I think that Kevin Barney was sincerely interested in finding answers when he first posed the question. The trouble is that when you ask a question on the Internet, there’s a danger that you’ll get responses from people who have actual, first-hand experience. Then the double-trouble is that it’s hard to answer that question in a reasonable way without, y’know, pointing out things that might possibly be wrong with the CoJCoL-dS. Which, in Mormonland, is not kosher. Those are the kinds of truths that aren’t useful — unless you want to actually address and solve the problems. But that would require acknowledging that the CoJCoL-dS may not be already perfect exactly the way it is. Just imagining such a thing makes some believers respond with la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-anymore-because-I’m-bearing-my-testimony-at-you-now (which Chino argues may be the root of the problem).
But, to be fair, the responses that Andrew calls “cringe-worthy” (about how obviously bad and wrong the church is) don’t really answer the question either. We’ve hardly scratched the surface of the main mysteries:
- Why now? Why was the LDS church growing a few decades ago and now heading into decline? (If it’s not true now, it’s not as though it was more true thirty years ago…)
- Why is religion in general losing ground throughout the industrialized world? Are Mormonism’s problems just a part of that trend, or is there something more going on in Zion?
- Why is it that the more liberal/laid-back religions seem to be losing ground faster than the more extreme/all-consuming religions? (Is that actually the case, and is Mormonism a counter-example?)
Now, I have my own theory about this, but please formulate your own theory before reading it.
Ready?
OK, remember how they used to teach us in Sunday School that nobody knows when the exact time of the Second coming will be, not even Heavenly Father? Well, naturally that causes some coordination and planning problems. HF had saved up a whole bunch of choice, valiant spirits for the last days — but He used them all up a generation ago, and now in the latter-latter days, He’s left scraping the bottom of the spirit barrel. Meanwhile, Jesus is still in the bathroom doing his hair for His return in clouds of glory.
But, seriously, any ideas?
CHanson? Are you saying they were lying when they said that our generation and the one following were the very elect?!? Well, and then you have my partriarchal blessing talking about my leadership in the Church, and yet here I sit… Disillusioned, fairly certain there isn’t even a God, and regularly reading and agreeing with the posts on Main Street Plaza.
I have a couple of theories, and I heard a new one yesterday.
I think the internet has a lot to do with it. Access to controversial information is now a great deal easier, and I think once you find that information, you also find groups of people who have the same questions. I think a lot of the Church doubts, but is so terrified that someone will find out they doubt, or that something is wrong with them that they remain silent. The internet provides an outlet to those questions, and lets people know they are not alone.
I think together with the internet, the Church is having to answer questions, and proactively try and squash the questions before they become issues. Our Stake President raised the question of Joseph asking other men if he could marry their wives last year. He spun the answer in favor of the Church, but I think it was a subtle way of preparing the membership for when they hear about polyandry.
A number of ex-mo’s I’ve met have come from the apologetic world as well. I think they start digging to find the answers to questions, and find out that the critics of the Church are actually right.
The theory I heard yesterday, is that as more people leave, the social stigma of leaving is leaving as well. It’s OK to leave now, because your brother has already left, or you have friends who’ve left. I saw a link to an article somewhere yesterday that claimed a study found that 70% of Mormon college graduates leave the Church when they leave college. I’ll have to try and find it again and post it here.
My theory, for what it’s worth, is multifactoral:
1) Information: The message used to be very controlled. Anything against the image presented by the Church was essentially in “anti-Mormon” books, which few people sought out, and were sometimes hard to find outside “Mormon” areas. Now, “non-correlated” information is readily available on the internet. Someone, member or investigator, looking into Mormonism can now see it, warts and all.
2) Deference to authority: In the past, people used to accept something just because someone in an authority position said it. With a change in society (ie. government scandals, the ability of anyone to publish anything on the internet under anyone’s name, etc.), ideas have to stand on their own merit. When someone says, “two sets of earrings are bad”, why? It’s not enough anymore WHO said it, but why?
3) Fallibility: While we claim that our prophets are “just men”, in the past they were treated with infallibility. Something was accepted just because a prophet said it, without question, much like was reiterated in the 14 points. Now, with easily found examples of prophets being wrong, it makes people question what they say more.
4) Lost focus: When someone thinks of an Evangelical, they think of Christ. When someone thinks of Mormonism, they don’t think of our “core” beliefs, but all of the unnecessary social add-ons that are NOT eternal principles.
– They think of people in white shirts and ties (Christ wore robes. And before anyone says he was just following the customs of his time, how many 19 y.o. in our time wear white shirts and ties?).
– They think of short hair and shaven faces (Christ had long hair and a beard. Our early Church leaders had cool facial hair)
– Earrings, tattoos, etc. (What do these have to do with anything eternal)
– Prohibition on wine, etc. (Christ drank and made wine. JS drank wine. They drank wine in the temples until the 1900’s)
-Etc.
Many of the things that define “Mormonism” are NOT core things; they are NOT eternal practices; they are societal things that have been conflated with the gospel. Yet these are what people think about when they think “Mormon”
Young people have always been leaving the Church. But it seems to have been accelerating during the last 25 years.
I also tend to believe that we are now losing not only the social outcasts but many of the people who used to care about the Church the most.
The most important reason is correlation because it cannot satisfy human needs. Correlation assumes that the people at the top know everything and that the people at the bottom do not have brains.
Both assumptions are inhumane and therefore lead to frustrations. The people on the top abuse their power. The people on the bottom see problems but are not allowed to address them.
Way to insult the entirety of Generation Y in a tongue-in-cheek manner, LOL.
As I wrote on my blog, I do not think declines or jumps in religiosity have anything to do with the facticity of religion, because religion never worked like that. (as you note, it’s not like the church was any truer 30 years ago.) So that’s why I think pointing out how many inaccuracies there are in the church, or how many deceptions there are in the church, or whatever else, is automatically a fringe (and a cringeworthy) kind of complaint. These are nearly irrelevant variables, because no matter what a member knows, there is no smoking gun that will lead to people leaving just because they know a fact.
I think the issue is more: are people being satisfied? Are people being stimulated?
I think that certain events in the world cause people to seek stimulation within church…but these events don’t last forever and religions also are not robust in changing with tastes.
I guess what is more intriguing about people like Ardis’s testimony is not that it fails to address the question…but rather, that 1) she probably couldn’t find a way to generalize this experience to others, and 2) she probably can’t attribute her spiritual experiences directly to the church.
I bet that if someone asked her how more people could have experiences like she did, she’d either not be able to give an answer that could apply to others (how do you invoke a spiritual experience???) OR she’d give an answer that would emphasize what the member does or what the family does (if a member is more diligent in doing x…or if the family were more diligent in doing y, then they’d have a testimony to guard against facts!) Notice how in either of these cases, the church is not responsible. In fact, even when the church is “negligent” (crappy mission experience), the church is not responsible, because the member is responsible for having a buffer of spiritual testimony that indemnifies the church of any wrongdoing.
If we had data, we might find that a greater number of Mormons gets graduate degrees. That undermines Mormon control mechanisms in two ways.
First, people acquire critical thinking skills. Second, away from home, there is more freedom and less control from family and Mormon society.
The Church is perfect, but the people aren’t. If people are leaving, it is because of their own flaws or because of the flaws of other members. The gospel itself is rock-solid.
Jesus Christ said “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” (John 15:14) and “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48).
There are many who fall short of that, after all this life is a test.
Nice one Bob!
So… Are the Church and the Gospel the same thing then?
And would you be so kind as to define exactly what that entity or doctrine is or pertains to.
You see, I’m one of the imperfect who left – and the only members who really influenced that decision have been men called as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.
Excellent ideas, all! I have some additional ideas I’m working on formulating, but I’d like to ask Bob B. two quick questions:
(1) If it’s because of the flaws in the people, then why is the disaffection increasing lately? Are you agreeing with my theory that the elect spirits have run out?
(2) There’s a large tradition within Mormon thought that “the church” and “the gospel” are two different things. Do you think it’s possible for the COB policies to be running the church organization badly even if the “gospel” is still true?
p.s. I posted as fast as I could because I knew someone (like Koda perhaps) might beat me to the same question. 😉
Bob, you really need to read Matthew 5 more carefully. Here is the context:
What Jesus actually said is that our love is supposed to become perfect by extending even to our enemies. He did not say that we are supposed to be perfect in every aspect of our lives.
Bob: I think you inadvertently answered the question – the people in the Church are NOT perfect people. There are many examples of prophets and apostles being wrong, about little things and about major things. The Gospel may be unchanging and eternal, but the Church is just an organization. It would be interesting to see how many people still retain a belief in the Gospel – ie. God, Christ, Eternal Life, moral principles, etc. yet reject the LDS organization for bringing people to the Gospel.
AndrewS: So thats why I think pointing out how many inaccuracies there are in the church, or how many deceptions there are in the church, or whatever else, is automatically a fringe (and a cringeworthy) kind of complaint. I disagree that this is a fringe problem. While the “problems” may have always been there, current society can see them much easier and aren’t as inclined to dismiss them as merely “anti-Mormon” propaganda just because a leader tells them to. I also think that the practical implementation of the gospel is lost.
My theory is that in the uncertainty of the 1970s, the Church claimed to answer people’s questions and in the times before correlation really took hold (by about 1983) it offered a local support and offered real help to those in need and that sort of thing made people feel good. After correlation took hold and everything became micromanaged from Salt Lake, the Church as an organization tried to make everything fit into the same molds. The creation of Mormon Corporate Religion, instead of giving people a place and a feeling of community, made every individual ward into just a franchise of the corporation. As soon as you are no longer known by your name but instead a number, you lose that closeness. Instead of answering some of the questions caused by modern corporate capitalism, the LDS Church became another example of modern corporate capitalism.
Mike S,
I do not think the issue is that 16-25 year olds are searching the internet and finding anti-Mo literature. Maybe I do that. Maybe you do that (although you are not quite in that age bracket anymore). But I am just not convinced that most young people spend their time on the internet that way.
So, when I think of the “average” person who has drifted, I am far more inclined to say he drifted because he was not being engaged, he was being bored out of his mind, rather than he now has a B.S. in Mormon BS.
No, the Church and the gospel are not the same thing. But, the Church is led by inspired men who were called by Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ Himself sits at the head of the Church, and people who are thinking about criticizing it need to consider that. These men are not infallible, but they are inspired and it is not up to you to second-guess them.
You can simply choose to follow them or not follow them, and you are accountable for that choice. Following them when it is convenient for you is not a good choice: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev 3:15-16).
This problem is getting worse lately because of our advances in communication, particularly the internet, have become a useful tool for Lucifer to spread negative thoughts and misinformation. A very old proverb says that “a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on”, and this is especially true in modern times.
Hellmut, Just because I didn’t quote a larger part of Matthew 5 doesn’t automatically mean I took it out of context. The way people treat each other is approximately half of my point.
Personally, I think several of these points are major factors. I agree with Brandon’s point @12 that correlation has in many ways reduced the Mormon experience. This ties in with Andrew’s point that people start questioning when the church experience is not working for them (and becomes more of a weight than a balm). (Mike S.’s point #4 also ties in with both of these).
At that point, Mike S’s point #1 about the Internet and information control absolutely comes into play. It’s too easy to stumble on information that — a generation ago — you wouldn’t have found without actively seeking out “anti-Mormon” works. Young people are very Internet savvy these days, and it only takes a few of them to leave before you hit a critical mass (as Urban Koda mentions) where everybody knows someone who has left, which lowers the barrier to questioning and leaving.
1) The Internet: I left the church because of the facts I found out on the Internet. Those facts had been available in print for several years, but it is hard to find such information unless you really look for it. Once I read other exmos experiences and the books they recommended, it was all over for me.
The LDS growth rate plummeted in 1997 and fell even further the last decade. The Internet started to become ubiquitous around 1996. Coincidence? I remember the LDS Church telling people to stay off the Internet in the late 1990s. Seems they lost that battle.
2) See above. All religions are suffering from overexposure. The printing press lead to the reformation, and the Internet is exposing all religion.
3) Conservative churches are “growing” because open-minded, intellectual people are fleeing all religions. Only the reactionaries are staying. They seem more numerous because they take up a bigger share of a rapidly shrinking boat.
Finally, the LDS Church has really hurt itself over Prop 8. They lost a lot of credibility over their fights against black civil rights and feminism, but the Prop 8 is more personal because there are so many children born into LDS families who happen to be gay. Blacks still are unlikely to be born Mormon and the church has plenty of women, but gays are chased out and vilified. When it’s your brother, aunt, son or best friend, it becomes a lot harder to justify such cruelty by a religious institution.
Bob,
If we’re “bearing testimonies” here, here’s some things that I believe to be almost certainly true.
Heavenly Father is imaginary. So is Lucifer. Jesus Christ was a wacky street preacher who mostly parroted things that Hillel preached 30 years before him, and anyway he’s been dead and gone for almost 2000 years. Joseph Smith was a talented con man, brilliant in some ways but also a creepy sexual predator. The men who lead your church probably sincerely believe in what it teaches, but they’re “inspired” mainly to find ways to hold onto their power over the church’s members. The church’s internet problem isn’t “misinformation” it’s the availability of true information (and the availability of support networks for questioning members).
I think Andrew is probably right about younger people who leave the church. For my three teens, church simply became boring and meaningless. It never seemed to make any difference in any of their peers’ lives. And it certainly made no difference if you tried hard to keep all the commandments or if you did a pretty half-assed job of it. Things like “callings” and “leadership positions” pretty much boiled down to who your parents are. Plus, the occasional racists, sexists, and anti-intellectuals who were put in positions to teach and lead the youth went a long way towards further destroying the church’s credibility.
FYI, young people leaving isn’t just affecting Mormonism:
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/3/349.abstract
It’s affecting most religions in the U.S. and in developed countries around the world. This suggests that it may have nothing to do with Mormonism or the specific characteristics of religions and more to do with broader cultural trends (e.g., globalization, the internet, social connectedness, existential security from social safety nets, etc.). LDS Inc. could become megachurch-like, with bands, peppy music, and all sorts of stuff, but they would still lose members – because pretty much all religions in the US are losing members. Nones are the fastest growing segment of the population and will likely continue to be for the indefinite future. There is no reason to think they won’t be:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/NONES_08.pdf
Ergo, secularization – however you want to think about that – is occurring, and that means people are leaving.
Bob,
You really like quoting those scriptures, don’t you!
Here’s one of my favorites:
Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
I fell away because I was concerned about stuff I saw my leaders doing, both in their ecclesiastical positions, and in the way they handled the sacred tithing funds of the Church. Out of desperation I turned to the scriptures, and to the founders of the Church – Joseph Smith primarily.
I have never strived to be more worthy in my life, nor have I ever prayered as fervently or sincerely. And I did get an answer to my prayers… A soft still voice, echoing through my soul that it was absolutely NOT TRUE!
The problem with Joseph Smith is that even when you study his life from Church sources, it becomes apparent that he was not the innocent young man seeking for truth. He was a treasure seeker, a con man, and a sexual deviant.
Today men who threaten and rape 14 year old girls get to stand trial – Warren Jeffs and Brian Mitchell are two PRIME examples. And yet ‘faithful’ members of the Church worship and revere a man who did the same thing 180 years ago as a great prophet called of god.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
When the City Creek Shopping Center is complete, you will be able to experience the fruits of the Church first hand. Corporatism and Wealth Seeking at it’s finest.
I fear you have fallen victim to one of the many fallacies put out by the Church about those who leave though… I didn’t leave because it wasn’t convenient for me to follow the prophet. I left because after what I had discovered I could not remain an active, recommend holding member and keep my integrity intact.
I chose integrity.
All of us speak from our own personal experiences. And all I can say is that leaving the church was the hardest, bravest thing I have done in my life. And people who think otherwise (that’s you, Bob) clearly know NOTHING about how hard it is to disappoint Mormon family members. I didn’t leave because I was bored, I left because I was miserable. And angry. I was 35. I had been a faithful member all my life. For me gay rights was the pivotal issue. I could not ignore the evidence in front of me that gay people were born that way, and I could not, no matter how hard I tired, come up with a way to justify the actions of the church in that regard.
But I also agree with what someone else said – it’s easier to leave because others have left. A sister and a brother left before I did. And it was talking to my cousins (all six left in support of their gay brother) at a family reunion that gave me the courage to walk out for good.
I agree with many of the comments above (not Bob’s.) The Internet has helped spread the truth about Mormonism, and it has helped to connect fellow doubters. But I would also like to return to chanson’s argument. A couple of years ago I was in a book discussion group with some other exmo’s. Our ages ranged from 19 years old to 92 years old. I mentioned that when I was a teenager that I was told that mine was the most valiant generation. All at once, everyone — from 19 to 92 and all points in between — chimed in, “I was told mine was too!” So yes, I think HF must be nearing panic up there in spirit world, the pickings are getting slim, and Jesus better get out of the bathroom.
Good for your cousins, Blythe. That strikes me as the christ-like thing to do.
I think it’s the emotional connection people have with the “fellowship” or community that ultimately keeps people in. I semi-came out to my Mom as an unbeliever and I was talking about a few historical issues with the Church. After a bit, she went on to exclaim that she has invested too much time, energy, relationships, etc in the Church [to leave] (and other similar sentiment). I think this is also why people are so defensive about the Church.
Once this emotional connection is dissolved (or dissolved enough), then the theological or philosophical connections are easier to break since there is less of an emotional commitment to those. Facts are just easier to believe than superstitions.
Many exmormons do claim that it was because of the facts that they left. But I think that is only a part of the reason – an important part though and perhaps the one that probably comes last (camel-back-breaking-straw).
Back in the mid 1980s, after a miserable mission experience and temple marriage that imploded, I knew the church was not working for me, but I did not know of anyone else in my position. So I just stopped going to church and basically became a jack-Mormon. Later in life the LDS reeled me back in for a few years after some traumatic personal events. Luckily, I’ve since left after doing some research and finding out the facts about the early church.
I think that if I had had access to the internet when I first had serious doubts, it would’ve connected me to the information more easily and a large group of people that felt the same way as I was feeling, and that I would have left for good back in the mid 1980s. Look what kids do nowadays when they have a question about something, they do a Google search on it. After another mind-numbing three-hour block at church, some kid comes home and searches on “Sacrament Meeting Sucks” and a few lines down gets all the information needed to research his/her way out of the church.
Andrew S:
I like this: So, when I think of the average person who has drifted, I am far more inclined to say he drifted because he was not being engaged, he was being bored out of his mind, rather than he now has a B.S. in Mormon BS.
I do think it is interesting the comments about “by their fruits ye shall know them”. In this information age, ideas need to stand or fall on their own merit. It has always been true that a member/investigator needs to “find out if it’s true” for themselves. But now, before joining or remaining a member of any organization or set of beliefs, people are seeing if it makes sense, does the organization practice what it preaches, does it make me a better person or a better member of the world around me. And it needs to “resonate” with someone. We call this confirmation by the spirit; others call it differently.
One issue I have always had, including when I was on my mission, was that if the LDS Church was the “only true Church” and that it was so absolutely essential that everyone accept it at some point, then why didn’t the Spirit confirm this to nearly everyone who encountered it? Why didn’t people recognize and accept the “truth” in droves when we talked to them? When the Church was “growing” fast, there was talk of the stone of Daniel and the New World Religion and so on, as kind of implicit “proof” that this was happening. But it’s not now.
Interestingly, if “by your fruits ye shall know them” is any type of yard stick: Buddhism has grown in the United States approximately 170% in a ten-year period. It is difficult to count the number of “Buddhists”, but most numbers put it in the range of around the number of US LDS members, let alone the “active” members. It is growing fastest among well-educated, younger people. It gives people a basis of morality. It helps people resolve problems in life, and while they may not specifically espouse Buddhism, many therapists use Buddhist techniques. And I would argue that Buddhists, in general, are more concerned about their fellowman, the society around them, and the inequalities of the world than the LDS Church. So what does that mean?
Ah Andrew S., but the international law concept of universal human rights, so intrinsically linked to equality comes from Christianity, not Buddhism. ‘-)
Just kidding. Regarding the main point of this blog, I don’t have a horse in this race but I’m not sure I see evidence that people are leaving at higher rates than before. I remember the church working very hard to stem apostacy/inactivity rates from the time I was a kid. Being Mormon is hard and the doctrine is weird, and people have always left in sizeable numbers. Growing up I think especially teens, college students and new converts were seens as having very high attrition rates.
I know of a couple of areas where church membership has declined, but in general I just see a repeated pattern of maturity where convert baptisms rise at first and then fall to some level that appears to be related to culture/class/etc. generally. In New York City at least, church membership and attendance has grown steadily during the past 20 years, and AFAIK continues to grow.
I think the answers (some of which are obvious) to those questions have generally already been given, so I’m going to repeat a few things that have already been said.
Why now? Access to information. Of course the internet has played a huge role in that. It’s true that 30 years ago someone with the time, patience, and inclination could have turned up references to Smith’s magic rock or the Book of Abraham’s REAL translation. But today it takes maybe twenty minutes, and can be prompted by a moment of boredom while your YouTube video loads. Once upon a time, the Mormon Church kept such information hidden from the casual eye. The internet has made that impossible.
Why is religion in general losing ground throughout the industrialized world? Education. This goes hand-in-hand with ease of information, but covers a much broader range. People know where stars come from, the age of dinosaur bones, and how Natural Selection works. Scientists have known these things for a long time, but now almost EVERYONE knows them. A rational individual alters their conclusions based on the evidence, and in the past generation the evidence has become much more widely known.
Why is it that the more liberal/laid-back religions seem to be losing ground faster than the more extreme/all-consuming religions? To be fair, this is the first I’ve heard of that phenomenon. But for the purposes of this comment, I’m going to treat it as ‘confirmed’ and offer a theory as to why. My GUESS would be that “the more liberal/laid-back religions” traditionally appeal to more open-minded people. By definition, a liberal/laid-back religion is not caught up on dogma, so it’s not going to attract the dogmatic. People who put stock in the evidence are more likely to leave, and those people were in more liberal religions. Those that are AFRAID of that evidence cling to their religion all the harder, and these types of people ARE by nature dogmatic. They want the structure and ‘certainty’ of a religion that allows no room for interpretation. They want to be able to say, “The earth is 6000 years old, because the Bible says so!” So they seek out religions that teach that.
Anyway, my 2 cents. I’m fairly certain about the first two answers…less so about the third. But my theory seems to fit the evidence, and that’s what we look for in a theory:)
Primarily, it’s about access to information, I think. People want to know the truth, and they turn to the web to find it. Secondly, I think the church’s outdated Puritan social agenda is dying. And lastly, 9/11 has caused an extreme resistance to religious extremism (or, dare I say, “cults”), and Mormons are typically classically categorized as a cult (whether that’s true or not, it is what it is).
Folks, I am absolutely thrilled to see such a lively and insightful discussion from the faithful as well as the faithless — let’s keep those ideas coming! 😀
Right, even if the truthfulness/truthiness of the LDS church hasn’t changed — and even if you imagine that the average person needs a huge incentive before doubting it — the reality is that the path to this information is now totally effortless. Even if you’re not on a righteous crusade for truth, it takes two seconds to find people who connect with your [negative] experience in Mormonism. That certainly wasn’t true twenty years ago when I stopped believing.
Jeff’s comment (#26) made me consider something.
I think, if the internet has done anything that has substantially changed the playing field, it is not that it has just provided information…but rather, it has provided alternative networks.
So it’s not just that you can find out about the church’s past…but rather, you can find communities of other people who have the same concern. You need not walk out alone.
markshelbyp,
I don’t think I was the one who brought up universal human rights or Buddhism.
will write more later.
Mark Shelby, I have been wondering as well if we are talking about a phenomenon that has always been there but less visibly.
However, if you look at the available surveys, primarily by CUNY and Pew, then it does appear that attrition rates have increased by about a fifth.
Mind you, survey comparisons are an inaccurate business but it matches the anecdotal experience of many of us as well.
markshelbyp,
…the international law concept of universal human rights, so intrinsically linked to equality comes from Christianity, not Buddhism. -)
From Christianity, not from the Enlightenment? 😉
Since I brought up Buddhism, I’ll use it as an example of the difference between that and the LDS method. Consider sexual misconduct:
In Buddhism: Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.
How this is interpreted is up to the individual, the society in which they live, and their feelings. There is power in forcing an individual to determine what a precept means for them. There is also some room for latitude in this. In an area where social customs allow, someone could actually be in a monogamous homosexual relationship and still be a “good” Buddhist. Most Buddhists are also fairly modest, etc.
Contrast this with the LDS approach, which has the same goal incidently. We believe in being chaste. We believe in respecting sex. We believe in using it for procreation, but also recognize that it can be used to promote a relationship, even when no children are expected from that. But then it devolves into a list of do’s and don’ts that are nigh unto commandments in many areas, and at BYU more absolute:
– Immodesty is bad -> Showing your knees is bad -> Shorts should be knee length -> Shoulders should be covered -> Even in someone without garments, shoulders should still be covered. -> Earrings are bad -> Tattoos are bad
– Immodesty is bad -> Pairing off too soon is bad -> Dating before age 16 is bad -> Group dating is better -> Oops, we meant group dating when younger is better, later group dating is bad -> Get home from a mission and START pairing off -> Get married right away and have kids -> Get a good education so you can support your kids
– Sexual sin is bad -> Masturbation is evil, it gets your little factory going -> If you masturbate you will turn gay -> 99% of boys masturbate -> On a local level no one is ever really disciplined for masturbation -> But it’s still bad
– Modesty is best -> Garments should cover down to your wrists and ankles, anything else is immodest -> Garments can actually be shortened without being immodest and you CAN show your elbows -> Garments should be one piece as that’s how they were designed -> Garments can now be two piece -> Don’t show your shoulders, because that’s immodest -> No camisole tops for women, even though that doesn’t affect the marks, as that’s immodest -> Garments can be green with the markings tattooed on the inside -> But that’s only good for the military, so no, you can’t tattoo marks on the inside of a camisole top
The problem with the LDS way, is that in trying to legislate every little bit of behavior, it turns into a religion of rules and not principles. It turns into a religion of works and not beliefs. And many of these rules are NOT doctrinal, but are GENERATIONAL. A 90-year-old telling a 20-year-old not to get a tattoo for no other reason than he doesn’t like them is hard for many to swallow.
We’ve drifted far from JS day, where he “Taught people correct principles, and let them govern themselves.” And, in my opinion, this is hurting the Church.
The church’s response to the proliferation of “bad information” on the internet reminds me an awful lot of its response to internet porn. As chanson mentioned in #16, it no longer takes any real effort to find “anti” information.
Just like 20 years ago you had to go out and buy a magazine to get porn, 20 years ago, you had to go to the library and check out books to read criticism of the church. Now you’re just a click away from everything from FAIR (which is not critical, of course, but which provides quick access to pretty much every known argument against the church) to Sunstone and Dialog to the Tanners to RfM.
And the church’s response to the information explosion is just as inept as its response to the porn explosion (no pun intended): “Don’t read it!” I don’t think that’s working any better than “Don’t look at porn!” is. It’s an analog response to a digital problem.
Sorry, that last post got too long.
markshelby:
It isn’t necessarily “declining”, but the rate of increase has slowed on a global level. In developed countries, it has declined even further, and is flat in many areas. The number of people “leaving” is hard to determine as the numbers you can get include people dying as well, but it has been increasing.
If you plot trends for the past 30 years or so, and if they continue roughly lineally (2 BIG if’s), the Church membership will stabilize at around 17-19 million in the next 20-30 years at which point people joining/children BIC will equal people leaving/people dying.
The problem with the LDS way, is that in trying to legislate every little bit of behavior, it turns into a religion of rules and not principles.
Have you seen Steve Evans’s joke over at BCC?
LOL! (I’m not going to comment over there because if I laugh at his joke Steve will tell me to “settle down.”)
For many of us who leave it’s not initially because we found out some of the many dark lies that abound in church history, corruption of leaders, changes in doctrine and other things that are so abundantly available on the internet now. Many of us left because we were suffocating while inside the LDS church. The culture and rigidity of the rules thwart creativity and open exploration of so many fields of study or even mild questioning. There are real tangible punishments if someone asks the wrong question in Gospel Doctrine or points out discrepencies that were touted as absolute fact one lesson and denied in the next.
At a recent Exmormon conference a beautiful and talented musician (Mcall Erickson) presented a beautiful song about being pot bound and finally breaking free and finding out that she needed more than the small pot that was sufficient in her childhood but now kept her from growing and blossoming. I think many creative people feel very suppressed and pot bound in the rigid boundaries of the LDS church and culture. I know I did.
When I think about my own kids and their friends I am blown away by how intelligent and quick to catch on they seem to be. They have access to every kind of information and media and if something is boring or poorly crafted they move on and find the kind of information that feeds their creativity and curiosity. Even the most unartistic kid can now make a movie that expresses his or her dreams and ideas if they are creative enough to make good use of the abundance of technology found on the net.
The LDS productions and books are trite, manipulative, and written by people that seem locked in a 1980’s PSA mindset. Kids are bored and find ways to quickly move around and beyond those manipulative boring presentations. So often I find that the kids that sit dutifully in church at the insistance of their parents and leaders are just biding their time till they can get with their friends and away from the pointless busyness of church activity.
My kids became disconnected with the Youth programs fairly early on. Unfortunately that did not stop them from continuing on inside the church and they are still active but I suspect they will someday have to face a very hard reality that a lot of what they were taught in the church doctrine has little applicable relevence in real life.
I also think the contagious effect of leaving and having a great life beyond the Mormon experience is taking a huge burden of fear from those that are now considering leaving. They see that many of us might have struggled initially but eventually find great satisfaction, friends, information and fullfillment when we leave the church behind.
“Why is it that the more liberal/laid-back religions seem to be losing ground faster than the more extreme/all-consuming religions?”
Hmmm, could it be perhaps because the extreme religions block access to information more forcefully than the rest of the population? There’s nothing like keeping people in the dark and away from learning the truth to keep the religion alive.
Jesus people…
Your information-centric conjectures about why liberal denominations lose more people more quickly than conservative ones is amusing, but the thing is…people have already done research. Look up “Why Strict Churches Are Strong” by laurence iannaccone.
It’s not about what people know. It’s about what people DO, and about the cost of doing something else. Strict churches punitively police in this way, wherwas less strict churches aren’t as distinguished from the mainstream.
@Chanson
He used up all his spirits a generation ago…lol
One of the major roles of religion has been social cohesion. I think for much of the Western world does not rely on that as much. I think Mormonism depends on a sociocentric model i.e. strict adherence to authority and traditions. People leave now because they know that they have options, even in Zion if you don’t fit in it is there are enough non-LDS communities an exmo can get into. Since there is no real ban on media people growing up in the church are constantly shown examples of individuals who are not Mormon.
Throw in the Mormon emphasis on gaining knowledge, and our increasing ability to debunk myths with science. You have a great mix for people to doubt the claim of truth.
Yeah, if LDS HQ could’ve kept the YouTube ban in place at BYU, they would’ve, and for very understandable reasons. Here’s one right here:
h/t CJ
P.S. Hit the link at CJ and let me know what you think of our banner ad. 🙂
Part of the reason for my falling away was because I was tired of the fluff that I heard on Sunday and read in the Ensign and I wanted a more intelligent approach to my religion and the gospel. So I looked on the Web for blogs and articles by believing Mormons that were intellectually stimulating. What really surprised me was that the more faithful the viewpoint was, the shallower it rang. Looking for thoughts with real substance led me to the scary unorthodox fringe. Immediately it became apparent that in order to be a believer with any kind of intellectual merit, you had to accept some uncomfortable realities and re-frame your testimony in a less literal and more complex way. Those who did not do this really had nothing to say except to cough up bland, mealy gospel-fluff language, scripture quotes, and unsupported assertions. The complexity required to keep a testimony without shutting off my brain became too much, and before I knew it the simple answer that made sense of everything was staring me in the face.
I remember sitting in sacrament meeting listening to “blah blah blah, blah blah blah”. My mind was wandering of course, like it always did, just to cope with the nothingness. I had been reading and contributing to an online forum full of people who were intelligent and had such a variety of opinions and a high standard of debate. Reading discussions on this forum was very intellectually stimulating to me and opened up my mind to many different perspectives. As I sat in sacrament meeting, I suddenly decided that I was going to start literally paying attention to the speakers and critically examining what they are saying to see whether it had merit, whether it was properly thought out, whether it was inspiring, whether it was internally consistent, whether it had logical fallacies, etc. Almost every talk failed on multiple counts. I examined the articles in the Ensign this way as well, and they also failed. It wasn’t just a case of applying an unfair standard to people in the ward; it was the same way at the highest levels of church leadership. Educated, powerful men were parroting fluffy little email-forward stories and logic that was easy to pick apart.
I was tired of all the agreement in Sunday school. It didn’t matter what kind of off-the-wall comment you made, as long as it was faith-affirming, everybody would agree. The teacher would agree and thank you for the comment. Nothing was allowed to be controversial. Nothing was really up for debate. There were no new perspectives being put forth to be examined, no new thoughts to take home, and certainly no new questions being asked. The divide between the substance in the online discussion versus the lack of substance at church was gigantic. I would have great, thought-provoking discussions about the church with my wife, too, but it seemed that in order to do so I had to ask hard and uncomfortable questions. You simply cannot ask good questions within Mormonism without leaving correlation in the dust. Mormonism is not about asking questions, it is about accepting and protecting the answers.
I think Andrew S is right when he talks about the communities. The Internet provides people with a community that feels the same way they do. People bond with others’ thoughts on the Web, and their doubts are validated. They run into dangerous people like you guys, who don’t believe yet are nice, intelligent, and very fun to read from and talk to. It’s not that the disaffected Mormons on the Web are drawing people to their lair, it’s that the slightly disaffected minority sprinkled out there finally have an easy-to-access community that resonates with them and gives them the validation and acceptance that they need.
Amen. It’s an inhumane environment.
In the United States, Mormonism is definitely declining. According to the Pew survey, we are losing 5 members for every four converts.
In every western European country, Mormonism is declining. Wards are closing in every country and in every region.
Since we have had to dissolve hundreds of wards in Chile and the Philippines and since every census that has been taken in the last twenty years that inquired about religious identification has disproven Mormon membership numbers substantially, it’s a pretty safe bet that our numbers are declining.
Top LDS pollster weighs in (from left to right: Claudia Lauper Bushman, Gary Lawrence [the pollster], Val Edwards, Richard Bushman):
I left the church as soon as I left for college, and I think that some of my experiences are true for other people my age. They certainly agree with what other people have said, but I have some more to add.
1) In addition to correlation making meetings boring and spiritually unsatisfying, the material in the lessons directed at youth is not designed to address issues that we face in our life. It simply tells us that if we sin we will be unhappy, but when there are ample examples around us of people who drink coffee or alcohol and are still happy, these examples seem somewhat shallow. Especially when any time we feel unhappy with the church or the lifestyle we lead, the direction is to pray and read the scriptures.
2) I was very studious, and reading the scriptures critically made me realize several things. First, the interpretation of the scriptures in seminary and sunday school did not reflect the actual content, but was cherrypicking verses ignoring anything that didn’t 100% agree with the curriculum (like the word of wisdom).
3) The extremely socially conservative view I got at church chafed against the liberal view I got from society and school. I knew homosexual people, and they were happy. Much happier than me, and I was doing everything I was supposed to be doing. I attended church in a low income ward with many minorities, and nobody could ever answer why blacks had been denied the priesthood or why women couldn’t have it, or why women were supposed to want to be wives and mothers more than anything else.
I did turn to the internet to find answers to the questions in my third point. When I was 16 I began reading every book I could about mormon history, when I was 17 I had completely stopped believing. I stayed in the church until I left for college because mormonism was such a part of my family that I didn’t know if I would be allowed to stay in the house if I left.
I don’t think that most people my age leave because of the history, I think most of us leave because we want happiness we haven’t found in the church.
Happy homosexuals. Who’da thunk.
Happy Thanksgiving, Andrew.
Love,
Ardis
Yeah, I saw that. I feel pretty bad.
You know, it also could just be that the current generation generally sucks.
Just to keep all options on the table.
Sorry about the rough sailing Andrew – I think corners of the bloggernacle seem to have gotten a lot more ideological, rigid and hostile since I was a regular there a few years back.
I’m only half serious with the first remark. And I don’t really blame it on just one generation. Honestly, I think just about every generation we’ve had since the moral trainwreck of the “baby boomer” generation has been a bit on the selfish side.
…the option that maybe the current generation sucks was already brought up. By chanson pretty early on, no less. One thing I’d emphasize is that generations don’t grow up in a vacuum…they are, after all, raised by previous generations.
I actually deserved what was coming to me. I just feel like it’s not “corners” of the blogernacle that have become more hostile…it is the very core. The central personalities.
But I can’t really blame them completely, either…
I have a few ideas about why people leave the Mormon Church: They believe it is false, they find out that the Church lies regularly about its doctrine and its past, and they learn from hard experience that the Mormon Church is about money, far right wing politics, and has almost nothing to do with any teaching of Christ. How could an organization that claims to be the sole representative of Christ commit a crime like Mountain Meadows, lie about it for decades, hide the perpetrators from justice and never, never never issue a full apology’? Add to that, not a shred of historical evidence to back up the BOM–JS lying about his marriages to other women to Emma, marrying women married to other men—it is just too much. Icing on the cake: most Mormons are smug, self righteous, arrogant and totally dismissive of everyone not in ‘the Church’. Like my family, for instance. With a few exceptions, it it hard to imagine anyone more hateful and self righteous.
Love this post! You phrase things in a way that cracks me up.
Also, you did a very good job of focusing the discussion. Yep, it had gotten off track. Obviously, the fact that the church has significant internal problems (to say the least) is relevant to this question, but you are absolutely right that it’s not the question. People have gotten off topic from the question of “Why now?” and instead are getting tangled up in whether or not people *should* leave the church, aka, whether or not the church is “true”. But that’s not the question.
Let me take a crack at answering, though. I think the answer is pretty obvious. There’s two things different about this generation compared to past generations.
1) the internet
2) the wider american culture
And I think the first is the most significant. Apostates from previous generations had to be extremely studious at reading between the lines in church materials made available by the official COJCOLDS, and considering how immensely boring most church material is, very few people had the studious nature to really dig that deep. The church could do a much more effective job of covering up and sweeping under the rug, all the glaring inconsistencies and embarrassing anachronisms from Mormon history, by just not talking about them. And they could realistically expect that the membership would never otherwise find out, especially once you sprinkle in a little “spiritual pornography” rhetoric to keep them from looking at the occasional exmo pamphlet passed out on the sidewalk outside temple dedications.
But now that we live in the information age, where any question you have is readily answered at the click of a button online, it’s impossible to keep anything under wraps. The tidal wave of information is overwhelming, and there’s nothing that the church can do to suppress contradictory information. Not in the age of Google.
Related, though, is where the culture is at overall. It used to be that religion held a very privileged place in society, and everyone was expected to be affiliated with some sort of Christian denomination, or else risk deep suspicions about their character. And this is still true to some degree, but we’re rapidly moving in a more liberal direction.
It’s not just the mormon church, but religions overall are hemorrhaging members left and right. The culture is becoming much more secular. This is a generation poised to legalize Gay marriage, to approve medical marijuana if not outright legalize it soon, to strengthen pro-choice women’s health issues, etc etc. Whereas christianity used to be the most enshrined cultural value, now tolerance has become the most widely recognized virtue.
And it bleeds over. The mormon church doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and the disparity between Mormon positions and the culture by and large is becoming too great to be ignored. Young mormons have choices, and the more tolerant, accepting, compassionate, secular world is much more appealing and feels right in a way which the rigid and constrictive arbitrary limitations of Mormonism don’t.
But out of the two, internet vs culture, I think the internet is the biggest factor. When your church has been disproven, and those facts are so widely available to everyone, you just can’t hold it together any more.
I challenge the premise of the question. The Church is continuing to grow. We just topped 14 million. We are continuing to build temples all over the world. There are 10 temples under construction and 13 announced. When I joined the Church in 1978, there were approximately 6 million members and 15 temples in the whole world. Today there are 134 operating temples. So, in my lifetime, that’s a net gain of 8 million members.
I’ve encountered apostate former members who are in the “misery loves company” state-of-mind. They want to think that the Church can’t do without them and that their leaving had some negative impact. The negative impact may be felt by the immediate family members and those on the other side of the veil who mourn for the loss of one of their precious ones. But the Church rolls on.
It is an immature notion that the Church is simply about getting everyone baptized. The mission of the Church is to invite all to come unto Christ. Some will accept the invitation; some won’t. Some will accept and then back out of the invitation. The mission is to find all those who, in the premortal life, made sacred covenants with God to the effect that he would bring them the gospel and give them the opportunity for exaltation. We know that there will be people who will reject. It’s all about getting the message into the ears of every person. What they do with it after we’ve accomplished that mission is between them and their Maker.
We also know by prophecy that there will come a moment when the “times of the Gentiles” will be fulfilled. At that point, the Gentile nations to whom the gospel has been directed (that the first might be last and the last be first according to the commandment of God) will reject the gospel. We will have gathered out all the elect from among them. The focus of the Church will shift to taking the gospel to the children of Jacob. The prophets will know when that time has arrived. I suspect that it might be very near. We also know there will be a period, as prophesied by Daniel, when a secular government will “wear down the saints” and exercise authority over them for a brief period. That time may also be near.
We are rapidly nearing the time when the gospel will have been preached in every nation. The gospel has already been taught in the early part of this dispensation to nations that are now closed to us. There are congregations of saints worshiping in China presently, because the Church has fostered good relations with the Chinese authorities and because we do not have a history of being seditious. The gospel is blossoming throughout Africa.
I think the premise of the question is biased and doesn’t reflect the reality that the kingdom of God is expanding and growing in power and influence.
I know by the Holy Ghost that the Church is “connected to the home office” in heaven,that God directs it through living prophets, and that the prophetic utterances of ancient and modern prophets will all be fulfilled.
janelle, good point – the question of “is the Church true?” keeps tangling up the issues.
I think active Mormons would be a lot more willing to field criticisms of the LDS system and honestly look at solutions if they weren’t always paranoid that every flaw threatens the “TRUTH” of the LDS Church in an absolute sense. It seems that every time someone points out a problem that everyone suddenly goes into seizures about whether the “Church is true” – and the defensiveness, denial, and coping mechanisms immediately get rolled out.
The Mormon underground, DAMU, and exmormon (and of course – anti-Mormon) communities feed into this and enable this kind of knee-jerk defensive reaction through attempts to exploit every weakness in attempts to discredit the entire movement. Suddenly even a local Relief Society President throwing a bad Saturday activity becomes “proof” that the whole operation is a fraud.
It’s a vicious cycle where both sides are raising the stakes so high that faults and flaws simply cannot be admitted or even considered.
Both sides frankly need to get it into their heads that flaws in one area (even serious ones) do NOT necessarily indicate that the founding core raison d’etre of Mormonism has been overthrown.
Good to meet you, Spamlds. If you collect the membership data from the general conference reports, you will find that they do not add up.
Try it. Pluck the numbers into a spreadsheet. You cannot reconcile them.
Among demographers that’s a well known fact.
By every objective indication, from polling data to national censuses, it is well established that Mormon membership numbers are a lot lower than the Church reports.
Elder Bateman has reported that the membership numbers that you are quoting include among other things individuals without addresses. In this case, they remain in the membership database until they are 110 years old.
There are no 14 million Mormons. Study the research. That number is an illusion to make us feel better about ourselves. It’s not real.
Is there a good analysis of the claims made by the Church regarding membership? Anybody know? Yeah 14 million divided by 30,000 wards comes out to about 466 members per ward. Every single ward I have ever been in has never topped even 150 active members. 14 million members yes. But definitely not active.
I Believe that it’s all buried in the comments to another post, but some groups took data about the number of men who ever reach melchizedek priesthood in the church as a proxy for activity rates…they found that a great part of the church would be considered inactive by this measure (I wish I could remember what the link was…)
And of course, that estimation has problems. It doesn’t account that women may become inactive at different rates than men, or that someone may become inactive after getting the Melchizedek priesthood or that many people stay in for family reasons (and therefore are “active”,) but do not believe.
I imagine you could make similar critiques of how sociologists do head counts for “Muslims” or “Catholics” or “Buddhists” as well. Plenty of people get counted who arguably shouldn’t be.
I don’t really care honestly, and you’ll note that the leadership isn’t really touting numbers as an emphasis these days either. So it seems like a non-issue.
When the leadership just “doesn’t tout (x) as an emphasis these days anymore,” that still doesn’t get anyone off the hook. Because in their silent de-emphasis, they aren’t rejecting or renouncing what was said previously…they just scuttle it under the rug by not mentioning it any more.
And you know what happens next? I understand that the Seth R’s don’t care about membership numbers, BUT the Greg W’s of spamlds (and many other members) will still tout faith-promoting rumors and myths because they DO believe the numbers are important. And because there is no official refutation, we can’t say, “Did you get the memo?” Because there is no memo. They are completely free to believe in old data that isn’t emphasized by leadership anymore.
So yes, there is still an issue.
They don’t need to officially refute it.
Because it was stupid and trivial to begin with.
I can think of half a dozen better things for the brethren to spend their time on. No apology needed. No refutation needed. You get jack squat.
And that’s just peachy.
Now, if you want to call for apologies – try doing it on something that actually matters – like past LDS racism or something.
It just doesn’t make sense for people who think their lives will be happier outside the Church to continually keep watching it in the rear view mirror. It doesn’t make any sense for them to turn around and keep throwing rhetorical stones at it.
It shouldn’t make any difference to them what becomes of Mormonism and those who choose to adhere to its precepts. But somehow, it just bothers them. Every new temple that is announced makes them wince. Every time there’s a hurricane or an earthquake that the Church sends humanitarian aid to, they grumble about the Church not being “transparent” with its finances. There’s always a disquiet that grinds away in their guts.
Kabir, a Sufi poet, wrote the following verses 600 years ago. Somehow, they seem appropriate here:
We sense that there is some sort of spirit
That loves birds and animals and the ants;
Perhaps the same one who gave a radiance to you
In your mother’s womb.
Is it logical you would be walking around
Entirely orphaned now?
The truth is you turned away yourself,
And decided to go into the dark alone.
Now you are tangled up in others,
And have forgotten what you once knew.
And that’s why everything you do
Has some strange failure in it.
@Spamlds
I have to agree with your point that “it” doesn’t make sense. A lot of things humans do, “don’t make sense.” Then again, what makes sense and what doesn’t all depends on the perspective you take.
spamleds wrote: “It just doesnt make sense for people who think their lives will be happier outside the Church to continually keep watching it in the rear view mirror.”
It certainly does if they’re being followed. In my experience, mormons like to parrot the line that ex-mormons “left the church, but can’t leave it alone.” The TRUTH, however, is that the mormon church doesn’t leave US alone.
Don’t believe me? You came to an ex-mormon’s blog and told him that he was wrong. You showed up and ‘bore your testimony’ about how you KNOW something without any form of supportable evidence for it. And you know what? That’s disturbingly common.
When I left the mormon church, I decided that I wasn’t going to be ‘one of the “angry” ones.’ I was going to simply go on my way, and out of respect for my family and other people’s beliefs I was going to keep my criticisms quiet and constructive. So I shrugged off the annoying little remarks about my exit; I refused to rise to the bait that was repeatedly thrown out in front of me by my family members, and I kept my criticism of the mormon church mostly private.
That lasted a whole year before I had somebody hunt me down online in a blatant and flagrant attempt to reconvert me. I was ‘called to repentance’ on my blog for saying that I didn’t believe in mormonism. I was accused of being lazy, prideful, offended, ashamed, addicted, and several other common ‘excuses’ that mormons use to dismiss the legitimate criticisms of those who have left. When my own personal missionary made himself look like an idiot and gave up, he called in a professional from SLC to pick up the argument in his place. That’s right, I had a professional mormon apologist show up on my blog trying to argue the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
So the reality of the matter is that “live and let live” often doesn’t work. It DOES make sense to keep checking your rearview mirror when there’s a black SUV with Utah plates that’s been following you for miles.
But aside from that, the mormon church seems to actively SEEK this kind of attention. They poured milllions of dollars into California to pass homophobic legislation. Their top leaders make bigoted and GROSSLY inaccurate statements from the pulpit; statements of the kind that have helped fuel the continuing tragedy of suicides among gay teenagers. And then there’s the arrogance and indecribable disrespect involved in their goal to posthumously baptize EVERYONE in history into their faith, with or without consent, and with absolutely no regard for that individual’s wishes.
So it makes PERFECT to watch the morg in my rearview window, because if the organization had its way they would commit acts that directly affect me. The only thing that DOESN’T make sense is how you could express belief that someone is still paying attention to the mormon church when your very PRESENCE on this blog clearly demonstrates that there’s no such thing as a clean escape.
Seth,
I can think of half a dozen things for the brethren to spend their time on as well. I know nothing is going to be done here. But I’m so glad you recognize that this isn’t even about the numbers. This is just one example that mirrors the way the church operates in other areas (e.g, racism). And that’s why it’s a big deal. It’s not the numbers; it’s the fact that this is the same way the church reacts with everything.
spamlds/Greg,
It just doesn’t make sense for a church to try to legislate what is acceptable for people who are NOT members of it do with their lives (as the church has done through political involvement with Prop 8, the ERA, etc.,). It just doesn’t make sense that the church creates an environment where many families think it ok to make a condition of good terms that one of its members be a member of the church. It just doesn’t make sense tha the church creates an environment where, when this kind of shunning doesn’t take place, it’s only because instead, the person’s family or friends within the church believe they can cow them back into the church.
It doesn’t make sense that someone who has realized a truth — and more — sit by idly while he watches others being misinformed or deceived. It doesn’t make sense that someone who has found a sense of freedom and joy sit idly by as some organization or person or people aim to take away that freedom, bring him back down into bondage and misery, or take others down the path of misery.
I can guess what you might say. You don’t see it that way. You see it as caring. You see it as sharing something that could bring happiness and joy. But then, if you’re not myopic, then the other side shouldn’t be a mystery either.
The caring person speaks out. The caring person will speak his truth.
I’m sure you sincerely believe you do the same, even though your methods of harrassment are despicable.
Personally, I don’t wince and grumble at the Church — I did that in my early 20s. Now I’m all grown up and take pride in calling myself a “cultural Mormon.” I’m happy to push on boundaries where “Mormon” meets “rest of the world” and “rest of the world” meets “Mormon.” In some ways I find the Church to be broken, but perhaps in many more ways, I find the rest of the world to be broken, too. I’m comfortable where I’m at; I believe the Church appreciates and welcomes its watchers — whether they’re ex-Mormons or never-Mormons — so long as they are respectful. I don’t think the Church is actually interested in bringing everyone into its fold at this moment, as that would create a correlative crisis. So there’s a creative tension the faith has with its surrounding culture, which is kinda neat to watch and talk about. Other times it’s disconcerting. Depends on the day.
I don’t think this conversation (about why people or young people leave) is possible. No matter what anyone says who has left the church, it doesn’t matter (for the most part). They (we) were either weak or deceived by Satan.
Of course not all LDS believe that – but most of these discussions devolve into that. So in the end, it goes back to your post (chanson) about how if there is no solution, there is no problem. I’m happy to read the discussion, of course, and not all conversations have to be productive. I just don’t think we could come up with any reasonable, well argued, factual opinions or arguments that could be remotely accepted.
There is no legitimate reason to leave the LDS church, from the mindset of some.
As far as young people leaving, I can’t say. As I mentioned in the last post, we don’t have any data. I think if there was data, it might make a difference in this discussion. We could actually say what percentage of people left, at what age, and for what reasons. But we don’t have that. So we can just guess. My guess is that the reasons mentioned so far are pretty good reasons. For me personally, I usually say that it wasn’t right for me.
But again, since there isn’t a legitimate reason to leave, that’s not a legitimate reason. But in our society, particularly for younger people, doing something that doesn’t work for you for no other reason than some in authority said so or said to trust them (it would get better); it just doesn’t cut it any longer, for many people. There needs to be more of a reason.
The mormon church, and seemingly other churches are not very good at making this argument. Perhaps some of it is an unwillingness to join or maintain communities. I just think traditional (bricks and mortar) ways of interacting are radically changing, and will continue to change.
PS. In response to Ardis’ post, studying history is important. And being open and honest about history is important. If there are people who have studied LDS history, and are comfortable with it and stay with the church, I tip my hat to them. I’m serious. I think everyone should have the opportunity to study and research anything they want. I think it does a disservice to everyone to leave out the facts. Two key points that have changed in my lifetime – 1 whether or not Brigham Young had more than one living wife and 2 whether or not all native americans were descended from the lamanites, or just some of them are the descendants of the lamanites. Why not be open and honest about both issues?
It goes back to this notion of, if you stop believing, it’s your fault. It’s not the church’s responsibility to be honest, forthright and to give its members the benefit of the doubt. Most mormons (I think) are like Ardis and other faithful people I know. What happened in the past can be understood, and what is happening now can be seemingly more of a focus.
But would the LDS church still be able to say they were the only true church on earth? It’s either all true or it’s false. Again, speaking of social norms now – this doesn’t work any longer. Most people accept that some things are flawed, even good, upstanding institutions. But it’s much easier to be involved in a good, upstanding institution that is open and honest, and moving in the right direction (publishing financial data to the membership would be a great start) than one that is not willing to be open and honest – and believes their membership would leave if they found out the truth.
@spamlds, so when a democrat decides to become republican and thusly takes time and energy to criticize Obama, does that give Obama more credibility because he’s persecuted more?
Is there anything in your life that you have left that you continue to talk about?
Personally, I’m kind of wondering why you guys are engaging spam at all.
You know his online history, right?
Seth,
I know fully well, but….I think this explains everything.
Sure, no count is perfect but that does not mean that all methods are equally deficient. The most exact estimates are random samples such as applied by Pew or in the CUNY Religious Identification Survey.
Many other churches also maintain better records than we do. The Seventh-day Adventists, for example, publish summaries, which are impressively comprehensive.
Among demographers of religion, the COB has become a laughing stock because the numbers have obviously been manipulated to validate our identity. It’s cheap salesmanship, I am afraid, and it was only a matter of time before it would become an embarrassment to us.
Efforts to establish equivalence between our and other people’s shortcomings usually do not withstand empirical scrutiny because Mormon authoritarianism does generate extraordinary problems, which the founding fathers, among others, predicted fairly accurately.
But even if it were true that our managers are no more abusive or ineffective than others that still wouldn’t justify incompetent and inhumane behavior. It’s a slippery slide analogy.
I do agree with you that it would be unfair to expect perfection from the brethren or the COB. But if that’s the case, then we should also treat them as mortal instead of demanding superhuman respect for them.
I like Alan’s comment, I’ve referred to myself as an ethnic Mormon at times, it’s an identity I carry that is in some ways independent of belief. My daughter does not feel the sense of identity the way her parents do, and I will not be surprised if she leaves the Church when she comes of age. All churches which have become associated with right wing politics are losing their youth, though that may be less of a factor since we’re not behind the Zion Curtain.
In her mind the church’s positions on gay and women’s issues are simply unacceptable. The emphasis on silly things like tattoos and piercings makes no sense to her. And the lessons can be stultifying.
Regarding the question of why we’re still talking about Mormonism if we don’t believe: that’s our FAQ here at MSP: If you dont want anything to do with the LDS faith, then why allocate so much of your time talking about it??.
If you have further answers to that question or if you’re LDS and are confused about it, please add your questions and comments over on that thread. It doesn’t matter that it’s an old thread. I feel like somehow it will always be relevant. 😉
I agree with Aerin that we’re probably not going to solve the problem of young people leaving the CoJCoL-dS (not that I was really trying to solve it — I just asked the question out of curiosity). I also agree with ProfXM that this is part of a larger trend of secularization. Of course that doesn’t really answer the question as rephrase it: Why are mainstream religions losing ground? What is driving the trend towards secularization?
I think several people have pointed out that religion plays lots of roles in people’s lives, and a number of them seem to have moved into the secular arena. The most extreme/engaging religions aren’t losing people as fast because their appeal isn’t based on things that have secular alternatives. Mormonism would normally be in the category of “more extreme/engaging,” except that the COB has shot itself in the foot with correlation.
The suspicion that has been growing on me for a while is that secularism/materialism is largely a luxury good. It’s an ideology that thrives well in a complacent, risk averse, culture – experiencing a surplus of unoccupied time.
I don’t expect this will last much longer.
Right now, the age 20 to 30 crowd hasn’t necessarily had to deal with the full fallout of the recession. The main reason for this is that they are being insulated from the full implications of unemployment or underemployment by coddling parents from the “baby boom” generation. Lots of people are moving back in with mom and dad. As such, they are still insulated from the economic realities out there (namely – you don’t work – you don’t eat). But that’s not going to last – even the most enabling parent is going to run out of money eventually. I’m seeing a lot of these people as a bankruptcy attorney – moms and dads who blew everything supporting their idle children.
But thing is – the money tree otherwise known as “dad” is running out. The artificial buffer is disappearing. And when it does, the 20-30 crowd is going to have a rude wake-up call. It’s just going to be them and a wretched economy that doesn’t give a damn about whether they are “personally fulfilled.” Additionally, there’s a limit to how long America’s young adults can hide from reality in worthless graduate programs. Sooner or later, they’re going to have to graduate and face all those student loans they stacked up. And the likelihood is that they aren’t going to get a job sufficient to cover it.
At this point, I imagine the secularist fantasy of unending human progress will take a bit of a beating, and we’ll probably see an uptick in people finding religion.
Existential moping is a luxury good. Once the full implications of the recession take hold, I imagine the tolerance for these kind of luxuries will disappear to some degree.
The problem with your argument, Seth, is that people don’t return to religion, for the most part, once they leave it. Secularization, according to all the leading theorists in the field, and based on the data (primarily from Europe), suggests that secularization may not be linear and inevitable for all societies, but once it occurs, it is irreversible.
You can think about it this way: What good would it do these young 20-30 year-olds to suddenly decide to return to religion when faced with an economic crisis? Some religions may offer some help (e.g., job service, some handouts), but those rarely continue long-term. Secular government is able to continue those services long term, but religions don’t have the resources to do that. Additionally, as soon as these people start making some money, the religions put their hands/baskets/collection bins out and ask for it. So, what’s the benefit?
Ireland has, over the last few decades, undergone a rapid wave of secularization. The current economic crisis is unlikely to fill up the churches, though that data is not available yet. However, plenty of pastors in the US will tell you that, in past economic recessions, religions did well – people attended more. But in this one, they haven’t fared so well – people are using the logic I outlined above: Why turn to religion since I’ll just have to give them money I don’t have. Ergo, religions aren’t going to prosper out of this. The mass exodus out may slow a bit because of anxiety (and religion helps with that), but it’s not going to reverse.
Seth — I tend to agree that luxury is a big part of it. People who feel like they are in control of their own lives have less need for religion. However, if you’re going to call it “existential moping,” you’ll surely note that you can spin this same argument the other direction: When people are desperate and don’t think there’s anything real that they can do to solve their problems, then doing something (even something totally ineffectual like praying or wearing a good-luck charm) feels better than doing nothing.
Seth, I think you point out something true about human nature. Personally, I wouldn’t make such a grandiose prediction but I think the “Pride Cycle” does have some truth to it. However, I like to call it the “Humility Cycle” because it’s at the humbling stage when I think people’s emotions cloud their rational thinking and then they decide to turn to superstitions to solve their problems. But there’s something deeper going on – instead of a deity blessing them for obedience, it’s human’s natural drive to solve problems and overcome adversity that will get them out of the hole. But many will mistakenly attribute their success to their imaginary deity when in reality it was nothing of the sort.
The “Humility Cycle” provides some interesting insight into human nature. I think it says more about human’s tendency to resort to superstitious behavior than it does the existence of a deity or truthfulness of a religion.
I think that there is something to say for secularism being a “luxury” good, but at the same time, I don’t see how religions really become a staple…
After all, suppose people hit the real world and it sucks.
Religion doesn’t help here. At best, someone will believe God can help, find out that God skimps out on the rent payments too, and then realize that they can’t really start trusting the supernatural to solve completely natural problems.
Actually Andrew, religion does help. A lot more than atheism does (which makes sense, given that “atheism” isn’t really an organization). People tend to band together in times of hardship and turn to others for help. Religion tends to provide mechanisms for this currently better than secularism does. As financial clerk in our ward, I could tell you exactly how much “help” is being provided to people. And contrary to profxm’s implication, the benefit is not just financial – it is also a matter of social community support. Moral support, the feeling that you yourself are helping other people… that kind of thing.
You yourself blogged about this once, as I recall, noting that atheism has no real unifying community concept, and no possible basis for one. So I don’t think this is a particularly controversial point.
profxm, actually I remember reading a study that people tend to actually go BACK to religion as they get older, but since I’ve long since forgotten the source we’ll have to leave it there.
Chanson and Chris, I didn’t say anything about religion being true, or better necessarily. At best I only implied it.
Seth, these studies says that:
Stolzenberg, Ross M., Mary Blair-Loy, and Linda J. Waite. 1995. Religious Participation in Early Adulthood: Age and Family Life Cycle Effects on Church Membership. American Sociological Review 60:84-103.
Argue, A., D. R. Johnson, and L. K. White. 1999. Age and Religiosity: Evidence From a Three-Wave Panel Analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:423-435.
Mostly has to do with becoming parents. Even so, most studies that look at age and religion find that its a generational issue: kids are less religious than their parents. Thus, if you just look at religiosity by age, it looks like older people are more religious and that younger people, who are less religious, turn to religion over time. Actually, most of that is simply people from older generations staying and not young people returning, per:
Crockett, Alasdair, and David Voas. 2006. Generations of Decline: Religious Change In Twentieth-Century Britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
Hoge, Dean R., and J. L. Hoge. 1984. Period Effects and Specific Age Effects Influencing Values of Alumni in the Decade After College. Social Forces 62:941-962.
McAllister, Ian. 1988. Religious Change and Secularization: The Transmission of Religious Values in Australia. Sociological Analysis 49:249-263.
Wilhelm, Mark O., Patrick M. Rooney, and Eugene R. Tempel. 2007. Changes in Religious Giving Reflect Changes in Involvement: Age and Cohort Effects in Religious Giving, Secular Giving, and Attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:217-232.
Seth,
But the question is: why would people in a secular society continue to view religion as the best mechanism for “banding together in times of hardship and turning to others for help?”
You frame it as religion vs. secularism, but as I’ve mentioned (and as you’ve alluded), secularism isn’t a unified community or front. But that doesn’t mean secularists don’t have communities. It’s just — I think the communities are better founded by something *other* than secularism (because secularism doesn’t necessarily give you a lot in common). So the question isn’t “religion vs. secularism” — this makes little sense because you’re not comparing like kinds. The question is “religion vs. non-religious community options.” These non-religious community options need not be explicitly atheist or secularist organizations, but by virtue of not being religious organizations, they are implicitly secular.
Also, I agree that the data I’ve seen shows that people go back to religion as they grow older *in non-secular societies*. I also don’t remember the source, but I do remember other news articles summarizing that the impact of this data is to suggest that America may not becoming secular any time soon because it simply operates on a different model of religious affiliation and disaffiliation than most developed countries.
But religion doesn’t have a monopoly on fellowship or community. What makes religion unique? – the dogma right? So you weren’t you saying that it would be the ideas/dogma of religion that people would find attractive when times are tough? not just the fellowship or community?
Actually Chris, it’s quite possible that religion DOES have a near monopoly on those things. Take out the holy books and prayers and think about all the things your local synagogue, mosque or chapel does. Then ask yourself if there are any other prevalent and accessible secular organizations in your community doing all that.
Seth,
when you say “prevalent and accessible secular organizations,” do you mean “secular” as in “non-religious” or “secular” as in “a corporate branch of The Atheist Establishment”?
My immediate and extended family, for one – they are religious but I don’t have to pay tithing to be part of the family. Also government, two. I’m sure there are others but I haven’t really bothered to look yet.
Also, I know no one is saying this, but I don’t think the social exit-trends here can be viewed as a victory for atheism, or whatever brand of secularism you personally happen to subscribe to.
A lot of people who exit do so in a very halfhearted “I’m tired of this” sort of way. Some people don’t even have a particular beef with religion at all, but would just rather be waterskiing on Sunday. Personally, I think these kind of exiters are much more common than those who blog about their disaffection.
It’s a diverse group.
No Andrew, that’s not what I meant.
Chris, unless you’ve got a freaking HUGE family with a lot more resources than normal, I doubt your family can emulate what local churches are doing.
But there’s only one of me. I’m not a congregation.
Seth (91), already duly noted.
But please note that “waterskiing on Sunday” groups should count as a secular alternative to religions. And any waterski support group that spills over into other things (“hey, waterski buddy, can you babysit my kid? OK, no prob”) counts as a secular alternative. And waterskiing on Sunday isn’t “existential moping,” (although I will concede it too is a luxury).
Seth (92), so are you saying you didn’t mean it in *either* of the two ways I mentioned? Because it seems like you’re still talking about “secular” as some kind of corporate branch of the Atheist Conspiracy.
To Seth (91), is it really a victory for religion when people are just using it for its non-religious services like fellowship, food, and maybe help with rent money? I’m not sure what’s the point of this discussion then unless you are saying that the dogma of religion is what will help contribute to religion’s converts.
Religion can take the moochers. I’m fine with that.
Chris, I guess in a “by their fruits shall ye know them” sort of sense, it is a victory for religions, if anyone is keeping score.
And I can tell you right now that there a lot of personal, economic, etc. crises that just your own immediate family are definitely NOT able to cope with. This is the reason people do communities in the first place. And communities have always entailed a loss of freedom and restrictions. The more freedom we seek out, the more isolated and vulnerable we become. One comes at the expense of the other.
And I’m probably not the best person to ask about government assistance – considering that my own state of Colorado ranks about 48th in the nation in terms of public unemployment and other social assistance.
Andrew, I don’t think atheism or secularism – as such – provide any of the support structures that religion does. By definition, I don’t think atheism is meant to – it’s an idea, not an organization. And “secularism” is too broad a notion to be useful in this context – it could include anything from your local chess club to your state unemployment bureau.
I just don’t see anything aside from government providing the package deal that religions do. So if you don’t think government is adequate as a safety net, what are you left with if you have no religious group?
Family, I guess. But religious people have that too – and then some.
I am afraid that religion’s overhead is too high to qualify as an effective response to pretty much any sort of trouble.
Seth,
But that’s my entire point. You are using atheism and secularism as these corporate or organizational structures when they are *not*. So, to say “I don’t think atheism or secularism provide any of the support structures that religion does” makes no sense…because atheism and secularism are not comparable to religion. They are not like terms.
However, when used as ideas, things start changing. You say secularism “is too broad a notion to be useful in the context.” I disagree, for precisely the elaboration you mention. If your local chess club and your state unemployment bureau can outcompete your church, THAT is an example of secular (read: non-religious) organizations answering your question from 88.
There isn’t going to be a community of people talking about a lack of god. You’re just not going to find a corporate form around that. So if that’s the only context in which you view a “secular organization,” then your premises define out a secular organization taking the role of a church. BUT that still doesn’t make the case for religions, because there will be people who realize they don’t have to spend their Sundays going to church. There will be people realizing they could play chess, go skiing, spend time with their families, whatever. These are the real secular alternatives to religion.
Secular nations get that way not because of a corporate campaign from The Atheist Headquarters…they get that way precisely because nonreligious organizations (like the government, ski clubs, or chess clubs) become more compelling options for community, shared aims, and social nets.
But the thing is…the government isn’t the only option. There could be and are civic groups that are not religious. The fact that Americans may return to religion when they grow older is not an indictment of secular options or a praise of religion…it’s a sign, instead, that American government, non-religious civic organizations, etc., are simply not where European government and non-religious civic organizations are.
The only thing to address here, finally, is whether all of these social functions must be provided in one area. Must it be a “package deal,” or can different groups specialize? It seems like the second thing you’re supposing with your question is that if ONE secular group does not do EVERYTHING, then religion wins out. But what if it’s more efficient for social functions to be divided among different organizations? Just because churches tend to be totalizing institutions, does that make that the best way to operate?
Andrew, I just don’t share your confidence in these groups. I don’t think they are performing and coming through for people.
Government helps people a lot, and then churches help people a lot. Aside from that – goose eggs.
Hellmut, I think the tangible social, economic, and spiritual benefits (though the last may not count in present company) are worth every penny of my regular ten percent.
Seth,
In my community, If people need housing, then the St. Vincent de Paul Society is probably the most helpful place to go. But people who need food go to the secular food bank for food and to the government for food stamps. If they need cash, they go to the government for TANF. If they need health care, they get Medicaid (if they’re children or if they’re adults who are poor enough; otherwise, they’re screwed) or to one of several secular clinics (if they’re not too sick). Women who are battered by their spouse or equivalent can seek refuge at the secular shelter.
Also, comparing the couple of months I once spent on TANF and food stamps with the couple of months I once spent on “church welfare” (as well as my experience helping other church members get church assistance), I found the government workers to be far more respectful, helpful, and supportive than the church people involved (especially compared with the people working at the bishop’s storehouse), and I found the people I met through the required class for TANF recipients at the Department of Human Services to be much more accepting and much less judgmental than people in church. (And it was a tip from somebody in that class, not from the church employment office, who helped my wife find a job.)
Your mileage may vary, but my point is that secular communities and government are quite capable of providing support structures when the conditions are right.
kuri, I went through TANF myself and I found the opposite.
Since my bad experiences with church welfare were 20 years and 1,000 miles apart, I’m tempted to generalize, but I realize that I can’t. But I will say that I’ve never in my life been patronized as much as I was when I had to go to the bishop’s storehouse. And 20 years later when I was involved in helping other people go to the bishop’s storehouse for help, things were so bad that, devout as we were, some of us seriously discussed advising members to skip the church and go straight to DHS because the way people were being treated was so humiliating and damaging to their faith. (We decided we couldn’t do that, more’s the pity.)
Anyway, like I said, YMMV, and apparently it does, but the point is that secular charities and government can be quite capable of providing support. In my community, people in need are best off going to a religious charity for housing, but for everything else, they’re best off going to a secular charity or a government agency.
What I find interesting is that Seth thinks it’s a well-earned victory for religion when religion has to buy converts via better fellowshipping or community. … not so much which organization is better…
The dogma isn’t good enough so religion compensates with charity.
What I find interesting is that Chris has such a contemptuous view of humanity that he automatically assumes that any good deeds performed by ANYONE are automatically an attempt to “buy people off.”
How’d you like that Chris?
Kinda sucks to be misrepresented, doesn’t it?
So you don’t think it’s a well-earned victory for religion when religion buys converts via better fellowshipping?
Chris, I think that anyone reading the preceding posts understands perfectly well what was said.
I’ll take that as a “not necessarily” then. So when you said that there will be an uptick in people finding religion the primary reason is because of its superior charitable qualities when coupled with an increase in down-and-out folks? But that it doesn’t have much to do with religion’s doctrine – more so the fellowshipping, etc?
Just another quick comment to make myself clear. Post 79 used the term religion, which at least includes Community + Doctrine. So when you say there will be people abandoning atheism (intellectual only, no community) to join religion, it seemed like you meant they would be joining the community as well as accepting the doctrine of religion. This seems like a good thing to you. It is acceptable for somebody to switch worldviews because the other has better fruit.
The problem first is that atheism isn’t a Church with a capital ‘C’. So if an atheist isn’t getting enough fruit, that’s their own fault not atheism’s. Now we can go back and forth about who has the better social support… LDS Church vs government vs whatever – have at it.
Secondly, I think worldview conversion via fruit says something non-positively about the convert. I view it as a bit selfish. I hope I don’t re-join Mormonism just because I’m having some crappy luck. I would want to re-join Mormonism because the doctrine is true and for no other reason. The community would be a perk. I say this because I fear emotional manipulation and I don’t like manipulation.
I don’t think perks are the only reason. When things go south in your life, you aren’t just looking for help with meals, you’re also looking for some new purpose and meaning. So the two probably correlate somewhat.
I also think that the amount of charitable activity might be looked at a one factor of gauging how successful the religious belief in question is at motivating good behavior in people.
I don’t expect atheism to provide anything because, at the end of the day, it isn’t really anything. It’s a non-position, a non-statement. And can therefore probably be disregarded in most instances at no great loss. All atheism really does is casually walk into the room, declare that plans A, B and C are rubbish, and then walk right on out of the room without saying anything.
To which I think the proper response of those still in the room would be to shrug their shoulders and pick up where they left off before being interrupted.
As to the quality of converts, I’m not quite so much of a perfectionist about it. I am just fine with people joining a good cause for less than optimal reasons and possibly finding better reasons as they go along. If you wait for perfect converts… well… you’ll have a long wait. Everyone’s motives are suspect in some degree or other. So it’s not really something I care to dwell too much on, as long as it isn’t an egregious mismatch.
By the way, one of my fellow bankruptcy attorneys pointed out this article to me:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/11/20/how-are-the-kids-unemployed-underwater-and-sinking/#more-8301
Which seemed kind of timely considering my grim remarks about the economy and young adults. Just rough times. And it doesn’t help that politics are overwhelmingly dominated by people age 50 and older – who don’t necessarily know or care about the problems facing this sector of the job force.
But I’m still confused why you think all atheists have to lean is atheism itself.
If they have anything constructive to say, my feeling is that they are no longer speaking as atheists, but rather as “environmentalists” or “Republicans” or whatever else, but not as atheists.
Ok, I don’t really understand how #111 fits. Maybe it’s because I inadvertently left out a word: But Im still confused why you think all atheists have to lean on is atheism itself.
So you would be totally cool if an atheist were to join the LDS Church (for social reasons) but secretly remain as an atheist? (Because you’re not a perfectionist.)
I can explain (we’ve been here before).
He doesn’t think all atheists have to lean on is atheism itself. Atheism is *nothing* to lean on. What people lean on are their various other involvements or active beliefs (whether it be environmentalism or Republicanism, as Seth mentioned, or some other positive ideology.)
I’d say the most common positive ideologies that atheists use these days are things like empiricism, scientism, or rationalism.
All atheism says is, “I don’t think there’s a god.” It is only this negating claim. It does not, and cannot provide anything positive or constructive. That doesn’t mean that people who happen to be atheists cannot provide anything positive or constructive…but they do so not because of atheism, but because of some positive ideology they have.
That’s right Andrew.
This is why when someone rides into a debate claiming to speak as an atheist, I usually just raise my eyebrows and wait for them to expose the REAL ideology they are operating from.
Facist secularism in Christopher Hitchens case, for instance.
And Chris, there is no bright line cutoff for when I think a person should or should not be joining up.
I think it’s important to note that we can say the same for theism. But of course, most people don’t claim to speak as “theists;” they claim to speak as specific KINDS of theists (e.g., Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, etc.,)
The problem is that people don’t recognize that atheism is in the same “category” as theism is…instead, people try to compare it to specific religions (or the idea of religion itself), but it just doesn’t work that way.
(although Seth has recently revealed that he wants the church to be a big enough tent to keep NOMs in so that they may one day gain a full-fledged testimony.)
Seth R @ 111:
Have you ever considered that atheism is linked to people actually caring about the Earth, as the planet is not just a temporary, imperfect space compared to Heaven, but is rather all we have from the atheist’s perspective? Ever notice it’s like pulling teeth to get religious people to believe there is such a thing as global warming? (One exception is Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe Earth is the future location of Paradise.)
Sure, you’re not going to find Atheism, INC, tied to Environmentalism, INC, but that’s because ideas don’t always flow through moneyed channels like they do in churches. But it’s not right to separate someone’s atheism from their environmentalism just because you consider one better than the other; they’re not as disconnected as you think.
Alan,
I think you’re missing what Seth’s trying to say.
Atheism is not linked to people actually caring about the Earth…atheism is linked to people not believing in god.
Now, it may be that many atheists happen to also be naturalists, and as a result they view the planet as all we have. But let’s be clear; this isn’t the atheist perspective. “I do not believe in gods” does not *ever* get you to “The earth is all we have.” Now, if you are a naturalist, then that may lead to you being an atheist *and* in believing that the earth is all we have.
Not to mention that plenty of religious people are naturalists.
I consider myself one actually.
which is a good pt, because it’s one of the things that some non-LDS Christians do not like about Mormonism.
Which is funny, because the LDS doctrines of the spiritual existence of the earth and everything in it ought to incline the LDS to be more environmentally minded.
Disregard for the earth and mortal life is not good Christianity in any case. Nor is it good Mormonism.
Of course, I’ve seen some members try to emphasize these doctrines to make more popular an LDS environmentalism.
As long as members think the church must be attached to the hip to a political party that really isn’t about the environment, I don’t think that’ll become mainstream though.
Andrew @ 119:
I doubt it. There’s never such a thing as X qua X (atheism qua atheism). Seth seems to single out atheism because he doesn’t like it. Yet, in the current political and cultural climate, you’ll find secularists/atheist/agnostics more engaged with environmental concerns than religious folk. PBS did a special on “Is God green?” a while back because of how conservatives were annoyed that there is worship of “God’s creation” over worship of “God.” This is not to say that Seth R is not environmentally concerned, or the evangelical down the street, or my Mormon mother who has four recycling bins. Things have changed on this front since even 10 years ago. But there are patterns of thought that historically link various philosophies. Atheism is linked to environmentalism. Athiesm is defined as believing in no God(s).
Alan,
That’s news to me. I have frequently talked about “mere atheism,” in trying to distinguish atheism from everything else. I think it’s helpful, because I don’t want to be lumped in with someone else that I disagree with just because I happen not to believe in gods along with them (as many people would like to lump everyone with “new atheists” so to speak or to call “new atheism” a worldview). I believe that atheists come to be for many different reasons, and as a result, people who are atheists do NOT share much in common as *atheists*. All they need share is a lack of beliefs in gods.
There is no doubt that there seem to be certain commonalities around people who are atheists, but it’s not because of atheism (e.g., “I don’t believe in god.”) So, no, “atheism” is not linked to environmentalism. There is nothing within the lack of belief in deities to latch on to…or to be latched on to, by anything else (especially not environmentalism). No wherewithal to associate.
I’ve read about encounters with hard-nosed businessmen who are CEOs of major corporations despoiling the land who also claimed there was no God.
And the worst environmental disasters on the planet occurred in the Soviet Union under the watch of men who absolutely and most definitely claimed to be atheist.
In fact, solely because of the Soviet Union and China, you could probably blame atheism for more environmental harm than Christianity – in the balance.
Of course, I do not do this, because atheism – as I have been saying – is a non-position to begin with. It doesn’t positively assert anything. Therefore, of course, it cannot be blamed for anything either – ever.
Seth — [Whether God exists] and [whether believing in God is beneficial for humans] are two completely separate questions. It could be that people tend to be happier and more moral when they believe in God, but that wouldn’t imply that God exists. It could also be that people are happier and more moral in general when they don’t believe in God, but that wouldn’t prove that God doesn’t exist.
I think religion almost certainly has some adaptive benefits for humans, otherwise it wouldn’t have evolved. I also think that since culture changes from one generation to the next, culture helps human society adapt to new situations. The religions that we know now (and know through written history) are likely very different in character than the earliest religions. And since modern society has some dramatic differences from a few centuries past, it’s not surprising that religion’s usefulness changes.
It may well be that religion is not as adaptive/useful/relevant in modern urban societies as it was in the American frontier or as it was under the feudal system, or when subsistence farming, or whatever. And when I say “less adaptive/useful/relevant,” I don’t mean it as a value judgement. I don’t want to jump to judgemental conclusions about people’s intelligence, morals, selfishness, etc. On the one hand, I’d rather avoid the value judgements because I don’t think that this change really is about those loaded value judgements [it’s more about circumstances], and on the other hand, I think the value judgements turn the discussion antagonistic, which doesn’t help.
Then there’s the additional question of how Mormonism’s situation differs from the general trend of secularization:
There’s a good discussion of it in the comments of Andrew’s post about Ardis’s dissing him. Kuri points out that Mormonism really does work for some people. I think we can reasonably guess that people are more likely to leave [question and stop believing] when Mormonism doesn’t “work” for them. And I think that the micromanagement from the COB limits the range of possibilities within the Mormon experience, making it work for fewer and fewer people.
I agree with Seth that what people believe about god is secondary. What really matters is whether the powerful can be held accountable.
That determines whether actions and outcomes will be beneficial and effective or abusive and wasteful.
It is unfortunate that Brighamite Mormonism is rejecting the lessons of the founding fathers about the nature of power and how it can be used responsibly.
Brigham Young was probably the most environmentally forward prophet we’ve had.
Seriously, the guy gets blamed for everything it seems. He doesn’t get credit for hardly anything either.
I agree that being classified as an “atheist” says nothing about one’s morals, view on the environment, or just about anything else.
I’ve studied a lot of Buddhism in the past few years, and in fact consider my thought-process to be “Buddhist Mormon”, although there are some definite ihcoherencies there. In any event, despite NOT believing in God, there are many similarities. There are morals (in many cases more finely developed than in the LDS Church). There are stories of healings through the power of prayer (defined a bit differently, but same principle). There are miraculous stories every bit as powerful as those I’ve heard in the LDS Church. There is a respect for families and parents, again, as powerful as the LDS Church might engender through its emphasis on eternal families, etc. And, when you’ve studied Christ’s words and the Buddha’s words closely enough to have themes and principle infuse through your mind, on a practical basis, they are extremely similar.
And all this comes, not from a Buddhist’s belief in an external God setting up all of these rules, but from a rational view of what works, what has a positive outcome, what makes for a “better world”.
Brigham Young was probably the most environmentally forward prophet weve had.
that says more about how environmentally backwards all the other prophets have been than it does about what a wise, decent guy BY was.
Seriously: climate change and environmental degradation are this huge threat to our way of life, and the leaders of the LDS church not only never saw that coming, they preached from the pulpit that there was nothing to worry about.
Religion isn’t just useless in a case like this, it’s downright harmful.
Read Hugh Nibley’s book “Brother Brigham Chastizes the Saints” sometime.
It’s quite startling how socially progressive and foresighted he was on a variety of issues. Radically so, actually. He’d be a hard act for any church leader to follow.
Read Hugh Nibleys book Brother Brigham Chastizes the Saints sometime.
Summarize or quote a few passages and give some evidence sometime. Give someone a reason to believe you actually know what you’re talking about.
It’s like I always say: Christianity gives you freedom from being a jerk. Atheism gives you freedom to be a jerk.
It’s my dad’s book. And he lives about a eight hour drive from me. It’s a book I’ve wanted to purchase myself for a while now since reading it a few years ago. Really opened my eyes about Brigham Young – he really doesn’t get enough credit for his accomplishments.
So I don’t have quotes for you Janine, but I don’t think it’s my burden of proof here necessarily to prove anything to you. I could just as easily ask you to provide proof that you aren’t talking out of your hat as well.
You made a completely unsupported assertion in comment #133, and pretty much just expected us all to believe you…. why exactly?
And now you’re asking me to provide some proof for you?
Isn’t that just a tad hypocritical of you? I provided you with a reference to a book to read based on my recollections of it. And really, that’s all you can expect – given the quality of your comment. You haven’t given me any particularly compelling reason to give you anything more.
Its my dads book. And he lives about a eight hour drive from me.
Right. And you remember it well enough to use to counter an assertion, but not well enough to summarize some of its basic points? You can’t google it and see if anyone else excerpts it on the interweb? Ain’t NOTHING from the book you can use to explain why someone should take your advice and read it?
And now youre asking me to provide some proof for you?
Oh, I see! My one comment with little support completely trumps your habit of making unsupported assertions. You’re right: it’s hypocritical of me to make ONE unsupported comment, and to ask you for support for ONLY ONE of your unsupported comments.
So, I withdraw my comment–forget I ever wrote it–and I now ask you to provide support for ALL your comments.
After all, this is a site where you’re regularly asked for examples, so you should keep a log or something.
http://mainstreetplaza.com/2010/10/10/the-straw-man-that-broke-the-deseret-newss-back/comment-page-1/#comment-77104
Janine, you started it. And I replied in kind.
You’ve gotten what you’re entitled to on that basis. Unless you’d like to step up and start providing support for what you asserted in #133. Once you’ve done that, you can make fun of me all you want.
Seth R, I most definitely do not need your permission to make fun of you. I also have to believe that if you didn’t want people to mock you, you wouldn’t give them so darn much to work with.
And you’re simply wrong that I “started it.” Behold your unsupported comment #130:
Brigham Young was probably the most environmentally forward prophet weve had.
Seriously, the guy gets blamed for everything it seems. He doesnt get credit for hardly anything either.
Nary a bit of evidence. Not one.
That’s before my comment #133, and the model for it. So it is actually you, Mr. Seth R, who started it. And it is I who replied in kind.
And I at least supplied some evidence for one of my assertions: I went back to an old discussion, found one of your comments, and quoted it. That’s more than you’ve done.
It’s a familiar sight on MSP to see you refuse to take responsibility for your statements and their content. So nice to see that consistency prevails. And so nice to know that you think you have reasons for withholding support or evidence for those statements: it’s because the people you’re talking to aren’t entitled to it.
Charming.
True, but do we really need to make fun of fellow commenters?
As it stands, Seth claims that BY has gotten a bum rap. So far he hasn’t backed this with evidence, but perhaps he will at some point. As far as who started it is concerned, it’s hardly necessary to debate it. The whole conversation has been logged for everyone to read for themselves. 😉
To provide any more information, I would have to purchase the book and read it again. I haven’t read it in several years. But I do remember the overall message of it pretty well. But not enough to provide exact quotes here.
I made it clear that where I got my sources, and didn’t think the context of this discussion really required anything else.
I don’t intend to continue this side argument any further. My computer just deleted an entire client file this morning, and I’m going to be spending most of today reconstructing it. Reading Janine’s most recent comment on top of it just seriously depressed me this morning and I don’t think I have the energy for carrying on as normal.
I’m not blaming Janine for ending the discussion, just mentioning why I’m not responding further. Normally I’d be game to continue, but it’s been a rough morning. If conversation picks up on other topics of this thread, I might remark on that later.
….
And my five year old boy who my wife left with me to watch while she’s at a doctor’s appointment just walked into my office and dropped a jam jar on top of another stack of court papers I’m dealing with, asking me to open it. I just yelled at him. So I’d better leave you guys and go explain to him nicely why daddy sucks today.
I am sorry, Seth. I hope that it will get better.
You people disgust me.
Here’s chapter 1 of Brigham Young Challenges the Saints.
Selected parts:
or how about this part from chapter 2?
This took literally 20 seconds of googling (and it only took THAT long because Seth made an honest mistake about the title). But, oh wait, I see how it is; no matter how quickly you could’ve done the research yourself, it is quicker still to be a jerk.
point taken. My apologies.
Reading Janines most recent comment on top of it just seriously depressed me this morning and I dont think I have the energy for carrying on as normal.
Seth R, I’m sorry you’re having a crappy day, but given that I’m most definitely trying to get you stop carrying on as normal, I can’t be too sorry about that.
As Andrew demonstrated, it would have been easy for you to provide evidence if you had wanted to. You just didn’t want to. And that’s every bit as disrespectful as mocking.
I don’t even believe this…
When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
we never use to teach that no one knew the time of the second comming not even heavenly father, are you kidding me? I can tell your talking out of your but and dont know what your talking about when you say that. The church does and did teach that ONLY heavely father knew the time of the second comming and it was Christ himself that said that when he was alive on the earth walking amongst us. After he was ressurrected and glorified he also more then likely knows the time of his comming, he made that statement while he lived on the earth and that was a present tense statement. Get your facts right.
Have another beer Jason. You are Mormon sh*tfaced. Your bible is a comic book and the Q’uran is way more believable, sensible and honest. Who in the Christ hell can follow a shite ball named JOE SMITH who said angels left golden tablets in upstate NY??? WTF???
Then he moved to UT, f%cked every thing in his path and spawns Mitt Romney to take over the world???Get a grip bro…your “religion” is shite!
We don’t tolerate incivility around here, Poor Jason or whatever your name is.
If you have something to say, please, stick to the merits of the argument, do not insult people, and remember your manners.
poor jason, how funny! poor fruit loops did i hurt your feelings? why dont you just call this site the rainbow club or the im a female in a male body club? Oh spawn of satan keep loving up on eachother and thinking that Gods ok with what your doing cause he’s not! You guys keep trying to keep people out of your site with different opinions then yourselfs cause your lovers of evil and birds of a feather stick together in this case its gay birds. Repent Repent Repent when your judged youll never be given in marriage so you wont have a man or a women. Eat sleep and be marry for tommorrow we might die and you will be judged of all your evil deeds and your sin is next to murder as a madder of fact you cant even join the church if your having any gay relations so if your members, well i can bet your not you were either ex communicated or your just mad cause you want people to stop telling you what your doing is wrong and to be excepted well sin will never be excepted and no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God, so do you think God is going to let the rainbow club in to man love each other…nope and if your not gay and your on this site and your apeasing the gays and liberals your in the same boat cause God will spew the luke warm and apeasers of evil out of his mouth! sleep well to night, repent before its to late.
yea and to the other comment, gays love the muslims and the muslim religion. you think if muslims took over they would welcome you fuity pebbles into their open arms? muslims kill gays and it is outlawed in their society.. what is wrong with you people? THe q’uran is the first five books of moses copied from the torah and alot of added garbage from the sons of ishmeal who was told to get lost by abraham cause issac was the chosen person of God, the descendants of ishmeal are the muslims and they just had to make up their own religion cause they, like cain, were not excepted by God to be his chosen people so i see alot of simularities between them and gays, dont go making things up and wanting to start your own gay church just cause what your doing is an abomination, and im not talking to the non gays but from alot of the comments i was reading this site is bleading gay. Im done find yourselves a woman it might do ya some good.
I second Hellmut, and I’m glad to see that none of the regulars need to be reminded not to feed the trolls. 😉
Jason — Regarding the Father and the Son — I recall hearing in Sunday School that one knows the time of the second coming and one doesn’t; thanks for clarifying which is which. Please don’t worry so hard about random anonymous commenters on the Internet.
helmutt, i see what the merits are and i see what your trying to accomplish on this site you want poeple to sit back and apease evil, well you should just keep conservatives off your site cause when they read alot of the comments they will know right away that alot of your bloggers have a gay agenda and im tired of hugging people to repentence. you want me to be calm and just rationalize with them that its ok, things might change, pople might wake up one day and homosexuality will be ok, well it will never. so instead of complaining why dont you just repent and go back to church.
Chanson, i only brung the issue up cause when i read it in the blog post the argument was being made on things that were not factual and inacurate and thats how apostacy kicks in. yes thanks, i was glad that i could clarify that for you. ps. more then likely the savior also knows now, thats not doctrine but scholors might tell you the same opinion. I do believe that there is a in-house apostacy going on in the church now with alot of its members but it is from liberalism and communist ideas. charity is not charity if one if forced to be charitable, that was satans plan in the pre-existence to force everyone to have to do right so all made it back to heaven and then satan added he wanted heavenly fathers glory. this liberal, gay, socialist, movement of membership or ex membersip is not of God and one gets to the point where you get tired of hugging enemies of God and you just want to kick some evil butt, so if i come off harsh maybe ill wake a few people up and get them thinking cause if they cant handle my words they sure dont want to hear what satan has instore for them when they die.
Jason the tone of anger and dislike behind your statements are not in keeping with the words of our current LDS General Authorities. They would not use the tone of anger, or political alienation and polarization that you use here.
If you want to have your own opinions, fine. But don’t present yourself as a spokesperson for the LDS Church – since your views are not what I’ve heard from them, and I, as a faithful and active Mormon who has been arguing with the critics of the LDS Church on this website for some time, also do not sympathize with your tone.
seth r., you buddy are part of the problem. first of all if you can find where i said i represent the church you will win the argument but you cant can you?? You say my words are not in keeping with the authorities are you joking me? It would seam that you are the one who thinks he is representing the church thinking that you know what the authorities would have me say and do cause i and i alone recieve revelation for ME and MY family so go back and read your book of mormon, maybe captain moroni would be a good read for you?? maybe you could raise your flag and stand against evil and evil people cause you may come to this site and hug evil and wish for world peace but you are comming into a time where your wishful thinking will get you conquered and subjected to liberalism,communism, socialism, maybe ruled by antichrist obama and his minions. I am tired of people calling good evil and evil good! oh and by the way i to am also a member of the church and i have an active leadership role and though you might find my comments harsh and not the way you or others would do things, thats the great thing about free agency, when you try and take my agency away you become as satan and arent realy doing anybody any god. my friend you worry about your tone and ill worry about mine. there is in-house apostacy going on in the church if you know your doctrine and church history youll see that something is not right and i blame it on harry reid the baby killer type mormons who say their lds but are sleeping in their beds and holding their hands. some polls taken say that over 40% of the church are considered conservative but do nothing about it and that my friend is where youll find your self unless you draw a line in the sand. Ofcourse i DONT SPEAK for the general authorities and have never said that i did. So dont put words in my mouth and learn a little more then what your learning in sunday school, blind faith is NOT faith.
*grabs more popcorn*
Chanson, are you just allowing this guy to stick around as a shining example of Mormonism at its finest?
Because it seems to me this stuff is little better than the crap we were just treated to from poorjason whom you just told-off.
Note to self – If I ever have my own blog, I shall only allow comments from people with enough basic English skills to properly use paragraphs and punctuation. Nor shall my blog be haven to unhinged headcases who clearly would be better served seeing a shrink than being allowed to play unsupervised on the Internet.
seth r. wow mormonism at its finest? arent you the one who just said you were the shining example of mormonism then you cut down mormons in a generalized statement? You arent realy lds are you? ohh sorry HARRRVARRD i didnt mean to insult your education as the spelling B champion. Your so educated that you plea to chanson to silence me and your so educated that you havent made a single valid point. First you come off as the role model mormon who knows the general authorities so well and then you want to kick real mormons off the site cause you dont know how to handle someone with an education a little better then yours. My education not only comes school but a little thing called common sense. Please feel free to spell check me any time you want atleast your good at spell checking HARRVARRD. kick the real mormon off the site, wow lol that has me laughing…
ANDREW S, poppcorn does sound good
supervising the internet? hu thats communism.. maybe you should move to iran since they love you so much. not quite communism but youd fit right in. It might be best to start your own blog so everyone you let in can agree with you, it would make you feel brighter since no one would contend with you.
Jason — Since you’ve decided to stick around and have a discussion with us, please be sure you’ve read our commenting policy. In a nutshell, we ask everyone to make a good-faith effort to keep their comments civil and constructive.
chanson–I hear ya you dont want fighting on your blog, the thing that can get a little confusing is ive been civil… I havent started cussing anyone out.. I would hope that you could understand that one of the points im trying to make is that when words of thruth are heard by evil men these men take the words or condemnations to be to hard to bare. they want to hide under a rock so that the savior and your heavenly father wouldnt be able to see them. why… cause their sins are to great and their ashamed. you want me to hug the homosexuals and say its going to be ok…It will chance just like blacks and the priesthood, brothers it will never change and that day will never come. Im not a tree hunger, gay hugger, or apeaser of evil. if i knew most of you i can forsure say we would disagree buy i think we would be friends, but im that friend who’s gonna worry about you and try to help you get your life strait. Love the sinnger HATE the sin, i dont hate any of you gays on this blogg, we could even be friends, and you may even find me attractive…just kidding lol But i will tell you of all the great things you have waiting for you if you can only triumpth over your gay thoughts. If you wanna know why people are leaving the church in great numbers its simple. for liberals its the gays thing and liberalism, for the conservative we see liberalism infiltrating the church and more and more are they moving to the left and away from what early prophets of the church have said. the church is still true but like president taylor said in his “vission of the last days” hr describes a horrible plague that will sweep over the world and people will be dieing off women will eat their young to live and people killing in the streets. brothers do you know where the prophet says this plague will start first….It starts first in THE TEMPLE by UNWORTHY members of the church who shouldnt be their in the first place and if any of you hold alot of the beliefs posted on this blog. you shouldnt be in a temple and our fake mormon who lide and said he was should definately not go. But as weird as this may sound i do in some weird way love all of you even though you make think im a little crazy, but when you study the doctrine,prophecy, anthropology, early church history, and second comming like i do you start to get a different mind set and can see where all this is going and we dont have much time left so thats why i say im done hugging evil people and people need to be called to repentence cause we dont have much time left. and if your interested later i got a GUESS to when it might happen or the around about time.
I think the comments by Jason answer the question of why people leave ‘The Church’. His comments certain clarify for me why I think that all religion is hateful, violent nonsense.
Jason — Don’t worry, I’m not asking you to hug homosexuals (judging from Don’s comment, the homosexuals might object). That’s fine if you want to rebuke us (in a civil manner) — we’re used to it. Just keep in mind that if you say our position is “evil”, then people tend to respond that yours is “hateful” (as opposed to having a reasonable two-way exchange of ideas).
Jason,
Paragraphs are our friends.
Chanson- i hear ya bud, i first want to say i dont hate homosexuals. love the sinner not the sin. Ive had friends who were gay and if a gay friend came up to me id give him a big hug. But, i have to say that when i call homosexuality evil people get offended and may take my words to be hateful, but the scriptures teach that evil and unrightous people take the truth to be hard to hear and thats why when they try to read the scriptures it makes them feel bad and they push away from the church. Feeling that is kinda like God giving them a marker for when they might be doing wrong or on the wrong path. When i say evil i dont mean that gays are satans spawn..haha Im saying the sin of homosexuality is evil and not of God and if something is not of God it is from the devil. Dont get me wrong i want anyone gay on this site to know that i believe gays are some of the nicest people that ive ever met but im sorry guys your only here for a few years for your probation in this life to prove yourself worthy to return back to God, and homosexuality is next to murder thats why i hate the sin so bad cause i actualy want yall to make it to the next life in good standing.
Yes i said yall kuri– man do you have something better to do then spell check what i say. If paragraphs are our friends then why have you only written a short sentence?? We can have better issues to talk about then paragraph structure or if we spell check. I dont know about you but i have better things to do then to keep proof reading blog post and looking for errors spelling in blog posts is laughable.
ExMoHoMoDon– if you left the church im sorry you did. I have concerns within the church myself but the important thing for me to do is make sure i dont rationalize everything and give myself reasons or excuses to leave the church. If a person is gay and is offended by the church maybe that person should not blame the church but repent and ask God to take the sin away.
To EVERYONE about SETH R.– am i the only one who pics up that seth r. is not realy a member of the church and was pretending to be a mormon so he could help lead people astray. He starts off talking like he knows exactly what the authorities want and that he more represented the church but in his next blog post disses mormonism. Im just making the point cause i hope everyone realizes you cant always believe what you hear someone can be pretending to be a mormon and you could believe them but there only intention was to lead you astray its clear to me i hope others recognize it when it happens.
Jason, I’m curious. How old are you?
I would be very curious for anyone to tell me where I can find Christ’s words regarding homosexuals.
chris– Im 32 years old
exmohomodon– without even breaking out the scriptures ill tell you an obvious one. there were male angels who went to visit i believe it was lot in one of the cities of sodom and gamora. When the men of the city saw these strange men enter into his house they tried to make lot throw the men out so they could have their way with them. lot was ashamed of the people and offered up his daughter instead so the men of the city would leave but, they would not except his daughter and still wanted the men sexualy. Shorty after we are told that the men of these cities lusted after strange flesh and the angels told lot that he needed to take his family and leave the city as soon as he could cause God was about to destroy their cities because of their evil ways and for corrupting the ways of God. IN Leviticus It states that if a man lies with a man as he lies with a women he shall surely be put to death. I realy dont have the time to go start getting all kinds of refrences but its there my friend. oh and yea the word sodomy comes from the city sodom that god destroyed they were known to be sodomites or … well i dont have to explain the word to you im sure you know what i mean.
Jason, have you ever wondered why Lot would offer his daughters to an apparently homosexual mob?
chris– Yea ive wondered that and it agrivates me everytime i think about it… I would never offer up my daughter to any mob. The only ideas i can come up with are 1) he knew the men would not want his daughter anyway and he was only useing it to further condemn the people for their ways. 2)He realy would have gave his daughter up but i would say its the first option because he knew they were angels and im sure he wasnt worried about an angels protection but its kinda like abraham, i cant imagine that he was going to sacrifice his son on an alter so i have to just have faith and believe it was a rightous thing he did.. my lack of faith would give me the thought that maybe abraham thought God told him to sacrifice his son but it was satan decieving and when he was about to do it the angel stoped him but thats just one of those things i might never realy know till the afterlife. He was a prophet though so im sure he could have decieved evil intent, just like lot.
ExMoHoMoDon—
18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
i found those in two minutes so if i had time i could write you an essay.
Jason, have you ever wondered about homosexuality in non-human animals? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals And if you think homosexual behavior in animals is not motivated by attraction or pleasure (instead by domination or something else), then do you also think hetero sex for pleasure only (even after marriage) is abominable?
jason, why try to defend the Bible? It’s indefensible. It’s not like Lot was the only sod to offer his daughters to a mob. This old guy from Judges 19 did as well, but it was the concubine who was killed (thanks to a gang rape):
19:20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
19:21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
19:24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
19:26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light.
19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.
19:28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
19:29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
19:30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
What’s the lesson here? It’s okay for a woman to be gang-raped until she dies so long as a man isn’t touched by another man. Yep, that’s a great moral teaching. The Bible is a reprehensible work of fiction.
Jason,
I am not ExMoHoMoDon, but I would note that you haven’t found a single word from Jesus Christ about homosexuals. Found a lot of other people or groups’ words though.
Has anybody found any words from Jesus about anything? How do we confirm such a thing?
andrew s.–most points of the scriptures were said by prophets. Prophets are men who speak for and in behalf of christ and heavenly father. A prophet is someone who has the authority and power to act in the name of God. So bud if you dont believe the words of prophets then you would never believe what i have to say cause im not one. The scriptures say wether the commands are strait from Gods mouth or the mouths of his servants, it is the same. So i guess your arguement would be with wether on not you believe god works through prophets…. Amos 3:7 Surely the lord God would do nothing unless he revealith his secrets unto his servants the prophets. Hope that you understand my point.
re 179
jason,
In other words, you openly admit that Jesus DIDN’T say these things. Someone else said them (allegedly) for him. Gotcha.
I guess the real question would be when prophets speak as prophets and when prophets speak merely as men. Or, what do you think about black people?
chris– I would never compare a human or a humans sexual behavior to an animal. It might work with dogs and cats but we are made in the image of our God and we are a more intelligent makeup of matter. Animals fufill their own roles in this world and their main concern is keeping themselves alive on this earth and im sure they get pleasure from having sex and cant imagine who wouldnt but buddy your alot more important then any animal sent here to sustain your life.
Jason,
Let me “spell out” my meaning: I haven’t said anything about your spelling or grammar; I don’t really care about them. What I’m asking you to do is break up your posts into paragraphs. That will make them a lot easier to read. As it is, they’re just big giant blobs of text, and I can guarantee you that I’m not the only one who isn’t bothering to read through them because of it.
If you’re just writing to yourself, keep on doing what you’re doing. If you’re writing to communicate with other people, do them the favor of breaking up your big giant blobs of text into paragraphs.
Anyway, it’s up to you; I cared just barely enough to write this, but beyond that I don’t give a fuck.
profxm– i hear ya, i believe the bible is the word of god but i could go on and on about how the bible was changed and twisted by the catholic church and all the credes that changed scripture to their benifit. But homosexuality is one people wont be able to change its all over the scriptures wether its blunt statements or symbolim and prophets. Yea i personaly think that it was mistranslated, but maybe not. Thats why i have an open mind about everything, except what i KNOW to be wrong. I sustain president monson but i do not believe he or anyone else is infalible(sp?). I have to go but i will check this later and answer everyones questions and comments. i love deep doctrine and last days stuff and without being pridefull can consider myself a back yard scholor on alot of these topics no im not saying im better then any of you cause im not but i have immersed myself in reading the sign of the times and i see whats about to happen and im very passinate in warning others. Oh and the first thing to leave me after college was my spelling..haha so this site doesnt have a spell check and im usualy in a rush so please excuse my spelling errors cause i usualy dont go back and fix mistake. ill be back later gotta go to the gym and pump a little iron.
jason, I appreciate you stopping by. However, I feel obligated to point out at this point that you’ve set yourself up for easy criticism that makes all of your “bible-based” arguments fundamentally flawed. If the Catholic Church changed scripture to their benefit, then how can you draw on scripture to justify your beliefs? Which were changed and which were not? It seems like you’re selectively choosing passages that you like and ignoring the ones you don’t. For instance, do you cut your sideburns or shave? God said not to, in the chapter just before he says homosexuals should be put to death:
19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Why is Leviticus 20:13 god’s word, but Leviticus 19:27 not? If you’re going to pick and choose, so am I. I say Leviticus 19:27 is god’s word, but 20:13 is not. And you have no way of telling me that I’m wrong because they are both in the bible.
Do you see the problem with selectively following parts of the bible but not all of it? Either you’re a fundamentalist and it’s all true (in which case, only Orthodox Jews are in line with god’s commands), or it’s all basically make believe and metaphor and you can’t argue any of it is true. You could argue that parts are, but you have no leg to stand on as soon as you admit some of it is not true. So, if you are going to concede that it is okay to cut your sideburns, which I’m assuming you are doing, then you have to concede that there is no reason not to have sex with people of the same sex.
Jason
Never mind that you did not and could not find a single word said by Jesus (that would be NT not OT), you are not my friend (#171) so don’t use that term with me. I can sit back and watch you prove over and over why people like me think religion is nothing but unadulterated hate. I look forward to your next entry proving my point. I am leaving for the gym–gay guys pump iron too.
Jason, if you use Firefox as your web browser it has an automatic spell-check function.
And incidentally, my status as an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is far better established, not only on this blog, but on countless other Mormon online communities than yours is.
Unlike you, people in these communities have actually met me in person and know who I am.
You are going to have to learn that there is a big difference between being a faithful member of the LDS Church, and simply agreeing with YOUR opinion.
That is, of course, assuming you are an active member of the Church, and not simply some guy from exmormon.org posing as a faithful Mormon and acting poorly in an attempt to make Mormons look bad. Which frankly, I don’t have much reason to take your word for either.
Andrew S– what do i think of black people? I love them, im from louisiana half my friends are black, my niece and my nephew are mixed and i dont see black. I know what your getting to.. and yes i do believe the mark of cain and the lamanites in the scriptures recieved dark skin. I in NO way believe blacks are evil i just believe their ancestor was cain and ham i believe it was through the flood, yes i do believe that it has something to do with remaining nutral in the pre-existence during the war in heaven.
kuri– Im not short winded and if i write to many words buddy just ecgnore my post. I would be more anoyed by 10 small paragraphs in stead of just laying down what im trying to say, sorry you dont like how i write my paragraphs.
Jason, the Mark of Cain and Curse of Ham are both PROTESTANT doctrines that we borrowed in an attempt to explain why there was a Priesthood ban. I am aware that some LDS leaders, like Bruce R. McConkie were fans of the idea.
But I wonder, can you cite any LDS leader since the lifting the ban who has ever endorsed either of these doctrines?
profxm– 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Im sorry but i cannot see how your useing this scripture to justify homosexuality?? Shaving has nothing to do with the commandment not to have sex with other men. And yes the bible does have error in it but thas why joseph smith made corrections to some of the errors in the bible and that was not one of them, and i guess my answer to your question is prophets. If you are or were once a mormon you know that the whole religion is based around actual prophets having the authority and power from God to speak on his behalf. ” Wether it be from God or the voice of his servants it is the same”. amos 3:7- surely the lord god will do nothing unless he reveals his secrets unto his servants the prophets. Servants or prophets of God have been saying that it is wrong since adam. There has never been a prophet that has said homosexuality is ok they have always said it was an abomination in the eyes of God. so i guess it all boils down to wether you believe god ever talked or does talk to prophets. As far as picking and chosing which scriptures to believe, if the bible is confirming it in more then one location and the prophet says it is true then it is true my friend. If you study the decline and destruction of past civilizations you will see that liberalism, homosexuality, amongst many things leads to the destruction of that society. There is also something called the spirit which testifies of truth and the spirit has testified to me of the truth of this topic.
jason,
so, will righteous black people be white in the afterlife?
seth r– this may shock you but i do not agree with current lds leadership on the topic… Most of the lds leadership knows this to be true but do not want to offend our fellow brothers and sisters on this topic. They are trying to save souls and they know that if they talk about the seed of cain blacks would not want to join and there would just be contention. If members deny this they deny alot of the leaders of the early lds church. One thing i HATE is when current leaders call doctrine of early leaders OPINION, if everything turns into opinion then why follow now cause it will just turn into opinion 50 years from now. Most believe it they just dont want to offend anyone and either do i.
andrew s– yes i believe the mark of cain will be removed and glorified people will be a glorious white beyond description. I also believe in dna upgrade which when cells upgrade they take on more light and light is not a dark color.
Actually, jason, shaving has everything to do with homosexuality. If shaving is an abomination to god, which Leviticus 19:27 says it is, then you must not shave. Yet, you shave, right? If you shave, you are violating god’s commandments per the bible.
And if you say it is not a commandment, then I can retort: What makes Leviticus 20:13 a commandment? You have no foundation for claiming one commandment is an actual commandment but another is not…
Now, your response, that “living prophets” are the key also falls flat. Brigham Young taught that Adam was God, and insisted that it be taught as doctrine in the temple ceremony for a good 30 years. As soon as he kicked the bucket, the leadership dropped the doctrine. And, as you’re presently arguing with Seth and others, Mormon prophets used to argue that blacks were unworthy in the pre-existence, but have since changed their tune (though they haven’t formally denied the doctrine because doing so would admit that they once thought that). Also, the leadership once advocated polygamy and now don’t. All of those are changes in what prophets say. How can you trust “living prophets” if they are inconsistent? So, even by your own standard, you can’t use living prophets to justify your selective reliance on scripture, as living prophets are inconsistent. Hell, 40 years ago Mormon prophets considered homosexuality the equivalent of murder. Today, they call it “same-sex attraction” and just want gays to be celibate, then they can be members in good standing. If that isn’t a change (in our life times) in the views of “living prophets” I don’t know what is.
And, finally, show me an instance where a currently living prophet has actually made a prophecy and it has come true. They are no more living prophets than I am. Why put your faith in novogenerians in Utah who don’t know you and only care about your money? Put your faith in you and something more reliable, like science.
seth r– i hope you realy are a faithful member of the church. All i can say is i can asure you that i am, i work with the missionaries just about every day, i served a mission in santa cruz bolivia. And this may sound funny to you but i have also recieved visions of being a worrier and i believe i will have a very important role comming up here soon in these last days. I dont think its only a spiritual worrier i feel it will also be some sort of physical war. So seth im not like alot of mormons who sit there practicing blind faith and just relying on what others have told me in sunday school (not saying you are). Some how are membership has become the most close minded people their are. “The glory of God is intelligence” even joseph told brigham if i told you what i know you would leave the church and become apostate.. paraphrasing.. Remember that “evil will only triump when good men do nothing” and sorry to say thats a big chunk of our membership.
Oh, I’ll vouch for Seth. If he’s just pretending to be a faithful Mormon, he’s doing “a hell of a job”.
profxm– Brigham never taught that adam was god as doctrine he stated it was his opinion. I have a lot of opinion that could be proven correct or false butt when a prophet says he recieved it through revelation from God then it is doctrine. Brigham never said it was doctrine. God also said to chop a part of your penis off but he never said your going to hell for doing it. we still believe that homosexuality is Next to murder. My opinion is that liberals have infiltrated some aspects of the church and the church is slowly moving to the left and we also learn from pres. taylor that a plauge would start that would kill a percentage of the population and i believe well i know that its from unworthy members of the church and you can bet if your gay and your going into a temple i would worry. We are starting to apease evil DEEDS and were starting to call good evil and evil good this is all said in the scriptures and if you study the scriptures you can see a mile ahead and expect all thats happening to happen its all been prophesied. were apeasing liberals, gays, illegal immigrants and their is starting to be a small devide from our liberal members and our more conservative members. Its all been prophesied… I already know the outcome.
well mormonism at its finest it not something most mormons would say but hey most members dont talk like me either so ill give you that seth.
ExMoHoMoDon– ooh, hasty hasty.. If you dont believe the scriptures then you dont believe them, the scriptures were the words of christ through prophets and apostles. If you want christ himself to justify your actions then pray and ask him if what your doing is right. No matter how you justify it FRIEND or should i call you BROTHER which one do you prefer. Oh thanks for clarifying that gays go to the gym i never would have suspected?? Please dont put words into my mouth. Like i said before i believe gays are some of the nicest people i have ever met but if your waiting for justification it will never come. If you dont believe the scriptures then what do you care what the bible has to say theres no need to even worry about it? Have fun at the gym
OK jason… let me get this straight.
You say you disagree with current LDS leadership.
And you’re accusing ME of not being a faithful Mormon?
What about all that stuff about not valuing dead prophets over living ones? Do you really not see the irony here?
If you ask me, the veneration some certain LDS membership place on folks like Bruce R. McConkie verges on outright idolatry.
Really jason, the only thing you’ve managed to convince me of in our little exchange so far is that you value your own opinion more than you value the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now in all fairness jason, I don’t simply blindly accept everything the LDS leadership says either (ask anyone here).
But can you really take pot shots at me just because the areas where I’ve chosen to exercise a bit of independent judgment as a faithful latter-day saint are different than yours?
I’ve got a question for this “jason” character…
In one of your earlier posts, you said that “If you study the decline and destruction of past civilizations you will see that liberalism, homosexuality, amongst many things leads to the destruction of that society.”
I’ve heard this bit of misinformation repeated several times, and it simply isn’t true. Would you be willing to provide examples? I mean “amongst many things” is pretty vague, but if you could show even ONE example of liberalism and homosexuality being the downfall of a civilization I would really appreciate it.
Jason Actually Don is just fine, as you are neither a friend or a brother. You said ‘justify what I am doing..’ What does that mean? You don’t know a thing about how I live…absolutely nothing, yet you presume to talk about ‘justifying what I am doing’??? You don’t know what I do, other than going to the gym. Your presumption that you are able to make judgements about what I do proves my point about religion making people think they have the right/ability to judge others. I know you will continue to prove my point.
Seth r– no seth you didnt get the disclamer i left saying i wasnt talking about you? i did clarify that in the above post. No you can come up with your own judgment on any issue you want thats why we have free agency. Im dont want to ever cut you down for your opinion or your beliefs, the only time that i would quickly rebuke something it would have to be a pretty bad sin and homosecuality is next to murder in the seriousness of the sin. Quesion, when you say you have your own independent beliefs as well…which is great.. but, are you reffering to having feeling towards other men? are you gay seth? ps i had to take an ambien so im realy gonna start spelling stuff wrong.
ExMoHoMoDon– someone please tell me who don is?? I dont remember ever writing a don. A person is not suppose to judge but if you must judge judge rightously. By your words by your name exmo-homo-don ???? lol. don, are you don? arent you the one who said you were on your way to the gym to have your gay workout my FRIEND? I dont remember it could have been someone else but im to tired to look around for it. The thing that is most important in the world to have is good old common sence, which most intellectuals lack they are an “Educated Fools”. You justify, meaning you can give yourself 101 reasons why its ok to do this sin or that sin. well if just hang out with this boy i have feeling for it will be ok i will never sen and do anything with him and when you do you get excommunicated and then you start to blame the church and its members for making this happen to you. you start to justify your statements by finding in a blogg site like this with similar thinking people and they will justify to you that youve dont nothing wrong and its the other guys, and people like me are just devistated cause once the spirit enters us it makes us love everyone poeple we dont even know and that makes us want to get you back to church and help you to let the savior change your life and you never know you feeling gay might be your main trail on this earth, to see if you can overcome it and make it back to the celestial kingdom with heavenly father. SO, just repent, confess, tell god your sorry, and ask him to take it away from you cause i promise you were not born that way. satan will get man to sin in any way he can. I know my roomate had satan walk into his room he had to stand and face him putting his right arm up into a a quare and commanded him to leave that was a scary meeting. ok to long to correct mistakes so please read some southern writing.
Why on earth are you assuming that everyone here is gay? And why should I have to answer that question for you anyway? Honestly, it’s none of your business, and it has nothing to do with my arguments here.
Jason, you have not a clue what my sins are. Pumping iron is a sport I enjoy. Never actually heard of a ‘gay workout’. Since you seem to know so much about homosexuality, perhaps while you are telling others how to live, you can find time to explain what a ‘gay workout’ is. Some big job you have–assessing the sins of others, telling others how to live, and speaking for God.
iBear–Where to start..sodom and gomora were one of the earlies, just like a few others im going to name they start of poor then the lord blesses the people and people start to become rich and greedy. There are also more poor people during these times. Well as evil sets in the people start to be liberalized in many ways their fine clothing and apparrel, their jewelry, and all precious stones, then they begin to be prideful and think themselves better then others, they become elitess start making new liberal codes of conduct. They begin to make evil look. liberals get into power and start corrupting law and judges and just twisting everything around so they feel more at home with pople who they feel more of a kindship to, other evil people. We go from prostitues, kneckade girls, then when the society hits rock bottom men seak the flesh of men and women seak the flesh of women. i could go on and on but just look how it is RIGHT NOW this is what it looks like when the land is close to being destroyed and God destroys the wicken from off the land, the telestial bound people will be burn off the earth like in an oven at the day of the lords comming and that includes ACTING gays. ok more place… Ancient greeks, roman empire, persion empire,english empire, during NOAH’S FLOOD they had a problem with these same things mem wanted men and it was destroying gods plan for his children. HEBREWS, the got destroyed off their land cause they started to be perverted and acting in the way as mentioned above, sill to this day they say that like 40 to 50 percent of jews are liberal and believe me thats why God had to chastize his children for their abomination. The USA, where there no my person opinion is the seccond comming will be around 2019 and the 7 years of tribulation will start on 2012 ooohh i know. These statements are my opinion but if i could bet money i would bet you one these dates. LAMINITE people turn to evil and were destroyedm, the NEPHITES were told they would never lose this land if they would only obey Gods commandments, well we know they didnt they started doing all the evil things that every other great culture has done. ITS A CYCLE, ITS ALL A CYCLE! First the people are poor and humble, second they start to be pridful because of their plenty, and third they get wicked, liberalized, start going after STRANGE FLESH (other MEN) then Gods prophets warn the people to repent and turn back to God and then out of no where things start to happen and it will all depend on the choices you make now.
EVERYONE–if my educated guess is correct, just say it was and the 7 years of tribulation starts around the year 2012 and the second commind of christ was the year 2019 would you stay with the same mindset? I know im not going to change your feeling on this but that could happen very soon men you dont have to hange on for to much longer and if your currently sinning or have in the past please go and confess to whomever your church leader might be. But first go do God and ask him if what ive said is true dont take my words on it pray and ask god and if you feel something good when you ask that your confermation that i speak the truth to you. I hope you guys would consider doing that once more in your life. thanks
Jason
How about an appearance on Glenn Beck?
Seth r– the more i read your words the more i feel your gay. you might not be but im putting two and two together and using good old common sense on this one. As far as gospel topics i see that im going to have to dumb down myself a lttle bit and get on your level. first, i dont disagree with our current leadership, i believe our doctrine true and correct but alot of time even our leaders give their opinion and momons like your self go around hiding the coca cola cause of the whole apearence of evil thing, the point i was making is that i disagree with alot of their opinions on certain topics and things theyll tell you themselves that they just dont know.second i never said NOT to value the doctrines of the dead prophets where did you read that i made the very opposite point. the point was that i value the early prophets and apostles just as much as i do now, i said we cannot obanded the doctrines of the early chruch and i said i disagree with current leadership calling the words of tons of the founders as opinion, cause if your a member you should know that when a prophet says something in general conference it is scripture to us and doctrine and will never be opinion cause pres. monson or whomever doesnt know or doesnt agree. Seth what i hate more then anything is a panzy mormon. mormons with no balls. Draw your line in the sand, dont be part of the problem… i wonder if your a harry ried mormon the baby killer.. well harry reid more then likely is a son of perdition he has said that he is trying to get as many people like himself into the church and at key leadership positions. so seth if you want to join his gang go ahead but when the boys rush down from the rock mountains i might be one of the men leading the armies and if your not with us then you must be against us. I dont go deep on these conversations cause no offense but not manny would keep up. LUKE WARM SETH, LUKE WARM…and what will you do about it.
Where to start indeed…1st of all, Sodom and Gomorrah were allegedly 2 CITIES, a far cry from “civilizations”. 2nd, you said to search HISTORY, not mythology, and the biblical accounts of their destruction are myth, not history.
The Nephites and Lamanites are fictional. Remember, we’re looking for HISTORY.
The Persians were conquered by the Greeks. “Liberalism” and homosexuality had nothing to do with it. The Greeks, in turn, were conquered by the Romans. Again,”liberalism” and homosexuality had nothing to do with it.
The Roman Empire collapsed due to internal corruption. At its end it was a CHRISTIAN empire, and homosexual behavior had been ILLEGAL there for nearly a century. Hardly what I would call “liberalism and homosexuality.”
The “English Empire” was lost to democracy, most notably here in the US. But the British Empire didn’t fall, it was merely replaced by representative governments…in fact, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still consider the Queen as their ceremonial head of state.
You have not only failed to provide an example, but you have instead demonstrated the fact that you don’t know ANYTHING about history. For the love of god READ A BOOK! “The English Empire”!? Are you *&$@ing kidding me?
I love glenn beck he’s my hero after christ but, im sure you probably already new that. haha I write Glenn but hopefully i do soon get to meet up with him.
ExMoHoMoDon — i never called your workout gay? i was being sarcastic like wow i never knew that. never said there is a gay workout. maybe you should make one you could make some cash? lol just kidding FRIEND. You may not be gay but then id be lieing to my feelings and intuition. Cause if your were an active mormon you would NEVER defend homosexuality. ive been to churches at many locations and ive never heard any defend such a grevious sin on the contrary we abhor it with a passion. Idk maybe its the homo in your display name and that you all are pro gay. I dont know your sins. you may just be gay in mind only and not in action and if thats the case your doing the right thing keep up the good work. Cause belive me i could get 100 of the mormons i know pretty well and they would ALL be backing me up so if everyone is backing up the homosexual life style on here then you can put two and two together, its not brain science fellows.
Jason — It is rude to tell Seth you’re “dumbing-down” your argument for him. Also, claiming that Seth is gay is an irrelevant personal speculation, and Don asked you not to call him “friend”, yet you persist in doing so. Are you trying to make Mormons look good or bad here?
OK. I have decided that I don’t have the foggiest idea what Jason is talking about.
iBear–i have to go to sleep now but ill tackle that bear tommorrow. And hopefuly i can show you your error and the error of your ways. first please tell me in advance are you gay? ok well maybe everyone can tell me so i can stop guessing. good night my fruit loops,, lol just kiding
I’m only still up because I’m watching the massive quake and tsunami that just hit Japan a few hours ago.
Served my mission there after all.
Seth
I was a missionary in Japan too, and I have friends/family there, and my kids are in Hawaii.
Jason, you seem to be spending a remarkable amount of time and effort looking for gay people. Is this your own personal witch hunt, or has no one responded to your ad on craigslist yet?
Mine are in Taiwan. Safely, thankfully.
Indulging in fantasies of earth-cleansing deadly conflagrations is most likely a symptom of paranoia but it’s also mostly an enormous waste of time. We all live in a physical world that isn’t going to suddenly become a less dangerous place simply because we’ve rallied one hundred, one thousand, one million, or even one billion to our cause.
The Bible says something about humility, doesn’t it?
Hi Chino
I’m a huge CB fan. Thankfully it looks like the swell is minor on O’ahu. Family/friends in Japan are in Tokyo, where it appears there is major shaking, but less damage than in Sendai.
I served in the Sendai mission. I’ve lived in or been to most of the places they’re showing on the news.
iBEAR– First of all if you think the bible is myth and the stories in them are myth just go do your thing and eat, drink and be merry cause there’s no point in you trying to prove your point with a bible you dont believe in. Im sure the “cities” du civilization ok well call it what you want a big town who cares, thats like argueing over who’s garbage stincks more (not important). The nephites and the lamanites are not myth. Your entitled to believe they were if you want but if your at a blog that asks why people leave the lds church then one would expect you at some point or another were or use to be a member or are farely familiar with our doctrine so, if your an athiest thats a entirely different arguement and one that bores me at this point and i just woke up.. If you want to strickly go off of history go and research “the moundbuilders” there are mounds that were found all over north america with artifacts proving the lds church to be true. Thousands and thousands of artifacts have been found and some even show things mormons might do in temples today burried under roots of trees dug up which are a thousand to two thousand year old. They even had found one tablet with the names of nephi, lehi, and sam all around the tree of life..If you want to strickly talk history and want proof read the ancient american magazines and do your research on the ancient mound builders and all the egyptain like artifacts found burried in mounds all over the northern usa. why dont many people know about this??? Because its the same concept as christ not wanting Legion or other demons testifying to people that he was christ he wanted the people to learn for themselves and show some sort of faith in the process that is why this is a time of probation to prove yourself. As for the persian empire and the weakening of their society its like the romans they got so evil that their society fell apart, when they were humble people and were more rightous they were strong but after a few hundred years greed, homosexuality, murder, money,evil, all played a role in weakening those societies so that others were more easily able to conquer them Its the same deal. Its the same thing that is happening in the usa right now. God inspired our constitution and made us the most powerful nation ever, and its the liberals today who are destroying this country and making us weak by all their evil deeds and their false precepts on how this country should be ran. Liberals take us away from our God given, God inspired society and turn us into more of a satan ran society that is also causing our downfall. The same thing happened with The brits it was only greed, corrruption, wealth, liberal ideals, on..and..on.., and they just like us today are on the verge of destruction, as a matter of fact the brits are trying to turn their country around and turn it into something like what our founding fathers started off with in the first place, even china is trying to be like how we once were. ibear you insult my intelligence its like trying to explain things to a 5th grader, you have a warped liberal view of history and you probably were never a mormon cause even the mormon church would tell you the same thing that there is a cycle that happens over and over they just would not phrase it “liberal” cause they TRY to stay out of politics. You need a few books to read and a lot of common sense..
kuri– that is great. Could you tell me if your a liberal or your gay? You seamed like you were against me on your comments of my paragraphs so you must object to my stance on liberalism or homosexuality, you dont have to answer but it would help me more to understand the individuals im talking to.
iBear– turning the discussion into insults shows you lost your arguement. No i only bring up the gay issue cause it seams everyone im talking to on here wants to support that being a homosexual is not biblical or a commandment not to be. I have not talked to ONE person on here who has said he was not gay and does not agree with homosexuality, so with a little common sense you can put two and two together.
Chanson– Is me calling don a friend when he asked me not to make me look like a horrible mormon… If thats one of the worse things i do then i say im doing pretty good and he may hate my guys cause i tell him homosexuality is an abomination in Gods eyes, but i do also have my own sense of humor and if you tell me not to call you fuity pebble then more then likey the next sentence might contain a fruity pebble. As far as dumning my self down maybe i would love to rush someone through a learning process that other wise might take another 10 years to obtain. I have nothing against seth i just know if he was in the right place doctrine wise he’d be backing me up instead of ganging up with gay ideals.
guts not guys
jason, since you obviously mean terms like “gay” and “liberal” and “fake Mormon” as insults, the person who started with the personal attacks on this thread would be YOU.
As for your obsession with finding out everyone’s sexual orientation on this thread – it’s utterly irrelevant to the debate. But that said –
Why do you think you deserve to know that kind of information in the first place? We don’t know you. You aren’t anyone’s friend here. You don’t have any particular relationship with anyone here. Really, all you are is a random guy from the Internet who came on here demanding everyone’s personal details.
Why should we give it to you? And what makes you think you are even worth an answer in the first place?
Jason,
I’m real curious how you got from me telling you that it would be easier to read your comments if you broke them into paragraphs to me “seeming to be against you.”
Don’t worry about it kuri. He also thinks I’m an commie, pro-gay marriage, homosexual spy.
So he’s been having a fun couple of days anyway.
seth– well something is wrong when you would rather take up for the arguments of homosexuals then a fellow “active and i suspect worthy” member of the chruch. Im not saying you are gay or liberal but i believe liberal mormons are apostate and people like harry reid are sons of perdition. Not saying i dont love liberals also i do but their position is not of God and they will be worse off then if they ever knew jesus in the first place. I just ask you not to apease evil or allow our gay friends to believe their strait in what their doing cause you would only be helping them get burned at christ’s arrival when the telestial people are burned of the earth at his comming. sorry to hear about japan i just turned on the news and want to hear about it but the antichrist is talking, yes i do believe obama is the antichrist and the 12th imam which are the same person. I didnt mean to cut you down buddy or be prideful in my knowledge by any means and if i do i apolagyse and i cant tell you how to intepret scripture but these things are my passion and i had my witness of things to come. The boys from the rocky mountains will come forth to save the constitution and the country when this country is hanging on as if it were a single piece of thread. So its not always going to be about hugging we will at one point need to take a stand and i for one have already drawn my line in the sand.
kuri– instead of backing me up you wanted to blast me on my english. If i took that the wrong way my bad, if you are a strong member of the church feel free to help me prove the points of doctrine that you agree with. My fingers are getting sores from debating everyone by myslef.lol
jason, look back over my comments, and this time read carefully.
Where did I ever argue in favor of gay marriage? Find me a quote.
Because as far as I know, I never did argue in favor of gay marriage or homosexual sex.
All I did was point out that YOU are acting like a turd here.
You then drew your own conclusions from that.
seth– I cant figure you out?? Some of your blogs seam like your a member who would be trying to help people to see the error of their ways but instead you try and debate me and i havent heard you say a single word to back up a fellow active member of the church, I asked you if you were, i havent acused you yet. Im around members everyday and they just about all think like me so maybe if i lived in a big city with a lot of liberal ideals i would think differently but maybe you gave up teaching your friends what we realy believe besides my opinion on certain deep doctrine topics which are my opinion.
He’s onto you! 😀
Jason,
Again, I’m curious how suggesting a way to communicate more effectively is “blasting you.”
kuri– i just proved my point. So far i dont see the fruit man.. you and seth are trying to get the only conservative member of the church to stop blogging here by tagging up with everyone else here on the site. Like i said your agreeing with unholy ideals by saying nothing. “Good will only triumph when good men do nothing”. You guys wont answer my question so my common sense is that you might be a member who is having problems feeling atractions towards fellow men. Cause i cant get you to call evil sin evil.
seth– sense ive been on here youve remained quite and only apease the sin. I dont know what youve said weeks ago or before i chimed in on this blog but if your not speaking out against homosexuality your sinning man and need to repent yourself, if your not here to help your brothers in the gospel get over gay sin what are you here for? Are you just relating to ex members who have gay tendencies and feel one with it? It can get a little confusing, and now i start to get all your insults and thats only because you can not handle me intellectualy or have you shown to use your common sense. I would love to go to sunday school with you when we talk about homosexuality and other sins and i would love to ask you your thoughts on it cause since ive been on here you remain quite.
I think Jason is secretly gay.
kuri– cause if you agree with me at all on anything wouldnt you feel it more important to back up the points of doctrine that our church believes instead of only worrying about how i write my paragraphs? Saving souls is just way more important and by the way this is the first time and only time i have went on a bloggs. So when i see the mindset on the site the last thing im worrying about is how i write my paragraphs and i would think that would be less important to you to.
kuri– cause if you agree with me at all on anything wouldnt you feel it more important to back up the points of doctrine that our church believes instead of only worrying about how i write my paragraphs? Saving souls is just way more important and by the way this is the first time and only time i have went on a blogg. So when i see the mindset on the site the last thing im worrying about is how i write my paragraphs and i would think that would be less important to you to. Plus im the only one responding to alot of people so im trying to type as fast as i can and worrying a little less how i set up my paragraphs. I would just rather write something longer then to keep braking it up into smaller paragraphs. Its not whats important dont you agree??
chris–geeeez you wish chis, my anul has an exit only sign buddy. Im no ones women.
Yeah, Chris,
jason tops exclusively.
kuri– is that your picture? Just asking cause i recognise your face i think ive met you before, can you tell me where your from?
Re: 245, worst pickup line ever.
lol yea chris if i were gay you would want me so stop wishing i were gay. Its thoughs kinds of hopes that got you in trouble with the church in the first place. If you guys want to see what i look like go to facebook and look up my email address jasonpaulstevens@hotmail.com
Jason,
To be honest, I was pretty sure from the start that there was no way you would even understand what I was saying, much less actually consider making an adjustment.
Really I wrote it because I often see people do the same thing, and some of them are capable of understanding my point and actually would care about being able to communicate better.
So how about we just drop it now, and you go right on thinking you’re doing fine?
Seth– gay is what it is its Sin and an abomination in the eyes of God, I in no way cut them down i cut down the sin of being gay and a modern liberal. So when did gays consider being called gay an insult? you dont make any since. Yea your a great member arent you suppose to love your enemy, well im not your enemy but whats the point you only agree to apease evil deeds you my friend are better off never knowing christ in the first place. luke warm…
kuri– thats fine but, i just hope you would work on your priorities. I understand what you were saying but i didnt want to do it i dont have the time to worry about that or do i want to, i dont have to have perfect english or paragraphs to communicate with you i hear what your saying, but not to sound prideful but you guys time to time have some of the most knowledgable people pass through your site and you guys blow them off cause they dont fit into your little mold or confirm your false beliefs cause you take the truth to be hard, not speaking to all of you cause you kuri i have no idea what you believe cause you wont share it. ps. i realy have seen you before just recognised your pic but yea lets just agree to disagree.
everyone– how can you not watch the devistation in japan and not quickly think to Repent?! REPENT, REPENT, REPENT, for the Lord shall come as a thief in the night and at that night you dont want to be caught in bed with your boyfriend.
That was godzilla’s doing not Jesus’.
prove me wrong.
chris– every unbeliever in the last days will think that devistation is not a sign from God but will attribute it to just nature doing nature, thats prophechy and thats one of the first things i learned when i joined the church at 16 years old, even when christ returns people will look to the skys and will not believe it is jesus and will say it was an astroid and still deny it. Unholy men can converse with an angel and 5 minutes later deny they ever did and state they must have been seeing things. You believe in godzilla and ill keep my faith in the almighty God.
Wow…a devout, outspoken mormon who doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about. I’ve certainly never encountered one of THOSE before.
If you really believe that archaeology proves the BoM true, then you are beyond reason or education, and I simply don’t have the time today to show you how indescribably wrong you are. Maybe some other time.
In the meantime, I would suggest you do something about your dosage…either up or down, because it certainly isn’t right where it is.
ibear– i dont have time to teach children today so come back when you actualy want to learn something..
jason, with me it’s a case of picking my battles here. I’m not going to wade into every dispute on this website. I’ve had some knock-down drag out fights with people on this blog before over the gay marriage issue. I’ve been called nasty names before and all that. I’ve found that homosexuality is one issue that you simply can’t have a civil disagreement over on Main Street Plaza – or at least it is incredibly difficult.
You can’t go more than a couple posts without being called a “homophobe” or something along those lines. The people here are nicer than many ex-Mormon venues and generally polite. But there’s just something about the homosexuality issue that apparently makes people’s brains dribble out their ears.
You’re actually fortunate jason. I got hammered on this blog far worse than you have been a few months ago. You’re lucky the same set of commenters that were here then aren’t here now (or the ones here are in a more friendly mood) or this conversation would have been far more ugly.
But keep something in mind jason – just because we are fellow Mormons does not obligate me to back you up when you are taking a far more aggressive tone than I feel comfortable with. Or when you are inappropriately personalizing the debate. Or when you are pushing Mormon folk doctrines that I frankly disagree with.
I do not believe that dark skin has much of anything to do with the Mark of Cain or Curse of Ham. Nor do I believe that the Priesthood ban was ever a revelation in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an LDS POLICY, based on Brigham Young’s personal opinion, that got out of control and then required a revelation in the 70s to fix. I don’t find any scriptural basis whatsoever for believing that blacks were “fence sitters” in the pre-existence.
Nor do I see much use in linking homosexuality with Sodom and Gomorrah. I tend to agree with Hugh Nibley that the primary and most important and damaging sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was PRIDE, not sex.
Pride is always a far more damaging sin than mere sexual transgression. It is enmity toward God – as Ezra Taft Benson said. And I believe it is this sin that topples nations, more than any bedroom behavior.
Reasonable minds may differ on how much homosexuality is linked to the more pressing societal ills we have. But it’s not an area I particularly enjoy speculating in. I think there are better uses of my time and energies.
jason, the mere fact that we are fellow Mormons does not require me to back you up on issues I simply disagree with you on. Nor does it require me to buy into your own personal interpretation of the scriptures.
I’ve been on this blog for years and disagreed with just about everyone here. But my feeling is that I can do that much more effectively when I refrain from making the debate about the personalities here, and instead stick to the issues. I am also more effective when I do NOT wade in with fists flying into every single post or issue or debate raised here.
Besides, my time is scarce. On any given day, I usually have about 3 or 4 different debates about Mormonism that I am managing all at the same time. Right now I’m in a rather heated debate about the ugly nature of “New Atheism” actually – on a different blog no one here has probably heard of. And that doesn’t count email correspondence and debate that I’m involved in. Not to mention running my own law office from home. I’m busy. And I get spread too thin sometimes.
So there you are.
SEXUALITY INFOMERCIAL
my anul has an exit only sign buddy. Im no ones women.
Actually, lots of heterosexual men enjoy anal play, and lots of women (heterosexual and otherwise) do not.
Most homosexual couples actually report that oral sex is their favorite activity. It’s my understanding that 90% of heterosexual married men like it when their wives give them oral sex, 5% have never had it, and the other 5% are lying.
All right, end of sexuality infomercial. Carry on.
Oh, come now. The discussions here about when/whether to use terms like “homophobe” and “bigot” have been for the most part quite nuanced and thoughtful. Passionate, certainly, and more challenging and serious than this discussion. But “brains dripping out of ears” is hardly the way I’d characterize that debate, and that isn’t quite the terminology that represents “sticking to the issues” as opposed to making it personal.
Maybe not Chanson. But that last big fight I had over here on the issue was certainly memorable. Maybe I’d best leave it there.
And Jack…. eww.
What do you think this blog is – fMh?
seth r– ok I will only make a few comments, but first i would like you to know that though I will disagree with you on a few things i will respect your opinion a lot more now that you have gave a thoughtful response to the issues or I can understand where your comming from now alot more then i have with your previous responses towards anything i have said. As i look up at your statements ill just briefly respond to what youve said. I do not expect you to agree with everything i have said but i would hope you would not give up on letting gays know what they are doing is wrong even though youve already talked their ears off. Second i have to disagree with you on the whole folk doctrine concept. If we start to believe what a lot of the founder of our church have said as folk doctrine then the church would not be true cause we would have no foundation, not saying that the seed of cain is a big issue cause its not, but we can also see in the book of mormon that even the lamanites had their skins darkened by God when they became rebillious and broke off from the nephites, this was not only opinion but taught as doctrine and you can find it in the book of mormon its scripture. My opinion is its the opposite way around I tend to believe it was only changed at the time because of the emense preasure on the church during the civil rights movement. This may make me more of a “ultra mormon” or an early mormon type, i totaly disagree with “modern mormonism” moving to the left i believe and know it is a sign of the times and that there is a weeding out taking place in the church right now. The lord is getting his people ready for his comming. We both can agree that pride is the original sin and ofcourse is the great sin that causes all the other sins to take place or helps them take place. Homosexuality is next to murder and is a major tool of satan for bringing distruction thats why when we give interviews for baptism they ask you if you have ever been involved in any homosexual activities and you will either not be allowed to join or we would have to get permission from the general authorities themselves, It doesnt get much more serious then that. Murder, homosexuality, abortion, are some of the major issues that headquaters considers for any joining of the church and it can not be taken lightly. I only make the point that it is one of the major markers for the destruction of most if not all of ancient civilizations including current along with pride. whenever there is mass homosexuality society is on the verge of colapse and God prepared that place for destruction. I think their is in-house apostacy going on in the church right now and that one side will be weeded out from church membership or destroyed for apostacy and i believe that it has something to do with the liberal surge within the church. Look at senator harry reid, he pushes gay rights, he pushes abortion rights for people wanting to kill their children, he openly rebukes church leadership and past prophets and apostles as being to conservative and says their trying to get more democrats in church leadrship. Most of what i say does not only come from my mouth but the mouth of prophets or apostles and not to mention most scholors im not making this stuff up. I just dont understand the mindset of many members these days they are so far gone from what are church was built upon and i just hope you dont think our founders were only giving their opinions and you only believe more left leaning members now cause they might not believe joseph, brigham, pratt, and so on but if we deny them we deny they church cause through them God restored his church to the earth. I just pray your not letting the the modern day sodom and gomora mindset make you act and think more on the liberal side of thought. If there is a physical war to take place in the last days and you have to war against your liberal friends whos side would you be on? Anyway, good talking to you, and I dont know how you find all the time to write everyone cause Its very time consuming and it all goes in one ear and out the other.
Jason, here’s a free debate tip: when you have the spelling and grammar skills of a 5-yr-old, don’t EVER use the words “teach” or “learn” in a posted comment.
ms. jack– thanks for the image im trying to kick it out of my head. lol .. Yea oral sex is great but there’s no sin involved when done win wedlock, even makes it more injoyable, but please no responces oral sex Ill stay out of that one.
ibear– go back and play with your little spell check and ill keep my common sense!
jason, the Priesthood ban did not start with our “founder” Joseph Smith.
It started with Brigham Young. Joseph Smith never taught anything about blacks not receiving the Priesthood.
In fact, he ordained a black man – Elijah Abel to the Melchizedek Priesthood, allowed him his temple endowments, and made him a member of the Quorum of the Seventy.
The Priesthood ban appears to have been solely Brigham Young’s own invention as far as I can tell.
And no, this does not shake my faith in the Restored Gospel or the LDS Church. Changes how I view it – yes – but it doesn’t shake my faith or conviction.
You ought to seriously ask yourself why such a thing should shake your faith.
Yes my spelling sucks but whatever like i said before it was the first thing to leave me when i finished college and hey im a cajun from south louisiana so i might not talk like some of you but i like it so owell.
seth– it doesnt shake my faith at all. I could write you an essay on error that i have found but I know what i felt when i got on my knees to ask the Lord which church to join at 16 years old, i felt the spirit so hard i had a vision and i have never felt something so strong sense not even on a mission so i could never deny that the church is true. When joseph was killed which by the way was set up by masons, he even gave the mason sign for help and mercy as he was being shot, but back to my point, no one knew who would be the prophet and we both remember what happened to testify to the brethern that brigham would be the prophet. Now besides joseph, next you would have to say that brigham young was one of the major founders of the church and if we are going to say we dont believe what brigham said we might as well say everythings not true cause what do we have if a major founder was wrong on most of his points of doctrine. Have you ever considered that joseph had not recieved the revelation yet that black should not hold the priesthood? well im glad they can im just making the point that we cant disregard our founding prophets of the church and we cant change to current social traditions or behaviors of a society, the church should never change doctrine.
seth– would you tell me if you are a liberal, no its not my buisness but could you tell me that?
Seth, it’s actually very important to bring up what exactly is happening in the American bedroom when it comes to these discussions. The question of “homosexual sex as a sin” tends to get reduced to an unspoken relationship between vaginal sex (penis + vagina = reproductive potential) versus anal sex (penis + anus = non-reproductive potential) when in hetero and homo relationships neither of these sex acts are necessarily occurring. In reality, just as Ms Jack says, hetero men anally penetrate women, hetero women anally penetrate men, and some gay couples do nothing but cuddle. Yet, official Mormon discourse would have “homosexual feelings” as something to struggle against, because it could lead to gay cuddling (or OMG, same-sex sodomy), whereas already occurring opposite sex sodomy is ignored because it occurs within “marriage” that has “reproductive possibility,” even if the couple is steadfast about not having children: AKA no reproductive possibility (unless of course, you want to deny people their agency). This is a double standard born from a set of ideals that don’t correspond to reality, not even the reality of Mormon culture.
Laying this out on the table is not what I would call brains dripping out of ears” or “ew, gross.”
Alan I didn’t really care. I was just making fun of Jack because I know her.
jason, I don’t care to be categorized in such a fashion. As far as I’m concerned the Republican party is the equivalent of the Pharisees, and the Democrats are the equivalent of the Sadducees, and the Tea Party are are just plain nuts.
Okay…now that I’m on a computer instead of typing on my phone, let’s do this thing:)
Jason, you wrote “there are mounds that were found all over north america with artifacts proving the lds church to be true.”
There ARE mounds all over North America. This does NOT prove the LDS Church is true. You seem to be under the unfortunate impression that archaeology agrees with the Book of Mormon. It does not. Let me give you a few examples.
The BoM makes several mentions of horses in the ancient Americas. There were no horses in the Western Hemisphere until Europeans brought them; all prehistoric species of horses died out at the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago. (That’s about 6,000 years before the Jaredites allegedly arrived.)
The BoM talks about the Nephites forging steel swords. There is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE made any kind of steel in the Americas before Columbus arrived.
The Book of Ether claims that the Jaredites had elephants in the New World. Just with horses, the last elephants died out in the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age.
The Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites and Lamanites were the descendents of Jewish Lehi and his family. DNA testing has shown that Native Americans are NOT of semitic descent, instead having come from Siberia across the Bering Land Bridge–just as archaeologists have suggested for decades.
A further archaeological contradiction is that the BoM talks about the Nephites having chariots. There were NO chariots in the Americas, in fact there were no wheeled vehicles of ANY kind until the arrival of European explorers.
The Book of Ether says that the Jaredites’ windows would have been “dashed to pieces” by the waves during the oceanic crossing which was supposed to have been in 2,000 BC. No civilization on earth had glass windows at that time. Furthermore, the Book of Ether compares the shining stones to “transparent glass” despite the fact that the Brother of Jared would have never SEEN transparent glass to compare them to. It hadn’t been invented yet.
Now if you’re right, Jason, then I should be clearly and demonstrably wrong on EVERY ONE of these points. So here’s your chance, dumbass. Show all of us horrible, allegedly-gay apostates how we’ve got all our facts wrong, and how all of mainstream science supports your religious beliefs. Make sure you back these statements up with credible sources. You claimed earlier that resorting to insults meant that I had lost the argument. You’re wrong about that, too. I transitioned to insults because you’re obviously too stupid to keep up with reality.
Do your research, and then come back and show me how archaeology supports the Book of Mormon. Or come back and apologize for shooting your mouth off without having the first damn clue what you were talking about.
I’ll wait.
iBear, your data is largely correct, but your conclusions are almost all purely speculative.
Personally, I don’t care to open up this debate to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, because it’s totally off topic and jason shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place.
But don’t expect that batch of assumptions you are making to get quiet agreement from me. DNA has NOT disproven the Book of Mormon, the archeological status of horses in North America is not established, the Book of Mormon never claims there were wheels in pre-Columbian America, your bit about the Jaredite barges is entirely speculative, and your bit about glass is irrelevant because the Book of Mormon is a translation.
Aside from that, I don’t care to get into this debate with you on this thread, because it’s a massive threadjack – no matter who started it.
Seth ~ And Jack. eww.
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it, Mr. Gloomy Bankruptcy Attorney.
Jason ~ Yea oral sex is great but theres no sin involved when done win wedlock
I agree with you.
Incidentally, Spencer W. Kimball & Gordon B. Hinckley would not have agreed with you.
Alan ~ Well, my point was not meant to be anywhere near as thoughtful as that, but I am generally against stereotyping certain types of sex acts as “gay” or effeminate.
seth– Tea party all the way, go sara palin!!! yea… Thats why i love glen beck if anyone wants to know how i think i think just like him.. I agree with your opinion on the two other parties but i differ because of the liberal infiltration of both parties being that i believe so called “liberalism” is the devils version government. But, Ive agreed with you more then anyone else on here so i wont argue you to much i still have hope for you yet.. Yea focus on iBear he is CRAZZZY! haha
iBear– I would have to have a counceling session with you so ill make this simple. I have to give credit to seth i agree with what he said about picking your battles cause i think your brain is locked up and your still trying to find the key. I didnt say that i use the mounds to prove the church is true, i dont need to worry about when horses, cows, chickens, elephants, or whatever came to the land to prove or disprove the book of mormon or the bible, being that God sets this stuff up where he wants us to rely mostly on faith its not important to me wether dates completely match up cause they never do. As far as steel being found before columbus man just read non mormons in the ancient american magazine, indeed steel has been found forged on skeletal remains far before columbus came to america. The rest of your statements are laughable and they are mostly speculative, so how do you want me to debate you on speculative arguments? You ever debated a jehova witness or tryed to do missionary work on a member of their faith? well, no matter what you say to them you’ll never get anywhere and i get the feeling that your cup is already full of education in fooldum try emptying a little out and you might learn something.
Now that I’ve had time to go back and read the full extent of this fun-happy thread, I just wanted to add that I’ve met Seth in person. Twice.
He’s got Peter Priesthood written all over him (and really nice teeth, too).
He’s as Mormon as green Jell-O with carrots in it.
Ms. jack– I believe now that Seth is lds i didnt at first and the reason why is because ive never met a member of the church who is as liberal as seth and still active in the church so thats a new one for me to scratch my head over. No, i dont know him personaly but i work with members of the church every other day and the missionaries.. well probably to much cause we can get on eachothers nerves and laugh about it.haha I just feel very strongly that liberalism withing the church is causing an in-house apostacy, but seth sounds like a good guy i just find his views on politics a little to left leaning and i find it might fall into his understanding of certain gospel topics.. ps. its good to know im not the only one who works to keep my teeth sparkling.
MALE BONDERS– I was just thinking about the title of this blog, “why are we leaving the lds church in droves? why? why? why?” Well.. because your gay! lol Im not being harsh, the majority of you on here are gay and question why you find yourself at odds with the church of Christ and dont know why your leaving it, because your putting your love for man above the love of the savior and being apart of his church and ruining your chances to make it back to live with your heavenly father. So tell yourself this, “why are we leaving the lds church in droves? why? why? why?” because your gay, gay, gay…I say that lovingly and im not trying to lol but i tend to crack myself up.. ok have fun.
Depends on what you’re liberal about I would imagine. I don’t really recall revealing too much of my political beliefs on this thread.
seth– just making an educated guess. Well, when you were calling the tea party people nuts and a few of your ideas on deep doctrine were the same as i read a while back on a few anti-mormon sites but i cant argue with you over deep docrine cause either one of us could be right or wrong. I myself am a member of the tea party, we stand for feedom, low taxes, small government, honoring the God inspired constitution which our prophets have said they were inspired by him, and most importantly putting God back in the fiber of this country and back into our homes. Glenn beck just gave the restoring honor rally where he did not involve politics and they prayed to be able to do the will of the father and getting God back into the fabric of our society, he also is a tea party member and has been working great miracles for our God on national tv 5 days a week he even teaches our doctrine or works it into his broadcast. so i was just putting two and two together that if you think were nuts you must hold similiar views as the liberals cause most conservatives and the majority of independents dont think so. If my guess was wrong im sorry but something tells me im correct.
I generally try to keep politics as separate from religious matters as possible. And I maintain a commitment to keeping my participation at Church each Sunday as apolitical as possible. I mess up from time to time, but I try.
Seth r– totaly understandable, i just find that sometimes many liberals are so far gone to the left that they leave the church cause they can not relate to it, cause it stands against everything they stand for they can only rationalize so much (not talking about you). ps. you would hate me at church cause id give a hell and fire talk during sacrament and add in the evils of modern liberalism, but other then that we would get along just fine.lol
Man, blogging can be addicting hu?? Ill make sure i dont make this a habbit.
Good idea.
Someone should have told me that 7 years ago.
seth–i might also have some liberal in me when it comes to the law of consecration, but i would just like to make a random point and that is that charity is not charity when one is being forced to be charitable, that is communism and my spirit and mind go strait to the pre-existence and i can almost imagine satan offering up his plan that he would not let one single soul be lost, but he wanted the glory. satan wanted to take away our free agency. Its the same when it comes to the law of consecration, it is only good when it is ran by christ and we still have our free agency to obey the law or not being that it is a celestial law. If obama and all the other liberal leaders want to give of our goods to the people without a choice in the matter and redistribute the money shows that it was an attempt to overthrow our free agency and its satans attempt at his own law of consecration, satan style. sorry that was so random.
I don’t think I’ll ever call Godwin’s Law or Poe’s Law again. From now on, I’m only calling Dunning-Kruger Effect.
kuri– dunning-druger effect?? could you explain?
Read all about it here.
What’s happening here is Westboro Baptist Church level nonsense. It’s becoming tiresome.
I suppose this sort of thing drives up page views, but over time it can transform a site’s commenting culture from one of reasonably intelligent, mostly civil conversation to one of semi-literate rants vs. angry responses. I kind of think that’s not what most of us here really want.
I stopped reading jason’s comments about 50 comments ago. I literally just skip past them and read everyone else’s. I gave jason up for a lost cause after his second response to me, even though I figured he wasn’t worth reading well before that. He’s really just here to insult and annoy; classic characteristics of a troll. I say we stop feeding him.
Anyone who enters a forum demanding that everyone agree to play by his terms isn’t worthy of my attention, let alone the attention of those who post on here regularly. jason has no business knowing where any of us stand regarding the church or knowing about our sexuality. And since he is not open to rational discussion concerning his religious views (“Evidence? WTF is evidence? Logic? I’ve never heard of that? What is this logic of which you speak?”), I see no point in continuing this charade. Let him go play arrogant, irrational homophobe on someone else’s forum…
profxm– I think you threw logic under the bus a few men ago.. I dont play by your terms either does God so yea, just go on and pass up my comments cause they condemn you and you want to keep thinking your using logic to rationalize your sinful behavior, but you only have a few years left then youll want to hide under a rock when the savior comes back to hide your sin(s). Good luck and have a nice day.
chino blanco– westboro baptist church? Thos guys are idiots and in no way represent christ and his teachings so im dumnfounded by how someone can compare a WORTHY member of the church to some cult who call themselves christians. If i saw that church doing their little thing by me i would punch them in the face so, even though im against homosexuality id probablly be one of the only ones to actualy defend gay people to that extreme.
kuri– im not trying to openly insult anyone i just cant understand how any worthy member of the church could sit back and let people think the sin of homosexuality if ok and not that big of a deal, i care more about that persons soul then i do them getting temporary pleasure.
Are you going to listen? Or will you continue to rant?
Church leaders used to say that when people have homosexual thoughts, they were sinning. Tell me…is this what you believe? This is what Church President Spencer Kimball said in the 1960s. But Church leaders today don’t say this anymore. Why? Because many human beings (including possibly yourself) have “same-gender attraction.” The Church realized that when homosexual thoughts are thought about as sin, this requires many people to make themselves only have attractions to the opposite sex. But this “cure” proved to be impossible. People tried for many, many years to “cure” themselves, sometimes in painful ways (like electrocuting their genitals when they were sexually attracted to someone they didn’t want to be attracted to). So the Church changed to acting on homosexual attractions is the sin, while having homosexual attractions is not a sin (attractions are “temptations” to fight against). This change happened in the 1980s.
Meanwhile, those in the Church who have family members who have same-gender attraction (homosexual feelings only, not bisexual) LEAVE the Church every day. They don’t leave because they want to “get temporary pleasure” or want to “go sin,” but because they don’t feel like they belong in the Church. Even if Church is where everyone is supposed to belong, a lot of people begin to feel like the idea of their whole life having to be one of “struggle” just to “belong to the Church” doesn’t make any sense. They also see happiness outside the Church. It doesn’t matter what you think about this happiness; I’m just telling a story here. The truth is, a lot of Mormons who leave the Church over this aren’t entirely happy because they have trouble committing to their choice, they deal with their family rejecting them, and so on.
Now, you can blame the family, the person leaving, or the Church for this rejection and unhappiness…I’ll leave that up to you. In fact, it doesn’t really matter who you blame — the rejection and unhappiness is still there. Some people don’t leave. They take it upon themselves to “struggle”…and the truth is, many days don’t feel like a struggle. A person might focus on work, their children, or whatever and be generally happy…but they’ll always feel like a part of themselves is “broken,” a kind of crutch they carry. For some people, they literally cannot live the way the Church says is the best way to live…the struggle is so intense that they commit suicide.
I don’t think same-gender attraction is a kind of brokenness. That’s my belief. If you have any children that have same-gender attraction and you consider them “broken,” and they don’t think of themselves as broken, then trust me, you’re going to have problems understanding your child. Your child will pull away from you in a lot of ways. Thus, homosexuality becomes an issue that pulls families apart and pulls individuals from the Church. You can think this is Satan’s work (which I suspect you do), or you can think that maybe the gays rights movement is a response to discrimination against the way people are on Earth. In Heaven, you can think that there’s no homosexuality, or you can think that families that have two moms or two dads will probably be there because they’re families, too. But hopefully you might understand how a worthy members of the Church might think about this topic more thoughtfully.
The bonus for me is that Jason’s commentary make me seem reasonable and downright nice–not to mention brilliant.
Yeah, no doubt, the brilliant-by-comparison effect is part of the allure of allowing trolls to hold forth. I just wanted to note that this one has come around flapping its arms and yelling REPENT in response to news that people are dead.
CB As usual, you hit it right on the head.
wow…there seems to be a lot of testosterone flying around here. I have now read most of the 298 comments, and wow.
First off-as a member who has recently decided to leave the Church-Jason…I think the manner in which you write insults members everywhere. You are judgmental, and insulting.
On what seems to be a place for people to present their opinions and engage in friendly debate-you have reduced it to a mud-slinging fight…where you seem to think it is ok to label people as ‘gay’ without having any idea of their sexual orientation.
As a Christian-how is it ok for you to judge others? Remember the scripture about the mote and the beam?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions-and as humans, we are far from perfect…even you. I find someone who resorts to calling people ‘gay’ for no reason, is juvenile, yet you say you are 36…the mind boggles.
It might be a little thing but let me say that the rules of capitalization exist for a reason: they render paragraphs readable.
For those of us who have to deal with dyslexia and the like, trifles like capitalization actually make a big difference. Please, be a good neighbor and abide by the rules of written English.
You will find a better reception for your arguments.
alan– First, if a bad thought or a homosexual thought enterns into your head that in its self is not a sin! It only becomes sin in two ways; one, if you start to dwell upon the thought and dont imediatly check it out of your head. second, When you eventualy act upon that thought ofcourse is sin, but not just win one jumps in an out your head its hard for us to control that it happens to me all the time but people might think i have something wrong with me cause they might catch me shaking my head and if they only new that was me trying to kick the thought out so would not dwell up it. Oh and as far as president kimball theres a fine line between it just getting there and you dwelling on it, he probably meant when your dwelling on it.
I agree that it can be a very hard struggle that one might have to go through ya know but, we all have are weakness and things that we are working on that bring us in odds with the church and if you ever want to hear mine ill tell you one day. I know its hard but, what you can remember the lord saying it may be hard but it will be worth it. Im not prophet but i will promise you that we indeed are in the last days and We are so close and your or anyone elses sacrafice will be multiplied 1000 fold in the next life which i believe is only years ways.
Thy strugle shall only be but for a small momment and if YOU alan indure it well ye shall be exalted on high! I know its not easy when i get up in the mormoning to go to church my nerves get bad and i feel im on my way to jail but, something happens once im there and i start to feel the spirit it chances everything. Alan i know its alot easier out there in the world and alot of other churches would make us do half the stuff the church wants you to do. But, i do it or try my best to do it cause i know my savior is comming very very soon alan, just watch the news everyday and what i do now determines where i will be for ETERNITY, and i would love to see you there buddy.
I study prophecy alot, last days type of stuff im kinda addicted to it so its freaking me out how close we actual, i see everything falling right into place, i have always been taught to that this chaos and even trouble with in the church would happen cause the lord had to do a weeding out in his church, he has to separate the wheat from the tares. So those leaving, not all cause some come back are the tares.
yes you were correct that i know that satan brakes up families thats his job to destroy families and it God job to exalt families, families with a loving mother and fathr who can have kids together in the next life to populate other worlds with your children and two men could never fufill gods purpose to do that it would frustrate God and turn him into a liar.
In the next life those who get to make it to the celestrial kingdom are either ministering angels, who are not givin into marriage in the next life. therefor they do not have sex at all to even worry about it. Then there are the gods, those can make up two types and two types alone. 1) one man with one women who have spirit children and do things like heavenly father does now. 2) one man with many women meaning polygamy, their will never be two husbands with wives. Prophets and apostles have always taught that to be the case. So i hear ya man i know you or your friends are having a hard time and are confused and think its gods doing but budy satan wants nothing more then to destroy you life and heavely fathers plan..The family…..moses 1:39 “FOR BEHOLD THIS IS MY WORK AND MY GLORY TO BRING TO PASS THE IMMORTALITY AND ETERNAL LIFE OF MAN” And all satan wants is to destroy you and make sure you never make it back to our father presence. You can do it man, could you get on you knees and ask the lord with your whole heart and ask him what you want.. well i probably dont have to explain to you what you have to do i think you already know. ps i do understand and respect your points..
kuri–is that how you like it?
ExMoHoMoDon–Anything i can do to help raise your selfasteam is a win win situation for the both of us.
paragraphs i mean-
Emily– if you have recently left the church then you just might not be in the right mind frame on how to judge active members. I say the word “gay” cause as far as ive alway know the word is not bad or an insult to a homosexual or atleast not around here where im from its like asking or saying your white or black, strait or gay. So if you think the word gay is an insult take it up with the gays cuase i am not. And if you read this blog as much as you said you have you would realize this site is mostly made up of homosexuals, liberals, bisexuals, and so i think i was right on topic. And remeber “if you must judge judge rightously and i call sin as sin and i dont call evil good and good evil. So i like to think of myself as the big brother who gets on their nerves and tryes to set them strait but if someone messed with my little brother i would kick the other guys but for my gay friend. By the way im 32 and still beautiful so stay away from the near 40’s youll give me a complex.
chino blanco–well i guess youve heard of the scripture that says not to cast your pearls before swine… Do you know what a pearl is, well its God giving you one more oportunity to hear the gospel before he dusts his feet off on you and it is close my friend. What is a swine, well its evil or worldy men who will just take your pearls of salvation and trample them under their feet. So i know everything a rightous man would tell you would go through one ear and out the other. Dont ask me ask god and ask him in prayer. Dont worry soon i will be off this site and everyone can agree with eachother and there will be no progression amongst you cause you dont like people not thinking in your box.
Re: 289, 290, 291 — No doubt. I’m kind of surprised to see how long this has been going on. I didn’t read it at all yesterday — mostly because I was busy finishing up building the most amazing Lego city I’ve ever made. I’m going to try to post some pictures of it later today.
I must admit I haven’t read all the responses to this thread, but I thought I would give my opinion anyway. IMO, the Internet is the reason so many people are leaving the church now. What used to be difficult to find (such as information on Mormonism) is now easily accessible with just a click of a mouse. And although TBMs would tell you that the information on the Internet is “anti,” the fact is that most of it is not — it is the truth. From the truth behind Polygamy to Polyandry to the First Vision to the supposed martyrdom of Joseph Smith to the Book of Abraham to the Book of Mormon to the Kinderhook Plates and on and on, it is all right there. To paraphrase a well-known “Mormon” scripture, “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of Google.”
My experience both in the mission field and in dealing with local inactive members is that they don’t really know or care about all the issues on the Internet.
They simply lost interest or never integrated into the LDS community.
If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If your an online ex-Mormon, you tend to assume all ex-Mormons are just as torn up about the controversies as you are. But it really isn’t necessarily the case.
When did you go on your mission Seth?
ahem.
Who needs the internet when people like Jason will peddle distasteful Mormon doctrine unironically anywhere and everywhere.
If I didn’t already KNOW that’s what Mormons Really Believe (TM), I might’ve been quite perturbed to discover
Seth, Diane, there’s no reason you can’t both be right.
It is true that a lot of people (especially new converts) simply lose interest or were never integrated into the Mormon community. OTOH, it is also true that lots of people (including lifelong, committed members) leave because information flows so much more freely. The path from “I feel like there’s something that’s not right here” and actually finding out what’s not right is so much shorter and simpler.
Andrew s–No buddy its only Doctrine, not my doctrine but the doctrine of your heavenly father and jesus christ. I in the past i have given different aspects of doctrine a litte to sturn..well, probably way to sturn and im sorry if it came of mean. I know none of you will believe this but i love all of you. no i do not know you personaly but i know that when one has love in his heart he can do nothing but love his fellow brothers and sisters. I just want you guys more then anything to make it to the cesestial kingdom the place im trying realy hard to go, and i just get pissed off sometimes cause id love to kick the crap out of satan cause he is trying to bring you to where he will be. I hope that never happens and i can see all of you one day in an everlasting peace.
I just really don’t believe that God is all that concerned about race, for one. It’s not about being stern or mean — it’s about whether you believe in a god who is so ridiculously petty as to believe in uniquely human constructs.
This is one place where fortunately, most members are wise enough to say, “I don’t know why things were like that in the history,” but of course, you have members who still think this stuff is completely doctrinal…
andrew s– you are corrrect heavenly father just wants us to get back to him and prove that we will follow him while we live on this earth. Half the people in my family are black im not worried about it cause i love them so much and God loves us 1000 fold well more than that so, yea your right its not on his mind what color you are he’s worried about one thing. moses1:39 “For behold, this is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortaliy and eternal life of man”. Thats what your father in heaven cares about hes not worried about what your skin color looks like while you live on the earth.
but you still ACTUALLY believe that black people are black because they were neutral in the war in heaven.
Andrew s–yes buddy, but what would i do if i were black. i would be the most rightous person i could possibly be in this life and prove wrong why i was ever given the mark of cain in the first place. The curse was lifted buddy, whatever happened in the preexistence was forgiven and its behind us. This may sound weird but i believe we will all be the same color in the celestial kingdom so color is the least important thing we will ever have to worry about. think about it, if its true and you are valiant on this earth you will return with honor and be a joint heir with heavenly father, thats like equal gods with all your brothers and sisters.
it’s really amazing.
you really DON’T see it at all.
andrew– I do see it buddy and ill be strait.. If i were black id be hurt, pist, betrayed, unloved by heavely father and id feel lower then other people who werent nutruel. I know i would feel like crap and id have an enternal struggle wether to join and agree or to flip them the bird and deny their gospel. Just because someone is of color they can leave this earth the most rightous saint to ever live and leave this earth after christ. Dont let satan get you down and whisper into your ears things that depress you and give you hatred towards the church. i look at it in a different way, get pissed at satan. i try and do so good that satan wouldnt hold a candle to me. I almost look at it as a competition he will never win against me cause he lost he’s in hell and me and you got our bodies and PASSED our first estate.
You know how I know you don’t get it? Because you say this:
Emphasis added.
Maybe the reason you would be hurt, pissed, betrayed, and unloved would because you’d think it were preposterous that people would be accounting for your race in a narrative of your supposed ill-doing in a previous life!
Maybe the reason you’d have an eternal struggle whether to join and agree would be because if you joined and agreed, you’d be complying with a worldview that would write you to be morally inferior.
jason, I know I’m going to regret asking this, but…
Where exactly did you get the idea that blacks were somehow “less valiant” in the pre-existence? Can you provide some doctrinal sources, quotes, anything?
seth r.–you of all people should know this.. That makes me a little confused. Unless your just asking me about the phrase “less valiant” in which i meant remained nuetral, i did not mean to say less valiant it must have been a slip of the tounge cause they could have been very valiant but maybe just didnt want to fight for anyone that day. idk? But, if your asking me for refrences i would be cool with getting you plenty another day its 3am over here and my eyes are rolling back into my head. tired… but i think you meant the less valieant thing right??
andrew– you or any other black person was never inferior and i hope my words didnt sound like i was say that. I was telling the truth that it would be hard for me cause i would feel less then all the peter the priesthoods, not because i would be black but because i always wanted to be great in heaven and even now i feel like a nobody and no matter how valient i am im only 1 in trillions and trillions. No one believes black are inferior i know i dont. But if you dont think im getting it or i dont understand would you write and tell me whats on your mind and what your thinking. Maybe if i understood a little better where your comming from i could be more supportive to your feelings on the issue. Im about to go to bed its past 3 over here in louisiana but i will look for a comment from you, if you dont want to thats fine but i wish you would and ill look for it tommorrow bud. good night
Yup. References to actual quotes.
Seth,
I can’t speak for Jason, but I had the idea mainly from the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, e.g., JFS in Doctrines of Salvation:
It wasn’t until I became an “internet Mormon” that I found out that I wasn’t required to accept such nonsense as part of the package of being Mormon.
Seth, you’re a glutton for punishment. You know jason is just going to come back with the same old quotes from church leaders. I’d even be willing to bet you’ll get a reference to Mormon Doctrine, because, you know, it’s mormon doctrine.
Yeah, I remember those two being fans of the idea. I’ve got a few modern quotes that pretty much counteract them, but if jason is going to hold these views and represent them as the Mormon position, then I simply feel like he ought to be able to demonstrate where he personally is getting them from.
@Jason – I find your comment “No one believes black are inferior i know i dont” very interesting. I was born in 1951 so spent a lot of years dealing with the “Blacks and the Priesthood” issue. It always bothered me, and I always had a problem accepting the supposed explanations. But the explanations I was given were not the truth. IMO, it was racism, plain and simple. Not only are the writing of Joseph Field Smith and Bruce R. McConkie disparaging of Blacks, but also the words of Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Mark E. Peterson, to name a few.
One of Brigham Young’s many quotes: “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. 110).
Another Brigham Young quote: You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing of one his brethren [Cain] will be cursed the longest of any children of Adam. . . [T]he Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and the black skin. (Brigham Young, “Journal of Discourses,” vol. 7, 1859 p. 290)
One of Bruce R. McConkie’s quotes: The Negroes are not equal with other races Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned (Bruce R. McConkie, “Mormon Doctrine,” 1966 ed., pp. 527-28).
One of Orson Hyde’s rants: At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the Devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side but, rather, thought the Devil had been abused and considered he had, rather, the best claim to the government. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honorable body on this earth but it came to pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he lay drunk in his tent and he with ‘wicked joy,’ ran like Rigdon and made the wonderful disclosure to his brethren; while Shem and Japheth took a garment, with pity and compassion, laid it upon their shoulderswent backwards and covered their father The conduct of the former brought the curse of slavery upon him, while that of the latter secured blessings, jurisdiction, power and dominion Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse; for Noah wished to place the curse as remote from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his grandson instead of his son. Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the Devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies information concerning the doctrine of pre-existence. (Orson Hyde, Is There Reason Then Why the Type of Birth We Receive in This Life Is Not in the Accursed Lineage of Canaan; and Hence the Negro or African Race? speech delivered before the High Priests’ Quorum, Nauvoo, Illinois, 27 April 1845).
And one of Mark E. Peterson’s rants: “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the White race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace Now let’s talk segregation Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world but let him enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing what God hath separated, let no man bring together again. (Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems as They Affect the Church, address delivered at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, 27 August 1954).
Sorry to ramble on and on, but I find it implausible when people try to say that the Mormon Church was never racist, and that no one ever thought that Blacks are inferior. Naturally, there are people within the Mormon Church who were not, or are not, racist, or who claim not to be or have been, but from Brigham Young’s time on, racism was very clear. And the only reason the Blacks were given the priesthood in 1978 was because if they didn’t change that doctrine and practice, it would have been a disaster money-wise for TSCC since it was being threatened with losing its tax-exempt status for discriminary practices. And one of the strongest pieces of evidence for that fact was that in 1980, Bob Jones University did lose their tax-exempt status because of their discriminatory dating policy. So the timing is spot-on.
I bet that if you were to divide Mormons into three groups, those who 1) know about the old teachings but not the more recent counter-teachings, 2) know about the old teachings and the more recent counter-teachings, and 3) never heard much of anything about the whole subject, 2) would be the smallest group.
My guess would be that 1) probably covers most Mormons over 50 or so, and 3) probably covers most under 30, but 2) probably covers only “internet Mormons.”
@Kuri – interesting breakdown. Being 59, I would be in the #2 group and you say that is probably the smallest group. I find that very sad.
I guess I would be considered an “internet Mormon” who became an ExMormon because I couldn’t rationalize out the lies, deception, cover-ups, contradictions, and discrepancies. How anyone can is beyond me except that sadly there are many Mormons who have absolutely no idea about either the history of the Mormon Church or its actual teachings.
I rationalized all that away for a few years because I thought I’d had spiritual experiences. But as soon as I entertained the possibility that those experiences hadn’t been what I’d thought they were, it was all over.
re 323:
Jason,
You say you don’t believe blacks are or were inferior, but you do believe that blacks were “neutral.” Don’t you think that neutrality in the war in heaven was a morally inferior position to supporting Jesus? Since you believe that blacks were NOT great in heaven, doesn’t that mean they were inferior in heaven?
You still don’t get it. The doctrine that “blacks were neutral in the war in heaven and that’s why they are black” is essentially racist. It is an essentially racist way of calling blacks morally inferior, and of blaming their race on it.
It is an essentially racist way of calling dark skin less desirable — after all, you get dark skin as a curse, or as a result of neutrality, and you get lighter skin as a result of righteousness or obedience.
AND YOU DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF THIS!
Not only that, but these doctrines do not exist in a vacuum. The same leaders and apostles and prophets who “taught” these doctrines taught a series of other racially offensive doctrines. See Diane Tingen’s comment #328. For you to believe that “blacks were neutral in heaven” implies that you AGREE with the same beliefs Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Orson Hyde, Mark E Peterson, etc., wrote.
That’s why Seth questioned you in comment #321 and 324 to find actual quotes of where you believe these doctrines to be found. Because then we can see what exactly you believe to be authentic, real Mormon doctrine.
And I mean…if you do agree with those guys…if you really DO believe that is correct Mormon doctrine and that the only reason the modern church doesn’t believe these things TODAY is because the church has been “infiltrated” by “gay liberal socialists” and are trying to be politically correct, then whatever! Just state that the church and you believe in essentially racist doctrines and own up to it! Be proud of your racialism and your racism.
@Andrew S. (#332) – Re rour statement that “… these doctrines do not exist in a vacuum.” So true. How anyone can say that the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church provide any good to anyone is beyond me. Since the Mormon Church was essentially built on a stack of lies, how can anything good come out of it? the blatant racism is obvious as is so many Mormons ability to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everything is okay, that they are following the will of God, that they have received spiritual confirmations of the truthfulness of TSCC, that someday they will inherit the Celestial Kingdom and will gain the possibility of becoming Gods. Oh, I know Gordon B. Hinckley said that he doesn’t know if TSCC teaches that, but we all know the truth. Just as GBH said that the Blacks and the Priesthood issue is just a “litte fleck of history” which should be ignored. Those statements, of course, are indicative of just how delusional many Mormons are – and how they buy into everything a “Prophet of God” says, hook line and sinker. How can anyone justify these statements? Just as how can anyone justify so much of what Brigham Young said way back when? Since BY was supposedly a “prophet of God,” what he said supposedly came through inspiration and revelation. But the tendency to discard whatever makes many Mormons uncomfortable wins out every time.
re 333,
Well, Diane, I just don’t think that’s fair.
“How can anyone say that the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church provide any good to anyone?”
Quite easily. They encourage service, and they encourage a better lifestyle for many members. The church teaches practical leadership, management and communication skills, not to mention organizational skills.
Just because all of these things are wrapped around shady history or shady doctrines doesn’t negate the potential good that is there.
And I mean, you speak in the end about “the tendency to discard whatever makes Mormons uncomfortable”. Why use this AGAINST Mormons? Why not use it in their favor? If someone can have dynamic doctrine, I’m not really bothered. The problem is that Jason is NOT even up-to-date.
@Andrew S. – I have to say I disagree. When things are built on lies and deception (“shady” as you call it), it follows that whatever comes out of it is negative. Just as the Mormon church itself says that anything built on a shaky foundation cannot stand. Is living a lie a good thing? Is denying your real identity a good thing? Is getting people to be baptized based on subversion and hidden facts a good thing? Is telling your children that something so obviously bogus is actually true a good thing?
Yes, providing service to others is obviously a good thing. But at what cost? Service being done in the name of Mormonism tends to lead people to think that the entire organization is beneficial. But IMO, it is not. Discarding certain doctrines, pretending that they aren’t part of the whole, is detrimental as well since it gives the wrong impression to people who might be seduced into becoming members (not to mention the fact that living a lie is detrimental to a person’s mental well-being).
To me, it’s all or nothing. That’s just the way my brain works. I spent a majority of my life trying to rationalize out the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church, but in the end, after finding out the real truth behind Mormon history, I couldn’t rationalize it all out anymore. I truly believe the the higher-ups in SLC know the truth, that TSCC is filled with lies — but they are keeping their mouths shut because they live off the coffers of the church and they don’t want to stop the gravy train.
Harsh? Perhaps. But pretending otherwise is not an option for me anymore.
So, it looks like this discussion hasn’t quite run its course yet — let’s hope it stays relatively calm and level-headed, despite the subject matter. 😀
Since we’re gathering up all of the authoritative quotes, it should also be noted that there is some support for the priesthood ban in the LDS scripture The Pearl of Great Price. First, read Moses 7, especially verses 8 and 22. Then read Abraham 1, verses 21-27.
The chapters are a tad cryptic, but they seem to imply that black skin is a curse, and that it marks a lineage that doesn’t have the right to hold the priesthood. It’s theoretically possible to interpret the passages otherwise, but at least it shows that the whole “Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse” idea was something Joseph Smith himself condoned and perpetuated.
I agree with Andrew. I mean, I disbelieve the church now because it’s not “true,” but my experience in it was generally positive. It was good for me for quite awhile. I dislike many of its teachings and many aspects of its culture but I don’t think it’s especially horrible. It just isn’t based on any sort of factual reality.
Besides, what institution or ideology isn’t “built on lies and deception (shady as you call it)” to some extent (although I might prefer to call it “mythology” rather than “lies”)? I can’t think of any. So does it follow that whatever comes out of any institution or ideology is entirely negative?
Yes, since Joseph Smith “wrote” the Pearl of Great Price, it is obvious that he not only condoned the racism, but perpetuated it by handing down these “scriptures” for others to glom on to. It’s interesting, though, that under Joseph Smith, the priesthood ban was never enforced – he seemed to leave that for Brigham Young to do. I often wonder what would have happened if Joseph Smith had not died in Carthage, and had actually gone West with the “Saints.” Since no new scripture (other than a little bit in the D&C) was added after his death, his penchant for “creating doctrine” was obliterated at his passing. Of course, since Mormons believe that living Prophets receive revelation and relay “God’s Will,” it could be argued that this “creation of doctrine” has continued even though most of that has not been “canonized.” I think Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the BoA served a very definite purpose for him, though, and that was giving scriptural backing to his practice of polygamy. The whole Black and the Priesthood thing seems to have been just thrown in for extra measure.
re 335,
Diane,
I don’t think it’s the case at all that a shady foundation or something built on deception and lies will only lead to negative.
Christmas stories built around Santa Claus are built on deception and lies, but they lead to the improvement of behavior from children. At the very least, they create a fun holiday for the family to be together for.
In fact, most things in society are built on deception and lies, but they are “practical” lies. They achieve some kind of social cohesive goal. So, we know “myths” that nearly EVERY country has national and cultural myths, for example. “Lies and deception” at the foundation of their histories.
To answer your questions:
For most people, living a lie IS a good thing. It’s called being aspirational. (I am not the person I want to be…but I’m going to live as if I am and hold myself up to those standards and expectations.) For most people, they aren’t DENYING their real identity. In fact, for most people, believing that they are a child of a personal, caring God (whether it is true or not) gives them meaning and value in their life.
Furthermore, many of the problems you list only occur if you don’t believe or if you have problems with certain doctrines. MOST members do not.
Emphasis added. You point out one extreme: “The entire organization is beneficial.” You hold the other extreme, “The entire organization is harmful.” You say it’s because to you, it’s all or nothing.
But it simply doesn’t have to be that way. MOST THINGS IN LIFE ARE GRAY. Very few things are “all” or “nothing.” So, to look at things as either being all good or no good, all bad or no bad ignores the immense amount of nuance in EVERYTHING.
By negative, I mean that the lies (and I mean lies) perpetuated by the Mormon Church create misguided people, and when there are misguided people, the possibility of there being even more misguided people becomes very likely. IMO, ignoring the fact that the Mormon Church is based on lies and deception is simply not wise – and saying that there are some good things that come out of it is like trying to say that all that is okay.
For a religious organization that supposedly values integrity and honesty, and holds that premise out to the world, it is particularly contradictory that most of the doctrine and teachings were made up out of thin air by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others. And the higher-ups today have simply carried on that legacy.
I’m not saying that all Mormons are bad people. Far from it. But that’s what makes the whole thing even more despicable. Good people carrying forth the lies of Mormonism. That’s simply wrong.
re 340:
Diane,
Couldn’t we say that since you see things as “all or nothing”, that you are a misguided person perpetrating lies and deception, and whenever you try to get other people to see things as “all or nothing”, then you are a good person getting good people to carry for the lies of “all or nothing”?
Or wouldn’t that just be counterintuitive?
@ Andrew S re #339. So the premise is that it’s okay that the Mormon Church lies to and deceives everyone because they do accomplish some good? I agree that there are gray areas in life, but in my opinion, religious doctrine shouldn’t be one of them.
Of course, part of what bothers me is that although some tithing money is used to give service to people in need, the majority of it is used for many other things, such as building the City Creek Mall, the cost of which is now approaching $6 billion dollars (and of course, the lifestyles of the First Presidency and GAs, which includes flying first-class around the world).
And comparing lies told by the Mormon Church (or by any religion) to the legend of Santa Claus? That’s like comparing apples and oranges. It’s an interesting analogy (and definitely entertaining), but IMO, it’s a real stretch to debate those two very extreme areas. When a child reaches the age of, say 10, 11 or so, they discover that Santa Claus is not real – and that is not harmful in the long-run. But discovering after a lifetime of devoting a person’s life to Mormonism that it is built on nothing but lies and deception that have been perpetuated throughout the years is extremely harmful.
@Andrew S – re #341. Yes, I suppose you could say whatever you want to say. To me, though, if a person (or religion) lies to people, then they are clearly citing their character or underlying premise. They are a liar. And I want nothing to do with people (or organizations) that lie not only because they are deceitful but also because the likelihood is that there are many more lies underneath the surface. Integrity is paramount. Lies are destructive.
I think it’s far from clear that the Pearl of Great Price passages have anything to do with race in any significant manner. Armand Mauss pointed this out in an article you can read here:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_LDS_Church_and_the_Race_Issue.html
In relevant portion of that article, Mauss outlines the pre-mortal narrative that jason has outlined of blacks being “less valiant” in the pre-earth life, and black skin being a sign of theological disfavor. Then he writes:
“Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if we set aside the darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals (Abraham 3:22-24). The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription (Abraham 1:25-27). At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham’s son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed (Genesis 9:18-25)! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It’s true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black (Moses 7:22), but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time (Moses 7:2-4). There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.”
Likewise, I see little justification for current racist stances in the Book of Mormon, which I suppose I could get into, but I’ll leave it here for now.
Diane, how many lies are forwarded in the average high school history class every day in the United States?
Does that make America a “nation founded on lies?”
I’m not sure that many church leaders actually lie, if by “lie” you mean “intentionally say things they know not to be true.” Seems to me that the higher up you go, the more strongly the BS is believed. I’m pretty sure they think they’re telling the truth.
And even if it does, is that a useful description? Does it actually tell us anything meaningful about America, i.e., anything that isn’t just as true of every other country?
Diane, anyone who deals with finances knows that dumping money in a bank account is probably the worst investment strategy you could come up with.
So why not dump the investment into real estate, where it can grow and provide a stable interest rate return to fund other worthy endeavors. Especially if in so doing you can stabilize the local city economy of your neighborhood, combat urban blight, create jobs and income, and generally beautify and care for the neighborhood surrounding an important religious site?
And whatever the allegations, the LDS Church has insisted that no tithing funds were spent on that project and no one has provided any credible proof to the contrary.
And furthermore, you are HUGELY off-topic to the discussion (which was already off topic to begin with). The City Creek shopping complex has little or nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Well kuri, that’s my point. The phrase itself simply isn’t useful.
All it really amounts to is a bunch of rhetorical hot air. So you’ll get no disagreement from me on that score.
Come to think of it, for similar reasons, I don’t find the common Sunday School catch phrase of “I know the Church is true” to be useful either.
What does that even mean?
Seth @344 — Yes, as I said, the passages are ambiguous. Plenty ambiguous enough for a smart apologist to explain them away. From personal experience, I can also tell you that they’re ambiguous enough that people can (and do) use them to teach “doctrines” about black people — sincerely and legitimately believing that the scriptures back them up.
re 342,
Diane,
Not just the Mormon church…but EVERY church, EVERY country, EVERY organization that EVER existed. EVERY person, EVERY organization, EVERY government lies and deceives in order to accomplish something good.
I’ll say that is why I am not a believer. I would like to hold religions to a higher standard TOO, but if not, I call things as I see them: GRAY. I don’t say that the religion is “all bad” or “all detrimental” just because they are just as gray as everything else.
Financial impropriety happens everywhere. The church isn’t “evil” for having material, financial goals along with its theological goals.
There are plenty of people whose trusts in their parents become irreparably damaged when they find out Santa Claus is not real.
And there are plenty of people who are not harmed at all by finding out the history of Mormon doctrine. For these people, the religion becomes more complex and engaging as a result. It becomes more REAL because of the nuance and complexity.
So, you say “apples and orange” — but you cannot tell which is an apple and which is an orange! You want to say that Mormonism is always damaging and Santa Claus is always harmless, but it’s just not true! Plenty of people are hurt by Santa and plenty of people are helped by Mormonism, because different people have different experiences.
re 343:
But once again, you have to understand intent. A lie is intentional deception. A person of religion actually believes what he says, so he cannot be a liar. YOU MAY THINK he is “deceived”, but he is not a “liar.”
Do you buy anything from any company? Do you work for anyone or any company? I hope not, because EVERY PERSON and EVERY ORGANIZATION has “lies underneath the surface.”
In fact, if you are so concerned about integrity, you should probably leave whatever country you’re in…because politics is NOT about integrity. International politics are especially NOT about integrity, if you’ve been keeping up with Wikileaks.
Seth,
In #347, was agreeing with you.
I guess neither of us is used to that, so it might not have been clear. 😉
I knew you were kuri. And I’m sure I found it as strange as you did.
OK, sorry for going “HUGELY off-topic” (although I don’t think bringing up any aspect of what the Mormon Church does is off-topic because it all involves why people are leaving the Mormon Church, just as I have). I was simply trying to show what lies are perpetuated by the Mormon Church, and although I think the higher-ups know exactly what lies they are perpetuating, obviously others don’t see it that way. And as far as lies themselves are concerned, the Mormon Church was built on lies from the get-go so the culture of deception runs deep. For Gordon B. Hinckley to be as deception as he was in interviews (both in regard to Mormons believing that they can become Gods and about “little flecks of history” not being important) is a classic example.
But I guess I’ve said enough — and although I could continue to go on and on, I suppose I should spare you my further views on this topic.
andrew– I know what you want to hear but i cannot deny the words of many of the founding authorities of the church. I am a faithful member of the church and if i were to start believing that they were racist (which i dont) i would be no different then an anti-mormon putting my own personal doctrine above those who were called by God to lead and direct his church on earth. No i do not think they were racist. Have you ever contemplated that blacks were nuetral in the pre-existence? Not saying that a black person is or was ever less then any other white person cause i definately will never think or believe that, but i just believe what prophets have said to be true to be true. If they were all racist the church would not be true. If i have faith the church is true i have to sustain my authorities and know that God would remove them from their calling. I would hope andrew that you would not be offended at what leaders have said happened thousands and thousands of years ago if not millions of years ago. As far as the church changing their stance on blacks and the priesthood because of liberal infiltration that is my opinion but i hope im wrong, but i am so grateful that good men like yourself can now hold the priesthood and whatever happened in the pre-existence can be overwith and we all can move on. I know you still wont think i understand but i lean heavy on the doctrine of the early church so to deny their teachings would put me in the same place that kuri and many other people on here have now got to when it comes to being an active membe of the church.
re 356
Jason,
You don’t have to deny the words of the founding authorities of the church.
You can simply listen to the later authorities who said, as Bruce R. McConkie said:
By listening to more current revelation, we know that blacks were NOT neutral in the preexistence. We forget about that. We have a new flood of intelligence and light on the issue that erases all of the darkness in the past. You FORGET what President Brigham Young or what George Q. Cannon or whomever said.
If you do not, it is YOU who is not in accordance with Mormon beliefs and Mormon doctrine. It is YOU who is the heretic! Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, if you insist to believe on the “doctrine of the early church,” you are an apostate and a heretic! You are as the polygamists! I call you to discipline!
jason, I don’t really want to hear any more assertions from you about what the position of the founding authorities of the LDS Church was until you can provide me with some quotes that you consider to be binding doctrine, so I can judge for myself how to regard them.
seth– as i check this today i quickly see that everyone on here has pretty much gave you all the refrences you want. I dont understand why you asked for these refrences cause your a smart guy and you probably already knew them and if you didnt now you do. I hope you dont ask me to point out that i may have racist thinking cause i do not, like i said as i look into all my mixed nieces and nephews eyes the last thing i would ever see is someone less then myself even though i believe the mark or curse of cain to be real.
seth–are you joking me?! How many quotes do you need? You must be in denial cause if you deny every quote you have read there’s nothing i can say or show you cause youll just say “not that one show me something else” and i dont have all day to quote you to death i do have a life ya know.
Diane,
I’m not a mod or whatever, but “on-topic” isn’t enforced here IME. Threads are free to run where they will.
Anyway, I think GBH’s statements about becoming Gods and so on really meant “I don’t want to talk about that because it makes the church look bad; let’s talk about something else.” But he didn’t want to come right out and say that either, because that would also make the church look bad.
So he said some things that came across as evasive. (Because they were.) Is that being scrupulously honest? No. But is it “lying”? I don’t think so. I think it’s “trying to change the subject.”
I think a lot of subject changing goes on in church. I think it’s certainly deceptive in a way. But I don’t think a lot of people high up in the church are saying things they don’t actually believe. In that sense, I think they aren’t “liars.”
The reason I think they believe what they say is pretty simple: it’s a lay church until you get to the highest levels, and high leaders come up through the ranks. They come up through the ranks by being orthodox and competent and fitting in socially. Part of all that, it seems to me, is never allowing yourself to have any serious doubts.
andrew– Yes they recieved revelation for blacks to recieve the priesthood and yes they said they are learning more knowledge then they had known before, but no where in those statements does it say that its untrue blacks were not neutral in the pre-existence, they just said they never heard they were not allowed to give blacks the priesthood. Just like presidnet hinkley said he didnt believe polygamy was doctrinal but every other church prophet thought otherwise so tell me who would be correct pres. hinkley or everyone else?
andrew– they said that knowledge changed that they were now allowed to give blacks the priesthood not that everything they had been taught by previous prophets was wrong.
jason,
Continuing revelation means the present overrides the past. NATURALLY, if a prophet gets new revelation,then all the previous prophets will disagree. But you follow the most current prophet, do you not?
They said this:
The Priesthood ban, the doctrine on race, the doctrine of neutrality in the premortal existence, they ALL go together. They are all wrong. They do not matter anymore.
Mormonism has nothing to offer beyond platitudes and circular argument, most of us are trying to make sense of our lives and this involves questioning ourselves. Any religion that denies it’s followers the ability to question and shape their own lives has nothing to useful to offer, except social control.
I believe that people have always left the church in droves, there have never been many new converts and mormonism has always relied on their members to make new ones, regardless of the fact that many kids are scarred for life by this, and all kids with any spark of individuality have always left. The internet just provides community for us.
I’ve never cared whether mormonism is true or not, I only knew, as a child that it had nothing to offer me, as a woman, except a life of bondage and second-class citizenship.
Andrew,
For some reason, your dialog with Jason brings Homer’s Odyssey to mind:
The question of whether a church with patently absurd doctrine can be a force for good is the central theme behind the new Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon.” Orthodox Mormons will hate this musical because it satirizes LDS beliefs. It’s interesting, though, that the play also portrays Mormons as nice people whose silly cosmology doesn’t detract from their ability to do good in the world.
Audiences love this play. It’s probably going to be a big hit.
I’m torn by the message of the play. Fundamentalist religions (including orthodox Mormonism) divide families and cause tremendous suffering to those they force into exile. On the other hand, those who fit in well get a ready-made community that serves them well. Like a lot of things in life, it’s a mixed bag. On the whole, I think fundamentalism works better when there’s geographical separation between the various sectarian groups. When we’re all mixed up together and have to be each other’s neighbors, the fundamentalist viewpoint causes strife. Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and gay people all live on the same block and work in the same offices. We have to do a better job of respecting one another. I don’t feel that respect coming from institutional Mormonism that continues to demonize many of us.
(Yes, Jason, I’m gay.)
Certainly there have always been people leaving the LDS church. In my own seven-generation Mormon family, there have been “apostates” in nearly every generation. However, there have also been periods when the CoJCoL-dS has been quite successful at attracting and retaining converts. The stats show that the LDS conversion rate and deconversion rate have varied over time.
re 366:
kuri, I believe in the glory of sisyphean tasks.
re 367:
MHH, I so want to see the musical. From all the reviews and summaries, I like the message…but of course, I want to see how it’s executed for myself too!
I agree with your summarization/analysis too. But unfortunately, I feel like it’s not just the church that creates division between groups, so it’s not like you can get of religion (or fundamentalist religion) and then have peace or whatever.
That’s an interesting question! (And BTW, Kuri’s right that we don’t have any kind of “stay on topic” rule here. Only a “try to keep it civil and constructive” rule.)
I would say that isolation of fundamentalisms can cause its own problems. For one thing, the lack of alternatives can make it harder for people who don’t fit in to get by.
andrew–i dont know where your getting that quote but if your gonna start erasing all the views and doctrines of the past then you will have no future. Why follow something when in 50 years its going to change its doctrine and believe entirely something else. If im not going to believe a quote out of many it will be that one if it even is a quote. The church is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow it never changes so if i believed that, i wouldnt believe anything my current leaders say cause in the future it would all change and they would be proven wrong so what would be the point? Andrew its thoughts and conclusions like that that get people to leave the church in the first place. Satan knows doctrine and loves to twist our understanding of scripture. The fact that you let these things bombard your thinking and hurt your faith are signs that the adversary is in an eternal struggle with your spirit. I could spend the rest of the day showing you a hundred scriptures and quotes that may seam contradictory but it wouldnt do either one of us any good. If you dont want to believe it great, thats not important at all whats important is that you do all you can do in this life to make it to the celestial kingdom and if believing that people were wrong about this one subject then so be it whatever improves your faith. I have to go for now but ill check back later.
jason, here is the Bruce R. McConkie speech Andrew is quoting:
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017
Additionally, I would direct you to an interview by current apostle Jeffrey R. Holland for the recent PBS documentary on the Mormons:
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html#1
Here’s the money-quote in the Q&A session:
Questioner:
I’ve talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn’t have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.
Jeffrey R. Holland:
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.
Questioner:
What is the folklore, quite specifically?
Jeffrey R. Holland:
Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …
We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. …
Here’s a 2006 Priesthood Session Conference address from Gordon B. Hinckley:
http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng
Here’s the main quote:
“Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.
Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”
So jason,
Are you going to get in line behind the living oracles or not?
Chanson, too many hyperlinks in my comment – it went into moderation.
Niki said: Mormonism has nothing to offer beyond platitudes and circular argument, most of us are trying to make sense of our lives and this involves questioning ourselves. Any religion that denies its followers the ability to question and shape their own lives has nothing to useful to offer, except social control. I believe that people have always left the church in droves, there have never been many new converts and mormonism has always relied on their members to make new ones, regardless of the fact that many kids are scarred for life by this, and all kids with any spark of individuality have always left. The internet just provides community for us.
Ive never cared whether mormonism is true or not, I only knew, as a child that it had nothing to offer me, as a woman, except a life of bondage and second-class citizenship.
I SO AGREE. I just wish my spark of individuality had exhibited itself earlier in my life (and been more of an impetus) because although I realized much of that as a teenager, I put all that on my “shelf” hung in there for many, many more years before finally leaving. And when I did leave, it was because I discovered all the lies and deception obviously present in Mormon history (prior to, during and after a Mormon Church History tour that I went on in 2001). I think one of the main differences between growing up in the information age (and having access to the internet) as opposed to growing up in the 60’s is that information about the church is so much more accessible now. I would hope that if I had had access to all that is available today when I was growing up that I would have left then.
Seth, comment pulled out of moderation.
re 371
jason,
Please pay attention to Seth’s comment in 372.
You ask me:
But that is something you have to ask yourself as a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation. Ask yourself what it means to follow the ninth article of faith:
What does it mean that we may have limited understanding today? that we may see in a glass, darkly?
Seems like if you don’t want to follow living prophets then you don’t trust in God’s judgment and wisdom in continuing to lead the church.
Yes, I was about to do it, but Andrew is too fast for me. 😉 We’re in the middle of putting the kids in bed here in Switzerland.
By the way, I see people quoting other people’s comments and those quotes being highlighted, but I can’t figure out how to do that myself. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
@377 The magic is html formatting:
<blockquote>this is a quote</blockquote>
=
<a href=”link url address here”>this is a link</a> = this is a link
<b>bold</b> = bold
<i>italics</i> = italics
And, BTW, just following up on one of the earlier tangents: Even though essentially all organizations/ideologies have some “mythology” doesn’t imply they’re all equal in this regard. Even if no one succeeds 100%, some group cultures sincerely value honesty and introspection more than others, and that matters.
chanson said:
Trying it out. And to reply to your comment, I totally agree. Sincere honesty and introspection do matter, not only from a theology standpoint but from a day-to-day life view as well. An organization telling people to be honest and not being honest itself is sending entirely the wrong message.
re 380
chanson,
Duly noted, but the idea is if we’re going to say ALL or NOTHING, then we should at least recognize that every organization, every person, etc., is “nothing.”
To start saying “some value honesty and introspection more than others” is talk that arises when you can compare grays.
Andrew @382 — OK. Look, I’m just agreeing with you that people and groups are more complex than a simple “all good” or “all bad”, but that doesn’t imply we should throw all comparisons out the window.
No, I’m saying that ONLY through acknowledging complexity can we bring comparisons back *into* the window.
OK, then we agree. Except that beginning word where you incongruously said “No.” instead of “exactly,” 😉
In English, we need a word like “doch” 😉
So true! As frustrating as the German language can be, it has some cool features! (The equivalent word exists in French, too, BTW: “si” instead of “oui”.)
andrew– i had a talk with my stake president and he agrees with me that the mark of cane was true and that they remained neutrol in the pre-existence. He answered me as if to say “who doesnt believe that, we know it is.” So i have to sustain my stake president on this one cause he is also an institute teacher at a major university and knows his subject matter pretty good. Ive also read the full text of his talk and i still can not find anywhere him saying it was not true.
Random Stake President: More Doctrinally Aware Than Jeffrey R. Holland.
Literally. That’s what Mormons really believe.
Andrew– yes God does reveal new things to his current prophets but in no way will it ever nigate the doctrine of previous prophets it may add to it or give a bigger picture of what happend but doctrine is doctrine and does not change. It may have things added to it but if Tell brigham young something is true and he tells the people its true, then how would it give any current prophet the right to go back and say that prophet was wrong. Ive never heard a prophet say that anyway they just kinda try and avoid the converstion entirely.
Do you believe that everything a prophet ever says is prophecy?
Seth–holland is giving his opinion and it almost seams to me that he is rambling a little bit. He said he didnt know why and he wouldnt because that was way before his time as an authority and if the ban started first with brigham young he would have been the prophet whom God spoke to to reveal any doctrine or teachings to be given to the church. Holland has no authority over the prophetic office that brigham young held. What i take out of that whole interview was a big plate of apeasment, sometimes the church is so worried about saving souls and looking good they will sugar coat points of doctrine that may offend certain investigators. What is true will always be true.
“…so once again to the plain rolled the stone, the shameless thing.” Unlike Sisyphus’s stone, this one apparently has a stake president pushing on the other side. 😀
Andrew– I do not believe ANY prophet is infalliable. But, if a prophet tells me something is prophecy i believe it and I incorporate into my life. Now, if a more modern prophet says something that goes against what many of the founding prophets have said i would go with the early prophets or be very confused and come up with my own conclusions and try to just not worry about it till i pass away to the next life.
So, what is the point of a modern prophet if you’re going to listen more to the founding and early prophets?
Why not just get rid of the prophet and stick to the Bible???
I don’t this Jason’s point is really about race and neutrality at the core. It’s about what he tried to say in a comment earlier, the view that current leaders will never negate past leaders. If you accept that prophets have ever been wrong on any of the big(er) stuff, then you obviously have an entirely different worldview. Jason’s view does NOT allow for one prophet’s word to go against another’s. If there is a threat (e.g. Holland, above) it has to be dismissed as “he has no authority” or “he is rambling” etc. This view must withstand everything, otherwise a complete change in the way we look at things would be necessary (e.g. prophets DO get things “wrong” sometimes, newer teachings hold on to some things while doing away with past error, etc.).
Seems I have been rambling a little bit though.
Oh boy it’s late. Typos abound.
re 396:
yeah, I see that shenpa warrior. It just baffles me. Why would you even be a member of the church rather than a fundamentalist or polygamist if you believed this way? Or why would you accept modern revelation AT ALL if you believed this way?
andrew– your just interpreting hollands words to benefit your own personal opinion or hardship you may have with the church. Yes i would bet a good majority believe in the teachings of the early prophets. Even in the book of mormon God had darkened the skin of the lamanites who had fell away. I dont have my scriptures with me but i remember reading in a few places where this was the case. I dont remember where but i also remember reading something along the lines of “i fear that their skin shall be whiter then your in”…??? I remeber they were talking about the people with darker skin having whiter skin then them in the next life cause the lamanites at one time where more rightous then the nephites. I dont remember where i read that but i know its there.
jason, did you even read what Jeffrey R. Holland said?
And what makes your Stake President an expert on this?
Since when was it HIS Priesthood calling to unilaterally define what is or is not doctrinal for the ENTIRE LDS Church? Especially when he’s contradicting a full apostle?
I kind of wonder if your stake president wouldn’t change his tune if he’d actually read the sources I provided. You’ve actually done your Stake President a disservice here by not making him aware of the prophetic and scriptural sources I provided you. You are now in the position of trying to manipulate your own local Priesthood leaders into opposition to the words of the General leadership of the LDS Church. This is a dangerous game you are playing jason. And I’m sure your Stake President would not appreciate it very much if he knew that this is what you are doing.
I think Armand Mauss makes it pretty clear that the verses that people usually draw doctrines like Mark of Cain and “fence sitters” in the pre-mortal world from do NOT actually require that reading at all.
Not to mention 3 Nephi 13:24.
“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”
Which seems to flatly contradict your little theory here.
So you have no scriptural leg to stand on in the Standard Works. And then you have Jeffrey R. Holland specifically backing away from it (as I quoted him above). Not to mention that this doctrine has never been taught by any General Authority of the Church (as far as I know) since the Priesthood ban was lifted.
But I’m not done yet.
In the 1954 book Doctrines of Salvation (compiled by Bruce R. McConkie), Joseph Fielding Smith stated that “there were no neutrals in the war in heaven,” but suggested that the rewards received in this life reflected actions taken in the pre-existence:
“NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”
Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954) , 1:65-66.
But I’m still not done. Let’s try Brigham Young himself.
“Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition.”
So even Joseph Fielding Smith disagrees with you jason.
Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruffs Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:511 (journal entry dated 25 December 1869).
How about prophet Joseph F. Smith:
“there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him.”
First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.
Not to mention that following the 1978 revelation, President Kimball “flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to…a theory” that Blacks had been denied the priesthood “because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence.”
Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, “Mormonism Enters a New Era,” Time (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball’s biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).
And for a bonus, Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today’s youth, said in 2005:
“Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence.”
M. Russell Ballard, “One More,” Ensign, May 2005, p. 69.
“Which means that everyone living in 2005 was considered by Elder Ballard to have been “valiant” in the pre-existence.”
And Elder Dallin H. Oaks speaking on the Priesthood ban – Elder Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:
“…It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.
…I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
…Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.”
Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
Then 2 Ne. 26: 33:
“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
jason, I suggest you stop pestering your Stake President over an area of LDS doctrine that he is apparently not fully-versed in, and focus instead on obtaining your OWN understanding and your OWN witness of whether the quotes I have provided for you are true or not.
jason – Andrew may be interpreting how he likes, but you have to admit, you are interpreting (or dismissing) Holland’s words to benefit your opinion as well.
Andrew– i do believe in modern revelation. amos 3:7 “surely the lord God will do nothing unless he reveals it unto his servants the prophets”. Like i was saying earlier pres. hinkley went on tv and said he didnt think polygamy was right or ever doctrinal if i got it and you can be mormons were gasping all over the world because we know it is and i would sall just about all of them believe ill will be. but why did he just not come out and say yes we do believe that so what? Because, these days members of the church are so worried about offending people and hugging everyone, they tend to beat around the bush. As we know im not like that. If they ever made me an authority i would be so clear and blunt and it might offend but were in the last days so i would tell them to tuffen up. OLD SCHOOL!
andrew– i by no means want you to think this is a big topic for me or that im racist thats why i believe it cause i just have had alot of personal revelation in my days testifying to me of the truthfullness of the teachings of the prophets and the spirit is one sure thing we can count on to be correct all the time.And ofcourse my personal revelation does not count for the church its just for my understanding of history and our pre-mortal life. Im only talking about this still cause everyone esle is bud.
I just literally cannot help you.
shenpa warrior–would it sound better if i just said it was hollands opinion?
jason, was it just Joseph Fielding Smith’s opinion too? What about all the other quotes I provided you?
Just “opinion?”
And if it’s all “just opinion” what makes you so sure that the things you are pushing here aren’t similarly “just someone’s opinion?” What is you basis for choosing which is opinion and which is doctrinal?
shenpa warrior– i was just trying to make the point that one prophets doctrine can not negate anothers doctrine. Doctrine should never change that was the whole reasn joseph looked for a church to join cause the doctrine was always changing and He knew that his God would have one doctrine that worked for everybody. I believe were in the last days im a big last days buff! And i believe there is about to be a weeding out in the church and im just a person who trys not to put my trust in the arms of flesh but to question first. I believe it was one of the founding fathers who said “question, question even the existence of a god for if there be a god he shall surely make himself known unto you”. I guess the point im trying to make with that in these last days i have no clue who will be amongst those weeded out. We could even have some leaders weeded out. idk?? So lately i find myself sticking to the doctrine i have always know to be true. i do sustain the current prophet and believes he talks for God but i also know that ive found a few contradictions in interviews given so i have to rely more on my personal revelation and what ive learned since a young boy to be true cause the spirit had testified it to me. hope that makes sense??
Again jason, what is your basis for determining what is doctrine and what is opinion?
Because all you’ve demonstrated to me in this conversation so far is that “doctrine” is whenever a General Authority says something agreeing with YOU.
Jason – I get that – so you DO admit that leaders may negate/contradict/disagree (whatever term we like) with each other, but you personally would rely on your own experiences/testimony to decide what is true. Is that it?
seth r– the general rules are that if its taught at general conference it is scripture so that would be revelation. If a prophet teaches that he has recieved revelation from God and someting is like it is because of it, that is doctrine. If an authority, a prophet, a 70, get on tv or the radio to do an interview and tell you their thoughts or opinions on things its is opinion. It may be a corrrect opinion but it is still opinion. yes seth you have provided so quotes that confirm we are continuesly recieving revelation for the church and things are constantly being added because we are recieving more knowledge, but a prophet teaches something to be doctrine it is doctrine and no current prophet can go back and say ” he was wrong!” That would destroy the foundation of the church. we know through revelation from god that the curse was lifted and worthy men would now be aloud to recieve and hold the priesthood. Its not as important to say why but for us all to enjoy the gifts and blessings the lord has instore for us all. Does this doctrine keep you from being an active member of the church if you are already not one?
You know, that’s really funny jason.
Because YOU haven’t provided a single scripture or official quote in this entire thread to back up your assertions.
“a prophet teaches something to be doctrine it is doctrine and no current prophet can go back and say ” he was wrong!” That would destroy the foundation of the church.”
This is where we disagree, although I know some (in and out of the church) who would agree with you. I think a prophet can teach something that is NOT “opinion” – and later teachings can contradict it. Explanation – the past prophet was wrong. That destroys the foundation for some, but not if you view the whole process as something that evolves and is open to change. There is very little imho in Mormonism that is NOT subject to change: Love God, love your neighbor, Christ/the atonement, faith, repentance, etc. At least, that’s what it seems given all the changes over the years.
shenpa warrior– yes, i would use my own personal revelation and feelings and i must say logic as well. Yes i totaly agree with the concept that leaders can disagree, i had heard a story somewhere that the 12 sometimes dont agree that often. That might not be true but i could see it happening. And i do believe prophets disagree sometimes but i dont believe that a current prophet can just negate the doctrine of the early church. now,if it was their opinion and not taught as doctrine, yes the church can just say it was their opinion and not doctrine, but then comes all the fuss about what is truely doctrine cause it might have been to them but a current leader may think it was only an opinion. thats when it gets tricky and i rely on personal revelation and the spirit.
shenpa warrior–I agree with most of what you say, i just believe that continuing revelation only adds to knowledge that might not fully been understood but does not negate it all together. for example the early church taught black remained neutral in the war in heaven but if monson were to come out and give a fuller acount of what took place, like, they only remained neutrol because…..? Something along those line, i only disagree with people who say; now that pres. monson says they were all wrong (early curch prophets) we have to negate all their teaching on the subject matter. We wouldnt even have a church if it wasnt for the valiant members of the church dieing for it. More knowledge being given does not mean you erase the knowledge of the past you just add to it.
“More knowledge being given does not mean you erase the knowledge of the past you just add to it.”
This is probably where we don’t agree – I see it more as a sifting process. Hopefully as we move along, more of the “bad” is done away with, rather than just adding to it.
Also, it’s not like it’s just Monson or someone else speaking out against this particular neutrality issue. Seth R gave a TON of examples.
I do think I get your view though… and I’d even agree that it’s probably more sound than mine. I just can’t agree.
SETH R. i didnt have to, everyone else did it for me my friend. You know them just as well as i do and i could payste everyone elses quotes to you so you could read them all at one time. Im trying to keep it sweet and short tonight so im not up to much longer. And ask your self this do we realy want to get into a contentious heated badlle about quotes that youve already read 2:30 in the morning. Id rather have the spirit and read some scriptures.
jason, reducing the word “doctrine” to “whatever someone says in General Conference” is highly problematic in and of itself.
For one thing, the LDS Church wasn’t always all that organized about General Conference. It used to be a much more informal kind of gathering than it is today – more similar to one of our Stake Conferences. And past church leaders were not always careful to keep a distinction between official and non-official material in their sermons in the Tabernacle. As the Church has grown and matured, it’s leaders have LEARNED to be more careful about keeping that firm divide between doctrine and opinion at the forefront.
But it wasn’t always like that. Brigham Young often felt free to declare all kinds of personal opinions from the pulpit. I read one where he once declared that mothers with young crying babies ought to just stay home with them and skip Sacrament Meeting.
Would you call that “doctrine” jason?
Because he said it from the pulpit in the tabernacle.
You are looking back at history through modern eyes and assumptions. The historic LDS Church was not always as careful as the modern LDS Church.
But anyway, until you actually provide quotes to back up anything you have been saying, it’s all pretty-much a moot point, isn’t it?
If there is a spirit of contention jason, whose fault is that?
You came on here picking a fight in the first place. None of these topics were points of contention until you raised them, and then challenged all comers to come and “get some.”
shenpa warrior–full of logic and understanding, you might be a great addition to this thread if you havent already been here for a while and im still the new guy?
seth–if you only knew, i had to take my meds to go to sleep called ambien. And my sleep aid ambien is kinda like a love drug cause it make me real happy so i laugh at thinking im trying to be contentious when im just smiling trying to find the write keys to strike. Buddy have i picked fights on here tonight? I thought i have been very calm and actual think i might have me friend or two on here so if church doctrine is offensive to you buddy just maybe have a sit down with your bishop and let him know how you realy fee. Bless your little heart seth..
seth–still for the life of me I can not figure which type of mormon you are? You are quick to come in try an attempt to rebuke me when maybe me and you should have more in common then anyone else as worthy members and active members of the church, i only start to question who you realy are my friend.
seth–ive already answered that quesion buddy read down the page either one of andrews blogs or warrior. its there buddy youll find it.
I agree with an earlier comment. The exchange with Jason reminds me too of Homer.
Homer Simpson.
andrew– maybe for the first time in your life you may be the won who needs the help, if not me someone else but i would hope you go to a real worthy member of the church.
Naw, I’m convinced that early prophets must be heeded over modern prophets who disagree with them. So I’m converting to Islam.
ja ne~
ExMoHoMoDon –well we were having a civil discussion and enters the liberal “intellectual” or where you the one i called HARRRVARRD.. THE SCHOOL OF ECUCATED FOOLS. No, the only thing that is different about the two of us is i have a little thing called common sense. now see we were having some fun conversations an exhomo had to spoil all the fun.
Actually I am a BYU graduate, with graduate work at the University of Hawaii. Also, I am not an ‘ex homo’, but a current ‘homo’ and an exMormon. Just to clarify.
andrew– i never said it like that buddy, i sustain my current prophet but if goes out and tells me brigham young want realy a prophet then the spirity and personal revelation would should what was truth or falsehood. Islam is waiting on the 12 imam their messiah who happens to have just about every characteristic of what the bible calls the anti-christ, if you do your research they do the same thing to the T, so they will be following the anti-christ thinking he is thier long awaited massiah. so andrew i wouldnt run off to fight for the anti-christ, the iranians say he is alive and will make his apearance and anounce who is soon. he will say he’s the messiah and many will believe so since i like ya i would hope you wouldnt go off doing anything foolish.
ANDEW–read it the best way you can cause theirs tons of errors in my last statements, in a minute or two im going to log off but i want to read one more time what you guys have to say and if i dont respond i will do so tommorrow.
Islam is correct in that Christianity is polytheist heresy, and the truth is there is only one God and that is God.
If anyone disagrees, they are apostate heretics.
ExMoHoMoDon — wow i just had it out with their honor code department their facebook page. I just feel sad for you Don. You only have a few years until the savior returns my guess would be 2019 but who know cant you just hold off a litle bit longer and the savior could explain why you feel the way you do in detail. im just saying to maybe think about playing it safe.
Jason
I have not the remotest clue what you are talking about. You don’t need to feel sad for me. I have a wonderful life– great friends, 3 wonderful children, a great job, great health.
well i got to logg off but before i do i just want to say that some of you can be so arrogant to think you are gods gift to intellectualism. Maybe you have to keep calling yourself smart because you know inside your not that bright. You could have 100 degrees but what you lack is common sense. You can pass an exam with an A but probably still get your mom to help you tie her shoes, that is if your still living with your mom cause my guess it that you are maybe in her basement. “Contention is of the devil” and i feel bad i had to lower my self to your level but whats realy the most important thing is the spirit and in the department my friend you could not hold a candle to. So, were you having a bad day, what made you log on and try and cut someone down late at night. Im going to stop being mean to you cause im realy not that kind of person i guess i just let myself get offended cause we can meet and debate and what would your leftist friends think after HOMER made you look stupid, who then would you be? How about having a civil conversation? i have to leave it like 3:30 and i have to be up early. good night people, ill read your comments tommorrow.
ExMoHoMoDon — cause today you might eat, drink, and be merry, but the day will come when you will have to stand before god and you will want to hide your face cause your so ashamed at what you did here on this life. sure we can have fun while living on this earth sinning and doing whatever but this is only a shot time of probation to prove yourself worthy to return back to his pressence and i hope you can make the needed chages in your life that can lead you back to heavely father, this life is only the blink of an eye and what you do determines where you will be at for eternalty and the scriptures teach that those with great sin will want to hid under a rock instead of the savior looking upon you. I hate the sin, but love you the sinner. theres a differrence well off to bed ill check back tommorrow
Folks, this discussion has yielded a lot of interesting insights and discussion. Yet I’m not entirely surprised to see it go south. As usual, I’d like to ask everyone nicely, when you see drama here, please don’t revel in it and exacerbate it, thanks!
chason….Sorry, but I couldn’t help the Homer comment….I just wanted things to lighten up a bit.
make that chanson…sorry
jason, we don’t know each other in real life. So I can’t speak to being friends. I’m not someone who claims friendship with every random person I encounter on the Internet who has some sort of connection.
And what do you suggest I do? I think you are preaching false doctrine here. Am I supposed to back you up on that just because we both go to Sacrament Meeting every Sunday?
#422 Jason ~ I’ll tell you what type of a Mormon Seth is.
Seth is a cafeteria Mormon. He comes to the cafeteria that is “Mormon doctrine” and picks and chooses what he wants to believe, according to whatever rationale he’s devised for making those selections. Some of his selections are bizarrely old-fashioned, some of them are more progressive, and some of them are just weird, but rest assured they are all genuinely Seth.
You’re a cafeteria Mormon, too. You pick and choose what you want to believe. As far as I can tell, most of your selections seem to have more in common with fundamentalist Mormonism than those chosen by your average “chapel Mormon,” but whatever your selections, rest assured that they are authentically Jason.
You probably think that you’re “the good son” here, the man who truly holds fast to every teaching that has ever been associated with the “Restored Gospel,” the sure-shot for correct LDS teaching. But you’re not. You can’t be. None of you can choose to believe in everything that the LDS church teaches and has ever taught, because the church has reversed its position on so many issues. Sometimes it even contradicts itself in the same breath. You can’t pile up your tray with everything found in the cafeteria without knocking some stuff off into the trash.
So you all develop your own answers to the questions of “What is doctrine?” and “What is revelation?”, and you roll with it. When things that were taught in the past contradict things that you currently believe, you find ways of dismissing it. When things being taught now contradict the things you believe that were once taught in the past, you rationalize that away. And when you run into another Mormon who has made significantly different selections at the cafeteria, you’re shocked and appalled. That other person must not be as faithful and as righteous as you are! Yes, that must be it, otherwise he would have “Blacks are the seed of Cain” via Young, McKay, and your Stake President rather than “Those teachings were false and spoken with limited understanding” via Holland and McConkie. The thought that someone else’s methods of devising and laying out Mormon doctrine are every bit as valid as your own must never be entertained by you. Nope, only the unworthiness of others can explain the disparity.
In conclusion, I just want to note how refreshing it is that you Mormons don’t quarrel and bicker among yourselves over what constitutes true doctrine in contrast to us loathsome, divisive, apostate Protestants. You sure showed us.
I remember a while back hearing a missionary say, “One of the things investigators like about the church is that there’s one right answer to every question.” I managed not to laugh out loud, but only just barely.
Clearly, the trick is to have atheists host/moderate the theological debate. 😉
I think Jason is a fictional persona. Continued hope for humanity requires me to believe this. Plus, is there anyone on this planet who really spells pissed as “pist.”
A clue to Jason’s status as fictional persona:
“Im just making the point cause i hope everyone realizes you cant always believe what you hear someone can be pretending to be a mormon and you could believe them but there only intention was to lead you astray its clear to me i hope others recognize it when it happens.”
Come on, Jason, tell us the truth.
Resin–Come on if i were fictional would i have given my email adress to look me up on facebook cause im sure thats something micky mouse would do right?? Why do liberals always think their so much smarter then everyone else? I dont get it? You cant realy contend my words so one might call me homor or spell check my comments when its odvious i could care less your spelling is better then mine or that spell check makes it better. You dont know me so why bother to insult me.
mr.jack–thats the thing, i realy dont believe seth is a member of the church, i believe he is on the verge of apostacy. To be honest i only wanted to come to this site for a short period to see if my words and the spirit could persuade anyone to change from their current mode of thinking into one that aligns itself with every other mormon i know. To be honest im a very active member of the church and have held many church callings and i have never met “mormons” like i have on this site.
To be honest most mormons wont get caught dead on an-anti site or any site that trys to persuade them into losing their faith. So i know a lot of mormons and ive never met a seth mormon, never! Every member i have ever met is either on my lever or just a tad bit more to the center. Usualy you will only find apostates, anti’s, gays, or atheist on sites like this. So for you guys to think seth or other members lke him are the norm is a very big mistake and if you guys want to talk about real doctrine and the spirit talk someone not on this site, i would say me but ive already got off on the wrong foot here, because the words i use of the savior and his prophets condemn them, their way of thinking, and their deeds. For anyone truely wanting answers maybe try http://www.mormon.org i believe that is correct either .org or .com. I think the big difference from me and others here is the fact that i shop with the spirit and the spirit tell me what is correct and what is wrong and i dont rely on my intellect and peer preasure of others.
Yes you are correct i probably do act more like a fundamentalist then a “modern mormon” and what is a modern mormon to me? Some one like seth a wolf in sheeps clothing and someone who will be weeded out from the church soon anyway. Cause as soon as heavenly father puts the boot down on all this leftist inhouse apostacy, all the liberals and their weirdness will leave with it. Just think if heavenly father anointed me prophet do you think seth would remain a member, i dont think so.
seth–your more worried about making sure you know im not your friend then you are about making friends and saving souls on this site. I am required by God to love everyone including my enemies and to treat them as myself. So i treat my self pretty good and i like to call myself friend so naturaly im going to call you friend there buddy ol pal… bless your little heart.
And jason, what if God made ME the prophet?
Would YOU leave?
And I still don’t know where you are getting all this “liberal” “leftist” stuff about me. I still haven’t really told you much of anything about what I do or do not believe.
Except to utterly shoot down your fence-sitters folk doctrine – which I notice you still haven’t responded to.
And jason, don’t forget that the only one on this thread who has talked about leaving the LDS Church is YOU.
As per this request, I have plugged Jason’s email address into the facebook search box, and I confirm that he appears to be a real person.
OK, well, you’ve rebuked us multiple times here, and your words are preserved on this thread for others to read forever. So, your work here is done, right? Shall we all agree to disagree at this point?
chanson– yes we can, but the only problem i have grown fond of all of you and i actualy enjoy our conversations from time to time i just wish it wouldnt go in one ear and out the other and you guys would be more open minded. p.s im responding to you seth next.
Seth– to answer you question if God made you the prophet would i run for the hills……..Yes i would run so fast my shoes would fall off. Or i would take that back if you would be so brave as to explain your views inwhich you so far only know how to deny. This may sound funny to you seth but as i read your words i get a feeling or as i like to say the spirity inwhich testifies to me how the person im talking to might be and usually my feelings are very correct. i can introduce you to countless leaders in the church and if we were gambling people i would wajor that they did not think like you. If you repented changed your ways and treated your brother as yourself then i would glady sustain you but in no way would you any longer be able to apease sin of anykind on the site no not even homosexuality.
Jason — I’m glad you’ve enjoyed spending time on this site. We are interested in hearing from all different viewpoints, so if you want to stick around, that’s fine.
However, if you want to hang out here on a regular basis, you need to keep in mind that we’re very committed to keeping the discussion here civil and constructive. Please read our welcome page. That means that you have to be willing and able to have a reasonable conversation with liberals, with gay people, with atheists, with Evangelical Christians, with Mormons who believe somewhat different doctrines than you do, etc., (a whole lot of etc.), without making irrelevant speculations about people’s personal lives, worthiness, and motives.
seth– well as people like to believe these days that our current leaders are infallible and they also say that when a prophet speaks at a general conference it is the same as scripture, im sure you have been taught this in church at one point or another right? So why would it be scripture for us now with current leaders and mean nothing or be of no importance to us what past prophets and apostles have said at general conference or when said as revelation at any point. I will never leave the church! But i know how to follow the scriptures and the spirit and if the spirit is testifying something to me teaching me something i listen. I hope you seth and whomever else can do that, pray and ask God to have the spirit with to help you make better choices when it comes to anything.
I have already don that and thats why im a differrent type of mormon now. I do not believe president monson is infallible or is he my favorite prophet he is actualy my least favorite of all time but i still have to sustain him ans listen to his councel but because he is imperfect i will not practice blind faith but question and ask god wether anything he says be real or not, and i hope you can do the same.
Jason ~ You say that most of the Mormons you’ve known are like you.
I don’t believe you.
I’m a never-Mormon who is married to a faithful and active TR-holding Mormon, and I did my degree at Brigham Young University, so I’ve known my share of Mormons. Most of them were nothing like you. Most of them were nothing like Seth.
I’ve known Seth for over two years now. I’ve yelled at him, I’ve argued with him, I’ve pushed him on difficult issues, I’ve had long and mutually enlightening discussions about theology with him. I’ve ribbed him over some of his eccentric conservative beliefs and practices (like refusing to let his 5 year-old and 8 year-old daughters wear tank tops and following that silly convention of “husband & father chooses who gets to pray”). We’ve swapped stories about falling in love with our spouses and cute stuff our kids have done, and once in a blue moon, I’ve even let him know about something I was struggling with personally and asked for prayers or advice. And as I already mentioned on this thread, our families have met in person twice.
So, for whatever my opinion may be worth: yes, he is Mormon. Yes, he really believes in priesthood and apostasy and temples and revelation and prophets and apostles and all that stuff that I don’t believe in. He’s probably spent far more time defending these things from skeptics and critics of all flavors than you ever will.
You want to disagree with Seth, fine. Trust me, ever participant on this blog disagrees with Seth on a whole lot of things. Disagreeing with Seth is just Wednesday in the lives of most of us.
But quit questioning his faithfulness and his personal righteousness and his sexuality and his political beliefs. It makes you look like a cad who can’t lay off the ad hominem and just discuss issues for what they are.
And before you ask: no, I’m not a lesbian, or a bi-sexual, or a Democrat, or a communist, or a socialist, or a gay-rights activist. I’m just a boring ol’ Republican and an evangelical Christian—only the kind who doesn’t love Mormons but instead just uses them for sex. Pleased to meet you.
chanson-thanks i will! maybe not every day but ill come in and bug you guys every now and then. haha
ms. jack–slow down i barely know you. lol just kidding. Im not trying to fight against seth i just have never met another mormon who is ok to apease a little sin here and a little sin their, but hey maybe i should get out more maybe say san fran, or new york. Im going off how i feel when i read his earlier comments something just not feel right or add up. If seth is all that you said, then i would ask seth one thing and i dont say this to disrespect seth but brada get your balls back my friend draw your lind in the sand. I only question which side you will be on.
chanson–lol did you make that little disclaimer just for me? how thoughful buddy.
jason, can you point me to one instance in which I actually “caved in” to sin or “appeased” on this thread? I’m kind of interested in what your definition is – because you haven’t managed to coherently explain it yet.
Jason — You mean our welcome page? Where the site policies are explained? Of course we didn’t write it for you. We’ve had it for years, linked into the banner of the site.
You’re disgusting, Jason.
I don’t even know why MSP is allowing this. I think you went too far 4 pages ago.
seth– i always wait entirely to long before i get on the computer to make some quick responces me and you would have to go to school and have a drawn out debate and once again it 2 in the morning. If i had the time i would go back overthing you said and i could indeed point out liberal thinking, apeaseing homosexuals here on this sit, cause heavenly father knows the only peron you wont missionary up with to save sould on this thread is with me and i know you say you dont like me but realy your required to love me so.. One example of sin is your believe that homosexuality is not that bad and a sin that you personaly would not worry about. So by saying that you apease gays into believing you got their back and inturn they trust you a little more and you become a little more on their side and if you keep entering the grey areas of life seth you might as well live in the darkest areas as well. You belittled the lds church and said “mormonism at its finest” to a temple reccomend holding member on this thread trying to change thought and feeling on this thread while you apease it and gang up on me the one person who should have switched into missionary gear, you dont have to like me but remember birds of a fether flock together, and we are who are friends are you just remember that. If i actualy had the time to go through all your post i could have you alot better ones but it wouldnt matter. If your proud of the church then say it, if your proud of the doctrine then wear it on your sleeves, have the spirit with you and when someone asks you something let the spirit talk for you. Let a little of your worrier out and you might save alot of more souls.
mr-jack–do what? i dont have the slightest clue what your talking about, realy i dont.
ok by for now
jason, again – where did I ever “appease gays” in this thread?
Because I honestly think you’re making it up out of thin air. Where did I ever advocate for homosexuality? Where did I ever take a stance contrary to LDS policy on homosexuality?
And don’t try to tell me that you’re too tired to look through the thread and find an example.
You came out in a public forum and accused me of being an apostate, a “wolf in sheeps clothing” and of trying to harm the LDS Church.
Those are serious allegations.
Please tell me that you are not so lacking in responsibility for your actions that you would make such accusations without actually having specific examples in mind.
You threw the first punch – now take responsibility for it.
Seth
All of this time and I didn’t know I was being appeased….by you apparently. Thanks, I guess. I am not sure even what being appeased is, but thanks.
Yes, he’s probably gone too far several times (and has received warnings for it), and yet people keep engaging him in discussion. What do you propose MSP do about it?
Seth @ 464:
Perhaps it’s like how cops in many cities now consider possession of marijuana to be a low rung of crime, not something they get all twisted up about, but it’s still a “crime.” They don’t go around saying it’s okay, but they don’t focus on its “evilness.” For someone like Jason, homosexuality is something you must pounce on immediately, a sin next to murder — since well, that’s what many Mormons are still taught. So, in his eyes, you’re acting “un-Mormon.” But certainly, I don’t think Jason has a good sense of this issue as it manifests Church-wide, or even a good sense of the Church as a whole generally, since when I tried to explain how many Mormons take varying stances, he lectured me about “hanging in there about my struggle.”
Jason, I would suggest you move to “San Fran” or “New York,” as you suggested for yourself. There are Mormons in those cities. Upturning your nose at every gay couple you see will eventually prove tiring.
seth– alan is correct with the first half of his comment. You have chosen to apease it by thinking it no big worry and fall short to speak your mind against the evils of homosexuality, no you are correct i find no place where you’re in favor of homosexuality or gay marriage but as i look through all are comments i do not see you take a stance against it either, therefor, to me its the same thing as apeasing the sin or leading others to believe it not that big an issue. If you have taken a stand against it on earlier post thats are not on this thread but are now to worried about losing friends that are gay, its the same to me again. Here is an example of what you have said.
“Pride is always a far more damaging sin than mere sexual transgression. It is enmity toward God as Ezra Taft Benson said. And I believe it is this sin that topples nations, more than any bedroom behavior.
Reasonable minds may differ on how much homosexuality is linked to the more pressing societal ills we have. But its not an area I particularly enjoy speculating in. I think there are better uses of my time and energies.”
So why would sin next to murder not be worth your energies? Like i said i dont know many mormons if any like yourself.
alan– you were pretty acurate with the first have of your post. I only disagree with with you emplying it may be different somehow church wide. It is not, im sure in liberal cities you can find more of a gay community, they might come to false conclustions on when and how it might finaly be allowed in the church but, how many general confrences and/or prophets have to say that the sin of homosexuality will not be allowed before it seaps in? Thats why the authorities say something more then once in general conferences on the issue cause no matter how blunt and sturn they get on the issue gays still contend with it and still have hope it will change when it will never. The sin is next to murder and someone gay is stopping their progression on this earth not being fruitful and multiplying to have children to continue the cycle of having families. Yes they can adopt but in turn are hurting the adopted child by teaching him or her to believe it is ok and then they are more then likely to be gay themselves if they see it every day in their homes( though ofcourse not all will be gay but chances go up a great deal), it realy messes up the child and we all know how messing up ones progression is a great sin in the eyes of God cause thats exactly what happens when someone is murdered, their progression is stoped making their life shorter and not giving the victim ample time to learn, grow, and repent, while in this mortal life. PS. i do not think bad of the individual just the sin, i would be friends with anyone gay and give them a big fat hug everytime i saw them but if i saw any friend doing something that might damn themselves in the eyes of God i care enough about them to warn them even in our modern sodom and gomoras; sanfransico, los angelas, new york, and well you could just throw most of cali in that category.
alan–half not have, please excuse all the errors i only woke up for a few minutes and checked my messages so my eyes are still closed. Alan, are you a member? Do you sustain the prophet? Just wondering cause its hard to know where anyone stands if i dont atleast attempt to ask and many on this site wont tell you much of anything but only quickly try to prove you wrong. It would be nice if everyone would attempt to build some sort of common ground every now and then, not speaking of you, from what i have read you have been pretty open minded, thanks for that.
I’m a Mormon-watcher, not a Mormon (although technically, I am a member). My partner and I have been together for a long time. You can call us “gay” if you’d like, but I don’t think that we are “messed up.” Nor do I think it’s messed up for us to be seen holding hands by my niece and nephew. There are different kinds of families in the world, and since the Church is interested in family, it would be good for it to do some more research on the subject.
So let me get this straight, you’re calling me an apostate because of issues of STYLE? And because I said that pride was a worse sin than sexual transgression?
Is that an accurate summary?
chanson ~ That’s really up to you. Personally, I wouldn’t allow slurs on the genitalia of other posters on my blog; they’d be sent to the moderation queue and the offender put on strict “do it again and you’re gone” warning. But MSP isn’t my blog.
yet people keep engaging him in discussion
That they are.
But you can take my name off of the list of people still doing this. I’m done.
One more thing here jason.
In that passage where Alma tells his son Corianton that adultery is like a “sin next to murder”, what does he then do to Corianton?
Yup, teaches him about the atonement and then sends him BACK INTO THE MISSION FIELD.
Do you think he would have done that if Corianton had just murdered someone?
Is the same facebook page that links to a profile picture of someone in a Na’vi costume and with no other public information available? That’s absolutely no proof that jason is who he says he is. My guess is that he’s an old Banner of Heaven blogger who just can’t stop. 😉
I am sincerely trying to follow this as carefully as I can (from my mobile phone), and I didn’t see anything about genitals.
“If seth is all that you said, then i would ask seth one thing and i dont say this to disrespect seth but brada get your balls back my friend draw your lind in the sand. “
Kari — That’s possible.
Andrew — ok, thanks for pointing out the offending comment.
Jason — seriously, keep it polite and civil. We’ve been very lenient, but if you direct any more rude remarks at participants here, we’ll have no choice but to redirect your comments to the moderation queue.
Chanson, I’m about to drop this conversation as well. Usually in a Mormon issues debate accusations of “apostasy” are the last resort of people who’ve just lost the debate. Usually when someone starts ranting about apostasy without giving a reasoned description of why, it’s time to just roll your eyes and move on.
chanson ~ For the record, I didn’t mean to disparage your moderation job. I know that you’ve warned him several times, and I appreciate it.
chanson– Is ms. jack reading the comment of a different jason? I have never talked about or commented on genitalia so i dont have the slightest clue what she’s talking about. Wasnt she the one bringing up sex cause i know i sure never did.
seth– lost a debate, yea ok buddy. I just wish i had all day to make you look foolish, as a lawyer i dont know how you spend all day on a computer responding to your 10 different blogs. You just made my point again. You look for ways to justify sin and apease sin as not that bad even if its taught its next to murder cause your book of mormon character forgiven his son… yea ok..so what if he did? Yea so your saying if you had a son who killed someone you would never forgive him, so what whould you do to your son? I would hope to believe the love for your son would be unconditional. I dont know if your officialy apostate but i know your apeasement of sin is luke warm and i dont see a difference between being an apostate and being spewed from Gods mouth do you? Sin is sin! No unclean thing can enter into the kindom of God. I dont care if your apeasing murder, homosexuality, or stealing bubble gum from the grocery store. I dont email people on blogs saying; its ok that you steal gum as long as you dont kill someone, its not that bad it could be worse.. No, i say do not steal you dont do that no matter how minor you may think it is. Lets me and you go talk to a bishop together or any authority and lets see if they agree with you, do you realy think you would win this argument? I dont think so seth..
chanson–oh ok, ms jack is talking about “balls”. I have never talked about genitalia with mr. jack and i wasnt so specific as she was and i dont talk about sex with my mormon wife. So does the word offend you? If i said wavos, if im saying that right, would that be considered bad to ms. jack or to you chanson? So far you have been very level headed and have not looked for ways to censor me so i would hope you wouldnt let ms. jack or any other person think she can come onto the site and silence people. So when have b-lls become discusting i would think they wouldnt so easily gross out mr. jack.
Alan- maybe you can answer this? Why is it when a member is against homosexuality most “gays” think that people like me are against the individual. I have nothing against you or people like you, you seam like a realy smart guy and you seam thoughtful in your thought process. Im only against the act of homosexuality. Cant people like me and you be good friends while i remain against the act of gay sex? I would have nothing against someone like you, chanson, or whomever but if you asked me what i thought on the issue i would tell you that i thought it was wrong and a sin. What is wrong with that? One more question, when has the word “gay” become such a damning word to those practicing homosexuality, does that word offend gays this is just a honest question.
Everyone– I was just thinking that i would much rather be best friends with a gay person then i would a luke warm mormon. I think a gay might even be better off in the next life when it comes to repentence.. just saying..
seth–maybe you sould back away like you said cause i might have one thing you do not and that is the spirit.. Yes you are lds by name but maybe you should get out of the think tank a little and actualy worry about the works part. That reminds me of a poem which reminds me of you, here it is….
“Believe and be saved, believe and be saved said the minister as he retired to his spacious new home, in his humble mercedes with everything crome, he went to his studies his thoughts running deep, dozed for a moment and died in his sleep, he went to saint peter and said with a grin, I believed in the savior so please let me in, oh no said saint peter with a sigh, the devils working hard and the tolls running high, you see to believe in the savior you must do as he said, cause faith without works is nothing but dead, the DEVIL knows jesus believes in him to, so whats the difference between the devil and YOU?”
kari–that is a picture of me and my little girl made up as avatars, i had loved the movie and i thought it would be a cool pic. I have my facebook page set to private and i gave you my email adress, should i invite you over for dinner cause im not quite understanding the whole made up thing, this is actualy the first time i ever had interest to even blog so im not realy understanding the whole idea of not being real…ok well im an angel, do you believe me?
Jason ~ My handle is Ms. Jack, which is a feminine title, and I think I’ve made it very clear that I am a woman. Please stop calling me “Mr. Jack.”
Comments to the effect of “get some balls” or “grow a pair” are offensive, both because they are graphic in content (it’s a reference to testicles) and because it’s a sexist remark that insults a man by implying that he is a woman. Because we all know there’s nothing so lowly or undesirable as being a woman.
Yes, the Spanish word for “eggs” (huevos) is just as bad when used in that context. I’m not sure what rock you’ve been living under to not know all this.
Last I checked, you were the first one to bring up sex in this thread. Anal sex at that.
Now I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who is hateful, misogynist, racist, homophobic, and obviously insecure in his own masculinity. Have a nice life.
Since I suspect this discussion will be wrapping up soon, I thought I’d step in and just thank Jason, for confirming a few things to me, and providing me with great entertainment along the way.
I would like to share my testimony that I believe that Jason is a bona fide Mormon, albeit not a typical one (Thank God!). You see, my father is exactly the same way. The guy is a full on racist, and he clings to the wacky comments espoused to early Church leaders and stuff in Mormon Doctrine to make him feel better about himself. He throws a royal fit if you call him a racist, or even if he think you might be insinuating that he might be a racist, but at the end of the day he still preaches this crap, and stands by it. If you think someone is inferior for any reason, due to race or culture, you’re a racist – even if you think God said it!
Seth is not a typical Mormon either though. While I generally disagree with Seth, at least he can put forth a logical argument, and will provide sources for any doctrines or principles which he puts forth. And he can hold his side of the argument without resorting to slander and pathetic whining. Seth, which it probably doesn’t mean much, I think you’re a credit to this institution, and my hat goes off to you for the professional way you have handled this discussion.
And now onto the funny stuff…
I know it’s been done to death, but I have to say how much I appreciated reading Jason spout off about “The Glory of God being intelligence”, and yet, at the same time and yet at the same time demonstrate a grammatical command of the English language comparable to my 6 year old daughter. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re Cajun and all that crap. I know people who speak English as a 6th and 7th language, and yet even they get the principles of basic capitalization and grammar so I’m not going to buy that. One has to question your abilities with basic reading and comprehension when your written word is this horrendous.
On that note, the continued lack of capitalization for proper nouns was a little off putting as well. Jason you claim to be all spiritual and God fearing, and yet, you can’t even capitalize the name of your deity?!? I’m an atheist, and even I still found your use of the Saviour and Jesus Christ sans capitalization to be a little offensive.
The continued claims of open-mindedness were a little much to take as well. It takes more than just lip-service to a concept to actually become the concept. I know a lot of openminded people – many of whom I disagree with, but you sir have a mind about as open as a mussel at low tide!
But the final comment to Seth, in which he quoted the wee poem about the minister absolutely took the cake for me…
“In his humble Mercedes with everything chrome”
OMFG!!! Clearly Jason, you have NO idea what the leaders of your Church drive around in, nor the lavish offices from which they administer, nor the obscene stipends which they claim as remuneration for their services in God’s kingdom.
I’m not looking for an argument here, because quite frankly your words speak for themselves.
Anyone who knows me well, knows that I harbor some pretty strong negative feelings towards the Church, and yet at the same time, I’m embarrassed for the Church that people like yourself claim to represent it.
And before you spout off with the anti-gay rhetoric:
I’m straight, married (in the temple actually!) with 5 kids.
I’m pro-gay rights and I think Glenn Beck is a fear-monger who has found a niche amongst the brain dead and the intellectually retarded.
And I’m a proud Libertarian Socialist!
And don’t even try the “I still love you!” crap. My father tried that one too… And here’s a man who refuses to step foot in my house, until I admit I was wrong about leaving the Church. My kids all find a “openmindedness” and “love” a little strange as well.
mr. jack–Wow you are a for sure feminist arent you..lol..wow it amazes me how you think so badly of me for using the word “balls” when you dont see nothing wrong with homosexuality bud god forbid i say the word “balls”..lol..yes i do think its funny..yea a woman is so undesirable to me im STRAIT and married to one, go figure. obviously insecure in my own masculinity.. yea ok, have you seen me lately, well i guess you havent. yes i do live under a rock and when i woke up and crawled from underneath it, i got sick to my stomach when i realized nancy pelosi and a few of her feminist stunt doubles crawled out of my toilet and tried to follow me… Yea so good luck and have a nice day.
I’m waiting for for two things from you jason:
First I’d like a yes or no on whether comment #473 accurately summarizes your case against me.
Secondly, I’d like either
a) an acknowledgment from you that you were preaching false doctrine by claiming that blacks were “fence-sitters” in the pre-existence, or
b) a reason why you think that Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph F. Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Jeffrey R. Holland were all wrong.
Until you actually man up and face those questions (the second of which you have been dodging for this entire thread), I have nothing further to say to you. It’s pointless debating someone who would rather change the subject than deal with the issues.
So let’s keep it in order.
Were you preaching false doctrine when you claimed that blacks were fence-sitters in the pre-mortal world?
Jason, I’ll answer your questions, but this is probably my last comment to you, since I think people are rather annoyed at you.
Let’s say my partner and I invite you over for dinner. You are now in our home. There would be an expectation that you hold your tongue about thinking our relationship is a “sin” unless we picked your brain about the topic. Otherwise, you would be acting disrespectfully.
Now, imagine a world where everyone held their tongue about homosexuality being a “sin” in order to be respectful to all the gay couples out there. Eventually, people would forget that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, there is a part of you that would not like the fact that we ask you to hold your tongue, but another part of you is okay about it because you know we already know what you think about the topic. But unless someone somewhere continues saying consistently that homosexuality is a sin, people will forget or think it’s backwards. My partner and I would not feel comfortable in spaces where our relationship is deemed sinful. So, therefore, there would be spaces that he and I are comfortable, spaces where you are comfortable: our worlds to a great extent would be separate.
The goal of a good religious community, so far as I know, is to exist for a shared world, not maintain separate worlds. By shared, I mean where differences and different viewpoints are paramount and respected; there is not a push toward sameness. You might think the goal is to be obedient to God, but surely you know people have different beliefs about God and different ideas about what constitutes sin. I’m simplifying everything here, but this is basically what it comes down to for me.
If your hope is that you can learn politically correct language to be respectful but still advocate the message that homosexuality is a sin, I don’t really know what to tell you. People would consider this a wolf in sheep’s clothing, which, is, by the way, the problem you seem to describe Seth as having for not being a wolf-all-the-time about homosexuality.
Jason ~ you are a for sure feminist arent you
I’m pro-life, so most modern-day feminists would answer your question with an adamant “no.”
when you dont see nothing wrong with homosexuality
CFR. Where did I ever say that I see nothing wrong with homosexuality?
yea a woman is so undesirable to me im STRAIT and married to one
Most misogynist men are both straight and married.
“Not feeding the troll” means completely ignoring it — not replying to it, not asking it questions, not defending yourself against its accusations (unnecessary, because everyone already knows that whatever it says is wrong), not piling on with criticism (no matter how well deserved), not making fun of it, not anything. And everyone has to do it for it to work. Just sayin’.
(Although at this point “banning the troll” is probably the only viable solution, one that I dislike in general but would fully support in this case.)
Not feeding the troll means completely ignoring it
I know. Shame on me.
(Although at this point banning the troll is probably the only viable solution, one that I dislike in general but would fully support in this case.)
Ditto.
urban koda–thats to bad your dad wont step foot in your house cause no matter how wacky and evil your thinking might be a father should never disown his children and only love them upon conditions. It does not bother me you have spare time to proof read my comments and if it makes you better at the english language thats a good thing. I could send everyone comments that were perfect, proof reading and correcting any small mistake in my comments but the message is more important to me and to be honest i just dont care and dont have the time to do that for you. Im usualy in a rush and i dont have time to worry about it and i usualy type pretty fast so take it as you want. Why do people like yourself think that pointing out grammer mistakes would bother me, if thats my biggest concern im doing pretty good. As far as the poem is concerned where in the world do you get i was talking about the authorities of the church? It was obvious i was talking to people UNLIKE the authorities of the church, i think your confusing yourself. I hope you dont think you actualy made a good argument cause to be honest if you have read all of my comments you would see you stand for everything im against. Like i said, you fit a marker indicating the comming destruction of a society. Your an angry socialist who longs for the love of his father. You blame your dad for everything but are not quick to look at your own problems and if your causing any of them in the first place. It looks as if the weeding out process is well underway and ya know what, yea I LOVE YOU, I LOVE YOU , I LOVE YOU, and so does Jesus Christ capital J and God capital G, so i hope you can get over your pride and repent of your sins and worry about my spelling errors a little less and get your priorities strait especialy when you have children involved.
Ms. jack– yes feminist, communist love to ban people from speaking, you love to debate people who only share your view point so i hate to see you debate God when he tells you your dead wrong and yes he’s a MAN so you might have a personal issue there.
Two analogies come to mind…
First analogy: You know how on American Idol, there is always that guy that just can’t sing? People’s ear drums are bursting, and the judges are trying to be nice, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what they say to him. He’s convinced he’s the greatest singer in the world.
Second analogy: There is a large battlefield. It’s full of seasoned soldiers, all well trained and battle hardened. Their weapons are effective and their aim is incredibly keen. Fortunately their armor is thick and their fortifications well planned and strong. Everyone has a great amount of respect for each others abilities, and respect their opponents as the warriors they are.
All of a sudden, in the midst of the battlefield, a 7 year old kid shows up with a water pistol, and it’s not even a good water pistol. The trigger fell off a long time ago, and he it’s as if hasn’t quite realized it.
The soldiers all look at each other, trying to figure out what the hell he’s doing there.
All of a sudden he starts running around making shooting noises and generally getting in the way. The soldiers feel really bad for the little tyke and try their best not to shoot him, but invariably, he runs into a little machine gun fire here, and ends up jumping on a grenade or two. There’s a friendly fire incident as well, but we’ll forget about that 🙂
Remarkably after a few hours of this, he’s still alive, but lying in a pool of his own blood and guts.
The soldiers gather around, kinda of concerned for the little guy.
All of a sudden he starts waving his broken water pistol around. “I am the true Warrior!”, he starts screaming. “I showed y’all how to be true warriors, and if you’d just listen to me, and could show you how to be greater warriors!
The soldiers stare at each other bemused and a little confused.
“I won and I beat you all! I am the true warrior God.”
And with that the soldiers wondered off, wondering why the hell a 7 year old would show up to a gunfight with a water pistol.
OK Kuri! I’m done. I just couldn’t let all of you have the fun, without getting a little myself.
seth–im going to try and be not contentious here, and no im not giving you an excuse but ive been on this computer for a while now and have some buisness to attend to. Ive been to churches all over the world and i have never met another mormon who had your views, and yes also about the seed of cain, even pres. hinkley did not deny it when it was asked of him in a tv interview, the reason why is because they can not deny it. They may try to work their statements AROUND it and who wouldnt, the church is trying to save souls. No im saying your headed in the way of apostacy because you apease sin. A) Ask a mormon, you might find your the odd ball out. If you want to rewrite the history of the church to apease people you are showing you fear God not man so thats on you. I dont teach false doctrine i just call out members who have nothing better to do then argue with members while hugging everyone else. How are you helping anybody? You do fit right in here. B) I believe modern leadership trys their best to not offend people and that they are being influenced by the groups i have previously named not to mention mormons who are moving to the left and causing a devide within the church of false ideals. I dont know why you try to make this more difficult then it is. “Who’s on the Lord’s side?” I hope you can correct your course you might get lost in the darkness. Remember faith without works is dead! I have to go cause i cant work on my works on the computer all day i dont think that is what God had in mind, capital G..
I didn’t ask you about the “seed of Cain” Jason.
I asked you about the doctrine of “fence sitters.”
Now man up, answer the question, and quit trying to change the subject.
seth–man up? you dont know how silly you sound. Yes i totaly STILL believe just like just about every other past prophet that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and if that offends then so be it, i do NOT care to be politicaly correct in the least bit. Now if you are wanting to know something more specific specify it cause i find your question very broad. No i dont care to be politicaly correct like current leaders of the church may try to be. If you take these things hard to hear then maybe rely more on the spirit and less on your liberal view of things.
urban koda–you play to many video games and im amuzed at how smart you think you realy are..??? Well atleast i got a laugh.
Everyone–well ive had fun on this site but i must say many of you are so lost i can smell the sulfur burning on your skin. No matter how much not hearing your sins make them go away in your head its still there and youll have to pay the price of your sins cause the savior ONLY pays the price of sins you repent of, and sense you dont think your doing anything wrong youll have to pay for it. No matter how fun it may be i feel an evil spirit from many of you commenting on this site. Im not saying any of you are evil but satan has stopped your progression and is quickly leading you down to hell with chains. You all jump on me cause you take the words of the savior and/or his prophets hard to hear and it condems you in your homes and in your hearts. And seth i believe you are an apeaser of evil and i think you are no worse then satans fallen angels. For as smart as you think you are, you are actualy not that bright. the comming spiritual war more then likely will be physical as well and i hope for your sake your not standing across the field against me cause im headed for the apeasers first. So long
well ive had fun on this site but HURR sinners HURR homophobia HURR misogyny HURR Jesus HURR balls HURR anal sex HURR you’re all going to hell HURR apostates HURR racism HURR couldn’t back up a single argument that I made HURR I lash out at better men because I’m insecure in my own masculinity HURR So long
Bye!
Good morning from Switzerland!
Looking over last night’s comments, I’d say that everyone’s position is quite clear and doesn’t require further explanation.
Exactly. As long as people here are still asking Jason serious questions, defending themselves against his accusations, composing elaborate analyses of Jason’s position, etc., that tells me you’re still interested in what he has to say. And sure, the admins of MSP could come around and put a padlock on the cookie jar, so to speak, but is it necessary?
As a stake president I am going to have to side with Jason in that the people on here (apart from Jason and I) are basically no better than Satans fallen angels. We would counsel you all to repent and return to church this coming sabbath.
Amen and Amen
Jason,
Before you start typing on a site like this, please make sure that you are able to formulate a complete sentence and for the love of God, please check your spelling before you click the “submit comment” button. It just makes you look stupid when you don’t.
and Bill (president Paternoster),
What is an upstanding Stake president, as you claim to be, doing reading a blog like this? Are you looking for those who are lost so that you can save them? Or, are you looking for members of your own stake posting comments here so you can bust them? It seems to me, like most people here, that you are looking for answers to your unanswered questions about the church. Whatever your reason for reading this blog, perhaps you should keep your righteous indignation to your own flock. Your stewardship is not over anyone here and lest you forget, you are NOT the judge.
Thank you Derrick. As I sat in my church office contemplating your question I was reminded of the counsel given by Elder M. Russell Ballard. He urged graduating students at Brigham Young University-Hawaii to use the Internet, blogs, and other forms of new media to contribute to a national conversation about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
He suggested that we join the conversation by participating on the Internet, particularly the New Media, to share the gospel and to explain in simple and clear terms the message of the Restoration.
He explained that conversations about the Church would take place whether or not Church members decided to participate in them. We cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches, he said. Church leaders cant answer every question, satisfy every inquiry and respond to every inaccuracy that exists.
It is in this spirit that righteous members such as Jason and leaders such as myself find ourselves on blogs such as this. I have even started a blog wherein one can read the thoughts of a stake president as he deals with the many issues facing members today. Feel free to click on my name to see the blog and don’t hesitate to contribute to the conversations over there.
All the best,
Bill Paternoster
Bill, I think most of us have heard Ballard’s talk about internet missionary work. However, I think Derrick is trying to make a different point.
I remember when I was on the mission and how I behaved. Not once, did I ever condemn anyone to a “hell” although I certainly could have found justification to do so. It was obvious many of these people were “sinning.” I was not alone either – many missionaries chose not to condemn anyone. It seemed that it just wasn’t in our place to do so. Also, it just wasn’t effective.
So take a moment and think to yourself, “how would I behave in real life if I were on a mission? Maybe I should apply those same techniques on the internet?”
While you may think it is your duty to condemn people to a “hell”, the purpose of this blog (as it appears) is to have meaningful conversations.
Bill,
Thank you for your kind response. I can get behind your reasoning for being here. I have even read Russ Ballards talk you referenced. However, as I read the talk, I’m not seeing where Ballard has given anyone permission, including ecclesiastical leaders, to “judge” another person for their points of view or for expression their authentic thoughts and feelings. In doing so, it seems that we are no “better” than the people who are ‘ranting’ on this blog.
In my feeble mind, I see us as a people who are so in need of grace and mercy. I see all of us reaching out, not for someone to agree with a point-of-view or even for validation but rather a word or encouragement on our spiritual journey. A kind word about the how BOUNDLESS the Lord’s mercies are, goes a long way in this community. Or, acknowledgement that we are all sinners and that we all desperately need the atonement and the blood of Jesus Christ to save us from our our mortal selves.
As a stake president, you well know that every member of the church has their own journey and follow their own spiritual path. As much as the church would like to correlate and standardize the “journey”, they are finding that it just can’t be done – hence the title of this blog. Instead of keeping people ‘in’ we are driving them away.
As I further contemplate Ballards remarks I realize my role is to testify of Jesus Christ and reassure all people in this world that he loves them unconditionally, regardless of the path they are on and for them to reach out to Him in their time of need and in their confusion.
I have read your blog and will respectfully contribute to what you have to say because I am fascinated about your experience as a ecceliastical leader, it is not an easy job.
God loves all his children, even the ones on this site. He loves them as much as he loves you and other church leaders. It’s humbling to comtemplate this!
God Bless,
Derrick
You make a very good point Christ. I would however counsel all missionaries to do as D&C 75:20 instructs which I will quote for your benefit from memory below:
“And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house, and shake off the dust of your feet as a testimony against them.”
A large part of missionary work is to give opportunities to the world to accept the truth. As missionaries are rejected they are to shake off the dust as a testimony against their rejectors at the last day. This will become useful on judgement day when Christ assigns people to their different degrees of glory.
As a missionary I always felt it an honor to follow this scripture.
Bill
Sigh. I tried.
Anyway… looks like there is no internet equivalent for D&C 75:20, eh? So that means you’ll keep coming back and coming back and coming back….
Chris & Derek — While I can’t speak for the illustrious President Paternoster, I’d recommend that you go have a look at his blog, and keep in mind that many people suspect that his persona is *cough* satire *cough*…
I thought the same thing, chanson. But have you seen his facebook page? http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002049757900
Sure he’s “liked” 8 A Mormon Proposition. I’m guessing only because he wanted to make a comment on its fan page.
Also, his profile pic seems to be original because I can’t find any duplicates on tineye.com. Although that’s not a guarantee…
Derrick–I know you take these things hard to here thats why you like to throw insults at people like me and president Paternoster. Instead of making excuses for your sin why dont you attempt to make a change in your life and repent of your sins. Our leadership has told us to come and get involved on the internet and another reason could be that we actualy care about your souls. How great will our joy be if we can save even one soul Derrick. When your father gives you loving advice and tells you your doing something wrong do you tell him to get lost or do you humble yourself and turn away from your wrong doing? My guess is that most of the people on this site may not have a great relationship with their fathers if their sins disagree with their fathers counsil. No Im not your father and neither is president Paternoster, but there is a saying that God chastises those whom he loves and God works through people on the earth to represent his feeling, and if he has to use people like us to rebuke sinful behavior then so be it. We are now in the final hour and close to the comming of Jesus Christ and we are now as bad or worse then it was in the days of Noah and the city of Sodom. Why do you think we are so close tho the second comming? We are close to Christ’s comming because sin is so great and people think that they are smarter then God and think that they can tell others what is sin and what is not sin. God and God alone has the authority to set commandments and brothers and sisters on this site, your sin is great, and you are playing a part in the comming distruction of people who will be burnt off at the lords comming, and if i can help the lord save one of your souls then i am greatful to him.
I notice that a lot of my ex-Mormon friends online seem to be followers of Paternoster’s website.
Most online Mormons who’ve looked into his stuff are convinced that Bill Paternoster’s website is a spoof.
I’d also note that he shows up all over the place online. And his comments always start with “as a stake president.”
Which seems a pretty clear giveaway to me. Since real stake presidents would be discouraged from announcing their position online or making it seem in any way that their private online views represent the LDS Church.
It also begs the question why is he taking so much time, especially on a Sunday, to write on this blog. Doesn’t he have a ward conference to attend or some poor sinner to call to repentance?
Jason,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Oh Dog, it never ends!
Seth, I can understand that level-headed Mormons don’t want Paternoster on their team and are quick to say his blog is satire. That makes sense.
President Paternoster, are you willing to prove your identity?
Chris, just Google his name.
No stake president roams the internet introducing themselves as a “stake president” before every comment.
Surely, the faker would know that too. Why make such a simple mistake after taking so much time with blogging and making friends on facebook, etc…
Unless they weren’t serious about it in the first place Chris. Which in the case of a spoof, is more than likely.
Try Googling “Prudence McPrude” sometime on By Common Consent.
I feel like I’m on the opposite end of a “was Joseph Smith a prophet?” debate.
chris–If you call gay ex-mormons and apostates level headed mormons then you need a reality check. Oh, by the way, most stake presidents dont go around showing internet sites their temple recommends and confirming their membership to anyone. I also want to point out that christ also saved souls on sundays so why should’nt his servants do the same.
To the regulars — I appreciate that you have restrained from further playing in the mud, thanks!!
I wanted this discussion to wrap itself up without any kind of heavy-handed moderating, but, unfortunately — now that it’s almost completely died down — it’s still like a sore with an annoying scab that keeps getting picked off. And I’d normally say “whatever, no biggie,” except for this:
Threats of physical violence against other commenters are absolutely not OK, especially after multiple warnings. Thus, I have no choice but to redirect further comments by Jason to moderation.
Chris & Derrick — I have been following the Stake President blog for some time (and I’m an atheist with no interest in making the CoJCoL-dS look good), and I am convinced that it is satire. Note that Pres. Paternoster has commented on MSP since you started debating his identity, yet he didn’t bother to stop by this thread and argue that he’s for real. That — plus the thing about always telling people he’s a stake president — are his winks to you that it’s a joke.