Why I am not a Mormon

[_Jersey Girl]

With all due respect, I have witnessed this type of "little ball" or "dance" for a number of years on LDS boards and those haven't been exclusive to Daniel and Scratch. It is a phenomena that astounds never-Mo's such as myself and others.

Of course. You're witnessing a divorce.

Okay, let's go with that, beastie. A divorce between whom?

[_Alter Idem]

Part of the problem is that DCP demonstrates a strong predilection for these type of threads, versus other, more academic discussions with people less prone to personal attack.

In other words, ya find what you look for.

by the way, that was EA's point earlier - compare how much time DCP is willing to spend on a thread like this, versus one about a real issue with his apologetics. (ie, Wisconsin horse skull)

Actually, Goodk is responsible for turning his own thread into a discussion of Dr. P with his comments on the very first page.

Goodk: Breaking away from Mormonism is harder than it should be. Look at me. I can't post annonymously here without having a Professor at BYU tattling on me, and then trying to justify it as if he had some moral obligation to do so.

I considered posting under another identity because the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at a prestigious University figured out my personal identity. Need I say more?

As I mentioned earlier, Goodk, knew Dr. P before he came to these boards. Only a short stint on MADB would have alerted Goodk to the fact that his father's friend was a participant. It also would have taken only a little read at MADB to figure out that Dr. P also read MD. Goodk started at MADB but was banned. Then he came here--and anyone who reads this board soon becomes familiar with Dr. P--so Goodk definitely knew of his presence here. Goodk risked his own anonymity when he posted that email about his ill sister, because he was fully aware that Dr. P read this board and that Dr. P knew his father.

Goodk also pulled Dr. P into this post by pointedly bringing him up--even though this thread was supposed to be about why he left the church. Do you expect Dr. P not to respond when he's being discussed?

[_beastie]

Okay, let's go with that, beastie. A divorce between whom?

Isn't it obvious?

Mormons and exmormons were once part of the same family. Even if we're technically strangers, we were part of the same strongly interconnected tribe. Mormonism emphasizes tribe to an extraordinary extent, as well as loyalty to that tribe. And, of course, there are all sorts of other layers on top of that - the supposed eternal nature of these relationship, the enmeshment of individual/Mormonism, the barrage of negative teachings about apostates. It's a guaranteed formula to create extreme tension between Mormon and exmormon.

Think about DCP's comments earlier on this thread, about how apostasy stresses friendships. It is a certain type of group that creates this sort of tension. People in protestant faiths normally don't experience it. So what if a friend chooses to stop going to church or no longer believes at all? It may be a cause for conversation, from time to time, but it doesn't create a sudden new stress on the relationship.

The relationship between Mormon and exmormon is instantly stressed because of everything Mormonism is, but particularly because it views abandonment as a threat and slap in the face. We are spitting, so to speak, on everything they hold dear.

It's like the most acrimonious divorce ever, and contact has to continue due to the children (children being the continued influence of Mormonism in our lives).

I really don't think nonmormons can really understand it.

This is why I gave up, long ago, on real meaningful "bridge building" or extensive meaningful conversation between Mormon and exmormon. Sure, it happens now and then, but it's pretty rare. I certainly don't hold my breath waiting around for it.

I used to be curious as to why DCP seemed to take the brunt of so much exmormon antagonism - and there is no doubt he does. Others have told me, and I think they're right, that in a way, he has come to symbolize the apologetic movement, overall. Apologists and exmormons have an even more acrimonious relationship than regular Mormon and exmormon. But in addition to that, he really does look for these type of situations. He keeps saying that he is interested in dysfunctional behavior surrounding religion. I'm sure that's true. So am I. But I think it's far more personal than that for DCP.

I used to be married to a verbally abusive man, and I never could understand why he would do and say the things he did. They made no sense to me. I read a book about it that finally just said: don't try to figure it out. Just look for the pay-off. What "reward" does the individual get for the behavior? Why, if DCP finds these sort of personal threads so distasteful, does he so frequently seek them out? There's a pay-off, somewhere. I don't buy the "I'm academically interested in dysfunctional behavior". Just how much information does he need? As much on this thread? Does he really need to collect the "worst of the worst" exmormon statements from boards like this one? Human beings may behave illogically in many ways, but we are pretty predictable in one way - we do not regularly engage in a behavior unless we are getting some pay-off from it. So I think the second reason he takes the brunt of it is that, in a way, he seeks it out.

[_beastie]

As I mentioned earlier, Goodk, knew Dr. P before he came to these boards. Only a short stint on MADB would have alerted Goodk to the fact that his father's friend was a participant. It also would have taken only a little read at MADB to figure out that Dr. P also read MD. Goodk started at MADB but was banned. Then he came here--and anyone who reads this board soon becomes familiar with Dr. P--so Goodk definitely knew of his presence here. Goodk risked his own anonymity when he posted that email about his ill sister, because he was fully aware that Dr. P read this board and that Dr. P knew his father.

Goodk also pulled Dr. P into this post by pointedly bringing him up--even though this thread was supposed to be about why he left the church. Do you expect Dr. P not to respond when he's being discussed?

Given the fact that Mormons seem to have the tendency to disregard personal boundaries and behave intrusively towards other Mormons, yes, GoodK should probably have anticipated this result.

Please keep in mind the fact that GoodK had already discussed his feelings with his father in real life. He has stated his father had nothing to be surprised about. So it wasn't getting "caught mocking the priesthood" that was the problem at all. It was the fact that a grown man, on an internet board, felt it incumbent upon him to alert the real life family of another grown man regarding things he was posting anonymously on an internet board that was the problem.

Apparently this doesn't strike many Mormons as inappropriate - but I believe it would strike the vast majority of nonmormons (and nonmembers of other intrusive religions, I should add) as inappropriate. Did anyone here doubt, for a minute, that GoodK's father would think what DCP did was ethical and appropriate? I certainly didn't. in my opinion, there's a lot of tattling, overall, in Mormonism.

In regards to GoodK starting it, so to speak, he simply stated a fact:

Surprisingly, no one has ever asked me. I often meet people who ask me if I am Mormon. Usually I get asked because I am in a Mormon crowd or I meet someone who knows my family, but once I answer the reasons don't seem to matter.

Even BYU professors, who take interest in the personal identity behind the moniker GoodK, don't seem to care why I am not a Mormon. They seem content with knowing I am an "atheist" and commenting accordingly, as if that were good enough of an explanation, in their favor.

Breaking away from Mormonism is harder than it should be. Look at me. I can't post annonymously here without having a Professor at BYU tattling on me, and then trying to justify it as if he had some moral obligation to do so.

I considered posting under another identity because the professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at a prestigious University figured out my personal identity. Need I say more?

This was a simple fact. To my view, the fact that DCP felt it as a "call to arms" and that he had to defend his honor is a sign that, perhaps, the ethical issue is not as clear cut even to DCP himself.

[_EAllusion]

DCP -

People are generally saying you were rude and inappropriate, not history's greatest monster. People finding fault in your decisions is not tantamount to the over the top accusations you sarcastically suggest you are being accused of. All that does is make it seem like you are creating strawmen to deflect serious, honest issues with your behavior. The fact that you went "back and forth" on whether to send the email suggests that it was a close call in your mind, so it shouldn't be shocking to you if others think you made the wrong call. I have no doubt you probably are the recipient of some nasty, crazy accusastions from time to time. Welcome to the club. Maybe we can exchange weird hatemail we've received. But that does not justify striking a ridiculous martyr pose whenever you are questioned about your behavior. I'm sure it is fun to pretend to be a cartoon villain. And hey, it makes your opponents seem absurd when people who dote on you assume you are just faithfully reporting what you are accused of. But for others, it seems like you are just dodging the issue and coming off as a bit of a jerk. People think you are being a Church gossip butting in where you don't belong, not John Wayne Gacy.

[_Jersey Girl]

I'm going to be perfectly blunt and to the point. Not because I wish to offend anyone but just in order to save time because quite frankly, this bores me beyond belief and probably as much as that stupid poll thread bores others, so let me cut to the chase here and be done with this.

Isn't it obvious?

Yes, I think it's obvious.

Mormons and exmormons were once part of the same family. Even if we're technically strangers, we were part of the same strongly interconnected tribe. Mormonism emphasizes tribe to an extraordinary extent, as well as loyalty to that tribe. And, of course, there are all sorts of other layers on top of that - the supposed eternal nature of these relationship, the enmeshment of individual/Mormonism, the barrage of negative teachings about apostates. It's a guaranteed formula to create extreme tension between Mormon and exmormon.

I understand the aspect of tribe that you refer to. I know many ex-Mo's who retain a fond attachment to their tribe however their approaches are somewhat different than what I see on this board in that they are able to avoid extreme tension. Each person has their own way of dealing with things and I know that it's not my place to sit in judgement of what I see.

Think about DCP's comments earlier on this thread, about how apostasy stresses friendships. It is a certain type of group that creates this sort of tension. People in protestant faiths normally don't experience it. So what if a friend chooses to stop going to church or no longer believes at all? It may be a cause for conversation, from time to time, but it doesn't create a sudden new stress on the relationship.

Yes, but beastie, aren't some of the ex-Mo's on this board still functioning in much the same way as the group they were once a part of? You're right about protestants, in my own case, when I stopped going to my SBC, I simply withdrew. I still see church members on a fairly regular basis and we greet eachother with the same affection as we always did. No one hounds me at all. Now this may seem rather holier than thou when I say it but I think there that one of the differences between how a protestant might handle this (oh my gosh, I'm going to say something offensive but I don't know how else to put it) as opposed to how I see LDS handle this is that protestants likely believe that God will move in a person's life to bring them back to the church or back to belief (lack of belief wasn't the reason I personally left) where many (not all) LDS (here comes the offensive part) think that sticking their noses in everyone elses business is the way to bring them back when infact from an outsiders perspective, it tells me they have little faith in God's ability to do so (There I said it.) and don't realize that their very actions drive people away from the fold instead of bringing them back in are often nothing resembling Christlikedness. (I made up a new word).

The relationship between Mormon and exmormon is instantly stressed because of everything Mormonism is, but particularly because it views abandonment as a threat and slap in the face. We are spitting, so to speak, on everything they hold dear.

I get that.

It's like the most acrimonious divorce ever, and contact has to continue due to the children (children being the continued influence of Mormonism in our lives).

I get that too, beastie. Behind the scenes on these boards and in real life, I have partnered with LDS who face these very issues and no, I don't try to preach to them.

I really don't think nonmormons can really understand it.

This is where I think you are wrong, beastie, and quite frankly I grow weary of reading it on these boards. All that one needs in order to relate is experience in having been subjected to betrayal, deceit, ridicule, abuse and shunning by people. LDS don't have a monopoly on those things, they are part and parcel of the human experience including my own and if you think that I can't relate and empathize you'd be decidedly wrong in that regard. That's like saying a white person can't relate to the black experience, isn't it?

This is why I gave up, long ago, on real meaningful "bridge building" or extensive meaningful conversation between Mormon and exmormon. Sure, it happens now and then, but it's pretty rare. I certainly don't hold my breath waiting around for it.

Your choice and I respect it.

I used to be curious as to why DCP seemed to take the brunt of so much exmormon antagonism - and there is no doubt he does. Others have told me, and I think they're right, that in a way, he has come to symbolize the apologetic movement, overall. Apologists and exmormons have an even more acrimonious relationship than regular Mormon and exmormon. But in addition to that, he really does look for these type of situations. He keeps saying that he is interested in dysfunctional behavior surrounding religion. I'm sure that's true. So am I. But I think it's far more personal than that for DCP.

I don't think I want to spend time responding to that except that yes, people see him as a symbol and attacking a symbol is largely unproductive.

I used to be married to a verbally abusive man, and I never could understand why he would do and say the things he did. They made no sense to me. I read a book about it that finally just said: don't try to figure it out. Just look for the pay-off. What "reward" does the individual get for the behavior? Why, if DCP finds these sort of personal threads so distasteful, does he so frequently seek them out? There's a pay-off, somewhere. I don't buy the "I'm academically interested in dysfunctional behavior". Just how much information does he need? As much on this thread? Does he really need to collect the "worst of the worst" exmormon statements from boards like this one? Human beings may behave illogically in many ways, but we are pretty predictable in one way - we do not regularly engage in a behavior unless we are getting some pay-off from it. So I think the second reason he takes the brunt of it is that, in a way, he seeks it out.

I'm well aware of the reward aspects of behavior, beastie. I do think that both sides profit in some way however quite frankly, the dynamic has codependency written all over it.

I really, really need to disengage from this thread now.

[_Daniel Peterson]

DCP -

People are generally saying you were rude and inappropriate, not history's greatest monster. People finding fault in your decisions is not tantamount to the over the top accusations you sarcastically suggest you are being accused of. All that does is make it seem like you are creating strawmen to deflect serious, honest issues with your behavior. The fact that you went "back and forth" on whether to send the email suggests that it was a close call in your mind, so it shouldn't be shocking to you if others think you made the wrong call. I have no doubt you probably are the recipient of some nasty, crazy accusastions from time to time. Welcome to the club. Maybe we can exchange weird hatemail we've received. But that does not justify striking a ridiculous martyr pose whenever you are questioned about your behavior. I'm sure it is fun to pretend to be a cartoon villain. And hey, it makes your opponents seem absurd when people who dote on you assume you are just faithfully reporting what you are accused of. But for others, it seems like you are just dodging the issue and coming off as a bit of a jerk. People think you are being a Church gossip butting in where you don't belong, not John Wayne Gacy.

I don't' make these accusations up, EA. On this thread alone, beside the obscene post about my wife and various insults to my physical appearance, I've been termed a liar, dimwitted, mean-spirited, cruel, someone who advocates harming ex-Mormons, unethical, a tool, a boob, malicious, psychologically defective, a "belligerent dumbass," a deliberate destroyer of families, and etc., and etc., and etc.

And the very length of the thread and the intense personal hostility of many of the posts on the thread plainly show that it isn't merely a matter of some folks thinking that I made the wrong call in an ambiguous but relatively minor situation. To my more totalizing and implacable critics (e.g., Miniscratch), my sending a friend a link to a public message board has revealed the core depravity of my character and -- I'm not making this up, read it for yourself -- discredited Mormonism.

[_EAllusion]

There are numerous posts and posters here that do not veer off in that direction, including the complaints of Goodk. The initial response was basically to call you an out-of-line busy body. That seems to be a plausible criticism, and maybe even something you worried about before sending the email. Then again, maybe not. What you have done on this thread, and what I am complaining about, is sarcastic caricaturing of basically anyone telling you that your actions were unethical. For instance, Nehor notes that he didn't think your decision was a bad one. Your reply, "
Good grief. Don't you realize that you've just lowered yourself to the level of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and Dan Peterson?

How dare you violate the unanimity of this board???" That includes more than posters like antishock who make sensible people of all stripes roll their eyes.

I confess I haven't read the epic exchanges between you and Rollo. I'd rather dig my eyes out with spoon, stuff the sockets with oily rags, and light them on fire.

[_beastie]

I don't' make these accusations up, EA. On this thread alone, beside the obscene post about my wife and various insults to my physical appearance, I've been termed a liar, dimwitted, mean-spirited, cruel, someone who advocates harming ex-Mormons, unethical, a tool, a boob, malicious, psychologically defective, a "belligerent dumbass," a deliberate destroyer of families, and etc., and etc., and etc.

And the very length of the thread and the intense personal hostility of many of the posts on the thread plainly show that it isn't merely a matter of some folks thinking that I made the wrong call in an ambiguous but relatively minor situation. To my more totalizing and implacable critics (e.g., Miniscratch), my sending a friend a link to a public message board has revealed the core depravity of my character and -- I'm not making this up, read it for yourself -- discredited Mormonism.

I can only hope you had your wits about you enough to collect these posts for future use, in order to try and insinuate that this type of criticism is the bulk of "anti-mormonism".

There are numerous posts and posters here that do not veer off in that direction, including the complaints of Goodk. The initial response was basically to call you an out-of-line busy body. That seems to be a plausible criticism, and maybe even something you worried about before sending the email. Then again, maybe not. What you have done on this thread, and what I am complaining about, is sarcastic caricaturing of basically anyone telling you that your actions were unethical. For instance, Nehor notes that he didn't think your decision was a bad one. Your reply, "
Good grief. Don't you realize that you've just lowered yourself to the level of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, and Dan Peterson?

I made comment about this tactic right on this thread. It's a way to disallow conversation about the real issue. My exhusband was the master of it - if, for example, I complained about the fact that he'd stay out till 2 am without bothering to let me know he'd be out late, much less where he was, he'd respond, "Oh, I know, I'm a monster, I never do anything right". That would effectively disallow conversation of the real issue.

I think my exhusband did it deliberately. I'm not sure about DCP, but he does it a lot.

Despite what the Professor of Ethics may protest, I doubt anyone would really find this a clear-cut issue. Yeah, if it were a minor fooling around on the internet in a dangerous way, or a drug addict trying to score drugs, then, yeah, you'd intervene. But an adult child calling his dad a blowhard? Anonymously? Please.

This thread has reminded me of how carefully Mormons tend to monitor their children's behavior. Now nothing is wrong wit that when they're minors under your care, but to continue this sort of monitoring when their adults.... my own parents used to do it, although they gave it up when I had my name formally removed from church rolls. They'd "hear" I was a "partial tithe payer" (still not quite sure how they heard that), or they'd quiz me about how many times I attended church that month (this during the period when I'd stopped believing, but hadn't decided whether to quit altogether). Perhaps it comes from being told that you, particularly fathers, are "stewards" over your family, and you're supposed to guide them into the CK or something. This starts to bleed into not respecting personal boundaries.

by the way, I want to go on record here - if anyone should hear any of my children call me a blowhard, please don't tell me about it. Likely they were just blowing off steam, got it out of their system, and it won't affect our relationship. I really don't need to know. If there is a god who hates children who mouth off to their parents, like the Old Testament god who, If I recall correctly, liked the death penalty for such acts, he can take care of it for himself. As for me, my ego is not so fragile that I can't stand to be mocked now and then.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I can only hope you had your wits about you enough to collect these posts for future use, in order to try and insinuate that this type of criticism is the bulk of "anti-mormonism".

I haven't done so, won't do so, and, your evidently bizarre imaginings about me notwithstanding, have never had any inclination to do anything of the kind.

This nonsense grows ever more wearisome.