Those Who Feel Betrayed By the LDS Church: An Analysis

I think one of the reasons some members feel betrayed by the Church is that they are either analytical by nature or emotional by nature - and they come to see the Church as the opposite.

Think about that a bit:

Someone who has developed a black and white view of Mormon history and finds that shattered by exposure to opposing and compelling accounts often reacts emotionally to that result - since black and white views tend to be more emotional than analytical. Such a person sees the Church as having been conniving and disingenuous - both of which, in that person's mind, are "analytical" attributes. So, an emotional person criticizes the Church for being analytical, if you will, and "hiding the truth" consciously and for purely selfish reasons.  The "truth" (whatever it is) doesn't matter in such a situation, since the reaction is predominantly emotional. 

Turn to someone who has a more nuanced, gray view. That is generally a result of being more analytical than emotional, and such a person often sees the Church as more subjective and emotional. This manifests itself in charges of hiding truth and covering up negative things (and even lying about stuff) consciously in order to feed the emotional attachment of the membership. The end result is a charge of anti-intellectualism - relying more on emotion than the intellect.  Again, the "truth" (whatever that is) doesn't matter in such a situation, since the the reaction is based on a perceptual difference. 

That happens all the time on various group blogs that are more critical than others, and it can be frustrating to see how blind most people are to that bias. My interactions over the years with certain people are a great example of this:

I drive them nuts, largely because I am both analytical and emotional - so it's hard for many people to categorize me and see "consistency" in my words. Especially with those who are emotional, they often see my analysis of their posts and comments initially as rejection or criticism - rather than simply as analysis.  On the other hand, those who are more analytical often try to read between the lines to find nuance and deeper meaning - and I try to avoid such nuance and hidden meaning when I am writing in a public forum.  Hence, those who are prone to nuance and analysis often misunderstand fairly simple statements by over-thinking things. 

The fascinating thing is that anlaytical and emotional people can reach the same overall conclusion, but each person attributes the motivation behind it to a different genesis - whatever is the opposite of their own personality.

It's a natural way to justify rejecting others, by classifying others as different than one's self.

Comfort and Growth Sometimes Are Mutually Exclusive

A good friend shared this quote with me:

"There's no growing in the comfort zone, and no comfort in the growing zone."

Just because it's absurdly hilarious

Why Someone Would Steal Coat Hangers (h/t By Common Consent Sidebar)

Simply One of the Most Beautiful, Moving Blog Posts I've Ever Read

Through God's Eyes - (tiny mosquito)

The entire post is beautiful and profound, but the following struck me particularly hard: 

Brothers and sisters… We are all connected. Despite all our differences, despite our race, our religion, our beliefs… despite our status, education, or our income… and despite our sexual orientation, or our political affiliations… despite it all… we all belong to each another. We need not agree with one another… to love one another. We need not think alike… to love alike.

I Don't Go to the Temple to Learn

I am contemplative by nature, and I've gone to the temple often enough that I know the ceremonial wording and actions pretty well. When I go now, I generally see what hits me as the play progresses and let my mind "wander" a bit to consider whatever hits me. In other words, I spend most of my time there "thinking" - as opposed to "listening" or "understanding".

Perhaps some would say I can do that anywhere, but I don't believe that - for two reasons:

1) It's hard to create a place that is as silent and reverent as the temple - where I can think and ponder without distraction.

2) It's hard to create a place that is as God-focused as the temple - that points my mind to the type of contemplation I do there.

It helps that I view it all symbolically and figuratively - so contemplation becomes the core purpose for me.

"Us Against Them" Is Bad Enough, but "Us Against Us" Is Worse

I loved being raised in Utah, but I would struggle a bit if I had to move back now.

ANY organization that becomes dominant and isolated tends toward totalitarianism. Power corrupts, even in the Church - as D&C 121 says very clearly. I believe strongly that the Church simply had to flee to the wilderness in order to survive the early years of the restoration, but I also feel just as strongly that part of the pruning of the vineyard described in Jacob 5 (the elimination of the bitter fruit) is the need to shed the bad effects of that isolation.

A minority population can express its uniqueness by juxtaposing that uniqueness against the majority culture. In other words, Mormons here in Missouri can "rebel" against the cultural norm by being Mormon. In Utah, however, Mormonism was the cultural norm for many decades (and still is in lots of areas) - so those who aren't comfortable following the cultural norm find expression for their "rebellion" by challenging that norm (in this case, Mormonism). The worst part, however, is that for years (and still in many areas) the only such "rebellion" possible was by Mormons (since there were or are almost no non-Mormons) - which means that the natural reaction of the "faithful majority" was to draw even tighter conditions around "conformity" and move more and more away from the "rebellion" they saw happening within the Church. This caused polarization - where suddenly "pure Mormonism" (which is incredibly moderate and tolerant and flexible, imo) began to be seen almost as "rebellion".

I generally don't like "us against them" views, but even worse is "us against us". Isolated entrenchment under attack tends to do that, and for decades the Church was isolated and entrenched and under attack - perceived and in reality. Thankfully, the world-wide growth of the Church has begun to mitigate against that former movement, and I really believe we are beginning to swing back toward what I see as pure Mormonism.

It's OK to Be a Work in Progress - in the Master's Hands

"Issues" and Repairs - Patty (I Believe in Christ)

The Importance of Interpreting Offensive Statements As If We Had Said Them

None of us can avoid saying things occasionally in a way / wording that sounds different than we mean it. All of us are going to be misunderstood at some point, and it's going to happen to most of us over and over again - sometimes when we can find out about it and correct the misunderstanding, but often when we never realized we've been misunderstood and can't correct it.

Therefore, when I hear something that seems offensive at first, I try to see if there is a way to interpret what is being said so that it's not offensive - so there's something I can learn from it. Sometimes, what is said really is just offensive, but generally I can find a way to take something positive from it.

Are You a Micro-Mormon or a Macro-Mormon?

Micro-Mormonism vs. Macro-Mormonism - Scott B. (By Common Consent)

What Place Should Religious Activity Play In Your Life?

I'm a Church geek - a Church junkie, if you will.

I simply LOVE organized religion, generally, and the LDS Church, specifically - for the community of believers and the chance to serve an extended family. I can work out my own intellectual understanding of the doctrines outside the meetinghouse, but I can't walk away from the service I provide to and within the community. Therefore, at certain points in the past, I have attended 6-9 hours of meetings most Sundays - and my wife and I were fine with that. I was there to help and serve, not primarily to learn - so I was pleased and gratified when I did learn something. It wasn't expected or required, so it was wonderful when it happened.

Having said that, the ONLY "required" meeting each week is Sacrament Meeting - for the sacrament, primarily. Attend that meeting, and "The Church" officially considers you to be "active". (Your local ward or branch won't consider you fully active, but you will be considered active from the global church's statistical reporting perspective.) In fact, if you have a job that requires you work most Sundays, but you attend Sacrament Meeting as often as you can (and are known to be "faithful and/or believing"), you still probably will be considered "active" by your Bishop or Branch President.

What I'm saying is that there are many, many "levels of activity" possible within the LDS Church for someone who wants to be "active" but can't or doesn't want to attend every possible meeting. Two simple examples:

1) I have a family friend who was raised with the idea that to be active he had to be involved in EVERY SINGLE SCHEDULED ACTIVITY, and it's taken him years to see that it's ok to miss this and that when there's something else on his calendar that is more important (including when he wants to go out on a date with his wife).

2) My wife and I once considered Home Study Seminary for my second son, who is diabetic and tired easily, but we didn't pulled the trigger on that because he wanted to have that time with his church friends each day. It worked out in the end, but if his health had started to be compromised by Seminary, we would have found an alternative for him.

What place should religion and religious activity play in your life? I can't answer that for others, but for me it is vitally important but secondary to my individual pursuit of righteousness and the development of a godly character. It acts for me as a strong motivation in that pursuit, and it should be whatever works for others in their current situations. After all, there is a time and a season for all things under the sun - and that includes "level" of church activity.