I stopped attending the cult a little over a year ago. Life has been only getting better since then. Even so, it will take me years to undo the effects of TSCC on my life. In fact, I can never completely undo it.

I didn't make any big grand exit or any make splashy announcements when I left. Nevertheless, my parents picked up on it. They probably noticed that I never talked church talk with them anymore. I'm luckier than some here. My folks are not nazi TBMs. Nevertheless, they are believers and their displeasure at my departure has become the elephant in the room during phone calls and family gatherings.

I have wondered why it is that our perceptions of the church and its leaders differ so widely. My parents simply do not understand the anger I feel toward the cult. I have a couple of thoughts on this.

I believe that to the casual member, it is nearly impossible to realize just how destructive the cult is. While my parents would probably take offense to my characterizing them as casual members, the fact is that my mother has never read the Book of Mormon, neither parent could list more than 3 of the current Q12 guys, neither one did early AM seminary (although they drove me there for several years), neither served a full time mission, and neither has served in any ward council or stake level callings. My mom was a convert in her early 20s when she married my dad. Dad grew up in the church.

Anyhow, I am of the opinion that the church, while always a fraud, was at least a much more tolerable place when they were young. I think that my dad's experience growing up in the church was quite a bit different from my own. I really think something happened in the 1970s as people like Packer and Benson were starting to exert some real influence in the church. I also think there was a lot of backlash against the cultural changes of the 1960s. My generation got much more guilting and shaming than theirs did. My generation got the Kimball-inspired messages about sexuality. The church became corporatized. Correlation came into effect. The largely de-centralized church became much more consolidated and sterile.

There is no possible way for my parents, or any other non-RM, to comprehend life in the mission field. My folks believed every bit of the propaganda that the church provided about how wonderful missionary service is. They were proud of their missionary son. They have no clue at all about the ugly realities that lie below the surface.

To someone not intimately aquatinted with how the church works, it would be very easy to view somebody like Gordon Hinckley as a sweet little old man. If the church was nothing more than YM/YW activities, potluck dinners, and home/visiting teaching, I could see how TSCC might not seem like such a bad place.

You bring up an important fact - that mormons are always in a state of being unplugged. it's bad enough that thy don't know their own important historical stuff but so many, in spite of listening to conference and going to church and teaching lessons still don't know much about anything. why do you suppose that is? I really don't know and can never figure it out. Because it's so god damned boring? Because it is a passive church requiring you only to pay tithing and shut the hell up in order to be saved? Why?

Strength in the Loins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Anyhow, I am of the opinion that the church, while
> always a fraud, was at least a much more tolerable
> place when they were young. I think that my dad's
> experience growing up in the church was quite a
> bit different from my own. I really think
> something happened in the 1970s as people like
> Packer and Benson were starting to exert some real
> influence in the church. I also think there was a
> lot of backlash against the cultural changes of
> the 1960s. My generation got much more guilting
> and shaming than theirs did. My generation got
> the Kimball-inspired messages about sexuality. The
> church became corporatized. Correlation came into
> effect. The largely de-centralized church became
> much more consolidated and sterile.

I think you have made a very valid point here; I have been inactive for 35 years and I read a lot of the posts here in absolute horror as so much seems to have changed since I grew up in the church. Although I left I can still look back on my childhood in the church with happy memories. I would imagine that your father had the same kind of church upbringing as I did but because he stayed with it perhaps the slow, insidious changes went largely unnoticed.

I also agree with your comment that the effects will remain with you for life as this has been my experience. Logically I can dismiss it all as a load of toxic waste but I have never quite been able to silence the little voice that has said to me on occasion that if it is true I'm in trouble in the next life. Most people are frightened of dying because there is nothing afterwards; I am afraid of dying in case there is a CK and all. I would welcome nothing!

I wish you well for your non LDS future. Your parents will probably come round in time, mine did even though both of their children did not stick with it.

I agree, you have hit on something. Growing up in the church going back as far as I can remember to 1980, it was a totally different experiance than it is today. Granted, I did grow up in SLC so mileage may vary. I remember when primary was on Wednesdays (I think it was Weds), when there was something called "mutual" where the boys and girls did stuff together. I remember when LDS Boy Scouts was actually fun, and when there were road shows.

I liked being mormon back then, if for no other reason than it was fun. My kids today HATE it. Why? Because they are bored out of their gourd. There is NO funding for ANY program, scouting has been reduced to class room lectures, there is no "mutual", there are no road shows, there is nothing there to attract the imagination and attention of a teenager.

I can understand some of the reasons for why the church changed the way the local finances are handled. But when they can spend $6,000,000,000.00 on a freaking high-end shopping mall (and that is just the tip of the iceberg), there is NO excuse for funding so poorly youth oriented activites like scouting. I loved scouting, my kids HATE it. Why? My program growing up was well funded and we did really fun things. My kids program gets $600 for the entire freaking year!!! You can not do anything with that.

Anyway.... I get on a rampage about that. Sorry. But it was one of the things that always really bothered me, and was probably one of the biggest elements in my eventual dissatisfaction resulting in my resignation years later.

GOOD JOB LDS Corp!! :D

Some good comments upstream.

Most LDS don't know their own history or doctrine, but that's not a uniquely LDS problem. Most Protestants couldn't name the man that founded their respective denominations, or when Luther was born, or what Luther was known for in regards to Protestantism. Likewise, most Catholics could not name the past 4 Popes, nor could they name any of the current cardinals or archbishops. This is because for most religion is a cultural identity.

I grew up in the 90's, but I hear a lot of folks talk about how things used to be. Things like green and gold balls, non-correlated ward and stake activities. Somebody posted a photo of the 1964 BYU homecoming queen, who wore -- gasp -- a sleeveless gown!

In my youth, I had good leaders and we did fun activities. But the correlated, watered-down, largely pointless church of my adulthood has little in the way of redeeming value. Kimball, just from reading him, is a strange cat -- he goes from very environmentalist/eco-progressive in talks like this:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/fundamental-principles-to-ponder-and-live?lang=eng

to something like this:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng
In which he cracks down on masturbation, fornication, and petting.

It's hard to square, and it doesn't fit into any of the neat ideological boxes, except for maybe 'authoritarianism.' Which, really, is the direction things moved in.

Those that know the least are often the most sure of themselves. I know many like your parents who know very little of the Mormon church and yet swear they have the strongest testimonies. I point out things to my mother all the time about her church's cannons that she has no clue about.

I grew up in the church in the fifties and sixties and it was a totally different church than today. For me that meant small mountain pioneer town that was very embracing no matter what. That made the mission and BYU quite a shock as they were becoming very Mormon Nazi by the seventies and I would say it has only gotten worse every decade as each one of the big 15 has seemed to need to outdo their predecessors in the guilt and shame departments. It seems to just be making claw marks a little higher up the tree each time a new one comes along. Can't wait to see Bednar's final act. Should be one for the record books.

Yes, there are often conflicts over differences in beliefs about the family religious traditions. Many times these traditions span many generations are are seen as important to family cohesiveness.

When someone wants to extricate themselves from the long standing family traditions, it's almost always going to be difficult.

Parents often feel betrayed and dishonored when their teachings are rejected. That's only natural.

Doing it with a positive, respectful, grateful attitude helps but doesn't always smooth the hurt and the betrayal.

The LDS Church has changed with the people. That too is only natural. It's also changed with the times in some ways.
We are a different kind of society in general, in the US, for instance than we were 20 to 60 years ago.

If the LDS Church is not what you want in your life, you can make that change, however, it's most likely going to be met with a lot of different emotions and concerns. The more we can be kind and respectful to our loved ones, the better it is, most of the time.

The process of leaving the LDS Church is different for everyone. And, for most, it takes time as there is a new element of creating a whole new world view and figuring out how life needs to change to be more fulfilling and happy.

Sometimes the conflicts last a lifetime. Sometimes they don't. But we plug along, showing, hopefully, that our choices are ours, we are good people, and being loving and kind and understanding with our loved ones is very often a great healer.

If the family tradition is bound up in authoritarianism and totalitarianism, yes, bucking the family tradition will be difficult because you'll be kicking against the pricks.

If the family tradition is not authoritarian or totalitarian, changing the tradition is met with tolerance and curiosity. There is nothing "natural" or inevitable about fighting over religion. It is how people are taught to be "religious" that is the issue, and not all families are taught the same way.

My FIL is a preacher, and my MIL probably would have been a preacher or a missionary had she been a man, growing up when she did, or growing up a woman today. Of their three children, only one remains Christian, married to a Christian, and they are both more fundie than the parents. Of the two other children, one is atheist, one is Christian/Hindu/Buddhist mixed, and both are married to Buddhists. Of the children married to Buddhists, one's married to a Vietnamese Buddhist. Since he can't speak her language very well, and she can't speak his, they don't talk religion much at all. This situation causes no tension in the family, and we do MUCH religious stuff together--going to church, discussing religious texts and commentaries, watching documentaries. It's all aided, though, by my FIL's wide-ranging curiosity and interests, combined with his liberal broad-mindedness.

Bucking tradition isn't difficult when the tradition is tolerance.

You should challenge your mother to read the Book of Mormon.