Let Go of My Ego

[Reuben]

We NOMs have the Introvert, thinking, ..INTP??? personality type which is a small percentage, like 5% of the whole population and about 1/2 of NOM. So, personality is a big factor. The church just does not work well for introverts who tend to think things through more than base “truth” on feelings. We also tend to value TRUTH, fairness and social justice over tradition and LOYALITY which makes many of us lean left politically. So, many of us never felt like we fit in even if we believed, we just felt different than most of our tribe. And when you feel like a square peg in a round hole, you tend to try to fix yourself and when that doesn’t work, you start looking around to see what the problem really is. Then you find what you are looking for. Truth.

I've noticed that Myers-Briggs type N is overrepresented every time the MBTI comes up in NOM-leaning and ex-Mormon forums. Only 10% in Utah are type N, but it's been over 50% online.

The square-peg-round-hole problem is real.

[Reuben]

This is such an interesting topic to me, because the one thing I really wanted to have happen as I distanced myself from the church and eventually resigned this last summer was to be understood by those I left behind. I went as far as to write my own essay (a metaphor that I thought would be the most non-threatening approach I could take with the devout) in an effort to explain what happened. The thing is, that people who read it or people I tried to explain my position to simply did not have the capacity to understand. Maybe ego was involved in thwarting this ability - I don't know.

Ego doesn't have to be part of it.

There's a commonly accepted view in psychology (now, anyway) that understanding an idea requires accepting it first, at least temporarily. We talk about belief and understanding as if they're two separate things, but they really don't seem to be.

For a true believer, for whom the church and its claims are everything, who is terrified of losing them lest life become meaningless, accepting the worldview of a disaffected member is life-threatening. If acceptance has to happen before understanding, then for many believers, understanding can be impossible. You might as well ask them to play Russian Roulette.

The only way to be able to understand everyone, IMO, is to be at least a little uncertain of everything. Unfortunately, the church successfully teaches that certainty in its fundamental claims is a moral virtue.

FWIW, I like to keep this in mind when militant ex-Mormons claim to understand TBMs.

[deacon blues]

We NOMs have the Introvert, thinking, ..INTP??? personality type which is a small percentage, like 5% of the whole population and about 1/2 of NOM. So, personality is a big factor. The church just does not work well for introverts who tend to think things through more than base “truth” on feelings. We also tend to value TRUTH, fairness and social justice over tradition and LOYALITY which makes many of us lean left politically. So, many of us never felt like we fit in even if we believed, we just felt different than most of our tribe. And when you feel like a square peg in a round hole, you tend to try to fix yourself and when that doesn’t work, you start looking around to see what the problem really is. Then you find what you are looking for. Truth.

I've noticed that Myers-Briggs type N is overrepresented every time the MBTI comes up in NOM-leaning and ex-Mormon forums. Only 10% in Utah are type N, but it's been over 50% online.

The square-peg-round-hole problem is real.

This sounds like something I read by Jonathan Haight: "The Righteous Mind." I often wonder why I'm the different one among my siblings, who all are grounded in the Church. All my life I questioned things they took for granted, and thought it took 35 years, eventually it led me through the rabbit hole. Was the difference my nature or my nurture? or something else? My eternal spirit?

[Reuben]

We NOMs have the Introvert, thinking, ..INTP??? personality type which is a small percentage, like 5% of the whole population and about 1/2 of NOM. So, personality is a big factor. The church just does not work well for introverts who tend to think things through more than base “truth” on feelings. We also tend to value TRUTH, fairness and social justice over tradition and LOYALITY which makes many of us lean left politically. So, many of us never felt like we fit in even if we believed, we just felt different than most of our tribe. And when you feel like a square peg in a round hole, you tend to try to fix yourself and when that doesn’t work, you start looking around to see what the problem really is. Then you find what you are looking for. Truth.

I've noticed that Myers-Briggs type N is overrepresented every time the MBTI comes up in NOM-leaning and ex-Mormon forums. Only 10% in Utah are type N, but it's been over 50% online.

The square-peg-round-hole problem is real.

This sounds like something I read by Jonathan Haight: "The Righteous Mind." I often wonder why I'm the different one among my siblings, who all are grounded in the Church. All my life I questioned things they took for granted, and thought it took 35 years, eventually it led me through the rabbit hole. Was the difference my nature or my nurture? or something else? My eternal spirit?

I love Haidt's work.

In terms of Haidt's moral virtues, someone in the classical liberal cluster - valuing care and fairness, but not so much loyalty, obedience and sanctity - would naturally not fit in as well in the church. That's the cluster I'm in. But I have no idea where I am innately, because a few years before my disaffection, I was in the classical conservative cluster. Going by childhood behavior, I would say I don't innately value obedience to authority, but the other two are a mystery.

I think I have a better explanation for myself, though. Belief in Mormonism requires a lot of social influence and support. Its truth is mostly social truth: things that are accepted because "everyone" agrees to them. But to me, social truth has always been less salient than it is for most people.

[Thoughtful]

Not talking waffles here; Just had lunch with a friend today and we caught up on a lot of things that have gone down with the families. His family are all still TBMs, except for one other brother. His bish is trying to get an appointment with him this past couple of weeks. Finally he talked to the ExecSec and just flat out told him he was not interested in any callings at this time.

Anyway, we were talking about all the highly educated people we know who are TBMs and how difficult it is to see how they make the church work. The longer we are out of the church and further away from it we are it just keeps getting clearer and more obvious how much BS it is. We have a mutual friend who is a successful Dr. who owns a 3 million dollar home in Colorado with property in Utah. He's been a Bishop for many years, sent boys on missions and now to BYU, but his one vice is music and concerts. The last couple of concerts we met him at he didn't seem at all happy, in fact quite the opposite. We noticed this the past coupe of year and also his pious attitude toward those leaving the church. He hasn't confronted my friend and I for our disaffection, it's just been avoided, but we haven't hidden it from him. My NOM friend said today how he doesn't understand how our friend can live his life that way, being unhappy, but still putting his TBM shoulder to the wheel.

It's my opinion that some of these highly educated people who full on believe it and see the rest of the world as broken, they have very strong ego filter that says "It's true, because I'm in it." Their egos are too big to admit or even entertain the thought they could ever be duped or deceived by a scheme as a false religion or that their parents or ancestors were duped. I think that's why a lot of them like the white shirt and tie corporate military modus operandi.

It seems bishopric and higher is the calling that sorts the wheat from the tares when it comes to the start of the church brokeness. I seem many of my friends and family hit this level and the shelve either gives or get's reinforced. In another thread I mentioned how I sent a link to The Faith Crisis report to my former bishop. He's actually X-military, so I hope he responds because I'm very interested to see how he reacts.

My former SP also reacted to my resignation with the egocentric response: "I've read many of the things you allude to and we've come to different conclusions." Well, he had no idea what my faith journey was like, what I'd read and how I came to my conclusions, so it was quite an assumptive and pious response in my opinion.

I only have a handful if examples to go on, so I've made a lot of assumptions here. How much do you think ego plays into the TBM filter in this information age?

I haven't read all the comments yet, but I think for many, they flat out make more money because their ward members patronize their business and recommend it to their friends and family. Being LDS is a successful networking tool.

New opthamogist in town makes sure to note his two year LDS mission to a 3rd world country in his bio and advertising, etc.

My boss is LDS. I'd bet money he doesn't believe it at all, but he'd lose a lot of social capital with the board of directors, 3 of whom are LDS, of he outed himself. So he walks the line, and keeps negotiation power for his salary.

It's in their best interest to believe...

[Thoughtful]

How much do you think ego plays into the TBM filter in this information age?

As for myself... I think the biggest "ego"-ish thing that was difficult to deal with was: I. Was. Wrong. And then letting go of more than 40 years of sunk costs.

Just a couple tiny things that prolonged the clinging to my deeply held beliefs, even though those beliefs were making me miserable. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only human that did (does) this.

I feel this way too. Lots of opportunity cost from being mormon, especially while female.

[Thoughtful]

My former SP also reacted to my resignation with the egocentric response: "I've read many of the things you allude to and we've come to different conclusions." Well, he had no idea what my faith journey was like, what I'd read and how I came to my conclusions, so it was quite an assumptive and pious response in my opinion.

I had a pious friend say that to me. Genuinely surprised I asked her to name what she’d read. She asked me to tell her my list and she’d confirm as I listed them out. Turns out she hadn’t read anything I’d read nor the essays or their source material. Which I had done. But she insisted that a lot of what she had read was full of the same info-not sure how she’d drawn that conclusion....but I like your idea of ego. She’s very very well educated and smart and felt that should be evidence for me that it’s all true.

Prolly like BOA articles in the ensign, yanno.

[Thoughtful]

It's hard to seriously question yourself. I suspect that holding onto false beliefs in the face of contradictory data is related to a number of issues and might be different for different people. Ego and narcissism certainly seem to play a part at times, as do fear, personality factors, and intelligence. Also the ability to have faith and not NEED to know or discover (which is likely a personality issue) seems to factor strongly as well. These are just my observations. I don't recall any studies on the subject, though surely there is something.

I've wondered about who joins the church. It's not usually the highly intelligent, successful narcissist. It's more typically the poor, downtrodden, humbled person. The church is full of people who would never join it if they weren't born into it. It's not that the message or doctrine is particularly irresistible, but that it's their tradition and tied to their family and personal identity. You can make a very good guess as to a person's religion based on where they were born or where they live (and this is based on research, not anecdotes).

Very true. So the elites come from lds bloodlines, and they create a band of leadership worshippers from the humble converted who will never climb the ranks. Just like a MLM.

[Thoughtful]

I've wondered about who joins the church. It's not usually the highly intelligent, successful narcissist. It's more typically the poor, downtrodden, humbled person. The church is full of people who would never join it if they weren't born into it. It's not that the message or doctrine is particularly irresistible, but that it's their tradition and tied to their family and personal identity. You can make a very good guess as to a person's religion based on where they were born or where they live (and this is based on research, not anecdotes).

Another great observation! Who here that served a mission ever baptized a rich person? If the church was converting people of influence they would be parading them around like Gladys Knight, but those are very rare indeed. We spent our time tracking the poorest neighborhoods and uneducated folks were the easiest prey. The folks still in the church with the most education are those born into it. Like Rasband and many other of the top brass continually touting their pioneer heritage.

The rich converts I know I'll have something to gain from it. For example their child is going on a mission and is engaged to Mormon boy. They believe because they want to go to their kids wedding. They also tend to be female. Although my current Bishop is a convert and very wealthy. However he married into a Mormon Dynasty family. And he has built a ton of wealth by exploiting the Mormons in our town.

[Thoughtful]

Didn't John Dehlin do a survey of sorts where he found the demographics of those leaving were actually the more intelligent and financially fit?

We have also done NOM surveys in the past and the NOM education level has turned out higher than church average by several years of college. With one survey of NOM, we had about the same percentage of doctors and lawyers as the Q12 and more psychologists, college profs and engineers. So, I think education plays a role, but I think it is less important that personality type.

We NOMs have the Introvert, thinking, ..INTP??? personality type which is a small percentage, like 5% of the whole population and about 1/2 of NOM. So, personality is a big factor. The church just does not work well for introverts who tend to think things through more than base “truth” on feelings. We also tend to value TRUTH, fairness and social justice over tradition and LOYALITY which makes many of us lean left politically. So, many of us never felt like we fit in even if we believed, we just felt different than most of our tribe. And when you feel like a square peg in a round hole, you tend to try to fix yourself and when that doesn’t work, you start looking around to see what the problem really is. Then you find what you are looking for. Truth.

But, yes ego can keep a person from admitting they are wrong and those who value tradition and loyalty above fairness will have their ego more invested in being loyal to their tribe.

Face validity here. INTP, and without doxxing myself, 2 careers you listed and two more for spouseman.

[Palerider]

My Dad has a phd, and I have a masters degree. He feels like if I had continued my education it would have humbled me and I would realize that that I dont know everything.

That's an interesting approach when church culture usually considers the highly learned to be the most apt to lack humility and be filled with pride in their own understanding.

2 Nephi 9: 28-29

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."

[Palerider]

Duplicate post

[Palerider]

Duplicate post.

[Hermey]

My former SP also reacted to my resignation with the egocentric response: "I've read many of the things you allude to and we've come to different conclusions." Well, he had no idea what my faith journey was like, what I'd read and how I came to my conclusions, so it was quite an assumptive and pious response in my opinion.

I had a pious friend say that to me. Genuinely surprised I asked her to name what she’d read. She asked me to tell her my list and she’d confirm as I listed them out. Turns out she hadn’t read anything I’d read nor the essays or their source material. Which I had done. But she insisted that a lot of what she had read was full of the same info-not sure how she’d drawn that conclusion....but I like your idea of ego. She’s very very well educated and smart and felt that should be evidence for me that it’s all true.

Prolly like BOA articles in the ensign, yanno.

Exactly. It translates into "I actually haven't read jack, but it's a convenient way to sidestep the real issues."

[Mormorrisey]

I had a pious friend say that to me. Genuinely surprised I asked her to name what she’d read. She asked me to tell her my list and she’d confirm as I listed them out. Turns out she hadn’t read anything I’d read nor the essays or their source material. Which I had done. But she insisted that a lot of what she had read was full of the same info-not sure how she’d drawn that conclusion....but I like your idea of ego. She’s very very well educated and smart and felt that should be evidence for me that it’s all true.

Prolly like BOA articles in the ensign, yanno.

Exactly. It translates into "I actually haven't read jack, but it's a convenient way to sidestep the real issues."

I have discussed the essays with several people, and at last count, only ONE has ever actually read them, to be able to discuss them in detail. And this person was very disturbed by what she read - that's why most members will not read them.

In regards to ego, intellectualism and this thread, I buy what you are all selling. I hold a PhD, and I took great pride when people came to me with issues when I was a TBM, that I knew the issues and just put them on my shelf. I counselled them to do the same, that rigorous critical thinking of church history, corporatism in the church and the like was dangerous and will lead to a loss of testimony. So I was very prideful that I turned my brain off when it came to the church. It's when I allowed myself to really critically look at everything that the shelf came crashing down. Hard.

So I don't know if for me it was ego, or just unwillingness to see, but it's definitely problematic.

[Hagoth]

I have discussed the essays with several people, and at last count, only ONE has ever actually read them, to be able to discuss them in detail.

I have not yet encountered a single believing member or leader who has read them. Mrs. Hagoth got about one paragraph into the Kirtland and Nauvoo polygamy essay. The only answers I have heard from believing leaders is "no, but I probably should read them," and, "no, but I pretty much know what they say and what the answers are." The bishop's counselor who made the second statement went on to explain to me that polygamy was just a way of providing for widows.

[Anon70]

I have discussed the essays with several people, and at last count, only ONE has ever actually read them, to be able to discuss them in detail.

I have not yet encountered a single believing member or leader who has read them. Mrs. Hagoth got about one paragraph into the Kirtland and Nauvoo polygamy essay. The only answers I have heard from believing leaders is "no, but I probably should read them," and, "no, but I pretty much know what they say and what the answers are." The bishop's counselor who made the second statement went on to explain to me that polygamy was just a way of providing for widows.

I remember being that Mormon. Taking the canned answers I heard my entire life and repeating them. It was super disorienting to find out so much of that was lies.

[Thoughtful]

I have discussed the essays with several people, and at last count, only ONE has ever actually read them, to be able to discuss them in detail.

I have not yet encountered a single believing member or leader who has read them. Mrs. Hagoth got about one paragraph into the Kirtland and Nauvoo polygamy essay. The only answers I have heard from believing leaders is "no, but I probably should read them," and, "no, but I pretty much know what they say and what the answers are." The bishop's counselor who made the second statement went on to explain to me that polygamy was just a way of providing for widows.

I remember being that Mormon. Taking the canned answers I heard my entire life and repeating them. It was super disorienting to find out so much of that was lies.

And... now as a postmo, when people ask about the church, I'll say, "well what you learn in the church is....[canned answer]" before going into what else I've learned.

As a Mormon, they would smile and nod at your explanation. Knowing you're postmo, they express how jacked even the canned answers are.

[Linked]

There's a commonly accepted view in psychology (now, anyway) that understanding an idea requires accepting it first, at least temporarily. We talk about belief and understanding as if they're two separate things, but they really don't seem to be.

I find this concept really interesting, but couldn't find anything when I googled it. Do you have any resources to find out more?

[Reuben]

There's a commonly accepted view in psychology (now, anyway) that understanding an idea requires accepting it first, at least temporarily. We talk about belief and understanding as if they're two separate things, but they really don't seem to be.

I find this concept really interesting, but couldn't find anything when I googled it. Do you have any resources to find out more?

Here's a decent start that describes a classic experiment:

https://explorable.com/understanding-and-belief