In response to my own post, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” I came up with some interesting ideas of what’s in it for me by not deciding - by sitting on the fence, or in the lawn chair at the crossroads.
By not deciding, I’m maintaining the status quo, which is the path of least resistance and least disruptive to my family.
By sitting on the fence, I get to work both sides of the fence.
A huge part of this is my (self-perceived) place in the communities on both sides of the Mormon/DAMU divide. I have a lot of my ego tied up in being Nanna P, DAMU denizen and pontificator. Not as well known (but still someone people recognize) is Ann the Bloggernacler. Shallow, but there it is … in both places, I’m “somebody.” Without them, I just another working stiff. By staying on the fence I can be a welcome (beloved!) participant in both groups, as long as I adhere to the appropriate social norms for each (which is pretty easy to do, because I want to be liked). But because I’m on the fence, I won’t ever be wholly in either group.
And then of course there’s the really big inhibiting factor: fear. Fear of everything. Fear of being duped again. Fear of making the wrong decision. Fear of making a big change, but nothing really changing.
So because I am basically a coward, I’ll probably just stay here in the lawn chair at the crossroads for a while longer. There be dragons down those roads.
(This is probably my public navel-gazing quota for the year. Thanks for the space.)
I don’t want to come across sounding judgemental at all–this is just a thought I had while reading your previous post about leaving or staying. In our RS lesson a couple weeks ago we heard a story–this is it paraphrased (and probably butchered).
When the RS presidency changed a few decades back the new presidency looked at all the social engagments they were supposed to take part in–the clubs, the women’s organizations, the symposiums, etc. One of the ones on the list was the Women’s Party of something or other, and they met annually in NY, which is obviously a fairly significant trip from UT. The new president went to the prophet and told him that they were probably going to drop their membership because even though they went every year it seemed they weren’t really getting anything out of it–especially as the women’s rights movement became more militant. His response, rather than being okay with it, was that she was looking at it the wrong way. “Have you ever thought,” he asked, “about what you’re giving to it?”
My first reaction to this was that they shouldn’t have to give, but then I realized that this question can be taken many different ways. One way I’ve decided to look at the story is that sometimes it is not the actual actions we do, but rather our example that ends up giving the most to the organization.
I grew up in So-Cal and I really disliked almost all of my YW’s leaders. I thought they were rather shallow and seemed much more worried about appearances and numbers rather than the doctrines of the Church and including the “different” (read: less-active) girls. This was really hard for me to take and I quit going to mutual and other activities numerous times. But I distinctly remember certain young mothers who I looked up to immensely, because they were clearly focused on other things–including education, building strong families, and knowledge…not blind obedience. Their examples were silent, but their presence in my life was undeniable.
I guess what I’m trying to say without being didactic is that it can be really hard to stay in the church, especially when it feels that you are doing it for society and not yourself. But look around–I guarantee there is someone in the ward family feeling equally lost and looking at you wondering why you are staying. And she may be staying because you’re still there. It’s cliche, but you really never know the influence you may be having because of your not-quite-the-same-as-everyone-else beliefs.