I have been wondering recently, however, if jumping to that conclusion about people in the Church is really warranted. Could I be exhibiting an error in judgment? Some bias buried in my all-too-human psyche? I think it’s possible.

Okay, probable.

As humans, we make judgments about other people. But we know that we shouldn’t judge people unless we’ve “walked a mile in their shoes.” In other words, it’s important to thoroughly understand their point of view. But what happens when we don’t know enough about the other person to truly comprehend his or her point of view? Well, in order to make our judgment, we have to make assumptions. One assumption that Americans (and other western cultures that cherish individualism) often make is that the other person’s behavior has more to do with the other person’s innate character than any outside influences that may exist.

Thus, if a person is fat, it is probably because of slothfulness or gluttony and not a lack of healthy food options or genetics. If a person is poor, it is probably because of stupidity or laziness, not bad luck or hardship. If a person is a thief, it is probably because of selfishness, not desperation. If a person is an LDS bishop threatening a heretic with Church discipline, it is because of arrogance, not CHI requirements.

Interestingly, when evaluating themselves, people make sure to give full weight to the outside circumstances that influence their own behavior. Obviously, then, most people would acknowledge that environmental factors affect behavior, and that they can limit a person’s options in significant ways. Unfortunately, outsiders can’t always see those limitations, and they make unflattering assumptions about the things they can see.

So, I am acknowledging this phenomenon (which is called fundamental attribution error) as it relates to me and my own perspective. It has affected, and continues to affect, my judgments about the motivations behind the behavior and life circumstances of other people. I’m not saying that innate character traits don’t also have a significant effect on behavior, I’m only saying that it is tremendously difficult (and often impossible) so sort out which of the two is at play in a given instance. I am trying to adjust my assumptions accordingly.

(By the way, because LDS Church leaders and members are also human, fundamental attribution error causes them to regularly misjudge the motivations and personal character of apostates and heretics like myself. The Gift of the Holy Ghost does not make them immune. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a person who believes him or herself to be immune from these kinds of errors will probably suffer through a lifetime of misunderstandings and bad interpersonal relationships.)

-PWM

_______________________

Jack Mormons, despite having left the Church, continue to view the world essentially through the lens of Mormonism, and maintain the essential beliefs of the mainstream LDS Church. They are basically orthodox (i.e., correct in their religious beliefs), but they are not orthoprax (i.e., correct in their religious practices). Jack Mormons and mainstream members of the LDS Church get along pretty well, because Jack Mormons confirm and support LDS religious beliefs; their only problem is failing to obey the rules. They agree that they aren’t doing what they are “supposed” to do, and they can often be coaxed back into participation.

Apostates are a different story. Apostates and mainstream members of the LDS Church generally have a much harder time getting along, because Apostates are often neither orthodox nor orthoprax–they have knowingly discarded the essential LDS paradigm and beliefs, and that is why they do not obey the rules. The dynamic of the relationship is different from the relationship with Jack Mormons–it’s not merely about participating (”active”) vs. non-participating (”inactive”) Mormons, it’s about believing vs. non-believing Mormons. When believing Mormons engage Apostates, they come dangerously close to questioning their own beliefs, and becoming Apostates themselves. Not surprisingly, the LDS Church openly demonizes and belittles people it considers to be Apostates, and teaches that they are covenant-breaking servants of Satan (see, for example, this 2007 adult Sunday school lesson, titled “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy”, which was recently presented in LDS congregations worldwide).

Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland recently publicly belittled people who don’t believe in the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon. He called them “foolish”, “misled”, and “deceived”, and derided their attempts to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms as “pathetic”. He likened people who leave the Church for intellectual reasons to insects or vermin of some sort who have to “crawl over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit.” Jeffrey R. Holland apparently likes to pontificate about the awful fates and consequences that await intellectual dissenters from the Church (and their children). I wrote more about that here.

Obviously, if you want to leave, but still maintain relatively positive contact and open relationships with members of LDS communities, it is easier to be a Jack Mormon than to be an Apostate.

-PWM