The Mormon Curtain

(EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18) Mormons Like To Be Protected From Normal Socialization

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:38:46 MST

I was interested to read "New UT grad's" description of adult college students. She said they talk in what I read to be a child-like tone of voice generally seem uncomfortable being challened in class. I think this is because they're used to giving and expecting unearned respect and obedience in their church culture.

Then in Rambo's thread about her mother putting on a show to inpart faith promotion, posters passed off the interchange as a "joke."

I think these are examples of mormons expecting unearned respect. This idea leads to poor socialization. The only way to mature and learn normal skills of interaction is practice. If mormons expect and receive a pass day in and day out, they don't develop a sense of normal give and take. In other words they're scocially stunted.

I'm continually amazed by this when I read about exmos tip-toeing around TBMs. They're worried about confrontation and about offending. There's an underlying assumption that the only way to work out little differences is to scream, yell, and bully.

Not true. I think it's a good idea to learn to speak up and we can do it in a kindly voice, with tact and sensitivity.

I was recently on vacation and notice how kindly and gracious one flight attendant was when she remined passengers to buckle seatbelts and such. I think many of us could learn to practice these skills with TBMs. We'd be helping them as much as ourselves.

Examples:

Mom, I love spending time here and enjoy your wonderful bread and milk and canned peaches. (big smile) But really couldn't we just talk at the table instead of reading faith promoting stories from the Ensign?

Oh, hello Bishop Rood. I didn't expect to see you here at my door tonight. As much as I'd like to talk to you about our stamp collections. This is a very bad time since I just put dinner on the table and the kids are hungry. So we'll have to postpone our talk. But do have a good evening.

Oh, hello Sister RP. I guess you didn't see me in line at the store deli. Isn't this a good buy on avocados?

No yelling, no screaming, no problem, and mormons don't get a free pass.

(EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24) What Recovery Means To Me: Aka The Exit Process From Mormonism, As I Define It

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:38:02 MST

Recovery, is defined for my own situation as The Exit Process from Mormonism.

It's a Do It Yourself Project with no manual and no rules.

We all make our own decisions about how to do it. We each post about how we do it.

This is how I do it. It works for me, but may not work for others.

There is no right or wrong way to deal with the process. It's not black and white.What is right for one won't work for another person as their situations are often quite different. Our backgrounds are very different also: BIC and convert most often, in my observation, will naturally approach the Exit Process differently. When members leave the LDS Church, (as in stop believing) it varies from a very young age to a much older age, sometimes in our senior years, like I did.

Part of that process is a variety of stages. We all go through stages that are a direct result of changing our mind about our religious, cultural belief system. Those stages may be similar to others or very different.

A few things helped me immensely. First of all, it was important to understand that we are human beings; we put our pants on one leg at a time, we experience the same emotions that all humans experience. We are more alike than different. Religion is only one defining part of our human experience. For some, it's more globally encompassing than others. Mormonism tends to be more globally encompassing because of it's strong generational traditions and rituals.

It's comforting to know we are not alone. When we leave our "tribe" and become an outsider, it's a very similar process no matter what group or religion is involved. Some can leave very easily. For others, it's extremely difficult and has far reaching dynamic results. Sometimes loosing almost everything. The animal kingdom, in general, doesn't look kindly on those that leave their "tribe." Often they are left to fend for themselves, which can be disastrous.

Along the way I have concluded there are a few basics: we all get the same thing: we live, we die, we do stuff in between. There are no wouldas, shouldas, couldas, or what if's. What is -- is. We play the cards we are dealt. We make the best decisions we know how with the information we have at the time. It's OK to change our mind when we find/receive new, better information. Don't let the past mess up my present. There are no fantasy parents, fantasy siblings, fantasy marriages, etc.

My mind tends to see the Big Picture. After reading The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell (a textbook for a local college religion course), it became easy to see Mormonism in the Big Picture as one of many God Myths through out the history of humanity that humans naturally gravitate to through their generational, familial, cultural, societal background. The geography of our birth plays a large role in our beliefs. Where we are born in the world very often determines our religious traditions and rituals for our entire life.

I found that it takes a long time to give ourselves permission to create a personalized, evolving new World View and be confident about it. It's natural, to have doubts and concerns along the way. I realized I needed to take my power back and own it, early on. I needed to be in the drivers seat and trust myself!

Everyone is different: for some anger, resentment, distaste, disgust, etc. can last for years. For others, those kinds of emotions are quickly replaced by others that lead to making peace with all of it. Humor is very healing! I fall in the latter group.

The end result of this very personalized, Do It Yourself, Exit Process from Mormonism based on the dynamics of our individual lives and families is that former members will very often develop very different World Views and different opinions.

It's natural for human beings to see the world only through their eyes. Changing from a concrete World View with little to no deviation, to one that is open and evolving can be jarring and upsetting when confronted with different opinions. Learning the skills of a skeptic, using logic and reason in a new way can be difficult. It can all: feel wrong at first. Eventually, we each find our niche, usually through experimentation. We find what works for us as a former Mormon.

It's an exhilarating experience! Scary at times! Taking off the Mormon filter from our eyes and ears takes some getting used to. We often completely change our hair styles, and our wardrobe, discarding the regulation garments. The world looks much different. There are new ways of looking at everything. All of our thoughts and actions take on a new perspective.

For me, it was necessary to use humor (daily), write satire and parody, write about the process regularly, and not take it all too seriously. It was also necessary for my sense of well being to know I was OK, to keep my self confidence, self respect, self esteem cooking on high! I was going to change my mind and do it my way! And I could do that. I didn't need to be fixed by anyone or anything. I was not defective. I'd figure it out. I could do that. I also needed to learn how to set boundaries and how to protect myself. That is on-going.

This is my list of how I know I'm out -- or recovered as some say, or the Exit Process is about as done as it's going to get. Like many, I live with and love Mormons and always will. They are some of my relatives and dear friends. It's important, for me, in my situation to maintain as many positive relationships as possible. (Not always possible, however.)

This is my check list. I read it from time to time to see how I'm doing.

You know you're really out when........ You're made peace with it.

The emotional attachment has been replaced with love of all of life.

The following is how I made peace with it. The short version.

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 goals, but they evolved naturally during my process.

I will always live with and love Mormons. Every person teaches me something, and most often, enriches my life.

(RODNEY L. MELDRUM) On Silly Meldrum's Phylogeny Mutation Rates Of 20x Faster

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:33:33 MST

Nick Humphrey talked about R. Meldrum's claim that human mtDNA mutation rates are 20x faster than previously thought. That this was evidence for (HAHAHAHA) a young earth to support revealed doctrine.

Nick Humphrey:

ME: can you please cite your reference for this claim? are either of you two lds? what percentage of cherokee is yates? i see yates has a PhD in *classical studies*, not genetics, as the description of this video seems to imply. i would also like to bring to attention to your viewers the article on fairlds entitled? "misguided zeal and defense of the church" about false scientific claims by yourself: "FAIR cannot support or endorse Mr. Meldrum's theories or presentation."

RODSTER: Science Vol. 279, 2Jan. 1998 "estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor". Genetics, Vol. 172, Jan. 2006 "Assuming 6 million years for the human-chimp species split..." I am LDS, Dr. Yates is not. Neither of us are uninformed, while not geneticists, the strength of the research is derived from the scientific journals, not our credentials.

FAIR is a Mesoamerica devoted group who's poorly done research reflects their overwhelming bias.

ME: @Rodstervid321 ok so lets lay down the facts: 1) neither you or yates are geneticists 2) "the strength of the research" also depends on your *understanding* of the research 3) what i actually was asking for was a reference to a non-LDS geneticist who will endorse *your conclusion* (note, yates does not comment this in your video) that haplogroup X's introduction to *North America*--NOT *the America's*, since X is exclusive to North America (another hole in your theory) was 2000 years ago.

STILL WAITING FOR REPLY

RODSTER: On the controversy over DNA dating, see article? in Heredity Vol. 101:107-108, June 2008. Molecular Clock Debate: Time Dependency of Molecular Rate Estimates for mtDNA: This is Not the Time for Wishful Thinking. "When it comes to mtDNA, one should not use a sundial as a stopwatch." "Our meta-analysis confirmed that the pedigree rate was less than one set of phylogenetic rates by an order of magnitude." "Phylogenetic rate estimates vary widely" Many more references are available.

ME: @Rodstervid321 using your own words: "Phylogenetic rate estimates vary widely", seems contradictory then to claim an exact estimate of 2000 years ago.

but what is really puzzling is that you are pushing a theory supporting the book of mormon by using evidence--human and chimp common ancestry--which both contradicts lds/christian teachings, and disproves the old testament adam+eve 6000 y.b.p. origin of man myth.

STILL WAITING FOR REPLY

As evidence, Meldrum sent two references:

Science Vol. 279, 2 Jan. 1998 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content...

Genetics, Vol. 172, Jan. 2006 http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/f...

In the former, a single anomalous (and outdated) data point is being used. In the latter, the data doesn't support the mutation rate change Meldrum supposes.

For an update on the status of phylogeny-base mutation rates, take a look at: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/con...

And you'll see there are corrections needed and being made based on population flow dynamics. But they no where near support any of the wacky ideas meldrum proposes.

(POLYGAMY - SECTION 3) FAIR Changes Their Doctrine Of Polygamy

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:16:00 MST

No wonder people who go to FAIR and FARMS for answers end up apostate. Below is a list FAIR put out on the accomplishments of polygamy. The list is repulsive on many levels. Below that is the new list they have put out. Notice how item 8 has completely changed. The list is a joke even with the change, item 12 proves Joseph stole wive's after sending husbands on missions.

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.

9.Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

New List:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Katheryn Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.

9. Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

(MISSIONARIES - SECTION 5) Having The Harvest Backward, Or Why Mishies Are Separating And Saving The Tares From The Wheat

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:16:15 MST

The gospel will roll forth until it consumes the earth.

For me, this is one of the saddest delusions all of us died-in-the-wool former Mormons shared. It caused a lot of depression while I was a missionary trying to teach the amazing, new-and-improved message of the gospel to the German people.

I had no baptisms as a missionary and recently, it has become very clear to me that the reason stems from the fact that, by and large, Germans are pretty smart about reasoning and have learned a lot from the history that their (and my) ancestors experienced related to religion.

Ultimately, the reason why, generally speaking, that we European mishies had so much trouble finding people who would listen past our first comments about the story of a 14 year old boy talking to God, who was visited by angels and could translate a unspoken language like "reformed Egyptian", is because they were too smart.

That's right, folks: most Europeans weren't as ignorant about religion as we BIC Mormon Mishies were.

What we were looking for were those people, in my case "Germans", who were able to separate rational questions about this story from rational experiences in their lives.

That's a little confusing, but what I'm trying to say is that the thinking Mormonism-joiner MUST be able to compartmentalize their brain into a rational, thinking section and an absolutely, irrational portion.

That's what was tough. We were taught that we were looking for the Wheat and that those who rejected the message were the Tares...but that was 180� from the truth. What we were *actually* doing was looking for people who were really not worth very much as human beings wanting to contribute to society's solutions.

The Tares are not smart. The Wheat is, and the Wheat won't take a bullshit story about some backwoods con-man without dissecting it; without digging deeper; without checking facts.

That's called credulity. Tares are credulous beings. They take a story that touches them in some inexplicable way and believe it, buy it and get baptized.

I never ran into one in Germany. Instead, I ran into people who'd look very quizzically at me when I would make my door approach. Some would ask brief questions like, "He was how old? 14?" or "He actually spoke *directly* to god and Jesus that day?"

And that was usually the end. The door closed and a Wheat was separated from the Tares that we were looking for.

The smart ones get away.

(EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18) The California Bishop's Death Raises A Question

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:57:11 MST

First, I am deeply saddened by the killing of the LDS bishop Sunday. He was only 42 years old, a father of six, a husband and I am sure a valuable member of his church and community.

I don't know the details of why he was shot to death but could only surmise an opinion having served in two bishoprics.

As a bishopric member, I was surprised at how often people walked in off the street looking for financial assistance who were not members of the LDS church. It seemed to me that many looking for financial help were regulars at it - going from church to church looking for cash. I suspect that some churches kept some cash on hand for this sort of thing - the LDS church does not.

Also, each bishop in the metro area I live in had a responsibility on a rotating basis of being what was termed "the transient bishop." For a month, all telephone calls from those passing through town calling for assistance would be directed to the so-called "transient bishop." These calls came late at night usually. As a counselor, I was often called by the bishop to go with him to assist.

These situations were very dangerous. We would meet those seeking assistance at hotel rooms or other dark and isolated locations. The bishop would make an assessment of the person was LDS, why they needed help, and their long term needs. Although I agree that the LDS church does not do enough to assist in humanitarian needs and community needs, I do see that many would use the LDS church or any church for free money to support an unhealthy lifestyle. Meeting people on the road late at night seemed dangerous to me.

Having strangers come in off the street and demand money in a closed office space seems dangerous to me too. I can't help but wonder if this person was seeking financial assistance, was denied, and then shot the bishop.

I am not sure of what the LDS church could have done differently. I saw risks lay LDS church leaders took to help and am thankful none of those occasions turned violent.

I do not think the solution is for everyone to start carrying concealed weapons. It seems that the problem is more deep seated then a contest of who can draw their weapon out the quickest.

What could the LDS church reasonably have done differently - it can't and shouldn't have to hire armed security for Sunday worship?

(EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24) Has You Capacity To Laugh Freely And Often, Increased Since Leaving Mormonism?

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:39:41 MST

As a Mormon did you get enough "laugh therapy" or did you feel hampered by the admonition from the temple covenant to "avoid all light laughter"?

The Readers Digest has a monthly section called: "Laughter, the Best Medicine" that is the first part I read! Sometimes the only part I read are the humorous stories, jokes, quips, etc on the various pages!

This month they did a whole section called "Laugh Riot Our Funniest Issue Ever"! I don't know if it is really "the funniest" but they clearly made the point! More jokes, more cartoons!

I don't know about the rest of you,but when I began breaking away from Mormonism, I noticed that I was starved for laugher. Not just any kind of laughter, but the belly-laugh that often brings tears to your eyes.

I started my day reading; "Did you hear about he dyslexic devil worshiper? He sold his soul to Santa."

And: "Headline News, Energerizer Bunny in jail, charged with battery. And dozen more just like it!

There is another section called: "The Comedy Cure" which highlights the fact you are "healthier now, having chuckled your way through this issue of Reader's Digest than when you started."

"Laughter reduces stress, improves memory and helps keep our hearts healthy." It "eases pain", burns calories, etc.

A little "lightheartedness" can lead to a more positive approach in everyday situations"...

People are teaching classes in laugher, humor, and one says: " All the efforts we put into reducing stress, we ought to put into laughing." (Kelly McGonigal, PhD Stanford University psychologist.) Sept Issue Readers Digest Pg 210

I am convinced that the temple covenant to "avoid all light mindedness" is unhealthy. When combined with giving all we have to the church (worked to death!), too often equals: depression, unhappy people with pasted smiles on their faces! Not all, of course.

It is my view and observation that: "If you chance to meet a frown, turn it upside down" -- is a commandment of sorts to appear joyful, however, it does not come from a real inner sense of joy and fun and laughter.

One of the best things we can do for ourselves is to laugh our way out of Mormonism. Yup. It's the most healthy! It is very funny stuff (except when they are killing people, of course.) Eventually, it is my experience, that the craziest, invasive behavior of Mormons and their leaders almost always has an element of humor when seen as an outsider.

When the past nonsense from my life as a Mormon gets me down, I have created some humorous visuals to keep me from falling into their trap of taking they seriously!

When the memory of the times that the Mormon leaders, with their halo askew wanted to chew me out, chastise me, call me to repentance pops in my mind (rare now!) I would change their attire in my memory: I would see them droning on in that GA voice about this and that -- standing there in the green temple apron -- only! I would mentally strip them (literally) of all of their power which immediately gave me my power back!

Want more info on the health benefits of laughter: pray to the Google God , answers prayer immediately! Here is one place to start: Humor and Laughter: Health Benefits and Online Sources

"The art of medicine consists of keeping the patient amused while nature heals the disease." - Voltaire

I am convinced that Mormonism's admonition to avoid all light mindedness and light laughter is detrimental to your health! A few lightly in-house humorous stories in talks, etc., and some mild laughter is just not enough to sustain me!

What do you think?

(BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD) Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:01:32 MST

NOTE: I know that some readers, as a defensive reaction, will tell themselves that I am either lying or grossly exaggerating in the review of this book. You are cordially invited to head on over here or here to order yourself a copy so you can verify the accuracy of this review.

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Searc... or http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_nos...

Cassius Review of Books
Volume I, Issue I
Cassius University, 2010
Review by Darth J

To retain plausible deniability, the views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the position of Cassius University, Mormon Discussions, or the author himself.

Review of John L. Lund, "The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood." Salt Lake City: John Lewis Lund, 1967 (6th Printing, 1972). 129 pages (including bibliography). $2.75 (original cover price). (Short quotes from the work reviewed have quote marks; longer quotes are in blue text.) Edited for the MC: Are in Blockquote Italics.

One of the most common coping mechanisms for Generation X and younger LDS Church members regarding the pre-1978 priesthood ban for blacks--or more specifically, Negroes---is to say, "We just don't know why." Hand in glove with this coping mechanism is the mantra that, "the Church never taught that," or even, "not official doctrine" when mention is made of the pre-1978 teachings of church leaders about why blacks could not be ordained to the priesthood. If you are looking for the perfect gift for a person who holds these views that will carpet bomb this idyllic, politically correct revisionist history of the Church while eliciting hysterical shrieks of, "That's not official doctrine!!!" and possibly end a long-standing friendship with an active LDS person in the process, then The Church and the Negro is the book for you.

One of the best ways to get a snapshot of current mainstream LDS thinking is to peruse mainstream literature by LDS authors. If you dispute this, then take some time to browse through your nearest Deseret Book store or its website and tell me how many books you come across recommending that we pray to Heavenly Mother, suggesting that The Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, arguing in favor of same-sex marriage, or wondering aloud why women do not hold the priesthood. With this in mind, let us turn to Brother Lund's work.

John L. Lund was in a unique place to summarize the Church's pre-1978 stance on "the Negro question" (his words). As we are told on the back of the book's dust jacket,

John Lewis Lund, a native of Olympia, Washington, and a graduate of the [sic] Brigham Young University, B.A., M.Ed., has long been interested in the Negro question. While serving a mission for the L.D.S. Church in Mexico, it was his privilege to baptize several Negroes into the Church. Mr. Lund has lectured and traveled extensively in the western states discussing the issue of the Negro and the Mormon Church. Mr. Lund has also been employed by the Brigham Young University Education Week program as a lecturer on religious topics. He is married and has three children. For the past few years the author has been a religious instructor for the department of Seminaries and Institutions of the Mormon Church.

One thing that should catch the reader's attention here is that there are two references to "the Mormon Church" by an employee of what is now called the Church Educational System, a marvelous slap in the face to those who erupt with righteous indignation when the LDS Church is called "the Mormon Church." These references to "the Mormon Church" are continued throughout the book. However, the most important point is that, given that the author is a professional employee of the Church in instructing members about church doctrine, he probably knows whereof he speaks on "the Negro question."

It should also delight those who take refuge in "we don't know why" that Brother Lund supports his work in excruciating, meticulous detail. The total text of the book is only 129 pages, yet this includes a full 216 consecutively numbered footnotes, an annotated bibliography from page 112 to the top of page 126, and an additional bibliography on pages 127-129. Further, the entire Chapter IX, "Church Leaders Speak Out on the Negro Question," is devoted to quoting General Authorities on why blacks were forbidden from holding the priesthood. As one might guess, Bruce R. McConkie is quoted extensively throughout The Church and the Negro, but since finding statements by Elder McConkie that make contemporary Mormons cringe is like shooting fish in a barrel, I will focus on Brother Lund's quotes from other General Authorities whom contemporary Mormons desperately wish to believe were more progressively minded.

Chapter I informs the reader the "the Mormon Church" has more to offer the Negro than any other church, and identifies Brother Lund's intended audience.

This book is written for the express purpose of explaining to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the doctrine of the Church concerning the Negro. It is expected that many non-Mormons as well as Negroes will read this work. It is hoped that all who do will be open-minded and fair in their evaluation of the Mormon position.....It is the most ardent desire of the author that even those who do not agree with the Mormon position will at least understand why Latter-day Saints believe as they do.

The next chapter offers us platitudes about how discrimination is wrong, and invokes a straw man argument to dissuade critics from judging the Church by the conceded racism of some of its members. Brother Lund demonstrates the unsoundness of such reasoning thus:

I saw a Mormon who liked to smoke cigars.

Therefore, all Mormons like to smoke cigars.

Therefore, the Mormon Church teaches its members to smoke cigars.

This contrived syllogism is not even close to the reasons for which many people find the priesthood ban disturbing, but let us move on. Brother Lund cites Joseph Fielding Smith and other church leaders for the proposition that Negroes are entitled to civil rights, unwittingly suggesting that man's law is more just than God's. The one-page Chapter III examines a statement by David O. McKay admiring George Washington Carver, in which President McKay states that noble people of every color hue will be rewarded (by God), which further supports Brother Lund's argument that the Church is all for civil equality, just not ecclesiastical equality.

Finally, in Chapter IV, we finish these empty niceties and get into doctrine. Unsurprisingly, Brother Lund jumps right into the biblical story of Cain. After reviewing the story of Cain and his murder of Abel, Brother Lund discusses the mark of Cain.

Frankly, sincerely, and somewhat abruptly, President Brigham Young has told us that the mark of Cain was "a black skin." For the Latter-day Saint no further explanation is required. However, it is not necessary to rely on this single statement to arrive at this same conclusion. There are numerous references made by both ancient and modern prophets that point to the fact that Cain was the father of the race that became known as Negroid.

Among these other prophets is Wilford Woodruff, who

taught that "the Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen on the face of every Negro upon the face of the earth . . ." (ellipsis in original)

Pages 16 and 17 then explain how LDS doctrine tells us that Cain was a son of perdition. The next several pages discuss why the Lord rejected Cain's offering: because it was not an animal sacrifice, and thus Cain was rejecting Jesus Christ. Further, we are reminded that Cain was inspired by Satan, as told in The Pearl of Great Price. But most interesting here is that Cain's real motive for killing Abel is to gain Abel's priesthood birthright. As Brother Lund explains, the Inspired Version of the Bible by Joseph Smith teaches us that Adam and Eve's children before Cain and Abel were unrighteous, and so the birthright to having the priesthood passed to Cain, who lost it through his own wickedness, and then went to Abel. Brother Lund cites Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith to show us that the Prophet Joseph taught that Abel is "still holding the keys of his dispensation." Somehow, Cain believed he could get the right to holding priesthood authority back by murdering Abel. The importance of this detail will become apparent later.

To the chagrin of fans of a local flood theory, Brother Lund tells us that the lineage of Cain was preserved in the global flood by Ham, who married Egyptus, and thus the unfortunate anachronism enshrined in The Book of Abraham that the Egyptian race descended from, and took its name from, Egyptus. Further, Brother Lund refers to Abraham 1:21-27 to affirm the obvious, which is that the BoA teaches that the Egyptians could not hold the priesthood because they were black.

Foreshadowing some church teachings that will soon be discussed, Lund also quotes Elder B.H. Roberts recounting the fanciful Egyptus story;

And was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that 'the race which preserved the curse in the land' was perpetuated? If so, then I believe that race is the one through which it is ordained those spirits who were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.

Lund repeatedly refers to black people as "Negroids," but the prize for most cringe-worthy ethnic reference has to be on page 29:

Melvin R. Brooks states that Ham "married a Negress, Egyptus, and by this marriage the seed of Cain was perpetuated through and after the flood . . ."

This book is certainly educational; the author of this review had never, in his entire life, previously heard a black woman called a "Negress."

Chapter V explains the concept of priesthood in Mormonism and then, unfortunately for contemporary revisionist Mormons, asks why Negroes cannot hold the priesthood. First, Brother Lund explains that it is all a matter of time, and refers (as contemporary Mormons do) to Jesus withholding the gospel from the Gentiles at first as an example. Brother Lund also quotes David O. McKay as stating that the day will come when Negroes will have the right to hold the priesthood. In contemporary Mormon revisionism, this isolated statement is taken as evidence that President McKay was thinking progressively and that the priesthood ban was allegedly a "practice," not a "doctrine." We will soon discover that those hopes are fantastically misplaced.

Brother Lund then discusses the Mormon doctrine of a pre-mortal life and the war in heaven, and you can probably guess where he is headed.

It is the Mormon belief that in our pre-mortal state there were a large number of individuals who, due to some act or behavior of their own in the pre-existence, forfeited the right to hold the Priesthood during their mortal lives, but would be allowed to possess the Priesthood in the due time of the Lord.

Quoting The Way to Perfection by Joseph Fielding Smith, Brother Lund explains that

Negroes, we see, "were not denied the privilege of the second estate [mortality] but were permitted to come to the earthlife with some restrictions placed upon them. That the Negro race, for instance, had been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born."

Returning again to President McKay, the figurehead of Mormon revisionist history, Brother Lund quotes him as follows:

By operation of some unwritten eternal law with which man is yet unfamiliar, spirits come through parentages for which they are worthy---some as Bushmen of Australia, some as Solomon Islanders, some as Americans, as Europeans, as Asiatics, etc., etc., with all the varying degrees of mentality and spirituality manifest in parents of the different races that inhabit the earth.

President McKay's equating mentality and spirituality with race is indeed a sharp kick to the crotch of those who want to believe that his thinking was more in line with au courant LDS talking points. The source for this quote, by the way, is another work that is delightfully entitled, "The Church and the Negroid People."

However, Brother Lund assures us that black people are not being punished for what Cain did. "The only real relationship between Cain and the Negroes is that they were chosen to come through Cain's lineage" because of their deeds in the pre-mortal realm.

Another security blanket for contemporary Latter-day Saints about the priesthood ban is the belief that prophets before 1978 predicted that blacks would receive the priesthood some day. This is true, but what is always omitted from this revisionism is that the Church taught there were two major conditions for this to happen. The first condition is that all of Adam's children had to be resurrected---that is, all of the human race, including untold billions who were waiting in the pre-mortal spirit realm, would have to experience life, death, and resurrection first. In addition to apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Brother Lund cites church president Brigham Young:

Brigham Young disclosed in a speech delivered in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on December 3, 1854, that the Negroes will not have the privilege of receiving the Priesthood until "...all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity." Some twelve years later in 1866, Brigham Young again commented on the Negro and the Priesthood. In this speech he is quoted as saying, "They [Negroes] will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children [of Adam] have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will come up and possess the priesthood and receive all the blessings we now are entitled to."

The second condition to blacks receiving the priesthood goes back to Cain murdering Abel over Abel's birthright to the priesthood. To rectify this situation, Abel must become a god and begin having his own spirit children before Cain's descendants can. Brother Lund's source for this? The Prophet Joseph Smith, who taught that Negroes could not hold the priesthood or hold any of its offices until the seed of Abel received the priesthood (Lund's footnote for this is Milton R. Hunter's Pearl of Great Price Commentary). Other prophets who taught as much, and whom Lund cites, are Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph Fielding Smith. Quoting the latter, Lund tells us on page 49 that

It will first of all be necessary that Abel marry, and then be resurrected, and ultimately exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom so that he can have a continuation of his seed. It will then be necessary for Abel to create an earth for his spirit children to come to and experience mortality. These children will have to be "redeemed" or resurrected. After the resurrection or redemption of Abel's seed, Cain's descendants. the Negroes, will then be allowed to possess the Priesthood. Joseph Fielding Smith has said that [citing Answers to Gospel Questions] "the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until ABEL HAD POSTERITY who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the FAR DISTANT FUTURE. When this is accomplished ON SOME OTHER WORLD, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true to their 'second' estate."

(emphasis in original)

We then move on to "Interracial Marriage and the Negro," which is not looked upon favorably. While there are many quotes, scriptures, and supporting footnotes here, this chapter can be summarized by the following quote that Brother Lund provides from a First Presidency letter to former BYU sociology department head, Dr. Lowery Nelson:

Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been indogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between white and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

In Chapter VII, Brother Lund tells us what the Negro can do in the Church today (i.e., at the time of his writing), since they cannot have the priesthood until the biblical Abel becomes a god and raises his own generation of gods on another planet. We learn that blacks can serve in auxiliary organizations (like Primary and Relief Society), can give talks, pray, serve missions but not perform priesthood ordinances, perform baptisms for the dead but not be endowed or sealed in the temple----in short, except for the latter two, everything that women can do in the Church today. When looking at it this way, perhaps contemporary Mormons won't see it as so bad: since a twelve year-old boy has more ecclesiastical authority than any adult woman in the Church, perhaps contemporary Mormons can make themselves believe that in retrospect maybe black members of the LDS Church didn't mind being ecclesiastically subservient based entirely on their ethnicity.

Chapter VIII provides us with "Comments By and About Mormon Negroes," which essentially amount to testimonials about how the Church is just great as long as you know your place. Anyone who doubts this reviewer's saying so is welcome to read through their own copy of The Church and the Negro and see if this is not the case.

However, this chapter also contains a nice surprise for revisionist Mormons who point to Elijah Abel as an example of how blacks not being ordained to the priesthood was supposedly a "practice" but not a "doctrine." Brother Lund informs us

That Elijah Abel was a good man is not in question. The fact that he held the Priesthood is also a matter of record. But, as mentioned, the record needs to be clarified in a very major point. Once it was discovered that Elijah Abel was of Negroid ancestry, he was dropped from his Priesthood Quorum (1879).

Brother Lund's source for this information? The records in the Church Historian's office. Brother Lund also explains that the idea that the Church knowingly ordained a black man to the priesthood is mistaken, because Elijah Abel "was 'one-eighth Negro and light of color.' Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood."

In addition, while contemporary Mormons tell themselves that the priesthood ban originated with Brigham Young, Brother Lund assures us that it was Joseph Smith who taught, "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the priesthood" (citing Abraham O. Smoot, as quoted in "The Church and the Negroid People"). Brother Lund refers to the same source in the next chapter (page 81) to clarify that, "The Prophet [Joseph Smith] instructed Abraham O. Smoot to baptize the Negro but not confer the Priesthood upon him."

Brother Lund provides in Chapter IX a look at what various church leaders have said about black people. There are many wonderful quotes in this chapter, but there are two that are particularly of interest for contemporary Mormons who are under the impression that the priesthood ban was not "doctrine," that the Church did not officially teach that the priesthood ban was based on what black people did in the pre-existence, and that David O. McKay was more enlightened than others of the Brethren about these issues.

Brother Lund quotes an official statement from the First Presidency dated August 17, 1951:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers' rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.....failure of the right to enjo
y in mortality the blessings of the Priesthood , is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they may come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the Priesthood by Negroes."

Also, on page 91, a letter dated November 3, 1947 by David O. McKay is quoted, which sheds further light on the oft-stated mantra that he allegedly believed there was no doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban:

I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest, that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life."

The final two chapters are questions and answers and a summary of what Brother Lund had previously discussed.

Conclusion

Considering that Brother Lund was a church education employee and the agonizing detail he provides for his sources, claiming that he was shooting from the hip or not representative of mainstream LDS thinking prior to the ending of the priesthood ban is simply not sufficient. Indeed, despite the revisionist history now trumpeted by the Church and its cheerleaders about what the Church used to teach and the "we don't know" cop-out of 148 years of ecclesiastical apartheid, The Church and the Negro delivers a spectacular psychic donkey punch to those who have gone along with this revisionism. I highly recommend finding a copy of this gospel classic for a view of where Mormon thinking was before the spin machine took over in the wake of the 1978 revelation Spencer W. Kimball had that everything was going to be better now, and the ensuing McConkie Mulligan that amounted to, "Never mind." The Church and the Negro has, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that "we don't know" why the priesthood ban was in place for nearly a century and a half, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

(CHANGING DOCTRINE) Changes On The LDS Website

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:52:31 MST

That the 'topical guide' section did have the word polygamy. It lead to the word with a reference to marriage.
At the marriage/plural site it had four references to one wife, unless commanded etc.

And the cross reference word was......... apostasy of individuals!!!

I'd been checking on current topics if any at the church web site.

I noticed they have discontinued the individual prophet series. we were supposed to study every prophet of the church and there was a separate study manual for each one. JS, Heber J. Grant and BY. The BY one didn't have anything about his words on polygamy and the fact that he had more than one wife, the JS one didn't either.

Now the TSCC has replaced their individual prophet series with ONE BOOK, a study of the prophets with a couple chapters dedicated to each one.

Did they discover there was not enough material on all of the other prophets to fill a whole study manual? Or with the hemoraging of the church were they realizing they'd run out of time for boring the members??? They'd better get people informed fast and on to other things so they don't ask questions or look up the facts about the prophets???? Or did it cost too much to print fireplace starters????

The book is a teachers manual for future classes.

It was listed as "Presidents of the Church Teachers Manual" in the Sunday School section of the lessons.

I was there to see what was the current topic in Sunday School. It was too difficult to pinpoint. Even though we have had over 32 weeks so far this year, it is hard to tell which lesson they are on at church, lessons 30-36???

One has to remember all those primary programs and conferences that cancel out the Gospel Doctrine Sunday School class for the week and figure them in too.

But it is what is left out of the manual that really tells the story of the ever changing doctrine of the TSCC. (That never changes!)

(EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24) We Each Need To Make A Choice At Some Point On What We Share With Whom

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:10:11 MST

When we step outside of our traditional family, generational tribe, so to speak, there will be consequences. Some will be mild, some will be extreme.

We know, ahead of time many of those consequences. We may not be invited or accepted as before. That's to be expected as we stepped outside of the the family traditional rituals.

We will need to be find a way to make peace with that. Not everyone is going to support our decisions and choices in our lives. We will not be given what we expect much of the time.

Some people are more open minded and accepting than others. There is a wide variety of responses to how we step outside of Mormonism and leave it.

The more we step outside the general acceptable society, the more resistance and nonacceptance we will receive by some to many. Leave Mormonism, leave religion completely, and the group of rejection gets larger.

It's wise to recognize that others will respond to our choice (and sometimes it's a surprise) as they have been taught, in the culturally accepted manner, some to extremes. They often take a defensive, protective stance, peppered by fear that we will, somehow contaminate the society of the family.

So, we take it step at a time. It's about trial and error. It's about checking to see who is able to accept our decisions and which ones are not.

We will likely be challenged, demeaned, and not taken seriously.

But, by experience and observation, generally, people adjust to some extent, eventually. Nobody can stay mad for ever! :-)

These principles of making major changes and how other feel entitled to respond are not exclusive to Mormonism.

So, we figure it out, one way or another, we rely on our own experience, the experience of others and learn new ways to view our world.

It's an evolutionary process requiring patience and tolerance.

(GENERAL NEWS) Man Sues Mormon Church For Injuries From Baptism For The Dead

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:41:58 MST

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The civil suit filed Wednesday in Salt Lake City's 3rd District Court claims Daniel Dastrup suffered severe back injuries, including a herniated disk, after performing about 200 baptisms at the LDS temple in Raleigh, N.C., on Aug. 25, 2007. The lawsuit contends the church was negligent in failing to warn Dastrup that the repetitive nature of the proxy baptisms - bending, lifting and twisting - could result in physical injury. "The church owed the plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to the plaintffs from the services they performed to the church," the lawsuit states. Dastrup, who now lives in Las Vegas, claims he has suffered "a significant permanent injury that substantially changes his lifestyle," including damaging his relationship with his wife. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages to compenstate Dastrup to cover medical costs and loss of earnings.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/501...

(EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18) "Every Culture Gets The Art It Deserves"

infymus@mormoncurtain.com — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:31:24 MST

I read that quote at Artnet.com, in their "Ask Mark Kostabi" column. Kostabi is an NYC-based abstract painter famous and notorious for alot of things. But one thing is for sure, Kostabi makes you think.

Kostabi is also known for the mantra "never complain." He advises struggling artists to never "play the blame game," even if you're in the right. Maybe because of this, Kostabi has seen alot of success and sells lots of paintings every year.

Now look at the Mormons. They have made an entire culture out of "persecution." O, they were chased out of Missouri! O, their leader was tarred and feathered! O, the pioneers suffered on the plains (as they walked and walked and walked). Even today, the poor, poor Mormons are jabbed at by "angry" anti's or "bitter" ex's who dare to publish their "sacred" temple ceremonies and crazy beliefs. And the other Christians won't even let them into the mainstream Jesus Club!

Well, if every culture gets the art it deserves, the Mormons certainly have the art they deserve. Silly paintings of Joe Smith and temple-worthy pious members in predictable poses with non-offensive backgrounds and non-thought-provoking settings. Bland, brainless art with even more brainless subject matter.

When you play the persecution card and play the victim, you never have to stand by your ideas and take any risks. You basically use the "blame game" as your excuse for failure, before you even really try.

If art is about anything at all, it is about risk. It's about putting your ideas into physical form, and putting them on display for the world to see and either cheer or criticize. The artists goal is to get people to think, to challenge their assumptions about the world we live in.

The Mormon artist's goal is to stop all thought, repeat the same nonsense they've all been taught since birth, and never take any risk at all. Yes, Mormonism, you got the art you deserve.