Some of you know me, some of you don't. Those that do know that I'm not much of a fence sitter. I fall into the category of those that feel Mormonism is a cult that ruins families, destroys lives, and controls even basic thoughts of it's followers. Enough said on that.

I frequently get disgusted and impatient with fence sitters like Joanna Brooks (Mormon Girl) or John Dehlin (Mormon Stories). In fact enough so that they have both banned me from their online presences. These fence sitters disgust me. They have enough knowledge to know what is true and what is a lie, but they pretend to be unbiased factual purveyors of wisdom. In both cases they created quite a blog following, enough to make money from their endeavors. They also seem to bask in the attention. Joanna in fact had left the Church, but she didn't find much of an audience for her writing. She found that a curr nipping at the wheels of the grand caravan gets less attention than an active member writing softball criticism.

I've come to believe that they are in search of an audience more than they are in search of truth. They are close enough to the door to make a quick exit but enjoy basking in the limelight of the foyer too much to step into the sunlight. What is your general feeling about these types of commentators?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 08:52AM by SLDrone.

I think they have their place or niche. Apparently some people can't leave for whatever reason. I'm guessing this is a good place for them.

I myself knew I would never return to church after listening to Johns podcast on why Mormons leave.

His half in half out stance does not appeal to me personally. I'm out, and happier for it. I wouldn't encourage fence sitting. I don't think it's emotionally or spiritually healthy for anyone.

We all pay a price somehow. Part of their price is your scorn. I've paid a price. You've paid a price. Paying a price sucks, but we all gotta do it.

And they figure that if they fence sit, their skin will darken up a bit.

Or is that just folklore now?

It takes a lot to shock my old suspension these days, but you managed SLD...

I've withheld judgment on both of these two "wannabe gurus," but that statement is enough to make me shake my head and tell myself I should've listened to my gut instincts in the first place. I posted once on Brooks' site, got "apologetic apoplexy" from a couple of replies (after sticking strictly with history, no less; I left my therapeutic cowboy boots in the trunk), and I just said to myself the cognitive re-structuring is too much trouble. So I'm guessing your message threatened them to the point where they had to abandon the "pay-offs" of their position or give you the heave-ho.

Thank you. And for the newer sorts here, SLDrone was a legend here before Steve Benson arrived on the scene--no offense intended, SB--a former mission president who knew Hinckley and left the church as a matter of conscience...

And shared his experiences openly with all...

I don't remember whether I saw his moniker before I picked my own, but I do recall realizing at some point I was paying tribute regardless, and I was pleased to do so.

From a cognitive perspective I see your point…and agree with you. From an emotional level I see their point…and agree with them. Your posts were some of the most important and most helpful when I began my journey out a few years ago. It helped me immensely to see someone of your stature leave the church. I’m glad you wrote about it on RfM.

I think that Dehlin and Brooks have their place and provide a valuable service as well. (I am more a fan of Dehlin than of Brooks). I think they provide a safe place for folks that have doubts but are more timid about talking about them, or researching them, or even thinking about them. They provide information in a way that seems non-threatening to those that are questioning. I think there is a need for that.

The world is full of fence sitters. They need community. They need support. They need hand holding. Fortunately world has a few superstars such as yourself that see the facts, do what they know is right, and lead the way.

Some people will learn the truth about church history and resign within a short period of time. Others will learn but it takes a long time for them to resign. Still others may learn, but decide to still participate in church to some extent. I was content for a few years to go inactive, but not resign. The cognitive part of me wanted to resign, but the emotional part of me wasn’t ready and didn’t want to upset family. I didn’t resign until it became more advantageous for me to be out than it was for me to me in. Personally I have been influenced and helped by both SLDrone and John Dehlin, but in vastly different ways.

Pure and simple. At least, that's how they come across to me.

That said, they could just be kind of screwed up, cowards who just can't bring themselves to leave due to various fears they have. I don't know them.

Without knowing them, both immediately struck me as opportunists.

As long as they are sitting on the fence so that they can be the doorman inside the building holding the door open for others to escape the building.

I too am not able to participate in the forums of either of them. I think that it is good to have someone on the inside of the building waving the white flag and organizing meetings. It gives people a place to start. Once people start investigating the truth they will usually keep trying to learn and leave.

As long as John and Brooks stay in the church and have a following they can be quoted by reporters as members of the church instead of anti-mormons or disaffected members of the church. That gives them a different angle to point out the history and doctrinal problems that will continue to take up the majority of the discussion of mormonism this next year as the news is running stories about Mitt and his mormon cult.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 07:50AM by upsidedown.

I consider them smart marketers satisfying what they have identified as an unfilled demand in the marketplace, and little more than that.

It appears they may have found a niche, that even though should not be, can be filled, and therefore will be.

Given the current state of Mormonism, there may be room for many more like them, offering various degrees of Mormonism to the many who are uncomfortable with the main stream.

No more need to leave Mormonism, just pick your degree of zealousness, 20%, 50%, 70%...and there will be a place for you.

Interesting that those of us on both sides of the fence seem frustrated with those on the fence. I don't like it (fence sitting), but I only see it gaining popularity.

Hope I'm wrong.

"These fence sitters disgust me."

I could very easily gen up a similar emotion, because I feel _exactly_ about mormonism as yourself, But lately I prefer to hold stronger emotions in check - and also I find the psychology of fence-sitting somehow fascinating. To me, the practice is just one more indication that we humans can rationalize absolutely anything we choose to, including two contradictory orientations held simultaneously. How do we do it?

The problem is that it helps and supports a lot of folks in staying in a cult. It keeps people who would figure out that the church does not want them from taking their tithing and walking.

It's a short trip from that person to the mall, prop8, the massive missionary effort, empty temples, wasted food storage (while people starve), crazy conference propaganda... On and on.

My parents have been miserable in the church, they have been treated poorly. They are aware of many problems yet still have the gall to shun me. I've come to terms. But the other day my mom started complaining so I figured she opened the door and maybe now she was miserable enough to take baby steps out. I sent her some information. Holy cow! Bottom line: she loves the "peace and beauty" of the temple and does not care if it's true or false.

I don't want her to leave the cult so she can validate or understand my decision. I'm not interested in deconverting anyone. I don't need her to change for me. But it's hard to see my parents suffer and because of the mind-f$&@ be unable to see the source and leave it. They have found that middle ground but they are still miserable and still paying.

What bothers me about the fence sitting commentators is that pain is a person's indication that something's not right. The middle ground may be more comfortable, but it may keep people from taking the steps to truly end the pain.

And without identifying the source of pain and making a break you are more likely to continue the cycle with kids, and you keep paying into and supporting a nasty organization.

Fence-sitting, in this case, is not not-destructive. The cult is not benign.

"The problem is that it helps and supports a lot of folks in staying in a cult."

"Fence-sitting, in this case, is not not-destructive. The cult is not benign."


Those are undeniably true - and anyone so inclined might legitimately feel real disgust.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Periodically touring the Web and discussing matters LDS, I have found that strong rhetoric backed by strong emotions is typically not persuasive - if indeed one's purpose is to persuade.* Having found myself slipping into that mode, I stopped. The simple truth, plainly spoken, has a better chance of impact.


edit: * that is, to persuade the unaligned reader



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 08:36AM by 3X.

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. Are you schooling me on writing style?

Not at all - I'm not in the habit of schooling anyone (other than myself).

I'm simply pointing out that while I share and agree with your orientation (completely, actually), I have had better impact out on the Web by keeping my own emotions in check.

You are correct. However, my intention at this point of my life with respect to the church is not persuasion. I am not inclined to saving anyone but myself. And obviously I'm angry.

If Dehlin and Brooks intent is to persuade, then they should put a disclaimer, otherwise they are essentially doing what the church does, i.e. "educate" people about the truth, with an ulterior motive of persuading to "the other side". I for one an sick of the slick salesman tactic.

I don't think that persuasion is their intent. The intent is to show people that they can carve out a place for themselves in a church that does not want people who see gray. I tried and tried to carve out that space for myself and ultimately I wasted precious time of my life. It was only by seeing the unvarnished truth that I could finally feel ok about leaving. I have a hard time (at least right now) taking a softer rhetorical stance.

As far as slowly prying people out of the church with a kinder gentler approach, I guess I'd have to see the data. How many people leave the church little by little? How many leave after encountering the jarring truth? How many spend their lives in the comfortable and expensive middle ground? How many lose the association with kids who take a more extreme position either way?

Thanks for your feedback 3X. I don't have any ill will towards Dehlin or Brooks BTW.

"However, my intention at this point of my life with respect to the church is not persuasion. I am not inclined to saving anyone but myself. And obviously I'm angry."

Anybody would be angry under the circumstances. I'm getting angry just reading about your story :)
-------------------------------------

I'm an atypical RFM'er: I don't have anger (spent only 11 weeks 'inside') but I have animus in spades - and regularly oppose mormonism rhetorically.

As I was heading for the exit I too, like many of us, tried to hold on to some vestige or find a niche. During that time I was meeting frequently with Jeff Holland.

I had just read an article by a BYU professor (Richard Poll) about Iron Rod Mormons (only one path) and Liahona Mormons (general direction). I decided to make this a topic of conversation in one of my discussions with Jeff. He listened patiently as I carved out this little world for myself. A world where the restoration could still be true, but that Joseph Smith in Nauvoo had fallen. A world where true to his word God would not let Smith lead the Church astray. That is the nature of this fringe niche I was attempting to create, my safe place, a place where the restoration was still true.

After allowing me the time to create this conceptual space he finally interjected, "I'm an Iron Rod Mormon, there is only one path, and narrow is the way", he said. He then went on to tell me that all would be made clear when I stepped through the veil and all our questions will be answered.

"What questions do you have?", I asked him. Without hesitation, he said he would march right up to Brigham Young and ask him "what do you mean Adam is God?". The wheels in my head turning I said "I'm surprised you'll even admit he said that, the apologist would like us think that's some sort of a misprint". In a moment of honesty he said "if it was a misprint, it was misprinted 1000's of times, he didn't just say it once".

I'm told that in this last general conference Elder Holland made some sort of statement along these same lines. That what we can't understand now will be made clear to us in death. At least in that he remains consistent.

In the end, I was unable to carve out this little niche for myself on the fence in no man's land. Sometimes in the face of a preponderance of evidence, rational decisions must be made. Cognitive dissonance can only carry us so far.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 09:48AM by SLDrone.

SLDrone ... that's a fascinating story. Do you have a bio posted somewhere on RfM? After watching Holland on the BBC and then comparing that video to this weekend's GC talk, I have a firm testimony he is full of crap.

Ya he did seem to be stumbling around the truth in that interview didn't he. In fact, I noticed that every Mormon they spoke with (Holland, Purdy and the Black Woman Mayor of Herriman) all either flat out lied or created red herrings. The interviewer pointed out Purdy's lie to his face.

As the bright light of the national and international media focuses on Mormonism, they aren't going to be able to get away with the "I don't know that we teach that" approach without being called liars.

At a minimum they are selling an illusion. I wish I could say it isn't harmful, bc I think they probably mean well.

FYI, recently JD had a total melt down "excommunicating" people left and right off his beloved blog / facebook. I liked the guy (his podcast was instrumental in opening the door on my way out), but now I think he might be losing it.

Funny insight, John Larsen (after JD defriended Larsen's wife for some snarky comment) hinted on some random FB post that JD was trying to present one face to the world and behind the scenes was pushing for some big "mass resignation".

I respect John Larsen more -- he's not a BS artist like Joseph Smith ... I mean John Dehlin.

John is definitely out there to carve a niche for himself among psychologically damaged Mormons whom he'd like to have his patients in the future when He graduates from shrink school.
The gig he performs by playing both sides of extremes you or I obviously cannot do.
I realize your logic screams against this charade, but hey, people have to make a living and help others in the process (they think).
John damages the Church beyond belief by perpetuating his gigs nationwide.

In a church that has always worshipped the Mormon Royalty, Joanna and John have continued the charade, just in their own little kingdom....and most of us are still pointing and saying the emperor/emperoress has no clothes. I appreciate you bringing this up because it drives me crazy and I am glad to see that it at least grates on a few more people. John led me out of the church many years ago after being a Mormon Matters reader, I find it hard to fathom that his site did not lead him out too! Aaaah, fame and power, they always require a little Faustian bargain I guess, most here were not willing to pay the price of our souls.

Most Mormons are resistant to head-on assaults on their faith. But softer, more sympathetic voices can sometimes find a way into the cracks, slowly widening them. (After all, how many hard-line Mopologists actually drove people out of the church by admitting there were certain skeletons in the closet and then badly explaining them away?) True, folks like Brooks and Delin sometimes make it easier for doubters to stay in the church, but without the fence sitting bloggers/podcasters, those doubters would be much closer to the center of the flock.

Maybe we need to take a generational view of this. A fence sitting doubter will probably be less dogmatic with his children, who will, in turn, be less dogmatic with theirs, and so on, until the light finally goes on.

Hey SLDrone, any sort of fence sitting hurts and causes the fence sitter to have stunted personal emotional development. I'm guessing that both of them have figured out very well that the church is BS. But they have an emotional investment in it and now some financial/social investment too. They've probably banned you because they fear that they'll lose some followers in their little niches in mormondom if they allow you to say it like it is in their forums. I hope that for their own sakes that they can eventually get completely off the fence. IMO the LDS inc. cult at its core is unreformable. The Big 15 have plenty of dough to shelter themselves from real criticism and surround themselves with plenty of yes-men. They're like godfathers. How often do we see them really mingling with the people? I'm a Delta Medallion SkyMiles member who travels through SLC airport around 50 times a year and I've never yet seen any of the Big 15 at any terminal, airport security, gate, or plane anywhere. I've gotten to known dozens of other passengers, flight crew, Sky Club staff, etc. on a first name basis but never a sight of these men. These guys must live in a cocoon and I'm convinced that they are either lying about being widely traveled or they almost always fly executive charters. When I worked at 50 E North Temple 23 summers ago I always ate in the cafeteria every day for lunch. The only one of the Big 15 who ever ate at the cafeteria was David Haight and I saw this around 10 times and you know how different/honest Haight was in comparison to his colleagues yet even himself decided to go to his grave covering up the criminal and unethical BS that goes on in that inner circle for his own Dehlin/Brooks style fence sitting reasons. Thank goodness for your own self SLDrone that you were able to escape those uncomfortable chairs on top of that ungly fence.

The LDS cult is what it sometimes calls itself, i.e. a kingdom of peace, and in this case its a very complacent kingdom. You have the princes, nobles, earls, dukes, duchesses, princesses, etc. who all clamor for rank within the context of the cult's parameters. I say complacent because they have a very successful and lucrative business model full of tax exemptions, privileges, and strong cashflow. And I say peace because on a regular basis they don't have to deal with reality because they live in a bubble that has hundreds of thousands of diehard hard working serfs who all treat them like rockstars. In the case of Dehlin/Brooks they'll never be respected within this circle and they will always be considered peasants in this realm. Thus they're trying to form their own new niches and IMO they will eventually find out that its not very effective or respected by anyone.

The TV special on BBC is a sign of what's coming down the road if Romney is elected president; and for a season if he's the GOP nominee. It's going to get ugly for the cult. They're not bigger than the world and will soon find this out more strongly.

Interesting insight, Alex. Thanks!

I put Robert Kirby in this same category. I don't understand how they feel free to expose the seedy underbelly and at the same time tacitly support it without feeling a bit slimed by it all.

Hi DS - I get your point. I honestly wonder at times if they are a bigger threat to Mormonism than all of us combined. But do they also create a space for people to remain? I wonder if the analogy is a surgeon removing cancer is appropriate. Treatment seems pretty straight forward. Remove as much cancer as you can surgically and then kill the rest with chemo. Does this space created on the fence allow the cancer to remain?

to talk radio, ktkk. There was a program called "Mormon Miscellaneous" where the apologist admited that Brigham Young taught over the pulpit and said that God had revealed to him that Adam was God.

That was a bit of a turning point for me, because I trusted the apologist was telling the truth. I realized that there were probably other things that I had thought were false that were actually true.

I eventually checked out "Shadow or Reality" by the Tanners. I did not have to read the entire HUGE book. It was simply photos of documents that proved the early church had really odd beliefs, etc. Eventually the evidence was undeniable and I got the hell out of Dodge.

I think people listen to Dehln because they trust him similarly.

[I pulled this quote out of a nested thread above to get it into the main line:]

SLDrone:
"In the end, I was unable to carve out {a} little niche for myself on the fence in no man's land. Sometimes in the face of a preponderance of evidence, rational decisions must be made. Cognitive dissonance can only carry us so far."


The whole issue is presented in a concise and very persuasive manner. And note the implication in: "rational decisions must be made" - IE, an honest man will not permit himself a comfy perch on the fence.

Some of my TBM friends are willing to hear what he has to say because he is still "in" (just sayin,

SLDrone, do you or anyone else on this board have a link to your story?? I have searched but cant find it, may be under a different name??

Thanks

Brooks makes me crazier than Dehlin - maybe because I'm a woman and I see how mormonism subjugates my sex. She allows herself to be trotted out as an example of what's possible for a faithful mormon women. But she can only do what she does because her husband isn't a mormon priestholding SOB and she lives outside of Utah. She is a fringe mormon. She probably genuinely believes that 'big tent' mormonism is possible, but I don't think ultimately that it is.

It seems to me that Dehlin started out genuinely trying to create a safe space where doubts could be expressed. He provided a stepping stone for those on their way out but who weren't ready or able to make the complete break. I can respect that even though I think, like Brook's big-tent mormonism, it is doomed to failure. It seems lately that John has edged more towards a harder line - he certainly seemed to at the recent UVU conference.

Fence sitters make me crazy because I just don't understand how you can know what we know and stay. And by staying they tacitly support a malevolent organization that exploits and damages people I care about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 10:48AM by caedmon.

Brooks is so outside the norm for Mormon women that it is very frustrating to have her put up as an example of Mormon womanhood, or Mormonism period. She clearly identifies herself as "unorthodox" which is helpful, but even considering that, most people with only a passing acquaintance with Mormonism won't realize that most the vast majority of Mormons aren't allowed to be "unorthodox"--whether by priesthood authority and threat of excommunication, education and experience, or social pressure. It just doesn't work and the only reason Brooks gets away with it is because she serves the church's current purpose of making it look a little more normal to a large audience.

Brooks' position disturbs me more as well because of the gender issue, in particular, and because she seemed to return to the church and had to double down on the cognitive dissonance.

Another angle here is that both are career academics. I see them both as examples of what Joseph Campbell talks about in his video on becoming an adult. From the 3.5 minute mark he says,

"We, until we’re pretty well along—twelve thirteen fourteen—are utterly dependent on our parents and on our society, so a psychology of dependency is developed. A psychology of submission, asking for approval, expecting reproof, and all this sort of thing. But how are we going to break out of that psychological bondage into self-responsible authority, courage for what our thoughts are on our life? This is the problem of killing the infantile ego, which is one of dependency, and coming into the mature ego of authority.

"I always say that if you’re going to go through for your Ph.D., you’re in the dependency position until you’re 35 or 40 and may never get out of it. You can judge by the number of footnotes a scholar applies as to whether he’s got authority or is always simply hoping that somebody will feel that he has the right to authority. It’s an important and sensitive point in the academic world. [laughing]

"It’s impressed me, you know, you see on tv a professor is asked a question and he cough-hums and he’s trying to get the answer out straight. Ah, eh, aw, and so forth. And then some big league baseball player is asked a question. What authority! He’s not humming and hawing. He comes out. He knows. He was an authority from the time he was playing ball on the sandlots. He’s not asking anybody for approval. He’s telling you. And this is the breakthrough to maturity that is required in the life of the adult."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU&feature=related


Getting out of a religious institution that perpetuates dependence and choosing a career in a societal structure that rewards complicity and fosters dependence can make the journey out harder.

I think that people who are willing to do meaningful research and make genuine life changes that require integrity in thought and following through with actions of integrity have a better chance of exiting intact. The covert subjugation of academia may not encourage such courage.

One final thought: Anagrammy has recently referred to Plato's Allegory of the Cave to describe her own sense of her work. I applaud her choices and her wisdom. Nowhere in the allegory does Plato position a fence-sitter, someone who whispers tales about the world beyond the cave and suggests that others turn their heads toward the source of light. People go back in, as Anagrammy suggests, to tell others about the world beyond the cave.

I completely agree with your analysis, and suggest that it doen't go far enough.

The logical conclusion is that John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks are narcissists, and most definitely are exploiting their activities for financial gin. (Surprise!)

Steve

...might listen to Dehlin and use his podcasts as a stepping-stone out of the church.

I understand your frustration, but I honestly do feel that John's podcasts can help one navigate out of the church. Sure, there will be those that might stay on the fringes, but they will end up being those who don't pay tithing, don't go to the temple, and see the church for what it is and stay for social or family reasons.

Only the truth can set you free... Not the contortions and manipulations of the truth.

I have mixed feelings on it. I quit listening to Mormon Stories recently because the premise doesn't make sense to me. I don't see there is a point to it. Kind of like the Jerry Springer show (is that still on?). No one gets better.
On the other hand, they have some interesting guests.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 12:06PM by suckafoo.

I agree with you that Dehlin and Brooks gain both money and attention from their positions.

Habit may also be a factor. I think that we underestimate the role of habit in human lives. People may cling to familiar routines, beliefs and customs even if they clearly know that those habits are not in their own best interest. The unfamiliar is a bridge too far for them. Their habits have been absorbed into their identities.

A little while ago, when I was first opening up and realizing the truth about the church, I ran across the StayLDS website. My first impression was complete disgust. I felt it was morally depraved to "find a way" to perpetuate something you know to be false.

Of course, it turned me off so badly I haven't ever read much from it. So, I can't really judge it.

Anything that highlights member dissatisfaction and the need for change in the LDS church is a GOOD THING.

Middle Way mindset or not, Mormon Stories is getting the most exposure of any exmormon community in terms of the size of their Facebook group, massive amounts of Youtube traffic from videos, an ongoing publicity campaign, and raising funding to get their message out.

What are YOU doing to get the word out?

Brother Jensen ... you are right. We must all swallow our pride and allow the work of the Lord to go forth. Once again, you and President Paternoster have shown me the light. :o



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2012 12:19PM by Major Bidamon.

Ahhhh missionary work... Brings back memories. Good times.

Funny thing about the truth, it finds you when you finally want it.

I am developing a strong dislike for self-proclaimed liberal mormons

The more I talk with these folks, the more I feel there is no such thing as a liberal Mormon. Sooner or later, their Mormon conditioning kicks in. When push comes to shove, they just cannot think critically.

I loathe their passive-aggressive style of communicating, especially when their church or their leaders are being criticized.

I detest their hypocrisy, confiding in me how liberal they are and how they don't believe in God or Joe or Tommy or tithing either but still attend the temple and accept callings.

I am annoyed when they want to learn "why people leave the church". Listen folks, it's a destructive, abusive, manipulative, lying, fleecing, dishonest, puny little cult. The question is not why people leave, the question is why some stay!

They can do their Facebook thing and buy their rough stones rolling but come Sunday, they are all neatly lined up in their church pews just like all the other suckers.

There, I said it. Thanks for letting me vent.