Is NOM really "middle way" to any extent anymore?

[Linked]

NOM is a forum of thoughtful people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the mormon church, but still have the mormon church on their mind for their own reasons; in many cases those reasons are a believing spouse. It's less antagonistic than some sites, but isn't welcoming for people who still hold some belief in the mormon church.

I don't know if there is a middle way for mormonism. I spent no time in what I would consider the middle way, though I have spent several years processing what it means for the church to not be true. At the start I really disliked posts that were openly antagonistic toward the mormon church, but since then have gone through my own angry phases. I think there is value in a place where the antagonism is not encouraged so those who are starting their way out have a home. But with the internet it seems like there are dozens of mormon sites with different aims, so there is no need to force NOM to fill that niche cause other sites cover it.

[moksha]

NOM is a forum of thoughtful people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the mormon church, but still have the mormon church on their mind for their own reasons; in many cases those reasons are a believing spouse.

I want to see the Church succeed because I think it can still be a source of good in the world. Perhaps this needs to be considered like the case of some alcoholics who can only accept help once they have hit an absolute rock bottom. Then it can begin on the positive path of recovery. Until that time, it is important for their friends to not be enablers, but also not to abandon them if they finally seek redemption.

[alas]

NOM is a forum of thoughtful people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the mormon church, but still have the mormon church on their mind for their own reasons; in many cases those reasons are a believing spouse.

I want to see the Church succeed because I think it can still be a source of good in the world. Perhaps this needs to be considered like the case of some alcoholics who can only accept help once they have hit an absolute rock bottom. Then it can begin on the positive path of recovery. Until that time, it is important for their friends to not be enablers, but also not to abandon them if they finally seek redemption.

But if you remain active, it is exactly like remaining married to the alcoholic. You may waste your whole life waiting, sticking around in the hope that rock bottom will come sooner rather than later, and that it doesn’t destroy you in the process. Like I said before, I did that some thirty years and I hit the point that the alcoholics behavior was just too harmful for me to stick around waiting for the church to get a clue and repent of the harmful behavior.

Maybe if you have a relationship with the church that is more like your child, and you can protect yourself from them damaging your life as addicts do, by stealing money for drugs and ruining every family get together by showing up drunk.

Nope, I have gone into tough love mode. If the church ever makes major changes, maybe I will let it back into my life.

[Red Ryder]

NOM is a forum of thoughtful people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the mormon church, but still have the mormon church on their mind for their own reasons; in many cases those reasons are a believing spouse.

I want to see the Church succeed because I think it can still be a source of good in the world. Perhaps this needs to be considered like the case of some alcoholics who can only accept help once they have hit an absolute rock bottom. Then it can begin on the positive path of recovery. Until that time, it is important for their friends to not be enablers, but also not to abandon them if they finally seek redemption.

But if you remain active, it is exactly like remaining married to the alcoholic. You may waste your whole life waiting, sticking around in the hope that rock bottom will come sooner rather than later, and that it doesn’t destroy you in the process. Like I said before, I did that some thirty years and I hit the point that the alcoholics behavior was just too harmful for me to stick around waiting for the church to get a clue and repent of the harmful behavior.

Maybe if you have a relationship with the church that is more like your child, and you can protect yourself from them damaging your life as addicts do, by stealing money for drugs and ruining every family get together by showing up drunk.

Nope, I have gone into tough love mode. If the church ever makes major changes, maybe I will let it back into my life.

What’s the point if it still isn’t what it claims to be? No amount of change can compensate for the evidence that Joseph Smith made it all up!

It was never true. It will never be true.

[Linked]

NOM is a forum of thoughtful people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the mormon church, but still have the mormon church on their mind for their own reasons; in many cases those reasons are a believing spouse.

I want to see the Church succeed because I think it can still be a source of good in the world. Perhaps this needs to be considered like the case of some alcoholics who can only accept help once they have hit an absolute rock bottom. Then it can begin on the positive path of recovery. Until that time, it is important for their friends to not be enablers, but also not to abandon them if they finally seek redemption.

I had a chance to visit my mission last year and had some seriously mixed feelings there. Church activity really seems to have helped a couple we had baptized. They weren't consistently employed when we met, but now they have a car and a house and a consistent job. I think the encouragement and responsibilities they receive from the church really did help them. Even in its current form the church can have an impact for good.

And to take your metaphor literally, the mormon church reduces the number of alcoholics, which is good for society and for the individuals who might otherwise be alcoholics.

But to take your metaphor literally, I suppose the church could make a turn to be more helpful than harmful. I just really dislike the capital T Truth portion of the church, and it is so deeply ingrained that I don't know if it can live without it. A lot of the bad I find in the church is related to the Truth claims.

[moksha]

What’s the point if it still isn’t what it claims to be? No amount of change can compensate for the evidence that Joseph Smith made it all up!

It was never true. It will never be true.

Doesn't matter if the foundational claims are bogus. The Church still exists, is a money-making entity, and has the potential for good. It is up to us as individuals to decide what constitutes enabling behavior. I would hate for someone like Alas to be burnt by the fire while a better church is being forged.

I think the Church will require good-hearted members with a sense of manageable distance to support, from the bottom up, the eventual softening the hearts of those at the top. It seems like an unreachable goal, but perhaps the Don Quixotes among us could solve this dilemma. If not then it will slowly dwindle.

[Mackman]

I think after all is said and done the church will become just like the Coc and they take the attitude of we believe in Christ and very basic Christian beliefs its up to you what else you want to believe !!! I see Temple rec. Questions changing to do you believe in JC !!!! Which is what it should have been in the first place. Maybe this is just my hope but it would be nice if I lived long enough to see it !!! (I am 59) In the meantime I will just believe what I want and discard the rest !!!!!

[Ghost]

A few years ago, those attempting to find a "middle way" were assailed by critics among the faithful and also among those who had moved on. You just couldn't please anyone if you were neither hot nor cold. I think it's interesting that now even NOM members disparage the NOM approach. (Not saying anyone shouldn't share such opinions, of course. I enjoy the resulting discussion.)

Years ago, it bothered me when people would say that it's only a matter of time after you begin questioning that you will inevitably become an ex-Mormon. I resisted the idea that some random person on the Internet who wasn't even speaking to me specifically thought they could accurately predict the path my life would take.

Now, I'm fine with the idea that the "middle way" may very well be a temporary, transitional state. Everything else is, too, including life itself. That doesn't make it any less valid, either in the short or long term.

I think it would be a shame if NOM were to become nothing but a gentler ex-Mormon site, since its value for me has come from it being a comfortable place to work through things without pressure to come to a particular conclusion.

[Mackman]

I think their will always be a place at Nom for both the transitioner on their way to becoming an exmo and the unorthodox Mormon who is wiling to stay for family enjoying the benefits of being in a community

[SeeNoEvil]

I'm just going to jump in here with my 2 cents. I began posting on the old NOM back in early 2012. Life really sucked back then and did so for several years. My shelf fell in 2011 surrounded by a boat load of TBM friends, family and the husband. I had no one to talk to and I was trapped; suffocating in the Mormon bubble. I didn't know what the heck I was doing. I felt like a fish out of water flopping around gasping for air. I'd lost my church, my foundation and my god all in one full sweep. I was angry. I turned to the internet and found NOM.

I was never a true blue NOMer as defined on the site back then so I suppose I came on the scene under false pretenses. I just plain wanted out and needed support in navigating through the rubble. I confess, I didn't read the statement about being the "middle way," and I'm glad I didn't because it would have turned me away. I never wanted to find middle ground I just needed to know I wasn't going crazy.

It was a rough journey as it is for almost all of us. NOM was here for me every step of the way. I can't say it enough - NOM was my lifesaver. I didn't turn to any other sites; NOM was where I felt home. NOM serves the same purpose today just as it did way back when. Support. Do we really have to define who we are? We are definitely all not on the same page as to why we come here or why we leave but it is what we all at one time or another needed. Support. No matter if we arrived on NOM 10 years ago or yesterday, the one common denominator we all have is that we've discovered the lie and it destroyed us. We hurt, we're confused and we want help. I think I can safely say for most here we have absolutely no one to talk to about this. How our journey looks or the reasons for being here don't really matter does it? We just want to be heard and understood. We need to know we aren't going crazy. Maybe the goals of NOM needs to be readdressed. I see NOM to be a place of support as we redefine our relationship with the Mormon church and a God. Whether we decide to stay and find a middle way or leave, NOM should be there no matter what.

It does get better. Today, 8 years later I am happily divorced. Seven of my eight children and my self included have left the church. I'm happy and living as authentic as I can. It was NOM who got me through.

[Not Buying It]

What’s the point if it still isn’t what it claims to be? No amount of change can compensate for the evidence that Joseph Smith made it all up!

It was never true. It will never be true.

Doesn't matter if the foundational claims are bogus. The Church still exists, is a money-making entity, and has the potential for good. It is up to us as individuals to decide what constitutes enabling behavior. I would hate for someone like Alas to be burnt by the fire while a better church is being forged.

I think the Church will require good-hearted members with a sense of manageable distance to support, from the bottom up, the eventual softening the hearts of those at the top. It seems like an unreachable goal, but perhaps the Don Quixotes among us could solve this dilemma. If not then it will slowly dwindle.

I respectfully disagree. The potential for good that the Church has rests on a boondoggle. It does matter that the foundational claims are bogus, because those foundational claims are the only thing that keeps most members doing anything in the Church, from whence the potential for good derives. Take away the foundational claims and you take away most members’ motivation to do many of the good things the Church tells them to do. For example, the Church tells them to fulfill a calling - how many members would keep doing that if they all knew that calling doesn’t really come from God? The Church tells them to serve others - they would find their opportunities to serve elsewhere if they knew the Church isn’t what it claims to be.

The only reason the Church has power to do good is because it has deceived its members into thinking it is the source of that good. Take that deception away, and the Church loses that power. Not that the members won’t still want to love and serve others - but they will choose to do it outside of the Church that demanded so much of them yet misled them.

The Church needs the deception to get members to do what it wants. Take the deception away and no one will listen to it anymore, and its potential for good evaporates completely.

[Not Buying It]

It was NOM who got me through.

I’ll second that. Back when I had no one to talk to about my disaffection, NOM got me through too. So a heartfelt thanks, NOM.

[alas]

What’s the point if it still isn’t what it claims to be? No amount of change can compensate for the evidence that Joseph Smith made it all up!

It was never true. It will never be true.

Doesn't matter if the foundational claims are bogus. The Church still exists, is a money-making entity, and has the potential for good. It is up to us as individuals to decide what constitutes enabling behavior. I would hate for someone like Alas to be burnt by the fire while a better church is being forged.

I think the Church will require good-hearted members with a sense of manageable distance to support, from the bottom up, the eventual softening the hearts of those at the top. It seems like an unreachable goal, but perhaps the Don Quixotes among us could solve this dilemma. If not then it will slowly dwindle.

I respectfully disagree. The potential for good that the Church has rests on a boondoggle. It does matter that the foundational claims are bogus, because those foundational claims are the only thing that keeps most members doing anything in the Church, from whence the potential for good derives. Take away the foundational claims and you take away most members’ motivation to do many of the good things the Church tells them to do. For example, the Church tells them to fulfill a calling - how many members would keep doing that if they all knew that calling doesn’t really come from God? The Church tells them to serve others - they would find their opportunities to serve elsewhere if they knew the Church isn’t what it claims to be.

The only reason the Church has power to do good is because it has deceived its members into thinking it is the source of that good. Take that deception away, and the Church loses that power. Not that the members won’t still want to love and serve others - but they will choose to do it outside of the Church that demanded so much of them yet misled them.

The Church needs the deception to get members to do what it wants. Take the deception away and no one will listen to it anymore, and its potential for good evaporates completely.

I do understand this perspective, but I am going to agree with Moksha. See, this is kind of a cynical view of the people in Mormonism. I have faith that the people are good even if the top leaders are corrupt. So, I think that while some would desert the church if it slowly moved from being more harmful to being more good for people, that most would stay. The church could gradually stop pounding “one true church” into people’s heads and most wouldn’t even notice. How many people noticed that Monson never testified about the BoM? Just us NOMs. They could adopt more of the changes Nelson is implementing, one or two per year and pretty soon the church could stop being a damaging, guilt and shame based organization. They could start giving more sermons in GC about how God’s love for us in unconditional. OK, maybe not this one under RMN, but maybe God really COULD give him some inspiration and change his tune a bit. Maybe Wendy could forget the “Not Even Once Club” and start an “I Took Advantage of the Atonement Club.” The people are basically good, loving people and their community is the church. They will still serve in their community and still be good people *in spite” of the leadership and what they say.

But my problem with this, and where I disagree with Moksha is that I don’t think the change can come from the bottom up. The church is much too top down. I think the bottom has been good for generations while the top gets more and more corrupt, unloving, and harmful. The things that are harmful start at the top, and hurt people all the way down. Youth interviews. That is the top insisting we need to keep them. If the top said tomorrow that all youth interviews and temple recommend interviews would end and it would be between the individual and God if they entered the temple, then the bottom would stop all youth and TR interviews.

Look at how easily the harmful crap from the temple was erased. The faithful didn’t bat an eye, while us apostates all screamed, “proof it was never of God to start with”. See, the faithful follow like the good sheep that they are, and they get fleeced on a regular basis, but they still follow. They don’t care that they get fleeced on a regular basis. It is only us goats that got rejected for lack of wool, that feel rejected and are standing outside the fence trying to tell the sheep they are getting fleeced that have any problem with the whole thing. Us goats have a different personality than the sheep, which is OK, just different. I happen to LIKE goats.

But the sheep don’t need “the one true church” because they will take whatever the shepherds give them and be happy to be part of the herd. It is us goats who don’t have that loyalty to the herd, but have loyalty to truth that needed “the one true church” so we all left when we didn’t find truth. But the sheep like my husband like the herd and don’t really give a crap about Truth. The sheep stay with the herd even if it means getting fleeced. But us goats run from the herd if we see someone coming at us with sheers.

[Not Buying It]

Doesn't matter if the foundational claims are bogus. The Church still exists, is a money-making entity, and has the potential for good. It is up to us as individuals to decide what constitutes enabling behavior. I would hate for someone like Alas to be burnt by the fire while a better church is being forged.

I think the Church will require good-hearted members with a sense of manageable distance to support, from the bottom up, the eventual softening the hearts of those at the top. It seems like an unreachable goal, but perhaps the Don Quixotes among us could solve this dilemma. If not then it will slowly dwindle.

I respectfully disagree. The potential for good that the Church has rests on a boondoggle. It does matter that the foundational claims are bogus, because those foundational claims are the only thing that keeps most members doing anything in the Church, from whence the potential for good derives. Take away the foundational claims and you take away most members’ motivation to do many of the good things the Church tells them to do. For example, the Church tells them to fulfill a calling - how many members would keep doing that if they all knew that calling doesn’t really come from God? The Church tells them to serve others - they would find their opportunities to serve elsewhere if they knew the Church isn’t what it claims to be.

The only reason the Church has power to do good is because it has deceived its members into thinking it is the source of that good. Take that deception away, and the Church loses that power. Not that the members won’t still want to love and serve others - but they will choose to do it outside of the Church that demanded so much of them yet misled them.

The Church needs the deception to get members to do what it wants. Take the deception away and no one will listen to it anymore, and its potential for good evaporates completely.

I do understand this perspective, but I am going to agree with Moksha. See, this is kind of a cynical view of the people in Mormonism. I have faith that the people are good even if the top leaders are corrupt. So, I think that while some would desert the church if it slowly moved from being more harmful to being more good for people, that most would stay. The church could gradually stop pounding “one true church” into people’s heads and most wouldn’t even notice. How many people noticed that Monson never testified about the BoM? Just us NOMs. They could adopt more of the changes Nelson is implementing, one or two per year and pretty soon the church could stop being a damaging, guilt and shame based organization. They could start giving more sermons in GC about how God’s love for us in unconditional. OK, maybe not this one under RMN, but maybe God really COULD give him some inspiration and change his tune a bit. Maybe Wendy could forget the “Not Even Once Club” and start an “I Took Advantage of the Atonement Club.” The people are basically good, loving people and their community is the church. They will still serve in their community and still be good people *in spite” of the leadership and what they say.

But my problem with this, and where I disagree with Moksha is that I don’t think the change can come from the bottom up. The church is much too top down. I think the bottom has been good for generations while the top gets more and more corrupt, unloving, and harmful. The things that are harmful start at the top, and hurt people all the way down. Youth interviews. That is the top insisting we need to keep them. If the top said tomorrow that all youth interviews and temple recommend interviews would end and it would be between the individual and God if they entered the temple, then the bottom would stop all youth and TR interviews.

Look at how easily the harmful crap from the temple was erased. The faithful didn’t bat an eye, while us apostates all screamed, “proof it was never of God to start with”. See, the faithful follow like the good sheep that they are, and they get fleeced on a regular basis, but they still follow. They don’t care that they get fleeced on a regular basis. It is only us goats that got rejected for lack of wool, that feel rejected and are standing outside the fence trying to tell the sheep they are getting fleeced that have any problem with the whole thing. Us goats have a different personality than the sheep, which is OK, just different. I happen to LIKE goats.

But the sheep don’t need “the one true church” because they will take whatever the shepherds give them and be happy to be part of the herd. It is us goats who don’t have that loyalty to the herd, but have loyalty to truth that needed “the one true church” so we all left when we didn’t find truth. But the sheep like my husband like the herd and don’t really give a crap about Truth. The sheep stay with the herd even if it means getting fleeced. But us goats run from the herd if we see someone coming at us with sheers.

Well, I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, you do have a point that being part of a social group is really what many Mormons want from the Church, and the truth is that most of them couldn’t give two flying flips about doctrine or policy. Most of them are completely unfazed by the implication of recent changes that maybe policies and doctrines that changed weren’t inspired in the first place. What you say is very true - many members are just “happy to be part of the herd”, and that is enough for them.

And yet - the Church relies heavily on volunteer labor. It literally could not function without members who are willing to give their time and work for free. And what keeps members giving that time and labor is a belief that this is God’s Church and they will be blessed for it - along with a healthy dose of social pressure. Think of all the senior missionaries who wouldn’t give up years with their grandkids to do unpaid labor in Church businesses if they didn’t think God would bless them for it. How many bishops and stake presidents and young men’s leaders would do everything the Church expects them to do without the carrot of blessings from God being dangled in front of them? What primary teacher or nursery leader in their right mind keeps dealing with others people’s kids every Sunday if they don’t think that’s what God wants them to do? And there’s all the meaningless busywork, the temple work for the dead and the mind-numbingly boring meetings - I really don’t think most members would keep doing those things if they didn’t think God wanted them to.

I agree, a lot of members would stick with the herd because a herd is all they are really looking for. But I don’t see how the functions of the herd would ever get done without the motivation of thinking it’s God’s herd and he expects you to do what you are asked to do. Yes, it’s a cynical view, but it is also based on years of observation watching people do things in the Church they really didn’t want to do. Give them an out and they will take it.

I will agree that the Church cannot change from the bottom up. The Brethren are far too insulated, surrounded by toadies, and used to getting their way with members.

[slavereeno]

This is a good question. I am only middle way in that I am not willing to give my DW an intense amount of grief over it. If it wouldn't cause her so much grief, I would resign tomorrow and put this all behind me.

[Corsair]

I will agree that the Church cannot change from the bottom up. The Brethren are far too insulated, surrounded by toadies, and used to getting their way with members.

Correct. The only thing we can actually change is ourselves and how we deal with high demand social groups. The best long term attitude towards the institutional church is indifference. The church wants to be loved, but will accept people who hate it. It doesn't know what to do with people who find it irrelevant.

[nibbler]

I think the rank and file members do cause change, but only indirectly. For instance, I don't think we'd see all the changes in the temple since 1989 if not for what was going on among the rank and file.

The average member can cause leaders to get off their butts and change through agitation; Protect Every Child, Ordain Women, etc. Usually leaders will only change once the tide turns and not changing causes a larger black eye than changing. The average member can also cause leaders to implement a change through indifference. Home Teaching, low temple attendance, inactivity, etc. In the past both of these member driven changes have been sloooooooow to happen. Maybe it's the leaders preserving ego, wanting to make it clear that it's not public opinion that drives the change so they bide their time. Maybe the leaders are just that conservative and every step they take is held back by fear of change.

The difference is that it's never acceptable to be out ahead of the leaders. You can't make a change in your personal life and not experience any negative side effects in the community.

When the POX came out, if you were against it you were being led astray by Satan, a wicked apostate, whatever negative label the faithful could throw at you. When the POX was rescinded (probably due to it being bad PR) suddenly the faithful are on board with what was once seen as an apostate view. Heck, it's been my experience that the faithful will continue to find ways to throw the members that changed before the leaders gave everyone permission to change under the proverbial bus. You can't win when one of your differences butts heads with a church policy or doctrine.

But that appears to be the nature of change in the church. Polygamy makes you feel icky? You aren't going to super VIP heaven... until a leader changes the policy/doctrine. Feel like black people should be ordained to the priesthood? You're going to have serious problems until 1978. Think three hours of church is too much, you get tired of waiting for a leader to give the green light, so you decide to only attend SM? You're going to have people insisting that you aren't doing what you should be doing... until Nelson says it's okay to only go to church for two hours. Thumb your nose at the rule not to drink coffee? Want to give women the PH? Treat LGBTQ+ people like they're every bit the god in embryo that every else is? You're going to have problems until the leaders give people permission to believe a certain way. It's a culture that looks to authority in everything.

[Mackman]

Yes, I think believe what you believe and be indifferent about the rest is the best way to be in the Middle !!! There is a Middleway Mormonism for sure . Patrick Mason describes it just that way in his book Planted.

[Redcrown27]

I feel like the last few years of the first NOM it was no longer a middle way site. It turned into a website meant for former believers to rant and get advice on how to manage relationships with friends and family who were still TBM.

I feel that NOM is one of many sites someone can use whether they want to stay in, transition out or just get advice from people who have a better idea of what they might have been going through.

I was never an extremely active poster on the old nom. I feel like I posted when I needed to vent or get advice.

I am grateful for StayLDS, NOM and this new NOM. I feel this sites help people continue with their journey through life. People stop posting because they do not need it anymore or they move to another forum site that is a better fit for them.

I feel that maybe if I run across a forum site meant for a former LDS that transitioned into Christianity that would be the site for me.

Until I find this Mormon to Christian forum site I will sometimes post here. Even if I find this other more ideal Forum Site for me I still will sometimes post here.

I feel that this new NOM will still serve a purpose for those who are falling our any need someone to catch them while they figure out where to go next.

[Anon70]

Yes, I think believe what you believe and be indifferent about the rest is the best way to be in the Middle !!! There is a Middleway Mormonism for sure . Patrick Mason describes it just that way in his book Planted.

When I was in the beginnings of my faith crisis I was so angry and wanted to argue everything with everyone and make sure everyone “knew” the truth!! 5ish years (4ish??) later I am fairly unemotional. I find myself rolling my eyes a bit and somewhat surprised that people believe all this crazy stuff. Mostly I kind of feel vaguely embarrassed to be still associated with all the crazy. Indifferent is a great description for where I’m at now. My only wish is that I could stop going but I’m stuck for a few more years because of the church’s control over my family and important family events. I keep hoping the church quits holding sealings etc hostage with TRs but I doubt it’ll happen.