Forum Index
Announcements
Open Mormon Recovery Forum - Anyone can post anonymously.
Registered Mormon Recovery Forum
Resignation Forum
Recovery Group Meetings
Books And Literature
General Social Discussion
Ex-Mormon Get Together
Advertisements
Off Topic

1. The group is focused on a leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. Typically, the leader is alive, but in some cases may be deceased, but his or her “message” (belief system, ideology, touted practices) is still upheld as the Truth, as law.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry; leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar; the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders, and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify the means (what members are expected to do). This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, collecting money for bogus charities).
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in members in order to influence and control them. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
10. Subservience to the leader/group results in members cutting ties with family, friends, and radically altering personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group, believing there is no other way to be, and often fearing reprisals to self or others if they leave or even consider leaving the group.

"It is very important to know the heart and mind of your future eternal companion's desire to be worthy to go to the temple and always keep their temple covenants, enduring to the end"

"BYU is still a place where church leaders want young LDS men and women to meet, date and marry."

The chart at mormoninfo.org has three columns. One with various doctrinal questions. A second titled “Mormons Believe.” With what Mormons believe about the questions. And the third column titled “Christians Believe.” I don’t have any problem with what the second column says we believe. It seems pretty accurate. But still the chart has a big problem. Which is that the titles of the columns are grossly wrong. The second column about Mormon beliefs, should be labeled “True Followers of Christ Believe.” And the third column should be labeled “Apostate Christians Believe.” Because the beliefs in the third column certainly were not taught by Jesus. But came later under the Great and Abominable Church. After the priesthood and revelation were lost from the earth. After intellectuals perverted the truth. Trying to accomadate the Greek philosophies of men. And thus we see the danger of ever trying to accomadate gospel truths to the fashions and fads of so called intellectuals. Which are always changing, for example no one believes the Greeks anymore. So that now the so called traditional Christianity based on Greek philosophy, is completely ridiculous.

I asked Mike to stop posting here. The reasons are very simple and his reaction only emphasizes why I made the request. This request is rarely made.

Yes, I knew there would be fallout because not all the facts are known to the general public. Mike is actively involved with unethical activities, and quite likely illegal, which we can not support. He has talked about some of those at a local recovery meeting in Utah and on the RfM board. It is not how we work here. We asked him to stop posting about those activities, which he refused. Our allowing such posts implies we agree with such things. Our administrators are just volunteers and were getting overwhelmed with having to deal with his many posts which were over the line. We tried to deal with him quietly. He would not stop. He could of stayed here. He just did not want to follow our requests. If some one repeatedly violates rules and will not comply with simple requests, there is no other option.

Sigh... we are just volunteers trying to do the best we can.

Eric

Citing what they describe as their difficult and emotionally painful journey away from the Mormon church, a group of people have started a "former Mormon" support group to share stories, provide friendship and talk about their new faith, which for most is fundamentalist Christian.

"I lost every friend I had, and my husband was the only person I could turn to in this area," said the group’s founder, Melissa Thiring, 25, of Medford. "I started this group to raise awareness and bring healing for people who may be going through the same thing."

The support group meets at 2 p.m. on the first Saturday of each month at the Upper Room Café at Ashland Christian Fellowship, at Hersey and Oak streets in Ashland. The next meeting is Saturday.

Mormons believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true church on the face of the Earth," said Thiring, and those who leave are "deceived."

Said Thiring, "one is very often faced with being disowned or divorced."

Another group member, Robert Kiser, 48, of Medford, left 15 years ago and is now a fundamentalist Christian. His family "wrote me off," though they would still speak to him, just not about religion. It was painful, he said, but he’s "grown accustomed to it."

The Apostasy

In order for there to be a need for Joseph Smith, the church’s doctrine of the apostasy has to be true. Otherwise, there’s no need for a restoration. I was instructed to teach about the apostasy on my mission. It was the lead-in for the discussion of Joseph Smith. The apostasy was characterized by a loss of “priesthood authority,” the teaching of “false doctrine” and “changing of the essential ordinances and scriptures.”

“The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.” (http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,844-1,00.html)

If the apostasy were a true concept defining the 1,800 years prior to Joseph Smith, then none of the characteristics of the apostasy would be present in the restored church.

"The gospel as the Mormons know it sprang full grown from the words of Joseph Smith. It has never been worked over or touched up in any way, and is free of revisions and alterations" (Hugh Nibley, No Ma'am, That's Not History)

Ordinances changed

The LDS church has changed many ordinances over the course of its history. For example:

The Sacrament Christ himself instituted the sacrament to symbolize his gift to us. Wine represented his blood and was apparently very symbolic of the winepress, or the Garden of Gethsemane where he would suffer. Just any liquid does not carry the same symbolism. The process of winemaking was clearly a symbolic reason Christ chose wine. Water, while still a liquid, loses this symbolism when used in the Lord’s Supper. Of course, LDS prophets can change ordinances by revelation. So how do we know the leaders of the ancient church couldn’t have received the same revelation to change the ordinance of baptism to sprinkling? Both were changed for apparently the same reason: fear and self-protection (Joseph Smith switched to water when he feared wine used in the Sacrament would be poisoned. In about 250 A.D a man named Novation, was baptized on his deathbed. He had never been immersed. His friends laid around him many bed sheets and poured water all over him, trying to immerse him in his bed. He was afraid that immersing in the water would cause his death. This type of baptism was later allowed in such cases of necessity and later became common practice).

The D&C; also instructs us how to perform the Sacrament. It says that the congregation kneels and the prayer is recited. I once asked my mission president why we don’t kneel like the modern scriptures tell us to. I was essentially told to stop asking silly questions – we do it the way the brethren tell us to. Why can the modern brethren change things but the ancient brethren supposedly lost their authority for doing so?

The Temple When Joseph Smith restored the temple ceremony, it was taught that it was the same ceremony that was performed anciently and he restored it. Here's a quote from the LDS Ensign Magazine (From Page 22 of the August 2001 Ensign):

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed.""

That ceremony, however, has been changed significantly since its inception in the 1800’s. I witnessed one of those changes myself in 1990. No matter what anyone says, when I went through the temple in 1984 it was a different ceremony than it is now. Parts that were explained to me in 1984 as essential were removed. Isn’t that what happened in the apostasy? I understand the ability of the current prophet to receive revelation but why can he change saving ordinances as circumstances warrant when leaders of the ancient church are assailed for doing the same thing?

I think Mormons will say that there is continuing revelation and we receive truth “line upon line,” but the paradox is that leaders of the ancient church were also receiving knowledge line upon line. Why aren’t they afforded the same leeway as the LDS General Authorities? If Joseph Smith received the temple ceremony from God, why couldn’t God get it right the first time?

False Doctrine The church claims essential doctrine was changed during the apostasy. A lot of the early doctrine of the LDS church has changed too.

Original Sin Infant baptism is the most common type of sprinkling and is condemned in the book of Mormon. The error in baptizing infants is that it follows the doctrine of “original sin.” This doctrine holds children of Adam accountable for his original sin thereby rejecting the concept that Christ died for all our sins. If that is such an evil concept, why then were people of African descent denied their saving ordinances in the LDS temple based solely on the supposed sins of their forefathers? Wasn’t Christ’s sacrifice powerful enough for them? It seems just as blasphemous as the concept of original sin.

Wouldn’t the LDS denial of saving ordinances to Negroes for over 140 years be as much an affront to Christ’s saving grace as the assumption by Catholics that infants need baptism? The church apparently flip-flopped on this doctrine twice. Joseph Smith is reported to have given the priesthood to a black man, but under Brigham Young’s leadership this was changed. Blacks were allowed the priesthood once again in 1978 under Spencer W. Kimball. Why didn’t LDS leaders lose their priesthood over the false policy of racism that permeated the church for generations?

The denial of the priesthood to blacks prevented them from receiving their saving ordinances and thus exaltation. So what was their purpose of life? This doctrine alone qualifies the church itself to be “apostate” and thus lose its priesthood authority if it is held up to the same standards that the LDS church holds the ancient church up to.

Money Part of the apostasy included the selling of “indulgences” to believers. In its most corrupt form, “indulgences” meant that people had to pay money in order to receive ordinances or to receive remission from their sins. This was one of Martin Luther’s points of contentions when he started his opposition and reformation of the church. Is it wrong to demand money before saving ordinances are performed? Why then is it OK for the church to require a full payment of tithes before a person can receive their saving ordinances in the temple? I know tithing is seen as a commandment of God. So why was it so bad for the ancient church to collect tithes in the form of indulgences before they allowed saving ordinances to be performed? It seems to me that the LDS church is doing the same thing. I was shocked to discover that a full payment of tithes hasn’t always been a requirement for a temple recommend. Why doesn’t this teaching propel the church into apostasy?

LDS are often proud that the church doesn’t charge for services or pass a plate after meetings. We feel we got a good deal when we get married and don’t have to pay for the temple or the sealer (minister). But the truth is we have to pay a lot more than others. Seen from a different perspective, the church focuses intensely more on money than “apostate” churches. The other churches call their donations “tithes.” The scriptures aren’t clear that the LDS church is doing it the right way. In fact anciently people brought flocks to the temple as tithes when they participated in sacrifices. Sounds more like the protestant or catholic method to me – bringing in tithes to recompense for ordinances.

Money is such a focus in the church that they hold tithing settlements for you to declare your tithing faithfulness. Why is tithing more important than say, chastity? We don’t have “chastity settlements” or “honesty settlements” or “doing good to our fellow man settlements.” Why can’t I have the privilege of declaring myself 100% compliant with the Word of Wisdom? I do. In temple recommend interviews. Why isn’t that good enough for tithing?

In fact money is also uniquely secret in the LDS faith. While most other faiths and other non-profit organizations publish their financial statements, the LDS church fails to live up to it’s fiduciary responsibility and reveal to followers what their money is being spent on. There is no reason this shouldn’t be done in the form of public financial statements as it is done in other religions and as it was done in the church’s past.

Adam-God Doctrine Brigham Young clearly and repeatedly taught that Adam is our God. He claimed that Adam is the father of our spirits as well as the father of Jesus Christ.

Yet these statements can’t be dismissed as Brigham Young (and others) speaking as a man and not a prophet. Brigham Young pronounced:

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent It out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

In an interview with The New Yorker on January 21, 2002 President Gordon B. Hinckley had this to say about Brigham's doctrine:

“But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God’s connubial relationship, he replied, “We don’t speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don’t know what he meant by that.” Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, “There he is, right there. I’m not going to worry about what he said about those things.” (Lawrence Wright, The New Yorker, January 21, 2002)

Why didn’t this clearly false doctrine propel the church into apostasy? We clearly don’t hold our own leaders as accountable for their teachings as we do others’. Why can’t Catholics point to their past and say “I’m not going to worry about that?” Because we believe that the very fact that those false doctrines were once taught means that those leaders lost their priesthood authority and direct line to God.

Law of Adoption I had never heard of the Law of Adoption before but this was apparently a common practice in the early part of the church. The Law of Adoption was practiced to seal living men to other men. Through this ordinance, a man could have any number of men sealed to himself as his sons for eternity. According to Gordon Irving, who worked for the Historical Department of the church:

"No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed…It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1974, p. 295)

It seems the Law of Adoption was even believed to be necessary for salvation, as recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal:

"Many other interesting & important items were presented by President Young much to our edifycation. Meeting was dismissed & met again at 2 oclok & was addressed in a vary edifying manner by O Pratt & treated upon the same principles spoken off by Br Young. Among his remarks He said that as all the ordinances of the gospel Administered by the world since the Aposticy of the Church was illegal, in like manner was the marriage Cerimony illegal and all the world who had been begotten through the illegal marriage were Bastards not sons & Hence they had to enter into the law of adoption & be adopted into the Priesthood in order to become sons & legal heirs of salvation." (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 3, August 15, 1847, p. 260)

Blood Atonement Joseph taught the doctrine of blood atonement, as indicated by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (10th prophet):

"But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. "Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it." (McConkie, Bruce R., ed. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 133 - 135, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1955)

Brigham Young clearly explained the doctrine of blood atonement in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them… "I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54); also published in Deseret News, 1856, p. 235)

In a public discourse President Young acknowledged that the church had use for some very mean devils who resided in early Utah:

"Suppose you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God. I would at once do so in such a case; under such circumstances. I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247)

In his book, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Dr. Quinn presented compelling evidence showing that "blood atonement" was endorsed by church leaders and actually practiced by the Mormon people. Quinn gave the names of a number of violent men who served as "enforcers" for Brigham Young. In addition Quinn wrote:

"During this period Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders also repeatedly preached about specific sins for which it was necessary to shed the blood of men and women. Blood-atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, 'covenant breaking,' counterfeiting, 'many men who left this Church,' murder, not being 'heartily on the Lord's side,' profaning 'the name of the Lord,' sexual intercourse between a 'white' person and an African-American, stealing, and telling lies…

"Some LDS historians have claimed that blood-atonement sermons were simply Brigham Young's use of 'rhetorical devices designed to frighten wayward individuals into conformity with Latter-day Saint principles' and to bluff anti-Mormons. Writers often describe these sermons as limited to the religious enthusiasm and frenzy of the Utah Reformation up to 1857. The first problem with such explanations is that official LDS sources show that as early as 1843. Joseph Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon advocated decapitation or throat-cutting as punishment for various crimes and sins.

"Moreover, a decade before Utah's reformation, Brigham Young's private instructions show that he fully expected his trusted associates to kill various persons for violating religious obligations. The LDS church's official history still quotes Young's words to 'the brethren' in February 1846: 'I should be perfectly willing to see thieves have their throats cut.' The following December he instructed bishops, 'when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro' him in the River,' and Young did not instruct them to ask his permission. A week later the church president explained to a Winter Quarters meeting that cutting off the heads of repeated sinners 'is the law of God & it shall be executed...' A rephrase of Young's words later appeared in Hosea Stout's reference to a specific sinner, 'to cut him off-behind the ears-according to the law of God in such cases.'…

"When informed that a black Mormon in Massachusetts had married a white woman, Brigham Young told the apostles in December 1847 that he would have both of them killed 'if they were far away from the Gentiles.'"(The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, Vol. 2, pp. 246-247)



We can clearly see that these were teachings of the leaders of the church. So, if individual members actually “followed the prophet,” the church bears some responsibility for that.

Sounds to me like the restoration restored the Dark Ages!