Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. A person who is judgmental will accuse others of being judgmental. For this reason, it’s always a good idea to listen carefully to the things we criticize about others because we may also be prone to those errors.
Sometimes in the things that I hear from people at church about how they perceive God, it seems that God is conditional in his ability to love others.[1] There seems to be an underlying fear that if we aren’t perfect, God will reject us. And “perfect” usually means outwardly conforming to the group’s norms, not the actual contents of one’s heart which can’t really be seen by fellow members. Instead it’s things like what you wear, the things you say, etc. This tendency ignores the universality of the atonement and turns Jesus into one of the Mean Girls from Tina Fey’s hit comedy from a decade ago. In reality, it’s a human tendency to behave like the Mean Girls: cliquish, competitive, and well . . . mean.
One of my favorite Stake Presidents took our stake to task over this tendency among the members. He talked about visiting with some of the less active members in our stake, and a few had expressed feeling hurt and rejected because they smoked and people at church would wrinkle their noses and look down on them when they came. Or they had a child out of wedlock. Or they didn’t serve a mission. Or they didn’t feel they had anything nice to wear. Visible differences are so easy to pinpoint. Our stake president told us very forcefully that he would place ashtrays at every entrance of the stake center to get the message across that everyone was welcome if that’s what it took. He talked about being a surf bum as a teen, someone whose parents didn’t attend church, and how a local leader took him under his wing and made sure he felt welcome even though he as a youth didn’t look the part and didn’t act the part.
I’ve heard comments all over the place about how people feel they won’t be accepted by their wards, by their families, or even by God, if they don’t meet some superficial characteristic that is the norm.
And thus, the Mean Girls Jesus meme came about. When people are imbuing Jesus with suspect qualities that sound more like human failings, just remember how ridiculous Mean Girls Jesus sounds.
What philosophies of Mean Girls mingled with scripture do you hear at church? Discuss.
[1] Not that we should become wanton hedonists. But we are all sinners. Some sins just get a pass at church.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m very happy to see I’m not the only permablogger here citing Jungian psychology. Very funny post Hawkgrrrl!
Doesn’t projection also work in the other direction? The smoker goes to church and expects to see revulsion and therefore feels it? The never served a mission member expects to see judgement in everyone else and therefore sees it? The feminist woman expects to see rejection in everyone else and therefore finds it? I think this kind of projection is much more common than the type you lead with.
KLC: Certainly all humans have a tendency to project. Mean Girls is as much about insecurity as it is about cliquishness.
#3 – from what I recall of the movie (waited until it was rerun on TBS, wouldn’t spend a dime otherwise on that drivel), it’s also about becoming that which you once denounced.
Lesser-actives who at least are showing up to Church are understandably apprehensive if the evidence of their non-conformity to “Gospel Standards” is there for all to see (or smell). I like the attitude of the SP who would put ashtrays at the entrance to the building. When you step down from your self-righteous high horse, you might just get something on your boots! Well, scrape it off, and as Han advised Chewbacca before going down the garage chute, “Never mind what you smell!”
Jesus Himself was criticized b/c he associated with tax-collectors and prostitutes. If He could “get real” to minister to those that needed Him, then what’s OUR excuse?
i have family and friends who are less active because they had more than one earring in their ear, or had them in their nose, or wore yellow or striped shirts with their ties, or felt that required tee shirts over rash guards and one-piece swimsuits is obsessiveness, or having to kneel down before a priesthood leader to see that their hemline reached the floor was craziness, or that believe marijuana should be legal, or that gays should be allowed to marry, or that women would make fine priesthood holders, or that they ARE gay, and the list goes on and on. It’s so easy, KLC, to say “they look for rejection, so they find it.” It’s easy to say they bring it on themselves. That absolves us, doesn’t it?
How grateful I am the Savior doesn’t say I brought my woes on myself every time I seek His unconditional love and help. He takes me as I am and guides me to a better day and a better me, in spite of all the unkindnesses from mortals around me. He helps me feel loved when talks and lessons and comments in church continually reveal I don’t fit in….I don’t belong….which certainly makes me feel unwanted and unloved at church among the members.
Am I the one looking for rejection and unkindnesses?
Or am I the one sending it forth?
Of a truth, I am both!
The first isn’t helpful.
But the second is truly inexcusable. If we take the Savior’s name upon us at baptism, there is no excuse that justifies rejecting others nor being unkind–no matter how subtle we may think we are. And we’re quite often anything but subtle.
Regarding the issue that KLC brings up, of people anticipating judgement whether or not it is a real thing–how best to deal with that?
For example, what is the best way to respond when someone says, “You have the perfect family, you have no idea what it is like for people like us!”
If I try to explain that I was a single mother when I joined the church and we have had kids go through all kinds of challenges, that seems to take the spotlight away from them. And seem argumentative and competitive. I want to stay focused on them and be supportive.
I usually say something along the lines of I may not know but would be willing to listen, but that does not always go over well, either. Sometimes I feel that people are so filled with imaginary judgement that there is no way to communicate in a manner that is acceptable to them.
I guess it always goes both ways. The projection, that is. Most of the time, if people could just be themselves, they would be accepted.
I do recall when attending BYU that there was a certain group who felt superior to others based on their pioneer heritage. I still have issues celebrating July 24th because of it. I have become the anti-pioneer. I envisioned in my mind them doing the “Church lady” dance. I realize that being of pioneer heritage is not something that they accomplished themselves, and having pride in it is simply being prideful. Perhaps my response of telling them my ancestors were anti-Mormon mobsters who persecuted the saints may have gone a bit far, but it was still funny.
“I do recall when attending BYU that there was a certain group who felt superior to others based on their pioneer heritage.”
This sounds familiar…
“They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” (John 8:39)
Ahh, resting on the laurel’s of one’s ancestors, the trait of the proud and smug (and ripe for a takedown).
I’ve responded often that MINE ancestors, being from Missouri, kicked ‘yours’ (those claiming pioneer heritage) outta there. That really goes over well.
Wait did we just turn this thread into a “but they chose to be offended” deflection of Mean Girl Jesus behavior?
Of course, my comment is a Mean Girl Jesus comment on the knee-jerk deflectors. And down the road of Mean Girl Jesus eternity mirrors we go.
Hawwkgirl I am with you. One thing that makes the whole “norms” thing so difficult is that so much of the enforcement of those norms is done subtly, subconsciously and in our first reactions. It is the surprised look, the wrinkled nose, the uncomfortable conversation, the ease of speaking to ones friends instead of a visitor. I am guilty of all those behaviors as are most humans. It is the natural man. However, I do think that because we have such strong and often visible social norms in our faith community we are probably worse at this then many other places of worship and faith communities on average. It would be a laudable goal both personally and a community to try and do better.
I was talking with someone who made the comment that while women who are new converts may wear pants to church, soon enough, they will “get the message.” Grrr. It’s like Pants went over everyones’ heads! Frustrating!
Hawkgrrrl, as a convert who used to wear pants, I definitely “got the message.” And it is a really uncomfortable one. I only owned one business skirt before and now I’ve had to slowly change my wardrobe.
wait rah, did you just put words in someone’s mouth? I hardly said “they chose to be offended”, nor Rockies Gma did I say “It’s easy to say they bring it on themselves”. hawkgrrl wrote about the human tendency to project our feelings onto other people. I thought it was curious that all of the humans she then accused of doing that were on one side of the aisle. When the disciples asked, “Lord, is it I?” I think the correct answer, whether you’re a TBM 7th generation bishop or a nose ring wearing feminist lesbian is, “Yes”. Hypocrisy and narrow minds aren’t exclusive to any tribe, they’re found in all of us and I think it’s important to say that when people imply overtly or out of omission that it’s only found within the walls of our chapels. And I can only speak for myself but I’ve never seen an LDS building with a pitchfork closet next to the front doors for driving out the heretics. Projection is a real problem for all of us and trying to diminish that point by accusations of saying that means “they brought it on themselves” cheapens a discussion that needs to be heard.
KLC nope I didn’t:
“Doesn’t projection also work in the other direction? The smoker goes to church and expects to see revulsion and therefore feels it? The never served a mission member expects to see judgement in everyone else and therefore sees it? The feminist woman expects to see rejection in everyone else and therefore finds it? I think this kind of projection is much more common than the type you lead with.”
That says exactly “Hey wait we might do this but EVEN MORE COMMON is the judged member projecting judgement where there isn’t any”. That is what you said clear as day. That people are misperceiving mean girl behavior more frequently than we are dishing it out. You immediately shifted the conversation from “Lord is it I” to – more often it is “Lord its them”. Maybe you didn’t mean to. But reread your comment. That is exactly what it says with no acknowledgement of the mean girl problem the OP is actually writing about. It sounded an awful lot like deflecting and if you read the comments in agreement with you right after they follow this same deflection idea. So it wasn’t just me or Rockies Gma (Hi!).
I will take you at your word that this wasn’t your intent when writing the comment. I was commenting on the overall turn the thread took not only your comment specifically. It totally believe there are cases of reverse projection. But that wasn’t really the thrust of the OP and in a faith community culture that has…shall we say…a tendency toward victim blaming it is something to be vigilant about.
So much of our culture is just a shell game. There’s no doctrinal, gospel written basis for it. The earrings, the white shirts, the lack of beards, the wearing of dresses, hemlines—my goodness! It’s ok to wear what you wish—We say something is “encouraged” which really means it’s expected and/or required…..or you don’t fit in, or belong, or are righteous, or obedient. We always say it’s such a small thing to wear a white shirt which is true until you don’t. Then it’s a big oops that means all kinds of negative things—chief among them that you aren’t following the prophet. But does anyone honestly think the Savior cares one jot or tittle if a man wears a blue shirt?
This is why we are a peculiar people. We have many ridiculous cultural norms that become commandments to measure righteousness by. Over the decades many of my friends outside the church think we’ve become beyond strange to the point of dysfunctionally controlling, and are equally pious about it. It’s all wrapped up with our works vs. grace issues.
I do as much PR damage control as I can…….but in the end, they’re absolutely right, and no doubt we’ve lost converts by the thousands if not millions because of it.
Rockies Gma- I am really with you on many of your comments. What ever happened to we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves, or he who must be commanded in all things is a wicked and slothful servant? The limit to the number of earrings a person should wear, requiring men to wear white shirts to church, beards vs. clean shaven,etc seem so superfluous and silly. Doesn’t it matter more that you present yourself at church with a pure heart and a contrite spirit?
Rockies Gma: “But does anyone honestly think the Savior cares one jot or tittle if a man wears a blue shirt?” I’m forced to conclude that yes, there are members who do honestly think that. /smh
When I was made a deacons quorum president one of the very first instructions I was given was that my presidency was obligated to seek out the members who didn’t show up on Sunday. We prayed over them, we visited them, and when they did show up we embraced them as much as 13 year old boys can do that.
And ever since that day I have had that same message repeated to me by bishops, by stake presidents, by mission presidents, by general authorities and by prophets, over and over and over again. And I’ve sat in countless ward councils and bishopric meetings and presidency meetings where that counsel has been taken to heart, literally and figuratively. We have prayed over them, we have sought them out, we have embraced them when they show up, and we have examined ourselves to see if we are why they aren’t showing up. And just so I can prevent the probable rejoinders, this in no way means we are perfect, even close to perfect. But it does mean that I have to temper the oft told tales of woe in the bloggernacle with my own lived experience to the contrary.
So when I hear the endless bloggernacle anecdotes about our cruelty and bigotry and narrow mindedness and how we’ve driven out someone’s nephew or daughter or friend, it’s like listening to one ex-spouse bad mouth the other one, you assume there is some truth there but you don’t know how much and you certainly don’t know the other side’s story of the same situation. Anyone of any stripe who places themselves in a situation where they feel out of place may interpret words and actions as reinforcing their feelings of discomfort, that’s projecting our insecurity onto others. Anyone who feels at home in a situation may do or say hurtful things while being oblivious to their impact on someone else, that’s projecting our security onto others. Both are at fault, both need to examine themselves, both need to see the bigger picture. I just grow weary of the bloggernacle narrative that seeks to assign all blame and all thing negative to a group of people genuinely striving to live a better life.
I’m sure I have offended people, but I am also sure that people have been offended where there was no intent. I remember someone at the public library demanding why I was staring at him with such a stink-eye. I wasn’t staring at him; I was starting off into space thinking through a problem. Sigh.
A few years ago we had a visiting general authority who talked about his wife’s contribution to their family, how she had read every book that was assigned by the school curriculum. As a result, our book club was inspired to include one frequently assigned book every year. But when we left that meeting, I overheard someone say, “Did you hear how he slammed working mothers?” Actually, he hadn’t said a word about working mothers, he had only praised his wife.
I don’t doubt in the least that some church members do mean things. Several of my daughters were bullied by young men who grew out of the awkward ugly stage and went on to serve missions etc. while the girls were left with emotional scars, and not all are still in the church. They were made fun of for the way they dressed (which nowadays gets them compliments because their peer-group has become more mature). And were told to repent. And the Obama election was a hard thing–during Seminary my girls were ridiculed for having parents who supported Satan’s tool or whatever. And Silver Rain’s recent post about her YW experience was an eye-opener for anyone who hasn’t personally lived through that.
But I also see KLC’s point of view on this. And if he sees it “more often” it may be because such things are voiced by those who come to church (not everyone is privy to the thoughts of those who don’t come).
Although I am one of those “other” commenters who may appear guilty of “deflection,” please note that I actually asked very humbly and honestly what to say in such situations. Because it does happen frequently and I admit, I do not know how to handle it well.
So if you want to actually, you know, offer a suggestion? …that would be most appreciated.
As for the blue shirt thing, my husband wears blue shirts to church all the time; he has been pretty adamant about intentionally NEVER wearing a white shirt to church if he wasn’t presiding. So as a bishop, if he was at a stake meeting he would wear whatever. One of the other bishops did not even wear a tie, routinely wearing polo shirts.
When my son was of a sacrament blessing and passing stage, we always bought him blue shirts. I didn’t “get the message” that a white shirt was required. He did wear a tie.
It seems to be a pretty regional custom. In Mexico, they were totally into white shirts, and my husband was the only one wearing blue.
BLUE Shirts? I favor a BLACK Shirt (ma, non ne sono dei Facisti!) with a white tie, a pin-striped suit, and a white fedora with a black band. At least “as far back as I can remember…”
I’ll chime in and say: when I wore pants I did get a lot of mean girl responses. I also got a lot of surprising christlike responses when I wasn’t expecting it. I mostly got a lot of uncomfortable “I don’t know how to respond to this situation” really awkward responses.
Do people choose to be offended? sure. Do people offend? sure. I think it’s best if we stick with Uchtdorf’s advice on both sides of the situation and ask, “Is it I?”
Mostly I think bednar’s talk has swung the pendulum a bit too far to the victim blaming side – I do know an OW friend in Idaho who was treated so awfully by her ward for two straight years she hung on by her fingernails. Do I think the ward bears some accountability for her leaving? I have another friend in a Mixed Orientation Marriage whose husband came out recently and left the church. Their ward was so overtly anti LGBT he left after 40 years. She told the bishop, “My husband’s been gay his whole life and attending in full fellowship – it’s notable that this ward is the only one that pushed him out.” I do think people hold accountability for pushing people out of the boat.
Lord, is it I?
I think one thing we have to come to grips with and that is that culture is in the end local. Wards have great variation in the cultures they create and perpetuate. This is why maybe KLC’s wards cultivated a culture of acceptance and open arms and others exclusion.
While I generally agree with the observation that cultures vary from place to place, it should be noted that even in the most exclusionary wards, the same conversations that KLC reports may be going on in ward council, yet still somehow do not get translated into actions, policies, or other means of communicating that acceptance to others.
Just like the two sides of a story from a divorced couple, or the reports of teenagers and their parents, or an employee and their boss, etc.
Since this started with Jungian psychology, perhaps it would be worth mentioning Social Construction of Reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality
This helps explain such disconnects.
Take this example: A man strides into a room, orders a woman to spread her legs, and thrusts his hand into her vagina. Is he abusing her? Well maybe not if he is wearing the robes of medical authority (white coat and stethoscope) and she is in a hospital. Those are all cues that help them agree that this is a medical exam, not abuse.
So what is telling people that they are accepted or rejected at church? Is it verbal, policy, non-verbal or….?
Douglas asks (#4), If He could “get real” to minister to those that needed Him, then what’s OUR excuse?
Usually something like “I’ll wait until it’s rerun on TBS, wouldn’t spend a dime otherwise on that drivel.”