Passive Aggressive Mormons

[Uncle Ted]

I remember when I was YM president I had an assistant who would agree to whatever I asked in our planning meetings but I learned pretty quickly that I couldn't count on him for anything because it was 50/50 at best if he would do what he promised. I would have been much happier had he told me that he just didn't want to do it in the first place.

Likewise, in the business world I appreciate people that are upfront and honest about what they are going to do or not do. This is one of qualities I admired about working with Walter. He would just tell me he wasn't going do something he didn't want to do and to piss off. He is more of the active aggressive type.

[Moliere]

I think we might be focusing too much on the voting issue mentioned in the OP. I don't think that it is the main point of the guy's argument. Voting is just one manifestation of how we don't openly display disagreement in the church.

Hey, I thought I gave a decent example . Also, here's one of my favorite posts on this board which is somewhat tangential...

One of the burdens of church membership, which is probably an imperceptible weight to most members, not because it is negligible but simply because they have been carrying it so long that they have long forgotten what it would be like without it, is the weight of saying/believing things that aren't acceptable to the church on whole. As non-sequ points out, and Solon seemed to be getting at in the first post, being subject to the whim of local authority over matters that primarily regard your private relationship with God just sucks.

Ideally a church should serve as a tool for those who seek to strengthen their relationship with the divine. When membership in a church becomes its own reward, and something quite separate from being an uplifting tool, then the gatekeepers of membership have a dangerous kind of authority.

The best answer that I can think of is simply to stop caring about what the gatekeepers think. Live a life where you try to be guided by the spirit and your conscience. Trust your conscience. Believe what seems right in your heart, regardless of what church leaders say. Listen to church leaders, because access to their wisdom is what membership should be about, but recognize that the church is a tool, and if it isn't the right tool for the job at hand, find the right tool wherever it might be. Finally, be ready to happily live with the consequences of following your conscience, even if that means the church might take disciplinary action. These would be rare situations, and outside of Prop 8, or Helmut Hubner situation, it is hard to imagine where it might come up. But one needs to be prepared for the possibility that, while the individual might never leave the church, the church might one day leave the individual.

It's no secret that the church favors unity in practically everything (white shirts, # of earrings, nuclear family, etc.) and when we challenge these things we are made to feel like dissenters not unlike people that opposed prop 8. I personally have an issue with committing to do something without any intention of ever fulfilling it. That's just flat out dishonest to me and I view honesty as an important commandment. I've had several occasions where I've "dissented" and frankly, more often than not, the ward or stake leadership have changed something for the better because I dissented.

Honestly, when it comes to making assignments leadership just wants bodies to fill those roles, but when it comes to opinions I am of the impression that bishops and other leaders actually want genuine input from members so they can better fill needs. If the ward council is full of "yes men" then why even have a meeting? If GD is going to be a lesson where everyone sits around and agrees on every point of doctrine as if it all stems from one individual mind, then there is no real dialogue or upliftment. Maybe this passive/agressive behavior is one of the reasons that GD is so boring most of the time...

[Uncle Ted]

Hey, I thought I gave a decent example . Also, here's one of my favorite posts on this board which is somewhat tangential...



It's no secret that the church favors unity in practically everything (white shirts, # of earrings, nuclear family, etc.) and when we challenge these things we are made to feel like dissenters not unlike people that opposed prop 8. I personally have an issue with committing to do something without any intention of ever fulfilling it. That's just flat out dishonest to me and I view honesty as an important commandment. I've had several occasions where I've "dissented" and frankly, more often than not, the ward or stake leadership have changed something for the better because I dissented.

Honestly, when it comes to making assignments leadership just wants bodies to fill those roles, but when it comes to opinions I am of the impression that bishops and other leaders actually want genuine input from members so they can better fill needs. If the ward council is full of "yes men" then why even have a meeting? If GD is going to be a lesson where everyone sits around and agrees on every point of doctrine as if it all stems from one individual mind, then there is no real dialogue or upliftment. Maybe this passive/agressive behavior is one of the reasons that GD is so boring most of the time...

I have the same issue. On more than one occasion when I was the YMP I told the bishop I wasn't going to do something. For example be in charge of a ward activity or a service project I knew the YM wouldn't do or do well. My bishop, at the time, would thank me later for saying "no". I guess that is why he kept me as the YMP for so long.

Of course there are apparently some SPs and Bishops that value "Church Broke" members as well...

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think we might be focusing too much on the voting issue mentioned in the OP. I don't think that it is the main point of the guy's argument. Voting is just one manifestation of how we don't openly display disagreement in the church.

Agreed.

[Indy Coug]

I think the problem is that most of us aren't women. According to all of the stories my wife tells me, Mormon women never agree about anything.

[Harry Tic]

I think the problem is that most of us aren't women. According to all of the stories my wife tells me, Mormon women never agree about anything.

Of course, they are required by social protocol to pretend that they do. This is passive aggression in its purest form.

[Indy Coug]

Of course, they are required by social protocol to pretend that they do. This is passive aggression in its purest form.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest there isn't any pretending going on.

[Harry Tic]

Anecdotal evidence would suggest there isn't any pretending going on.

I find this very hard to believe. In my experience (!), LDS women are extremely artful at concealing disagreement. But then again, my attendance at Relief Society isn't anything to brag about . I'd be interested to hear the views of our female CSers on this point.

[wuapinmon]

but when it comes to opinions I am of the impression that bishops and other leaders actually want genuine input from members so they can better fill needs.

It has been my sad experience, both in Louisiana and in South Carolina, that the stake doesn't care, at all, about what we say. Our bishops always come back cowed after speaking with the SP about an idea or a concern. "We can't get rid of Cub Scouts because the SP says we can't."

Five years ago, I would've seethed but done it. Now, I tell this to my Primary President wife: Ya know what, if he wants Cub Scouts, he can call the leaders himself. Just don't submit any names for consideration. If the bishop tries to call someone, tell him to make it a priesthood responsibility. If he refuses, ask to be released. Cub Scouts is dead and you don't have the people to do it right and according to BSA rules."

I have heard bishops tell me they want my input, and when I give it to them, I get released. I take that to mean they don't really want my input.

[cowboy]

Isn't there a distinction between passive aggressive behavior and passive aggressive people? I'm very passive aggressive in certain situations, because that's the best way to deal with the problem. If someone gives me unwanted advice, for example, I find little value in telling them why I believe their opinion is stupid, so I thank them for their input and promptly ignore it. On the other hand, I have no problem expressing my disagreement in meetings. I think one of the reasons people are passive aggressive in these situations is that they don't know how to express disagreement without feeling like they are offending the bishop/leader. I'm not as worried about offending people as maybe I should be.

Raising a hand to object to a calling is one of those situations that is best handled privately, in my opinion. Sustaining membership is not a vote, it's a ratification, asking the membership body if they know of anything in the person's life that would make them unworthy of the calling. These are big things. A potential bishop who is abrasive and prideful may still be worthy of his calling, as much as you may not want to work with him. Catching the same person in the sack with your neighbor last week, however, is something the Stake President will want to know about. We had a bishop once that I could not sustain. After sacrament, the Stake President asked to see me, and said he noticed I did not sustain the new bishop and asked about my concerns. I told him, he said he respected my concerns and that he would work with the new bishop on the issues that gave rise to my recalcitrance. Fortunately, my concerns were resolved and he was a fine bishop.

[Guest]

In my opinion, Facebook and the like do nothing but promote passive aggressive behavior. I have known folks for years that will always sustain people to any calling and then, in the days after, will talk about how unqualified that person is for the job and sometimes how unworthy they think that person is. With Facebook, this sort of behavior seems to have increased. At least in my small world it seems to have increased. Instead of standing and voicing their concerns when it might be relevant, they post it to the internet later when it no longer has relevance but for some reason makes them feel better.

[myboynoah]

I find this very hard to believe. In my experience (!), LDS women are extremely artful at concealing disagreement. But then again, my attendance at Relief Society isn't anything to brag about . I'd be interested to hear the views of our female CSers on this point.

mrs. myboynoah's current experience, at least that which she shares with me, in leadership with women would fit with what Indy has noted. Lots of discussion and open dissent.

I don't believe The Church is that much different than any other organization in this respect. Different people with different approaches to interaction.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There seems to be a perception that in order to avoid PA behavior, one needs to be a jerk. That is simply not true.

From the article:

How can someone start being assertive without coming across as a jerk?
When we talk about people who go to the gym and are lifting weights, they’re in conflict with gravity. Yet they do it in a healthy, constructive, controlled way, and it’s good for them. The healthy kind of conflict, unlike contention, which is hostile and contemptuous, is, “Look, we disagree on this. We can still respect each other. Let’s figure out a solution that doesn’t necessarily subvert my interests for yours, or yours for mine. Let’s come up with some solution that neither of us thought about, that could work for both of us. Or, if that’s not possible, let’s figure out a way that we can split the difference and feel like we’ve been treated with fairness.”

Is knowledge the first step to recovery from passive-aggressive behavior?
You have to develop emotional self-regulation, empathy, good communication skills—which is a broad sweeping label, but when it comes to conflict resolution, the best problem solvers do the least talking. They create an environment where the other party to the conflict feels like they can open up and share what they are frustrated about. [They have] the ability to give people the benefit of the doubt, that they really aren’t idiots and morons; they have perfectly sensible reasons why they think what they do and why they are operating the way they are operating.

I think you often see PA behavior when a leader (church, work, whatever) uses an autocratic style. I.e., it can be a reflection on leadership more than anything else. I have had church leaders that were wonderful at listening and resolving issues. I have had others that automatically resorted to an assertion of authority whenever they were challenged. Unfortunately, I tend to think our culture (never question the brethren) promotes too much of the latter.

[wuapinmon]

In my opinion, Facebook and the like do nothing but promote passive aggressive behavior. I have known folks for years that will always sustain people to any calling and then, in the days after, will talk about how unqualified that person is for the job and sometimes how unworthy they think that person is. With Facebook, this sort of behavior seems to have increased. At least in my small world it seems to have increased. Instead of standing and voicing their concerns when it might be relevant, they post it to the internet later when it no longer has relevance but for some reason makes them feel better.

I'd counter that facebook isn't the pathogen, but rather a symptom of the underlying disease. When you feel like you have no real power to do anything, the only thing left to do it lump it or gripe. Some lump it; some gripe. Facebook allows those who don't want to lump it to reach a wider audience than before. But, we all know that there's no way that a no vote happens in church just because you don't like someone. I've had concerns about someone in Primary callings here in my ward. I happened upon a courtroom where this person just-so-happened to be getting reamed by the judge for violent behavior towards his mother. He is mentally retarded and is not really accountable for adult decisions; functionally he's about 8 y/o, but with the large body and muscles of a 25 y/o. He was asked to serve as the second person in a primary room.

Rather than embarrass his family and him, I merely spoke with a bishopric member about what I knew. His calling was changed to sit in Sharing Time to help, rather than be in a room with small children. That's the right thing to do in that situation.

But, what bothers me are things like this. "Brothers and Sisters, we are going to split the ward. Families who live here will continue to attend this ward. Families on this side of the line will now have to drive 35 minutes to Darlington County for church so that we can have two strong wards. All in favor, please show by the [sic] raise of the right hand. Any opposed? (often without even looking around or waiting). Thank you."

That scenario is one that directly impacts many people and their families and is made without their insights, consent, or even knowledge. Someone once compared it to polygamists reassigning wives to someone else. In those cases, people should raise their hands and dissent. However, the consequences to the true believer can be dire: withheld recommends for continuing to attend the ward of your choice, release from callings, withdrawal of the Spirit.

[snowcat]

deception.4851838_std.jpg