Paranoia and Tattling

I agree with you that many active members are not capable of distinguishing between anti sites and sites like this one (or maybe just don’t want to). Some even suspect the essays and the only thing that halfway saves them is that they’re on LDS.org.

I don’t have a spying spouse and her inactive mother is the only other member in her family, so I don’t face quite the same situation you do. She is more believing (she liked Nelson’s talk Sunday evening), but like you of late I have been able to be more open about some of my questions and beliefs with her – this largely due to the influence of my RM son. Nevertheless, I do you private browsing (AKA incognito) when viewing sites like this one. My browser is also set to clear history when it is closed. I don’t use Facebook. It works for me, take it for what it’s worth.

You can also download a separate browser (chrome or firefox) and use that one instead of the built-in internet explorer. That will leave less tracks in Internet Explorer that your spouse is using.

Feels like cheating a bit, but I admit I have done it in the past.

Joni:

My advice: Love him. Completely and thoroughly love him.

My DH was very worried when I first started talking about my FC. Some things I said, he took in the most negative and all-reaching way possible. Sometimes, he sounded angry — as if I had somehow WRONGED him.

I figured out fairly quickly that the real problem was fear. He feared that the church was first to go, and the marriage would be second. It took a few HARD months of effort, but he eventually figured out that I wasn’t going anywhere.

The place we are at now is good .. It was a road full of bumps to get to where we are now. I’m sure there are more bumps ahead, but he is supportive of my journey.

Best wishes.

What do you do when the element of tattling is added into the mix, or when your spouse sides with the person doing the tattling? (DH’s parents have money, or at least the idea of money, and they use the threat of disinheriting to keep their kids in line.)

Go incognito and never trust the tattlers ever again with your thoughts, feelings or browsing habits.

Should this turn of events make me less bold in my online activity (using incognito browser tabs to visit StayLDS, or only accessing it on my smart phone) or should it make me more bold?

Less bold. Avoid the conflict, keep them happy, without surrendering your own feelings and desires to be online wherever you want to be online..

Is it worth trying to defend “those anti-Mormon websites you’re always going on” (which, on at least one [highly satisfying] occasion, was the actual Church’s official website) or would I be smarter simply giving up and not trying to engage?

When they get on your case, come up with wholesome reasons for the sites. Here are a few

a) they provide a place for people to belong when they no longer feel accepted in their Ward (not that YOU feel that way).

b) they help people see the diversity of perspectives even among active Mormons.

c) Even the TBM sites like LDS.net can be damaging to testimony — some of the people there are downright nasty and testimony-demolishing given their mean behavior…

Should I block my mother-in-law on Facebook if she’s going to monitor my online activities and report them to my husband as though I’m an errant child rather than a fully grown adult? And, has a person who has had a faith crisis ever successfully been bullied into becoming a more orthodox believer?

I would consider blocking her only if it can be done in a way that doesn’t cause conflict. Either that, or set up a page for a group and use that to surf internet sites your family may object to. Great a page for people who like animals and use Facebook with that personna…just an idea — whatever kind of page you can use.

Thanks for your replies, everyone. It’s good to know I’m not the only one in the boat.

Separate facebook circles is a great idea, I’ll see if I can figure it out. Of course it’s complicated by the fact that FB apparently uses rhyme nor reason in determining who sees what. (I don’t need to know that someone I went to high school with just ‘liked’ the page for the mom and pop grocery in my hometown. I’d like to see just pictures of their kids and not everything. This used to be an option but doesn’t seem to be anymore.) It’s further complicated by the fact that while MIL does have her own facebook account, she will usually use somebody else’s profile when she’s on the site (daughters or DILs). So in order to guarantee that MIL isn’t going to spy and tattle, I’d have to block basically DH’s entire family.

[Sidebar: This is what MIL does. She looks at my Facebook profile to see pictures of the kids, but does not ‘like’ or comment on anything, so I don’t know when she’s been looking at my stuff. Then she will call or text DH to talk about what she’s seen on my FB. Like, the other day I posted a picture of DD with an award she won at school, and MIL called my husband to congratulate DD on winning an award. Why does that bother me so much???]

I’m really frustrated by the fact that DH has decided that doubling down was a good idea. We had gotten to the point where I thought we could at least agree to disagree, and it was better for our marriage. (He actually disagreed with The Policy back in November, but has since fallen into line.) I’m angry that an errant comment about something that was none of my MIL’s business has taken that away. And I don’t understand how doubling down is supposed to work. If I thought either of them would listen, I’d tell DH the same thing that I’d tell Pres. Nelson: it may seem like a good strategy in the short term, but it WILL fail in the long term.

I do still hold a TR, pay tithing, hold a calling, etc. and I think that ought to give me a little latitude. When DH accuses me of hating and wanting to leave the church, I like to point out that if I DID want to leave the church, I would NOT be wearing baggy, ugly, uncomfortable underwear that haven’t been replaced in six or seven years. 😆

However, agreeing to disagree seems to be out of the question. I wouldn’t have brought it up, but DH made a point of mentioning that Pres Nelson had declared The Policy to be revelation, and then demanding that I agree. (I would never have brought it up at all.) I can’t imagine why he would do that unless 1) it’s some sort of loyalty test (which I think I failed even said all of the right words) or 2) he just wanted to pick a fight.

This may be an oversimplication, but I’d make this about spying / tattling / trust and family relationships vs. the church. Or at least separate the two issues.

The one time my MIL got into my business I let her and my wife know very clearly that spying, tattling, and interference would end badly for everyone – and it’s never happened again.

Most of the time I do #3. It was really just this one time that I clicked “like” on a link to an article on The Exponent. I never would have done it if I knew it would have such massive fallout.

I’m definitely utilizing incognito browser windows from now on. My husband gets very upset when I visit “those anti Mormon websites you’re always going on.” (Such as this one, Wheat and Tares, Rational Faiths, etc. I do not now nor have I ever spent time on exmormon dot org.) I think he would prefer that I not visit “those sites” at all but cutting me off from the heterodox LDS support network is likely to make my faith crisis get worse, not better.

I do use a version of my real name when I post here & around the Bloggernacle. Anyone could rat me out to my husband/MIL/bishop at any time. Yet I feel very strongly that posting under (approximately) my real name is the right thing for me to do.