There must be something buried deep in Mormon DNA that causes us to see persecution all around us. When an outsider fails to recognize our unique specialness, we hold it against him. Helen Whitney does everything but blow kisses at us, and yet many of us think her work at PBS should be classified right down there with The Nauvoo Expositor. In the past two weeks, I’ve encountered members who believe any criticism of Mitt’s political positions constitutes anti-Mormon propaganda. If anyone speaks of us in anything but the most laudatory of terms, we see Jackson county and Haun’s Mill all over again. Does that seem healthy to you?
In this fishbowl full of guppies we call the bloggernacle, the same dynamic can often be observed. Twice in the past week, I’ve had my comments ignored, or dismissed in a manner that any rational person could plainly see was sarcastic and rude. My first reaction, of course, was to get my nose out of joint and feel marginalized and excluded from the conversation. How could anybody not want to hear the brilliance of my personal opinions? Obviously, they must have it in for me. Yes, that must be it. Poor, poor, pitiful me. Now, looking back on that thread, I can see that the point I was making was really rather minor, and my insistence on making it hindered the conversation. I had exhibited my compulsion to have the last word and my need to be right, and I got what I deserved.
For a while, it felt good to wallow in self-pity. But paranoia strikes deep, and it requires a pretty strong blend of paranoia and pride to hold on to that attitude for very long. In my more honest moments, I’m forced to admit that I’m just not that important. The very idea that a someone would go out of his way to attack me, is, at its foundation, an attitude that is full of pride, and ridiculous.
Hanlon’s law says that we should never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. I’d like to propound a corollary: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by my own stupidity.
August 19, 2007 at 6:58 am
Maybe as members of the Church we are not as open minded as we think we are and we are not as tolerable of other people’s opinion as we think we are. This is not unique to ourselves & “non-members” but happens within members as well.
August 19, 2007 at 7:37 am
I remember a lot of people gently mocking Elder Bednar’s talk on being offended. Maybe we should turn back to it and read it, and see how we can apply it to the Bloggernacle Ward.
August 19, 2007 at 9:05 am
Good post, Mark; you hit several bulleyes here, I think.
My friend R, a Tabernacle Choir member, once mentioned to his family, in a mild tone and pretty much as a way of making conversation, that a recent Choir performance had received a rather negative review by a certain newspaper writer.
Declared his stepfather, in a most dolorous and judicial tone of voice, “AN ENEMY OF THE CHURCH!”
August 19, 2007 at 9:34 am
My mother subscribes to the belief that anything remotely negative said about any Church member, leader, or program that is acting in “good faith” is at its core anti-Mormon. In her view, criticism is evil-speaking, and that there is no such thing as constructive criticism in the Church.
It gets difficult to have a conversation of any particular substance about the Church.
August 19, 2007 at 9:55 am
I suppose the key, as with most of life, is not to take ourselves too seriously. It’s one of the things I like about BCC, by the way, is that so few of the regulars — bloggers or commenters — seem to do so. And if they do, Steve comes out to throw the tall heat.
A quick confession: when I first started reading los blogos Mormones, I had dreams that I was being chased through the halls of an office building by posters whom I felt ignored or belittled me, all of whom looked like characters from LA Law. It’s gotten better since then.
August 19, 2007 at 10:09 am
As long as the topic is not the exclusionary cliquishness of the bloggernacle, that is. ; )
August 19, 2007 at 11:06 am
Great stuff, Mark. I would point out, though, that it’s not Mormon DNA. It’s Human DNA. It’s an entirely universal thing to take offense where little to none is intended or to perceive threats from those who mean us little to no harm, and to feel self-pity at any available opportunity. If anything, I’d say that Mormons, as a whole, are actually slightly more mature on this count than are non-Mormons. At least we have a bit of self-consciousness about the issue, as prodded by talks such as Elder Bednar.
August 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Eric, you’re right. It is part of our fallen human nature. And there are few things that are less pleasant to observe than individuals or factions trying to outdo one another in the “I’m Oppressed” sweepstakes.
Norbert, I don’t look like anybody on LA Law. I can’t tell you how relieved I am to know I have never been in your dreams.
Queuno, I think it is especially important that we learn to speak the language of outsiders for that reason. If we lack the ability to have conversations with them on their terms, we don’t need to wonder why our missionary efforts aren’t bearing fruit.
That’s funny, Elouise. I used to know a guy like that. I made some remark about how the landscaping around the church didn’t look good and he reacted as though I had just said I had taken a job at Utah Lighthouse Ministries.
RosieRose, you are right. One of the hardest commandments is the one to esteem others as we do ourselves.
Peter, consider yourself part of the clique. Just don’t reveal the password to the great unwashed masses.
August 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Great corollary, Mark. I’ll have to remember that one. Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by Mark’s stupidity.
:P
August 19, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Mark – I agree with you, absolutely.
If anything, I’d say that Mormons, as a whole, are actually slightly more mature on this count than are non-Mormons.
Hmm, depends. I think there are areas of Mormondom where, as a Church, we tend to overly excited by things outsiders do (local community doesn’t want us to build a temple, people criticize Nauvoo or Kirtland, etc.).
August 19, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I enjoyed Mark’s blog entry about personal humility while offering constructive commentary–in which Mark it itself shows he is able to wonderfully critique society while not eroding any of its [see http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2007/08/13/credentials-do-you-have-any-idea-who-youre-talking-to/#comment-33289 ] “not jerk” bonefides.
August 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm
its
August 19, 2007 at 3:20 pm
change (its) to “his”
August 19, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Actually, I think Kaimi does look a bit like Jimmy Smits. And having heard both of them sing karaoke, I have to say that the resemblance goes beyond the visual, and is often the source of just the kind of nightmares described above.
You be the judge: Jimmy Kaimi
August 19, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Maybe as members of the Church we are not as open minded as we think we are and we are not as tolerable of other people’s opinion as we think we are.
Not so. For those of you who read the review on September Dawn by… hmm Dennis Praeger? Or someone.. he mentioned how amazed he was at the Mormon tolerance for abuse. Especially when contrasted with the Mohammed cartoon fiasco.
On top of that, consider how outraged the Jewish community was when it was discovered we were performing proxy baptisms for their ancestors. When I wrote a post about how I thought they should chill out a little bit, I was berated by many commenters for being insensitive to their persecutions. Likewise, isn’t it then excusable that the wounds of early church history are still raw with members today? Aren’t we entitled to the same outrage as the Jewish community?
August 19, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Oops, my link to Jimmy is messed up!
August 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Too many members of the church are too concerned about what others think of us. We are way too self conscience about the superficial image of the church and members in general.
Also, we need to lighten up a bit when we are criticized . Some of people’s opinions and criticisms about the church are really funny if you think about it. I couldn’t stop laughing when I heard about the minister telling his congregation that “A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan.” Pointing out the humor in some of our opponents’ actions is a very good way to disarm them.
August 19, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Great corollary, Mark. I’ll have to remember that one. Never attribute to malice, that which can be explained by Mark’s stupidity.
Kaimi, if you only knew the stories my family could tell. It calls to mind this unforgettable exchange from The Simpsons.
August 19, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Likewise, isn’t it then excusable that the wounds of early church history are still raw with members today? Aren’t we entitled to the same outrage as the Jewish community?
Maybe, but I think the feelings of persecution some members may feel (and quoted within the comments here) do not come from Church history but from every day opinions that challenge our beliefs or merely state an opinion we do not agree with.
I grew up in a country with a large Jewish population, most of my Jewish friends assumed automatically that if someone did not like them was “Because I am a Jew, isn’t?”
Just because someone does not like our performance (as the Tabernacle Choir example) or does not agree with our beliefs and way of life does not mean they do not like us “because we are Mormons” AND even if they do NOT like us because we are Mormons, are we going to live our lives with a chip on our shoulder?
August 19, 2007 at 8:00 pm
On the Other Hand: I remember fondly the words of Arthur Henry King, a professor at BYU, an English convert to the Church in his middle years, and as I remember him, rather a conservative Mormon–what some might call (though this a divisive term)an Iron Rodder. But in print he once spoke out with considerable distaste at what he called the Church’s all-too-frequent (quoting here)”brass band of self-congratulation.” That’s the opposite side of the coin we’re discussing here, isn’t it?
August 19, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Ryan (#15):
That would be Michael Medved – not Prager. It was a pretty good review, I thought.
While I agree that we are too touchy about criticism, it’s understandable when we get so much of it. I mean, how many of us haven’t rolled our eyes and asked, “Come’on. When will you guys get it right? It’s just not that hard.” After all, since we – worship Joseph Smith, replace the Bible with the Book of Mormon, don’t serve in the military and in stead wear white shirts and ties, ad nauseum – we should just be used to the criticism, right? (oops – sarcasm leak.)
August 19, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I think that most have heard so many falsifications or distortions that it’s like the guy telling a joke who says, “stop me if you’ve heard this.” And you stop him after the first couple of sentences because it’s similar to many jokes you’ve heard.
Now the problem is that this approach tends to be way too broad. But I just don’t think one can call the Mormon siege mentality just human nature. It goes well beyond that primarily due to decades of persecution from anti-Mormons. The problem is that this anti-Mormon persecution is a pale shadow of what it once was. I think especially under Pres. Hinkley there’s been a lot of bridge building. And frankly, at least from my perspective, I think Mormons as a culture have lost a lot of the siege mentality they once had. (Seriously – read some stuff from the 1970′s)
But it’s still there and sometimes we jump the gun too much.
August 19, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I think you’re right. I think it’s wasted energy every time we bristle and fume at criticism, constructive or otherwise. I raise the Jewish issue only to show (as someone said earlier) that this is a behavior of humanity rather than Mormonism.
On the whole though, I think the accusations that Mormons are overly sensitive is a pretty shaky claim. Mormonism has a pretty impressive history of turning the other cheek in the face of
1.Brutality (in the early days)
2.Disgusting accusations (of lewd and illegal temple activities and other things we hold most sacred)
3.Ridicule (which has replaced the physical brutality, and disproven accusations)
Honestly, of all the things we could point out that the membership ought to improve upon, this one seems pretty far down on the list of priorities
August 20, 2007 at 8:02 am
“On the whole though, I think the accusations that Mormons are overly sensitive is a pretty shaky claim.”
Agreed.
What percent of Americans won’t vote for a Mormon under any circumstance? I actually think our relative lack of collective venom is pretty remarkable.
~
August 20, 2007 at 8:05 am
It is human nature to feel this way because we think everyone should see things the way we do. We don’t always account for perceptions other than our own. The feeling of marginalization is mitigated by our individual self esteem. One end of the spectrum has those with well grounded, positive self esteem that let criticism roll off their back like water on a duck. People with low a self esteem take the slightest perceived offense and fly off the handle.
The condition is exacerbated by our belief that we’re members of the “one true church.” Think about it: we’re right and everyone else is wrong (to greater and lesser degrees; by no fault of their own; not that there’s anything wrong with them as individuals.) Since we believe we’re right on the most important question of life, our reaction is “the nerve of anyone to speak critically. Outrageous!” We’ve put ourselves on a pedestal. Let me be clear though: it’s not the Church that has put us on a pedestal, it is individuals. We get offended when someone tells us our child can’t stay in primary because of the disruption or someone offers help for something but is perceived as saying “you’re not doing a good job, I can do it better.” Both of those real examples I’ve seen in the last year that have kept someone from coming to church. But in both cases, the offended couldn’t grasp the other person’s intentions which were honestly good to begin with.
The Church tells us to have selflessness, charity and love for our neighbor – which means everyone. Elder Bednar’s talk on taking offense was greatly needed. Now if we could only get those who need it most to accept that they’re the ones he was speaking to… ;)
August 20, 2007 at 8:36 am
I am mostly a lurker on this and a few other LDS-related forums, with relatively rare posts, and have had the impression of “clique” like attitudes that feel less than welcoming to a newcomer. Perhaps this is similar to some wards being less welcoming than others – everybody is so involved with the people they know that a first-time visitor can come and go without being noticed.
This was definitely the case on another blogsite, where a first post (which was stated in the post) had one response, followed by the thread being closed to further comment. No welcome, no nothing.
I agree that taking offense would be a reflection of pride and self-importance, and I didn’t take it that way. But on the other hand, it decreased my motivation to post again.
Just an observation, to be taken for what it’s worth.
August 20, 2007 at 9:00 am
(Thinks to self: Now would be a good time for ‘em ta tongue-in-cheek close the thread! (Rethinks: Hmm – but I’m not in the clique so this joke will be deleted for impertinence…which maybe it should?))
August 20, 2007 at 9:14 am
Questions, Kaimi once did a really good post on why he does not reply to every comment that should be required reading for new nacclers.
August 20, 2007 at 9:45 am
k l h,
Dang it! I wish I had thought of that! Your brand of impertinence is always welcome.
Questions,
I think it is more accurate to describe what you are seeing as an ongoing conversation rather than a clique. If a stranger walks into a room where people who have known each other for years are socializing, it is natural for the stranger to feel out of place. I used to work at a place that required a person joining a meeting to wait at least ten minutes before saying anything. The idea was to be sure that you knew what the conversation was about before joining it. I think you ought to stick around and contribute. More than half the time your comments will be either misunderstood or ignored, but isn’t that pretty much like real life, even in our own families?
August 20, 2007 at 10:06 am
Questions,
I was a newcomer to this site some 6 or 8 months ago, and had some trepidations and concerns as well. Hang in there, and if you have some good observations, and don’t have a chip on your shoulder, you’ll find that community here. The folks you view as a clique are the ones who generally have been here the longest, and have persevered in spite of the perception of being ignored, or having fuzzy thinking challenged to sharpen your questions and responses. I have not met anyone on this site in person, but have grown to respect them, and appreciate the diverse range of talents and accomplishments. Pretty soon, you’ll have your own decoder ring to divine the inner secrets the clique. You’ll find that we really are both much alike, and also very different from you. The biggest hurdle is, in the spirit of this thread, to not take offense at being ignored, or to have to defend a position. Keep on commenting.
August 20, 2007 at 10:28 am
Ironic that I would throw the tall heat given my diminutive (5’1″) stature.
August 20, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I agree Steve, what you throw cannot accurately be described as “tall heat.” It’s generally a low inside brushback followed by hard chin music.
August 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I appreciate the comments and perspectives offered, and found the link to Kaimi’s other post instructive.
No, I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, and will likely chime in when I think I have something to contribute. I guess that part of the problem is that at this point in my life I seem to be getting farther out in the ‘borderlands’, nearing escape velocity, and so have less in common with most of those here, and also with what I assume to be a ‘faithful, church affirmative’ overall stance of the blog itself, which I don’t want to violate.
August 20, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Questions:
Oh there’s a lots of orbiters occasionally about, too (yet we still orbit–since actual “disaffected”-themed blogs don’t satisfy our longings for Mormon thought and quasi-community?)
August 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm
k l h:
It is interesting how many years of activity and commitment seem to create a gravitational pull of sorts (to continue the metaphor) such that even those who have completely severed ties with the Church still hover around LDS blogs.
I’m not in that category, however, and find many of the “disaffected” blogs to be full of a lot of arrogance and negative energy. I guess that’s why I still lurk around places like this..
BTW, I got a good laugh from your first comment (#27)!
[/end of threadjack]
August 21, 2007 at 10:37 am
Being sensitive to details and being highly observant are characteristics that only about 15-20% of the population have per Dr. Elaine Aron (www.hsperson.com). This trait is probably very common among Bloggernacle bloggers and commenters, though you may deny it, especially if you are a man. To contrast, there are many LDS people (probably around 80%) who just plain don’t care and don’t need to discuss the finer points of LDS doctrine beyond Sunday School, if there.
If you are still following this train of thought, there is a high chance of those same qualities coming into play and a new person feeling ignored and such, even among other detail-oriented people. Of course it isn’t meant, and of course you have to earn your way in and stay and get to know people and them know you, but it is bound to happen on all blogs, and especially LDS blogs. And no, it doesn’t always translate into having been “offended”. It is just a feeling of vulnerability and you either bail or toughen up or figure it out.
August 21, 2007 at 10:41 am
Carol, that’s a very, very interesting point. Thanks.
August 21, 2007 at 11:55 am
What Steve said. Thanks, Carol, I had not looked at it that way – which is a great example of why I love this type of communication.
August 21, 2007 at 12:40 pm
How about people that are attentive to details that just get bored with the same conversations about the same details delivered on about 1,000 different blogs over and over?
One reason I haven’t posted very frequently of late.
August 21, 2007 at 12:48 pm
D., au contraire! Look at the fonts, the colors! Why, the very URLs are different!
August 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I always like to expand Hanlon’s law: Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, or ignorance, or indifference.
August 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm
It’s the “We’re right and we’re going to convert you” mentality. This leads to people thinking that the church can do no wrong since we’re ‘the chosen ones.’ Then when someone even thinks something negative about the church, the members are up in arms. I’m the only one in my ward who not only wasn’t offended at Helen Whitney’s documentary, but thought it was very well done. As a people, I think we definitely need to lighten up.