the question is...should we exepct every ex-member to act as either case?I've not suggested otherwise. :)For those who drop all mention of their past, great for them. But does this mean this is the best way for all?Personally I see constructive and destructive ways of dealing with ones past. I don't have much of a problem taking people for their word when they describe hate or anger or whatever in regards to the Church after they leave. However, I do worry about the level of blame, or the amount of time dedicated to such a pursuit. I also worry about the black and white view that some people often take, where the Church becomes the Devil incarnate and everything "it" does is totally evil. And some just can't seem to stop complaining about it. Couldn't that time be better spent? It's like crying over spilled milk. There can be a time for so doing, but how much is too much before a person just becomes a victim who only sees evil in the other side? It's oddly the same feeling some members might have for them: a black and white, (you're evil and I'm good), outlook, and it's not psychologically healthy. I don't exepct people to forget about their past, but I hope at the same time they will extend a little charity, the same they want members of the Church to extend to them. Oddly, some demand from others what they are unwilling to give. And I see that as a problem. I'm just hoping you will see that even for individuals like McCraney who leave and then attack the church (which fortunately you recognize this is different than those who leave in general), even these individuals have reasons for doing such. In regards to McCraney, he appears to be more theologically motivated than anything we have talked about between you and I. His former-Mormon identity gives him a certain level of prestige among his co-religionists, and one that he plays up as much as he can on his television program. Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew.
5 of 11 Comments Show All 11 Comments
Tyrone Smith 06 Jul 2017
NICE!!!Anonymous Guest 16 Jul 2012
the question is...should we exepct every ex-member to act as either case?I've not suggested otherwise. :)For those who drop all mention of their past, great for them. But does this mean this is the best way for all?Personally I see constructive and destructive ways of dealing with ones past. I don't have much of a problem taking people for their word when they describe hate or anger or whatever in regards to the Church after they leave. However, I do worry about the level of blame, or the amount of time dedicated to such a pursuit. I also worry about the black and white view that some people often take, where the Church becomes the Devil incarnate and everything "it" does is totally evil. And some just can't seem to stop complaining about it. Couldn't that time be better spent? It's like crying over spilled milk. There can be a time for so doing, but how much is too much before a person just becomes a victim who only sees evil in the other side? It's oddly the same feeling some members might have for them: a black and white, (you're evil and I'm good), outlook, and it's not psychologically healthy. I don't exepct people to forget about their past, but I hope at the same time they will extend a little charity, the same they want members of the Church to extend to them. Oddly, some demand from others what they are unwilling to give. And I see that as a problem. I'm just hoping you will see that even for individuals like McCraney who leave and then attack the church (which fortunately you recognize this is different than those who leave in general), even these individuals have reasons for doing such. In regards to McCraney, he appears to be more theologically motivated than anything we have talked about between you and I. His former-Mormon identity gives him a certain level of prestige among his co-religionists, and one that he plays up as much as he can on his television program. Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew.sylvia jones 03 Jul 2012
Great piece!!William J Murray 01 Jul 2012
Amazing !Debi Day 01 Jul 2012
great art!