Clarification so as to be clear.

[MG 2.0]

During a discussion that involved several participants, someone, call him Bob, made a rather nasty remark aimed at me. I wrote a reply, but didn't send it. Activity on the thread stopped, and nothing more was said for several hours. Eventually I replied "Done!", and left the group. In a later private discussion between me and the group mod I found out that there had been quite a bit of activity in PMs during the pause, some pro and but mostly con the nasty remark. In the end the consensus was that nobody was willing to defend me because they didn't want to upset Bob. I was hurt, and refused several offers to rejoin the group after Bob apparently conceded that his remark was out of line. I never did rejoin, and eventually the mod stopped corresponding with me.

I’ve often wondered how much/many behind the scenes PMs go on in similar situations or for similar purposes here. I can see/relate to why you said “Done!”.

Some people are gluttons for punishment I guess.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

In the end the consensus was that nobody was willing to defend me because they didn't want to upset Bob. I was hurt, and refused several offers to rejoin the group after Bob apparently conceded that his remark was out of line. I never did rejoin, and eventually the mod stopped corresponding with me.

Writing it out now it seems trivial, but it still makes me quite sad to think of it.

I don’t know that it is trivial—more likely it was another grain of sand added to the pile that led to your exit.

I’ve seen what you described happen here at times: when someone steps in to defend another poster, it is sometimes framed as part of a coordinated attack “by one of your own” on the church rather than simple empathy, twisting basic decency into conspiracy.

That approach, whether in your experience or here, doesn’t paint representatives of the church in a very positive light.

* I really liked the Charge of the Light Brigade reference—it captures the mix of duty and absurdity perfectly.

If I were to be kind to myself, I could say that the idea of knowing that I was acting could be filed under imposter syndrome.

I really appreciate your honesty and willingness to open up about your experiences, malkie. It provides insight to an outsider that helps define the faith tradition and its mechanics in practice.

Your responses have confirmed my thoughts about the LDS faith system having a foundation in “pretending.”

Your description of that “method”— performing the role because it’s expected, while inwardly wondering whether you’re qualified to play it—and the connection between acting and imposter syndrome fits with what I was getting at.

Do you see an overlap between performing faith and performing authority as a methodology within the institution on a larger scale?

Thanks for the kind words, Limnor.

I have little idea of how typical my experience is. Of course, few people would be willing to admit to "acting". It's certainly not how to get somewhere in the organization. But I have to say that I've been impressed with the dedication and expressed faith of those I've come in contact with due to the positions I've held at various times. I've had bishops whose approach to their callings I have disagreed with, especially in their exercise of authority, but I haven't detected a lot of doubts or insincerity.

On the other hand, I was apparently quite successful is not exposing my own doubts - enough that I can say that I'm completely unimpressed by the so-called "power of discernment" that church leaders are supposed to be endowed with. I've received shocked responses to my outing myself as no longer a believer, and to having a messy marriage breakup. People saw my ex-wife and I as almost the ideal couple until suddenly and very publicly we were not. At times these experiences have left me wondering if I've been a total failure and misfit, surrounded by proverbial spiritual giants.

I've had stake presidents who ranged from all-business, cold pricklies, admin experts, to loving, warm fuzzies, shirt-off-their-back types, but I'd classify them as all (except perhaps one) as competent and sincere.
===
I have some more thoughts on the performing of faith. I prefer not to expose them in public, so I'll PM you in a day or so.

[malkie]

During a discussion that involved several participants, someone, call him Bob, made a rather nasty remark aimed at me. I wrote a reply, but didn't send it. Activity on the thread stopped, and nothing more was said for several hours. Eventually I replied "Done!", and left the group. In a later private discussion between me and the group mod I found out that there had been quite a bit of activity in PMs during the pause, some pro and but mostly con the nasty remark. In the end the consensus was that nobody was willing to defend me because they didn't want to upset Bob. I was hurt, and refused several offers to rejoin the group after Bob apparently conceded that his remark was out of line. I never did rejoin, and eventually the mod stopped corresponding with me.

I’ve often wondered how much/many behind the scenes PMs go on in similar situations or for similar purposes here. I can see/relate to why you said “Done!”.

Some people are gluttons for punishment I guess.

Regards,
MG

Probably fewer PMs than you might imagine - particularly if you're thinking that there's a flurry of messages about you.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t know that it is trivial—more likely it was another grain of sand added to the pile that led to your exit.

I’ve seen what you described happen here at times: when someone steps in to defend another poster, it is sometimes framed as part of a coordinated attack “by one of your own” on the church rather than simple empathy, twisting basic decency into conspiracy.

That approach, whether in your experience or here, doesn’t paint representatives of the church in a very positive light.

* I really liked the Charge of the Light Brigade reference—it captures the mix of duty and absurdity perfectly.



I really appreciate your honesty and willingness to open up about your experiences, malkie. It provides insight to an outsider that helps define the faith tradition and its mechanics in practice.

Your responses have confirmed my thoughts about the LDS faith system having a foundation in “pretending.”

Your description of that “method”— performing the role because it’s expected, while inwardly wondering whether you’re qualified to play it—and the connection between acting and imposter syndrome fits with what I was getting at.

Do you see an overlap between performing faith and performing authority as a methodology within the institution on a larger scale?

Thanks for the kind words, Limnor.

I have little idea of how typical my experience is. Of course, few people would be willing to admit to "acting". It's certainly not how to get somewhere in the organization. But I have to say that I've been impressed with the dedication and expressed faith of those I've come in contact with due to the positions I've held at various times. I've had bishops whose approach to their callings I have disagreed with, especially in their exercise of authority, but I haven't detected a lot of doubts or insincerity.

On the other hand, I was apparently quite successful is not exposing my own doubts - enough that I can say that I'm completely unimpressed by the so-called "power of discernment" that church leaders are supposed to be endowed with. I've received shocked responses to my outing myself as no longer a believer, and to having a messy marriage breakup. People saw my ex-wife and I as almost the ideal couple until suddenly and very publicly we were not. At times these experiences have left me wondering if I've been a total failure and misfit, surrounded by proverbial spiritual giants.

I've had stake presidents who ranged from all-business, cold pricklies, admin experts, to loving, warm fuzzies, shirt-off-their-back types, but I'd classify them as all (except perhaps one) as competent and sincere.
===
I have some more thoughts on the performing of faith. I prefer not to expose them in public, so I'll PM you in a day or so.

Gift of discernment. Some have it and some don’t. Similar to other gifts I suspect.

A gift can be offered/given but not fully accepted for one reason or another. Human nature may play a part in there somewhere I would think.

I appreciate your kind/gracious thoughts concerning those that you worked with in leadership. I have similar thoughts regarding many of those I’ve worked with over the years. Some have been and are more genuine than others. But then, who am I to judge? After being judged harshly/wrongly here so many times, I’ve developed a more accepting heart towards those in the church that might rub me the wrong way at times.

Truth is, most folks, including leaders, are simply doing the best they can at the moment/time they’re doing what they do. Secondly, I think that this also applies to many/most of the early church leaders and those that worked with them. Of course, there are always going to be some ‘bad apples’.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I haven't detected a lot of doubts or insincerity.

On the other hand, I was apparently quite successful is not exposing my own doubts - enough that I can say that I'm completely unimpressed by the so-called "power of discernment" that church leaders are supposed to be endowed with. I've received shocked responses to my outing myself as no longer a believer, and to having a messy marriage breakup. People saw my ex-wife and I as almost the ideal couple until suddenly and very publicly we were not. At times these experiences have left me wondering if I've been a total failure and misfit, surrounded by proverbial spiritual giants.

===
I have some more thoughts on the performing of faith. I prefer not to expose them in public, so I'll PM you in a day or so.

I don’t know if you can see this, so I’ll offer an external observation.

Reading your post, it seems to reveal that the thoughts you had about others’ sincerity ended up applying to you too.

You were surrounded by at least some people you saw as pillars of faith, yet you describe that others saw you the same way. Both of those perceptions seem incomplete.

It’s an interesting human condition: everyone quietly measuring their own uncertainty against what they imagine is everyone else’s certainty.

I’ll look forward to your PM; that’s a conversation worth continuing.

[MG 2.0]

Before this thread drops off onto the second page I feel it important to mention just one more time that (and the thread explains why in detail) there are some posters I have on ignore and will not be responding to. I know that there is a price to pay for holding true to this decision.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. It makes my participation a LOT less hectic and time consuming. I've enjoyed being able to simply respond to some posters without going round and round in circles without accomplishing anything besides 'bashing'. My recent posting of Jared Halverson's presentation on D&C 127:2 made it even more clear to me that this is not the course I want to take and/or that I feel comfortable with at this point.

It's a breath of fresh air to not get entangled in some of the crap that's gone on in the past.

This will hopefully be the last time I waste people's time reviewing/saying this.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I haven't detected a lot of doubts or insincerity.

On the other hand, I was apparently quite successful is not exposing my own doubts - enough that I can say that I'm completely unimpressed by the so-called "power of discernment" that church leaders are supposed to be endowed with. I've received shocked responses to my outing myself as no longer a believer, and to having a messy marriage breakup. People saw my ex-wife and I as almost the ideal couple until suddenly and very publicly we were not. At times these experiences have left me wondering if I've been a total failure and misfit, surrounded by proverbial spiritual giants.

===
I have some more thoughts on the performing of faith. I prefer not to expose them in public, so I'll PM you in a day or so.

I don’t know if you can see this, so I’ll offer an external observation.

Reading your post, it seems to reveal that the thoughts you had about others’ sincerity ended up applying to you too.

You were surrounded by at least some people you saw as pillars of faith, yet you describe that others saw you the same way. Both of those perceptions seem incomplete.

It’s an interesting human condition: everyone quietly measuring their own uncertainty against what they imagine is everyone else’s certainty.

I’ll look forward to your PM; that’s a conversation worth continuing.

I hope to send the PM in the next 12-15 hours. I've "finished" it a couple of times, then reopened it to add context, but fear that the final result will be a novelette-length autobiography

Once you've read the PM, perhaps you'd like to explain a bit more of what you mean by "incomplete", if you think it needs more public clarification.

[malkie]

Before this thread drops off onto the second page I feel it important to mention just one more time that (and the thread explains why in detail) there are some posters I have on ignore and will not be responding to. I know that there is a price to pay for holding true to this decision.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. It makes my participation a LOT less hectic and time consuming. I've enjoyed being able to simply respond to some posters without going round and round in circles without accomplishing anything besides 'bashing'. My recent posting of Jared Halverson's presentation on D&C 127:2 made it even more clear to me that this is not the course I want to take and/or that I feel comfortable with at this point.

It's a breath of fresh air to not get entangled in some of the crap that's gone on in the past.

This will hopefully be the last time I waste people's time reviewing/saying this.

Regards,
MG

That sounds like a good plan to me - although I'm not sure if you'll see my comment unless a non-enemy quotes it.

I think that you have caused yourself some suffering from attempting to engage too many people on too many threads. Perhaps you can create a TLA or FLA to capture the idea - similar to TTOC, and use it as needed?

[MG 2.0]

Before this thread drops off onto the second page I feel it important to mention just one more time that (and the thread explains why in detail) there are some posters I have on ignore and will not be responding to. I know that there is a price to pay for holding true to this decision.

Be that as it may, it is what it is. It makes my participation a LOT less hectic and time consuming. I've enjoyed being able to simply respond to some posters without going round and round in circles without accomplishing anything besides 'bashing'. My recent posting of Jared Halverson's presentation on D&C 127:2 made it even more clear to me that this is not the course I want to take and/or that I feel comfortable with at this point.

It's a breath of fresh air to not get entangled in some of the crap that's gone on in the past.

This will hopefully be the last time I waste people's time reviewing/saying this.

Regards,
MG

That sounds like a good plan to me - although I'm not sure if you'll see my comment unless a non-enemy quotes it.

I think that you have caused yourself some suffering from attempting to engage too many people on too many threads. Perhaps you can create a TLA or FLA to capture the idea - similar to TTOC, and use it as needed?

I don't have you on ignore, malkie.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Once you've read the PM, perhaps you'd like to explain a bit more of what you mean by "incomplete", if you think it needs more public clarification.

Oh—by “incomplete,” I meant your perception of others as “pillars of faith” left out other bits of who they were (their doubts, flaws, maybe things they hid from view), and their perception of you as a “pillar of faith” also left out parts of your inner self (maybe uncertainty, doubts, and things like that).

I think writing out your thoughts might be cathartic—hope so anyway!