text:
Where I try to live the examined life by arguing with (and sometimes losing to) the voices in my head.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Leaving the LDS Cult of False Expectations
I want to make it clear up front that I understand that many people have experiences in the LDS church that mirror the ones from the post. But part of me gets very angry at those situations, because it's not supposed to be that way. One of the major reasons, I suspect, that I've never had a crisis of faith in the church is that my family has always been amazing. We are able to discuss things openly. We are encouraged to read. We occasionally make fun of speakers in church, or teachers, or seminary instructors. (Just when they deserve to be made fun of, which to be fair happens to all of us at some point.) Dad once said that "no hallowed hand will stop the work from progressing" either. Recently we had a very good friend decide to leave the church, and while of course we were all dismayed, this friend is still in the rotation for Christmas presents, and will always be welcome at our house. My father sent him a half-joking email that basically said "Well, you're still an Apple fan, right?" Haha.
Also, I married Susan. Turns out her family is absolutely amazing too.
As exhibits A-C, I give you what happened this Christmas vacation with her family.
Exhibit A. The two oldest grandsons got microscopes for Christmas. Science and thinking are encouraged in our family. The oldest son of Susan's oldest sister is an astoundingly intelligent second-grader who plays games like "particle accelerator" for fun (he runs into a small hut with 2 balls-a helium atom, and comes out with, say, 8-an oxygen atom!). For Halloween he was a scientist, and couldn't understand why everybody asked if he was a mad scientist. Just a regular old scientist, thank you very much.
Exhibit B. Two days after Christmas we went to the Museum of Natural History down in the Smithsonian Mall in downtown DC. The grandkids wanted to go to the exhibit on human evolution, and we took them. There was nary a discussion about how the science was false, or that the Bible/Book of Moses/Book of Abraham/Temple Ceremony disproved the exhibit, or that there was no death before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden because they ate an apple after being beguiled by a talking snake. I'm sure someday the children will have good discussions with their parents about science and scripture, but it wasn't December 26, 2011. That day was all science.
Exhibit C. For Family Home Evening we played a variation on the hot/cold game. Basically we'd sing a song, whether a church song or Frosty the Snowman or whatever, and the grandchildren would take turns trying to find the object. When they got close, we sang louder. When they got farther away, we sang softer. I kid you not, the object they were chasing after was a small, stuffed black sheep. My brother-in-law introduced the game saying "some families shun their black sheep, but in this family we go seeking after them." He was not kidding. There was no joking smile on his face. He was serious. I was flabbergasted. I mean, I had just assumed that it was understood that we would not shun our own, that through example that lesson would be taught. But here was an actual object lesson on seeking after the black sheep! Oh that I had recorded it on my phone for you all to see!
So when Carrie Sheffield writes in the above linked article "but the family-values facade applies only if you stay in the fold. Former Mormons know the family estrangement and bigotry that often come with questioning or leaving the church," that's not true for many families. (At least she said "often," and I accept that as true.)
When she writes, "the church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking," that doesn't resemble the church I was raised in. Obedience is important, sure. God's house is a house of order. But the phrase "obedience is the first law of heaven" never occurs in the scriptures. In fact, I think Jesus rather pointedly disagrees in Matthew 22:35-40.
When she writes "Salt Lake City's male gerontocracy told me to avoid books and marry" that doesn't seem to jive with some of the things said by our leaders quoted here, in the Daily Universe, no less! Though my brother Stephen concludes (rather obviously, I think) "something within the LDS community disincentivizes female educational ambition" here. The times, though, they are a-changin', as evidenced by this post by a good friend of mine who comes from a fairly conservative mother, but her mother still encouraged her to at least get a Master's. (At least, ha!)
When Sheffield writes, "I met with a high-ranking Mormon leader who told me to quit reading historical and scientific materials because they were 'worse than pornography.'" That doesn't sound at all like the servant of a God who commanded us to learn about EVERYTHING and to read all the best books (D&C 88:79, 118). (I'm not doubting that there was some high-ranking leader that said that, just that he was wrong.) I have a much stronger testimony (from the Spirit, I think) of Hugh B. Brown's statement "Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts." This was quoted to me the first week of my bioethics class at BYU, and you can find the entire talk linked here at the BYU President's Page.
I'm more sympathetic to the Dean of Religious Education not answering Sheffield's growing list of questions. I don't think it's his job to answer every growing list of questions from every undergrad at BYU. But I'm sorry she didn't take classes from the wonderful professors at BYU that I took from. Because, and this may surprise people, there are religion professors at BYU that aren't simply seminary teachers on steroids. I took my first Book of Mormon class and had such a negative experience that a decade later I can still meet up with people from that freshman academy section and laugh at it (this happened to me 2 weeks ago). So when I signed up for religion classes after that, I did my homework and made sure I was taking from professors that would more suit my personal educational and spiritual needs. And, with the exception of that first Book of Mormon class, all of my religion classes at BYU were exceptional, mind-blowing, challenging, and factual (I now know Oliver Cowdery was likely a dowser, thanks to Spencer Fluhman)!
When she writes "my parents shut me out of their home for nearly five years because of religion, and some former friends shunned me," I don't know anywhere where any general authority said to leave the lost sheep out in the cold and let it die. Jesus certainly didn't. Basic Christian Fail here. Far too many Mormons do this. But I dare you to find a general authority that would agree with the proposition "I should shun, kick out, never speak to, and have no contact with any children of mine that leave the church."
When she writes, "Perhaps someday the church will not excommunicate, fire and demote people who want honest, church-wide dialogue about Mormon history and doctrine," I really think that time has passed. Go look at the Mountain Meadows Massacre Book from Oxford University Press, or the Joseph Smith Papers project, or the fact that you can buy Rough Stone Rolling at Deseret Book. I was 12 when the September 6 events happened. And now I hate going to Sunstone Salt Lake City because any event with the September 6 turns into "who can get the biggest hit in on President Packer." The other Sunstone meetings are much more productive, in my opinion. And BYU doesn't kick professors like Charles Harrell out for writing a book like this one.
Professor Harrell also teaches seminary and institute. (There should still probably be more seminary and institute teachers like him, and less like the one I had in high school that accused me, a nerd that wargamed once a month or so, of cheating because I wiped the floor with the rest of my class in . . . you guessed it, a wargame, and that thought the movie Contact was great because Ellie Arroway ends up in heaven at the end…. Not even going there.)
I think that for far too many in the church have set up a false church. They think that their church says science is satanic, that it tells all of its women to only stay home and produce babies, that the prophets and apostles are infallible, never have disagreed, don't currently disagree, never will disagree, and meet with the Savior weekly in the temple meeting Thursday morning, that all of church history is puppies and rainbows and roses except for when other bad evil nasty people attack the completely innocent and saintly Mormons and maybe the 116 pages incident, that polygamy was introduced and ended without a hitch, that anybody who is questioning the church in any way, shape, or form must be secretly a dirty sinning apostate because why would you ask questions unless you had been completely abandoned by the Spirit?!?, that the Book of Mormon civilizations were every Native American from the top of Alaska to the bottom of South America, that every prophet from Adam to Thomas S. Monson knew exactly everything that every other prophet knew, and that it all corresponds to the current correlated manuals, and that everybody outside the church is not going to end up in the Celestial Kingdom so we should shun them, even members of our own families, too bad for them.
I call this the LDS Cult of False Expectations.
The solution is to leave it.
Now, there are two ways to leave it. You can either (1) take off from the LDS church itself, or (2) you can get Mormonism right.
My family largely gets it right. We are largely what Mormons are supposed to be. When I was graduating from my MA program at the Yale Divinity School we had a barbecue at one of the other LDS student's house with my family and the other families who were there. The host came up to me afterward and said "Carl, your parents are the kind of people Mormonism is supposed to produce."
I'm so terribly sorry for all of those who grew up or are currently in environments, whether a ward, a seminary or institue class, or a family, or whatever, that adheres to and teaches the principles of the LDS Cult of False Expectations. I'm sorry that many Mormons aren't what they are supposed to be. In many ways, Sheffield's article should be a wake-up call to Mormons in general. Nay, a call to repentance! We're not getting our own religion right. It's not supposed to be that way. I was blessed enough to be born into, and later to marry into, a family that largely, I think, does get it right. But we have work to do ourselves. Everybody does. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. And no, I'm not engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy.
So please leave the LDS Cult of False Expectations.
Not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
146 comments:
Rock on, Carl.
And I never say that. XD - January 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM
- BHodges said...
Thanks, Carl, I particularly appreciate this line:
"I call this the LDS Cult of False Expectations.
The solution is to leave it.
Now, there are two ways to leave it. You can either (1) take off from the LDS church itself, or (2) you can get Mormonism right."
I think it's not simply a matter of getting Mormonism right as much as it is getting Mormonism better, more nuanced, more charitable, and more fun. - January 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM
- Melinda said...
Carrie Sheffield's article resonated with me. I sat through a fast and testimony meeting and watched someone get censored publicly. While not the place to bring up polygamy, she was a convert and felt deceived by the missionaries. I was in California during Prop 8 and was told how to vote. She probably came across this article:http://mormonthink.com/lying.htm
- January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM
- Ben S said...
Preach it Carl!
- January 30, 2012 at 1:42 PM
"My anecdotal experience negates your anecdotal experience."
That seems to sum up your post pretty succinctly.
Your Mormon family is intellectually curious? That's awesome! When I expressed my doubts, my in-laws told my wife that I was probably going to leave her! There were also rampant rumors that I was an adulterous porn addict!
Are my experiences normal? Maybe not. But I've encountered hundreds of stories much, much worse than mine. And I really don't see how I can chalk up experiences like that to "false expectations." - January 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM
- NessaAnn said...
Love it, Carl, thanks. And your family is great.
Is your brother's study discussed anywhere? Because I have lots of thoughts about it. :) - January 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM
My response to anonymous who said.."My anecdotal experience negates your anecdotal experience."
That seems to sum up your post pretty succinctly.
Your Mormon family is intellectually curious? That's awesome! When I expressed my doubts, my in-laws told my wife that I was probably going to leave her! There were also rampant rumors that I was an adulterous porn addict!
Are my experiences normal? Maybe not. But I've encountered hundreds of stories much, much worse than mine. And I really don't see how I can chalk up experiences like that to "false expectations."**** This crap does happen, you shared a personal experience of how members of the Mormon church were quick to judge and shun you. It is true that there are members of the church who do not accept those around them. Now here is the problem with most of the arguments on the issue.
Did the church of Jesus Christ of ladder day saints tell your wife you were going to leaver her...no. Did the church spread rumors about you...no. Does the church teach that when someone questions the doctrine then they need to be treated that way...no. This is the weakness of carrie sheffields article.
Problems and issues cause by PEOPLE are being blamed upon a church organization. Anyone who is not ignorant knows that the church of Jesus Christ of ladder day saints teaches its members to love and show love to those who wrong them, disagree with them, and/or are different than them. The church teaches its members to study science and biology, to get an education. The church teaches its members to question and find out answers for themselves.
If a member of the church tries to tell you differently all you have to do is realize that the member is full of #@!$. Problem solved.
Please dont blame these important and real issues on the church. The blame rests on the heads of people. Many people need to change. - January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Oh really? According to the church "personal apostasy" only stems from three sources: sin, laziness or being offended. Here's a link from LDS.org: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/avoiding-personal-apostasy?lang=eng
So what's the logical conclusion a believing member makes when doubts are expressed? That they've sinned, were offended, or are lazy. - January 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM
ok and the point you are trying to make is???
- January 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM
Thanks for this, Carl. Very well done.
I have to say I feel sorry for people like you (I should say us) who stand up for churches. You are at a distinct disadvantage- you are standing up for a huge organization with well-known beliefs and tons of history and millions of members who have all done bad things at some point. You have to defend an ideal with all that baggage to contend with, while your opponent doesn't have to defend his principles (if he himself even knows what they are), or his past, or his fellow non-believers' actions. I admire you. - January 30, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Also if your going to post post correctly, here is what your link says i will copy and paste. "Apostasy frequently results when a person commits serious sin but does not repent. To silence his conscience or justify his sinful actions, the individual moves away from the truth, looking for imperfections in others or questioning Church doctrine with which he no longer agrees."
I do not understand what your point is, also it said "frequently" not always. So be careful not to accidently twist things. - January 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM
The point I'm making is that the Church has made very specific statements about "apostates" - or people who doubt. That they use their doubt as a cloak for other issues (sin, laziness, etc).
Why else would my in-laws immediately suspect I had committed a grave sin? And these people weren't just rank and file members - they were really high up in the food chain. Leaders in the church, who are in a position to influence the general membership.
That's why I blame the church - they're the ones who taught people to be suspicious of ANYONE who doubts the truth claims of the church. - January 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM
- Mel said...
Absolutely right on. Thank you for this blast of reason and truth.
- January 30, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Hey, that was a very nice article! I'm impressed to see someone calling out the LDS community on their overly conservative attitudes.
One point I would like to make though is that most people leave because the doctrine is false and the origins point to an elaborate (I'm hesitant to say hoax) belief system set up by one Joseph Smith. That's why I left; it had nothing to do with the culture.
But if it weren't for the falseness of the origins, and if I were still a member, your post probably would have given me hope! - January 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM
Hey, that was a very nice article! I'm impressed to see someone calling out the LDS community on their overly conservative attitudes.
One point I would like to make though is that most people leave because the doctrine is false and the origins point to an elaborate (I'm hesitant to say hoax) belief system set up by one Joseph Smith. That's why I left; it had nothing to do with the culture.
But if it weren't for the falseness of the origins, and if I were still a member, your post probably would have given me hope! - January 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM
The church has said that apostasy can be the result of sin. I agree with you there. But not that it is always cause by sin, laziness, ect.
Either way the church did not treat you that way, the people you mentioned did and that is the problem. The church simply said that apostasy is frequently caused by sin because in actuality they have found that to be true. Many members have come back later saying that they really left because they sinned and could not bring themselves to admit it.
But this is a tangent and doesnt matter because even still the church does not teach to be suspicious and ect. These people choose to make false accusations, and "they choose" to be suspicious. Not the church.
Maybe they read somewhere about how apostasy or doubts is "sometimes" the result of sin and were like bingo he must be a sinner. But please realize that they are the ones at fault for drawing the conclusion(not the church)they have falsely accused you, the church didnt do it.
The church does not teach or support members to act in the ways you have mentioned.
Give me a link to a quote that is mormon doctrine that says to suspiciously believe that all people who have doubts are sinners and plan on leaving their wives.
I do appreciate you bringing forth real issues though. - January 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM
- Scott said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM
- Scott said...
Just a quick reply to anonymous poster above who linked to the Claudio Zivic on lds.org. He says and I quote "However, we need to be concerned and watchful that we do not fall into personal apostasy, which can result from several causes. I will mention only a few." And then he mentions sin, being offended by or in conflicted with another member, and claiming too much authority like Oliver Cowdery. I didn't really see laziness in there although that is one of the many other things that can lead to personal apostasy. It'd be tough to cover them all in a short article, and Elder Zivic made no claim to.
I know some people jump to bad conclusions (like all of Job's friends did), but that's their mistake.
Keep up the good work Carl! - January 30, 2012 at 3:44 PM
- Kant66 said...
I get the impression that a lot of this was going on back pre-2000, with some older holdouts who continue to pipe up in Gospel Doctrine, but it's dishonest or disingenuous to claim that this represents the mainstream 2012 church. As a child of the 2010s:
1) My BYU D&C class discussed JS's polyandrous marriages, not even in a defensive apologetic sense, just as a statement of a fact.
2) I was raised to believe that a certain GAs (current and past) had problems with the truth in conference talks.
3) I first read about the BoM hemispheric model in anti-Mormon literature.
And I could go on. The point is that things have changed and are changing, and I get the sense that most people are holding onto past issues, cliches, and stereotypes without being alert to the current situation.
Ancedotal? Yes, but until somebody shows me a large-N study that's all that we have to work off of. Also, to Anonymous (the first one), every one of my sister's-in-law has voiced similar concerns about me leaving my wife over similar issues. I laughed it off. I invite you to respond similarly. - January 30, 2012 at 3:45 PM
- Jennifer said...
"In many ways, Sheffield's article should be a wake-up call to Mormons in general." All Sheffield's article is meant to be is a wake-up call to Mormons in general. It is incredibly respectful. She is not saying that she thinks Mormonism is awful and everyone should lead the church. She is calling out church members and leaders about the things she thinks should change - and she makes quite a few good points. @Kant66 also makes the great point that many of these things are changing now. Sheffield suggests that Mormonism needs a Luther figure...I think we might be collectively revolutionizing the church, even without one.
- January 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM
- Kevin Winters said...
I will say that my experience is similar to what Carl is talking about: I am no longer LDS (I'm Buddhist), but I'm not shunned by my family (going to my second family reunion with them since my "change" in June). I will admit that being a "questioner" in LDS culture (not LDS-simpliciter), particularly in LDS saturated BYU, wasn't always met with open arms. But that is why I was so very thankful to have found so many people like Carl and the professors in the Philosophy Department. I also didn't have a particularly good experience in any of my religions courses (*especially* with "big wig" teachers who frequently publish with Deseret Books), but I was able to meet some very open-minded people who didn't shy away from *any* topic. Yes, I wish there were more of them within LDS culture, but, as others have said, that is a problem with the culture, not an issue of doctrine or dogma saying that that should be the case.
- January 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM
- krebscout said...
Thank you for posting this.
- January 30, 2012 at 5:16 PM
- Deja said...
Thank you. It sounds like there was truth in the WP article too, and kudos to you for acknowledging that. But this is the kind of hopeful talk I'm happy to get behind. We do have a lot that needs to change, but from my perspective, we're doing a pretty good job of moving forward. Thanks for reminding me that there's reason to hope.
- January 30, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Unfortunately, there are many people (including some very smart people) who want everything to be simple and eschew all subtlety and nuance. (I note that Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama for being "tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.") Unfortunately, nothing in life is that simple, and God has given us intelligence to be able to appreciate nuances of difference. God (and Jesus) himself appreciates them more than anyone else, which is why he's (fortunately) going to be our judge rather than a human being with limited appreciation of the complexities of the human spirit.
- January 30, 2012 at 9:54 PM
- Steve Cox said...
I agree so much, Carl.
While I admit my perceptions are certainly not perfect, this problem seems to be more prevalent in heavily LDS areas. On my mission I served in many areas including:
--1)a population 5,000 LDS town with two full stakes
--2)several population 5,000 towns with a ward each, or less
The "LDS Cult of False Expectations" was alive and well in the former stakes, but not the latter wards (per capita).
I would love for a group of social scientists to study this matter. If an area's total population is 25% or more LDS does more of this behavior tend to exist? If 75% of a person's interactions are with active members do they start to see inactive members or nonmembers differently because of a clan or pack mentality? Is this true just of LDS, or do people who interact 75% of the time with just Republicans or just Democrats tend to become more extreme/irrational in their views and more judgmental of those who see things differently?
I would like to know what Latter-day Saints outside the US & Canada think of the "LDS Cult of False expectations" Does it exist out there? What about in the heavier LDS areas out there? Could the "Cult" come from a toxic mix of some elements of North American culture and Church culture that creates these poor tendencies? What poor tendencies result from mixes of some elements of Brazilian/Samoan/Filipino cultures and Church culture? - January 30, 2012 at 10:02 PM
- David B. Baker said...
Hey Carl,
I think that this is a good post but, like anon said re: "my anecdote can beat up your anecdote" I think that you had a good experience while many others had worse.
I have had a goldilocks experience. Not full of science & awesome like yours, and not full of rejection from my family despite coming out as Gay Mormon.
What I don't like is that 1. it took a lot of work to get there, and that 2. both of the above extremes are too often the norm when they should only belong to the cult of false expectations.
What I don't like as wel is that there is one thing in the words like Elder Oaks' Oct. 2009 Conference Talk "Love & Law" and the meaning/interpretation with which it is encoded. Take for instance the below quote:
"To pose an even more serious question, if an adult child is living in cohabitation, does the seriousness of sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage require that this child feel the full weight of family disapproval by being excluded from any family contacts, or does parental love require that the fact of cohabitation be ignored? I have seen both of these extremes, and I believe that both are inappropriate."
Despite the words the meaning behind them in the rest of the talk implies that shunning is more acceptable. It isn't until we got Elder Uchtdorf's talk 6 months later that we get a good counter to Elder Oaks' point of view.
These are my two thoughts. I look forward to discussing them in person soon!!!!
ps. my CAPTCHA word is "allitosi" which I read as Alonsy! - January 30, 2012 at 10:09 PM
- Zack said...
I'm not quite sure how claiming that you're not committing the No True Scotsman fallacy means that you are not committing it.
I thought your post was very interesting. But absolving the Church of any responsibility for its members (except when those members model behavior that you want to praise) seems every bit as intellectually dishonest as blaming it for its members' poor character.
The truth, of course, lies somewhere in the middle. The Church is a deeply-flawed and often-inspired/ing institution that produces good and bad people. It gives members a framework for both tolerance and intolerance. - January 30, 2012 at 10:15 PM
- Rob said...
Interesting perspective. You were fortunate in the way you were raised. Most who grow up amongst high numbers of Mormons are not. In my experience the Cult of False Expectations pervades the Mormon Corridor in the Western United States, which remains the world's biggest LDS stronghold and is the source of official doctrine and policy.
The issue I and many others have had with the church is the amount of contradictions in the narratives and the doctrine over time since 1830, all of which claimed to be inspired but much of which is flatly contradictory. Truth is consistent with itself and does not fluctuate like that. It especially should not fluctuate like that in an organization which claims a monopoly on divine revelation and authority. Its own claims set it apart, and hold it to a higher standard than anyone else.
But once enough of those contradictions and conundrums were piled on my shelf, the shelf broke, and I left on principle while still in compliance with covenants. Not because I wanted to sin or already had, but because like others I couldn't trust it anymore. I explained this to bishop and stake president, who both said they respected the integrity of my decision.
Certainly there are wonderful, salt-of-the-earth Christians within the LDS church. I applaud all of them for that, and to the extent the LDS church fosters such people, God bless it. I have also found just as much true Christianity amongst people who've never set foot in an LDS chapel and know nothing of the Mormons.
Many LDS apologists try to make the case that since Mormons are just people like anyone else, one shouldn't expect their church to be any better than its people. The problem with that is that the church's whole legitimacy rests on its claims of being better than that, of having divine revelation, restored priesthood, and all the rest, things that nobody else has. To say "we are uniquely divine" but also "we are just as flawed as everyone else" seems just another one of those conundrums that finally broke my shelf. - January 30, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Argh - APOLOGISTS! Such a load of hogwash. "It's-not-the-church-it's-the-members" is just about the oldest excuse in the book, and usually the transition step between sheeple and apostasy. But, BRAVO! Your family is slightly open minded... slow claps... this proves exactly that... your family is slightly open minded. The end.
- January 30, 2012 at 10:49 PM
- Savannah said...
Carl, this is fantastic and extraordinarily refreshing. Thank you for putting so succinctly what I personally sometimes struggle to voice. :)
- January 30, 2012 at 10:50 PM
- Elizabeth Downie said...
Really enjoyed this post and I agree with what you said. I read the article you referenced and was surprised at the things she said. I'm sorry that that was her experience in the church because it certainly hasn't been mine!
My family has members who are active LDS and those who aren't. We treat everyone exactly the same - no one is shunned or anything like that. We question things, we discuss them, we encourage higher education for both men and women equally. I'm not saying we're perfect, but I think we have the right attitude about the church.
I'm surprised and disheartened to hear people say (in the comments of this post even) that we as LDS people are punished in any way for doubting or questioning. This has never been my experience in the church. Ever. And I've never seen it in my wards. I'm NOT saying it doesn't happen, as I'm sure these people aren't lying about their experiences. I'm just sad that it has happened. It's not the way it's supposed to be. I don't think doubting or questioning are wrong. I think they're normal and can bring us closer to God in the end. At least that's been my experience.
Anyway, enjoyed the post. Thanks! - January 30, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Also, to further commenters:
The argument here isn't "My anecdote outweighs your anecdote."
It's "My anecdote defies your anecdote-based blanket accusations." - January 30, 2012 at 11:15 PM
I just wanted to let you guys know that all your pre-conceived notions about the Klu Klux Klan are totally misplaced.
I've heard stories from people claiming that the Klu Klux Klan is a racist organization. This couldn't be further from the truth. We are interested in preserving white American history, heritage and pride, not denigrating or hating other races.
The Klu Klux Klan embodies Christian teachings. While some misguided Klan members may engage in racial bigotry, nearly all of the Klan members in my immediate family are kind, loving and compassionate individuals, who love American culture and heritage.
Please don't blame the bad experiences you've had with the Klan on the organization - please place the blame with the members who did you harm. - January 30, 2012 at 11:52 PM
- I Taste Like Pavlov's Dog said...
Anonymous KKK Troll is obvious, Sadly I think we need to add an addendum to Godwin's Law re: the mentioning of the KKK.
- January 31, 2012 at 12:11 AM
"the church I was raised in values unquestioning obedience over critical thinking"
You didn't really show how your family defies this bit of the anecdote.
If critical thinking really was a value, then impressionable, trusting children would not be taught that Mormonism is true. Let them grow up and then decide for themselves what they think about religion when they are capable of doing their own critical thinking.
And really? The LDS church embraces science? What about when science says that feelings and impressions don't amount to knowledge - when science asks for testable evidence? The honest critical thinking of science is simply not compatible with "spiritual knowledge" and having a testimony. Sure, you say you embrace science, but then you can't cherry pick when it calls bull on your beliefs.
Go watch every documentary put out by Richard Dawkins, go watch ALL of Qualia Soup's videos on YouTube, go read everything Craig Criddle has written about the Book of Mormon, and then let's chat about critical thinking. - January 31, 2012 at 12:27 AM
- the narrator said...
"Or at least what Mormonism is supposed to be. "
And there-in lies the difference between both writers' experiences. Both Carrie and Carl lived in a very real expression of Mormonism, and both were a result of Mormons who were living what they believed "Mormonism is supposed to be." The reason that Carl was able to (as one comment put it) negate Carrie's anecdotes with his own, is that within Mormonism there are threads from Church leaders pulling members in different, and often contradicting, directions. For every leader that Carl can point to praising science, there is a Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie condemning scientists for being fools deceivers/deceived led by Satan. For every "high-ranking authority" who is a "servant of a God who commanded us to learn about EVERYTHING and to read all the best books," there is a "high-ranking authority" who is a servant of God warning members to avoid an literature that does not support the correlated history and doctrine. (My mission president, who soon became a seventy, warned missionaries about reading FARMS because of their false teaching that Joseph used a seerstone in a hat to translate the BofM; and I doubt his becoming a seventy magically translated his ignorance). For every leader that teaches members to embrace the "lost" there is another leader who teaches members to categorize others as the "lost" and to treat them as the "lost". For every leader who says to not judge those who lost faith, there are dozens more who emphasize that the lost of faith is mostly caused by some sort of sin.
This was a terrible rejoinder. Carl's response shouldn't be to ostracize Carrie for experience a different Mormonism that grew out of Mormons who were more influenced by a different set of leaders, but to feel sorrow for Carrie and for the unfortunate dimension of Mormonism that she experienced. - January 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM
- anonymous said...
I had Spencer Fluhman for the second half of Doctrine and Covenants, and I agree. That man was wonderful!
- January 31, 2012 at 12:50 AM
No true Mormon would ever shun a disbeliever.
- January 31, 2012 at 1:34 AM
- Doug said...
I come from conservative Mormon roots, though my family is fairly (and increasingly) open-minded. My experience studying at BYU helped shape me into a more tolerant, culturally sensitive person. It's heartening to see that many, including the Buddhist convert (sorry-can't find your name as I'm typing), had similar experiences. I would strongly argue that, on the whole, BYU offers a well-rounded education that balances faith and academic study very well. I can't speak for the University's past, but I can add my anecdotal experience to the discussion.
I also find Carl's discussion of going after the black sheep refreshing and touching. That demonstrates true Christianity, and it is unfortunate that so many families shun disbelieving members. However, I have found (again, in my own personal experience) that that is not the usual reaction. Most families are saddened but have a level of understanding and are still welcoming and loving. True, they may still try to "reclaim" the "wayward" family member through sometimes troubling means, but most, I believe, do not react maliciously. I have witnessed numerous cases, and rarely have I seen a family react that way. Perhaps the extremes are disproportionately represented.
One last thought: One major element that is left out of this post and subsequent discussion is the primary role of the Holy Ghost in LDS theology. In a personally-tailored way, the Holy Spirit helps us to live true Christian lives and avoid "false expectations" within ANY culture. This probably means different things for different people at different times. In other words, I am not saying ANYthing revolutionary. How often do the scriptures and modern prophets emphasize the prominence of having the Holy Spirit's influence in our lives? The Spirit can help us navigate difficult questions of doctrine, culture, belief, and Christ-like love.
Particularly that last one. - January 31, 2012 at 3:09 AM
The Funny thing about all of this talk is that if people truly understood the scriptures and acted accordingly none of these things would be an issue. It's true that the cultural tendencies of many Mormon circles is to fear imperfection and assume we know all, but God himself expressed that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. so why shouldn't we question things? I was taught from a young age that if I never asked questions I would never find answers. Why live in ignorance without hope of change when you can accept your ignorance and seek for the answers. Christ told us to Ask Seek and Knock, and that is exactly what we need to do, not sit back and say everything is okay. Every prophet from the time of Adam till now has made mistakes, the scriptures are full of examples. Don't make the mistake of forgetting why we are here in this life just to put on the facade of perfection.
- January 31, 2012 at 5:09 AM
- MS said...
The problem is that the scriptures aren't very clear about values. They say to love one another, not to kill, etc. but on the other hand, Nephi was told to kill Laban, or Abraham was told to kill his own son, or the people of israel was told to kill all men, women, children and even the animals of the people who lived in Kanaan. So killing and discrimination is allowed if god says so...
Here is the problem: Religion in general tries to give (simple?) answers to the complex questions in life. These answers are given by god and can't be questioned without being unfaithful. What's dangerous about that is, that it discourages critical thoughts. A religion like Mormonism pushes quiet strongly into that direction. It doesn't leave much space for individual ideas, since all answers are already prescribed in its doctrine. Unfortunately, that doctrine can be used to justify unsocial and intolerant behavior. There are many passages in the scriptures that justify intolerance and uncritical thinking (like the few I mentioned above).
The fruits of mormonism are its members. So i agree, a representative study about the attitudes of mormons (and other religions) sounds promising... - January 31, 2012 at 5:47 AM
- Folly Brook Farm said...
It is true, there are "scribes and Pharacies" among us. There are good people in spite of their religion and bad people in spite of their religion. Most LDS Church leaders are good people made even better because of the Church's teachings. They are also frail like the rest of us, sometimes tired and overworked from the many hours they volunteer for ministerial duty or in providing charitable service.
Also, some church callings may be to benefit the person called more than those that serve under him or her. Toughen up people! We all get offended sometimes. So what? - January 31, 2012 at 7:36 AM
- Captivating Eyes said...
A mutual FB friend of ours posted your blog and I'm glad she did. It was very insightful and informative.
I was very fortunate to be raised in an open-minded family as well. When I went about my crazy path, I was not judged or cast aside, but I actually felt even more love from my friends and family to join back into the fold. On the opposite side, I did attend a ward that I eventually left feeling ostracized for my life decisions. I've seen both sides.
What people need to remember (and what took my years to realize) is that the people in the church are not perfect. I've heard all the talk about how women are supposed get married and have babies and be good little housewives. I've often felt judged for not going that route. But in the eyes of Heavenly Father, I'm following the plan he set for me. The judgements come from people distorting truths and experiences. It does suck to have those moments and to be in a family that does not accept doubt and difference.
I really appreciate your post and hooray to you for standing up and speaking it out...and providing useful references. :) - January 31, 2012 at 9:09 AM
- SRA said...
THANK YOU. I live in Utah and am having a horrible time trying to keep myself going to church and things like that. I'm originally from the eastern US...joined the Church there, by myself...and I appreciate the reminder that the way things are here is not how they are everywhere. You are very blessed to have such an exemplary family of origin and family by marriage.
- January 31, 2012 at 10:52 AM
- Janice said...
This is dead on and excellent.
- January 31, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Great post. I admire your courage-- you had to know you'd be criticized for it.
I'm disappointed that so many commentors have said "Well, you're lucky to have a great family but I didn't and that's the church's fault." As I read your post, you weren't claiming that a great open-minded family like yours was merely POSSIBLE in the church-- you were claiming that the actual statements and policies of the LDS church tell families to be open-minded like yours, and that it is a distortion of the true doctrine when people are unkind, intolerant, or shun questioners or unbelievers.
I have lived in Salt Lake City, Provo, the small town of Springville, St. Louis, New York City, and overseas, and I have never heard anyone say in ANY official context (even in a sacrament meeting talk) that having doubts or questions means you're a sinner or should be shunned/avoided. Is it sometimes in the culture? Sure. But it is ridiculously unfair to blame the church itself for those attitudes just because their official stances and public statements have been unable to completely eradicate them.
My favorite cousin growing up was a pierced, smoking, alcohol-drinking acolyte of all things heavy metal. I grew up knowing that he was doing things the Church taught were wrong for us, but saw that everyone in the family and the area loved him and enjoyed him and took him absolutely as he was, with no criticism or hesitation. My extended family, all Utah born and bred and politically conservative with only a handful of college degrees among them and hardly any who believe in evolution, would seem to fit Sheffield's demographic. But they listened to their leaders and their own consciences as they are taught to do, and were unhesitating in their absolute inclusion of their "questioner". But that's not a story that will be emailed around a lot. - January 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Thank you for this, your post is well thought-out and well-written. Yet, I do think that you are coming from a privileged perspective. You mention that you were "blessed" into a family that gave you more realizable expectations and an outlet for frustrations. Yet, many of us do not have this nor do we have the luxury of having a spouse. You do make a great distinction between Mormonism and Mormon culture, expounding that they are not one and the same. However, both are steeped in marriage and families. Please try to see how your attempt to come across as a "real" Mormon still misses the mark for many of us who did not grow up with the privileges and "blessings" you did. I hope you will not begrudge me if I say that this posting did not ring true for me. Both the LDS Church and its culture leave some people (even if they've prayed and yearned for a family like yours)are still "left out" of an intentional, loving community of believers and ostracized by the Sunday community they both want and need.
Please understand, I do appreciate your words and your ability to portray your position. Please take this as a constructive criticism if I say that this comes across as: "I was blessed with a deeper understanding of my faith because of my upbringing and situation, if your weren't...GET OVER IT." - January 31, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Sure, I get that. Carl, I think you've written a well-articulated article, but it may be misrepresenting what a lot of ex-mormons or mormons on the fringe are getting at. We enter into so many social contract: school, marriage, friendship, and everyone does it with expectations. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong.
Your article encourages Mormons to leave the "cult of false expectations," which is essentially an apologists way of saying "get a reality check."
The doctrinal points can go either way, and its a circuitous discussion.
The discussion that needs to take place across all levels of the Church is how ex-mormons are being treated by family members and friends who disown them regularly. Whether it is doctrine or not, it is common practice, and it is leading the Church and its membership down a terrible path. The Church has cultivated a peculiar society that needs a reality check of its own: Mormon culture is far, far from its doctrinal teachings. To this end, perhaps Church members should leave the Cult of False Promises. - January 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM
- the narrator said...
I guess I have a hard time seeing the sincerity of Carl's acknowledgement of the reality of Carrie's experiences. To me those seemed more like fake nods to appeal to when criticized. They reminded me a lot of Donald Trump, perfectly mimicked by Stephen Colbert http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/404251/december-13-2011/donald-trump-cancels---stephen-re-announces .
Furthermore, Carl's response is a very defense of a different Cult of False Expectations. Let's call it the Liberal Cult of False Expectations. By his own admission, he isn't defending Mormonism, but is rather defending "at least what Mormonism is supposed to be." By this very admission Carl is essentially making that same claim that Carrie is making: that the "Mormon church [is] in need of reform."
But Carl can't keep things straight, so while initially making this acknowledgement he shuffles back and forth between defending the idyllic Mormonism that he is urging others to leave and criticizing Carrie's fake Mormonism that he offers token acknowledgments of being the real Mormonism.
This response to Carrie's claim about an experience with a "high-ranking Mormon leader" is a perfect example: "That doesn't sound at all like the servant of a God who commanded us to learn about EVERYTHING and to read all the best books (D&C 88:79, 118). (I'm not doubting that there was some high-ranking leader that said that, just that he was wrong.)"
In other words, Carrie's account must be wrong because it doesn't match up with his idealized view of what a high-ranking Mormon *should* be. Thus she is "so terribly terribly wrong about Mormonism." But, she is could be right about a high-ranking leader saying this, so she might be describing her experience of Mormonism correctly--however that Mormonism she experienced isn't "at least what Mormonism is supposed to be."
Thus, Carrie should stay Mormon because her account of Mormonism is wrong. The real Mormonism is better than her account. However, the real Mormonism might actually match up with her account, but that is a fake Mormonism, whereas the real Mormonism is not what Mormonism currently is but "what Mormonism is supposed to be."
Continuing with his logic, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't identical to the Mormonism that he is defending, because he is rather defending his view of what "Mormonism is supposed to be" or what Dennis and others might see as the Liberal Cult of False Expectations (the idealized Mormonism that they came to believe was ultimately an unrealized hope that Mormonism was something better). - January 31, 2012 at 12:03 PM
- the narrator said...
Two more things:
I am not saying that Carrie's article was good, nor am I defending it. I largely find it just as disingenuous as Carl's (only she lacks Carl's pretended token recognition of others' experiences).
Also, I am tired of Mormon apologetics that discount the experiences of many as not being due to the Church, but being the result of rogue members and leaders. It reminds me a lot of the BYU-Idaho skinny jeans incident. So many were wanting to just point to the testing center and rogue employee as the soul source of the problem. However, they failed to recognize the larger problem: that is that BYU-I engendered an atmosphere at the school where some "rogue" employees not only felt that what they were doing was okay, but that it was the right thing to do and what the school would have them do. - January 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM
THE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS IS TO JUST LEAVE AND SHUN ALL THE MORMANSD - January 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM
There is a distinct difference between doubting and questioning the church (or any religion,for that matter). We should all question the things we've been taught and then seek answers from the source of ALL truth.........God.
- January 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM
- BHodges said...
Damn Mormansd.
- January 31, 2012 at 1:36 PM
I don't think the author's intention was to talk you out of going to church - she was just trying to elicit a bit of empathy from people within the church.
You like church. That's great. I respect your decision. I don't like church, as my personality and worldview are fundamentally incompatible with the LDS Church.
Sure, I could stick around and try to "change" the church from the inside - but what's the point? The church is already meeting the needs of millions of people around the world, and it would be pretty damned selfish of me to demand it change to meet my needs.
And so I left. And when I left, people automatically made assumptions about my character. For a long time, all I just wanted to be understood and validated. I didn't want to destroy the Mormon church - I just wanted a Mormon to hear my story, know that I wasn't a horrible person, and validate my decision to leave.
But for some reason, Mormons couldn't do that. Whenever I shared my experiences, they felt COMPELLED to counter them with their own positive experiences. As if their positive experiences someone invalidated my own experiences. They seemed to say "things have been bad for you so far, but who knows, maybe someday you'll have great experiences like me!"
Do any of you realize how unhelpful, hurtful and counter-productive this type of dialogue is? Would it kill any believing Mormon to validate an ex-Mormon experience? Why is it that sharing our experiences threatens your church-going experience to the point where you have to list off your own positive experiences as a counter-point to the ex-Mormon perspective?
/rant - January 31, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Seriously People, I've been Mormon my whole life. You could say that I have a biased point of view, BUT, I have seen both sides of the argument. I have been in wards that I gritted my teeth through fast and testimony meeting at the JUDGEMENT and BIGOTRY of the people,but on the other hand I have been in wards where the people were SO KIND AND ACCEPTING. People are people. I agree that in many ways the culture that has been developed over time in the Mormon faith is frustrating and wrong, but as a whole, the Mormon people are kind and loving. To say that everyone in the church is judgmental and hateful would be like me saying that all catholics only attend church on christmas and easter.
- January 31, 2012 at 1:40 PM
- Michael Atkinson said...
Well said Carl! And Anonymous above me (1:40pm), completely agree also.
Isn't it interesting how many can't distinguish between culture, creed, and official doctrine, canon, opinion & whim? The church itself has improved its clarity over time. Many in and out of the LDS church are still SO tripped up. Agreeing, I chuckle when I hear other say things along the lines of "Um, (such & such criticism) doesn't resemble my church experience or what I see every week, ever year, or what I believe" Sometimes you think-after being in seemingly countless wards of diverse people for decades, what planet did that person attend church on? So it is with most these articles like Carrie Sheffield's.
And yes, agreed that there are plenty of weak points for members of the church - judging, feeling betrayed when somebody leaves, and so on. It's tough being imperfect, Latter-Day Saints have no corner on righteousness much as we strive to be good people. And so many things are cultural in the church. Good thing it's a religion, an extension of a personal relationship/experience between an individual and their God, and not a club.
There are many who do an intelligent and thorough job defending the church from criticisms, be it historical or doctrinal. Not too hard to find if somebody is interested in being honest. Interest is key. Never-ending back-and-forth arguments have never left me personally feeling unsettled after spending gobs of hours researching something. I am able to put it away feeling fine. Worn out maybe, and glad I feel I have answers to prayer. Like most of life simply requires some elbow grease.
Loving science myself, I think it's ultimately a bit silly. The root of the discussion is God, after all; not much room for that in the pantheon of reason! So beyond elbow grease of critical thinking is the hard, hard work of gaining and having genuine faith.
From there, I think it's a matter of having a good attitude, recognizing our church is obviously imperfect yet beautiful and strong in so many great ways, and losing ourselves in serving others as our Savior would have us do.
Me: http://mormon.org/me/60RX/ - January 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM
- adriennep said...
Yes. Yes. Yes. I didn't read all of the other comments. I don't know you; someone posted your article on facebook and I read it. What a perfect response to the article. Thank you for putting it so well. I agree completely.
- January 31, 2012 at 3:13 PM
- new declaration of independence said...
Excellent post
- January 31, 2012 at 3:37 PM
- Stacy Anne said...
Thanks so much for this post. I think it is a great look at the problem in a nutshell. Much like the pure gospel is simple, the pure love of Christ is simple ... If we try to make Christ our example, instead of imperfect people we will see that hatred, distrust, and bigotry only beget more of the same. So reasoning would say Christ like attitudes beget more of the same. Striving for tolerance and acceptance of people even when their choices don't fit our opinion of how things should be is how we learn the Christ like love that God would have us learn of in 1 Cor 13. Thank you for your intelligent and kind answer to this very real problem.
- January 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM
- Jeremy said...
Thanks, Carl. I appreciate your perspective.
- January 31, 2012 at 5:00 PM
- Kourtney said...
I don't know you, I saw this article through facebook but thank you. Thank you for writing this. I really appreciate this. I have been in both sides.. I've been in wards that have been in the Cult of False Expectations and wards that have been amazing and uplifting so I know what it's like both ways. Something my parents have always said has helped me to keep my testimony strong "The Church is true, no matter what the turkey's do!" People aren't always right and people make mistakes all the time, including our leaders.. but one person that doesn't make mistakes is the Lord...
- January 31, 2012 at 5:05 PM
When I expressed to my bishop that I had doubts, my temple recommend was taken from me and I haven't seen it since. That was a year and a half ago.
There were *no* worthiness issues, just doubts. - January 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM
- annelisy said...
I enjoyed what you had to say. I am LDS myself attending BYU-Idaho...I don't see that a lot but in college because you are around so many people I think it applies more that you only are around those and attract those with similar opinions and such.
I think it is sad because those who have false opinions themselves or see that everywhere they go I think are usually scared. Scared of what it means for their faith, or because they are only human and don't have the answers to everybody's questions. It just goes back to the idea that fear and faith are opposites and cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Of course, unless you might fear by acting on your faith. :) - January 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Wargaming, eh? Do share.
- January 31, 2012 at 5:30 PM
Hmmmm. What I liked about the post is that you seem to reject the "All or Nothing", "Black or White" trap that so many people fall into. But then you fall into it yourself:
"Now, there are two ways to leave it. You can either (1) take off from the LDS church itself, or (2) you can get Mormonism right."
Really? Two ways? It's only one or the other? And I suppose you know how to get Mormonism "right"? The truth is that NO two people believe in or practice Mormonism the same way. There are devout Mormons who would disagree with much of what you wrote, and would provide ample church approved evidence explaining why you are wrong, including the mountains of curriculum on why obedience is the first law of heaven.
You did exactly what you criticized the Washington Post author for doing: you portrayed your experience as the correct experience. - January 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Very nicely put!! I wish more people were as open-minded but at the same time as firmly-rooted and rational as you!!
- January 31, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Hmmm. When I stopped attending services, I was accused of being adulterous.
Then my nearest kin refused to speak to me.
Then I was accused of being homosexual without any discussion--they had already shunned me. As if that would have been a horrible thing.
As soon as I voiced my concerns, I was labeled 'apostate' and lost 95% of my LDS friends instantly. They simply refused to speak with me (I was public about my findings).
Luckily, I met some friends who had all sorts of religions and lifestyles and none of this mattered to them at all.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/100194950110280/ - January 31, 2012 at 5:43 PM
- Carl said...
Wow. Lots of comments. Thanks, everybody for visiting. I can't possibly respond to all of them, so I'll try to pick up a few major points.
First, I love when anonymous people start to argue back and forth. It looks like someone is talking to him/herself. I know that's not what's going on, but it still makes me smile.
Also, some of the things that I would have responded to have been I think adequately responded to by other commenters here. Namely, the definition of why people go apostate, and the "my anecdote trumps yours" idea.
Regarding the No True Scotsman fallacy, I don't think pointing out moral weakness is falling into that fallacy. I'm not trying to exclude people from the definition of Mormon, I'm pointing out that not all Mormons act like they should.
Rob, I want to ask what kind of people do you think the One True Church (tm) should produce? What level of perfection is good enough to warrant it being the One True Church, and what level of sinners is enough to warrant it not being the One True Church. It's not so much "we are uniquely divine" as "the church is uniquely divine." Where much is given, much is expected, and all is NOT well in Zion.
"If critical thinking really was a value, then impressionable, trusting children would not be taught that Mormonism is true.Let them grow up and then decide for themselves what they think about religion when they are capable of doing their own critical thinking. "
False. I'm not going to wait until my children are 18 before I start teaching him what I think will help them be productive members of society and good upstanding Christians. But I hope to have nuanced discussions with them about church history, doctrine, local leaders, etc. But not when they're 3 years old. Still might let them read about dinosaurs existing 65 million years ago, because dinosaurs are awesome. (And they predate Adam? Nuance later. Awesomeness first.)
Also, I've read most of The God Delusion, listened to several hours of Richard Dawkins, who is better when he's talking about evolution and less when he's attempting to be a theologian, took a PhD level course on "New Atheism," and have a MA in theology from Yale. I may not have done all the homework you have assigned, but I've done a lot of my own homework. I am well aware of everything you think I ought to be. - January 31, 2012 at 6:06 PM
- Mr Sentient Meat said...
It's the collective version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. No "uniquely true Church of the Most High" could be responsible for Bad Thing A, B, and C. It must be those Baaaad Apples!
Glad you had such a fantastic time.
I left the LDS faith after a 2 year mission because the Moroni promise is a terrible way to arrive at judgments about reality. I'm a 5th generation Mormon who left because I realized the core of The Faith is airy, inflated, fetishized nonsense. Of course I can't put it in those terms around my LDS family.
And they're great in their way, but even OUR cultural version (California-raised) of the LDS faith is full of fake niceness, preachiness, and hard limitations on the trust possible between still-members and former-members in our family.
Still, I'm glad your story worked out so great for you. In my experience, Mormons THINK they're much better neighbors to non-Mormons than in reality. They have an inflated sense of how well they treat non-Mormons and former Mormons. - January 31, 2012 at 6:20 PM
- Pam said...
I would highly recommend those who think the members do not shun.....try an experiment......tell all your family and friends that you are leaving the church. Do this for one month. Tell them that you are leaving for doctrinal reasons and not sin. Come back in a month and then post again. :)
- January 31, 2012 at 6:26 PM
- Kant66 said...
After having RichardDawkins.net on my Twitter feed for a while, I've decided that some of them should just come up with an automated soundbite generator to save them time. Just rotate between various mythical figures and synonyms of stupid, with a few of the rote arguments thrown in there that people try to pass of as their own to obfuscate the fact that they got it from reading a book cover at B&N. If I do that can I qualify as intelligent too?
- January 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM
- Carl said...
The Narrator, you have some very good points. I especially resonate with the fact that both Sheffield and I are wanting to reform Mormonism. I hadn't considered phrasing it that way, but you know what, you're right!
I'm not trying to ostracize Carrie. And yes, I'm aware of the leaders who have helped perpetuate the LDS Cult of False Expectations, and am saddened that many LDS only pay attention to them, and not any of the others. The very fact that we can discuss the idea that Hugh B. Brown and Bruce R. McConkie are diametrically opposed on some issues should be a clue that the situation in church leadership is more fluid, and our approach should be more nuanced, that merely listening to just one or the other.
I cannot prove it, The Narrator, but I am trying to be sincere. I'm not just on a rant here against dumb people. I am genuinely pained that so many suffer because of this Cult of False Expectations. I'm doing what I can to eliminate the cult, so that in the future, people like Carrie hopefully won't have as negative an experience, and could be treated more like my friend who recently left the church. Or all my other friends who left it years ago, but with whom I stay in contact and who I don't write nasty emails to telling them they're dirty sinners.
Folly Brook Farm, "so what?" Is a callous way of responding to the genuine pain that some people feel. Please be careful.
Anonymous 11:04 AM, I would never say "get over it." I'm sorry if I came across that way. I am asking those who have left to consider that their experiences might not reflect True Mormonism, and I'm asking those who are still in the church to evaluate how they treat those that leave. "Get over it" is damaging and destructive. I'm sorry the post didn't ring true to you. I wish your experience made it otherwise.
Anonymous 11:07 AM, I would love to see the "shun your 'apostate' children" idea deliberately shot down in general conference, just so we can end the idiocy once and for all. At the same time, I did dare anybody to find a GA would would agree with the sentence: "I should shun, kick out, never speak to, and have no contact with any children of mine that leave the church." I don't think you'll find one. Elder Oaks was mentioned earlier in the thread, and I like his take on the situation. Actually, David, I'm not sure where you're getting the interpretation that Oaks' comment indicated that shunning was preferable to condoning sin. He pretty clearly shoots down both of them.
Landon, FWIW, I would love to hear your story, know that you're not a horrible person, and (likely) validate your decision to leave. I actually very much respect those who leave and who don't demand the church fit to their needs, recognizing that it is a force for good in the lives of many others. If you want, go back in the blog to the Mormon Stories entry from October 2011 for more of my thoughts on this subject. - January 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM
- Carl said...
AsItIs, I'm sorry. A later commenter (Anonymous 5:43) said YMMV=your mileage may vary. Absolutely. I wish it didn't, but it does. I find the term "local priesthood leader roulette" both hilarious and disheartening at the same time.
Mark A, Wargaming=BattleMasters, BattleTech, and WarHammer 40k. In that exercise I got like 195 out of a possible 200 points (we ran through the "scenarios" posited by the last half or so of the Book of Alma), and then she accused me of cheating. *rolls eyes*
Anonymous 5:37, there are many ways to get it right. Most of them involve not drawing your own lines in the sand, or being a judgmental jerk. There's more nuance to my approach than I think you've giving it credit, but I admit I presented it as a binary. Good call on that one.
Mr Sentient Meat, I would agree that too often Mormons think we're all that. Pat ourselves on the back. We're God's chosen people! We too often fail to realize being "the chosen people" is a job description, not a retirement package.
Pam, that's actually a fabulous idea. Might help people walk a mile in their neighbor's shoes, so to speak. But, also, don't be surprised if some of their examples turn out to be more positive than expected.
Whew! I think I'm caught up! - January 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM
By their fruits ye shall know them. The fruits of the church are the bad things talked about in the article. It wouldn't produce such rotten fruit if the tree was good.
- January 31, 2012 at 6:49 PM
"Also, I've read most of The God Delusion, listened to several hours of Richard Dawkins, who is better when he's talking about evolution and less when he's attempting to be a theologian, took a PhD level course on "New Atheism," and have a MA in theology from Yale. I may not have done all the homework you have assigned, but I've done a lot of my own homework."
Oh darn, I guess you must be right about everything you say then.
"I am well aware of everything you think I ought to be."
*Sigh. No, no, I really don't think you are. - January 31, 2012 at 6:50 PM
- Emily said...
Carl, this discussion is getting so long, I probably can't contribute anything new, but I appreciate that perspective.
Do you know how often I've quoted you quoting your father about no hallowed hand stopping the work of the Lord? Sometimes local leaders spout crazy, sexist stuff, and yeah - that's a problem. But it doesn't negate the gospel.
To me, what's key in your discussion is that you're acknowledging that the bad happens - just that it's by no means doctrine, and not the only experience in the church. - January 31, 2012 at 7:48 PM
- LDSRevelations said...
While I'll agree that some people leave the Church over what you term 'false expectation'— I think it is the Church itself that sets many of these up. People that have been taught sanitized history and that Joseph Smith was a virtually perfect will certainly have a much harder time when they the full story on the MMM and Joseph's polyandrous marriages. I mean even defenders like Terryl Givens admit that the Church is doing a bad job with teaching history.
If there is reform to be done I say start here.
That said I actually agree with much of what Ms. Sheffield wrote in the WaPo piece. My expectation of the LDS Church was for it to be a reliable source of revelation and it has seriously disappointed me on that front. Without that it has too many issues to make it worth my time. If it could/would reform into a more benign organization I could maybe return for cultural reasons.
Until then I remain a disaffected critic. - January 31, 2012 at 8:28 PM
- Michael H. said...
For those with dissatisfactions with the LDS Church and/or its members, hierarchy, doctrines, etc., I have a few questions:
http://not-atamelion.blogspot.com/2012/01/questions-for-lds-reformists.html - January 31, 2012 at 8:31 PM
- Antiquarian said...
Thank You! Your family sounds like my family. And I was raised in the heart of Utah Valley.
My Father also taught "A Temple is a hospital for sinners, NOT a museum for saints."
Of course we also were taught, "Were you trying to be offensive or are you just that stupid?"
Yep, mom and dad taught us doctrine and how to have a thick skin/ not get shaken when another member got it wrong. - January 31, 2012 at 8:41 PM
This is Anonymous 11:07 .
First, you aren't the type of individual who gives ex-Mormons grief about their decision, and I respect you for that.
There are reasons why I'm posting anonymously. It's partly because I don't want to register, but more importantly it's because of the ramifications I would experience if someone I know were to recognize me.
Nowdays, it's funny to have the missionaries over; I'm not bitter at all, and I invite them inside to be polite. A commonality shared not just by members who visit me, but overwhelmingly by missionaries is a spiritual game of one-upsmanship that inevitably leads to impasses.
Me: "Elder, I prayed and didn't get an answer. I took that for what it was worth, and decided there isn't a God."
Missionary: "Yes, but there's a scripture about repentance I want you to read..."
Me: "Elder, I believe that if we are all sinners. I shouldn't have to repent before the spirit speaks to me--that's backwards."
Missionary: "Yes, but...."
He may be right or I may be right. Who knows. Isn't that the dilemma? I don't know that Mormonism is right or wrong, as is the case with many others.
The members cannot embrace us as individuals as long as we are considered spiritually broken sinners. We're not broken, and we're not necessarily more sinful than anyone else. The issue isn't the Church members' lack of concern for ex-members--it's the moral superiority the accompanies reactivation efforts. I've been an active Mormon, including serving a full-time mission, and I understand the way members treat and act ex-members. Now I'm a pariah--and this feeling is not mine alone. Pam had wonderful advice for anyone who thinks we're making this up. If you want to understand how ex-Mormons are treated, tell everyone you love that you're not a Mormon any longer. Walk a mile in our shoes for 30 days, then come back and share your experience.
Whether or not high ranking Church officials teach members to exclude ex-Mormons is beside the point. It doesn't matter, since we don't regularly meet with them. What matters is how Church members in the everyday ward act--and to many of them, we may as well be dead. - January 31, 2012 at 8:58 PM
- Leslie said...
Loved this post. Bless you. Thank you.
- January 31, 2012 at 9:30 PM
You know it's really is not the fault of any religion of what and how it's members act. In all religions and for all those who profess not to be apart of any religion, there are both good people who try to keep an open mind, try to show kindness, and better themselves and others. Then there are those who put blinders on, close their minds out of fear or ignorance, those who try to step on others beliefs or are hell bound that they are the only ones who are right and try to take away from society. So you can't blame every thing or the religion, other wise the people can't be held accountable for THEIR acts, deeds, and words. We as not only LDS members but all of humanity have to stop blaming others for OUR works, thoughts, and beliefs. I am LDS, but do I believe with out doubts? No!! But I know what I know, and if my beliefs are wrong in the end I will change according to what God tells me is the truth. Will I "shun" others in my life... most likely but I try not to. And do I have opinions not based on my beliefs? Yes I do actually.
- January 31, 2012 at 9:37 PM
- Unknown said...
The fact is, there are plenty of "stake presidents" and "bishops" who do shun others, and encourage others to shun people. I've known quite a few people who have been shunned. A lot of times for as little as marrying a non-mormon. And then then Non-Mormon feels like they either have to convert to Mormonism or be ignored collectively as a group.
The Mormons are taught to ignore programs just because an actor on there is gay, or to shun them outrightly. The Bishop tells you not to associate with a person for speaking out against the church, we're supposed to 'not touch' information that is against the church, because it might possibly poison us. And to top it all off, prophets in the past have given orders to disassociate ourselves with those not of the covenant.
Granted, I do think some Ex-Mormons speak out against the church in a bitter rage too often, but frankly, in some cases it's deserved. In many cases the leaders aren't Christlike, in many cases, the leaders are naive. (See Boyd K. Packer discussing homosexuality)
And to speak of what the members of the community have done against homosexuals in general is just...Do you realize what you have done to them? Have you even tried to open your eyes to their situation?
They are *not* a mistake, they are born the way they are. Instead you try to shove some sort of counterculture down their throat, and make them feel like crap from their birth, telling them first they chose it, then offering them therapy to get rid of it, when really this "therapy" is along the lines of both Clockwork Orange and the kind of mind control exhibited in Ender's Game.
If you would just open your eyes, you would see that these people did nothing wrong to get that way, and before they came out of the closet, they did *every*thing in their power to pray away the gay, being the most staunch Mormons possible. And yet....you insist that they're against God. They're kind, loving individuals. If you would just observe life, you'd realize these things, but you close your eyes to what's happening around you, just like the dwarves thinking they're stuck in a barn. Open up your eyes for once, and think for yourselves. - January 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM
- called2serve249 said...
Excellent writing. I agree with what you had to say almost to the letter.
And I was able to take 2 religion classes from Dr. Fluhman before he transferred completely to the History department. I feel sorry that so many young Latter-day Saints will miss the opportunity to take his Pioneers and Persecution class. (On the bright side, Alonzo Gaskill is still there.)
Still, people reading this and attending BYU should take Fluhman's history courses. They aren't easy, but there is a reason he gets a standing ovation from his classes at the end of every semester. - January 31, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Haha, this post reminds me of a mission companion of mine who insisted that astronomy and astrology are one and the same thing. I attempted to dissuade him by saying that one is a science and the other is a divination based on positions of constellations and such but he would have none of it..."there're the same thing."
- January 31, 2012 at 10:32 PM
"The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints."
When one goes to the hospital one expects that there will be other sick people there. But there is also the expectation that you will be protected from contagions yourself. You don't expect others to demand the "courtesy" of coughing in your face or declaring the authority to vomit on your food. You also don't expect nurses and doctors to mis-prescribe and administer medicines that actually turn out to be poisonous to the patient.
Be careful not to blame the victims. There are those who have been seriously hurt out there and it is not because they are part of or failed to leave the LDS Cult of False Expectations. It is because others chose to hurt them, many in the name of Christ. They know very well that it was not Christ that hurt them. But how are they to trust others acting in the name of Christ after that? - January 31, 2012 at 10:34 PM
- called2serve249 said...
A quick addendum to what I just posted (although I'm not sure anyone will get to this point in the post):
To assume that my experience is the authoritative one (whether religiously, politically, socially, or otherwise) is wrong. My experience is my own. Your experience is yours (I use 'yours' in the collective sense, not Carl). To accost me for my beliefs will accomplish the same thing as me accosting you for yours. I think this is why Christ said that "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the widow and fatherless in their afflictions, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world."
Bicker if you will, claim that I don't understand. Insist that your understanding and comprehension of Mormon history or Mormon doctrine or Christianity or anything else is perfect and that were everyone else to take your path they would receive the same results. What it boils down to is: I won't. Humanity is too complex to assume such. What it boils down to for me is: Love God and Love your neighbor. You can't go wrong with those two.
And lastly, I think people are making a mistake in assuming that Carl's experience is the exception and, therefore, inconsequential in the grand scheme of Latter-day saint culture. When in history did the majority "Get it right"? Has there ever been a time that anyone could accurately say, "The vast majority of people are doing *fill in the blank*, therefore it must be right." The right is always in the minority. I think the same can be said of experiences like Carl's. Just because it is rare does not make it invalid.
Again, just my opinions. Take them or leave them. I doesn't affect me either way. I just like to vent sometimes. :D - January 31, 2012 at 10:47 PM
- LivingstonClan said...
Loved this post, thank you! My analogy I like to use when people want to judge our entire religious based on their experience with a few, is that if you flew into a foreign country, got off the plane and were treated extremely poorly by the people in the airport, got back on the plane, and said you hated the country, that would not be a fair statement. Those few people in the airport do know representing the entire country, just as any handful of misinformed, misguided LDS members do not speak for the entire church. I love what you said about us not being a perfect people. We are TRYING. That's all any of us can do. I wish with everything I am that we could all be a little more understanding, on all sides.
- January 31, 2012 at 11:08 PM
- Jenna said...
I take the "obedience is the first law of heaven" quotation to mean that it's the first in that it's the most basic. Learning to be obedient is good, but learning to do good things without being commanded is better. Maybe someone else already voiced a similar opinion.
Good post, I had read Carrie Sheffield's article and appreciate your perspective. - January 31, 2012 at 11:17 PM
- Debbie said...
Great job, Carl! You handled her anecdotes with aplomb & humor. Your blog post is making waves just like the seminal article is. I even posted your thoughts on FB because I saw so many of my friends were reading the Post essay.
- January 31, 2012 at 11:21 PM
- Carl said...
The fact is, there are plenty of "stake presidents" and "bishops" who do shun others, and encourage others to shun people.
I'm sure there are, Unknown. But they shouldn't. And I'm sad that it happens.
For those interested, I added a single small sentence to the blog post itself. "Nay, a call to repentance!" The purpose of this post is not to attack those who leave. The negative experiences many have are very very negative, and I choose not to judge them. Some are justified in leaving because of their negative experiences, but I also have faith in the Savior, who will make all things right and wipe away all tears.
Until that happens, however, for ALL of us who, whether in sunday school, institute, seminary, or in our own personal lives, perpetuate the LDS Cult of False Expectations, we're not helping the situation.
So knock it off. - January 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM
- DAP said...
Carl. You are my hero. If you weren't already married I'd propose to you right now. Do you have any single brothers or like minded friends? I am only mildly kidding. On second thought, I am not kidding at all! Thank-you for a well-reasoned rebuttal against that sad, ignorant wp post.
- February 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Great post. I was raised in the church and when I turned 18 I chose to stop going to church for my own personal reasons. My family supported my decision and I remain as close as ever with them and it has been over 7 years since I left. I had both good and bad experiences with the church but overall feel as though if anything it kept me out of trouble and as a kid. My parents never forced me to go (except maybe to seminary when they could get me out of bed) but went to make them happy. I have a son now who I Will not be raising mormon but still hope to give him some of the values I was raised with best I can. The point is my bad experiences I did have did not make me hate the church I was able to see that it was the people involveds views and not the church as a whole. Just like anything people interpret things in own way and sometimes its hard to avoid. - February 1, 2012 at 1:34 AM
With all this talk of "high ranking" leaders in the Mormon church being blamed or involved in problems I feel that it is important for people in and out of the church to think about how leaders are chosen in the LDS church. I am a member and I really enjoy my current Bishop and respect his counsel, but I appreciate that even he recognizes that he is just a man with his own baggage and problems. His kids are rowdy at church and I wouldn't take parenting advice from him. He accepted a calling from the Stake Presidency who accepted a calling from someone who accepted a calling. All of these people are doing their best (usually) to act on the promptings and feelings they receive through the Spirit. Some are better than others. Some have past experiences that cloud their judgement or distort their view. But all of these leaders are men (and women) who may fail. They might be Bishop or Relief Society President or whatever other role because they need to learn something. Because they need to grow in their ability to accept others or be more charitable. I personally taught Primary for almost 7 years and it took me most of that time to learn how to be the right kind of teacher for young children and the funny part is I studied Elementary Education and didn't learn nearly as much teaching outside of church.
Certainly each person has individual experiences. I grew up in a family in which something more like 'blind faith' was valued. Questioning wasn't really well looked upon. But as things in our family have changed over the years my parents have been more open to questions and those who question. Of my siblings I am the only one actively participating and I believe that is mostly due to my personal questioning done outside of my home environment. My siblings had some unfortunate experiences and I fully understand their unwillingness to participate in the church. We all still maintain a wonderful relationship and even discuss religion on occasion. I am with Carl and others who have posted in my belief that the LDS church is a divinely appointed organization. But at this time it is run not by the perfect man but by imperfect men and women who are trying to do what they can to fulfill the things God has asked of them. Each one will make mistakes, even the prophet at times has and likely will make mistakes, but at least they are trying. Becoming a Bishop doesn't mean a man is automatically better. He still has to work just as hard as before, harder really, and he has more scrutiny while he's doing it. - February 1, 2012 at 2:53 AM
- Jennie said...
What happens when a family member falls into this category -- "Do you support, affiliate with or agree with any group or individuals whose teaching or practices are contrary to or opposed to those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"
That question to me is what puts a bit of separation between me and anyone who is still mormon and wants to be temple worthy. If I want to not step on their toes, I can't cross a line into talking about something that would be a problem for them with that question. Question Joseph Smith and his validity, or that of the Book of Mormon to my mom or sister who are still in the church? Should I not be afraid that I might be shunned from them? Because either they choose to engage and listen to me and maybe I bring up questions they are comfortable with, or they choose to not have that kind of conversation with me. Which sure, is fine, but it is still an impediment in that relationship.
Beyond that, the church is run by men. You can't escape that. Women are not entitled to revelation on how to run things that cannot be tempered by a man. They have their own personal lives, and that is it. A relief society president is subject to a bishop. Women are supposed to be subject to their husbands, so long as they are righteous. Well, what happens when there are two righteous desires that conflict? The answer is to go with the man's. That may not be plainly stated (though that is what is implied), but I've talked with women, and that is how a lot of them interpret it. A woman has to empower herself to trust her own thought above her husband, the church doesn't do that. And to be honest, I don't think that leads to healthy marriage relationships. It makes it easy for anyone who might be an abuser to step in and use a woman in that way. A vehicle that empowers an abusive man more than a woman certainly has an issue with it. - February 1, 2012 at 3:24 AM
- Carli Jordan said...
Carl I did grow up in the lds cult of false expectations... I'm glad somebody finally said this.. Because of my bad experiences with family i do struggle, but no matter what have never left truly
left the church. the quote somewher in d&c as i remeber it to ..."remeber the night when i(the lord) gave wittness and peace to your soul on that matter"... have always kept me going. I sure i totally boched that reference but it has always given me great strength. I love this article and it is time for us to start living our religion more fully... - February 1, 2012 at 4:09 AM
- a little music said...
Carl -
I wish you and I were friends, or that you were my brother. I would love to have lengthy discussions with you about the gospel. Your article resonates deeply with me and I agree with you wholeheartedly. The family of my birth has rejected me entirely because I choose to live a life devoid of those false expectations. I live what I believe to be the Savior's true Gospel, while they live their own version of it. I know that Jesus Christ is my friend, and that he walks with me daily. I don't always get things right, but I figure that's about par for the course, and pretty close to what he would expect from me. I get up the next day and try again, because that's the arrangement I made with him.
He hasn't given up on me yet, so I'm sticking with him too. The plan is fairly simple, isn't it? I think people just try to complicate it too much, and that's what gets in their way, really.
Anyway, thanks a bunch for your thoughts. It means a great deal to me to have been able to read them - much more than you'll ever know. - February 1, 2012 at 4:38 AM
I appreciate this post, and the many, many comments from all different perspectives and thought I would add my own experience.
I was born and raised into the church, but that didn't make me a believer. I have experienced a little of both sides. Starting at the age of 5, until I was nearly 9 years old, I was sexually abused by a member of my ward. To say that I grew up with mixed feelings about the church and this man who portrayed himself as a "faithful" member, would be an understatement. I continued to attend church throughout my early teen years, because quite honestly I didn't know anything different having spent my life in small town Utah. As I got older I began to openly question the only faith and religion I had really ever known. Thankfully, my parents, who were unaware of the abuse, allowed me to do so. Through my late teens I studied about, prayed about and attended several different churches. Looking back, I think I was searching for that "perfect" one. What I discovered for myself was that this "perfect" one doesn't exist. There are good and bad people in all walks of life.
I returned to the LDS church, and through much personal study and prayer I gained an understanding that just like people in the congregations I had attended, the LDS people have flaws. But I also discovered it gives me the courage, and hope to say an imperfect person did me harm, but it does not define me, nor does it define the church.
I went on to serve a mission, and remain, by my own choice, a faithful member today.
I guess what I want to share is this; would I have been justified in leaving the LDS church, some would say so. But through my own experiences I have learned that holding an entire group of people accountable for the actions of one, or two, would not serve me personally. I think for myself, I act for myself, and I loving encourage and embrace when others do the same, regardless of where their inner compass takes them. In the end, regardless of personal religion, we will all be held accountable for our individual actions. - February 1, 2012 at 4:47 AM
I appreciate this post, and the many, many comments from all different perspectives and thought I would add my own experience.
I was born and raised into the church, but that didn't make me a believer. I have experienced a little of both sides. Starting at the age of 5, until I was nearly 9 years old, I was sexually abused by a member of my ward. To say that I grew up with mixed feelings about the church and this man who portrayed himself as a "faithful" member, would be an understatement. I continued to attend church throughout my early teen years, because quite honestly I didn't know anything different having spent my life in small town Utah. As I got older I began to openly question the only faith and religion I had really ever known. Thankfully, my parents, who were unaware of the abuse, allowed me to do so. Through my late teens I studied about, prayed about and attended several different churches. Looking back, I think I was searching for that "perfect" one. What I discovered for myself was that this "perfect" one doesn't exist. There are good and bad people in all walks of life.
I returned to the LDS church, and through much personal study and prayer I gained an understanding that just like people in the congregations I had attended, the LDS people have flaws. But I also discovered it gives me the courage, and hope to say an imperfect person did me harm, but it does not define me, nor does it define the church.
I went on to serve a mission, and remain, by my own choice, a faithful member today.
I guess what I want to share is this; would I have been justified in leaving the LDS church, some would say so. But through my own experiences I have learned that holding an entire group of people accountable for the actions of one, or two, would not serve me personally. I think for myself, I act for myself, and I loving encourage and embrace when others do the same, regardless of where their inner compass takes them. In the end, regardless of personal religion, we will all be held accountable for our individual actions. - February 1, 2012 at 4:48 AM
- The Arkwelder said...
I hope the author understands that "the LDS Cult of False Expectations" exists in the minds of defectors and faithful LDS alike, and that is the other half of the problem. Why do these "false" expectations exist? Because, ironically, there is a great deal of truth to them. Many will relate to the author's experiences, but many will also relate to Sheffield's. The Church has problems--a closet full of nasty skeletons. Let's not sweep these problems under the rug. They are at-least-partly real and need to be dealt with.
- February 1, 2012 at 4:52 AM
- Kant66 said...
I wasn't quite sure if your main point was 1) that we should be better Mormons (which I think everybody including would agree with), or 2) that the problems Carrie talked about are really as endemic as she made them out to be. If it was 1, then I don't see how your post is any kind of reply to Carrie's, because you are basically saying the same thing. If it's 2, then I think you have a point to call her out on the yellow journalism.
- February 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM
- Tearin said...
Thank you thank you thank you!!! I hope your post goes viral
- February 1, 2012 at 9:50 AM
- SunshineMom said...
Sometimes though you reach out to the "lost sheep" and they just ignore you. I have several friends who left the church and when I tried to reach out and still be friends I was ignored and shunned right back. I really tried (and wasn't trying to "bring them back to the fold" just trying to continue a friendship)
Three I'm thinking of in particular--one left when her husband decided that there were too many people who got doctrine wrong at church and they should teach their kids at home. I tried to call her several times and she was barely civil and very cold. And we used to laugh together and play with our kids, etc. Another had only been a member for a short time when someone offended her (and I understand why she was offended, I would've been too) and she stopped coming. I say hi to her all the time as our kids still go to the same schoool, but she doesn't seem to want the same friendship anymore, even though we used to get together all the time and have birthday parties, etc. Lastly another friend left and I don't know why honestly because she stopped talking to me completely. I would try again, but she changed her phone number and defriended all LDS contacts from her facebook and moved!
At least my little sister still talks to me and she left years ago. I love her to death and we talk at least every week. - February 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM
I think you should have written your response not on your blog but to the Washington Post directly, so that they in fact would know they got their facts wrong! Just a thought for next time.
- February 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM
- vtricia said...
"Still an Apple fan" Is that an homage to Eric Snider ;)
I think you have it right with the False Expectations. False Expectations is a doctrine that we all start out perfect, can stay perfect by not sinning, and everyone is in the Celestial Kingdom unless they fail. If someone else is not being perfect, you might catch it so you have to stay away. This is why the other Christians don't think we're Christian, because there is no need for a Savior in this model. - February 1, 2012 at 12:13 PM
"The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints."
Nailed it. Great article. Thank you, Carl. - February 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM
- ejahnke said...
Excellent article, thank you. Speaking as one born in the covenant, who fell away for 20 years, I was repulsed by the broad brush the church was painted with in the WP article.
I never felt any of what she described, ever, nor have any of my friends who fell away described anything close to that.
Maybe the "LDS Cult of False Expectations" (loved that) is more of a Utah thing? I don't doubt that she felt what she felt, but people without an ax to grind don't write articles.
By that I mean that people who have fallen away from the LDS church and haven't had these experiences don't feel the need to stand up and say "look at me." They have no desire to cover up guilty feelings with overtly public displays of angst. - February 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM
- Wendy said...
Bravo!!!! Bravissimo!!!! Would that all Mormons would be like you said and teach our children to go and do likewise.
- February 1, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Carl, you are so smart. What brillance! How you can see things so much clearer than the rest of us!? And your family!
Why have you not all been translated? Taken up like the City of Enoch...amazing intellect.
Intelligent promoters of Mormonism confuse me. The Bushman-ites. They contort their minds, performing gold medal-worthy mental gymnastics, in order to justify an elaborate mythology defied by history and science when the only thing that really sustains their belief system is their social/family network. All while puffing their chests out with a sense of superiority.
Instead of drinking Kool Aid, they drink Martinelli's and Grey Poupon.
It's an LDS Cult of False Doctrine. - February 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM
I don't understand how people keep claiming that this article was written by an apologist. How is it apologist if mormons are being taken to task for not living what they claim to believe?
- February 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM
I disagree Carl. I feel like you are being casually dismissive of others' very real and painful negative experiences with both individuals in the church, and individuals who represent the church. And you completely ignore the huge impact the Church's teachings, policies, and programs have on its members, esp. in regard to the way they do essentially nothing to reach out to those who have felt betrayed and duped by the Church.
From my perspective, the Church shouldn't be run as an authoritative corporation, where the upper management makes all the decisions. The Church IS the members. As a member who invests considerable time, talents, and money to the organization, an individual should have a right and an expectation to be able to express their opinions, hopes, and critiques of the Church without fearing reprimands that endanger social, familial, and in some cases career relationships. Members who feel they cannot communicate with their peers or their leaders feel marginalized, ignored, and often persecuted when they do not stay silent. Labeling people who criticize members of a "cult" only exacerbates an already sensitive situation for these brothers and sisters AND for the Church. It would truly be sad if, for these individuals, their struggles and difficulties were indeed only "false expectations", vain hopes that will never be addressed, much less acknowledged.
For now, however, members who smugly consider the doubts and struggles of members such as Carrie Sheffield (WaPo article author) as simply the complaints of apostates may buoy their own sense of righteousness and order in their little universe to themselves, but in the process they ignore very real opportunities to reach out to other fellow human beings with compassion, love, and support.
The Church is not the Gospel. The Gospel is not the Church. Defending the Church at all costs--including the cost of human spiritual lives--is the utmost betrayal of the Gospel message.
Finally, I'll offer this: doesn't the Church itself set up a ton of false expectations in its (faithful, TBM) membership by preaching prophetic and organizational infallibility, and in never apologizing for incorrect teachings that discriminated against and denied generations of people access to blessings that God intended for all people? The Church fears a fallout from apologizing for polygamy, for denying blacks the priesthood, for a host of other things. They worry that if infallibility is questioned, members will lose trust in the organization, and as a result they would see massive hemorrhaging of membership. But hasn't the Church done this to itself by building the structure on a faulty foundation to begin with? At some point, the weight of it all WILL come crashing down if the Church doesn't do the hard and expensive work of retrofitting and repairing the foundation. For a Church that proclaims continuing revelation, that shouldn't be as hard as it seems to be. That first step is a doozy, though, and won't come without consequence. Ultimately, isn't giving every member of the Church greater opportunity to discern truth and their own spiritual path more important than organizational immunity? - February 1, 2012 at 5:05 PM
- Graham said...
Carl, thank you so much for your comment. I have several friends and relatives who I admire and love that have left the church specifically because of this issue. I think you definitely hit the nail on the head. I'm pretty sure that this 'cult' started in the first few years of the church and led to that first big group of apostates breaking away in Kirtland. Somehow it persists still even though I feel like we're always hearing about the humanness of our leaders. Thanks so much for your insightful post and keep it up!
- February 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM
- Delirious said...
It's nice to know that I'm not the only member of the church who didn't know what the heck Sheffield was talking about. That certainly isn't the culture in which I was raised.
I also have to wonder about some of the statements like the one about how she shouldn't have been reading history. Maybe what she was really reading was anti-mormon propaganda, and the church leader wisely counseled her to stop. We don't hear the whole story, we only hear what the author wants us to hear.
And just to set the record straight, I am a Californian Mormon, and I was never told how to vote on Prop. 8. The church counsels us, then lets us use our own free agency. We had many people in our Stake who did not vote for prop. 8, and what did the leaders do about it? Nothing....it was their choice. We are encouraged and counseled, but never forced. Our church membership is in no way on the line because of the way we vote. - February 1, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Love, love, love this! I took option #2 right before my husband surprised me and took #1. It certainly made the transition after that surprise a lot easier, and our marriage is healthy and happy today.
The only criticism I have is that the white text on the black background was super annoying to read! Please change it to a dark text on a light background for the health of all of those eyes who would like to read awesome posts from you in the future. ^_^ - February 1, 2012 at 8:57 PM
- Jodi said...
Great article...came upon it through facebook. I too was frustrated with that WP article (and so many others out there right now). I grew up in Utah and have lived away for 4.5 years now and- I'm not being a Utah hater- but I have really learned a lot living in CA and Boston and I realized things I was doing before that I wasn't even aware of. I think so many members of the church just don't realize it. I was just telling my husband that people who write these anti articles are not looking at what the religion and the leaders are actually teaching- because it is all goodness and love.
- February 1, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Great article! Often, when someone leaves the church, they become very outspoken against the church and that makes it tough for active members to hang around them. Some ex-members can get extremely irate when an active member won't agree with them, or join in a conversation bashing church leaders, or church history or whatever (note, I said SOME do this). That might account for some of the ex-members feeling shunned. Unfortunately, the rest of the shunned seem to be victims of the over zealous mormon types that typically live in places like Utah, Idaho, and Arizona. Not all Utah, Idaho, and Arizona mormons are zealots, but it's been my experience that the zealots I've known have all spawned from those areas (I use the term "spawned" with humor, not malice).
The thing that most of the outspoken shunned leave out is that there are zealots and extremists in all walks of life. In every religion, in every science lab, in every culture, in every group, in every single inch of the world, there are zealots and extremists. Why mormons get such a bad rap for their zealots and extremists, I have no idea. It happens everywhere.
I am sorry for those who have had bad experiences. I wish it hadn't happened that way for you. If you are ever in my neck of the woods (and if you're generally a decent person) I promise you would not be turned away here! - February 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM
I think a lot of shunning is unintentional and really a matter of perception. Let's say I'm a TBM. I go to Church on Sunday, do FHE on Monday, date night on Friday, Home Teach every week, with some additional time somewhere for a calling, other family commitments, etc. Frankly, I'm so busy that I don't have any time to spend with you unless I can see you at church, PTA meetings, work, etc.
So, if you stop coming to Church, keeping up a relationship with you, which has suddenly become awkward if I don't know what to say or how to react, is now more inconvenient from a pure scheduling angle. Sorry, in my busy life, you're the first thing to go.
I imagine all of your other Mormon friends are doing the same analysis. Well, if all you have are Mormon friends, this suddenly leaves you friendless. If you have lots of non-Mormon friends, you probably aren't feeling too lonely in spite of it.
I think as a people we need to get out more and broaden our circle of friends and realize that when someone leaves the Church, we still need to keep them as a friend, even if it's inconvenient and makes us feel a bit awkward. - February 1, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Jennie, the idea that a woman is subservient to a man in the church made me laugh out loud. Literally 5 minutes before I sat down to write this, my husband asked me if I'd come and help him clean up the kitchen. I told him he could wait until I was done or he could do it himself. Well, the kitchen's clean, and I haven't left the computer (this happens frequently at my house)! There are many nights when my husband cooks dinner, and takes care of our kids. If something needs to be sewn up (my kids are always ripping holes in their stuffed animals) I have my husband take care of it because I hate to sew! And no, he's not a wuss, he was just raised right! I know that there are women out there who feel that she must be subject to her husband, and I know there are men out there who are guilty of unrighteous dominion, but again, it happens EVERYWHERE.
I learned a long time ago that a person (male or female) can only be as powerful as you allow them to be. We're told over and over in the church to ask and find out for ourselves if something is true. That includes if my husband, bishop, stake president, etc, is given some revelation. I don't just have to accept their word. I can find out for myself. If I don't get the same revelation, then I don't have to follow it. End of story. - February 1, 2012 at 11:00 PM
- Andilyn said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- February 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM
- Andilyn said...
To Annonymous January 31st, 11:04 AM
I've been reading a lot of the comments, and yours has stuck with me. I am so sorry for your experiences. I sincerely hope that you find happiness, and if you don't or if it takes a while, I hope you find people who will accept you and validate your experiences. You contended with Carl's article so respectfully. Thank you for that and for your honesty.
This comment goes to all of you on the other end of Carl's anecdotal spectrum. You must be strong spirits, in and out of the Church, if the Lord has trusted you with such intellect and oppression. I hope you can represent God well no matter your religion or social circumstances. God bless.
Carl, thank you for writing this article. It rang true with me. And thanks for the reminder to seek out the black sheep, along with the idea for a fabulous FHE lesson. I will use it. - February 2, 2012 at 12:58 AM
19 And if a person gains more aknowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.
20 There is a alaw, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all cblessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
I think this is where the first law of heaven idea comes from. Also the missionary handbook has some stuff in it about obedience, but that might not be considered doctrine. - February 2, 2012 at 6:42 AM
- Unknown said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- February 2, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Simply saying you're not engaging in the 'No True Scotsman' ploy, doesn't mean you aren't.
Fair enough that you call for everyone to "please leave the LDS Cult of False Expectations" but since the "LDS Cult of False Expectations" is sustained by it's leadership, surely they need to leave it first?
Carl, you're clearly an intelligent guy, but surely all the unresolved theological difficulties and scientific evidence must cause some cognitive dissonance?
Good luck - I hope one day your desire for accepting evidence will out do your desire for belief and faith. - February 2, 2012 at 11:55 AM
- BHodges said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- February 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM
- BHodges said...
Golly, JonGee, no condescension or self-congratulation detectable in that response at all.
- February 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Spot on - nice essay. I always tell people this: "The gospel is true, the church is good, the members are human...and BYU is in Provo." Remembering that prevents a multitude of difficulties.
- February 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM
By this very admission Carl is essentially making that same claim that Carrie is making: that the "Mormon church [is] in need of reform."
I just have to comment to all of those who are saying the Church is in need of reform.
I know there are many who have had, negative experiences, who have been shunned for leaving the church or treated differently because they believe somthing that isn't taught in our doctrines. But the thing most need to realize is that God gave man free agency, he also gave us the truth the way and the light of Christ, and the choice to follow it or not, when someone chooses to treat another badly because they dont believe the same as us they are not following the doctrines of the church! It is not the church that needs reform! Everyone may interperet Gods teachings differently inside and outside the church But God is unchanging.
It is not just mormonism that does this many religions(I should really say members of those religions) participate in false expectations. Christ never taught us to treat others that way ever! And those who do aren't necessarily bad people they just aren't following his teachings.
It just bothers me that people blame the church for how any one person or group acts towards others. We may have strong beliefs but we dont teach to shun others if they dont believe the same. And I think that is what Carl was essentially trying to say. - February 2, 2012 at 6:18 PM
- Tyson Call said...
This entire post is one giant "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
In short, you are guilty of saying "These bad things occur within this construct (church) but that is not SUPPOSED to happen.
Your anecdotal family examples are irrelevant in combating the claim that something else very different (shunning, gossip) often occurs when people leave. I grew up in the church, by the way. I served a mission. I am not some outsider commenting on a culture I don't understand.
The funny thing about your natural history example is yes, that is what often happens in the church. Kids are taught science, and science alone, and they have to put the pieces together, usually when they are older, that it doesn't agree with the doctrine. You made it seem like it was good you didn't let them know that the things they were seeing contradict "their" beliefs. Mormons should be more transparent and candid with their youth. Not sending them off to college and on missions without teaching them about the conflicts. Most youth don't even know there are conflicts like that. - February 2, 2012 at 6:36 PM
- prometheus said...
Carl: I'm not sure where to start.
I admire the familial anecdote you share in "Exhibit C." Certainly, proactive outreach toward those different than us is Christian love at its finest. Bravo.
Regarding "Exhibit B," it isn't problematic that literal readings of the Book of Abraham don't fit into the same worldview as empirical observations of natural history--this is almost banal. It's inestimably more problematic that the Book of Abraham is itself a falsified text. This isn't sophistry. It isn't polemical. The LDS Church has canonized plainly fraudulent translations. (Google search "Book of Breathings.")
You cleverly negotiate the Mormon cultural privilege of obedience above rationality by stating that "obedience is the first law of heaven" is not found in scriptural texts. You fail to mention, though, that this is explicitly taught in the LDS temple endowment. Your wonderment that this mentality may exist in Mormon culture is, at best, poorly conceived. At worst, it is characteristic of the type of denial-based apologetics that are slippery and maddening.
It is a disrespect to suggest that men and women who depart from Mormonism do so because they didn't have the opportunity to appreciate texture and nuance. It is patently incorrect to suggest that people leave the LDS Church because they must have had inferior families, or were raised on false expectations.
Further, the current LDS agenda to proactively maintain the second-class status of gay and lesbian families is as disgusting as it is uninspired, and the willingness of intelligent Latter-day Saints to raise their arm to the square in support of political measures justified by explicitly false premises is malum in se.
I would strongly suggest reviewing the recent data that has been released from surveys of thousands of former Latter-day Saints before continuing to paint disaffection in simplistic brushstrokes. There are real, fundamental problems with Mormonism that have little to do with a "cult of false expectations"...unless honesty and awareness are false things to expect from spiritual leaders:
http://whymormonsleave.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mormon_Stories_FC.pdf - February 2, 2012 at 7:11 PM
- Blain said...
First time here. It looks like my state will have SSM in the next year or so (Washington). When that happens, could I marry you? I know it's sudden, and I'm not gay, but I very much love what you said here.
Sorry to burst into the conversation already in progress for fan-boy raving, but that's all I've got for now. - February 3, 2012 at 5:08 AM
- Carl said...
Anonymous 6:49, Jesus didn't say the fruits have to be perfect, either. That's all I'm saying.
LDSRevelations, I agree. We could be doing better. A LOT better, about teaching our own history. I'm not, however, sympathetic to the idea that the church is deliberately hiding its history. Rough Stone Rolling can be bought at Deseret Book, for example. They could do a better job of getting accurate information out, but at the same time, members could do a better job at being informed. 65% church's fault, 35% members fault. Yes, I just made those up.
"Were you trying to be offensive, or were you just stupid." Love it!
Anonymous Originally 11:07, ah, you've run into another of my pet peeves. Many Mormons try to have their cake and eat it too with the "God gives you personal revelation in his own time and manner," thought, while simultaneously holding the "if you don't get the same answer that I have RIGHT NOW you're clearly doing it wrong." I'm of the former persuasion only.
Unknown 10:00 pm, you're right that too many leaders at too many levels of the church hierarchy also perpetuate the Cult of False Expectations. But . . . I still think you get there by largely picking and choosing which leaders to follow, and which statements to adhere to. This, to me, is ironic. If you only listen to a Bruce R. McConkie and ignore a Hugh B. Brown, you're actually making my point that the situation is more complicated. You're just deliberately ignoring half of the complication, which is actually what I do, just in the opposite direction. :)
And as far as homosexuality, I think you're misunderstanding what thinking LDS members mean by "mistake." This world is not perfect. Some people are born with club feet. Some with Tay-Sachs disease. Others are mentally ill their entire lives. Some have a propensity to depression. Are these "mistakes?" In some sense, yes, they are not the way things are supposed to be. The church's official position is that many people are homosexual through no choice of their own. Yes, that means they are born that way in most cases. (Wisely, I think the church hasn't take a nature/nurture position firmly, because I don't think the science comes down firmly on one or the other side. Yet.) We live in an imperfect world. Why does homosexual orientation get a free pass in the "this isn't how it's supposed to be" category? And yes, I've tried to put myself in their shoes (inasmuch as such an exercise is possible) because of a good friend of mine at Yale who was LDS and gay, and my old roommate here in DC who is also LDS and gay. The former is no longer active, the latter still is.
Andrew B., the stupid. It burns.
Maureen, I was really trying not to blame the victims. Not entirely sure I succeeded. The church is more like the hospital set up by Patch Adams before he was officially licensed, where all of the patients were also doctors. That's a much more accurate model, and one I wish we adhered to or admitted to more. I acknowledge that many people have been hurt by others, and even that it happens in the "name of Christ" (which is probably the worst form of taking His name in vain). This saddens me. Because it shouldn't happen, and the church doesn't officially teach authoritarianism (D&C 121 anybody)?
Jenna, that's a nice way of trying to read it. I think when certain apostles said it in the later 20th century, the did mean it more as a "prime" than a "basic" commandment. Jesus disagreed, and I'll stick with him.
Jennie, that is a FANTASTIC question about the temple recommend question. I actually don't have a direct answer. I will say that any attempt to figure out what that is going for that doesn't take into account the myriad scriptures about serving all of humanity, of loving your neighbor, and seeking lost sheep, etc. is not doing an adequate job of figuring it out. - February 3, 2012 at 10:10 AM
- Carl said...
a little music, I'm sorry about your family. I'll repeat it again: Basic. Christian. Fail.
Anonymous 4:47 am, I'm so deeply sorry about the abuse you suffered in the church, or, at least from a member of the church. I applaud your quest to figure out things for yourself. I would be one of those who would not be throwing stones at you if you had decided to leave the church. But I'm glad you didn't.
Kant 66, those are mutually exclusive options?
SunshineMom, yeah, the "I won't talk to you" sword cuts both ways sometimes. Nobody wins if that happens. Nobody at all.
vtricia, now I get to call myself an iDolater!
ejahnke, it's not just a Utah only thing. Not even a Mormon Corridor thing. The Cult of False Expectations is alive and well, I suspect, most everywhere.
Anonymous 3:42, and I can't understand why it's so unbelievable that people know all the facts and still believe in the church, like Richard Bushman. I am not doing mental gymnastics. I promise. Maybe I'm just really really good at them, so it doesn't faze me. I dunno. But Bushman, Teryl Givens, Truman Madsen, Grant Hardy . . . these are not intellectual scrubs.
Anonymous 4:40, I don't think some of them read it all that closely. I really tried, though, to be fair to those with negative experiences, and to what the church actually teaches, and to how we fail to live up to those teachings. It's an interesting trifecta to try to balance correctly in a post like this one.
SteveS, I tried to be sensitive. Apparently, to many, I have not succeeded. And the corporate church does many times preach the LDS Cult of False Expectations. I've never, in all my years, however, heard of prophetic or institutional infallibility. I don't even think that's warranted by D&C 1:38 or the footnotes to OD-1. I wish they would apologize for the incorrect teachings of the past. Jeffrey R. Holland has called the "blacks were less valiant in the pre-mortal existence" "folklore." I agree with him.
Delirious, the problem is that sometimes even truthful books, like Rough Stone Rolling, don't adhere to the Cult of False Expectations, so that leader in the LDS Church Sheffield was talking about may very well have just been wrong about a) what she was reading, and b) whether she should have been reading it.
Anonymous 10:57 has a good point. To think that you will leave the church and your relationships with those in the church will not radically change is foolish. That doesn't justify Sheffield's parents not speaking to her for 5 years, though.
Anonymous 11:00, I'm glad it made you laugh out loud. For others it would have rang all too true. Oh that more people had your reaction than the latter one.
JonGee, of course merely saying I'm not doing No True Scotsman doesn't automatically mean I am. I'm not arguing in a circle because I'm not arguing in a circle because I'm not . . . okay, moving on the substance of your post. Yes. Many in the leadership need to leave the Cult of False Expectations too. Though, I doubt if you asked anybody from your bishop to Thomas S. Monson if they were infallible, they would all say "no." Boom. Wiggle room achieved! And that wiggle room, in my case, removes all cognitive dissonance. Everything should be taken with a small grain of salt. Everything.
Tyson Call, I give you: http://ifeellikeschrodingerscat.blogspot.com/2010/03/evolution-and-creationism.html. The doctrine on creation and evolution is not as fixed as you think. The church has never actually come out with an official position on the age of the earth, creation of Adam, etc. . . - February 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM
- Carl said...
prometheus, the current LDS apologetic scholarship on the Book of Abraham is enough to give me at least a little pause. However, I would point you to a recent talk by the Yale-trained Egyptologist John Gee who teaches at BYU. After reading his comments, I'm not going to be really shaken if we were to, say, remove the hypocephalus from the canon.
I also take the temple covenant in conjunction with all the rest of the scriptures and admonitions, and D&C 121 has some interesting things about how to get people to follow you. My temple covenant of obedience, in my opinion, does not constitute never thinking for myself. "I was just following orders" is not a defense that is going to work at the Day of Judgment.
When you say "It is a disrespect to suggest that men and women who depart from Mormonism do so because they didn't have the opportunity to appreciate texture and nuance. It is patently incorrect to suggest that people leave the LDS Church because they must have had inferior families, or were raised on false expectations." I don't disagree on any particular point. I mostly want more people to have opportunities to appreciate texture and nuance, and never said people leave the LDS church because they have inferior families. Actually, many times the unchristian behavior of Mormon families towards "apostate" children is only manifest after the children leave. And the Cult of False expectations far too often is a major player in all of this, so I don't want kids raised with false expectations. Now, milk before meat is still a good principle. But, we still need to get to the meat sometime!
I've seen those results. I find them disheartening. No, the Cult of False expectations isn't responsible for all those results. But I think it's responsible for many of them.
Blain and DAP, sorry, I'm spoken for. Happily!
And . . . I'm caught up again. Thanks for all the commenters. This post went a little more viral than expected. (Roughly 20k hits). I appreciate all your thoughts and insights, and as a follower of the Master, love you all, and try my best to do so. I know that, whatever negative experiences we have in this life, whether we were wounded in the house of our (so-called?) friends, or elsewhere, He will be the one who will wipe away all our tears (Revelations 21:4). But not today. Today we mourn for those of us who aren't getting it right.
And that's all of us.
P.S. This sounds kind of final, because the hits are dying down, but if you have more comments or responses, drop 'em in! - February 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM
- Martha said...
yes! thank you!
- February 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM
You can see from the post by Steve Benson what happens when the grandson of a Prophet leaves the church. The letters that he shares are full of love for him, but entertwined with loyalty toward the church. Interesting.
Steve Benson's experience - February 5, 2012 at 6:28 AM
- elizabeth said...
I am a convert and for sure did not know everything about the church I was joining.
This is exactly what happened: My bishop, the missionaries, the CES missionaries, and my new member family all encouraged me to learn as much as possible.
Carl, I am grateful for your article. I was baptized in Oklahoma, and moved with my husband, (who I married many years after my baptism) to Utah. The culture is very different here.
But that is what it is, culture, not doctrine. And the culture is changing, if it be ever so slowly.
Let's be what we all can be, regardless of religion! - February 7, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Very well written! Both articles were. From a family of nine myself, half of us are still active in the Church. We have each had our experiences and dealings. We have all been offended because of one thing or another. But, you know what? That has also happened outside of the Church as well. It's called LIFE EXPERIENCES. It's how we react and learn from those experiences that makes us who we are, and who will eventually stand before our Lord at the last day.
I am a mother, wife, homemaker... and we are a home of science and faith. We believe, and encourage the belief in our children, whenever it comes up, that the two go hand in hand. It makes sense that our Creator used the laws of physics to create. Why not? It makes sense that that is why those things have been discovered over time, and will continue to be discovered. If anything they should encourage our faith in a divine creator.
Thank you for your positive and uplifting words. - February 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM
- Sui Sin Far said...
Wow, so many comments. I think under the bell curve of members, this is on one end and Sheffield's experiences on the other.
As for the point about higher education for women, in this case I think education is equivalent to something more like a dowry. A woman may get multiple degrees but may not be expected to use those degrees in any professional application. There are several comments from general authorities that do say that a woman's education and skills are 1) to take care of herself before she's married and in case she doesn't get married, 2) to provide for her family in the event that she loses her partner, and at best 3) to help her partner is providing for their family. The truth is that the doctrine supports the cultural norms of patriarchy. That is not to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not support its members in several other ways. - February 9, 2012 at 9:42 PM
It is not religion that is imperfect, but a individuals interpretation of it that is imperfect. Just as there are good christians, there are bad ones. Just as there are good muslims, there are bad ones. Just as there are good jews, there are bad ones, etc. we should not blame a particular religion or denomination for the actions of misguided people. I know there are those of you that feel that it is an excuse, but would you like people lumping you in with a group of people saying that you were all the same? The same thing applies here.
- February 10, 2012 at 1:42 AM
- Ammon said...
Thanks for the great article, a friend posted it on Facebook, and three of my friends have shared it and many more have read it and liked it. You captured the experience and feelings of many of us. I'm glad I now have a name for the cult I left several years ago. Now I'm just a happy Latter-day Saint, I think that is what my parents intended, but parenting in this culture is a lot like rowing up stream. This article is very well put and speaks to the issue as well: http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=2968
- February 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM
It took me a couple weeks, but I finally wrote up an official (kind of) response to this thread. Here it is! http://bedblogandbeyond.blogspot.com/2012/02/things-i-wish-mormons-would-stop-doing.html
- February 12, 2012 at 4:14 PM
- Rebecca said...
Awesome post! THANK YOU!!!! So well written!
I think John Dehlin needs to publish this on his Mormon Stories site. Or you should be a guest. To give a voice to how it's supposed to be. Sheesh, so many people are getting such twisted ideas out there. It is so great to have an academic heavy weight like yourself say something to address all of the madness! - February 14, 2012 at 1:08 AM
- Celestial Sunberry said...
I'm glad you grew up in that type of a home. I didn't. I grew up in a home where wearing black shoes was Satan's work, and my family has been LDS the whole time. Unfortunately, there are WAY too many families that are absolutely awful. I've been shunned for thinking for myself; but I would rather think for myself and seek for God than just follow blindly and not actively seek others. In Utah, I have heard people all the time telling everyone not to interact with people who aren't LDS. The mindset is just saddening and pathetic. How are we supposed to teach the gospel without talking to people!? Durrrrrr.
At any rate, I will choose to seek knowledge, to learn more about the gospel, and just do what I can to love the Lord. - February 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM
- ducky said...
Wow awesome and eloquent post! I think every religion and interest group attracts its fanatics who manipulate the central message or values of that group, and semi-fanatics who follow them... but LDS seems to attract more attention for it somehow. You're totally right. Leave the cult of false expectations!
- February 18, 2012 at 9:06 PM
- Carl said...
Celestial Sunberry . . . black shoes? I don't even . . .
Anyway, I think you should think for yourself! Who do you think is further on the path to being like our father, the person who blindly did everything they were asked, or the person who thought, pondered, prayed, worked, experimented on, and did what they thought was best?
Hint: I don't think God takes orders from anybody. - February 18, 2012 at 9:44 PM
- Brenda said...
I am a **black sheep** My morman family who I expected to shun me never did. I felt weird around them true enough because I felt guilty. Now years have past and I feel respected and loved by my parents who don't go to find me by preaching to me every time I see them, but by living by example. While they respect my choices and love me no matter what; they never tell me its ok either. would love for me to come back into the old so to speak, but if I never do they will still have me around and listen to what I have to say. I feel their respect when they include me in the important family things like medical or financial decisions. My family gets mormanism right...
- February 28, 2012 at 11:03 AM