Candy Store Mormons

[silverfox]

I have a friend who I call a "candy store Mormon". (others call it "cafateria Mormons") I call her this because she can pick and choose what she likes and needs about Mo'ism and leave the rest behind. She doesn't care about history. She doesn't care about anything negative. She simply ignores what she doesn't like and embraces and uses what she does to her advantage.

She drinks alcoholic beverages. She doesn't have any problems being physically intimate if the chance arises. (she is a single mom) She attends church every Sunday, teaches Primary and loves her calling. (of course her leaders have no idea about her "secret" life)

I had dinner with this friend the other night. We never talk about religion. But for some reason she questioned me about my apostacy. She asked why I no longer was interested in the Mormon church. I usually don't go there with members. Because 1. they don't really care 2. they believe what they want anyway which is usually that I left because I am a hoochie mamma, alcoholic, drug addict or porn star wannabe. :D But with her I thought it would be okay to share. And I did. I explained I had issues with history. Blood atonement. Polyandry, DNA, etc. I didn't get into details. I just explained that had I known what I know now NO WAY would I have joined the church. It is against so much I am for. (unconditional love, etc)

I was shocked when she became irate with me. She stated that any church has it's issues. I rebutted with the fact that I've never EVER heard another church claim they are the only true church and are the only church that has a direct phone line to God. So this makes it different for me. I respect and even admire that she can pick and choose what she likes and leave the rest behind. She makes the church work for her not the other way around. That's WONDERFUL! But that doesn't work for me. And it's okay that it doesn't.

Her parents are nevermo. She grew up in Utard and joined when she was 8 as did the rest of her siblings. So I believe she has the ability to pick and choose and make it work for her. She stated that she needed it. But I also stated that I didn't need an organized religion and that it was okay for us to be different.

I just didn't expect to ever have this conversation with her. AFter dinner we went back to my home and drank margaritas and played blackjack and had lots of fun.

And I am sincere when I say I admire those who can pick and choose and embrace what they need from Mo'ism and leave the rest behind. IMO, they are treating it like it is just another church, like it SHOULD be treated.

[gracie]

I have a friend who I call a "candy store Mormon". (others call it "cafateria Mormons") I call her this because she can pick and choose what she likes and needs about Mo'ism and leave the rest behind. She doesn't care about history. She doesn't care about anything negative. She simply ignores what she doesn't like and embraces and uses what she does to her advantage.

She drinks alcoholic beverages. She doesn't have any problems being physically intimate if the chance arises. (she is a single mom) She attends church every Sunday, teaches Primary and loves her calling. (of course her leaders have no idea about her "secret" life)

I had dinner with this friend the other night. We never talk about religion. But for some reason she questioned me about my apostacy. She asked why I no longer was interested in the Mormon church. I usually don't go there with members. Because 1. they don't really care 2. they believe what they want anyway which is usually that I left because I am a hoochie mamma, alcoholic, drug addict or porn star wannabe. :D But with her I thought it would be okay to share. And I did. I explained I had issues with history. Blood atonement. Polyandry, DNA, etc. I didn't get into details. I just explained that had I known what I know now NO WAY would I have joined the church. It is against so much I am for. (unconditional love, etc)

I was shocked when she became irate with me. She stated that any church has it's issues. I rebutted with the fact that I've never EVER heard another church claim they are the only true church and are the only church that has a direct phone line to God. So this makes it different for me. I respect and even admire that she can pick and choose what she likes and leave the rest behind. She makes the church work for her not the other way around. That's WONDERFUL! But that doesn't work for me. And it's okay that it doesn't.

Her parents are nevermo. She grew up in Utard and joined when she was 8 as did the rest of her siblings. So I believe she has the ability to pick and choose and make it work for her. She stated that she needed it. But I also stated that I didn't need an organized religion and that it was okay for us to be different.

I just didn't expect to ever have this conversation with her. AFter dinner we went back to my home and drank margaritas and played blackjack and had lots of fun.

And I am sincere when I say I admire those who can pick and choose and embrace what they need from Mo'ism and leave the rest behind. IMO, they are treating it like it is just another church, like it SHOULD be treated.


I have been noticing this phenomenom lately, as I study and observe the TBMs around me. For years I have had such negative reactions to so many things LDS. My husband first observed many years ago that it always would take me a day or two to "recover" from attending church. We chalked it up to being overwhelmed from the work and effort to get kids ready for church, fulfill numerous callings (we have always accepted as many callings as we were expected to do!), blah blah blah. Now I see that it was the emotional exertion required to keep my thoughts worthy so to speak. That is, do the mental gymnastics required to "believe". So, lately, I have been making an effort to analyze my happy TBM friends to see how they do it! So many are just as you describe, to some degree or another. They can take the good, while disregarding the ideas they do not agree with. They use statements like, "Well, I think he was just stating his opinion, it's not like it's a commandment", or "whatever, I don't have time for that", or else they just zone out when they hear something they may disagree with or are not willing to deal with (my MIL is expert at that!). For myself, I bought the whole package; when the prophet spoke, the thinking had been done. When the SP spoke from the pulpit at SC, I took notes and implemented. When the bish asked, I obeyed. (For the record, my MIL was a convert at age 22, I am BIC, 5th gen on mother's side). One of my first clues that something might be wrong with the church instead of with me, was my observation to my husband, "why does god's true church take advantage of and even victimize those who are most zealous and sincere and obedient, and those who do what they want are ok?"
That was the first clue, and since then I have come to believe that, for me any way, it is about personal boundries. I was sexually abused since I was very young, and had almost no emotional and personal boundries. As I realized the ways the church perpetuated my feelings of helplessness, instead of impowering me, (after all, I was doing everything "right" so I had the Holy ghost, so I would theoretically get stronger and healthier, right?!) It seems to me that in some cases at least, those with healthy personal boundries, are the least likely to be negatively affected by an institution that systematically works to break down boundries and control as many aspects of your life as you will allow. what do you think?

[mutleydog]

I have never heard of that expression before....and don't think i ever met any mormons like that, but saying that, I probably did but didn't really know it! I met plenty of inactive folk who were breaking the WoW though...I wonder how many more 'candy store mormons' are out there?!! :rolleyes:

[mutleydog]

I was sexually abused since I was very young, and had almost no emotional and personal boundries. As I realized the ways the church perpetuated my feelings of helplessness, instead of impowering me, (after all, I was doing everything "right" so I had the Holy ghost, so I would theoretically get stronger and healthier, right?!) It seems to me that in some cases at least, those with healthy personal boundries, are the least likely to be negatively affected by an institution that systematically works to break down boundries and control as many aspects of your life as you will allow. what do you think?

Gracie,

I would have to agree with you. I too was abused when I was young (physically and emotionally) and like you I had very few boundaries (except when it came to accepting I was a good person and deserved respect and love - couldn't understand why people liked me etc.)......I think the whole concept of 'choosing the right' and following the leaders counsel was something I really felt I needed to do - to be the best i could.....but obviously I never attained that no-matter how much I tried....the more I did, the more stuff i got to do! I lapt it up because it made me feel needed and wanted and that I was doing something right. I had no boundaries at all when it came to church stuff - it had total control over me. The church system seemed to totally home in in on my vulnerabilities and I guess thats why I found it hard to let go, even though I knew I needed and wanted to do so.

[silverfox]

Gracie,

I would have to agree with you. I too was abused when I was young (physically and emotionally) and like you I had very few boundaries (except when it came to accepting I was a good person and deserved respect and love - couldn't understand why people liked me etc.)......I think the whole concept of 'choosing the right' and following the leaders counsel was something I really felt I needed to do - to be the best i could.....but obviously I never attained that no-matter how much I tried....the more I did, the more stuff i got to do! I lapt it up because it made me feel needed and wanted and that I was doing something right. I had no boundaries at all when it came to church stuff - it had total control over me. The church system seemed to totally home in in on my vulnerabilities and I guess thats why I found it hard to let go, even though I knew I needed and wanted to do so.

I am amazed at how many members (including myself) of this board are survivors of childhood abuse both sexual and physical. We should throw in emotional, as well.

You all amaze me.

[mutleydog]

I am amazed at how many members (including myself) of this board are survivors of childhood abuse both sexual and physical. We should throw in emotional, as well.

You all amaze me.


I have noticed that too Silverfox, but I have also noticed what strong, courageous people we are too and that is just awesome! :D

[peter_mary]

I have a friend who I call a "candy store Mormon". (others call it "cafateria Mormons") I call her this because she can pick and choose what she likes and needs about Mo'ism and leave the rest behind.

I hadn't heard this term, either, but it is exactly what "pragmatism" is all about...taking what works for you, and not getting hung up on that which doesn't.

I believe that it is not possible to be a "Mormon" in the truest sense of the word. There is just too much. So every Mormon who ever was a Mormon, from Joseph Smith on down the line, picked and chose the pieces they could abide by, and convinced themselves that "it had damn well better be enough, 'cause that's all I got!" The difference between the happy TBM and me is that they picked and chose different things than I did. They happened to pick things that helped them still fit in the Church community, and I picked things that didn't help me out in that regard. It all depends on the set of cultural components you like and choose. If you choose a set of visibly compliant items, then you fit in nicely. If you choose a different set, then you're out.

For instance...you can pay your tithing and not go to the temple. The Bishop knows the one but doesn't necessarily know the other. But you don't get to choose to go to the temple but NOT pay your tithing. Or you can be utterly disconnected from the widows in your ward, but never turn down a calling. But it benefits you not one twit from the Church perspective if you visit the widows but won't serve in the Relief Society. For me, I got in trouble when I decided to abide by Joseph's assertion that we "teach correct principles and let people govern themselves." Guess I chose wrong from a cultural perspective.

I can't imagine that there is a Mormon alive who chooses everything the Church demands of them...otherwise they would have no time or energy for anything else, and the likely result would be utter insanity. I believe all Mormons are "Candy-store" Mormons. It's just that some are more brazen about it, and some are quite secretive, and some don't even think about it.

Paul

[gracie]

I can't imagine that there is a Mormon alive who chooses everything the Church demands of them...otherwise they would have no time or energy for anything else, and the likely result would be utter insanity. I believe all Mormons are "Candy-store" Mormons. It's just that some are more brazen about it, and some are quite secretive, and some don't even think about it.

Paul

This is what I was trying to say in my round about long winded way! The people I know who are happy in the church do just that, I think mostly without thinking about it. Also, they may have personal characteristics which help them to fit in with the church culture. Women who really do want to stay home with their children and who honestly and naturally enjoy it have the upper hand on obeying the prophet over those women who are more comfortable spending at least part of their day with other adults in an environment that challenges them in other ways (ie work-there i go being long winded again). If your personality is such that you fit in, it's easier to feel good about the church and never question, than if genetically or environmentally or whatever, you are drawn to things that are not in line with the church teachings. Personal boundries allow some people to do what they feel is best for them anyway, ignoring what they are "supposed" to do because they know intuitively that it is not right for them, and some people, who have more of a "victim mentality" (that is not the best way to describe what I mean but I can't think of a better phrase at the moment) are more likely to distrust their own instincts and search out an authority to tell them what is right for them. So, they are at the mercy of church leaders who "speak for God". This is the concept that confirms to me that the LDS church cannot be god's true church; it enables abusers, and further victimizes those who are most vulnerable. I have seen it over and over in my own life and other's close to me. The COJCOLDS is just as prone to abuse of power as any other institution. So much for the "The church is perfect, the people aren't" line!
I remember a SP I had in another city we lived in a few years ago. I was the Stake prim pres and had to opportunity to get to know him fairly well. He was a convert at age 20, no mission, serving as SP far away from the corridor. I really admire him and have been thinking about how he seemed to buy it all and be happy. He is very intelligent and well-rounded. However, a phrase he was known for saying quite often, was that the handbook of instuctions is like a smorgasborg, no one could hope to implement everything in it, they are suggestions; pick and choose those policies and principles that work for your area of the vineyard. This sums it up I think! If I could think like that, I could possibly continue to have ties with the church. But as Gordo said not too long ago, this church is either all it claims, or it is a complete fraud! or something like that. I just can't buy it.
Gracie

[Born Free]

I was shocked when she became irate with me. She stated that any church has it's issues. I rebutted with the fact that I've never EVER heard another church claim they are the only true church and are the only church that has a direct phone line to God. So this makes it different for me. I respect and even admire that she can pick and choose what she likes and leave the rest behind. She makes the church work for her not the other way around. That's WONDERFUL! But that doesn't work for me. And it's okay that it doesn't.

She stated that she needed it. But I also stated that I didn't need an organized religion and that it was okay for us to be different.

And I am sincere when I say I admire those who can pick and choose and embrace what they need from Mo'ism and leave the rest behind. IMO, they are treating it like it is just another church, like it SHOULD be treated.

Jack Mormons I thought the expression was!

Silverfox, I am not sure that it is as simple as you describe.

If this woman is holding some callings, she has gone though interviews, so I have to assume is misstating (lying) about her worthiness. If she has alcohol in her home, chances are that anytime another member comes into her home, some "tidy-up" goes on to present the right image. You said she is a mother. I am guessing that means that there are some little eyes and ears somewhere observing the gap between the walk and the talk. That exacts a price on children, and is frankly undermining of healthy parental authority, which can bite one on the butt when kids reach teen years.

Now a person can rationalize all that away by saying, "It is none of their business whether I drink, have a coffee, have sex outside their boundaries", etc, BUT there is an (lack of) integrity price attached to such duplicity.

That may sound like a judgement. It is not. I am merely stating that there is usually a mental health price attached to such incongruent behaviour.

That you friend got upset when you were critical of the Church suggests at least the possibility that she lives in at least 2 places in her head.

The problem here is that Moism is not just another religion. It claims it is of another cut altogether. It delves into you life in a deep, invasive and frankly boundary-violating manner, so if one says "That is OK", BUT, then uses lies to say "That's not OK", they are really placing themselves in a bind.

Little wonder you got a spray. I suspect she has a lot of unresolved internal conflict, and you would have presented an ideal projection target.

Daryl

PS: Silverfox, your problem is with integrity - too damned much!!!! Love you for it. :p

[silverfox]

Jack Mormons I thought the expression was!

Silverfox, I am not sure that it is as simple as you describe.

If this woman is holding some callings, she has gone though interviews, so I have to assume is misstating (lying) about her worthiness. If she has alcohol in her home, chances are that anytime another member comes into her home, some "tidy-up" goes on to present the right image. You said she is a mother. I am guessing that means that there are some little eyes and ears somewhere observing the gap between the walk and the talk. That exacts a price on children, and is frankly undermining of healthy parental authority, which can bite one on the butt when kids reach teen years.

Now a person can rationalize all that away by saying, "It is none of their business whether I drink, have a coffee, have sex outside their boundaries", etc, BUT there is an (lack of) integrity price attached to such duplicity.

That may sound like a judgement. It is not. I am merely stating that there is usually a mental health price attached to such incongruent behaviour.

That you friend got upset when you were critical of the Church suggests at least the possibility that she lives in at least 2 places in her head.

The problem here is that Moism is not just another religion. It claims it is of another cut altogether. It delves into you life in a deep, invasive and frankly boundary-violating manner, so if one says "That is OK", BUT, then uses lies to say "That's not OK", they are really placing themselves in a bind.

Little wonder you got a spray. I suspect she has a lot of unresolved internal conflict, and you would have presented an ideal projection target.

Daryl

PS: Silverfox, your problem is with integrity - too damned much!!!! Love you for it. :p

I should mention she has two older kids. 17 (but is what she calls "more mature", practically lives with her boyfriend, has been promiscuous since about age 13) and her son is 19. My friend has not really been all that active until the past 2 years. She doesn't hide from her kids or friends that she drinks or has sex. I certainly don't care and have no issues with anything she does.

I think I found it surprising that she would be so defensive of the church when she has never been a TBM, etc. So defensive that she almost yelled at me. I should also explain that I was calm and not emotional about anything she asked me. She was the emotional one. I love her to death and I suspect you are right...that she has some inner conflicts she is dealing wtih. Perhaps what she leaves behind in Mo'ism is bothering her more than she thinks. Perhaps she is starting to experience guilt where she never did before. I don't know. I just love her as a friend and I will try not to have any conversations like this again with her.

I find it interesting how it always seems to come up around here (Utard).

I don't know about my level of integrity...I certainly have my issues. We humans are such interesting creatures, aren't we? ;)

[Born Free]

I don't know about my level of integrity...I certainly have my issues. We humans are such interesting creatures, aren't we? ;)

I don't see having issues a problem; like welcome to the human race!

Where it gets sticky is when we are in denial that they exist. That is the point at which we place ourselves at odds with reality. It usually creates tension, which rather than resolving that internally, we try to propel it out onto others.

Daryl

[noodle]

This is an interesting discussion. When I was going to the temple for the first time (in my 30s), I had a fairly liberal bishop who also happened to be a professor. In the interview, he practically "re-wrote" the interview questions. The one about supporting the leaders, blah, blah, blah, was presented more like this: "now I don't agree with their views about women..." and he'd give his more liberal take on the question. It certainly made it easy for a "cafeteria style" Mo like me to get a recommend. Besides, "picking and choosing" was how is was for me as an Episcopalian.

As a depressed early-forty-something Mo, I went into therapy with a therapist who happended to be Mo (a bishop, no less :eek: ), who told me that if he found out that the BOM was false, he could no longer be a member. I found that so interesting at the time, because I guess that I felt that most religions had problems, demons in their past, etc.

However, as time went on, it didn't seem so easy to "pick and choose" anymore. It was clear that my lack of belief in some pretty important aspects of Moism was getting in the way, and I especially became less tolerant of those making choices for others. I think that the icing on the cake for me was the excommunication of the 7 intellectuals way back when. I didn't (and still don't) see membership in any church as something "tangible," that you can "take away."

Janet

[Born Free]

This is an interesting discussion. When I was going to the temple for the first time (in my 30s), I had a fairly liberal bishop who also happened to be a professor. In the interview, he practically "re-wrote" the interview questions. The one about supporting the leaders, blah, blah, blah, was presented more like this: "now I don't agree with their views about women..." and he'd give his more liberal take on the question. It certainly made it easy for a "cafeteria style" Mo like me to get a recommend. Besides, "picking and choosing" was how is was for me as an Episcopalian.

As a depressed early-forty-something Mo, I went into therapy with a therapist who happended to be Mo (a bishop, no less :eek: ), who told me that if he found out that the BOM was false, he could no longer be a member. I found that so interesting at the time, because I guess that I felt that most religions had problems, demons in their past, etc.

However, as time went on, it didn't seem so easy to "pick and choose" anymore. It was clear that my lack of belief in some pretty important aspects of Moism was getting in the way, and I especially became less tolerant of those making choices for others. I think that the icing on the cake for me was the excommunication of the 7 intellectuals way back when. I didn't (and still don't) see membership in any church as something "tangible," that you can "take away."

Janet

mamajama,

I feel I should clarify my last remark, if your last remark related to mine.

I was making that remark re integrity in a personal context. I certainly hold the belief that, whilst we need to accept human foibles in any organisations run by and inhabited by human beings, there is a point at which we have to say "Enough is enough" and walk.

With Mosim, I can't see where to start, there are so many problematic areas:

The founder
The foundation (BoM)
The early additions to Doctrinal text (BoA)
His personal pathology/ies
The coersion used with consistency across 2 centuries.
The consistent laundering of the truth
THe reworking of history
The unhealthy attitudes re sex
The racism
The abuse of mental health
The failure to confront abuses of power, including sexual.
The sexism
The environementally unsustainable position on birth rates
The anti-intellectual stance
The anti-science stance
The patronising "milk before meat" attitude

Flexibility and accomodation are both important principals up to certain point, beyond which they collapse into the failure to see what is happening and take a stand IMHO.

BTW, I am blessed/cursed with a mind that prefers to think "big picture", taking in the wide expanse of inter-relationships. And for my money, the big picture is "UNHEALTHY" and irretrievable. Even IF Moism changed its position on ALL the contemporary issues, I cannot see how it can escape that the very historical foundation is riddled with deep, deep problems.

Daryl

[noodle]

mamajama,

I feel I should clarify my last remark, if your last remark related to mine.

I was making that remark re integrity in a personal context. I certainly hold the belief that, whilst we need to accept human foibles in any organisations run by and inhabited by human beings, there is a point at which we have to say "Enough is enough" and walk.

With Mosim, I can't see where to start, there are so many problematic areas:

The founder
The foundation (BoM)
he early additions to Doctrinal text (BoA)
His personal pathology/ies
The coersion used with consistency across 2 centuries.
The consistent laundering of the truth
THe reworking of history
The unhealthy attitudes re sex
The racism
The abuse of mental health
The failure to confront abuses of power, including sexual.
The sexism
The environementally unsustainable position on birth rates
The anti-intellectual stance
The anti-science stance
The patronising "milk before meat" attitude

Flexibility and accomodation are both important principals up to certain point, beyond which they collapse into the failure to see what is happening and take a stand IMHO.

BTW, I am blessed/cursed with a mind that prefers to think "big picture", taking in the wide expanse of inter-relationships. And for my money, the big picture is "UNHEALTHY" and irretrievable. Even IF Moism changed its position on ALL the contemporary issues, I cannot see how it can escape that the very historical foundation is riddled with deep, deep problems.

Daryl

Daryl, I 100% agree with you...guess I was more describing my process of getting to where I am now. I did reach a point at which I said, "enough is enough." Thanks for your reply.

Janet

[free thinker]

mamajama,

I feel I should clarify my last remark, if your last remark related to mine.

I was making that remark re integrity in a personal context. I certainly hold the belief that, whilst we need to accept human foibles in any organisations run by and inhabited by human beings, there is a point at which we have to say "Enough is enough" and walk.

With Mosim, I can't see where to start, there are so many problematic areas:

The founder
The foundation (BoM)
The early additions to Doctrinal text (BoA)
His personal pathology/ies
The coersion used with consistency across 2 centuries.
The consistent laundering of the truth
THe reworking of history
The unhealthy attitudes re sex
The racism
The abuse of mental health
The failure to confront abuses of power, including sexual.
The sexism
The environementally unsustainable position on birth rates
The anti-intellectual stance
The anti-science stance
The patronising "milk before meat" attitude

Flexibility and accomodation are both important principals up to certain point, beyond which they collapse into the failure to see what is happening and take a stand IMHO.

BTW, I am blessed/cursed with a mind that prefers to think "big picture", taking in the wide expanse of inter-relationships. And for my money, the big picture is "UNHEALTHY" and irretrievable. Even IF Moism changed its position on ALL the contemporary issues, I cannot see how it can escape that the very historical foundation is riddled with deep, deep problems.

Daryl

Someone once said it like this " You cannot put new wine into old bottles" . You know who this was, and he was speaking about the current ecclesiastical authority at the timel Scientifically, I think, the new wine would have burst the clay jugs.

I am no longer a believing christian, but it is easy to see the wisdom in the remark. There is a point where you just gotta start over!


Free Thinker

[nate]

I can't see where to start, there are so many problematic areas:

The founder
The foundation (BoM)
The early additions to Doctrinal text (BoA)
His personal pathology/ies
The coersion used with consistency across 2 centuries.
The consistent laundering of the truth
THe reworking of history
The unhealthy attitudes re sex
The racism
The abuse of mental health
The failure to confront abuses of power, including sexual.
The sexism
The environementally unsustainable position on birth rates
The anti-intellectual stance
The anti-science stance
The patronising "milk before meat" attitude


Sorry to get off topic here, but I have a bit of useless information, RE The Racism in the church, that I thought y'all might find a tad bit interesting.

Most, if not all, I'm sure are aware of the group based in Northern Idaho/Washington called the Aryan Nations.

Can you guess when their "church" got a huge surge in converts? Try the late 70s/early 80s.

Can you guess where most of their base at that time came from? Yup.