what kind of Mormon was I?
Someone on the Foyer once asked what kind of Mormon us Foyerites had been. Some people who ultimately leave were always incredulous or were non-orthodox, while others were hard-core believers and were even happy in the church. I've certainly seen "apostates" stereotyped as people who never really had testimonies anyway. I attempt to show what kind of Mormon I was in this post.
I was definitely a believer. Doctrine-based, mostly. All my friends were Mormon anyway; couldn't get away from it if I had wanted to. So the social aspect was kind of a moot point. I was hanging out with Mormons either way. I read the Book of Mormon daily starting when I was 11. Kept it up long enough to read it around 15 times. I paid tithing (started out on gross, switched to net). I attend church every week, seminary every day. Almost every young women activity. I took every calling. I believed every calling was inspired.
I saw problems with the church starting as a teenager. The sexism and racism always bothered me, as did polygamy. I am ashamed to say that the anti-homosexual agenda did not bother me when I was younger, but as soon as I started to actually think about it instead of just believe whatever the brethren were saying, it bothered the hell out of me. Now I consider it one of the main reasons I choose ex-Mormonhood over NOMhood, along with the other reasons above.
Whatever problems I saw, I talked away, or put on the back burner. I believed every action and word from the church had a reason and a lesson to teach. For example, polygamy was instituted to teach us something--about women, about men, about families, about obedience, about what, I don't know. That's what life was about; figuring out the gospel. (Which at the same time was "plain and simple.") When I wanted to find out more about the issues, I went to church-published books and talks. Which didn't help at all. I honestly thought there were only two sources of info on the church: what the church published, and anti-Mormon lit. (Even the stuff you can buy in Deseret Book I considered beneath my need for true doctrine. It was just fluff and opinion.)
I thought that despite all the problems with in the church, ultimately, the Gospel was True and it could only be found through the church. I thought of the problems as problems with people, the institution, and the culture, but not the Gospel. It was that fundamental "Gospel" that I clung to in the end. I thought that even if that's the only bit that's right, I'll stick with the church.
But then I realized what that Gospel was: be nice, love, be good, help people, etc. It's the same message that every religion (and non-religion) is trying to teach; Mormons certainly didn't have the monopoly on it. In fact, I felt they weren't even teaching it, really, since they were often so caught up in following the checklists of tithing, scripture reading, church attendance, etc., and the minutiae of what exactly is and is not allowed on the Sabbath or whether or not Amazing Grace can be a musical number in Sacrament meeting. (And then you hear criticisms of Pharisees for "looking beyond the mark.")
13 comments:
Oddly enough, polygamy never bothered me when I was a TBM. How weird is that? I totally bought into the whole sister-wife concept. How nice would it be to cry with another wife about what an asshole the husband has been. Duh. Oh my.
Fast-forward to reality... I never knew that Joseph had married several teenage girls in secret before the "revelation" was revealed to Emma. That's some sick stuff. Some 40 year old guy coming to me professing he's supposed to marry my virgin-teenage daughter?
My views have changed. If he'd been open about it from the beginning, what would have been the big deal? He had a whole underground polygamy posse going on with all the top-dogs before making the secret known. Safety in numbers. Not cool.
I think I was pretty similar. Where I grew up, being Mormon was a given, but I always counted myself as one who took the gospel seriously. I may wonder now at the degree to which my personal beliefs (perhaps unknown even to myself) were actually compatible with the church's, but I certainly thought of myself as a believer. I wouldn't say that I was ever an uber-Mormon (I never made any attempt to convert non-LDS friends, for example) but I loved to read the classic books of doctrine, as you mentioned, published by the church.
Ironically, one of the greatest factors in my awakening and subsequent loss of faith was the fact that I took the gospel so seriously. I was always digging deeper, looking for greater understanding, trying to reconcile contraditions, hoping for nuggets of wisdom. Eventually I exhausted all the LDS-published sources I could find, and I still wasn't satisfied. Since I had been taught to completely discount "anti-Mormon" writings, I turned to apologetics (such as FAIR, FARMS, and Jeff Lindsay). Another irony was that the church defenders made it possible for me to read "anti-Mormon" authors, since they were reading them and it hadn't seemed to capsize their vessels. Furthermore, the church's critics were the only ones who could tell me what I wanted to know about the church's origins and practices. Of course, I'm referring to such blackened souls as Brent Metcalfe, Grant Palmer, Michael Quinn, et al. I knew they had an agenda of their own, but they were the only ones willing to tell the whole story (or at least much greater portions of it) and allow the reader to decide. This was a telling contrast to the church's own policy of telling its members the absolute minimum necessary to keep us in line.
In many ways, I credit the church itself with giving me the desire to dig deep enough to find out that it was not true after all. I don't remember who said it first, but I have found it true that, at least for people like me, "apostasy is the natural result of orthodoxy."
poker- I've known other Mormon women that weren't bothered by polygamy either. I've lived abroad in places where polygamy is accepted, and I've seen people who make it work and women who appreciate co-wives. I've also seen ones that are so jealous that they pretend like the other doesn't exist, or fight all the time over the husbands scarce resources spread very thin. I think you'll find the same in Utah polygamy, both present and past. If all parties are fully consenting and aware, I don't have a huge problem with it. I do have a huge problem with children being indoctrinated in it. And I personally have a problem with it in that I feel that the 1 man and 2+ women are _necessarily_ unequal gender-wise.
abner- I'm sure that I, like you, actually had many beliefs that weren't in line with "official doctrine," but official doctrine is rarely defined, and often changes (but the brethren deny that). I also experienced the "apostasy is the natural result of orthodoxy" model. I started reading Mormon scholarship in an honest desire to be a better Mormon and understand doctrine better.
I find it a great irony that it was apologists that allowed you to feel comfortable reading "anti" literature. It was NOMs that introduced me to it.
You are correct that all religions essentially teach the same essentials, as you state here--
"[the] Gospel was: be nice, love, be good, help people, etc. It's the same message that every religion (and non-religion) is trying to teach; Mormons certainly didn't have the monopoly on it."
In fact it's taught openly by our prophets that salvation comes to all those that adhere to these.
But there's the question of degrees. Like study of the sciences, the more involved things get the more abstract they can appear to the mind in some instances.
If one looks at the likes of the Pharisees there's an example of a gradual digression, through verbal tradition, of the laws. Some of them digressed in the "hedge" fashion (the concept of putting up petty laws around big ones to keep you from getting close to the big ones) but there were also those instances in which they explained away the commandments, such is made apparent in the chastisement against them that the "devour widow's houses, and for a pretext make long prayers"
It's all a big ballancing act. Yes there's some very critisizable motives, projects, and out comes in some, even many, of the interesting programs they try and come up with to somehow motivate or increase certain key religious items frequency of practice. But really the items you mention, as I see them, are how one maintains that balance. You can get stuff that seems silly, certainly. And with us all being humans you can find applications that are counterproductive. And anytime humans are involved hypocrisy is never hard to find. But the maintainance of balance is one of the key features that CAN (doesn't inherently) help you to be good, to increase in love, to not only have the desire for the best for others BUT ACTUALLY EFFECT IT.
One can coast for along time on moral momentum. That's often what gets people in the church into the role of hypocrite or laughable. It's often hard to realize we are not doing something right if we are not constantly being introspective. But I think the same goes for an effort to label the items you labeled as missing the mark. Why is it "missing the mark" to advocate increased reminders of our need to do good? Why is it "missing the mark" to at least attempt to try various means of increasing numerical participation?
I mean even Christ (this is assuming you still, at the very least, see him as a good man) said for the people to do just as the Pharasees preached.
Welcome, HiveRadical. Congrats, you are my first (as far as I can tell) believing commenter. Though with a name like HiveRadical, and as a poster on FMH, you aren't a total Molly, so I'll resist joking about you as a troll to my blog.
Might this be a correct extrapolation of what you are saying? Some of the church "hedges," say visiting teaching, can be good things, as long as one maintains a proper balance between the program (assigned friends) and the actual thing it is trying to do (encouraging community, being nice, helping each other).
My point in that last paragraph was that sometimes Mormons get so caught up in the policies, programs, etc, that they can forget the simple things: be nice, etc. Does VTing prevent people from being nice? No. Can it? Yes. Do I feel more loved when my assigned VTer sends me a card? No. I feel like I was on her checklist; I was a part of this month's 100% VTing campaign. Was that her only motive? No, she thinks she's doing good. But isn't there something better to do with her time than try to "save" me from my "sinful state" or unbelief?
Is it more important that Amazing Grace is not in the hymn book, or that it is a beautiful song that helps people feel good and think about God? I hope you agree it's the latter. And yet the former got in the way of the latter in one recent experience of mine.
About "increased reminders of our need to do good": why should we need so many reminders? I think people, by their very nature, seek out good things. Sometimes we get caught up in selfish pursuits, yes, but I think most people are fundamentally trying to be good and do good by others. We don't need the VTing coordinator calling us on the 15th and 30th to remind us to visit our friends.
About "various means of increasing numerical participation": If a person likes a congregation, if they like a preacher, if they like a church, if it brings them joy and edification, they will come to it. If they don't or it doesn't, they won't come (and an estimated 1/4 to 1/2 of people on the rolls come). The LDS church seems to miss that. Instead of making churches that people want to come to, they have social control measures; they remind everyone that weekly attendance is of paramount importance; they require regular attendance for people to see their children married; they contact "inactives," even ones that have explicitly stated they don't want contact; they require attendance to receive monetary support for poverty alleviation. Wouldn't you say that's a bit beyond the mark of the Golden Rule?
Hive Radical is correct that all human organizations are imperfect. However, there are things that one can do about abusive power relations.
The institutional design of quality organizations reflects human imperfection by providing mechanisms to hold leaders accountable. The problem with Mormonism is not imperfection but that there is so little that can be done about abuse.
I am just no longer willing to discriminate gays to "safe the family," to support leaders who punish scholars for their research and who excommunicate mothers who are upset when their bishop sexually abuses their children.
If followers do not take responsibility for the actions of their leaders then they become implicated in the abuse. I just could not do that any longer.
First off I want to start with the explanation that I often try to be as complete as possible in my answers. This can, however, give it a 'tit for tat' appearance. I don't particularly like portraying that, but I also don't like to allow appearances get in the way of communication. Overall I try to maintain a balance, I'm not always perfect at it.
Regarding the following--
"…sometimes Mormons get so caught up in the policies, programs, etc, that they can forget the simple things :… Do I feel more loved when my assigned VTer sends me a card? No. I feel like I was on her checklist; I was a part of this month's 100% VTing campaign. Was that her only motive? No, she thinks she's doing good. But isn't there something better to do with her time than try to "save" me from my "sinful state" or unbelief? "
I fully see the tendancy for people to get to caught up in the constructs that they either lack as deep a passion for each other as they ought to foster in seeking zion, or they, through other frailties, simply fail to convey their feelings, to translate them, as it were. In this way we have far to much in common with many of our doctrinal predecesors. Truly "the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light," in otherwords--those in the gospel seem to lean and glean from such to a degree that they often hamper their intellectual capacities, thus in raw worldly wisdom the average individual outside the church will be wiser (again on "worldly wisdom--proverbs stuff) than many, or all, the "children of light" a.k.a. children of the Kingdom/Members of the Church.
With that being said I think it's vital to analyze your proposed catalyst, namely a manifestation of a more raw, more pure love and charity. And at the core that is what we need, in my view, to "bring again Zion." But consider human nature. I've known my share of very virtuous people that were friends of other faiths, or friends of other ideologies, or whatever. Even the most stalwart of these, if there were a capcity to share levels of commitment and love for our fellow man, and if their devotion and wisdom were spread out so that all men had them, people would still fall through the cracks. It's human nature. We gravitate and congregate much like particles of powder do. We form clumps of varying sizes and our capacity as to who we can help, and aid, is limited presently because we are finite at present. We simply lack the capacity now to extend in substance our charity for our fellowman.
What organizations, ordinances, the priesthood, and stewardships provide is the capacity to overcome man's inherent dificiences in expressing and sharing his love. It can, and often does, seem crass, to have some list of friends to maintain. But ultimately it is the greatest sign of love. Look at the idea of the Book of Life or of the omniscience of God. These are the very things that demonstrate the love of God and the love of our fellow saints. Why this needing to write down names and keep track? As a tool to help us overcome what would befall even the on of us with the best of intentions and the greatest of capacity.
A dull pencil and a piece of paper are powerfull things, it's perported to be better at rememberance than a multitude of sharp minds.
That's where I take issue with this. I understand the criticism of loosing sight or proper passion to back the institutions, either as they should be, or as others feel they should be.
It brings my mind to the account of the man who stepped late into General Conference in the Tabernacle. Lacking the comelyness and cleanliness generally expected, and not dressed in 'sunday attire,' many glances and some clearly less than charitable thoughts envoked. The individual smelled of cigarette smoke to boot. Yet, as the observer of this anecdote points out, come the end of the meeting the one most changed in countenance and the one that seemed to have paid most attention in the proxcimity of the oberver, was this unkempt man. I would posit that to take criticism too far, of the imperfect application and administration of correct principles in the gospel is akin to the criticisms in the minds of those who took the appearance and odor of that man and held it in some degree of contempt. I hope you don't take this the wrong way.
I wouldn't see the rejection of these things, or speaking against them, as the answer.
In reading some of the commentary of President Young, using his often employed shock tactics, he mentions how he thinks that a vast number of the members who stayed home from meetings were as well off as many in the meetings. This preceeded a long stab at the heart of what is, and has long been, our tendancy and talent of enduring long periods of monotony for relatively little, or no, gain. But Young didn't stop at that. He didn't say that we SHOULD stay home, rather the answer he proffered was that we should do all we can to infuse into our meetings, our worship, our services, all we saw them lacking. He said that if we felt we could add something not being said that need to be that we should send up a note to the presiding authority in the meeting stating such. Ever since reading that I realized that I needed to invest all I could into everything. Surely I fall very short, and my appearance isn't exactly what I'd like it to be, I don't always like being seen as opinionated or overly talky or as some know it all. But I refuse to let the silence, or slow and go, or fluffy puffy, go unchallenged. Respect and listen to the spirit, but that doesn't mean you almost never open your mouth, nor does it mean meetings must always be somber. yes there are lines. yes there needs to be judicious action. yes there will be conflict.
Well I got to go right now. I've not been terribly moderate in my commentarys on the internet.
I hope to address the other points by you and others.
In the mean time take care. And God be with you 'till we blog again, or actually meet in some other form. Though if we do we likely will not know that we've met.
I feel to stick in a bit more. Even though it's late.
"…If a person likes a congregation, if they like a preacher, if they like a church, if it brings them joy and edification, they will come to it. If they don't or it doesn't, they won't come (and an estimated 1/4 to 1/2 of people on the rolls come). The LDS church seems to miss that. Instead of making churches that people want to come to, they have social control measures; they remind everyone that weekly attendance is of paramount importance; they require regular attendance for people to see their children married; they contact "inactives," even ones that have explicitly stated they don't want contact; they require attendance to receive monetary support for poverty alleviation. Wouldn't you say that's a bit beyond the mark of the Golden Rule?"
Where to begin? I find the statement "if they like a church, …they will come to it. If they don't … they won't come" to be a bit disheartening. To me it rings of clique apologetics. Now certainly there are those who go to church more out of cliqueish obtainments than conviction, but whether you go to or leave a congregation or organization for simply such reasons seems to defy any claim you can have of going to that organization for anything beyond social support. In simple wording it's just a matter of clubs. If you like it then sign up. If you don't stay home. This may sound harsh but I really cringe at that take, regardless if it's used as a reason TO go to church or to NOT go to church.
Entropy and the tendancy for all things to devolve to the lowest energy state is something that would eventually leave the cosmos burned out. I think there may be significance in the tree of life's fruit being tied to the adjective bitter if you take the relation of the story to be correlating respectively the tastes of the fruits with the fruits.
I recall having a tendancy to be a picky eater when I was younger, a taste to foreign or weird to my pallet was almost forever dogmatically labeled as 'yucky' that would have likely stood if my parents didn't both emphasize the value of different tasting foods in nutrition, explain to me that new tastes at time need a chance to grow on you, and finally in at least making me try the new dish even if it did have a less than apatizing appearance or smell. What it's opened up to me is incredible. I enjoy, in differeing ways, most any dish. I seek variety and expirement readily.
To tie this to my experiences in the church. Having either been put to hometeach someone I wouldn't normally 'like' being around, or to serve with someone who wouldn't normally be 'my type' I've grown to have a deeper love, appreciation for, and desire to be with people I would have likely never had a clue about if I'd been permited to follow my own desires. View points and perspectives I would have never heard are now in my mind enabeling myself to have a far richer outlook on life than I could have ever imagined. But it doesn't all come with no effort, without leaving a comfort zone and at times remaining outside of one for years.
Growth is bitter in many ways. Growing pains are more often mentioned than Growing reliefs.
I'm not saying you go to church and don't have views and opinions of your own. I'm not saying that you are going to go back and just love it and feel imediately all warm and unconditionally loved.
But, truth be known, zion will not be built just because a bunch of pre-cooked friends are thrown together in the oven of the New Jerusalem, set on celestial 'High' for three minuits and POOF there's Zion. They use the word 'mourn' in the state of 'mourning for Zion' for a reason. We will only become Zion when we are willing to be with, and work closely with, and charitably with, and openly with, those with whom we may have disagreements or may see serious weaknesses in. That's the only way it will happen, when, despite our disagreements, I love you perfectly and you love me perfectly. THAT is Zion. And it CAN'T be built on the principles of "I'll go where I feel good right now" rather it's "I'll go where and do what will make me feel the best in the long run"
Taking up Christ's cross means more than just taking up your personal issues, it means enduring the weaknesses of others without up and leaving them because you 'just don't feel it' in that church, or ward, or that Bishop is just 'too self-righteous and hypocritical.' Clearly if you know something's seriously wrong then you've an obligation to not sustain the leaders. But the whole buying into the issue of just going where you "like it" and having that condition of "liking" being some never changable or expandable trait is (again this is stepping on toes--advanced appologies for wounded pride) to deny agency, show no faith in the concept of Zion and defy the very Idea of faith in God and any prophets he may have had, may have, or may yet send to the earth as being able to give any commandments touching on us humans being able to make, and maintain choices.
Like and dislike, love and hate, are not set items. WE may have tendancies but those tendancies do not define our whole selfs unless we choose for them too.
I need to clarify something.
With the merger of google and Blogger somehow the "mustard" designation from my google account got implemented.
So the "mustard" is HiveRadical. I wish I knew how to redo it but the comments are a mystery to me.
I'm certain this is sensetive. It is touching topics that should be. I mean no ill intent or bad feelings in what I'm about to say in response to hellmut's comment--
"The institutional design of quality organizations reflects human imperfection by providing mechanisms to hold leaders accountable."
If one does not believe, or have sufficient faith, in God and his capacity to both sufficiently govern the Church and hold the leadership accountable for their failings. Then the above view is a valid concern. But then if it is a concern, and then such prerequisit condition does exist, then the real issue lies deeper than any complaint over accountability on a mortal leadership level.
" The problem with Mormonism is not imperfection but that there is so little that can be done about abuse.
Implying imperfection in the in the capacity or willingness of God to execute a solution.
"I am just no longer willing to discriminate gays to "safe the family," to support leaders who punish scholars for their research and who excommunicate mothers who are upset when their bishop sexually abuses their children.
They don't punish for research, they don't execute righteously indignant mothers of abused children. These are all attempts to remove specific things in your mind from the context of the realities they actually took place in.
"If followers do not take responsibility for the actions of their leaders then they become implicated in the abuse. I just could not do that any longer."
With your view I can understand why you could do it no longer.
Just please do not pretend that THEIR actions are the root cause for YOUR actions.
HiveRadical- It is clear you disagree with many things me and my commenters write on this blog, no doubt at least partly stemming from different starting points: You think the Mormon church is led by God; we don't. We have many and varied reasons for thinking so, and you have your reasons for thinking what you do. This forum is not a place I want to argue about that difference.
People with different beliefs and opinions are, of course, welcome here, but I am wondering something. Why my blog? What appeals to you about this blog? I generally think of this as a place for me to write out my experiences as an nonbeliever, and this often resonates with my (as far as I know 99%) non-believer readers. That is why they come back. But as a believer, what is the appeal? Defender of the faith? Just like a good argument?
About church-as-social club, this is not what I meant. The social aspect is just one of many issues by which people will choose a church; I think that is fine. I believe that all churches were invented by human beings; each has its own personality, doctrines, styles, thoughts on God, etc. All of these and other things will be taken into account when someone chooses a church. To say that one is better overall is silly. It's like saying basketball is the one and only true sport. To say that one is better or worse _for me_ is not.
I guess you could say I get befudled when I see people giving or claiming various reasons for rejecting the Church. I think a substantial pursuit in many of us is trying to discern motives.
I suppose it's also something tied to both the desire to be of aid to some I perceive as having bought a bill of goods. I somewhat suppose that's a likely reason you would give for having this site focused on things related to 'transitioning' out or 'beyond' mormonism.
As far as this specific blog. Well I like to keep up to date as to both news and chatter on all things 'mormon.' I came upon your site and found, at the very least, the appearance of consilliatory as well as rational leanings.
I suppose I'm curious about those who leave the church, especially when they have some attempt to remain tied, in someway, to it. Most other people I've found don't generally make a significant issue of dwelling on the particular brand of faith they became disaffected from. This seems a phenomena that is very pronounced in it's occurance and intensity in connection to 'Mormonism.' The only other faith that seems to have anything similar in intensity and reach is the Jehovah's Witnesses. But even then there's not a cultural epicenter like there is in Utah. Kingdom Halls are also less pronounced and, at least in my experience, their prostlyting practices are generally more abrasive (many apartments I would tract out while on my mission would litterally get JW sweeps every Saturday morning.) Even looking at web refference numbers the term ex-Christian only has twice as many references pulled up on google than "ex-mormon." So statistically, adjusted for time, establishment, constituent levels, the whole thing is out of wack. In the US we're less than 2% of the populace and in the world we're the tinniest smidgen, percentage wise, of the world's population, heck even compared to just the "Christian World" we're miniscule. Yet we have acheived, to the degree net search-engine results can indicate anything, half the electronically typed enmity while being the tiniest speck next to the whole of Christendom.
Even with your present stance as to the artificial nature of all religions (a conclusion I would be curious to learn of in terms of how you arrived at such and your seeming certainty in that belief) don't you find it the least bit odd that this specific belief system would have some element to it that would cause you, upon leaving it, to center a weblog around your transitioning from it? I mean you type "recovery from chritianity" into google and it pulls 30 entrys--do "recovery from mormonism" and you get 104,000. Specify "catholicism" in the phrase and it only pulls up 60 entries. The most established of the Christian tradition and there are only 60 references to recovering from it on the world's foremost search engine. Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd? Even the religion that comes closest to us, in my estimation, for chatter from the disaffected, the Jehovah's Witnesses, has only a little less than 20,000 entries regarding 'recovering' from it. Only a fifth.
I don't know if that helps to share some of my motivations sufficiently for you. If you do not want me commenting here at all just say the word and I'll leave (unless you call me back by talking about me). I'm not here to make enemies.
Hive- Fair enough. I'd rather have you commenting here than thinking I shooed you away. I'd rather have a blog with "rational" and "conciliatory" discussion, even if I feel incapable of it at times. It always challenges me, and helps me grow in my thinking.
I never realized the online DAMU was so much bigger than "DACU." Perhaps part of that is because Mormons are less free to express their discontent and disaffection openly "in real life." Many of the DAMU members, for example, have spouses still in who won't listen. Perhaps disaffected Catholics have more space and outlets to be disaffected. Many DAMU were aided in their unbelief by the internet, and so feel a connection on it, and so remain.
I would certainly agree that there is something particular about leaving Mormonism. What this is, and what that means, is not clear, though, at least to me. Leavers of other Christian religions, though, also have a lot in common with us: feelings of betrayal, loss, depression, conflict with family, etc.
Post a Comment