The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,346 Articles Spanning 205 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
THE MORMON CURTAIN
|
|
2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference Oct. 17 - 19, 2008
|
The time is flying! And time to remind everyone again about the Exmormon Foundation coming up October
17-19, 2008.
Please join us for our annual weekend of education, enlightenment, personal stories, and mingling with a group of interesting and brave people who are exploring life after Mormonism.
Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT Click here for details: http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/200....
Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
→
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
What did Paul Dunn and Joseph Smith have in common (hint – see http://www.watchman.org/lds/page1may.... and http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/lying_f...)?
- They were both Mormon religious leaders, holding special power and standing as Christ's especial witnesses to all humankind.
- They were both powerfully charismatic speakers who moved audiences to feel “the Spirit”.
- They both lied for the purpose of persuading their followers to do what they believed was God’s will.
- Many people who were deeply moved by their stories while they seemed to be true stopped being moved by them once they were determined to be false. This shows how context dependant the Spirit is. That is, the feeling of “the Spirit” does not reliably indicate anything other than that our emotional buttons have been effectively pushed.
In general, when we change our belief in what is real, the time and place of our feelings of emotion related to spiritual things changes. Jon Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis) and others have shown that atheists “feel the spirit” and have “sacred” places as well as do religious people. However, the language they use to describe these experiences and places are different. This pattern indicates that our beliefs, rather than some greater reality, is responsible for what we feel.
Now, what is the main difference between Paul Dunn and Joseph Smith? Dunn was not foundational to Mormonism and so when he was found to be a liar, and hence a liability to Mormonism, he simply disappeared. I asked my adult kids a while ago about him. None of them knew who he was despite years of church, Seminary, etc.
Smith, on the other hand, is foundational to Mormonism and hence it will take longer for Mormonism to distance itself from him. However, it is highly probable that this will eventually occur. In the meantime, he will continue to be described either falsely (see any Mormon lesson manual, the missionary lessons, etc.) or as an impossible to understand paradox (see Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling”, for example). The truth, however, is usually much less complicated than the stories people use to defend their beliefs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_...).
Joseph Smith found that he was able to use religious rhetoric to get people do what he wanted, including giving him a better living than he had ever enjoyed, lots of influence, and lots of sex. His earlier endeavours (like paid treasure hunting – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_li...) had not been anywhere near as successful.
L. Ron Hubbard (see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/...), John de Ruiter (see http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjo... and http://www.rickross.com/groups/ruiter...) and countless others took advantage of similar persuasive powers after failing in more mainstream lines of work. And, human power tends to be self-justifying. That is, when a man has power he is likely to imagine or interpret God's will to justify that power.
In Joseph Smith's case, that took some doing. He kept what he was up to secret and lied about it until long after the fact. This caused marriages, families, businesses and an entire culture to be been built around him and his stories before his failings were recognized. So when the truth finally came out, there was so much at stake that people continued to lie about him. When that no longer worked, far more was a stake and so people said that Joseph was such a deep mystery that we had best just not think about him. And that will increasingly be the case. The more Mormons know about Joseph Smith, the less they will talk about him. Kind of like Brigham Young.
This is kind of like what they say about borrowing money from a bank. If you borrow a little money and you get into trouble, the bank will squash you like a bug. But if you borrow a few billion from them and get into trouble, you have a partner. If you do down, they might too. Or at least a few of their officers might be fired. So they will do all the can to get you on your feet again. And only with the greatest of reluctance, and in secret if possible, will your remains be disposed of.
That is the difference between Joseph Smith and Paul Dunn. Mormonism can't afford to take Smith down - or at least not yet. Books like Bushman's, however, are the first stage of that. Joseph's sexual habits, lying and other flaws will eventually become accepted just as have been Brigham Young's crazy statements on various subjects. The Book of Mormon will continue to look more like fiction and less like history. And at some point in the future, Mormon leaders will admit what most Mormons will have then long known - that Joseph Smith is not an essential part of Mormonism. But they will wait to do that until it doesn't matter - like the Pope acknowledging in the 1970s (see http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10...) that the Catholic Church was a bit hard on Galileo, and that the Earth does go round the Sun.
| The following is part of an edited version of an email I sent to a close friend a short time ago who is trembling at the thought of what she faces as she "comes out" as a post-Mormon.
best,
bob
I want you to know that I think about you a lot - and always have - though I don't often call or write. I have always been better at responding to those who communicate with me than initiating communication. I don't know why this is, but it is.
If there is anything I can do to make things easier, let me know. I will try to listen instead of talk. I also recognize that to some extent this kind of thing is a solitary burden. One has to work it out, and do it, on one's own after books are read, advice is taken, plans are made, etc.
It may help to bear in mind that we are hardwired to be conservative. That is, making mistakes often caused death in our evolutionary environment whereas missing an opportunity was not such a big deal. Think of a noise in the bushes. It might be rabbit for the stew pot or a wolf. Those who assumed it was a wolf and ran tended to survive longer than those who took the chance it might be a rabbit.
Hence, we tend to be more cautious and fearful regarding most things than is now merited (our environment now is far less risky than our evolutionary environment), and this is particularly the case when we are confronted with something that might put us sideways with our family or an important social group. This prospect triggers deep, irrational, existential fears in us because for most of human history this kind of thing could mean death (get too far sideways with the family or tribe, and you are expelled with means you likely die and are far less likely to reproduce). And our minds are set up to rationalize, and justify, the fears we feel. Religious and other ideologies have always used fear of the unknown to make humans more obedient. This is now, for example, both Hitler and Mussolini came to power. Neither of them were ever elected by majorities. They came to power as the leaders of minority governments, and then took advantage of social turmoil (which they appear to have exaggerated to a degree) to make the populace fearful, and give their governments the power they said they needed to quell the turmoil. And then one thing led to another.
For example, when I hear you talking about the concern you have re. hurting other people when you tell them what you believe, I in part hear your sensitive nature, and in part your rational mind trying to explain to yourself the deep fear you feel with regard to doing what that same rational mind feels it needs to do.
Our minds are funny things. The huge subconscious regularly interferes with the relatively small conscious part of the mind, leaving the conscious mind to find a rational reason for that interference. But there is no visible rational reason for this. Hence, the conscious mind confabulates. Many psych tests demonstrate how this works. Our pattern finding skills go to work and we confidently indicate reasons for what we have observed that have nothing to do with the real reasons for our observations in cases where stimuli is controlled in a laboratory and hence the real reasons for our observation are known. Jon Haidt's book (The Happiness Hypothesis) is the most recent of many I have read that outline how this works. One series of tests uses images flashed so rapidly that the conscious mind does not pick them up, but the unconscious does and uses the image to manipulate the conscious mind.
For example, an image of a chicken is put up on the screen and a shovel is flashed so that only the unconscious picks it up. When the subject is asked what he associates with chicken (you would think egg, right?) he says "shovel". When asked why, he says that shovels are used to clean out chicken coops. He is unaware of the real reason for the association (the micro flash), and thinks he has simply made a logical connection. Were he shopping for a chicken, he would be much more likely to buy a shovel too because of that micro flash. Advertisers use this kind of trick on us all the time.
Much of our conscious perception is driven in this fashion by associations suggested by the unconscious. And this is only one of many ways in which the unconscious leads us around while "we" (the conscious part of us that perceives itself to be in control) are under the deeply mistaken impression that all we consciously perceive and remember is all we perceive and remember, and that this is all that goes into our decisions. The idea that our conscious self is in control is one of the most important psychological fallacies I have come to understand. The wonderful injunction that we come to "know ourselves" largely means that we need to come to know the unconscious part of ourselves.
| Fast Pitch Softball And The Pareto Principle; Or “the Good Life” Comes From Between
Article Archived: Wednesday, Jun 14, 2006, at 09:08 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Bob McCue | TOP | |
The Pareto Principle[1] states, in its broadest form, that something like 80 or 90% of all results come from 10 or 20% of causes. For example, in most economies 80 to 90% of the income is produced by 10 to 20% of the population. 80 to 90% of the problems in any group will be caused by 10 to 20% of the people. Etc. The Pareto principle hence directs us toward identifying those critically important 10 or 20% of the causes, and spending most of our effort on them. This is one of the reasons for which a few of our decisions will have a huge effect on how our lives go, and why it makes sense to spend a fair bit of time to identify these decisions, and then make them as well as possible.
A little background (OK, a lot of background) is required before I will be able to connect the Pareto principle to fast pitch softball, and then life in general.
I used to be a serious athlete. Not a great athlete, but a serious one. I played three sports (baseball, basketball and volleyball) well enough to compete at the university level, and enjoyed recreationally pretty much every other sport that was played in our community. Then, I repented of my sins, went on a Mormon mission and decided when I came home that it was time to “stop playing around” and “get serious about life”. So I did not return to sports. I became a serious student for the first time ever (there was reasonable doubt as to whether I had a functional brain up to that point), got married, had kids, etc. As a result, aside from a few slow pitch softball games and a little recreational basketball (until osteoarthritis struck a decade ago), I became a non-athlete. Arthritis put golf on the agenda, that seemed to satisfy my need for being physically competent at something as well as creating a bottomless source of humility. Golfers who read this will know what I mean.
Fast forward thirty years from my last competitive baseball game, and 25 years from my last recreational slow pitch team.
I left Mormonism a few years ago. I crave community of various kinds for reasons I will outline below. My body and mind are waking up – my mind in a brand new way, and my body toward its former, more active state. A guy at the office sees me play in a once-a-year-meet-the-young-lawyers slow pitch game, and asks if I would be interested in playing for his commercial league fast pitch team. I have never played fast pitch softball and have heard how hard good pitching of that kind is to hit, but think “What the hell. I’ve done so many new things during the past several years, what’s one more. And this might be fun.”
So I told him that I would go to a batting cage, and if I could hit a fast pitch softball (it has been literally 30 years since I have tried to hit a real baseball pitch, and I have never stood up to an 80 mph underhand pitch), I will come out. So off to the batting cage I go a few days later, with my 11 year old son in tow since he enjoys that sort of thing.
As we pay, get bats and helmets, etc. I am watching a couple of guys who are obviously baseball players swing at some medium speed pitches (40 – 50 mph) and hit them solidly. Then, just before I am ready, they move to the fast pitch cage (70 – 80 mph). I settle in behind them to watch, and to get a feel for how fast the ball is coming. It is quick – hard-to-see quick – and the first of these seemingly competent players wiffs on 20 consecutive pitches, and exits the cage with his tail between his legs. His buddy is laughing so hard he has trouble standing up, and waves off his friend’s demand that he “Shut the F*** up and get in there show me what you can F***’n do!!”
So in I go, adrenalin pumping. The first pitch hits the mat behind me before my bat starts to swing. I laugh at myself, aware that the two guys who just finished, and my son, are watching. I am handcuffed by the next several balls, but manage to wave at them like my Grandma might. Then I hit the ball, but just above my fists. The ball dribbles weakly toward the pitching machine and my hands go numb from the bat’s vibration. I am obviously too close to the plate and so move back six inches. And from then on I hit most of the pitches, but weakly. My hands ring with almost every hit. And then finally, a solid shot. It is effortless, and the ball rockets across the cage and into the net on the far side. I glance at my son and am pleased by the shocked look on his face.
Of the first 20 balls I only hit a couple solidly, but am elated. The miracle of muscle memory has shown itself again. The thousands of balls I hit as a kid make it possible for me to still hit balls that are coming so fast I can’t see them. You hit them based on instinct and subconscious information processing, or not at all. I stay in the cage to swing at 80 balls in all, and the next day can barely open or close my hands.
So I signed up for the team. It is not, I find, a great team. Should I have thought otherwise? They recruited me, after all.
We are 2 wins and 8 losses as the season’s halfway point approaches. The guys are regular guys. A few lawyers. A banker. A few business people. A few guys who work construction or in industrial jobs. Their ages range from early 20s to mid-50s. Regular, decent guys. We talk on the bench about nothing important. Mostly the game. And occassionally we have a beer after the game where the conversation runs along similar lines. We celebrate our rare wins with gusto.
Some of the guys have played for this team for 25 years, and during those years they have won a championship or two. One of the long term players died of cancer recently. We were law firm partners. Three of his teammates, in full uniform, gave part of the eulogy at his memorial service. It was one of the most touching, funny, and appropriate, I have ever heard. That is how this team initially came to my attention. One of those guys last night asked me some questions about the scholarship fund he is helping to set up for his departed teammate, and we retold a couple of our favorite stories about him.
I don’t enjoy watching baseball despite having played it competitively for ten years (ages 8 to 18). However, playing baseball is radically different from watching it. For example, my partner who died of cancer was the third baseman and since that is one of the positions I used to play, they gave me a chance there. During a given game I will see two or three balls if I am lucky. Some games I see none. And in an average game, about 30 batters go to the plate and receive an average of 4 pitches, for about 120 pitches in total during the game. And each of those could come screaming down the line toward me, fast enough that instinct alone protects my face and other precious body parts from surgical reconstruction. This means that for every one of those 120 pitches I go into my most athletic crouch, and move right or left instinctively based on the speed of the pitch and how the batter starts to swing at it. I subconsciously process immense amounts of information on each swing, and as a result come out of my crouch in one direction or another well before the swing is complete. What might happen with each pitch ensures that I am fully present – fully engaged. And time disappears. Playing third base is a flow activity for me[2]. My teammates appreciate the contribution I make to our effort when I play that position.
I am not a great player. I am an adequate third basemen in an insignificant softball league in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. And I am starting to skip rope again because I feel sloppy sometimes when the ball comes at me. This is likely because my mind is writing cheques my feet can’t quite cash. If I can just get the juices flowing a bit more …
I was never a fast runner, but was well above average. Now I am a slow guy. And worse than that, I feel awkward when I try to run hard to beat out a ground ball or chase down a fly. Why? Maybe because I haven’t done this in literally 25 years? And if I feel awkward that means I look awkward, like one of those old guys I told myself I would never allow myself to resemble. “I’ll slit my wrists with a rusty spoon before I let myself look like that”, I used to tell my friends when we were the young hot shots on the diamonds and courts. “If you see me out there looking like a fool, just shoot me” we used to say to each other. And here I am. As result, I am interested in getting on the elliptical trainer, stretching and lifting weights, and am tending to do that instead of coming home at night and crashing in front of the TV.
And boy, I suck at the plate. These fast ball pitchers are tough. This is an unpleasant experience for me. I am one of those people who does things well or not at all. And after half a dozen games, I did not have a hit. I strike out more than half the time. These pitchers are not the best in the world, but unlike the batting cage, they change the speed of their pitches, throw curves, risers, knuckleballs, etc. and I look and feel like a fool at the plate.
Nothing in my experience as a baseball player prepared me for this stuff and so I have no relevant muscle memory. I have to learn something new to cope.
The pitchers are closer to the plate (60 feet instead of the 90 in baseball). They are almost as quick as the baseball pitchers I faced so long ago I can barely remember it, and their off speed pitches are far harder to deal with because the shorter distance provides less time to identify the pitch and adjust the swing. I almost fell down a couple of times when swinging at a fast ball that turned out to be a change up.
During most games a player or two gets hit when a pitch gets away from the pitcher. Sincere apologies from the pitcher are almost always made, and the hit player only occasionally has to leave the game. And it is a rare trip to the plate that does not include at least one close call as a too-far inside pitch (and significant pain) has to be avoided. There is nothing like the risk of pain to make a guy feel fully alive, and to think about things he might do to improve his reflexes …
The challenge of learning to hit real fast ball pitching has me in its thrall. So I go to the batting cage regularly before games, and occasionally at other times. I limit myself to 20 balls a trip so that my hands will only be sore, instead of paralyzed, the next day.
I am getting pretty good at hitting the 70 – 80 mph pitches at the cage. Just like learning a new sport, video game, driving a car or riding a motorcycle, what seems impossibly fast and complicated at first gradually slows down and becomes manageable. Lots of life analogies in that one.
But the pitches at the batting cage are all one speed, and don’t curve, wobble or rise. I have no way to get in front of a real pitcher and practice, as I would like to. Our team doesn’t practice. We don’t really even warm up properly. The guys have families, jobs, etc. This team, and the game they love, is squeezed in between all of that, and seems to spice it surprisingly well.
And so I continued to suck as a batter. Last night I struck out twice and then grounded out once. The next time up, I noticed that when the pitcher was going to throw his knuckleball (an off speed pitch), I could see him hold the ball with a distinctive knuckleball grip (I used that when I pitched baseball) as he started his windmill motion, giving me a spit second’s warning as to what was coming. Even with that knowledge, I missed his pitch and then grounded out on a fastball. But the next time at bat I waited for the knuckleball, and belted a line drive into left field. That felt amazingly good. I will live on that feeling for at least a week. And the time after that, my last at bat for the night, he walked me. Rather than going straight at the strike zone as he had before, he tried to play cute, and missed.
So, at age 48, I have a significant first – the first sold hit of my life off a good fast ball pitcher. I felt wonderful last night, and am still mildly euphoric today, hence this essay.
But does this matter? Let’s keep it real, as Simon Cowell might say. I play for a piddly-ass, bottom half of a nothing beer league, fast pitch softball team. And I hit a single after weeks of striking out. This thrills me? Maybe I should get a life.
Or maybe we need to make sure we see both trees and forest. This insignificant fast pitch team has put a spring in my step. I am excited about getting into better shape because my teammates rely upon me to field balls and get on base occassionally. Incompetence at third base, and at the plate, can be painful or even dangerous. This gives me an incentive I haven’t had in a long time to become more fit, flexible, quick, etc. And the evolutionary path on which the homo sapiens male still walks makes activities like throwing and hitting rapidly moving objects, working as a team, and competing, very attractive.
And finally, I have been welcomed into a nice little community the core of which has been stable for well over 25 years. Will I discover any deep truths here? Not likely. Will I meet a few long term friends? The choice is mine. This community richly rewards those who are consistent, long term contributors, as do most communities,
As odd as this may sound, being part of a pathetic little softball team for many people is one of Pareto’s crucial 10 – 20% causes of the good life. And this is consistent with what Jon Haidt says in his book “The Happiness Hypothesis”[3].
Haidt says that happiness comes “from between”. He means that happiness should not be pursued as a primary objective. Happiness is derivative of things like intimate relationships (with all their warts, pain and joy), meaningful and challenging work (see “flow” above), our attachment to stable small groups that appreciate our contribution to them (even pathetic softball teams), and our perception that our actions and lives have meaning in some kind of larger than us context.
Many other scientists, philosopher and writers over the millennia have made the same point Haidt does. But Haidt makes this point particularly well. And while he does not mention Pareto, his book is laced with Pareto’s insight – that a few of the choices we make and things we do (or don’t do) have an immense effect on how satisfied we are likely to be with our lives. And oddly, if we are thinking much about how satisfied we are, we are not likely satisfied. Satisfied people are usually engaged on enough fronts that they don’t spend time wondering whether they are satisfied. And well-adjusted people – those who have life as good as it gets – generally think they need more.
Nature has designed us to quickly habituate to whatever we have, and reach for more. Much of the trick to the good life relates to directing this predictable impulse toward things that build relationships, community and the ability to do more of what we are good at since this is where we find most of what stabilizes and spices our lives.
These concepts are particularly important for those of us who have left Mormonism and are hence at loose ends with regard to several of the factors Haidt says are crucial to the good life. Mormonism provides a one stop shop for the small group interaction and big picture meaning aspects of life. And its rules govern how most of our intimate relationships work. People who leave Mormonism hence have a lot of fundamentally important re-tooling to do.
The answers to the big questions related to relationships, meaning, etc. will often be found in the simple things that have proven over time to provide us with joy. In my case, some sports and the opportunity to connect to people through them is part of this equation. I am also turning over new leaves related to the artistic side of life[4]. This is immensely, and surprisingly, satisfying.
The idea that we will find satisfaction “between” is one of those simple concepts that I think has great potential. If we are unsatisfied, the question we should ask is not “what do I need to do to find satisfaction”, but rather what kind of basic nutrients (turn to Haidt and other similar scientists for suggestions as to what these are) does my life lack? For example, do I give and receive enough intimacy? Am I sufficiently challenged and engaged by the work I spend most of each day doing? Do I regularly interact with small communities (at work, community, recreation, etc. endeavors) where my contribution is appreciated? Do I perceive that my life is connected to something that has a meaning that is beyond me and my immediate group (like improving our schools; teaching kids sports; working toward a more sustainable consumer culture; politics; etc.)?
And for those of us who have the chance to do so, listening to those whose judgement we trust about these things can be invaluable. It is near impossible to self diagnose. Most systems (including us) cannot be fully understood from a point of view inside the system. Some things can only be seen from the outside. Hence, taking the advice of those who observe us and have the broadest perspective possible (that is, the most wisdom) is usually helpful.
Satisfying, resonant music is not created because we watch the instruments and will music into existence. Music is made by people who have talent, have developed their talent, and have chosen to collaborate. Likewise, the good life is largely the result of getting our circumstances right, and choosing to be as engaged as reasonably possible in those circumstances. And this is not like walking the Mormon tightrope to the Celestial Kingdom where the slightest slip can throw you into the abyss. Rather, all we need is to be in the ball park; to show up and give it our best shot. There are so many ways to succeed that we can’t count them. And we are far more adaptive than most of us can imagine.
But we do have to know where the ball park is, and sometimes need some help getting there and knowing what to bring with us.
And the oddest things – even piddly-ass softball teams – sometimes provide critically important tools, or bridges, or whatever (you choose your metaphor) as the stunningly beautiful stories that are our lives unfold.
Best,
bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_p....
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(ps....
[3] See http://www.happinesshypothesis.com/ .
[4] See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%....
| I have not revisited cognitive dissonance - one of my favorite topics - for quite a while so this is as good an excuse to do so as any. I take it as a compliment that the Mormon apologists think that this issue is one they need to address, in their usual unwitting-self parody way, and that they have put me front and centre. I copied the material below from their site on June 16, 2005. I won't bother to attempt to edit it there since that would quickly devolve into a time wasting war with the people who control the site. Instead, I will post my comments in other places where they can stand as testimony to the tactics, shallow thinking and probable cognitive dissonance of Mormon apologists in general.
I will place the www.fairwiki.org text in quotes, and my comments in square brackets.
"Critics of the Church are fond of portraying all members as either naive, ill-informed dupes or cynical exploiters."
[rdm - I hope that they do not include me in that camp. This is a classic straw man argument. The Mormon apologists speak for the critics and do so in terms that are easy to show as silly. In contrast, see my essays at: http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...;
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2...; and
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does...;
where I go out of my way to show how the smartest among us, the most objective among us, are subject to the distorting forces of denial. Cognitive dissonance is only part of the equation. This applies to Mormons, post-Mormons and all other believers and non-believers of every stripe. However, it applies differently to each of us and this predictable in part on the basis of how we have been conditioned, as I will set out below.]
"Unfortunately for the critics, most fair-minded people realize that-just as in any religion-there are many intelligent, well-informed people who become or remain members of the Church."
[rdm - I agree with this, except most of the critics I know are in the fair minded camp. More straw man treatment of the critics. This makes sense once we recall who this stuff is written for - faithful Mormons who are starting to question. See http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon... and http://www.exmormon.org/Why%20We%20Be... (Day 4) for a summary of how apologists work. Much of this is the result of their own denial and cognitive dissonance. That is, once their shallowness is pointed out to them, they work hard to fix it. As a result, there is no doubt that this article will be fixed or perhaps even scrapped once the more knowledgeable among the apologetic crowd look at it. And, it is precisely this kind of process that led me and others who were apologists of one kind or another, out of Mormonism. The fellow who developed the Mormon apologetic site at http://www.whyprophets.com, for example, thought his way out of Mormonism more or less in lock step with me as we exchanged emails and questioned a variety of things.]
"To get around this, critics appeal to the psychological concept of 'cognitive dissonance' to try to 'explain away' the witness of intelligent, articulate members."
[rdm - As noted above, cognitive dissonance is part of the picture, but far from all of it. See the essay on Denial noted above.]
Source(s) of the Criticism
· Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
· Bob McCue, "Van Hale's 'Mormon Miscellaneous' Radio Talk Show," Version 3, 20 Sept 2004.
[rdm - See the other essays above as well. "How Denial Works" is the most complete of these. The Van Hale essay can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.van%...]
"What is cognitive dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance theory was first described in the mid 1950s by Leon Festinger.
Cognitive dissonance explains behavior by pointing out that all people have various beliefs, thoughts, or ideas, called "cognitions." From time to time, these cognitions will come into conflict-for example, someone might believe that their child is honest and law-abiding. However, they might learn one day that their child has been charged with shoplifting. There are now two cognitions in tension:
· cognition #1: "my child is honest"
· cognition #2: "my child has been arrested for shoplifting"
These cognitions create conflict, or "dissonance" because they create internal conflict-it is not readily apparent how both cognitions can be 'true'. This realization is a psychologically unpleasant experience, and according to the theory, people seek to minimize or resolve dissonance. This can be done in a number of ways:
the former cognition can be rejected
"I guess my child isn't as honest as I thought he was."
the new cognition can be rejected
"My child wouldn't take something without paying. There must be a mistake." or "It's a lie! He was framed!"
a new cognition can eventually be formed which reconciles the two conflicting cognitions
"My child put something in his shopping cart, and forgot to pay for it on leaving the store. Thus, he was not trying to be dishonest, but it is understandable why he was arrested. It was a misunderstanding."
The important point is that all people experience cognitive dissonance whenever they encounter something that does not match what they have thought or believed previously. People may choose appropriate means of reconciling their dissonance (e.g. accepting new truths, adopting new perspectives, rejecting or modifying previous beliefs) or less appropriate ones (e.g. denying new truths, clinging to false ideas). "
[rdm - I agree with this for the most part. For more background see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... starting at page 52.]
"The presence of cognitive dissonance alone says nothing about the quality or truth of someone's beliefs. For example, in the third case, the child might really have forgotten to pay for the article, or the parent might have seized on a rather threadbare excuse (not bothering to ask, "How did you forget the radio was hidden under your jacket?") and accepted it uncritically, because rejecting the first cognition-my child is honest-is too painful. The presence, or resolution, of dissonance proves nothing about the facts."
[rdm - Agreed. Cognitive dissonance is a function of conflicting cognitions. The accuracy or truth of the cognitions has nothing necessarily to do with it. However, cognitive dissonance is often the product of beliefs that are false colliding with more accurate apprehensions of reality. Religious history is full of this. And Festinger's seminal research into cognitive dissonance related to religious beliefs.]
"How do the critics misuse it?
Michael Shermer, an agnostic and writer for Skeptic magazine, specifically dismissed the idea that "cognitive dissonance" could generally explain religious believers:
'It would be a long stretch to classify [millions of white, middle class American Christians] as oppressed, disenfranchised, or marginalized…[millions of apocalyptically-inclined] Americans are anything but in a state of learned helplessness or cognitive dissonance. Indeed, some recent polls and studies indicate that religious people, on average, may be both physically and psychologically happier and healthier than non-believers.[1]'"
[rdm - This is another straw man argument. I am very familiar with Shermer's work. I have three of his books on my self at home ("Why People Believe Weird Things", "How We Believe" and "The Science of Good and Evil"), all well marked and thumbed, and I attended a conference he put on last year at about this time at Cal Tech where I had the chance to chat with him. In the quote above he is talking about the entire breadth of religious believers above, including liberal Protestants and many others.
On the other hand, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" Shermer quotes with approval psychologist Raymond Nickerson (1998) who published a comprehensive review of the literature on the confirmation bias, as follows:
"If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirmation bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. It appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations." (quoted in "Why People Believe Weird Things", p. 299)
The confirmation bias is one of many forces that causes many beliefs to be so securely held that no conflicting cognitions can take root. See "How Denial Works" for a list of other forces that perform a similar function. Depending on how the term "cognitive dissonance" is used, this kind of thing may or may not be included in it.
Cognitive dissonance can only exist once a conflict between cognitions has been subconsciously, at least, acknowledged. For example, "Joseph Smith is a prophet" and "Joseph Smith lied about his sexual activities and had sex with young girls and others means wives" are conflicting cognitions for most people, but will only produce cognitive dissonance after the latter cognition has a been acknowledged to some degree.
In classic apologetic fashion, fairwiki is taking the concept of cognitive dissonance out of context and misapplying statements made about it in an attempt to persuade the ignorant or those who need to believe that cognitive dissonance is irrelevant to their religious faith.
The best part of this is that fairwiki is using Michael Shermer to defend precisely the kind of religious beliefs that Shermer specializes in debunking. He just uses different concepts to do the job, such as the confirmation bias. I am going to send this to him. I am sure he will get a kick out of.
This is what happens when people know a little about something (cognitive dissonance and Shermer's writing) and think that they know a lot.]
"Critics like to pretend that talking about 'cognitive dissonance' is very scientific, and objective. However, they usually ignore one of the most important principles of a scientific explanation: falsifiability.
The criterion of falsifiability...says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.[2]
The hallmark of pseudoscience is its inability to be falsified. That is why neither religion or any other philosophical system can ever be called science, or tested by science."
[rdm - I agree with the above three paragraphs, except that some concepts that are closely related to a religion or philosophical system can be falsified because they are scientific hypotheses. For example, the statement "Israelites emigrated to the Americas circa 600 BCE" is a statement that can be falsified, subject to the collection of adequate data. It is important to remember that falsification with regard to anything in the empirical (physical) world is not a matter of 100% certainty. So, while most people feel comfortable saying that "the Earth is not flat" and "the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old", neither the hypotheses "the Earth is flat" nor "the Earth is 6,000 years old" has been falsified with certainty. We must be content with probable falsification to one degree or another.]
"God made it all out of nothing in seven days, and faked the evidence," says the young earth creationist. "Any Mormon who doesn't interpret the evidence as I do must be suffering cognitive dissonance," says the anti-Mormon."
[rdm - So, anti-Mormons (presumably, anyone critical of Mormon belief) are here compared to young earth creationists. This is rich. Young earth creationists are famous for denying scientific evidence that contradicts their belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. What scientific evidence about Mormonism do anti-Mormons deny? None to my knowledge. What scientific evidence to do Mormon's deny? The list is extensive. Start with DNA evidence (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...) related to the Book of Mormon origins, and go from there remembering in each case that we are not looking for certain proof that Mormon belief is false, but rather evidence that makes it seem highly probable that Mormon belief is false. Mormon scientists, for example, have stated that the evidence is against them on the DNA point, but that since proof is not certain enough yet they are justified on continuing in their Mormon beliefs. This is similar to the way in which evidence mounted in favor of Galileo's position and against the Catholic Church's. It took many generations for some Catholics to accept what many scientists believed much earlier, and what we have virtually all accepted now - Galileo was right and the Catholic Church was wrong.]
"How could a faithful Mormon's behavior or attitude toward the evidence prove that he or she is not subject to the critics' "cognitive dissonance"?"
[rdm - Lets suggest a falsifiable experiment. How about the one I outlined starting at page 18 of http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does.... That involves the concept of "belief maps" and is consistent with the studies used in the academic cog dis research related to how people seek out information that is consonant rather than dissonant with their own views, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv...).
For example, most Mormons are comfortable accepting that much of the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, is metaphoric. The time it took the earth to be created, for example, is not taken literally by most well-educated Mormons. Nor is the worldwide flood. However, the Book of Mormon is believed by Mormons to be literally true. So, we would predict that Mormons will believe the Bible to be literally true to the extent that it is consistent with the Book of Mormon and that Mormons would tend to be more ignorant of information that conflicted with their beliefs than other similarly well educated people.
I have not tested this hypothesis (other than in casual conversation with some of my Mormon friends and relatives, where it passed with flying colors), but it is testable using standard social science tools. For example, I am confident that we would find that most Mormons believe that the Tower of Babel was a real historic event, whereas the creation of the Earth did not literally occur in seven days. Why? Because the Tower of Babel is referenced in the Book of Mormon and literal creation is not.
And, I would be willing to bet that a given group of university graduate Mormons are more ignorant of the linguistic theory that shows how silly the Tower of Babel story is than would be a similarly educated, and otherwise similar, group of non-Mormons.
Another way to use "belief maps" as noted in my essay above to construct a falsifiable hypothesis for testing cognitive dissonance would be to generalize the experiment I just suggested. For example, we might predict that religious beliefs tend to create both non-acceptance of scientific principles and ignorance of information related to them to the extent that religious belief conflicts with science, and then take several groups of religious believers who are university graduates and indicate that they are generally in agreement with the scientific point of view, and map their religious beliefs against their areas of ignorance or non-acceptance of science, and then compare that to the belief map of a group of agnostics. How do you think the Mormon population would do relative to the science related to sexual orientation (probably biological), or human origins (Africa), or the evolution of the human species (from mice)?
There are all kinds of ways to scientifically test cognitive dissonance and other denial related concepts on Mormon populations.]
"There is nothing which the critic could not shoe-horn into his theory-cognitive dissonance is thus little but a handy club to beat anyone who does not share his interpretation. "Of course you see it differently," the critic can kindly, but oh-so-condescendingly assure his Mormon friend. "You're still in the grip of cognitive dissonance." "
[rdm - See my comments above. This is ignorance writ large.]
"The anti-Mormon (ab)use of the theory is especially vulnerable to the charge of being unfalsifiable, but a lack of falsifiability has long been the chief criticism of cognitive dissonance theory generally:
One continuous criticism of Dr. Festinger's theory is that is may not be falsifiable. That is, there is no solid empirical data that proves without a doubt that people will react in a specific manner in a given situation or when dealing with dissonance.[3]"
[rdm - This is simply the criticism that is made of the social sciences in general. They are much less precise than the hard sciences, and hence one should take care when applying theories from the social sciences in any real life application. However, there have been countless cog dis experiments performed under falsifiable conditions. Cog dis and attachment theory are two of the best established psychological theories to date. This science is as solid as social science gets, while still being subject to the caveat that it cannot be applied with certainty to any real life application.]
"Dissonance is easier to point to when a group of people is exposed to the same situation and choices under controlled conditions. Trying to tease out why a given individual holds to or rejects religious or philosophical positions is a much taller order. There are no controls on the critics' rampant speculation."
[rdm - I have addressed this concern above.]
"Is turnabout fair play?
This is not to say that cognitive dissonance cannot play a role in religious belief. It might play a role in some Mormons' refusal to accept an uncomfortable truth. It could also play a role in the critics' experiences, in which their expectations and beliefs did not meet their perceptions of reality. Each critic is the only one able to make that assessment."
[rdm - I have been upfront about this all along. I have numerous times at www.exmormon.org and elsewhere chided people who seem to have forgotten that the same biases that affect Mormons affect post-Mormons. And we would be testable in the same as the Mormons are.]
"But, lacking access to others' reasoning and spiritual experiences, a critic cannot objectively judge the influence (if any) of cognitive dissonance in others' decisions."
[rdm - Much of the point of science is to assess what is objectively accessible from the outside, using the perspective that can only be gained through the comparison of many experiences. Science acknowledges that it cannot directly deal with the subjective nature of the experience, its qualia. However, what does it mean to a Mormon when she finds that countless people all of the world in different belief systems have precisely the kind of "testimony" experience she has? And that their brain states, measured during this experience, are doing exactly what her's do (see http://www.exmormon.org/Why%20We%20Be... - Day Three). This is a testable hypothesis and all of the evidence so far indicates that there will be nothing to distinguish the Mormon spiritual experience from that of countless others. This would explain the tenacity of Mormon as well as many other beliefs, and would cause some Mormons to wonder what kind of god would give so many different people with different conflicting beliefs precisely the same experience. Other cognitive dissonance suffering Mormons will cling to the possibility that somewhere, somehow, their belief is different and superior and god will in his due time explain all this.]
"He can worry about the dissonant beams in his own eye; others' motes are out of the reach of his self-justifying inquiry."
[rdm - Or maybe he is humble enough to recognize that there are beams and motes in all eyes. An understanding of science leads to this conclusion. It also allows us to measure these to an extent. How many Mormons would likely believe that hard core Moonies are not subject to heavy cognitive dissonance? Would we trust a group of well trained psychologists to measure the Moonie cognitive dissonance relative to reality and compare it to that of, say, some Reform Jews? Why not Mormons v. Moonies v. Reform Jews? There is another interesting, falsifiable, hypothesis. Moonies - worst; Mormons - second worst; Reform Jews - best (of this group).]
"Many critics seem unwilling to recognize that men and women of good will and sound intelligence might honestly disagree on the interpretation of evidence, even if considered with all the objectivity they can muster. This is, for example, why some people will buy stock at a price at which other people are eager to sell. (But perhaps the entire economy is merely an exercise in cognitive dissonance?)"
[rdm - In fact, denial, the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance have been shown to play a large role in market crashes and manias.]
"LDS critics often have a naïve, super-simplified view of the historian's work whereby anyone who disbelieves a religious account is somehow automatically more free from bias than a believer. Such a stance ignores the fact that unbelievers may feel at least as great a stake in disproving uncomfortable and uncompromising religious claims as believers might in supporting them."
[rdm - I have already acknowledged that we are all subject to the same forces. However, one can predict blind spots using tools like the confirmation bias, which allow a belief map to be drawn and areas of ignorance and possible cognitive dissonance to be predicted. And this can be done using falsifiable hypotheses as I have indicated above.]
"It is therefore no surprise that critics label interpretations with which they do not agree as examples of "cognitive dissonance" in action, while the critics' positions are portrayed as merely the product of dispassionate analysis.
One critic fond of this 'theory' tells us:
The most important part of this analysis, by far, is to recognize that the forces we are about to discuss [cognitive dissonance] operate mostly at the subconscious level. To the extent we drag them into the conscious realm, they largely stop operating.[4]
"Subconscious" forces which are used to explain behavior, especially by the outside observer, are a classic unfalsifiable hypothesis. How can we know that a "cause" which has been supposedly dragged from subconscious to awareness is the genuine article?"
[rdm - The subconscious forces are part of the cognitive dissonance theory. People show signs of cognitive dissonance in measurable, falsifiable ways, and are unaware of their source. This is by definition the result of the unconscious part of our minds.]
"Why isn't our "discovered" reason simply a rationalization, which is driven in turn by an even deeper "subconscious force" and so on down forever? Since a person is-by definition-unaware of unconscious processes, how can the critic know with any confidence that the "forces we are about to discuss" look anything like the unconscious ones?
[rdm - See above. ]
"How can you say that A and B are the same thing if no one can get a certain look at A?'
[rdm - More silliness. These people need to do some reading.]
"If this is difficult in oneself, how much harder is it in another person, to whose mind and experience the outsider has no direct access? Despite these major hurdles, the critics seems to presume that they can reliably determine what others' unconscious processes are and "drag them into the conscious realm." Freud would have been envious."
[rdm - I have not suggested anything beyond what the scientists who work in this field have done many times over.]
"The critic then makes the equally strange assertion that these effects "largely stop operating" if we are but aware of them. Even if the critic, by the greatest fortune, has indeed identified a proper "subconscious force"-something of which he can never be sure-this belief is extraordinarily optimistic. Anyone who has spent any time in counselling or mental health work knows that awareness of a problem rarely provides a direct line to altered thinking or behavior. If it did, therapy would be just a dump of information to the patient. "
[rdm - Here is what I meant. Cog dis is part of the complex of forces related to denial. Cog dis starts when we become aware - often at the subconscious level - of conflicting cognitions such as those related to Joseph Smith's lying about sexual activities and his prophetic status. This conflict produces the kind of pain cog dis theory described, and that pain produces various rationalizing behaviours. Once we become aware enough to assess the best evidence relative to both cognitions in light of how denial works (including the role of cognitive dissonance) we tend to be able to resolve the dissonance by rejecting false belief. Think of the abused spouse example that is so often used to illustrate cognitive dissonance. One cognition is that her husband loves her and is committed to her and her children; the other is that he occassionally beats her. All her friends tell her to leave him. She tells them that they don't understand him; that he is really a good man. Often learning about how denial and cognitive dissonance work, and being introduced to objective evidence about how abused spouses in her situation tend to act; how their friends tend to act; how the abusers tend to act; and acknowledging that her life fits this pattern, etc. helps her to overcome her denial. Thus, her experience of cognitive dissonance declines (or even ends) on that issue.]
"The critic goes on:
The message that booms through the above evidence to me is that the denial inducing nature of cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to self-diagnose.[5]
Unfortunately for the critic, if we assume that this is true, then critics are equally vulnerable to the same treatment. The Mormon could just as easily respond that an anti-Mormon's perspective is all due to cognitive dissonance. He just doesn't know it, because such a condition is "difficult to self-diagnose."
[rdm - I have already agreed. So, why don't we line up a bunch of Mormons and post-Mormons and run a controlled experiment conducted by non-Mormon psychologists to measure the cognitive dissonance relative to science and Mormon belief in the two populations. I bet I can find some psychologists who would love to do that.
This is the kind of experiment Mormons would be unlikely to participate in, because in general they don't want to know. This contrasts with the statements of earlier Mormon leaders who said things like "The truth cuts its own way" (J. Smith) and "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." (J. Reuben Clark). Most people are like that to an extent. However, those of us who have experienced the pain of having our most important beliefs debunked tend to be more willing to expose our new beliefs to scrutiny, and are far less likely to be come as committed to our new beliefs as we were to our former, and so are more inclined to this kind of testing. And I note that this is in and of itself a testable hypothesis.
I now go out of my way to seek the advice of third parties in an effort to identify my blind spots. I would welcome the change to be the subject of a professional psychological study that would help me to identify the sources of cognitive dissonance in my own life, since I acknowledge that I am unlikely to be able to that on my own, in spite of my best efforts.]
"This illustrates that whatever else might be said about the flaws in this theory-the lynch-pin ("most important part…by far") of which is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim about subconscious motives-it is not rational and not scientific. "
[rdm - I address this above. It is flatly wrong. This person knows somewhere between little and nothing about the social sciences.]
"But, appeals to "cognitive dissonance" allow the critic to fit the evidence to his biases, and "diagnose" flaws in others. No matter how much his Mormon target might insist that the critic does not understand the Mormon's point of view or evaluation of the evidence, this just serves as stronger evidence to the critic of how deluded the Mormon is. Cognitive dissonance in the critics' hands is nothing but self-fulfilling prophecy, or a variation of the observer-expectancy effect. It is full of fallacies, a substitute for rational discussion of the evidence and the witness of the Spirit. "
[rdm - He repeats himself over and over. I have addressed this above. If cognitive dissonance and denial theory cannot be applied to Mormonism it can't be applied anywhere. And as I indicated above, it is one of the more thoroughly tested of psychological theories.]
"Conclusion
"Cognitive dissonance theory," when applied in the critics' idiosyncratic way to explain away the witness and convictions of others, is hardly scientific. The critics' efforts fail on many grounds:
· it cannot be falsified
· the critic can explain and dismiss any attitude, any belief, or any conviction
· the critic relies on claims about hidden, unverifiable, "subconscious" motivations as explanations
· the critic arrogantly assumes that the interpreter knows more about the person and his/her experiences than the person him/herself, even if the subject disagrees with the analysis
And, any argument which the critic uses against a member can be used in just as strong a form against the critic in turn."
[rdm - I have already addressed each of these points.]
Endnotes
1. [back] Michael Shermer, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1999),211-212.
2. [back] Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963), 33.
3. [back] M. Bruce Abbot, "Cognitive Dissonance Theory," class notes for ADV382J, University of Texas at Austin, September 2003 (accessed 31 October 2005). *
4. [back] Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
5. [back] Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
[rdm - My essays lay out the theory relative to cog dis and denial, and maps it against a host of my own and other Mormon experience that I believe is explained by that theory as well as much other religious experience that has been subject to scientific observation or testing in this regard. In this so-called critique of my position there was not a single substantive comment relative to my approach. The entire argument of this critique rests on the assertion that it is impossible to apply cognitive dissonance theory to Mormon experience. This is flatly wrong. Much cognitive dissonance research has been done relative to religious belief, and there is nothing special about Mormonism in this regard.
From what I saw today looking around www.fairwiki.org, this is as good an illustration of cognitive dissonance as anyone is likely to find.
| Mormon culture is set up to sabotage those who will not play by its rules. This make sense, since it tends to cause those who leave Mormonism and hence do not conform Mormon standards, fail. This supports Mormon claims that God blesses obedience and curses disobedience.
For example, in his excellent talk at last year’s exmo conference, Duwayne Anderson reviewed a number of questionable use of science statistics by Mormon apologists. I can’t now find the talk on-line in any form. Anyone who can help in that regard will be greater appreciated.
One concept Anderson trotted out caught my eye particularly. It had to do with life expectancy in Utah. An LDS researcher had claimed that Mormon’s in Utah had a much higher than average life expectancy. Anderson showed, however, that once certain adjustments were made that were necessary in order to make the Utah data comparable to the national averages, that Mormons in Utah were bang on the national average, and that non-Mormons or less than active Mormons in Utah were far below the average. As I recall, the same kind of analysis was performed re. suicide rates. The conclusion was that being anything other than a full blooded Mormon in Utah was harmful to your health.
And we all know about Utah’s nation leading use of anti-depressants, bankruptcy, commercial fraud and other indications that things are not going well for a lot of people there, Mormon or otherwise. I have not seen any statistics that break these categories down on a Mormon v. non-Mormon (or less active Mormon) basis, and again would be indebted to anyone who could point me to that. My bet is that active Mormons, less active Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah are all shown to be less functional than the average American in these areas.
The question, of course, is why would being a non-Mormon or less active Mormon in Utah cause problems?
I thought about this recently when hearing about some wayward children of my Mormon relatives and thinking about my own teenage waywardness. Most Mormon kids are not equipped with a healthy context in which to interpret they own behaviour outside of the Mormon norm. That is, they tend to see behaviour as either good (as prescribed by the Mormon community) or bad. There is not much in the way of a gradient that goes from good behaviour to questionable behavior to dangerous behaviour to “you must be nuts” behaviour when it comes to the Mormon rule book.
For example, I recall while serving as Bishop being taken to task by a ward member (one of our stake most respected members) for talking to the kids about what to do on dates in a context that presumed there would be some kissing and touching. She told me in no uncertain terms that she wanted her children taught that there would be no kissing or touching of any kind. I told her that I lived on Earth, understood what teenage kids were like and valued the credibility I had with them. I was not going to waste my time and theirs, not to mention destroying my credibility with them, by giving advice that was unrealistic. “Who”, I asked her, “was listening to these kids (including hers) in worthiness interviews and was charged with the duty to give them the most useful advice possible there and elsewhere?” (just typing those words give me the heebie jeebies). She reminded me that I was charged with instructing the kids to keep God’s commandments. I politely suggested that I was doing a difficult job as well as I could and would continue to do what I felt was best regardless of her opinions, and that I thought recognizing “normal” teenage behaviour and helping the kids to cope with in the most healthy manner possible was the best route to helping them in the long term to comply with as many of God’s rules as possible. Again, the act of remembering what my former head space was like, and what I told those poor impressionable kids, makes my shiver involuntarily.
In any event, once a Mormon kid has started down the “bad” path, it is natural for them to perceive themselves as bad all over. This kills self esteem. Kids with poor self esteem seek similar companions. And it does not help that Mormon kids like this have to lie to survive at home, and the psychologists have clearly laid out data that shows how once a few lies have been told in one context, the probability of lying in general skyrockets. Deceptive behaviour further degrades the social opportunities available to disobedient Mormon kids. And dysfunctional, low self esteem, naïve kids become adults with similar problems even if they have two or three degrees from BYU and have one of Utah’s relatively good jobs.
In a nutshell, Mormon culture is set up to sabotage those who will not play by its rules. This make sense, since it makes faithful Mormons look good to the extent that those who do not conform to Mormon standards fail.
As is so often the case, we can see a more extreme case of Mormon behaviour be looking at the FLDS. Around here, many FLDS kids have recently left that community and are woefully equipped to survive in the “real” world. They are poorly educated; have been taught from the cradle that the world is wicked and to be avoided and so are dysfunctionally fearful; have been conditioned to think in simplistic terms and obey instead of making decisions on their own; etc. Hence, many of them do not thrive outside of their community, or utterly fail. This means ending up with addiction problems; in trouble with the law; dealing with unwarranted pregnancies; etc. This of course provides evidence to those on the inside that their way is God’s one and only, and that those who disobey will be punished.
I am thinking of several people I knew growing up who were very talented, and ended up living what seems to be to be well below their potential. One in particular was (is) high end smart, charismatic, attractive - he has the whole package. He and I both became near pathological liars as teenagers in order to experiment in what I now see as harmless teenage stuff. He lied his way into Ricks, lied while there, lied his way through a mission and got ex'ed shortly after coming home. Until his mid-40s, he lived outside of Mormonism while believing that he was not good enough for it. During this period, he had a host of different troubles. He has now falsied Mormonism and moved on, but a lot of water under the bridge can't be changed.
I wonder what he would have been like had he been raised in an environment that rewarded creative thought and brass balls, which he had in abundance.
It is likely not possible to test this scientifically, but I bet that persons who are of the type that is likely to non-conform would thrive in many environments while being chewed apart by Mormonism.
In conclusion, I believe that Mormons sets up its members for similar familiar for the same reasons, those in not the same radical terms as its more pure FLDS version. I don't suggest that any of this is by conscious design, though some of it may be. This is how organizations, acting as organisms, defend themselves. Only the organizations with good defence mechanisms survive. Mormonism's perimeter is well set up in this regard. The anology to the human body's immune system is apt.
| I was on a business trip this weekend (spent part of a day at Canada’s National Art Gallery in Ottawa – Emily Carr was the focus artist – wonderful – another story), and as usual watched more TV than I customarily do as a result of using that to wind down at the end of the day and to wake up in the morning.
A news clip caught my eye. I think it was on CNN.
Somebody with a lot of money in the US is making it possible for science teachers in large numbers to experience zero gravity on the theory that this experience will excite them about science, and this excitement will be communicated to their students. As the announcer described this idea, I noticed my eyes involuntarily rolling. “Another weird philanthropist who ought to visit Africa”, I thought.
But I was still getting dressed and so continued to watch.
They take a specially equipped jet, fill it with science teachers, take the jet up to 34,000 feet and then put it into a nose dive at 30 degrees down to 24,000 feet. This lasts about 30 seconds, and during freefall zero gravity is achieved. They showed this happening in the plane. The teachers were free to move around, and went giddy. They were laughing at each other; flipping through the air; imitating various kinds of flying; squeezing globules of water out of bottles and then diving through the air trying to pick up the globules with their mouths like dogs leaping to catch treats, but in slow motion; etc. In short, they were clearly excited by this experience. So the idea worked to at least that point.
Just as I was about to shut the TV off to head out for my meetings, one of the teachers – a young woman – was interviewed after the flight. While describing her experience, she said something like “It was amazing. Nothing was pulling me down. It was like all of a sudden I would do anything. I felt so powerful.” This power and the new degrees of freedom than came with it, were euphoria producing.
I was suddenly struck by both how well her description fit my experience on leaving Mormonism, and how the exuberance she and her colleagues exhibited while cavorting in zero gravity matched what I felt during in the days and weeks immediately following my rebirth. A powerful force that had been pulling me down – a form of social gravity – had as if by magic disappeared.
I recalled the days when I would tear up while driving to work because I thought of what I would do that weekend instead of going to LDS meetings; or how I would feel like my heart would burst as I walked through a park, saw people playing with their families and felt a kinship to them that was new to me. I recalled the immense energy that it had taken to break the bounds that had held me down. Countless other memories flashed by.
There a lot more that could be said using the gravity metaphor. It is gravity that paradoxically creates the muscles that give us the feeling of power when gravity is relaxed; we habituate quickly to anti-gravity and muscles start to deteriorate; etc. Some of these aspects of the analogy work, and others don’t. So I am not trying to say that the “anti-gravity” aspect of the post-Mormon experience fits across the board.
I am trying to communicate the joy that release from arbitrary, senseless, harmful bonds produces. This is so different from those who are made to feel that they exit from Mormonism is evidence that they are defective. The dysfunction this causes allows them to be used as evidence that Mormonism is indeed true.
Do a back flip today. And if you find someone suffering from Mormon guilt, which is a side effect of this form of social gravity, lovingly snip as many of her bonds as you can while passing by.
| Does Attachment Theory Help To Predict Mormon Behavior And How We Will Respond To Exiting Mormonism?
Article Archived: Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, at 08:00 AM
Stored Under Topic: BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Bob McCue | TOP | |
Lee Kirkpatrick’s excellent book “Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion” is a great read for many reasons. Among other things, for example, he does a find job of putting the religious experience in a social science context and in this regard resembles such scholars as Scott Atran (“In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion”), Pascal Boyer (“Religion Explained”), Loyal Rue (“Religion is Not About God”) and Daniel Dennett (“Breaking the Spell”).
However, Kirkpatrick is particularly helpful for those of us who are wondering at some of the profoundly difficult aspects of the “leaving the fold” process. And, I have found while reading him answers to questions about some of my most basic behaviors that will be helpful to all aspects of my life. This note is intended to give a taste of how useful Kirkpatrick’s wares may be for some trying to find a satisfying path outside of Mormonism.
Much of Kirkpatrick’s books is based on attachment theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachme...), developed in the by John Bowlby and one of the most carefully studied, fruitful areas of psychological research.
The basic idea of attachment theory is that children develop different “styles” of attachment to their primary care giver, based to some extent on that caregiver’s behavior. The child’s genetic propensities (often inherited from the caregiver) are also important. Then, the attachment style developed in childhood to a large extent colors the “attachment” relationship between romantic partners. And, Kirkpatrick explains to us how religious institutions and/or “god” act as attachment figures.
The three main attachment styles in children are “secure”, “insecure” and “avoidant”. Secure attachment correlates with caregivers who are available, consistent, loving, etc. That is, ideal caregivers. Insecure attachment correlates with caregivers who are available but conditional or controlling. Avoidant attachment correlates with caregivers who are not available.
The basic behavioral characteristics of the three styles are:
- Secure: Uses the caregiver as a secure, protective base from which to explore; becomes anxious when caregiver departs, but recovers quickly upon caregiver’s return and then continues exploring.
- Insecure: Less willing to explore even in the caregiver’s presence; more distressed by strangers; more distressed when caregiver leaves; alternatives between punishing caregiver and demonstrating high needy behavior when caregiver returns; tends toward more temper tantrums; can be controlled with withholding, or offering, intimacy; has high needs for intimacy.
- Avoidant: Not as willing to explore in any case; not afraid of strangers; does not treat caregiver and strangers with much differentiation; not very distressed when caregiver leaves; not demonstrative when caregiver returns.
In adult romantic relationships, securely attached people tend to get along well and make wonderful mates. Insecure and avoidant people demonstrate variants of the behaviors noted above, and make less attractive mates.
Many Mormons will tend toward the insecure attachment style because of the kind of parenting encouraged within Mormonism (lots of arbitrary rules; love conditional to a degree upon those obedience to those rules; etc.), and the Mormon conception of god and his reflection in the | |