NOM

Was talking to my sort-of progressive BIL about the new Presidency of the church. I merely stated that the new presidency would not likely make too many changes to the "culture" of the church, (to which he ascribes all the faults on his cog-dis shelf.)

He sent me this in reply:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng

Why the hell do I even try? Its been a bad day for me today.

If only the church would follow their own advice:

More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.

Clearly Oaks and Nelson aren't going to change course. It's too bad because the institutional church could really be an organization worth following and do good in the world with its vast resources and followers. Instead, the best and brightest are leaving.

Well that escalated quickly.

Interesting. Most Mormons acknowledge problems with the culture and are open to criticizing and attempting to correct things they consider wrong with it. I've even seen GAs talk very openly about that.

But, if an apostate says anything at all critical of anything, then believers get deeply upset.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:02 am Interesting. Most Mormons acknowledge problems with the culture and are open to criticizing and attempting to correct things they consider wrong with it. I've even seen GAs talk very openly about that.

But, if an apostate says anything at all critical of anything, then believers get deeply upset.

Maybe OP crossed the TBM line when it went from criticizing the culture to the criticism that the leadership wouldn't fix the culture. That critique accepts that the culture is bad, but it pushes blame onto the leadership which is a no-no in the TBM mind, and Oaks' talk.

That talk was filled with cowardice and fear for himself. It's also like the quote of Oaks used in the PBS miniseries at 52 seconds in this promo.

https://youtu.be/NvNDjND4eLI

Such self serving hogwash and a way to divert any negative discussion of the leadership that would otherwise drive forward real discussion.

Wow, that article was awful. I had sometimes wondered if Oaks' cousel to avoid criticism was taken out of context, exaggerated, or not something he heavily emphasized in practice (even though I did read the speech about a thing being true is not justification for telling it, and our having no obligation to tell the whole truth). Reading that whole talk was really, really bad. I guess that really was his position.

From a believer's point of view, I understand why he would see things that way- if leaders are subject to public criticism from within the ranks, it could destroy unity and impair the power of the leadership. True. However, they have to realize that eventually, people WILL find out the negative facts they wanted to sweep under the rug, and when they do, they'll feel lied to. This talk was a lot like the sentiment from Packer's "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater" speech. They had good intent, at least in their own minds, but the result was widespread deception (maybe unintentional deception). I don't trust any of these guys at all.

If I can offer some advice. First, I know it's hard. It's really really really hard to be the nonbeliever in a world full TBM's. You just want to run away from it all, but you can't. Hang in there. You're not crazy.

One of the strongest messages you can send is indifference. You just don't care what the church or TBM's do. You're not going to convince them, at least not immediately. It's pretty rare to engage and a TBM says "Holy crap, it's a sham!" Even something as innocent as saying what you did can bring hellfire and fury from a TBM

Water off a ducks' back.

Just be you and don't let them get to you. I wish I could have done this sooner.

BTW - that BIL sounds like a dick. If he can pull a 1987 talk by Oaks about not criticizing Oaks, he knows his shit. Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The underlying premise to his argument is the presumption that church leaders have been called of God. If you don't presume that, then the whole argument falls apart. Once you step back to that foundational question, the fruits of selective truth telling, as apparently taught by Ephesians, start to look more rotten. Where have I heard something about rotten fruit, before?

I had a conversation recently with someone about this "never criticizing a leader of the church, even if the criticism is true" nonsense from Oaks. I was recently accused (a good story, I'll wait a bit to share it) of wanting to start a "church of Mormorrisey" instead of following the brethren. I said it was somewhat true; if I was in charge, I would change a crapload of stuff, no doubt. However, I also said that while there is some truth in my "pride" of wanting things to change, isn't it just as prideful to stubbornly insist that the brethren to do no wrong? Isn't this a lack of humility too, that we can't ever suggest change in the church?

Sis M. said this the other day, that I think I'm a pretty good guy, and I think I receive revelation, then why can't I give the brethren a break? I merely said matter of factly that I'm not the one arrogantly claiming to speak for God; maybe if I did, I would clean up my act a little more. Not much to say to that. I'm not buying the absence of criticism card. It's pretty arrogant, especially as RR pointed out, when Hinckley said the exact opposite. Bollocks, I say. And I would respond to BIL with the Hinckley quote, as prophet trumps semi-prophet.

Mormorrisey wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:37 pm I had a conversation recently with someone about this "never criticizing a leader of the church, even if the criticism is true" nonsense from Oaks. I was recently accused (a good story, I'll wait a bit to share it) of wanting to start a "church of Mormorrisey" instead of following the brethren. I said it was somewhat true; if I was in charge, I would change a crapload of stuff, no doubt. However, I also said that while there is some truth in my "pride" of wanting things to change, isn't it just as prideful to stubbornly insist that the brethren to do no wrong? Isn't this a lack of humility too, that we can't ever suggest change in the church?

Yes, the TBM view completely lacks self-awareness of how hard-hearted they are to anything outside the TBM universe. But it is impossible to see that when you are all in and think the only way to be humble is to humble yourself to the church (their god). Simply being open to having an opinion different from the brethren is pride. That needs to be changed IMHO to seeking reality instead of seeking to align with church teachings.

Thanks for the responses and advice. I do need to be more indifferent, or this stuff is going to drive me bat shite crazy.

This BIL only knows me as a "progressive Mormon," he doesn't know in my heart I am full on apostate. When I responded with "So, keep my head down and my mouth shut?" he shot back that he didn't get that from the article, he thought it opened the door to quietly provide critical feedback to the Q15. I replied that that was a pipe dream, I happen to know if you send a letter to a member of the Q15 you will likely get a form letter telling you in essence to - shut the hell up and go back to work, and if they know who you are, the letter will be forwarded to your stake/mission president.

I noticed that Elder Oaks did not quote Galatians 2:11, or mention Paul's opposition to Peter at Antioch. As 'then' Elder Oaks has said in the past: "Balance is telling both sides. This is not the mission of official church literature or avowedly anti-Mormon literature. Neither has ANY responsibility to tell both sides. This (inadvertent?) comparison of official church literature to anti-Mormon literature is a truly chilling irony.

Are you 100% certain he didn't send it out of sarcasm?

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:49 pm If I can offer some advice. First, I know it's hard. It's really really really hard to be the nonbeliever in a world full TBM's. You just want to run away from it all, but you can't. Hang in there. You're not crazy.

One of the strongest messages you can send is indifference. You just don't care what the church or TBM's do. You're not going to convince them, at least not immediately. It's pretty rare to engage and a TBM says "Holy crap, it's a sham!" Even something as innocent as saying what you did can bring hellfire and fury from a TBM

Water off a ducks' back.

Just be you and don't let them get to you. I wish I could have done this sooner.

BTW - that BIL sounds like a dick. If he can pull a 1987 talk by Oaks about not criticizing Oaks, he knows his shit. Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Wonderful advice. And your last two sentences are spot on. Thanks

Kishkumen wrote:If I can offer some advice. First, I know it's hard. It's really really really hard to be the nonbeliever in a world full TBM's. You just want to run away from it all, but you can't. Hang in there. You're not crazy.

One of the strongest messages you can send is indifference. You just don't care what the church or TBM's do. You're not going to convince them, at least not immediately. It's pretty rare to engage and a TBM says "Holy crap, it's a sham!" Even something as innocent as saying what you did can bring hellfire and fury from a TBM

Water off a ducks' back.

Just be you and don't let them get to you. I wish I could have done this sooner.

BTW - that BIL sounds like a dick. If he can pull a 1987 talk by Oaks about not criticizing Oaks, he knows his shit. Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

This is spot on. Factual evidence does little to persuade the full TBM. Kishkumen speaks truth from experience. In my TBM days I had a good friend leave the church while we were in college. One day in his final days of the student ward he came up and congratulated me on a new calling and said "I couldn't do that". My TBM self was totally perplexed by his statement. It stuck with me while he left to move to sunny California and start a new life away from Utah doing whatever he wanted in his life while I was still slaving for the corporation. We didn't speak for years while I secretly and subconsciously envied the hell out of his freedom. One day after I slipped into NOM-hood I finally messaged him and explained my current situation and we had a good laugh about his prior statement. I was able to finally tell him that I get it now.

This experience matches Kishkumen's advice that indifference and living your own independent life is the ultimate tool in causing cogdis for most people rather than causing retrenchment from direct confrontation.

That said, direct confrontation from a few coworkers also played a role in my eventual transition, so there must be times when it is appropriate and effective too. Perhaps the difference being they were coworkers and not family or close friends that I have to live with after the fact.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 9:58 amAre you 100% certain he didn't send it out of sarcasm?

No I guess I am not 100% certain...

He labels himself as progressive and enjoys (for the most part) talking to me about church stuff, since I am one of the few in the family that will listen and can accept his "progressivism" where others in the fam cannot. He has, in our conversations, made sure to assert his testimony on several occasions. I don't. He is an engineer and pretty bright. I know he is struggling with some serious cog-dis and this is his coping mechanism. His history is different than mine though, and his need for the eternal families doctrine may keep him in his cage.

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:43 pm That said, direct confrontation from a few coworkers also played a role in my eventual transition, so there must be times when it is appropriate and effective too. Perhaps the difference being they were coworkers and not family or close friends that I have to live with after the fact.

Subtlety is my only shot at things right now, are there any guides to dishing this stuff out in a way that helps the blind to see, without tipping one's hand? I worry about my kids, a lot. I don't want to inadvertently inoculate them in my attempts to help them see the truth in an indirect way.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:56 amHe labels himself as progressive and enjoys (for the most part) talking to me about church stuff, since I am one of the few in the family that will listen and can accept his "progressivism" where others in the fam cannot. He has, in our conversations, made sure to assert his testimony on several occasions. I don't. He is an engineer and pretty bright. I know he is struggling with some serious cog-dis and this is his coping mechanism. His history is different than mine though, and his need for the eternal families doctrine may keep him in his cage.

I think I recognize this behavior. One of my closest and oldest friends is extremely intelligent and very devout while often having little patience for the sometimes narrow thinking of day-to-day Mormonism. He has studied far more than most members and in fact first introduced me to FARMS and FAIR. He reads books like Shaken-Faith Syndrome and the Givens stuff, so I assume he has had some cog-dis moments. When I was at a place of active but not really interested (like many members) he was constantly emailing me with criticisms of leader statements and conference talks, but the moment I revealed my skepticism he became a devout defender of the organization and never had another critical thing to say. Over the years we have gone in opposite directions, I have become disaffected and he has become a part-time Institute teacher and has gone on multiple missions with his wife. In retrospect, I wonder what were the specific events that led each of us in those two directions, and whether it might have turned out the other way with different circumstances. I wonder which direction your BIL will eventually go. Or if he has found a groove that he can ride all the way down.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:46 amIn retrospect, I wonder what were the specific events that led each of us in those two directions, and whether it might have turned out the other way with different circumstances. I wonder which direction your BIL will eventually go. Or if he has found a groove that he can ride all the way down.

I have a good friend that I fully disclosed my disaffection to and he is very much like this. In my early days he and I would share interesting facts about the church a lot of his coming from the JS Papers books that he was reading. But at the end of the day, he is still all in. We are both scratching our heads wondering how the other can be where they are.

I also think I get it all wrong. People I think are out are really not. I am a poor judge of it. There is a lady in our ward, she won't pray, speak or teach. Her kids rarely go to mutual, they used to sit in the chapel during Sunday School. I think she is NOM, but I am probably all wrong, she did send two kids off on a mission.