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?
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?