Is There Really More Than One Way to Mormon?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, FearlessFixxer said:

 

 

I fell like you guys are misunderstanding my post.  I was not trying to mock anything, the example i gave was just to help illustrate my point.

And I think Mormons can criticize bad ideas from exmos as well.

My point really was, why can't we all agree that the other side is allowed to criticize ideas without taking it as a personal insult?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read and you should commit seppeku to restore your personal honor to avoid living in perpetual disgrace for this post.

Obviously this is just criticism and should not be taken as a personal insult.  

[smac97]

On 9/26/2017 at 11:48 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

Hey all,  ExMormon here.

Did any of you attend Sunstone this year?  The theme was 'More Than One Way To Mormon'.

I did not know what to expect as it was my first time attending.  I was blown away at how much love and respect there was there.

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded,

I am not sure what you mean by "liberal," but I assume you mean sociopolitically liberal.  I am, in the main, sociopolitcally conservative.  

I also feel I am quite "open-minded," at least in the way that Aristotle put it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it," together with a dash of G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

I have spent much time considering the arguments and theories of folks critical of the LDS Church.  I have not dismissed them out-of-hand, and have instead given them a lot of thought and attention and study and introspection.  I have nevertheless received insinuations that I and other similarly-situated faithful Latter-day Saints are "closed-minded" because we have considered, and then rejected, these arguments and theories.

So to the extent that "open-minded" = "you agree with me about X" and "closed-minded" = "you have not capitulated to my point of view about X," I'd have to reject both such characterizations.  

Quote

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.

These communities already exist, I think.

Quote

Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

Well, no.  Not really.  An ex-Mormon is, by definition, no longer a Mormon (defined as "a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints").

That does not mean Latter-day Saints should shun or exclude or demean former members.  To the contrary, I think we should go out of our way to be respectful and kind and, perhaps, even loving to such folks.

But that does not mean we tear down the boundaries which delineate us.  We are a community of faith.  We cohere around faith.  Faith in the Restored Gospel is our raison d'être.  If we remove that central defining characteristic of our community, our community ceases to be.

Those boundaries are, of course, rather "soft," in that we want everyone in the entire world to join us within them.  But those boundaries must exist, else the value of the community is lost.  I can go to any number of places for camaraderie.  But when it comes to being part of a community of faith, I want that central tenet to mean something.

Quote

It requires us all to validate each other's opinions. 

I don't know what that means.  We can respect each other's opinions.  But "validate?"  As in "to make valid; substantiate; confirm?"  How would you propose that two groups with directly opposing viewpoints do that?  How would ex-Mormons - who define themselves by their rejection of the Restored Gospel - "validate" those who accept and attempt to live in accordance with that Gospel?  And vice versa?

Quote

We don't have to agree.  We don't have to say the other person is right....

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy....the point being that neither position makes the individual a bad or evil person.

Well, we could start by A) identifying points of commonality, and then B) identifying points on which there is détente, and then, perhaps, C) figure out a way to get along as pertaining to very sensitive and controversial issues.  As it is, however, you immediately jump to C, phrase that controversy in the worst possible light, and then tell the Mormons "Hey, accept this!"

Not the best way to start a conversation, I think.

Quote

While acknowledging that many exmormon have not made it easy to reach this level of understanding, it is important to acknowledge that mormons have been returning the favor.

Again, you are stacking the deck.  Not the best way to start a conversation.

Quote

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?

Here you are, for the third time in as many sentences, painting the Mormons as the unreasonable jerks and bad guys.

Quote

Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

It's hard.  If a person came to my house and began to offer unsolicited insults, criticisms, mockeries, and denigrating or vulgar insinuations about my wife and children, perhaps you could understand why I would think that person to be something of a jerk.  And if that person then said something like "Hey, can't we get along?  Isn't there a way for me to ridicule and denigrate to your face things you hold dear, and then have you just shut your yap and take it?", how would you respond to that sort of invitation?

To be sure, I do not object to criticisms of my faith.  I understand that there are people who disagree with us and who want to explain why.  However, the time and place and manner in which such criticisms are expressed matter.  A lot.  A lot.  There are some critics who manage to substantively critique our faith without resorting to profanations, denigrating slurs, mockery, and so on.  I appreciate and respect such persons.  Exchanging viewpoints with such persons is a healthy and good thing.

That said, my sense is that a lot of criticisms from former members descend into . . . profanations, denigrating slurs, mockery, and so on.  Some of this is perhaps attributable to a feeling of entitlement.  Just as family members can be exceptionally cruel to each other in ways they would never consider in other venues (work, for example), I think some former church members feel like they have some sort of right to publicly ridicule, insult and otherwise disparage the LDS Church and its members, leaders, doctrines, and culture.  They feel this way because they used to be in that community.  But it's not a healthy thing.

So if your post here is intended as a preemptive justification for behaving this way, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  But if you have in mind something more along the lines of principled, civil, polite discussion about issues relevant to the LDS Church (including controversial topics), then I'm totally fine with that.

Quote

I hope we can and, despite what people might think of me based of what they have read online, I always trying to achieve this dual respect in my real life relationships with active mormons (with varying degrees of success).

Sounds good. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2017 by smac97

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I fell like you guys are misunderstanding my post.  I was not trying to mock anything, the example i gave was just to help illustrate my point.

And I think Mormons can criticize bad ideas from exmos as well.

My point really was, why can't we all agree that the other side is allowed to criticize ideas without taking it as a personal insult?

I agree, I was responding to your specific comment:

42 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted.

I just wanted you to be aware that's not allowed here regarding member's beliefs.

[Jane_Doe]

38 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted.  We do this with everything in life, why would religion be exempt.  For me, the key would be to not make it personal and just as much about the facts as possible and then we respect the different conclusions people come to.

I do believe that people (all people) can honestly respect others right to believe how and what they please, even if person A thinks person B's ideas/beliefs/etc are totally stupid/hurtful/wrong/etc.  This applies to ALL people in ALL settings (religious/political/social/etc).   I also believe that stereotyping and polarizing are very destructive things.

That being said, in order to promote an environment where no one's beliefs are mocked/insulted, we need to completely discard the attitude that any idea "deserves" to be mocked/insulted.  

38 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

In the example of Smith's relationships behind Emma's back, it is a fact that it happened....but I might say it is disgraceful and another person might say he was fulfilling commandment from god.  Why can't two people hold those views without hurling direct insults at each other?

These two people can both hold their respective views and be friends.  But the minute any mockery comes into play, all respect is destroyed.  Yes, it is the natural human inclination to mock-- we must rise above that.

[strappinglad]

mockery is the sincerest form of calumny.

[FearlessFixxer]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just wanted you to be aware that's not allowed here regarding member's beliefs.

And I don't want to do it here.  I just wanted to discuss the topic in the abstract

[bluebell]

We all need to be merciful, kind, charitable, and loving.  We do not need to be self righteous, prideful, or cliquish.   People need to be accepted.  People also need to be chastised sometimes.  There is room for everyone in the church, but not room for every belief or lack of belief.  

It's hard to be inclusive and loving and at the same time, reiterate that the path that leads to eternal life is narrow.  It's a fine line to walk, and sometimes we fall of either side.  I think we can all do better, but I don't think that adopting relativism is the answer.

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

My point really was, why can't we all agree that the other side is allowed to criticize ideas without taking it as a personal insult?

I think one of the difficulties you face is that in your criticism you are often times speaking negatively about a persons deeply held sacred beliefs.  I don't think that you should expect people not to take this personally. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

My point really was, why can't we all agree that the other side is allowed to criticize ideas without taking it as a personal insult?

I feel like the trick to being able to criticize other people's beliefs and not have them see it as a personal insult is to do so without stating or implying that no reasonable person would believe such a thing.

So often when people criticize others they are personally insulting them because they couch their criticism in language that implies that intelligent and/or moral people can't/won't believe such things.  To imply that someone isn't intelligent or moral is a personal insult and it shouldn't be a surprise that someone would take it that way.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Hey all,  ExMormon here.

Did any of you attend Sunstone this year?  The theme was 'More Than One Way To Mormon'.

I did not know what to expect as it was my first time attending.  I was blown away at how much love and respect there was there.

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded, but I had active members come up and challenge me after my two talks, so it was not all about being exmormon or antagonistic towards the church.

The reason the event worked was because there was a pure empathy towards each person.  No matter what someones status was in the church, everyone was validated and respected.

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.

Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

It requires us all to validate each other's opinions. 

We don't have to agree.  We don't have to say the other person is right....

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy....the point being that neither position makes the individual a bad or evil person.

While acknowledging that many exmormon have not made it easy to reach this level of understanding, it is important to acknowledge that mormons have been returning the favor.

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

I hope we can and, despite what people might think of me based of what they have read online, I always trying to achieve this dual respect in my real life relationships with active mormons (with varying degrees of success).

I think empathy involves validating a person’s right to express himself (in this case, through his opinion or critique), not necessarily validating his opinion. I think it also involves avoiding the use of divisive labels, offensive terminology and caricature, and name-calling. I think depersonalizing religious criticism (whether receiving or sending it) requires a number of social (emotional, intellectual, spiritual, etc.) graces or intelligence.

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith had sex with his wives, and probably not all of them.

When you find the marriage record for Joseph and Mary Heron Snider let us know.

 

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I think one of the difficulties you face is that in your criticism you are often times speaking negatively about a persons deeply held sacred beliefs.  I don't think that you should expect people not to take this personally. 

One of the big challenges is how to characterize Joseph's complex intimate networks and to either call the network "adultery" or "holy polyamory" - sorry I can't stomach Bushman's phrase "lust for kin".   very few christian religious founders have pushed forward such incredibly complex intimacy networks and then solemnized them eternally as a means of conquering death.  

Edited September 26, 2017 by blueglass

[Calm]

2 hours ago, drums12 said:

Probably not when you come out with the passive-aggressive, pretend I'm friendly but get in a sucker punch like "being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back" OP

Or the "they are much more  liberal and open minded", lol.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So often when people criticize others they are personally insulting them because they couch their criticism in language that implies that intelligent and/or moral people...

Or open minded.

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy...

Good luck to see you open a dialog with stuff like this....

[juliann]

4 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

 

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded, but I had active members come up and challenge me after my two talks, so it was not all about being exmormon or antagonistic towards the church.

 

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

 

Liberal is a subjective term. I get called liberal and I am a FairMormon founder. But what isn't a good start to understanding is referring to your own side as the open minded ones ;-) 

We have a member of the First Presidency saying that not all people leave the church because they want to sin. It doesn't get any better than that. What I see a lot is that people don't effectively access what is there and authoritative.

Edited September 26, 2017 by juliann

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Hey all,  ExMormon here.

Did any of you attend Sunstone this year?  The theme was 'More Than One Way To Mormon'.

I did not know what to expect as it was my first time attending.  I was blown away at how much love and respect there was there.

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded, but I had active members come up and challenge me after my two talks, so it was not all about being exmormon or antagonistic towards the church.

The reason the event worked was because there was a pure empathy towards each person.  No matter what someones status was in the church, everyone was validated and respected.

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.

Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

It requires us all to validate each other's opinions. 

We don't have to agree.  We don't have to say the other person is right....

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy....the point being that neither position makes the individual a bad or evil person.

While acknowledging that many exmormon have not made it easy to reach this level of understanding, it is important to acknowledge that mormons have been returning the favor.

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

I hope we can and, despite what people might think of me based of what they have read online, I always trying to achieve this dual respect in my real life relationships with active mormons (with varying degrees of success).

Thanks for the post, I really like what you're saying.  I appreciate the work Lindsay Hansen Park is doing with Sunstone to make it friendly to all kinds of Mormons, including polygamists and fundamentalist branches of the tradition, which I find fascinating.  I think the key is respecting others as a core value, but that is hard when one person's sacred cow feels violated when another person shares their perspective.  

I think to do this it requires a great level of tolerance and respect, and not taking yourself too seriously.  But that is hard, I know as I've become an unorthodox Mormon, I have new things that I am upset about, and those new positions like support for the LGBT community or disgust about Trump have me reacting to comments and positions that people take that seem in conflict with my newly held values (sacred cows).  How do I navigate this new territory, often by keeping my mouth shut, and trying to love the person and remembering that I've been at a very different place in my own thinking not very many years ago. 

But this is hard, and takes a lot of patience and practice.  Mindfulness helps me some.  I'm human though.  I like what you've articulated, but I wonder how realistic it is.  I'm all for big tent Mormonism, but I'm not convinced it has staying power or that it won't implode on itself.  

[juliann]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Bad ideas and actions deserve to be mocked and insulted.  We do this with everything in life, why would religion be exempt.  For me, the key would be to not make it personal and just as much about the facts as possible and then we respect the different conclusions people come to.

In the example of Smith's relationships behind Emma's back, it is a fact that it happened....but I might say it is disgraceful and another person might say he was fulfilling commandment from god.  Why can't two people hold those views without hurling direct insults at each other?

I see this kind of divide in feminist groups. Some just don't know how to talk to people they think are harming them, they see "wrong" and it seems so plain to them that they lose the ability to step back and walk in someone else's shoes. Meanwhile, there are many women who can talk plainly and be accepted. In short, you can never achieve understanding by assigning sides to justify mocking and insulting. And we believing Mormons on this board are really, really tuned into that when that is happening.  We will work with people for a long time until it becomes clear that they are only here to mock and insult in clever ways. I don't think that is what you intend to do at all, but be aware the manner in which you are presenting yourself does not place you in a different category.

Welcome, BTW.  You are one of the most interesting characters to appear in awhile!

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

We have a member of the First Presidency saying that people don't leave the church because they want to sin. It doesn't get any better than that. What I see a lot is that people don't effectively access what is there and authoritative.

He said not all leave to sin. If Option A is leaving over a principled stand on polygamy or the Priesthood Ban or whatever and Option B is choosing an extra six hours on Sunday, free weekday evenings, and a 10% raise I can spend on hookers and blow I know which is more enticing to me.  

Edited September 27, 2017 by The Nehor

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He said not all leave to sin. If Option A leaving over a principled stand on polygamy or the Priesthood Ban or whatever and Option B is choosing an extra six hours on Sunday, free weekday evenings, and a 10% raise I can spend on hookers and blow I know which is more enticing to me.  

Yikes, I corrected that. 

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am stating the very clear and obvious fact that for those who believe the "Brighamite Branch of Mormonism" to be true, they have every right to consider those who apostatize from that branch to be committing a sin.  Why wouldn't they?

Would Joseph call his wife Emma, mother, and children apostates or committing a sin?   Ronald K. Esplin agrees that there are some problems and missing pieces from the council of fifty minutes associated with the succession crisis.

Edited September 27, 2017 by blueglass

[wtrdog]

Fearless, you're Ryan McNight, right?  The Mormon Leaks guy?  The same guy who's doing an expressly anti-Mormon podcast in Spanish?  Bro, you are all over the internet stating in no uncertain terms, proudly, that your goal is to do as much damage to the church and drive as many people out of it as possible.  Very few who get branded with the "anti" label deserve it, but you are one of them.  And I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's a simple statement of fact.  In the context of who you are, this OP is bizarre.

As for the word "Mormon," I'd be happy to grant LDS Inc. exclusive rights if they were to simultaneously reject the "Christian" label, an argument protestants and catholics have been making for quite some time.  Having grown up in the south witnessing the church fight a never-ending battle/pity party to be included under the Christian umbrella I find it peak hypocrisy to discriminate against groups who would identify as Mormon.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Would Joseph call his wife Emma, mother, and children apostates or committing a sin?  

Yes, I believe he would.

[drums12]

15 minutes ago, wtrdog said:

Fearless, you're Ryan McNight, right?  The Mormon Leaks guy?  The same guy who's doing an expressly anti-Mormon podcast in Spanish?  Bro, you are all over the internet stating in no uncertain terms, proudly, that your goal is to do as much damage to the church and drive as many people out of it as possible.  Very few who get branded with the "anti" label deserve it, but you are one of them.  And I don't mean this in an insulting way, it's a simple statement of fact.  In the context of who you are, this OP is bizarre.

Exactly

[SmileyMcGee]

7 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Hey all,  ExMormon here.

Did any of you attend Sunstone this year?  The theme was 'More Than One Way To Mormon'.

I did not know what to expect as it was my first time attending.  I was blown away at how much love and respect there was there.

Now, I realize that maybe the active Mormons there were probably not representative of most Mormons....they are much more  liberal and open minded, but I had active members come up and challenge me after my two talks, so it was not all about being exmormon or antagonistic towards the church.

The reason the event worked was because there was a pure empathy towards each person.  No matter what someones status was in the church, everyone was validated and respected.

I often wonder if there needs to be an exmormon community and a mormon community...and a whole spectrum of communities in between.

Can't we all just be Mormons?  I know I want that.

It requires us all to validate each other's opinions. 

We don't have to agree.  We don't have to say the other person is right....

But we have to accept that a person is justified, for example, in being outraged by Smith having sex with a ton of women behind his wife's back.  Conversely, people are free to believe he was doing god's bidding in bringing about the eternal principle of polygamy....the point being that neither position makes the individual a bad or evil person.

While acknowledging that many exmormon have not made it easy to reach this level of understanding, it is important to acknowledge that mormons have been returning the favor.

Can we ever get there?  Can we ever get the point where active mormons stop calling those that leave the church sinners or anti-mormons or apostates?  Is it possible for a person like myself to criticize the principal and/or characteristics of mormonism without being accused of personally attacking individual mormons?

I hope we can and, despite what people might think of me based of what they have read online, I always trying to achieve this dual respect in my real life relationships with active mormons (with varying degrees of success).

No, I don't think the kind of understanding you reference here is possible. Personally, I believe any sort of effort is doomed from the beginning if one party or another claims to be in possession of the "facts." To think that you have transcended your own subjective, personal experience and obtained knowledge of the "facts" will prevent you from engaging in productive discussion.

Edited September 27, 2017 by SmileyMcGee