It is a truth universally acknowledged that negging works. For example, if you want to date the cheerleader who is far out of your league, just undermine her self-esteem. And for a more Jane Austen-centric example (given my opening statement), Pride & Prejudice is a work of classic literature that clearly illustrates how successful negging is. When we are first introduced to Darcy, our male lead, he insults heroine Lizzy’s looks, near enough to where she is standing that she overhears it: “She is tolerable enough, but not handsome enough to tempt me.” He later insults her when he proposes marriage, pointing out the inferiority of her family as well as their bad behavior, and the fact that he’s had to struggle for a long time to come to the point of proposing. Joke’s on him because she gives it right back to him, bringing him down many pegs in the process, stating that he is not behaving like a gentleman, which believe me is much more devastating than it sounds, and adding that he’s the last man on earth she could ever be prevailed upon to marry. Yowch. And these two are basically #OTP and #relationshipgoals to millions of people. Negging works.
Does the Church undermine the self-esteem of its members in order to increase their reliance and compliance on the church? There are many ways in which this can happen:
- Guilt & shame. Religion, especially Christianity, is basically a shame & guilt factory. We are supposed to come to the church with “broken hearts and a contrite spirit,” ready to “repent” of our “sins.” I use those quotation marks because often these terms only make sense within the context of the church culture. For example, a Mormon may repent for drinking alcohol, but a Protestant or Catholic will not even feel guilt for such a thing. A Jehovah’s Witness may feel guilty for not performing enough proselyting time, but it’s not a requirement in other faiths.
- Sexual repression. Mormonism, like other conservative faiths, seems to be based on the idea that any sexual feelings are bad, or as a friend once said, “If sex isn’t dirty, you aren’t doing it right.” Church leaders only seem to refer to S-E-X as “the procreative power,” even when procreation isn’t involved. (I guarantee you they didn’t expect their wives to quit having sex post-menopause, for instance, and that ain’t procreative, despite outlier Old Testament stories). Advice to pubescent church members and pre-marital ones implies that there will be no sexual feelings, no attraction even, until marriage. Then it’s going to go from 0-60 (no foreplay, probably), and everyone’s going to be going at it like rabbits trying to make new church members. I’m sure there are some who were raised in the church who managed to avoid sexual hang-ups, but I bet they are a very slim minority.
- Worthiness interviews. In other faiths, primarily Catholicism, there might be confession. Some faiths have pastoral care. We have “judges.” Literally someone who is not really trained, who is a neighbor and otherwise a random guy, who is now in a position to second guess your answers to his intrusive questions about tithing, belief, church attendance, and temple worthiness. His own opinions are now the yardstick against which you are being evaluated, and in a few years when there’s a new bishop, new yardstick. I once had a disturbing conversation with a friend of mine who had been a former bishop. I asked what he would do if the person’s answers didn’t match his own feelings, and he believed that his own intuition and discernment trumped the answers the person gave. I disagreed, strongly. But guess whose opinion mattered? Not mine. This kind of power-differential is inherently designed to cause people to second guess themselves.
- Fear of eternal consequences. This is reinforced throughout Christianity, the idea that you will either go to hell or in the case of Mormonism, not go to the celestial kingdom, breaking the eternal chain for your family, being separated from your loves ones.
- Deferment to leader opinions over self-interest. Anything any Church leader thinks is a good idea is suddenly binding to everyone, including the clothes you wear (and how many earrings), how many kids you have and when, whether you serve a mission, whom you marry and where, how often you do spiritual practices, what words you use when you pray, how you parent your kids, and on and on. Eventually it’s hard to know what you are allowed to feel, to think, and to want. It’s all too easy to lose touch with your own needs, feelings, desires and interests.
- Punitive beliefs and doctrines. Scriptures are full of warnings that members often take to heart. If you are angry, you are in danger of hellfire. If you lust, you should pluck your eye out. You should be willing to sacrifice your own child if commanded, like a total psycho.
- The nature of humanity. The idea that mankind is fallen and depraved, an enemy to God, can either create humility or can erode self-esteem. Either way, the concept is designed to foster dependence on the church, its ordinances, and its rules, in order to overcome one’s weaknesses. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
- Atonement theology. This is a core tenet of Christianity, and the Mormon version is that we are saved by grace, but ONLY after all we can do. So in other words, Mormons don’t really believe in grace. You have to earn it. It’s a gift, but not for everyone. Some are more “worthy” than others, even if all fall short.
- Encouraging OCD / scrupulous behaviors. There are definitely church members who suffer with OCD and scrupulosity, who have mental problems caused by these religious messages, resulting in diminished functioning and flourishing. Often, when these individuals seek help, bishops and leaders (who are not trained in mental health) see these scrupulous behaviors as positives and reinforce them, which is the absolute worst approach.
- “Lord, is it I?” Syndrome. We are taught by example to always examine ourselves as the potential one who is wrong, to be hyper-critical of our own flaws, while overlooking or minimizing the flaws of leaders, their teachings, and their ideas and advice. Would you do that in a relationship and consider it healthy? Would you do that at your place of work?
- Lack of boundaries. We are taught to defer to authority, specifically patriarchal authority, in the church, and to never say no when asked to pitch in, regardless of our own needs. A leader’s inspiration (which may be imaginary or motivated) always trumps our own awareness of our needs and limitations.
- Hard things > Easy things. The church, and this might be a generational thing, teaches that sacrifice is a virtue, even if it’s not necessary and benefits no one. Early morning seminary, extra church meetings, tithing before paying bills, wearing inappropriate clothing for the climate, doing Trek: these are all examples of “hard” things that are actually not necessary, but seen as a virtue. They could be made easier, but they aren’t because “we can do hard things.”
- Sacrifice vs. Personal needs. Everyone to some extent, but women in particular, are taught that our personal needs are “selfishness” and that sacrificing them is superior and more virtuous, especially for others, that this is how love works, that without it, we aren’t worthy of salvation.
Clearly, different people will respond differently to “negging” and to social pressures. Back to the Pride & Prejudice example, Lizzy is more or less oblivious to Darcy’s affection because of his initial insult, but she doesn’t resent him or lick her wounds. Instead she retells all her friends how ridiculous and outrageous his insult was, and laughs at him behind his back. Then she mostly ignores him. However, to a man as arrogant and sought-after as Darcy, this amounts to negging, only increasing his interest in her.
“You are not required to set yourself on fire to keep others warm.” – Penny Reid
Within the church, those who are less susceptible to social pressures may have a better experience, or the pressures of the organization may undermine their self-esteem in subtle ways over time. This could result in them either leaving because they aren’t interested in what the church offers, or perhaps for many in results in them sticking around because the church isn’t harming them. What’s your experience?
- Have you felt that your church experience has used “negging” to increase your commitment or undermine your self-perception?
- In general, are you more scrupulous / OCD, or do you find it easier to ignore these types of pressures?
- Have you improved your boundary maintenance over time? What have you learned in the process?
- How do you differentiate between humility and negging when it comes to church?
- Do you think the Church is better or worse at this than other institutions? What about compared to other churches?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Our Bishopric 1stC and Bishop were the sacrament speakers on Fathers Day this last Sunday, both from out west (we live in the east US), and they both used only guilt and shame. First talk was we were full of excuses for not doing enough good, not going to temple enough, etc. Second started with building had candy wrappers on floor recently, chapel is extension of temple, we need to sit up straight and pay attention during sacrament meeting, no phone use, etc. Not one word about fathers, not one word that edified, uplifted, or encouraged. Only guilt and shame. My wife took it hard because she had been texting with her sister two months ago during sacrament meeting, because brother had been rushed to hospital Sunday morning, and he died a week later. If they needed to teach these messages, why not on a 5th Sunday only with adults, and why in such an unloving, cruel, and cold delivery? There was no balm in Gilead. There was no love, no making burdens lighter or yokes easier. I was embarrassed and was very glad not to have brought someone to church that day.
Georgis, I am sorry to hear your story, but, sadly, I am not surprised.
I had to look up “negging” on Wikipedia.
I have long felt that the church is made for members, and not members made for the church.
This is a test. I’m having problems with not being able to post a comment.
As Isaiah says of God, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways” (Isaiah 55:8). “Yet I am afraid we largely pulled God down into “our thoughts.” We sometimes think fear, anger, divine intimidation, threat, and punishment are going to lead people to love. Show me where that has worked. You cannot lead people to the highest level of motivation by teaching them the lowest. God always and forever models the highest, and our task is merely to “imitate God” (Ephesians 5:1).”
Shauna Nyquist writes in her new book, “I guess I haven’t learned that yet”. “We find the courage to change when we feel loved. It unlocks our ability to move forward and grow”. “God does not love us if we change, God loves us so we can change. Only love effects true inner transformation, not duress, guilt, shunning, or social pressure.”
Sadly, when we repeatedly hear the words “Trust God”, we seem to have missed the major point behind it. If God is love, then trusting God is the same thing as saying, “Trust Love”. I don’t think love is the first thing the church trusts, I think fear, shame, guilt, and “negging”, as the OP states, are the default tools that are trusted most. If the Church actually believes that his Grace is sufficient then we ought to begin trusting it. As Daniel Kahneman said, “We can be blind to the obvious, and we are also blind to our blindness”.
I too, lived on the east coast, now living on the west coast, born and raised in Utah.
What I’ve found is that rigid, narrow-minded, negative leadership style can be found anywhere and everywhere.(with the majority having attended BYU).
Leadership roulette exists at all levels in the church. After being called as a bishop, I was genuinely shocked at how many ward members expected me to guide their major life decisions (see the OP comment “deferment to leader opinions”). Topics ran the gamut from jobs, where to live, financial investments (as in which MLM was better), family size, divorce, etc. One couple even expected me tell them which medical treatment was appropriate for their child suffering from leukemia. The assumption was that I had a hotline to God.
I quickly learned techniques of how to shift decision making responsibilities to individual members. Word got out and my workload decreased commensurately. Unfortunately, I now observe that far too many SPs, bishops, RSPs and EQPs abuse their self-proclaimed power by doing the thinking and making decisions for members. It is an insidious practice that causes far more harm than good.
JCS nails it when he refers to the croc wearing masses incapable of critical thinking. The underlying cause is largely related to Mormons coming of age in a culture based on authoritarianism and supposedly infallible leaders. It is like a Shakespearean tragedy that never ends.
I feel like I grew up in a culture of never enough. You can never have enough kids, never have enough musicality, never give too much to the church, and never overachieve at wherever you do. BYU was full of overachievers who never slept enough and were under constant stress.
It was also a culture of never once. Never once have I tried coffee, alcohol, looked at porn, worked on Sunday, etc. At least people would hold that as the ideal. And if people had actually never once sinned they often loved to boast about it and scoff about how worldly the world was.
I grew up in an abusive home. I could go into a lot of detail abut how my needs came after the needs of everybody else, even my parents and especially my brothers. Oh, there was sexual abuse, but that was only part of my needs coming last, if there was any consideration for my needs at all. My needs were not only after every one else’s needs, they were also after the selfish wants of my father.
Then there was the emotional abuse f never being good enough. 99% on a test was not good enough, only 100% would do, and maybe you could improve on that if you tried. As a matter of fact, why wasn’t it 110 percent? You just didn’t try hard enough. Nothing was ever enough.
Then I would go to church and it was more of the same. The girls missed one summer camp because the boys just HAD to have the 34th camp out of the year. The girls got kicked out of the kitchen because the boys wanted to play basketball in the adjoining gym…not that there wasn’t a door between, but because the girls cooking would “distract” the precious boys. Over and over and over.
And the never being good enough was repeated there too. As Brad says above, you could never do enough, be perfect enough, but it was worse for girls. We had to look just sexy enough to be hot, but not so sexy as to be immodest and the standard shifted according to the mood of the leaders and the body type of the girl. Chubby girls who developed a figure early could not dress modest enough because a double D looks sexy even under a gunny sack. So, I could be covered wrist to ankle and still catch criticism for being “immodest” and it had NOTHING to do with what I was wearing and 100% to do with old men who thought the teenaged girl having any figure was the problem. So, I was constantly shamed for nothing but being female and daring to grow up.
Then there were “worthiness” interviews as an adult. (I never went as a teen) I HATED them. I was forced to trust a man I didn’t know and as a sexual abuse survivor that was impossible. Then I got in trouble for being nervous as hell being alone with the damned arrogant as*****. I was judged as guilty of *something* just because I had a problem with not trusting men. The bishop or SP would judge me for being so nervous and keep picking and prying looking for a sin that wasn’t there. They had been trained that being nervous or afraid of them indicated sin. And it did, only it was my father’s sin and not mine. There was just no way that I could cope with being picked at like that. It was abusive. Let me repeat that. Being forced into that situation and then being picked and pried at and my answered doubted was spiritual abuse.
So, it took me a long time to decide I was never going to put up with that kind of emotional abuse again. I left the church and I am so much happier. My sexually abusive childhood could not heal as long as I was in an environment where abuse is just par for the course. Not being good enough gets painful. Having my needs not count gets painful.
Wow, you listed an impressive array of ways the church undermines/negs/manipulates its’ members. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were more, but I relate to them all. That said, I almost completely avoided worthiness interviews as an adult (the teen years were traumatic enough) and was never interested in getting a bishop’s opinion/guidance on anything and avoided them scrupulously. I remember in the 80s being taught selflessness was the ideal and if you did anything for yourself (even saying no to something, much less something self-caring) you were less-than. What a horrible thing to tell women. Oh, and pride…you could never be proud of anything. I feel like I’m opening a can of worms and I’m just going to put the lid back on!
I lean on the more scrupulous side, so these examples just reinforced my feelings of low self-esteem for years. It truly didn’t matter how much I did, it was never enough. The negging worked for a long time – I kept trying. Despite the burden of striving for perfection, there was a certain comfort in knowing I was so centered on the path. I was checking all the boxes, which I was told made me safe and there were a lot of things I didn’t have to think about. But eventually, I realized I wasn’t happy. Somehow I was able to see the disconnect between the teaching that the gospel is the true source of happiness and recognizing that it had never brought me happiness. Blindly following what a bunch of men told me did not allow me to grow, made me judgemental, and a little arrogant.Since leaving, I am happier, less angry, and a much nicer person. I wish I had left decades earlier – my life would have followed a different and better path. I wish I had listened to my childhood self that wasn’t comfortable telling anyone I was LDS (lived in the East) – even as a child I wasn’t comfortable with membership. Maybe another item to the list: parental influence/expectations/pressure. Some parents really know how to use the fear of “eternal consequences” threat.
Brad D: “It was also a culture of never once. Never once have I tried coffee, alcohol, looked at porn, worked on Sunday, etc. At least people would hold that as the ideal.” This reminded me of the horrid book by Wendy Watson Nelson, The Not Even Once Club, that teaches children that they can choose to be perfectly obedient and never make a mistake, and if they do, they belong to a special club. The implications are obvious: if you make even one mistake, you are kicked out of the club and “good kids” shouldn’t be your friend. The reviews on the book are very polarized. TBM grandparents are hand-waving away any objections, and others are saying “These are bad messages for kids.” My favorite review is from someone who is clearly not Mormon: “I loved the illustrator’s work in this book but was pretty torn about the message that a child could not even once make a mistake. I agree with the idea to encourage a child to not even once break a commandment, but what if they do? This book almost makes it seem that they will be doomed.
I made the mistake of reading it WITH my 8 year old before I read it myself & my son was stunned & scared that he had broken a Christian belief because he has drank TEA already. That was just a little crazy to have tea & coffee on the list of things to not do NOT EVEN ONCE. I have never seen a commandment that said not to drink tea! I was shocked and angry that my son was made feel a sinner for drinking TEA.
I understand this could have been a great book, but it a little too hell fire & damnation for a child in my opinion. Jesus forgives & children should try to never break the commandments but they will not go straight to hell for drinking a glass of tea. This book was so beautifully illustrated that I really hate that it seemed overly judgmental for a child to be reading.”
The problem right now is that Nelson & Oaks truly believe that THIS is the gospel, and they are efficiently erasing what Jesus really taught in favor of these judgmental, scrupulous ideals. It’s pretty gross.
Here are the reviews of that book: https://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Once-Club/product-reviews/1609073371/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews
You also said: “if people had actually never once sinned they often loved to boast about it and scoff about how worldly the world was.” This reminded me of the ending of the movie Devil’s Advocate. In the movie, a lawyer (Keanu Reeves) is tempted by Satan (played by Al Pacino) to exonerate his pedo client. Eventually, he righteously refuses to do so, and immediately, Satan’s form changes as he starts to puff him up for being so righteous, and suddenly, the lawyer, full of his own “goodness” is in Satan’s grasp again. It’s a great message, but no Mormon is ever going to watch this movie since it has nudity and sex in it and was probably rated R, although I don’t remember. As Pacino/Satan says of these final moments when Reeves is feeling very self-satisfied: “Vanity. Definitely my favorite sin. Ha! Ha!”
Anna, you are my hero. I cannot fathom how you were not only able to survive, but live to be such a wonderful, powerful woman. Thank you.
I wanted to comment on the sexual repression angle. I am of the opinion that the church as a whole is highly dysfunctional when it comes to how it handles human sexuality/intimacy. I think a lot of this stems from its foray itno polygamy but also from the pendulum swinging excessively in the other direction as the church tried to sanitize its polygamy history and normalize how broader American society viewed Mormonism. What I think happened in the transition is that the pendulum swung very hard in the other direction into a space of toxic purity culture.
I want to second what Anna said in her post (bless your heart Anna, you are an amazing survivor and I hope you are thriving!) because it is something I have listen to my wife vent about many, many, times with regards to modesty and guilting/shaming/blaming women for boy’s and men’s thoughts. Modesty culture is problematic. Worthiness interviews are problematic. Interrogating, probing questions about masturbation and sexual intimacy is problematic. When my wife was a teenager in Highland, UT, she told me that she had a bishop ask her to promise “never to kiss a boy until it was over the altar of the temple.” (Not even once! lol). What an absurd and spiritually abusive request! (she didn’t follow it). But when you are taught to place great weight into what your local bishop’s guidance is (he speaks for God, after all), it’s small wonder how all throughout HS and college she felt excessive guilt and shame for just normal human experiences, like kissing or making out, etc. Her behavior was always framed as, “you’re betraying your future husband.” She will admit that it has been difficult to unlearn and get to a healthy space with regards to her own body and sexuality.
If you read up about the Jodi Hildebrant and Ruby Franke’s child abuse and torture and imprisonment of her own children, a lot of what Ruby did stems directly from magnified LDS teachings on bodily autonomy and its view on sexual morality/law of chastity. These two ladies and the horrific abuse they did may be extreme outliers, but spiritual underpinnings of why they did what they did is still prevalent throughout the LDS community today. I think I would be much more inclined to start attending church again (and allow my son to attend) IF I could just stipulate that he would have no worthiness interviews, no lessons on the law of chastity, thought control, masturbation, pornography, etc. I feel like sparing him the “negging” he would experience between adolescence and puberty when hormones are raging is a gift I can give him that both my wife and I wished we had received.
I was working in the ER when Utah legislature declared porn a “public health crisis. No, it was not and is not! No one was coming into the ER because of porn. We do have real health crises in the state (Utahns lose 1-3 years of their lives from the air quality), COPD/asthma exacerbation, suicide, opioids, mental health issues- those are all legitimate public health crises. Revenge porn, sexting, and AI deep fakes/bullying is a problem. Teenage pregnancy could count as a public health crisis, but it’s been decreasing for decades. But Normal human sexuality is not a problem.
I’m in the lucky club of LDS firstborn adopted boys in a large family. All of those markers point towards perfectionism and scrupulosity. Mix them all together and you get a people pleasing kid with fear of abandonment and subject to high expectations from family members. I don’t know what exactly caused my emotional challenges but I know the LDS magnified it. Many of JC’s teachings can be magnificently misconstrued.
It wasn’t until I was well into my 40s that I leaned ‘no’ can be a perfectly acceptable response, and that often I don’t even have to have a reason other than I don’t want to. For years I thought that being a people pleaser in the corporate world was a good thing. I “made things happen” and had a “can do attitude” according to my performance reviews. About the same time I left the church my career accelerated. I think in part it’s because leaders want real, true, logical answers.
A first cousin to negging is passive aggressiveness. I’ve had leaders who deserve a Nobel prize in passive aggressive shaming, verily one might say it’s a primary teaching tool.
And btw I’m one of those millions who admire Elizabeth Bennett. I named my first daughter after her. I can never remember if Lizzy or Darcy is prideful or prejudiced – aren’t they both, both?
Allow me to get meta. I think that… Jane Austen novels are guilty of negging readers. I mean, hello? Victorian literature, people! Let’s all sit around feeling unworthy and pondering unworthiness as it plays out in any given drawing room. Mormonism came to be in this era.
Case in point: a decade ago, I was sitting on the second floor of a Barnes and Noble (read, Jake was literally in great and spacious building). I was leafing through a new Chuck Wendig Star Wars novel. As I commenced failing the Bechdel test yet again, I happened to glance at a display of Jane Austen novels. The covers were ALL staring at me. Judging me. Especially… Emma:
Can you imagine how judged I felt? There I stood, innocently cradling my Star Wars novel, only to see this precocious heroine glaring at me? Anyhow, I just wanted to say every time Hawkgrrrl invokes Austen I get retraumatized. If you wish to cease being negged, cease reading Victorian literature, I say!
Seriously though, I’ve been out of Church activity for quite some time. But every few years, I show up to things like tithing settlement season or a ward picnic. It’s worth remembering that organized religion, through bare-knuckle necessity and centuries of practice, often does community REALLY well. Like, much better than the scientific community does, with its academic and corporate-sponsored hierarchies and boys’ clubs. Closed priesthood much, tenure-track academia?
That said, Hawkgrrrl’s list above is spot on, especially that sexual repression one. I absolutely blame the Church for much of my broken dreams in the dating/relationships department. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spearheaded by Boomer-generation superstitions and scriptural literalism, most certainly failed me in more ways than one, amping up my insecurities in an effort to keep me loyal.
Hawkgrrrl, you ask: “How do you differentiate between humility and negging when it comes to church?” Honestly, I’m not sure what the answer is, but this questions sounds like it should get a whole post of its own. No kidding. Sincerely. Your mission should you choose to accept it.
“How do you differentiate between humility and negging when it comes to church?”
I think Section 50 of the Doctrine and Covenants gives us at least one way to tell the difference:
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
Jake C: I hate to be that guy, but Austen is a Regency writer, not Victorian. In fact, Emma the novel was dedicated to the dissolute and immoral Prince Regent, a fan of her works (even though the feeling was not mutual), and there are some fun digs at him in the novel–some theorize that “Highbury” itself is intended to be a sendup of the royal court’s shenanigans (hence the name). It’s a book full of riddles and secrets and hidden motives that the naive Emma utterly fails to comprehend (a very clever way to hide Austen’s true feelings). And the riddle proposed by Elton that can be answered “Courtship” can just as easily be answered “Prince of Wales,” e.g. the Prince Regent. Yes, the Victorian Era was widely considered particularly judgmental (duty-bound at least), but it was a reaction to the looser Regency era. Austen grew up during the turbulent French Revolution, and her aunt Philadelphia had a daughter named Eliza who was originally married to a French noble who was killed in the Terror. This cousin was considered a “rake” and a scandal, and later married Austen’s brother. Austen was with her on her deathbed, and it is often considered that she based characters like Mary Crawford on her. The Victorian Era began in 1837, 20 years after Jane Austen’s death.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming…
Completely OT: Hawkgrrrl. you are correct. And just to throw water on wishes the court clothes in Bridgerton were worn in the French court. The court clothes in England were very specific, very awkward, and, imho, very ugly. Vive la France!
Ahem! Keeping in mind that all designated era dates are ultimately arbitrary… (except for Baroque’s. J.S. Bach dies in 1750, and so does the Baroque Era. Full stop.) Speaking as a Victorian Literature apologist, it depends on how you translate the word “Victorian.” But seriously Hawkgrrrl, I read Pride and Prejudice during a Victorian Literature class, so there. 😁 Sincerely though, fascinating details on Austen’s background. “Regency” era is an admitted gap in my knowledge, so I’ll happily take the schooling!
I love Brad D and Anna’s point about never being good enough. I have a spreadsheet where I organize my notes about General Conference talks, and one of the categories of things I try to note is tropes that come up repeatedly, and one of those I’ve called “never good enough.”
And yet, correct me if I am wrong, Jesus taught that even publicans and prostitutes are good enough when they turn to Christ and believe in Him. His yoke is supposed to be easy, and His burden is supposed to be light. We in the Church, leaders and membets, are the ones who make the yoke and burden heavy for fellow believers. I think that this ought not be.
Awhile ago I came across a quote that said, in effect, “religion takes the best parts of you and tries to sell back an inferior version”. I can’t take credit for it (it might be Hitchens but I’m not certain) but it really helped put things in perspective for me. The Church’s survival depends on having its members continuously feeling insecure, inferior and dependent, whether spiritually, financially or otherwise. I know, because I felt like that for most of my life, and realized in my 40s that it was totally unnecessary and essentially contradictory to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Even if you happen to hear more messages of self-acceptance and inclusivity in Church settings today, that doesn’t change the fact that scarcity culture is still baked into the core product. Temples are a big part of this culture, both for the ordinances within, and also for the weaponization of temple recommends and “worthiness”. So instead of encouraging healthier attitudes about self-worth, the Church is building more and more temples, because on some level, RMN and DHO definitely believe in in the power of getting members going on the hamster wheel to chase their own worthiness forever more, from which the Church draws much of its energy.
I’ve previously mentioned elsewhere that I have natural tendencies toward scrupulosity/OCD; during my orthodox days, everyone around me perceived me as righteous, while deep inside I was miserable and felt like a constant failure/fraud. Orthodoxy worked for me, until it didn’t. I ultimately got rid of it, and replaced it with a very nuanced, non-literal, non-spiritual personal belief system largely informed by secular ideas. My brain previously craved the certainty of the cruel, exclusive Mormon version of God. Now, I’m totally OK with entertaining the thought of a universe that is completely devoid of deity. But I don’t think my neural pathways will allow me to compromise and believe in any version of a single, loving omnipotent God as the master of the universe.
Jake C: I think your professor just really liked Jane Austen. Why give short shrift to the actual Victorian authors? You’ve got the entire George Eliot canon (Mary Ann Evans) which is some of the best writing there is, along with budding horror novels like Dracula, Frankenstein, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and you’ve also got the Bronte sisters (not my personal cup of tea, but true to the emotionalism and dark themes of the Victorian era), Vanity Fair, Dickens, and even better than Dickens, IMHO, Trollope. There’s so much to study that is actually in the era. Maybe she wanted to include Austen to show what the era was reacting to (Austen’s cold sarcasm and bright wit contrast with the overwrought emotionality of a Bronte, for example). But if your professor was going to go that far, then I think it’s only fair to bookend the course with E.M. Forster to show that eventually, we emerged from the stormy Victorian literary era into the sunlight once again.