I was thinking today how my favorite FAIR apologist says that we exmos tend to create exit stories that conform to a standard narrative format: we were trapped, brainwashed, etc., and we escaped.
But I was also thinking about how different my experience was from Polygamy Porter's. I had a pretty good family life, believed in the church wholeheartedly. I was the kid all the other kids' parents told them they should be more like. I never got in any trouble, never drank, never smoked, never did anything I shouldn't have with a girl. I believed in the church and did what I was supposed to. I had a strong testimony, served a mission that I still don't regret. Married in the temple and had a lot of kids. And I've served in a lot of callings in the church; my wife says I've presided over everything I could have presided over in the church except for being bishop.
It was devastating to realize that the church was a low-rent hoax. But, although I got somewhat angry, it pales to what I read in PP's account. And whatever was there has passed. I wasn't brainwashed, and I didn't escape. I just found out the sad truth about an organization I loved.
I've talked about my friend whose wife threatened divorce if he didn't get a temple recommend. He said he wouldn't pretend to have a testimony, so they went to the bishop, who said his wife's request was reasonable, so he gave his blessing, and she took the children back to the UK and filed for divorce. And yet he's not angry, either (other than referring to the bishop as a "stupid git.")
My favorite companion in my mission (and later my roommate at BYU) was far more rigid in keeping the rules of Mormonism than I was. Every night he listened to General Conference tapes, and he even patterned his speech after the brethren. He rebuked me once for straying from the manual when I was Gospel Doctrine teacher. He was probably angrier than I was once upon a time, but now we're both about at the same point. We get frustrated from time to time when the church becomes an issue at home, but other than that, it's past history. He does tell me he needs two shots of whiskey to get through sacrament meeting these days.
And then I read about Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, who seem puzzled that anyone would ever be angry.
I guess we're all just different. I've heard more than a few people the last few days talking about how we have terrible motives, resort to slander and lies, etc., to prop up our unbelief. But no, we're just people who once were exactly like the believers among us. We haven't lost our sense of right and wrong, and we haven't betrayed our consciences. And we're not just regurgitating other people's stories because we need to belong.
Maybe we can talk to each other more effectively if we start treating each other as individuals instead of types.
Standard narratives and anger
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
Standard narratives and anger
Last edited by cacheman on Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
_Polygamy Porter
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am
-
_gramps
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm
I never remember getting too angry about the whole deception and control thing.
What got me angry was the typical response from, in my case, my family. That got me angry, really angry.
I wonder if I would even be hanging out on boards like this if it wasn't for my father and some others in the family who wouldn't/couldn't let it go and let me be.
Just last year, my father was sending letters, along with BKP, Hinckley, et. al. speeches, sometimes daily. One day I received three letters. Arrrrgh.
That's 20 years after I made my break. What's up with that? Just let it go already.
I finally sent, after my father promised to read it, a letter to the family explaining my exit from the church. It was about 400 pages long. It took a long time to put that together.
My father never read it. That still pisses me off. My TBM brother said he wouldn't read it because I didn't believe in Christ. My little sister never responded. My other brother and sister both said they would read it and comment. Haven't heard from them since.
That pisses me off.
But the church stuff: I mainly chuckle now at posts like we often see on this board and others. It's funny to me that people can still believe in flying angels and gold plates and "seer stones," etc.
Funny stuff.
What got me angry was the typical response from, in my case, my family. That got me angry, really angry.
I wonder if I would even be hanging out on boards like this if it wasn't for my father and some others in the family who wouldn't/couldn't let it go and let me be.
Just last year, my father was sending letters, along with BKP, Hinckley, et. al. speeches, sometimes daily. One day I received three letters. Arrrrgh.
That's 20 years after I made my break. What's up with that? Just let it go already.
I finally sent, after my father promised to read it, a letter to the family explaining my exit from the church. It was about 400 pages long. It took a long time to put that together.
My father never read it. That still pisses me off. My TBM brother said he wouldn't read it because I didn't believe in Christ. My little sister never responded. My other brother and sister both said they would read it and comment. Haven't heard from them since.
That pisses me off.
But the church stuff: I mainly chuckle now at posts like we often see on this board and others. It's funny to me that people can still believe in flying angels and gold plates and "seer stones," etc.
Funny stuff.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
Adrian Beverland
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Runtu,
Your favorite apologist essentially created her own theory by cherry picking certain quotes from different authors in The Politics of Religious Apostasy, taking them completely out of context, and then pasting them together as if they presented a cohesive theory that sociologists who study the issue created. As I work my way through the book (I'm about two thirds through) this becomes more and more obvious.
Scratch already pointed out that it was very misleading of Juliann to completely omit the tie between the type of organization and the type of exiters it tends to produce. Although Bromley (who is the main proponent of these types and, so far, the other authors have referenced his study) states that often the boundaries between the types can seem blurred, in general, the type of organization predicts the sorting of exiters. The reasons for this association are not superficial, and it is the nature of the organization itself which lends to certain types of exits.
Bromley defines three organizational type based on how the larger society views the group. Allegiant, in which the organization, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as an acceptable part of mainstream society - in Allegiant groups exits are handled totally within the group without the involvement of any regulatory groups from outside larger society and they produce defectors who do not have the interest or concern of larger society in their stories; Contestant, in which most people view it as mainstream but there is still enough friction that regulatory groups exist that can intervene in the exit process and they tend to produce whistleblowers; and Subversive, - the groups who tend to produce apostates - in which mainstream society views the group as completely counter to the goals and mores of the larger society, and the group tends to remove itself and its members from larger society deliberately (although some members are on the margins and associate more with regular society than core members). Mainstream society is concerned enough about these groups to have or create regulatory groups that can intervene in its affairs. Bromley specifically states that, as far as North America is concerned, the Mormon church is an allegiant group with some areas viewing it as contestant (probably the Bible belt, I would guess). Allegiant groups very rarely create what he terms apostates, and contestant groups generally don't either, although one may pop ou tnow and then.
The reason it is subversive groups that produce apostates is not only due to the fact that the larger society is interested enough to want to monitor these groups (see Jim Jones, David Koresh) but due to the fact that the core members' entire identities are within the group. These are groups that tend to remove members from larger society in some sort of communal living arrangement, and often divide the members from larger society altogether (except for proselytizing and income generating activities). So when the members lose faith, they have literally lost their entire past lives. In addition, they have to go back to larger society which viewed their group as subversive and perhaps dangerous, and justify their actions to larger society as well as angry and hurt family members. Hence, the need for a narrative in which the individual was actually "brainwashed" into accepting the group in the first place.
I cannot overstate how much Juliann abused this theory by removing it from its essential components in the manner she did.
David Koresh's group was a good example of a subversive group. They totally removed themselves from society and lived in a compound. They distrusted larger society and larger society was very suspicious of them. External governmental regulatory groups were supervising and attempting to intervene in the group's affair.
In addition to what I already cited above, other authors who explore Bromley's apostate also discovered a high correlation between members who had been "deprogrammed" and becoming an apostate (in Bromley's terms). I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't recall ever hearing one single exmormon claim to have been kidnapped by his biological family in order to remove him/her from Mormonism, and hiring someone to "deprogram" or "counsel" them. I also don't know any Mormons who remove themselves totally from larger society (with the exception of the mission experience). Even living in the Bible Belt, I don't know of any regulatory groups monitoring Mormonism, and while Evangelicals may privately believe Mormonism is Satanic, larger society simply views it as a somewhat unusual religious group, but certainly does not view it as having goals fundamentally opposed to and dangerous to larger society.
So the authors Juliann cite (up to this point in my reading the book) wouldn't expect to see "apostate narratives" in the sense that Juliann implied, either, and would not be surprised by the reality you cite.
When I finish the book I intend to put together a more detailed essay explaining the sociologists' theory and contrasting it to Juliann's theory.
So no, exmormons aren't going to be generally producing manipulated apostate narratives that are a lot alike in the basic ways Bromley et al outline. Yes, there are some similarities because it tends to be the same issues that cause members to lose faith, but outside of that, how the loss of faith is handled is going to be highly individual. Only someone attempted to create a justification for viewing all exmormon narratives as unreliable and manufactured without having to address the specifics would claim otherwise.
Your favorite apologist essentially created her own theory by cherry picking certain quotes from different authors in The Politics of Religious Apostasy, taking them completely out of context, and then pasting them together as if they presented a cohesive theory that sociologists who study the issue created. As I work my way through the book (I'm about two thirds through) this becomes more and more obvious.
Scratch already pointed out that it was very misleading of Juliann to completely omit the tie between the type of organization and the type of exiters it tends to produce. Although Bromley (who is the main proponent of these types and, so far, the other authors have referenced his study) states that often the boundaries between the types can seem blurred, in general, the type of organization predicts the sorting of exiters. The reasons for this association are not superficial, and it is the nature of the organization itself which lends to certain types of exits.
Bromley defines three organizational type based on how the larger society views the group. Allegiant, in which the organization, for all intents and purposes, is viewed as an acceptable part of mainstream society - in Allegiant groups exits are handled totally within the group without the involvement of any regulatory groups from outside larger society and they produce defectors who do not have the interest or concern of larger society in their stories; Contestant, in which most people view it as mainstream but there is still enough friction that regulatory groups exist that can intervene in the exit process and they tend to produce whistleblowers; and Subversive, - the groups who tend to produce apostates - in which mainstream society views the group as completely counter to the goals and mores of the larger society, and the group tends to remove itself and its members from larger society deliberately (although some members are on the margins and associate more with regular society than core members). Mainstream society is concerned enough about these groups to have or create regulatory groups that can intervene in its affairs. Bromley specifically states that, as far as North America is concerned, the Mormon church is an allegiant group with some areas viewing it as contestant (probably the Bible belt, I would guess). Allegiant groups very rarely create what he terms apostates, and contestant groups generally don't either, although one may pop ou tnow and then.
The reason it is subversive groups that produce apostates is not only due to the fact that the larger society is interested enough to want to monitor these groups (see Jim Jones, David Koresh) but due to the fact that the core members' entire identities are within the group. These are groups that tend to remove members from larger society in some sort of communal living arrangement, and often divide the members from larger society altogether (except for proselytizing and income generating activities). So when the members lose faith, they have literally lost their entire past lives. In addition, they have to go back to larger society which viewed their group as subversive and perhaps dangerous, and justify their actions to larger society as well as angry and hurt family members. Hence, the need for a narrative in which the individual was actually "brainwashed" into accepting the group in the first place.
I cannot overstate how much Juliann abused this theory by removing it from its essential components in the manner she did.
David Koresh's group was a good example of a subversive group. They totally removed themselves from society and lived in a compound. They distrusted larger society and larger society was very suspicious of them. External governmental regulatory groups were supervising and attempting to intervene in the group's affair.
In addition to what I already cited above, other authors who explore Bromley's apostate also discovered a high correlation between members who had been "deprogrammed" and becoming an apostate (in Bromley's terms). I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't recall ever hearing one single exmormon claim to have been kidnapped by his biological family in order to remove him/her from Mormonism, and hiring someone to "deprogram" or "counsel" them. I also don't know any Mormons who remove themselves totally from larger society (with the exception of the mission experience). Even living in the Bible Belt, I don't know of any regulatory groups monitoring Mormonism, and while Evangelicals may privately believe Mormonism is Satanic, larger society simply views it as a somewhat unusual religious group, but certainly does not view it as having goals fundamentally opposed to and dangerous to larger society.
So the authors Juliann cite (up to this point in my reading the book) wouldn't expect to see "apostate narratives" in the sense that Juliann implied, either, and would not be surprised by the reality you cite.
When I finish the book I intend to put together a more detailed essay explaining the sociologists' theory and contrasting it to Juliann's theory.
So no, exmormons aren't going to be generally producing manipulated apostate narratives that are a lot alike in the basic ways Bromley et al outline. Yes, there are some similarities because it tends to be the same issues that cause members to lose faith, but outside of that, how the loss of faith is handled is going to be highly individual. Only someone attempted to create a justification for viewing all exmormon narratives as unreliable and manufactured without having to address the specifics would claim otherwise.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Gramps,
Your experience is not unique. Although my (convert and liberal) LDS family has largely abandoned their efforts to reclaim me in the fold, my significant other's family just never gives up. His father constantly sends him letters and articles and often seems to deliberately ignore the fact that his son no longer believes.
Of course, LDS are taught that when a family member loses faith, it's not just a problem for that individual, but it becomes a family problem because that member who lost faith will not be in their family unit in eternities. What a cruel teaching.
Both my SO and I did make attempts, early on, to share exactly why we lost faith with our family members. This was not in attempts to deconvert them, but in an attempt to help family members accept the reality which was that this is not a minor burp in our Mormon road, but a total removal from it. We won't be going back. I did it by sending my family members a copy of the letter requesting name removal I sent to my bishop (a three page letter that outlined why I no longer believed) and my SO did so by asking them to read BH Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon. Some family members refused to read the information at all, and those that did ignored it. However, neither my SO nor I continue to make attempts to "explain" our loss of faith to our family members. We just avoid the topic. My family is courteous enough to me to have stopped their constant attempts, but his family will never give up. It's pretty rude, really, in a way, but we're not "allowed" to object.
And we live in the mission field, where there are not many Mormons in larger society viewing us with suspicion or concern. I can't imagine how exmormons who live in places like Utah and Idaho deal with the stress, other than venting on internet boards.
Your experience is not unique. Although my (convert and liberal) LDS family has largely abandoned their efforts to reclaim me in the fold, my significant other's family just never gives up. His father constantly sends him letters and articles and often seems to deliberately ignore the fact that his son no longer believes.
Of course, LDS are taught that when a family member loses faith, it's not just a problem for that individual, but it becomes a family problem because that member who lost faith will not be in their family unit in eternities. What a cruel teaching.
Both my SO and I did make attempts, early on, to share exactly why we lost faith with our family members. This was not in attempts to deconvert them, but in an attempt to help family members accept the reality which was that this is not a minor burp in our Mormon road, but a total removal from it. We won't be going back. I did it by sending my family members a copy of the letter requesting name removal I sent to my bishop (a three page letter that outlined why I no longer believed) and my SO did so by asking them to read BH Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon. Some family members refused to read the information at all, and those that did ignored it. However, neither my SO nor I continue to make attempts to "explain" our loss of faith to our family members. We just avoid the topic. My family is courteous enough to me to have stopped their constant attempts, but his family will never give up. It's pretty rude, really, in a way, but we're not "allowed" to object.
And we live in the mission field, where there are not many Mormons in larger society viewing us with suspicion or concern. I can't imagine how exmormons who live in places like Utah and Idaho deal with the stress, other than venting on internet boards.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_gramps
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm
beastie wrote:Gramps,
Your experience is not unique. Although my (convert and liberal) LDS family has largely abandoned their efforts to reclaim me in the fold, my significant other's family just never gives up. His father constantly sends him letters and articles and often seems to deliberately ignore the fact that his son no longer believes.
Of course, LDS are taught that when a family member loses faith, it's not just a problem for that individual, but it becomes a family problem because that member who lost faith will not be in their family unit in eternities. What a cruel teaching.
Both my SO and I did make attempts, early on, to share exactly why we lost faith with our family members. This was not in attempts to deconvert them, but in an attempt to help family members accept the reality which was that this is not a minor burp in our Mormon road, but a total removal from it. We won't be going back. I did it by sending my family members a copy of the letter requesting name removal I sent to my bishop (a three page letter that outlined why I no longer believed) and my SO did so by asking them to read BH Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon. Some family members refused to read the information at all, and those that did ignored it. However, neither my SO nor I continue to make attempts to "explain" our loss of faith to our family members. We just avoid the topic. My family is courteous enough to me to have stopped their constant attempts, but his family will never give up. It's pretty rude, really, in a way, but we're not "allowed" to object.
And we live in the mission field, where there are not many Mormons in larger society viewing us with suspicion or concern. I can't imagine how exmormons who live in places like Utah and Idaho deal with the stress, other than venting on internet boards.
I was sure it wasn't just me. I'm sure my father isn't the only crazy TBM out there. It is a cruel teaching, indeed. My condolences to your SO.
In the last six months, things have calmed down. I chose to have no more contact with them if they persist. Lonely, but better than all the crap I've had to put up with for 20 years.
And I have never tried to de-convert them. I told my father I would always read the things he sent me out of respect. That is finished. One-sided respect for 20 years is enough already.
Thanks for your comments. Oh, by the way, my father gave me the crap about not being together as an eternal family. I suggested to him that he would always be able to come down and visit me from the celestial kingdom, but that didn't seem to cheer him up at all. LOL
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
Adrian Beverland
-
_beastie
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
It really does feel like one-sided respect. Why does anyone view this as reasonable behavior? I think it's because of the irrational "respect" society as a whole demands - yes, demands - for religious beliefs in general. (speaking for the US) People can believe any weird or irrational thing they want but if it's "religion", no one is supposed to criticize it. WTF?
My family, perhaps due to the fact that they converted later in life (middle aged due to the proselytizing of their adult children, such as, cough cough, me) and living in an non LDS dominated area, are pretty liberal in this regard (shortly after I left the church my mother whispered in my ear that she didn't care what anyone said, she KNEW I would go to heaven ;) - so when I took the step of having my name formally removed, they kind of got the message. I thought for a long time that would work with my SO's family and suggested that course to him. However, he won't due to the fact that he knows his siblings, if they outlast him, would simpy have him "baptized" in the temple, and that makes him angry. He was very angry that his parents and siblings had all their VERY catholic (not just in name, but in daily practice) dead family members dunked, and declared that the spirit revealed to them that they all converted to the religion they didn't want to hear ONE WORD about when they were alive.... it really is disrespectful to their memories. So he's determined to never give them that satisfaction to disrespect him even after his death, the way they keep doing now.
My family, perhaps due to the fact that they converted later in life (middle aged due to the proselytizing of their adult children, such as, cough cough, me) and living in an non LDS dominated area, are pretty liberal in this regard (shortly after I left the church my mother whispered in my ear that she didn't care what anyone said, she KNEW I would go to heaven ;) - so when I took the step of having my name formally removed, they kind of got the message. I thought for a long time that would work with my SO's family and suggested that course to him. However, he won't due to the fact that he knows his siblings, if they outlast him, would simpy have him "baptized" in the temple, and that makes him angry. He was very angry that his parents and siblings had all their VERY catholic (not just in name, but in daily practice) dead family members dunked, and declared that the spirit revealed to them that they all converted to the religion they didn't want to hear ONE WORD about when they were alive.... it really is disrespectful to their memories. So he's determined to never give them that satisfaction to disrespect him even after his death, the way they keep doing now.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
gramps wrote:I never remember getting too angry about the whole deception and control thing.
What got me angry was the typical response from, in my case, my family. That got me angry, really angry.
I wonder if I would even be hanging out on boards like this if it wasn't for my father and some others in the family who wouldn't/couldn't let it go and let me be.
Just last year, my father was sending letters, along with BKP, Hinckley, et. al. speeches, sometimes daily. One day I received three letters. Arrrrgh.
That's 20 years after I made my break. What's up with that? Just let it go already.
I finally sent, after my father promised to read it, a letter to the family explaining my exit from the church. It was about 400 pages long. It took a long time to put that together.
My father never read it. That still pisses me off. My TBM brother said he wouldn't read it because I didn't believe in Christ. My little sister never responded. My other brother and sister both said they would read it and comment. Haven't heard from them since.
That pisses me off.
But the church stuff: I mainly chuckle now at posts like we often see on this board and others. It's funny to me that people can still believe in flying angels and gold plates and "seer stones," etc.
Funny stuff.
I know exactly what you mean. When I first realized what the church was, I remember saying to myself, "OK, now what?" I really didn't get angry until I realized just how difficult it is to exit from the church. They simply won't leave you alone. One of my good friends was telling me that his wife was Christmas shopping the other day at the mall, and a ward member approached her and told her that, when her kids (who are very young) turned out to be drug addicts with no morals, she'd have no excuse. My friend's wife came home shaking and crying. It's not easy to get out, and like you said, even 20 years down the road it's not over.
I think that's where most of the anger comes from.
-
_Runtu
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 16721
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am
beastie wrote:Gramps,
Your experience is not unique. Although my (convert and liberal) LDS family has largely abandoned their efforts to reclaim me in the fold, my significant other's family just never gives up. His father constantly sends him letters and articles and often seems to deliberately ignore the fact that his son no longer believes.
Of course, LDS are taught that when a family member loses faith, it's not just a problem for that individual, but it becomes a family problem because that member who lost faith will not be in their family unit in eternities. What a cruel teaching.
Both my SO and I did make attempts, early on, to share exactly why we lost faith with our family members. This was not in attempts to deconvert them, but in an attempt to help family members accept the reality which was that this is not a minor burp in our Mormon road, but a total removal from it. We won't be going back. I did it by sending my family members a copy of the letter requesting name removal I sent to my bishop (a three page letter that outlined why I no longer believed) and my SO did so by asking them to read BH Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon. Some family members refused to read the information at all, and those that did ignored it. However, neither my SO nor I continue to make attempts to "explain" our loss of faith to our family members. We just avoid the topic. My family is courteous enough to me to have stopped their constant attempts, but his family will never give up. It's pretty rude, really, in a way, but we're not "allowed" to object.
And we live in the mission field, where there are not many Mormons in larger society viewing us with suspicion or concern. I can't imagine how exmormons who live in places like Utah and Idaho deal with the stress, other than venting on internet boards.
You sound a lot like me. In the beginning, I just wanted my wife to understand that this wasn't some crazy whim, that I had good reasons for my decisions. But she wasn't ready, and I've left it alone. She has refused to read anything (not even Rough Stone Rolling), and she has hidden or thrown away books I've bought (Mormon Enigma and No Man Knows My History). So, I just don't say anything anymore.
I understand why she can't just let it be. I think she believes there's a chance I'll come back. So fairly regularly she asks me if I'll read the Book of Mormon again (she says I must not have done it right last year when I took Hinckley's challenge). She tells me that I already know that I'll be blessed if I pay tithing, and so on. But it's not malicious. I get the malice from other people.
Oh, well. The only thing that gets me through sometimes is knowing I'm following my conscience.
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
Re: Standard narratives and anger
Runtu wrote:Maybe we can talk to each other more effectively if we start treating each other as individuals instead of types.
I think the goal of talking to each other more effectively is laudable. And, while I think generalizing can be quite useful at times, I think it also important that we not lose sight of individuals. I am grateful to Runtu for bring that point out.
Another rather critical way to have effective dialogue is through mutual respect. Given what has been said by individuals on this thread, then generally speaking, the lack of respect on the part of faithful members for the unbelief of other members/ex-members may well engender anger and other ill-feelings, likely imped communication, if not also significantly compromised relationships.
I would suspect the same is generally true in reverse: effective communication is unlikely when the sacred beliefs of faithful members are disrespected with such uncharitable caricatures as "low rent hoax".
I say this not by way of blame, but as a point for consideration for us all.
If we wish to improve the dialogue, we may best do so by improving things on our end (particularly since the only person we can really control for change is ourselves). We may do so by, as Runtu suggests, viewing others as individuals rather than types, and by respecting others.
More to the point, what may be of value, rather than getting angry at members who "wont leave you alone" and complaining about them, perhaps figure out ways that you, individually, may address this issue such that your respective relationships/communications with members may be enhanced or left on a positive footing rather than torn apart. In other words, brainstorm here various means for mutual peace and good will with LDS family, friends, and members.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-