The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1
Total Articles:
50
The "Opinion" topic was created to separate out recovery from opinions on posts made in Ex-Mormonism. A large selection of posts made by Ex-Mormons that do not fit in "Recovery". These are more considered "Soap Box" posts. While they may be opinions, they are still very important in the steps to recovering from Mormonism.
|
|
Here's why "exmormons who were born in the church are more likely to become atheists" .. at least in my case. I don't know about converts' experiences leaving the Church, but Born User pretty well described my experience as a born-n-raised TBM becoming an atheist.
For one thing, I decided long ago that either the LDS gospel was true or the whole biblical god was a sham (concluding at the time that of course the LDS gospel was true); there were too many holes in any other version of Christianity to make sense, that could only be explained by all the unique teachings of Mormonism. I guess I was encouraged into that kind of analysis by everything I soaked up from sunday school and seminary about the unique fullness of the gospel that we had a corner on. Maybe the Church's emphasis on the apostasy and how wrong every other version of Christianity is to blame: in the contrapositive, they convinced me that "even" atheism would make more sense than any version of the gospel as taught by a competing church.
But there's no getting around this point: everything I've ever supposedly felt the "Spirit" about has been from Mormon experiences and about the Mormon version of the gospel. Now I can see that feeling I interpreted as the Spirit was always inside my own mind. I can't (now as always) conceive of finding faith in any god without sensing that god through the Spirit; yet I also can't (any longer) believe that that sense of the Spirit is at all worthwhile as a basis for evaluating what is true. Rather, it was my own inner response to certain experiences, a response perhaps to perceptions of beauty or connectedness with the divine, or feelings of altruism or comfort or communion with loved ones and fellow believers; a perfectly valid perception or feeling, but a totally arbitrary and senseless way to decide what is true. That is what we need science for, because that mythologically bent and universally anthropomorphizing human mind is not naturally built to distinguish evaluating reality from subjective perceptions and feelings.
Instead I faced up to this: there is absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of anything resembling our definition of a god; there is also overwhelming evidence that, whether or not any gods exist, the human mind is predisposed to perceive and place faith in gods; and there is overwhelming evidence that there cannot be a god as conceived of by Western civilization, if that god is defined to be both all-powerful and perfectly compassionate toward us humans. As Dostoevsky said, the suffering of children is all the proof needed that God does not exist - or as he had Ivan say in The Brothers Karamizov: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on this condition?"
Epicurus also expressed this point succinctly: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
Christian theologians have from the beginning wrestled with this problem with all sorts of flimsy mental gymnastics, and Mormon doctrine settled on a few main rebuttals with a lot in common with some of the classic Christian explanations: first, Christ descended below them all, so no matter what anyone suffers through, at least they can know (at least if they've learned the gospel) that at least Christ can empathize with them. Second, no matter what you suffer, this entire mortal existence is just a blip in the eternal timeline of our existence, you'll be dead before you know it and then everything will be set right and you will never suffer again. (Unless you go to hell, of course.) In the meantime, suffering can build character, help teach us to be humble and more compassionate, and give us a chance to work charitably to relieve each other's suffering, and is therefore part of our learning experience in this mortal life. Finally, as for the suffering inflicted by others as opposed to that inflicted by illness, accident and Nature, God is unwilling to interfere with the free agency of those doing the inflicting, and if they don't repent, the blood of their victims will justify their condemnation. (Call me on this if I am not representing fairly the Church's explanation of suffering.)
All this trivializing explanation of suffering sounds great, and is fairly easy to say for wealthy and comfortable modern Americans. I can't imagine the gall of someone trying to explain it to a three-year-old Darfurian girl whose picture I keep in my desk, with her malnourished one-year-old brother on her back, having carried him several hundred miles across the border with Chad, on foot, after everyone else in their family were brutally killed by the militias backed by their own government. My own little girl is three, and my younger son almost one. I have tried to envision my family having swapped places with that Darfurian girl's family. I don't think anyone could repeat the Church's explanation of suffering with a straight face without having long been insulated from much of the world.
The Church's facile explanation teaches those who accept it to trivialize the suffering of others - God is ultimately in control, the suffering of others is part of God's plan for them and helping build their character and grow spiritually. It also requires those who accept it, not only themselves to trivialize suffering, but to accept a version of God who also trivializes suffering. No matter what deprivations and crimes a child suffers through, it is all part of God's plan to help them grow, and/or God is willing to let them continue suffering to keep from interfering with the free agency of the offender? Eternal perspective or not, that God is a callous one. Any reasonable person should be angry at someone with power to stop at a whim the suffering of their loved ones, but who refuses out of concern for "building character". Instead they (typically) force themselves somehow to reconcile themselves to that paradox of an all-compassionate God who causes or allows tragedy and pain, like a battered child or woman who rationalizes the brutality of an abusive father or husband whom they still think loves them, while they themselves are somehow at fault.
To accept that there is no all-powerful, all-compassionate God standing idly by to watch us suffer through illness, accidents, disasters and crimes, is not only the only logical, non-dysfunctional conclusion; it is also liberating. You can accept that there is not someone who wants you to suffer despite supposedly having a perfect love for you and plan for your well-being that the suffering must somehow fit into. Existence is not so cruel that is is governed by a God we are responsible for loving and following despite his indifference or plain abusiveness toward us. Our suffering is instead due simply to bad fortune and/or the crimes of a few of our fellow humans; we are free of having to feel bitterness or anger at God that we are afraid to express and confused over how to rationalize away. Instead we can know it is up to us to mitigate and prevent the evils of this world to the best of our capacity as reasoning humans, and without having to worry that doing so is interfering with God's intentions for our suffering.
Don't see how that makes a difference? How many times have people made the excuse that we shouldn't interfere with God's will, even to take a course that would obviously prevent suffering or tend to someone's ease or health? How many Jehovah's Witnesses have died rather than accept a blood transfusion? I've read of believers who refused to allow corrective surgery on their baby because it would interfere with how God wanted things. Pious believers said the same thing about penicillin. How many "Christian Scientists" have died because they thought illness was punishment for evil and that modern medicine is a sin? Speaking of which, modern medicine, the result of dedicated and ingenious efforts of human reasoning using the scientific method, has saved literally millions of lives, as can be objectively demonstrated. How many miracle workers and priesthood holders can demonstrate to an objective observer that they have ever improved someone's health? And how much good could the Church accomplish if it decided wehumans are the only ones who can save each other, and set its standing army of 60,000 missionaries to spend only four hours per week proselytizing and 60 hours per week doing humanitarian service, instead of the other way around?
There is no objective evidence for God; there is overwhelming evidence that the human mind is predisposed to perceive the presence of a God; and there is overwhelming evidence that there cannot be a God who both loves us and has the power to save us. But there is also overwhelming evidence that we clever humans are capable of growing from a population of only 5,000 in eastern Africa to a global civilization, of building societies and nations that work to our mutual advantage and common dignity, of serving each other selflessly, of creating works of astonishing beauty, of understanding ever more about the world around us and using it to our advantage - maybe even in the long term, if we are wise enough. My faith was often a beautiful experience, but it was also a hangup that kept me from properly applying my capacity for reason to evaluate the world around me. I don't think we have anything to be afraid of in insisting on facing the Universe only as it is, not as we wish it would be. We will be far better offand even happier in the end if we let go of God and pay more attention to each other.
| Mormonism is living in a "Bizzare-O-World":
- Where people are judged by the Shape and Color of their underwear.
- Where non-TBM Family member's are not invited to attend their own children's weddings.
- Where people are judged by the temperature of their caffeine.
- Where neighbors prohibit their children to play with non-Mormon next door neighbor children.
- Where the word "Translation" doesn't mean to translate from one language into another.
- Where the truth is a lie and verifiable facts are discarded.
- Where hot coffee is forbidden but hot chocolate is encouraged.
- Where post life polygamy is doctrine but real life polygamy is condemned.
- Where men who wear white shirts and a tie to church are righteous but men who wear colored shirts and a tie are disobedient.
- Where a prophet is not accountable to his own words.
- Where lying is rewarded...i.e.: in the attaining of temple recommends but those who are honest are called to repentance.
- Where unchangeable ordinances can be changed because of the results of a member survey.
- Where so called scripture, the words of God, can be changed to fit changing beliefs
- Where unfulfilled prophecies are ignored.
- Where the truth teller is the apostate and the liar is the righteous one.
- Where "Families are Forever" but not if you're married to a non-believer.
- Where the Glory of God is Intelligence...but intellectual thought is criticized.
- Where the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth...but its most testable basic claims are discounted, ignored and de-emphasized.
- Where God was once a man, but NOT if you are speaking to a Non LDS audience.
- Where the Book of Mormon must submit to every analysis and examination...to historical tests, to the test of archeological research, and also to higher criticism (BH Roberts)...unless someone actually takes the church up on this test.... then we must accept it only on faith.
- Where EQ Presidents that lie about monthly home teaching results are praised...but those that give honest appraisals of monthly results are reproved
- Where priesthood blessings with positive results are proof of priesthood power, but negative results are the will of God.
Truly bizzare.
| A few months after I left the Church, I talked to my sister on the phone. She asked about my "apostasy," and I told her it was true. She said, "So, are you going to picket the temple now?" I said something like, "No, as long as they keep it out of my driveway." My mom goes further. She says things like "You see how unhappy and depressed you are?" whenever I have any sort of downturn in life.
These are all-or-nothing statements. The purpose of them is to corner you into two possible outcomes: the one they want and an exaggerated worst-case scenario. The assumption is that there is no in-between. Talking to members of my family, you would think that if you don't stay in the Church, then your only possible option from there on out is to live a life of anguished activism and depression, fighting a losing battle against the cause of righteousness.
Here are some other all-or-nothing statements:
"How can you trust your husband if he's not a worthy priesthood holder?"
"If your son/daughter doesn't stay active in the Church, he/she might get involved in drinking/drugs."
"My ex-Mormon brother is becoming an alcoholic. He had a beer the last time we went to a restaurant."
I think it's interesting that these statements always place the Church in an position of moral superiority, considering its history.
It can be really infuriating when confronted with statements like these if you don't know what the people making them are trying to do. I think some ex-Mormons try to live their lives to disprove such statements, by showing Mormons that you can leave the Church and still be a happy, moral and productive member of society. Maybe an alternative might be to call them on it when you hear people making them. "That sounded like an all-or-nothing statement to me."
| Below you will find an item written by Robert Green Ingersoll. ( 1833- 1899) One of the great free thinkers of the 19th century. He is one of my personal heroes.
As Joseph Smith was building an irrational institution, in a rational enviroment, Ingersoll was coming of age.
He makes so much sense to me. Pushing back the walls of ignorance and intolerance , with wisdom, rationality, and just plain old common sense!!
All below, I think, can be applied to the BofM also!!
We are told to investigate the Bible for ourselves, and at the
same time informed that if we come to the conclusion that it is not
the inspired word of God, we will most assuredly be damned. Under
such circumstances, if we believe this, investigation is
impossible. Whoever is held responsible for his conclusions cannot
weigh the evidence with impartial scales. Fear stands at the
balance, and gives to falsehood the weight of its trembling hand
I oppose the church because she is the enemy of liberty;
because her dogmas are infamous and cruel; because she humiliates
and degrades woman; because she teaches the doctrines of eternal
torment and the natural depravity of man; because she insists upon
the absurd, the impossible, and the senseless; because she resorts
to falsehood and slander; because she is arrogant and revengeful;
because she allows men to sin on a credit; because she discourages
self-reliance, and laughs at good works; because she believes in
vicarious virtue and vicarious vice -- vicarious punishment and
vicarious reward; because she regards repentance of more importance
than restitution, and because she sacrifices the world we have to
one we know not of.
The free and generous, the tender and affectionate, will
understand me. Those who have escaped from the grated cells of a
creed will appreciate my motives. The sad and suffering wives, the
trembling and loving children will thank me: This is enough.
Robert G. Ingersoll.
Washington, D.C.
April 13, 1878.
| As Gordon Hinckley has recently re-emphasized the infallibility of the prophet it might be useful to explore that concept in theology and practice (citation welcome). I find it especially enlightening if one compares Mormon and Catholic practice. The pope claims to be infallible. However, there are clear procedural requirements that a papal statement has to meet to qualifiy as infallible. The pope has to to speak from St. Peter's throne ex cathedra. Hence there can be no doubt which statements claim to be infallible. Below ex cathedra proclamations the pope can elevate statements by including them in an encycleca.
Mormon leaders, OTOH, do not clearly identify the theological validity of their statements. The membership is left in limbo whether a particular statement is prophetic or of personal opinon. Thus the Morg can demand extensive obedience about trivial matters. Should a statement be discredited, it can always be denied as personal opinion. Hence Morg authorities yield extraordinary power while minimizing their personal accountability and that of their institution.
| This is what the LDS church is telling the youth about pornography:
"Pornography can be powerfully addicting. Scientific researchincluding new brain-scan technologyis beginning to show that pornography may cause physical and chemical changes in the brain similar to those caused by drugs. The only sure way to avoid the danger is to stay away from pornography in the first place."
"If you have become addicted, you must seek help. The first person to see is your bishop or branch president. He can help you bring the Saviors redeeming and healing power into your life. He can also help you obtain professional help as necessary. Please dont try to go it alone." - Danger Ahead! Avoiding Pornographys Trap, New Era, Oct. 2002, 34
So instead of going to parents, the church is telling the youth to go directly to their bishop.
So how does an LDS bishop use "the Savior's redeeming and healing power" to cure addiction to pornography?
Knowing how Mormonism works, going to the bishop is probably only going to make things worse for those "addicted" to porn. After all, aren't they really talking about "addiction" to masturbation? And as we already know, the church considers masturbation a terrible sin. Their approach is a heavy dose of guilt and shame. Does that really work?
This church article written to the youth also promises that the Bishop can "help you obtain professional help." What professional help do they have? Does the church have an effective professional program of some kind to "cure" masturbation?
Does it really do more good or harm to go to the Bishop?
| I had to discuss one of my personal testimony breakers with my TBM in-laws. I asked them how they were able to reconcile their testimony after learning that Joseph Smith manipulated teenage women and 11 married women to mulitply and replenish the earth with him. Threatening their salvation if they refused. Doing it without Emma's knowledge or consent. They responded with "We don't know the full story." "History could be tainted."
I went to FAIR to get the full story, or the other side. To find out if history had been tainted. Couldn't even find a book or shred of evidence that the history from "Mormon Polygamy" was false or speculative.
Conversation with Fanatical TBM in-laws a few months back:
I was very candid with my in laws and asked them some tough questions about polygamy that TBM's won't let themselves think about. I asked my father in law if he would be fine with his wife having sex in his bedroom with another man while he endures in the same home. I asked him if he would remain faithful to the church if she loved this man, had married him behind his back and claimed it was commanded by God. He didn't like me turning the tables on that one. His wife happens to have no problem with polygamy and said she looked forward to having sister wives. IT"S INSANITY. I looked at her and said "you are honestly telling me, that you have no problem with your husband, the love of your life, taking a teenage girl, having sex in your bed while you are forced to live with her, with the possibility he will take more wives and you will soon be forgotten, neglected, while he picks a prettier, younger more favorite wife?" She replied "with polygamy, you have to take the sex out of it. That's the Christ like love we are progressing to."
So I said "How do you take the sex out of sex? Adultery is a sin for good reason." I told her to look at how an affair destroys a marriage. Breaks hearts. With polygamy, you are forcing a wife to not only endure the affair, but live with the new wife in many cases, and continue worshiping your husband. IT'S A SICK WORLD TBM's LIVE IN.
This discussion with my in-laws was after my time at FAIR and I realized Mormons who defend this after learning the truth of polygamy are just nuts. I asked them if ANYTHING made them uncomfortable in Joseph Smith's plural marriages. They admitted some things did but quickly went around it by saying he was not perfect. They started to get really heated with me and raising their voices when they could sense that I was questioning the Prophet. I told them to calm down and try to understand that I didn't want to believe the church was false, but the evidence was leading me there. How can I believe in this kind of God? Commanding slavery of women for eternity. I let them know that this doctrine has ruined my relationship with Jesus. They told me to "repent and get over it." They also accused me of wanting to be angry at God. That really infuriated me. I was devestated by their lack of compassion for the pain I was going through. They would have fit right in with the wacko apologists. What's so funny is in the same breath, they tell me how sex is so sacred and special which is why God set it up to be within the New and Everlasting Covenant. I couldn't keep back my snicker on that one. Next they resorted to this famous one. "why do you want to drag up all of Joseph and Brighams garbage? Why do you feel it's your place to judge and bring up all their sins? Would you like to have all of your sins and my sins published in a book?" O.K. in-laws, so you are now telling me that all this stuff was sin and garbage? Just a minute ago it was commanded of GOD. I replied with "Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care what Joseph's sins are. I am only discussing with you the things he did in the NAME OF GOD and commanded other members to do BY COMMAND OF GOD. There is a big difference. I don't need to know if Joseph was committing adultery with Emma unless it pertains to scripture and command. " I ended the conversation at that point and repeated my intent. "I want to know if Polygamy is the true order of Heaven because if it is,I will have no part of this church." They are probably having family fasts and prayers for me now. That's all they can do because there is no explanation for this kind of doctrine.
They have avoided discussing anything with me now and haven't even asked my husband how I am doing. They know that once you find out the truth, there is little chance of staying in the church. That's why they lie and hide it from members. It's been a while since this converstion and I have progressed and learned so much since then. I haven't told them I left the church yet but they will know why when they find out. I think they are embarrassed at how ridiculous they sounded trying to make sense of their argument. They should feel bad for condemning me as well. There are no secret sinful desires in me. I told them I will always live the commandments of the Bible regardless of which church I attend. They didn't like that. They think you can only be a good person if you are Mormon. They already believe I must be looking for a way of out of living the gospel or I wouldn't question anything and should only worry about following Gordon Hinckley. It's impossible. They feel sorry for my sensitivity to polygamy and wish I didn't have such an ideal of marriage.
| You may be aware that Bernard Ebbers, the former CEO of World Com was convicted of accounting fraud and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Under his direction, World Com cooked the books to the tune of billions of dollars, which mislead investors to think that the company was in better financial condition that it was.
In handing down the sentence, the judge said, "Mr. Ebbers statements deprived investors of their money. They might have made different decisions had they known the truth."
How many of us, how many others, would have made different decisions about dedicating our lives to Mormonism and giving 10% of our incomes to it had we known the truth? If the COB had been open and honest about its history and about its doctrines, how many of us would have stood in the temple and sworn oath to "suffer out lives to be taken" or to sacrifice all we have for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
As I see it, according to the standard expressed by this judge, Mormon leaders are complicite in a fraud on a scale similar to Ebbers. Through their dishonest manipulation of history, through lies of both commission and ommission, they have induced millions of people to invest their money, indeed their very lives, in perpetuating the fraudulent organization they lead.
I wonder, when the faithful gather in the great and spacious building to kiss the wizened ass of birthday boy Wrinkley, will any of them reflect on the fact that what Wrinkley is doing is little different in intent and outcome than what Ebbers did?
I cannot express my feelings of bitterness that I wasted four decades of my life in this fucking cult. A victim of deceit and manipulation.
And the sheep wonder why we can't "just leave it alone."
| Recipe for Apostacy:
2 cups critical thinking skills
1 cup spiritual experiences or tbm experiences
1/2 cup skepticism
1/4 cup Mormon Enigma, Palmer's Origins, or similar activating ingredient such as exmormon.org, etc
2 Tablespoons WTF moments with tbms
1 cup cognitive dissonance, for topping
Combine first five ingredients in a large blender. Agitate gently until doubt begins to form around the edges. Pour mixture into a medium size casserole dish, and sprinkle the cognitive dissonance liberally. Bake in a well tempered intellect until the cognitive dissonance has melted and is bubbling golden brown. Baking times may vary.
| Since "Intelligent Design" (under the name "Divine Design") has made the news in Utah I think we should become acquainted in the claims of the "Intelligent Design" proponents.
[*** DISCLAIMER: I'm not a biologist and I don't play one on TV. If anyone who is more knowledgeable finds errors in this presentation please feel free to correct me ***]
First: Utah Representative Chris Buttars wants it taught so that school children will not be taught that they are descended from apes. The upshot is that there is nothing in "Intelligent Design" theory that conflicts with humans evolving from apes.
Back up a bit.
One of the stock "refutations" of evolution that creationists have used since Darwin's time is their consideration of the mammalian eye. The eye has at least two parts that operate in conjunction to allow the eye to transmit images to the brain: The lens and the retina. Now, say the creationists, how could a lens evolve if there were no retina? How could a retina evolve if there were no lens to form images on it? They point out that without one of these parts already perfected natural selection would not favor the evolution of the other.
Theoretical studies have shown, however, that with even the most rudimentary retina natural selection will favor small improvements in a rudimentary lens and vice versa. Thus the two can easily evolve incrementally (through natural selection) together.
Enter "Intelligent Design"
Molecular Biologist Michael Behe applied a similar argument to something that was unknown in Darwin's time. Behe noticed that certain molecular processes at the cellular level exhibited what he called "irriducible complexity." By this he meant that each part of the process was necessary for the process to work (similar to the lens and retina). His analogy is the mouse trap. If any one of the components of a mouse trap were missing (base, spring, hammer, escape mechanism) the trap would be useless.
Therefore, Behe asserts, all parts of the metabolic process must either have randomly come together in a miraculous violation of unbelievably slim odds or else it must have been designed by an intelligent being of some sort.
Since we are dealing with molecules rather than tissue structures (as with the eye) there is no availability of the concept of incremental evolution of the parts together since a molecule doesn't gradually evolve. It is made of a few discrete atoms which are either there or are not there.
Before we discuss objections to ID it is important to point out that ID is completely consistent with an "intelligent designer" setting the processes in motion in one or more single-cell organisms billions of years ago and then letting that evolve into life as we know it. Thus even if ID is correct man may still (to Chris Buttars's chagrin) have evolved from ape-like ancestors.
There are two main points that are raised in objection to Behe's arguments.
(1) Irreducibly complex mechanisms can evolve from highly redundant mechanisms by the elimination of unneeded parts. Thus a process can gradually evolve from a large, non-irreducibly complex process to a streamlined, irreducibly complex process. When a bulding is finished the scaffolding is removed. At that point a casual observer will be at a loss to explain how the building could have been constructed without skyhooks.
(2) One of the main points of ID theory is that no element of the process can be removed and still have the process "work."
The concept of the process "working" is not an absolute concept. In a given context a process does something that is used by the larger organism in some way. What is to say that it did not evolve from a simpler process which served a different function for the ancestor organism. That way a process can be built up one molecule at a time and still be favored by natural selection all along the way.
As an example of different function one biologist once wore a mouse trap, with the trip mechanism and cheese holder removed, as a tie clip. Thus the classic example of an irreducibly complex object still performed a different but valued function after parts of it were removed.
The ideas of ID theory are new and are still being hashed out by both proponents and skeptics. Many of the overt claims of the proponents have been seriously weakened by others who have looked more carefully. ID is not so much a biological theory as a philosophical point which is still being debated.
The scientific community has not accepted ID theory as anything other than a new idea to discuss. That a state legislature should mandate which fringe ideas be taught in science classes is absurd.
| I recall a few years ago a big deal was made about the way that the Church would be displaying its corporate logo. The name tag the Missionaries wore would no longer be just TCOJCOLDS, JC would no be bold, front and center baby.. just let everyone know that they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
So, what happened? This year in Sunday School they are learning about the D&C, last year, it was BOM, I guess once every 4 years, they learn about the New Testament, which, if I have my Bible & LDS books correct, is really the core teachings of Jesus and his life & death here on Earth.
So, for a Church with Jesus Christ right in the name, what happened? Where did Jesus go? Perhaps WDJG is a better slogan for the kid's wristbands.. and WWJSD, as in "What would Joseph Smith Do" a bit more honest. (Ah, the answer to that, is lying beneath the sheets!) I became quite disillusioned when I read that ol Joe had the cujones to utter the "No man has ever turned against me! Not even Jesus can say that!" phrase (when of course, several of his so called vision-image witnesses DID turn against him), and every meeting I've attended, I can't think of a single time when a decent passage about Jesus' life actually comes up.
There are multidudes of great stories, Mary Magdallen, water into wine (or is it water into water?), loaves and fishes, Sermon on the Mount, riding into Bethlehem, so many great new Testament stories.. I've heard them many times in Catholic Mass, the lessons and examples that Christ taught, and how if we follow them, perhaps we can be better people. Pretty simple doctrine to me. The idea in those lessons from a Catholic Mass seems to be "Here was a good Man, the Best of Men, this is what He did, maybe you can be a little like Him, and in turn, be a better person yourself."
What I get from TCOJCOLDS is "Joseph Smith was martyred! He was awesome! Joseph was so young, maybe 14, maybe 17, maybe 21, we don't know when he saw this great vision with Angels, or Heavenly Father oh, AND JESUS! They told Joseph he would write a book about these people that sort of knew Jesus, and then they'd maybe come to America, who knows, DNA is still freaking us up on that one, BUT! Remember! Jesus is right there in our name!"
Can anyone recall the last time Jesus' ministry was brought up in any meeting? F&T? No way, another thread has dispelled the thought of that.. F&T is all about the Truth of TSCC, not about Jesus.. Sunday School is about prophets, Joseph's martyrdom, the trek to the West, the Nephilaminites, that little blond kid having a vision.. NOTHING about Jesus. Why bother? Just drop the Jesus Christ and become "The Church of Latter Day Saints".. the CO Joseph Smith wouldn't fly, it would just be too true, and the Church can't do THAT!
Sorry for ranting, this one has been itching on me, and I think reading about F&T really crystalized it. This is no more a Church of Christ's teachings than Islam is.. they both probably reference him about the same.
| Even when I was a young TBM, the Church News articles merited some sarcasm from me and my friends. Here are some of the ones I can remember:
Hurricane (fill in the blank) devastates (fill in the blank). All missionaries safe and no damage to chapels. Proves church is true.
Cecil B. DeMille visits with Church President David O. McKay about movie "Ten Commandments". Says "Thou almost persuadest me to be a Mormon". Comment proves Church is true.
Charlene Wells chosen as Miss America, proving Church is true.
There are now 15 Mormon Senators and Representatives in Congress. This proves that the famous prophecy of Joseph Smith is being fulfilled.
Osmonds biggest act in Great Britain (1970s). Helps missionary and proves Church is true.
Jim McMahan throws Hail Mary pass, B.Y.U. wins game with miracle finish. Adds prestige to Church owned school and proves BYU is best school in the land, fulfilling early prophecy of (multiple choice) a. Karl G. Maeser b. Henry Eyring c. Brigham Young d. Orson Pratt e. John Taylor
Genealogist finds headstone of 3rd great grandfather in swamp in the dark after getting lost and breaking leg. After healing for three years, is able to do temple work. Proves the Lord is directing genealogy work.
Saints warned by Prophet to build up year's supply of food for coming cataclysms. No other religious provide similar warnings. Proves Church is true.
Billy Casper joins Church, spreads gospel on the links. Church must be true.
Senile Joseph Fielding Smith regains mind after succeeding David O. McKay as prophet. Succession proves Church is true.
Twins, separated at birth, both join Church in middle age. Then run into each other and reunite miraculously at Rose Bowl swap meet just days before both are killed by separate meteor landings. Proves Church is true.
Church builds 28 story office tower next to Temple Square, much higher than any building at the Vatican. Proves work is going forward.
Salt Lake Temple sits on natural clay and spring water reservoir, thus making it earth quake proof. Brigham Young true Prophet. (Not to mention the design of that cool elevator shaft that works into the endowment perfectly. Could only happen with prophecy).
Mormon property in Laie Hawaii now valued at 2.2 billion dollars, but true value is in helping Pacific Islander Lamanites leave behind primitive ways and go on the true Western path.
Willard Marriott chairs Richard Nixon's inaugural for second time. Proves that Marriott is most important person back east, and hence Church is true.
President Eisenhower (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) meet with President Smith (McKay, Smith, Lee, Kimball, Benson, Hunter, Hinckley) proving that Church is true.
Governor Reagon visits Mormon cannery in California. Praises Church's self reliance. Proves that Welfare Plan comes from God.
| Scoutmaster's post about his TBM friend with a PhD got me to thinking about how two contrasting world views reside in the same head.
In my encounters with believing latter day saints, the argument is often raised, that "so and so has a PhD, and he/she believes". The individual often then argues that any claim that the church is not true is a simultaneous claim to be more intelligent than the TBM PhD. Due to the commonality of this argument to the appeal to authority often used by TBMs, below are some potential arguments for how having a PhD may make it more difficult for some TBM PhDs to come to grips with the reality of the church.
Late Arriving Critical Thinking Skills
First, along with the PhD comes the ability to discount knowledge. PhDs are trained to critically evaluate information and being willing to point out BS. For example, just because the Dr. Phil says XYZ, doesn't make it so. This gives the TBM scholar the tool of being critical... or of feeling secure in discounting information from others. Although at first glance, it would appear that this skill would work against remaining TBM, one has to remember that it is very likely that the majority of TBM PhDs were TBM before they were PhD. TBM beliefs were engrained before the new rules for critically evaluating information were acquired. Hence, the skill of criticality is more likely to be used to comfortably discount attacks on the church, but rarely turned on the church itself. A metaphor could be useful. Gaining a PhD is like acquiring the ability to throw up "breastworks of timbers" around a city to protect it. While such a wall could be a formidable barrier to an enemy trying to enter, it does little toprotect from dissenters already inside the wall. Likewise, the PhD can help prevent the individual from being persuaded by poor data and arguments, but it does little to protect him/her from long held beliefs and assumptions.
Built in Need Satisfaction
Second, the PhD may act to increase the amount of social pressure for testimony preservation. TBMs seem to hold believing scientists in high-regard, which would lead to positive reinforcement of the TBM PhDs spiritual contributions. That is, the TBM PhD would be more likely to receive attention, deference, praise, and reverence. These would serve to satisfy the individual's Need for Affiliation. In addition, if education level is positively associated with hierarchal level in church leadership, then it could also lead to satisfaction of an individuals Need for Power. Such a need-satisfying context increases the costs of breaking from such an organization.
Natural Cognitive Dissonance Resolution
Third, the PhD could play a role in a person's response to cognitive dissonance. The TBM PhD experiences cognitive dissonance when he/she comes across information that is inconsistent with the TBM world view. To relieve the dissonance, the PhD has to either discount his/her prior experience, judgment, and choices or discount the non-conforming information. It could be argued that having a PhD makes it less likely that the person can repudiate their prior choices to bring their attitudes and beliefs in consonance with other information. Any confidence, arrogance, or self-assurity that comes from having the degree would act to decrease the probability that he/she would discount past choices. Discounting the other information is the psychologically easier choice. Perhaps it could be simply said, that their expertise in one area leads them to a sense of security in their judgment in other areas of their lives.
Demystification of Science
Fourth, the PhD acts to lower the person's esteem of science. As a researcher, the PhD realizes that science is not perfect. He/she realizes that scientific inquiry still involves judgment, biases, measurement limitations. This information, likely makes it easier for the TBM PhD to discount "science" that produces information discrediting the church by attributing it to one of several limitations in science. With science taken off of its pedestal, there is plenty of room for a prophet.
Hard vs Soft Sciences
Fifth, my experience is that PhDs in the physical sciences do not hold the social sciences in high esteem. There are "hard" (real) sciences like chemistry, physics, etc and there are "soft" (hokey) sciences like psychology, sociology, history, etc. This bias, if held, would also make it very easy for the TBM PhD in the hard sciences to discount findings of historians and explanations provided by the psychological paradigm. Scientists in such fields may have less experience dealing with the imperfect measurement and data that plague such subjects, and find it easier to discount any uncomfortable findings as being the result of this "bad data".
In conclusion, although the "smart people believe" argument is persuasive and pervasive in the church, there is reason to believe that such trust is flawed. Humans with PhDs are still humans, and are subject to human frailties that may even increase the probability of them remaining TBM. I would be interested in seeing the proportion of PhDs in the social sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, archeology, history, etc) that join the church after having received the PhDs from research oriented programs. My hypothesis would be that the proportion would be extremely small. Scientist's belief in myth is due to their human psychology and not their systematic methodology.
| Does anyone else remember hearing conference talks on caring for elderly parents? Essentially, we are not supposed to put them in homes, but rather consider it our blessing and privelege to care for them right up to the end? Warning: this topic may be sensitive...
I just got back from visiting my aunt tonight (who, by the way, is very distressed about my leaving the church, but that is another story). My grandmother is living with her and is in her 94th year. Grandma is at the point where she can hardly walk, and can barely swallow her food anymore, and falls constantly. My aunt is the oldest of three children, and was unable to have children herself. My mother and my uncle both have many children, and therefore, it seemed the logical conclusion that since this aunt had "so much spare time, not having kids and grandkids and the like", the bulk of care for my grandmother should go to my aunt.
My aunt has been caring for her now for over eight years, and is completely worn out in body, spirit, and mind. Tonight she was so depressed. My mother really isn't in a position to take my grandmother and care for her full time(again, another story), and my uncle simply won't take care of her (can you say, "typical mormon male chauvinist that's woman's work pig"?) and so the obvious: it is time to put my grandmother in a home.
But oh, the guilt! We are not supposed to put our parents in old people's homes! Even though it makes no sense not to - my aunt has a bad hip and back herself and physically should not be lifting her mother - oh, how the Lord will hold it against us, and oh how our deceased loved ones are going to beat us when we all gather together in that celestial kingdom in the sky.
This is yet just one more way the church throws out a lot of guilt and bad advice (alias "commandments") and messes with people's lives. Don't deal in reality! Let guilt be your guide!
I am trying to talk my aunt and help her see that it is for the best for everyone - she would gain her life and sanity back, my grandma would have trained caregivers that were physically strong enough to lift her, plus medical staff around to help. Yes, becoming that old and incapacitated is sad to watch, but it is a reality of life, it is not my aunt's fault, and she should have a life of her own.
This church really is a gerontocracy... at the expense of the middle class worker bees....
| | | A "Hermetically Sealed" Church To Keep The Would-Be Saints In Line
Article Archived: Aug 31, 2005, at 07:29 AM
Stored Under Topic: | |
|
