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 3".
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 3
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.
|
|
Joseph Smith worship is a back door method of worshipping the current prophet.
I have seen many times the observation that the church (without outright admitting it) appears to worship Joseph Smith to the point of spending more time talking about him that Jesus Christ.
I believe the reason this is done is because it is easier to emphasize Joseph Smith than it is to emphasize the current prophet, for various reasons.
The more people believe in the prophetic mission and greatness of Joseph Smith, the more likely they are to reverence and obey the current prophet.
Itis more effective to sell a heroic image of Joseph Smith than it would be to constantly talk about the grandeur and glory of Gordon B. Hinkley. Too much of this talk about a current prophet would be more likely to strike members as cult-like but the same effect by association can be had by emphasizing the prophet to whom Hinckley is in the direct line of authority.
Also, I imagine it is easier for the leadership of the church (the First Presidency and the 12) to feel comfortable with JS worship since the respect built up is fully transferable to whomever becomes the next prophet.
I believe it would be harder to transfer the respect and affection that would be built by emphasizing worship of Jesus to the current prophet because Hinkley's claim of authority derived from the Savior (as opposed to JS) is psychologically more remote. (Not according to official theology, of course, but likely in the subconscious minds of the paying believers.)
| My mom is one of the most loving, kind people I know. She will always try to find a way to work out a disagreement and is even willing to be treated badly at times for the greater goal of keeping the relationship going. I am one of 8 kids and am the only one in my large LDS family that has left the Church.
It has been 6 years since I left. But yesterday I was talking with her on the phone and she started bearing her testimony to me and told me that I need to "go back to square one" as far as the Church is concerned.
In responce I asked why there is always someone willing to testify to me that they know its all true but there is always a complete lack of people willing to demonstrate the respect and common courtesy to even find out why I don't believe, let alone make any effort to address any of the concerns I have. (Keep in mind that one of my brothers was killed 20 years ago and a grandaughter was recently killed this past summer. So in her mind she will lose me and my family permanently).
I won't go into the details but she completely lost it. She swore at me for the first time in my life (I'm 48). She was sobbing and telling me that she loves me and she doesn't want to lose me (and my family).
There wasn't much to say (or that could be said) and I know she's under a lot of stress from other sources as well. When she calmed down I said goodbye and I sent her some flowers later that day to let her know I still loved her. It was a really rough day for me.
But this whole episode has got me thinking how many doctrines of Mormonism are designed specifically to threaten, shame or guilt people in to greater devotion to Mormonism and have nothing to do with improving ourselves or providing service to others, (which is what I believe are the first and best callings of religion).
What does the threat of losing your children in the afterlife have to do with becoming a better person? What do the temple ceremonies, garments, not drinking coffee, have to do with providing service to others (at least to others that we are sure exist?)
The bottom line is that my mom has devoted her life to Mormonism and now when she is getting to the end of her life, instead of comfort from the Church, she sees more threats and is terrified that she is losing another loved one.
| Auguste Pinochet was the dictator of Chile from 1973 through 1990. He came to power as a result of a military coup which overthrew Pres. Salvador Allende, a Socialist.
During his dictatorship, Pinochet committed numerous atrocities to subdue his political opponents. The Rettig Commission, a Chilean reconciliation group, reported that during Pinochets reign, Pinochet was responsible for the death or disappearance of over 3, 000 people.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rettig_R...).
Pinochets human rights violations are too numerous to detail here. However, the following link provides stories of those victims who suffered under Pinochet.
http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/news...
In addition to the over three thousand dead and disappeared (presumed dead), Pinochets regime tortured countless others. Victims had their arms broken, females had their breasts burned with electric irons, victims were doused in kerosene and set on fire, teenagers were electrocuted, etc.
And what did the leaders of the LDS Church say about Gen. Pinochet?
The then current prophet, Spencer W. Kimball said of Pinochet, when presenting him with a copy of the Book of Mormon, that he was "one of the great leaders of Latin America."
Future member of the Seventy, and prominent LDS business man, Robert Wells said the Pinochets 1973 coup was an "an act that served the purpose of the Lord." Wells also said of Pinochets murder of the 3,000 Chileans: If he had to shoot anyone, the great majority deserved it since they were terrorists."
And what has current LDS President Gordon Hinckley said of Pinochet? "It was a time of trouble,"
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_3661420
And what would the 3,000 dead and presumed dead have to say of Kimball and Hinckley?
We thank thee O God for a prophet to lead us in these latter days?
I hardly think so.
| INTRODUCTION
A person's reputation and character are determined, in significant measure, by his or her enemies.
If, in this case, the enemies happen to be deviously devoted Mormon apologists (who, by their very nature, perpetuate lies, falsehoods and excuses in behalf of the manipulative LDS cult), then the person these snarling Mormon pit bulls are ripping apart has obviously struck a nerve of truth with them that they cannot handle.
Which brings us to Brent Metcalfe and his enemies.
While some on this board are obviously displeased with Metcalfe's ExMo conference presentation, it may do well to remember that Metcalfe is ridiculed and hated by high-ranking Mormon authorities and their minions.
Which means he must be doing something right.
Brent Metcalfe is an inately intelligent and thoughtful individual, a gifted and careful writer, a dogged and tireless researcher, an agile and adept thinker and a respected and reputable (albeit largely self-made) scholar whose historical studies, doctrinal conclusions and other Mormon-related observations are the result of his determined efforts at understanding and interpreting the LDS world in empirical, rational, methodical and responsible ways.
That Mormon apostles (as well as their hand puppets at FARMS) have frantically ripped Brent Metcalfe up one side and down another is telling proof of just how effective Metcalfe has been at undermining Mormonism's fabrications--and just how much, as a result, insecure Mormons fear and loathe him.
_____
MORMON APOSTLE MERCILESSLY ATTACKS METCALFE
Apostle Neal Maxwell, in a private conversation with Steve Benson in Maxwell's Church office in September 1993, viciously attacked Metcalfe, as recounted in Benson's published account of his meeting with Maxwell:
"Maxwell attempted to defend the Book of Mormon via 'critical textual analysis'--as well as through personally attacking one of the most outspoken critics of the Book of Mormon at that time, former Church security employee and excommunicated LDS researcher, Brent Metcalfe.
"Maxwell said that the first critical textual analysis of the Book of Mormon was soon to be published by Royal Skousen, a BYU professor of English and linguistics, whom Maxwell described as being in 'the intellectual wing of the Church.' (At the time, Skousen was in the process of examining the original English 'translation' of the Book of Mormon, based on the surviving 28% of the original manuscript held in the historical archives of the Mormon Church).
"Maxwell said that, unlike Metcalfe's [then-]recent critique of Book of Mormon authenticity, Skousen's treatment of the Book of Mormon was 'deep.' (Metcalfe was editor of a newly-released book, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1993]. The work billed itself as an outline of 'the broad contours of contemporary scholarship which continue to examine issues of antiquity . . . from the standpoint of physical and cultural anthropology, geography, linguistics, demographics, literary forms, liturgical context, theology, and evolution of the original manuscript to published work,' front flyleaf).
"Unimpressed by Metcalfe's efforts, Maxwell derisively described the difference between Metcalfe's approach and that of Skousen's as being like 'the difference between seagulls hovering over garbage thrown overboard and seagulls that know how to fish.' Speaking in condescending and disparaging terms of Metcalfe, Maxwell said, 'We pat him on the head and say, "Little boy, you haven't even scratched the surface."'
"Despite his acerbic personal attacks, Maxwell nonetheless said that 'we shouldn't proclaim we've won the game with every piece of positive evidence. We should avoid being tossed to and for by every doctrine.'
http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... , Part 18
_____
JUVENILES AT FARMS TAKE POTTY-MOUTH POT SHOTS AT METCALFE
Benson, in a RfM post made in January of this year, also wrote of FARMS equally vicious attacks on Metcalfe:
"FARMS apologists, reviewers and 'researchers' are infamous for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.
"Case in point: FARMS premiere offensive lineman (and we do mean 'offensive') William Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon--pompously declared:
"'[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . .facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine.'
"Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.
"Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.
"John Weldon, writing for the 'Apologetics Index,' points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of 'Metcalfe Is Butthead,' which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:
"'FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.
"'Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'
"'This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly.'
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoin...
_____
"Just what, exactly, was this 'fiasco' and how was Hamblin involved in it?
"An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.
"Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a Sunstone symposium entitled 'Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books,' detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:
"'Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology."
"'The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.
"'However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.
"'In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, "Metcalfe is Butthead" was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.
"'It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of "why" springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?
"'Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.
"'Why?
"'That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?'"
http://www.signaturebooks.com/sigstor...
_____
"As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.
"You're quite likely to get some unwelcome material on the bottom of your boots."
*****
CONCLUSION
Excommunicated Mormon Brent Metcalfe is a solid, seasoned amd substantial critic of the LDS Church who lost both his LDS Church job and eventually his LDS Church membership because he was personally honest and open enough to do probing, persistent and public research that exposed the lies of the LDS cult.
That Metcalfe may not express views that are in line with what some other ex-Mormons think is appropriately "ex-Mo" is simply an example of what Metcalfe does best: namely, challenging people to think outside the box.
| I was running from one meeting to the next today - that is, for some strange reason a creative time for me. I will review essays in my mind, think through projects, and often plan my latest artistic endeavor - though I rarely do art any more.
Today I was thinking about my sister (I have five - you figure out which one). She only reads Mormon approved books and regularly attends BYU Education week and the local conferences sponsored by the church.
When she tells me what she has learned at those I just cringe. Once she listened to a woman talk about porn and how addictive it is. She told stories of boys as young as 8 and 9 seeing a cover of a magazine like Cosmo and becoming addicted for life. Their addiction prevented them from successful relationships, destroyed their testimonies, and sometimes led to dire consequences like becoming a rapist, gay, or a child molester.
My sister, emphatically encouraged all of the sisters to go to the stores in our neighborhoods and have them put up covers on all questionable magazines.
Apparently, that speaker was motivational. Today I went to the grocery store and that is my opportunity to catch up on my reading. As I wait in line I read the covers of all the magazines. It is fun and perplexing because sometimes on the same day I learn that Brad and Jolie are breaking up and getting married. I come home confused and wait anxiously for my next trip in the hopes I will be fully informed.
Today I did no reading. Every single magazine had a cover on it. In the past I have reach behind the cover and put the magazine in front of it. (I am a rebel at heart). But today I was actually discouraged. Some crazy woman tells other crazy women some unsubstantiated information about porn and scares them to death and in an effort to save their poor helpless boys from masturbation and enjoying a woman's body - (now go exponential here) and I go to a store where literally every single magazine had a cover on it.
I wondered what that did for their magazine sales. Oh well, fundamentalism wins again. Thanks to my sister and others like her I am saved against my will.
I thought for a self-righteous arrogant moment that my sister is not very bright and then it occurred to me what has happened to her is not too unlike the ancient Chinese practice of feet binding. Mothers would start to bind their daughter's feet - sometimes at four. This would essentially cripple the girl and make her extremely dependent on others.
My sister had her brain bound. Her culture makes reading things outside of the approved list dangerous - not just to her, but to her family. She does not read non-mormon literature because she loves her children. She, like the Chinese mother who destroyes her daughter's feet teaches her own children this fear.
She makes decisions based on the leaders who constantly tell her to not trust anything or anyone outside of the approved list.
Last April BTC, me and my children went to St. George on Conference weekend. My sweet, darling, TBM daughter listened to conference. I heard about one sentence of one talk. I think it was Gordo - but I would not bet my life on it. The speaker referred to some of the great philosophers and snidely commented on their limited knowledge and light.
I asked my daughter about that comment later. She said that she thought that philosophy is something that is boring and not worth study. I had just finished a great ethics class where we studied not only some of the greatest philosophers ever, but the process of philosophy and critical thinking. I was not sure if her comment was one of youth or church indoctrination.
I hope it is youth. I resent the zealous, righteous women out there trying make the world a safer place. And besides I did not find out today if Brad is marrying Jolie and that really bugs me.
| Many of the problems with our TBM family and friends that causes the most angst and difficulties in relationships is that they completely reject the fact that we are all entitled to change our mind about Mormonism, and anything else for that matter!
This is particularly true in marriages when one spouse changes their mind and the other thinks it is some kind of horrific deal breaker to their whole marriage. Children don't even count.
Insignificant tiny things like underwear, coffee, non attendance at church, ditching FHE, the BOM, etc, are more important in the TBM's mind. Unbelievable.
I grew up with the old adage: "It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind." I think that helped me understand that I didn't need anyone's permission to change my mind!
One of the first things that motivated me, (when I realized that Joseph Smith Jr,--that lying little bugger who told that huge whopper), was that I was under no obligation to believe him and I could change my mind, and I did, laughing much of the way! I was damn mad at times too! I still get indignant when I hear about the injustices! But eventually, the humor would rise to the top like cream on milk!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found very few people who are faith based believers (in any religion/church) that have any concept of our general human rights that it is acceptable to change our mind!
That seems to be at the core of many of our problems leaving Mormonism. We can leave, but it won't leave us easily and on top of it the Mormons won't leave us alone, even after we die! If that isn't harassment, I don't know what is! Maybe it's something else, but harassment came to mind!
How did you handle changing your mind about Mormonism?
| Top signs that you are a TRUE BELIEVING MORMON.
YOU
Get indignant when you catch someone reading a Playboy magazine, but have no problem with your churchs founder sleeping with every female (and possibly male) that moved.
Oppose gay marriage, but think that polygamous relationships will be allowed during the millenium as the correct insitution of marriage.
Support the US Military killing hundreds of heathens in foreign lands, but feel you are being oppressed if you see someone reading 'No Man Knows My History'
A marriage can be saved if one of the spouses has had an illicit love affair, but god forbid one of the spouses lose their testimony, divorce time.
Believe that science is deceptive, and 'non' scientific, but an 80 year old guy can speak on ANY subject whether spiritual or secular with more authority than any expert on earth.
Drinking Coffee, Tea, Beer, and Smoking are bad for you, but you have no problem downing an entire half of a Little Ceasars Pizza, or drinking a gallon of chocolate milk in one sitting.
You have two sons, one with an MD, Ph.D, and making 200000 a year, who lost his testimony, and the other living in the street, drinking, smoking, and partying, but still believes, and you are more proud of the 2nd son.
believe that victims are partially responsible for the crimes committed against them and need to repent too.
believe that 2 men should teach any class with kids for accountability and safety, but have no problem letting your 12 YO daughter go into a room with a 40 YO man by herself for 30 minutes or so.
Believe that abortion is evil and murderous, but see no problem with the death penalty.
believe in storing enough food and supplies to run a small city for a year is necessary for a possible 3 day emergency.
Believe that the Church doesn't involve itself in Politics, just moral issues, such as gay marriage and Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, which is also a moral/social issue for some reason.
believe that Indians, and Tongans and Somoans are actually Jews
As a woman, you see no problem with a man being allowed to be sealed to multiple women, but you can only be married civilly to a second husband and have to have your divorced husband permission if he is still alive to allow you to do this.
Silently believe that blacks, chinese, hispanics, etc., will actually be caucasions in the afterlife.
Believe that Jesus Christ who was born in the Middle East, most likely to semitic parents, has a passing resemblance to Dolph Lundgren with long hair and a beard.
Believe that Joseph Smith looked like Dolph Lundgren.
Can't understand why all the Prophets in the Book of Mormon are great Political Leaders and War Heros who could compete in the Mr. Universe contest, but the current leaders are all old bald fat guys.
Believe there is a cave filled with a bunch of archeological records in New York at the Hill Cumorah, but never take the time to verify this belief by excavating the hill.
Believe it is alright to excommunicate someone for adultry, while there is nothing wrong with the Church running a brothel in SLC during the 1920s.
Believe reading Anti-Mormon books is more evil than a suicide bomber throwing themselves into a restaurant killing 50 people or more.
| There's a disconcerting sterility to Mormonism that I didn't notice when I was a member, but which is striking to me now, and the worst part of it is the sameness of everything. Members seem a little like clones, there's very little physical difference in most of the buildings and their interiors are bland and lifeless. The LDS seem make no attempt to adapt to the cultures of their members or conform their buildings at all to their surroundings.
On my recent trip to Santa Fe, New Mexico, literally translated as "Holy Faith", I saw dozens of beautiful churches, both Catholic and Protestant. They were all different, yet reflected the culture and landscape of Santa Fe. Built in a beautifully simple Pueblo style, they seemed vibrant and full of life just like the mostly ethnic congregations they housed. On Sunday morning, as we strolled along the painted sidewalks of that artsy city, we saw inside some of the old churches. The parishioners wore the brightly woven ponchos, large silver and turquoise jewelry and fringed jackets that anyone would expect to see in the Southwest. The congregation was a lively mix of people.
Saturday night, my husband and I saw large groups of Santa Fe youth bedecked in traditional Native American and Spanish dress walking to a local Catholic church for a dance. They looked so lively and fun we wished we could join them!
In contrast, while driving though one of the nicer suburban neighborhoods, we spied a large, bland, box-like building which I immediately recognized as the local LDS church. The brethren had obviously made only minimal attempts to match the surrounding architecture or terrain. A lifeless, soulless building plopped sloppily amid the more expensive homes of the upper middle class, the Mormon church's preferred congregants. The parking lot was gated and locked, and in my mind I could envision the white shirted, white bread Priesthood holders leading their homogeneous families dutifully through the industrial looking doors on Sunday morning.
It's not just the case in Santa Fe, New Mexico - it's just the way things are all over the world. Mormonism is about sameness. There's no tolerance for diversity or cultural expression. Conformity is the mark of a faithful Latter-Day Saint; abandoning any ethnic or cultural dress, attitudes or activities that aren't traditionally Mormon or white and delightsome is an expected part of belonging to God's One True Church.
There is a cultural vacuum in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a hospital-like sterility that makes me more and more grateful every day that I no longer have to live in that environment and conform my self to the blandness of Mormonism.
| One of the difficulties in leaving the lds church (and with talking to those still in) is the use of emotionally charged words. The lds church is masterful at using emotionally charged words in its recruitment and retention efforts.
Example One: "Family"...or "forever family". Always a 'seller'..I mean who wouldn't buy into an institution that is FOR families..right? And if you're not FOR families, then you MUST be AGAINST them....
Example Two: "Truth". To me "truth" is something that you can prove...like with an experiment. "Theories" on the other hand are statements, suppositions, hypotheses, and just flat out 'guesses' based on some kind of reasoning that have yet to become "truth" [by being proved]. All religions mix "truths" with "theories" (some more than others). Most of these "theories" can never be proven (at least given the current conditions). Real convenient for those that want you to PROVE their "theories" are NOT true.
Example Three: "Authority"...I mean that means that you know what you are talking about right?...and you're 'large and in charge'...and someone had to give you that, right?
Example Four: "Testimony"...I mean it sounds so official..and judicial..and you MUST have done or seen something spectacular to get one of those...
Example Four: "Prophet"...It sounds so 'old school/testament'--I always pictured Moses for some reason.
Example Five: "Word of Wisdom"..Gotta be official, right? I mean what's the alternative the 'word of idiocracy'?
Others?
It's the attachment people have with these 'words' that makes it so hard to have a logical conversation with an lds member....and testimony meetings, firesides, primary programs, temple ceremonies, etc etc etc are ALL geared to make someone place more and more emotional stock into the 'words'.
Very hard for one to see from inside the organization IMHO. Maybe we should invent a decoder dictionary...or just use other 'words'......just a thought.
| I grew up in the Mormon church in the Pocatello, Idaho area. Pocatello is an old railroad town that was not founded by Mormons but by the Oregon Shortline Railroad. The city has always been Democratic in it's politics and has always had ethnic groups like: Greeks, Blacks, Italians, Chinese and even some Jews. Most my friends growing us were not Mormon and were a mix of the ethnic people mentioned. I served my mission in New York and came to realize Pocatello in a small way was kind of like a small New York because it has some of the same kind of people. I remember eating Greek, Italian, and even Kosher food at friends houses. My best friend was Ukranian and we would make fancy Ukranian easter eggs. I had more of a community upbringing than the Mormon upbringing my wife had.
My dad was on the bishopric and high council. He served in other callings and was a busy guy. Church often seemed wierd and invasive. I never got the hometeaching thing. I never got all the meetings. That being said we did have fun ward activites and the members were nice people. All the bishops I had growing up were good guys and all were well liked.
I was not the best Mormon growing up. My dad was an occassional drinker and I followed him. I later found out my grandfather was too. The family Sunday tradition was to have Sunday diner at the resturaunt owned by Chinese friends of ours. My mom didn't like certain members of the ward she called puritans but the ward and stake leadership basically never told us what to do. My dad was well respected.
The church had it's rules but didn't ride it's members very hard about it. The important thing was you came to church on Sunday. It was more of a social thing and making people feel comfortable than the stressfest it has become now.
I'll never forget the huge awakening of when I entered the MTC as a missionary. The church I grew up in was way different than this overbearing, guit tripping, holier than thou monstrosity I now found myself in as a missionary. What was normal behavior back home was sinful in Provo and I felt like a second class citizen. I had now found myself in the reality of the Mormon hiearchy that the local church in Pocatello filtered out. You have to remember the local leaders ran things more in those days.
Now since the church micro manages the church from Salt Lake City and controls all the finances from there. Every ward has now become the MTC. Bishops are pawns instead of people who really ran wards and were in charge of the bulding. Stake Presidents are the local power brokers and they answer to Salt Lake. Salt Lake meddles in local church affairs as never before. In the old days, the locals had their own money and had more control over things. I liked it better that way. No corporate Church representatives as much either.
I don't know if it was a Pocatello thing or the church in general in the 1970's and early 1980's, but you certainly couldn't go out for Chinese food with non-Mormon friends on Sunday and keep your calling in the bishopric today. It was more social and following the commandments was more up to personal interpretation. My dad never felt we were breaking any commandments because our friends ate dinner in their resturaunt.
My parents served a mission in the church office building. They left that with a very eye opening and dissapointed view of the church. Both complain it's become a big corporation. Both stay in it. Both wish I would return to the church but don't give me too much grief. Both aren't in the best of health now. Why change I guess.
| Although the doctrine of the church contains the raw elements which could be pieced together to form a moral code, and the church gives lip service to the notion of free agency and self determination with members proudly quoting Joseph Smith's, "I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves," Mormons do not know what really differentiates right and wrong. They have lists of behavior, thoughts, dress, food, beverages, etc. that have been identified by the church as right or wrong, but that is not the same as knowing why something is right or wrong.
Growing up TBM, I certainly had lists of things that had been identified for me as being either right or wrong. A turning point came one day, however, when I was sick with the flu and running a fever, and I had to get something at the BYU book store. While searching the aisles, I came across some postcards that had fallen to the floor from a display stand. I reflexively stooped down to put them up. My head swam as I straightened up, and I had to ask myself why I went to the effort to fix something that really did not concern me. I thought it was "good" to pick them up and put them back, but why? As I matured, I continued to seek within the teachings of the church an understanding of the nature of good and evil. I was sadly disappointed. The lack of this basic and necessary (to me) concept was one of several spiritual gaps that led me to question the church, and to my eventual departure.
I started thinking about all of this again today after reading a Washington Post article by Elizabeth Williamson examining Karen Hughes' rules to the diplomatic corps for speaking to the public. The article in part,
"..Here she tries to provide rules for every imaginable case. She presents a thicket of rules, and if all the guidelines are followed, a person won't be able to say much of anything.
"It is also a mixed message: Go out there and communicate freely and vigorously, but be very careful what you say.
"The combination of micromanagement and mixed message will lead to learned helplessness on the part of the recipient. They will feel obliged to do something but unable to decide what. . . .
"The only thing a recipient can do is spout the preexisting words of senior officials. There is no possibility to exercise initiative -- which is another way of saying this is an exercise in micromanagement." '
Feelings of helplessness, guilt, and reliance on authority figures, doesn't this sound like the church? Micromanagement uses fixed rules in place of guiding principles to control and direct. This protects the stability of the organization, but at the cost of growth and development of both the individual and organization.
Next time a member tells you about something being good or bad, probe a little and see if this comes from a personal understanding of principles, or if it is a reaction to a rule based set of values. As long as people operate from sets of rules, they will never be more than what the rules allow. And should rules disappear or be proved wrong, the people who depend upon them are left without an inner sense of direction and purpose.
| | | News From Mormonism's Mount Cyanide: It's Not A Capital Offense Under LDS Law To Abandon The "One And Only True Church" For Another Denomination
Article Archived: Nov 17, 2006, at 06:26 AM
Stored Under Topic: EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Sourcerer |  | |
INTRODUCTION: DOES OR DOES NOT THE MORMON CHURCH EXCOMMUNICATE ITS MEMBERS FOR JOINING OTHER FAITHS?
In a separate thread, "Tired of Wor" claims that the Mormon Church does, in fact, consider it official grounds for excommunication if members of the LDS faith opt out, in order to opt in to other churches:
"Subject: Church is excommunicating people who join other churches"
Date: Nov 16 19:03
Author: Tired of Wor
"I asked a friend of mine about this. He checked with a Bishopric member who looked at the CHI [Church Handbook of Instructions] and found that it indeed does allow for excommunication of those who join other churches.
"Since he has also become Catholic, he is not sure if he is going to resign or wait to see if his local Bishopric acts. His wife and children are all active Mormons even though he converted to Catholicism. I am in the same boat as he is with my family!"
_____
MORMON APOSTLE DALLIN OAKS INSISTS THAT THE LDS CHURCH DOES NOT EXCOMMUNICATE ITS MEMBERS WHO LEAVE TO JOIN OTHER RELIGIONS
In a closed-door, off-the-record conversation with Steve Benson in the Church offices of fellow apostle Neal Maxwell on 24 September 1993, Oaks claimed that the Mormon Church does not regard abandoning the LDS religion in favor of another demonination as grounds, in and of itself, for excommunication.
Oaks's declaration came in response to Benson asking him and Maxwell why Joseph Smith had joined a local Methodist Sunday School in 1828, after being told by God and Jesus Christ in the First Vision not to join any of the churches, given that they were all false:
"Oaks said Joseph Smith's 'state of knowledge was much deeper than mine' (meaning Oaks'). He said that because, after receiving the First Vision, Smith 'could not meet with others of his own faith,' he 'would want to meet with other Christians.'
"Moreover, Oaks described Joseph Smith as a 'friendly' person, one who was 'interested in sampling what others taught.'
"Maxwell added that Smith was 'social' and 'gregarious' and that, at any rate, his joining with the Methodists was 'brief.'
"Oaks noted that just as people were 'moving in out and out of marriage in the Utah period,' so, too, on the New York frontier during the 1830s, an attitude prevailed requiring 'no formal divorce in church membership.'
"Oaks added that, according to the LDS General Handbook of Instructions, 'joining other churches is not, by itself, a sign of apostasy.'"
http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... Part 18
_____
CONCLUSION: LEAVING THE "ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH" FOR A FALSE CHURCH IS APPARENTLY NOT GROUNDS FOR EXCOMMUNICATION FROM LDS RANKS
Thus have spoken apostles of the Lord.
The key, it appears, to jumping LDS ship into another denominational boat without getting the hatchet in the process is to be friendly, sociable and gregarious about it--along with making sure your detour is brief and for sampling purposes only.
When in doubt, just follow the Prophet's example.
Even after coming down through the trees and laying down the law, God and Jesus Christ couldn't keep Joseph Smith from trying to hook up with the Methodists.
*****
(FOOTNOTE ON JOVIAL JOE'S FLIRTING WITH THE METHODISTS AFTER GOD AND JESUS TOLD HIM NOT TO)
For those interested in how the necro-magician/founder of God's "One and Only True Church on the Face of the Earth" ended up playing footsies with the Methodists in his post-First Vision years, the following historical account is provided:
"It is interesting to note that as early as 1828 members of the Methodist Church were forced to make a decision with regard to Joseph Smith. Smith had taken steps to join their church, but they felt his dealings in witchcraft made him unfit to be a member.
"In the book 'Inventing Mormonism' we read:
"'In 1879 Joseph and Hiel Lewis, cousins to Josephs first wife, Emma Hale, stated that Joseph joined the Methodist Episcopal church or class in Harmony, Pennsylvania, in the summer of 1828. There was disagreement about how long Josephs name remained on class rolls. See the articles in the Amboy [Illinois] Journal
It is possible that Joseph attended class with his wife Emma because of the death of their first son on 15 June 1828. That Joseph was a member of the class was not questioned, only the length of time his name remained on the class record.' ('Inventing Mormonism,' Marquardt and Walters, p. 61, n. 49)
"Part of the statement by Joseph and Hiel Lewis reads:
"'He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, in the absence of some of the official members.' ('The Amboy Journal,' April 30, 1879, p.1)
"When Joseph Lewis learned of this act, he felt that Smith was not truly repentant of his magic involvement and felt him to be unfit for membership. Mr. Lewis further details the incident:
"'I with Joshua McKune . . . thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts in it. So on Sunday we went . . . and talked to him some time . . . Told him that his occupation, habits and moral character were at variance with the discipline . . . that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation That he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make request that his name be taken off the class book.' ('The Amboy Journal,' June 11, 1879, pg. 1)
"It is certainly strange that Joseph Smith would try to join the Methodist Church. His attempt to unite with the Methodists, in fact, flies in the face of his claim that he had his First Vision when he was, 'an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age.' In this vision God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ supposedly appeared to him. Those who have read his story will remember that Joseph emphatically stated that the two personages warned him that he should not join any church. Joseph Smiths own statement about the matter reads as follows: 'I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."' ('Pearl of Great Price,' Joseph Smith History 1:19)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no95....
| The subject of being offended comes up all the time in Mormonism. In the past year or so I have read numerous articles in the church mags on this topic and my favorite apostle, David Bednar, gave a talk about being offended in the last general conference. Obviously the problem of members becoming offended is causing some significant chafing and consternation among the Lords anointed.
In Mormon circles, it is automatic to assume that a member who becomes inactive, or who **GASP** resigns, only does so because he/she has been offended by someone at church. Apparently, this is a deeply ingrained part of Mormon beliefs and culture. Even the little pamphlet they send you after resignation states, If any have been offended we are sorry. Our only desire is to cultivate a spirit of mercy and kindness, of understanding and healing. Yeah right..... but thats a topic for another post.
What is so funny about this whole assumption of offended-ness is how completely absent this concept is from other religious belief systems. It has simply never occurred to the Presbyterians that people decide not to go to church anymore because someone offended them. In all my years going to a Presbyterian church I never once heard the topic of being offended come up NEVER once! I also have close ties to the Catholic Church and I never heard a Priest give a sermon about the problem with Catholics getting their feelings hurt and turning away from their church because of it. The subject of members being offended is simply non-existent in other mainstream religions.
** Question for Mormon leadership** Dont you guys find it odd that so many of your members are getting offended so seriously offended that it causes them to stop attending church or to completely RESIGN from their religious community? Doesnt this phenomenon seem especially strange when you consider that members of other belief systems go happily along without being offended??
Another really bizarre thing about all of this offended-ness is how the Mormon leadership responds to it. If Episcopalians suddenly starting leaving the Episcopal Church in droves because they were getting offended, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Episcopal Priests and their faith communities would be concerned. Resolving this problem would go something like this
1 - Goodness me! We have had numerous families leave our church because they are being offended by other members of our congregation and sometimes by people in leadership. This is a terrible shame!
2 - We need to find out what these people are being offended about and who the main offenders are!
3 - We need to have some serious conversations with our congregation and our leadership about Christ-like behavior and how to treat others with respect, dignity, tolerance, acceptance, and common courtesy. What ever is happening to offend our brothers and sisters needs to stop immediately!
But not the Mormons OH, NO!!! Their response to the problem of member offended-ness goes like this
1 - Oh great heck! We have had numerous families leave our church because they are being offended by other members of our congregation and sometimes by people in leadership. This is a terrible shame!
2 - It is OBVIOUS that these members who are being offended have attitude problems. They are silly, thin-skinned, self-absorbed, and prideful. They need to be more humble!
3 We need to have some serious conversations with our members about learning to put up with abuse, insults, belittlement, humiliation, and disrespect in the proper manner by sucking it up and enduring to the end like good Mormons! This being offended nonsense has got to stop immediately!
It just seems to me that if members are routinely getting offended and leaving, then MAYBE, just MAYBE, the Mormon Church should take a look at WHY people are being offended and then do something about that. Instead, they just keep beating up the victim which is completely dysfunctional!
Hmmmm.....the whole thing says an awful lot about Mormon culture and values to me none of which is positive.
| |
