My mentioning this experience, as a response to a directly related topic, somehow becomes evidence of your above assertions? Wow. You have a very active imagination.

So is my posting about this topic my way of "bringing all the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes"?

beastlie:

Not hardly. That’s why I said you seem to have a resentment for every occasion. One could easily look back over your posts from the past few years and identify several dozens of these kinds of stories. It’s your stock in trade when it comes right down to it. You’ve got many more of these resentment stories than you do sources for Mesoamerican anthropology.


Of course, the “bringing them to account” occurs exclusively in your own mind, and in whatever “court of public opinion” is represented by these sparsely-frequented message boards. But, by all indications, you find it sufficient for your needs.

I agree absolutely with this. I have always thought that the Mormon ladder to heaven concept (depicted on an Ensign cover I saw) places a huge and unnecessary burden on every member. Not only do you have to work for your own place in heaven, you have to haul everyone else along with you too. This must surely be one of the main reasons why members react as they do when someone in their family leaves the church. As has been said countless times before (some of the time by me) in other churches you can leave to attend another denomination and not be considered "lost" (depending on the doctrines of your previous church, obviously). You can even discontinue church attendance and not be "lost", again, depending on individual beliefs. The huge difference is that in Mormonism, so much emphasis is placed on the church whereas in non-LDS Christianity the emphasis is on God. If you start attending a different congregation of the same denomination (strict boundaries are not mandated about which congregation you must be part of) or even switch denominations fellow church-goers still see you as part of "the family of God" because you still believe in God, you've just changed churches. The emphasis is altogether different and doesn't give rise to that whole scenario of desperate family members trying to persuade, manipulate or enforce church attendance. Each person is seen as an individual, responsible for themselves, unlike in Mormonism where the family structure can be ruptured, according to some at least, if one member isn't on the ladder.



Good insight re the "fundamental difference in worldviews". I think this aptly explains how there is no meeting of the minds at all on this matter, even after a year's worth of discussion.

I think it's also accurate to say it's a boundary issue, although Mormons may see that as offensive, although it isn't meant to be. Again, it's a case of adults being individuals - or not - according to your religious beliefs or worldview in general.

Re the difference in worldviews and how that can hamper understanding and communication, when I first started reading posts at RfM, many of which were/are written by people who call themselves atheists, I literally could not comprehend what it would be like to have no belief in God. I didn't know how to have a discussion with an atheist, didn't know where to start or how to discuss a topic, and I kept tripping over that wide divide, of absolute and certain belief in the existence of God and the equally absolute conviction that there is no god. I think a lot of assumptions are made, especially when people are feeling defensive (even subconsciously) and communication suffers, understanding is not gained and unnecessary conflict ensues.

I am surmising that perhaps the lack of "boundaries", as seen by non-LDS, is one reason that in this case with GK and s-dad and the infamous email those who can't see anything wrong with involving the s-dad tend to be LDS while those who are most opposed to sending the email are not LDS. That is a generalization as obviously some LDS here have disagreed with the send. But rcrocket and DCP, the sender, are the two who most energetically defend DCP's decision to send it. They are as unlike non-LDS as anyone I can think of and perhaps, speaking of worldviews, they are so immersed in Mormonism that they truly cannot even fathom a different viewpoint, much as I described myself as a very active Christian, immersed in that world, not even being able to comprehend what it would be like to not believe in God.

What is still curious to me, though, is how from my reading of the comments of both rcrocket and DCP they both seem to have the impression that GK was trashing his dad/family in his original post when to the average reader it was all about what he was thinking about ph blessings and not at all about his family. Certainly there was no identifying information in the post itself. The vast body of readers would never have known who it was posting or who he was talking about. Because two LDS posters here did recognize him, perhaps they overreacted somewhat on the damage control side in assuming that many people would also recognize the family, which was not the case. Even so, as GK is well into his 20s (so I understand) why is it necessary for someone to inform his father about what he does or says? Surely that should be between them (or not, according to their own choice). This is where the concept of "boundaries" comes in - that there is a time to let people make their own choices and stay out of it.

Safety was cited by beastie as a reason to perhaps inform parents about an adult child's actions. I can see, just, that many LDS would perhaps consider this very much a case of "safety" in that GK jumped off the ladder, to them an extreme action that disrupts the family chain, or something like that.

I think we are unlikely to ever agree on whether the email should have been sent or not. I really like the worldview explanation for that and I think that nails it. And it's tough for one side to see the other side's view on that, as in many other situations as well.

rcrocket said:
"Contrast what GoodK has done to me. Lots of fun pointed out about my physical appearance (thinking erroneously that I am short). Lots of vuglar references to my daughter. Name-calling and such."

I have noticed the references to your daughter. Some of them have made me cringe. Some sound kind of creepy and certainly inappropriate. But that's just my view from afar, not knowing any details about the parties involved or their relationships. I would wish that comments here are restricted only to ourselves and other participants and not to people's family members who don't post and certainly not to their children.

I somewhat understand some people's rabid aversion to all things Mormon but I regret the often-OTT spillover onto specific individuals who surely are not to blame for everything Mormon that bugs someone. IOW, I prefer to heap the fire upon the actual source of my issues and not any handy lightning rod I happen to bump into.

Speaking of worldviews, ha - I've always found beastie to be calm and factually-oriented in her posts. I've long been amazed by the amount of harsh comments she gets from some LDS posters, on this and other boards, especially when other non-LDS posters here and elsewhere are rabidly against Mormonism. Such comments to them would seem more appropriate.

In terms of sharing examples from our personal experiences, don't we all do that? In years and years of church membership, yeah, it's possible that we did have numerous negative experiences that we use in discussion of our time in the church.

I once mentioned in a post on MADB (where I read and post very seldom) a comment made to me by a missionary. I was immediately jumped on with demands to "prove" that it was even a missionary I was speaking with. I was shocked at such a harsh reaction (the tone, intent and words were harsh, it wasn't just a question) as I had not in any way intended to cause offence and certainly not to embellish or lie about the point I was making. Obviously, that reader, at least, "saw" something in my comment that was absolutely not there. I understand quite a bit better now how that occurs, as now I see how people bring their own preconceptions to a discussion and it affects how they comprehend what the other party says.

I have also come to see that being a "critic" of Mormonism is tolerable to some LDS but not if you've been a member of the church and have left. Is that at least a partial explanation for the bad light in which some particular ex-members are seen? It would better explain the harsh tones and regular denunciations of some particular ex-LDS posters by some of the LDS defenders. Otherwise, it just leaves me bemused as I don't see where it comes from. One example is Will S's comments to beastie in response to her very benign account of an experience she had with tithing. Of all the comments written here and all the contentious issues, that is what you want to use to denounce beastie as so "bitter", "storing up" grievances against the church? All I see is a level-headed woman calmly recounting an incident in her life. She didn't even criticize or denounce "the church". She just recounted an incident. It's interesting (and a little scary) to see how that was interpreted by at least one LDS reader.

Leaving a church where one no longer fits in (or for whatever reason that makes sense in a person's life) is a rational thing to do. It does not deserve the denunciation it receives from many believers. Sharing an experience one had while a member is a normal part of being human, reflecting on one's past, processing events we've been part of, reaching out to others to discuss and work through both positives and negatives in our lives. It's sad to see that used as "proof" of bad character, malicious motives, or whatever other negatives someone wants to hurl. Also inaccurate.

I can agree with you up to a point. But it more or less goes like this: the celestial kingdom is a place where god dwells. It would be wonderful if the entire family can be where god dwells. And as such it becomes sad when a family member is destined to be in the terrestial or telestial kingdom. Mormon familes have such love for family members that they hope that all will be together in the celestial kingdom.

Now most christian faiths have a belief in hell. But what is interesting is that I have never been to a funeral where all present would believe that an aunt mabel or an uncle bing will be heading to hell. They could have been the worst human beings but no one would claim that a relative or good friend is hell bound. There is this understanding that hell exists for the others. Which would be more factual? I think the mormon vision is quite humane. No one actually goes to hell but inherits a kingdom of glory. But in other chrisitian faiths hell is ever present for the people who live without god or sin (excluding relatives).

I would have reported the bishop to the assigned high councilman, or even stake president, but not before asking him directly if he revealed this information. There were many "private" discussions that also went on in PEC, and tithing status would sometimes come up, so it may not necessarily have been leaked by the bishop. The ward clerk also knows the tithing status of ever member. (Confidences regarding morality are never discussed to other PH leaders, with the except of the SP when it's necessary.)

I can't say I've had any confidences divulged, and the bishops I knew were very discreet. I have never revealed anything private about any member, and have kept those confidences 26 years after I was released.

Given that belief, that the former mormon family member won't be with the family in the CK, wouldn't the rational reaction be to insure a wonderful familial relationship while you're still on earth together? It's utterly tragic that the opposite occurs at all, but it does.

Now wait just a doggone minute. How can Trixie be the most resentment riddled individual blah blah blah? I am sure I have that trophy on my mantle.

If we stop and think about it, we will either all be in the CK, or none of us will. And there will be no children there. And we'll all be sealed to each other, so there will be no family units. People just don't stop to think it through before they get all gooey eyed about families being together forever.

Pulllllease!

Some days, when I've had altogether too many bombs being dumped on me and the Bank of Mom is overdrawn and the dishes aren't done and no one's cooking but me... I'd gladly settle for the Terrestial Kingdom.

This is all very well and good, but I think sometimes we forget what happens when someone from another Christian denomination joins the Mormon church. OMG! The world falls in! Mormons have horns! Mormons don't believe in Christ! Mormons are evil people, women who are slaves, kept barefoot and pregnant by domineering men who lust after other women.

Yeah. Been there, done that. You can keep the tee shirt.

I agree. It's poor form no matter who is engaging in such behavior. Shunning loved ones because of their religious choices is inexcusable. None of us knows what happens after death, so it seems to me we should make the most of our relationships while we are alive.

I agree with NG's observations and thoughts.

BTW, NG - in regards to Will's harsh words toward me - it's my impression of Will that he views critics who normally present themselves as calm, rational, and tempered in their criticism of LDS truth claims are more dangerous to the faithful than frothing, rabid ant-mormons. Hence, he feels it is his personal imperative to expose these calm, rational, and tempered critics as the Minions of Satan they are.

Personally, I view Will as the Drama Queen of MD Histrionics, so I take little of what he says seriously.