⇒ MAIN INDEX ⇒ MC FAQ ⇒ CONTACT ME ⇒ 263 TOPICS ⇒ EX-MORMON FORUMS |
• Mormon Curtain  Feed |
|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. © 2005-2009 Michael S. Hoenie Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.1 ALPHA |
|
Containing 3,913 Articles Spanning 263 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
| I have a Brother-in-law who is very strategically positioned in the church (and I have to leave it at that...sorry), who told me several years ago that Temples are essentially "business centers" for the church, and they build them very strategically these days to capitalize on that.
What he went on to explain was that in areas where members had to travel more than a couple of hours to get to a temple, tithing revenues are significantly less than in areas where members have regular access. The reason was simple: You are much more inclined to maintain a current temple recommend if it is likely that you will actually be attending the temple more than on your wedding day. And you are much more susceptible to messages of guilt and coercion when your Bishop can say, "Brother so-and-so, you DO realize what a blessing it is to have a temple right here in our fair city, don't you? The sacrifices made on your behalf, so that you can enjoy the benefits, are hardly ones you should want to waste. Now, if you'll go ahead and make that check out in the amount of..." So while on the surface, it appears that the church is doing "a favor" to the saints of a city by "bringing them a temple," the truth is, in virtually every temple location in North America, it pays for itself in the first couple of years, and then it rakes in gravy forever after, all in increased tithing revenues generated from people who are now getting temple assignments on a monthly basis at church, instead of the once-a-decade bus trip to the temple six states away. Temples are good business for the church. On a related note, the same BIL noted about 15 years ago a real shift in emphasis in where and how missionaries were selected for assignment. For decades, the mindset was that you sent your best and brightest missionaries on foreign missions, because they had to learn a foreign language, and you had to trust them in situations in which they were not otherwise comfortable. The result? A whole bunch of converts in poor nations where the church not only didn't INCREASE revenues...it COST them money. Their demographic studies showed them that the VAST majority of their tithes and offerings came from North America, and so there was a shift, directing more and more of their best and brightest missionaries to state-side missions, and working ever harder to keep indigenous missionaries in their native land. Again, it was a savvy business move, not a way to actually build God's kingdom on earth (although Gordon's kingdom didn't do too shabby...) |
|
| I traversed the main tunnel several times over the years.
As I recall, it ran from underneath the Tabernacle on Temple Square over to the Church Administration Building. It was relatively wide, wall-to-wall carpeted, well-lit and could easily accomodate a golf cart (which was, in fact, used to transport GAs and other Church dignitaries and personnel back and forth). During General Conference, I would sometimes accompany my grandfather Ezra Taft through the tunnel, pushing his wheelchair or walking along with family and staff who were with him. The walk through this tunnel took about 5 to 10 minutes at a leisurely pace. There is actually nothing dark or secret about the tunnel. It is essentially an underground trafficway constructed for the convenience of and use by the Mormon high command, their families, their support Church staff and connected Church employees that provides an efficient, quick and out-of-sight way of getting from point A to point B. No Indiana Jones mummies, skulls, snakes or kidnap victims. |
|
| Mormon Cult leaders constantly stress that members must pay their tithing. Mormons are not given suggestions to pay tithing, they are commanded to.
Lynn G. Robbins, another mouthpiece for the Cult recently said: “If the Lord expects even the poorest widow to pay her mite, where does that leave all others who find that it is not convenient or easy to sacrifice?”If a Mormon is in need, and goes to his Bishop for help, his Bishop will first demand that he pay up: “One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing.”Everyone in Mormonism must pay. PAY PAY PAY PAY PAY. Pay up. Who needs God and guidance the most? The poor. The destitute. The downtrodden. What does Mormonism say should be taught to these poor people? “No bishop, no missionary should ever hesitate or lack the faith to teach the law of tithing to the poor. The sentiment of "They can't afford to" needs to be replaced with "They can't afford not to."”Mormonism is all about Money. Pay up. Pay some more. And if you lose your job and have to choose between buying food or paying the Cult? You must pay the Cult. In Mormonism, in order to receive help from the Cult, you have to pay the Cult. If you have not paid the Cult, then you will not receive help from them. And in turn, any money you pay the Cult will never be on a balance sheet. Members will never see where the money goes, ever. See his disgusting money talk here: http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-520-13,00.html |
|
| I am in the middle of an email exchange with my 5 TBM siblings and the process is smarting a little.
Two days ago I was invited to go to church to attend a nephew's homecoming talk. I have been excommunicated and therefore am required to be silent if I ever attend a church meeting again (which i won't). My response to the invitation was that I not be invited to church meetings any more since I'm obviously not wanted there. I also said that if there are other types of gatherings not having to do with TSCC then my wife and I will consider attending. The response from my sister-in-law (who is really the only person I've ever had a conversation about this at all) takes the postition that I'm being ungrateful and rude because she had this "crazy idea" that I might be interested in what was going on in my nephews' lives. We are just slinging words at each other. In a way it feels futile, but in a way it's nice to actually TALK about it. I've been silent far too long. Feeling like no one is hearing you is a slight improvement from being silent, but still is hard to take. She also mentioned that some of them (my siblings) were supportive of my wedding last summer and in fact three of my 5 siblings did attend the wedding and the first 30 minutes of the reception (I'm a lesbian BTW). She however, was attending a temple dedication. I want to point out to her that she chose to go to church instead of my wedding and that she really has a weak argument if she's saying she personally went out of her way to be supportive. I think I'm just going to go for it. She will see that as more of the same. Me being a spoiled and rude and selfish. You know, I went to all their receptions. I was too young to witness the weddings because of temple silliness, but I went to all their effing weddings. God. I went to everything. Now I'm being ungrateful. They are so into TSCC that they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be utterly happy to be in it like they are. What have I got to lose? My family? No. They are already gone. They were gone as sooon as I was gone from their "family oriented" church. We'll see if any of my brothers or my older sister responds. I do feel torn somwhat. I mean, they never said congratulations or I'm happy for you or anything of the sort when it came to my wedding, but they did show up. No gifts, no conversation nothing, but they did actually show up. That's important, right? Note to anyone out there trying to decide if you should invite your TBM family to a wedding where they don't fully support you: DON'T DO IT. They will simply use that card against you at a later date. The irony is that their corrupt organization does not allow them to be inclusive no matter how nice they are. And this is the church of jesus christ? In retrospect I wish I had simply left them completely out of the loop as far as the wedding was concerned. In fact now I'm considering cutting off all communications period. We have no common ground as far as I'm concerned. They see me as lost. It is futile to tell them that my life is actually going much better now than I ever did when I was trying to fit the TBM mold. I just want to move on and maybe I need to sever more ties. It hurts too much to play this nicy-nice game. How can mormons be so nice and so offensive at the same time? They are under the illusion that they are being inclusive and accomodating when they are in fact operating under a system of self-righteousness that is unsurpassed. I won't be around people that harm me anymore. Not even if they don't know or care that they're doing it. It occurred to me this morning that broadly speaking, mormons are an out group. If I've been kicked out of the out group that means I'm IN!!! I do feel that way here in Seattle. |
|
| The first time someone ever told me "It's okay if you're not married; heavenly father will assign you a husband in the CK!"--I was 19 years old.
Yes, 19. With a "1" in the front. Nine-TEEN. And they thought I needed to be consoled because of my unmarried status. I should have gotten the big clue and run like heck, but I didn't. After all, I was dating. A lot. With long-term relationships, and everything. I wasn't worried. So I just blew it off. I wish I'd run... Rather than go back through all of the stories I've recounted on this board (don't worry; I'll repeat them if they're topical), I'll give a big summary: The mormon church treats all unmarried members as if they are children. (Note: In my stake, that refers to 'never-married' only; divorced folks, unmarried moms--both are higher up on the 'have a right to live' scale. I've heard otherwise from some folks, but in my stake, never-married meant "lower than a snake's belly.") Amusing anecdote: A 15-year-old girl in our ward became pregnant. I was home from college (where I'd been baptized) and working full-time. The ward held a baby shower, but I didn't feel that I ought to attend; I'd never met the girl, personally, and wasn't making a ton of money, myself... The Sunday after the shower, I was accosted by a woman in the ward: "Why didn't you come to Betty Boop's shower, and bring a gift?" I was caught completely off-guard, and stammered, "Well, I...I...I don't even know her, or her family, really, and I didn't think I'd be missed...she doesn't know me..." "Nonsense!" the woman thundered, "since you're both the same age!" I was 25--ten YEARS older than the teen! But, as an unmarried woman, I was deemed her equal. Ward and stake singles' activities are planned and held the way Primary and YM/YW activities are: Everyone meets at the church building; rides are arranged by the "leader," (or the event is held at the church building); all events must be on a 'calendar' a year in advance--which eliminates most seasonal or community events, since the dates can't be determined before they're announced. During my stints as singles' ward activities chair, or stake singles' activity coordinator (before we had the singles' ward), I tried to inject some life into the same old grind of board game night, movie night, dance, Fast-Sunday dinner...and again the next month...and again the next month... (Even the movies had to be Disney or old, old classic...'Wuthering Heights' from 1939 had to be stopped in the middle, so we could be admonished that Cathy Earnshaw should *not* be drinking an alcoholic beverage to ward off a chill, when she's brought into the Linton's home, injured...) We had one bishop who delighted in bringing his family's home movies of their vacations for all of us to watch, as a "fireside" or "FHE." I made sure I was on the refreshment committee for those nights, with lots and LOTS to prepare...!! Anyway, all changes that would make the activites more age-appropriate and fun were either complained about or totally forbidden... Meet at a theater, to buy tickets to a current movie? No way! Schedule an all-day outing to Point Pelee Park in Canada (not very far...and long before 9/11...)--shocking! (but we did it!) I was met with opposition at every turn, until I was finally released when I flat-out refused to comply with a bishop's demands. Activities such as decorating the inside covers of copies of the BoM for missionaries--with crayons, markers, glitter, and Polaroid photos of ourselves...and testimonies, of course (I'm in doing refreshments, again!); making love-bombing cards or treat plates for inactives; "parties" where you're not allowed to sit and converse, but must play long games like "Trivial Pursuit" or "Pictionary" in teams all night; museum "field trips," where we all walk together in a big lump from one exhibit to the next; putt-putt golf (again, in big, clumpy teams)...all things you could easily do with a Brownie or Cub Scout troop--these were the activities the singles were supposed to enjoy. Our comments and opinions were not respected in RS; rolled eyes, and even audible comments like, "What does SHE know? She's not even MARRIED!" were common. Lack of respect for college-educated women who were supporting themselves: Weekly comment in the 'family' ward (I'm not kidding!), "So, do you still work at that...uh...PLACE?" Me: "Yes; it's called a school, and I am the teacher..." They persisted in treating me as if I were some migrant fruit-picker, who roamed from job to job as the seasons turned. I worked at the same job for 23 years. I swear to God, *every week* in the family ward, that dialog played itself out. As the years went on, and I wasn't married (and was eventually booted out of the Singles' ward that I helped create), my self-esteem eroded until I no longer recognized myself. I was, one day, shocked to realize the difference between the 'me' I saw on Friday and Saturday night, singing in coffeehouses or at jams with non-mo friends (who I found after being kicked out of the singles' ward...but that's another story)--and the 'me' of Sunday morning, directing the music, then shuffling off with my head down (often out the back door, to get a bagel and herbal tea durning Sunday School!), slinking into RS (if I came back), and then hopping out the back door before anyone noticed me--and made a crack about why I was single, or why I didn't do this, that, or the other thing; why I didn't donate more money/time/free music lessons/whatever to their cause-'o-the-moment... As I said, I was shocked. And scared. If I kept going to church, would the real 'me' disappear altogether? It seemed likely. So I left--and never looked back. Whew!! That was a long one! |
|
| A friend of mine I'll call Angie, lives in the next stake over and invited me to attend the opening party for her stake youth conference. Youth conference, in our area, is a two day campout for ages 14 to 18, filled with faith promoting meetings, fun crafts and games and testimony bearing. Angie was very excited about her part in planning the opening activity and thought I'd like to come get some ideas for our stake for next year. She has NO idea I'm questioning the church.
Actually, the first part was nice. The kids checked in at the stake center, got a souveneir t-shirt, played games at the booths set up in the gym, went to a "restaurant" to snack and talk with their friends - even did a fun craft. Then, about 45 min later when it seemed everyone had arrived and mixed and mingled, they announced a program. They thanked planners then had the stake president say a few words. He bore his testimony of the BoM then said "I promise you that as you keep the commandments, you will prosper and as you fail to keep the commandments, you will fail in your endevours." WTF? So all people who aren't successful are sinners who don't keep the commandments? The next item on the program was truly creepy. All the bishop's from the 9 wards participating came on stage, dressed almost identically in dark suits and bore their testimonies in a sort of pre-written, chant form. They looked like mafia hit men and read from sheets of paper. It went sort of like this: Bishop #1 I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Bishop #7 I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Bishop #4 If we read the Book of Mormon, we will come closer to our Savior, Jesus Christ. Bishop #9 The Book of Mormon is another testiment of Jesus Christ. All Bishops in Unison: The Book of Mormon IS another testiment of Jesus Christ. It went along in this vein for several minutes. It's actually giving me the creeps to type this. They chanted this in a sing-song voice. Two highlights from this were the bishop who said he'd loved reading the BoM since his days on a mission in South Dakota to the Lamanite people. It strengthened his testimony to work with these wonderful sons and daughters of Father Lehi. But my favorite WTF statement was the bishop who said "I know the church is true independent of any other source." What does that even MEAN? Is that because every independent source has proved the LDS church FALSE? Wow, once you go through to the side of truth, it's amazing what you see and how weird Mormonism is when you look at it objectively. I felt so sorry for those kids who are in for two days of this - of brainwashing with half-truths and word game BS. I could hardly wait to get out of there. It seemed, as someone else here put it, so sinister. |
|
| Forwarded to me by The Richard Dawkins Foundation.
The first video from RDF TV is well worth viewing. In a common sense approach, Shermer explains how to logically conclude whether there is merit to any new claim. Using science as the tool to understand whether something fits with the way the world is – he clearly demonstrates how to determine the facts of any new matter. Shermer relates his ten question approach to things such as new scientific discovery, global warming, extra-terrestrial life and so forth. For us, applying the ten basic tenets of his “Boloney Detection Kit” to Joseph Smith’s hoax and the modern day lies within the continuing conspiracy to deceive members of the Mormon Church, leads to one and only one conclusion. The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0... and for those who want the details and don’t have time to view the video (although they are much more fully explained there and I would recommend watching it - 14 mins), the ten questions to pose are: 1. How reliable is the source of the claim? 2. Does the source make similar claims? 3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else? 4. Does this fit with the way the world works? 5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? 6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point? 7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? 8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence? 9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? 10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim? For our own good – on the basis of “once bitten, twice shy” – perhaps we should all review this link and think very carefully before we accept anything new at all – until it is verified and accepted through scientific means. It appears that most things are not what they first seem… we all know of one thing that is certainly not what it seemed. Not only was Smith a complete fraud but even worse - Santa always had a green coat until the 1930's when the Coca-Cola company ran ads with a red and white coat to match their corprate colours - the idea stuck and Santa's coat is now red - who knew? You can't trust anything you are told. You have to check for yourself. Do I want to believe in Santa any more, now I know his true colours? Well, maybe more than I do Smith; now I know his true colours... |
|
| I had been thinking of "taking a break" for a long time.
The thought of leaving, altogether, was too scary! "Who would be my friends? What would I do for "activities?"--and all kinds of other silly fears kept me from just doing it. I finally decided I'd "take a break" when I was released from my calling; it seemed like a rational way to do it...so I slogged on, waiting for my time to come. Finally, one of the bishop's counselors called me into one of the empty classrooms. To make a long story short, he released me--and immediately 'called' me to another position (one that I'd hate, for sure; mounds of paperwork...ugh!). He refused to take "no" for an answer, although I presented him with several very rational reasons: I was finishing a master's project; I was very busy at work; I hadn't been feeling very well (and was later diagnosed with leukemia!)---but he pressed on. I finally wished him a good day, and left. As I walked out the back door, I knew I'd never, ever be back. I felt more free than I had in YEARS! It was still early--about 10 am--and it was a lovely, warm June morning. The sun glinted off the cars in the parking lot, and a slight breeze was blowing. There was the smell of freshly-mowed lawns in the air, and I felt as if the weight of the whole "gold plates" had just been lifted off my back! Go and tell the bishop? No way! I knew he'd try to spoil that wonderful feeling with piles of guilt and "responsibility"--"responsibility" for things I didn't ask for, and was never "responsible" for, to begin with. I later learned, from a friend, that they had "called" me to the position, anyway, the following Sunday. I figured as much, since the giant manila envelopes of paperwork kept showing up in my mailbox, phone messages kept appearing on my answering machine, and e-mails kept popping up in my inbox. Not to worry. I ignored them all. I kept all the envelopes in a pile, ignoring them completely, until I finally threw them out, without ever even opening them. I was done. Completely. Totally. D-O-N-E. It was months before the mishies showed up at my door, but I politely--and firmly--told them that I knew where the church was, should I choose to attend, but please don't hold their breath waiting and looking for me... That was it. I've gotten a few cards and "visiting teaching" or "home teaching" messages in the mail--nothing personal; just photocopied conference talks with "this is the (name of month) HT (or VT) message" scrawled in the margin. I toss them. None of the bishops has ever seriously sought me out. One came to my house, while my dad was very ill (right before he died), and I was recovering from a bone marrow transplant. I was picking up some stuff to take to my dad, and when I told the "bishop" how things were in my family... He asked what he could do to help, so I told him I could sure use some help with the yardwork. (What the heck; I'd put in enough hours, helping other people at church, right?) He said, "Oh yes; sure; we can help you with that..."---and I never heard from him again! In my experience, that's typical with the church and single people. BTW, no one from church visited me, when I was in the hospital---although I got a nice bunch of messages from the folks here at RfM! No one from church sent a card or came to the funeral home when my dad passed away, either. So, IMHO, walking away works just fine. At least, it did for me. (I'm sure things are different if you have a mormon family. I do not; in fact, my family was thrilled when I left!) Whatever you decide to do--good luck. Remember, you are in charge of your own life. You ultimately do not owe the bishop, or any other church "authority," any explanation for what you do or do not do. They only have authority if you give it to them. Your family may be another matter... |
|
| I have been posting here on and off for a few months using different names depending on what I was sharing. The main reason for this was because I had some shame and embarrassment about some of the experiences I have had and I was not alway sure of the state of the evolution I was in about some issues. Perhaps this is the last legacy for me, of the deep shame I felt being raised a Mormon who never quite fit the mold. I had to compartmentalize the ragtag parts of me that were not ideal. Turns out, it was just the human side of me -- trying to be perfect, when just being me always was enough. I never knew this freedom to be...just be.
In reading about Deenie the Dread Single Adult, I thought to myself, that through her disappointmens and heartache, she didn't seem to allow herself to be severed up into little pieces. Maybe it was because she was not raised in the cult and had a self to go back to -- but I really admire the way she took her licks and the indignities of being single and "unchosen" in a church where only the ideal are really respected. Doesn't matter if the "ideal" is a sham....but you have to be with the program or you are not considered a full person. I loved her story about the day she had been abused one time too many and just walked out and saw the sunlight glinting off cars and the scent of new mown grass....perfect. As a divorced apostate, I have had a lot of trouble trying to find the way back to my rightful selfhood. I have been single for eleven years now, and just now, at age 56, realize that I do not have to have a man in my house, to be happy. I was married a long time and judged harshly every single day, and I have had time now, to really treasure having the freedom to live my life as I choose. Up till now, I have been caught up in that old mindset that if you are not "chosen" by a man, you aren't really "here." It is amazing how strong that notion is. Deenie, as illustrated in the stories she wrote and by all the loving comments made about her, succeeded in flourishing as a full "self" and the fact that she was single -- unchosen -- did not factor into the great worth of her soul. She did not hold back --she pursued her passions and told her truth with humorous candor. It makes me ashamed of the time I have wasted in worrying if I will die alone and unloved. Well, that is so stupid. I realize now that *am loved* for myself and have lots of passions to pursue....and Deenie living, and then passing on with such grace, has been a huge kick in the butt for me. I am going to get out my paint brushes and paint again...what *I* want to paint (nudes nudes nudes...just kidding) -- I love to sing, and I am going to find a group or choir of some kind to sing with (I don't have a church and didn't know where to sing), but just singing to the radio is great in itself -- I am going to start writing what I have wanted to write but didn't start because my TBM family mightnot like it...on the list goes. Why did I get sucked into thinking that I had to censure my own life story? Do I not own my own life? I do. I am free. I needed that kick in the butt, along with the wrench of the heart. Deenie and others here who don't flinch, have really helped me clear the final hurdle of assimilating all the desparate parts of me. Have some of you found yourself divided into compartments as part of fractured fairy tales too? |
|
| I am dissapointed the Mormon Tabernacle Choir couldn't deliver on its tour. I am also angry and confused over the poor manner in which the tour is being managed.
Last night, the MoTab showed up for its concert in Des Moines as part of its much hyped tour of the Midwest. The concert had received extensive publicity in the Des Moines Regsister, the Church News, and over the local church pulpit. Unfortunately, the concert failed to live up to its hype. Tickets were way overpriced and few people showed up. As another TBM concert attendee put it, "There were empty seats, and I could not help but think that the people of central Iowa missed an extraordinary program." I am left scratching my head over this one. And as an individual who has contributed a great deal of money to the Church's coffers, I'm also upset. 1st Concern: High Ticket Prices: $25.00, $50.00, $75.00. Members were told the high prices were "to cover the cost of securing the venue." In the past, the choir performed free of charge to build good will in the community. Did it really cost $150,000 to rent the facility for one night? I might understand the cost if the choir members were being paid, but as I undersand it, all the performers are volunteers and pay there own way on the tours. In these difficult economic times, $25 to $75 per ticket seems a little steep, especially for a religous choir concert. 2nd Concern: The MoTab's website reports that "The Choir’s Des Moines performance was at Wells Fargo Arena, a 17,000-seat venue completed in 2005." What the website intentionally left out is that last night's performance drew less than 3,000 people. Why would you rent out a basketball arena similar to Energy Solutions Arena for such a small crowd? Numerous smaller venues would have been more suitable in the Des Moines area. They would have been much cheaper to rent and better equipped to handle the large choir from an acoustic standpoint. Did they really think they could sell so many seats at such high prices? Does the choir really think it has the star power of someone like Britney Spears, a performer slated to appear at Wells Fargo Arena? Instead, ushers scrambled to consolidate the seating of the concert-goers to minimize the appearance of empty seats. If there was anything good out of this, it was that the guy who bought the $25 "cheap" seat got to move down to the $75 seat. Third Concern: No tickets Were Reserved for Church Members(exception: high ranking church leaders) Surely at an event such as this, the Stakes could have reserved a few tickets for some of the less fortunate members. What other opportunity will they have to see the MoTab perform? Couldn't this be an inspiring, rewarding spiritual experience for them? Instead, many, many $75 tickets were set aside for dignitaries, business leaders, and other high rollers in the greater Des Moines Community. Free tickets swirled around in corporate circles. I can understand the value of connecting with community businesses and leaders, but try telling this to the poor member in Story City, Iowa that can't afford a babysitter, gas to Des Moines, dinner in Des Moines, $50 for tickets, and gas back to Des Moines. Try telling this to the faithful, tithe paying medical student at Des Moines University who struggles to provide for his wife and two children while working his way through school. Fourth Concern: Members Were Pressured to Purchase Expensive Tickets as a Missionary Tool. Local leaders pushed the concert as an excellent missionary tool. An interesting idea in theory, but did they really think that members would fork out at least $100 so they could attend a Mormon concert with their friends? That borders on exploitation. Perhaps the graduate students who make up 1/3 of the wards would have better suited to invite their friends then the older members who are unlikely to make too many inroads now. But factor in the costs of a babysitter and student loans, and $25 ticket price per person doesn't seem very appealing to a medical student. Self + Wife + Non-member couple =$100 minimum. The church missed a great chance to subsidize some excellent missionary opportunities. Perhaps evn offering a student discount would have been nice. To divert attention away from the poorly planned and poorly attended concert, an article on the Mormon Tabernacle Choirs website focuses extensively on the choir's visit to a Des Moines nursing home. The concert is only mentioned briefly, with a misleading attempt at suggesting 17,000 attended the event, when in fact, there were less than 3,000. The mess of chords coming out of the organ in one of the pictures below symbolizes the poor management of this event. See http://www.mormontabernaclechoir.com/... On a positive note, the choir did sound great. Too bad the logistics of their visit were bungled badly. For a TBM's report, see http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/20... On another postive note, the Online Ticket Website for the event feature an inadvertent Inside Joke. It reads: Members: Order Now Non-Members: Order Now http://www.civiccenter.org/events/_16... |
|
| Reading Tom Clark's letter provoked the memory that I had hoped to write a letter along a similar thread. My thought is that, for all the travelling Mormons do (or say they do), they bring back precious little to show for it in the way of knowledge of the people to whom they were sent. Yet credible magazines and other publications continure to naively print that foreign corporations flock to SLC because the Mormon ex-missionaries speak their languages and understand their cultures. (Personally, I think Utah's popularity in the corporate world is because the business environment in Utah has been orchestrated to provide little oversight and is made to favor the businesses at the expense of the employees. But maybe I'm just being cynical.)
I was in Japan for a number of years with the military, and was often gobsmacked at the crap the missionaries would believe about the Japanese, indicating that the missionaries' immature pea-brains were not picking up on many of the cultural clues of an ancient people. Plus there was the stupid and naive expectation that a good Japanese should embrace an American religion and drop his or her culture to do it. Like Tom, I also on a mission to Italy (the OLD days, back with Paul Toscano and the like; Tom and I have compared notes and know some of the same people). It was immediately apparent to me that the Italians really had something particular going on, something to which we Americans could only weakly aspire. The Italian peninsula has been thriving amidst Roman, Greek, Etruscan, and Umbrian culture (among many others) for three or four thousand years or so (truthfully, I don't really know how many). Many missionaries had no appreciation at all for that fact, and remained aloof and unimpressed their entire time there. They would brag that the church would someday shake the Italians loose from their traditions, and cause them to embrace Mormonism. When it came time to leave the "Great Italian Mission" (dubbed by Hartmon Rector as its formal name), I was so happy to be off my mission but sad to leave Italy, fearing I may never come back. But I remember one missionary I went out with who counted the days to get back to his dairy farm in Idaho where he would be free to be, as he put it, closer to the Lord. Really aspiring to lofty things, that is. A-sittin' on the fence watching the bovines, Land o' Goshen! Yet Italy may not be the best example of a people whose religion is tightly intertwined with the fabric of their culture. The church tried for decades to be allowed into Greece. When they finally did get in, they found that they were denied a lot of basic privileges as a religion because, by and large, nothing but Orthodox Christianity is accepted there, and nothing but Orthodoxy has any meaning. Orthodoxy is not just religion; it is life, whether you attend meetings or not. Same with the Russians, Serbians, and many others who practice Orthodoxy. That's not even to mention the Islamic countries that (thankfully) will never see a Mormon missionary. (Oddly, none of my babbling explains how Mormonism can get a unexpectedly strong foothold in some very different countries, like in Tonga or Mongolia. But Mormonism can get an impressive foothold in any backward and naive country or region, like in Central and Western Africa, where people are naive and where there is very little Internet penetration.) My family and I finally did have the privilege of returning to Italy and living ther for four years. We also lived in Germany for 13 years and have spent time in places like Pakistan, Cambodia, and Congo. What those experiences served to do for me vis-a-vis my so-called "testimony" was to prove to me that there's hardly a young missionary out there that has any idea of what is really going on about him or her, and few, if any, take the culture home with them when they depart. This is just as true with mission presidents and senior missionaries. And when I hear former missionaries talk about their time abroad, I'm often forced to roll my eyes because it can be so obvious that they've come back without much of a clue and only a sort of corrupted idea about what was happening around them. I just think it's sad, is all. I don't think any of them can hope to convert someone of another culture without more profound appreciation and knowledge of the host nation culture or of anyone's culture in general. Plus there's the nasty fact of jingoism among most of the American missionaries, both young and old. I |
|
| Denise Marie Stein, known as "Deenie, The Dreaded Single Adult" passed away on June 15th from Cancer. She was an extremely witty poster over on RFM.
Some of her posts can be found here on the MC: Why Is It That Such A "Family-Centered" Church Has No Little Playground For The Kids? http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_ch... For The Sake Of The Pioneers http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_ex... Got To Add This On To The "Deodorant" Discussion From "Things That Make You Go Humm..." http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_ex... In Our Stake, The Singles Over 30 Were All "Kicked Out" Of The Singles' Ward http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_si... |
|
| What Recovery from Mormonism means to me.
"Recovery from Mormonism" means different things to different people. It is very personal. There are no rules, and no book of instructions. We all do it differently. For myself, I understand it best as an Exit Process. A long one. It is life altering. It means--the emotional attachment has been replaced with love of all of life. It means--a new World View of my own making. It means--taking my personal power back and owning it. It means: getting myself "Un-Mornmonized" - rewriting and deleting the automatic thinking scripts that determined my choices and behavior--that's another post. My view is that "recovery" in my life needs to encompass the quality of love more than hate, positive more than negative. It means--- acceptance of the freedom of everyone to choose their beliefs. It means--- respect and honor for other people's rights to their beliefs the same as I want for mine. It means ----letting go of negative energy spent on Mormonism. It means -- there is no need to be vicious, vengeful, vulgar toward Mormons and their rights to their beliefs. It means finding a way to understand the very personal, internal process of changing our mind about Mormonism and how that plays out in our lives. It means learning how to make peace with it. The following is how I made peace with it--or how you know you are really out. This is my personal list for myself as it evolved. You know you are really out when..... there are no more resentments, anger, regrets, or self recrimination, explosive responses, name calling, etc. You know you are really out when.... you can live with and love Mormons and accept them like anyone else. You know you are really out when..... you are kind to the missionaries and other members, and maintain a rational relationship and friendship like everyone else. You know you are really out when... you understand that Mormonism is a religion like thousands of others and it's OK to change your mind, leave it, and know you are OK and were OK all along. You know you are really out when ..... you respect all people's rights to choose their own religion (or none) as a valid choice and honor that right. You know you are really out when.... you love your friends and family regardless of their religious choices. You know you are really out when... you own your own power, set healthy boundaries when necessary, and take charge of your own life, living it today, not for some reward after death. You know you are really out when... you choose your friends regardless of their religious choices. You know you are really out when.... you can go to a church building, read their scriptures, articles, etc, attend functions associate with Mormons and remain respectful. I didn't start out with those results as goals. They evolved naturally during my process - which is ongoing. I will always live with and love Mormons. Every person teaches me something, and most often, enriches my life. It means "paying it forward" and "giving back" to others in their personal process. That's what it means to me. [These are my observations and conclusions. They are subject to change as I receive "further light and knowledge"!-] What does Recovery from Mormonism mean to you? |
|
| The rumor goes that before the SLC temple was built, the planners were inspired to put air shafts throughout the building. That was before there was air conditioning.
Also, they were inspired to put a huge hollow shaft in the middle. That was before elevators were invented. But when the wonderful invention of elevators finally made its way to Utah, the mysterious shaft was the perfect size for an elevator. Not 1/16 of an inch too big or too small. Just right. Both of those sounded funny from day 1. Elevators are not exactly new. And if Mormon leaders are so inspired to include infrastructure for technology that has not been invented yet, why were they not inspired to include blacks in their phony priesthood. The world was, apparently, more ready to accept elevators than it was to accept blacks holding the phony priesthood. I had a few extra minutes today so I decided to look up elevators. Looks like they've been around since about 236 B.C. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator... Elevators were in use in the USA in the 1850's, when the SLC temple was built. Announcement: 28 July 1847 Site Dedication: 14 February 1853 by Heber C. Kimball Groundbreaking: 14 February 1853 by Brigham Young Public Open House: 5 April 1893 According to this site, they started building in 1853, so they were or should have been well aware of elevators since they sent people to Europe to find a good architectural model and used Mormon masons who had just moved from the East. The massive granite edifice was constructed in a neo-gothic style over the course of an astounding 40-year period between 1853 and 1893...http://www.utah.com/mormon/temple_squ... If there is any truth to this at all, it might be that they were not able to fit the building with an elevator when it was built, but they planned to include one later, so they included a place for it and put in the elevator at a later time. Like I said, they were using masons who had just come across the plains. And they sent people to Europe to borrow architectural cues from their buildings. So why would they not know about elevators being used in the USA at the time? Just another lame FPR. And it only took a few minutes to debunk. |
|
| Yesterday in EQ the lesson was on temples. I listened to crazy stuff and sat on it. The lesson was done by the bishop and all the questions were leading questions that illicit only confirming answers. Questions like, “have any of you had any experiences in the temple where you felt the spirit strongly?” Well that only gets you one side of the story.
I heard leaps of logic like, “there is only one way that could have happened, it was the spirit of the lord at work” …or one of the other many ways that particular thing could have happened, but on one said so. I heard about all the temples that have been built in this bishop’s lifetime. He said that no other church has done so much building in such a short time. Hmm, that made me wonder about the 16th century and the conquering of the new world and the spread of Catholicism? When asked about the purpose of the temple he got a ton of answers about ordinances etc. I said that a lot of it was about an outward display of obedience. I said that from a sociological point of view, or cultural anthropology, mormons can be divided into two main groups. Temple going ones, and not. The temple going ones are obvious because they wear garments. I said even the mormon people themselves look for who is wearing garments and can go to weddings etc. to see who is in what group. That comment fell pretty flat and the bishop continued on as if I didn’t say a thing. Later, after more leading questions that elicited tons of replies about how strong the spirit is in the temple and how much knowledge people get from going each time etc. I said that there is another point of view. I said that I admit that the “spirit” would have to use a stick of lumber to get my attention, so I might not be representative of everyone, but I went every month for years, and after getting the main story down, I wasn’t learning anything new. I said that there may be others who have had experiences similar to mine, and if we only ask leading questions it will seem like there is only one experience, and that leaves people like me thinking there must be something wrong with them. I wanted those people to know it happens to others also. That made the EQ Pres jump to the rescue and say that he gets new knowledge every time he goes. Then the counselor in the bishbrc asked if he could make a comment and went to the podium to make it. He went on and on about the new knowledge that is given when we attend the temple and that perhaps a person needs to prepare adequately to go to the temple to be in the right place to receive it. I interrupted and said that perhaps it wasn’t anything I was doing wrong, and that somewhere it says that for some it is given to know such and such, and for others it is not. Perhaps I’m not one that was given whatever it is, and it has nothing to do with anything I was doing wrong. That gave him a perfect way out of dissing on me in a public way, but instead he said, “but we have been promised that…….will happen when we attend the temple.” Oh, I guess it was that I was doing something wrong then. I didn’t say that, but that’s what his final comment meant. So, I went to church to please my wife and keep the peace. We only go a couple of times a month, and starting recently she goes alone on one of them. But I went and got a lesson that teaches that going to the temple is great, and things that could have 10 different explanations could only be explained by miraculous workings of the spirit. We build buildings faster than any church ever has. If you go to the temple and it isn’t amazing, there is something wrong with you. The cult aspect was so strong. It was like the movie 1984. We only talk about things in one way. And if somebody has the guts to say otherwise, they tension is too great and somebody has to jump up and cover over the wrong reality that was spoken of. So, church was never anything that I enjoyed. I went out of duty and obligation. I only sometimes made comments that showed some of what I really think. This time, some came out, and by the reaction it was much more obvious the cult like aspects of just sitting through a lesson. Church is becoming excruciating. Soon they will probably sick the strengthening the members Nazis on me just to shush the wrong answers up. Perhaps the bishops lesson is the wrong one to point out the truth in. |
|
| More evidence of Joseph Smith's sexual predation is the heart-wrenching story of Lucy Walker. The Walker family arrived in Nauvoo in the spring of 1841 and by January 1842, Lucy’s mother had contracted and died of malaria, leaving her husband, John, with 10 children to care for. In the family’s time of grief and need for each other, what did JS do? He broke up the Walker family by sending John away on a two-year mission to the eastern states and Lucy’s siblings to live in different members’ homes. He saved 15-year-old Lucy for his house and subsequently informed the lonely and vulnerable girl, “I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” Lucy recorded, “My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me.” (ref. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-...).
To coax Lucy to agree to become his plural wife, he told her that doing so “would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house.” (Ibid.) What Mormon girl grieving for her deceased mother, longing for her father, and separated from her siblings would deny “an everlasting blessing” to her father and his family? The psychological trauma that JS put Lucy through was made clear by her words of prayer: “Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother...Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience. No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour. Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.” (Ibid.) JS told Lucy that the marriage would have to be secret. He then intensified the psychological pressure by giving her an ultimatum: “It is a command of God to you. I will give you untill to-morrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.” (Ibid.) Lonely and wounded psychologically and emotionally, Lucy agreed to marry JS. She recalled, “Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all.” (Ibid.) Lucy did not know that JS was violating a direct commandment from the Lord – “and the first give her consent” – by secretly marrying her. Of all the females in Nauvoo that JS could have approached about becoming his latest plural wife, he targeted, isolated and manipulated an inexperienced and highly vulnerable teenage girl young enough to be his daughter. What kind of church leader would treat girls and women in such a manipulative and abusive manner? One drunk on his own ecclesiastical power. Sandra Tanner's videotaped presentation alerted me to this infamous aspect - one of so many - of Mormonism's history (ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=153jwQ...) |
|
| Woke up this morning, took the dogs out for a good walk, and came home for breakfast. My wife says all the kids are counting on you to go to church for Father's Day and you will get cookies at church. I haven't been for months but thought, if I get a cookie for all my effort it can't be that bad. Service was everything I dread. The best Fathers are those who live up to their priesthood or whatever that means. And only those fathers who are worthy can have a cookie.
Up theirs!! I took a cookie anyways and threw it away. I have raised 4 beautiful children who are independent, thriving members of society not some cult followers. I deserve my cookie for who I am not for what they think I should be. I won't' be sucked in again. |
|
| So this weekend we had to do another hospital stay with our daughter because she had a slight elevated fever and her counts were low....nothing wrong just precautionary with leukemia. ANYWAY Friday night was my shift (hubby and I take turns spending the nights and days up there when she has to stay so she is not alone)
They have a family lounge in the cancer wing that has fridge ,microwave , coffee. etc. I went in to pop her some popcorn and I kid you not there are 2 missionaries and a spanish speaking woman and they are giving her in very broken spanglish an explanation of how they the LDS inc. have the power of God . Okay now I know this mom . Her son who is 3 has a rare form of brain cancer only 8 documented cases in the world and she and her son (father was deported) have been there for 5 months straight . He is having radiation and it has not worked ...all of us parents know who she is and we hug her every time we see her . All of us cancer parents have the same look . FEAR !!! These elders are explaining that she needs to read her BOM and pray about it and you can tell she has been ..... I joke not when I tell you that right there as her child is waiting to die they were trying to commit her to baptism and making all sorts of promises of what god will do for her ....She was hesitant and unsure . I did not move I felt frozen I couldn't leave her there thinking that penishood magic would save her son!! I just couldn't . Then the one kid tells her that he KNOWS as he crys that god will perform a miracle and if she has enough faith god can perform miracles! Well guys that is when I snapped. I interupted the conversation right then. I said elders what the hell are you doing ??? I let them know I understood that they were just kids and totally duped into thinking all they have been taught . Told them I was a return missionary and could not believe that they were trying to commit her in the middle of her crisis!!!! I explained that even though they might not realize it because of their youth and indoctrination that that mom ....she is a mom first only heard one thing they said !! She heard the word "CURE" I told them that it was wrong to tell her such a thing and that as parents on that floor we would do anything and I mean ANYTHING to cure our children! They got mad at me can you believe that ?? They actually had the nerve to tell me that they have been called of God and I should of all people understand that! OH PLEASE! but I let it slide as I was a 21 year old missionary once who believed everything SLC said . I refused to leave the room ....they got uncomfortable when the nurse came in and heard them because she said she did not think that was the time or place to do that and that they should go down to the chapel for that talk! When they left I hugged that mom and she asked me what she should do ??? As a cancer parent I knew exactly what she should do ...the only thing cancer parents can do . HOPE THE MEDICINE WORKS and hope we have the strength to see when it isn't and say goodbye! That is all we can do especially her when her son's cancer is incurable . Another mom came in and said "I will tell you what to do honey . CRY!!!!" and we sat there with her while she cried! She obviously believes in god and christianity and since I am allergic to religion;) we called the chaplin who only tells parents to pray for strength to handle things not healing!!! Sorry I rambled but I am still so upset at what they said ..I'm more angry that SLC still spews the crap they do !!!! She asked me what to do with the BOM ....the chaplin knows us and that we are exmo's and so he and I said THROW THE DAME THING OUT! I told her I used to be a mormon and that is was HORRIBLE and nothing but lies. I will see her again next week for our mandatory instay chemo . Anyway thanks for letting me share ...I feel better! |
|
| For those of you lucky enough to be out of the loop, Mormon marriage season started a couple of weeks ago. I missed the first two receptions due to scheduling conflicts but a good friend of mine had a daughter get married in the temple this morning so I went to the reception tonight. The girl is barely 19 and married a recently returned RM. Both sets of parents are thrilled that they've gotten another child safely thru to the next level of Morgdom. Actually the reception was very nice. But another child has married straight from her parents home with very little college education and no real experience of the world. The Morg has tied a couple of souls tighter to their cult where they will be squeezed for time and money, increasingly so with each passing year. Another couple of kids who aren't financially ready will probably start a family of their own soon. The LDS church promises so much to families and delivers so little and takes most of all.
If that weren't enough to make a fun evening, I sat in a room full of people who have no idea that I don't believe in the church, or follow the WoW, or wear my garments, or attend the temple and who are all my "friends" and I got to wonder how many of them will even speak to me as the truth comes out that I no longer want to be a member of their tribe. Maybe my "friend" with the crazy family - she seems unusually tolerant. Definitely not my neighbor who won't read any book not published by Deseret Book. Possibly my "friend" who has the non-mo DH - but she's always harping to him about "eternal families" so maybe she isn't all that understanding. Or maybe the cowboy I had a secret crush on for years who helped me understand why people believe in Mormonism against all logic, against all facts and scientific evidences. Even though every single fact told me that this guy would not make a good spouse for me and was inferior in every way to my husband, I still would have gone after him (if we were both single) because I "felt" so strongly about him. I can see now how feelings can lead people to willfully turn their back on almost every ounce of common sense they possess. He'd definitely snub me. All these good people - all these fake friendships. And me watching from another planet, having slipped thru the looking glass, not being able to unlearn the truth. Just about everyone I know sees the world completely differently from me now. I guess this is just one of the things you pass thru on the way to an authentic life but it doesn't make it any less depressing. |
|
| First, some pre-amble:
The LDS Church's section summary for D&C 35 begins with "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at or near Fayette, New York, December 1830." (see the link below, which shows the summary when you click on it) D&C 35:1 says: "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever." (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/35/1#... emphasis in bold is mine). So, what did 'the Lord' 'reveal' to his ancient American prophet Jacob "yesterday" (i.e., "Between 544 and 421 B.C."; ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2), as per Jacob 2:24? "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (ref. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/...) For lurking Latter-day Saints (hello!) and those newer to the wonderful world of rational post-Mormonism (plus the regulars, of course!), "The 1835 and 1844 versions of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) prohibited polygamy and declared that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage: "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again"' (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_m... also - see reference no. 7) From another Wiki entry: "...the 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants, written before the doctrine of plural marriage began to be practiced, publicly condemned polygamy. This scripture was used by John Taylor in 1850 to quash Mormon polygamy rumors in Liverpool, England." (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy...). According to the LDS Church's online genealogy record for John Taylor at FamilySearch.org, by 1850 he had seven wives back in the U.S., so he was lying as missionaries to potential converts! (Why am I not surprised?!) When JS 'received' the 'revelation' that became section 35 of the D&C, he had only one wife: Emma. Keep in mind what "the same today as yesterday, and forever" Lord God Almighty revealed to the ancient American prophet Jacob (according to the BoM) about David's and Solomon's practice of having "wives and concubines" being "abominable" as you read the polygamy 'revelation' that JS knew the "doctrines and principles" of and wrote down on July 12, 1843 that became D&C 132. Verse 1 says: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—" (emphasis in bold is mine) Dictionary.com defines the verb, "justify" as "validate" and "excuse". So, what changed between 1830, when the Book of Mormon was first published and the 'revelation' that became D&C 35 was written, to 1835 (the year in which JS secretly made servant girl Fanny Alger his first plural wife, as per LDS Church online genealogical data for her) to July 1843, when 'the Lord' seemingly does a 180/about-face-total-reversal on polygamy and informs JS that having "wives and concubines" was OK? Joseph Smith became increasingly absorbed with his obsession about polygamy and made more and more women and younger and younger girls his plural wives to the point where his abusive, hurtful and humiliating behavior cost him his life. Regarding liar John Taylor, who became the third president of the Mormon Church in 1880, an interesting historical fact that I didn't know until today was he reportedly received a 'revelation' in 1886 that polygamy would be permanent (despite the persecution of the church and polygamist Mormons by the US government) that was rejected by a subsequent First Presidency. "For two and a half years, Taylor presided over the church from exile. During this time, he received the 1886 Revelation, which restated the permanence of the commandment to practice plural marriage; the validity of this revelation is rejected by the LDS Church but it is used by Mormon fundamentalists to justify the continued practice of polygamy.” (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tay...) Yet more historical truth that the chronically dishonest LDS Church keeps from members and potential converts. |
|
| Every non-denominational medical facility I know tries to protect vulnerable patients and their families from aggressive religious nuts. That's good!
But "Awake Now" had to step in last night when aggressive morg mishies were aggressively pushing their agenda on a single mother whose young child is suffering in the hospital with debilitating and life threatening brain cancer. I would encourage others to be as vilgilent as "Awake Now." Religion salespeople have rights to push their wares at certain times and palces, but not in private places where there are rules against these practices. Hospital waiting rooms, chapels, rest rooms, and parking lots are there for patients, their visitors and supporters, and for the medical care workers. We don't pay for these things to have them clogged by religious fanatics out to gain converts. I've tangled with those on the board who call it "censorship" when I've dumped Hellfire and Watchtower fliers in the trash in places where these materials were secreted in and left for innocent children and vulnerable victims to pick up. Hospital workers can't always sweep through and clear waiting rooms of this trash and sometimes aren't aware of unapproved missionaries on the premises. I suggest reporting such people to security if they're cornering people waiting for word about the condition of their loved ones or if they are patients in beds or waiting for their own medical procedures. My husband worked in hospital administratration for about twenty years. He said his facility had strict rules against religious trespassers and unapproved materials being left in lobbies and waiting rooms. Security ousted anyone who did not check in and have official apparoval to be there. Housekeeping dumped material left by those with a cult agenda. Some of this stuff actually contradicts medical reality. This was the case with the morg mishies who promised the mother her child would survive if she would agree to baptism. Report these offenses to hospital officials. They'll thank you for it. The patients and their emotionally vulnerable families would thank you if they could. |
|
| When I was a teenager, a favorite aunt told me a very personal story about her teenage years in the 60's. My aunt and her best friend were living pretty wild lives for Utah Mormon girls of their time. They were wearing skirts that were too short, and dating before the proper age of sixteen. They also thought church was boring even though they were attending faithfully. As you can tell, they were just living la vida loca and really needed to be controlled.
So, both my aunt and her friend started seminary at the appropriate age and everything in their lives changed. Their seminary teacher, a handsome RM with a young wife and several children was a gifted teacher and he had an ability to really connect with teenagers. He taught the girls about modesty and appropriate dating standards and soon enough he had a following of eager seminary students who were really enthusiastic about living the gospel. When my aunt was 17, this seminary teacher approached her and told her that he had had a revelation that the institution of plural marriage was to be restored and that she would be one of his wives. My aunt was not overwhelmed by the spirit, absolutely refused, and was completely devastated. She didn't raise a stink about it though, because she didn't want to undo any of the 'good' this man had accomplished by energizing the youth of her seminary class. Some time later, my aunt's best friend revealed to her that SHE (the friend) had become one of the seminary teacher's plural wives in secret. My aunt was completely appalled and asked how she could do such a thing. Her friend told her that she and the seminary teacher had prayed together about it and that an angel appeared to marry them as they were inquiring of the Lord whether it was the right thing. My aunt said "Did YOU see the angel?" and the friend said "No, but brother X (the seminary teacher) did, and he interpreted the angel's message for me. I was right there, I know it's true". A few years later, their practice of plural marriage was discovered and they were all excommunicated. My aunt told me this story as we were discussing people she knew (apparently several) who had been excommunicated for various 'inappropriate' religious activities. At the time I was horrified to know that so many well meaning individuals could be led astray. Now I look back and I think, why did that story horrify me, while Brigham Young and Joseph Smith still seemed beyond reproach for pulling the same BS out of their asses? I can't help but laugh about it now. |
|
| 1. Why was free agency NOT a component of plural marriage when arguably every other foundational church doctrine is? 2. Why did angels with drawn sword only appear to Joseph and not his wives? Why didn't other men report that angels came after them with drawn swords, too? Surely at least a few men would have had to be persuaded, right?? 3. Why were the women not consulted or engaged in the plural marriage decision other than for a "YES" or "NO" response? And "NO" coming with horrible consequences? Isn't this a form of blackmail? Where is their free agency? It seems like a form of religous rape... 4. Wouldn't marrying one woman set the precedent of plural marriage? Why so many...what number prevents the "angel with drawn sword" from showing up? Is there a quota? 5. Why was there a need for secrecy? Every time you do something in secret, history shows that pain, suffering and misuderstanding quickly follow. And why take away the law of plural marriage if it was an eternal concept??? If the "work" was so important that it needed to be done on the earth in the first place, and so important the the prophet has to be chased by an angel with a drawn sword threatening to kill him if he doesn't start doing it, then why isn't that requirement still valid and urgent? 6. There were several instances where a father's salvation was assured through a daughter's marriage to Joseph Smith. How does this apply when one considers the articles of faith...which says something very different about our salvation? 7. Why was plural marriage hidden from some of the common law wives? What about their consent to the new union? If they hadn't been consulted, wasn't that adultery? |
|
| A few years ago I needed an attorney and was referred to a high profile law firm in Salt Lake City. I knew one of the firms attorney's through a professional association.
I was invited in for a meeting and immediately knew that this place was somehow different. I met with two attorneys who told me what a wonderful case I had and how they could do the case on contingency at no cost to me. A few days later I received an engagement letter that required I cough up about $10,000 to get things going. When I questioned one of the attorneys about the fee, he denied ever offering me a contingency arrangement. I was stunned. He then got quite belligerent with me, which was quite weird. I called another attorney friend and he confidently told me that this firm is very closely connected to TSCC and this helps them when their high-dollar, out of state clientele need a friendly place to try a case. The attorneys, judges, courts, etc. are all part of the same cozy club, TSCC. Part of the money the firm makes finds it's way back to TSCC, the client gets a favorable verdict, everyone is happy. In another case, the Olympic bribery case, I thought it was quite odd how quickly and quietly the federal case went away due to "lack of evidence." Perhaps I'm just looking for a conspiracy. |
|
| A. (Albert) Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH
Ph.D. in psychology from Brigham Young University. Adjunct Professor, University of Utah School of Medicine Past President National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). http://www.narth.com/menus/officers.h... NARTH is a non-profit organization of the Christian right that offers conversion therapy and other regimens intended to change the sexual orientation of individuals who experience unwanted sexual attraction to members of the same sex. NARTH disagrees with the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 policy revision that removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders. Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations reject conversion therapy as ineffective at best, and harmful at worst. Apologetics When Mormons need an apologist to defend its homophobic position they have a willing foot soldier in Dean Byrd. Byrd has built a career around his belief that homosexuality is not under significant genetic or biological control. Rather, it is due to faulty social and emotional conditioning and that with appropriate therapy it can be cured. He has authored apologetic articles in the Ensign, Meridian Magazine and FAIR. Byrd promotes “gender-affirmative therapy”. He states: "The basic premise of gender-affirmative therapy is that social and emotional variables affect gender identity which, in turn, determines sexual orientation. The work of the therapist is to help people understand their gender development. Subsequently, such individuals are able to make choices that are consistent with their value system.” Byrd was Director of Clinical Training for LDS Social Services Bryd has authored a couple of insensitive reviews of books written by Mormons dealing with same sex attraction. No More Goodbyes; Carol Lynn Pearson http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw200... In Quiet Desperation; Fred Matis, Marilyn Matis, and Ty Mansfield Byrd’s review http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw200... One of the authors of this book was so incensed they wrote a response to Byrd’s review. http://northstarlds.org/mansfieldiqdr... In his review of “In Quiet Desperation” Byrd’s distorted views and misrepresentations of scientific evidence led to a highly critical response from Mormons, William Bradshaw (Prof. Microbiology and Molecular Biology at BYU), Robert Rees, Ron Schow and Marybeth Raynes). Collectively these people have better scientific credentials and much more moderate views. http://www.ldsresources.info/professi... Some gems from the article which is worth reading in full. “Byrd was the lead person directing therapy for same sex attraction at Church Social Services during a period when many hundreds of Latter-day Saints were undergoing reparative or change therapy, one would think he would cite the findings of such therapy. It is in fact scandalous that such studies either were not undertaken or have been suppressed since the findings would help enlighten our present discussion of this subject. We are acquainted with one therapist at Church Social Services during Byrd's tenure who did a large portion of this work in that he counselled with nearly a thousand homosexuals and whose experience contradicts the point of view taken in this review. [Footnote: Our informant has told us that in over a 30 year career at LDS Family Services he worked with about 400 single men, 200 of whom left therapy after 1-2 sessions. Of the remaining 200, only 20 (10%) were able to marry. Furthermore, 19 of the 20 who married identified themselves as bisexual when they entered therapy. The quality of these marriages is unknown. Another Latter-day Saint therapist with whom we are familiar reports that of the hundreds of clients with sexual identity issues she has seen only those clearly identified as bisexual are given any chance of making successful marriages.]” “The pernicious consequence of promoting the idea that homosexuality is a chosen and changeable condition is that tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint homosexuals, believing that the atonement will change their homosexual inclinations, become disillusioned with God and Christ (and the Church) when they make every sacrifice of which they are capable in the belief that they will be free of homosexual feelings—only to discover that their efforts are ineffective. More often than not, they may blame themselves for having insufficient faith and either lose all faith, suspend their belief, or take their lives. Ecclesiastical leaders who have experience counseling with Latter-day Saint homosexuals know the heartbreak associated with such cases. One wants to say as did Jeremiah about another pernicious teaching, "Let this be taught no more in Israel!" (Ezekiel 18:1-5)” “They begin with the a priori assumption that homosexuality must and therefore can be changed through imposing the external influences of counseling and reparative therapy. It must then follow that external influences such as negative social relationships in a family have to be responsible for inducing homosexuality in the first place. Therefore, the suggestion that homosexuality could be innate and the result of biological mechanisms must be dismissed out of hand. There is a vast body of evidence from empirical scientific studies supporting the conclusion that biological processes, especially those operating prenatally to regulate the sexual differentiation of the brain, influence a person's sexual orientation. These data have been derived from a variety of disciplines including genetics, biochemistry, and neurobiology. Among the subjects of these investigations are twin and sibling studies, brain anatomy, hormones and their cellular receptors, correlates of homosexuality in handedness and hearing, cognitive (brain function) studies, and the behavior of humans with genetic defects that alter gender characteristics. Of special significance is the demonstration that for measures that are sexually dimorphic, that is, different between heterosexual men and women, homosexual persons are atypical for their gender. Homosexuality is heritable and imprinted early (often embryonic ally) in human development. It is also important to note that when genetic studies demonstrate thatthere is some component of the variability in sexual orientation not directly attributable to genes, and therefore "environmental," this does not necessarily refer to influences, such as social interactions, outside the individual. Such influences could well be biological (for example, hormonal influences that operate within the environment of the individual, but are derived from, and exert their effects upon the genetic constitution of that person, and hence are epigenetic). The fact that no single unified theory can as yet explain all of the data, and that the responsible processes are probably not the same in gay men and lesbians, does not diminish the fact that the biological evidence is compelling. Space here does not permit the citation of the voluminous scientific information. Instead, we invite the reader to carefully examine the data, beginning with review articles that summarize the results of the various studies. These are summarized at http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.... as well as in the articles listed in this footnote.” “It is absolutely ludicrous to marshal the names of Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and Michael J. Bailey to discredit a biological explanation for homosexuality when the work of these investigators has contributed so importantly to that very proposition. The reader will note in the following citations from these scientists the sentiment that the biological evidence is very strong; and though there is very little credible empirical support for environmental, i.e., social explanations, they don't rule them out. “ After the citations “As these brief citations make very clear, Byrd, Cox, and Robinson have engaged in gross distortion in attempting to align the positions of these three scientists with their own view that homosexuality is not an innate human condition rooted in biological processes.” Its about time this homophobic apologetic dinosaur was fossilized. Homophobia is a disorder that deserves full acknowledgment as a psychological problem unto itself. Mary H. Guindon, PhD, Chair of the Department of Counselling and Human Services at Johns Hopkins University |
|
| On another board there has been a discussion of the "cult of anti-Mormonism" and it got me to wondering if I am an anti-Mormon.
Here's what I posted in that thread on the other board. I may well be an "anti-Mormon," but then I don't really know what an "anti-Mormon" is. I have numerous friends who are Mormon and I still love them. Despite my entire family resigning from the church, my home teachers still visit me faithfully every month, and we have warm, pleasant non-church-related conversations. Our family (including my never-mo FIL had dinner recently in the home of the RS Pres, she is one of our dearest friends, and even in my "apostasy" I was probably one of the most attentive church members in helping to care for her sick husband before he died. I am angry with the Institution and Leadership of the church. I think the Mormonism is a dangerous cult and does FAR more harm than good. I would love to find a way to stop it from hurting as many people as it hurts. And, practically, I think the way to keep the church from hurting people is to WARN them before they join or INFORM them after they join of truths the Church wants kept quiet. I believe the way to get the Church to stop hurting people is to contact as many people as possible and let them know the truth about the Church. I tried walking politely up to the front door of the COB with flowers, and singing children and asking them politely to "just be nice." They refused, said they were going to continue to do business as usual, because that's what God wants them to do. So, if being an "anti-Mormon" is being someone who wants to stop the Mormon Church from hurting others, then I'm an anti-Mormon. If trying to end the Mormon Church's institutionalized victimization of the weak makes me an "anti-Mormon" then I'm an anti-Mormon. I will continue working AGAINST the Mormon Church's efforts to harm and control others. I may fail utterly, but I will NOT give up. The Mormon Church must stop hurting others, and if the only way to get them to stop hurting others is to end Mormonism, then I'm willing to work toward ending Mormonism. |
|
| My youngest son is finally married. He had two broken engagements in the past few years, so this was a big relief to him and to us. He's got a wonderful woman as a bride and we couldn't be happier.
The wedding took place in a temple. I flew in for the weekend. My youngest daughter asked me to tend my two grand daughters, age 4 and 2 while she attended the temple ceremony, which I agreed to do. I sat in the waiting room with them along with some other "unworthy" souls. The schedule got behind a little so I was there longer than I cared to be with two toddlers in tow. Finally, they came out and we had lots and lots of pictures and my son could not stop smiling. I was so happy for him. I held things together until my older daughter made an offhand comment about something she thought was funny, but cut me to the quick. She said the sealer, upon finding out that his mother wasn't there, kept calling her the "proxy mom". My younger daughter was quite upset with her for telling me that because she knew it would hurt. And it did. At any rate, we had a lovely luncheon for close family and friends...about 45 total, and it was just perfect. My ex and I paid for the luncheon and they did not have a reception so this was the main event. We were worthy enough to pay for that, but just couldn't see them get married. It was a very happy day, tinged with just a hint of sadness. I didn't cry, but got tears in my eyes just a little when I knew it was about the time they were getting sealed. Last night, after the wedding festivities, the other grown children besides my son who left on his honeymoon, took their dad to dinner to celebrate father's day. It was great because they seem to finally be aware that he is still their dad even though we aren't married anymore and he has been out as a gay man since 1992. Perhaps everyone is finally growing up. My oldest will be 38 in a couple of months. All in all it was a very pleasant and happy weekend. TSSC is still cruel in the way it handles weddings. Someday, I hope it changes. |
|
| © Copyright 2009, Helen Radkey
On May 1, 2009, it became publicly known that President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was baptized by proxy on June 4, 2008 in the Provo Utah Temple, which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The controversial online entry for Obama's mother soon vanished from the LDS Church's online database of posthumous rituals, the International Genealogical Index, (IGI). Coincidentally, on June 4, 2009-exactly a year after Dunham's baptism-and a little over a month after that news went public-Associated Press reports began to appear online stating that Barack Obama has German roots. Provo-based Ancestry.com, the world's largest online family history resource, with many Mormon fingers in the pie, confirmed that Obama's lineage-on his mother's side-can be traced to Germany. Although there appears to be Mormon genealogical involvement in the discovery of Obama's German roots-the news reports about his German lineage failed to mention that several of Obama's German ancestors are in the process of receiving LDS temple rites by proxy. (Accredited Mormons with a special user log-in have access to online IGI ordinance details, and would be able to look up and determine which LDS rituals have been performed for a dead person-information which is always off-limits to the public.) According to the online IGI, as of June 5, 2009, the names of Obama's sixth great-grandfather-John Conrad Wolfley (Johann Conrad Wolflin), born in Besigheim, Germany, in 1729-his spouse, Anna Catherine-and their son, Ludwig Lewis Wolfley, who was Obama's fifth great-grandfather, and the first U.S.-born relative in that branch of Obama's family tree-had all been "CLEARED" for baptism and other LDS temple ordinances for the dead. © Copyright 2009, Helen Radkey-Permission is granted to reproduce, provided content is not changed and this copyright notice is included. |