I recently listened to this fmh podcast about perfectionism and the perfect mormon family (the fmh podcast is great, if you haven't already heard it).
It should come as no surprise to my friends and regular readers, but I was not raised to be comfortable with different narratives and different needs. I was not raised to be comfortable with disagreement. In fact, most things were black and white (hence I identify with Christine's experience). I believe many mormon families (particularly those with mental illness or tendencies towards scrupulosity) may have a similar experience or experiences.
I find it challenging to not give advice, to not jump in with my take, and to honor other people's feelings while still honoring my own.
That's what I want, in the end, to show love to the people in my life.
I don't have any answers on this one. This particular part of relationships is not easy. The only thing I've found that has been helpful is to acknowledge that there are multiple truth(s), even in the same family - even in the same relationship. Each person is able (or not) to acknowledge certain events, and views them in different ways. And each person processes things in their own way. I find I'm incredibly opinionated, and it's hard to not always share my opinion. But my opinion is often not helpful.
I'm doing the best I can, and I acknowledge the others in my life are doing the best they can. And, as I was discussing with my friend Kathryn the other night, time tends to bring clarity. I wish I had known that at 20.
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The consultant
 |
| I've had this cartoon up at my work forever. |
This type of arrogant attitude has always gotten under my skin. In high school, a person was a "poser" without certain punk qualifications. In college, it had to do with whether or not I had read certain authors or watched certain movies. At my first job, it was whether or not my degree was in computer science. For the record, at least that criticism had some basis in reality; a degree in computer science meant a higher salary and less job security. If that company could keep hiring people without computer science degrees for a lot less money, they would fire the pricier computer science majors.
One sees this in former mormon circles a lot. People have to trot out their mormon qualifications for speaking up about mormonism. Born in the church, pioneer/polygamous ancestry (people don't usually mention the polygamy), mission, temple marriage, served in various callings are some of what's discussed. Then, when they don't have that history, they're criticized for not have enough experience. When they do, they're criticized for breaking sacred oaths and not enduring to the end.
So there's a vested interest in claiming people don't know what they're talking about. Personally, I believe it's a balance.
Of course people have to have a certain amount of knowledge and experience. I wouldn't want an untrained doctor operating on me or my family. And some experiences cannot be learned. I don't know what it's like to grow up as a male of color or in southeast Asia.
But it's ridiculous to always claim a person always needs certain education or experience that cannot be learned. Humanity didn't get this far by assuming a person cannot learn, that they can only learn in certain ways, with certain official qualifications.
Humans innovate. They try to make things better. Sometimes it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt.
And if a person has read your diatribe against management hiring inexperienced people enough times that one can recognize your name and statements, maybe it's time to revisit your strategy. I certainly wouldn't hire someone so obnoxious. I would be concerned that my company or system would be dismissed - that the consultant wouldn't be working towards a solution.
*For full disclosure, I found most of these questions by googling questions that *I* have had - so I wouldn't say the original questions were completely out of line.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
When did I become an activist?
Some months ago I was on the local news. I went to a parent informational meeting the local school corporation. It must have been a slow news week.
At the meeting, there was a powerpoint presentation and two roving television cameras. I assumed the tv cameras would film the other community members.
I said my piece, about keeping the arts (and sports) in schools. Also that I hoped all cuts would be on the table, that there were no sacred cows that couldn't be cut (administration, teachers, etc.)
The next morning, the first thing the lady who sits next to me said was "Aerin, saw you on tv last night". And my response was "What did I say?" I know things are taken out of context and spliced for sound bites. Fortunately, my co-workers (more than one) said I sounded articulate, which I was grateful for.
Everything they aired did not embarrass me, and I am proud to stand behind. My name was listed on one station, and a snippet of me talking (without my name) was on the other. Only one or two other community members (despite the tens who spoke) were filmed.
It reminded me, however, how public expressing one's opinion can be. And how someone may always be paying attention - whether or not that's expected. Your friends, co-workers, random acquaintances, employers or former employers are all the audience.
The other night I attended another school meeting, this time with the state board of education. I listened as community member after community member (including the state representatives) eloquently expressed their point of view. Professionals, students, former students, teachers spoke of the challenges facing urban parents and families. They pointed out the success of school/business partnerships.
I prepared as well. I didn't have a formal three minute speech prepared and rehearsed, as others did. And I had come prepared, dressed in an interview suit, wearing heels and make up- to potentially be on tv.
Yet this was the fourth in a series of meetings. Not the beginning or the end, and therefore not as newsworthy. Evidently there was a nearby reality show star in trouble. There are other stories that are more current, which gain traction. Not a school district's woes, the problems of poverty and the parents who show up to defend and explain why things are the way they are. Explanations that cannot be reduced to sound bites or even three minute presentations.
I find I'm relieved. I'm relieved not to be on the news again, or to have to explain my political views to my co-workers. I was not as prepared as I would have liked to be, in order to make my three minutes as effective as possible.
How can I explain my prespective in three minutes - and convince someone whose mind is already made up? Who sees the community as entrenched and corrupt - no matter what we say. They see us as the Irish were seen in nineteenth century New York politics, or how Chicago politicians are still viewed.
I'm not trying to decry traditional media. They are simply doing their job. In this culture of slogans,140 characters quips and cut throat politics - how can we make our voices heard? How can we tell a different story - particularly about issues that have no simple or easy answers.
And for that matter, how did I become an educational activist? I think I've always been one, but perhaps now even more so.
At the meeting, there was a powerpoint presentation and two roving television cameras. I assumed the tv cameras would film the other community members.
I said my piece, about keeping the arts (and sports) in schools. Also that I hoped all cuts would be on the table, that there were no sacred cows that couldn't be cut (administration, teachers, etc.)
The next morning, the first thing the lady who sits next to me said was "Aerin, saw you on tv last night". And my response was "What did I say?" I know things are taken out of context and spliced for sound bites. Fortunately, my co-workers (more than one) said I sounded articulate, which I was grateful for.
Everything they aired did not embarrass me, and I am proud to stand behind. My name was listed on one station, and a snippet of me talking (without my name) was on the other. Only one or two other community members (despite the tens who spoke) were filmed.
It reminded me, however, how public expressing one's opinion can be. And how someone may always be paying attention - whether or not that's expected. Your friends, co-workers, random acquaintances, employers or former employers are all the audience.
The other night I attended another school meeting, this time with the state board of education. I listened as community member after community member (including the state representatives) eloquently expressed their point of view. Professionals, students, former students, teachers spoke of the challenges facing urban parents and families. They pointed out the success of school/business partnerships.
I prepared as well. I didn't have a formal three minute speech prepared and rehearsed, as others did. And I had come prepared, dressed in an interview suit, wearing heels and make up- to potentially be on tv.
Yet this was the fourth in a series of meetings. Not the beginning or the end, and therefore not as newsworthy. Evidently there was a nearby reality show star in trouble. There are other stories that are more current, which gain traction. Not a school district's woes, the problems of poverty and the parents who show up to defend and explain why things are the way they are. Explanations that cannot be reduced to sound bites or even three minute presentations.
I find I'm relieved. I'm relieved not to be on the news again, or to have to explain my political views to my co-workers. I was not as prepared as I would have liked to be, in order to make my three minutes as effective as possible.
How can I explain my prespective in three minutes - and convince someone whose mind is already made up? Who sees the community as entrenched and corrupt - no matter what we say. They see us as the Irish were seen in nineteenth century New York politics, or how Chicago politicians are still viewed.
I'm not trying to decry traditional media. They are simply doing their job. In this culture of slogans,140 characters quips and cut throat politics - how can we make our voices heard? How can we tell a different story - particularly about issues that have no simple or easy answers.
And for that matter, how did I become an educational activist? I think I've always been one, but perhaps now even more so.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Other people's opinions
Not long ago, I read a blog post that I disagreed with. I know it's a shocker (On the internet! Imagine!). This person was saying that they believed a certain mormon doctrine to mean x. Or, their mormon faith led them to make a particular personal decision. They did not say at any point that everyone should believe x. Or that all mormons believe x.
The question is whether or not that was implied.
I never learned the tool "take what you like and leave the rest" growing up. Yes, some mormons get that, and do that. And they don't have angst over being "cafeteria mormons". They know that it is healthy to take everything with a grain of salt and make your own decisions based on evidence. They make decisions on past experience, other people's experience/advice, published research and studies.
I think this is a vital tool. Being able to disagree with someone's opinion and not think any less of them as a person. Of course there are opinions that are difficult to respect. And at times, the personal and political do overlap. What I've found is, for some people, disagreement can be very threatening. chanson had a post about this type of thing (disagreeing) - where she disagreed with her debate coach and I can't find her post to link to.
I simply think it is very important for each person to be able to make up their own mind about something, weighing evidence. Just because one person believes something, even someone you respect, love or trust does *not* mean you have to agree with them. Does not mean that is right for you. And, just because one member of a certain religious organization believes something is doctrine, doesn't mean it is. Particularly if whatever belief this is is not supported by religious leaders, scriptures (like the bible), documentation, etc. It's true, mormon doctrine is incredibly hard to determine.
It must sound like I'm talking around an issue, which I am. But I missed this concept growing up. It was hard to figure out if doing something like "watching tv on Sundays" was something I needed to do, or not. And if I did watch tv on Sundays, and there were some faithful mormons who did not, did that make me less devout or faithful? Was it sinful to watch tv on Sundays? Particularly if the implication was that mormon leaders thought that was important and a sign of faith.
Not only that, but to me, it was important to learn that I am no better or worse than anyone else, no matter what. That was also a shocker. Just because, say, I didn't watch tv on Sundays or drink - doesn't mean I'm a better person.
Again, I've spoken with people and mormons who get this. Who are just trying to get through their own sh*t.
But it always bothered me that sometimes mormonism, some parts of mormon culture seemed like a competition to see who could be more faithful, and more self-suppressing. It seemed like a rat race, and I'm so glad I got off the hamster wheel.
The question is whether or not that was implied.
I never learned the tool "take what you like and leave the rest" growing up. Yes, some mormons get that, and do that. And they don't have angst over being "cafeteria mormons". They know that it is healthy to take everything with a grain of salt and make your own decisions based on evidence. They make decisions on past experience, other people's experience/advice, published research and studies.
I think this is a vital tool. Being able to disagree with someone's opinion and not think any less of them as a person. Of course there are opinions that are difficult to respect. And at times, the personal and political do overlap. What I've found is, for some people, disagreement can be very threatening. chanson had a post about this type of thing (disagreeing) - where she disagreed with her debate coach and I can't find her post to link to.
I simply think it is very important for each person to be able to make up their own mind about something, weighing evidence. Just because one person believes something, even someone you respect, love or trust does *not* mean you have to agree with them. Does not mean that is right for you. And, just because one member of a certain religious organization believes something is doctrine, doesn't mean it is. Particularly if whatever belief this is is not supported by religious leaders, scriptures (like the bible), documentation, etc. It's true, mormon doctrine is incredibly hard to determine.
It must sound like I'm talking around an issue, which I am. But I missed this concept growing up. It was hard to figure out if doing something like "watching tv on Sundays" was something I needed to do, or not. And if I did watch tv on Sundays, and there were some faithful mormons who did not, did that make me less devout or faithful? Was it sinful to watch tv on Sundays? Particularly if the implication was that mormon leaders thought that was important and a sign of faith.
Not only that, but to me, it was important to learn that I am no better or worse than anyone else, no matter what. That was also a shocker. Just because, say, I didn't watch tv on Sundays or drink - doesn't mean I'm a better person.
Again, I've spoken with people and mormons who get this. Who are just trying to get through their own sh*t.
But it always bothered me that sometimes mormonism, some parts of mormon culture seemed like a competition to see who could be more faithful, and more self-suppressing. It seemed like a rat race, and I'm so glad I got off the hamster wheel.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Picking your battles
This is a concept I've been thinking about a lot lately.
For a long time, I used to think that there was a right way and a wrong way. One person, institution or behavior was right, and the other was not. There was no gray involved.
I thought I had an obligation to speak up, to change other people's minds about something. As a good friend would ask me "How's that working for ya'?"
I also felt I had to defend certain things - even if these things or people didn't directly impact me. Even if I wasn't remotely responsible for that person, place or institution. Defend that friendship, relationship, political system. Again - it was my responsibility.
Because it did have to be a battle - one person had to be right, the other person wrong. There was no "agreeing to disagree". There was no respect that each person has a basic right to their own perspective and opinion (and preference). And those perspectives may be different and that's okay.
People could not be equal. One person had to win.
I talked about little bit about standing behind your own opinion here.
So I agree that sometimes it makes sense to speak up - to defend one's "truth". And to stand behind what you say.
But I have just been thinking that some people may never understand or be convinced of some things.
So what is the point of engaging, if my opinion has not be directly asked? What do *I* get out of expending the energy?
For me, personally, it goes back to minding my own business. Figuring out what *is* my business and what is not.
I don't have to sit back and allow wrong (hurtful) things to be said, to sit back and watch abuse happen.
BUT - on the flip side, I get to choose whether or not I want to be involved, and choose if I need to be directly involved.
It is a gift, in my opinion - to have this choice. That way I can spend my energy on things I *can* change, on having a reasonable discussion where everyone's right to their own opinion is respected.
And it's not a hard and fast rule. I simply no longer have to convince the world that my way - my personal perspective is "the right perspective".
For a long time, I used to think that there was a right way and a wrong way. One person, institution or behavior was right, and the other was not. There was no gray involved.
I thought I had an obligation to speak up, to change other people's minds about something. As a good friend would ask me "How's that working for ya'?"
I also felt I had to defend certain things - even if these things or people didn't directly impact me. Even if I wasn't remotely responsible for that person, place or institution. Defend that friendship, relationship, political system. Again - it was my responsibility.
Because it did have to be a battle - one person had to be right, the other person wrong. There was no "agreeing to disagree". There was no respect that each person has a basic right to their own perspective and opinion (and preference). And those perspectives may be different and that's okay.
People could not be equal. One person had to win.
I talked about little bit about standing behind your own opinion here.
So I agree that sometimes it makes sense to speak up - to defend one's "truth". And to stand behind what you say.
But I have just been thinking that some people may never understand or be convinced of some things.
So what is the point of engaging, if my opinion has not be directly asked? What do *I* get out of expending the energy?
For me, personally, it goes back to minding my own business. Figuring out what *is* my business and what is not.
I don't have to sit back and allow wrong (hurtful) things to be said, to sit back and watch abuse happen.
BUT - on the flip side, I get to choose whether or not I want to be involved, and choose if I need to be directly involved.
It is a gift, in my opinion - to have this choice. That way I can spend my energy on things I *can* change, on having a reasonable discussion where everyone's right to their own opinion is respected.
And it's not a hard and fast rule. I simply no longer have to convince the world that my way - my personal perspective is "the right perspective".
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
I *think* so
My daughter bit her tongue over the weekend, and we spent some time in the emergency room.
She's fine, she didn't need stitches. She's back to eating most of the same food she did before.
But what gave me pause, looking back on this incident, was when the doctor asked me if she had all her shots.
I replied "I think so, I think she has".
My husband confirmed, "She's had all her shots."
It's true, I was there when she had all her shots. I know vaccinations can be controversial, but we have been a traditional family (in that sense). We even get the flu shot. I don't carry the list around with me, but I'm pretty sure she's had all the shots she needs (we've gone over it with pre-school and everything).
I find it interesting that I am so non-committal in nature. Most of the time, when asked a direct question, this is how I will respond. Even when I know the answer to the best of my ability.
It comes from making lots of commitments without knowing what I was getting into, specifically religious commitments. Or that growing up, things were fluid - making a commitment would have real consequences (when I couldn't follow through with that commitment for whatever reason).
I try to be open to other points of view and new information , sometimes to a fault.
For example, I was asked to be a reference for a friend who was thinking of foster parenting/adoption. When asked (on the form) what kind of parent I thought they would be, I said "I think they will be a good parent". Because I don't/didn't really know what kind of parent they will be and it's hard for me to commit to such a serious statement. This was another time that my husband observed - you might want to say you know they will be good parents. Saying "think" might give the wrong impression. (He had/has a point). Despite the fact that from my view, they've always been good parents.
My husband is much better able to make definitive statements about things. It's just his personality.
I'm not sure what it is about me or my personality that makes it difficult to make definitive statements.
But it's something I will try to be more aware of, and to work on.
She's fine, she didn't need stitches. She's back to eating most of the same food she did before.
But what gave me pause, looking back on this incident, was when the doctor asked me if she had all her shots.
I replied "I think so, I think she has".
My husband confirmed, "She's had all her shots."
It's true, I was there when she had all her shots. I know vaccinations can be controversial, but we have been a traditional family (in that sense). We even get the flu shot. I don't carry the list around with me, but I'm pretty sure she's had all the shots she needs (we've gone over it with pre-school and everything).
I find it interesting that I am so non-committal in nature. Most of the time, when asked a direct question, this is how I will respond. Even when I know the answer to the best of my ability.
It comes from making lots of commitments without knowing what I was getting into, specifically religious commitments. Or that growing up, things were fluid - making a commitment would have real consequences (when I couldn't follow through with that commitment for whatever reason).
I try to be open to other points of view and new information , sometimes to a fault.
For example, I was asked to be a reference for a friend who was thinking of foster parenting/adoption. When asked (on the form) what kind of parent I thought they would be, I said "I think they will be a good parent". Because I don't/didn't really know what kind of parent they will be and it's hard for me to commit to such a serious statement. This was another time that my husband observed - you might want to say you know they will be good parents. Saying "think" might give the wrong impression. (He had/has a point). Despite the fact that from my view, they've always been good parents.
My husband is much better able to make definitive statements about things. It's just his personality.
I'm not sure what it is about me or my personality that makes it difficult to make definitive statements.
But it's something I will try to be more aware of, and to work on.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
I got nothing
It should come as no surprise to many of my readers and friends that I have opinions about just about everything. A good friend of mine responds with this often when she's not sure how to respond.
But as I mentioned here I am working very hard at keeping my opinions about other people's relationships to myself.
The only relationship/marriage I can really understand is my own. (And some days even understanding my own marriage is complicated). Yet at least I experience that every day. What happens between another couple, behind closed doors, I honestly can't say.
This came up again, for me - as a friend and I were discussing mutual friends, with the original friend's observation "I don't get how that relationship works." I had to admit that I agreed, but it made me uncomfortable to say even that much.
It's a struggle, because I care about people and want them to be happy. I listen to what someone says and think "what if they used this tool" or "what if they tried this?" I don't want to see that person hurt or caught unaware.
Because I have also heard lots of great observations and ideas over the years from good friends. Some of which have been incredibly helpful. One might think "well, everyone knows about x" but maybe they don't.
I guess all I'm saying is, I have no idea what makes other people tick or what makes other relationships work. The older I get, the more I realize that. I can't say if a relationship should or should not continue.
On one of the message boards I frequent, someone made the comment that a popular self-help guru states a marriage or relationship could not survive contempt - or perhaps it was
stone-walling. I can't say whether or not that's the case. I think what bothered me the most about the statement was that a therapist or marriage counselor could tell within fifteen minutes whether or not any relationship would survive.
I don't know that I agree. It doesn't seem to me that it takes into account the full complexity of a
person, their motivations and their expectations.
Someone could look at me and say that I fit the archetype of an oldest child in a dysfunctional family, raised in an authoritarian religion. While that might be true, it's just not that simple. As a person (just like anyone) I am more than my history, more than what I've done or what I'm
doing.
So it seems a little over-zealous to me that any professional could make judgments about a relationship and its efficacy so quickly - to come to an understanding about two people (given all
the potential complexities). And that's not taking into account issues like mental illness,PTSD , various anxiety disorders, addiction, abuse, etc. Not that the goal should be that a couple should stay together OR to separate (see my post about divorce here).
Most relationships (to my mind) are on some sort of continuum, with ups and downs. Each probably has conflicts, some conflicts may never be resolved. As an amateur - I can't answer those questions. All I can do is suggest leaving this analysis to the professionals. I don't think relationships are simple formulas, just as I don't think the whole of a person can be reduced to a formula.
But as I mentioned here I am working very hard at keeping my opinions about other people's relationships to myself.
The only relationship/marriage I can really understand is my own. (And some days even understanding my own marriage is complicated). Yet at least I experience that every day. What happens between another couple, behind closed doors, I honestly can't say.
This came up again, for me - as a friend and I were discussing mutual friends, with the original friend's observation "I don't get how that relationship works." I had to admit that I agreed, but it made me uncomfortable to say even that much.
It's a struggle, because I care about people and want them to be happy. I listen to what someone says and think "what if they used this tool" or "what if they tried this?" I don't want to see that person hurt or caught unaware.
Because I have also heard lots of great observations and ideas over the years from good friends. Some of which have been incredibly helpful. One might think "well, everyone knows about x" but maybe they don't.
I guess all I'm saying is, I have no idea what makes other people tick or what makes other relationships work. The older I get, the more I realize that. I can't say if a relationship should or should not continue.
On one of the message boards I frequent, someone made the comment that a popular self-help guru states a marriage or relationship could not survive contempt - or perhaps it was
stone-walling. I can't say whether or not that's the case. I think what bothered me the most about the statement was that a therapist or marriage counselor could tell within fifteen minutes whether or not any relationship would survive.
I don't know that I agree. It doesn't seem to me that it takes into account the full complexity of a
person, their motivations and their expectations.
Someone could look at me and say that I fit the archetype of an oldest child in a dysfunctional family, raised in an authoritarian religion. While that might be true, it's just not that simple. As a person (just like anyone) I am more than my history, more than what I've done or what I'm
doing.
So it seems a little over-zealous to me that any professional could make judgments about a relationship and its efficacy so quickly - to come to an understanding about two people (given all
the potential complexities). And that's not taking into account issues like mental illness,PTSD , various anxiety disorders, addiction, abuse, etc. Not that the goal should be that a couple should stay together OR to separate (see my post about divorce here).
Most relationships (to my mind) are on some sort of continuum, with ups and downs. Each probably has conflicts, some conflicts may never be resolved. As an amateur - I can't answer those questions. All I can do is suggest leaving this analysis to the professionals. I don't think relationships are simple formulas, just as I don't think the whole of a person can be reduced to a formula.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Owning our own opinions
**note - I was thinking the other day that I wanted to cross-post some of the things I've posted before on various message boards. So here we are. I may post more - we'll just see how it plays out.
I was reading something another former mormon wrote - where someone had harshly criticized her. Yet instead of criticizing her outright, they said "other people are saying x about you".
And I was realizing that in my family (and many members in the mormon church and elsewhere), some people will rarely say what THEY think (when it gets down to it). They almost always say "well, so and so thinks you should do this".
They can't come out and own their opinions, they have to hide behind other people. So you (the original person) will get mad at the other person, not at them. They are also denying their own authority - or ability to have an opinion on a topic. Women, in particular, find it hard to acknowledge their innate authority. It can be seen as aggressive - at least it's been seen as aggressive for years in American culture. And women from a certain generation might have been forced to de-value their observations - manipulating and controlling to retain any power at all.
It's incredibly difficult to re-write this script. To start thinking - I don't care if my friend says the bishop thinks x. If the bishop thinks that, he needs to tell me himself. Or if you (my friend) think(s) that, we need to talk about it. But it's really between me and the bishop - or me and you?
Or shouldn't it be?
It's difficult for people to come out and say something negative - or say something they know the other person will disagree with. Or to actually admit to feelings "I 'm scared that if you do x, you'll get hurt". Or even acknowledging that another person's choices are none of their business at all.
I'm not saying that friends always agree. I'm not saying that well-timed constructive criticism isn't very important. I treasure some of my good friends in my life who will call me on my stuff - in a kind and healthy manner (you know who you are!!).
I know the LDS church isn't the only organization that does this. I've had many friendships like this over the years. And lots of companies are this way (where things aren't spelled out and must be inferred and assumed).
I believe it's just one more way to control a person (and sometimes to shame them) - to not allow them to determine which people are truly acting in their best interest. Where no one plays by the rules - or any rules that can be successfully determined.
These means of functioning get in the way of healthy relationships and friendships within that church (and elsewhere).
It creates a tattle-tale culture. Growing up mormon, I remember countless lessons denouncing gossip. But if the LDS church (and other organizations) started interacting on a one on one basis - removing all of this "he or she said you should do..." stuff - it would be a completely different place.
I was reading something another former mormon wrote - where someone had harshly criticized her. Yet instead of criticizing her outright, they said "other people are saying x about you".
And I was realizing that in my family (and many members in the mormon church and elsewhere), some people will rarely say what THEY think (when it gets down to it). They almost always say "well, so and so thinks you should do this".
They can't come out and own their opinions, they have to hide behind other people. So you (the original person) will get mad at the other person, not at them. They are also denying their own authority - or ability to have an opinion on a topic. Women, in particular, find it hard to acknowledge their innate authority. It can be seen as aggressive - at least it's been seen as aggressive for years in American culture. And women from a certain generation might have been forced to de-value their observations - manipulating and controlling to retain any power at all.
It's incredibly difficult to re-write this script. To start thinking - I don't care if my friend says the bishop thinks x. If the bishop thinks that, he needs to tell me himself. Or if you (my friend) think(s) that, we need to talk about it. But it's really between me and the bishop - or me and you?
Or shouldn't it be?
It's difficult for people to come out and say something negative - or say something they know the other person will disagree with. Or to actually admit to feelings "I 'm scared that if you do x, you'll get hurt". Or even acknowledging that another person's choices are none of their business at all.
I'm not saying that friends always agree. I'm not saying that well-timed constructive criticism isn't very important. I treasure some of my good friends in my life who will call me on my stuff - in a kind and healthy manner (you know who you are!!).
I know the LDS church isn't the only organization that does this. I've had many friendships like this over the years. And lots of companies are this way (where things aren't spelled out and must be inferred and assumed).
I believe it's just one more way to control a person (and sometimes to shame them) - to not allow them to determine which people are truly acting in their best interest. Where no one plays by the rules - or any rules that can be successfully determined.
These means of functioning get in the way of healthy relationships and friendships within that church (and elsewhere).
It creates a tattle-tale culture. Growing up mormon, I remember countless lessons denouncing gossip. But if the LDS church (and other organizations) started interacting on a one on one basis - removing all of this "he or she said you should do..." stuff - it would be a completely different place.
Monday, June 4, 2007
To each their own
Photo copied fromlds.orgI've really sort of skirted around my own attitude towards mormonism in this blog. Many of you know (as I mention in my description or IRL) that I was raised mormon. My parents remain active mormons. My extended family (grandparents) also remain mormon. The rest of my cousins remain mixed, some active, some no longer mormon. Some it's difficult to tell if they're mormon or not, and in the end, I find I don't care and don't feel like pressuring anyone to find out for sure.
I tend to agree with chanson's stance on mormonism "standing up for your former beliefs", for the most part I feel culturally mormon and I remain fascinated with mormon history and cover up. I suspect it's a little like people raised catholic or another faith who no longer practice the faith they were raised in.
It might sound like I'm being overly positive about the LDS religion and its adherents. I think there are many issues with ra_cism, se_xism, strict gender roles, discrimination and ho_mophobia. I won't get into any of my claims with these, I may write at some other point about some of these issues. I will just note that many other current religious and other organizations have a past which they are not proud of. The difference between the Utah LDS mormonism and these organizations is that many of these organizations admit to this discrimination, apologize for past wrongs and work towards change.
So, with that said, I have a laissez-faire approach to mormonism.
Obviously, I disagree with many tenets of mormonism. I do not feel that the LDS church is everything it claims to be (for example, family first). But I disagree with many of the tenets of other faiths and belief systems. I believe mormonism (and some other belief systems) can be incredibly harmful. But just because we disagree, doesn't mean we can't have a relationship or conversation. And how can anyone ever grow if we refuse to air our differences - to attempt to understand things from someone else's point of view?
I am not an evangelical exmormon. I know people who are evangelical (i.e., actively trying to convert people away from mormonism). And that is their choice. I am not personally one of them. While I might confront LDS missionaries who knock on my door (they are bothering me, after all), I see no reason to tell someone they can't believe something.
I know there are many people who leave mormonism and who are very angry. For the most part, I think their anger is justified. Specifically people who were in abusive relationships and
counseled to stay in them, people who struggled with mental illness and were encouraged not to seek help, people whose families basically disowned them for leavingmormonism. There are many other reasons for anger that I won't go into at the moment.
And that's what bothers me about mormonism and some belief systems in general. That there is a corner on truth. It seems to me that truth is in the eye of the beholder - that what might
be true or right for one person is not necessarily true or right for someone else. And the whole nature of right vs. wrong is difficult to define either - entirephilosophical textbooks and essays are devoted to the subject. And even for me, I don't feel comfortable saying that my way (without mormonism) is the right way for everyone.
My former seminary teacher (who I believe is still an active NOM, a.k.a. a new order mormon) joked that a new angel was walking through heaven with another angel (possibly st. Peter, I don't remember the exact nature of the joke) and noting everyone there. The presbyterians, methodists, baptists, jews (I don't think the atheists were there, but we'll add them for flavor). When they walked past a group the mormons, the angel turns and says "Shh! They think they're the only ones here".
I don't believe in complete utilitarianism either. There are some parts of mormonism that I think are harmful in a free society and I will continue to speak up about them (not researching anything for oneself, not questioning, not disobeying leadership/men, etc.) I will continue to note my disagreements aboutLDS Inc., here and elsewhere.
My dad seems to think that I should have remained mormon to work from within for change. I look at it as only having a certain amount of energy. I know for a fact I do not have the energy to spend even three hours a week inmormon services - as a woman, there is little to nothing I could change anyway. Obviously there are women who could stay and make changes (Think Margaret
MerrillToscano).
I guess what I'm saying is, I know/knew a lot of really good people who happen(ed) to be mormon. I used to be mormon myself. I am related to lots of them. We disagree on many subjects, and in some cases, the nature of reality. But it seems to me that we are all on a different path - trying to make sense of life, and for the most part, trying to be good people.
It does bother me that mormonism is such an authoritarian religion. I am familiar with the definitions of a cult, and it's true that the Utah LDS variety meets many of them. And yes, there are many people who I personally feel would be happier if they were not active mormon.
But who am I to judge what would make one person happy or unhappy? I say, to each their own. Putting information or opinion out there is great, but it's up to the person themselves to choose what they want to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)