Eric.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think it's unfair to make a judgment about something that is seen from only one point of view. You don't agree. I'm so surprised.

You didn't read my last reply properly. The difference between your approach and mine is that I actually listen to Eric even if I don't have most of the other side. From that listening I can glean some intuitive truth (from my own experiences with life and others) about many things he says, and given the nature of too many Church members much of what he says has a total ring of truth to me. After leaving I experienced some of what he related, and I also know how different the relationships with my own children would have been had I stayed in the Church. Like I said, it's not everyone's cup of Milo. Some people would be happy to be brought up by the likes of Bruce R. Mc Conkie. Others would revolt at the thought.

As an observer, I get a sense that there is pressure on the family and on the children within the family to conform, if you will. In an earlier post, you mentioned your disinterest in church at age 14, a preference that was honored by your parent. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for an LDS parent to honor such a thing since the congregation itself functions in such a way as to produce "life in a fish bowl". If the parent honored the child's (teen's) desire not to attend church, no doubt, the congregation (ward) members would be inquiring and "buzzing" about it. I have witnessed the "buzzing" firsthand and I tend to think it's a cultural norm of sorts. Not that other denominations don't have their nosey members, but the concept of "worthiness" takes the pressure and speculations to a higher level.

2 cents.

[_beastie]

As an observer, I get a sense that there is pressure on the family and on the children within the family to conform, if you will. In an earlier post, you mentioned your disinterest in church at age 14, a preference that was honored by your parent. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for an LDS parent to honor such a thing since the congregation itself functions in such a way as to produce "life in a fish bowl". If the parent honored the child's (teen's) desire not to attend church, no doubt, the congregation (ward) members would be inquiring and "buzzing" about it. I have witnessed the "buzzing" firsthand and I tend to think it's a cultural norm of sorts. Not that other denominations don't have their nosey members, but the concept of "worthiness" takes the pressure and speculations to a higher level.

You are correct, there is intense pressure on family members to conform. It is an unusual LDS family that would allow a teenage child the option of whether or not to attend church and other church functions. I also think most LDS families would view rebellious and experimental behavior of teenagers as more serious and threatening than nonLDS would view such behavior.

This is due to the fact that spiritual success, within the LDS theology, is not just predicated upon your own personal worthiness and faith. It is also predicated on the personal worthiness and faith of your family members. So the desire to control the behavior of other family members is as natural as the desire to control one's own behavior.

To a certain extent, this even applies to adult children. My family is very liberal, loving, and tolerant (we all converted later in life as adults, none of us grew up LDS). And yet they were traumatized when I left the church, and even they applied pressure on me to conform, despite the fact that I was in my late thirties, married with children of my own. They eventually moved past that phase in order to maintain our relationship, but if even they were suspect to this phenomenon, I feel safe guessing that the same desire and expressions of it would be far more severe in less liberal LDS families.

On top of that cultural trait, like in the larger culture, some LDS just naturally have authoritarian, controlling personalities. So the LDS culture may put that tendency on steroids, so to speak, escalating the expression of that trait due to the individual feeling morally justified.

I think it's quite believable that a strict LDS family would put a rebellious teenager in a bootcamp for behavior that nonLDS would find far less serious and threatening. Mouthing off to a parent, refusing to attend religious functions, having sex, smoking pot? In the larger culture, these would NOT be reasons to send a child to bootcamp. In a strict LDS family, they well might be.

[_beastie]

I’m still interested in the answer to this question.

You didn't answer my question. My question had nothing to do with recognizing there are two sides to questions.

On the internet, you have repeatedly insinuated to posters that you know some dark information about person X. You can't reveal that dark information due to confidentiality, but you know it, and want posters to know you know something dark about person X.

Do you do this in real life as well?

Here’s an example of what I mean, in the context of being a bishop. Let’s say a couple came to you with marital difficulties. You refer them to the LDS counselor, but in the meantime, you’ve learned that the husband is impotent, which is contributing to their other problems. Of course, this is confidential information.

In the hallway one day after church, you happen to hear two members sharing information about this couple, and noting that they recently separated. The members were aware that there was financial stress in the family due to the recent salary cut of the husband, and speculated that this could be the reason for the split.

Would you say something like this: “While I cannot reveal the specific information due to confidentiality issues, I assure you that there is more to this story.”

[_harmony]

Would you say something like this: “While I cannot reveal the specific information due to confidentiality issues, I assure you that there is more to this story.”

Seems to me like the appropriate response from the ward leader would be a comment about the inappropriateness of gossip.

[_beastie]

Seems to me like the appropriate response from the ward leader would be a comment about the inappropriateness of gossip.

I agree, but perhaps DCP has a different opinion.

[_Some Schmo]

Seems to me like the appropriate response from the ward leader would be a comment about the inappropriateness of gossip.

I agree, but perhaps DCP has a different opinion.

Given his past online behavior, I don't think there's much doubt about it.

"I don't see anything unethical about supplying someone with a link..."

[_Some Schmo]

Exactly. I don't think for a moment that it has much to do with my poor grasp of English or my execrable writing style.

I'm the Enemy. My motives are very often, if not always, ulterior and disreputable. I seldom tell the truth. I'm simply not a good person -- because I accept and defend the claims of Mormonism. If I seem to be saying A, I must really intend B, and my words have to be spun and twisted in order to reveal the sordid truth.

It must be somehow comfortable for you to excuse what people think of you as a simple byproduct of being a Mormon. I imagine that helps you sleep at night.

And I'm certain it would do me no good to let you know the painfully obvious: it has nothing to do with being Mormon, and everything to do with the way you act online.

Lots of people are Mormon. Very few get the same treatment as you get. But in your mind, you get it because you "accept and defend the claims of Mormonism." That's it, huh?

Like I said... obtuse.

[_Jersey Girl]

You are correct, there is intense pressure on family members to conform. It is an unusual LDS family that would allow a teenage child the option of whether or not to attend church and other church functions. I also think most LDS families would view rebellious and experimental behavior of teenagers as more serious and threatening than nonLDS would view such behavior.

I was thinking in terms of the "fish bowl" I mentioned earlier and the "buzzing"--gossip/speculation--that I've seen take place. In other words, the normal and developmentally appropriate teen rebellion becomes a magnified reflection of the parent as in, "everyone can see my failure as a parent".

This is due to the fact that spiritual success, within the LDS theology, is not just predicated upon your own personal worthiness and faith. It is also predicated on the personal worthiness and faith of your family members. So the desire to control the behavior of other family members is as natural as the desire to control one's own behavior.

I'm glad you said that and not me, beastie. Nearly every time that I've referred to the spiritual dependency in Mormonism online, I've gotten clobbered for it. :-) I think LDS families look at it as kind of an eternal house of cards. Pull out one and the whole deck is affected by it and eternally so. This is one of my biggest gripes about Mormonism.

[Guest]

I've offered precisely no gossip. I've said that there is another side to this story.

That should surprise nobody.

It's not gossip. It's simple common sense.

I've cautioned against the temptation, quite visible here, to pronounce verdicts about an obviously difficult and troubled parent/child relationship in a family that virtually nobody here has ever met, on the basis of one side's claims.

Nobody here needs to pronounce judgment, anyway.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've offered precisely no gossip. I've said that there is another side to this story.

That should surprise nobody.

It's not gossip. It's simple common sense.

Hold on, Daniel. Are these comments of yours a response to my recent post?