Sunstone Review of "Leaving the Saints"

[brolap]

For those who haven't already seen....this is a Sunstone Review of "Leaving the Saints":

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/Download/book-review.pdf

One particularly interesting quote from this article for this forum: "I was expecting a “post-Mormon” story and instead found an ex-Mormon version".

I'd love to hear thoughts/reactions to this article from the post-mo community.

[brolap]

More from the article....

"A friend of mine who left the Church for extremely compelling intellectual reasons a few months into his mission coined this term and explained the difference to me: Ex-Mormons have left the church and are still angry with it. Post-Mormons have left the church but still appreciate all that the Church rendered them along their spiritual journey through life."

How many of you share this definition of Post-Mormon? I've spent a fair amount of time on both sites (exmo and postmo), and find this distinction curious. Not quite this clear.

Thoughts?

[Born Free]

More from the article....

"A friend of mine who left the Church for extremely compelling intellectual reasons a few months into his mission coined this term and explained the difference to me: Ex-Mormons have left the church and are still angry with it. Post-Mormons have left the church but still appreciate all that the Church rendered them along their spiritual journey through life."

How many of you share this definition of Post-Mormon? I've spent a fair amount of time on both sites (exmo and postmo), and find this distinction curious. Not quite this clear.

Thoughts?

For me, ex-Mo says what I am NOT, where as post-Mo is more like "Been there done that!", it is just a part of who I am and am becoming.

Something like, Mo is part of who I am, and part of what shaped me, but does not define me. In case you have not found it, have a look at the process a few of us developed over on another thread (go towards the end), and see if that helps clarify your thinking:

http://www.postmormon.org/forum_vb/showthread.php?t=288

I am sure there is a lot of overlap between the two, but IMHO there may be a more whole perspective, less fixated in post-Mo.

Daryl

[lsands]

Have you read the book? This is a forum for discussion, so please share your thoughts with us. Or I will suspect that you are calling attention to this "review" at Sunstone only to further the agenda of those who are working to discredit Martha Beck and her book. The fact that the this is the first time you've ever posted reinforces that suspicion.

BTW, I HAVE read the book, and already planned to write my own response to the essay at this link before this thread began. I will post it on this site for anyone who is interested to read within the next few days.

I will say this: I liked the book very much. IMHO, all of the nitpicking about men wearing socks and Sonia Johnson in the BYU library misses three main points: the Mormon church's doctrine is ridiculous, unsupported by fact, and damaging psychologically and spiritually; there is an incredible amount of sexual abuse among LDS members, and it is not respected or acknowledged; ultimately, this is the story of one woman's spiritual journey from fear and pain to peace and joy. While she ridicules the doctrine, she continually describes LDS people in loving terms and positive terms, including her family. She is authentic and honest and real throughout. This book really is a "rorshach test" (as the reviewer in Sunstone described it) that reveals the people who read it.

Laraine

[free thinker]

I read the article from Sunstone. I think the reviewer made some good points, but my perception of her was that she was smarting from the pasting that Mormon culture takes in this book. Mrs Lyon obviously thinks more of the culture, and it seems hard for her to accept that others might see it as banal.

But back to Nibley. I am taking this quote from the book " Keystone of Mormonism" by Arza Evans. On page 212 we read the following: In 1960 Hugh Nibley. a prominent LDS author and intellectual, told Sterling M McMurrin and a large assembly of students at the University of Utah that his writings defending Mormonism were " nothing but a game". When McMurrin replied, "The people who read your articles do not regard your writings as a game", Nibley repeated himself and again said, " As far as I am concerned,it is nothing but a game".

Now my question for anyone trying to decide if Mrs. Beck is telling the truth is this. Can a man who considered all of the writing he did as an intellectual in defense of the church,just gamesmanship, be trusted in any other arena? Isn't there an inherent dishonesty there?

Free Thinker

[twine]

Well, yes, there is inherent dishonesty. However, IMO, dishonesty does not a molester make (necessarily).

In stating this, I make no judgement on whether or not Beck's claims are truthful. I only hope she and all other victims can eventually find peace in their lives. Once again, my anger is renewed at the church created environment that seems to foster abusers and re-victimize victims.

[Jeff_Ricks]

More from the article....

"A friend of mine who left the Church for extremely compelling intellectual reasons a few months into his mission coined this term and explained the difference to me: Ex-Mormons have left the church and are still angry with it. Post-Mormons have left the church but still appreciate all that the Church rendered them along their spiritual journey through life."

How many of you share this definition of Post-Mormon? I've spent a fair amount of time on both sites (exmo and postmo), and find this distinction curious. Not quite this clear.

Thoughts?

I find that virtually everyone who leaves the Church goes through an anger phase where they reject all of it, then after the months or years it takes to get through that phase they settle into a more objective look back on their experience in the Church. You can label one phase the "ex-Mormon" phase and the other the "post-Mormon" phase but they're only labels.

I chose to adopt the post-Mormon label for this site (a label I got from Ed and his brother Bill, who started the first Post-Mormon Support Group several years ago) because I found it to be more publicly paletable. The word "ex" subconsciously connects with too many negative concepts, ex-communicated, executed, expatriate, ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, etc.

Regarding the review of Martha's book, the reviewer is a Mormon so I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how she seemed to focus more on attacking Martha's honesty than on dealing with the material in the book. She admitted to having a special mental shelf she uses for things she doesn't want to confront called her "Bits of Information I Cannot Verify" shelf.

I found her statement odd where she said she didn't go away feeling uplifted or benefited by the reading the book, as if expecting it to be 'testimony building.'

"Martha managed to end on a note of “moving on, moving up” and did a nice job of carrying her Buddhist-spiritualstages motif to a neat conclusion—but I did not feel uplifted or inspired. The book was filled with more anger than resolution. As it settled into the pit of my stomach, I realized how little I had benefited from Martha’s story in spite of going in with an open mind."

I've not read Martha's book yet so I can't comment on the content either. I'm sure some of the reviewer's points are valid but I think she certainly reveals her bias in her review.

Jeff

[dogzilla]

Well, now, see, I'm just mad. :mad:

First of all, the writing style of this particular review belies the author's lack of training in writing this type of article. I never saw so many "I"s in a review in my life. From the standpoint of a trained, professional journalist, what I just read was schlock. Garbage. You're supposed to keep yourself out of such an article and it sounds like it's all about Ms. Lyon's personal emotional reactions to what she read, not any sort of fair or balanced review.

In fact, the review, for which intent was as vague and nebulous as the Lyon claims the intent of the book in question was, has motivated me to read a book I otherwise had little interest in. (Although I'm not quite sure I can stomach reading the details of the abuse. Little too close to home for me.)

Then this author -- and I now am using the term loosely -- says this:
"Unfortunately, Martha’s case against
Mormonism is so exaggerated and shallow,
the accuracy of her narrative style so suspect,
and her use of hyperbole in such a devastating
accusation so misplaced, that I believe
she is doing the worst possible disservice to
the painful issue of abuse. Since Martha’s
own reliability does not stand up well under
the weight of close scrutiny in the public eye,
this book can only damage the credibility of
abuse survivors."

No, Lyon's review damages the credibility of abuse survivors because she has a verified, documented account of abuse right in front of her and she publicly doubted the story, with no corroborating evidence to back up her claims of untruthfulness. Speaking of narrative styles being suspect...

May Tania Lyons' dog's anus be familiar with the warmth of her breath. :Puking

I must now cleanse my brain of these filthy thoughts and go watch my alma mater beat the pants of the Florida Gators in the NCAA game! Go 'Cats!

[silverfox]

May Tania Lyons' dog's anus be familiar with the warmth of her breath. :Puking

I must now cleanse my brain of these filthy thoughts and go watch my alma mater beat the pants of the Florida Gators in the NCAA game! Go 'Cats!

OTFLMAO!!!!!!! :D