Reducing Theology to a Sound Bite

wnro vsqzfjtx bdnui ecmypblv cqlx ardgjxzu tyvkme

wnro vsqzfjtx bdnui ecmypblv cqlx ardgjxzu tyvkme

vrybo ktdexqwaj isjxezynf juedk nsdg uxcfgw aqtfrne

vrybo ktdexqwaj isjxezynf juedk nsdg uxcfgw aqtfrne

vrybo ktdexqwaj isjxezynf juedk nsdg uxcfgw aqtfrne

vrybo ktdexqwaj isjxezynf juedk nsdg uxcfgw aqtfrne

Mormon doctrine is complex and it evolves. Many features set it apart from other JudeoChristian sects, but one does more than any other: Mormons fundamentally believe that their God was once a Mormon man, and their salvation is rooted in the belief that they will become Gods like him. That one point, that man becomes God, is the primary reason for the animosity because the idea is anathema to Protestants and Catholics alike. Judeochristians believe that Genesis plainly teaches man fell into sin and death when he accepted Satan's invitation be become like God. I am impressed by the amount of heated discussion back and forth that simply fails to account for this irreducible minimum underlying the debate.

Observer ~

Apology accepted.

I'm glad you are able to find joy and direction within the church. It's good that you are finding out that open criticism of your church doesn't take from you your idea that it's true.

SML,

I would like to take this time to apologize for my rash comments on April 18, 2007 at 1:15 PM. I am not always very good with words when stirred in anger and truly did not mean to direct my anger at you. I had much time to think about my comments and realized just how bad they came across. I realize that I did not do that through love and wish to express my deepest sincerest apologies for it.

I will not use this as an excuse, but I will say that it's not easy (as you already know) to sit around and watch people make comments (which many times can be perceived as negative) at a religion you firmly believe as true. (I am also not implying that you have no right to do so) It is obvious that everyone here has their own opinions. It was through much prayer that I have been reminded again, that our Father in Heaven has given each of us our own free agency to make and do with our own decisions. I do believe that how we live our lives will be how we are judged. Coming on here and just talking about being Christ-like will do nothing for anyone if one does not go out and become Christ-like through living examples. It is through this realization that I am changing my attitude and outlook on life, which I know will be for the better.

I appreciate all the comments on this thread. I am certainly learning much from them and how others feel about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I know through it's teachings it will help me to grow into a more loving and understanding person.

I will let you know that I do believe in this religion. I am not perfect and as you've seen from my mistake, I can use alot of help. I'm still new to this religion. This religion has taught me much and continues to teach me more each day. This religion did NOT teach me to become angry and inconsiderate in my comments, but quite the contrary. That mistake is something that I have done on my own and again apologize for.

D Parker

YOU are a good person.

YOur post reminds me of the incredibly poignant and tear-inducing quote from Anne Frank

"Despite everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart."

You, we, our descendents, have that goodness in our hearts. We need to commune with it, be our best selves, and ALWAYS look at our fellows with compassion and loving kindness.

As my Sainted Mormon Mother always told me to do. Sigh.

Postscript (to youth):
If you happened to have read to here, and wondered about trying to figure out your own religious beliefs in the midst of such discord, please know that despite the many differences of opinion you will find about religion and faith in the world, there is good reason to try and find a set of beliefs (whatever makes sense to you) that will help you see the good in the world, the good in people generally, and ways to connect with those around you on a basis of sharing. "Love one another" is the best piece of writing on this extensive set of comments.

As Henry and Ethan wrote, peace and love to you and those around you.

Ethan
once again, very loving and thoughtful comments (for a turkey (just kidding : I really mean it).

My brother like you is an active Mormon priesthood holder who has a wonderful wife from SLC, and he is the nicest kindest person I know (except my other brother who is no longer a mormon).

My love for you and all my other relatives is not in question. and i know that you and my brother try to act in a fair and non authoritarian way towards your wives and mothers.

without any polemics and vitriol, ANd without accusing any of my brothers of bad action or motives, SML and I have just wanted to raise this complicated issue which has lots of nuance and shading, but in many ways is fundamental and would benefit from all of us people of good will, Mormon and Non-mormon, talking about and working on.

Peace,
Henry

Thank you all for the loving comments. I believe you all may be the best bunch of turkey's I have had the opportunity to gobble with. SML I am sorry your experience with the LDS church has led you to feel the role of women is treated as second rate in its church. Also I feel that any priesthood holder who uses the priesthood as a position of power is horribly abusing his calling. I have always heard that the priesthood is given to those as a calling to serve others, not to uplift oneself in the eyes of others. My personal experience in life has shown me that my mother and wife are the to greatest examples of love and service to others(not just to family, but also to their friend and coworkers). I feel that to come close to their accomplishments, and I believe their reward in heaven, I would have to spend all my energy in service of others. I believe that this is the reason the priesthood is given to men, not for their superior place in the lords eyes, but to give them a chance to come close to women in His eyes. The priesthood means nothing if it is held by someone who does not realize it is not for the benefit of oneself, but for the benefit of all those you come in contact with and have the opportunity(hopefully one that is taken) to serve.

Love Ethan

Where is Otterson?
Has he been recalled, Detroit style?

I meant "according TO the LDS faith"...

Ethan ~

You may compare me to a turkey. I recognize that my divine role according the LDS faith is no different than that of a mother turkey, or any other animal capable of reproduction. But when you compare my priesthood-bearing brethren here with turkeys, now that’s going a bit too far, don’t you think? ;)

All joking aside, I will say I’m feeling the love. I really admire many more people on this blog than you think, from both sides of the issues being discussed. And you know what else? I would never have come to know these people enough to feel love for them had I not been here, discussing things with them. I’m very glad I “wasted my time” because I feel like I’ve grown from being here. You guys are great.

The Grand Synthesis of John and Phaeadrus

from your humble servant, America's Greatest Literary Critic

1. The overwhelming majority of Mormons are very good people.
2. Probably *most* Mormon women are relatively content with their position in the Church.
On any reasoned definition of "justice," the Mormon doctrine and practice regarding the status and power of women is Unjust.

One can accept or ignore the injustice based on Points 1 and 2.
Or, if one is sufficiently bothered by Injustice, one must speak out against it wherever it is found.

"We are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Martin Lluther King

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

In the present context, this statement from Edmund Burke may seem a gross over-reach. After all, we are not talking about genocide, slavery etc. However, it is my contention that any system that seeks to assign social roles based upon anything other than the capacities, actions, and preferences of the individual, is inherently unjust. (I do not like the term "evil" because of some of its connotations.) To whatever extent LDS doctrine seeks to discourage women from pursuing pro-social roles deemed appropriate for men only, is the extent to which said doctrine is unjust. I make the same charge of any other organization and belief system as well.

To fail to show some vigor in confronting this injustice, even in the pale anonymity of cyberspace, is to condone it. Henry James says this quite well, above.

Ethan: one last comment: i steal the below from the web as one view on why Civility is NOT ALWAYs a virtue. I think all of us, including Mormons, should never get too comfortable with our beliefs and our sureties. guess i go along with Socrates in this regard. Still love you. Henry

Afflict the comfortable

There's an old principle for preachers, adopted also by some journalists, that says fidelity to the truth calls us to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

The comfortable take offense whenever anyone follows this advice. They know better than to claim this treatment is unfair -- fairness and justice are not concepts they're trying to promote -- so they end up sniffing that it just seems rude.

"Civility" becomes the last bastion of those who cannot appeal to justice or the truth to make their case. If King David had behaved this way, he would never have repented of the murder of Uriah -- he would just have told the prophet Nathan that it isn't polite to point.

Paul Krugman is not impressed with this newfound, thin-skinned variety of "civility." "There is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years," he writes, and:

It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. ... It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Dear Ethan,

I DO love you. I am a practicing Buddhist, and our first principle to practice compassion and loving kindness towards our fellows.

We New Englanders, at the same time, believe in speaking plainly and conciesly.

It we think a statement is poppycock, we label it so.

As far as your questions about the worthwhileness of this discussion and the stance of the Turkeys and Peacocks (cousins of the Poppycocks) who strut here:

I refer you to Shakespeare:
"All the world's a stage."
"Ah, what fools these mortals be."
Man is "a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more."

Most of us have to interact with others, some of us actually enjoy parts of it, and at least most of the ex-mormons here have a significant degree of affection for the believers like DP, John D, RTC, and Joy.

It has been said of me, quite accurately I am afraid:
"He has all the qualities of a peacock except beauty."

Peace, brother.

With all of the debate back and forth I read on this site I wonder how those who post hear will respond if in the end they are wrong. Most all of those who regularly post have well thought out arguements and even hold a respectful tone to those you disagree with. If in the end JD1 is told that you had it wrong and SML has it right(or vice versa) will he try and come up with a reasoning to defend his position. Or if SML is wrong will she attempt to tell the almighty He is sexist. Or will all things just end and there be no here after and this entire discussion be a waste of time. My main wonder is whether the endless discussion does anything other than give those involved a feeling of importants and a forum to display their intellect and beliefs like turkeys strutting their stuff. I am not one to be lecturing anyone about how to live or what is right, but I hope to leave you all with this message, love one another. No greater lesson has ever been taught. It is through that lesson we will all find peace together, not through discussing which beliefs are right and which are wrong. Also remeber that to truly love, one must give up ones own concerns and take up the concerns of others.

Friends,
Since the subject is now socialization, my observation from my experience is that there are more socialization benefits from LDS standards and association for youth than there are hazards. I'd rather my sons get the feeling that viewing porn is definitely unhealthful for them and not acceptable, nor are viewing violent video games, and that my daughters and sons get the feeling that abstinence before marriage (whether in an LDS temple or not) is not an acceptable nor a healthy approach to a good marriage. I know the LDS faith is not alone in strong socialization standards in these areas, but am I glad they don't listen to some world views.

My son has friends (still does) who didn't serve missions, and none of the "whispering" that SML seems to imply was what we observed in our neck of the woods.

My socialization and that of all my siblings has delighted in the hundreds of international folks I've associated with and learned from, and I know all of you share in that, and hold them as equal peers. My observation is that most LDS are less close-minded and narrow-minded than some of the comments a few have made on these threads seem to imply. Adios, amigos.

To John D The First (JD1)

I just wanted to say that I very much enjoy and look forward to all of your posts. Your comments are very eloquent and well thought out. Continue the good work!

I keep coming back from the dead. Just want to say, thanks.

SML, in response to Gone John

wrote about social pressure on young men to serve a mission.

it is undeniably so. i left the church at the age when i decided NOT to go on the mission i was expected to go on because i couldn't "sell the product" with good faith, and after that it made little sense to me to stay (both my older and younger brother served).

Now I happen to think that the Mormon culture has a RIGHT to exert this kind of Social Pressure, just as men like me have a right (though it is very difficult) to resist it.

People should be able to say
I like the Mormon church because it expects all its young men to serve the cause,
or
I DON"T like the church for the same reason.

I agree with you SML that the social pressure on a woman who decided to ONLY have a career and not be a mother would be similarly intense.

If you are a woman who doesn't llike that fact, the Mormon Church is not going to be very comfortable for you.

If you are a woman who BOTH wants to be a mother AND have a career, that is likely to be very doable. as John said, many many do it.

BTW, Ghost of John, I think I said that
Many Many Mormon women are happy with their situation in the church
and that
Many aren't.
I don't expect you to think that SML's experience is UNIVERSAL. I simply hold that she is one of a significant number, and that the issues she raises are significant and substantive.

JD1 ~

Thanks much for your heartfelt response to me. I appreciate that you took the time to come back so we could understand one another better.

I guess one way I could explain a bit about how it feels to women to feel that we are limited in what we can/should do as women in the church, ordained with one divine role only, is to offer a male experience as comparison.

All boys and teens are taught at church from their youth up that they are to serve a full-time mission. They know that it is God's will that they serve a mission when they turn 19. If a young man really doesn't want to do so, it can be very difficult for him, as the society at church is so keen on this expectation of him, and social pressure regarding missions for boys can be daunting. Parents and primary teachers begin teaching their sons and students to begin saving a portion of what they earn for their mission fund. EVERY young man is expected to serve.

If he doesn't, and offers no explanation why, then there is often speculation as to what sin is preventing him from not going. People don't hesitate to ask him often as he nears age 19 if he's turned in his papers or not. His bishop and priesthood leaders talk to him often and urge him to get his life in order to get ready to serve his mission, as if it's a foregone conclusion that this is what he SHOULD be doing.

Young women are taught to seek after a mate who's a righteous priesthood holder, one who has served a mission for the Lord. If a woman has men to choose between, and one of them never served a mission, you can be certain that he will be found lacking for this reason.

If he happens to go to college, other LDS students his age will ask him where he served his mission, assuming he did since all men go. When he tells them he didn't go on a mission, he will very often see in their eyes the questioning looks or the raised eyebrows. Some will even come right out and ask him, "Why not?!" If he answers that he didn't want to, he will be judged by many. You know this is true. Most LDS people would wonder what is wrong with him that he didn't go. They will think his not wanting to go stems from selfishness. It's even worse for him if he leaves on his mission and comes home early because he discovers it's not something he is willing to continue doing...the same speculation amongst his peers at church runs rampant. If he didn't come home for medical reasons, then what's wrong with him???

This is what it can feel like for a woman who willingly chooses to pursue a career and not have children.

I feel that both of these scenarios are harmful to Mormon people and their sense of self-worth.

Pheadrus,

Okay one more thing. I have not reviewed the primary sources on happiness, I am deferring a book written by a Liberal psychologist at University of Virginia, Jonathon Haidt, "The Happiness Hypothesis". He claims that from all the studies have consistently shown that conservatives or traditionalists are happier than liberals. He gives various reasons why which I need not go into here. But it helped him understand and appreciate the importance conservatives give to tradition.

SML,

I know you're from Montana, I don't know if you were raised there. If Montana is anything like South Carolina, where my sister lived for a time, they may hound the women with this idea that motherhood excludes other types of activities. My sister who is a working, active Latter Day Saint raised in California couldn't stand her ward in South Carolina for that reason. Now she lives in Nashville. Now she loves her ward. None of that talk there.

It seems silly to me that women would be discouraged from volunteering, they are asked to do it in church all the time. Valuing motherhood does not mean discouraging careers and development, I have someone close to me whose patriarchal blessing tells her to value motherhood and to pursue a career to help support her family. I think there is a lot of this kind of thing. In any event, generalizing to the whole church based on your experience in your particular local is problematic.

You may think it is wrong to tell girls their greatest mission in life is to be mothers. It may contradict your values. But if you cannot show the general harm it causes, (rather than just presenting some challenges to individuals and some detractors as is typical of any value system) one is only begging the question.

I don't know what else to say except that your experience is your experience. I don't know why James or anyone else would expect me to accept your cyber-anonymous-testimony as authoritative rather than that of the women in my life who I know and trust.

You are right in saying that we are likely not to have middle ground here, it is the nature of polemics. Extreme statements like the one I quoted do not encourage middle ground, they require one to choose a side. Betty's recent comments are more conducive to a nuanced discussion.

I'm sure that she and D. Parker will have a good one.

D. Parker,

Your wife can give Preisthood blessings. It was a common practice in the early church. Even Joseph Fielding Smith condones it in Doctrines of Salvation. Check it out.

Now I'm out.

SML
I remember "The Women's Room" from the 80's but i never read it.

the first para of the first review on Amazon says the following, making clear why you relate it to this discussion:

"SerenaBlackCat "Serena" (PA) - See all my reviews
For all the "Surrendeded Wife" types who think women should go back to being submissive, this book shows what it was really like. Ideally, people think of traditional roles as being protective and chivalrous toward women, but in the book, chivalry has nothing to do with it, and women are shown as being used- they do all the chores, they are told what to do, they are neglected (a lot of the ways the husbands treat their wives are now considered abuse), and finally, many of them live in poverty when their husbands find someone else. I think this is true of a lot of traditional societies- the ideal is protection, but the reality is different. "

Love
Aunt Betty

Betty ~

You are wise, and right of course. I wonder, have you ever read "The Women's Room"? I'm reading it now and thoroughly enjoying it so far.

:) sml

DP and His Daughters

DP, your story about your "survey" of your daughters adds important real-life texture to the multi-layered situation of women in the LDS Church. It points out a number of factors that interrelatein a complex way. A few:

1. Mormons including the women are markedly highly educated (my grandmother got a degree from Utah State in 1902).
They are also markedly industrious. Sometimes I think they are Jews in disguise.

Hence, Mormon women are apt to be in the position to be high achievers.

2. In 1950, no middle class women worked outside the home, Mormon or otherwise. Raising Children was the patriotic thing for all women to do.

3. Since the hierarchy of the LDS church is more organized than most other churchs', the Church as a conservative institution was more vociferous in fighting the Equal Rights Movement for women.

4. As a functioning Social Group, the Church works to keep equilibrium and relative satisfaction amongst its members. So the Church has worked out a mode of communication with its women that satisfies MOST of the women MOST Of the time. Your daughters have been socialized to both feel valued, to know that Motherhood is the most important thing they can do (and it may well be, as may Fatherhood be for the Men).

5. Our world and our country has gotten used to Men being in poer for 10,000 years. The belief that this is the Natural Order is infused in our psyches whether we are Mormon or not. And it takes a lot of Balls to buck the system, which reinforces male power in thousands of subtle and unsubtle ways. So most of us are not even going to notice, let alone try to change, aspects of our social order that are so fundamental as to be often invisible.

D Parker
what a lovely and thoughtful post.

I can understand how you could have questions about the Priesthood/women issue and not leave the Church. My brother is in your situation: he is even a *Democrat* and is able to remain a Mormon. -)

We all belong to institutions with which we have disagreements. There is no perfect institution, and as many of us have said many times, Mormons have a very strong community of support and are very good people. There are lots of reasons to be a Mormon.

I remain an American and speak out against what I perceive as injustices.
It is entirely possible to do the same as a Mormon.

And I truly admire all the sentiments you expressed in this 636 post, even if i might not come to the same conclusions in some cases.

I don't want to detract from the upcoming day Phaedrus will have, so here goes one more short post. Phaedrus or Henry James, I wish one of you would and could run for president(meaning had the resources and the support). Do I wish I could be pres? Maybe for one day to start pulling out of Iraq (My son is headed there in 3 months. I wish I could go right alongside.) Otherwise, no, nor be a GA or a mission pres or a bishop or a stake pres or the pope. Rather, I wish I could go with Phaedrus today, and had the credentials to do that kind of good among people. Or I wish my wife could go to VA and had the needed credentials. I am very grateful for the education and drive you have.

I also wish my wife had the priesthood so she could give some of the blessings that a couple of my daughters ask for every week, but she says that she doesn't--she is content for me to do that. Do I question why that role doesn't fall to her, too? Absolutely. Does that mean I feel like leaving the Church over that question? No way. But I realize some are going to feel differently, and I respect that they have had a different experience than I have had, and they have every valid reason to live as they have chosen to live. I realize one of you'alls intents is to share with people the experience you have personally had so if some consider investigating the LDS Church, they do it with their eyes open. That's fine with me.

But I hope they also remember that your experiences have colored your view of the church, and colors all of the rhetoric you're going to have to say about it. Others have had different experiences, and have a different view. My doctor neighbor who flies wherever he and his wife are sent after they arrange with country officials to go there and teach doctors and nurses and other health care-givers about neonatal resuscitation and provide resources for implementing it and teaching it, have a different view. They are my role model--not the GA's.

Phaedrus,
I/we stand in awe of you and those assisting with you.

I just took a survey of my daughters (age 16-23), and while they don't feel inferior or 2nd class to young men and men in the Church, they said they feel it is a higher priority based on what they've been taught, to prepare to be a mother than to prepare for a profession--yet they are surrounded in our ward by women who work as professionals and as volunteers in many situations outside of the Church, and who don't seem to convey any sense (nor should they) of apologizing for those major roles. Maybe I just happen to live in a healthy gender-equal neighborhood. I'm sorry if some of you haven't had that particular experience, but I found the same thing in Georgia.

Yet, I agree with the general direction of the posts by SML and Henry James and others that some women in the Church may not get the strong sense of equality that the women I personally observe have. Maybe they need some stronger, more assertive role models around them. Maybe they ought to move to a ward with less male-dominance. The gospel is lived in the homes and the wards--not in General Conference. I've no doubt there are good wards and pretty awful wards. I suppose I and my family and sisters have been lucky. Sorry you haven't had the same experience. Again, thanks all for the insights.

HJ ~

I shall testify as often as the spirit moves me. Ha ha ha! Just kidding. I share it because it helps me to make sense of it for myself as well. And it's not likely that even if someone "gets it" from what I've said that they will admit that here on this thread.

You have a wonderful singing voice, Henry! Thanks for sharing!

Gone John and SML

SmL too bad the departed John can't hear you.

I don't know what he could say in reply.

The Church teaches what you say it teaches to women. The teachings have the effect on women you say they do.

Many are happy not to be given a choice, and to know that Motherhood is their only ordained calling.

many chafe at the restriction.

If John were listening, I would say to him that it really does not matter if it is "many" or "many many".

It is a moral failing of the Church to so limit the life choices of its women, and to make what it purports to be their eternal salvation at the highest level completely dependent on a man, the only priesthood holders.

John may say that the Ends (dubious Happiness statistics, God's Plan) justify the means - denial of equality of opportunity and indoctrination into accepting restricted choice as dictated by powerful men.

But it is still a Moral Failing according to the highest moral and spiritual principles that humankind has developed.

Part of the justification seems to be: if women were given the choices, they wouldn't be so happy as they are under our patriarchally run system.

There is something profoundly morally wrong with this picture. SML, I wonder how many times you have to testify to your experience, that of my sisters, and of many others, til people named J get it.

How many roads must a man walk down, before they call him a man?

JD1 ~

I like you, I really do. I wish to discuss a bit, without (hopefully) repeating myself, which I agree is pointless, the comment I made that bothered you so much:

"killing within them over years and years of instruction the desire and freedom to be who they want to be, without censure and fear of damnation because they didn't cling to their divine role of perfect mother in Zion."

You said, "This is making a general assumption about the overall subjective/developmental reaction to LDS teaching."

It is difficult if not impossible to measure the effect on women such teaching has. For as long as I can remember I have "known" that motherhood is what I'm here for. Period. It is repeated so often and so well to the girls and women at church that soon, a woman believes it. It's all she ever hears about what God and the leaders and the husbands expect and need from her. Have you ever heard the prophets or apostles telling any woman that she should live her life for any other purpose than to be a righteous wife and mother? Neither have I.

What are we taught happens to those women who choose to live a different life than the one spelled out for them in God's Plan of Salvation? The ONLY way I can gain salvation and exaltation as a woman is to find a worthy priesthood holding man, marry him in the temple, and have children with him in this life and/or the next. It is taught as well as fully understood by all that if a woman chooses anything other than that for herself, she is risking censure (by leaders as well as social peers at church, or by their peers on Otterson's blog) and possible eternal damnation (depending on how much she deviates from the plan).

You wrote that you are "defensive of the strong women in [your] life who are insulted by statements which reduce their spiritual lives to repression and subversion"...I don't intend here to insult any woman or to reduce her spiritual life. I'm not mocking their lives, rather I'm pointing out the wrongness of the church when it teaches ALL women that they have one worthwhile job to do on this earth and that's it. I also know many women who are excellent stay-at-home mothers who excel at it, too. My own mother is one of them.

I wonder if any of these strong women you defend ever really wanted something outside the LDS expectations placed upon them or if it ever even occurred to them that they could. I'm guessing the women you are defending are stay-at-home mothers and are very good at it too. I admire greatly women who are good at motherhood and housekeeping and making the lives of their loved ones better.

I'm going to venture a guess that you have a wife who stays(ed) home to raise your children. But would you be completely happy if one day she told you she had decided that she wanted something more as well? Would you think that she was choosing the right if she said she wanted to work or volunteer at the homeless shelter or (insert anything that takes her time away from her familial duties)? Many men in the church would think this was her NOT choosing the right. And I'd venture a guess that ALL bishops, stake presidents, and general authorities would advise such a woman NOT to choose anything that would take her away from her duties as a mother or that would detract from her role as mother. Would you agree?

If I'm taught that I should aspire to being a mother in order to please God from the time I'm very young, could it be likely that I don't even know I CAN aspire to something different? Could it be possible for a Mormon woman to feel guilty if she wants something different than motherhood for herself in her heart of hearts? Certainly. Could it be possible for a Mormon woman to worry that she's going to be punished by God if she doesn't follow his instructions to be a mother in Zion? Definitely.

I do not place less value on any woman who wants to and is lucky enough to be able to stay at home and raise her children. But I do resent the Mormon church for telling all women that their worth is measured by whether or not they are a mother.

John D:

Actually, several studies indicate that the Scandinavian countries rate highest for "happiness" of population. These nations are more secular than say, the U.S. which ranks 24th. Of course, with the number of intervening variables involved, I would not be so presumptuous as to say that being a quasi-socialistic, largely non-religious state leads to higher "happiness" measures. But, I do not see how your statement...:

"Secular humanism has its problems too, like its inability to produce as much happiness among devotees as traditional communities are able to produce."

.... can be asserted so confidently.

Phaedrus, keep up the good and meaningful work. Tis noble.

SML, now that I know more about you, I shall ignore your comments rather than distract you from doing what god and prophets want you to do - laundry and dishes. Get to work. :)

Henry James,

For me it is an open question how many Mormon women feel guilt and second class citizenship. You say many many, as if you have good evidence that the numbers are quite large. I cannot dispute it by saying it is false, only by saying it is presumptuous.

What you say of income would only challenge what I am inferring from employment statistics, if individual Mormons made less $ than the general population. That would balance out the effect guilt on Mormon women leaving the workplace.

The reality is individual Mormons make slightly more than the general population, so you need to think of another alternative explanation.

“For those who are in the second category, we can either say
that is their personal problem, or
there is something that the Church does to encourage that reaction.”

Every culture groups have its own inherent challenges. Some react to those challenges differently than others. If we saw large numbers of dysfunctionality among individual Mormons, we might be able to say the system is broken.

Of course, you may assume this, but there really is not solid evidence of it.

If some individuals have problems within a community, and some have great experiences in a community, we can say for some it is a bad fit, others a good fit. We need not blame either side.

If some people are disillusioned with secular humanism, is it the individual or the ideology that is broken? I think “bad fit” is the best explanation, at least when trying to be pluralistic and non-presumptuous in dialogue.

Secular humanism has its problems too, like its inability to produce as much happiness among devotees as traditional communities are able to produce.

Now I bid aduie. Thanks for the exchange James. Maybe I'll take some yoga classes before I come back so to not become “testy” again :)

(Partial) Observor

I have been out of Mormonism long enought to think I have a fairly objective view of Moral Principles.

When I compare the moral sensibility in Phaedrus's post above with yours, they seem to be quantum levels apart, and I bet you can guess in which direction.

I, like P, have a daughter. I would feel like a child abuser if she were subjected to the concept of woman that the Church has promulgated over the last 200 years.

She is an eminently moral and accomplished 20 year old who thinks that God is a supernatural construct, and who is the kindest and most compassionate of human beings, and I think that she thinks that a woman has inherent worth that is not dependent (though certainly not exclusive of) being a mother.

Phdrs: thanks for your work in helping those who were affected by the tragedy.

Observor: your dismissiveness of us "anti-mormons" is also morally indefensible.

Observer:

You write: "Mayan Elephant, Henry James, Sister Mary Lisa and Betty... WOW! Big shocker here! Of course I'm still waiting for Phaedrus... It's always the same anti-mormons responding within minutes of each other. Like the lurkers you are just hovering these message boards waiting to pounce on any comment that is contrary to your beliefs."

Gee, I am sorry that I missed my cue there. Within a few minutes of my last post I was back counselling those who have been emotionally affected by the mass murders at Va Tech, which is a little over an hour from where I work. I neglected my "lurking" there for a few hours, sorry.

Actually, I have no problem with what you wrote. It is no surprise that you think a woman's primary worth lies in what she assists others in doing. That she is primarily a vessel and a helpmaid. I congratulate you for having the courage of your convictions, for being willing to put what you really think in your "heart of hearts" out there for public persual and consideration. And it is my fervent hope that every female who is in a position to contemplate involvement in any organization that harbors such views, will indeed read and understand the real thrust of your honestly expressed value system.

By your standards, SML is indeed selfish. She feels as if her worth as a human being has "inherent" value, as opposed to "contingency-based" value. She has a desire to fulfill her inherent worth, to make a contribution to others outside of the walls of her own home, in addition to those inside. She feels that she is entitled to pursue her happiness in the manner in which men are free to do. She is likely raising her own children to see women, and the larger context of gender relations, in the same fashion. Scares you doesn't it?

You do not see this as her god-derived right. I understand, and am familiar with your point of view. It is what I warn my own girls of every chance that I get. It is what I help them to be on the lookout for, in their teachers, friends, (future) boyfriends, friends' parents, the media, etc . It is why I hold their Duke Ph.D. mother up to them as an example of what they are free to do with "their" lives. What they are free to "be," in and of themselves. But, they must never take this right for granted, because there are those who would seek to deny it to them, either outright or through the subtle bindings of guilt. Much was overcome in our history to permit them this opportunity to be as good as a man, and as free as one.

I watched today as a bright young psychologist worked throughout the hours, past the point of fatigue, to console the victims of a terrible tragedy. I took heart at her skill, her intelligence, her passion for her noble (yes, I said "noble") profession. At lunch, she called school to check on her children, while I grabbed a sandwich and "lurked."

I was privileged to work beside her today. And I will bet that every person she talked with is glad that she did not ascribe to your value system.

But, thanks for being honest about it.

John D
Just as I expected: a thoughtful and responsible and considered response. Thank you.

These are emotional issues for all involved.

You have a mother, and I had a mother. My mother was the best Relief Society President I ever saw, and was to the best of her ability a strong and self-directed woman. i adored and respected her, as you do the Mormon women in your life. My Grandmother married the Grandson of Brigham YOung's second counselor,and had a Danish mother who lost a son while crossing the plains to Utah. She too was a wonderful and strong pioneer woman who got a degree from Utah State in 1902!!!

Then my sister became a Feminist pioneer after feeling incredibly constrained by a church and a family that told her the only respectable thing she could do was be a mother.

Many strong independent women stay in the church and stay strong. Many feel constrained and demeaned by the Church.

For those who are in the second category, we can either say
that is their personal problem, or
there is something that the Church does to encourage that reaction.

As far as statistics, SML has eloquently shown that in these latter days most women don't have a choice but to supplement the family income. That says nothing either way as to whether they feel guilty in doing so. And my guess is that SML knows more about the feelings of many Mormon women than you or I do.

One thing i Know through the burning in my chest: the good Unitarian women, who are just as independent a dn moral as my sainted Mormon mother, feel none of the guilt or second-class citizenship status that many many (certainly not all) Mormon women feel.

IF MY sister had grown up in the Unitarian Church, she would not have been indoctrinated with that feeling of inferiority and guilt that she felt as a Mormon girl. It doesn't have to be this way in order to produce great and moral and compassionate human beings.

I am reading your statement again, you say,

"You give SML and my sisters the message that there is something wrong with their characters that they can't just see the divinity and wisdom of the General Authorities,
and I think there are serious moral problems with your taking that position (or at least seeming to)."

Once again, from what I can tell, I only am adressing statements, not characters. Please cut and paste those portions so I can clarify and/or apologize.

I understand you being defensive of SML. I am defensive of the strong women in my life who are insulted by statements which reduce their spiritual lives to repression and subversion.

I do not understand anyone's subjective experience. I pointed to a fact that challenges SML's characterization of a large population's subjective experience.

H.J.

Please show me where I am doing moral lecturing. Please also point out where I told her how she ought to react. I only addressed her statement, not her personally.

SML I never meant to call people, including yourself, unsophisticated. Just this conversation, which is admittedly casual. I wouldn't expect it to be sophisticated. I for one don't want to take the time to be terribly sophisticated.

Yes women are encouraged to be full time mothers. Where did I dispute that? Some think that is bad, some think it is good. Liberal society loves modernity, they think is the pennicle of good. Mormonism is both pre-modern and post-modern. Here we have our conflict.

What I dispute is your statment which goes way beyond this:

"*killing* within them over years and years of instruction the *desire and freedom* to *be who they want to be,* without censure and *fear of damnation* because they didn't cling to their divine role of perfect mother in Zion."

This is making a general assumption about the overall subjective/developmental reaction to LDS teaching.

All things being equal, economic included, less women should be in the work place if this were the case.

I have met more strong, powerful women in the church, than outside the church. As you know from a previous thread, many LDS women find this characterization of them insulting and condescending.

We have hashed through this already. All I can do is repeat and that does not seem like a very fuitful exercise.

John
I think you know that I respect your intelligence and desire to do good.

That said, I will drop my New England Politeness and tell you that I think that you are not only
DEAD wrong on this debate with SmL,
but morally obtuse.

First: you have not acknowledged that You, as a privileged man, can not wholly understand the experience of a woman in the LDS church, whichever way those women react to their experience.

I, correspondingly, can not FULLY imagine the experience of a Black person who in so many ways STILL is made to feel like a second class citizen in the US of A. I try, but I can't fully.

You take a pretty explict, morally lecturing, and hence condescending attitude towards SML's experiences (which closely align with both of my REAL like/non Henry James sisters).

On behalf of SML and my sisters, I tell you, you don't know what you are speaking of, and should defer to the reality of their experience, rather than coming across, as you certainly do, as lecturing them on how the OUGHT to react to being relegated to what to each of them is clearly second class status.

Even I, arrogant as I am, would not presume to assume that I know what their experience is, what is "in their heart," and therefore to morally lecture them.

Your phrase "SML paints with SUCH a broad brush" is also condescending, even if you didn't intend it to be.

As a purely moral matter, having nothing to do with whether any of us believe in God or Christ or Mohammed, your attitude towards SML and the real issues that many women feel in the LDS Church is, pardon my french, arrogant and un-compassionate.

You give SML and my sisters the message that there is something wrong with their characters that they can't just see the divinity and wisdom of the General Authorities,
and I think there are serious moral problems with your taking that position (or at least seeming to).

JD1 ~

I may not be sophisticated, but I assure you, when I describe my experiences using broad generalizations, it's because that is what happens at church, in a broadly sweeping way. Women ARE taught that their singlemost important duty and desire should be to become a mother in Zion and be a mother in the home, not to work outside the home. They are taught that other desires are selfish of them to pursue. Sure, we are encouraged to go out and get an education....so we can use it at home for the betterment of our children.

And in Montana, I can assure you that there are many people who simply cannot survive as a family without both parents working, myself included. This is an economical issue, and the guilt factor cannot enter into her choice. Many, many women in Montana have no choice but to work, and they get to also enjoy the guilt trip from church leaders and church peers on top of the stress of being a working mom.

If my social group wants to use guilt to motivate me into action and back into the home, then that's no group I'd aspire to being part of.

JD1, are you seriously trying to tell me that you feel that all of the women at church are not being encouraged to be mothers? That is the ONLY thing they teach women to aspire to. They teach it to each and every little girl at church. Nothing else should matter to a woman according to its doctrines. Added to that is the very real message that a woman aspiring to do something different than marry a righteous priesthood holder and stay at home to raise the children is a selfish person who needs to remember her place.

If a woman finds herself in a position where she hasn't been asked to marry, or she is unable to bear children biologically, then she is reassured over and over at church that she will get to realize her full potential in the next life when God blesses her with a priesthood holding man and children. This mindset is harmful to women because it implies that right now she's not quite there, that no matter what, she'll never really reach "there" in this life, regardless of what she pursues or how good she is at it. She's only worth something once she's reached that pinnacle of her potential: motherhood.

Do you disagree?

Hello John
I think you are testier than the rabid "anti-mormons" since you came back.
That is fine though. My sister got pretty testy with her Patriarchal father when she told him she was leaving the Church.

DP is a fine person, but in my opinion Huff is more Christ-like than he is.

I am sure you understand the potential ironies of the statement "How Christian of you."

Is it better to Christ-like,
or
Buddha-Like,
or
Mohammed-like,
or
Dorothy Day-like.

I know some fine secular humanists who are at least as morally elevated as DP appears to be, fine man that he is.

D. Parker,

Thank you for posting here. I am inspired by your Christ-like approach. It is hard to maintain around these parts.

"I thought you were brave to make a conclusion about the state of Mormon women's psyches based on a statistic."

Henry James,

That is a big leap to make indeed, thank you for attributing it to bravery and not stupidity. You seem a softer soul since adopting the pseudonym of the great literary critic.

But of course if we want to be very sophisticated we must be guarded and tentative about any generalization. Given the trend in this conversation, we are leaps and bounds bellow this kind of sophistication. Generalizations about the Mormon psych are often made based on one or two individual's anecdotal experience; so why not a statistic? It does at least step it up a notch or two.

So let’s assume this stat is accurate. It does challenge the notion that:

LDS teaching results in women failing to pursue careers out of guilt or some other unsavory existential dilemma.

(I know SML did not mention careers- she painted with such a broad brush that I had to narrow it to something measurable to challenge it.)

If there was widespread guilt, we might expect there to be at least a tinge fewer women in the workplace. But there is not.

Is not the function of guilt to motivate one to action more acceptable by the social group? Some may persist in a behavior despite guilt, but on a general level, we should expect a substantial number of guilt ridden women to act in a way to rid them selves of such emotional pain- in this case, leave the workplace.

Hoards of guilt ridden women being pressured to not pursue their dreams for motherhood is what was clearly implied by SMLs sensational statement about the general psychological effect of LDS teaching on women.

"Like the lurkers you are just hovering these message boards waiting to pounce on any comment that is contrary to your beliefs."

Isn't that just what you did to SML, Observer?

Mayan:
That will do.

Observer:
You are representing your people very well. Keep fighting the good fight and doing what you're doing for Mormon stereotypes.

-JV

Edit:
I appreciate your gentle chiding, and I don't blame you for thinking I did an "about-face." If "brevity is the soul of wit," it is also often the soul of misunderstanding. Won't it be a wonderful day when we don't have to rely on words to communicate, when thoughts and feelings that "lie too deep for tears" can be expressed in an understood way.

First, three scriptures that are germane to the subject of unrighteous dominion:
3 Nephi 12:23-25 "Therefore, if ye shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee--Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you. Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou are in the way with him..."
3 Ne 13:4 "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye--and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"
D & C 121:42-43 "By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile--... showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy."
(Note that although the English language doesn't have a non-gender expression that fits, the sense is quite obviously directed to both genders in these passages.)

I would encourage a thoughtful reader to look up some excellent articles on "unrighteous dominion" on the lds.org website by typing those words into the "search" line.

The Lord has been a gentle teacher in my life, allowing me as John Keats wrote to his sister, to be "schooled" by the adversity of life and yet have my loved ones still in-tact while I did the learning. Suffice to say that I have at times taken my "gift to the altar" when I should have been seeking reconciliation and to be a listening ear to close loved ones. I am so grateful for very many others who allowed them to express their anger and frustration without judging them or me. Healing absolutely requires this. I believe that is why the Savior taught these principles. I believe they are involved in some very successful Oriental medical practices that are now being adopted in the U.S. and elsewhere, because when energy flows in the body are stopped by emotional/spiritual blockages, the body or the mind is going to suffer some type of health consequence.

I have a firm conviction from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet that the fullness of the gospel is true and can be found in the scriptures and all revealed knowledge that has come either by the "light of Christ" or by the Holy Ghost to mankind. I believe all of us have a great deal to learn, including how to allow for the healing of others when they have been wronged by unrighteous dominion in whatever form it took. I believe the "light of Christ" and His perfect love underlies truths that many do not put into those words or acknowledge as coming from Him, but He doesn't need to be acknowledged in order to provide the blessings--they flow freely from Him, regardless of the person or their religious beliefs. I believe that when He comes and teaches all of the righteous of many religious persuasions in Person He will help us "bind up each others' wounds" and heal "every afflicted soul". Eventually, He will "wipe away all tears from our eyes."

"Thou dost keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee." This promise applies to all, and lets every soul come and "drink of the waters of life freely" and be filled. If some didn't find it to be true for them through their membership in the LDS church because there was not enough "balm in Gilead" in their particular circumstance to help them through the pain of suffering unrighteous dominion, then it seems healthful and right to allow them to express their frustration (though I know it hurts to be criticized). I hope I have answered your concern.

Observor
"Anti-mormon" is also an ignorant stereotype that evades the serious moral and ethical issues involved in the discussions where it is thrown in.

You have behaved in a morally shocking way towards SML, and you evade reasonable discussion of your behavior by stereotyping and demeaning those who disagree with you.

SML
Congratulations on a model example of Righteous Indignation.

On so many levels Observor's condescension to you and All Women was morally odious,

and I am painfully aware that you have had to put up with such attacks MANY times on this post when you didn't say exactly what a good Mormon woman is supposed to say.

I still smart from the time that RTC accused you of twisting her words and not being responsive.

Your experience is typical of what happens when people from oppressed groups speak out against their oppressors.

I want you to know that I again applaud your bravery, your clear dedication to both your family and to self-determination, and your articulate and highly moral positions.

And I am sorry for the attacks you have suffered here - I empathize deeply.

Mayan Elephant, Henry James, Sister Mary Lisa and Betty... WOW! Big shocker here! Of course I'm still waiting for Phaedrus... It's always the same anti-mormons responding within minutes of each other. Like the lurkers you are just hovering these message boards waiting to pounce on any comment that is contrary to your beliefs.

A number of us have maintained that
The Mormon Church
militates against reasonable freedom of choice and self-direction for Women
through its doctrines and INDOCtrination.

Observor's comments illustrate this better than any of the critics could, and also illustrate the dogmatism and ignorance that underlies the Church's position.

I and many other women in Church history have found the Church's treatment of women coercive, demeaning, and morally indefensible. Observor reminds me exactly why.

Observer ~

Sounds like you listened very well in all your lessons at church, eh? Nicely done, telling me that I'm selfish for desiring to be something more than just a mother. If I have a sincere desire to contribute to society or reach for a life that includes more than mothering my children, I'm being selfish. Classic suppression of women fostered in the church.

Why does it have to be only men who can go out and work? Why can't they be home raising children? Why does it have to be only women who stay home and raise children? Why can't they be out supporting their family with their career?

I get told that I'm selfish if I dare to dream beyond the dishes, the diapers, and the cooking. That really riles me right now is that this is exactly the kind of thing women get to hear at church from talks, lessons, from leaders, from the General Authorities, from THEIR PEERS like you. Spare me.

The worst thing that happens is this: women who HAVE to work to help make ends meet get to hear and internalize just the kind of ignorant comments you just made as well. It frankly makes me feel disgusted that I ever bought into it.

And don't ever again assume that I don't have my children as my number one focus. That's highly insulting. It is typical Mormon thought process on working women, though. I'll grant you that.

I'd like to see you get on here and say to all the working men "I can also see that when you are not focusing on your kids growing up, you are depriving them of a parent that they so deserve."

But you won't, will you? Of course not.

Observor:
Very dangerous, if not odious, to accuse SML of selfishness. Are you more selfless?

I must say that you show a lack of imagination. There are more than just one way to be a loving and responsible parent, and to raise children who feel loved and secure and are ready to be mature adults.

I know thousands of kids whose mothers worked at various points in their childhood and who are the best adjusted/accomplished kids I can imagine.

Your conclusion that ALL children need a full-time mother at home ALL the time is incredibly dogmatic, and flies in the face of gobs of evidence.

Did it ever cross your mind that it might be healthy for a beloved daughter to have an accomplished scientist for a mother, thereby providing a role model for being both an accomplished person with self-direction AND a loving parent?

Again, millions have done it.

And finally, let me reiterate that I resent your characterization of SML as selfish.

Observer said: "When they are working on what's best for THEMSELVES instead of their children? What comes first in their lives? Is it truly their children?"

Observer, that is so judgmental and uninformed on your part. If there is even one mother that is working outside the home to make herself better and her children's lives better then it would be decent of you to not be such a jerk to her.

The mormon church doesnt fight to strengthen families. what fight have they fought? do tell. The mormon church doesnt even believe that all families can be together forever, they only believe that MORMON families can be together.

Instead of fighting for families, as you suggest, the institution and people like you spend time beating the living hell out of women and accusing them of having bad priorities, when you have no basis for such an accusation.

the real message from observer is that the mormon church is not really a spiritual place for all people, rather, its a place for heterosexual upper class white people that can afford to live on one income while raising a lot of kids and giving a bunch of money and time to the church, even, all that god has blessed them with for the building up of the kingdom of god. each of you, bow your head and say, "Yes."

I don't know for certain all areas of what the Mormon church doctrine is, but I can certainly look at SML's comments and say in one aspect that her argument is one of selfishness.

Hear me out... Who is defending little children in the world today? Can children defend themselves? Can they come out and tell a parent what their responsibilities are as a parent? Can they instruct parents on how to become a better parent? Sure you have wants and you desire to work, but if you work and your husband works, then who's raising your child? Daycare? Some sitter? So technically, your putting your desires over the needs of your children. I feel that parents have a responsibility to raise their own children, not leave it up to the rest of the world to do it. Children deserve a full-time parent; THEIR full time parent. This is a big growing problem within the world today. Many people want everything that they desire, but many don't want to work or sacrifice at having it! Do I know that women don't like to be mothers? Of course! But did you know that many men don't like to go to their employment either? You seem very one-sided with your motherhood comment without regard for fathers who are forced to support their family through work and who do not necessarily enjoy all aspects of their lives either.

Sure, you can talk about your sacrifices and how your a mom and working and taking care of your house and doing all sorts of great things. That's great, but I can also see that when you are not focusing on your kids growing up, you are depriving them of a parent that they so deserve.

I for one congratulate the Mormon church for seeing this and for fighting for children's rights . As I said before, who else is? If everyone wanted to do what their heart desired at all times, we wouldn't have a world of order we'd have a world of chaos! The Mormon church fights to strengthen families. How exactly is a family stengthened when the parents are not around? When they are working on what's best for THEMSELVES instead of their children? What comes first in their lives? Is it truly their children?

John D My Friend,

I thought you were brave to make a conclusion about the state of Mormon women's psyches based on a statistic.

And I was not surprised when SML slapped you down a little bit. I'd guess you weren't either.

It is very dangerous for those of us in a power-privileged class (Males in the Mormon Church in this case) to characterize the feelings those in the Non-power class should or do feel about not being in power.

It is a delicate combination of statistics and real life feelings we are talking about here. It is clear that many Mormon women are happy with being Mormon women. It is clear that a significant number have feelings such as SML details.

And in my experience, what Mormon women are taught is pretty much as SML describes above.

To JD1:

John, do you mean to equate being "employed" outside of the home with being "equal" inside of it?

I would like to add that not only do Mormon women know this as adults, they begin learning it as early as primary, and most definitely in Young Women's lessons (ages 12-18). Over and over again it's reinforced that it's not righteous to want anything BUT motherhood. So, that's why I used the words "killing within them the desire and freedom to be who they want to be."

Hi JD1 ~

There may be equal numbers of Mormon women in the workplace as non-Mormon women, but I can guarantee you that those Mormon women who DO work, have heard lessons their whole lives and still hear lessons now that what they SHOULD be doing with their lives is being stay-at-home mothers if they have children. Mormon women who work understand that the only reason they should work is if they HAVE TO due to circumstances beyond their control.

I would bet that every one of those working Mormon women understand that they are not following God's true plan for them as they head to work every day. It is reinforced often in the teachings of the gospel. And there isn't actual support and encouragement for women in the church to follow their dreams and desires to have a career.

However, men at church are encouraged to get out in the world and make their mark and be a success. Women are taught that the one thing that is a worthy pursuit is being a rigteous mother in Zion. Oh, I guess they are also taught that they should pursue being a rigteous, dutiful wife who supports her righteous, priesthood-bearing husband in all HIS pursuits. There is that.

Don't tell me you don't know this, John. Working LDS women understand very well that they are not following God's plan for them.

Well... it appears as though we have amongst us an imposter D. PARKER. For this unusual turnaround which appears very sincere could not possibly be the original DP of such doctrinal understanding and conviction. The true DP is a very well thought out individual and I doubt very seriously that in only a few short conversations would he have such a dramatic change... therefore an imposter amongst the pack! I for one am not falling for it.

"killing within them over years and years of instruction the desire and freedom to be who they want to be, without censure and fear of damnation because they didn't cling to their divine role of perfect mother in Zion."

You'll be happy to know that a recent study shows that Mormon women are in the workplace at equal numbers to non-Mormon women. It appears that if the LDS church is "killing" women's autonomy and desire to "become what they want to be" they are only doing it at the same rate as society as a whole.

However, in secular society they will not recieve the same honor and validation for their choice if they decide to be full time mothers.

Anon and DP

Let me echo Phaedrus.

I am grateful to you both, very seriously, for wading into this hornets nest and being so congenial and thoughtful.

Anon: no insult intended about your name. Soft humor only.

I get frustrated sometimes telling if one Anonymous is the same one as another Anonymous, that is all.

But call yourself whatever you like.

I certainly do!

Anon and DP:

I don't think that you have to worry too much about people being offended by the fairly mild comments that you have made here. You can go back to some previous Otterson threads and see much more acute debate, that became "red in tooth and claw," so to speak. People who have left the LDS church have endured far far more unpleasantness than anything anyone has posted on a web-site, because they have detatched from what was an all-encompassing way of living, and many of the people with whom they lived in that fashion. These are tough minded and resilient individuals for the most part. They don't easily take offense.

My comment regarding the implicit insult of assuming that non-theists are unwhole in some fashion is not intended as a return insult either. Rather, I actually think that this remark points to the "remarker's" mindset regarding the role of religion in his/her life, and the way he/she would view that life without theism. It is helpful to those of us who tend to study the nature of the relationship between human beings and their conscious creations.

Hi again, DP ~

You wrote, "Let's admit that the LDS church doesn't have a very good way for many members to express that they are daily confronted by unrighteous dominion in the name of "righteous" motives, and hence they feel trapped and suppressed--whether it's youth, women, others who feel unlike the norm and marginalized."

It's not that I have no good way to express myself about the unrighteous dominion I've endured, it's that THE CHURCH PROMOTES THIS unrighteous dominion in practice by marginalizing women, denying them real leadership, and killing within them over years and years of instruction the desire and freedom to be who they want to be, without censure and fear of damnation because they didn't cling to their divine role of perfect mother in Zion. That is what needs to change for women in order to make the church a safe place for them to be completely happy and to finally realize their full potential.

I think it's great that you are learning from the experience of commenting here, and I too feel like I'm becoming a more understanding person by communicating here.

Mr. Anonymous ~

The priesthood power being gifted to men only is one of the most blatantly sexist practices in the church, and certainly one of the most obvious ways in which women are treated with inequality within the church.

I wrote: "You are basically saying that you feel that the priesthood power and authority is given to men simply because women are biologically able to have children. So this evens things out."

You replied: "No, I am not necessarily saying this. Rather, I was replying to your comment on equality of gender in all aspects of life by suggesting that man and woman are not created equal in all aspects."

If you aren't saying that, I'd like to hear why you think the priesthood power and authority is given to men and not women right now. Do you believe that women will receive the priesthood in the next life as they reign together with their husbands as gods and goddesses, priests and priestesses? Why do you think it is that women are not worthy or able to receive this special power now, on this earth, like the men do, if the big plan is that they will wield it with him in the next life when they become priests and priestesses?

You can see why this might bother someone like me, a mere woman.

Also, you did not insult me, because I'm not easily insulted. It is amusing to me when people here comment as if those of us who have left the church are searching for something we lack as Phaedrus wrote, and he was right when he said this is implicitly insulting. You are not the only one to have done so on this thread. Your idea that I'm looking for answers here is a bit off. I'm more looking to state my opinion and help others look at real life in the church more clearly.

Sometimes I ask questions as I did you in this comment, but I am not doing it to find the truth of the church. I already scrutinized it, found it lacking, and left it. I am instead fascinated with discussing it and processing it here. I appreciate you for being willing to participate in the open discussion.

Response to last anonymous and other LDS who may read this:
I've done some more thinking about the subject of unrighteous dominion, which is probably at the heart of much of the hurt and pain expressed by several who have written on this site. Let's admit that the LDS church doesn't have a very good way for many members to express that they are daily confronted by unrighteous dominion in the name of "righteous" motives, and hence they feel trapped and suppressed--whether it's youth, women, others who feel unlike the norm and marginalized. If this site offers a place for expressing some of that deep-seated, genuine and absolutely honest frustration--the tempest having boiled over, as it naturally and healthfully should--then I for one feel that is a 100% healthy therefore 100% true-to-truth response. (One problem with this medium of communication is that we get so caught up in just the words, not the underlying feelings and anguish. We sometimes try to make the gospel be the answer for everything. Undoubtedly, that's not a healthy attitude for ourselves and others around us. The anguish is genuine, and needs to be expressed honestly, without a crushing sense of guilt or shame--absolutely none. Unrighteous dominion is pervasive from most multi-generational situations I've been aware of, certainly my own included. A health and healing approach will include sharing the anguish of it's impact, which takes on many many forms.)

I apologize to any I have offended by what I've written the past few days. I've learned by the experience, and hope I'll be a better, more understanding person. I'm glad some of the writers here have a good support group going. My heart goes out to those in Virginia. I don't know how to express it adequately.

SML Wrote:

"You are basically saying that you feel that the priesthood power and authority is given to men simply because women are biologically able to have children. So this evens things out."

No, I am not necessarily saying this. Rather, I was replying to your comment on equality of gender in all aspects of life by suggesting that man and woman are not created equal in all aspects. I believe in this because a marriage between them allows both a man and a woman to amalgamate into something they simply cannot if they remain alone. As far as I know, I made no mention of priesthood in my original response.

Also, you are correct, I did mistype my sentence when I said "For anyone who has been a victim of such abuse, does not deserve that and will certainly be accountable. My sincere heartfelt condolences for those who have." I am saying the perpetrator is accountable, not the victim.

HJ wrote:

"Yes Anonymous, you are brave to submit your post to these jackals. (though not brave enough to give us even a fake name)."

When On Faith requires a username and password to post comments, I will submit my name. But until then anonymous will be all you see from me. Unfortunately, I've seen too many imposters masquerade as others only confusing the matter.

Phaedrus wrote:

"And one more thing; how come believers so often sign off their posts to non theists by wishing us well in finding "what (we) are looking for?" As if we have to be "lost" or "missing something" in our lives? Curious, and amusing, that such people do not see the implicit insult in this."

My intentions were not so. My comment was one of finding answers to any/all of life's questions. If SML took that the wrong way, I apologize. I meant nothing more than what I have said.

Good night to all, it is late!

Mr. J:

The Becker quote is so consistent with my experience, and many others I am sure. Thanks for supplying the bon mot, again.

Betty:

"benign condescension." Perfect.

Bad day in Virginia friends,

I am turning in now.

Betty James ~

Sweet sister, you make me smile. I'll be more than happy to be a ministering angel in a lesser kingdom if they just don't force me to be a plural wife to some dude I don't know! Ugh.

PH and HJ
You two psychologically astute gentlemen also realize that the assurance that Mormons and other Exclusivists have
that they are possessors of
The One True Path

both isolates them spiritually from those who haven't - first off they must look at others with benign condescension

and secondly of course
Gives the comfort of an In Group, Us versus Them view of the world, though this must be ever-so=politely put
(oh! but the TERRESTRIAL kingdom is So Lovely too)

Ah Phaedrus...
You distill centuries of wisdom.

The Pulitzer Prize winning book
The Denial of Death
by E Becker from 1974

maintains that what mature spiritual seekers are "looking for"
and what we might all "look for"

is release from the need to depend on mythological accounts of how we can avoid death, not really die by mechanisms like Celestial Kingdoms and other
Deus ex Machinae,

and achieve a mature acceptance (Buddhist like, one might say) of death as a natural (not supernaturally transcended) part of the cycle of life.

True Believing Theists won't ever find this, because they are addicted to the Denial.

Well-put SML. I am glad you made the point about the great "trade-off" theory of gender relations: i.e. Men get to lead because women get to bear the children." As for the rationalization that men are responsible for treating women in certain ways, the fact remains that the fate of the woman in this respect depends on decisions made by the man. This is not equality, it is benevolent patriarchy.

And one more thing; how come believers so often sign off their posts to non theists by wishing us well in finding "what (we) are looking for?" As if we have to be "lost" or "missing something" in our lives? Curious, and amusing, that such people do not see the implicit insult in this.

Yes Anonymous, you are brave to submit your post to these jackals.
(though not brave enough to give us even a fake name).

Your thoughts and feelings are your thoughts and feelings (as well as pretty in line with the LDS church).

You note to your credit that if you were a woman you might feel quite differently. And of course, many (though by no means all) do so.

My sisters grew up in the church and found the Patriarchy stifling and abhorrent. Many others do as well. They can leave, though often not before 18 years of inculcating the indoctrination that the men should be in charge of all the important d ecisions. Again, to your credit, you realize others feel differently.

If you are *really* interested in how a woman who does not take to second class status feels (in addition to SML's eloquent and thorough testimony) you could read Martha Beck's "Leaving the Saints." I know Mormons call her a wacko because of her claims of abuse against her father, but the issues that she raises and the feelings she has about them go far beyond her own personal psyche and experiences in illustrating some women's reaction to their status.

First of all, my apologies to all others for taking this "Sound Bites" thread and turning it into something else. I didn't want to do that but it somehow evolved.

Mr. Anonymous ~

Thanks for your concern for me in particular.

You stated, "Just my thought here, but if women were given equality in other aspects of life, then either women could bear no children or men should be permitted to."

Here's the problem I have with this argument in all its forms. You are basically saying that you feel that the priesthood power and authority is given to men simply because women are biologically able to have children. So this evens things out.

This is no different than me telling you I should be gifted the priesthood and you shouldn't because you have the ability to pee standing up while I don't.

Having children is a biological process that nature created in the female of the species. It is not a special power given me like the priesthood is for men. I admit childbirth can be a special time in the delivery room, but no less so for the father who is able to be part of it too. You can't tell me my bond with my children is greater than the bond they also have with their father. It just isn't so. You seem sensitive and caring enough that I'd bet that you have a strong bond with any children you may have as well, every bit as strong as that bond your wife has with them.

For the record, I wouldn't wish childbirth on any man. It sucks in way more ways than it is special. The "having children in your family" aspect of it is special, but the stuff leading up to it sucks (except the sex, which should be a benefit to both the mother and the father in the best-case-scenario). ;) And I also don't aspire to wanting the priesthood. No sir. But it is still wrong in my opinion to base the fact that women can't have it on the basis that we have a uterus that can bear children. This is wrong.

I'm also happy to accept that my husband and I are different from each other, and that we both bring things to the table that compliment the other as well as benefit our family life. What I do resent is the church spelling out to ALL women that they are only acceptable if they live out their lives in one way only: by becoming the "ideal" woman ~ a stay-at-home mom, having as many babies as she can, with the nurturing of their children being her one divine destiny.

For some women it can feel like absolute drudgery to find herself in the position of housekeeper/maid/mother/cook/washerwoman/nurse. It can feel like a horrible life sentence. Motherhood and housekeeping does not come naturally for all women. Some women don't enjoy it in the least, did you know that? MANY women feel this way, and resent the church for insisting that is their only avenue for proving their worth, and that it is the only worthy undertaking they should pursue.

There are so countless women who don't fit the mold of womanhood as described in the Proclamation, and it is harmful to them when they read it and know they are found wanting ~ harmful to their sense of self-worth. Some of them are found wanting by their men who read the Proclamation, talks in the Ensign, or hear the General Conference talks, and realize their wife doesn't match with what is written there. Then the unrighteous dominion can begin. It certainly is a very harmful thing to many in the church.

I am very glad for you and your wife that you have a more equally-balanced relationship. Even if you get ribbed for it by your buddies. I have stated that inequality of the sexes is not just a religiously-founded thing. You know it's true from the flack you take for "wearing a skirt," obviously. But it is rampant in the LDS church, without a doubt.

You wrote one line that I think might not mean what you meant it to say: "For anyone who has been a victim of such abuse, does not deserve that and will certainly be accountable. My sincere heartfelt condolences for those who have."

Are you saying the perpetrator of this abuse is accountable, or the victim?

Thanks for your prayers.....I would feel much better if you'd say your prayers instead for those women who have no ability to walk away from such pain like I was able to.

I look forward to further conversation with you.

SML Wrote:

"MEN preside. Women do not preside alongside their husbands, or they would word it that way to begin with..."

- I don't know... my family seems to be different here. My wife tends to run the show, pay the bills and decide what we do and where we go every year (by her choice of course) :)

...also:
"AND they [women] would be given equality in other aspects of life and church responsibility. But they aren't."

- Just my thought here, but if women were given equality in other aspects of life, then either women could bear no children or men should be permitted to. Now I'm not overlooking the extensive pain and difficulty that a women goes through in her 9 months of bearing and then delivering a child, but one has to admit that there is a certain bond which happens between a mother and her child that a man will never feel or be able to have. Hence the quote "Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." and husbands "are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families"

I personally think men and women certainly are not equal. HOWEVER, I am not saying anything about one being inferior of the two. I personally think that is what is meant when it says "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or *other* circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Certainly "other" can be whatever fits best for your marriage. The way I see it is that the two combine as one, both learning from each other and helping each other to a level of understanding that one could not achieve being on their own. Each filling the other's void with substance.

Now, there certainly comes a warning at the end of the proclamation:

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God."

For anyone who has been a victim of such abuse, does not deserve that and will certainly be accountable. My sincere heartfelt condolences for those who have.

Now I know I'm subjecting myself to some rash responses by posting these comments, but bear in mind these are my opinions, not the church's or anyone else. (I'm running to get my fire-extinguisher)

One comment I'd like to add as a personal testimony of what the church has done for me is actually the opposite of what some may presume it is not doing. I am going to spare all the gory details, so to make the story short(er)... I am a convert to this religion and through it's teachings and examples my wife and I have a much deeper respect for each other and our children. In fact I've taken quite a bit of backlash from others because of how highly I regard my wife. (Can you believe that?) Yes, I've had comments thrown at me as to who wears the skirt in the house, and it's not because I'm effeminate, but rather because I put my wife on a pedestal where she belongs! I love my wife dearly and I know it's because of this church, it's lessons and examples that have helped us to really ponder and reflect on what is best for a marriage and how to nurture it.

To SML (and others who share a similar struggle), I personally can't empathize what you must be going through and I couldn't possibly imagine. I'm not sure myself why things are the way they are, but just offering suggestions. In all honesty, (especially for SML as I have read many of her posts) my heart truly goes out to you. I have had discussions with other women who struggle with similar reasons and I cannot say I have an answer at this time. I wish you the best in your pursuit and hope you will find the answers you are looking for.

My prayers are with you...

Whatever one believes about the Literal-ness of Christ's crucifixion and sacrifice,

the narrative of the Passion of Christ is
a story of one man
who "laid down his life"
out of love for his fellow humans.

"Greater love hath no man..." etc

It is a story of selfless sacrifice out of love, and that is a "miracle", whatever religious or secular tradition the story comes from.

The most moving evocation of the amazement we should feel when a fellow human (like many of our mothers) make such sacrifices for the good of others is
"Aus Liebe", an aria from the St Matthew Passion by Bach.

D. Parker,
I am so glad that your sister was able to heal. I am glad that she found something that worked for her. I just want to let you know that that same healing can take place without Christ or the thought of Christ.

Healing is the important part, no matter where the person believes the healing comes from.

DP ~

You are no burr under my saddle, and your comments are always welcome. I like your clarification much better regarding your ideas about Christ and his love in regards to your sister's situation. I think the Atonement, while it was an act done out of love for us, is not the same thing as "Christ's love." People can and do find solace and rise above pain and suffering by using thoughts of Christ's love being poured out. I am deeply grateful your sister found this solace and was able to recover from her experience. That would be horrific. I can't imagine what she must have suffered.

I see that once again I didn't convey my meaning well. The atonement's application is not for any purifying--that would be a grossly improper application of the need in the case of one abused. What do they need, this victim, to move on with their lives in a feeling of peace? (This usually takes years.) They need, undoubtedly, much counseling by a professional; the chance to talk and be angry, to absolutely realize they did nothing to deserve the abuse, and that it's OK to be angry at God for letting it happen. They need caring patience and unconditional understanding, no preaching or any "just get over it" type of approach by anyone, particularly their close loved ones.

The atonement is involved by helping those around this victim to get over their own anger and frustration, by venting if they need to but at some point letting the Savior bring a feeling of peace back into their life.

Finally, I get the feeling that some victims such as my sister are able to no longer feel victimized by the horrible act of another from their past, and I get the feeling that the Savior is carrying them both up to that point and to a feeling of peace that begins anew in their life that continues to sustain them. Perhaps you feel differently about the use of the word atonement, and think it only is talking about sin and repentance. If so, then take that word out of everything I said and just think of it as "a sustaining outpouring of love by Christ".

All of the above is irrespective of the religion of that victim and those around them. This is not the province of one church or a few churches. It is the province offered to all by Christ through His love. I probably have said this badly again, but I meant something along those lines, in whatever way it has meaning to one who has been victimized.

I am grateful that my sister feels peace again in her life, and feels that the Savior as well as major counseling were a part of her getting to that feeling of peace, so that is my perspective based on one case. If you folks know how to delete stuff off of this site, please delete everything I have written these past few days, and move on forgetting this burr under your saddle, if it was one.

DP ~

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always considered the atonement to mean Jesus taking upon himself the sins of the world, even all of our sins, in order for us to be saved. Without the atonement we cannot be saved. You seem to imply that your sister who was sexually abused at age 7 was only able to recover her psychological health because of what the atonement offered her. What?? I see it this way: HER SEXUAL MOLESTER is who benefits from the atonement in your example, not your sister. Your sister is the victim of his crime. The only thing the story of the atonement does for HER in this instance is give her an example of Jesus saying "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." But somehow it seems you are implying she needs the atonement in order to be saved from sin, and I don't see why you would do this.

Whether or not the "truth" of the church is the cause of the inequality women endure there, it is still practiced and promoted from the very top all the way down to little old me. And that is the truth. So I will do the only thing I can do ~ I shall walk away and choose not to endure any more of it. It is my only option. It's not as if I can just walk into church headquarters and demand to see Gordon B. and explain to him why the inequality hurts. He couldn't care less. 1. He's a man, with 2.full power, and 3.he has more important business ventures to manage. The women are hardly important to him, unless of course all the women suddenly decide to stand up together at once and say they refuse to do one more calling at church until the equality issue is reworked to their satisfaction. Which we all know will never happen, especially since the women have been taught from their youth up to embrace their lot in life and not complain. Their reward for all this heartache will be glory in the next life, another point you touched on twice in your latest comment.

It bothers me when people accept the way they are treated or the nagging wrongs in the church they see happening to others by believing the pacifying statement that it will all work itself out in the Millennium. Heck, I was even one of those people who kept my focus on the millennium whenever I was subjected to yet more sexist practices at church, (which, by the way, stemmed not from people but from policy the church endorsed) and also whenever I considered my eternal future with a husband who was not a member of the church. Change towards women in the church needs to happen NOW, not later in the next life.

You wrote, "fathers are told to "preside in righteousness" which means they are to absolutely treat their wives as "equal partners" and if they do not they have lost the authority of the priesthood, and are acting 100% on their own. I don't myself care the order of the words, but I hope the men get the message loud and clear."

I have rarely seen someone lose their priesthood authority over not treating their wives as equal partners. The only time I saw it was when a man got the babysitter pregnant and was excommunicated. I would consider Joseph Smith, upon taking other wives behind Emma's back, as not treating her as an equal partner. Nothing happened to his authority. I never once saw my father, who was expert at unrighteous dominion, lose his priesthood power, or his high-powered callings at church. I have known too many men who treat their wives and children abominably, yet they hold positions withing the church reserved just for righteous priesthood holders. And I have seen too often their "righteous" priesthood leaders commend these men for their righteousness and their greatness, even after they knew of the unrighteous dominion that occurred. So, I have a hard time with your sentiments that men aren't able to hold this power without being righteous in their lives. Doesn't work that way.

I should clarify here that I don't consider the priesthood to be an actual power, but these men do, and their wives do, and you probably do too, DP. I am sure that you are one of the men who values the responsibility of it and who treats very well those whom you preside over. However, I would venture a guess that you have also personally known men who keep their priesthood power and get called to priesthood leadership callings even though they are horrible to their wives. Frankly, I would be highly surprised if you didn't know someone like this. It's sadly very common in the church.

And even though you say you sympathize, I'm sorry to say that until you grow up a woman within the church for over 30 years, and watch and learn where you really stand within the patriarchal order at church, you can have no idea what I'm actually feeling or saying here.

But I really do appreciate you for trying.

DP,

Interesting thoughts. I obviously disagree with a bunch of it but whats new, right?

Again, 'the church is true' is just a cliche and says nothing. I think we have already gone over that.

You touched a huge nerve here. There are a few things that I find absolutely despicable in the church. One of them, is the suggestion that victims of abuse rely on the atonement to heal. They are the victims for god's sake. The implication that they need a savior to purify them of anything is unacceptable to me. I have seen similar suggestions by authorities and in the ensign. I have completely lost patience for it. It is, in my opinion, one of the most harmful messages in the church. Significantly more harmful than anything related to that Book of Abraham fiasco.

And with that, I shall join you in a departure.

To SML, Phaedrus, Henry James, and Mayan Elephant (kind friends):
I doubt very much that I can do justice to the very complex topic of unrighteous dominion versus the role of authority and authorized ordinances, but I suppose I can try.

Anyone who has felt the pains of unrighteous dominion in how they have been treated, in whatever setting, can probably feel the familiarity of the words found in Jacob 2:35, that such perpetrators if husbands or fathers have "broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And ... many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds." But this "many hearts died" concept applies much more broadly. I have a sister who was sexually abused by a neighbor when she was seven, and this was not found out by others until after she was a 23-year-old. In retrospect, she had "died" in terms of her psychological growth at that tender age. Now, after many tears, much anguish, but also much counseling and much use of the atonement to provide her comfort and the ability to forgive the awful man who violated her, she is in a healthy psychological state, mercy of mercies and wonder of wonders. That is what the atonement offers.

The back editorial page of a recent LDS Church news dealt with "unrighteous dominion," and reminded readers that "the tendency toward unrighteous dominion is a nearly universal fault that extends even to some who might occupy positions of responsibility in the Church."

Whatever path you folks choose, I hope that you will keep in your lives the power of the atonement and the health and peace blessings of extending forgiveness to those who have wronged you. I love Isaiah 61:1-3 and Isaiah 55:1-3. The Savior offers healing, but it may not be a simple process. It may not come until the spirit world or until very late in their life for some who have been wronged greatly and whose "hearts died, pierced with deep wounds."

Finally, the LDS Church is stated as being "true... speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" so if individuals in the church have perpetrated unrighteous dominion, granted it would be very hard to disassociate the two, but one can try. It was individuals, not the "truth" of the church, that perpetrated the failing.

The statement implying that the LDS Church considers all other churches to be "not good" (or whatever words were used) is incorrect. I believe God was fully aware that there would be an enormity of religious beliefs in the world, many of which would have many truths and do much good and receive inspiration to the point that their leaders sought it. In fact, that works right alongside the plan (even though God didn't cause the formation of those many religions), which is to allow each soul to use their agency to identify how much they love eternal truths amidst the many trials of life including many ambiguities and the failings of people.

I don't understand if you folks understand LDS doctrine why you dwell on any fear factor about "eternal damnation". In the first place, "it ain't over 'til it's over" and that will be in the spirit world. In the second place, as I said before we're just talking about which "glory" a person desires through how they treat others and seek truths that are much bigger than LDS beliefs, encompassing far much more.

SML, fathers are told to "preside in righteousness" which means they are to absolutely treat their wives as "equal partners" and if they do not they have lost the authority of the priesthood, and are acting 100% on their own. I don't myself care the order of the words, but I hope the men get the message loud and clear. I do sympathize with your point of view on this, though. Sorry it gives you such deep negative feelings. This whole topic is still in its infancy in the church. It is simply not understood well, nor lived well but at least the concept has been revealed.

To close, Mormon the father of Moroni wrote to his son amidst the many trials they had to endure, "may Christ lift thee up,... and his mercy and long-suffering... rest in your mind forever." Such is also my wish for the four of you. Best always.

Or, there is the url. *chuckle* I crack myself up. Supplying a URL's too easy.

Henry ~ are you able to click on his name like you can mine to reach my blog? (I find that in Internet Explorer it won't allow me to, but on Mozilla Firefox I can click links). You may have to go up a few comments to find one that's a link. If not, email me and I'll link you to his. :)

Click on my name. If that does not work, the url: www.burdenofconsciousness.blogspot.com will get you there.

Phaedrus
How does one find your blog?

(laughing)

Actually the real story of my name is related briefly on the first post of my blog.

And we gaunt Virginians are now shivering under a blanket of April snow. Eliot was right, April IS the cruelest month.

Merci, mon cher Phaedrus

I shall look up your reference.

I'd rate Mormons close to full credit on 1-3, .5 on the fourth (higher in the early days when we were persecuted), and .2 on the 5th
so about 3.7

But then, we pudgy New Englanders are somewhat less spartan and painstaking in our grading than you Greeks (or are you the Roman?)

Hello Mr. James, you literary luminary (like that alliteration?)

Your last post causes me to suspect that you might like the book: "When Religion Becomes Evil," by Charles Kimball. The author provides five "warning signs" which are, briefly stated: 1. Makes claims to absolute truth, 2. Demands blind obedience, 3. Establishes an "ideal" time, 4. Uses ends to justify any means (the "Kantist" in me rebels at the mere thought,) and 5. Contains a mechanism for "holy war."

I rate Mormonism a 4 out of 5, in modern times at least.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

Mayan Pachyderm,

Your mentioning that "Families are Forever" is only for Mormon families, and is a Critical factor in the Reward/Punishment System of the LDS Church, prompts me to reprint the post below from over on the Spong gabfest:

There is a simple dichotomy that I think differentiates between the truly spiritual and morally elevated way one can approach religion and other more self-interested ways.

You can be religious in order that
God will help You conquer death and attain Eternal Salvation/evade eternal damnation and stay with your family forever/evade not staying with them.

or

You can be religious in order to
increase your loving kindness and service towards your fellow man.

The second has No Room for Exclusivist, I'm right/you're wrong belief systems.

The first has caused many of the Wars and injustices in the world.

And it is of course clear which is more spiritually elevated.

Are the two compatible? Path two has no room for path one.

DP,

There are a few reasons I really like you, despite the constant head shaking you have caused me to experience.

For one, we agree on more than you would probably publicly acknowledge.

Like you, I think that Kimball not speaking for any god in his racism. He was full of so much nonsense it is a wonder he didnt get his own character in a major fictional media production. Wait. Scratch that last comment:) He was so full of nonsense that it is amazing the church was able to rebound and continue. If he hadnt finally caved to the outside and made a few changes - allowing all races to have the priesthood and allowing women to pray in sacrament meeting (a small concession) he would still be the poster child of hate.

However, you give the current leaders a pass for not correcting what Kimball and Young said. I do not. Until they are ready to declare that what Kimball has said was outrageous, they are effectively endorsing his words.

Like you, I think it requires years to fully comprehend the mormon doctrine and positions. I like that about you, believe it or not. In this position, you are certainly not in line with the brethren who are actively encouraging over 50,000 missionaries to convert people in days and weeks. No wonder retention is so low.

And more, a period of time you suggest would involve a deep understanding of the doctrine. The pattern promoted by your leaders is to simply give the sanitized, lds.org version of Mormonism. That version lacks the more meaningful and challenging aspects of Mormonism that Phaedrus and SML have highlighted. That, my friend, is a bait and switch. It is dishonest.

Like you, I see good in the church community.

However, I do not see that good as something that is exclusive to the church. Nor do I see the good outweighing the harm.

That is what is so damn interesting about this question/answer from Otterson. On the surface, according to the official message, all is well, all is well. Isnt it wonderful. Isnt it Marvelous. But behind that, it is complex and different.

The very concept of 'Families are Forever' is so inviting. Until one realizes that no, in fact, only 'Mormon Families are Forever.' And, the family as SML describes it, is not so cool for many folks. Its even worse as a mormon. For a Mormon, the message is hammered home even harsher, 'Your Forever Family Will Be Shattered if you Leave Mormonism or Find Fault in Smith/Kimball/Hinckley.'

Like you, I dont really believe that shattered family message. I like that about you. Though, where we differ, is in our tolerance for apologetics and pain in the interim.

D Parker ~

You wrote, "No question about it, women have a challenging position to be able to understand the absolute necessity of their leadership in the church as well as the home, and yet be told they can't have priesthood responsibilities per se. I think they have some strong role models based on the women in the scriptures and on Christ who comes across as equally accessible as an example for both men and women, but certainly men have more scriptural role models than do women. I don't know why that is."

I think I know why that is. Men over time and throughout history have for the most part enjoyed creating this strange phenomenon we know as inequality of the sexes. Their physical strength alone enabled them to dominate women, which domination carried over into other aspects of life as well. The LDS church teaches this is God's Plan for us. Somewhat difficult for some women to swallow, while others embrace it wholeheartedly. To each her own. If you look at other religions (all others you believe to be man-made while yours was created by Jesus and God through Joseph Smith's help) you can clearly see how women are also not allowed to have the same privileges men enjoy within that religion. For me it's not a difficult leap to think that Joseph Smith was also able to create a religion from scratch. He was very good at it, in fact.

I think it'd be damn nice if I could also have a role model in my Heavenly Mother, but alas, it is not to be, considering not one thing is taught about her in my Bible or my Book of Mormon, the "most correct book on earth." This gives me an idea of what life as a goddess next to a god will mean. Especially someone like me who would likely end up being a multiple wife to a man I don't know at this time, were I to embrace the plan of exaltation that is spelled out for me at church.

As for "The Family: A Proclamation to the World"....go back and re-read it. One thing that stands out first is how many times it reads, "a man and a woman" or "male and female" or "husband and wife" or "his and her" or "sons and daughters" ~ I wonder if it'd be that hard for them to just once, create a document where it was instead listed "a woman and a man" or "female and male" or "wife and husband." If you look closely, males are listed first in this way 16 times in the Proclamation. If you don't think it's because men really DO come first within the gospel, then we need to talk.

The Proclamation reads, "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

It just doesn't make sense to say the words "equal partners" right after you clarify that fathers preside over their families. The word PRESIDE doesn't mean equality. It means he is in charge. That is clearly evident to any woman who understands English and who lives within the church. I believe it is also clearly evident to the men in the church as well as the leaders at the head of our church. Otherwise, why the need for countless talks to the priesthood bearers that they need to treat their women better? Can you imagine the horror of the males if someone got up in Sacrament Meeting, or better yet, in General Conference and admonished the women "not to treat the men like second-class citizens" and to not "treat them with unrighteous dominion and not to mistreat or demean their men"? It's laughable because all of us here know that will never in a million years happen, because it doesn't work that way.

Also you wrote, "BUT, mothers are to preside alongside their husbands as equal partners..." Um, re-read what the proclamation states: "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." I know they threw in that little line about obligations to help each other as equal partners just after that, but please. Let's be honest here. MEN preside. Women do not preside alongside their husbands, or they would word it that way to begin with. AND they would be given equality in other aspects of life and church responsibility. But they aren't.

DP, I hope you don't see my comments here as being argumentative, I'm just trying to show you how easy it is for me to come to my particular conclusions about the way women are treated in the church. Not even the Proclamation was able to hide it. That's interesting to me. Repugnant, but also interesting. I too have many relatives and friends within the LDS religion whom I know are great people, loving and giving and striving to be the best they can be. I admire you for being willing to discuss this and give me your point of view, for I can sense that your intention is not to preach, rather to try to help me and others in our journey of life. I appreciate the kindness you portray as you do so. Hopefully I can emulate that as well.

DP:

Your proposition is an exercise in question-begging, in that it assumes stipulation as to the divine provenance of the Bible as a springboard to that of the other standard works. There is no such stipulation however, and thus, you beg the question.

I refer to myself as an LDS doctrine and history "back-bencher" because I have an inferior knowledge base of the "leaves" of such, relative to other posters to this thread, whom I have given due credit and respect. This is largely because I concentrated my efforts on attempting to penetrate to the "root" of Mormonism, which lies in the claims of JS to have been given the ability to translate ancient texts from esoteric languages he had never studied formally.

In the initial "test" of this "ability," we have only JS' claim itself, and the translated BOM as evidence. The source material was not made available for others to examine, and thus, no actual investigation of the translatitive claim is possible. The various assertions surrounding the provenance of the source text is of less importance, because all of these could have been falsified, but if the actual plates had been found in some other fashion, without all of the concomitant supernatural phenomena, the translated work could still have been "true" if JS actually had the power to translate it accurately. More pointedly, JS could have lied about everything else other than having the plates, and translating them accurately, and the fundamental edifice of LDS dogma survives, despite the damage to JS' credibility in other aspects of his life.

Had he left it there, he would have been wise. There was no real way at that point to directly discount his claim to have the aforementioned ability. However, when he acquired Egyptian papyri from a travelling mummy show, and claimed to have translated them, another opportunity for scholars to verify or refute the accuracy of his assertions presented itslef, albeit more than a century later. Smith claimed that he had traslated a first-hand account of Abraham's life, written in his own hand. church apologists have tried to soften this claim in the last few decades, but the resulting "Book of Abraham" is still found in the POGP.

The Book of Abraham was canonized by the church in 1880. The entire source material was thought to have been lost in the great Chicago fire, ending the opprtunity to investigate the case further. However, some of the papyri were discovered in the holdings of MOMA in the 1960's, and were analyzed by three prominent Egyptologists. All three agreed that these were common depictions of funerary practices, none even bearing the name "Abraham." There is also evidence that at least one of the facsimiles had been altered in such fashion as to support Smith's "interpretation." No reputable scholar has disagreed materially with these findings since that time.

As the edifice of LDS doctrine rests upon Smith's ability to accurately translate ancient texts, and as he was demonstrably unable to do so in the only verifiable instance available, it is rational to conclude that the BOM is as much a work of his imagination as his "interpretation" of the BOA. The BOA is the clearest example of Smith's creative ability, which was quite impressive, though not divine. Once one detemines this, the rest of Mormonism is merely an account of a compex human organization, which is fascinating enough in itself.

DP
A thorough and thoughtful and engaging post, as usual.

A cupla points:
1. Mayan and Phaedrus and I are about as well versed in Mormon doctrine and the BoM as any Mormon I know of (we all spent significant time as Mormons) so it is not for lack of knowledge of Mormonism that we come to different conclusions than believers in Joseph Smith's prophecy and the status of the Church as the Only "True" Church.

The moral to me is that different truth seekers of good will come to different conclusions about the nature of God, revelation, and what Burns in Their Chest.

That is the way I like it, but it contradicts fatally the belief that the Mormon Church is the Only Church that God wants me to be part of.

To you and SML both: my sister had a reaction to the thoroughgoing Patriarchy of the Church that seemed to be even more intensely negative than SML's, which she has eloquently and movingly described for all of us.

For many woman, this atmosphere which persists today would be an automatic disqualifier to their considering Mormonism. There is nothing the BoM could do to them that would make up for their second class citizenship in the LDS church.

It is hard for Men like you and me to understand their feelings, though my sister has communicated them to me very effectively over the years and I have great empathy for the pain she endured, as did SML. That experience makes me "angry" at the Church, and I believe that anger is justified.

That said, I know that my 5,000 mormon ralatives and my other brother and you are wonderful caring and loving people who are trying to be kind to your neighbors (mostly to fellow mormons however, rather than the World of People as a whole).

Gerald Manley Hopkins IS a divine poet.

Peace to you.

Sister Mary,
As you may have figured out, I was writing the above before I saw your latest entry. I don't blame you at all for feeling less valued in the LDS church than men may logically feel, because of the emphasis on the priesthood, on bishops and other church leadership, and on fathers presiding in the home--BUT, mothers are to preside alongside their husbands as equal partners, and men lose the authority of their priesthood whenever they use unrighteous dominion, which is when they mistreat or demean or say anything like "my way is the only way, besides I preside". That is not just a "Proclamation on the Family" teaching, it is from D & C 121. One important reason priesthood is given to men is to remind them (if they will listen) that this unrighteous dominion tendency is absolutely paramount to avoid; otherwise they have no true leadership, though they may think they do. Women have leadership biologically and through their natural nurturing abilities as well as crucial insights and gifts without which men would be absolutely lost, both spiritually and in their own ability to grow.

No question about it, women have a challenging position to be able to understand the absolute necessity of their leadership in the church as well as the home, and yet be told they can't have priesthood responsibilities per se. I think they have some strong role models based on the women in the scriptures and on Christ who comes across as equally accessible as an example for both men and women, but certainly men have more scriptural role models than do women. I don't know why that is.

On the question of why to re-read the BOM and the Bible, I learn many new things each time I re-read them, and I also get a greater feel for how the scriptures end up being a source of truth for a person at whatever level of spiritual knowledge and experience they have gained at that point in their life. The scriptures keep expanding our possibilities for new knowledge, by opening up new insights that become relevant as we have new experiences in our lives. The Bible is every bit as important as are the other "standard works" for doing this.

That's why I recommended "five times"--because I found that only after about five times did I begin to understand the deeper meanings in them rather than the superficial story lines and the major oft-quoted verses. But yes, such re-reading takes a long time, and is not a simple process. If this life has taught me anything, it is that I need a great deal more patience than I had as a youth or even have now. I love Gerard Manley Hopkins poem on the subject.

Best to you all.

To the three of you:
Sorry I didn't make myself clear about the use of the words "pleasant surprise" which sometimes may seem to have a negative connotation, but I meant receiving a glorious existence far beyond your imagination--a very good, happy place far better than this earthlife. That is what the Savior did for all mankind because they made the pre-mortal choice to come to earth, knowing and trusting that Christ would indeed make it possible for us to move beyond a spirit-only state to a resurrected state of as much glory and opportunity to progress as we would desire. That is why they are called "three degrees of glory"--they are not punishments but places of glory and happiness.

Elder Kimball, who was an apostle not the "prophet" in 1960, made what many would say was a racist remark, as you suggest, and I happen to disagree with his comment. The only words of the Church leaders that are considered "scripture" in the full sense are the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve, when they have agreed unanimously. I agree that several of the statements attributed to Brigham Young appear to reflect his own beliefs and personal biases that are not consistent with the scriptures. That's why a person goes to the standard works to get a better source of what God wants them to be concerned about to have a happier life.

The quote from 2 Nephi 5 can easily be misunderstood when not put into the full context. Verse 20 says "they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord." That is the curse. That is the "sore cursing". Verse 24 says "because of their cursing ... they did become an idle people..." What do you think--the dark skin made them idle? No, of course not. The loss of the Holy Ghost made them no longer desire to plant crops and herd flocks and have to trust in God to have the weather cooperate to provide a harvest--they hunted "in the wilderness" for beasts of prey as their food source. (Verse 67)

The best source I've found for discussion of DNA as relates to the BOM is by Dr. David Stewart, who goes into great detail. See a link in the notes on the Book of Mormon article in Wikipedia to read what his research explains. But it's far less simplistic than Southerton's rationale.

You three are correct that a study of LDS church history will not give you any desire to find out more, except because of wanting to prove it wrong. I personally suggest that anyone with a strong intellectual background ought to spend years studying the entire Bible several times before they dabble in trying to understand LDS beliefs. When they are thoroughly grounded in the Bible and not just what they've heard taught from the Bible, they might being to appreciate the Book of Mormon--probably not until then. I don't see how that is circular reasoning, but if you want an excuse, go ahead and use it--that's as good as any other to not read the Bible a few times. (Again, sorry to be blunt.) The Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Malachi, Hosea, the entire New Testament--these are great sources of the truths of the gospel, including understanding what historical events are to happen before the Savior's second coming, but they will be understood only "line upon line, precept upon precept" as Isaiah said.

Henry James, thanks sincerely for your kind closing comment. I feel not one bit of argumentativeness toward any of you, and I would count you as my friends if I were to meet you. I wish you well in whatever direction your lives take you. This is a good world we find ourselves in, albeit I would wish things were better but I don't have God's perspective. There is so much to learn!

D Parker ~

I finally have a little time to respond to your comments made to me. I have read the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I'm not quite sure why reading them "five more times" each is necessary (is this a magic number or what?). Someone also advised me that I should take equal time to study the church materials/doctrine as I do the materials not published by the church.....and I can only assume that is what you are also saying when you advise me to read and re-read the Book of Mormon and Bible for myself now to find what you want me to find as truth. If I were to actually take that advice, then by my calculations, I should be spending 34 years studying the non-church information to equal my years of LDS-church-only training, so to speak. Sounds great to me! :)

You wrote to Anon, "You're right that our Heavenly Parents want their children to have no bigotry, no racism, and a divine sense of both birthright and potential for each and every one of humankind."

All I can think of when I read the words "divine sense of both birthright and potential" are the different roles and "birthrights" for men (priesthood-wielding men who preside over women, family, and church) and women (whose greatest purpose rests on their biological ability to have babies) in the church, and how unequal they are. My birthright in the church is distinctly different from yours, with enough unpleasant side effects to turn me off completely. The patriarchal system that relies on keeping women in their place doesn't sit well with me, as I've stated on other threads here at On Faith.

I appreciate your concern and your willingness to discuss these things here with me/us. I look forward to future discussions with you.

Phaedrus ~ I completely agree with HJ about your status here. I would, however, disagree that I rank anywhere close to Mayan, the James Gang, or you (and many others) in knowledge over LDS church theology and doctrine. Your words "back bencher" to describe yourself made me laugh. Hardly, my friend.

DP

My identity is NOT first and foremost as an Ex Mormon,
so from that standpoint, and as America's greatest deceased literary critic

I must regretfully inform you that the Mayan Pachyderm and the Classical Phaedrus have demolished your arguments from every conceivable point of view.

Racism is a thoroughgoing strain in both Mormon scripture and culture for 150 years. my grandfather, grandson of Brigham YOung's second counselor, was a living example of the ignorant prejudcie towards black people who had the temerity to appear on television in 1965.

Brigham Young's writings are scandalous. And the BoM quote from ME is embarrassing to the Nth degree.

Yes, mid 19th century America was racist, but don't you Mormons' represent that Brigham Young as a Prophet was speaking God's words?

Putting on my non-mormon persona, I can excuse Mormon racism as part of the pathology of white dominiation and American racism of 1850. But not in the remotist sense can I characterize it as Godly, as Christian, as Divine, as worthy of the teachings of a prophet of God.

I do, however, like you, DP, for some reason. You seem like a well meaning soul.

HJ:

Thanks, I was growing increasingly anxious there for a minute. I'll set the xanax back on the shelf now.

DP:

Your argument is obviously circular. If you would like to explain the actual basis for your finding that Southerton's work is erroneous, that would be something we could actually discuss. (I note that you give Quinn et al a pass) But to simply state that anyone who disagrees with you based upon your reading and interpretation of the standard works, must, by definition, have either not read or not properly understood those books, is a dead end.

The fact is that I have read the BOM, and The D&C, and the O and NT. I have not completely read the POGP, admittedly. For a variety of reasons, not least the Book of Abraham disaster, it is quite clear that JS could not have done what he claimed to have done.

D Parker,

Oooooooooooooooooo. Scary. Phaedrus et al are going to get theirs when they die and it wont be good. Thanks for the warning.

As for the curse thing. What a bunch of nonsense. So, if the Book of Mormon is literal, according to you God was merely cursing two people, Laman and Lemual. They were sacrificial examples. So, God loves everyone but loved them a bit less, so he gave them brown skin. Nice God. I hope he is nicer to Phaedrus and doesnt tan his hide too.

This is from your Book of Mormon"

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them"

You obviously are unaware of the teachings of your latter day prophets, including Kimball who said crap as stupid as this:

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.... At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same Hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.”

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, Oct. 1960

So, according to the Prophet, the skin is not only a curse, but indication that the person with the dark skin hasn't yet become wholesome.

Notice dude, I agree with you that there is no curse. Though, that is neither the teachings of your church or of your 'prophets.'

Phaedrus, don't worry. I think you will be fine.

Phaedrus and Henry James,
I have enjoyed the wit and humor in your comments. Phaedrus, I think you could attempt to write something akin to a mystery novel or even a religious writing, but the comment about the Book of Mormon just reflecting Biblical language and teachings (implying that it is without original thought) shows a lack of having read the text. It's unusual to me that so many critics of the LDS faith just pick out little tidbits--"sound bites"--that they think proves their point, without having read and cross-evaluated the whole set of primary sources: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Lectures on Faith, Pearl of Great Price if they are brave enough. As to the comment about the dark skin of the Lamanites, that comment shows the person has not read the text itself. If Joseph Smith had been copying the beliefs of the day and the assumption made by other religions about the seed of Cain, he would have stated the dark skin was the curse, but he didn't. The dark skin had meaning only at that particular time, as a sign to the Nephites of a group of people who had lost their spiritual sensitivity. The curse was what they had brought upon themselves of losing the guiding influence of the Holy Ghost. There is no such curse associated with dark skin today, nor has it ever been implied in any LDS teaching that I know of. The blacks couldn't hold the priesthood for many years, but they certainly could have and did have the Holy Ghost, and the Lamanites also got the blessings of the Holy Ghost whenever they repented and lived gospel teachings. And no, their skin didn't magically change to white--it didn't need to, because the dark skin was not the curse!

As to Southerton, he clearly didn't read the Bible very well or the BOM or he'd have realized that both make a case (if it needed to be made)for there being similar DNA in the Americas as in the mountains of Asia. The house of Israel gets scattered throughout the earth, including the seed of Mannaseh and of Ephraim as well as of Judah and the other tribes. I'm sorry, but his supposed research strikes me as poppycock.
(Sorry to be so blunt.)

But I'm sure I'm boring the two of you, so I'll end with an observation. I believe the Supreme Being will grant people truth as they seek it, and absolutely will not force, prove His existence, or even hint at His existence if they don't want to know anything about Him. Truth is bigger than LDS beliefs. Swedenborg could certainly get truths, since he wanted to know them and he asked sincerely. (By the way, the words "celestial, terrestrial," and "kingdom" are in the Bible so no need to think Swedenborg made them up.) Everyone who ever lives will ultimately get exactly what they desire and deep-down live for from the Supreme Ruler of the universe, who is far more merciful and the giver of all good gifts than most people ever imagine. So good luck to the two of you--you're in for a happy surprise eventually. No kidding.

The Literary Quality of Joseph Smith's Fictions

Since the above topic has been raised, I feel I must return from the dead and fulfil my role as America's Greatest Literary Critic.

Joseph Smith was some kind of genius, the PT Barnum of the 19th Century Religious World.

He clearly immersed himself in the bible and other sacred texts, as well as the writings of Swedenbourg, from which he adapted his Celestial Kingdom Scheme.

As I frequently illustrate, it is very possible for a human to inhabit the voice of another - I can imitate my brother William's writing, and Smith can imitate God's writing. It really isn't that hard to imitate the style of the bible. Try it. Smith WAS pretty good in spots, but so are many people.

Think of the poetic cadences of thousands of Black preachers. "Many are called but few are chosen" has been equalled by Jesse Jackson thousands of times.

Does all this prove that Smith was a true prophet? Of course not. It is improbable for a farm boy to write so much. But "improbable" means it only happens with one out of a million farm boys. Smith is one in a million, I grant you that. So was Ron Hubbard, who wrote the Scientology fictions. Another religious near-genius, though not as talented as Smith, in my "humble" opinion.

Phaedrus, you demean yourself. You are at the front of the front bench, and have been for centuries.

Peace brothers (me imitating the Hippies).

DP writes:

"...the Book of Mormon can stand on its own as a divinely inspired book for someone who is willing to read it allowing for its plausibility."

Translation: "IF one reads the BOM with a mind unfettered by a priori anti-Mormon bias, then one will determine that it is a divinely inspired work. If, however, one reaches any other determination, then this is conclusive evidence of said a priori bias."

Stated this way, I am sure you see the tautology.

"I'm interested in what you think of the literary quality of D & C 121."

Well, to be truthful, it is not exactly Dostoyevsky or Yeats. IF this passage is the seat of your argument that the literary quality of the Standard Works is such that JS could never have written them on his own, I do not find it convincing. There are parts; "Many are called but few are chosen," as one example, that have a certain rhythm of assertiveness, but little to rival the psalmists in my view.

"I'd also be interested in the number and historical quality of the primary sources of the material you researched that was scholarly. A lot of what is written seems to be second-hand and third-hand sources--"he said/she said"."

Like the Bible maybe?

I have read Quinn, Brodie, Southerton, Larson (sp?) and I think Metcalfe (off the top of my head). Some better than others, but none what I would consider poorly researched. I have also read Bushman, which was entertaining, but heavy on "explaining away" at the expense of "explaining." I also found "Salamander" to be rather interesting in its portrayal of how closely the LDS leadership sought to hold some of its "historical underpinnings."

In short DP, I have read a bit, and although I am a mere "back-bencher" compared to Mayan, Huff, SML, and the James Gang, when it comes to the intricacies of Mormon history and dogma, I am not exactly "uninformed."

You see, in my view, DP, Joseph Smith is much more interesting as a real man than as a fake prophet. I do not mean that to sound unkind, but rather to express a regard for the magnitude of the acheivement of establishing a successful religion in an age of newspapers. No one else has been able to pull that one off.

ME,

I'm sure you are aware, but the point about writing a book is not to say that anyone that can do incredible feats is a prophet or is inspired. So your example about throwing a fastball has little relevance.

DP was merely saying, that the Book of Mormon is incredibly complex, and it seems very, very unlikely that it could be fabricated by an uneducated farm boy. I'm sure you know that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS church. If it is scrpture, the word of God, as given to ancient prophets, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and the church restored by him is the true church of Jesus Christ.

As I have said before, no one in the LDS church professes that President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, Moses, or any other prophet is perfect and has not made mistakes. The fact that mistakes are made does not change the truth that they proclaim.

I wish I had more time but must run now and will be gone for several days but will be anxious to continue dialogue and discussion next Friday with anyone that is interested....

D Parker said: "but today there is no reason to pillory LDS Church leaders as being racist, and the sooner the world can leave racism out of courteous discussions, the better. "

This is your opinion. I suspect it would be nice for the church if everyone ignored the racism. Until the current leaders denounce their racist doctrine, there is plenty of reason to point it out. You seem to really love the Book of Mormon. That is fine. The book is full of stories about people that were cursed with a dark skin because of their iniquity. Sorry pal. Whatever else that is good in that book, cant make up for the lunacy in believing that one race (that happened to live close to the equator) was cursed by god for being evil. This is core to the religion, and as long is it remains so you should be prepared to hear racist accusations towards your leaders.

The leaders have the capacity to change that if they choose. Will they choose the right?

This has been rehashed on here many times, but apparently you missed it. There is nobody, as far as I can tell, accusing ALL mormons of being racist or evil. That just isnt the case. Mormon people do a lot of great things. They are close and they look out for their own. They work hard. They volunteer almost to excess. The women work especially hard. I will stand with you in defending against anyone that says otherwise.

All the good that is done and that comes from the church does not prove that there is not also very rotten things that happen and that are part of the religion.

Your little test is a ridiculous challenge. Extremely ridiculous. It is a common challenge that is used by teachers with the youth and by those that love the Book of Mormon. But, it is just plain dumb. I couldnt write a Murder Mystery, but that doesnt prove that every Murder Mystery writer is inspired. I cant hit a 97 MPH fastball, but that doesnt mean anyone who can is a prophet. So ridiculous. There were countless successful authore before Joseph Smith and there will be many more again. They may not all try and traffic their fictions as literal history, Joseph is unique in some ways for pulling that off.

you said the members are unselfishly helping to make the world a better place. That is your opinion. It is not quantifiably true. I would say they are working just as hard to make it a worse place for some people, that is my opinion. I can name many organizations that truly are making the world better, the Church would be pretty low on that list. They are making a mall better, I will give you that.

I support what Anonymous was pointing out. Go ahead, believe that Smith and Young were prophets. Thats great. But there aint no sense in participating in an organization that is not fitting with the higher standards now expected for women, people with dark skin, families and homosexuals.

Pheadrus:
Great comments--I really mean that. I guess I have to assume you've read the LDS "standard works" more than once during your information-gathering research. I'm interested in what you think of the literary quality of D & C 121. (I'm not trying to nit-pick, just have your valid viewpoint.) I'd also be interested in the number and historical quality of the primary sources of the material you researched that was scholarly. A lot of what is written seems to be second-hand and third-hand sources--"he said/she said".
Finally, the Book of Mormon can stand on its own as a divinely inspired book for someone who is willing to read it allowing for its plausibility. Some of those who criticize it ought to put their pen to paper and write such a book just to prove it can be done. They could write about, say, Australian aborigines or whatever ancient "fictional/historical" group they choose. The Old Testament speaks of a multitude of such groups descended from Abraham and Jacob--just pick one and go with it. You'll remember from your study of the prophecies of the Old Testament that they are spread out among all peoples on earth.
Happy writing.

D Parker:

I respect that you have a particular view of the LDS church, its leaders (former and current), and various doctrines. But, I find your claim that the more critical works can be written off as poorly researched to be objectionable and, well, simply wrong. After having read several of the more scholarly ones myself, I find them anything other than slipshod from a scholastic perspective. Also, referring to "fault-finders" as unifirmly uninformed is grossly erroneous. From this thread alone you should be able to glean that for yourself.

Anonymous:
You're right that our Heavenly Parents want their children to have no bigotry, no racism, and a divine sense of both birthright and potential for each and every one of humankind. You're right that some past LDS leaders have made racist statements that were their own unenlightened opinions, and no divine guidance stopped them, (why, I have my own hypothesis, but I don't know) but today there is no reason to pillory LDS Church leaders as being racist, and the sooner the world can leave racism out of courteous discussions, the better. You're right that many LDS speculate that there will be more women than men who attain exaltation, because their nature is to be more Christ-like (not that there's a competition). Some LDS bishops spend 20 or more hours per week serving members by counseling, listening as members work out their own solutions to problems, encouraging youth to safeguard their moral compass, and so forth, and get paid absolutely nothing for their time spent. Some LDS women Relief Society presidents spend 20 or more hours per week visiting sisters to encourage them, find those who need help in whatever way, listening, being there to help comfort, providing meals, etc. Other churches have leaders and members who do these sorts of things, too, so I'm just giving an example because I am familiar with LDS members' service, but I don't think the comment about hate is merited in any sense for any religion whose members go about unselfishly helping the world be a better place, LDS included. It would be very unkind of anyone to accuse the many wonderful women who helped my wife during a time when our daughter had severe need for constant nursing care of doing so other than out of Christ-like love. Please don't disparage something you know nothing about except what you have read by uninformed fault-finders.

Sister Mary Lisa,

Go ahead and read it again and again. However, I doubt that your reading of the Book of Mormon will do anything to change the current version of the LDS Church. It will still be a Church of misogyny and bigotry, regardless of what the above mentioned racist, Brigham Young, ever did.

If God decides to reunite the Lost Tribes in Missouri, I am sure She will give you a chance to decide then what Church to join. In the meantime, be wise and stay on the right side of civil rights and equality for all of Her children.

Sister Mary Lisa:
I have enjoyed your sincerity and wit on this blogsite. About Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon: he could have made it up, I suppose, but having read it some 30-40 times I have to say that it is unbelievably internally consistent to have so many sub-plots and sub-authors with different ways of saying things--how could a simple-minded writer keep all of that so consistent? It is also very consistent with the Bible (which I've also read many times, so this is not heresay); it amazes me that people who read both sincerely don't think they are consistent--not necessarily every word, but every major teaching and the prophecies.

Some might say Joseph Smith just happened to be a very good writer of fiction, but if he was so smart how could he have made the stand-out poor judgement decisions like believing the Kirtland Safety Society would work and believing the early members could live the United Order successfully. I suppose he had more faith in people than I do, seeing their human qualities.

Sister Mary, how many times have you read D & C 121. That is a literary marvel to me. If Joseph Smith made it up, I'd want to follow his counsel anyway because it is so rich in true principles.

As to DNA and the Book of Mormon, it is going to be an interesting day when the lost ten tribes are more known, and their DNA gets compared with American Indian DNA if that ever happens. I think Southerton is in for a pretty big surprise. Lehi would welcome the world figuring out all of the ancestries of the peoples of the Americas, except that just as Alma taught I suspect he understands that the Lord will only give the people what they are searching for and are ready for.

By the way, the comment someone made about your status in the next life was non-doctrinal and totally out of line. You have every right to search and question for your whole life if you want to, and I hope for your continued happiness as you do. But if you'll start with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (say at least five times reading each), you'll be on more solid footing than reading all the silly, shallow, poorly researched diatribes against Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I'm sorry to say that, but I honestly haven't read any that seemed to be well researched and well-founded.

Happy reading, and sincere best wishes. Honestly.

D Parker said, "They would also want to sincerely read the Book of Mormon--not with any pre-conceived notions, but allowing for its plausibility as a divinely inspired book. Can't hurt."

I think if one were to read the Book of Mormon without any pre-conceived notions, one would have to allow for both its plausibility as a divinely inspired book as well as its plausibility as a book written by Joseph Smith.

To add further to the conversations here:
The Bible doesn't seem to have been written with the intent that it be studied for "sound bites,"
so it would seem that people searching for Judeo-Christian religious understanding should really spend time reading and thinking about what they read in the Bible. It would seem that people really wanting to know what the LDS Church teaches or believes would be well served to start with its searchable website, lds.org, that leads to many in-depth articles. They would also want to sincerely read the Book of Mormon--not with any pre-conceived notions, but allowing for its plausibility as a divinely inspired book. Can't hurt.

Good one, Henry J! You're funny. All I can do now is picture my neighbors and their hair. Yikes. I can honestly say that I don't think I have to worry about that particular sin...yet. :)

Wasn't it

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife's hair"
??

HJ ~

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's hair.

Thanks SML

Actually my worse sin at this point in my life, other than gluttony,
is coveting Mitt Romney's hair.

Now i feel better.

Henry James wrote, "Romney, whatever his failings, is a VERY stable personality, and he is good at raising money and has nice hair."

This made me laugh. Hard. Thank God for nice hair.

Romney's Historical Inevitability

The headline on today's Huffington Post web site is
"Rudy's Flops"
detailing 4-5 mistakes Giuliani has makde this week.

I have told you before that Rudy will self-destruct as a candidate - he is a genuinely unstable personality.

McCain has incipient Alzheimers, and it is becoming increasingly evident.

Romney, whatever his failings, is a VERY stable personality, and he is good at raising money and has nice hair.

So
Mitt's your Man for the Republican Nomination.
Deal with it.

LDS a Christian Church

I am on your side, anonymous.

It seems nonsensical to deny that Mormonism is a Christian religion.

The Church clearly believes that Jesus was the Son of God and is the instrument of Mankind's salvation.

Joseph Smith seemed at times to think his own role rivaled that of Jesus, but the Church clearly affirms Jesus's pivotal role.

"A POSTER" wrote:

"How can the LDS Church be considered Christian without this common theme?"

Well, let's see - the dictionary definition of Christian is:

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
3. of or pertaining to Christians
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:

... and so on...

Personally I don't see how anyone continues to say Mormons are not Christian. Mormons are Christian based on this definition alone. The Church of Jesus Christ is focused around Christ and his teachings. After all, it is his name on the Church....

Personally, I think many people don't want to believe it because Mormons don't follow many of the traditions that have been created over time in other churches; but I don't think tradition should substitute the definition of what a Christian is. Of course, this is just my opinion.

if you have a minute, you can read this from last conference:
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-690-29,00.html

I haven't read all the responses, but I do have two comments:

1. When I saw the title of this blog, "reducing theology to a sound bite," I immediately thought of Gordon B. Hinckley and his media background. More to the point, I thought about his sound bites to the public, such as:

"I don't know that we teach that (God was once a man)" when he certainly DOES know that (he even authored and edited Church books that explicitly state this.

2. Why does the LDS Church/Mr. Otterson have Easter remarks or Easter posts? Why doesn't Mr. Otterson respond to the active conversations about Easter? How can the LDS Church be considered Christian without this common theme?

Congratulations Mr. Otterson, you are getting more web publicity.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3449.html

"As the top spokesman for his church, Otterson has been posting items on WashingtonPost.com's popular "On Faith" blog."

midway through the article is this paragraph:

"The website maintains that the church does not "endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms." Nor does it allow its extensive resources "to be used for partisan political purposes." Nor does it try to tell its members who to vote for, whether or not the candidate is a Mormon. In positive terms, it does "reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the church.""

Proposition 22 proves that is clearly not the case, unless of course, one splits the hair to say that Prop 22 would directly affect the church. Even then, the church enlisted members to do the work and pay for the campaign, rather than act solely at the institutional level.

Henry, I am coming back to this to confess my error. i mistyped in a previous post, Prop 22 was basically a definition of marriage proposal that was supported by the Church. they were never 'anti' or opposed to the proposition.

Prop 22: “Only marriage between a man and a woman
is valid or recognized in California.”

Sorry 'bout that. Really, in my haste I was thinking anti same-sex marriage, but typed anti Prop 22.

My reading of the latest Fund Raising total story was that a signicant percentage of his money came from Mormons. My guess is 30% of the $25m he has raised.

We could probably find out with a little googling.

I think he is certainly trying to Maximize the amount of "mormon money" he gets.

I expect that the network of Mormons with lots of money - the Marriotts etc - is pretty cohesive and pretty identifiable.

And one has to think that that network is pretty conservative - i.e., they'd give a lot less money if it were Harry Reid running rather than Mitt,

and by taking their donations, Mitt makes himself even more beholden to conservatives and their positions.

Henry,

not to nitpick too much here. How would you explain "relying heavily on the Mormon fundraising network?"

does this mean that mormons are a significant chunk of his resources? or, does this simply imply that he is maximizing the donations available from mormons, without any indication of what percentage that may be of his campaign money?

One other Romney Point

Mitt is relying very heavily on the MOrmon fundraising network.
Reid as a democrat would not be able to.

So Romney's dependence on Mormon money cements the conservative political orientation of his campaign in a way Reids wouldn't.

Like Hillary's large money support from the New York Jewish community has a big influence on her Israel politics.

Mayan
I certainly agree that Romney's relation to his church and its positions is something voters should understand.

His positions on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Stem Cells, are going to be influenced by the Christian Right in general, incl the LDS church.

But his positions will be public ones that people can make their decisions on. Mormons add to the mix and strengthen his conservative bent,

and the same has been true with Bush in relation to his Born Again identifications.

I myself wouldn't vote for either, largely for this reason, but i think people should be able to if they know what they are doing.

As we have noted, many of us would vote for Harry Reid in full knowledge of his Mormonism, because we agree with his politics.

My cousin used to work with Wirthin and then Reagan. Again, the Wirthin connection brings us right into the conservative heart of American politics, and I am not so sure how much worse the MOrmon connection makes it.

But one more time, all this stuff is good for the voter to know, just like it is good to know that Bill First is a doctor whose family made lots of money in health care.

From the Times: "There is no evidence that church authorities have tried to influence any of these public servants. On the contrary, the church leadership is undoubtedly astute enough to realize — as Catholic bishops did with President Kennedy — that any pressure on a Romney White House would only harm the church itself."

I agree with this, Henry. I believe that the Church is not directly pressuring public officials. However, I think that being Mormon can influence how an official votes, just as being a psychologist, lawyer, Latino, woman or Homosexual can influence how an elected official votes.

What the church has done, in the place of directly pressuring elected officials, is to enlist the members to pressure officials, vote as instructed, give money to campaigns and work for campaigns. In the case of homosexual rights, the church used their data from personal donations made by members to solicit assigned dollar amounts to political campaigns. Just as the article you mentioned suggested where Mormons are given 'volunteer' assignments, similar assignments were given to church members to volunteer an assigned amount of hours in an effort to block rights for homosexuals.

I think it is not inappropriate for the Mormon Church, a thriving American institution, to use its resources to promote what is most beneficial to the institution. However, I think it is more than a bit goofed up that they also claim political neutrality and fail to disclose their financial donations.

The article mentions the secrecy of the temple. That is very relevent in the case of Prop 22. In the temple patrons promise to give EVERYTHING to the building of the Kingdom (Church.) In order to avoid donating directly to anti Prop 22 campaigns, the church contacted people that had covenanted to give everything to the church, and used that leverage to force/invite them to give directly to a campaign - allegedly.

Regarding Prop 22:

"But even conveying a simple message costs money. While the campaign tries to pitch itself as a bottom-to-top operation, a closer look at finance reports reveals a campaign that is well-connected to wealthy donors and strategists from the Mormon church and the more conservative side of the Republican party establishment.

Much of the $3,115,241.48 in individual contributions is reported to have been donated by 740,000 members of the California Mormon church. Leaders of 159 [mormon congregations] received letters last spring from both the Latter Day Saints church headquarters in Salt Lake City and from Douglas Callister, a Glendale lawyer and Mormon elder, asking members to donate.

The campaign has also hired Richard Wirthlin as one of its top consultants and has paid his survey research firm, Wirthlin Worldwide, over $60,000. Also known as Elder Richard B. Wirthlin in the First Quorum of Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wirthlin served as one of Ronald Reagan's pollsters and now works for U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch.

Wirthlin's close association with both the Mormon church and Reagan suggests that he functions as a nexus between Mormon leaders and the Religious Right, two groups that historically have had an uneasy alliance, sources close to the opposition said."

also, can you say and spell N-E-P-O-T-I-S-M?

Elder Richard B. Wirthlin, son of Joseph L. Wirthlin former Presiding Bishop of the Church, and brother to Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has served in two stake presidencies, as a high councilor and bishop, and most recently as a regional representative.

The B is for Bitner, by the way.

The Mormon President

Up here in the hereafter, I have perspectives that you mere mortals can't, so take it from me:

Romney is the odds on favorite for Republican Nominee.

McCain's campaign is self-destructing, and he has only raised 1/2 the money Romney has.

Giuliani WILL self destruct with more exposure: he will do his version of Howard Dean's meltdown. He is an unstable-ly authoritarian personality and the public will see that with more exposure.

SO - get ready for Romney versus Obama.

Who do you want to hold your Secular Priesthood, the Mormon or the Black Guy?
Thank the Lord this is post-1978.

God bless the United States of America.

Henry James - I agree that the NYT OpEd was a particularly nuanced and insightful piece.

Correction
The editorial i mentioned above was in the NYTimes,
called
The Presidency's Mormon Moment
by Kenneth Woodward

And in other news, the times has an article regarding efforts to clean up this new media.

April 9, 2007
A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs
By BRAD STONE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blog.html?ei=5090&en=52ed112ca37ec909&ex=1333771200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

While we are talking about Media and Sound Bites,

Did any of you see the column in the Post yesterday "The Mormon President" about Romney's religious issue?

A thoroughly sensible article that both believers and Ex-es should agree with.

Bottom line: there is no reason to fear Romney's Mormonism in the sense of taking direction from SLC.

One should vote or not vote for him based on his positions (Henry says: if you can tell which ones)

but Romney needs to confront the issue head on like Kennedy did in 1960.

And he should avoid phrases/sound bites like "Jesus is my personal savior", because the evangelicals don't believe him, and think that phrase is reserved to those who have had one of their "born-again" experiences.

Anyone remember when George Romney's only problem was being Brain Washed.?
With Mitt, it's his Hair wash, not his Brain Wash.

Thanks Anonymous,

This part of that link is consistent with what I was told was part of the letter read in a ward today. You are probably right that it was not from the FP, and may have been taken from lds.org.

I have no clue how otterson can claim that "[polygamy] is not central to the Church's Faith." That is a laugher.

========================

" However, some raised concern about what they feel is a disproportionate amount of time given to topics that are not central to the Church’s faith. For instance, polygamy comes in for extensive treatment in the first program, including substantial attention to present-day polygamous groups that have nothing to do with today’s Church. The time devoted to portrayals of modern fundamentalist polygamy seems inconsistent with the filmmaker's stated purposes of getting inside the LDS experience, and of exploding, rather than reinforcing, stereotypes.

Other scholars criticize what they say is an imbalance in the treatment of some topics, particularly the events at Mountain Meadows in 1857. One said the film provides a distorted and highly unbalanced account of Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre alike. "

BTW - I don't think the First Presidency has commented on it yet - the above link was to my knowledge just general comments from scholars.

The only information that I have come across has been here:

www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=8e172f11c63b1110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Does anyone have the details from the First Presidency letter regarding the upcoming PBS Documentary?

I understand there was a warning from the First Presidency about troubling issues in the documentary? I am curious if that means they are issues that are inaccurate, or just things that are true, but not useful.

Phaedrus ~

You must know I would be an ardent reader if you created your own blog. I never knew how much fun the b-sphere could be. Lemme know when you do! I'm very flattered also that you love my blog.

:) sml

What would a comments section be without another "know"imony from RTC?

RTC
thanks for your thoughts. nicely expressed and kindly felt.

There is a characteristic that is not unique to Mormons, though they do it better than most, which you illustrate at the end of your post when you write
"It is knowing that in Temples upon the earth today, we can be an eternal family through His atoning sacrifice if we will but come unto Him by making covenants and keeping His commandments"

I am not sure if you were referring to Mormon temples, though I assumed you were.

The Characteristic is
The Tribal Nature of Religion.
The In-Group/Out-Group aspect.

This is of course an ancient characteristic of human groups

and it is one that led to a lot of my dissonance with my Mormon identity. I identified as a member of the Human Tribe (inclusive)
rather than "my own tribe" - Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or Whatever.
I lapped up that "family of man" stuff in the 60's, and the fact that the Mormon Church was so insular became more and more troubling to me.

It is, of course, a source of strength = "We are different than others." Phaedrus's fascination with Mormon success has to include this factor.

But it is a trade off, and an interesting Moral Issue and Anthropological issue.

For instance, right after God told Moses "thou shalt not kill"
in the next chapter he said,
"oh, by the way, go kill all the Canaanite men women and children and take over their land."

We are reminded today that the Last Supper was a Seder = we are all not as different as our ancient tribal instincts tell us we are.

SML:

Love your blog! Especially enjoyed your account of lunch with the PP. Fascinating reading for a psychologist, which is actually a nice term for professional voyeur. Oh, and the dialogue (you know the one) is laugh-out-loud funny!

I am thinking of joining you in the b-sphere.

Best to you,

P.

It is late and I am exhausted, for alas the children are arriving, thus I am hopping like a bunny, yet most wonderful at the end of the day.

So I now have a quiet moment to self... Contrary to some opinions here, I love my children regardless of personal choices that they make, even if not to my liking and always want them home in the spirit of mutual respect and love.

In fact, I do not share all of my personal life here on this blog, but you might be surprised IF you knew more about me. You would not be a liberty to speak what you do. Unfortunately I am not free to discuss more than my own life with you, so I will leave it at that. I do not live in a closet we shall say.

Betty-

Your words in response to Joy were so very kind. I was very touched by them and was reminded once again of your gentle spirit that I have come to appreciate knowing through this association. You never fail regardless of circumstances or opinions in dialogue to acknowledge the good in others. I admire this in you.

Joy-

How wonderful to hear from you. We have missed you and your positive input that always adds so much to the conversation. I do hope you will not stay away so long in the future. I am thrilled for you that you were able to attend conference. Myself, I hung on every word of each of the four sessions. It was powerful and spoke to my soul personally, as I am sure it did to yours. So many of the issues that have come up here, seemed to be addressed.

I love your testimony. As a seminary teacher, of course I must understand the history of the church and teach it, but my testimony is not based in the history at all.

In fact, my testimony is that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, because he has to be. It is that simple. You could tell me the most ridiculous story you could make-up and I would just go... whatever dude, that's fine. It just does not matter. I know what the spirit has born witness to me of and that is true.

The Book of Mormon is true... no question in my mind, not one. The Holy Ghost is a reality and is my companion and teacher. I cannot deny this. It evidences this everyday of my life. This is physical evidence in the manifestations of the revelations I receive. I could go on and on. The doctrines that Joseph Smith revealed are amazing in how they broaden and enlighten our understanding of all other scriptures... absolutely incredible! It is more amazing than any genius could have done. Anyone that takes a serious study of what Joseph Smith revealed in doctrine alone has to be blown away! When they see how it fits into the big picture, they MUST proclaim him a prophet of God. There is SIMPLY no other explanation.

Oops, sorry for ranting. lol

Phaedrus-

That was the best reason I have ever heard for anyone on this blog investigating the LDS church. I loved this. Thank you for sharing such a wonderful perspective. You are absolutely right. If I were not a member of this great church, heck, I would want to know the same flippin questions myself?

We are fascinating, are we not? I would say, down right crazy if I were you! Why in the world would nearly 13 million people belong to a church that demands so much of them? (let's not argue the stats, okay?)

Like I say to my students... Either it did or it didn't? Either he is or he isn't? Either it is or it isn't?

It really comes down to a few critical answers that they need to know for themselves. Once they do, then everything else will fall into place line upon line.

But, until they do the work that they MUST do and which is required to gain a personal testimony, they will not be firmly rooted in the gospel.

Those who put forth the effort that is required to gain a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true, come to know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God and that he restored The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints through priesthood authority given him by God. That authority continues today with Gordon B. Hinckley as prophet and president of the church.

This is the very same church that Jesus Christ in the New Testament organized when he was upon the earth. After the deaths of his apostles the church fell into apostasy and eventually the authority of the priesthood to organize the church was not found upon the earth any longer.

So you are wise to study why this church flourishes. For it is prophesied to do so. I wish you the best with your investigation and that it is fruitful.

Like Joy, I love this time of year when we celebrate Easter.

Actually, today, April 6th is the day that we recognize as the birth of Jesus Christ. It is also the day that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints was organized on in 1830. April 6th is a significant day in the lds church as we have many significant days in our history associated with this date.

But Easter for me is my favorite holiday during the year. I especially love it because it is much less fussy than say Christmas. And of course, we would not have Christmas without Easter...

In the simplicity of this season, we are able to more easily take the time to focus on the life and mission of Jesus Christ as our personal Savior. I am so grateful for the atonement of Jesus Christ and for what this means to me and my family.

It is knowing that in Temples upon the earth today, we can be an eternal family through His atoning sacrifice if we will but come unto Him by making covenants and keeping His commandments.

Joy ~

Your words are very beautiful and touching, and I truly am glad that you find such joy and meaning within the church. This is one of the blessings faith can bring to humans across the world, in all their respective religions. I admire greatly Mormons who are able to sincerely respect and appreciate people of other faiths (or people with no particular faith). They exhibit true Christ-like love for and acceptance of their fellow man when they love others for WHO they are, not for WHAT they are. I appreciate how you shared your thoughts so kindly.

Happy Easter to you and your loved ones as well.

Joy,

What a beautiful and meaningful post you have written! Truly a magnum opus!

I have to say that the caliber of the posts from Joy and Betty appear to have achieved a respectable level. They now have more meaning and certainly share a much greater respect for both sides. I look forward to continued posts in this kindness and respect for all, regardless of personal opinions...

Joy
Your post was a model of courtesy and sincerity.

I shall attempt to respond in kind.

If your belief in the Mormon Story brings you happiness and peace, all of us other humans should wish you the best.

Mormons, and you, do loads of good things for each other and are very good people.

You won't see the fruits of your efforts=at-eternal salvation until the next life, but you are living a very good life for yourself and others in this world.

Whatever Joseph Smith was, he was a spiritual genius. If his teachings, and Christ's teachings, resonate with your innate goodness, I can certainly understand how that is much more important and meaningful to you than parsing whether the Book of Abraham is a "real" translation.

Easter and Passover remind us of our human potential for redemption in whatever tradition and understanding that is meaningful to each of us. I hope yours is happy as well.

Love,
Betty

Phaedrus: an essay worthy of Socrates.

Truly and honestly, an eloquent and comprehensive summing up of many of the issues and controversies of our dialog. I don't see how a person of discernment could fail to be impressed by your insights.

Your description of the attacks by a poster whose initials begin with R were on the mark: it is unfair to castigate others for not understanding your statements in the way you wish them to if your statements are presented in an unclear way.

More generally, you make an important point for the Mormons on this post who are used to having "polite" discussions in Church that don't challenge the evidence and logic of statements by others: that this open forum is here TO CHALLENGE and investigate the nature and the bases of faith, not to affirm any doctrine or dogma.

And finally, your point about the fascination of Mormonism as a uniquely sucessful MODERN example of founding a religion I completely agree with. I am sure most of the issues being raised here regarding Mormonism apply to the early days of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Kudos for your eloquence and incisiveness. Tiger Woods would be proud of you.

Hello all!

Just thought I would respond to this thread after a bit of an absence.

I was fortunate enough to attend a session of General Conference in Salt Lake City last weekend. Before the broadcast began, an announcement was made in the Conference Center. It said (and I paraphrase),

"We are aware that there may be individuals who would try to detract from the spirit of conference. (and there WERE individuals who were rather vocal standing on the sidewalk outside the Conference Center). We therefore ask that you be courteous to these individuals."

In the spirit of this announcement, I hope to make my views known and address a small portion of the comments that have been made here.

I have many experiences and principles on which I base my testimony about the LDS church. I believe wholeheartedly in Joseph Smith's first vision, translation of ancient texts, and role as a prophet. I have never assumed that he was a perfect man any more than I believe ANYONE is perfect, save Christ alone. I have read about and heard many details from his life that may or may not be interesting. But these details have no bearing on my personal salvation.

I know I am admitting to a lower IQ than many posters on this thread. But I have to say that I have a hard enough time learning, understanding and applying the principles that directly relate to my personal salvation, let alone details about church history that have ZERO relevance to my personal quest for salvation.

I have to agree with some who have posted here who have said that "history is what someone recorded, not necessarily what actually happened". I had a history teacher once who said basically the same thing. He said that the actual truth about an event in history was always overshadowed by what people THOUGHT happened, what they were TOLD happened, or what was recorded or WRITTEN about that event.

Because I believe this statement to be true, I have limited the priority I place on historical events with regard to my spiritual journey. I have studied and sought rigorously about the truthfulness of those events that directly relate to my personal salvation. I feel that I have a strong testimony about these events. I am still in the process of learning what I should learn and doing what I should do to be a true disciple of Christ. I personally don't have time for much else.

So there you have it. I know that many of you will think that I am simple to disregard all your 'carefully' compiled 'evidence' against Joseph Smith. You may think that I am unintelligent or 'idiotic' (to quote someone earlier on this thread) to believe as I do. You certainly can think what you will of my lack of interest in your statements against him.

As for me, I am at peace in my faith. My favorite time of year is Easter. I am so grateful for Jesus Christ - for all that He taught and did for me. I am so grateful that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. I cannot deny the spirit that radiates from its teachings. I am also grateful for a living prophet who understands our time and gives counsel relevant to me and my family right now.

I hope I succeeded in being courteous here :)
Happy Easter!

Phaedrus ~

Welcome back, my friend. I'd welcome a real-time chat with you sometime. But since we don't, how was Augusta? :) Sounds heavenly, considering I'm in Montana where the cold has decided it's here to stay for a little longer than I'm comfortable with.

I really appreciate your comments here. Thanks for adding reason to the sometimes heated discourse between RTC and me. If you ARE destined to spend eternity in hell, I'm glad to know I'll be enjoying myself there when I arrive and find you.

Having returned from Augusta last night, I just had an opportunity to review recent developments here. I have to say that I am struck, to state it mildly, by the off-base and gratuitous remarks made regarding SML. Although I also see that Sister Mary Lisa followed up with a well-conceived and written response, and requires no defense from me, there are a couple of things that bear saying here.

First of all, those who make forceful, sometimes hysterical, statements written in such fashion as to make their meaning very difficult to discern, must bear some responsibility when readers do not ferret out their "intended" meaning. Responding to such with capitalized broadsides is simply boorish in my view. Efforts to aggrandize this with rationalizations of "just telling-it-like-it-is," or "speaking the truth, the truth, I tell you!!-ness" does nothing to conceal the fact. It is as transparent as the athlete who, after having made an outrageous statement, writes it off as "just keeping it real, man." Nuff said on that.

And secondly; this board no more belongs to Mormons than it does athiests, agnostics, catholics, pagans, or dead Greek philosophers and American novelists. What people are likely to find here is discussion, sometimes pointed discussion, between individuals with different points of view. If you cannot stand being told that your opinion is wrong about any subject, then don't come here. Simple as that, no one is forcing anyone to read what anyone else has written here. IF it is painful for you to read that someone thinks Joseph Smith was a fraud, and why they think that, then either be prepared to experience some discomfort here, or visit another site that is more comfortable for you. By the same token, if someone writes that my views are going to result in my spending eternity in hell, and that is injurious to my fragile sense of self, then I should not engage in discussion with people who believe that this is precisely my fate.

Those who think that any critique of Mormon history, doctrine, and collective practice, is evidence of impure motives or satanic influence are revealing themselves to be more than a bit simplistic in their world view. Those who think that no one with a fascination for LDS history, who is also not a believing Mormon, can be anything other than an angry, unfulfilled, Mormon-basher are severely misguided.

Mormonism is fascinating for many reasons, not least because it is the most revealing and accessible example of how successful religions are created, nurtured, and modified over time. Other forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc, have beginnings forever shrouded in the mists of pre-literate time, their early histories recorded long after the fact, by unknown or extremely obscure authors. They were written in esoteric languages, and translated repeatedly, such that scholars will argue interpretation variances for as long as anyone cares about the outcome. As a result, one can never be confident, in a scholarly sense, that one has anything other than a stew of fables, false-memories, misinterpretations, and long hidden social agendas.

Joseph Smith did what he did in the the closest thing we have to the full light of literacy. He is not the sole author of LDS history, nor even his own life story. There are other sources of information with which to compare and contrast his claims and those of his followers, contemporary to him, and also, to us today. For anyone interested in how a religion is hatched, there is simply no substitute in my view. For anyone with an interest in how a great many people come to believe in the historicity of extremely unusual events, Mormonism is also a treasure trove of information. I am interested in both of these topics, as are others who post here. My interest leads me to pose provocative questions, state provocative hypotheses, and posit provocative conclusions from time to time. Others do likewise. many of those "others" are former and current LDS, and they have widely divergent views of a rather narrow convergence of events that spawned one of the worlds great religions. I say that is great, I say that this is a valuable opportunity to learn from others, as well as to become more familiar with what we actually believe, simply through the act of writing it down in, as Maclean put it, "the American language."

If readers take what we write, and use it to help form their own personal opinions of Mormonism, pro or con, then terrific. I hope some actually do, in fact.

So, Sister Mary Lisa, keep on being who you are and writing what you write. If you are responding to the exhortations of a devil, then, to paraphrase Darwin, I am that "devils chaplain."

Dear Henry James ~

Du bist auch einer Schatz.

sml

Dick Cheney's Lesbian Daughter's Poor Son at BYU

think the reason BYU students are protesting the choice of Darth Cheney as commencement speaker is

because his Lesbian daughter is about to give birth to a BOY

who will be raised in the Awful situation of NOT having BOTH a mother and a father, but rather,

Baby Cheney will have two mommies.

Full Disclosure: My niece is helping organize the protest: I am so proud.
But it is not because of the Lesbian mommies.
It's because of all the Iraqi mommies that Cheney has caused to be killed in this war.
Woulda taken Saddam a long time to kill as many as Cheney and company have dispatched since 2003,
though we must admit he has brought stability to the mideast.
(oops, I forget, BUSH is President, isn't he)?

My post above should be Addressed:

My Dear RTC

My saintly mother used to say/quote:
"If ignorance is bliss, til folly to be wise."

After meeting you, I know what she meant.

Teach your grandchildren well,
and
with SML my truely sympathetic saintlike sister,
I pray for the sake of any possible future hetero spouses they might have,
that none of them turn out to be homosexual.

Though that couldn't happen, could it, unless they "chose the lifestyle,"
a phrase that epitimizes my sainted mother's quote.

SML: once more, as we mormons used to say, "I treasure your spirit." Truly.

Henry

And hopefully none of those sweet babies ends up homosexual, for that would really put RTC in a nana's world of hurt as she discovers a bit more of what life's all about...

Oh Henry and my dear friend Mayan-

You two do so amuse me. We would have such a fun weekend at the lake together all of us.

What sets man apart from all other creatures, but that ability to reason, discern and choose for oneself the course of one's life and in that is morality!

Now, I do so wish that I had time to play, but alas all of my six grandchildren are arriving with the children that I chose to give life. The first arriving in only a few hours.

So this Nana has much to do to get ready for some real playtime with these babies, for this is what life is truly all about!

But I am confident that you two shall wrestle this to your liking nonetheless. Have a wonderful holiday weekend, as shall I.
rtc

Yes, Mayan, you are wise as usual.

I guess it is just the obsessive doggedness of a novelist.

In a certain way it reminds me of the question that Stephen Colbert asked Jim Lehrer, after asking Lehrer if he had a liberal bias (which of course Lehrer huffily denied):

Colbert's follow up was
"But doesn't information have a liberal bias?"

Henry, i dO apPreciate thE effort with your Last post. but rEally, you do See what you are up againSt, dont you?

as you may have guessed, the above post at 12:16 was mine.

I hardly ever sign my books "Anonymous."

RTC
You write:
"We are all accountable for the society in which we live. May we never take it for granted.

A moral environment to raise our families in is not natural."

One can accept your last sentence if (and only if) one ignores the mountains of scientific evidence about moral behavior that anthropologists and neuroscientists have discovered in the last 10 years.

A mountain of evidence shows that Moral Behavior is the Most Natural thing in the world, is evolutionary adaptive, and is practiced by higher animals in much the same way as it is by 10 commandment preaching JudeoChristians.

Mormons are no more moral than 99% of the families in the world. Once again, to me, your statements above are both un-informed and verge on self-righteousness, much as it will upset you to hear this.
And once again, you seem sure that you KNOW you are right, but you really do not know what you are talking about with any backup except your prejudices and what your church teaches you.

Just 2 of hundreds of references
Moral Minds by Marc Hauser
Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson.

JIM -

You are sunshine on a gloomy day! Wecome aboard:-)

Heraclitus and Lurker -

Our Constitution was founded in just such a way that the majority be it moral or not would rule! So we must speak up and be active for what each of us believes and knows to be right, that society may be ruled by that which the majority represents.

If and when there comes a time when those things which breakdown the traditional family and religion in this country, it will be because of it's people.

I cannot remember who said this, but I shall paraphrase...

"Evil prevails when good men do nothing!"

From the day I heard this, it has moved me to action to say and do that which I am able, to move the cause of good in my life.

We are all accountable for the society in which we live. May we never take it for granted.

A moral environment to raise our families in is not natural.

Anonymous who's sad over my loss of faith in the church ~

You have many questions for me, so I will do my best to address them all.

Yes, I did have a testimony that the church was true. My testimony was based on all those things I learned in church about the restoration of the gospel, the absolute truth of the Book of Mormon, and the righteousness of Joseph Smith. You can hardly deny that he is REVERED in the church as the most important person to have lived save Christ himself. I got good feelings when I learned of his stellar life and when I learned I had a path to follow, an easy one of good works and ordinance completion that would lead me straight back to God.

Then I learned that Joseph Smith was not the man I thought he was. And I learned that the Book of Mormon doesn't appear to be factual, rather it seems to be made up. And I learned that Joseph didn't actually translate the Book of Mormon the way the church told me he did. And I learned some of the nefarious ways he convinced young girls and their families to engage in polygamy with him. These issues and many more caused me to have to re-think my position on the truth claims of the church. You asked why I felt the need to ask Heavenly Father again about the truthfulness of the gospel after I had already received the answer that it was true...

Let's pretend for a moment that I discover that I have a large cancerous tumor in my brain. I research and find the best brain surgeon in the world to remove my tumor, knowing that anyone less than the best could mean life or death for me. His credentials are stellar. He comes highly recommended. He and his office staff tell me of his background and his success until I feel confident using him, so I hire him, placing my very life in his hands. And then, just days before I'm scheduled to go and have surgery, I find out that he didn't really study to be a brain surgeon at Harvard Medical School like I was told by his office, rather he studied online to get his degree. I also find out that he had introduced many strange practices, such as marrying many other women behind his wife's back, including a fourteen year (young) girl, promising the girl's family free medical care for life if they'd only let him have her as a wife. I find out that rather than using x-rays and CAT scans to determine the exact location of my tumor, he placed a stone inside a hat and put his face in the hat to block out the light, and this is his preferred method of determining where tumors are and what the proper course to take in removing them should be. When I discover this, I am shocked, and I feel deceived, since the pictures on the brochure show him standing there with a brain x-ray in his hand, and on the wall behind his shoulder is a framed diploma from Harvard Medical School. Plus he's got his smiling first wife in the picture too.

When I go to the director of the hospital he works for, they tell me that he has helped so many people, and given them such hope and happiness in their lives, so they figure it is perfectly OK to leave out those pesky little details about the surgeon. They tell me that withholding this information was done in my best interest to help me feel faith in that surgeon, that knowing those details about his methods isn't really what's important, rather it's how I FEEL about him that matters. And besides, they tell me, if I walk away from the surgeon now, I run the very real risk of dying a very horrible death.

That is what it felt like to me when I learned different historical things about Joseph Smith and the history of the church, knowing the church withheld such knowledge from me intentionally. So, yeah, I prayed again. I wanted to "know" if the new stuff was true or not.

Now, my Anonymous friend, you said, "how can you say that this Church isn't focused on being Christ-like? There is such a good message and meaning behind what the Prophet, Apostles and other leaders leave us with - how can this church be led by an evil being and yet deliver such a loving and kind message?" I never said the Church isn't focused on being Christ-like, nor did I say that it is led by an evil being. Why do you claim I said those things?

You also wrote, "You really truly have to ask yourself; With nothing to gain for himself, why would Joseph put himself and his family through that much pain, anguish and trauma for something that others claim did not exist? What man would do that? What man would suffer his dying children and his entire life to a cause much greater than his own if it were false?"

Do you really have no idea how much Joseph gained by leading the life he did? Really?? Ummm, that's easy: Money. Land. Prestige. Power. Women. Glory. Status. Fame. The history books are filled with such men (and women) who seek after these things, who are willing to suffer to gain these things, and whose families also suffer for it.

Thanks for taking the time to let me know you care about my testimony or lack thereof. I understand perfectly where you're coming from, as I've been there myself, recently.

Heraclitus,

I do agree but your argument is wide open and can be applied to any action: pornographers, drug users, polygamist and also church goers, holy rollers, and the like. As long at all evolved are consenting adults and no one is victimized. Just because the majority of society accepts something today it can/will change tomorrow. So as thinking beings on earth, are we becoming better or worst (place your own measuring sticks here). More free or more bonded? Anarchy never last and neither does dictatorship so where in the middle are we now? What direction are we headed in.

This is where I have a hard time drawing the line. I think others do also and we all turn to faith as a guide, be it faith in man, or God, or history, or dreams or whatever.

Anonymous:
God in his wisdom and mercy has a plan for all of His children. He is perfect and cannot change. All will be given the opportunity to accept and follow truth. Those that deliberately choose another way cannot receive the same blessings as those that obey God's will, or God would cease to God.

Sorry, but I fail to see how this is demeaning or belittling to anyone. I see how the unfaithful or disobedient might not like this, but the truth is the truth, and man cannot change God's truth to suit his own fancy. The beauty of the plan is our agency- that we are all free to believe and act as we wish, but our choices are inseparably connected to consequences.

So those that don't hearken unto the 'Right' God will perish? Why, only a fool would choose to perish. Nothing demeaning or belittling about that.

Perhaps posters have turned their attention elswhere by now, but I would still like to add my voice to some others that have effectively testified of truth.

Heavenly Father uses imperfect mortals to perform his work, so it should be no surprise that some have made mistakes along the way, and history reflects this. If there were a "perfect" church, with infallible leaders, that could be proven with absolute, unquestionable facts to be true, wouldn't everyone then follow this church? Where would be the faith in this? How would one grow and progress?

Instead, a loving Heavenly Father provides a way for all of his children, past, present and future, to know and accept the truth. Yes, this requires faith. The LDS Church does not, as has been pointed out, demean or belittle the beliefs of other religions. We recognize that all religions have truths and that their followers are good, faithful people that contribute much to society. We do invite all to see if we can add to the truth and good that they have already found.

It is good to learn, to study the issues, etc., but in the end, we must have faith. And if we have but a desire, and plant the seed, it will continue to grow. Doubt and faith cannot exist together, and once we begin doubting, faith begins to die.

I love this scripture from the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9: 28-29:

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

Lurker
I see your point.
And I agree - if you think it's a sin, don't do it.

As to not accepting or condoning it:

that's more murky to me.

All of us as members of a society contribute to maintaining or changing social attitudes.

If I believe white people should not go to school with Black people, then I have the right not to do so myself.

However, though I have the right to express my opinion on this in public,
the rest of us have an obligation to point out the ignorance and immorality of that opinion,
and to try to insure that the opinion has as little force in society as possible.

Same with homosexuality: people who say
"homosexuality is unnatural and a sin"
should be challneged and disagreed with, and there should be a vigorous discussion of this societal attitude (in my opinion, with the goal of eradicating it, just as we want to eradicate the attitude that blacks and whites should not go to school together.

I don't expect you disagree, so this it to clarify.

Heraclitus,

In reviewing this thread I think you first posted the line:

"Fine to have Faith, unless your faith is in things like
Homosexuality is Un natural"

I have never disagreed with you that it may be natural. As far a calling it a sin I only pointed out that SOME who believe in a GOD believe it is a sin. Does it hurt anyone is not the point, does coffee hurt the drinker, I hope not.

The point is, if you have Faith that it is a sin then don't do it, condone it, or accept it. That is all.

L

Natural Homosexuality

Lurker and RTC:
Of course not EVERYTHING that is natural is good.

I was countering Lurker's statement that homosexuality is Un-Natural.

The desire to Kill is natural too.

But unlike the desire to kill,
married homosexuals who engage in sex
hurt no one and in fact usually increase their love for each other,
and their chiuldren if they have them.

So yes, I realize Natural is not enough.

But to call it Un-natural in arguing for its Sin Status is dubious.

TBMs: Close your eyes - this post questions the Church again. Don't look at this post - Otterson and the First Presidency says its lies. Its too real for your people. Don't read this. Close your eyes and you minds and know that you know that your Church is is the only true Church.

For the rest: This Church, although primarily good has some evil traits. Specifically the electroshocking of gays which is the truth and not lies as Mormons would have you believe, and their dogmatic belief that people of color were the fence sitters in the pre-existance war between God and Satan who are now cursed with darker skin. The Church and Otterson has done a good job training its members to ignore these facts but will not deny them. Both of these things are evil and challenge the Church's credibility and their use of the name Jesus Christ.

It's bad enough that there are theologians at all: people who find sense in the nonsense of primitive superstitious books. And what about Mormon theologians, the crazy books they revere they have dug up on some hill in 19th Century New York State! Lord, what fools these mortals be.

Forget Mitt Romney and the whole Temple crowd. They make ever Holy Rollers seem rational.

Anonymous-

Actually, I do not even need to turn CNN on and check the claim to know for a surety that which Jozevz claims as fact is false.

Simple discernment is all that is required based on his/her previous posts which has already given enough facts to discern credibility to judge by the spirit quite effectively.

I imagine most all would conclude the same?

Therefore, a record CAN be sufficient to judge if the record be accurate and discerned by the spirit!

Back on topic

Facts are only Facts if you have first hand knowledge! Everything else is faith in the source you obtained your facts from. If you hear/see something on CNN and process that in to your being as Fact, you must have faith in CNN.

So do we all have Faith in something? Can we have faith in the Media, what is their agenda?

Heraclitus,

I should have quote your list then added my comments. I AGREE with you that Homosexuality may be “natural”, my point is that there are other natural tendency, action, feelings that don't line up with some people "Faith" be it in God, Joseph Smith, Allah, or whatever. Like the “7 Deadly Sins”, all natural in man.

I notice you brought up the animal kingdom, many animals live in polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry; is that ok for humans? Some animals kill their mate, is that ok for humans? Yes, some animals have been documented as homosexual and bisexual, so what?

I find it un-natural that my Mormon friends don’t start their day with a cup of coffee. Maybe that is why I will never be a Mormon, but if I did want to join up, I don’t think I would try to convince them to let me have my cup of “Joe” just because I feel it is natural (I would call it life sustaining).

Just my thoughts on your post.

RTC,

I think I agree with you, what happens naturally will always happen, it is thinking beings like ourselves that determine if they are acceptable, rejectable, miracles, or abominations. We make these determinations based on many things like; experience, selfishness, self-preservation, love, hate and/or faith (if you have it).

L

"But faith is a critical element in the search to know. Without the element of faith with facts, we can never come to a sure knowledge of anything."

Did George Carlin write that line?

Heraclitus:

You argue using those things which are relative...

Is it natural to be born with a birth defect, such as blindness, paralysis, deformity, etc... ?

Is it natural to get a divorce after 25 years of marriage?

Is it natural to lose a child in an automobile accident?

Is it natural to die at 15 of lung cancer?

Is it natural to play concert piano at 3 years old?

Is it natural to graduate from Harvard by 16 years old?

Is it natural to win a gold medal at the World Olympics?

Is it natural to go to war?

So what explains the abnormalities that can become normal depending on choice, culture, genes, cells, society, God?

Do we blame or do we take responsibility? What does it depend upon?

Or are these simply effects of mortality that just happen...

With God He has revealed absolute truths that we may use as measures.

But faith is a critical element in the search to know. Without the element of faith with facts, we can never come to a sure knowledge of anything.

"intentionally damaging words towards those whose lives as a body have shown nothing but good overall"

Yes, Yes, Yes. Mormons are perfect. Pass it on.

Betty:

Thanks for reinforcing LOOKIN's point and making it very clear

Dear Lookin

We'll miss ya!

You contributed a lot.

I find it hard to fathom that there are people who actually spend this much of their time spewing out such mean spirited, intentionally damaging words towards those whose lives as a body have shown nothing but good overall.

What is it with you people? From what I can tell, most of you are disaffected from the church and have some kind of bad taste left in your mouth and just need to keep spitting it out. But why at these folks, who are nice enough to take their time with you?

Maybe they are crazy for spending their time on you?

My goodness, I think someone is going to choke pretty soon.

Don't you guys realize how obvious it is to everyone who reads this who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?

Why don't you try treating these people a little kinder who are trying there best to be long-suffering with you bullies?

That's all I have to say. You guys are too crazy for me!

Lurker
to clarify what I meant:

People have faith in many things that turn out to be either Untrue or totally unsubstantiated by the facts, even thought "people" think the scriptures make them true.

You say "homosexuality is Un natural."
Homosexuality is as natural as hetersexuality. it occurs in many species of animals, none of whom are accustomed to making "lifestyle choices."
The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual orientation is innate, "god-given."
One must believe God creates his children in an un-natural state to believe homosexuality is Un natural."
Yet many "people of Faith" have a view of homosexuality that is overwhelmingly contradicted by the inconvenient facts."
Even George Bush is admitting there is something to this Global Warming Stuff, though the know-nothings among the fundamentalists distrust all scientific evidence, both on Global Warming and Evolution.
Mormons *used* to believe that Blacks were unworthy of holding the priesthold. Believing that was clearly a matter of faith.
Since 1978 Nlacks are now worthy. Was our Faith in the prohibition justified before 1978?
George Bush had faith, bolstered by consulting his "higher father," that going into Iraq would bring greater stability to the middle east. So far at least he has been disastrously wrong.

Point is: things people believe are true
based on Faith (often to certainty)
often turn out NOT to be true.

One can NOT
"know"
that something is true
if it NOT in fact true.
My point is that people

Anony said: Visit fairlds.org and much of which you have posted has already been proven false.

Now that is funny. Super Funny.

There is a great big huge gigantic difference between something being 'proven false' and something being defended or debated. Fair does counter with a lot of apologies, but they havent proven much.

If you would like to provide an example of something they have proven that would be great fun for all of us.

Back on Topic - Are Fair and FARMS official sites now? I thought I saw them linked at lds.org.

Sister Mary Lisa:

I'm sad to hear your story of losing faith in the church. You wrote that you had a testimony of the church for 34 years. If you had such a strong testimony, why did you ask your Father in Heaven again, as if everything He has already revealed to you was not true? I'm worried for you that you may have had a testimony, possibly stronger than most, but because you wavered so strongly in your faith, you have doubted that which your Father in Heaven has shown unto you; almost as if you were looking for a sign, when He has already given one to you. The Book of Mormon warns of this.

I know that many people doubt, especially during difficult times (only our Savior and Father in Heaven is perfect) but I am reminded of passages in the book of Mormon which repeat over and over again which tells us that we must have faith and it is through these trials of our faith that we will grow our testimony stronger. If we succeed, our testimonies will become stronger. Many times, we do not get an immediate result from doing good or doing bad. It has never always worked this way. Our actions sometimes take time to see the repurcussions of them. Even with blessings - we may see them after many years of our trials. Look at the story of Job in the Bible. How many years did he suffer without wavering in his faith before his blessings were poured out upon him?

I am worried for you Sister Mary Lisa. Please remember what the Lord has said about those who have known Him and then denied Him see: scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/14#14 This may also include the truths He has revealed to you.

Please find faith again in your heart. Plant the seed one more time and try again. Remember, it is _after_ the trial of our faith when we receive a witness see: scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/6#6, _not_ before.

Believe again and after your trial I know you will receive your testimony.

Also, please do not harp on things of the past which are not entirely true. Visit fairlds.org and much of which you have posted has already been proven false.

Just look at the recent talks from this last conference. After viewing all those talks, how can you say that this Church isn't focused on being Christ-like? There is such a good message and meaning behind what the Prophet, Apostles and other leaders leave us with - how can this church be led by an evil being and yet deliver such a loving and kind message? It can't. All these Prophets have spent their entire lives dedicated to serving the Lord so that we can have the direction needed to be closer to Him.

You really truly have to ask yourself; With nothing to gain for himself, why would Joseph put himself and his family through that much pain, anguish and trauma for something that others claim did not exist? What man would do that? What man would suffer his dying children and his entire life to a cause much greater than his own if it were false?

It is my testimony to you and others here that this Church is true and that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration and that we have a living Prophet today, in this last dispensation of times and his name is Gordon B. Hinckley.

Heraclitus,

I am not sure what you intention were in the bottom of your post nor do I want to infer I know them so please clarify.

As to your points I have only these comments:

* Homosexuality is Un natural - It may be as natural as Lust, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride and a whole gamut of vices humans have that are against some people view of God.

*Global Warming is a Hoax - It must not be a hoax if there was ever an Ice Age. The causes of Global Warming may be a hoax?

*Blacks are unworthy to hold the Priesthood - Not sure on this one, but in Moses' time only descendants of Levi could hold the Priesthood, so were the rest unworthy also?

*We will bring stability to the Middle East by invading Iraq – No comment

John D the First ~

You wrote, "I think current changes in the church's comfort with its history reflect an increased ability to deal with the whole array of data; this is likely the result of a high number of competent Mormon scholars dedicated to an orthodox Latter Day Saint worldview.

As the church is more prepared to deal with all the data, and there is greater consensus among scholars, we may see more and more unsettling historical details in correlated materials."

I suspect the church is not necessarily more "prepared" to deal with all the data, rather they are being forced to deal with it since the advent of the new media options that we have at our fingertips which enable us to find things out for ourselves without the church's help in keeping it faith-promoting.

Washington Mom ~

Your testimony is very beautiful, and obviously from the heart. Just like mine was for 34 years in the church. I believed everything that was in the manuals and in the scriptures and in God's plan of happiness, like a good, faithful, Mormon woman should. Then suddenly one day, I found out my good friend had left the church for another one, and her obvious joy and happiness surprised me, as that was not what I had been taught happens to people who leave the true church willingly. I was taught that it was wickedness and sin and Satan that lead people out of the church.

So I looked into why people leave the church. Within a few weeks I had discovered many things that the church does not teach about Joseph Smith, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, DNA studies of the natives of the Americas, Joseph Smith giving the priesthood to a black man, 34 wives of Joseph Smith, poor treatment of gays, Brigham Young prophesying that Adam is in fact God the Father of Jesus Christ...and suddenly I was filled with a shock and horror such as I've never known before. The thought kept roaring through my brain, "WHAT IF IT ISN'T TRUE? WHAT IF IT ISN'T TRUE???"

So guess what I did, like a good, faithful, Mormon woman should? I prayed about it. With real intent, having faith in Christ, knowing that the truth of these things would be made known unto me. And you know what?

I got nuthin'.

Now, the natural instinct of a devout Mormon is to tell me that I wasn't sincere in my prayer to the Lord. You even wrote, "The Lord HAS answered my questions, though. He is a loving God, and He loves ALL of His children. He will answer those who sincerely seek answers." God knows and I know how very sincerely I sought answers. I have never been more sincere or serious about anything in my entire life as I was when I prayed for the truth to be made known unto me.

I never wanted something to be true more than I wanted the church to be true after all the evidence showed otherwise. Why would a loving Heavenly Father leave me hanging on something so very vital to my salvation and that of my children if he knew how much I needed to hear the church was true? This does not make sense. I actually believed that God hears and answers all our prayers if we are sincere. I discovered otherwise.

I did NOT leave the church to sin, or because I was offended by someone, or because it was easy to do. I left because there are too many things that the church doesn't teach you, things that lead one to the obvious conclusion that it really isn't the One True Church on Earth.

To answer your question why I'm still a member and why I don't just resign my membership if I don't believe it's true anymore: I would like to discuss the issues I have with my dad first. Unfortunately, he won't answer me when I tell him I'd like to discuss it, and that is sad. I believe that he's more concerned with what the church would expect him to think of me rather than with how a father should behave toward a daughter he loves.

With lotsa love backatcha,
Faithful SML

Hey Mayan,

I heard an interview on NPR where Bushman said that. I do think there are risks, as is noted by those who unlike me, feel betrayed when they learn about details they did not learn church.

I think current changes in the church's comfort with its history reflect an increased ability to deal with the whole array of data; this is likely the result of a high number of competent Mormon scholars dedicated to an orthodox Latter Day Saint worldview.

As the church is more prepared to deal with all the data, and there is greater consensus among scholars, we may see more and more unsettling historical details in correlated materials.

I think a lot of these subjects require a good deal of time and expertise, and I am not sure how well it would fit into official church teaching. A lot of church members aren't really interested in this stuff and don't see it as pertinent to their spiritual health.

When I think of ample time at church meetings being dedicated to "problems", it’s just not something I find very appealing. I don't care for my church meetings to turn into a kind of blind leading the blind, pseudo-intellectual discussion about the meaning of ambiguities.

The strength of Mormon worship is the experiential, not the analytical. We learn principles, we hear the experiences of each other and how they relate to the God’s plan for us, we share common spiritual feelings about our place in the Universe, our relationship to each other and God.

That being said, there needs to be a balancing act between the spiritual and the analytical. It seems the church is addressing it through encouraging "faithful" and thorough not-officially-endorsed scholarship to be available for church members interested in problems.

Thanks John D.

It is interesting that you mentioned Bushman. I too have thought of him during this discussion. I trust that his research is thorough though I don't particularly appreciate his comments in the preface of Rough Stone Rolling.

Did you know that Bushman, in a recent interview, warned of the risks in 'whitewashing' of Mormon history?

Sister Mary Lisa,

You ask how we decide what to teach. If you don't believe what is in the manuals, then you shouldn't be teaching.
People who come to the LDS church come because they want to be taught LDS doctrine, not anything that is speculative or contrary to accepted doctrine.

I have to ask, though, what is the point of remaining a member of a church you disagree with? All it takes is a simple letter to the church stating that you would like to remove your records from the church. So if you don't believe then why are you still a member?

There is no middle ground. You are either coming or going. If you want to go, then go. If you truly want to learn and grow and stay, then prayerfully seek the Lord and read the words of the prophets in the conference talks, read the book of Mormon, and search other accepted scripture. You will be guided to answers to all the questions you have about everything that the Lord knows is important to you. If you still have questions, you can ask your Bishop, Stake President, and so on up the line until you have your answers.

Otherwise, to know what to teach, prayerfully read the Book of Mormon every day. Draw closer to the the Holy Spirit. Read the scriptures that are listed in the lesson. Seek the guidance of the Spirit in what to teach. The reason for not delving into non-doctrinal issues in a class is because we all come to learn the doctrine of the kingdom.
Jesus didn't go into deep issues about the history of his people. He only taught what He was there to teach. He did bring up some issues that were hard for some to accept, too. He didn't give long explanations. He taught basic concepts which He illustrated with parables and by His example. His time of teaching was rather short. He has not left us without help for what He didn't have the time to say or explain.

Throughout the ages, prophets have had the task of leading the Lord's people by seeking the Lord's will and passing it on to the people when the Lord couldn't be there in person. When revelations were given to these prophets, they had the responsibility to lead the Lord's people accordingly. As people became ready, laws were explained. As problems arose, solutions were given through the teachings of prophets (before and after Christ). Current teachings that come from modern day revelation are used in developing the manuals that we have. Plain and simple. It's what the Lord has given us. We are to use it. If we have a problem with it, then perhaps we should look within ourselves to find our solution. As I said before, my membership in the church has not been without questions (or without challenges). The Lord HAS answered my questions, though. He is a loving God, and He loves ALL of His children. He will answer those who sincerely seek answers.

If you have questions about the history of the church that have shaken your testimony to the point that you have stopped believing, then it is your responsibility to resolve those issues. Pray to find out for yourself. Search, but do remember to give equal time, as a previous poster mentioned from the story of the mission president. If you are searching non-lds materials, you must also search lds materials as you ponder and pray about the things that trouble you.

With Love,
Faithful mom

Hi Mayan,

I guess I am talking more about Sunday School teachers, Bishops. You know, the ones who actually teach the stuff. On the local level the church is a lay organization, and of course they do have full time employees for more higher level functions.

Ambiguities...well there are some events and evidence where from a believers perspective the interpretation is not entirely clear.

Who deals with that stuff? As you know the church has Farms, BYU, the unincorperated Fair and media relations to deal with it. But most of the interpretations are up to debate and I don't think it is wise for the church to officially endorse any of them. That is part of what I meant by the sentance you quoted from me.

One interpretation for the "peepstone", as it is called, was made by Richard Bushman. He demonstrates how this stone was referred to as the Urim and Thumim by church leaders throughout history. So both the stone in the hat and the stones attatched to breastplate were Urim and Thumims (though, admittedly, were found in different places).

Besides, critics who charge Joseph Smith with plagarism admit that there must have been more to the process of translation than that recorded by David Whitmer and Martin Harris. I don't really see the big deal with the church assuming we don't have the whole story and providing a generic account that communicates the gist of what occured.

Like one poster here said, and I praphrase, "history is what is recorded, not necessarily what actually happened."

SML Addendum

I identified with your plight, SML, because it seemed to me that you were being portrayed as an evil, psychologically damaged crazy.

It has seemed to me that the Church often casts those who leave in these terms.

They say,
"oh, they are just angry. They have Toxic Personalities. They have psychological problems."

when the fact is, NO, they just find it impossible to reconcile Church teachings with what they find in history, and the real world.

It is OK to believe Mormon Doctrine.
It is OK NOT to believe Mormon Doctrine.

Neither makes one necessarily crazy.

I am sorry if you were made to feel cast as "crazy." You are perfectly sane, and a very good person.

Sister Mary Lisa

you are most welcome.

We were beginning to feel like you were being, pardon the word, "demonized," cast as an evil spirit, worthy of outer darkness,
instead of being what you plainly are,
a regular human
who is trying to figure out what to believe in this crazy world
and trying to figure out what the "ambiguities" of the Church's teachings and history mean.

You seem to us to be a very good, sincere, concerned human being.

luv
Bette and Henry

Betty and Henry James ~

Thank you for your take on my motives. I appreciate knowing that you were able to see my thoughts as they really were intended.

John D,

"I understand the reason for the division of labor. A lay organization is not prepared to deal with ambiguities. Who knows what kinds of wild and unhealthy interpretations might pop up if you leave it to the lay folk."

Whaaaaaaaaa? Say What? Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

First of all, this is NOT a lay organization. The LDS church is NOT a lay organization. The Mormon Church is NOT a lay organization.

Don't just take my word for it, go the official source on this one.

* The Church of Jesus Christ has no full-time professional clergy at the CONGREGATIONAL level. Even at the highest levels of the Church, leaders who are called as full-time apostles forsake their more remunerative professions in order to serve a lifetime calling as “special witnesses of Jesus Christ” and to oversee the Church worldwide. (emphasis added)

Sure, Bishops and Stake Presidents volunteer their time. But, beyond that, there are a lot of people on the payroll. Otterson is on the payroll, he should not be ambiguous where the facts are known.

The contradictions related to history are not a local issue. There is limited demand to discuss whether or not the volunteer Bishop in the Beaver, UT 56th ward is accurately describing the translation process that Joseph Smith used. That really isnt the issue here. Joseph Smith stuck some rocks in a hat and covered his face with the hat and spoke to a scribe. He never used a Urim and Thummim. He never used the plates while translating. Plates were never viewed by a scribe in the process. This is a case where the description of the events by the producers of South Park is significantly more accurate than the description of the events by 14 of the 15 apostles. Russell Nelson is the one exception here, he slipped up and described the hat and peepstone thing, once. Dont expect him to make that mistake again.

I would expect that the leaders who have the information and resources would share the true facts, rather than lean on their volunteers to process and pass on unnecessary ambiguities.

So John, I guess we see things a bit differently again. Yikes. Will we ever dance like the stars, in unison, on a topic?

The Lurker's Truth

Lurker: you are absolutely correct:
people on this site us the word "Know" in a way that has little or no relation to what the word actually means.

It makes people feel good to say
"I KNOW that the Church is True,"
or
"I KNOW that my redeemer liveth."
or
"I know that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount. It's in the book."

People have a psychological need for certainty, and our subconscious's would rather fool ourselves into thinking that we can
KNOW
when we really mean "we have faith."
Fine to have Faith, unless your faith is in things like
Homosexuality is Un natural
or
Global Warming is a Hoax
or
Blacks are unworthy to hold the Priesthood
or
We will bring stability to the Middle East by invading Iraq.

Then your faith can have some pretty disastrous consequences.

JD1-

Thank you for your comments. In choosing which parts of our history to teach I feel it is my responsibility to choose those events, etc... which build faith in my students. To do less than this would be a disappointment to myself and to those I serve.

But in that, it does not mean always teaching the "pretty" parts either, for there is much strength to be built in teaching the students those parts of our history where they can learn to stand in adversity.

I actually enjoy this very much as a teacher and feel they benefit probably most by these if done by the spirit. And yet I do so cautiously and very responsibly, for these are young testimonies still developing. I recognize the stewardship I have as teacher and not parent, therefore I tread lightly.

I am sorry for those here that feel that they were not told everything they felt they should have been.

I have often pondered upon the wisdom of the Lord in how things transpired at the time of the restoration of the church and the early Saints in the laying the foundation of this great church...

What kind of faith must have been required of them to have followed Joseph Smith and to endure the many hardships and persecutions that they so willingly did?

Today, we are asked to exercise faith in the validity of the history and the foundation which they built and in the prophet they too believed translated the same Book that we testify is the word of God and more! Are we required to exercise any less faith today that those early saints? No.

In fact, as I see it, we literally walk the same walk as our early pioneer brothers and sisters.

As a teacher to the youth of the church, I wish more parents would learn about the history of the church and teach it in the home so that we in the classrooms of the church could then support and strengthen them, instead of worrying that we might cross the line.

I was so very pleased with the focus and counsel of many of the leaders at our General Conference this past weekend. I am confident that the more our members become truly acquainted with the early saints and all the parts of our history, the stronger their testimonies and their ability to stand will become, contrary to what many who oppose us believe.

So, what possible reasons could the Lord have had in allowing so much fallability in laying the foundation of His true Church by these men?

President Gordon B. Hinckley has done so much to preserve the History of the Church and make sure that it is remembered.

Could it be that this watchman on the tower realizes where the strength of his people actually is? Is it not this prophet who has told his people that this church has nothing to be ashamed of!

I love Gordon B. Hinckley!

rtc

John D the First ~

First of all, thank you for not openly speculating on my intentions, especially if you feel they are evil. If I do read more into things than is warranted, I would say I am not alone in doing so here on this thread and others, and I will do my best to communicate my future comments openly and succinctly to avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication.

I respect the way in which you openly communicate your thoughts and enjoy seeing your comments when they appear.

You wrote, "Correct me if I am wrong you historians out there, but with a highly interpretive discipline like history, "different histories" are inevitable." I can appreciate this thought and truth, right up until the moment I remember what I was taught at church: that the LDS church is the one true church upon the earth, and prophets are not allowed by God to lead us astray. This to me means that prophets of God do not or can not lie to us. To me this also means they wouldn't lie to us about important doctrinal issues or important events from the "most correct book on Earth," which is how Joseph Smith described the Book of Mormon.

It felt like deception to me to read that Joseph Smith claimed to one and all that he had direct revelation from God while translating the papyri he claimed contained the words of Abraham (see Book of Abraham in the LDS scriptures), yet all experts on Egypt who have looked at the papyri verify that they are actually funerary texts, completely normal for Egyptians to have with their bodies at burial.

It also felt like deception to me to read that Joseph Smith testified that God told him the Hill Cumorah (the very hill in New York where he claimed he discovered the Gold Plates) was the exact same hill where the last great battle in the Book of Mormon took place, where millions of men in armor were killed. Knowing that not one piece of armor, nor millions of pieces of armor, have been found in New York at or near this Hill Cumorah area speaks volumes to me about the "truth" claimed by Joseph Smith.

I recognize these examples are off topic, but I felt it was vital to add where my thoughts originate from, even if they don't have anything to do with media "soundbites."

Different Readings, Different Histories

John: I applaud your policy of engaging SML and the rest of us directly when you think we are making unwarranted readings, and NOT assuming that the motives of the person are suspect.

Your history philosophy makes sense, though of course it is not the only choice. Since I am Jewish by adoption, I hold with the practice of having the text being discussed be subject to arguments from 10-15 points of view (that is 3-5 of us Jews), whether the text is History to be understood or a Story that has moral implications.

Churchs like the Mormon Church DO encourage obedience to authority. One may think that is a good thing.

If we Jews were asked to raise our right hands and Sustain the Authority of our General Authorities, we would say "you're kidding, right?"

You say "a lay organization is not prepared to deal with ambiguities." to me
ambiguities = life,
so we could say
"a lay organization is not prepared to deal with life."

Just a few things...

I say nothing of SML’s motives or intentions, but from my experience she often does read more into things than is warranted; more so than the average critic. I think I have mentioned this to her before.

About different histories:

Correct me if I am wrong you historians out there, but with a highly interpretive discipline like history, "different histories" are inevitable.

When one is teaching a course for a pastoral purpose, one must pick and choose which events one is to include. One cannot include everything, and it makes sense to choose to teach events which teach spiritual lessons.

As for the disillusionment many feel with the church because they did not learn of many historical details in primary and Sunday School; I can empathize, but I cannot identify. I felt motivated by my faith to learn these things for myself.

I am grateful for it.

I understand the reason for the division of labor. A lay organization is not prepared to deal with ambiguities. Who knows what kinds of wild and unhealthy interpretations might pop up if you leave it to the lay folk.

Lurker,

I appreciate your thoughts and "feel" them to be valid, as I have come to know through personal experience that one can only "know" by a combination of facts and feelings, which is the only way we can ever come to a true knowledge of anything!

To leave out either part or to be expected to not expect either part of the equation is not acceptable in our quest to know for ourselves.

But the true seeker of the knowledge of God, must begin with FAITH!

I really enjoy reading Mike O threads because there are some pretty smart thinkers on this list.

I see the word "know" used a lot in this thread. From what I gather, RTC "knows" by the feelings she has and SML "knows" by the things she read. As far as I can determine, nobody contributing to this thread was in NY, OH, MO, or IL in the 1800s, so all the knowledge of history in this period is 2nd, 3rd or even 10th hand.

Since RTC can't make us feel as she does, not to say others don't feel as she does and SML is basing her knowledge on the credibility of the records kept by dead scribes. I suggest when ever the word "know" is used we should, for the sake of the group give some reference, even if it is first hand knowledge.

This way, those of us interested in learning the "truth", if that is even possible from historic records, can benefit from the study of those on this group. I personally think (not know) that history is the way it was recorded and not the way it happened.

L

I am an active member and do live in Utah. I, just as Washington Mom, almost didn't read all of the comments posted becuase of their animosity towards the Church. One of the comments that caught my eye was that anything posted against the Church, the members consider it anti. Yet we can send missionaries all over the world and it's not anti. As a returned missionary, I would like to comment on what my purpose was. I never once set out to degrade other beliefs. I never talked bad about their leaders, founders, or doctrines. The whole purpose of my service was to uplift and edify others who were willing and wanting to listen to my message. There were many who didn't want to listen and with respect I left their home withouth argument or hatred. Also during my two years I took time to learn about other beliefs as much as I could, mainly Catholic and Protestant. And I've found that they are amazing churches and the members are just as amazing. They were wonderful people and very humble and willing to serve. So if somebody is criticizing the "Mormons" for being anti and sending missionaries seem to live their life by the saying "ignorance is bliss." Also, I had friends growing up who weren't "Mormons", believe it or not, and those frindships still carry on today! I know just as stated before that this is Christs Church restored to the earth in our day. We have the fulness of the Gospel which can bring eternal joy. Thank for your time.

RTC

We went back and read your post of 10:04 this AM where you cited SML for distorting your words,
and then read the post by SML of 3:24 am that you were reacting to.

We are pretty good readers, and it is not clear to us at all that SML was Willfully distorting your words or thoughts.

Maybe there is something between the two of you that we aren't aware of,
but to us New Englanders it didn't look malicious or distortive.

There certainly is a valid issue of what the Church wants its seminary teachers to teach (it legitimately wants certain messages conveyed) versus what others think is a more full and accurate version and think should be taught, and that is what we read SML's comments as addressing.

The fact that you recognize this conflict as well doesn't negate SML's wish for more congruence between church curriculum and the full facts.

We honestly, truthfully, semi-intelligently have never thought that SML was acting out of impure motives, or deliberately distorting your positions. We may be blind and naive, but remember that Henry is a respected literary critic.

Actually, I'll pose the same question to JD1 and Thankful and any other active members of the church who are reading this who may already know all about the issues that are disturbing to me in the history of the church:

Do you feel that teachers who know the differing historical versions do or do not actively choose which version they will teach their class?

RTC ~

What exactly do you think my "impure motives" are? I believe my motives are exactly what yours are. I seek to share my opinion on these various issues, on the different Otterson threads, just as you do. I do not feel I twist your words to mean something they don't.

You are a teacher within the church. Can you honestly tell me that you don't choose to sometimes teach a more faith-promoting history rather than teach the real events as you know they occurred? You already told us that you already know all about those things in the history of the church that led me to believe the church was dishonest to keep from me. So....my question again: Do you or do you not choose which historical version you will teach to your kids, knowing the different versions as well as you say?

ABOVE THREAD IS MINE
RTC

"Betty James Henry",

I am sorry, but you just cannot have it BOTH ways.

To say that sml has pure motives on one hand, and then to NOT admit she also is expert in twisting Thankful's story and mine by not acknowledging the way in which she responded to both by her calculated twisting of WORDS, is simply denial on your part.

This when it is right before your very eyes my friend.

You lose crediblity when you make this choice to do so. You are right on one thing though, TRUTH is in my DNA!
rtc

Dissension among the Sisters

My Sister Betty thinks she can patch things up between SML and RTC.

But it looks increasingly like the initials are incompatible.

Let me testify with as pure motives as I can muster that I have always found SML to be pure of heart, sincere, dedicated to the well-being of all of humanity,

and less likely to generalize about people who disagree with her positions than some others on this web site.

Here are some examples of unjustified generalizations, IMHO as America's greatest literary critic:

1. All active Mormons are automatons who don't know how to think for themselves.
2. All ex-Mormons who criticize the Church are angry, toxic, psychologically damaged misfits.

Again IMHO, SML is more charitable to her disputants, and less likely to make unwarrented and unrestrained generalizations,
than is her Sister RTC.

RTC will say she expected me to say this. I am alos a Prophet. It is in RTC's DNA.
Love you RTC. You too SML.

I encourage everyone to judge me for themselves. Even you, RTC. I must admit I'm glad you find me incredible.

:)

Sisters Mary Lisa and RTC

SML: thank you for your patient elaboration on your position.

RTC: Just MY interpretation, but I think you get in trouble when you talk about the motives of others as you do (IMPURE etc).

As SML says, since we know its you we make allowances,
but it IS a pretty basic insult to say or imply that someone has Impure Motives.

Sometimes it is true, and if you mean it, you should say it. You should just know that people will be offended, and for good reason.

SML makes what many of us believe is the basic point about the Church's approach to history: we feel like we have been lied to and misled, and that a trust has been broken.
"Why didn't you tell me that" is essentially what we are saying.

Thankful (lovely story) gives a good example of how one can be aware of the different versions of the first vision story and believe it consistent with Smith's telling the truth. I interpret the facts differently than she does, but at least we are both discussing the full facts rather than a partially true version.

Mathew 18:16

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

RTC SAID: ( in regards to the above reponse to my post that she completely twisted )

"here is a perfect example of those with NOT pure motives...

Just for the record, sml is NOT an active member of the lds church. She is not a teacher in the church. For her complete story, see the thread that was discussed on women in the church. Her motives there are clearly seen"

THANKFUL SAID:

I appreciate your response to Sister Mary Lisa. My ongoing experience with her posts in these threads continues to so often be "distort & twist" and to dialogue with one who chooses to coverse in that manner can never lead to any understanding -- only the other person working overtime to return thier thoughts to it's organic state. You've given a fine example to illustrate this and so I'm not going to do the same this time.

RTC SAYS: I personally have had absolutely not one credible experience with this woman. But you may judge for yourself.

Washington Mom
I appreciate your heartfelt post.

Regarding "toxicity":
this being a Web Site run by a secular newspaper, a couple of things happen that don't happen in Testimony Meeting.

a. People forcefully, often stridently, express their opinions pro and con on any issue.
b. In the East Coast Urban marketplace of ideas, the higher value is on truth rather than strict Miss Manners rules of politeness.

People outside of New York and Washington often characterize that as Toxicity.

Those of us who live on the East Coast consider it civilized discourse. Thank the Lord for cultural differences.

Of course, there ARE some wacko's on any public forum, just like there are in Washington DC.

But we grown ups can deal with them.

RTC ~

I may not be an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the truth is I am still a member. I have held numerous callings within that church, even recently, so I feel qualified to express my views as a teacher of others within the church.

Also, I am not evil, and if you were anybody but RTC, I may find offense in that statement. My motives are pure. I am not here to deceive anybody, merely to point out facts and to share my viewpoint since it's every bit as valid as yours. And for the record, my complete story is not included in the other Otterson thread on women in the church, as you implied. Anybody who wants to know my story has only to click on the link to my blog. But I digress.

I obviously pushed your buttons, and upset you, RTC. That was not my intention. I merely wanted to discuss the fact that we as teachers in the church, at least those of us who know the stories in the church's history which are not included in the "official" handbooks, lesson manuals, and General Conference talks, must decide which history to share with our class.

There ARE differing versions of the church's history, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves or has never heard anything but the whitewashed version the church fed them. This is what I wish were different. I wish the church were able to include all of it openly, instead of fearing the loss of faith that may happen if members learn the truth. For me, it wasn't so much the fact that there is dirty laundry in Joseph Smith's life (ALL churches have dirty laundry and skeletons in their histories) ~ it was the major shock that happened when I had before me two hugely differing stories, one of which was TRUE, and one of which was FAITH PROMOTING. That disturbed me greatly.

It was very hard for me to swallow all the years of being admonished within the Gospel to strive for honesty, integrity, and Christ-like perfection, only to find that the same standard didn't apply to the leaders of the church who hushed up so much of the true history. That is what led me out of full and faithful activity in the church.

RTC, you said you know about the other facts in the history of the church that we are not openly taught at church (you know, the non-faith-promoting facts), those we are able to find out through our own separate research. Can you honestly tell me that you are not choosing which history to teach your students as they learn in seminary class about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants? Even if you feel I distorted your meaning about "PARTS" of the history vs. THE history, aren't you constantly having to teach either one or the other?

Any teacher in the church who knows all of the history must choose whether or not to share what they know vs. the version they see in their lesson manuals.

Thank you, Washington Mom.

That was powerful! I hope you return and share your thoughts, opinions and beautiful testimony in the future AND invite others to do so.

I felt the spirit in your boldness and confidence:-)

rtc

RTC,

I appreciate your response to Sister Mary Lisa. My ongoing experience with her posts in these threads continues to so often be "distort & twist" and to dialogue with one who chooses to coverse in that manner can never lead to any understanding -- only the other person working overtime to return thier thoughts to it's organic state. You've given a fine example to illustrate this and so I'm not going to do the same this time.

Sister Mary Lisa,

I continue to hope you might converse consistently on a respectful level as I have seen you do a handful of times in this forum and have enjoyed such exchanges with you.

I almost didn't get to the bottom of the conversation because of the toxic remarks early on. I just wonder...
To those of you who have issue with the Lord's church- Do you even hear yourselves? Do you read what you write? Do you have so much time on your hands that your professional lives don't suffer from your intense study of a religion that you hate?
Why do you waste your time to attack God? In all your study, did it ever occur to you that true believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ have had spiritual experiences that go beyond anything you could ever dispute?
I for one have had questions over the years, and I prayed and received divine guidance to know WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is indeed totally led by Christ through prophets chosen by our Savior himself. I have had numerous experiences that only strengthen that testimony.

You are only injuring your own spirit by continuing on your paths of hatred and disbelief. Return to your homes and your families. Work your jobs. Contribute to society. Stop wasting your time trying to tear down the only true church on this earth.

I pray that someday you will feel the love of the Lord in your life and that you will allow others to worship as they please without criticism and argument.

As for the whole silly thing about the different versions of the first vision... Have you had any experience with the law? My two brothers work in different areas of law enforcement (attorney and corrections). It is said that you know someone is lying when the story is told exactly the same every time.
Another question to illustrate... Are any of you married? How many versions of your courtship story have been told? And do you not tell a little more or a little less to people according to the situation? And do you remember some things at one time and others at another? I know that mine certainly has many different versions. I know that I am human, just as Joseph was. I forget things, only to remember them later. At times I think I remember something one way, but then I look at notes I took on the subject, and I realize that somehow I was wrong. Whatever the case, I know that I am not a prophet, as Joseph was. He was human and surely would have made mistakes at times. However, I know for a fact that Joseph did see God the Father and Jesus Christ. I know that he would have written his final account with the help of the promptings of the Holy Spirit to help him to remember true and accurate details that were important to write. I know that Joseph was chosen to restore the Lord's church on the earth for these times.

The truth is here on the earth, and satan will tempt people to oppose it.

Who's on the Lord's side? Who?
The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored in its fulness in these last days through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Christ stands at the head of His Church, leading it forward through His living prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley. Christ will return to the earth to rule and reign, and we will each, one day, stand before Him to be judged on our thoughts, our deeds, and the desires of our hearts.

He is your Savior and your Redeemer and if you choose not to believe, you will have missed a chance for peace and happiness in this life and in the eternities. You will have spent a lifetime fighting against your own Savior, only to find yourself in darkness with Satan himself as your master when you die.

I hope you take the time to search your souls and think about who you are serving when you find fault with other religions. Jesus Christ is about love and about service, repentance and forgiveness.

This is my testimony, and I leave it with you in the name of Jesus Christ.

A faithful wife, mother, and disciple of Christ

Thankful-

I appreciate your comparison of your own experience in the recall and telling of your own personal experience. I think that for most individuals, without motive, if they were to honestly admit the capacity of their own memories they would concur.

But when one is on trial, such as a prophet of God, this is not to be I am afraid. For those of us who are willing to exercise faith to know for ourselves if he be a prophet, this is but a small thing. What a blessing for us.

The greatest knowledge comes to those that will begin as the scriptures promise through the faith of even a "mustard" seed?

Look what light comes to those who begin by desiring to know more about this young prophet who went into the grove of trees to know for himself. They too want to know for themselves and so to know IF Joseph really did see God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, they are invited to read The Book of Mormon...

So it is by the faith of a little mustard seed placed upon the story that a young boy named Joseph Smith went into a grove of trees to find out for himself which church was true... really the question most people ask, where is god, how can I find Him?

And it is by faith that they will if, they will but follow the spirit that will lead them to Him. It is the physical evidences that are undeniable that I am so greatful for that have come alongside of that exercise of faith that we begin with.

For me it was upon hearing of Joseph's experience in the grove of who he saw, reading the Book of Mormon and praying to know if it was true and this is how I came to know for myself that Joseph Smith was a truth prophet of God.

It was years later that I found out that there were various accounts. When I read them, it did not phase me in the least. I just thought what you did and felt that if I were to write about one account of the same experience in my life at different ages, how different I would have written it. No big deal. And also if I were going to write it for a history that would go out to the world... I would definately do it well. lol How funny people are? I love dear Joseph and how innocent we see him in so much of the history of the church. If he was so sly he would have done so much differently. But the fact that things were so sloppy is more evidence to me that they were and are completely innocent!

I am thankful to have learned how to excercise faith, for I love the evidences that ALWAYS follow.

This I now KNOW for a surety.

For those not quilty, here is a perfect example of those with NOT pure motives...

SML IN DISTORTING MY WORDS SAID:
Isn't it sad we as teachers at church have to choose between histories to teach? Shouldn't there be only one history in the first place?

I think it was the same thought you express about histories needing to fit "alongside...the doctrines and principles of the church" that caused the LDS church to initially change its history, as many events didn't match very well with righteous Gospel doctrine or principles, and in fact convey a much different message than the church would wish to have publicized.

THE TRUTH THAT RTC SPOKE:

For various reason, including teaching Church History and The Doctrine and Covenants in seminary this year, it is a literal juggling act in deciding which parts [WHICH PARTS OF THE HISTORY] of the history of the church to focus on, [FOCUS ON] as well as teach out of the scriptures the doctrines and principles while covering aLL of the material that is necessary.

So in deciding what parts [WHAT PARTS, NOT WHICH HISTORY!] of the history of the church to cover, I have tried to decide using the counsel from the last conference by asking myself the question... what part [AGAIN... WHAT PART OF OUR HISTORY!] of our history needs [NEEDS!!!!] to be defended, in making a decision on what I teach to my students?

But I must admit, even that has left me to question really what is the best history to teach alongside with the doctrines and principles of the church?

SML BLATANTLY TOOK LIBERTY IN ASSUMING A HUGE DISTORTION OF MY STATEMENT! NO QUESTION IN HER MOTIVES HERE.

AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY, AND IT IS FOR JUST THESE REASONS IN STRUGGLING IN MAKING THE DECISIONS. WHICH PARTS OF OUR HISTORY WILL EVIL INDIVIDUALS AND ANTI-GROUPS DISTORT AND THAT OUR YOUTH NEED TO KNOW THE REAL TRUTH AS WELL AS UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINES FULLY WHERE UPON THEY BASE THEIR TESTIMONY!

(Just for the record, sml is NOT an active member of the lds church. She is not a teacher in the church. For her complete story, see the thread that was discussed on women in the church. Her motives there are clearly seen)

(capitals for emphasis not shouting)

RTC
Not to shock you,
but I think your post of 11:26 expresses very nice sentiments.
And don't we girls get sentimental sometimes - seriously, it was sweet and smart.

On one of your educational points:
Yes, people don't understand something until they can explain it in their own words, rather than parroting back what their teacher has told them.

and i agree that both the documentary and the DVD will induce many members to put in their own words how they understand the history. and the future.

RTC ~

You wrote, "But I must admit, even that has left me to question really what is the best history to teach alongside with the doctrines and principles of the church?"

Isn't it sad we as teachers at church have to choose between histories to teach? Shouldn't there be only one history in the first place?

I think it was the same thought you express about histories needing to fit "alongside...the doctrines and principles of the church" that caused the LDS church to initially change its history, as many events didn't match very well with righteous Gospel doctrine or principles, and in fact convey a much different message than the church would wish to have publicized.

Thankful ~

While I can appreciate how important to you and your life the same gender attraction issue was and is, I would say that a visit to a mere boy, even the only published-as-true visit by GOD THE FATHER and HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST in these latter days certainly seems important enough to merit an accurate accounting by Joseph Smith. His differing versions of the tale were different in major ways, not minor ways.

It seems that this event, had it happened as portrayed by Joseph's Smith's testimony in the preface to the Book of Mormon, should have been preserved in Joseph Smith's memory by the very power of God, considering how important to mankind and our salvation such a visit really is.

Why would God allow Joseph to FORGET major details of what happened to him, or allow Joseph to CHANGE major details of what happened to him, or allow Joseph to SHARE wrong details of what happened to him in earlier accounts, if this event really happened and was so important to us all?

Mayan-

I don't believe it is the lesson material, but those giving the lessons. Until members themselves become more knowledgeable overall things will not change.

I think it was Elder Holland in the last training meeting for teaching (i will check if you like) who emphasized that a teacher cannot give what they do not have. I know this is absolutely true. Until members take hold of the history and doctrines of the church and claim full ownership, it will not be as you dream.

But, one positive that will most likely come from "The Mormons" as well as this anti-DVD that is being distributed is that many casual mormons will be compelled to find out what they are really all about:-)

Personally, I think it is quite healthy for the church and I expect it to do great things for the membership overall!

Just as my interaction with this site and each of you has done for me. So thank you all.
rtc

JD1-

Thank you for your great example in communication skills and persistence with our friends here. I will do my best to learn from you:-) You are noble.

You commented "Church leaders at the recent General Conference encouraged us to learn about church history. I don’t remember any particular instructions on what sources we should look at to follow this counsel."

Since I can only go from my personal notes taken and memory, I can only share that. But I was struck with a particular thought during conference in relation to counsel from the previous conference to defend the history of the church.

For various reason, including teaching Church History and The Doctrine and Covenants in seminary this year, it is a literal juggling act in deciding which parts of the history of the church to focus on, as well as teach out of the scriptures the doctrines and principles while covering aLL of the material that is necessary.

So in deciding what parts of the history of the church to cover, I have tried to decide using the counsel from the last conference by asking myself the question... what part of our history needs to be defended, in making a decision on what I teach to my students?

But I must admit, even that has left me to question really what is the best history to teach alongside with the doctrines and principles of the church?

I feel that a great example was given in conference at the Saturday afternoon session by Elder Marlin K. Jensen as far as how we can identify what sources for patterns that we might look to, in determining as least this use of the history of the church...

"If we pay close attention to the uses of the word remember in the Holy Scriptures, we will recognize that “remembering” in the way God intends, is a fundamental and saving principle of the gospel. This is so because prophetic admonitions to remember are almost always calls to action: to listen, to see, to obey, to do, to repent…

Realizing the vital role remembering is to play in our lives, what else ought we to remember? In response, assembled as we are today to remember and rededicate this historic Tabernacle, I suggest that the history of the Church of Jesus Christ deserves our remembrance…
Of all that has been collected, preserved, and written by historians over those many years, nothing exemplifies the importance and power of the Church's history more than Joseph Smith's simple and honest story of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appearing to him in what our history books now call the First Vision….

I believe Joseph Smith, and know he was a true prophet of God. Remembering his experience of the First Vision never fails to stir my soul to greater commitment and action…

Because of [President Hinckley's] teachings, we understand that remembering enables us to see God's hand in our past, just as prophecy and faith assures us of God's hand in our future…
Coming unto Christ and being perfected in Him is, I believe, the ultimate purpose of all remembering."

So just MAYBE there is a pattern that we could follow here in our choice of sources as we go about our study of where and what parts of the history of the church we teach, defend and ultimately remember and tell our children and grandchildren along the way!

From what I see here, it looks as though the watchmen on the tower are telling us just exactly where we need to begin.

Hi Henry James,

I'd like to speak to objections you raise of the LDS Church which you base upon Joseph Smith's 4 accounts of the First Vision.

If you recall the question/thread on gay clergy and marriage -- over there I shared some of my personal experience with same gender attraction. Interestingly, afterwards, my husband commented to me that there were a couple of aspects of that experience that I had never shared with him.

Initially I disagreed -- there is no one I've spoken to more about it than him -- but after some more thought, I came to believe he was right.

Looking back, I'm sure I told my bishop, my bestfriend, my husband and now this forum different aspects of my experience due to the different contexts and the degree to which I had processed that experience at the time. If they were to be somehow compared, I think the same objections of Smith would be made of me?

I have to say that remembering and piecing together things that happened when I was 14 +/- has always been a difficult task and this was no exception.

For example, I can't remember where I read or heard Elder Oaks talk on same gender attraction but I know it resonated with me and stuck in my mind. I also can't remember at what point in relation to that address, I listened to Ellen "come out of the closet" or exactly what she said but this stuck with me as well.

Pheadrus's question/assessment of myself being non-exclusive in my sexual orientation is one I took through repeated rigorous, thorough and ultimately emotionally exhausting attempts to remember everything and still, I can't resulutely speak either way difinitively on his assessment -- only in general terms.

Again, at times I've told different things based on what I remember and find pertinant at the time and to be honest, it has evolved even since I wrote about it in this forum as I've continued to think about and discuss it more.

Perhaps if I was scripted, others would be equally skeptical as that really isn't very natural. Also, I didn't speak of this experience to a soul until I was 21. Again that doesn't mean such expereinces didn't happen, in my case it was just that for the majority of my life I felt it was so deeply personal and that I would not be well recieved by others.

I think Smith's experience in these respects may be similarly comparable and I hope this illustrates that point.

I have personaly studied all of Smith's 4 written accounts. I find they do not undermine eachother but sometimes highlight different points at differnent times. Most often there is overlapping in the "stories". This supports my belief in Smith but at the end of the day, I know it is the Spirit that speaks to the soul of his divine prophetic call.

I hope this helps/clarifies more

gotta go -- it's family night :)

Wow.

Thanks John D. Truly appreciated.

Forgive me if I take some time to get back to you on this.

For starters. This sort of conversation makes me wonder what gospel doctrine and priesthood classes could be like if the correlated lessons were much looser.

hats off to John D. I look forward to the continuation.

The Mormons Documentary

JD in his reasoned post mentions the upcoming PBS show The Mormons.

The quote below is from the PBS website preview of the show:

"We declare without equivocation that God the father and his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy, Joseph Smith," says Gordon Hinckley, LDS president. "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision."
http://www.pbs.org/previews/themormons/

I wrote above about the problems with that vision - multiple accounts that conflict on important details: we all know the facts by now.

JD1 and others: it is interesting how some of us persist in belief in the Church in the face of these "problems", and some consider them fatal.
But we have gone over that.

It seems to me from reading the preview that the show will be fair in the good old PBS way: not anti-mormon, not ignoring the critics of the supernatural beliefs, the gay and women's issues, etc.

JD1, will be interested in how Phaedrus, DV, and Mayan, who have been active more recently than I (heck, i've been dead for 100 years), view the level of current Church openness after your lucid picture of the openness you see.

from the outsider here, Nielson did just get excommunicated, and others have been in the last few years. Isn't that an impediment to Open Openness?

John D:

Enjoyed the post John, very intetersting. A couple of questions and then I will be away for a few days (the Masters is calling me).

1. What is the story behind Quinn's firing at BYU, in light of the loosening on scholarship you reference?

2. What do you see as primarily repsonsible for this new turn in the church's stance on open scholarship?

My best,

P.

Hi Mayan,

I had a little extra time and thought I would touch on this subject again. It seems to be something you are interested in and I’d like to let you know a little more why I think differently than you do about the current state of affairs in the church.

M.E. says:

“You said, "The church does not discourage us from reading any publication and it actually encourages us to learn about church history."
Again, this is just not true.”

A striking thing about this conversation is that I do often get the impression that we were raised in different churches. I guess different people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions.

There are a few things I know concerning the relationship between the church and its history:

1). The church does not generally put material that might reflect poorly on its truth claims and leadership in correlated material to be used in pastoral activities of the church.

2). During the 1980s there was a conflict between church membership and Mormon historians about what constituted proper, “faithful” Mormon history. From what I can tell, the quotes supporting the "church-coverup" come from that time period. Their interpretations can be many, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume they mean what you say they mean.

Number one has been discussed, and you know how I feel about it, and it even sounds like we are on the same page.

As for number two, I think you underestimate how much things have changed since the 80s. The book “Adventures of a Church Historian” documents the Church Leaders/Historian conflict of the 1980s and how things have panned out since then.

The conclusion of the book, the historians have won! The books being produced by the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute of Church History are evidence of this.

When you have a General Authority participating in a work on the Mountain Meadow Massacre that achieves sufficient scholarly rigor to be published by Oxford University Press, you have to admit things have changed.

When you have full cooperation by church leadership for a PBS documentary, when you have a public forum where Mayan Elephant can say whatever he wants to the head spokesman of the church (and members are encouraged to come and read!), when a book detailing Joseph’s marriage practices and early participation in treasure hunting features prominently in Deseret Book (and the author is quoted in General Conference!), when a General Authority quotes Todd Compton in a response to Under the Banner of Heaven, you have to admit, things have changed!

None of the quotes given in this forum tell members of the church what to read and what not to read. I have yet to hear counsel from church leadership on what to read and what not to read. Elder Ballard in a talk given to BYU students in the 1990s tells a story about a missionary who nearly lost his testimony reading “anti-Mormon” literature. Here I quote:

"When I was a mission president, a fine elder came to me. I asked, “How can I help you?”
“President,” he said, “I think I’m losing my testimony.”

I asked him how that could be possible.

“For the first time I have read some anti-Mormon literature,” he said. “I have some questions, and nobody will answer them for me. I am confused, and I think I am losing my testimony.”

I asked him what his questions were, and he told me. They were the standard anti-Church issues, but I wanted a little time to gather materials so I could provide meaningful answers. So we set up an appointment ten days later, at which time I told him I would answer every one of his questions. As he started to leave, I stopped him. “Elder, you’ve asked me several questions here today,” I said. “Now I have one for you.”
“Yes, President?”

“How long has it been since you’ve read from the Book of Mormon?” I asked.

His eyes dropped. He looked at the floor for a while. Then he looked at me. “It’s been a long time, President,” he confessed.

“All right,” I said. “You have given me my assignment. It’s only fair that I give you yours. I want you to promise me that you will read in the Book of Mormon for at least one hour every day between now and our next appointment.” He agreed that he would do that.

Ten days later he returned to my office, and I was ready. I pulled out my papers to start answering his questions. But he stopped me.
“President,” he said, “that isn’t going to be necessary.” Then he explained, “I know that the Book of Mormon is true. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.”

“Well, that’s great,” I said. “But you’re going to get answers to your questions anyway. I worked a long time on this, so you just sit there and listen.”

And so I answered all of those questions, and then asked, “Elder, what have you learned from this?” And he said, *“Give the Lord equal time.”*”

End quote

The point? Do not neglect your spiritual duties; not, “Don’t read that anti-Mormon literature.”

He gave good counsel that I try to follow it. Keep the spirit, read the scriptures, say your prayers; but you do not need to censor yourself.

If you read the rest of this talk, he does mention someone else who lost their way, but this time because of pornography. He DOES advocate that we censor ourselves from pornography, but never says we need to censor ourselves from Anti-Mormon literature.

Church leaders at the recent General Conference encouraged us to learn about church history. I don’t remember any particular instructions on what sources we should look at to follow this counsel.

What keeps the member from thinking they should read books written by the Smith Institute at BYU? Nothing. And these works do meet scholarly standards of rigor, fact and context. (At least according to University of Illinois Press).

As for my personal experience, I do not feel I betray my covenants or my church when I read anything (unless it’s just obscene). As I approach my God with questions about given topics, they are answered, and ultimately, I feel closer to Him.

All the Best Mayan.

JD1

Betty,

Ooooh NooOoOoOoo, Thank YoOou:-) lololol!
rtc

Duh! Because this particular Religion is true. This is the ONLY Religion that Jesus owns. Duh! Where have you been? How could you possibly not know this by now?

Duh! The media reduces everything to soundbites. Why should religion get special treatment?

RTC
Thank you.
Now I think I understand your irony.

Phaedrus-

Here! Here! I do so like your response to our Dear Aunt Betty, as I like to think the same of myself. I believe that victimization is a choice that I believe to be quite unattractive.

I believe that the power of not becoming a victim comes in preferring to speak and act in the strength of one's personal convictions.

But in so doing I realize that many may have differing opinions than mine and that those that do choose to oppose me are not necessarily in the act of victimizing.

Thus, the earlier suggestion of my generalized thinking that "all" having impure motives would not be fair, if not me, would be ridiculous.

And for that reason I used the words "I often feel", which of course is not an abosolute truth or anything close to it.

And thus we see what can be done with a little "sound-bite" taken completely out of context?
rtc

Cornelius,

I am not aware of any moderator posts telling me, or anyone else, to 'grow up.' Please provide at least one reference, I would love to see that actually.

I do know of a post by Caryle Murphy, the On Faith Producer, where she re-posted the guidelines for posting, and did so within the comments to Otterson. It was not directed at anyone specifically as far as I know. if she did call me out please point that out and I will reach out to her and fix that up right away. I think all sides were a little bit amped in that conversation.

Innuendo about conspiracies? Hmmmmm. That one stumped me a bit. I suppose there is innuendo in my arguments, though I dont know that it is always intentional. I am more of a stream of conscience arguer. I am certainly not innocent if innuendo is the charge, maybe. Innuendo is not a bad thing, it simply means there is deeper or multiple meaning. I do not, however, admit to making a conspiracy charge. I enjoy countering with facts and examples. I think there is a cover-up of some facts about Church History. I also think much of the history has been simplified in its presentation. I dont know that you can consider that a conspiracy charge. If anything, I would say its a Capitalism Charge. Religion is the LDS Church's widget. The leaders are doing what they think is best for their Church, themselves and their 'customer.' Aint nothin wrong with that. There also aint nothin wrong with a little scrutiny regarding the product, and its creators.

Regarding the innuendo. I think that the perception that I use innuendo may be a simple confusion of what I said and how readers react. If I were to say that many Mormon leaders believe a resurrected Jesus will return to Jackson County and then his followers will run the government, there is no innuendo in that. None. Rather, on a thread like this, i may say it to point out that one cannot conveniently find that information on an official source. Why that information is not on the website, thats a question for Otterson. Why Otterson would suggest that someone who writes that in an article is toxic, is also a question for him. I obviously disagree with him as to the toxicity of these topics. He and I probably very much agree on the toxicity of insults and judgments, though, thats another charge to which I would most likely have to plead guilty.

After reading all of the comments, and not being associated with any particular religion, but have attended many churches, have friends who are muslim, aetheist, catholic, mormon, born again christian, etc..my thoughts are this: I think each person is entitled to their thoughts and beliefs without any attack being put upon them. No one has all the answers, and it seems like the same old questions and comments go on and on, without anyone walking away from this entire blog a winner, if anyone is trying to be a winner here. I don't think there are any winners to any of these comments, just losers. The whole world stands to lose if all we do is point fingers and make fun of someone else's beliefs and thoughts, just for having expressed them. Sounds a lot like the reason for all the wars...someone says something or thinks something, someone else doesn't agree and perhaps even wants to fight it out, verbally, physically, whatever.

My long drawn out thought is this; whether these mormons, catholics, agnostics, muslims, buddhists, born agains are full of it, what difference does it make. Basically, let them all choose for themselves, as we as parents teach our children, or hopefully we do, to learn as much as they can and make choices for their lives based on what they learn and what makes sense to them, not to me, but to them. It's my children's life, not mine, not my neighbors. As for saving people from misinformation, I think perhaps we should have begun that before we all came out of our mother's womb, or who knows, maybe that isn't real either, maybe the doctors and our mother's have been lying to us...wait, sorry I know the truth about that one, I've been in that situation and I can tell you I know how that works...of course, maybe the guys may not really believe how a child is really born, if they didn't have the opportunity of seeing it with their own eyes....sorry for making fun...don't really mean to, it's just that it seems ridiculous to contend on issues that should be each person's own decision....live and let live...I think that is true wisdom. In the meantime, I will not write anymore to this blog, but feel that there are much better ways of spending the remaining time on this earth.

My very best to you all, and I sincerely mean that. May you all find happiness each in your own way and encourage all of our fellow beings in the world to follow their own "star".

Henry James,

I think you may have confused something here. You said, "Who try to, shall I say, get beyond the Sound Bite (the Church is True) that Otterson is so opposed to here in this column."

If I understand the essay appropriately, Otterson does not believe that theology can be reduced to a sound bite, but, "[he] object[s] less to the request for a sound bite than [he] do[es] to those reporters who lazily compile their stories from unofficial Internet sites without ever coming to the source." In this case, the source is www.lds.org. I take his comment to mean that the sound bite, when taken from the source, is better than information from unofficial sources.

I think we all object to anything that is done 'lazily' when it affects us personally. That is not unique to journalism. The same can be said for landscapers, doctors, lawyers and opening day pitchers. Unfortunately, by inserting the word 'lazily', it diminishes the message and leaves it wide open to interpretation. Does he object to reporters that 'meticulously' compile their stories from unofficial Internet sites? We don't really know. I am assuming he does not like any report that is not from the source.

His other objection, the lack of editing and censorship..... uh.... i mean, self-restraint, was addressed by other posts.

Betty, thanks for the spirited defense!

I have been called many things, and had any number of nefarious motives assigned to me, and almost none of them bother me in the least. However, if there is one thing that I absolutely detest, it is when someone asserts that I do or say something out of a sense of "victimization."

So, just for the record, I have never been victimized by anything or anyone in my life, and certainly not Mormons or Mormonism. And, as I have never been victimized, and choose not to take offense at the other stuff, I am not angry. Life is way too short, and we only get one (sorry, couldn't resist) to get angry over the kinds of discussions taking place on these threads.

... and unfortunately as expected, those whose motives I often feel may not be pure continue to point the finger at each other and ultimately self-convict?

Now, what was the topic?

RTC
When you say
that you try to remain calm
" amidst what I often feel are not pure motives."

Any reader of the English Language will interpret that to mean that

You believe that YOU have pure motives

and that Others (presumably those who disagree with you)

do NOT have pure motives.

When one represents one's own motives as more pure than others, we call that "self-righteousness."

If you did NOT mean that you think your motives are purer than those of others,

you phrased your sentiment very sloppily,
and politeness would dictate that you apologize to Huff and Phaedrus for giving the wrong impression.

Betty James (Henry)

Please note that I was responding to what Cornelius in a previous post had said:

But as you commented, "things will not be more productive until both sides can let go of the victim card and start discussing more things dispassionately, etc..."

Why jump to such a conclusion, as I was simply repeating back to Cornelius his own words that I did not completely agree with, in hopes that he might recognize that we all stand accused at certain times in it's use, while even convicting himself in the very moment!

Unfortunately, we give him yet another petty example of his observation.

I am not suprised that you might see me as potentially self-righteous, when simply being honest. It is to be expected.
rtc

The media needs to do a thorough review on the founders of the major religions to bring readers up to date on the latest textural and archeological findings.

For example:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus the illiterate peasant/carpenter from Nazareth has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah to a mythical character. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents has concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al are also Christian-based religions that suffer from the hallucinations/embellishments of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: Its Doctrines and Its Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: Many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders.

The Foundational Story of the Mormon Church

For you readers who want to know more about the Mormon Church,
and
As one specific example for you LDS who want a specific, objective example of what those of us with questions about Church History are talking about:

==Perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT belief of the Mormon Church is this: God and Jesus appeared in a Vision to Joseph Smith in 1820 in Palmyra NY
AND
told him to Establish the One True Church, that all others were NOT true (eg the Catholic Church).

PROBLEM:

Smith himself gave a number of different versions of this Vision, differing in basic details
(how old he was, WHO appeared to him, how many personages, where he was).
The OFFICIAL church version which the kids are taught is the Version Smith gave in 1838, 18 years after (one of the ) supposed date.

It would seem reasonable for an independent observor to ask:
Which of these Versions are True? or indeed,
Are any of them True?

If this record were brought up in a court of law, odds are that Smith would be convicted of perjury.

Again, these are not Trivial Details.

If Smith fabricated his story,
the Entire Rationale for joining the Church -
That it is the ONE TRUE CHURCH and the only way to the highest salvation -
falls apart.

Cornelius: part of what critics like Huff object to is that the Church ex-communicates Mormon historians who write about these events in a full and questioning way. Who try to, shall I say, get beyond the Sound Bite (the Church is True) that Otterson is so opposed to here in this column.

My Friend RTC

I realize it is hard not to be defensive when people criticise your church,

however, attempting some dispassion myself:

you write:
"things will not be more productive until both sides can let go of the victim card"

Huff, Mayan, and Phaedrus, as my brother noted
have made arguments that are
Factual
Logical
Thorough (not Sound Bites, as your usage of "Victim Card" is here).

To imply the opposite about your disputants is just plain to misrepresent.

Huff feels righteous anger at being deceived by those he trusted. Would you criticise Jesus for being Angry when he threw the money changers out of the temple.

Secondly, you say that you try to remain calm
" amidst what I often feel are not pure motives."

I read Phaedrus and mayan and Huff to have motives that are as pure as any fighters for the Good and True that I have encountered.

They just disagree with you.

You risk a self-righteous stance by making such statements.

John D - For the 100th Time:
Thank you for your wisdom and goodheartedness.

You and I disagree in our conclusions about Mormonism, but you are always thoughtful, logical, thorough, and self-critical,

and all of us
active or ex-lds
greatly appreciate that.

As you indicate, given that you believe one thing and I (for example) believe another, it is interesting for each of us came to our belief, and how we sustain it.

Rigorous arguments about logic and evidence are not only fair game in this process, they are what makes it interesting for many of us, including you, I suspect.

cornelius writes to Mayan:

"Saying that your point of view is different does nothing to diminish the fact that you collectively are angry. I think it clouds your judgement, to say the least."

How about pointing to a apecific statement that constitutes "clouded judgment" in your view? Then we can talk. Until then, you are decrying polemics, polemically.

"It feels as if 1% of the commenters here have any intention of contributing anything toward an understanding of the faith of others."

It does seem like you are placing virtually all of us outside of this 1%. Not to be defensive, but I am a little sensitive about having my efforts here, however flawed, pooh poohed by other LDS. I know you probably did not mean to convey this.

I personally would like this forum to be a place for a genuine inter-religious dialogue, rather than a polemic back and forth between skeptics and believers. But it is what it is. We can either let skeptics have it all to themselves or we can do our best to provide a believer’s perspective.

I don't always agree with other LDS posting here, but I am glad they are here. And I highly respect their willingness to put time and energy into a rocky and difficult conversation.

Cornelius -

Do tell us how you really feel. lol Just a bit of humor... sorry I could not help myself. Though I do completely understand your frustration and therefore happily accept your apology!

It is very apparent that you have been hanging around for quite sometime as you have assessed things quite well in my opinion. But as you commented, things will not be more productive until both sides can let go of the victim card and start discussing more things dispassionately, etc...

Guilty as charged, although I try as best as possible to remain calm amidst what I often feel are not pure motives.

I hope that you will continue to post as we need those with strong passion and opinion, but who also realize that the goal is to actually communicate.

I am an optimist and am still in hopes of this thread eventually becoming something wonderful and productive for those who want to learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and our thoughts regarding that which Otterson comments on representing the lds church.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that there will always be those with oppositional opinions, and that is fine, but to dialogue with those for reasons of understanding and learning about each other would be so very refreshing. At least for myself, something I would look forward to and find honestly uplifting.

But for now, it is going to take more positive individuals to hang in and not be overcome by the negativity that attempts to prevail:-)
rtc

ME,
Saying that your point of view is different does nothing to diminish the fact that you collectively are angry. I think it clouds your judgement, to say the least. You come up frequently with innuendo about conspiracies that frankly are often not subjected to the logic you feel you so proudly display toward the Mormon faith of your youth.
Clearly in your posting pattern, you have a list of grievances that you either would like an official response to or would like to expose to the World.

"IIf the media was NOT restricted to soundbites, and people would actually listen to a 5-minute report about the True History of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Founder

rather than the fictions (which I know something about) and distortions and cover ups that the Mormon church presents about Smith's legend,

the Church would not be too happy and would long for the good old days of soundbites"

This took all of 3 responses. It is in fact your main agenda encapsulated. As a group, you guys have very loudly proclaimed there is something sinister in regards to the LDS church and information. They don't want it out. It's bad, it's very, very bad. They are losing the best and brightest. Look at us, it's us. Come on, could you be more self-serving. Do you really believe that intelligent people looking objectively at the sources can't maintain a faith in the Church? That strikes me a prejudiced, caused by your own anger and bitterness from your simply different point of view. It is also bound to cause reactionary responses, with an elevation in vitriol. Eventually, the anger becomes palpable between the two sides. Then of course, communication breaks down. Their is no hope of addressing your grievances and as a foreseeable consequence of your own actions, your grievances are not addressed. Never mind that the grievances are not actually the point of the discussion.

This has led on at least one occasion for the moderator of the site to tell you to grow up. This doesn't sound like something the bastion of reason with a simply different point of view would have sent their way.

believe I have seen some of your group proclaim that they "couldn't believe" the Church would allow this in an open forum. They gleefully reported that they would have it shut down in short order. So, change the subject you do, routinely and in short order.

As much as I would love to engage in another verbal sparring session, it is late, and I have to go to bed. Thanks for your response. I think I have a handle on your point of view. You guys can feel free to point out the myriad ways in which I am wrong. Maybe even 2 or 3 of you can congratulate each other on how restrained and well reasoned your responses are.

I apologize for the sarcasm, but like I said, anger breeds more anger. These conversations are will not be more productive until both sides can let go of the victim card and start discussing things more dispassionately, in a more friendly, acknowledging, and less confrontational manner.

Thanks Cornelius. That was much clearer and less cryptic. Sounds like you too are lamenting and longing for the good ol' days when your church controlled the information and that which was not useful, was not discussed or disseminated. Thanks for the clarification.

I dont recall anyone mocking anyone else for believing in god. please cite the cases where that took place. I also dont recall anyone being mocked simply for believing in a prophet. Sure, there are several examples where logic, common sense and historical accuracy are dismissed in deference to the church leaders. That certainly gets called out, but please point out where anyone is mocked or ridiculed for their faith in a prophet. Thanks, mate.

Allow me to call you out just a wee bit on where you are wrong. There are many on here that were previously as devout in the mormon faith as you, perhaps even more devout. those folks have changed a bit. perhaps in their devotion they learned a lot of unfun stuff. or, perhaps in their devotion they were exposed to unfriendly circumstances. this doesnt mean they hate you or anyone else, only that their point of view is different, thats all.

the topic at hand is the media, using the official sources, soundbites, bias, etc.

as far as i can tell, you really havent said much on those topics other than, otterson is wise and some other folks are toxic.

am i understanding you correctly now?

Thanks Henry,

I like your stuff. You sound more like an 'organic cucumber' than a 'pickle.'

-Mayan Elephant

(that sound you just heard, that was otterson fainting and falling on his desk. just when he thought his job could was getting easier, his boss went and created the 'Pickle Parable.' poor otterson.)

Here is what I have to say of relevance. Otterson is right. Religious discussions in our society always break down into a bunch of name calling. What, you believe in God? Let me call you names and make fun of your intelligences while bringing forth a series of 3 second analogies that "prove" my point. Haha, I'm so smart and you are not.

You believe in the Ressurection of some Jewish cult leader 200 years ago, That's not reasonable. What kind of tripe is that. Here, let me educate you on the REAL story and completely devalue any religious experience or insights you may have ever had. HaHa.
Belief in a prophet, whoa, that is just dangerous. Its evil, it couldn't cause any kind of insight to the universe for you. You are just a fool. Let me educate you why.

Then of course these responses then lead to defensiveness, counterattacks and a complete breakdown of any kind of meaningful communication with the goal of building an understanding of each other. It feels as if 1% of the commenters here have any intention of contributing anything toward an understanding of the faith of others.

This is a toxic milieu, and nowhere moreso than on the blogs. You guys want dialogue with Otterson, well you have it. He takes every opportunity to point you our for what you are, trolls. You take evry available opportunity for decry the evils of the Mormon church and steer every conversation where you want it, never discussing the topic at hand. Sadly, I understand why you do it. Anger is a powerful obstacle to conversation and communication. I guess it may help create more anger though. Chalk one up for bitterness. Woo hoo. Lets all get angry. Otterson is very astute when he decries this.

" Sadly, this trait does not exclude people of religious faith. The toxins include anger, abuse, insults, name-calling and invective that are common elements in the “New Media” (defined as blogs, talk radio, talk TV and Internet sites).

The editorial filters and self-restraint that formerly curbed excesses in the “Old Media” of past years don’t exist in much of this New Media world – its advocates even laud that fact. And so the Old Media, challenged by falling revenues and a loss of monopoly on news dissemination, have responded by aping these very trends.

"Civility and inclusiveness, consensus and reasonableness are – like depth, substance and context – becoming casualties of a mass media trend. Our society will be the worse for it if the trend isn’t checked."

These are the words of a wise man.

Quite Amusing, Ms. Rtc

You quote Ms Whitney's critique
""I hope that most of the stereotypes — ideally, all of them — will be blown away," she told the Deseret Morning News on Saturday. "Because so many of them are just based on ignorance. Ignorance about Mormon history, ignorance about Mormon theology. Ignorance."

as if it bolsters your position in relation to
Mr Huffenhardt,
Phaedrus
the Mayan Pachyderm

who have all shown far more extensive understanding and acquaintance with Mormon doctrine, history, and actual practice than you yourself have.

We all take comfort in our self-delusions, I suppose.

Those three gentlemen have certainly shown themelves, in the opinion of this humble literary critic, to be considerably more incisive in their arguments than their detractors have.

"Brightest"?

Perhaps we can submit the competition to an intellectual American Idol panel for a verdict.

Cornelius-

I do not know if this is the first time you have visited one of Otterson's threads?

If it is, I would suggest you take a look at some of the others before becoming too harsh on those who are members. Most of what we are left to do is defend the negative accusations which are posted by those who oppose the lds church.

How nice it would be to stay on topic? But might I suggest that instead of judging the whole that you might give your thoughts on the topic? You know... set the example by deed.

Welcome aboard:-) Look forward to what you have to say of relevance?

Cornelius,

What is your point?

Wow,
This thread is as good as the sensationalistic media coverage decried in the post. Congrats, its replete with naive conspiracy theories and oversimplifications. You guys are a very talented and special group. I find your hypocrisy and obtuseness simply remarkable. Way to sieze that podium. We don't really want to talk about media coverage of religion. We want a tabloid expose.

I am sorry, but IF the "best and the brightest" are indicative of those who claim past membership or even some who claim current membership and yet do not support that which they claim, then for now it is better that they dismiss themselves for the good of the whole... let it be in droves!

I do believe Bruce R. McConkie was so humble as to address a CES conference very recent following the announcement on the priesthood whereby he did acknowledge that greater light and understanding had been revealed on that subject.

As for myself, I do not believe that we are dealing with a cover-up in which you suggest, but rather a CHOICE to NOT answer to those that the church does not feel obligated to answer to because they demand it.

From what I have experienced in these cases are, the results of which are to take a small piece of information and twist it for the purpose of insult and injury and not to find out truth.

Which is precisely WHY, I feel possibly could be one of the reasons they were so very willing to GIVE complete ACCESS to a very CREDIBLE person such as Helen Whitney for such an extensive LOOK into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

I have been taking time today to watch each segment of the DVD "Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ" that was distributed by an anti-mormon evangelical christian organization.

Of course "the mormons" would say that we would not recognize our own faith? I wanted to find out for myself...

This turns out to be one endless "sound-bite" one after the other, on and on...

What they have done is put an ax to what we do believe, as well as completely distort that which they have first hacked. It is exactly what they set out to do and that is to be destructive and lie. Simply a mass of confusion, yet quite well orchestrated?

If there is so much credibility in this so called... COVER-UP THEORY, then WHY DO THEY NOT JUST UN-COVER IT FOR ALL TO SEE?

For I still have NOT seen anything, including that which has been posted on BoA, or the trials, or JS accounts, etc... that cannot, with true intent be settled very easily. But alas, this is not the place nor the attitude to accomplish such.

As I posted yesterday by Helen Whitney...

Helen Whitney is the Award Winning film maker who did the documentary "The Mormons". Apparently she spent three years on the project. She is quoted just this morning in the Deseret Morning News...

"I hope that most of the stereotypes — ideally, all of them — will be blown away," she told the Deseret Morning News on Saturday. "Because so many of them are just based on ignorance. Ignorance about Mormon history, ignorance about Mormon theology. Ignorance."

This is a woman that I do not believe is about to put her VERY REPUTABLE career on the line for the mormon church and lie.

Again it is my understanding that she had access to ALL, even the secret "vault" as you suggest. (which, by the way is for protection, from the natural elements, of old artifacts and documents and not to keep hidden from the membership as is suggested)

I am not implying that we shall come across as lilly white, but what I am saying is that I do not believe that the lds church is some conspiracy that awaits the great disclosure that is suggested.

Why oh Why my friends are you all so bent on this revelation, when the true revelations that have been revealed are so magnificent? I am sorry that you choose to focus of the smoke screen that is placed before your eyes that you might not truly see...

It is interesting that the perks of the church would be seen as participation in Relief Society, or other social interaction, etc... I really can't speak for other members, but for me the perks are the doctrinal knowledge and the ordinances of the temple that have come to me because of the knowledge and testimony I have received through the revelations of Joseph Smith.

Honestly, you could take all the excess stuff away and I would probably be much happier as often I feel like the other is actually the part of the covenant wherein we must bear one anothers burdens and which I am not so wonderful, but realize I need in order to become...

But you probably all figured out already that I am quite the independent bugger? lol
rtc

RTC - I agree the Mormons have done and do many good things and not all Mormons are bad. I do believe the Church encourages its members to ignore or help cover up allegations it conveniently terms as lies of the anti-Mormons. If you believe the Church has nothing to be ashamed of, lets see an offical denial or your personal denial of Mormons electroshocking gays and the belief that people of color were the fence sitters in the pre-existance and therefore were cursed with darker skin. There is a head in the sand mentality when these allegations are brought up including blocking the questioners of FAIR, Why can't the Church simply deny these if they are not true?

RTC

I can well understand how you and many others can find many satisfactions in the Church. The community of worshippers, the help that Relief Society and other members give each other, the common cultural heritage, are all attractive elements.

I can also see how a person could well want to stay an active member while realizing that there are many questionable aspects to the foundational stories: Smith's vision, his revelations, the BoA, the contradictions to Book of Mormon zoology and archeology (my father stayed a lifelong member though he thought the BoM was a bunch of bunk).

I also know that many LDS accept the explanations of FAIR etc for the "problems" with the history.

If I were in a "sympathizing with the problems of the General Authorities" mood, I would understand how they would want to control the reactions of the membership to unsettling information.

I just would not mistake the steps that they take to "control the reactions" as a pursuit of truth, and in fact can see how DV and Huff would consider it a "cover-up."

It is however true that the full quotes you cite do tell people that they can (should?) read outside sources. It would be hard to prohibit such reading given an open society and free flow of information.

DV - Interesting Thoughts.

If you have time, it would be interesting to hear a little more detail on "the best and the brightest leaving the institution in droves."

It has been a long time since I have been active, though my brother William still is,

so I don't have a sense of the zeitgeist of those with geists.

Is the exodus based on a realization that the foundational story, and hence the basic One True Church, rationale is so shaky?

Posted on April 1, 2007 02:04

Hueffenhard -

I know that because you were in a bishopric, you have a good grasp of mormonism.

I really appreciate reading those quotes. After reading them, it is so obvious to me that there is a cover-up going on.

I honestly believe that none of the original issues regarding polygamy, Book of Abraham, the seerstones, etc. is comparable to the greater issue of the cover-up of this information.

The cover-up will be the next big issue in mormonism, as the actual history of mormonism continues to leak out and be discussed in the open. The policy of correlation, and holding all controversial materials from the membership within the First Presidency's granite vault is a failed policy. The unraveling of this "cover up" will be the greatest challenge for mormonism's continued survival. Unfortunately, some of the best and the brightest are leaving the institution in droves, after learning of the inaccuracies in the institutional version of mormonism.

I think the cover-up will overshadow all other issues eventually.

Here is the entire first portion of the talk by Dallin Oaks, from which MAYAN extracted the above quote entitled "Alternate Voices".

I believe "as always" that it has been taken out of context. Perhaps he did not read the entire talk and was unawares of the whole?

But as JD stated, the church does not discourage it's members from personal study for ourselves as has been suggested. Of course they would encourage us, as they should do to seek for that which would strengthen us. Do they not have that responsibility as good leaders?

Within the church it is also their covenant responsibility and those of us who are of covenant to strengthen one another also through word and deed. This is precisely WHY we meet each Sabbath day to renew these covenants and to edify the body of Christ.

One way the Savior protects the flock is through ensuring that false doctrines DO NOT creep into the fold, therefore that which is taught in the church is strictly protected by the priesthood that He has put in place. The fold being the church.

My goodness, for one who DOES believe in the Bible, LOOK what has happened in the past by way of internal apostacy? Precisely for this very reason, doctrine...

From Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
May Ensign 1989

ALTERNATE VOICES

From among the chorus of voices we hear in mortality, we must recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd, who calls us to follow him toward our heavenly home.

As Paul said to the Corinthians, “There are … so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” (1 Cor. 14:10.)

Some voices speak of the things of the world, providing the useful information we need to make our way in mortality. I will make no further reference to these voices.

My remarks will refer to those voices that speak of God, of his commandments, and of the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of his church. Some of those who speak on these subjects have been called and given divine authority to do so. Others, whom I choose to call alternate voices, speak on these subjects without calling or authority.

In the five years since I was called as a General Authority, I have seen many instances where Church leaders and members have been troubled by things said by these alternate voices. I am convinced that some members are confused about the Church’s relationship to the alternate voices. As a result, members can be misled in their personal choices, and the work of the Lord can suffer.

Some alternate voices are those of well-motivated men and women who are merely trying to serve their brothers and sisters and further the cause of Zion. Their efforts fit within the Lord’s teaching that his servants should not have to be commanded in all things, but “should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.” (D&C 58:27.)

Other alternate voices are pursuing selfish personal interests, such as property, pride, prominence, or power. Other voices are the bleatings of lost souls who cannot hear the voice of the Shepherd and trot about trying to find their way without his guidance. Some of these voices call out guidance for others—the lost leading the lost.

Some alternate voices are of those whose avowed or secret object is to deceive and devour the flock. The Good Shepherd warned, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15; see also 3 Ne. 14:15.) In both the Bible and the Book of Mormon the Savior charged his shepherds to watch over and protect the flock from such wolves. (See Acts 20:28–29; Alma 5:59.)

There have always been alternate voices whose purpose or effect is to deceive. Their existence is part of the Plan. The prophet Lehi taught that there “must needs be … an opposition in all things.” (2 Ne. 2:11; italics added.) And there have always been other alternate voices whose purpose or effect is unselfish and wholesome.

In most instances, alternate voices are heard in the same kinds of communications the Church uses to perform its mission. The Church has magazines and other official publications, a newspaper supplement, letters from Church leaders, general conferences, and regular meetings and conferences in local units. Similarly, alternate voices are heard in magazines, journals, and newspapers and at lectures, symposia, and conferences.

****The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not attempt to isolate its members from alternate voices. Its approach, as counseled by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is to teach correct principles and then leave its members to govern themselves by personal choices.

Of course, the Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church and what is not. This is especially necessary when some alternate voice, deliberately or inadvertently, communicates a message in a way that implies Church sponsorship or acquiescence.

(THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE TALK THAT MAYAN QUOTED)
"For the same reason, the Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices."

Local Church leaders also have a responsibility to review the content of what is taught in classes or presented in worship services, as well as the spiritual qualifications of those they use as teachers or speakers. Leaders must do all they can to avoid expressed or implied Church endorsement for teachings that are not orthodox or for teachers who will use their Church position or prominence to promote something other than gospel truth.

(if you would like to read the entire talk you can go to lds.org by clicking on "source" in Otterson's comments above)

RTC, Thankful, and John D
are the least likely people to become Ax Murderers.
You are all very good people. Let's stipulate that.
As are almost all Mormons.

That said,
your "Anti-Mormon" friends are making a particular point here that is undeniable, however one wants to interpret its significance.

Apostle Oaks says, as quoted above, that Official Church History pronouncements
"... provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices."

Note what he says:
"To rely on the truth of what is said."

NO government or religion makes official pronouncements to enable the voters or tithe-payers to "rely on the truth."
Their purpose is to get votes and tithes.

There are hundreds of cases where the church has misrepresented (lied) its history to its members, plain and simple.

You may be fine with that: Bush lied about going into the war too, the Catholics do it, they all do it. There may be good reasons to lie sometimes.

AND, the Mormon Church does lots of good things.

BUT: they misrepresent the very foundation of their purpose, the history of their founder who averred that this was The Only True Church.

Pretty good church in many ways. But...

Does Truth Matter? Good question. Most power structures in history have said, "only in so far as it suits our purposes."

John D writes:

"President Hinkley's role is quite different that of a reporter.
His role is to motivate Latter Day Saints to be good disciples of Christ.I don't expect the subject matter of his addresses to have the same rigor as I would expect from a news reporter, or a historian."

John, it seems to me that you are saying that Hinckley is entitled to be less than rigorously truthful because his purpose is to motivate. If so, isn't it more concise to simply state that his purpose is to manipulate the faithful?

Mayan,
Here are some more quotes:

Apostle Dallin H. Oaks wrote:

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)

Here is the context of the Boyd K. Packer quote:

"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…

"The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

"That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!" (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

D. Michael Quinn expressed his frustration in an address to a student history association at Brigham Young University:

"General authorities in recent years have criticized Mormon historians for republishing in part or whole out-of-print Church publications such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, the Journal of Discourses (edited and published for thirty-two years under the auspices of the First Presidency), and statements taken from former Church magazines published for the children, youth, and general membership of the Church. It is an odd situation when present general authorities criticize historians for reprinting what previous general authorities regarded not only as faith-promoting but as appropriate for Mormon youth and the newest converts.

"Elder Packer specifically warns against historians using "the unworthy, the unsavory, or the sensational," from the Mormon past, merely because it has been previously published somewhere else, and he berates historians for their "exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told." But this raises the question of personal honesty and professional integrity. If a historian writes about any subject unrelated to religion, and he purposely fails to make reference to pertinent information of which he has knowledge, he is justifiably liable to be criticized for dishonesty…

"Boyd K. Packer demands that Mormon historians demonstrate and affirm that "the hand of the Lord [has been] in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."…Mormon historians may share the convictions of the Nephite prophets and Boyd K. Packer that the "hand of the lord" operates throughout history and that "His purposes fail not," but they also have an obligation to examine the evidence, reflect upon it, and offer the best interpretations they can for what has occurred in Mormon history…

"The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials. (D. Michael Quinn, On Being A Mormon Historian, 1982, pp. 2, 8-10, 13-14, 16-22; revised and reprinted in 1992 in Faithful History: Essays On Writing Mormon History, pp. 69-111)

Thanks John D, I know you didnt want to come back here and comment. I appreciate you doing that.

You said, "The church does not discourage us from reading any publication and it actually encourages us to learn about church history."

Again, this is just not true.

Here is the official source:

Dallin H. Oaks, “Alternate Voices,” Ensign, May 1989, 27

Here is the counsel: "For the same reason, the Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices."

John D. Perhaps you can point me to any instruction that may have reversed this instruction.

I would also add that counsel from Packer.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful."

Any reversal of that little bit would be welcome as well.

JD, you might be surprised to know how much I agree with you. I think that you do look outside the correlated material, but its not because you were told by the leaders that it was tolerated. Think about your temple recommend questions mate.

Hi JD1-

I am glad you jumped back in to say hi!

I know from my experiences from these threads as well as from long knowing that people in general really do not know what mormons are all about or what the actual "truth" is, that I definitely do not believe what I hear about other religions.

As Otterson has suggested in his comments on this thread, it is best to go to the source, or I think at least a very credible source.

I went over to the newsroom at lds.org today and clicked around. Actually other than the info on polygamy I think they are doing a pretty good job. They made very general comments on plural marriage and leave much to personal interpretation.

But I will start going there first for general info. And actually I thought they covered some things great! I hope to see them give us better information in the future so that we do not need to look elsewhere. I do feel they are working on it and doing a much better job. (okay, that was back and forth... lol)

I also checked out mormon.org to see if I could find things out over there if I were trying to gather info. Pretty hard to get what I wanted unless I really worked for it. Most people will not do that. They will give up and go to another source which will probably not be a positive one if they use google. But I think this site is for new investigators, so maybe it is enough.

Concerning your response to Mayan... I agree with you in that President Hinckley should not be held to the standards that a reporter would and should be held to in diseminating information about the church.

I think he leaves the PR work up to those with that job. His is to minister to the people and to strengthen spiritually those who look to him for such.

Also as far as the teaching within the church goes it is right that the focus should be on building the faith of the membership in teaching the doctrines and principles first, along with the history of the church. There is very limited time to accomplish just this, so to consider building into this outside sources just does not seem feasible.

I think this is much better left to the individual member to expand there education once the church builds their strong foundation, which should be the responsibility of the church to the member.

I know as a simple seminary teacher I feel a great responsibility to make sure that the basic doctrines, principles and history of the church are taught and that my students understand them. I realize how important this foundation is for them in their membership in the church. It is quite the challenge to then bring in other information that "I think" would be good for them to know.

And of course as a parent, I look to the church as a support to help me educate my children on these same things, not the other. But part of me is questioning this with so much information available?

Well, those are just some of my thoughts. Nice to chat:-)
rtc

Hi JD1,

Thanks for coming back to respond -- I like your points about caricatures. I've noticed some of the other threads are pretty loco too and I dont take very serriously the critiques of them that are packed with explosives either.

RTC,

Thanks for the Whitney comments and a thorough answer to my "personal" question. I'm glad you don't take these types of comments personal but do speak up on things you find mean spirited or dishonest. I try to take that approach generally here too but I am admittedly more sensitive at times to the personal jabs. I've learned to forgive in these instances as much for myself as for anyone else but sometimes it hasn't been right away --better to focus on not taking it personal to begin with as you do I'm learning.

Well looking forward to the rest of conference -- perhaps we shall all have more to chat about tommorrow -- thanks again you two...

later

Mayan,

Since I posted to RTC and Thankful, I ought not ignore you :)

So when you asked about President Hinkley being held to the same standards as reporters you were talking about Hinkley's reference to historical events. Your questions makes a bit more sense to me now.

Well I don't think the answer to your question is simple.

President Hinkley's role is quite different that of a reporter.

His role is to motivate Latter Day Saints to be good disciples of Christ.

I don't expect the subject matter of his addresses to have the same rigor as I would expect from a news reporter, or a historian.

The same goes for any clergy member who is addressing the spiritual needs of their flock.

Nor do I expect Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to give coverage to the 10% of the scientific community who do not agree with his thesis.

The church does not discourage us from reading any publication and it actually encourages us to learn about church history.

Rough Stone Rolling, for example, is not a hagiography, is highly popular in LDS circles and sells very well in church owned book stores.

I know you think a failure to have historical indiscretions and ambiguities in the Sunday School Manuals and General Conference talks is a great crime. I think I have already said, I don't care to hear about them in those contexts. I don't think Sunday School teachers and General Authorities are qualified to address them.

I want to be spiritually strengthened when I go to church and G.C. I learned about the other fun stuff in BYU history and religion classes and in good old history books written by real historians.

That's all.

Signing off again my freind. Best of luck in what is sure to be a spirited response to my post.

Hi Thankful,

Helen Whitney is the Award Winning film maker who did the documentary "The Mormons". Apparently she spent three years on the project. She is quoted just this morning in the Deseret Morning News...

"I hope that most of the stereotypes — ideally, all of them — will be blown away," she told the Deseret Morning News on Saturday. "Because so many of them are just based on ignorance. Ignorance about Mormon history, ignorance about Mormon theology. Ignorance."

I love her boldness and appreciate her credibility. She also went on to say regarding the entire project...

"It is not exhaustive. It is not comprehensive. It is thematic," said Whitney, who worked with both LDS and non-LDS consultants. "I have chosen what I felt to be the defining ideas and themes and events in Mormon history that would help outsiders go inside the church."

Now, on a personal note? lol So there is the point Thankful, I do not take it personal, EVER. When someone compares what I say to President Hinckley, or Elder Bednar, etc... and then in the very same sentence ask me IF the church has called me and asked me to stop what I am doing... really?

How could I be offended? You reason it out for yourself. I love the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. What I do here is attempt to say what I see as truth and know from my own personal experience.

Now notice I take it as a compliment to be compared to a MAN? A follower of Christ who was a MAN. No problem for me guys. The type of comments that are meant to demean a woman as being trained are just reflected right back on the giver of the comment. Responding is not even necessary.

It is quite obvious that I am no follower other than a follower of Christ.

I realize this offends many here and they are free to speak their minds, and they do, often in unkind words. But that never stops me from feeling compelled to speak the truth. I try my best to not be personally offended or offensive. I have not always been stellar. It is a challenge.

I figure that IF they are offended at truth, they are offended at anyone that would speak truth, be it me, you, President Hinckley, Elder Bednar, etc... This way I stay completely calm and just speak for that which is right, truth and light!

Oh and I just can't stand it when I see outright meaness and lies. I will correct whenever I am able in appropriate ways. If I detect evil intentions in individuals that I am having dialogue with, I will immediately discontinue the conversation. Period.

But I love speaking out for the Lord and hope many more faithful Saints will share their testimonies and defend our history, our doctrines, our prophets and the Savior and Atonement for each one of us.

Thank you for asking. I realize this is not the topic, but as this thread has been hijacked and hopefully will have some newcomers, hopefully this will encourage participation regardless of much of the negativity that they see here...
rtc

Hi Thankful, RTC,

I had retired from this thread. But I wanted respond to your comments.

I am quite pleased with the church's noted enthusiasm for the PBS documentary and this forum. It does make you wonder just how insular the church could be.

I like the reality of Mormonism much better than the caricature we see discussed here.

Similar caricatures are presented in the majority of posts on all of the other threads. I especially feel bad for the Muslims and Catholics. I would never think I learned a thing about those religions from reading those comments.

I am glad PBS is working on telling the Mormon story. I think we will get a pretty fair shake from them.

Hey RTC,

Thanks for your response. I won't speculate as to how anyone will respond to this "full access" documentary.

I will say that I think people are naturally curious and I just hope everyone will tune in and watch out of that innate human curiousity if nothing else. I am certainly curious!

I imagine the documentary will contain critiques of the church and our history -- and of course that is to be expected -- but it will also highlight some of the many wonderful and intriguing aspects of our faith that are generally unknown.

I believe as part of it, they looked at LDS in Ghana and that is certainly an amazing "story" -- that could take up over 4 hours to capture well in and of itself!

I guess overall I don't care so much about the critiques or potential naysaying towards PBS or LDS, I just hope people watch and hopefully come away knowing more than they previuously did about Mormons -- I appreciate that PBS and those who will view are taking an interest in us period.

RTC, on a personal note -- I saw some personal attacks directed at you (an LDS "woman" simply speaking as she is trained to by her LDS men... infantile writting I think was also one, etc) in the previous thread -- I wonder if you would mind commenting on what would you say to those new to this forum who may experience such here when they post at On Faith ?

Hi Thankful -

Yes! I did see the On Faith plug in between sessions today. I am hoping more lds members will speak up and share their thoughts on Otterson's comments as representing the church.

I too look forward to the PBS special "The Mormons". This will definitely be more than a "sound-bite", but an unbiased documentary where the public will have the opportunity to look at members of the church and our beliefs and history from a completely objective view.

There are many who continue to imply that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is one major operation of cover up, so although I realize we are not perfect I also know we have nothing to be ashamed about either.

Really I think we as members in general are looking forward to being reported on in a truthful way versus what we have experienced here and have needed to constantly defend in this type of, as you put it "hostile" forum.

Do you think people will believe that those who did this documentary really were given full access to whatever they wanted with no input from the church?

Because that is "their" claim!
rtc

I really enjoyed the LDS report today between the sessions of general conference as it relates to this topic -- it was reported that of the 4 hour upcoming PBS production "The Mormons" both the PBS producers and the LDS church state that the LDS church gave full access. I'm excited to see this -- april 30th I think.

I was also really glad to see reported that the LDS church is a new participant here at "On Faith"!

To those who may be new to this betimes heated even hostile forum I say WELCOME!

RTC, JOY, JD1, CO, Derrida, and any other LDS -- did any of you catch this report ? What are your thoughts???

Mayan, your fund of information on the esoterica of Mormon dogma and history is amazing! You send me scrambling for background info to peer behind your references. Thanks for the crash course, a bit like drinking from a fire-hose at times!

Regards,

phAEdrus. ( the officially sanctioned spelling, James)

Mayan
I too remain somewhat mystified as to John D's point about context.

I agree with him that to understand why a Pentecostal speaks in tongues, it is necessary to understand the context in which he understands experience.

And I can understand how a fundamentalist who has no biological context won't accept evolution.

I just don't want those fundamentalists running my country, and deciding what my kids learn in school.

All belief systems should be critiqued from outside their system as well as within.

Those based on myth, superstition, and ignorance, should be clearly identified as such after thorough examination,

and we should all work to see that those belief systems have as little influence as possible on our public life.

But sure, Mr Pentecostal, keep handling those snakes. I understand.

G'bye John D.

excellent points Phaedrus and James

John said: "I love NPR and BBC coverage because they provide ample coverage of context. As far as understanding people and worldviews, context is king!

It seems mainstream cooperate media does not find making ample time for context profitable. We may not have the attention span for it.

[snip].......

In discourse on religion, so often ridicule comes before contextualization and attempts to understand."

then, john went on to say that hinckley should not be held to the same standards as the media because he is a player, or part, in this religion. Hinckley is the contextualized not the contextualizer.

John, sorry man. I wish you were still around to explain this cuz you lost me on this one. So, if Hinckley says that Parley Pratt was a martyr that died on his mission, is he not responsible to explain that in its proper context? Hinckley, in repeating this history is now a player, not a teacher? fascinating.

Why would you hold NPR or Fox News or BoggerBill to a different standard? Or more, would you be critical of NPR, Fox and BloggerBill if they reported that Pratt was shot because he seduced a married woman, she married him while she was still married to another man, she left San Francisco and went to New Orleans and Texas and Utah. And that her (first) husband hunted Pratt down on horseback, stabbed him, and when the Spirit prompted him that Pratt was still alive, he returned and shot Pratt.

If BloggerBill reports that Pratt, though he didnt deserve to be shot and die a slow death, was a #$%&^%$ doing rotten things and lying about his marriages and not the sweet wholesome missionary for Brigham that Hinckley said he was, is BloggerBill to be commended, or condemned?

Hinckley does not need to explain every contemporary thing in context, of course, but he should be factually accurate and give context for the historical references he makes. Where it is history, he is a bit of a reporter, not just a player. He should explain in detail the mall project. But, admittedly, he is a player in these contemporary things.

When Hinckley speaks about Smith, Brigham Young, Pratt, translations of the Book of Abraham or anything in the history of his organization, he shouldnt be given a free pass because of his title and 'player' status. 'Truth Restored' does not get a free context pass because Hinckley is a player. It is not accurate, it is simply a spun simplification. Only now, in the new media generation, the monopoly in 'Disinformation Restored' is finally being scrutinized at a meaningful level.

Phaedrus: you keep switching the order of your A-E. which is the Truth.

COmpletely agree with the irrelevence of context to truth-claims.

John D seemed to say: we have to respect the reasoning power of the Azende, because their conclusions made sense given their assumptions.

One can of course say much the same of a reasoning schizophrenic.

The Much More important question is:

Can the Truth of Mormon or Azende claims be determined?

We can't know what happens when we die,
but we sure as H#ll can know
-Smith changed his Vision Story 4 times
-He had an extensive reputation as a con man (as opposed to the reputation of, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson)
-He was a treasure hunter.
-His Celestial Kingdom Scheme is remarkably like Swedenbourg's.
-The Book of Abraham is considered laughable by all non mormon experts.

How anyone could be favorably disposed to accept the Truth of Smith's, and therefore the Mormon's, claims, then becomes a matter for psychologists to explain.

To continue a bit further with my previous post, I further submit that the moment in which JS's claim to have "interpreted" the BOA papyrii was exposed as untrue, is another such "black and white" image that captures the truth-value of Mormon dogma. The context within which Smith's claims were made and recieved, can have no more bearing on their truthfulness than does the context within which Einstein conceived general relativity bear upon its accuracy.

So, I do agree that when it comes to understanding a religion as a social phenomenon, context is crucial, but when assessing the accuracy of its truth-claims, context is meaningless.

Mormon Belief is Based on a Sound Bite

Millions of times every Sunday Mormons say to each other:
"I know the Church is True."
Hear it echoing through the chapels in your head.

What is that if not a Sound Bite.

Yet it is the means by which the Church enforces the peer pressure and rationalization it desires .

Imagine being in testimony meeting, and getting up and saying
"Actually, I am not so sure that many of the basic truth claims of the LDS church can be in fact true."

What do we think would happen to me if I did that?

Ba'al writes:
"Two incommensurable claims to Absolute Truth cannot both be correct."

It is notable, my god B-man, that YOUR observation is one that

NO MORMON has ever dealt with on this post.

It is as close to the Fundamental Basis of Mormonism, but no active member will acknowledge that the
Devout Muslim has exactly the same way to be sure of his Absolute Truth
as does the Mormon:

I.e The Burning in the Chest.
Or "None", if we prefer more precise language,
as I often do.

The funny thing about religion is that any media coverage that will be considered fair by members of one religion is likely to be considered biased by another.

Two incommensurable claims to Absolute Truth cannot both be correct.

Jason,

I reiterate commentary and conclusions that need to be repeated over and over again. Tis a matter of putting reality back into the world. Pause now and think about Schillebeekx's conclusions about God not knowing the future and how much sense that makes as it validates two great characteristics (gifts from God?) of humanity i.e. Free Will and Future.

Further on another post: If the Mormons have not electoshocked gays, deny it, Mr. Otterson. If the Mormons don't believe that darker skin is the curse of God, deny it, Mr. Otterson. The standard reply of the Church is that these facts are lies. If they are lies, deny them, Mr. Otterson. When these questions are submitted to FAIR, a Mormon apologist web site, the questioners are blocked. Why is this, Mr. Otterson? Do you not deny these allegations?

While I agree with my friend John D. and others regarding the importance of conveying the context within which events occur, I do think that there are some exceptions. I argue that some events should actually be presented with a bare minimum of context. This allows for intense focus on the occurrence itself, as true an image as a black and white photograph, which allows one to appreciate the value of form itself, without the chatter that color can bring.

The footage of the second plane striking the WTC, with its whining engine noise, the impact sound coming a fraction of a second after the impact and the fireball a split second after that, set against that simple blue sky; THAT captured the naked monstrousness of the act in such sharp relief that context could not but have concealed. That was, amongst other things, an inherently "religious" moment, a lasting image of the bloody edge of the "God Delusion," the meaning ever so much clearer than any conversation with a Wahabi cleric or a melodious call to prayer, a setting sun behind a minaret.

"Context" could only have undermined the truth-value of those images.

Dear Concerned:

Are you recycling material?

What the media should do is review the world of "prophets" (religious profits to be exact). This would show what an inane idea prophets and prophecies are and thereby finally put an end to the mystic of people like Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Jesus and Isaiah.

Father Edward Schillebeekx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, captured the situation in two sentences in his book, Church, the History of God.

"Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

And if God does not know the future, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Jesus and Isaiah surely did not.

Ahh, finally the world is returning to realism and common sense.

I love this place...

Mr. Otterson,

You are right. Theology can't be reduced to a sound bite.

If I recall correctly, Peggy Fletcher Stack did a report, or perhaps a series of reports, at the Salt Lake Tribune on this topic. I may be wrong, but I think that in her interview it was confirmed that the Mormons maintain membership records until the 110th birthday.

To be honest, I tried searching for it, but didn't find what I was looking for. Regardless, I think Sam is right about that point.

I just got a call recently from the Church looking for a sibling that no longer attends church. In this case, the person is still counted on the records, no longer wants to be contacted and has offered no forwarding address and the Church uses volunteers to call his family in order to relocate him so his records can be included with his local congregation. If his personal information is not offered by a family member, and if it is not updated upon his death, he will be counted among the 12 million until he is 110.

Good on ya Sam. Sloppy conclusion but a good point. I should add too that its quite relevant to the topic. Well done.

The Mormon Approach to Evidence

Sam, your reasoning for disputing Yockel's membership statistics

is sadly typical of the shoddy methods of evidentiary argument by LDS apologists, on this site or elsewhere,

Do you truy expect any sentient human to take seriously your argument that
"We have thousands of missionaries and they all seem to be experiencing conversions."
OR
we keep building temples.

You embarrass yourself, and your church, with such anecdotal and unverified comments.

Sam, in my book, it's great that you are skeptical about my claims. That's how it ought to be. Check it out for yourself.

I have heard rumors about the 110 year olds before but have not confirmed that practice yet. If you have a source that documents that practice, I would be interested to see it.

Notice, that this practice would lead to substantially inflated membership reports. If your claim would turn out to be correct then it would actually bolster my case. It would mean that there are hundreds of thousands of phantom members on LDS membership rolls, wouldn't it?

Go to LDS.org, collect the figures from the Annual Statistical Reports in the Ensign, plug them into a spreadsheet and try to calculate how many people are leaving the LDS Church every year. You will find that between 1973 and 2005, there are four years where a negative number of people have died.

That means that between eight thousand and 130,000 Mormons must have resurrected to reconcile the statistics.

When I found that, I actually called the National Council of Churches in New York. They confirmed that their numbers are all from the LDS Church. They kindly relayed me to statisticians of their member organizations that specialize in those matters. The statisticians confirmed that my findings replicated their own.

We also know from the CUNY Religious Identification Survey that the net growth of the LDS Church in the United States is zero. Google it and check it out for yourself.

With respect to temples, Sam, I have never been to a temple outside of Utah that has been well attended. On the contrary, I do notice the increase of ward and stake temple nights, which is an indicator that LDS leaders cannot sufficiently fill temples in the absence of social control.

You probably know that Elder Holland has recently returned from Chile where he closed 330 wards (check it out on cumorah.com, go to the country reports). We could close a similar proportion of units all over Latin America.

For an audit of official LDS membership statistics, check this out: http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=1467&highlight=annual+statistical+report

The Mormon Church Punishes Civil Debate

Is this a fact?

How many academics and journalists have been excommunicated or "dis-fellowshipped" (I love that term) from the Mormon Church in the last fifteen years

because they wrote books or articles that were published, in general by academic presses (not known for their bomb-throwing tendencies)

and civilly, rationally, took an unauthorized view on either official Church history or policy (denial of equal rights to Gays, for instance).

Over a hundred, by Yockel's count. Many many, as verified by even a cursory net search.

The church encourages civil and reasoned discourse among its members aa long as it does not publicly contradict official church positions.

1984 Orwellian New Speak, anyone?

Believing Skeptic: "I'm always interested in how this space, regardless the original question that is asked, becomes a forum for diatribe against the Mormon Church."

Yockel: Actually, there are a number of Mr. Otterson's essays that did not elicite criticism of the the LDS Church. For example, his answer to the question about religion and the environment or his discussion of anti-Catholicism were well received. (Although some orthodox Mormons disagreed with Mr. Otterson and fought among each other whether believing Mormons could really be environmentalists).

The difference was that Mr. Otterson refrained from spinning the performance of his organization. Of course, if one implies that there is no discrimination of women in the LDS Church or that Mormon authorities value civil discourse then it is important to inform people of the actual state of affairs in the LDS Church.

I am all for "(c)ivility and inclusiveness, consensus and reasonableness." That's why LDS leaders need to stop punishing historians, theologians, and artists for their work.

The proper way to respond to unwelcome research, scholarship, and art is civil and reasonable debate that includes the voices of all parties and strives for consensus in the absence of spiritual and social coercion.

Unfortunately, there are over one hundred documented cases where the LDS Church has violated these values and threatened or punished scholars and artists. I wish it weren't so.

Yockel,

I think your information is not solid or confirmed.

The LDS Church keeps members on the records until their 110th birthday. If you adjust for the members that are counted but are actually dead there is clearly some growth from converts. Why would there be so many new Temples, Yockel?

We have thousands of missionaries and they all seem to be experiencing conversions.

Thanks for the link, John D. Notice that the National Council of Churches gets all its data from the various denominations, which means all the data about the LDS Church is from the LDS Church. Unfortunately, that data is not internally consistent. The numbers do not add up.

It's not a good practice to first submit data to the National Council of Churches and then to invoke the National Council of Churches to claim rapid growth.

When governments resorted to this technique during the cold war, it was called disinformation.

I am afraid that the fact is that the LDS Church has zero growth from conversions in the United States. And LDS bureaucrates know that.

While I appreciate the caveats on the PR website, it would be better to remove all claims with respect to growth. The honest alternative would be to admit that there is no more growth through conversions.

Bye John.

Yes, it is sweet and concerned to understand religious beliefs in the context of the people who believe them.

It is ALSO idiotic not to examine such beliefs for their truth value.
And to understand, for instance, whether Pentecostals speak in tongues because God inspires them, or because they are in a temporary natural trance.

We understand why some Greeks believed in Zeus, but we know it is a myth.

We understand why children like to believe in Santa Claus, but we don't write to the North Pole anymore.

We understand why Mormons would like to be with their families forever, but we realize that Joseph Smith was a fraud in so many aspects of his life that to believe his Celestial Kingdom prophecy is like believing in Santa Claus, attractive though such a belief may be on some levels.

I am troubled that nowhere in his recent posts did our friend John acknowledge this.

Alright, one more round. Some media does a good job at context I think. I am not a journalist so I don't think I have particular suggestions. But I will say one thing…

One of the most interesting ways to study religion as far, as I am concerned, is to understand a faith from the perspective of the faithful. In other words, what makes the faith reasonable, compelling and useful to adherents?

If people understood better why Pentecostalism made so much sense to individual Pentecostals, I think people wouldn't be so troubled with their speaking in tongues, convulsing etc.

We would be much wiser for it too.

If individual concepts of a religion are snipped away from their home system and placed in an unnatural relationship to concepts foreign to it, it will inevitably sound unreasonable and we will only be left with provincialism.

That is why the monkey to man scenario of Darwinism sounds absolutely absurd to a Baptist, especially without the contextual background provided in a biology class.

Now I am done for sure. Chau.

"Also JD, do you hold Otterson and Hinckley to the same standard? do they owe us the contexts, history, bias and other disclosures? maybe they dont. by many standards, they are simply proprietors and religion is their widget, they are only responsible for meeting the consumers demands. the consumer is not the media or those that have abandoned the faith, it is the warm bodies on the wood benches in the cinder-block buildings."

Does President Hinckley owe us context? That is a strange question. Should a Catholic Priest contextualize Catholic beliefs? Should Buddhist Monk contextualize Buddist beliefs? Should the Master of the Fishing Spear contextualize Dinka Divinities?

These are strange questions because these key religious actors are *part* of the context. They are not the contextualizer but the contextualized. *We* need to contextualize what they say to properly understand it.

What they say is already contextualized because they speak in the context of their roles within the cosmological system. They are speaking to others who accept that system and their role within it.

In our analysis we need to re-construct this system to properly understand what is said within it.

That is all I have to say on this thread. Adios everyone.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. JD. Yes, these are scholars and authors. I really like Jan. She has also worked with John Hamer who I respect very much. John, in my opinion, has incredible insight and perspective on all the groups that have come out of Joseph Smith's creation. I suggest you watch for his stuff in the coming years. He is co-Executive Director, along with his partner, of the John Whitmer Historical Association.

If you dont mind though, JD, I would enjoy your suggestions for the media and web 2.0 environments for incorporating the same tone and contextual background that Jan and others offer. (not picking on ya man, just curious of your thoughts)

I really hadn't read many comments when I made my post. I was responding only to the question of proper description of religious beliefs.

Mayan,

I think lots of non-Mormon and Mormon scholars do a reasonably good job at contextualizing Mormon beliefs. Jan Shipps, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Thomas O'Dea (though out dated), Douglass Davis, Fenella Cannell are some examples.

BJ:

I think the point is, most people who do not contextualize the beliefs of others, have not learned to reason outside their own belief system. Hence the knee jerk reaction to ridicule those who think differently (not referring to anyone in particular).

oseph Smith and Ralph Waldo Emerson

Compare for a moment these two great exemplars of the American Spirit from the 19th Century.

One trained for the ministry, led an exemplary life, wrote essays that are considered by many to be in the first class of American literature and indeed philosophy.

The other was convicted of Glass-looking. Was a treasure hunter. Surreptiously married 35 women and then said God told him to. Had a vision that he changed the details on 4 times. "Translated" egyptian funereal documents in a laughable way. Gave an account of residents of the Americas that has been multiply disproved by geneticists and archeologists.

Who would you follow? Whose precepts and scheme of heavenly reward would a rational human adopt?

As I said to Smith myself: "I knew Ralph Emerson. Ralph was a friend of mine. You are no Ralph Emerson."

How is that for a sound bite?

sorry bout the double post double post on the same post. sheesh. that is a disaster. the devil made me do it.

John D,

I agree. These are good thoughts on your part. Though, I am curious how you would apply these thoughts in this case. It is nice to say that all grass should be green, and wouldnt the grass be better if it was greener.

So, what context would you like to see explained when discussing the LDS religion? Are references to exact dates valuable, do you want to know the positions and title of the speaker for everything that has been said or taught? what is it you would change or suggest to the mainstream media? would you make the same suggestions to those in web 2.0/new media?

Also JD, do you hold Otterson and Hinckley to the same standard? do they owe us the contexts, history, bias and other disclosures? maybe they dont. by many standards, they are simply proprietors and religion is their widget, they are only responsible for meeting the consumers demands. the consumer is not the media or those that have abandoned the faith, it is the warm bodies on the wood benches in the cinder-block buildings. perhaps to otterson and also to his consumer group the only context that is relevant is the overall expectation of faith and obedience.

I know JD that you were not the one throwing the Anti label around on here, so forgive me, but here I go again, yammering away.

Others have already asked the question of what is Anti-Mormon. Honestly, I still have no clue what it is. The standard is not applied consistently. For example, if an evangelical group were to promote information about mormons, in an effort to convert Mormons to another faith, they are quickly labeled Anti-Mormon. However, I dont really hear Mormons describing themselves or their army of missionaries as Anti-Catholic, Anti-Protestant, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Baptist, Anti-Atheist, etc. And yet, mormons and mormon missionaries are often asking people to convert to this religion, and explaining that it is the restored church and that all other churches are, well, less restored. lets just leave it that for this conversation.

I have another beef with this Anti label. I suggest that it is really not what is said that qualifies one as Anti-Mormon, it is who said it that matters. And by who said it, I am including what that person does outside of any specific comment. For example, There is a mention on here about Josephs Wives, and it follows that the person who mentions those wives is Anti, because, it is not part of the official source - in this case, otterson.

But, when BYU professors critique other historians, it is just fine for them to admit there were plural marriages, or even discuss them. in that case, the apologist who goes to church and says the church is true the church is true the church is true, is a saint, anyone who references that information, is anti. so bizarre.

I just copied this from a BYU site.

Status of Women at the Time They Were Sealed to Joseph Smith (number of wives)
Single with no prior marriage (17)
Single and widowed (4)
Married to a husband with good church standing (4)
Married to a disaffected or nonmember husband (4)

Again, these numbers are debatable. My point is simply to point out that this information is not available from lds.org, it is available from other mormon scholars who are not considered anti. So why wouldn't someone skip the source where information that is accurate and contextual is omitted?

The other issue that seems to matter is how something is said. For example, if it is said with proper punctuation and capitalization, some people are more impressed, versus lack of shifting the shift key. And, if I were to say, I know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet and God Commanded him to have about 34 living wives and about 9 posthumous marriages, Mormons would love my faith. If i were to say, Joseph Smith had over 40 wives, no wonder the locals and William Law hated hizass - that is anti. The facts are the same. And in reality, having sympathy for the locals and Law is not out of line with the teachings contained in mormon scriptures. After all, they felt betrayed, lied to, mislead, threatened, etc. A good mormon would empathize and perhaps forgive those folks. But, it doesnt matter, it only matters if you are holding to the rod, regardless of whether one is blinded by the light, the darkness or a blindfold.John D,

I agree. These are good thoughts on your part. Though, I am curious how you would apply these thoughts in this case. It is nice to say that all grass should be green, and wouldnt the grass be better if it was greener.

So, what context would you like to see explained when discussing the LDS religion? Are references to exact dates valuable, do you want to know the positions and title of the speaker for everything that has been said or taught? what is it you would change or suggest to the mainstream media? would you make the same suggestions to those in web 2.0/new media?

Also JD, do you hold Otterson and Hinckley to the same standard? do they owe us the contexts, history, bias and other disclosures? maybe they dont. by many standards, they are simply proprietors and religion is their widget, they are only responsible for meeting the consumers demands. the consumer is not the media or those that have abandoned the faith, it is the warm bodies on the wood benches in the cinder-block buildings. perhaps to otterson and also to his consumer group the only context that is relevant is the overall expectation of faith and obedience.

I know JD that you were not the one throwing the Anti label around on here, so forgive me, but here I go again, yammering away.

Others have already asked the question of what is Anti-Mormon. Honestly, I still have no clue what it is. The standard is not applied consistently. For example, if an evangelical group were to promote information about mormons, in an effort to convert Mormons to another faith, they are quickly labeled Anti-Mormon. However, I dont really hear Mormons describing themselves or their army of missionaries as Anti-Catholic, Anti-Protestant, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Baptist, Anti-Atheist, etc. And yet, mormons and mormon missionaries are often asking people to convert to this religion, and explaining that it is the restored church and that all other churches are, well, less restored. lets just leave it that for this conversation.

I have another beef with this Anti label. I suggest that it is really not what is said that qualifies one as Anti-Mormon, it is who said it that matters. And by who said it, I am including what that person does outside of any specific comment. For example, There is a mention on here about Josephs Wives, and it follows that the person who mentions those wives is Anti, because, it is not part of the official source - in this case, Otterson.

But, when BYU professors critique other historians, it is just fine for them to admit there were plural marriages, or even discuss them. in that case, the apologist who goes to church and says the church is true the church is true the church is true, is a saint, someone who references that information, is anti. so bizarre.

I just copied this from a BYU site.

Status of Women at the Time They Were Sealed to Joseph Smith (number of wives)
Single with no prior marriage (17)
Single and widowed (4)
Married to a husband with good church standing (4)
Married to a disaffected or nonmember husband (4)

Again, these numbers are debatable. My point is simply to point out that this information is not available from lds.org, it is available from other mormon scholars who are not considered anti. So why wouldn't someone skip the source where information that is accurate and contextual is omitted?

The other issue that seems to matter is how something is said. For example, if it is said with proper punctuation and capitalization versus lack of shifting the shift key, some people are more impressed. And if I were to say, I know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet and God Commanded him to have about 34 living wives and about 9 posthumous marriages, Mormons would love my faith. If I were to say, Joseph Smith had over 40 wives, no wonder the locals and William Law hated hizass - that is anti. The facts are the same. And in reality, having sympathy for the locals and Law is not out of line with the teachings contained in mormon scriptures. After all, they felt betrayed, lied to, mislead, threatened, etc. A good mormon would empathize and perhaps forgive those folks. But that doesnt matter, it only seems to matter if you are holding to the rod, regardless of whether one is blinded by the light, the darkness or a blindfold.

One addendum on the AZande:

Here is a quote from a scholarly article:

"This blindness of Azande to the facts which to us seem decisive is sustained by remarkable ingenuity. 'They reason excellently' (says Evans-Pritchard) 'in the idiom of their beliefs, but they cannot reason outside, or against, their beliefs because they have no other idiom in which to express their thoughts.'

While we can admire their reasoning ability, I don't think most of us would admire their INability to reason "outside their belief system."

This is, it seems to me, the same problem most fundamentalist/literalist religous believers exhibit.

John: would you advise us to become Witches?
Full Disclosure: I am a closet Wiccan.

Hello JD

Interesting thoughts, as usual.

You are clearly right that the mainstream does not contextualize, and PBS and NPR usually do, without being anti- or pro-religion.

I assume that when you say that
the Azande's beliefs were logical given their paradigm of how the world works,

there paradigm of how the world works was based on beliefs that current scientific evidence show to be inaccurate.

There certainly are more and less logical Faith-based thought systems.

In all of them, one must make at least ONe big assumption that can't be verified or falsified however.

That is of course possible: whether it is advisable is the big question.

For instance, if it makes on healthier to believe in God, should one do so even though the evidence does not justify it?

Yockel says:

"I don't understand why your public relations department continues to argue on its press releases that the LDS Church is the fastest growing religion in the United States when the CUNY religious identification survey has demonstrated that people are leaving the LDS Church as fast as they are joining."

The following is taken from the Newsroom section of the official LDS church website:

"According to the National Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States. However, despite its increasing numbers, the Church cautions against overemphasis on growth statistics. The Church makes no statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination despite frequent news media comments to that effect. Such comparisons rarely take account of a multiplicity of complex factors, including activity rates and death rates, the methodology used in registering or counting members and what factors constitute membership. Growth rates also vary significantly across the world. Additionally, many other factors contribute to the strength of the Church, most especially the devotion and commitment of its members."

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0272d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

I love NPR and BBC coverage because they provide ample coverage of context. As far as understanding people and worldviews, context is king!

It seems mainstream cooperate media does not find making ample time for context profitable. We may not have the attention span for it.

Indeed religious beliefs taken out of context are very easy to categorize as irrational, psychotic and the like. Lévy-Bruhl theorized that those people in who are often considered “primitive” in Africa, the Amazon and elsewhere have such “irrational beliefs” that they must have a pre-logical mentality.

Evans-Pritchard, a legendary Catholic Cultural anthropologist, spent considerable time with the Nuer and the Azande (key pre-logical mentality candidates). He learned their language, and lived with them for years. He wrote wonderful works contextualizing their beliefs, putting to rest Levi-Bruhl’s narrow pre-logical mentality hypothesis.

He said Azande beliefs in witchcraft and oracles were perfectly rational, if understood in the context of the Azande universe and social world.

In discourse on religion, so often ridicule comes before contextualization and attempts to understand.

Saddly, Lévy-Bruhl’s “pre-logical mentality” hypothesis is still alive and well in western society today.

Otterson wrote, "Civility and inclusiveness, consensus and reasonableness are – like depth, substance and context – becoming casualties of a mass media trend. Our society will be the worse for it if the trend isn’t checked."

These words completely apply to Otterson's church as well.

Civility and inclusiveness, consensus and reasonableness are - like depth, substance and context - becoming casualties of the LDS church's trend of changing and whitewashing the facts and events in its history. LDS society, even the very happiness of its members, will be the worse for it if the trend isn't checked.

Who Mis-Represents Mormons More?
-The Mainstream Media, or
-Mormons themselves

Otterson wrote his post here so you would think the answer is the Media.

In other words, to deflect attention from the fact that the Mormons themselves have elaborate Spin-Meister structures to obscure many truths about the religion.

Most Important Example:
Faithful History
obscures the fact that
the Founder of the Church
had so many character problems
that to take his word for anything
requires a massive suspension of Disbelief.

AND
If he was fantasizing,
ALL of the most important Truth Claims of the Church Fall apart.
The Church is NOT True.
In fact, as JFielding Smith and G B Hinckley said,
either the church is true, or its the biggest fraud in history.

Mormon Ideological Defensiveness

Anon above (plse give yourself a name) in his smart post implicitly makes the point that

Virtually anyone who labels arguments that are Multi-sourced (as virtually all the critiques of Mormons have been here)

Is an Ideologist: the gacts have very littel chance of changing her ideology. Same process whether it is Communism, Mormonism, or Rosicrucianism.

I suspect that there is a gene for Obediance to authority that predisposes people to hand over their reason to a higher authority. George Lakoff proposed a version of this with his "Strong Father" theory in HIS Elephant book: many people need the certainty that a strong father figure provides.

He was making the point that Bush relies on that model: "i'm the decider." Your're either with us or against us.

As Bush has shown, Strong Fathers can turn out to be tragically wrong. When you hand over power to them, you often get abused.

GALCOH:

Are you inviting people to leave a public forum? Or are you, like others have, confusing this with an LDS-church-provided website?

It's very interesting to me that, no matter how people phrase things or what the source, if it's not the official story per the Mormon view of things, then it's called "anti" or "toxic" or "hostile." So I'm actually quite curious - how does one present an "objective" view of Mormonism, citing multiple sources, that is still acceptable to actual Mormons? Because I have yet to see it.

I initially saw a lot of complimentary "fair" and "objective" and "even-handed" terms being bandied about in reference to an upcoming PBS special about Mormonism. More recently, I have seen a lot of words like "hatchet job" and "smear campaign." Which one is it? And what makes the difference between the two? (Not just in this specific program, but in general as well.) I am really curious if there is ever a way to have a conversation with Mormons about their faith together with people who don't share it? It seems like suspicion and a sense of being persecuted by anti-Mormons, regardless of the nature or tone of the conversation, is thrown up as a barrier from the outset.

FWIW, there have been no "anti-Mormons" posting on this particular thread. There have been some good points made by people who cite multiple sources, mostly LDS ones it appears in fact, yet they are still dismissed out of hand. So what's the problem?

don't you guys have your own hang out over at flak?

From the LDS Church's "Family Search" website:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167

This is the list I came up with from www.familysearch.org.

35 marriages of Joseph Smith, Jr while he was alive and 9 marriages after he died.

Mayan, I dont know how to link to this after doing the search. All this was taken from the LDS website.

Lucinda Pendleton 1838 Far West, Missouri
Sarah Scott 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Mary Houston 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Nancy Maria Winchester 1844 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Elvira Annie Cowles 1 Jun 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Prescindia Lathrop Huntington 11 Dec 1841 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Helen Mar Kimball 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Martha McBride 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Elizabeth Davis 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Desdimona C Fullmer 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Decena Diademia Johnson 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Flora Ann Woodworth 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Ruth Daggett Vose 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Hannah M Ells 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Catharine Walker 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Maria Lawrence 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Almera Woodard Johnson 1 Aug 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Lucy Walker 1 May 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Olive Grey Frost 12 Apr 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Rhoda Richards 12 Jun 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Mary Elizabeth Rollings 17 Jan 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Fanny Young 2 Nov 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Melissa Lott 20 Sep 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Sarah Ann Whitney 27 Jul 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Zina Diantha Huntington 27 Oct 1841 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Sarah Maryetta Kingsley 29 Jun 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Eliza Roxcy Snow 29 Jun 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Emily Dow Partridge 4 Mar 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Louisa Beaman 5 Apr 1841 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Agnes Moulton Coolbirth 6 Jan 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Sarah Lawrence 7 Jul 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Sylvia Porter Sessions 8 Feb 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Eliza Maria Partridge 8 Mar 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Patty Bartlett 9 Mar 1842 Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Emma Hale 18 Jan 1827 South Bainbridge, Chenango Co., New York
Olive Andrews 15 Jan 1846 'Proxy' Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Sarah Ann Fuller 20 Jan 1846 'Proxy' Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Cordelia Calista Morley 27 Jan 1846 'Proxy' Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illinois
Sophronia Grey Frost 1845 'Proxy' Nauvoo, Hancock Co., Illnois
Melissa Snow 1880 'Proxy' Salt Lake City, Utah
Amanda Melissa Barnes 19 Jan 1852 'Proxy' Salt Lake City, Utah
Vienna Jacques 28 Mar 1858 'Proxy' Salt Lake City, Utah
Rachel R Ivins 29 Nov 1855 'Proxy' Salt Lake City, Utah
Marinda Nancy Johnson 31 Jul 1857 'Proxy' Salt Lake City, Utah

Henry, it wasnt me. but, if you thought it was me I must conclude that you must have had a really good time. Too bad Otterson won't meet me for hot chocolate, he too would have a good time. Instead, he just stays at home and emails with the dudes that think I am a Sociopath. Really. I am not making that up. It really is true.

Thanks again,

The Largest Sociopathic Land-Mammal on the Americas.

(This was the real Elephant, FYI)

'Chops, can you post the link to Joseph Smith's family history? or can it only be retrieved by doing the search? Who is missing?

I am assuming this is thread appropriate since it is from an 'Official Link.'

"I count 24 wives there (including 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball)."

I'm pretty certain the number stands at 34 including Emma. The listing on that site is not complete IIRC.

"not fake mayan elephant but replying anyway" wrote:

"I don't only believe that Joseph Smith was only married to one wife on this Earth, I KNOW IT IS TRUE."

You may wish to go to the official church site familysearch.org and do a search on Joseph Smith (here is his record number: 9KGL-W2).

I count 24 wives there (including 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball).

Do you wish to retract your statement now?

Henry, You Idiot:

every two bit Zoologist knows
there were no elephants in the Western Hemisphere
in 230 AD.

What gave you the idea that there were? I bet the one you saw was Pink too. Slipped on your Word of Wisdom observance, eh?

M.E, thanks for clarifying.

By the way,
are you the Elephant I met in a bar on the Yucatan in 230 A.D.?

See why I think it's important for each of us to use OUR OWN pseudonym vs. posing under someone else's? It creates stupid confusion and detracts from the topic at hand. It's immature.

sister mary lisa, you always seem to get my back on this goofiness. thanks.

for the record - I posted two posts on here, I did NOT post the goofy thing about Smith's wives. The dude married 33 women, on Earth. I have no clue what he has done since his death, he may have infinite wives now for all I know :)

"Mayan was being deeply honest to any reader of intelligence and discernment."

I'm well aware of ME's character when it comes to discussing the church. He's not the issue here though as he is on the level. There have been previous incidents of trolls using his handle to post drivel.

It makes it very hard to pick up on snark and ironic statements.

Thunderchops:
It is hard to know whom to believe here, isn't it?

I would take YOU to be ironic, but I fear you are not.

Mayan was being deeply honest to any reader of intelligence and discernment.

Part of the problem with LDS orthodoxy is that it obscures the fact that the world is full of ironies, and that grown-ups have to learn to deal with them.

That is why I still have a job.

Sister Mary
I fear our Real Mayan was being ironic.

He was trying to illustrate that
folks who profess to "know"
what is not true
are ridiculous

but he is more subtle than I
so perhaps all did not see his point.

Or perhaps I misread you.
It is hard when you are 160 years old

"Actually, I take back what I said about Joesph Smith and his wives. It is true that Joesph Smith was married to only Emma Smith on this Earth. All other claims or stories of him having other wives are wholly and completely false."

If you're LDS maybe you need a refresher about being honest.

Article of faith 13 : "We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men;"

Temple interview : "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"

Let your light so shine faker.

I don't only believe that Joseph Smith was only married to one wife on this Earth, I KNOW IT IS TRUE.

Fake Mayan Elephant ~ you wrote:

"Actually, I take back what I said about Joesph Smith and his wives. It is true that Joesph Smith was married to only Emma Smith on this Earth. All other claims or stories of him having other wives are wholly and completely false."

Do you actually believe that stuff, Fake Mayan? Just because the church chooses to not teach you about them or focus on those women in any way (thereby showing their true feelings on how "cherished" women really are in the gospel) does not mean they weren't really married to him.

Get real, and please quit being too scared to just post your own comments under your own pseudonym. You come across pretty weak posting as Mayan Elephant rather than commenting TO him like the more mature posters do here.

Skeptic,

What material on here is anti?

BS:

I agree that multiple sources are better than one, regardless of the bias or views of that single source. I thought I pointed that out when i said, 'exclusively,' but I now see that I did not make that clear.

Along with multiple sources, I think its important, where relevant, to also analyze and investigate from sources with diverse and opposing biases.

If by diatribe, you were referring to the reference to Poelman, I apologize. Otherwise, all the topics posted up to this point were either referenced by Otterson or in links that he included. And again, if the Poelman reference is not an appropriate case of editing to have used, feel free to object or point that out. He was a General Authority and I would not consider his history to be anti-mormon, would you?

Believing Skeptic
I feel sorry for you - all the pent-up toxic hostility in your post. I think the toxicity is all on the part of believing Mormons
not the critics.

Which one of us is right?
Let's pray about it.

Could it be that people criticise Otterson's characterizations of the Church because they are misleading or, often, untrue?

It is hard to imagine how people who have been misled and deceived can be motivated to try and prevent others from being misled and deceived, isn't it?

Actually, I take back what I said about Joesph Smith and his wives. It is true that Joesph Smith was married to only Emma Smith on this Earth. All other claims or stories of him having other wives are wholly and completely false.

I'm always interested in how this space, regardless the original question that is asked, becomes a forum for diatribe against the Mormon Church. Fair enough--this is, after all, a "public" forum. But responding to the question at the head of the piece, rather than venting all the personal, pent-up, agonizing frustrations that most of the responders here seem to suffer from, would be refreshing.

Interestingly, the "toxicity" to which Mr. Otterson refers is in ample supply here.

The issue of "fairness" in media coverage is probably lost on most newspeople these days...and perhaps fairly. The notion of going to one source for information (such as to Enron, as cited by Mayan Elephant) is clearly a thing of the past. But if "fairness" were to enter in, it would be "fair" to say that if I ONLY went to the website set up by the angry chorus of Enron detractors, I would hardly get a "fair and balanced" picture.

I don't think the media sets out, necessarily, to purposely distort, underreport, or avoid treating religions fairly in the news. And from the media people I know--which includes people from print, TV, radio, and "new media" sources--they are not particularly a religious lot. It would be hard for most of them to report, straight-faced, that the Catholic pope had an angelic visitation or that Joseph Smith had such. To be objective, they are ALWAYS going to couch religious reporting in terms of "alleged" or "so-called" or "believed to be" or the like.

I don't think most organized religious bodies expect that media will give a pure and undefiled version of what they believe...but I think that they have the right to having at LEAST a couple of sources quoted in a piece.

I think Otterson's observation on the laziness of reporters who go only to what comes up in "Google" is a fair comment. I would, of course, argue that it would be JUST as lazy for a journalist to go only to www.lds.org, for example, to background his or her story on the Mormons.

As for civility or "honor" among journalists, I'm afraid we've passed that time; such terms are now considered quaint and outdated. It's hard, fast, and completely unabashed for the most part today. The "new media" and the anonymity with which we now correspond with one another removes any need to be civil. I will never know who these people are, nor will they know me.

Oddly enough, Otterson, you are the ONLY person in this blog whom we know by name. Cruel irony?

I don't agree with the premise that religion gets short shrift in the mainstream media. The bulk of the nasty criticism of Mitt Romney seems to be coming from right-wing nuts like the writers of the National Review. Moreover, Mormon doctrine is unfamiliar to the vast majority of Americans, so it shouldn't be surprising that the media is interested in discussing it.

More interesting to me is the treatment that religion is getting in entertainment programming. A few recent examples--HBO's "Big Love" was pretty much dead-on in its depiction of Utah's predominant religious culture, and not at all disrespectful of it. Showtime's "Sleeper Cell" depicted various strains of Islam, and clearly came down on the side of moderate Islam. NBC's "Revelations" featured a Roman Catholic nun who played detective to find the newborn anti-Christ. Far from bashing religion, if anything, these shows embrace it.

Mike,

You said: “In fact, I object less to the request for a sound bite than I do to those reporters who lazily compile their stories from unofficial Internet sites without ever coming to the source.”

Would it surprise you if readers were equally disappointed if journalists and authors went exclusively to the official sources? Going to the official source for information about Enron wasn’t so helpful now was it? Why would religion be any different from other institutions when it comes to analysis or investigation? But, since we are on the topic, lets discuss your Source a bit. Take this little cutie – www.josephsmith.net

At this official source, it says the following:
“On January 18, 1827, Joseph Smith married Emma Hale in South Bainbridge, New York. …
Joseph and Emma Smith's marriage of 17 years was blessed with 11 children (2 adopted), 6 of whom died in infancy. Joseph Smith taught that parents are to treat children with unfailing love and kindness and teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Joseph and Emma Smith centered their marriage and family in the gospel of Jesus Christ—an example to all.”

That is lovely Mike. Just lovely. But it fails to mention the other 32 wives he had and that his behavior related to those relationships led to his imprisonment and death.

So Mike, how in good conscience can you judge or demean any journalist that dismisses your official sources, or you, when you are simply spinning a pretty little story about the foundations of your church?

Also from your official source: “These include the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ; the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of revelations to Joseph Smith and subsequent presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and the Pearl of Great Price, which includes the writings of Moses and Abraham as well as modern writings of Joseph Smith.”

Mike, the writings of Abraham? Of Moses? That is all lovely and good, but is it true? The Book of Abraham was translated from a funeral text that had nothing to do with Abraham or anything else. Do you want journalists to run naked and blind into the cruel world, put their own reputation on the line, without considering other sources? C’mon man. You cant be that naïve.

You also said, “The editorial filters and self-restraint that formerly curbed excesses in the “Old Media” of past years don’t exist in much of this New Media world – its advocates even laud that fact. And so the Old Media, challenged by falling revenues and a loss of monopoly on news dissemination, have responded by aping these very trends.”

I do get the ‘follow the money’ suggestion. There is motivation by revenue. But, your suggestion that editorial filters are somehow better for society is funny. Really funny. Especially when you consider that YOU are the editorial filter for a church. Do you really want to return to ‘Old Media?’ Consider the Ronald E. Poelman Conference talk of October 1984, is that old enough? Not only was it edited, but the Church forced Poelman to re-record the talk for VHS distribution. Is that the sort of “Old-Media” editing that your institution longs for? By self-restraint are you referring to the suggestion that some truths are not useful, and it is up to the journalist to withhold such truths from the reader?

The new media is not expanding because the world is wicked. It is growing because consumers want more information and they want different sources. They don’t want the cleaned up, sanitized, feel-goody stuff when the facts and realities are so contrary to the party-line.

If you want something said, say it. Don’t hide. If Mormons don’t believe that Jesus will return to Missouri, explain that. If they don’t believe that the New Jerusalem is in Jackson County, explain that. If Jesus will not first visit the actual Garden of Eden, or Adam-ondi-Ahman, which is in Missouri according to Mormon Doctrine, then say so. Don’t just declare it as loose, complain that you weren’t called and go silent. If Mormons don’t wear long underwear, then respond to the charge. If its true, and you just don’t like it being said, then change careers cuz there is a lot more truth gonna be said in both the old and new media.

It is interesting that you would be critical of people using non official sources as it relates to Romney and his Mormonism. When asked about the temple when Romney announced his candidacy, he suggested that those with questions search online where the entire ceremony can be read. Go figure. What in the hell? Is it inconvenient that Romney didn’t suggest that journalists get their answers from the official source? Sounds to me like you need to take the issue up with Romney, not with readers of Newsweek or any other website.

The question posed to you was about media and religion. You clearly have taken a personal approach to this, which is more interesting. I applaud you for doing so. I think what you are experiencing is probably very difficult. Just as the old media had a monopoly on information, so did you, or the person in your position, have a monopoly on the history of the mormon church. You probably sympathize with the broken monopoly of the network news and newspapers because it is personal to you and your employer. At some point, the church will have to come clean on many things as the editing and censoring will no longer appeal to people within and outside the church.

This post would have been better if you had explored your responsibility for the climate that you decry.

Thank heavens there are a number of sources of information about the LDS Church. Of course, your employer has done its best to keep the lid on. Nonetheless, there is competition now and that is a healthy development.

The LDS Church is the only religious organization aspiring to the mainstream that excommunicates academics and artists for their work. It is little wonder when rhetoric becomes heated in the face of self-serving power plays.

And then there is the problem of official disinformation.

I don't understand why your public relations department continues to argue on its press releases that the LDS Church is the fastest growing religion in the United States when the CUNY religious identification survey has demonstrated that people are leaving the LDS Church as fast as they are joining.

The quality of your information is objectively too low. For example, if one reviews the demographic data that your organization publishes then one will find quickly that in some years, a negative number of people must have died for the statistics to add up.

In light of such flaws, it is only rational for reporters to look for alternative sources of information.

If you want the trust of journalists and their readers, stop blaming everyone else and assure that you distribute quality information. When you do, you will find that much of your problem will disappear.

What a Brave Stand Mr O Takes!

Imagine, having the nerve to criticize the superficiality of the mass media!
What is wrong with devoting 15 minutes out of every 30 to the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Of course the popular media is superficial and tawdry. All of us Washington Post readers know that.

The point is: what alternative sources of information should big boys and girls avail themselves of?

Certainly not the self-interested, mythology based, tightly controlled dogma of churches like the Mormons and the Catholics.

If a person is *slightly* interested and is not addicted to Entertainment Tonight,
one can learn a whole lot about the very interesting splits in the Episcopal Church from the Post and the Times.

I don't think On Faith really was in dire need of Mr Otterson's admonistions about fixating on Britney Spears. Most readers of this newpaper are pretty good at getting and evaluating information from substantive sources.

It is Ironic however, to be admonished about succumbing to PR from the LDS PR Man.

Think he is trying to bolster his own credibility? I know it is Un-American to suspect a PR flack of having ulterior motives.

Norrie makes a very good point about

The Wild Inaccuracy of Most Religious Beliefs

If the media was NOT restricted to soundbites, and people would actually listen to a 5-minute report about the True History of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Founder

rather than the fictions (which I know something about) and distortions and cover ups that the Mormon church presents about Smith's legend,

the Church would not be too happy and would long for the good old days of soundbites

PBS is doing a series on the Mormons (hope it's Frontline) and perhaps Mr Otterson will get his wish.

When one looks objectively and thoroughly at most religions, one is amazed that a sentient human being with an IQ over 50 could believe what those religions are peddling.

Mr. Otterson,

Here's my ten second religious soundbite, which, I believe, carries a heavy charge of truth:

MY KARMA RAN OVER MY DOGMA

As a Buddhist sympathizer I try to keep this truth continually in mind. Truth can come in a very small package and in very few words.

ON ANOTHER POINT, let's consider all the scriptures of all the world's religions as if they were media news reports, which they generally purport to be.

How accurate are they? Not very to not at all.

Most are totally false and tendentious. Modern media reports, though abysmal, compare favorably with scriptures from the point of view of accuracy.

The "Athenians and strangers" mentioned in Acts 17:21 seemed to have the same problem as many media outlets today, spending "their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing."

Sermons and Sunday school, on the other hand, often repeat teachings we've previously heard -- sometimes many, many times -- to reinforce their importance and cause us to recommit ourselves to righteous living. But "old stories" like these don't sell newspapers.

Elder Quentin L. Cook, in a March 2003 Liahona article, touched on the same concept:

"We live in a world where the latest story, the buzz, the hype, the 'new thing' is much sought after and then publicized throughout the world. Movies, television, and other media often celebrate heroic gestures, dysfunctionality, conflict, and sexuality rather than the quiet, everyday acts of sacrifice, service, and love that are so much a part of the Savior’s message and example. The wild rush to find the new often tramples on what is true."

It's actually a bit ironic that the Gospel doesn't get more news coverage since it literally means "good news." But that's probably fine. To me the peace that comes through the grace of the Savior Jesus Christ is best felt and shared quietly and personally, not over the airwaves.