What Do You Do When Your Mormon Husband Loses His Faith?

I’m sorry, but the Mormon response was the same religious vomit that happens EVERY time someone accepts reality as their personal savior. It’s always “they just don’t understand how the church REALLY works.” Funny how everyone in the religion would’ve accepted what was being said about how their faith works if it was in a sermon. But as soon as someone sees it for what it is – a manipulative lie – then suddenly “they just don’t understand.”
I have gotten this argument SO many times when pointing out Christian stupidity. “You just don’t get it,” or, “That’s not how MY faith works.” Yes. it is how your faith works, you have just chosen not to accept that portion of your dogma.

Thanks for posting this!
Trevor

“When Sean replaced his temple garments — the sacred underwear he’d promised to wear day and night — with boxers”

I’m sorry, but how can you be serious about your “beliefs” when they dictate you something so ridiculous?

 ^This. It really irritated me that he kept pointing out that he didn’t know her, but then he kept making snide insinuations about her intellect and motives.

Paraphrase of the response:  I am so sad that she no longer believes the fairy tale.  It is SO COMFORTING to believe a fairy tale!  I can’t believe that she is happier without the fairy tale!   She must not have understood it.

I sometimes wonder if life long Mormons realize how absurd their claims sound to those of us outside their religion.  

Although all the Mormons I’ve ever known: don’t wear the temple undergarments, except to Temple probably, have had alcohol and coffee and tea, and have seen R rated movies – so maybe a lot of them do realize it.

It’s the history they lay out that gets me though.  All religions have certain rules that look silly to people outside, but trying to rewrite history in such a demonstrably false way is pushing it a bit.  

One of my closest friends is Mormon and our religious differences have never been an issue which is great because I treasure her friendship.  Her church encouraged her to date and then marry another member of the church who ended up being not just totally wrong for her, but a truly terrible husband and human being.  The fallout of this marriage (temple sealed) is a very long and ugly divorce and a baby that was conceived essentially on the honeymoon and will now almost certainly be raised by a single mother.  There has been little support for my friend who has had to give up her temple privileges and change wards though her husband has not.  

Like the Catholic Church, I have a lot of problems with the hierarchy of the Mormon Church but I do my best to not let it affect my treatment or opinion of individual Mormons (who may prove to be people I dislike on their own merits but generally are very nice).

http://goo.gl/CKZfG

Aye there’s naye doot aboot that.

7) Basically you should only believe what we say. I believe it’s called control through ignorance, the less people know, the less they rebel.

Turn it 180 degrees and it says the same thing.

Geoffrey, thanks for the detailed reply!  I didn’t realize I was working from a
template!  J  I wasn’t dismissing her, but a publicly
written narrative invites analysis, of course. 
Hopefully you’re not inclined to see any criticism of her methodology as
automatically dismissive.  If I may respond
to your concerns:

1.  The fallacy you cite
doesn’t apply.  I’m not saying that she
was not knowledgeable in the faith as a de facto result of her leaving.  I suggest it as a result of a close reading
of her arguments.  It is possible that
someone could reject something without adequate comprehension of it,
right?  I think the text warrants
considering that.  Feel free to
rebut. 

2.  She may have been
offended or not—there’s no way for us to know. 
If she said she wasn’t, I could only take her at face value.  As it is, her text suggests otherwise.  I’m not allowed to posit this as a factor
even though her writing clearly implies it might be? 

3.  Of course I didn’t
say anything as nonsensical as this.  My
point is simple: one would have to explain how he got things right in his
scriptural writings that he shouldn’t—couldn’t even—have been able to, in order
to definitively rule him out as a prophet. 
Anything less is dodging the issue. 

4.  I did not say this,
nor do I believe it. 

5.  Actually, she says
this herself, by implication in this essay, and more in depth in her previous
blogging.  You’re right, though—it’s a
fallacious view, and it’s tragic that it would emotionally hurt anybody.

6.  Shouldn’t someone
be as fully informed as possible before passing judgment on something?  Also, why would using a seer stone be any
more “embarrassing” than the Urim and Thummim? 
Where do you see evidence of this embarrassment in any LDS
publication? 

7.  As in Stephenson’s
essay, citation needed.  Where are we
taught that any differing opinion must be hostile, is “from the Devil” and must
be avoided?  Good grief, are there any
negative stereotypes about Mormons that you don’t believe? 

8.  “No pure and
chaste reason?”  That’s only true if you discount
all the evidence that disagrees with a preconceived notion.  Though this institution has never been fully
understood, then or now, by anybody, the most reasonable explanation is that it
involved the kind of extended eternal family sealing that we still practice in
temples today.  You’re insinuating
lecherous motives where simpler explanations make more sense. 

The thesis that critics insinuate for polygamy—that church
leaders lied about the revelation to justify sexual activity—doesn’t stand up
under scrutiny. There would have been far easier ways to “get away” with it.
Far more than sex was involved, and sex often wasn’t involved at all. Its
practice was rare and heavily regulated. Those in the church’s “inner circle”—men
who could and did try to hurt Smith—were excommunicated for abusing the
practice.  Sexual hedonism is
inconsistent with the lives of consecration and sacrifice by those who
practiced it—these men were not Warren Jeffs.

9.  Again, you’re
putting words in my mouth.  I did not say
that only Mormons have our kind of joy and, in fact, I clearly wished Maren
happiness in her life, whatever form it takes. 
As I would wish the same to you or anyone.  Speaking of…

10.  Wow.  Read a bit of my stuff one Saturday morning
and you’re ready to condemn me as a twisted hypocrite.  Nice.  That
last bit of yours about me being happy in alleged superiority is pretty vicious,
don’t you think?  For someone who wants
to call me out for apparently questioning the motives of others, you seem
pretty comfortable being judge, jury, and executioner here. 

Still, I respect that you wrote this at all, and I
appreciate the real thought that goes into it. 
I actually hold atheists in very high regard for that, and think we
could have a great conversation about this. 
We just need to get past any one-dimensional boogeyman images here, and
give each other an intellectual benefit of the doubt.  We may not share faith, but we can all
practice charity. 

ah yes, the smiling and friendly Mormon act. Sorry sister, you are full of poo-poo.

Not one of your rebuttlas makes any sense at all. And your defense of the myths and made up fairy tales of your poison is ridiculous.

I have had to deal with Mormons, and you, as a group, as simply untrustworthy. Add in the fact you act in a lobotomized fashion when dealing with your made up world and you become dangerous.

And if there is one thing to always look out for, it is someone who smiles too much, or tries too hard to come across as “understanding” and “loving”.

Also, you simply are not an inmtellectual equal if you believe in any of the bullshit that is the Mormon doctrine. How any reasonable person can believe one iota of that crap (which was made up by a man with obvious mental illness) is incredible. Because of this, you simply, are not an iontellectual equal to those who go forth to find hard truths and evidence.

And your kind DIRECTLY hurt many of my friends. Prop 8. I am a Californian. You HURT MY FRIENDS. And that is unforgivable.

 Hi there, FSQ.  I’d say that the dice in this game appear to be a bit loaded, but I see at the end that you share where some of your anger comes from.  Look, since you equate politeness with insincerity, I’ll get right to the point: what’s not at issue here is whether anyone agrees or disagrees with our stance on marriage, what ultimately matters is whether the assertions of the LDS Church about their doctrine and the Book of Mormon are accurate.  If they aren’t, then you’re right.  If they are, then the church’s stance on Prop. 8 is understandable. 

In six short paragraphs of serious negativity (I counted 16 examples of abusive language that–even worse–were unsubstantiated), you could talk about loving “hard truths and evidence” without offering any?  Please, let’s talk.  I want to know what you know.  I want you to know what I know.  Isn’t that how the marketplace of ideas works? 

 Sorry you find basic civility so offensive! 🙂 

If a Christian refused to talk to you and then claimed an intellectual victory, you would call him out on his ironic failure of logic, and you’d be right to do so. 

If you ever change your mind, let me know. 

1.  “The fallacy you cite doesn’t apply.”

I beg to differ, you are basically suggesting that through your reading of her work she was not fully comprehending the faith and thus left.  That is to say, if she had truly comprehended the faith she would not have left and therefore those that do leave never were truly Mormon.  That’s pretty much the No True Scotsman fallacy. 

2.  “She may have been offended or not—there’s no way for us to know.”

I don’t read any offense beyond what one might expect from having being duped for so long.  However, if it is so ephemeral as to warrant, “She may have been offended or not—there’s no way for us to know,” then you should not be reading it in and positing it as a factor.

3. “…one would have to explain how he got things right in his
scriptural writings that he shouldn’t—couldn’t even—have been able to, in order to definitively rule him out as a prophet.”

What would these be?  Btw you’re not going to play that claim of Joe being some poor dumb, uneducated farm boy who couldn’t have known anything are you?  But I digress, all we need is sufficient failings that should not be reasonably expected from someone chosen by god himself to restart his ministry on Earth.  Enough errors and we can be justified in questioning his claims to be such an important prophet.  Errors like mistranslating Egyptian hieroglyphics or making up excuses as to why he cannot relate the exact same version when Martin Harris’s wife – smart, smart, smart, smart, smart – removed the 116 pages Martin had borrowed.  Particularly when translating ancient texts was his raison d’etre.

4.  “I did not say this, nor do I believe it.”

No I’ll give you that you do not appear to directly have said they secretly wanted to sin.  However, when you say, “We choose to do the things that develop private spiritual strength, or we don’t,” you do imply that she was failing to live up to the proper standards of a good Mormon.

5.  “Actually, she says this herself,”

To be honest I only got the impression she was unhappy after her husband fell from the path, not that she was unhappy before.

6.  “Shouldn’t someone
be as fully informed as possible before passing judgment on something?”

And yet Mormons are more than happy to give the prospective supplicants their six lessons, have them feel the holy spirit move them and schedule a baptism pronto.  The entire missionary MO is shock and awe and then to get the baptism done whilst they’re still reeling, all without making the supplicant fully informed.  If it’s not required for getting in why should anyone have exhausteively researched every last nook and cranny before leaving?

As for the embarrasment, well whether you use seer stone or urim and thummim hardly makes any difference to the basic absurdity of Joe’s face in his hat with a stone in it to translate plates hidden away over there.  The evidence of this embarrasement is not written down as should that get out it would reflect even worse by admitting it’s an absurdity.  But it is most clearly alluded to by its careful ommision from the story, particularly to the potential supplicants.  Believe you me, had any of the missionary attempts to sucker me mentioned that little gem I’d have remembered it.  The embarrasement is in the omission but it’s easier to reconcile the cognitive dissonance by pretending that it’s a triviality they can learn at some later stage when they accidentaly stumble on it.

7. Where are we taught that any differing opinion must be hostile, is “from the Devil” and must be avoided?” 

This is a seemingly common piece of advice for Mormons and one I’ve heard related to me by member relatives who also tend to view non-member or lapsed member information as inherently tainted.  That such work it has been produced because they have an axe to grind against the church and is  inherently untrustowrthy, thus the only trustworthy source is a church source.  Bit like you’re trying to do with Maren’s work.

8.  “  You’re insinuating lecherous motives where simpler explanations make more sense.”

Actually the lecherous explanation is simpler, could easily have passed her off to someone more appropriate or waited.

9.  “Again, you’re putting words in my mouth.”

Oh you did wish her happiness but no one is putting words in your mouth, these are your unequivocal words, “I only wish that she, and everybody else in the world, would really come to know the unique and profound joy that comes not just from being a member of the Church, but from a personal spiritual witness of the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.”

10.  “Wow.  Read a bit of my stuff one Saturday morning
and you’re ready to condemn me as a twisted hypocrite.”

I’d concur with the false compassion assesement, you keep saying how sad you are, you wish her all the best but at the end they were never truly a believer – and look here’s a church luminary to prove my point, they’re lost, you’re saved and you know it.  Your hyperbolic reaction to that observation is somewhat OTT, it was not vicious.

The original article by Maren Stephenson was pretty good. Parts of it, like the quoted bit about her husband giving up the magical Mormon underwear, really show how religion poisons a person’s mind.
Jamie Huston’s response was full of fallacies and moronic assumptions, which some previous commentors have already pointed out in more detail.

Did anyone else read the sources that he cited in the article?  It’s worth a cheap laugh.  Apparently Joseph Smith was the “Village Seer”.  There were also other seer stones owned by other people.  Now the important seer stones and those plates got magicked away, but what about those other seer stones.  Do seer stones still exist?

I also learned that they love those names not found in the bible.  For example, Alma is apparently a Hebrew name of a guy.  Of course, I already knew that Almah is a Hebrew word for maiden.  I may be unversed in Hebrew names, but wouldn’t those two words be written the same way?

” This article
made me sad.  Not because it mischaracterizes my church, which it does,
and not because I think Maren Stephenson, the author, is an awful
person, which I don’t, but because I think she totally misunderstands
what she rejects and needlessly misses out on something wonderful
because of it, even though she must have been so close to it.”

Right from the start, “She’s just saying bad things about my church because she never was a true mormon to begin with”. Come on, there must be a limit to your hippocrisy.

Sir Branson should look into space flights to planet Kolab, where the Morom “god” lives. Branson could really make a fair bit of money fleecing these idiots.

I’m guessing this is why you closed the comments on your own page — people saying ‘uncivil’ things to you.  Dear, your people called me worse when I left the Mormon church.  Your thin-skinned act is see-through.  All of your accusations against Maren were leveled against me by other worthy, happy, full-of-joy Mormons.

We will not let you hide behind your veils and curtains any longer–the truth will out and someday real light–the light of the sun–will be felt in your sealed up temples when they are opened to ALL of creation’s children.  Stop selling your religion and just live it–you’ll find that there’s room enough for all in the loving home of a benevolent god.

Another priceless gem curiously left unmentioned in their conversion process. 😀

 Those things have names? :O I always just thought it was a neat trick!

I thought the same thing!  I didn’t know they wore them to bed.

 That’s a major part of the point actually. Their primary function is to be un-sexy and thus discourage sinful sex. You see, even sex between married partners is a sin, only to be tolerated as a necessary evil in order to produce offspring.

You’re really LDS?  I only ask because the few Mormons I know would never make a rape threat.

Tithing money is not used to fund political positions you ignoranttwat. Thou knowest not of what thou speakest.

That’s a completely false statement.