THE MORMON CURTAIN
SmartPhone Version.
Containing 4,639 Articles Spanning 328 Topics  

Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
 HOME   FAQ   CONTACT ME   328 TOPICS   RSS FEED
topic image
Friday, Feb 17, 2012, at 08:13 AM
Talked Today With An Official Of The Anti-Defamation League About The Necro-Dunking Of Simon Wiesenthal's Parents. It's Essentially The Straw That's Broken The Camel's Back
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE   -Guid-
Talked today with an official of the Anti-Defamation League about the necro-dunking of Simon Wiesenthal's parents. It's essentially the straw that's broken the camel's back . . .

During that conversation, I was informed that the national director of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, is well-versed on the Mormon doctrine of ritualized dead-dunking and that the Wiesenthal episode has brought the issue into starker focus for the ADL. (Abe has demanded that the practice stop, given that its continuance amounts to a second murder of the Jewish identity of Jewish Holocaust victims. He has also notified the Mormon church that continual ADL monitoring of the church will help, he hopes, keep it from future breaking of the its promise to discontinue the dead-dunking of exterminated Jews. He has asked the Mormon church to implement more stringent internal controls on this dead-dunking practice. He has also called for the Mormon church to consider abandoning its practice of dead-dunking not only Jews but other non-Mormons).

I informed the ADL official with whom I spoke that Mormons not only dead-dunk Jewish victims of the Holocaust, they actually regard themselves to be adopted into the covenant of the ancient Jewish bloodline.

I told him that Mormons are given patriarchal blessings, where the name of the tribe of Israel to which the Mormon recipient of this blessing has supposed Mormon-asserted linkage is pronounced upon the head of the recipient.

The official said he was not aware of that.

I responded that what Mormons do, in effect, is to invade Jewish genealogical tribes, declare these tribes as their own, then extinguish the Jewishness of actual Jews via necro-dunking them into the Mormon church.

He was not pleased to hear that news.

I plan on talking with Abe Foxman about this in some detail, when it is convenient for him to do so (we have known each other since the 1980s when I joined him on an ADL trip to Israel, and most recently met up with him last October when he came through Phoenix).

This is not going away.
topic image
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012, at 12:08 PM
It's Always Wrong To Touch Someone When They've Said "No Touching."
Original Author(s): Cheryl
EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26   -Guid-
It's always wrong to touch someone when they've said "no touching."

This is a continuation of the thread about the church leader forcing someone to endure unwanted shoulder caresses at a church meeting.

Someone in that thread lambasted the guy for objecting to the intrusion and causing a small commotion.

I want to lend support to anyone who stands up to mormons who invade private space and refuse to abide by normal boundaries.

In the nonmo world people don't usually aggressively insist on manhandling or caressing casual aquaintances. In the mormon world leaders sometimes overstep by using force. That's always inappropriate.

Other inappropriate boundary violations:

Going to homes where the residents have requested NO contact. Our homes are our castles. We have a 100% absolute right to determine who is welcome and who is not.

Asking about underwear is inappropriate especially if someone has said they're not willing to discuss it.

Telling people they must to believe or participate in a certain religion is inappropriate.

Even talking about religion can be wrong unless those in the conversation agree to cross this line.

Leaving anonymous treats on a doorstep as a comeon to attend a church is not normal behavior and is an invasion of personal space.

Mormons don't often see anything wrong with these things because they're programmed to blame victims for having boundaries.

So often on this board and among mormons I see people ridiculed for not submitting to boundary violations. Mormons and unrecovered exmos stick up for those who pull these stunts because they don't want to face the fact that they are part of the problem. Their mindset is stuck in a place of respecting church authority over self determination. If something doesn't bother *them,* they attribute weakness of character to anyone with different personal boundaries.

I'll be frank. Individuals don't owe mormons leeway on this issue. It isn't taking the highroad to put up with garmie checks, shoulder messaging, home invasions, or unannounced mormon spies if those things are bothersome or repulsive.

We all own our bodies. We own our time. We own our home space. We own our inner thoughts and feelings.

Anyone is dead wrong to claim we must undergo therapy and feel guilt over having boundaries.

What other boundary issues are minimized in the mormon culture?

Does anyone have examples to share?

Has anyone blown up over a boundary violation and felt guilty about it?

Did anyone used to be part of the problem?
topic image
Friday, Feb 3, 2012, at 07:25 AM
Elder Jensen: Lying For The Lord?
Original Author(s): Kevin Graham
MARLIN JENSEN   -Guid-
In SL Trib today, Jensen said, "I have heard that our overall activity, especially in the United States, is as good as it’s ever been."

In Q&A; session at Utah State on Jan 18 Jensen said, "We never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now."

Lyin' for the Lord?

Partial transcript of Q&A; session with with Elder Marlin Jensen (recently released church historian) and LDS students at Utah State on Jan 18, 2012:

Female questioner: I too have often been confused by how we view history, especially as I've come to study church history in the last few years. And I'm wondering if that will be reflected in the manuals. Have you had any time? And I'm not trying to be goading here, but I'm wondering when the stuff that I hear from Richard Bushman or Leonard (inaudible), when I read that kind of stuff, when am I going to see that reflected in the Sunday School lessons?

Elder Jensen: That's really a great, fair question. And it's one that was asked by the Institute faculty today, in a sense. And I mentioned there that we've actually been given the task of creating a way to respond. You know, I don't like to think that there are problems with church history. I know someone taught a course at the University of Utah once called "Problems in Church History." (laughter) And he only taught it once. (more laughter) This is what we have in mind: to develop our response to the tough issues, whether that's polyandry or DNA in the Book of Mormon or whatever it is. Then, with the cooperation with the Curriculum Dept and the Church Education System, to build into our curriculum, material that covers these areas. ... My daughter, one of them, came to me and asked me, "Dad, why didn't you ever tell me that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?" Well, Kathy and I never intended to dwell on Joseph's polygamy. (laughter) It didn't occur to us. (more laughter) It might occur to us today, though, to be quite frank with you.

Follow-up question: Has the church seen the effects of Google on membership? Are the church leaders aware? I may be overstating it, but it seems like the people who I talk to about church history are people who find out and leave, quickly. Is the church aware of that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?”

Elder Jensen: We are aware. Let me say this, I often get this question: "Do the Bretheren really know?" They do. And I'm not speaking for me. I'm speaking for the fifteen men that are above me in the hierarchy in the church. They really do know. And they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues. We do have another initiative called "Answering Gospel Questions." We are trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in and exactly what format to put it in. But we want to have a place where people can go. We have hired someone that’s in charge of search engine optimization. We realize that people get their information basically from Google. They don’t come to LDS.org. If they get there, it’s through Google. So, we are trying to create an offering that will address these issues and be available for the public at large and to the church leaders, because many of them don’t have answers either. It can be very disappointing to church members. And, for people who are losing their faith, or who have lost it, we hope to regain to the church.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/534...
topic image
Friday, Feb 3, 2012, at 07:19 AM
First Presidency Proclamations
Original Author(s): Tim The Enchanter, Chap, Rollo Tomasi
BOYD K. PACKER - SECTION 2   -Guid-
A few years ago, in a conference talk more known for "why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" Boyd K. Packer also said:
"Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."
When this talk was given, I remember thinking "What are the other proclamations?"

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism answered this question most of the way, naming the four previous proclamations. The link also contains the full text of two of them (the 1st, given in 1841, and the 4th, given in 1980). However, there were only excerpts from the 2nd, given in 1845, and 3rd, given in 1865, proclamations, and I was curious to see the full text. Finally, I tracked them down in the volume set Messages of the First Presidency.

The 2nd one is long and calls upon the leaders of the world to support the Saints, warning them of the second coming (which people then living were to have lived to see), declaring the American Indians to be of the house of Israel, and so forth. The 3rd one is basically a rebuke of Orson Pratt for crazy talk.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference...

But here they all are online, surely?

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclama...

No they are not ... significant deletions have been made from the 1845 one at least, as one can see by comparing the version here:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/p...

This charming bit is missing:
And now, O ye kings, rulers, and people of the Gentiles: hear ye the word of the Lord; for this commandment is for you. You are not only required to repent and obey the gospel in its fulness, and thus become members or citizens of the kingdom of God, but you are also hereby commanded, in the name of Jesus Christ, to put your silver and your gold, your ships and steam-vessels, your railroad trains and your horses, chariots, camels, mules, and litters, into active use, for the fulfillment of these purposes. For be it known unto you, that the only salvation which remains for the Gentiles, is for them to be identified in the same covenant, and to worship at the same altar with Israel. In short, they must come to the same standard. For, there shall be one Lord, and his name one, and He shall be king over all the earth.
This was from a talk given at the October 2010 Gen'l Conference. It has become a bit famous because BKP, during the actual talk, described the Proclamation as a "revelation," which was later edited out of the published version in the Ensign. Here is what BKP said from the pulpit (bold added for emphasis):
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it.
Now, here is the written version:
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the fifth proclamation in the history of the Church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.
Of course, the talk is also famous for other parts being edited out that dealt with homosexuality.
topic image
Monday, Jan 23, 2012, at 09:50 AM
Comparison By The MRM - Mormon Apostles No Longer Are Special Witnesses Of Jesus Christ - Now Only Witnesses Of THE NAME Of Jesus Christ
Original Author(s): Fetal Deity
CHANGING DOCTRINE   -Guid-
The Gospel Principles manual (chapter 14) used to say:

"An Apostle is a special witness of Jesus Christ in all the world ..."

and now says:

"An Apostle is a special witness OF THE NAME of Jesus Christ in all the world ...." (Emphasis added.)

Another example is found in chapter 17:

"Twelve Apostles, who are special witnesses of Jesus Christ, teach the gospel and regulate the affairs of the Church in all parts of the world..."

and now says:

"Twelve Apostles, who are special witnesses OF THE NAME of Jesus Christ, teach the gospel and regulate the affairs of the Church in all parts of the world...." (Emphasis added.)

http://www.mrm.org/gospel-principles
topic image
Friday, Jan 20, 2012, at 01:59 PM
Does The Stock Broker Get The Blessings?
Original Author(s): NormaRae
TITHING - SECTION 2   -Guid-
I worked for about 6 months for an insurance company/securities firm in Provo area in the late 90s. The guy who owned the firm was a high-up mormon and virtually all our clients were TBMs. There were quite a few clients who only paid tithing once a year, in December and paid with stock. That way they avoided the capital gains.

So they'd call Elder Penishood and give him the number that their accountant had figured they'd need to pay to cover their 10% for the year and my boss would decide what to pay with and take care of it. So tithing for these people was a simple once-a-year business transaction and they didn't even have to go to the trouble of filling out the form. The firm did more sacrificing to pay the tithing than they did (and I was the one doing all the administrative work). I thought I should have gotten the blessings.

But many of these people were bishops and higher and I'll guarantee they gave more than their share of talks about the blessings of tithing. Yes, they'd extol the virtues of "sacrificing" to pay tithing to people who had to choose between food or diapers or maybe even a roof over their heads and paying tithing. Just made me sick to even deal with them. It was when I was really questioning whether there was anything good in the church at all--just a couple years before I resigned. It certainly helped open my eyes.
topic image
Thursday, Jan 19, 2012, at 08:38 AM
The Cure For Counsel-Itis
Original Author(s): runtu
LDS SOCIAL SERVICES   -Guid-
I don't have time to write anything up, but someone I know wrote this up, and it's rather depressing. He acknowledges his own self-interest in his assessment, but I am as concerned about this development as he is. The church is cutting costs, which I completely understand, but this seems like a very bad move. A few years ago, the Ensign reprinted President Packer's warning against "counsel-itis," or expecting lay bishops to serve as personal counselors. But now, in a complete about-face, bishops are being asked to perform that very function, albeit with a "hotline" and some phone apps. And the church is now discouraging financial assistance for counseling.
I work in [western city] as a family therapist, and historically have received the brunt of my clients from LDS family services (LDSFS). Over a year ago, the LDSFS here began a pilot program for the church where all in-house therapists were gradually let go, and all counseling was done by referring out to community counselors. As such, the church could eliminate the costs of maintaining family services (except adoption services, which will stay intact). However, under new direction, the Welfare Program is now attempting to serve globally, instead of only (for the most part) in North America; with family services, anyway. To accomplish this, a new system is being put in to play, and all of the [western city] area therapists who are on the referral list for LDSFS were called in to a meeting to learn about this today.

We were instructed by the director of family services who is now moving into a supervisory position over a large area of N. America states. The change is this: Bishops will now be instructed that they are to work on a local level to solve ward problems. This is to include that Bishops should find ways to solve members’ problems in lieu of referring them to therapy. This is not to say that counseling should never be recommended, but other solutions should be attempted by bishops FIRST. Previously, training about how to assist ward members was occasionally provided for area bishops, but that will cease to occur. A 24-hour hotline will exist for Bishops to call and receive suggestions to try with their ward members’ issues, instead. As well, it is expected that they will be able to receive text messages with suggested helps, and that there will be phone apps developed; i.e. an app for how to assist a member with a “porn problem”. But the clear and basic pressure (instruction) is for Bishops to solve the problem,and try to avoid sending them to counseling. As well, we were informed that Bishops are being strongly discouraged from financially supporting therapy for their ward members as they have in the past. How that will shake out on an individual basis, is to be left to the Bishop to decide.

Naturally, this will mean less referrals for therapists, and that’s not good news for a room full of counselors; so let me concede the bias that suggests, right now. But I think it’s a poor move for greater reasons than just “it gives me less clients”; there were/are understandable concerns about the burden this places on a Bishop. In my limited experience (essentially a case study of one – me) of 8 years in practice, I’ve had multiple Bishops, multiple times request counseling assistance because they literally didn’t have time to even visit with all the ward members that wanted appointments. This could put sensitive-personality Bishops in the grave, and make dismissive asses out of the more Type-A leaders. In other words, I find it scary. Undeniably, It is financially genius on the part of the church, and while I don’t know if this will be different in a fairly LDS saturated place like Utah, I would also say it does place the world as a whole at an equal level; sort of like “if everybody doesn’t get LDSFS, then nobody does”. Also, essentially forcing Bishops to become capable of helping people better (albeit without any training) isn’t a bad thing. Ultimately, however, I would guess that this will mean better services and assistance for ward members who only need ecclesiastical counsel, and much greater harm done to those who really are in need of professional services.

So I’m trying to say there are obvious positives to this change in system. But my personal disgust came from the clearly stated reason for this change in the welfare system (and I quote): “We’re talking about a church that has infinite needs, and finite resources”. While that is objectively true, all I could think about was the multi-billion dollar mall. Ugh, and gross.

We were further informed that if we wanted to be beneficiaries of the much fewer referrals for counseling that would now be sent out from Bishops, we essentially needed to be buddies with the Bishops. It was made very clear that this could be accomplished by our finding a way to offer free consultation services and phone assistance for said Bishops in dealing with their ward members, so that they would want to use our services if needed for actual counseling. Again- financially brilliant on the part of the church, and rather common as a business model, I suppose. But it kind of feels gross.

I’ve been thinking about some of [other friend's] statements that the church could be better at using its professional and educated resources. I’m not sure if this qualifies as a move towards or fully away from that…?

In any case, there you go.