In Which I'm laying awake at night wondering

[alas]

I know what you mean about not wanting to take some certain people with me if leaving Omelas. One non church example is my SIL. There are several things she knows, but refuses to think about what it all means. One example, her husband is my brother, who was SERIOUSLY brain injured in a hunting accident. Yet, from what she posts on face book, you would think she works for the NRA. Then the next day, she posts a guy (think duck dynasty) saying his rifle isn't the answer, but Jesus is. But her Jesus is not loving and kind, but a hellfire and damnation monster. The only thing in her world that Jesus loves is cute animals. Now, if anyone on God's green earth should understand the danger of guns, and be against gun ownership for Bambi blasting and bunny blasting, you would think that the wife of someone who struggles daily with the results of a gun with a faulty safety that went off inside a jeep and hit my brother point blank in the head, would. She is outraged about people who would kill cute bunnies, but my brother was rabbit hunting when the safety on that gun failed. So, she is violently anti hunting, but a 2nd amendment nut case. Why does she want everybody to own guns? It sure isn't to go hunting animals. So, that leaves killing people. So, she knows the dangers of guns better than most, hates anyone who hunts, but is raging pro gun ownership. She is the same way about bad mouthing anyone of color, even native Americans. ?...but I better not go on or someone might identify her.

But then we come face to face with what about people who know the way the church hurts people? My husband for example. He saw me get blamed for the sexual abuse, even though I didn't know what sexua intercourse was when the abuse started. Somehow I was supposed to prevent what I didn't even understand from someone I totally trusted. We have a lesbian daughter who has resigned from the church along with her wife. He also knows the ugly church history. But church makes him feel good, so he is choosing to stay in Olmelas because he "likes it."

How are we supposed to deal with someone who chooses to stay when they know? When people walk away from Omelas, they supposedly walk away from their family too. But here I am still living with someone who likes it in Omelas and knows about the child.

[Jeffret]

This idea that "people have the right to self determination, as we say in my field" has been bothering me lately.
...
So, are our professional ethics of "respect the beliefs of the client" really what is best for our clients and is our respecting the beliefs of friends and family really what is best for them.
...
I taught my kids to be critical thinkers about the ads they saw on TV and what their friends told them. But I did not tell them the ugly side of church history. Now I wonder.

I think there are a few different things going on in your comments here, alas. I'm trying to pick out some statements representative of at least three that I see.

I really wouldn't be able to address the aspect of professional ethics. There are lots of complicated considerations that have gone into it. I would say that a good professional should be able to leave their own biases and fears out of it, thought admittedly that is very difficult. A therapist really can't force a client to see things differently, though. And it would be very dangerous for therapists to be convinced that they necessarily have the wisdom to know what clients should do in their lives. That sounds like religion.

With friends and family, most of them really don't want to know anything different from what they believe. We can try feeding them facts, but it's worse than trying to force the proverbial horse to drink. If they want to talk about it, I'm always willing to do so. They very rarely really do. I don't believe that respecting their beliefs does any real harm. Some of them might possibly say, I wish you had told me sooner, but in almost all cases telling them sooner wouldn't have really improved anything. Sometimes it would have just induced them to become more entrenched. On the other hand, respecting their beliefs is generally a positive, civil, relationship-building thing to do.

Talking things over with one's own kids can be different matter, depending upon their ages and the family situation. If they're grown, and out of the house, and established, then it's probably pretty much like other family members. They're probably pretty established in their beliefs and they're not going to just change because a parent says so. With teens it might be the same way, depending upon whether they want to establish their independence. With kids I think it's generally good to try and expose them to some of that ugly side of church history, or to give them a more complete view, if they're open to that.

With our kids, they listened to a lot of discussions their mom and I had, including some of the problematic issues of church history and current behavior. They've never had as much reason to study it as I had. During some of their teenage years, even though they weren't attending church they didn't seem very interested in hearing about that. In their early adulthood, though, they've been interested in discussing some of that though at times.

[Thoughtful]

I know what you mean about not wanting to take some certain people with me if leaving Omelas. One non church example is my SIL. There are several things she knows, but refuses to think about what it all means. One example, her husband is my brother, who was SERIOUSLY brain injured in a hunting accident. Yet, from what she posts on face book, you would think she works for the NRA. Then the next day, she posts a guy (think duck dynasty) saying his rifle isn't the answer, but Jesus is. But her Jesus is not loving and kind, but a hellfire and damnation monster. The only thing in her world that Jesus loves is cute animals. Now, if anyone on God's green earth should understand the danger of guns, and be against gun ownership for Bambi blasting and bunny blasting, you would think that the wife of someone who struggles daily with the results of a gun with a faulty safety that went off inside a jeep and hit my brother point blank in the head, would. She is outraged about people who would kill cute bunnies, but my brother was rabbit hunting when the safety on that gun failed. So, she is violently anti hunting, but a 2nd amendment nut case. Why does she want everybody to own guns? It sure isn't to go hunting animals. So, that leaves killing people. So, she knows the dangers of guns better than most, hates anyone who hunts, but is raging pro gun ownership. She is the same way about bad mouthing anyone of color, even native Americans. ?...but I better not go on or someone might identify her.

But then we come face to face with what about people who know the way the church hurts people? My husband for example. He saw me get blamed for the sexual abuse, even though I didn't know what sexua intercourse was when the abuse started. Somehow I was supposed to prevent what I didn't even understand from someone I totally trusted. We have a lesbian daughter who has resigned from the church along with her wife. He also knows the ugly church history. But church makes him feel good, so he is choosing to stay in Olmelas because he "likes it."

How are we supposed to deal with someone who chooses to stay when they know? When people walk away from Omelas, they supposedly walk away from their family too. But here I am still living with someone who likes it in Omelas and knows about the child.

My head hurts about your SIL. I had a FB discussion recently about Trump and a myriad of issues with his behavior and my friends & family say things like they just don't believe those things happened. There are videos showing it happening in real time, but no, they just figure it's all made up and believe what they want to believe. Then my head explodes.

My spouseman also seems to be happy in Omelas. He knows the history. He's seen me have several full blown meltdowns over how church history affects the way my daughters and I are currently treated. But he feels like he's a good person because of the church and he would have done bad things if not. What we end up with is that the scapegoat is women, LGBT, the poor, the widows, THE LEAST OF THESE instead of Jesus. All of these taking institutionalized abuse and loss of self determination because he's a better person as a result. I'm sure he doesn't quantify it like that, but then I'm on the receiving end of the abuse from the church so it's hard for me to try to unsee that his privilege is on our backs.

[Not Buying It]

You cannot get a member to see the truth about the Church if they are not ready to. You should not blame yourself that you can't get them to.

Many of us have believing family members who will never allow themselves to see the Church for what it is. In my book, you do the best you can to deal with the situation and feel no shame, tolerate no guilt, entertain no regret, and accept no blame. You didn't create the situation - Joseph Smith did almost 200 years ago. There is no one best answer on how to deal with it, everyone's situation is different. But don't ever get down on yourself - and don't ever let anyone else get you down - for how you dealt with it. You did the best you could in a really sucky situation with no instructions on how to handle it. You didn't earn guilt and shame for it.

Remember that, my NOM friends. You did the best you could in a situation with no easy answers that you didn't create, and no one deserves guilt and shame for that.

[alas]

I guess the professional ethics part of this is primarily rhetorical.

But the how do we associate with the people who know the history, know the church hurts some people, and yet feel they are better for their participation in the church, is real enough.

And unfortunately, I feel that the TBMs who overlook the damage to family members, the tRump supporters who overlook the real things he does and says, the gun rights nut cases (don't misunderstand, I have family that still hunt, and I do support the 2nd amendment, but realistically, not everyone has every right to own every gun) the tRump supporters who overlook his racism toward Native Americans who adopted Navaho children, I think they all have the same emotional characteristics.

There is something the same about my DH who feels church is good for him, but overlooks that it is harmful to me and our lesbian daughter, my SIL who supports unlimited gun ownership with a husband who was almost killed by a gun malfunction, my friend who refuses to see Trump's racism but has 4 full blood Navaho children because Supreme Court. They all have the same kind of inconsistency. My SIL is the one driving me crazy because I can't see why she is such a rabid 2nd amendment nut. And I have to admit, there are other things where I think she seems oblivious to the harm, because the harm is somebody else.

When I understand why they resolve their cog dis the way they do, I find it more forgivable. Even when I still disagree.

So, maybe that is the key. Understanding why they resolve their cognitive dissonance the way that they do makes it easier to live with them.

[Thoughtful]

I guess the professional ethics part of this is primarily rhetorical.

But the how do we associate with the people who know the history, know the church hurts some people, and yet feel they are better for their participation in the church, is real enough.

And unfortunately, I feel that the TBMs who overlook the damage to family members, the tRump supporters who overlook the real things he does and says, the gun rights nut cases (don't misunderstand, I have family that still hunt, and I do support the 2nd amendment, but realistically, not everyone has every right to own every gun) the tRump supporters who overlook his racism toward Native Americans who adopted Navaho children, I think they all have the same emotional characteristics.

There is something the same about my DH who feels church is good for him, but overlooks that it is harmful to me and our lesbian daughter, my SIL who supports unlimited gun ownership with a husband who was almost killed by a gun malfunction, my friend who refuses to see Trump's racism but has 4 full blood Navaho children because Supreme Court. They all have the same kind of inconsistency. My SIL is the one driving me crazy because I can't see why she is such a rabid 2nd amendment nut. And I have to admit, there are other things where I think she seems oblivious to the harm, because the harm is somebody else.

When I understand why they resolve their cog dis the way they do, I find it more forgivable. Even when I still disagree.

So, maybe that is the key. Understanding why they resolve their cognitive dissonance the way that they do makes it easier to live with them.

I sometimes wonder what kind of a blaring blind self I have. I'm sure we are all our own worst enemies, we just see the contradictions in others more easily than ourselves. I think there are some people who don't want to be self aware too.