Calling on LDS to repent of bigotry

[_wenglund]

Sorry. While that could easily be done (recent talks by Richard Scott in General conference over the last few years would be a gold-mine), I don't wish to get immersed in the "problem" (as previously explained). Instead, as intimated, my focus is on the solution and the implementation thereof--starting, of course, with myself. ;-)

You want to help us, wade. Show us these quotes that can easily demonstrate your point. That would help us find the "solution", after all, by having a more balanced perception of what the church actually teaches about apostates. (reminder, make sure your quotes specifically address exbelievers, and not the generic "never been Mormons". )

Again, I am sorry. I really don't think it would help either of us to repeat the same dysfunctional dynamics of the past. I am quite certain that you would find your own reasons for not viewing the quotes I would provide as any more relevant and persuasive in resolving this issue as I found the quotes you provided. After all, if you conducted a careful and thoughtful search, you would likely have come across at least some of the messages I had in mind (talks having to do with the leaving the 99 and seeking after the one "lost sheep"), but were unaffected by them--at least not enough to include them in your OP. In other words, the effort would be for naught, and would merely serve to add to the problem, rather than affect a solution.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_dartagnan]

Object all you want. I just don't see that it will get you or anyone else anywhere. Both sides tend to cherry-pick their own set of quotes and will interpret them as supporting their respective opinions.

Only if one first approaches the data that way, which in my experience, tends to be the apologists more than any other group. You think everyone always has some kind of presupposition that they are hell bent on proving? Well then, I suppose there is no purpose whatsoever in discussion at all. Everyone is completely incapable of being persuaded by evidence. We’re all just bound to our “respective opinions,” as if those “respective opinions” always preexisted and were not already influenced and developed according to the evidence.

There is no instance of “cherry-picking” or biased interpretation of the citations here. It is an indisputable fact that Mormonism has created a system that demonizes all who would reject the faith. If the Book of Mormon is not authoritative enough, then go to the Encyclopedia or Mormonism which describes the apostate as someone who probably committed a sin they didn’t want to repent of. There are countless conference talks, Missionary discussions, Gospel Doctrine discussions, and behind the scenes chatter groups at Church, that reinforce everything that has been said here. Even DCP once admitted that there is never a legitimate excuse for leaving the Church. He qualified his statement as that of “the perspective of eternity.”

The end result too often has been that a stand-off in differences of opinion occurs, a flurry of finger-pointing ensues

You’re just upset because the Church has been pointing fingers for nearly two centuries, and finally people see the hypocrisy for what it is. You only speak up when fault is demonstrated in the Church. It is not Christ-like to reject apostates the way the LDS Church has. It is ingrained. It is systematized. It is essential to what being a Mormon is. If you show empathy or sympathy with apostates, you’ll be in danger of the rumor-mongering and marginalization that takes place on a daily basis in LDS chapels.

and nothing really positive comes of it

It could if you would let it. Change cannot take place unless one admits change needs to happen. You don’t want to acknowledge that it does. It seems you are the typical LDS who likes to live in denial about the Church. Remember, “the Church is perfect the people aren’t.” That has been branded on your brain from day one. To even entertain the prospect that the “Church” itself could be at fault for instituting a system of hate and rejection, well, you’re mental processes as a quintessential Mormon probably forces you to the guilt dept., where you then convince yourself you have been overcome with evil spirits; maybe you forgot to repent of something last night.

(in large part because both sides are looking to the other for positive change). That, to me, is the problem, and the healthy way to rectify things is not to feed into the problem, or to repeat the problem, but to functionally looking inward for solutions and change--look to the onlly real place where we each are empowered and have the ability to affect change.

Now put down whatever manual you’ve been memorizing and try applying your own thinking. Your suggestion assumes both parties are equally at fault, therefore the only solution is for everyone to critically examine themselves. Would you tell a rape victim in Saudi Arabia that she is only “feeding” into the problem by blaming the rapists? No, this advice doesn’t apply in this situation either. Most ex-Mormons are guilty of nothing more than critical thinking, which is what we as intelligent humans are designed to do. Only a tiny portion make a complete life out of attacking Mormons and the Church. Yet, the flip side of the problem on the LDS side, is universal throughout the Church. This hatred towards former members is not a fringe experiment. It is mainstream.

Mormons are the ones who take it to the “spiritual” level and judge everyone’s spirituality based on the reasoning of others. Again, I already proved to you in a previous post that the LDS Church doesn’t promote independent reasoning or critical thought. The “reasoning of men” is always in a negative context in LDS literature. Mormons are only allowed to reason and criticize within the context of Church leadership.

My sense of it is that most Mormons who fall away essentially grow up, learn to become realists later in life and begin to question what they have been telling themselves they “know.” Mormons do not accept this as a possibility. It seems reasonable to the rest of the non-LDS world, but for Mormons, we have been conditioned to see this as an excuse for sin and spiritual depravation. Many who fall away probably realize that they never really received an incontrovertible “confirmation” from God that the Church is true. That is OK, people make mistakes. But this is one mistake Mormons do not forgive. Ever. The science of psychology backs the apostate entirely. Warm fuzzies, goosebumps, happy feelings, all these things missionaries use to their advantage to convince an investigator that this is God telling them Mormonism is the one true Church!

People will convince themselves of things they want to be true, and to be sure, most people who take the time to investigate the Church want it to be true. But apostates probably realized the numerous trouble areas about the Church they were never supposed to know about until they started investigating on their own without missionary guidance. There is a reason why the Church only allows missionaries and members to teach when they are in controlled environments. Missionaries are not to give lessons if there is someone in the room to offer critical feedback. They would leave in a heartbeat. Open inquiry makes perfect sense to the rest of the free thinking world, but as Mormons we have been conditioned to see everything in the perspective of spirituality. Meaning, when someone is there to question, their intentions can only be devious and the evil spirits are there. The “Spirit of contention” as the saying goes. Missionaries are to teach only when the spirit is there; usually when the investigator is outnumbered by the missionaries and whatever member they dragged along with them to bear his/her testimony.

[_wenglund]

Object all you want. I just don't see that it will get you or anyone else anywhere. Both sides tend to cherry-pick their own set of quotes and will interpret them as supporting their respective opinions.

Only if one first approaches the data that way, which in my experience, tends to be the apologists more than any other group. You think everyone always has some kind of presupposition that they are hell bent on proving? Well then, I suppose there is no purpose whatsoever in discussion at all. Everyone is completely incapable of being persuaded by evidence. We’re all just bound to our “respective opinions,” as if those “respective opinions” always preexisted and were not already influenced and developed according to the evidence.

There is no instance of “cherry-picking” or biased interpretation of the citations here. It is an indisputable fact that Mormonism has created a system that demonizes all who would reject the faith. If the Book of Mormon is not authoritative enough, then go to the Encyclopedia or Mormonism which describes the apostate as someone who probably committed a sin they didn’t want to repent of. There are countless conference talks, Missionary discussions, Gospel Doctrine discussions, and behind the scenes chatter groups at Church, that reinforce everything that has been said here. Even DCP once admitted that there is never a legitimate excuse for leaving the Church. He qualified his statement as that of “the perspective of eternity.”

The end result too often has been that a stand-off in differences of opinion occurs, a flurry of finger-pointing ensues

You’re just upset because the Church has been pointing fingers for nearly two centuries, and finally people see the hypocrisy for what it is. You only speak up when fault is demonstrated in the Church. It is not Christ-like to reject apostates the way the LDS Church has. It is ingrained. It is systematized. It is essential to what being a Mormon is. If you show empathy or sympathy with apostates, you’ll be in danger of the rumor-mongering and marginalization that takes place on a daily basis in LDS chapels.

and nothing really positive comes of it

It could if you would let it. Change cannot take place unless one admits change needs to happen. You don’t want to acknowledge that it does. It seems you are the typical LDS who likes to live in denial about the Church. Remember, “the Church is perfect the people aren’t.” That has been branded on your brain from day one. To even entertain the prospect that the “Church” itself could be at fault for instituting a system of hate and rejection, well, you’re mental processes as a quintessential Mormon probably forces you to the guilt dept., where you then convince yourself you have been overcome with evil spirits; maybe you forgot to repent of something last night.

(in large part because both sides are looking to the other for positive change). That, to me, is the problem, and the healthy way to rectify things is not to feed into the problem, or to repeat the problem, but to functionally looking inward for solutions and change--look to the onlly real place where we each are empowered and have the ability to affect change.

Now put down whatever manual you’ve been memorizing and try applying your own thinking. Your suggestion assumes both parties are equally at fault, therefore the only solution is for everyone to critically examine themselves. Would you tell a rape victim in Saudi Arabia that she is only “feeding” into the problem by blaming the rapists? No, this advice doesn’t apply in this situation either. Most ex-Mormons are guilty of nothing more than critical thinking, which is what we as intelligent humans are designed to do. Only a tiny portion make a complete life out of attacking Mormons and the Church. Yet, the flip side of the problem on the LDS side, is universal throughout the Church. This hatred towards former members is not a fringe experiment. It is mainstream.

Mormons are the ones who take it to the “spiritual” level and judge everyone’s spirituality based on the reasoning of others. Again, I already proved to you in a previous post that the LDS Church doesn’t promote independent reasoning or critical thought. The “reasoning of men” is always in a negative context in LDS literature. Mormons are only allowed to reason and criticize within the context of Church leadership.

My sense of it is that most Mormons who fall away essentially grow up, learn to become realists later in life and begin to question what they have been telling themselves they “know.” Mormons do not accept this as a possibility. It seems reasonable to the rest of the non-LDS world, but for Mormons, we have been conditioned to see this as an excuse for sin and spiritual depravation. Many who fall away probably realize that they never really received an incontrovertible “confirmation” from God that the Church is true. That is OK, people make mistakes. But this is one mistake Mormons do not forgive. Ever. The science of psychology backs the apostate entirely. Warm fuzzies, goosebumps, happy feelings, all these things missionaries use to their advantage to convince an investigator that this is God telling them Mormonism is the one true Church!

People will convince themselves of things they want to be true, and to be sure, most people who take the time to investigate the Church want it to be true. But apostates probably realized the numerous trouble areas about the Church they were never supposed to know about until they started investigating on their own without missionary guidance. There is a reason why the Church only allows missionaries and members to teach when they are in controlled environments. Missionaries are not to give lessons if there is someone in the room to offer critical feedback. They would leave in a heartbeat. Open inquiry makes perfect sense to the rest of the free thinking world, but as Mormons we have been conditioned to see everything in the perspective of spirituality. Meaning, when someone is there to question, their intentions can only be devious and the evil spirits are there. The “Spirit of contention” as the saying goes. Missionaries are to teach only when the spirit is there; usually when the investigator is outnumbered by the missionaries and whatever member they dragged along with them to bear his/her testimony.

Okay...here we have more finger-pointing, false analogies, and calls for the opposing party to change, and little or no mention of what one is personally willing to do to improve relations.

Did it work?

Of course not (thereby reinforcing what I have said).

Why?

Well...because it smacks of rank hypocricy and double standards (do as I say, not as I do), and will be perceived as mis-directed--just another person attempting to get opponents to clean their personal house before they cleaning their own (particularly given that neither party views their personal houses as in need of cleaning).

Now, you good folks can choose to take this same approach over and over, expecting a different result, or expecting it to at some point work. But, I prefer instead to try something different, and something I can be, and have been, more assured will have positive results.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Object all you want. I just don't see that it will get you or anyone else anywhere. Both sides tend to cherry-pick their own set of quotes and will interpret them as supporting their respective opinions. The end result too often has been that a stand-off in differences of opinion occurs, a flurry of finger-pointing ensues, and nothing really positive comes of it (in large part because both sides are looking to the other for positive change).

Exactly right, Wade. Perhaps you misread my post, but I was asking that we stop trying to deflect blame. It doesn't make any sense to try and shift blame on either the church or the individual because in the end we just have people blaming each other.

That, to me, is the problem, and the healthy way to rectify things is not to feed into the problem, or to repeat the problem, but to functionally looking inward for solutions and change--look to the onlly real place where we each are empowered and have the ability to affect change.

I wonder if we're communicating. You seem to think that I have some interest in effecting change in the church. I do not. I can do nothing about what the church teaches or does. I can only change myself. But it would be counterproductive for me to pretend that no external forces have affected the way I think and feel. So, what you see as "blaming" the church is to me just an attempt to understand part of what happened and why I am the way I am. And it would be foolish for me to say that the negative effects the church has had in my life are simply my misperceptions. Some probably are, but then I think it's valuable to figure out which ones are and which are not.

I'm glad for that. I am attempting to do the same (though I have great room for improvement, and I can certainly do better), and I hope that others will follow your example.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I'm no example, Wade. We all have a lot of work to do. I'm glad you have found a good path for yourself.

[_wenglund]

I wonder if we're communicating. You seem to think that I have some interest in effecting change in the church. I do not. I can do nothing about what the church teaches or does. I can only change myself. But it would be counterproductive for me to pretend that no external forces have affected the way I think and feel. So, what you see as "blaming" the church is to me just an attempt to understand part of what happened and why I am the way I am. And it would be foolish for me to say that the negative effects the church has had in my life are simply my misperceptions. Some probably are, but then I think it's valuable to figure out which ones are and which are not.

I can certainly understand your wanting to correct any negative affects that you associate with the Church, and I would encourage you in your efforts in doing so. But, what I am suggesting is that rather than foucusing your attention on the somewhat complicated and tricky task of accurately determining the cause of those negative effects (whether it be your own misperception or due to certain teachings or practices within the Church--I am not even sure how this may be efficaciously done. How will you know if you are misperceiving something if you were misperceiving to begin with?), the pragmatic thing to me would be for you to seek first to correct the affects, and then if you have a need or desire thereafter, you can go on to explore the possible causations (from my own experience, once the negative effects have been corrected, there is little or no need to bother with the causations). At least I have found this strategy to work best for me.

For example, if in consequence to your unbelief you are subjected to perception (whether real or misinterpretations on your part) that you are evil, bigotted, or duped by the devil, or any such things you may find objectionable, I think that rather than trying to flesh out the cause(s) behind those perceptions (internally or externally), it would be benefitial to change those perceptions by speaking and behaving in ways inconsistant with the perceptions. In other words, if your change of faith invariably results in observable signs that you are more righteous, a much happier, fulfilled, loving and caring person, and an all-around better person and father than before, and you are all the more respectful and loving and happy towards those who still believe, then that will do far more in changing the perceptions (all around) than vetting the possible causations for the perceptions.

I have found the same to work in reverse. When I have heard former members and critics refer to me and others of my faith as dupes, or borg-like, mindless, bigoted, and even evil and dispicable, etc., I used to waste inordinate amounts of time vetting the causation and arguing with these people about their name-calling and accusations, and to no avail (see the countless counter-productive threads and posts dealing with Juliann's notion of "apostacy" as well as the discussions I innitiated in connection with my Anti-Bigotry Innitiative). Through the course of such interactions, those harboring these perceptions me and members of my faithy often became more convinced and addimant than ever about their perceptions. Finally, I got it through my thick skull that my chosen strategy didn't work. So, rather than continuing with that apparent dysfunction, I have decided simply to behave differently than expected. And, while it certainly hasn't worked in all cases (Beastie, Scratch, and Vegasrefuge come to mind), or even most cases, nor do I consider it gaurenteed to work perectly at all times, there has been some marked improvement in relations and the perceptions of some--far more than would have resulted from my old dysfunctional way. In other words, when I stopped pointing fingers and looking to others to change, and focused inwards and affected change in myself and how I responded to others, things started to work as hoped for.

Does this make sense? Was I able to communicate this effectively?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

But, what I am suggesting is that rather than foucusing your attention on the somewhat complicated and tricky task of accurately determining the cause of those negative effects (whether it be your own misperception or due to certain teachings or practices within the Church--I am not even sure how this may be efficaciously done. How will you know if you are misperceiving something if you were misperceiving to begin with?), the pragmatic thing to me would be for you to seek first to correct the affects, and then if you have a need or desire thereafter, you can go on to explore the possible causations (from my own experience, once the negative effects have been corrected, there is little or no need to bother with the causations). At least I have found this strategy to work best for me.

Wade, I think is the crux of the matter. Let me see if I can explain the difference between the approach you're espousing and what I'm actually hearing from you.

Let's say that a man enters into a business deal with a friend and subsequently loses all the money he invested. He feels angry and betrayed by his friend.

The correct approach, according to what you said, would be something like this: "You need to get past the anger and the hurt . Whether or not your friend really did cheat you is irrelevant to the healing process; you need to deal with the reasons you have responded so negatively and angrily."

What I've heard you saying is something quite different: "You need to get past the anger and the hurt. Believing that your friend cheated you is a cognitive distortion and is uncharitble and judgmental. You will never heal properly until you recognize that your friend acted in good faith."

Do you see the difference? Now, before you accuse me of uncharitably misrepresenting you, I'm honestly telling you what I have seen from you and why I initially reacted so negatively to you.

[_dartagnan]

Okay...here we have more finger-pointing, false analogies, and calls for the opposing party to change, and little or no mention of what one is personally willing to do to improve relations.

And here we have more rhetorical platitudes that do nothing but dodge the established points and reinforce one’s own arrogant presupposition that he has the solution to everything.

Wade, if you believed in even half of your own tripe then you would have to be equally critical of the LDS Church. Your own solution suggests both sides are equally at fault, but I have never once seen you step up to the plate as an LDS member and advise other LDS when they mistreat former members as though they were less deserving of love and respect than faithful members.

The only time I see you jump into this subject is when you see ex-LDS make suggestions for the LDS Church to change. You then launch into this psycho-babble analysis about how they need to “heal” and forget what the Church did. My sense of it is that most people who have left have already “healed.” For you to suggest otherwise is just a lame attempt to take focus off the subject matter by making the subject them. This is typical maneuvering that is consistent with the LDS attitude we have been describing. For Mormons, the Ex-LDS just have problems they have to deal with on their own, and should cease from criticizing the Church in any way because it is somehow counter-productive.

You’re off by a mile Wade, as it seems clear to me you are out of touch with everyone and their reasons for leaving and discussing this issue.

Did it work? Of course not (thereby reinforcing what I have said)

You routinely reinforce what you have said with your own loopy logic. Do you consider yourself a representative the LDS Church? Was I “finger pointing” at you? The Church is to blame here, pure and simple. Yet, the Church is not responding to us, so your test cannot apply. The Church and I are not engaged in any formal discussion about this subject because, quite frankly, the Church would have none of it. Remember, “the Church is perfect,” and it has never been open to discussion about its shortcomings. So to say your argument has been proved correct is absurd. I can finger point at rapists and criminals and virtually every wrong doer on the planet, but you would turn around and say this says more about me than it does them? No, of course not. Only when the “perfect” Church is in the guilt cross-hairs do you attempt to throw every piece of rhetorical munitions in your apologetic arsenal.

Now, you good folks can choose to take this same approach over and over, expecting a different result, or expecting it to at some point work.

So you’re deluded into thinking we’re all here discussing this subject in hopes that the mere existence of our discussion will somehow strike the Church down and compel it to turn its apostate policy on its head? You may be that naïve, but I highly doubt anyone else here is. We’re just talking, like people who have something in common usually do. You would have us all feel guilty for talking, or at the least, make us feel like we’re in need of your pseudo-psychological analyses.

But, I prefer instead to try something different, and something I can be, and have been, more assured will have positive results.

When it comes to the church admitting it is doing something wrong, nothing will work. Period. We all know this. However, in terms of the Church changing its bigotry policy towards former members, well, that can only happen once the church realizes it exists. That can only change once the Church realizes it is counter productive for its own growth. This is precisely why the blacks were granted the priesthood. The Church realized it could not, as a viable organization, become a global religion while denying priesthood to entire continents. Once it realizes that 65% of its membership is inactive because of its bigotry campaign against jack-Mormons and apostates, only then will it devise some sort of strategy to replace the existing policy with something more politically correct. You’ll gradually start hearing the leadership give conference talks that encourage LDS members to embrace former members. It might take several more years to accomplish, but one thing I have learned as a Mormon is that virtually any changes can be made in a Church guided by “continuing revelation.” Even changes that go completely at odds with an established century old policy.

[_Ray A]

Ray, I read your post this morning but didn’t have time to reply. In the interim, other people posted exactly the point I want to make to you.

You and I both live in the “mission field”, where the number of LDS is quite small. Neither being LDS nor apostatizing from the LDS church made one whit of difference in my life outside my family. Other than my closest friends, few people knew or cared. (other than perhaps wanting to save my soul) My social standing at work, with friends, was not affected at all.

I do have active LDS family (If I recall correctly, your family is not LDS, right?), but they are on the “liberal” side. It was initially difficult for them when I left but we all learned to deal with it and move on. We just don’t talk about it. Of course, that leaves a lot of important things unspoken, but I can live with that and so can they. I wasn’t risking a marriage worth saving (I didn’t know how my LDS husband would react to my apostasy, but it was not a marriage worth saving in the first place). It was frightening, nonetheless, in my mid-thirties to suddenly have to figure out life and my purpose in it, so it wasn’t easy or painless. I’m just saying that I didn’t pay a huge social cost.

Beastie, I don't have much time now, but maybe tomorrow. The above point is valid. I don't have any active LDS family, but I do have a Catholic sister who does not talk to me, and I'm certain her Catholic belief has a strong influence in this. So I can understand how religious prejudice can be a factor in animosity. If I doubled that, then perhaps this is how a, say, Utah exmo, might feel. And we know what all about the Inqisition, and the Crusades, and Opus Dei, and the Catholic Congregation for the Defense of the Faith.

However, I wonder how much "exmo anger" is generated by social ostracism? A lot, I'm sure, and as I recently discovered from past letters I dug up, my bitterness was apparently still going five years after I left the Church, yet I know it fluctuated, because Mormonism was both good and bad for me. Internet exchanges brought much of it back on from 2000 onwards. Mormons and ex-Mormons are also, for the most part, fundamentally different in lifestyle, and this adds to the divide. Both are convinced that their choices are better; one looks down on the other because they are "prudes", and the other because they are "publicans and sinners", and "darkened apostates", something I guess like the "filthy Lamanites", whose skins have becomed darkened with sin. I honestly believe the Book of Mormon when it says that God loves ALL people, and I take no offence that he "favours the righteous", or gives special priveliges to them. Gandhi became powerful and influential because of his lifestyle, as has the Dailai Lama. I do believe that all people recognise virtue, even if they don't acknowledge it, or even if they criticise it. Churches are given special priveliges because they do things the Atheist Society doesn't do, and I don't think I have to name those things. It is religious belief that has motivated almost all of the humanitarian organisations in the past. Yes, that same sometimes prejudiced religious belief. (And I experienced this while going through divorce, as my Mormon friends were the first ones on my doorstep.)

So there lies my bias towards believers. For me, what a person does says far more than what they believe, or disbelieve. When I'm in "party mode" I prefer the "publicans and sinners", but I have a profound respect for believers and admire, and even envy, their virtues. I really think they have chosen the better lifestyle, and one for the overall good and betterment of society. For this reason doctrinal issues have little truck with me. I look beyond that. MAD may have many "issues" with exmos, but I do find, even with the restrictions and heavy moderation, that I feel more comfortable on MAD, and I, personally, try not to offend Mormons, because I believe in the overall good of their purpose. It reminds me of Manning Clark, one of Australia's most famous and prolific atheist (or he may have been agnostic) left wing historians, once saying that although he was basically a man of the world, he felt more comfortable among believer societies than atheist societies. There doesn't seem to be the same crudeness and insensitivity. What I'm saying probably makes little sense to some here, but to me it's quite clear. I am not speaking here about "exmo issues", but general issues and lifestyle choices.


There seems little doubt that there is a divide, and a problem. And whether the twain will ever meet in harmony, seems impossible to me, and I think you also express this view. So it is a case of you go to your quarter and kindred, and I will go to mine. But this is a problem for those who have been reared or entrenched for years in Mormon society, and who suddenly find themselves at odds with the kin or religion. Yes, there does need to be more understanding on the part of LDS who find "apostates" in their family and treat them badly, as in the case of Sono Hito. But I should also point out that I know many who have left the church and still have the full fellowship and love of their kin. They simply no longer believe, but mother, father and siblings treat them no differently. This is something we may fail to acknowledge more. The vast majority of exiters have no problem with the church, and for a very balanced and honest treatment by some who have left the church (but retain membership) Leaving The Fold is a good read:

http://www.signaturebooks.com/leavefold.htm

This is a far better treatment of Mormonism than Martha Beck-style treatment. I think I'm in author Ure's "camp", and I find RFM style diatribes completely distasteful. For that reason, I am prepared to wear the bigotry. And remember, no one has to steady the Ark of Mormonism. On the one hand I see comment that Mormonism is puny and insignificant, a blip in world history and contemporary affairs, yet those same people become obsessed with changing it. I'm not trying to minimise problems, nor deny there is a problem in Mormon dominated societies. But we should keep in mind comments like those from Apostle Russell Ballard:

Perceptions and assumptions can be very dangerous and unfair. There are some of our members who may fail to reach out with friendly smiles, warm handshakes, and loving service to all of their neighbors. At the same time, there may be those who move into our neighborhoods who are not of our faith who come with negative preconceptions about the Church and its members. Surely good neighbors should put forth every effort to understand each other and to be kind to one another regardless of religion, nationality, race, or culture.

Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen. I have been a member of this Church my entire life. I have been a full-time missionary, twice a bishop, a mission president, a Seventy, and now an Apostle. I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths.

It is true that this does not deal with the "exmo problem", and I do think it needs more addressing, but I'm 100% certain that exmo forums like RFM do nothing to help, and create many, many more problems in widening this divide. We need negotiators, not scoffers and labelling and stereotyping, and unfortunately this is not the case with the RFM style of "recovery". If anyone ever "gets through to Salt lake City", I can assure you it won't be the "angry exmos".

[_dartagnan]

I agree with much of what Ray has said, and I have expressed similar feelings on the message boards. Mormons are generally honest people who mean well. But I think it is an unwarranted assumption that the Mormons have chosen a “better lifestyle” than ex-Mormons because there is no such thing as the ex-Mormon lifestyle, and some practicing Mormons drink, smoke, become addicted to prescription medication, etc. As far as the word of wisdom, some people leave the Church and become vegetarians. So it is impossible to use this as some kind of barometer for goodness.

I do not think that leaving the Church is synonymous with choosing a lesser lifestyle. Many ex-Mormons I find to be honest just the same. I have found several dishonest people in the Church too. In fact, the most honest and sincere posters I have found on the web are those who have either left or are currently struggling with their testimonies. The apologists I used to rub elbows with have since shown me how fake they can really be. For Mormons, the tribe is what’s important. It comes first. Personal relationships are secondary and are only tolerable within the overall context of what’s best for the Church. If you strike them as someone who might serve the Church in some capacity, they will keep the bridge open. If you strike them as someone who has already fallen into apostasy, they will probably consider you a lost cause and burn the bridge. Of course, they’ll likely blame you for burning the bridge because, as I said before, the one who dares express doubts about the truth claims of the LDS Church, is already guilty by default. They don’t even entertain the possibility that you might have a point. You’ve been doubting, which means you’re probably sinning, which means you’re probably on the path to apostasy, which means the only cure is your own repentance. Why hang around someone like that when their mere presence could cause your own spirituality to deflate?

So all in all, yes, I would most likely trust a Mormon neighbor to baby-sit my kids as opposed to a non-LDS I do not know. To me it doesn’t really matter why Mormons tend to be honest and wholesome. The fact is they have that tendency, which means I feel safer knowing my kids are with strangers with at least some sense of a moral compass. It isn’t that I assume non-Mormons don’t have one, its just that with Mormon strangers, I know at least something about them.

On the other hand, the more I think about it the more I am beginning to see how the Evangelical criticism is not totally without merit. Many Mormons really do “good works” for less than admirable reasons. Many of them really do see themselves as teetering between the terrestrial and celestial kingdom, and they want to do as much for their neighbors to push them over on the good side. For the recipients of their services, it doesn’t matter to them what their motives or intentions are. Ten years ago I would have said this is hogwash when an Evangelical would accuse Mormons of trying to work their way to heaven, but since then I have had numerous anecdotal experiences where Mormons would open up to me during an emotional breakdown, and explain to me this precise reason for their stress. They don’t feel good enough. They find themselves constantly praying and repenting throughout the day, scared to death that one sin my pass them by without repentance, forever damning them to one of the lesser kingdoms. Every single Mormon in my wife’s family in Utah is on Prozac or some other anti-depressant. Better lifestyle you say? There is more to the typical Mormon lifestyle than the cookies they bring over to new neighbors and the smiling faces they put on at Church.

Ultimately, it is impossible to determine which side has chosen the better lifestyle. And again, the whacky RFM type ex-mos represent less than one half of one percent of ex-Mormonism. They are not a good group to compare with. My sense of it is that people are either good or bad from the start. Missionaries have a tendency to baptize people who are already good hearted. On the whole, they are not baptizing drunks, wife abusers and drug addicts. I think good people will be good with or without the Church.

[_wenglund]

Okay...here we have more finger-pointing, false analogies, and calls for the opposing party to change, and little or no mention of what one is personally willing to do to improve relations.

And here we have more rhetorical platitudes that do nothing but dodge the established points and reinforce one’s own arrogant presupposition that he has the solution to everything.

Wade, if you believed in even half of your own tripe then you would have to be equally critical of the LDS Church. Your own solution suggests both sides are equally at fault, but I have never once seen you step up to the plate as an LDS member and advise other LDS when they mistreat former members as though they were less deserving of love and respect than faithful members.

The only time I see you jump into this subject is when you see ex-LDS make suggestions for the LDS Church to change. You then launch into this psycho-babble analysis about how they need to “heal” and forget what the Church did. My sense of it is that most people who have left have already “healed.” For you to suggest otherwise is just a lame attempt to take focus off the subject matter by making the subject them. This is typical maneuvering that is consistent with the LDS attitude we have been describing. For Mormons, the Ex-LDS just have problems they have to deal with on their own, and should cease from criticizing the Church in any way because it is somehow counter-productive.

You’re off by a mile Wade, as it seems clear to me you are out of touch with everyone and their reasons for leaving and discussing this issue.

Did it work? Of course not (thereby reinforcing what I have said)

You routinely reinforce what you have said with your own loopy logic. Do you consider yourself a representative the LDS Church? Was I “finger pointing” at you? The Church is to blame here, pure and simple. Yet, the Church is not responding to us, so your test cannot apply. The Church and I are not engaged in any formal discussion about this subject because, quite frankly, the Church would have none of it. Remember, “the Church is perfect,” and it has never been open to discussion about its shortcomings. So to say your argument has been proved correct is absurd. I can finger point at rapists and criminals and virtually every wrong doer on the planet, but you would turn around and say this says more about me than it does them? No, of course not. Only when the “perfect” Church is in the guilt cross-hairs do you attempt to throw every piece of rhetorical munitions in your apologetic arsenal.

Now, you good folks can choose to take this same approach over and over, expecting a different result, or expecting it to at some point work.

So you’re deluded into thinking we’re all here discussing this subject in hopes that the mere existence of our discussion will somehow strike the Church down and compel it to turn its apostate policy on its head? You may be that naïve, but I highly doubt anyone else here is. We’re just talking, like people who have something in common usually do. You would have us all feel guilty for talking, or at the least, make us feel like we’re in need of your pseudo-psychological analyses.

But, I prefer instead to try something different, and something I can be, and have been, more assured will have positive results.

When it comes to the church admitting it is doing something wrong, nothing will work. Period. We all know this. However, in terms of the Church changing its bigotry policy towards former members, well, that can only happen once the church realizes it exists. That can only change once the Church realizes it is counter productive for its own growth. This is precisely why the blacks were granted the priesthood. The Church realized it could not, as a viable organization, become a global religion while denying priesthood to entire continents. Once it realizes that 65% of its membership is inactive because of its bigotry campaign against jack-Mormons and apostates, only then will it devise some sort of strategy to replace the existing policy with something more politically correct. You’ll gradually start hearing the leadership give conference talks that encourage LDS members to embrace former members. It might take several more years to accomplish, but one thing I have learned as a Mormon is that virtually any changes can be made in a Church guided by “continuing revelation.” Even changes that go completely at odds with an established century old policy.

Can I have a show of hands of those who Kevin was preaching at above, who read through the entirety of Kevin's post, and/or who were even the least bit pursuaded by anything he said?

For may part, I bearly made it past the first paragraph. Why? Because it struck me as the same-old dogmatic voice of hypocrisy howling at the moon. Who would want to listen to that?

Just maybe this kind of preaching doesn't work so well. Just maybe leading by positive example works a whole lot better--at least that is what I have found to be true for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-