Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

[_Coggins7]

You no longer know who to trust and who will stand by your side and protect you.

Loran:

Sounds like what happened in The Thing. As the great R.J. McCready said, "why don't we just stay here for a while and see what happens?"

[_Ray A]

Ray,

The difference between a benign "leave taker" and an "apostate" (whose narrative is carefully crafted and morphs into what the new group wants) is only that the "apostate" speaks up. The "leave taker" does not.

I specifically addressed this point on those FAIR threads. I used the example of my sister, who is an atheist like me, and has the same opinions regarding the truth claims of the church as I do. But she doesn't talk about it with anyone aside from a couple of family members like me. So because she goes quietly and is never heard from again, she's an ok "leave taker". Because I talk about it, I would be an "apostate".

This is how the message to "shut up" is conveyed. If you "shut up", you can avoided being labeled and described in pejorative terms. If you don't shut up, then your narrative is crafted, morphing, tailored, and you have created an "entire new identity" based on opposing the church.

Of course this doesn't work on exmormons, for the most part. But it still reveals something about the thought processes of the believers making these sort of statements.

Beastie, I mentioned Simon Southerton on the other thread. Simon stopped believing some seven or eight years before he was excommunicated, and not for apostasy, but for adultery (which pissed him off, but long story). I've read many of his comments over the last few days, and what this indicates is that, yes, the church will only act when someone "speaks up". That I find unacceptable, but I've had my own run-ins with my leaders about how this (it involves my ex-wife, but I don't want to bring her into this). The church has a weird policy in this regard, and it does seem to be, "shut up and sing" (I'm not talking about FAIR).

I don't believe that "leave takers" or "apostates" should "shut up", but how they write narratives is crucial. Those exmos who lambaste and bastardise Mormonism and attack individual Mormons cannot expect to do so without counter-attacks.

[_beastie]

If you want to criticise someone, or their beliefs, sarcasm or cynicism is not the way to do it. If you were sarcastic or cynical (I don't know), then that might have been the cause of the reproof. This is what you people just don't get (not referring to you specifically, because I don't know your circumstances), if you go on "Mormon Territory", you can't expect to get away with crass criticisms. That is all they are saying, you can be critical, but do not mock us.

This is impossibly subjective, Ray. There are members who view any criticism as a form of mocking, or personal attack. It took me a while to figure out why Juliann is so defensive about criticism (after all, she IS posting on a board that is supposedly inviting some criticism) but I am certain she interprets criticism as "telling her what she can believe". That is part of the reason I quit posting there. I wasn't trying to tell her, or anyone, what "they can believe". People can believe whatever they want. But that doesn't mean those same beliefs should be insulated from analysis or criticism.

Mormonism is one of those religions that is normally such a large part of the believer's psyche that it is a "core" issue. When "core issues" are criticized or analyzed, it feels like a personal attack to the people who identify themselves by those core issues. That's why I've given up on discussing Mormonism with believers, by and large (except for the truly liberal believers). They feel attacked even when all that's happened is that their beliefs are being criticized.

[_beastie]

I don't believe that "leave takers" or "apostates" should "shut up", but how they write narratives is crucial. Those exmos who lambaste and bastardise Mormonism and attack individual Mormons cannot expect to do so without counter-attacks.

I agree with that. But in my experience, there are too many believers who "feel" even controlled criticism of their beliefs to be an attack. It's just too hard to work through all the noise to be able to find enough signal to hold on to with believers who can really tell the difference, like Ben McGuire. (and others, he just comes to mind)

[_Ray A]

This is impossibly subjective, Ray. There are members who view any criticism as a form of mocking, or personal attack. It took me a while to figure out why Juliann is so defensive about criticism (after all, she IS posting on a board that is supposedly inviting some criticism) but I am certain she interprets criticism as "telling her what she can believe". That is part of the reason I quit posting there. I wasn't trying to tell her, or anyone, what "they can believe". People can believe whatever they want. But that doesn't mean those same beliefs should be insulated from analysis or criticism.

Mormonism is one of those religions that is normally such a large part of the believer's psyche that it is a "core" issue. When "core issues" are criticized or analyzed, it feels like a personal attack to the people who identify themselves by those core issues. That's why I've given up on discussing Mormonism with believers, by and large (except for the truly liberal believers). They feel attacked even when all that's happened is that their beliefs are being criticized.

Beastie, Juliann is an individual. An individual Mormon with her own views. But I understand the "gap" between believers and exmos, for that matter most who question. There is without question a "divide", an exclusive divide. I have read too many emails from exmos telling me how their family shunned them only because they stopped believing, and I find this wrong, I mean, after all, family? Does belief disintegrate blood relations? For some Mormons, apparently so. Maybe too many. You're right that "detente" with "true believers" may be fruitless, because of the absolute truth claims, and literalism. I am with Simon on this, I don't want to destroy Mormonism, but I do want to see some "attitude changes", and I know you're going to say they can't change because of the literalism, "only true beliefs", for this we have to reply on the goodness of human nature, which is a big ask, and my "quest" is misguided. I'm already shunned because I'm a liberal. I understand all that. But I'm motivated by a common humanity, not exclusive truth claims. I just sometimes see both sides as having extremes, and I realise you do too.

[_Runtu]

Nope, I was not banned from FAIR. What does that have to do with anything?

I've been told many times to suppress my "unhealthy" feelings toward the church.

If you want to criticise someone, or their beliefs, sarcasm or cynicism is not the way to do it. If you were sarcastic or cynical (I don't know), then that might have been the cause of the reproof. This is what you people just don't get (not referring to you specifically, because I don't know your circumstances), if you go on "Mormon Territory", you can't expect to get away with crass criticisms. That is all they are saying, you can be critical, but do not mock us.

I've had my share of sarcasm, but that's not the cause of the "reproof." I've been told to put it all away: don't read anything, don't talk to anyone, avoid other exmormons, in short, never speak of it again.

[_beastie]

Beastie, Juliann is an individual. An individual Mormon with her own views. But I understand the "gap" between believers and exmos, for that matter most who question. There is without question a "divide", an exclusive divide. I have read too many emails from exmos telling me how their family shunned them only because they stopped believing, and I find this wrong, I mean, after all, family? Does belief disintegrate blood relations? For some Mormons, apparently so. Maybe too many. You're right that "detente" with "true believers" may be fruitless, because of the absolute truth claims, and literalism. I am with Simon on this, I don't want to destroy Mormonism, but I do want to see some "attitude changes", and I know you're going to say they can't change because of the literalism, "only true beliefs", for this we have to reply on the goodness of human nature, which is a big ask, and my "quest" is misguided. I'm already shunned because I'm a liberal. I understand all that. But I'm motivated by a common humanity, not exclusive truth claims. I just sometimes see both sides as having extremes, and I realise you do too.

Yes, Juliann is an individual, just like whatshisname (the one who said I was the product of incest) is an individual, but in these discussion forums, both have "followers" and influence, and help set the tone of the discussion. This seems to be true with any internet discussion forum. A lot of the tone depends on the tone the "leaders" of the group set. There are others who disagree with lots of the comments made by the "leaders" but don't have the courage or desire to go up against them when they are so popular. (particularly when the leaders are/or influence the moderators) That's why discussing with moderation is difficult on those boards and ultimately frustrating.

But that is a commentary on discussions between believers and exbelievers on internet boards. It's not the same in "real life". In real life, generally, people tend to be less confrontational and moderate. But the difficulty in real life, in regards to discussion between exbeliever and believer, is that the conversation tends to be avoided altogether in order to preserve relationships.

BUT - I actually believe that criticisms of exbelievers do eventually have an impact on the direction of the church. Now this next statement is an example of the type of statement that would cause a ruckus over on FAIR, and yet it is definitely reality-based. The LDS church is sensitive to how it markets itself. It does want to be seen as part of the larger society (hence the reduction in tension between the Mormon church and the larger society which, according to Mauss, results in a reduction in the number of apostates as he defines the term). It may take a great deal of time, and the church leaders would never admit that they considered the opinions of exbelievers in this evolution, but eventually I believe the church will react to these criticisms. (when it's something they can control) The part I'm uncertain about is what form that change will take. I tend to believe it will be liberalizing, as you desire, but there is a possibility they will become even more conservative. For example, in regards to the view of the Book of Mormon as a literal history - whether or not they will ever admit it, the leadership eventually recognizes the challenges facing interpreting the Book of Mormon as a literal ancient history, instead of as pseudographia. Once having recognized it, they have a choice to make. Will they go the way of the RLDS and while perhaps not openly sanctioning the pseudographic model, will ALLOW it to be expressed without problem, and eventually create a climate in which it's "ok" for believers to choose either interpretation? Or will they retrench and become even more demanding of viewing the Book of Mormon as literal ancient history? They're kind of between a rock and a hard place, because both choices have a cost (which is why I think the choice right now is to pretend the problem doesn't exist). The liberal route will enable the church to retain a certain number of members who would otherwise feel that they have no place in the LDS church, but yet it opens the door to the 'watering down' effect. When a church becomes more liberal, people feel freer to do things like marry someone of a different faith and go to THEIR church, or they feel freer to openly be selective in which "commandments" to follow. Then the church becomes less attractive to those who want clear answers and directions, and it really does become much more like mainstream religions - and their numbers tend to reduce. OR it can become more conservative, and become a global church with a membership largely relying on the children of believers following their parents' traditions, and attaining converts from the less educated with less access to information. Those members will be less able to financially support the church, as well, and less able to present an attractive front to marketing to the middle and uipper class. So this will also tend to reduce numbers.

I think the church is not confronting this problem right now because they sense a reduction in numbers and support no matter which direction they take, and are not ready to admit that yet. But this is the natural evolution of ALL RELIGIONS. They start out as cultish, rebellious, reactionary groups AGAINST the mainstream, following a charismatic leader who touches people BY demanding more than the mainstream religions do. If the new religion survives, it eventually grows and develops a bureaucracy, which becomes self-sustaining and has a life of its own. Then as the religion grows and ages, it transforms INTO the mainstream and experiences a reduction in numbers and support. Then a new upstart cultish religion develops as a reaction AGAINST the now mainstream religion.

The LDS church is simply facing a new phase in its development, and it is difficult to deal with.

[_Ray A]

The part I'm uncertain about is what form that change will take. I tend to believe it will be liberalizing, as you desire, but there is a possibility they will become even more conservative. For example, in regards to the view of the Book of Mormon as a literal history - whether or not they will ever admit it, the leadership eventually recognizes the challenges facing interpreting the Book of Mormon as a literal ancient history, instead of as pseudographia. Once having recognized it, they have a choice to make. Will they go the way of the RLDS and while perhaps not openly sanctioning the pseudographic model, will ALLOW it to be expressed without problem, and eventually create a climate in which it's "ok" for believers to choose either interpretation? Or will they retrench and become even more demanding of viewing the Book of Mormon as literal ancient history? They're kind of between a rock and a hard place, because both choices have a cost (which is why I think the choice right now is to pretend the problem doesn't exist). The liberal route will enable the church to retain a certain number of members who would otherwise feel that they have no place in the LDS church, but yet it opens the door to the 'watering down' effect. When a church becomes more liberal, people feel freer to do things like marry someone of a different faith and go to THEIR church, or they feel freer to openly be selective in which "commandments" to follow. Then the church becomes less attractive to those who want clear answers and directions, and it really does become much more like mainstream religions - and their numbers tend to reduce. OR it can become more conservative, and become a global church with a membership largely relying on the children of believers following their parents' traditions, and attaining converts from the less educated with less access to information. Those members will be less able to financially support the church, as well, and less able to present an attractive front to marketing to the middle and uipper class. So this will also tend to reduce numbers.

I think the church is not confronting this problem right now because they sense a reduction in numbers and support no matter which direction they take, and are not ready to admit that yet. But this is the natural evolution of ALL RELIGIONS. They start out as cultish, rebellious, reactionary groups AGAINST the mainstream, following a charismatic leader who touches people BY demanding more than the mainstream religions do. If the new religion survives, it eventually grows and develops a bureaucracy, which becomes self-sustaining and has a life of its own. Then as the religion grows and ages, it transforms INTO the mainstream and experiences a reduction in numbers and support. Then a new upstart cultish religion develops as a reaction AGAINST the now mainstream religion.

The LDS church is simply facing a new phase in its development, and it is difficult to deal with.

I agree with all of these assessments. One thing I have distinctly noticed is that when ex-believers (and I don't mean just those out of the church, but those who adopt less literal beliefs within), such as Tom Ferguson, one of the most consistent statements I've heard from such people is "I became more tolerant of others, and other beliefs". Also people like Lowell Bennion, Jackson Newell (who published a book on McMurrin), et.al. The problem at the moment is that the liberals are by far out numbered by TBMs, but even here I question just how many TBMs really, truly believe the Book of Mormon is literal history. In my experience, when I've probed many of them deeply I have received some surprising answers. Yet, one has to be seen in the church as a literal believer, at the moment, to be accepted. But scratch beneath the surface and you will find much liberalism lurking beneath the TBM surface. The frantic search for hard evidence is a symptom of doubt, uncertainty, and the circumstantial evidences, no matter how convincing they may sound, do not add up to a convincing overall picture. It works like this: We KNOW through the HG it's true, so the evidence MUST be there. But in Gospel Doctrine classes there is not real, in-depth of history discussed at all. That's how I managed to teach the Book of Mormon for a year and not one member know of my deeper views, because it's all on the principles in the Book of Mormon, and you can relate what history there is by sticking to internal Book of Mormon history, with no recourse to actual Mesoamerican civilisations or any external evidences. In GD they are not bothered by history or evidences, and most do not even know what FARMS is, nor care. It's very fuzzy thinking if you look at it critically, but it's the principles that bring the "warm and fuzzy feelings". If they began to look at it critically, probably half of them would end up on RFM. But if the church did what you hypothesise, this problem would be mitigated, because there would be natural attrition from the church, if the church did as you suggested they might, and relax this literal interpretation. That would stop mass apostasy and/or anger. I don't see any forums attacking RLDS, and that's because they have relaxed, though Dale Broadhurst said that many RLDS still yearn for a historical Book of Mormon, but they have their choice with no pressure from the church either way. If the literal interpretations were dropped, or choice allowed, this would mean newborn generations of Mormon children being faced with choices rather than being indoctrinated to believe everything is literal, thus leading to later disillusionment and anger.

This is something that may explain why I'm not in revolt. I adopted this less literal interpretation in 1994, and had flirted with it since the mid-1980s. So the shock factor was significantly diminished. I don't even bother debating the Book of Abraham because I follow the same pattern there. So the "anger factor" is simply not there for me, a la Bennion and Ferguson. Bennion said he studied the Book of Mormon seriously for a long time, concluded it was not history, but stayed in the church and became a universalist and humanitarian. All the rejection that exmos face from friends and family is because of this literalism. I realise I'm at odds with TBMs on the historicity factor, but I can appreciate why they focus on principles, and that's some common ground.

The church is in some kind of transition, and has a history of change, but since the Book of Mormon is the keystone, that will be the last to be given less literal status, so I can't predict the future direction there either, but exmoism is going to flourish as long as the literal status is held. This is why I have problems with exmos too, because they are venting against something which for me was never true. Well, that's an understatement and taking a bit of licence for emphasis, it was all very true to me until around 1983-1985, but once I started moving to less literal interpretations, on my own, there was no need to vent, except against the TBMs on the net who attacked me for my non-literal interpretations, as happened in 2000 when I was virtually called Korihor because I posted on an LDS forum that I doubted historicity. That doesn't happen today, only six years on, so I do in fact see some change taking place. But I will say this, if exmos continue to attack Mormonism, they will defeat their own cause. Yes, maybe Mormonism does need exmos to bring about more thinking along the lines of less literalism, but they (exmos) are not going to do it by insulting Mormons. The more you fight something, the more defensive it becomes. I haven't seen you do this on FAIR, but I think your case was just a very unfortunate one in clashing with Juliann, and I was right there on the thread when it happened, and to this day I believe you should still be posting on FAIR, but I can understand why you don't want to go back, and the position was you could have gone back, but you were "not invited", i.e, you could have gone back but not by way of invitation.

I don't think the tensions are anywhere near being solved, and they won't be as long as two very different worldviews clash. As more TBMs adopt the less literal interpretation, then tensions will diminish, but they will see this as a threat, and I don't see any backing down. The only way to oversome this, in my opinion, is for Mormons to do much wider studies and allow more diversity of opinion and belief. This isn't going to kill Mormonism, but many TBMs will leave, and Mormonism will become palatable to a wider range of people with different interests in it. As it stands at the moment, it's "true believer" status, Hoffer style almost. The question is, how many will wear this, and for how long? Will it take absolute proof that the Book of Mormon is not history? Probably. Many have already reached that conclusion, but continue to try to find some kind of harmony with Mormons. That harmony will not be achieved as long as Mormons are attacked and insulted.

[_beastie]

Ray,

I've wondered about the RFM exmormon resistance to the idea of the Book of Mormon being pseudographia instead of literal history. That is to say, I don't wonder why exmormons don't view it as pseudographia, in terms of accepting its inspired origin - I don't either. But I wonder why they seem to resist still believing members who view it as pseudographia. This can be seen in their comments on that Utah radio personality whose name I can't recall at the moment who openly talks about his rejection of the Book of Mormon as literal history on his popular program. Van Hale? I can't quite recall his name. I've long thought that LDS accepting the Book of Mormon as pseudographia instead of literal history would be a positive step in the right direction. I understand all the other problems that would create, mainly in reconciling the statements of past prophets with the idea of the Book of Mormon as pseudographia, but they already have to deal with that problem in other areas. I can't help but think that accepting that members are "allowed" to view the Book of Mormon as pseudographia would have a liberalizing effect on the religion as a whole, as you note. Unless you desire the total destruction of the LDS church, which is unrealistic and ignores the cultural influence of Mormonism (and besides, to be consistent, one should wish for the destruction of ALL religions in that case, since all religion - in my opinion - has the element of what could be labeled "fraud" at its core), then liberalization is what we should want for our Mormon friends and relatives, because it will ease relations between us all.

Of course, as you may remember, I am on the fence in regards to religion and its usefullness to mankind to begin with. I'm reading Dawkins' book The God Delusion, but haven't gotten to the part yet where he explains why religion is harmful and should be eradicated. ;) Perhaps he will persuade me, but right now I'm still of the mind that religion has evolutionarily useful purposes, if we can control certain more divisive tribal aspects of belief. (and liberalizing religion, as a whole, is one way to do that)

[_Ray A]

I've wondered about the RFM exmormon resistance to the idea of the Book of Mormon being pseudographia instead of literal history. That is to say, I don't wonder why exmormons don't view it as pseudographia, in terms of accepting its inspired origin - I don't either. But I wonder why they seem to resist still believing members who view it as pseudographia. This can be seen in their comments on that Utah radio personality whose name I can't recall at the moment who openly talks about his rejection of the Book of Mormon as literal history on his popular program. Van Hale?

Yes, it is Van Hale. This is from Rethinking Mormonism: http://www.i4m.com/think/van_hale.htm

It was during an interview with Simon Southerton that he issued a public statement that he could not accept the Book of Mormon as history. You'd have to read his views to make sense of them. I can understand why he would be criticised, by both Mormons and ex-Mormons, because this excludes the either/or outlook. Hale has a mixture of beliefs, some of which don't make sense to me, and he accepts things I have problems with. This is a whittling down process of tossing out, and the question is, will there be anything left at the end of it? It's what I call the Maxwell Smart phenomenon, where you go through a series of "would you believe?" episodes until an army is reduced to a boy scout doing bob-a-jobs. I remember my first institute teacher, in 1975, teaching us that the "narrow neck of land" was almost certainly the Panama Canal. Since then I've heard about a dozen different theories. I think what Hale recognises is what I recognise, it just doesn't make much sense as history, and for him it's salvaging what he can to keep believing in the essentials. Most exmos I think would not except that. In fact the last time a poll was done on FAIR about this issue, only a very small percentage accept the Book of Mormon as inspired but not history. The vast majority say it's either true or false. The problem there is, in my opinion, there has been no definitive case for proof or fraud, though both sides seem to think so. It's like debating the existence of Jesus. People have instilled into the minds that "Jesus lived". Yet if you're honest, and a historical realist, hard historical evidence is just not there, no matter how much we may want to believe it. Yet people can't get their minds around this fact. If you believe, it is because of faith, not history. Yet, I still see no reason to want to try to make people stop believing. Ditto for the Book of Mormon. I have some very fine Christian friends I like, and I don't even raise this with them. They like racy email jokes, and I see them as quite normal. But with Mormonism it's also a strong cultural thing, and that culture and moral code, embedded, makes them a different kettle of fish altogether. No different with JWs or SDAs. The culture is part of the religion, as is the moral code, even down petty debates on whether LDS should drink coke or not.

I can't help but think that accepting that members are "allowed" to view the Book of Mormon as pseudographia would have a liberalizing effect on the religion as a whole, as you note. Unless you desire the total destruction of the LDS church, which is unrealistic and ignores the cultural influence of Mormonism (and besides, to be consistent, one should wish for the destruction of ALL religions in that case, since all religion - in my opinion - has the element of what could be labeled "fraud" at its core), then liberalization is what we should want for our Mormon friends and relatives, because it will ease relations between us all.

Of course, as you may remember, I am on the fence in regards to religion and its usefullness to mankind to begin with. I'm reading Dawkins' book The God Delusion, but haven't gotten to the part yet where he explains why religion is harmful and should be eradicated. ;) Perhaps he will persuade me, but right now I'm still of the mind that religion has evolutionarily useful purposes, if we can control certain more divisive tribal aspects of belief. (and liberalizing religion, as a whole, is one way to do that)

This goes back to an old joke I like, but I suppose it will offend someone, about the guy who sees his mother-in-law going over a cliff in his brand new Mercedes Benz - he felt mixed emotions. Was it worth saving the car? This I suppose is the question in a nutshell, has religion brought us more evil than good? I think it has done enormous good, but when I look at the other side of the coin, I sometimes wonder myself. Mormonism certainly did me a lot of good, but I look at the positives. I noted that Dawkins is giving some of his royalties to a charity, and wants to foster non-religious charities, and I was impressed by this, because it seems he can see the gap usually associated with secularism, that it often seems to be selfish, whereas religion, with all of the myths, has historically done most of the charity work, yet it seems to be motivated be a quid pro quo, I give, I get salvation. Jesus will love me. But should we do good so Jesus will love us, or because it really helps others? Should we do good just to save our own celestial ass, so to speak? Notably, Albert Schweitzer, who concluded that Jesus may not even have existed, spent his last years as a missionary in Africa. So maybe he's the sort of future disciple we need. I doubt he would have hurt or killed anyone in the name of Christianity.