Most of us have experienced a lot of pain, rejection, and hurt over our loss of faith. We come here to get it out, to commiserate with people who are going through the same things. It's natural to express hurt and anger towards those who have hurt us, but I think we need to be careful about lumping all Mormons together.

Several years ago, Daniel Peterson wrote a rather scathing piece about this board (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=591) in which he wrote:

"But this does not exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people the posters do not know and have not met—against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor. Ordinary members of the church—Morgbots or Morons or Sheeple, in the mocking jargon of the board—are routinely stereotyped as insane, ignorant, tyrannical, emotionally impoverished, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, dishonest, greedy, foolish, rude, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread—and I am not making this up—devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants. Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring—who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief. It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger-pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi."

Now, I know as well as you do that this board is not the seething cauldron of hate that apologists make it out to be, and his article seems to be designed to dismiss legitimate criticism by focusing on the worst behaviors and attitudes and suggesting they are representative. But in a way he is right: we sometimes do tend to focus on the negative aspects of Mormonism and project it onto *all* Mormons. That's not fair, and it's not helpful. I'm sure that, like me, you know and love a lot of wonderful people who happen to be members of the LDS church. If all Mormons were awful, mean-spirited, hateful, judgmental, and so on, we would never have associated with them in the first place.

What I find more helpful is to talk about behaviors and attitudes that the church teaches and how those teachings affect us and members; to me, that's fair game, and discussing those things may help us to understand why family members and friends may have treated us the way they have. For example, the church teaches members not to respect personal boundaries. It is perfectly normal for leaders to discuss your most personal thoughts and behaviors in the course of their callings. People who feel at ease discussing, say, your sexual habits, are more likely not to respect other boundaries, such as your struggles with your faith or your lack of attendance at church. I had a bishop who thought it was appropriate to call me out in public and in front of my children, apparently in the belief that I could be shamed into church activity.

But my bishop's behavior is not normal, and my current bishop was appalled when I told him about this. Sure, I could do as Dr. Peterson has done and suggest that most Mormons are like my former bishop, but they're not. To me, part of recovering from Mormonism involves seeing people as individuals, not as members of a team or a tribe or a religion. We don't like it when people make blanket (usually negative) statements about who and what we are, and we shouldn't do that to other people.

I know this sounds kind of preachy, but I'm convinced that we must reject the "us vs. them" mentality, which is, I believe, another vestige of Mormon teachings. True healing comes when Mormonism is not the focus of our relationships and does not define who we are anymore.

runtu - I think there is a stereotypical Mormon personality, the result of the Mormon teachings you mentioned. Most believing Mormons buy into this personality to a certain degree. Some are wholeheartedly pursuing this image, both through their religion and by being part of the Mormon culture. Others buy into some of it but are nicer, more balanced, more sensible. Finally, there are some who believe bits of it but are too centered in their true personality to copy the worst habits and behaviors. These last two groups, in fact, are as appalled as we are by some of what the fanatics are trying to pass off as "Mormonism."

I think people here, unless talking about a specific problem with a specific person, are attacking the stereotypical Mormon image and the things the religion promotes. The worst reincarnation of the perfect Mormon, in other words. I completely agree with you that you can't apply that to all Mormons because almost everyone here would have been classed as "them" by exmos at some point. When we alienate members entirely, we may miss the opportunity to send a lifeline to someone who needs the truth we have.

Exactly. I would say that rather than attacking stereotypes, it's more productive to discuss the teachings and culture behind the stereotypes. Why, for example, was my former bishop such a dick? I'm convinced that he was doing what he was taught, but thank God not all bishops are like that.

In my experience, it is Mormonism that makes this an "us vs. them" thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 10:57AM by MJ.

Good point, MJ. I was trying to think of some specific teachings of the church that makes it a bad deal for humans, and that very "us v. them" and "we good - you bad" attitude is one of them. It's their teaching that either you are for God or against him. And by God, I mean Mormonism since for many members, it's become their God. You are either of the church or of the world, striving to be righteous or evil apostate. The church makes everything black and white, with no shades of grade, no allowances.

Probably why people in Utah are so depressed. Either they are perfect Mormons or they are bad. Uchtdorf's talk about giving yourself and others a break last conference (or was it the one before that?) was hailed as a revolutionary thought. Because they are used to win/lose.

"Worthy" vs "unworthy"
"The one true church" vs well, every other church

TSCC is clearly about defining themselves in "us vs them" terms

Yep.

"Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it. Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigations of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant." (in "Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith, " Juvenile Instructor, 15 Aug. 1892, 492)

Especially the Petersen family.

LOL! Brilliant.

I really see this board as that old comfy couch in the back of the house where everybody hangs out. We can sit and talk politics, scratch where it itches, and bitch about things here. We'll engage in conversations and topics here that we'd never discuss in polite company or even above hushed tones when out in public.

What Petersen overlooks is that with almost no exception, we are a group that has been betrayed by the people we loved and trusted the most. This brings out lots of pain and raw emotions. We have the right to vent. We'll become more reasonable over time, but on occasion, we'll be irrational and rude.

Of course. We own our emotions, and it's quite liberating to realize that anger and hurt are legitimate emotions to be dealt with, not to be suppressed.

I'm not telling anyone how to respond to their loss of faith, but I'm suggesting that, for me, anyway, it's been better to focus on teachings and practices that create bad behavior, rather than lumping people together.

runtu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course. We own our emotions, and it's quite
> liberating to realize that anger and hurt are
> legitimate emotions to be dealt with, not to be
> suppressed.
>
> I'm not telling anyone how to respond to their
> loss of faith, but I'm suggesting that, for me,
> anyway, it's been better to focus on teachings and
> practices that create bad behavior, rather than
> lumping people together.

Absolutely. I'm in complete agreement with you.

My argument is with DCP. It's like he's walking into a room full of people who just learned that their spouses have been unfaithful, and he cautions them that they should be polite and speak well of their betrayers above all else. That's not going to happen.

"My argument is with DCP. It's like he's walking into a room full of people who just learned that their spouses have been unfaithful, and he cautions them that they should be polite and speak well of their betrayers above all else. That's not going to happen."

As I said, what he's doing is trying to dismiss us all as an unhinged group of haters with nothing of value to say. I know I have given him ammunition from time to time.

I don't like being told what my recovery should be like, look like, smell like, or sound like. This is a recovery board and not (at least solely) a board for educating people about Mormon dogma. I don't care what my anger/grief/or emotional tantrum looks like to other people. I wish you had added "to me" to your remarks about certain things not being helpful. Maybe it is helpful to me to purge my anger here.

It is highly likely that I'm not as far along as you in recovery but your post seemed to be trying to tell some of us to tone it down lest we be ridiculed or not taken seriously.

No, not at all. There is no right way to do recovery, and I am sorry you took it as my telling you how to do it right. I'm just saying that, for me, it helped to see Mormons as individuals, not as the Other. I don't feel that lumping people together is helpful, but then I'm just speaking for myself, not for anyone else.

I was trying to help, and I'm sorry it came across as judgmental and, well, Mormon. Believe me, I know what it's like to be angry at the church, and it used to bug the hell out of me when people would tell me I was bitter and needed to just walk away and shut up.

That's not what I was saying, but I understand why you saw it that way. Oh, well.

When it comes to help, it generally works best if it is in direct response to a specific need where the person is indicating that they want assistance of some sort.

Starting a thread to help everyone, (lumping US together), continuing to lump us together using terms like "we", telling us what "we" should do using statements like "we must", then using a tone that even you admit sounds preachy, well it is not going to fly here.

And it does not sound as if you are trying to share your experience. With statements like "we must" it seems clear that you are trying to tell us what to do.

You may want to consider the impact of starting your post with "Most of us" and "We" since you are not really treating us with the same sort of "individual" attitude. You are lumping "most of us" together.

I guess I am just speaking from having been around on this board for years. I think it's obvious that most of us have dealt with anger and hurt, or we wouldn't be here.

You're right. I don't speak for this board or anyone but myself.

I think you make a good point.

The church has around 10,000 bishops or branch pres. From that group we are going to get some real ass holes and some incredible people. I suspect that “church thinking” pushes many other wise good men over the edge into the asshole category.

Reading right now a book someone here suggested “ The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion” by Haidt.

He suggests we are inescapably tribal, or at least groupish. It boils down to what are we going to be groupish about. Pretty fascination stuff.

Haidt suggests misrepresenting and vilifying and lying about the Other group is part of showing loyalty. We were all probably involved in showing our loyalty when Mormon. It is possible that although justified some of us here could be doing that now. There is so much wrong with the Morg no misrepresentation is needed.

On the other hand blasting away at why church doctrine makes certain people act the way they do is why we are here. But, A few disclaimers would go a long way to making our complaints appear more than just hateful.

Studies show a large number of Mormon Bishops slurp thier soup while their wives may not.

They can be held accountable for supporting an organization that has defined itself in terms of "us vs. them" terms and has attacked a lot of the "thems". By supporting the LDS, they are giving approval of the actions of TSCC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 12:10PM by MJ.

I wish all mormons were like my Sunday school teacher who would always give sarcastic responses and when asked about sin he would always respond with "who gives a damn, we're all going to hell anyways." Ah the good ol'days.

1000+ (at original runtu post) Now that's the voice of reason!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 12:07PM by smorg.

Isn't Mr. Peterson doing the thing he claims this board is guilty of? (Picking the worst qualities and making them out to be representative of another group of people?)

I think the whole point of his criticism was to discredit this board and make it seem like a BAAAAADDD and dangerous place filled with hateful people. It was to reinforce the stereotypes about apostates as being angry and bitter.

If we were more polite about Mormonism, I don't think he would say "Hey, those exmos over there on exmormon.org seem like nice people that legitimately studied their way out of the church. We should treat them like our brothers and sisters instead of as the spawn of Satan."

No matter HOW we behave here, or anywhere else, church members, ESPECIALLY leaders and apologists, are generally LOOKING for ways to condemn those who leave. Character assassination is just one of the many tools employed. Yeah, sometimes we make it easier for them to accuse us, but even if we didn't, plenty of exmos have had things MADE UP about them because they left. In other words, they left, so they MUST have _________________ (fill in the blank with any sin, or that that were offended, or that they read anti-mormon lit). In fact, this is practically doctrinal that people leave because of their own failings. That's what I grew up thinking.

BTW, I do think you made a good point in your original post and it didn't sound preachy to me.

If you draw fire for advocating moderation rather than indulgence, you can rest assured that you are not the problem... imho.

You are the problem.

And that is what the OP did when he stated "we must" and other such things.

BTW, when one is attacked, often "moderation" is the wrong response.

Of course I am the problem. It is clear enough that anyone who doesn't condemn all the same people you want to condemn is the problem. Everyone else is the problem, apparently, and will continue to be the problem as long as you still want to be stuck in the 'I'm the victim, so I get to say or do whatever I want regardless' pit.

The first line was meant to be read in the context of having read the subject, in my mind it was all one sentence, or thought. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

To rephrase my point "When one is telling a group of others what they should do, that person is the problem."


And you do not even get the point that the OP was doing the same thing he was complaining about when he used words like "we".



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2012 01:17PM by MJ.

I do feel that way about Smith, Hinckley and the rest. Maybe not so much about Hinckley -- actually I always kind of admired Hinckley for his leadership ability (unlike Monson) and the way he soldiered on at it until he was around 100. I also think that Mormon culture is filled with the attributes Peterson mentioned. His "great and spacious building" analogy is lost on me though. I don't believe in the Book of Mormon, and I don't read it anymore.

Peterson says that Mormons are stereotyped as "insane, ignorant, tyrannical, emotionally impoverished, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, dishonest, greedy, foolish, rude, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured." Yep, that's pretty much how I feel. That's not to say that many non-Mormons don't also have several of those attributes, but Mormon culture seems particularly sick with it. I couldn't stand it in Utah, and I think I'll probably live longer for having moved away.

I realize Peterson is playing off the Mormon persecution complex, but that doesn't work on me, and many non-Mormons would roll their eyes at that obvious play on sympathy. Sorry, but Mormons don't get to behave badly to others and then get to be regarded as different people than who they actually are. Peterson is invalidating our experiences by being the generalization police. Sure all Mormons aren't the same, but they sure try to be. There is an extremely high level of conformity among them, and when ex-Mormons tell stories of bad Mormon behavior, I can usually think of examples in my own experience of the very same thing having happened. Like I said, it's a sick culture. When we tell these stories, we're giving examples of the sickness within the culture, not saying that all Mormons everywhere would do these things or exhibit this same behavior. Just many of them.

I'm sorry that Peterson thinks so poorly of us, but then nobody asked him what he thinks. This is a recovery board, not a "suck up to the Mormons" board.

But to claim that the collective "we" are stereotyping Mormons the way Peterson claims is stereotyping the collective "us". Then to lecture "us" based on that stereotype? Well, that is a case for the kettle and the pot.