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 2".
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 2
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.
|
|
Now that archaeology, genetics, linguistics, etc. have come down solidly against the historicity of the Book of Mormon the
brethren are saying "the Book of Mormon can't be proven by scholarly study, it can only be proven by a spiritual witness." or
variations on that theme.
Whenever stark facts are presented to a TBM they often point out that the facts are no match for their testimony--their spiritual
witness.
The spiritual witness overcomes any possible evidence in the Mormon worldview. It is "undeniable" etc.
However if a Mormon meets with a Christian that had a spiritual witness that Mormonism is false that spiritual witness is easily
dismissed as incorrect. The thousands of Catholic women who have had spiritual witnesses from the Virgin Mary are all dismissed
as deluded.
Mormons dismiss out of hand ANY spiritual witness that doesn't agree with their own. They are very willing to dismiss as
untrustworthy the vast majority of spiritual witnesses that hundreds of millions (at least) of members of competing religions
have had.
This strikes me as amazingly arrogant. The underlying message is "MY spiritual experiences are undeniable proof that my beliefs
are correct but the vast majority of spiritual experiences that occur to other people shows that they are deluded." The spiritual
witnesses that thousand of Mormon fundamentalist polygamists have had (Brian David Mitchell for instance) are taken as evidence
that they are either crazy or evil.
My question to them is this: What's so special about you? If hundreds of millions of people can be completely wrong and deluded
in their spiritual experiences why can't you be similarly deluded in yours?
The answer usually comes down to "I know I'm not deluded!"
I usually point out that that's what deluded people typically say.
And what is amazing is that Mormons will call anything an "undeniable" witness of the spirit if it falls their way. A nebulous
"peaceful feeling" or some dime-a-dozen coincidence can be latched onto as undisputable proof that God is telling them something.
I once talked with a man who was out praying in the open late one night and suddenly saw a shooting star. For him this was,
without question, God telling him the church was true etc.
So Mormons trust without question a means of finding truth that they admit fails to work correctly at least 99% of the time it is
used. However they say that there's no chance of it failing to work correctly with them.
Isn't that the textbook definition of "arrogance?"
| As a TBM Youth growing up along the Wasatch Front, I could buttress my faith in Mormonism with FACTS.
1. I knew Lehi had descendants because I could see them in the American Indians.
2. I could look to archeological evidence in Central America where vast BoM cities existed.
3. I could read about Word of Wisdom health studies that supported the churchs claim that worthy Mormons lived healthier life's
than the rest of humanity.
4. I could refer to Josephs prophecy of the coming Civil War as evidence of his ability to foretell the future.
5. I could trust in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon since its claim of 2 landings in the Americas, one in 2200 BC and the
other in 600 BC, coincided with the archeological thinking of the day, according to my seminary teachers.
6. Knowing in my youth that the Church practiced what it preached, namely honesty and truth, I could trust in the faith promoting
stories of the restoration.
7. The Book of Mormon witnesss were trustworthy, reliable, credible individuals who could be counted on to tell the truth.
8. Joseph Smith was a loving, caring, faithful husband.
Over time each of these Mormon FACTS have disappeared, the supporting buttresses of my Mormon faith have had to face the
painful reality that the church is not what it claims to be.
I have observed that the church no longer uses facts to support faith within the church...in fact there is an obvious movement
within the church to support the churches claims only through the use of feelings/spirit. We are required to over look facts that
contradict the churches claims and rely only on feelings.
Im reminded of a statement by Thomas Edison...For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction
- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope."
| Watch any General Conference and you're sure to hear one or more of the speakers mention the "world" and how good members of the church should be "in the world but not of the world". Focusing on a common enemy (real or invented) is a common technique that is used to solidify loyalty to a group, be it religious, governmental, tribal or otherwise.
In Karen Armstrong's excellent book about the rise of fundamentalist groups withing Judaism, Christianity and Islam, The Battle For God, on page 368 in the Afterword she writes:
"First, it is important to recognize of these theologies and ideologies are rooted in fear. The desire to define doctrines, erect barriers, establish borders, and segregate the faithful in a sacred enclave where the law is stringently observed springs from that terror of extinction which has made all fundamentalists, at one time or another, believe that the secularists were about to wipe them out. The modern world, which seems so exciting to a liberal, seems Godless, drained of meaning, and even satanic to a fundamentalist. If a patient brought such paranoid, conspiracy-laden, and vengeful fantasies to a therapist, he or she would undoubtedly be diagnosed as disturbed."
Who hasn't heard an "authority" speak of the evils and dangers in "the world"? Who hasn't been warned that partaking of the evils of "the world" will lead you away from the truth of the Gospel?
Many of you have realized this well before me - but it's amazing how blatantly this occurs in Mormonism.
I'm glad I can see through it now!
| My wife is still active so I see the Ensign on a regular basis. It reminds me of all the twisted thinking that is required, if one thinks at all, to stay active. I just ran across a statement from some authority that, from my experience, reflects the attitude of the general membership. This is the belief that the world is getting worse. Usually this is stated in such a way as to imply that this is common knowledge, obvious from the mere face of it.
I strongly disagree and think that the world today is a much better place compared with what it was 100 or 150 years ago. The horrors of the US Civil War, World War I and II; child labor; racial, religious, and sexual discrimination; the treatment of the mentally ill; as well as infant mortality, life expentancy, and many other improvements make me happy that I live today and not 50, 100, or 150 years ago.
This belief seems to mesh with the general Mormon dismissal of the achievements of non-Mormon peoples, times, or cultures. I cannot walk into a gothic catherdral and not thrill to the beauty and reflect upon the dedication and inspiration of the people who created it. When I've been in the company of Mormons, a typical comment is about displays of abomination and apostacy with no thought given that these are the people who pulled western Europe out of barbarism and raised the lamp of learning. Of course, if you believe that the nothing happened until 1830, and that despite Joseph Smith and the BOM the world has been going down hill, it's hard to give credit where credit is due.
Questions: There is nothing new or unique in thinking that the world was better in the "good old days." People have been saying that for thousand of years (i.e. The Garden of Eden) But is this thinking part of the core of the Mormon worldview? Where does it come from? Millenialism? The thrill of self induced fear? The need for social control (everybody into the life boat of the church!)? Ignorance of the facts and the need to stay ignorant? Does this appeal to non-members? Doesn't it weaken the potential to do good if you believe that everything is going to hell in a hand basket anyway?
I remember many a Sunday school lesson where the teacher talked about how 'interesting' it was that the industrial revolution took place after the church was established. 'Interesting' in this case meaning 'it's because the church is true.'
Myself, I think it's interesting that the church has lost its momentum since the coming of the age of information. Yet, the church seems to think that TV, satellite broadcasting, internet, etc. was invented for the sake of the church.
Groups define themselves by what they are and what they're not. When what they are becomes less clear or less compelling, they crank up the "what they're not" side of their identity. If you can't unite around the principles, then unite against an enemy. Any enemy. The more enemies the better. And if the group can convince you that only unspeakable horrors await outside the safety of the group, then you'll be more willing to put up with the group's crap. "Life sucks," you think to yourself, "but it's better than that evil, dangerous, depraved world out there."
An honest, careful study of history (not just LDS Church history), is, at its essence, an anti-Mormon pursuit.
I'm talking about the journey of Lewis & Clark, the Industrial Revolution, the Gilded Age, The Progressive Era, the Civil War, the French Revolution, etc., etc.
Careful and diligent study of such topics over an extended period of time tend to give the dedicated student a broad perspective of the human story, and tend to make the Mormon worldview seem very provincial, even wacky.
That's perhaps why so few Mormons tend to truly be interested in history.
The very subject threatens their identity.
Think back those 100 or so years to WWI (or even WWII). How long did it take a soldier to arrive in Europe or the Pacific? Or a letter to arrive from the front lines? How about news from correspondents? The battles were over long before news of it reached home.
Our current world experiences instantaneous access to information. I can IM someone across the country. I can call my son's cell phone and see if he's going to be home in time for dinner. Satellite broadcasts give us at-the-moment accounts of at-the-moment situations.
The mormon worldview - "We're in the Last Days, you can tell by what's happening" - has been the same for 150 years!
The faster information arrives, the more access we have to that information, and the more likely an individual with a millennial view will believe we're almost out of time.
Civilization often develops physically and economically at the expense of nature and the conquered. Religion is then used to comfort those who are economically dying, or already dead. It is there to give them hope and potential real estate in some other world. (It is also used to discourage any modern ideas that question this economic demise).
So, this opiate called religion is to seduce the masses as they become insignificant. It also makes sense that this general-purpose religion should feature a general downgrade of nature, materialism, reason, knowledge, and especially personal dignity (in order to train people to kiss the feet of others). To do this, a religion might simply declare the meaning of all truth, end of discussion.
What is not so apparent is that this general pacifying religion also features a very stubborn and aggressive use of a false history. This mythology is deemed very necessary for them to believe, and if not, for them to honor. This is because the brain is able to remember these myths and act accordingly when no other decision-making information is allowed to compete with it.
So, basically, you can program people with stories and parables. The main story, for our discussion, features the pure beginning, fallen from a perfect and free paradise, but it doesn't mention the people who enslaved them. The last story is the personal doom, foretold, from behavior that can also be described as natural (so it can't be avoided). The middle story is their salvation atonement, a human sacrifice to explain the possibility of hope, and justice of saving them. The setting is all supposed to degrade in the scope of one's lifetime, and over the generations, according to the story.
You can spend the rest of your life trying to figure out why most people are entranced and helpless against it, but it doesn't need a rational explanation or even necessarily comport to psychology. When people are helpless in their traditions and poorly raised, anything bad is possible. Just ask any Puritan who will tell you that anything bad is to be expected anyway.
| "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't. " Mark Twain!
That pretty well sums up Mormonism's claims, doesn't it?
Who needs the "truth" when fiction has so many more possibilities and only requires faith to believe it.
This would apply to Joseph Smith Jun.:
When I was younger, I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not.
Mark Twain:
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure.
Mark Twain, Letter to Mrs Foote, Dec. 2, 1887
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
And on the Book of Mormon:Excerpts from Mark Twain's book "Roughing It"
pp. 102-103, 110
"All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy, such an insipid ;mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print.
If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle-keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.
"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament.
The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James' translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel-half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity.
The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern-which was about every sentence or two-he ladled in a few such scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.
". . . The Mormon Bible is rather stupid and tiresome to read, but there is nothing vicious in its teachings. Its code of morals is unobjectionable-it is "smouched" from the New Testament and no credit given."
Humor is mankind's greatest blessing.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
| I heard a speech yesterday on NPR that made me think of your recent interview on NPR where you pleaded with the white members of the church to raise their voices and help out the black members of the church in demanding change, since the blacks have done what they can and they were tired.
Yesterday I turned on the radio just in time to hear these powerful words that were spoken when I was two years old, which I'd never heard until yesterday, 40 years later...
"It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.
And we shall overcome."
Lyndon Baines Johnson: "We Shall Overcome" Address to Congress, 15 March 1965
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjweshallovercome.htm
40 years ago today Martin Luther King sat in a room in Selma, Alabama where he was speaking at the memorial service of a slain civil rights activist, with tears rolling down his cheeks after hearing an President Johnson utter the powerful words of the civil rights movement that would lead to the landmark civil rights legislation, ending the shameful denial of the right to vote for blacks.
Amazingly, I was two years old when blacks finally earned the right to vote in America. 100 years after Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address, proclaiming "our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
It would take another 13 years after those words were spoken, before the Mormon church would end the disgraceful 120 year ban restricting blacks from recieving the "full blessings" of Mormon life, its highest privilage, entry into their temples and recieving the priesthood. Although the practice of overt racial discrimination against blacks ended in the Mormon church in 1978 with the lifting of the ban on blacks recieving the priesthood, the racist idiology behind the ban has yet to be overcome.
40 years later it still stands since it has never been renounced.
It is still privately taught to the next generation of Mormons behind closed doors. There is still a common belief amongst Mormons that blacks are inferior to whites because those who were supposed to represent God have said so in no uncertain terms and nobody with any authority in the Mormon church has had the courage to say they were wrong. The conspicuous absence of that admission implies that the current leaders of the church still believe those same racist myths since they have done nothing to debunk them. And allow them to continue to be taught without comment. That is a sin of ommission.
It has been 40 years since those powerful words were spoken, yet "the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice" spoken of by Lyndon B. Johnson, is still a large elephant sitting in the corner, ignored by the Mormon church.
This was most recently illustrated by the comments of Gordon B. Hinckley when asked by Mike Wallace on CBS's 60 minutes, "Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."
Gordon B. Hinckley: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history. "
The fact that the leader of the church dismisses 120 years of history of institutionalized discrimination against blacks as a "fleck of history" illustrates the depth of the inability of the leadership of the church to examine and deal appropriately with its significant history of racism. Simply claiming that it is "behind us" before opening any kind of discourse or acknowledging the issue, does not put the issue "behind us."
It is what LBJ called a "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice" and cannot be overcome in Mormonism until the leadership of the Mormon church renounces its racist myths and folklore, which are deeply rooted in the Mormon racial attitudes. That attitude continues to be passed down from generation to generation as it has over the entire history of the church. Those false racist doctrines are still being taught to this day. The racist mormon oral traditions are alive and well, depite the public denials of its leaders and inflated claims of success amongst African converts.
While my 16 year old son was in LDS early morning seminary they were discussing Brigham Young. He brought up some of the outlandish things the prophet Brigham Young had said about race, like "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)
His teacher's response was, "I hate to say this, but that's true."
She went on to explain why she thought this statement was true based on the false racist doctrine that blacks were cursed with dark skin because they were descendants of Cain.
I was shocked!
Here it was the 21st Century and my child was still being indoctrinated with a 19th century, false, racist myth, used to justify slavery, that totally contradicted the main commandment of Jesus Christ to "love our fellow men as ourselves."
I asked him if there were black people in the room.
He said, "No! Thank God!"
I told him that it really should not matter wether we are black or white, it is an outrage that these racist myths are being perpetuated through indoctrination of the next generation of youth.
I could not complain to my priesthood leader, since my bishop was her husband and I had to assume that he believed the same things, despite the fact that both of them were highly intelligent, respected and well educated people.
Two years earlier I had been teaching a very bright class of 17 & 18 year old Mormon youth. One of them, a 17 year old, named Craig, was home on break from studying Nanotechnology, in German, at MIT's sister school in Achen Germany. Three other students had recieved full ride accademic scholarships to BYU.
We were discussing the old testament and Craig asked me a question that caught me off guard, "How did the curse of cain survive the flood?"
I could tell that this genius student had his doubts about the reality of this racist myth or he wouldn't be questioning it.
I looked around the room to see if anyone else was as suprised by that question as I was. Nobody appeared to be as suprised as I me.
Nobody registered any expression of disbelief. They all sat there doe eyed waiting to see how I would faithfully answer that question.
I told him I had a better question, "How did the curse of cain survive the attonement since we believed that Jesus atoned for the sins of all mankind, including Cain?"
He admitted he didn't know how that would be possible.
I told him I would have to research that question and I would get back to him. I never got back to him because my research led me to conclude that the whole curse of cain doctrine was really just a racist myth used to maintain the "crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice."
The bible never says that the curse of cain is black skin. It simply says that Cain and his descendants were cursed with an indescript "mark" so that they would be distinguishable from the other descendants of Adam and would not mix with them. The bible never says that the curse survived the flood and logically it couldn't have since it was a sin for the descendants of Abel to intermarry with the descendants of Cain and we all know what happened to the sinners (and their innocent babies).
However, contrary to logic, Mormon scripture provides a convenient way for the curse of Cain to survive the flood through Noah's son Ham, who had married Egyptus according to the Book of Moses.
Unfortunately there is no denying the fact that Mormon scriptures clearly state that the Curse of Cain is black skin.
Moses 7: 8
For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
Moses 7: 22
And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.
Not only does the Book of Moses clearly state that God created black people as a curse for the sins of their fathers, but 120 years worth of church leaders have clearly articulated and elaborated upon that doctrine to the point where denying it is indefensible and undeniable.
Mormon racism is not limited to blacks. It also applies the same "divine principle" of god cursing whole races of people with dark skin for the inniquity of their forefathers to Native Americans or as the Book of Mormon refers to them, "Lamanites", which the Book of Mormon maintains are the "principle ancestors of the American Indian".
2 Ne. 5: 21
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
My children are partially Native American. Seeing them hold their fingers up on the backs of their heads while singing "Book of Mormon Stories" I came to the shocking realization that they were still being indoctrinated with negative racist myths about their own race.
pg 118 in the Children's Songbook
"Book of Mormon stories that my teacher tells to me
Are about the Lamanites in ancient history.
Long ago their fathers came from far across the sea,
Giv'n the land if they lived righteously.
Lamanites met others who were seeking liberty,
And the land soon welcomed all who wanted to be free.
Book of Mormon stories say that we must brothers be,
Giv'n the land if we live righteously."
Any Mormon who claims that Mormons do not believe that Native Americans are the same race of people cursed with dark skin in the book of Mormon must not have been paying attention in primary, but I was.
I found this and many other racist teachings in the church intollerable in this day and age, not only because they contradict the basic commandments of Jesus Christ to love our fellow men as ourselves, but they have been proven false by advances in modern science.
According to the most conclusive genetic studies that have been done, 99.9% of Native American DNA has been proven to be from Asiatic descent. The other .1% is conclusively non-semetic.
Scientists have proven, using the same techniques used to send men to death row, that Native Americans are not descended from so-called Lamanites.
So why teach my children that they are descended from a cursed race of people?
I decided I had to tell my children the truth. It's a racist myth, don't believe it, don't teach it, don't support it.
But by my continued participation in the Mormon church at any level implied my compliance with those doctrines I found unconscionable. That was something I lived with for many years, but I could not live with propogating those racist myths by subjecting my children to the systematic racist indoctrination they were recieving in the church. I could not in good conscience allow my children to be crippled by that "legacy of bigotry and injustice."
I gave up trying to debunk racist myths in the church when I realized that I would be disciplined for speaking out against racist false doctrines in the church.
People I knew in the church who spoke out and tried to debunk racist myths were threatened with excommunication if they would not agree to remain silent.
I had nowhere to turn.
My bishop's wife was the one who told my son that Brigham Young was right when he said that the punishment for interracial marriage was death on the spot. My Stake President told an African American friend of mine who raised concerns about current climate of racism in the church, "Do not expect an appology for past racism because it was based on divine revelation." When he raised the same concerns with the mission president he was told, "We don't know why God did not allow blacks to receive the priesthood prior to 1978 and it is not important to our salvation."
Most members of the church are sadly satisfied with that explanation.
I was deeply troubled that my priesthood leaders still maintained that racism was somehow sponsored by God.
The God I love is not a racist bigot.
I would not raise my children to worship that God.
Since I had nowhere to turn except to my priesthood leaders, who still supported these these racist beliefs and thought there was no racial issues to deal with in the church I had no other option but to remove my implicit consent by resigning.
I can no longer support an institution that maintains 19th Century racist myths as "divine revelation" that still apply today, completely disregarding the whole point of atonement and christ's entire purpose for coming to earth, not to mention his commandments.
I refuse to have my children taught these racist myths. My children are beautiful and innocent. I will protect them from the "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice" still institutionalized in the Mormon church.
The only way I can contribute to the struggle to overcome that cripling legacy is to tell my children the truth and to teach them that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their race and the most important thing we can do is to love one another as ourselves. That should be our standard for measuring the correctness of any religious principle. Is it just? Is it loving? Is it consistent with the commandmetns of Jesus Christ and basic human dignity?
If not, then it is wrong.
Obviously racism is wrong, but it is still alive and well in the Mormon church, which is why my family will no longer contribute to that "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice."
I will spend years trying to undo the indoctrination they have recieved in the Mormon church, but I see it as my moral obligation to debunk those myths, at least in my circle of influence, which is mainly my children.
"....it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.
And we shall overcome." LBJ
Teach the children the truth.
| Once it is understood that God Myths are not strictly about right/wrong, true/false, they begin to make sense for what they are and what purpose they serve.
First of all, history shows that they are beliefs, mostly long standing ones that are rooted in the social/cultural mores (fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of the human condition and do not vary that much in their core beliefs, relying heavily on metaphysical, supernatural claims.
Secondly, they provide a social, connecting structure for humanity that appeals to the general populace.
As such, they are immensely powerful emotionally and over ride reason, logic, and factual evidence.
It is a misconception to conclude that people leave Mormonism, for instance, only because it's claims are false. That alone is an acceptable reason, (as are all reasons), however, in the case of Mormonism, it is very easy to show it's claims are not verifiable and do not hold up to scrutiny.
Other beliefs, however, such as Christianity in all it's forms are no more verifiable but they do have some still standing places to lend credence to their claims, but that is about it. Tradition, even it dates back to the first century, does not lend credibility to the metaphysical, supernatural claims.
Any time the idea of metaphysical, supernatural beliefs takes center stage in a group of people, the allure of their power takes on a politically correct base that supercedes anything else.
Mormonism is a perfect example of an American God Myth (the only one that I can find) that fits all those categories and requirements. It functions as an integral part of an American culture and has produced, what is often proudly claimed as a "peculiar" people, with it's own language, (often called Mormonese) and customs, traditions, attire, music, etc.
To think or believe or behave outside the God Myth becomes a reason for exclusion, shunning, unacceptance, and withholding of love etc. and even death in some cases.
Add the notion that some group has the only true belief and all hell breaks loose if it is the reining power and they feel threatened. History shows that God Myths wield a heavy sword upon the dissenters.
The ideas, self contained in a God Myth are often so cemented in the thinking of a person that there is often no room to even consider anything different.
The threat, fear, and guilt of thinking outside the culturally prevailing God Myth World View is so horrific, that even to contemplate it produces a word flurry sharp as a sword, of disapproval!
Humans, throughout history (especially as witnessed here on this board) have been so conditioned and programmed to believe there is something so threatening, evil, sinful, about a non-believer, particularly one who claims to be an atheist, that they can't contain their need to destroy the imagined enemy. The keyboard becomes the gun with bullets firing away at those who dare to leave.
To leave that safety net of the God Myth and venture out into a world view that honors the human and all it's humanity with no outside controls from authoritative religious figures is often part of leaving Mormonism for many people.
Interestingly, what most of us have found (from my observation) is that life outside the mental, emotional confines of the Mormon World View is filled with greater life rewards than ever imagined. The promise of Mormonism's happiness falls flat. There is a more to life than it's restrictive view and it is so expansive, that it cannot be exhausted.
I am glad that I figured out that I had the right to change my mind (ignoring any fear of recrimination), and detach emotionally and mentally from the programmed input while I have the age and maturity and wisdom to take a stab at understanding it!
Closing the door on Mormonism has been the best thing I ever did. Now, to get that screen door to stay shut and stop that nasty draft from wafting in and annoying me and reminding me of the life I used to live!
That's my two cents. Your mileage may vary! Especially with the high cost of gasoline these days! :-)
| The church does not allow active Mormons to pick and choose which doctrines they can and cant believe in. however there is evidence that the church itself is being selective in which things its members are exposed to. In effect, doing the selection of doctrines to believe in by promoting certain dogma over other items.
Case in point:
This year the church is emphasizing Church History through lessons focusing on the Doctrine and Covenants in its Gospel Doctrine classes. However instead of teaching a chronological history of the church, as in years past, the church is teaching the D&C by emphasizing a particular subject. The Gospel Doctrine teacher then uses verses from through out the D&C to support that topic.
This allows the church to avoid the difficult questions that may other wise appear if Church History was taught as it unfolded...thus the church itself is promoting cafeteria Mormonism...picking and choosing which doctrines to emphasize and which doctrines to ignore.
GBH's assertions that he doesnt know if we teach that.... when referring to eternal progression of men...
BKPs pronouncement that some things that are true are not very useful....
I could go on and on but you get the point.... Mormonism has become a Cafeteria Religion and its coming from the TOP.
| Despite anything a devout Mormon will tell you, they already know beneath the surface that "priesthood power" is a sham.
Anyone who has attended a dozen or so Fast & Testimony meetings knows how much Mormons like to talk about reveiving & giving priesthood blessings. You know story: "When Johnny fell off the top bunk, my husband ran in and gave him a blessing that he would live until we could get him proper medical attention."
Mormons talk about the utility of priesthood power as though it were a kitchen appliance. You moved into a new house? You bless it. Your daughter has a high fever? Give her a blessing. A cancer patient is about to die? Give him a blessing. Scared about losing your job because the market bubble is poised to burst? Get a blessing.
But what is the batting average? Do blessed homes catch fire as often as non-blessed homes? Do blessed daughters lose their fevers faster than non-blessed daughters? Does the blessed cancer patient recover while the non-blessed dies? Do fewer Mormons lose their jobs to economic downturns than non-Mormons?
When Mormons talk about their higher-than-average life expectancy, they talk about the Word of Wisdom and how it makes them healthier. When they talk about the power of God working through mankind, they often refer to Mormon inventors or other men who were inspired by God to establish free nations and invent great things. When Mormon leaders talk about the authority of God given to mankind, they talk about the supreme authority of the First Presidency and the Apostles, and the supremacy of Mormonism among the world's religions. But they say surprisingly little about the effects of priesthood power, especially on any scale that can be observed.
Mormon priesthood "power" is probably invoked more often than any other decidedly Mormon practice. That is to say, it is more than likely that priesthood blessings are given more frequently than any other religious practice in the church. I doubt that a single minute goes by without a Mormon priesthood blessing being given somewhere in the world. This is probably a gigantic understatement, even when you subtract the blessings being performed in temples or in chapels.
Yet, if this priesthood "power" was really powerful at all, why do Mormons point to the Word of Wisdom as the reason for their longevity? Why do they point to "inspiration from God" as the motivation for earthly leaders of innovation and change? Why does the cold & flu season inflict Utah as much as any other state? Why does the Utah State Health Inspector even bother inspecting restaurants in Orem or Provo, knowing that most meals eaten there are blessed first, often by priesthood holders? Why do missionaries get sent home for medical reasons? Why does an apostle die of leukemia?
If priesthood blessings are even remotely effective in removing disease and calamity from our lives and property, then why aren't these effects being noticed by insurance companies or journalists? More importantly, why aren't these effects being noticed by MORMONS?
One answer that some Mormons offer is that priesthood blessings don't really do anything more effective than provide a sense of comfort, which is supposed to be good enough by itself. But how much comfort does a priesthood blessing really provide? If a blessing really did bring lasting comfort, we might expect to find that fewer women in Utah take anti-depressants than the national average, rather than more. We might expect to see fewer teenage girls in Utah taking "Sandy Candy" than the national average, rather than more.
If the priesthood power really was effective in any sense other than providing a tradition of outward performances, Mormons would certainly be aware of it. They would publish this evidence, and the world would beat a path to Utah. Some Mormons might say that the church would never publish such information, since it should be taken on faith. But this argument obviously isn't maintained by the First Presidency, who spare no effort in telling us of their efforts to help tsunami victims and give thousands of wheelchairs to cripples everywhere. The church regularly demonstrates that it will use any information about itself to solicit world attention. This is all academic anyway, since the church has nothing to report about the power of priesthood blessings. Otherwise, the report would be: "Priesthood blessings are the reason why faithful Mormons live to age 98 on average; it is why relatively few Mormons suffer heart attacks and strokes; it is why Johns Hopkins Medical School and the Fred Huchinson Cancer ResearchCenter have opened new research facilities in Salt Lake City." Of course, these things are not true. Mormons will always die of the same causes, and at the same age, more or less, as non-Mormons. Any variation from the average can be attributed to the Word of Wisdom, which is testable, and not the priesthood.
Like anything else in Mormonism, priesthood "power" is only valuable to the degree that it cannot be tested. If a blessing fails to restore health to a child, it is because God has some other purpose, or because the priesthood holder was sinful. Or the oil was rancid. Or any other reason than the possibility that the priesthood "power" is a fantasy. Thus, lack of effect is a sine qua non of the Mormon priesthood power. The desired effect, then, is making you feel good about the priesthood being used, rather than someone being healed, turbulent waters being calmed, or demons being cast out of your house.
| - It is totalitarian. Before Correlation, it was simply authoritarian, that is, members were expected to obey blindly. But with correlation, it became totalitarian - that is, every activity of the church was specifically directed to support the party. The priesthood directly controls everything, even the women's stuff. Anything not directly supporting the priesthood (roadshows, women's magazines, etc.) is dropped. Even 'the Activity Book' directs every physical activity to a 'Priesthood Purpose.'
- Obsessive centralization, leading to 'one size fits all'
- A desire to kill all enemies (see early temple oaths, Danites, and longing for Jesus to return and cleanse the earth) - thankfully, this falls into the 'without the power' part. Note that, even during the worst of Stalin's purges, the majority of Russians supported him.
- Leader worship, particularly of Josef S.
- Systematic changing of history (monogamous Brigham, re-recording conference talks, etc.) plus obsessive secrecy, distorting of records (e.g. membership), etc.
- Sham elections ("all those opposed" without needing to look around)
- No unofficial opinions are allowed; control of the media (where possible - note the limits of power)
- Paranoia regarding (outside) enemies and (inside) intellectuals
There are various other parallels between Mormonism and communism, so much that McConkie called communism a false religion. Both have the United Order, they call each other 'brother so and so' or 'comrade so and so,' both have glorious new plans every few years which then don't work. Both have grand building pans. Both have a false but official belief in equality (an Elder has the same power as a prophet, but different stewardship). But I don't know if these things are particularly Stalinist as opposed to other ideologies.
The only major difference I can see is that Stalin broke with communist traditions of expansion - he preached 'socialism within one country.' But the Mormon church is still trying to export Mormonism throughout the world. But even here, Mormonism is more Stalinist than Trotskyite. Trotsky wanted revolution, but Stalin focused on total control of the people already within communism. No doubt history buffs can correct me on the details.
| Andy and I tuned in to BYU TV tonight for kicks and caught a talk by Robert J Matthews titled: "The Great Millennium Shall Come" that was recorded from Education Week in 2001. Not only was is extremely boring, it was appalling that an institute of higher learning can produce such a pseudo scientific approach that does not have even an ounce of reasonable thought and think that it is appropriate for an event titled "Education Week." He quoted many Mormon leaders including Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and a bunch of scriptures to back up his stance that the Millennium as described in his talk will be a literal event, that there is no symbolism. It really will happen.
Basically according to Bro. Matthews, the Earth will change from its current Telestial state to a Terrestrial state aka "Paradise" which is the condition described in Genesis as the Garden of Eden. This "Paradise" is where all of the animals will live in perfect harmony and every creature on the Earth will be a vegetarian. There will be no Fires, no earthquakes, tidal waves, monsoons, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, blizzards, and no variance to the weather. There will be no seasons. There will be no disease, no accidents, nothing that will end life until old age. And, once old age is reached and death occurs, men will automatically be resurrected and stay here on Earth. He also spoke of the wondrous expansion of development. There will be temples, meeting houses, other infrastructure, housing, and recreational facilities pervading the globe to accommodate the ever-expanding population.
Sounds wonderful doesn't it?
All of the animals on Earth will be running rampant throughout civilization. There would be no population control of the animals since they can only die of old age. When they do die, they will just automatically be resurrected "in the twinkling of an eye" and remain here on Earth. Imagine the rodent and insect infestation problems in "Paradise" with every fly, ant, flea, lice, cockroach, senior citizen, rabbit, mouse, rat, NEVER leaving the Earth with a constant influx of MORE on the way. Our hands would be tied since there will be no "enmity between man and beast."
Imagine an Earth that is a perfect balmy 72 degrees all the time. There is no variance. How would you ever be able to appreciate the weather when you have known nothing different. How can you appreciate a wonderful balmy 72 degree day when you have not experienced the freezing 30 degree days of Winter or hellish 100+ degree days of Summer? Somehow, despite the lack of seasons and curious lack of precipitation, there will be plentiful grain and other crops to sustain not only every human being, but also every beast during this time when people and animals can not die until they reach old age. There will be no seasons, so apparently there will not be any hibernation of animals either. Somehow the ever expanding population of the Earth will allow for room for the needed ever expanding farms to produce enough food for the ever expanding population of animals and people. This also brings the interesting question of whether the Earth at a constant Spring-like state will influence the animal kingdom to be in an ever-present mating season?
There will be no disease, so all the doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health care personnel will be out of a job. I think they would best be of use in the ever expanding field of sanitation. Somehow all the sanitary needs of this ever expanding population would need to be met. Imagine all animals and people on a raw foods organic fruit and grain diet and the effect that would have on the sewage processing needs of this Planet.
Sounds like "Paradise" to me.
| What's with mormons? I think their individuality is so compromised that they belive you are demeaning them if you don't uphold their idiotic priesthood blessings and creepy temple rites.
In the US we have freedom of religion. We also have freedom of speech. That means we tolerate churches we don't believe in. We mustn't do damage to church property or spit on people who dunk the dead, but we can speak about the church as we see fit.
That doesn't mean we owe mormons or any weird cultists respect. The definition of that word is "treat with special consideration and high regard." That's not the exact opposite of disrespect, which involves overt acts of denegration.
Do you hold these ludicrous beliefs in special high regard?
1. Systematic sexism? Refusing to allow females to live up to their innate high potential?
2. Secret necro rituals in disregard to the wishes of next of kin or stated directives of the victims?
3. Regulation religious underpants with purported magical powers?
4. Systematic religious harassment in the street and in private homes?
5. Magic words on tidbits of white bread, lying about church history, lying to prospective converts, extorting money from church members, breaking up families who don't all agree on religion, multiple gods, forced polygamy, antiquated dress codes, harsh and worthless dietary restrictions, and the worship of leaders, buildings, and lock step image promotion.
Really, churches need to earn respect. Those who seriously don't feel respect for some of the precepts listed above don't owe special high regard to a church that encompasses them. We owe mormons and their organization a level of ciivily. We don't owe their baseless cult an iota of respect.
| < |
