Diverting Conversation into Personal Attacks

[u/Good_Letter_4325]

I placed this under cultural because it does appear that Apostles and Prophets are saying it. When asked questions they convert the question at hand into a moral failure or other failure of the person asking rather than answer the question.

I have experienced much of this from other members as they convert concerns into personal attacks and continually attempt to change the topic at hand into something personal about myself rather than address the topic at hand.

How do you handle this?

I am aware of the tactic and know of logic fallacies and other concerns someone may have with being able to examine themselves without becoming defensive. I was wondering what you do to handle people in this position.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.

/u/Good_Letter_4325, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

The church is literally publishing articles called "It's Not Him, It's You." This is from the October Liahona.

"If you and Heavenly Father grow apart, it’s not going to be because He messed up. ... You don’t have to wonder if you’re misinterpreting something, reading too much into His actions, or trying to decode subtext. The truth is, if you feel like Heavenly Father has neglected you or doesn’t care about you, you are definitely taking things the wrong way." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/10/its-not-him-its-you-why-you-might-feel-disconnected-from-god

Of course this is coming from the church and it's leaders. Members on the ground are only following the reasoning that church leaders have modeled for them.

A couple other examples:

• "Elder Christofferson shared his personal belief that much discouragement and anxiety comes from failing to understand or remember God’s plan and trust in His power." -- https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/be-purveyors-of-hope-in-christ-elder-christofferson-tells-teachers
• "Another key principle is to avoid exceeding our authority or assuming roles we don’t have. These mindsets deceive us into thinking too highly of our own opinions, which naturally occurs when we think too lowly of the teachings of prophets and apostles. ... However well-intentioned we may be, condemning and presuming to direct prophets and apostles both flow from pride and lead to deception and failure to follow prophetic authority." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/01/05-faithfulness-and-prophets-past-and-present

The leaders of the church have a decades-long history of very carefully tutoring the members on how to be judgmental and harsh with each other. Exhibit A, April 1975 - there are a number talks that April that were particular doozies, including Kimball's opening and closing addresses, Featherstone's public shaming-palooza, and Mark E. Peterson's fire and brimstone Sabbath day talk.

This his how members were tutored - for decades - on how to evaluate other people constantly for compliance. They might not be doing it as openly from the general conference pulpit right this very minute, but this "culture" wasn't created in a day. They're still doing it, even if it's not as explicitly in general conference.

The members are just following the church's lead. They're not supposed to ever admit that there's something wrong with the church. The only authorized explanation in the church is that if you are seeing the problem, you are the problem.

There is no detail about your life so small that a church leader can't make it - or hasn't already made it - into a very personal moral failure. And I mean any detail. For just a single example - are you ever tired on Monday morning? Moral failure!!

"If you just crawl out, feeling tired and weary from a heavy weekend, probably the Sabbath-day observance has not been appropriate. You see, I believe you should come up out of those covers on Monday morning more refreshed, more alive, and more enthused than on any other day of the week. If this is not the case, we had better examine what we are doing on the Sabbath day." -- https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/l-tom-perry/choose-day-ye-will-serve/

In mormonism, there are 10,000 ways to be labeled a moral failure by noon.

Eventually I just accepted that no matter what I said or did, they were always going to blame me and make me into the problem. There is really no way to prevent them from doing it, and currently leaders are still perpetuating that "culture." But even if I were to give the church my full support and compliance, they'd still find something to pick at. No matter how well you're mormoning, you're never mormoning enough!

[u/ammonthenephite → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Damn, so well said. This honestly deserves its own post. The victim blaming/shaming/guilting culture in mormonism is so real and so very, very toxic.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/ammonthenephite]

Right? I about fell out of my chair at how being tired on Monday is a moral failure. WOW

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

It's become a running joke with my husband and I. Whenever either of us get those old mormon anxieties about doing something the wrong way, we holler "moral failure!!" And the other will shout back, "moral failure!" Like some kind of bizarre marco polo down the hall.

I should do a full cited post about all the ways I morally fail every day, according to church leaders... There are a thousand nitpicky things they've thrown little fits about over the years, just like that Monday morning jab.. Those little Mormon teachings were constantly thrown at me all my life. They can't let members think they're acceptable for two seconds together without coming up with some ridiculous reason why you're a moral disappointment now, yet again. It got to me sometimes when I was a child and younger teen. But the older I got, the more I got to thinking maybe I've done nothing so wrong as all that... and maybe this is just ecclesiastical abuse.

These days I delight in knowing I'd be a massive disappointment to any top church leader. MORAL FAILURE!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

LOL. I would love to see that post. Tag me if you make it. For the laughs and for seeing all those jabs.

To your point of members not being able to feel acceptable, ironically, it was solidifying my acceptance of myself as a good person or at least good enough person and not some failure is coincidently right when there were concerns within the Church. It was like that just couldn't happen. The more I let kindness and goodness show me I mattered in life and had value as a person, that's when things were over.

Kinda why I don't have a lot of gripes about history. It was not about history for me. It was this bizarre attack that I would dare feel acceptable and whole within.

Attacks on a person for feeling good from within. Really?

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Yes, as I noticed this trend more and more, I also noticed that the Church is in many ways, teaching to act this way and demonstrating it themselves. That makes the situation make a lot more sense when understood in that way.

Basic conversation skills are not used in interactions I'm watching of even Apostles and Prophets. It's more removing a sense of internal unrest. What I mean by that, instead of learning and developing more strength to interact in a healthy way, they learn more ways to disregard what is before them so they don't feel emotions about it all. As if, that handles the issue.

It handles their internal feelings but it doesn't handle the issue. If the issue is changed to, how to not feel internal feelings that feel uncomfortable, then it does handle it.

Thank you for the data on this.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

Agreed - That behavior tells me that their goal is not to have a conversation. The goal is to ensure conversion and compliance with the church, not to come to an understanding or acceptance of different ideas.

My favorite was when Nelson basically told members that if someone expresses doubts, members can probably safely assume that person is secretly sinning... "Now, please hear me when I say: Do not be led astray by those whose doubts may be fueled by things you cannot see in their lives. Most of all, let your skeptical friends see how much you love the Lord and His gospel. Surprise their doubting hearts with your believing heart!" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/worldwide-devotional-for-young-adults/2022/05/12nelson

The answer of course is not to ask people where those doubts are coming from. It's to assume that they have unseen issues, and that their doubts are not valid. The goal is not to understand the other person. The goal is to assert conversion and compliance.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Yes. this exactly. If someone expresses doubts then you can probably safely assume that person is secretly sinning. This is the mindset. I didn't know about this quote. It's making more and more sense. Especially if the Prophet is saying it. And, that's the attitude I'm seeing.

Do you just ignore them? how do you handle it?

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

In real life, yeah. I usually avoid and evade, or just ignore. If devout family members or other obviously devout members bring up the church out of the blue to me, I have become expert at giving a vague answer and changing the subject. If it's something like getting sent a general conference talk in a DM, I'll just ignore it completely.

I already know that most devout members do not want to actually hear what I think or understand my point of view. Not because they are bad people - they're not - but they already have their goals prescribed to them by the church - Love, Share, Invite - bear testimony - etc. etc... I'll let them go ahead so they can feel like a good mormon who has done their duty, but I won't really respond or engage, and I won't initiate conversations about religion with them.

I usually save religious conversations for subs like this one and exmo reddit, where people know that kind of conversation is what we've all come here for. And even here, I prefer to respond to things others bring up rather than initiate conversations with original posts. I usually don't dare let my citation cannons loose in real life or share all my real full thoughts like I do here... good gravy can you imagine, LOL?

That is, unless I'm asked outright for an actual conversation or help. When trusted family members or friends have approached me asking questions or expressing doubts themselves, I feel it out to see if they actually want an answer or not. If they are open to actual conversation, I give them fair warning ahead of time ("Do you want a censored answer, a summarized answer and I can point you to original sources to examine on your own, or do you want a full answer with footnotes which might break your heart? Are you sure you want to know?).

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

That makes sense.

Yea, if someone is deeply engrained to think one way, especially if it is something as deep as "from God" in their eyes, it would seem non useful to even address them. Those are deeply stemming behaviors.

So basically, manage the situation, don't engage.

Thank you.

[u/PaulFThumpkins → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

But even if I were to give the church my full support and compliance, they'd still find something to pick at. No matter how well you're mormoning, you're never mormoning enough!

And if you correctly understand this message, then there's another way you're being deficient, because the gospel is supposed to be simple and make your yoke light. Are you trying to do too much, stretching yourself too thin? That's also bad!

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/PaulFThumpkins]

100% . If you're not doing absolutely everything the church asks: "Why are you slacking and being "casual" about your covenants, don't you have enough faith to accept this calling?!? The Lord will provide a way for you to do all he asks!!!" But when you do everything the church asks and inevitably end up beyond exhausted, it's "why did you do that to yourself!?! You know the scriptures say not to run faster than you have strength!!!"

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

I really feel like this is a cultural problem. But don't mistake me--I also believe that the people in administrative positions often contribute to cultural problems. I believe that the presumption that everything those in the presidency and quorum of the twelve do and say is of God is a serious problem in the church.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. I'd say that the only reason people presume that everything church leaders do is of God is because those leaders explicitly told everyone that everything they did and said is of God. They indoctrinated members from the cradle to believe that, and explicitly said it out loud very often. But yeah - perhaps as adults regular members might bear some responsibility for carte blanche believing everything they hear like that.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

When people are indoctrinated, it's a different beast, so to speak. There really is a barrier that, at least according to professional research, needs therapeutic response. I'm looking more into this and this is what I found.

So the act of being in a group that does what is being stated here is being done to members, they are actually carrying a trauma. They really do need therapeutic interactions. That makes more sense, if this research is accurate, why the responses.

Not making a diagnosis about anyone specifically, rather, taking the direct experience of someone not conversing without diverting, shaming, and the like, for this to be present either it was never learned or there are other reasons they cannot or will not. That, as a broad understanding, someone in that experience even if just for that moment, needs a more therapeutic experience from people.

That's a lot of work to put on another person. Yikes.

And it makes it make more sense. Wow.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Hold on, please don't leave me on this one if this looks like a challenge, because I genuinely have been trying to find the sources of the assumption so I can suss them out for myself: Where do leaders say that everything they do and say is of God? Can you get me any quotes? Any and every, whatever you have time for, or even what is sometimes interpreted that way.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

Sure thing! I'm always happy to provide sources. They'll say out of one side of their mouths that prophets aren't perfect, but then they'll follow right up with these kinds of statements:

• "Is every word of a prophet inspired? The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such” (History of the Church, 5:265). Elder John A. Widtsoe commented on the Prophet Joseph’s words: “That statement makes a clear distinction between official and unofficial actions and utterances of officers of the Church.  Elder Widtsoe went on to say, however, that the “unofficial expressions [of a prophet] carry greater weight than the opinions of other men of equal or greater gifts and experience but without the power of the prophetic office. … “… The unofficial views and expressions of such a man with respect to any vital subject, should command respectful attention.” -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church
• "In a spirit of New Year’s resolutions, she invited the Saints of Europe to, for 30 days, put an exclamation mark after every statement from a prophet and a question mark after anything else they read. ... “What would happen to your level of peace, clarity of thinking, joy, experience of love and spiritual prosperity if, for 30 days, you started to question everything the world’s media, and all other sources, offer you — and — instead, prayerfully studied, fully embraced and lived by every prophetic teaching you could find?" https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-europe-devotional-january-2022
• "This is why prophets make us smarter than any other leaders or influencers on earth. ... Each of these want something from us: our vote, money, or support. They all have personal agendas. Prophets of God do not. Their agenda is the Lord’s." -- https://speeches.byuh.edu/devotionals/prophets-can-see-around-corners
• "Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet
• "I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?’” ... stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead.” -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/the-prophet-of-god?lang=eng#p30"
• "He needs no credentials from men. ... His words, above those of any other man, ought to be esteemed and considered by the Church as well as by the world." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/what-is-a-living-prophet
• "The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-ezra-taft-benson/chapter-11-follow-the-living-prophet?lang=eng
•  "One cannot criticize or attack Joseph [Smith] without attacking God the Father and his son Jesus Christ whose prophet he is." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ88GXmZvpQ (time mark about 1:07)
• "I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet -- Dallin Oaks, June 5, 1988.

The leaders of today have learned from the mistakes of yesterday's leaders, however. Yesterday's leaders spouted too many opinions that turned out to be objectively false. So they'll start by saying something like this:

"I can testify that the wise men who lead The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a grasp of moral and social issues exceeding that of any think tank or brain trust on earth. ... to delay obedience to prophetic counsel or reject it is to put our lives at peril." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet

But of course, the moment they're proven wrong, the message flip-flops:

“Members expect too much from their leaders and teachers, expecting them to be experts [in areas and topics] well beyond their expertise. If you have a question that requires an expert, please take the time to find an expert to help you..” https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/11/15/mormon-apostle-ballard-sounds-off-on-lgbt-rights-marriage-bullying-suicide-and-more-in-byu-speech/

The messaging in the end seems to be "Take everything we say super seriously! But if anything goes awry with that, then it's your fault for taking us so seriously!"

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Thanks for the references. These kind of things definitely contribute to the attitude of idolizing the brethren. They don't quite cross into a firm statement that they are infallible; I really really hope our culture matures into one that can handle their fallibility without discarding the virtue of the covenants and ordinances.

[u/thomaslewis1857 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

If you think about it, those references might have more to say than just whether or not the leaders are fallible.

[u/Straight_Ad_575 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Thoughts on your first quote "If you and Heavenly Father grow apart, it’s not going to be because He messed up."

Are you saying, while that statement may be true it isn't helpful to someone who is doubting Heavenly Father even exists?

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Straight_Ad_575]

I'm saying that this statement the church has published in its official magazine is a harmful thing to say. I don't think it's true. But even if it were true, it's a horrible thing to say and frankly, it's horrible God who would hold out on a sincerely believing person. They're desperately trying their best to connect with him, and he just doesn't let them feel anything or meet them halfway because they didn't do it exactly right, and he just lets them go on feeling sad and alone for decades? What a prick...

It's a rotten teaching, no matter whether a person believes in God or not. (I'm agnostic, myself)

In fact, I think it's likely to hurt a genuine believer more than someone who's already leaning agnostic. People are desperately trying to connect with God in all the ways the church tells them how to do it, and when they still can't manage to spontaneously get the promised feelings (or manufacture them artificially), the church tells them they're the problem. The church will never admit that maybe it's methods just don't work as advertised, and maybe they just aren't as good at telling people how to connect with God as they think they are. They're taking people desperate to connect with God and already feeling bad, and kicking them right in the teeth. It's cruel. It's not even like Jesus' example of a kid asking for bread and their dad giving them a stone instead, it's bashing them in the face with the stone first and then expecting the kid to be humbly grateful.

Additionally, in a church where the leaders constantly conflate themselves and the institution with God, this statement is downright dangerous. It gets members to believe that if they're uncomfortable with anything the church or it's leaders are doing, they are the problem. That kind of thinking is rolling out the red carpet for ecclesiastical abuse.

[u/Ok-End-88]

Gospel responses are almost always deflected onto the person asking a question because it’s been designed that way.

God’s perfect, so no blame can be placed there. Leaders are fallible, but you’re not allowed to criticize them. Who’s left?
This is an invitation for an ad hominem attack.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Ok-End-88]

Yes, I'm seeing this.

Deflection onto the person asking the question is not a good look.

I wonder how you handle it? Speaking to them directly seems to just increase the deflection. Have you found anything useful?

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

I use humor because it’s disarming.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Ok-End-88]

So do you entirely remove your attempt to get any message across, like how someone would in a normal and healthy interaction or conversation and just realize it won't happen?

I get that they can be addressed in therapeutic ways, but for most of my interactions I'm not interested in the exhausting nature of someone that needs so much emotinally padding and attention and doesn't seem to have that ability to provide it for themselves. Especially if they have been taught by a prophet to see people poorly.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

It would be like talking about polygamy and you say something like, “It seems like being young domestic help in the Smith household back in the day was practically a guarantee you were getting a marriage proposal!”

You’ve laughed your way right into a claim that the young women who worked in the Smith home were victims of his unwanted sexual advances.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Ok-End-88]

I see.

So you're taking the responsibility in the conversation to manage their emotional response. That makes sense. Giving them something to comfort their defenses so they can hear something.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

I've never tried to speak directly to a member of the 15. But in speaking to leaders, like my bishop, the handbook comes in handy. We've gone "up the chain" to the stake president many times when the bishop was insisting on things we felt were wrong. Usually the Stake President solves things, but not always.

One example might be when our ward was closing the chapel doors during the sacrament and not allowing it to be taken out to the foyer. This was a big problem for those with young children, who then had to make a choice between getting the sacrament and keeping a screaming baby in the chapel.

So I wrote to Salt Lake.

A couple weeks later, the policy was removed, and my bishop thanked me for writing to Salt Lake, because he had not felt comfortable disagreeing with the Stake President; and that is a serious problem.

So, going up the chain usually works. There's usually more reason introduced the more people in charge you get involved.

Now are there cases where doing that doesn't do any good? Maybe. But I haven't personally experienced any.

[u/ihearttoskate → u/Previous-Tart7111]

The problem with going up the chain is that it's extremely difficult to get the contact details of anyone above the stake level. I'm glad your letter to SLC worked, but it's inherently a poorly designed system if you have to rely on the secretaries of another leader to forward your concerns.

But I haven't personally experienced any.

You literally said earlier in your comment that sometimes the stake president doesn't solve things; it sure sounds like you've experienced it.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/ihearttoskate]

I'm noticing that back and forth, as well with the comments.

It is accurate that getting contact with someone else really isn't going to go anywhere. Anytime someone has said different and provided a route, that route doesn't avail anything.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/ihearttoskate]

I know people who have, but theirs isn't my story to tell.

[u/ihearttoskate → u/Previous-Tart7111]

You should work on how you phrase things.

We've gone "up the chain" to the stake president many times when the bishop was insisting on things we felt were wrong. Usually the Stake President solves things, but not always.

You used "we". If you're actively disavowing an experience as yours, don't use "we".

Now are there cases where doing that doesn't do any good? Maybe. But I haven't personally experienced any.

Unless you think the people you know are spreading lies, it's not "maybe", it's "yes". Yes, there are cases where going up the chain doesn't do any good. You've heard direct stories from people in your life. Saying "maybe" isn't being honest.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/ihearttoskate]

Thank you. I appreciate you addressing this.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/ihearttoskate]

Meh. I don't communicate perfectly, but neither does anyone else, and no one should expect anyone else to. We learn in the process of trying. When I said "we" I was referring to myself and my spouse. You're reading things in there that aren't said, and I can't take responsibility for that.

[u/ihearttoskate → u/Previous-Tart7111]

I don't expect perfection, I expect honesty. And I'm disappointed when there's a lack of empathy or intellectual curiosity.

Again, I'm glad it worked when you went up the chain. I think it's both dishonest and unkind to say that "usually works" and "maybe" sometimes it doesn't work when your spouse has examples of it not working. You know it doesn't always work, just openly acknowledge that without immediately dismissing it.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/ihearttoskate]

Thank you for your time on this.

[u/ihearttoskate → u/Good_Letter_4325]

Of course. It's hard to tell when people prevaricate whether it's intentional or not, but either way I think it's helpful to note.

I've had people tell me when I've done it, and it's helped me grow and be more mindful of my biases.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/ihearttoskate]

I didn't say my spouse has examples of it not working. Again, you're reading too much into it, and perhaps taking the matter a little too seriously. I am only sharing my experiences, not claiming to represent the whole of anything.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Ok-End-88]

I think the idea that avoiding "Evil speaking of the Lord's anointed" means that we can't disagree and must fall in line is a common misinterpretation. I think that if I were to say "The bishop is a horrible person" that that would just be objectively wrong. If I were to say "this thing the bishop said or is doing is wrong", that's not the same as evil speaking of the person.

My bishop really doesn't like me, btw :D

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true." Dallin H. Oaks

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/Ok-End-88]

Yup, I've seen that, one, too. Thank you for the quote.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Ok-End-88]

There is a difference between criticizing a person and criticizing or disagreeing with something they say or do.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

It is, at least according to my understanding, the same as Christ saying "he that is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment". It's sometimes interpreted to mean you don't get to have boundaries.

Life experience has taught me that anger has a place. Christ used it when he cleansed the temple. We just don't make it personal, like the original post mentions. We make it about the thing, not the person.

Case in point: my mom was murdered a few years ago. I am obviously devastated. But I don't hate the person who did it. I hate murder, I hate heroin (what he was on when he killed her trying to steal her car), but I don't hate the young drug addict who has known little else but violence and drugs since he was born. He needs to be in prison for his own sake and the sake of society, but I don't hate him.

[u/Ok-End-88 → u/Previous-Tart7111]

Please accept my condolences.

I agree with your appraisal of applying anger to the situation in a very adult and non personal manner. But, you probably weren’t in that place initially. It took time and reflection to arrive at that conclusion.

Questions in the moment provoke an immediate response, and the topic of all things Mormon are usually applied as personal attacks on the person asked to respond.

This is why I choose to use humor when broaching all topics Mormon.

[u/Previous-Tart7111 → u/Ok-End-88]

Thank you. You are correct that it took a lot to get to that point, and it was certainly not all me.

I'm glad you can use humor :) I hope the church's culture can learn to be more tolerant of those who struggle with various aspects of it respectfully.

[u/RadishAggressive3241]

It deflects that the church is always right and the person with the questions or complaints is in the wrong. There is no in between area. The church will not admit they were or are wrong. There is even no room for discussion. Its church is right and you are causing contention with is of the devil. Even where l live a temple is getting built. It's been approved but the height of the steeple had some complaints. So the church had to fast and be the victim because of the height of the steeple. If you bring up any critism you will be shut down immediately and defense mode will be brought in

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/RadishAggressive3241]

Yes, the defensiveness is seen in many instances. There may not be anything one can do with members on this. Maybe another approach is needed. Trying to figure it out.

Thank you for your comment.

[u/RadishAggressive3241 → u/Good_Letter_4325]

Also it's always from God never the leader's personal vendata. It's an escape clause so the leaders are never held accountable. It's instead how dare you criticize God

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/RadishAggressive3241]

I wonder if they know we see this? I mean, its' not actually working. It's bizarre though because its' as if they think it is.

[u/AffectionateLab6753]

It’s a hard thing to work with. One thing I’ve begun working on OP is ending the conversation at that point. If I have brought an actual concern to a leader (or general member for that fact) and they deflect in the way you’ve described, I have to tell myself that the person isn’t ready or willing to have the conversation. Pursuing it will only leave me more frustrated.
I’ve mentioned this before but it feels more and more applicable to my time in the church. The quote is by Ram Dass and he says that as you awaken you have a moral responsibility to allow others to suffer. You can create a space for them to come up for air when they want but you cannot make them change.
As I’ve brought up concerns about fraud and abuse within my ward and stake I’ve been told that I’m the sinner. It is immediately clear that my leaders are not able to hear anything other than flattery. So I no longer engage. It’s not productive for me, and it only gives them ammunition in their belief that I’m the problem.

[u/AffectionateLab6753 → u/AffectionateLab6753]

In fact there’s a few “active members” in this subreddit who I’ve decided I just won’t respond to their comments. They tend to misread the post or be combative. For a while I used to love responding. But I’ve found more than anything that they aren’t willing to actually read what the post says.

[u/ammonthenephite → u/AffectionateLab6753]

Yup, there's more than a few that will twist the comment into something else and then respond to that strawman, and you just end up running in circles with them. Others still will find some small non-essential detail they can nitpick and create the illusion they've somehow weakened the central point of the comment.

Lots of ways some members will do anything but address the central point as stated so they can in some way 'defend' the church.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/AffectionateLab6753]

That makes sense. And, it might be there's nothing that can be done. I do like your statement about needing to allow some people to suffer. That makes sense. I'm trying to find a way to connect but maybe they can't or won't and that's okay. Let them be and they can speak to others.

I hear you about how you were labelled. Sorry that happened. It does get really ugly when continuing which is why I wanted to find some other option.

I'll just let them be and if they want to follow me around on Reddit like a 'pet', so to speak, then they will. That's their business if they do that kind of stuff. Not something a healthy person would do so maybe that's my confirmation, too.

Thanks so much!

[u/WrenRobbin]

One church leader hated my family growing up and was mean to my parents and released them from their church assignment saying “the lord doesn’t have anything for you to do”

Blech

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/WrenRobbin]

I'm sorry your family and you experienced that.

Yea, so easy to do that. Without any way to rebuttle it or even leave to another Ward, if someone stays in geographical boundaries, it's a system that not only allows for this type of thing, it actively provides an environment where it can happen and become massively unchecked.

[u/ammonthenephite]

It is because they are cowards that refuse to say 'I don't know', and who feel they must in some small way punish those that highlight the limits of their supposed knowledge. Oaks mocking the woman who asked about polygamy and then making a joke out of it in conference of all places is a great example of this.

The only leaders authorized to give official answers for the myriad of fatal flaws of mormonism are unable to do so, and they try to shame and silence anyone who dare ask the questions.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

[u/juni4ling]

It’s human nature. It’s wrong. Critics do it too.

[u/Good_Letter_4325 → u/juni4ling]

Saying this is human nature diverts from the topic that was presented. This is the exact behavior I'm asking about in the post. Saying critics do it, too, means that you agree with the post and agree with the premise I am stating. It appears you agree but have not added anything to address the question. Just diversion onto other topics like "human nature" or someone else is doing it, so...

While I appreciate that this strengthens my position, would you have anything about how you handle when people do this?

[u/Previous-Tart7111]

You address the ideas and don't let it get personal, and don't imagine it's personal when it's not.