> Given that we haven't met, dorian-graph, this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial. For decency sake I ask you to reconsider this as a default position.

What indicated that I thought it was trivial? It's not my default position, nor has it ever been my position that it's trivial—I know absolutely that it's not. Speaking of assumptions?

Edit: For others, there's been substantial additions to the parent comment of this comment.

I read it as that as well. It didn't sound like a respectful interaction.

> this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial.

I did not read it as that, and don't believe that is what his statement conveys.

The part "it's sometimes not one-sided", taken literally and minimally, tells us only that there are some people whose own actions reduce their dignity. Given a sample population of any size, this provides no additional information about the topic under discussion: there are some asinine people everywhere.

What information could the poster have been conveying, then, if not nothing? In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod, or that they were baiting tomrod into responding at length (if so, success!), or that they genuinely didn't consider the implications of their comment, or something else entirely that was too subtle for me to catch. Probably only they will ever know. :)

> Probably only they will ever know. :)

Today's your lucky day ;)

> In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

It wasn't in reference to tomrod's experience at all. Mystery solved.

> It could be that the poster was trying to smear tomrod

Absolutely not! And I find that suggestion reprehensible.

> In context, I think it's clear that the intended update for readers was to raise the possibility that tomrod's indignities were self-inflicted.

Not at all. You are assuming another's thought process and motive, and doing so without any charity.

Your suggestion that " this starts with the assumption that what people like me went through is trivial" is a non- sequitur.

You made a generalization, the response above simply suggests a more nuanced view. They did not suggest anything about your specific situation.

Edit: Specifically "It's an organization which does not allow you to leave with your dignity intact" was the generalization. When I read this I also thought "that's simply not true. I hope someone points out that it depends on the circumstances and the people involved".

That's a fair critique, because I did not qualify the statement. Let me explain the rationale:

- The Mormon church doctrine is that people who leave have fallen away, and are apostates

- Several messages from the central authority (called General Authorities) have disseminated over the last several decades telling congregants to shun apostates (soft), not listen to them (direct), and similar

- Wealthy parents have been encouraged by the central authority to not leave inheritance to their wayward children, and to use it to keep them adherent to Mormon orthopraxis

- Parents and congregants are often encouraged to be very bold in their attempts to keep wayward congregants adherent (until the congregants admits disbelief). "Ward Council" and similar organizing local leadership sessions are intended to share gossip to identify potential wayward congregants

- quitmormon.com is a pro bono service set up by a former Mormon in Utah and is the only service I've seen that is able to get records removed from the Mormon database records. If one does not remove their records, the central authority instructs local congregations to find people to keep their database records up to date.

These mix together and result in a large variety of experiences, often where the targeted wayward congregant is stripped of dignity and, eventually, respect in the eyes of people they spend substantial time with.

These issues are organization-wide and centrally driven, and hence the organization does not allow you to leave with dignity.

EDIT: I realized I made the "wealthy parent" comment across several comments. This is not connected to my experience, as I do not come from wealth whatsoever, but is something that has been observed in the past few years. I mention solely to point out the systemic issues I see.

I was raised Mormon, no longer believe a bit of it, yet find your characterization does not match my experience at all. I have never felt characterized as "apostate" by family or friends after leaving, and while in the church I never recall any leader or anyone else encouraging not leaving money to family who left the church. I'm sure these things happen to some, just not me.

I found the problems in the church to be more subtle and less obviously cult-like. For example, encouraging you to pay 10% tithing, then squirreling it away in a $100B hedge fund. Propagation of the idea of Joseph Smith as a prophet. Sexism. Belief in God.

> I was raised Mormon, no longer believe a bit of it,

I've been outspoken in this thread, and I have to agree. My immediate family knows, but my extended family (cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents) operate on a don't ask don't tell kinda policy. At first when I left there was shunning, but only from my dad. I did have to rebuild that relationship, but there were other stressors in our lives.

> I found the problems in the church to be more subtle and less obviously cult-like.

I have also called the church a cult, in this thread, and I can't agree more. I cannot stand others from the outside telling me how Mormons are the kindest people they ever meet. But they don't know that underneath it all it is with the intention of conversion. I will say, that this comes from a good place and that they are trying to do good, but the church doctrine does a lot of harm itself. There is a very secretive nature to the church that appears to me to be cultish. And I think unless you've been on the inside you don't see the two faces. The church is good at being subtle, and I think the WSJ (and other) article is evidence of how good they are at keeping secrets.