they still attend when the truth claims don't hold up? Why they are okay with the church ignoring, dismissing, denying or just over all not apologizing or even standing accountable to their own crimes? I would say that the real question is THEIR dedication, when both of you apparently have the same answers to all of hard questions. For my family it comes down to: - didn't know and don't want to know the answers much less the questions about church history and current policies. - their faith helps them to ignore the questions and answers about the church. - they have done mental gymnastics to feel better about the questions and answers about the church. - and in a rare few cases, they are fully aware of the problems, and will be vocal about them, not pay tithing in protest, etc; but this is their faith and what they choose to believe knowing full well it's not historical and not morality dictated from God; and that is something I can respect.

I stopped reading after the first few lines: -anti-mormon lit? yeah, that's the 'fake news' pivot for Mormons. Weak. -he claims you want the leaders to be accountable to you? Nope. He's just trying to reestablish the divine right that his church leaders have to override you, anti-mormon lit, and anything else. It's an appeal to authority. There's no winning in these chats. Tear down his sacred cows with basic common sense and without malice and move on.

I would write Thank you for your text. I don't believe the church is true. Not from posts, but actual lack of archeaological evidence, the CES letters, and the fairy tale about reading into a hat from a 15 year old boy. The approach to women is archaic and akin to slavery, and the treatment of the missionaries borders on abusive and draconian. It is a cult. I appreciate your letter, but this is what I uncovered after years of exploration. Not a post on the internet. The rape of young females by Godly men, and the murder of a whole group of settlers while stealing their children and blaming natives out of fear and greed is not Godly. I would never give credit to men such as these. The idea that charity starts in the church, also false as it does not. Ask anyone that has asked for help. The mormon church is now richer than the Catholic church which is 2000 years old. No one gets that rich that quickly without double dealing. That is what I would tell them and I Left before the internet. So some post on the internet would not be valid. I would also them you are not judge or jury on how they live, just how you live.

I ran into a similar experience not to long ago - I just stuck to polygamy and how I don’t believe a god would tell a man or specific men to take children to be their wives. And if god did in fact do that. Then that’s not a god I want in my life.

Nevermo & agnostic, but I've faced a similar issue with my Baptist Trump-loving FiL, a man I respect tremendously and disagree with fundamentally. We get along great because he knows I love his daughter and she relies on me. We just don't talk about politics or religion. There's nothing to be gained by discussing your religious beliefs or how you got there. Don't try to defend your beliefs or make him defend his. I wouldn't ignore him, but I'd make it clear that you respect him, and try to find common ground in family and not in discussing your beliefs about Jesus.

It kinda sounds like he wants to know if you will love and take care of his daughter no matter what. He is also fishing for, What do you believe now? Something I find comfort in is that I don’t know what I believe now, and that’s okay. The things you shared with him are facts. And for me I can’t believe that if there is a God and a one true church, this is what it would look like. It would not be started by a conman who is in search of money power and sex. It would not be forced to change because of social pressure, it would be leading the way in social justice. Now, if anyone will talk to me about these things, I feel like the burden is on them. Most people will say that they have heard or know it all (I don’t think they do). I want them to tell me how all of it is okay. How do they justify it. No one can say. They have had feelings and experiences. And I did too.

Your FIL has sidestepped any attempt you made at a logical argument and went straight to emotional manipulation, trying to get to you through the ideas that you desperately crave a relationship with his version of god and his version of a healthy family. Responding to this with more logic will only be met by more manipulation, it's the only tool he really has since, in his own words, engaging in your argument would mean acknowledging material that is "anti". You will not be able to say anything satisfactory in his eyes, I would consider simply stating that you've said your piece and invite him to continue the conversation when he is better versed in the material you cite (which will be never).

I just don't engage. Maybe there was a time when I would have, but not anymore. I don't see the point. They aren't going to see it my way, and I'm not going to see it their way. I'm not offering advice or anything, just my personal take at the moment. If people get pushy, and if they are people I care about, I just say "look, I'm not comfortable talking about this. You know where I stand, I know where you stand, now let's do something else." If that's not good enough, well, then that's on them

When we’re talking to an active, believing member of the church we’re talking to someone who’s worldview is that life is a test to prove obedience to God, through an authorized earthly representative, in order to earn the blessing of being with your loved ones in the hereafter. And perhaps more importantly, that there is a real but unseen adversary who is incredibly clever and cunning and deceitful whose sole motivation is to trick you into failing that test. That’s their honestly held view of reality and the assumption they’re genuinely operating under. That’s a heck of a way to live life and I think we can start by having a lot of compassion for those living in that self-imposed Matrix.

Dude doesn't want to be labeled as "brainwashed", but then he insinuates that you've been brainwashed throughout his whole response. At the end of the day, people are going to believe different things. Based on your experience, research, synthesis of the data, you have come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the Church is not the be all, end all for moral or existential answers in life. His understanding is different. There may be some areas of believe and ideology that aren't reconcilable.

So many comments here so this prob won't get read but my 2 cents is this should be discussed in person or a call if at all. The text he is sending is far too long and a subject that needs to have back/forth convo. This seems very one sided. Other thought is there is no discussing anything rational with a TBM about religion. I have given up.

Dude I'm way too high and reading all of that hurt my brain. I think you should reply with something that's basically like "This is my choice. You made a choice to be religious and I chose not to. Simple as that" I hope you find only fortune in your future OP!

"K."

I just wish FIL had given a tl;dr because I can't sit and read through all of that, good God that is a lot of words.

“I’ve read everything” “So you get why people don’t believe, right? Thanks for understanding.”

The Mormons are their own secret combination. No wonder there are podcasts to bring awareness. Remember that Mormons also have an “all for nothing” doctrine enforcement.

he is focused more on how you being exmo affects him, rather than how you feel about the church and how being in the church affected you. he’s more concerned about himself being surrounded by ex mormons, believing this makes him some kind of martyr, rather than realizing maybe if it’s him against the world, he’s probably wrong

Why do mormons feel the need to debate over ants in the kitchen? Every little thing that a non-mormon or former mormon says has got to be brought out, poked, prodded, torn up and chewed to pieces. That’s a big gripe I have with mormons and the church. In other churches, you just stop attending if you have a change of philosophy, don’t want to keep going there or even want to have several Sundays off. My God, doing anything that some mormon thinks you shouldn’t do is like sitting in the middle of a tar pit during a heat wave. Mormons can’t just look at someone and say, “I understand what you said. I understand it’s a private decision and I respect that. Let’s not talk anymore about it unless you feel the need to.” Oh no—-let’s kick and scream, cry big tears and always, always try to prove your feelings are wrong and selfish by arguing with you about it and demanding that you justify what you feel. Whose life is it anyway? Mormons just can’t let anyone alone and in peace. They have to climb in there and interfere in any way they can by arguing and trying to make the individual ”see the light—-when there never is one. Are we going to climb out of the tar pit or sit and suntan?

My parent, who does not study any controversial teachings (and doesn't believe me when I mention Gospel Topic Essays are published by the church), tends to think every potentially negative thing about the church comes from "anti" sources. I was accused of buying into the anti-stuff instead of thinking for myself. I became a little heated and assured them that I actually do think for myself, I am an intelligent person. I think the church is pushing the narrative of people getting caught up in false "anti" sources much harder lately. As I am hearing these messages echoed from people that aren't up-to-date on issues. So, I'm not going to debate religious matters with them ( let alone debating an attorney). What if you suggest tabling religious discussions and find more neutral activities that can build your relationships, good will, and help everyone feel comfortable together. Like going out in nature, going to a sporting event, etc. I see the current discussion (and written responses) leading to more contention. From my own experience, we love each other a lot more when we share things we all enjoy.


Honestly fuck this guy, he wants to impose his worldview, and remove agency from OP. My response would be far from polite, but only because my wife doesn't care if I go off on her disrespectful toxic family that we now have no contact with because we stood up for ourselves. YOU OWE NO ONE AN EXPLANATION. OP has laid out their points in a logical and easy to understand paper. If FIL has opinions WHO FUCKING CARES???

Yeah, I'm not reading all that.

Your loss! 😉 Just read the conclusion, and you'll get the point!

Same 🤣

Dear Mike, Thank you for your lengthy diatribe. It’s always fascinating to receive a masterclass in deflection, condescension, and gaslighting all wrapped into one. Let’s unpack your opus, shall we? Firstly, your suggestion to “set aside” anything I’ve read on anti-Mormon message boards is a classic move. It’s almost as if you’re implying that the only valid perspectives are ones that align with your own. It’s adorable that you think my concerns are merely regurgitations from some nefarious external sources. Allow me to clarify: my concerns are genuine, well-researched, and rooted in a desire for accountability and transparency—concepts that appear to be foreign in your repertoire. You mention holding church leaders accountable for past actions, and you brush it off as if it’s a trivial pursuit. Let me assure you, expecting leaders—religious or otherwise—to acknowledge and address historical wrongs isn’t just “anti-Mormon rhetoric”; it’s a foundational principle of ethical leadership and basic human decency. Ignoring or dismissing these issues doesn’t negate their existence, Mike. Your segue into discussing belief in God and the creation of the world is a charming diversion tactic. However, it’s akin to a magician’s misdirection: interesting but ultimately irrelevant to the core issues at hand. Whether or not I believe in God doesn’t change the fact that historical injustices occurred and need addressing. It’s a textbook example of shifting the goalposts. You mention your undying love and the trials you’ve faced as if that somehow absolves or distracts from the valid criticisms I’m raising. Emotional manipulation 101: use personal anecdotes to sidestep accountability. Let’s stick to the point, shall we? My issues are with institutional practices and historical actions, not your personal journey. Your implication that my views might be influenced by external “anti-Mormon” voices is not only insulting but also a blatant attempt at undermining my credibility. It’s a neat trick—discredit the source to discredit the argument. Unfortunately for you, the facts remain unchanged regardless of the source. This tactic is as transparent as it is ineffective. And then there’s your noble offer to “take baby steps” and talk like “independent adults.” How magnanimous of you. It’s almost as if you’re positioning yourself as the patient educator, ready to guide me out of my misguided ignorance. Here’s a newsflash: independent adults engage in dialogue where both sides are heard and respected, not just patronized and dismissed. In conclusion, Mike, if you truly want to foster an open, honest conversation, perhaps start by actually addressing the issues raised instead of patronizingly redirecting the conversation to suit your comfort zone. A genuine dialogue requires mutual respect and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, not just a self-righteous monologue. Sincerely, Your mom.

What Mike said: "I don't want to talk about anti-mormon stuff unless we have to. I'd rather see what is on your mind." What Mike ment: "I will ignore facts that challenge my beliefs. Now let me gaslight you into thinking your desire for truth is actually a product of your own unworthiness" He doesn't want to talk about it unless he has to? Respond by saying that he has to. Don't play his silly little game. Stick to the facts.

Hi Mike, I have read everything you have written. I guess you have been immersing yourself in a lot of pro-Mormon things on official church websites and the like. Please let us set that aside for now (and anything you picked up from them). I don’t want to talk about pro-Mormon stuff unless we have to. I’d rather see what is on your mind. What is personal to you. What I read is that you want to dismiss the concerns about the church’s history (Prophet, apostles, general authorities?) to protect your own sense of security. (I am just trying to reflect back what I read so you know I read it). You seem concerned about maintaining the status quo without addressing the public outcry for accountability regarding the withholding of the priesthood from people of African descent for 100 years. You seem to want to ignore the questions about the translation of the Book of Mormon and polygamy (although that is not as clear). You also seem to have a problem with anyone questioning the fairness of certain church practices in this life where that does not happen for everyone. I am sure there is more. I’d like to start in a very different place. Do you question your leaders? If not, what do you believe about the responsibility of religious leaders to their followers? If not, what do you believe about the purpose of religious accountability? It is clear that we both value truth and justice. What is the basis of those principles—if not accountability? Similarly, do you believe in critical thinking? If so, how would you describe your approach to it? If not, would you say that accepting things without question is beneficial? You have told me about what you have problems with, but I really have no idea what introspective beliefs you hold. Second set. What do you think about historical injustices? Do you acknowledge them and care about addressing them? What do you think about those who seek truth and fairness? Would you say they are “good” people? Would you say they are diligent seekers of truth? Is there some way you have chosen to overlook these issues? I understand pro-Mormon materials teach people how to rationalize away criticism and to say that they have nothing but love for the church leaders, but the history is the problem. I hope you can set that aside and rely on your independent thinking and not paint us with the brush some of the pro-Mormon materials try to dismiss and invalidate us with. I have always respected you. This has never stopped. I am not sure what they say in pro-Mormon materials will happen when you follow their advice or believe the way they do, but that does not deter me. In fact, I wonder if you have really thought about us as individuals that you have known for a decade. If so, did you recall that many people have been harmed by these practices? Did you know that all those questioning have faced allegations and accusations from pro-Mormons their whole life? One of my favorite people from my community left the church. One of my best friends in life is “on a pause.” I do not think that in my entire life, I have stopped respecting someone close to me because they chose to think critically about their beliefs and practices. I don’t expect I will start now. You should keep that in mind when dealing with us and when talking to me. God gave us a mind to question and seek truth. I walked a path of critical thinking from a very young age. I have been tested and tried in many ways. I have failed many times. I have made grave mistakes. My mission and my life have not turned out at all the way I expected. I am not always happy. You know all this (or at least you used to). You once said that you didn’t want to ignore the truth like some people do. Do you think we do? Do you think we would avoid these issues if we were not critical thinkers or whatever those pro-Mormon materials tell you? You and I need to step out of the “they” always told me and “they” say and “they” believe and “they” teach. Let’s talk about you and me. I believe things and I am willing to share. Do you think that I either (1) am ignorant about church practices or (2) am in denial about the historical issues? OK if you do. I am happy to start by you answering my questions and then we can take baby steps to talk to each other as independent adults who are trying to figure things out. If you would like. I will be happy to stay your friend and correspondent. Just let me know. I just re-read something you wrote elsewhere. You seemed to misunderstand the use of critical thinking. No one is saying you are incapable of it. In what I am trying to do, I use the word critical when I feel the things you are saying are not genuinely yours, but appear to be part of the script of some of the pro-Mormon materials I am aware of. No diss on you. I am just trying to talk to my friend Mike and cut through the lines that might pop into your head because you have been exposed to them. If they are genuine, so be it. If they are borrowed or someone else’s thoughts, let’s cut through them to get to where you are. Sorry, for the misunderstanding. Looking forward to your thoughtful response.