Note: this comment is in response to a comment from John, which was incomplete and which he asked me to delete. I've done as he asked, but I'm leaving my response.

You are right that I didn't tell the whole story--I admit that in the entry. I don't say much of anything about you. I thought about posting a link to your blog but decided I didn't want to send any more ickiness to your site.

And you are right that there was a point at which I felt the issue became a judgment of me--as did you. You wrote,

We’re both taking each other’s choice as an implied attack on our own personal choice. I think I’m reacting defensively because of the friends that I have in “spiritual darkness” and spiritually impeded. You’d probably respond similarly if you felt I described your friends’ deficiencies. But here I am reacting defensively, focused on my own feelings again.

And I responded

Well, I did react that way for a long time–because “accursed by spiritual darkness” is precisely how both I and my friends are viewed by a great many Mormons. And mostly I have been mulling over how ironic I find the surprise you and X exhibited when I said I felt being a devout Mormon was a form of spiritual darkness–sheesh, Mormon doctrine teaches explicitly that anyone who rejects Mormonism does so out of ignorance or evil or some other base motivation; why should it be so shocking and jarring to find the shoe on the other foot?

As I tried to make clear in my comment, I don’t really need your approval or validation–I’m going to do and think as I feel appropriate, but I did want [you] to own up to the ways in which you seemed to be judging me, and that was one reason I went straight for the clarification and copped to the judgmental nature of my own statement.

And the fact still remains that right after you praised X for his "ameliorating" comments and I got to watch the two of you celebrate the influence of Mormon priesthood holders (no matter what their age or what they believe), I was attacked very crudely. And I am not going to put up with it when someone goes Melchizedek on my ass, and talks to me like he's my bishop.

In your comment, you wrote: I'm tempted to look down on the religious, to place myself in a spiritual hierarchy above them. I feel it is better to put myself on the same spritual plane with the faithful because I can then learn from them and interact with them as equals.

THAT'S FUCKING FABULOUS, JOHN! Congratulations! I'm happy for you! It didn't work for me, and I prefer to stay away from believers and learn what I can from skeptics. And I'm willing to cop to the way in which that makes me a religious snob, and I'm willing to grow only in the ways available to me when I'm not part of an organized religion. It's a very easy price for me to pay.

For anyone reading this post, I'm Holly's "progressive Mormon blogger." It's not quite how I would describe myself--I prefer "post-Mormon Buddho-Quaker-Christian agnostic," which is what I call myself on my site.

Holly and I have different characterizations of the discussion. I think she sees me as a liberal Mormon defending Mormons; I see myself as an unbeliever resisting narrow stereotyping of believers. I have a habit of doing stuff like this. I'm a Green Party member who springs to the defense of Republicans when liberals want to say that they're all evil. I'm crazy that way.

Holly, reading this may have given me some insight into your thinking. Your friend says:

You mean these guys have never exercised enough imagination to figure out what it feels like to hear the message of Mormonism, and be told that if you don't buy into the teachings of the Mormon church, you're just not seeing the big picture or grasping the truth? You mean it's never really occurred to them that someone might think about Mormons the way Mormons think about everyone else?

You're absolutely right. I never exercised my imagination to make this comparison. You essentially look down on believing Mormons the same way that exclusivist Mormons look down on you. I so did not make that connection, and I apologize for missing it.

I think it's worth noting why I missed it: I'm not happy that people believe things like "Christians are going to heaven, all others are going to hell." But I don't really dwell on it as long as these people make an explicit point of it with me (even then, I'm okay with it when people are genuinely concerned for my eternal welfare--I'm having some good conversations with my evangelical brother based on this. But it pisses me off when they use it to prove a point, and I can understand your ire in that case). Because my non-universalist believing friends generally don't tell me "Hey John, you're going to hell. Can you pass me the peanuts?" when we hang out, I get along fine with them and focus on building on whatever it is we have in common: interest in theology, the environment, parenting or the really good Indian buffet around the corner.

I'm basically a post-modern, relativist, non-dogmatic atheist who likes people. I have a hard time thinking that people look down on each other for their beliefs. This is probably naivitee on my part.

But I don't think I'm giving a fair description of the thread. Check it out for yourselves and form your own opinion:

http://www.mindonfire.com/index.php?p=282

John wrote,

I never exercised my imagination to make this comparison. You essentially look down on believing Mormons the same way that exclusivist Mormons look down on you. I so did not make that connection, and I apologize for missing it.

Well, John, I don't know quite how you missed it, since I wrote

I don’t like hanging out with people who accept shoddy substitutes for the things that really matter to me. I recognize their right to value what they want to value, and I try to be kind and respectful when I do have to interact with them, but they are not the people I want to spend the bulk of my time with. I prefer to hang out with people who share my interests and value my goals and aspirations. Why is that remarkable?

and

I admit to feeling certain other people are foolish, selfish and wicked as well, but there are a few things I’ve never done that Mormons so often did to me: I’ve never claimed to be invoking God’s righteous judgment as part of my own judgment; I’ve never threatened them with eternal damnation; I’ve never told them they are unworthy even to hope for a life of spiritual growth and progress.

And I consider people who feel they have the right to do such things–-yes, that’s right–-spiritually retarded, although by no divine decree, simply by their own choices.

I've taken a day to reply to your comment not because I needed to figure out what I was going to say, but because it's so wearing and wearying to point out that I have to keep saying the same thing over and over and over again in slightly different forms each time before you understand what I'm saying about my relationship to Mormonism. You're one of the least devout Mormon priesthood holders I know, but you still can't grasp what I have to say. Perhaps it's because you're too busy to read what I say about myself with real care; perhaps it's because what I'm saying is so offensive to you that you prefer to interpret it as actually meaning something else; perhaps something else is going on. In any event, it's something that happens in no situation in my life as much as when I discuss Mormonism with Mormons who still have some allegiance to the church, and it's pretty fucking annoying, and something I prefer to live without.

As for the other stuff, about

Because my non-universalist believing friends generally don't tell me "Hey John, you're going to hell. Can you pass me the peanuts?" when we hang out, I get along fine with them and focus on building on whatever it is we have in common: interest in theology, the environment, parenting or the really good Indian buffet around the corner

Yeah, well, of course that's the approach I take with MY non-universalist believing friends and family as well. But this is too big an issue for a comment; I'll have to post an entry on it as well.

"Progressive Mormon"???

I realize my mild shock at the term means I'm really really uneducated and close-minded regarding Mormonism, even though my grandmother is Mormon.

I'm not going to disagree with you about how jarring the term "progressive Mormon" is, Michelle. You don't hear it very often, even if you know a hell of a lot about Mormons.

I'm sorry, Holly. I fell victim to the same stereotyping that I accused you of. I will sincerely try to read to understand you better next time.

I’m going to rephrase to see if I’ve got this right. You see devout Mormons as spiritually disabled, as unwell. I understand that. You condemn, or at least look down on them for creating such a hierarchical (with themselves on top), exclusivist view of the world and a corresponding social order. I understand that you have a very difficult time dealing with Mormons for these and other reasons. I think you have every right to feel this way (but as you’ve said before, you don’t need my validation, and I recognize that too). You feel that you can progress spiritually better among skeptics and outside of religion (and I think you’re absolutely right).

Please let me know if I’ve gotten any of this wrong, if I’ve mischaracterized you in anyway. I will try to keep all of these things in mind when I enter any religion-related discussion with you.

I get a little mixed up, because as I go deeper into the study of religion, I conceive of my relationship less with Mormonism specifically and more with religion in general. In our conversations, I think I reinterpreted many of your Mormon-specific attacks to be against “religions with belief requirements similar to Mormonism.” A lot of my comments were talking about exclusivist religions in general, rather than Mormonism in particular. I think your criticisms were applicable to both, but let me know if this was misplaced.

I’m going to shift gears to my other major flaw here. I think you’re right about my busy-ness interfering with careful reading. And you’re absolutely right that thoughtful posts like yours require time and effort to understand properly. I’ve thought a lot about this and have come to this conclusion:

I can’t give my blog and my friends’ and family members’ blogs the time they deserve without failing on my family, work and school commitments (which take priority over blogging). This week in particular, I’ve spent hours on MoF and SPa and emails related to them. Conversely, I’ve posted less on MoF, missed work deadlines, ignored my wife and kids, and fallen way behind in my school reading (I’ve also upped the Tums and sleeping pill intake). I’m spread too thin, and my lack of attention in reading can apparently have really bad results. This is entirely my fault.

I don’t have more time to give to blog reading. My solution is to scale back my reading and commenting and posting to some more manageable level. I don’t plan to stop posting myself, but I’ll make them less controversial, because I don’t have time to involve myself with care in the discussion (sure, a blander blog will result and my readership will fall, but my writing is driven by my pilgrimage, and my readership is so low that I’m not really worried about it dropping further). I’ll continue to call on SPa (and other great blogs), but I’ll make sure that I don’t comment on a serious post unless I can give you the time to give your thoughts the full attention they deserve.

Shoot, that’s meant more for Holly than the general public. Sorry to bore you all.

Hi John--

I'm going to rephrase to see if I've got this right. You see devout Mormons as spiritually disabled, as unwell.

I would use the word "stunted" rather than "unwell," but yes, essentially.

You condemn, or at least look down on them for creating such a hierarchical (with themselves on top), exclusivist view of the world and a corresponding social order.

Yes.

I understand that you have a very difficult time dealing with Mormons for these and other reasons.

Yes.

I think you have every right to feel this way (but as you've said before, you don't need my validation, and I recognize that too).

Thank you, nonetheless.

You feel that you can progress spiritually better among skeptics and outside of religion (and I think you're absolutely right).

Yes.

I would also add that I don't claim to have progressed very far. Much of my spiritual development is based on things I learned through my passionate investment in Mormonism; as for progressing beyond Mormonism, I will only claim to have learned that some of the things Mormons prize most highly--an absolute certainty that theirs is the only "true" church, a reverent conviction that Joseph Smith was singularly empowered to transmit the word of God, an acceptance that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, trust that those old guys in Salt Lake are the world's best source of religious wisdom--are impediments rather than aids to spiritual awareness and growth. Beyond that, well.... I know I have a long, long way to go. But I'm willing to do the work.

I think I reinterpreted many of your Mormon-specific attacks to be against "religions with belief requirements similar to Mormonism." A lot of my comments were talking about exclusivist religions in general, rather than Mormonism in particular. I think your criticisms were applicable to both, but let me know if this was misplaced.

I agree with you that my comments about Mormonism could be applied to exclusivist religions in general, but not a one of them upsets me as much as Mormonism, because Mormonism is the religion I know most intimately, the religion I had to leave. It is also the religion of almost my entire family (the exceptions are a few cousins), which makes the issues discussed here extremely personal and fraught.

I can't give my blog and my friends' and family members' blogs the time they deserve without failing on my family, work and school commitments (which take priority over blogging). This week in particular, I've spent hours on MoF and SPa and emails related to them. Conversely, I've posted less on MoF, missed work deadlines, ignored my wife and kids, and fallen way behind in my school reading (I've also upped the Tums and sleeping pill intake). I'm spread too thin, and my lack of attention in reading can apparently have really bad results.

I'm right there with you. This is one of the things I've been trying to convey: that my resources of time and energy are limited; given that certain types of discussions about religion--this one, for example--consume HUGE amounts of time and energy while offering little in the way of spiritual, emotional and intellectual nourishment, it seems best to me to avoid them. The great irony, of course, is that in saying that, I somehow got sucked into another such discussion. Oh well. I try to learn from my mistakes, and be wiser next time.

In any event, I'll be glad to get comments from you whenever you care to leave them. Thanks for sticking around so long in this discussion--I hope we've been able to arrive at a point where we can still ask each other to pass the peanuts without first passing judgment.

:-)