Return To Main Menu





 Main Menu:


   MAIN PAGE!

   TOPICS!

   DOWNLOADS!

   FORUMS!

   MC FAQ!




 Contacts:


Email Infymus

Submit An Article To The Mormon Curtain

Submit Hate Mail




 Mormon Curtain
 Forums:



Forum Index

Announcements

Open Mormon Recovery Forum

Registered Mormon Recovery Forum

Resignation Forum

Recovery Group Meetings

Books And Literature

General Social Discussion

Ex-Mormon Get Together

Advertisements

Off Topic



Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain




WWW
Mormon Curtain




 Archived Topics:


Topic Index

AFFIRMATION - Gay And Lesbian Mormons

APOLOGISTS

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

BLOGGERS

BOB MCCUE

BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY

BOOK OF ABRAHAM

BOOK OF MORMON

BOOKS AND PUBLISHING

BOY SCOUTS

BOYD K. PACKER

BRIGHAM YOUNG

BRUCE R. MCCONKIE

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

CALLINGS

CATHOLIC CHURCH

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

COMEDY

DALLIN H. OAKS

DANIEL C. PETERSON

DAVID A. BEDNAR

DECONSTRUCTOR - RETHINKING MORMONISM

DESERET NEWS

DNA

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

ENSIGN - Church Published Magazine

EX-MORMON FOUNDATION

EX-MORMONISM

EXCOMMUNICATION

EZRA TAFT BENSON

FAIR APOLOGETICS

FARKIN

FARMS APOLOGETICS

FIRST VISION

FUNDAMENTALIST LDS

FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS

GARMENTS

GORDON B. HINCKLEY

GRANT PALMER

HATE MAIL RECEIVED ON MORMONCURTAIN

HEBER C. KIMBALL

HENRY B. EYRING

HOLIDAYS

HOME TEACHING AND VISITING TEACHING

HOMOSEXUALITY IN MORMONISM

HOWARD W. HUNTER

HUGH NIBLEY

INFYMUS

JAMES E. FAUST

JEFF LINDSAY

JEFFERY R. HOLLAND

JOSEPH SMITH

KIM CLARK

KINDERHOOK PLATES

KIRTLAND BANK

L. TOM PERRY

LATTER DAY LAMPOON

LDS CHURCH

LYNN A. MICKELSEN

M. RUSSELL BALLARD

MARK HOFFMAN

MASONS

MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD

MERRILL J. BATEMAN

MISSIONARIES

MITT ROMNEY

MORMON MONEY

MORMON MEMBERSHIP

MORMON TRUTH

MORMON CURTAIN

MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE

NATALIE R. COLLINS

NAUVOO

GENERAL NEWS

ORRIN HATCH

PARLEY P. PRATT

PAUL H. DUNN

PLAN OF SALVATION

POLYGAMY

POST MORMON COMMUNITY

MORMON RACISM

RELIEF SOCIETY

RESIGNATION PROCESS

RICHARD G. SCOTT

COMMUNITY OF CHRIST (RLDS) CHURCH

ROBERT KIRBY

RUSSELL M. NELSON

SACRAMENT MEETING

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

STRENGTHENING CHURCH MEMBERS COMMITTEE (SCMC)

SHIELDS-RESEARCH

SIMON SOUTHERTON

SPALDING MANUSCRIPT

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

STEVE BENSON

SUNSTONE FOUNDATION

TAL BACHMAN

TEMPLE CEREMONIES

TEMPLE CHANGES

TEMPLES

THE CHURCH IS NOT TRUE.COM

THOMAS S. MONSON

TITHING

UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME

VAN HALE

WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME

WOMEN AND THEIR ROLES IN MORMONISM

WORD OF WISDOM

ZARAHEMLA CITY LIMITS




 All Mormon Curtain
 Sectionals:



Blacks And The Priesthood

Book Of Abraham

Book Of Mormon Fails LDS History Test

Can Mormons Question Their Faith?

Catholic Church

Church Handbook Of Instructions

Crosses And Mormonism

First Vision - A Look At Many Versions

Gordon B. Hinckley Doesn't Know

Homosexuals And Mormonism

Investigating Mormonism

Is Mormonism A Cult

Kinderhook Plates

Mormon Church Changing

Mormonism's Three Heavens

Mormons Criticize Other Churches

Temple Recommends

Temple Rituals

The Golden Pot

Utah Lighthouse Ministry Lawsuit

White And Delightsome




     Resignation:


    MormonNoMore




     Outside Forums:


    New Order Mormons

    Post Mormon

    Zarahemla City Limits




     Research:


    Book of Mormon Tories

    Crimes Of Christianity

    The "Golden Pot"

    Joseph Smith Papyri

    Mountain Meadows Massacre

    Temple Occult Symbols

    Salamander Letter

    Spalding Manuscript

    Wives Of Joseph Smith




     Comedy/Humor:


    The Salamander Society

    Sugar Beet




     Other Links:


    Affirmation

    Bob McCue

    Book Of Abraham

    Forbidden Archeology

    Mormon Truth!

    Freedom In Truth

    H.I.S. Ministries

    Joseph Lied

    Masonic Moroni

    Mormon Alliance

    Mormon Conspiracy

    Post-Mormon

    Religion News Blog

    Mormon Research Ministry

    Mormon Studies

    Natalie Collins

    Real Mormon History

    Rethinking Mormonism

    Sons of Perdition

    The Shelf

    20 Truths About Mormonism

    Utah LightHouse Ministry

    Word For The Weary





     

     · Blogging the Ex-Mormon And Mormon World - by Infymus.
     · News, Recovery, Information, Humor & More.

      · Containing 1316 Articles Spanning 109 Topics - Online since January 1, 2005

    PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "EX-MORMONISM". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.

     CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.

     

     
    EX-MORMONISM
    Total Topics: 95

     
    Ex-Mormon Recovery. A very large selection of posts made by those in recovery from Mormonism. Culled from throughout the Ex-Mormon Communities.
     

    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Mujun ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Reference Books Are Your Friends. Why Are Mormons So Fond Of Their Misinterpretation Of The Phrase "A Peculiar People?"
    Posted Dec 15, 2005, at 09:33 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    If you have spent any significant part of your life attending Mormon worship services and Sunday School classes, you've probably heard people use the phrase "a peculiar people" in reference to the membership of the church. The phrase comes from a verse in the New Testament in which Peter follows the time-honored religious tradition of flattering the faithful (or, as some of us would call it, blowing smoke up the asses of the sheep):
    1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; (italics added)
    The typical sacrament meeting talk or Sunday School comment that mentions "a peculiar people" centers around the following three points:
    1. The scriptures say that we're supposed to be a peculiar people.
    2. Mormons are a bunch of odd ducks and everyone hates us because of it.
    3. The church, therefore, is true.
    The irony is that the word "peculiar," as it is used in that verse, means something entirely different. It doesn't mean "unusual," "eccentric" or "odd." Rather, it is derived from the Latin word peculiam, which means a special possession or property. It's the same root as "pecuniary," which means it's related to money.

    According to Peter, therefore, the membership of the church is the purchased property of God. It means that he owns your ass, however normal or odd it may be.

    Thus spake Mujun.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: T-bone ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Post Cult Fear Of Retribution
    Posted Dec 13, 2005, at 07:31 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    "Some former members fear that zealous current members will harm them or their families to show the leader how devoted the current members are." - From Cults in our Midst by Margaret Thaler Singer (with Janja Lalich)

    I have sometimes thought about why some of our Mormon friends come down so harshly on exmos:
    • You guys are all bitter
    • You sinned by doubting your bishop
    • You lacked charity in your heart, that's why you were so shocked to learn about Mormonism's dirty laundry from non-mos
    • You're too proud, and you're being deceived
    • You have a hardened heart, I call you to repentance
    In the interest of trying to understand them, and not just dismiss them as sociopaths, I did a little digging. This quote from Margaret Singer explained why we see such harsh behavior from Mormons.

    If we have any fear when we leave the LDS church that we will be attacked, it is well-founded. Mormons will attack us just so they have good stories to tell their friends.

    When we are attacked by a Mormon, we feel like we are in a lose-lose situation. If we back down, they think they have confounded us and put us in a stupor of thought. If we tell them to get lost, we are being bitter and un-Christlike. But that only works if we are still under the spell of Mormonism.

    What they don't realize is that we are no longer subject to church discipline, including threats from Mormon mean who believe they have priesthood authority to decide the fate of our souls. The truth is, if we do not believe in Mormonism, we are in a win-win situation from the beginning. When Mormons attack, we can tell them to get lost or we can let them burn themselves out. I routinely call Mormons on their un-Christlike behavior. They are being judgmental as they judge us of being sinful. How comical.

    By the way, Mormons have gotten the idea that Margaret Singer has been discredited. I wonder why...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Ebenezer ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Has There Been A Real Declared Reason For Reading The Book Of Mormon By The End Of This Year?
    Posted Dec 13, 2005, at 07:26 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    My wife and teen-aged daughter are reading it every day because of the challenge. They won't finish on time because they started too late, but they won't stop untill they're done......

    But WHY was this brought up? My wife keeps repeating the Bishop's dribble about "my family being blessed" as a guilt trip for me not doing it, but she does not know why this started.

    Did GBH ever pipe up and say "hey, not enough people have read it end-to-end" or "I think you'll be a better member-missionary if you read the book" or "you'll pay your tithe faster this way"? Was there an actual real reason? I can't imagine it's purely about people having read the book because it even applied to people who read it many times. Were they jealous that people finished latest Harry Potter book but not the BOM?

    My church attendance this year has been gloriously low, but this stuff still creeps into my home.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: The doc ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    You Can't Give A Gift Without A Hidden Message
    Posted Dec 13, 2005, at 07:25 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Yesterday at Church all members were urged to give the DVD of James Stweard and his tear making Christmas story to our friends. We were asked to give them to our friends or have a missionary give it too them. Now I have no problem with the story, its the other things they have put on the disk!!! Some gift.

    The SP is behind this plus the 2 70's who attended our stake conference last week.

    If the church would spend as much effort at correcting their history as they are for missionary work they might be able to get some and keep some real quality people and leaders.

    Imagine giving my non members friends this DVD knowing its a missionary tool and not a gift.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Cheryl ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    There Is One, And Only One Simple Problem With Mormonism
    Posted Dec 12, 2005, at 07:16 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I don't mind that mormons believe in magic underwear or in a Ghost who talks to them in their heads. It doesn't bother me that they think there are veils and kingdoms in the sky or a special place of eternal darkness where I'll exist forever.

    I think the one and only serious sticking point with mormons is that they think they have a right to dictate to and control non-believers. They have their missionary program which would be fine if they invited every person to be mormon only once or twice. No problem, we could just answer no.

    But that isn't the end of it. Mormons never give up.

    Our families contain their coercive actions only as long as we keep up our guards. They pray that we'll come around and, they believe that every touch of indigestion is a prompting from the HG. He's constantly telling them to harass us with ultimatims and another set of mormon scripture for our bulging bookcases.

    As far as I'm concerned, the only problem with mormons is their aversion to living their religion and letting others do the same.

    Mormonism has nothing of substance to sell it. It must rest on a foundation of coersion and fanaticism.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: SusieQ#1 ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Read The Santa Barbara New-Press "Showing Devotion" "Mormon Church Successfully Attracting New Members"??? Read On.
    Posted Dec 7, 2005, at 08:41 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    There is a reference to exmormon.org and postmormon.org that probably is why you landed here. There are hundreds of posters here, with many, many reasons why they left Mormonism.

    But, they preferenced it with a inaccurate, misleading statement:

    "Today there are a number of Web sites, including exmormons.org and postmormon.org that contain hundreds of stories of people who have left the church because of it's strict standards."

    No, that is not true. I have no idea who the author is, but apparently did not read very carefully.

    Regarding the reference to this web site, was the author influenced by a Mormon teaching?

    They quoted one statement, out of context from exmormon.org only which gives the impression that people only leave Mormonism because of sin. See how carefully that was woven into one small comment?

    Apparently, someone in the Mormon church got the local newspaper to do a Front Page article on Mormon youth because of the birthday celebrations of Joseph Smith going on.The article is huge. It continues from the front page and takes up all of page 12 with large photos.

    Now that you are here, do some research and find out if what you are taught in The Mormon Church is the truth! Just read two links on this web site: Click on "Thinking of Joining" on the mail page and "Articles and Links" and as a good researcher, focus on the primary documented sources to valid the information there. Plan to spend several hours researching.

    This statement is very, very telling:

    "There is no attempt to brainwash, but children are very susceptible to being taught one way or another." Said Richard James, spokesman for the church's South Coast region. "We believe in teaching them the truth of Jesus Christ."

    Of course, we know that they believe in a "different Jesus" that was not mentioned in the article either.

    The article was accurate on some counts but just like The Mormon Church, only partially true on others.

    They stated that there are probably only about a dozen high school students who attend early morning Seminary(photo showed eight in class) which seems about right.

    But, they claim there are 250 Mormons attending UCSB. The question is: do these Mormons attend and are active, believing Mormons? If so, the Institute would be overflowing but it is not. UCSB has a long time reputation for a school where Mormons can "hide" and not be involved in Mormonism.

    "I view the years I spent as a Mormon as a kind of mind-rape" wrote one man on exmormon.org. "Mormonism gave me a terrible image (I could not live up to the impossible, 'perfect' expectations.")

    I believe that statistics will show these statements incorrect.Still claiming 12 million members world wide, the article said:"There are more Mormons in the United States than Presbyterians and Episcopalians."

    I doubt that is factual.

    They also claimed to be successful attracting youth, but I would question that also. This area probably has had only a few youth converts in a dozen years or more. I bet they can't find more than two that converted and 10 years later are still believing members.

    The number one biggy that really struck me are the cards they are to carry always, if they feel pressured and have a question on where the church stands:

    "For the Strength of the Youth."

    This is a partial quote:

    "Listen to music that helps you draw closer to Heavenly Father. Do not listen to music that encourages immorality, glorifies violence, or uses offensive language. When dancing, avoid full body contact or suggestive movements."

    On sexual purity:

    "Keep yourself sexually pure. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage. Do not participate in talk or activities that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in homosexual activities..."

    They got this part right but prefaced it as "criticism":

    "Latter-day Saints have endured their share of criticism over the years. Branded a heretic, Mr. Smith himself was murdered by an angry mob in Illinois shortly after he formed the faith."

    One high school student said:

    "We have to take ownership of our faith."

    When asked if she would consider a faith other than Mormonism, she said:

    "When I was younger I was curious about other religions, but as I got older, I 've come to believe that this is the truth. Why would I want to search for other things when I've already found the truth."

    I have an important question for you: are you 100% sure that what you have been taught is the real truth? Have you truly investigated the church's history and claims?

    Would thousands and thousands of members (bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, Relief Society Presidents, Primary Presidents,Elders Quorum leaders, teachers, generational life time members and on and on), probably close to over 1 million in the last ten years, only leave Mormonism because of some inability to live some "strict standards." Is that even logical?

    Or are people more intelligent and credible than that? Of course they are.

    Just as a side note, I wonder why journalists just accept the Mormon Church's statements of the numbers of members etc? Do they do any more checking, or just take their word for it?

    Did the writer investigate this web site and pick out only one comment that only gives one impression and if so, why?

    It would be helpful, I believe, if others read this article and set this writer straight on the facts !

    The emphasis seems to be on the false impression that Mormonism is successful at attracting youth like they are bringing in new youth as members regularly, when it is obvious that if that were true, there would be dozens of kids at Seminary not just 12 from the whole stake area!

    Mormonism has changed a lot since I raised youth in it. Now they carry cards to remember how to behave? They are that controlling and afraid the kids are not able to live up to the standards that they have them carry a card?

    Sure, everything is all nice-nice and supportive as long as you go along with all of it, but try to leave and you will find out that it is not a pretty site for most people.

    Think about it: if leaving Mormonism was so easy and there was no "brainwashing" there would be no need for sites like this!

    No matter what you are told, people leave Mormonism in droves because the Mormon Church has not told the truth. It starts at the beginning -- Joseph Smith did not tell the truth.

    It appears that most people who leave Mormonism have stricter personal "standards" for their own moral and ethical behavior than when they were Mormons. I know that I do!

    The article can be read here:
    http://santabarbaranewspress.com/
    Click on "Showing Devotion"
    author can be reached by email at:
    mevans@newspress.com

    Does anyone want to recommend some articles for the local Mormon youth who have clicked on this post?
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Tyson Dunn ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Tyson's Reply To The Santa Barbar New-Press "Mormon Church Successfully Attracting New Members"
    Posted Dec 7, 2005, at 08:47 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Your article today on the Mormon Church states:

    "Today there are a number of Web sites, including exmormon.org and postmormon.org that contain hundreds of stories of people who have left the church because of its strict standards."

    This is absolutely false. People leave the Mormon Church for numerous reasons, but the majority of posters at such sites as Recovery from Mormonism (exmormon.org) have not done so because of the standards of the Church, but rather because the Church blatantly misrepresents its history, its doctrine, and its statistics. A few minutes of honest perusal or better still an inquiry to any of the participants on these sites would have given you a great deal more insight, than your press contact at the Mormon Church.

    Claims of membership numbers (12 million) border on the ludicrous, when national censuses in South American countries show LDS membership numbers are exaggerated roughly fivefold and the American Religious Identification Survey performed by the City University of New York shows that as many people left Mormonism in the United States during the 1990s as joined. (For an exhaustive study of LDS membership performed by an active Mormon, see http://www.cumorah.com/harvest.html .)

    I'm sure that you also played soft on the history, because, after all, how important can the history be? But when it's clear that Joseph Smith lied about his Book of Abraham translation (really just an Egyptian funerary text), married teenagers as young as 14 (verified by the Church's own genealogy records), and fabricated a history of the Americas which in fact denigrates the native American - well, I don't think the history is quite so unimportant anymore.

    And what of the church's practices? Do you mention that Mormon temples are used to perform Masonic-derived rituals which have a veneer of Christianity? Do you bother to point out that blacks could not hold the Church's priesthood until 1978? Or that women still can't? Or that gays are regularly discriminated against and that it's taught that they can be repaired? Or that the Acting President of the Church's Twelve Apostles said that the greatest threats to the LDS Church were feminists, gays, and intellectuals?

    Or how about fundamental doctrines: Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers? Men will become gods in the afterlife if they are faithful to Mormon teachings, and that the highest reward is only available to those who practice polygamy - and that it was taught that men with only one wife in this life would have them taken away in the next? Or how about the notion that God himself was once a man? Or that the Bible is subject to change but the Book of Mormon is absolute truth, despite itself having been changed in thousands of places?

    Or did you fall for the Mormon softshoe (or as they say the "milk before the meat") that the Church is always growing, Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is the same as the Bible, the temples are "sacred not secret", and modern-day prophets are only there to help lead the faith not change the Bible and its teachings?

    They are a polished sect with a lustrous veneer, but their past and present are seedy, their numbers are a lie, and their PR machine is massive. I'm sorry for the disservice that you've done your readership in Santa Barbara. You've been had, and due diligence could have spared countless lives that your article will surely ruin as they get caught up in the web of lies of Mormonism.

    Tyson Dunn
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: runtu ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Love Buckets And The Loss Of Self
    Posted Dec 6, 2005, at 08:16 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    As usual, I turned on BYU-TV for DW as I was getting dressed. Yikes! It was Mary Ellen Smoot, the former General RS president whom I had mercifully forgotten about.

    Forgive me for judging by appearances, but this woman is really scary looking: highly arched drawn-on eyebrows, heavy makeup, and a huge beehive of dyed-brown hair that makes her look like a giant brown q-tip.

    Her delivery was in the sing-song Utah pattern we are so familiar with, only it sounded disjointed because she was obviously not used to the teleprompter. She reminded me that a Utah accent is like no other accent I have ever heard.

    Her talk was about how everyone is a "love bucket" (how about a barf bucket?). All love buckets need constant filling, though some may be harder than others to fill. A bully might have a banged-up bucket, a person who has experienced a loss might have a huge hole in the bottom of the love bucket, and some may have just been knocked over.

    Her talk reminded me of one of my biggest problems with Mormonism. We are constantly told to focus on serving others. We are to sacrifice our time, talents, and everything the Lord has blessed us with in building the kingdom and serving others. Never is there a call to take time for ourselves. No conference speaker has ever advised us to take a day off just for ourselves. No, every waking hour is to be filled with giving, with filling others' love buckets. Our alone time is to be spent serving God through scripture study or prayer.

    That also means that we have to rely on others to feel good about ourselves. We aren't taught any way to fill our own "love bucket." We don't have any mechanisms for comforting ourselves, strengthening ourselves. We have to rely on others (and on God) to do that for us.

    Once when my wife and I were having marriage issues, I told her I thought that I was nowhere near the top priority in her life. I came in about 12th place, after kids, church calling, visiting teaching, scripture study, etc. But I also realized that she probably came in about 15th place in her own priorities. She simply did not spend any time on herself.

    That is the awful truth about Mormonism. It is supposed to exalt the individual and family, but we spend our entire lives subordinating ourselves and our families to the growth of the organization. I used to think that when they said "the family is the basic unit of the church" that they were telling us how important the family is. No, what they are telling us is that the family is important only when it supports the aims and growth of the church.

    So, we get a church full of Mary Ellen Smoots: we can all do the voice, speak the language, and do the work. But somewhere deep inside is a real person who wants to come out once in a while and live.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: T-Bone ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Learning To Think Is A Lot Of Work
    Posted Dec 5, 2005, at 08:18 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I remember being a Mormon. I had a canned answer for everything. Today, I have to search my own feelings and ask myself how I feel. That requires looking into important issues and doing my own research. It also means that I can change my mind when new information becomes available.

    I tend to go with my own feelings on life's important questions. I don't have a book to consult. I don't have an invisible friend. I actually have to ask myself how I feel in my heart. That takes work, but it's worth it.

    As a Mormon, I was able to sit back with a smug smile, knowing that I had the answer to everything, or that I could find the answer to anything I wanted if I had the right church manual. Certainly, there was a conference talk to answer any question I had.

    If you ever talk to somebody who is deep into Mormonism, it is very difficult to find out how they feel on certain things. They usually answer your questions with memorized answers that inevitably start with, "We believe..." If you ask them how they feel in their heart, they will either say, "The church teaches..." or "The prophet says..."

    Press a bit further, and they start to panic. Their breathing accelerates. Their eyes start to dart around. They might even start to get choked up. Ask "So how do you feel?" Point to your heart and say, "In here." An amazing thing happens. They are not able to answer. Let me make it clear right now.

    I am not giving this illustration as a guide to picking on Mormons. I find out that we have a lot more in common with our Mormon friends than we think sometimes. I am simply pointing out that Mormons are not able to tell you how they feel without appealing to church doctrine, the prophet, or their "testimony." Simply put, they do not know how they feel. They have never exercised that muscle yet.

    The tragedy (among many) in Mormonism is not only that its beliefs are potentially fatal (people have died for this thing) but it retards (for lack of a better word) the human spirit. It stifles the human ability to ponder our own lives and come up with answers to life's difficult questions.

    Having an answer to everything handed to you is like cheating on a test. You might get a good grade (read: appear to have convictions) but you're only cheating yourself.

    Today, I don't feel like I have to have an answer for everything. And that's very liberating. I've started to ponder life's more difficult questions. I've also stopped relying on magic to solve life's problems. I've become a much stronger person for it, too. I was so afraid that if I ever left the church, I'd feel lonely and lost. Actually, I feel so much stronger and grounded today than ever.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: T-bone ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    You Guys Are All Just Bitter
    Posted Dec 5, 2005, at 08:00 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I started to put this on another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread because it's something we hear every once in a while.

    When Mormons see that we are comfortable with our decision to leave the church, that we have no regrets, they start to get uncomfortable. They cannot imagine life without Mormonism and the stability that comes with knowing they have all the answers to life's more troubling questions. They expect us to be miserable because that's what they've always been told about us.

    When they see that we are not miserable, they are further confused. After all, trusted servants of the Lord have told them that life outside the Church is laden with misery and pain. What they see is that we are doing just fine. But that causes confusion because there is no way a church leader could lie to them. Maybe that's the first lie they discover.

    Then when they see that we can openly discuss difficulties we had with Mormonism or Mormons, that we can even laugh at the ridiculous stolen rituals that are actually not sacred or even necessary, they start to become even more uncomfortable. That is something they are just not allowed to do. No matter how bad your bishop rubs you the wrong way, no matter how poorly your kids are treated in primary, you don't complain. Mormons are supposed to sustain church leaders and "never speak ill of the Lord's annointed," so we learn in the endowment session. But that sinking feeling that they have been lied to is so unbearable that they lash out, and it is at that point that they accuse us of being bitter.

    That's just cognitive dissonance and projection. It's the same type of denial that takes place in hospital waiting rooms when the doctor comes in and says a loved one didn't make it. One of the stages of grief is denial, another is anger. So it is perfectly natural that Mormons feel sick when they start to realize they have been lied to. Nobody wants to admit that they have lived a life invested wholeheartedly in a carefully orchestrated series of brainwashing activities. I've had that feeling, and it is a horrible feeling. Nobody wants to admit that they spent 2 years of their life trying to bring others into a religion that is going to lie to them. Nobody wants to admit that they came so close to realizing the church was a lie, only to shut out that feeling and dive back into church with renewed vigor. "Gosh, I could have saved myself so much trouble if I had just listened to my gut feeling!"

    When we first start to realize that Mormonism is a lie, it's the same horrible feeling we'd feel if we found out that our spouse has committed adultery, and not only that, they brought something cheap into our bedroom that used to be so safe and tender. "How could you treat me like that? I gave you everything I could possibly give and more. I trusted you. I gave you the best years of my life and this is how you repay me? How could you?" Yes, we feel cheated. We feel ashamed. We feel as if there was something we could have done different to somehow prevent it. "How could I be so stupid?" is a commonly heard phrase of wives whose husbands have cheated. It's the same for Mormons who are just starting to find out that the church has lied to them.

    Why the comparison to adultery? Betrayal is the same whether it's sexual, emotional, or spiritual. In the case of Mormonism, the betrayal is on every possible human level.

    Then the pieces start to come together. All along there were little clues. The late hours. The wrong numbers. The 4000 changes to the Book of Mormon that we were told were just grammatical. The strange perfume. The scriptures that just don't add up. And all along we're thinking, "How could you do this to me? Why me? I haven't done anything wrong."

    Then we get angry. Anger is a God-given emotion that aids our memory in making sure we don't get taken advantage of again. Anger is a natural reaction when we find out that we have been betrayed. Thus, the tendency to shoot the messenger. We regularly get attacked for pointing out that Mormonism is a lie. It doesn't scare me any more. I know the pain behind finding out the Mormon church is not true. I also know the bitter frustration that comes with finding out that I've been lied to, that I've wasted money - giving it to people who lied to me and treated me with disdain. So I feel closer to those who are going through the pain of discovering Mormonism is a lie.

    It's OK. It gets better. But don't take that on faith. Try it, and if those of us who have left the church are wrong, you can go back to church. Whatever it takes.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Lucyfer ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    To Runtu And Others Struggling With Loss Of "Community"....
    Posted Dec 2, 2005, at 08:23 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I originally wrote this in response to a truly compelling post by Bob McCue. I am posting it again because there have been several threads about the social isolation people experience when they leave TSCC. I think perhaps it is MORE lonely to be in the Morg than out. Here is why....

    COMMUNITY WITHOUT CONNECTION

    The only relationship TSCC truly cares about is between the member and the institution that is the Mormon church. All other relationships are purely secondary and of lesser importance.

    TSCC knows that people are hardwired to want and need "community". We are social creatures and seek out relationships with others. TSCC plays on this need rather cravenly, in fact - this is what it shamelessly sells to unwitting "investigators". The desire for community is a major reason people join this cult.

    The problem is, the community of Mormonism is false. The bonds that one builds within the context of TSCC are only with the institution, just in close proximity with other people. In fact, I think the church actively tries to weaken deep and meaningful bonds between members and family or other human beings. It is always trying to insert itself between the individual member and other human relationships. You only have a relationship with others THROUGH the church or sometimes in spite of the church, but seldom because of it.

    Relationships between members are often shallow and superficial. In some cases, they are distant and overly formalized or stilted - they are relationships between office holders or "callings" - not real people. Deep intimacy on an individual personal level is discouraged.

    How do I know this? What are the signs that TSCC offers only false community? Here are what I see:

    1. People who are connected to one another in a meaningful way within a true community work together in an empathic, understanding, sympathetic and cooperative fashion. From what I observe, members of TSCC are engaged in a great deal of individual competition and "one-up-manship". It is all about showing other members how "worthy" you are and judging others on how "unworthy" they are. It is about winners an losers - who is "better" in HF's eyes....People in competition with one another are not functioning in a "communal" fashion.

    2. Members of a true community typically interact with each other in honest, respectful and tolerant ways. In Mormonism, honesty is completely discouraged - it is all about obedience and towing the party line. When people are afraid to say what they really think, it is because they do not trust other members of the so-called "community". The average Mormon ward is a veritable beehive of gossip, prejudice, tattling, shunning, condemnation, and public pillorying. This is NOT the way that healthy communities function. When members of a community distrust one another, there can be no true connection.

    3. The Mormon emphasis on idealized family relationships actually discourages true community. Members feel the need to "pretend" that their marriage and family is perfect, wonderful, the LDS ideal. As we all know, no real family is that way. This constant pretending creates false identities or personas which then have to be protected - this takes a great deal of energy! People who are play- acting cannot have truly deep and meaningful relationships with others - the pretense is far too difficult to maintain over time this way. Better to have shallow relationships where one can keep the mask on. Again - in true communities, people are safe to be themselves. Only when we are comfortable in who we really are can we establish REAL and satisfactory relationships with others.

    4. In true communities, there is a sense of sharing and helping that comes from a sincere and unselfish desire to assist others. In TSCC I have seen a great deal of really ugly "charity". Members have to prostrate themselves before the bishop to request assistance. He then decides if they are "worthy" of the help requested. In many cases, the help is provided by people who then judge or belittle the one being helped - there is talk within the ward - whispering about what help was needed and offered. The person being helped often has "conditions" placed upon that help - there are things that person must do - ways that person must behave in order to get assistance. This is about control, guilt, shame, and being "unworthy" again. This is NOT what occurs in a healthy community.

    I could probably think of more examples - but this is enough. The Mormon "community" is an unhealthy one in many respects. Oddly enough, memebers become so used to it, so addicted to it, that leaving this sick community is actually painful. It is very difficult to becone accustomed to living in normal communities after experiencing the Morg version.

    The only relationship that really matters is the one that members have with the Morg - it is about the STATE, not the individual. THE WHOLE IS FAR, FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INDIVIDUAL HUMANS THAT COMPRISE THE WHOLE! This is scary stuff when you really look at it - scary stuff, indeed.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: runtu ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    A Testimony Isn't Knowledge (and They Know It)
    Posted Dec 2, 2005, at 08:22 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    All my life I've heard people say, “I know the church is true.” They explain that some spiritual experience or other testified that it was truth (they often use the words “I could never deny it” and “without a shadow of doubt” along with “I know”).

    But what they are really talking about is a testimony, which by definition is not knowledge at all. You can know how to do something, like how to ski. Or you can know that something exists or is true, such as “I know that there is a pair of skis in the garage.” The first kind of knowledge can be lost (my wife won ski races as a child but is now afraid to get on skis), but how do you lose the second kind? If the skis are in the garage and haven’t been moved, can you lose your knowledge that they are there? The first kind of knowledge, learning to do something, is knowledge by degrees: you can ski better than you did before, or you can forget how to ski. But the second kind is a true or false, black or white proposition. You can’t know more firmly or weakly that the skis exist. There is no such thing as “strong” or “weak” knowledge.

    A testimony, if it is really knowledge, is the second kind. Once you “know” the church is true, you know. There’s no going back. My wife keeps telling me that she “knows” that it is true, so there’s nothing to discuss. I’m sure we’ve heard people say that, if we leave, we obviously never had a testimony because if we had “known,” we wouldn’t have left. But could these people in the know possibly lose their knowledge? If they really know, the answer is clearly no.

    But what does the church say about testimony? Is it really knowledge? Alma 32:34 suggests that it really is this kind of knowledge: “And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.” But then a few verses later, we learn that this “perfect” knowledge isn’t so perfect: “But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out” (Alma 32:38). If it can wither away, it wasn’t really knowledge in the first place.

    Here’s Richard Scott on how a testimony is gained: “These and the other truths are certainties. However, your conviction of their reality must come from your own understanding of truth, from your own application of divine law and your willingness to seek the confirming witness of the Spirit. Your testimony may begin from acknowledgment that the teachings of the Lord seem reasonable. But it must grow from practicing those laws. Then your own experience will attest to their validity and yield the results promised. That confirmation will not all come at once. A strong testimony comes line upon line, precept upon precept. It requires faith, time, consistent obedience, and a willingness to sacrifice” (Ensign, Nov. 2001, 87).

    He seems to be following the pattern outlined in Alma: Desire to believe (acknowledge that God’s teachings are reasonable, definitely a topic for a future post); live the teachings; ask God for confirmation through prayer. Then you’ll have a “conviction of their reality,” but not knowledge. For Scott tells us that “these things can be lost by succumbing to [Satan’s] temptations.” So, what he is talking about is conviction, faith, and belief, not knowledge.

    Things make a lot more sense when we realize that we are not talking about knowledge. We hold testimony meetings to strengthen each other’s faith, not to cement our knowledge. Gordon Hinckley said, “This is the reason, I may say, why these conferences are held—to strengthen our testimonies of this work, to fortify us against temptation and sin, to lift our sights, to receive instruction concerning the programs of the Church and the pattern of our lives” (Ensign, May 2001, 85).

    So, the next time someone tells you they “know,” ask them if they think it’s possible for someone to lose that knowledge. If they say no, just quote Alma. If they say yes, tell them that they don’t really know.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: questioning ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    A Visit With A Prominent Mormon Historian
    Posted Dec 2, 2005, at 08:20 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Recently I arranged for a visit with a prominent Mormon Historian. My mother is the only person I have confided my doubts to and she asked me to talk to this historian. Here are my notes of the visit. I am not including his name since, though he didn't request anonymity, I don't think it would be right to publish his name. Suffice it to say that he currently teaches Mormon history at BYU. I am quite sure I have not misrepresented what he told me.

    Just got back from a visit with [a professor] of BYU. My mother suggested I talk with him and try to resolve some of my issues. I spent an hour and a half with him. He was a nice man and I vaguely recall taking a course from him while at BYU. Unfortunately my talk with [him] only confirmed my concerns and added new ones.

    He confirmed that there were a lot of problems with Church history that most members didn’t know or care about ... I asked him about the facsimile translation. He said that Joseph didn’t really use the papyrus and that it was kind of like his translation of the BOM and inspired version where the original materials weren’t around during translation. He said if taken on a basis of here are the facsimiles and here is the translation then there was a problem.

    I asked him about his testimony and whether he had ever experienced anything besides warm spiritual feelings to tell him the Church was true and he said he had not. He had no visions or experiences with angels or anything like that. I told him I had the impression from Steve Benson, Ezra Taft Benson's Grandson, that the brethren were the same and he said he thought so too. I said I thought the brethren should walk and talk with Christ and have many visions. He said in his experience with the brethren there was no sign they walked and talked with Christ or had visions. He said it appeared to him that they had basically the same spiritual experiences the rest of us have.

    He said he knew of more problems with the church than I listed in my e-mail and that I was aware of. He named two: one being Wilford Woodruff having the founding fathers come to him and tell him they needed their temple work done. He said the temple work for most of those men had already been done. He had no explanation for why the supposed vision unless it was a retelling that was amplified.

    He told of another vision that another prophet had which had problems. I wasn’t familiar with it and don’t remember the name of the prophet.

    He said there were good things about the Church. He talked a little about Stuart Ferguson and that Larson hadn’t put in his book (Quest for the Gold Plates) all the bad things that were there. We talked about the Garden of Eden and the Flood. He said Brigham Young did refer to people on earth before Adam. I mentioned the teachings of the Church that are unequivocal about the creation and he admitted the problems. He basically had no real answers for the problems but simply acknowledged them. He said we must have faith and that the Church operates on faith. I very much appreciated his forthright, honest approach and answers.

    He said that in his opinion the great visions and visitations were for the foundation and restoring of the church and the start of the dispensation and that there was very little in the way of visions and angelic visitations, etc. since then.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Why Do TBM Friends And Loved Ones Think We Did Something Hurtful And Offensive To Them When We Left Mormonism?
    Posted Dec 1, 2005, at 12:05 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Why do they take it personally?

    Why are they so often angry and critical of us?

    After all, we just did what they do; use our constitutional rights to freedom of religion and speech, and the right to change our mind.

    I have often heard TBM's talk about how "angry" former Mormons are but, the truth is that the TBM's are the ones that are much more angry and downright nasty and threatening.

    I know that I was angry as a TBM, many times and didn't even know it. Putting people in a psychological, social, mental, religious box is so frustrating it can breed nothing but anger. No wonder TBM's are so angry!

    Listen to the tone and attitude of the TBM's. Are your loved ones kind, accepting, loving, supportive? And if not, why not?

    Why do they insist on bearing a testimony to us? Do they think we are stupid, have short term memory loss, have forgotten what we have heard hundreds of times? What is the matter with these people?

    The most embarrassing, disgusting thing TBM's can do is be unsupportive of our rights. Shame on them!

    It is unbelievable that TBM's are so fragile and so ugly and nasty that we have to ignore the whole subject of Mormonism for fear of upsetting them and feeling their wrath! ARGH!!! Mormonism! What a pathetic religion!
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    My Pathway To Enlightenment
    Posted Nov 30, 2005, at 09:06 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    My pathway to enlightenment was a long difficult journey. Years of cognitive dissonance, mental gymnastics, bending my mind into pretzels to accommodate a religion that just didn’t seem to add up and didn’t offer plausible explanations for difficult questions.

    One of the truly interesting experiences of coming into the light was the epiphany I had when I first realized that it was the church antagonists that had been telling the truth regarding Mormon foundational claims instead of the church. The knots in my brain disappeared as I came to this realization. Like the sun rising in the morning... everything just made sense. Sadly, it all made perfect sense.

    So much of Mormonism’s claims had been a distortion, whitewash or out right lies all along... and I had been successfully programmed to believe that black was white and white black. I was a TBM, fully assimilated into the Mormon collective. But something funny happened on the way to the Celestial Kingdom. I started to ask difficult questions and I was prepared to accept difficult answers, even if they meant that the church was not what it claimed to be.

    One of the hardest realities for me to accept was the fact that the answers to the difficult question had been there all along. But my fear of where those answers might take me kept me from looking. I had been successfully programmed NOT to look for those answers...hummm wonder why? Now I believe that truth can only be accepted as really being true only after it has been subjected to the most rigorous criticism and examination and testing available. NOTHING should ever be accepted as fact or truth without first undergoing a strenuous critical examination.

    Bottom line... Mormonism is a fraud because it is built on a foundation of lies. If its claims had been real, I would still be a Mormon.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Gems From My BYU Bishops And Religion Teachers
    Posted Nov 30, 2005, at 08:51 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    On a recent post regarding single women in the church I posted some of the things that bishops had said to me about my single status. Keep in mind I left at 24, so all this was said to me between the ages of 20-24. I have finally arrived at the point where I consider it funny (sometimes). I admit there are times when these things still make me feel guilty.

    *Marriage will be the crowning achievement of your life. You could win the nobel peace prize and it would never be equal to a celestrial marriage.

    *If you procrastinate marriage, you will regret it for eternity.

    *Your children in heaven are praying for you to find their father. Their hearts ache in anticipation to be brought into this world under the covenant. Don't prolong their anticipation. (This was a quote from THE blessing that started my exodus)

    *You need to humble yourself. Men see you as too proud, too independant to be a good wife. Being strong for your children is good, but practice being led by the priesthood.

    *You are eternally obligated to bring forth children, not just in the next life, but here on Earth as well.

    *Don't fight the essence of your very soul, which is to find solace in an eternal companionship.

    *By not actively pursuing a husband you are denying HF the right to give you the blessings that you are working so hard for.

    *HF is not pleased when we manipulate him by saying we are doing all we can and then so blantently disregarding his number 1 commandment.

    *Are you doing all you can to make yourself spiritually, mentally, emotionally and PHYSICALLY attractive to the opposite sex? (I had just put on 20 lbs due to stress. Let me tell you, I went straight home and tried to make myself more physically attractive by beginning a new ritual - sticking my finger down my throat)

    I used to wonder why these bishops were *inspired* to say these things when I thought I was trying my best to make myself available for dates. I felt it was because HF knew me so much better than I knew myself and he saw that I was to lazy, too proud, to whatever to find a husband. I felt like HF must have shuddered when he thought of me and my unmarriageableness (my new word for the day:))

    It's funny how these statements used to affect me. I used to cling to these statements because I thought my eternal salvation rested upon accepting and applying them. After leaving the church, I found many previously memorized scriptures and hymns kind of wiped themselves from my memory but these nuggets o'wisdom repeat in my mind like a broken record. Sad.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Joseph Fielding Smith, Evolution, The Lds Church And Mormon Fundamentalism
    Posted Nov 28, 2005, at 10:13 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Among Mormon fundamentalists, the position with regard to evolution is unchanging. The Theory of Evolution is false and destructive to faith. End of story. Joseph Fielding Smith, like the Mormon fundamentalists, held that prior to the "fall of Adam", death was unknown to the earth. Nothing died before Adam's fall. This made any talk of dinosaurs very difficult to reconcile, which was an issue with me as a child. I find it interesting that JFS was so conservative in his views that he more closely resembles fundamentalists now than modern LDS. With all of his contempt for the Adam-God doctrine, it's interesting that his own position put him in such close quarters with his rivals in ideology. The belief that nothing died prior to "Adam's fall" is quite dear to the fundamentalists, and they fit it in nicely with their Adam-God doctrine.

    I'm taking a course in philosophy of science at the University of Utah this semester, and the position of JFS came up in our discussion of Evolutionary theory, or, more accurately, I brought it up. There are quite a few philosophy majors who are Mormon. Almost all of them are pre-law students. I was delighted to point out that their own prophet, who died when I was a young boy, took a position against evolution that contradicted what more recent leaders have said about the theory. Current policy with regard to this theory cannot be made compatible with what JFS proclaimed so vociferously. An older gentleman in the class quietly reminded me that the living prophet has the final word and that the thinking has been done, and we shared a moment's amusement.

    The professor was dismayed that the discussion had digressed to Mormon theology, but I hadn't finished making my points. The tension was in the air. It was like a car crash. They didn't like what they were experiencing, but they couldn't look away, and I had the floor by virtue of their speechlessness. They rejected the position of JFS without hesitation, and delivered him into the hands of Mormon fundamentalism. At this point, time was up and we had to break it up.

    I spent a lot of time thinking about this discussion. This class is fairly advanced, and a familiarity with deductive reasoning is absolutely essential. Some of the students are really adept in this method, until their religious beliefs are challenged. This is precisely where their scientific and philosophical progress comes to a halt. Mormonism takes a higher priority at this point.

    After thinking about this, here's my conclusion:

    Joseph Fielding Smith is a transitory fossil. He is a missing link between two branches in the evolution of Mormonism.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Sly Ways Mormons Express Hostility
    Posted Nov 24, 2005, at 08:02 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Molly Brown's excellent post on anger/hostility has me thinking.

    The Mormons I've known are by and large the most hostile people I've encountered in life. Most of the mormon talks I've heard and many mormon conversations centered around how much better the speakers and members were than their non-believing counterparts. They often decry how others are missing something in their lives and use slurs of "unrighteous," "gentiles," "apostates," "those who are of the world," "unworthy."

    In my experience "love," "caring," and "reaching out" are ways that mormons can lash out and express hostility without realizing they are passive/aggressive and vengeful.

    We've had local mormons show up several times on the same day we've been entertaining out-of-state mormon relatives. To me that says that someone called them and told them to bother us at those times. I see this as a hostile action since the locals and those who set them up are fully aware that such behavior is not appreciated.

    I also recently discovered that my sister was planning to invite us to a dinner to slam us with a barrage of unwanted mormonism. She hoped to corner us in her house when she thought we'd be too embarrassed to storm out. When we didn't fall for it, she lashed out with hostile phone calls and a scathing letter to every sibling and to our ageing mother.

    Other "loving" actions that express hosiltiy.

    1. Turning a name in to the missionaries.

    2. Visiting with goodies in hand after being told to stay away.

    3. Continuing to contact those on the famous, but fictional, "No contact list."

    4. Turning names of unbelievers in to the temple.

    5. And the final slap, dead dunking those who have said they don't want it.

    I talked to a longtime Catholic friend recently. I told her how much I loved her. One endearing thing about her is how she prays and lights candles when friends are hurting. The difference between her and mormons is that she does these things in love. She sincerely wants her friends to be happy in their own lives and decisions. She wouldn't think of praying that someone would change their religion to suit her. She prays that they'll find whatever peace and happiness suits them.

    I'm an atheist. I don't pray. But I certainly do send warm thoughts to others, and I hope that they will find peace in whatever way works for them.

    The trouble with mormons is that often they can't accept that people want to follow their own paths. Mormons become hostile if someone doesn't want to be mormon, if they don't want pray and obey the dictatorial mormon plan of salvation. I think that the mormon missionary program, many mormon talks, and much of mormon fellowshipping centers on expressing hostility and attempting to force the mormon will on the unwilling.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Where Does The Normativity Come From?
    Posted Nov 21, 2005, at 09:08 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Growing up the way I did in Mormon fundamentalist society made me do a lot of thinking when I was a kid. Now, I obsess over the same questions I had back them. The difference now is that I'm better able to articulate these questions in order to finally start making some sense of the world. To me, one of the most frustrating, yet compelling features of life has always been normativity. I didn't know what to call it when I was a kid, but it was everywhere. I wanted to know where it came from. This is one of the most pressing questions in my mind as I approach my fortieth birthday. Where does the normativity come from?

    OK, I'll explain it a little better now, I promise. But it's going to take some time, so get yourself comfortable. I think many of you will also find that you have also been asking this question for a long time.

    PHILOSOPHY:

    Philosophy is usually divided into four distinct disciplines. Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics and Logic.

    Epistemology concerns knowledge. What constitutes knowledge? What distinguishes knowledge from opinion? What does it take to prove that our knowledge is true?

    Closely related to epistemology is metaphysics, which is an inquiry into existence. The way the two work together can be seen in this example: Metaphysics involves questions of what exists, and what is the nature of that which exists, while epistemology follows hand-in-hand asking how we can know.

    Logic is the rulebook. The most important rule of all is that contradictions can never be tolerated. The rules of logic can be thought of as the rules for avoiding contradictions. I think it is helpful to think of logical fallacies with this in mind. A logical fallacy allows contradictions to slip in, and truth can never be found in a contradiction. This is the beauty of philosophical thinking. There is no authority. A contradiction is what puts philosophy out of action. Nobody owns this principle. In this sense, as in many others, philosophy is like mathematics. If your professor informs you that two plus two does not equal five, it isn't by virtue of authority that you are incorrect in thinking that it does. There's nothing personal at all. But committing oneself to avoiding contradictions is no small effort.

    Finally, ethics concerns questions of what to do. This makes it very distinct from the other disciplines for reasons explained by logic, epistemology and metaphysics. The four disciplines work together, but navigating their distinctions is crucial for reasons that will be obvious soon, I hope. Ethics is further subdivided into meta-ethics, normativity and applied ethics.

    Meta-ethics is the source of normativity. A meta-ethical theory is a theory that provides foundations for further ethical inquiry. Values are meta-ethical devices. We decide what is important to us, and we pattern our normativity accordingly. Normativity concerns statements of what to do, while meta-ethics explains how and why we decide what to do. A normative statement is an "ought" statement. "One should not steal" is an example of a normative statement. So if anyone wonders why we shouldn't steal, one then asks the meta-ethical question: Why? A familiar example of a meta-ethical explanation might be: "Because it deprives others of their rights, and therefore undermines our own rights." Or, here in the West there is the all-too-familiar: "God has so commanded it."

    Now we can see two types of meta-ethical theories. The first involves a theory of rights, and the latter is a divine command theory. When John Locke wrote about rights to life, liberty and property, he was giving a meta-ethical theory. Political liberalism and libertarianism are meta-ethical theories. Utilitarianism is also a meta-ethical theory. Goals and values are part of the meta-ethical discussion. How are we to decide what to do? That is the meta-ethical question.

    Normativity is part of life. Nobody escapes it. We couldn't function without it. A military order is one kind of normative statement (one that I can live without!), but so are rules of etiquette, club rules, laws and even personal resolutions like getting up in the morning and going to work instead of lying in bed all day. "Do this" is a totally bare normative statement.

    Normativity has a logical feature that makes it unique. Grammar makes normativity possible through devices like the imperative. One absolutely crucial thing to remember about normativity is that "is" can never be logically connected to "ought". Any attempt to do so is dangerously susceptible to contradiction, which logic will never allow. Normativity is a very tricky subject, since it has to be supported by meta-ethics, which is a field of inquiry that calls for considerable boldness, or it doesn't seem to get done at all. Far too often it is simply easier to go along with the normativity without questioning the meta-ethics because a bad decision here can really mess up one's life. If there is any confusion about the contradictory nature of comparing is with ought, think of it in terms of metaphysics. The present concerns what is, that is, being. The future is confined to not-being. The present is what is, the future can only be what is not. See the contradiction? The difference between the present and the future is separated by a metaphysical barrier that we cannot cross without implying a contradiction. This is why it is intuitively frustrating to be given an "is" answer to a question of "ought". A contradiction truly offends the mind. I am willing to believe that this is an adaptational feature conferred through the process of natural selection.

    Freedom is a very controversial topic in ethics. When I look at my own life, I sometimes feel convinced that I have virtually no freedom except the freedom to give my assent to whatever proposition warrants my consideration. This is the freedom to believe, but even this freedom is questionable. In any case, it's going to take place inside my head according to my own terms. If I find a proposition implausible, that is the only reason I need for rejecting it. Nobody can tell me that I must give my assent to any given proposition. Any normative statement of the form "one must believe x" is impossible to make, according to my meta-ethical observations. So when I was growing up in Mormon fundamentalist society, I couldn't help but balk when I was told that I must believe, and that I am obligated to employ "faith" if I truly find the propositions implausible. If it seems truly implausible to me that God exists, I am obligated to profess my faith, regardless. One must believe in God. There seemed to be no flexibility in this normative statement, yet such a statement infringes on the only liberty I can truly conceive, the freedom to give my assent or withhold it, based on nothing more than whether I find the proposition plausible.

    I have spent countless sleepless nights pondering this stuff. As a result, I have developed a very acute sensitivity to normative statements. I recognize well the need for normativity, but I am ever-suspicious of the meta-ethical foundations. Our need for normativity presses us to make normative statements every day. But if a normative statement does not have good footing through meta-ethics and, of course, logic, how can anything follow but poor decisions and irrational behavior?

    I am too self-conscious to feel comfortable getting caught doing anything irrational. And I'm skeptical and cynical, thanks to my experiences with falsehood and deception in Mormon fundamentalist society. I'm not going to get caught doing anything illogical if I can possibly avoid it, because I've seen first-hand how this conflicts with freedom and in my own case, brings misery and is quite frankly embarrassing. I detest hypocrisy and nothing makes me feel ashamed more than catching myself engaging in it. I want good reasons for doing things. I want truthful reasons. I've spent years of my life in crushing depression because I felt that my intellectual freedom, that is, my freedom to give my assent on my own terms, was being denied.

    So now, I see the normativity everywhere, and I question it relentlessly. I need normativity too, but it had better be legitimately founded. Normative statements creep up everywhere, and my cynical attitude makes me suspicious that a lot of people are trying to “slip one by me.” Normative statements can sometimes be couched into the most innocuous dialog, for example, in some kinds of rhetorical questions. There is someone in my family who I love dearly, but she has a habit of reacting to certain behaviors to which she disapproves by making a certain facial expression and "asking": "Why would you do that?" I consider this passive-aggressiveness. It is a normative statement in the disguise of a question. Doing what I do here in Utah, I invite this sort of thing, or so it seems. I never put up with it. I will seek out the normative statements, and then I'm going to corner these people and ask the meta-ethical questions. If they can't give me the answers, then I'm going to make them squirm as much as I can. I hate feeling obligated to behave according to someone else's ill-defined whim.

    Where does the normativity come from? That is the question I've been carrying with me throughout my life. If I'm ever going to bask in the freedom that I crave, it will be because I have asked this question relentlessly.

    P.S. Applied ethics involves bringing our normative statements into reality, like enforcing laws or protesting a political action.

    And...

    Here's my normative statement for today, with some good reasoning behind it.

    Always avoid contradictions!
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    C. S. Lewis Makes Me Realize How Low Impact Mormons Are
    Posted Nov 21, 2005, at 08:30 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    With the coming attention to "The Lion , the Witch, and the Wardrobe," I cannot help but think of the pleasure I got from reading C.S. Lewis years ago. He did a great deal to make Christianity appealing, even understandable. He had great impact, and the movie will give him greater impact. His was a more rational and embraceable Christianity.

    I contrast him with Joseph Smith, and his 200 years of impact. And yes, Joseph Smith has had an impact. He has had legions helping extend his impact --Smith and his white-shirted army.

    But how much good has it done? In truth, his church makes many feel creepy, slimy, and uncomfortable. His views of God and Christ are impossible to take seriously. I doubt all the missionaries, all the copies of the Book of Mormon, all the hours of boring meetings, depressing conference talks, lightweight and downright idiotic theology ,have had even a tiny fraction of the impact Lewis had. "The Book of Mormon" does not trump "The Chronicles of Narnia," and Lewis said his stuff is a fairy tale. Joseph Smith , and his minions, could not, and will not, tell the truth about The Book of Mormon, a much less appealing fairy tale. Lewis could think and write. Smith could scheme and dictate. Smith has had an army of white- shirted locusts covering the earth. Lewis had his books. Smith , and his followers, have tried to force Mormonism down the collective throats of the earth's dwellers. Lewis made people feel there is something to Christianity. And he did it gently.

    Mormonism has never been major league. It is, and always has been, peanut league. All the Mormofascism has not really influenced much. A flash in the pan, a pain in the ass.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    10 Years Of Recovery From Mormonism
    Posted Nov 19, 2005, at 08:32 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Eric K has posted the following on RFM:
    It was 10 years ago next week, during Thanksgiving in the US, that I put up a first page and typed "Recovery from Mormonism". It was on an ISP in Chattanooga TN and was a personal web page before registering exmormon.org a few months later. The site was originally designed to last a year to pay forward those that had helped me recover from my Mormon experience. I never anticipated 10 years.

    There have been and continue to be many volunteers who help behind the scenes to keep this running. It is because of them the site is still online. The Exmormon Foundation is an outgrowth of ex-Mormons' desires to help others out of the corporation.

    I just had another interview with a newspaper doing an article on Mormonism. It is odd to me that such a small experiment changed my life. I am a quiet individual living in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains with a web site that has now become a collaborative effort which has reached thousands around the world. Who could of ever imagined?

    Eric
    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...

    It appears he temporarily lifted the "number of replies" limit so go in and send your kind words.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Problems With Living In A Black And White World
    Posted Nov 16, 2005, at 07:49 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Growing up in TSCC there was never any question of right vs. wrong. Making out with a boy was "immoral", drinking alcohol was "bad", shopping on Sunday was "evil", and now they're even narrowing it down to such a ludicrous degree that you are no longer allowed to wear more than one earring per ear.

    Have you ever noticed how bizarre people get when they have such a definite line between what they are told is right and wrong? My son had a college roommate who had his (mormon)girlfriend spend the night one Saturday night, yes... full fledged sex, the works. The next morning, when they got up, he suggested to his girlfriend that they go to IHOP and get some breakfast. The girlfriend's response: NO, because spending money on a Sunday was against her religion!! HELLO? I guess she could confess to her bish that she'd been sleeping with her boyfriend, but shopping on a Sunday was inexcusable? LOL!

    I've noticed the same sort of reaction from TBM's if they see you drinking a cup of coffee. You can tell that all they see is pure 'EVIL' emanating from you. Problem is, you could be totally sloshed on Tequila slurpees and they would be thinking exactly the same thing.

    I think a real problem with not attaching any level or degree to various so-called "wrongs" is that you get a totally skewed sense of what is good and bad. You no longer are a good person, simply for the sake of BEING a good person, you only do it because TSCC tells you it is good or bad. Thus, if they tell you that wearing two earrings in one ear is evil, anyone you see with two earrings is all of a sudden an evil person. Who they are inside has nothing to do with it.

    I've noticed since I left the morg that I'm having to teach myself the true difference between good and bad. I find myself having to actually learn someones character before I can decide if I think they are a good or bad person. I can't rely on the fact that if someone is holding a cup of coffee that they should be avoided at all costs. Has anyone else noticed this?
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Are We Victims?
    Posted Nov 15, 2005, at 07:58 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I've been thinking about this for a couple of reasons. When I got "outed" on FAIR, one of the kind souls sent me a message to ridicule me for being unstable enough to "collapse into a sobbing heap" at the first challenge to my testimony and castigate me for adopting a victim mentality.

    Similarly, our friend Louis Midgley spoke of us as some angry and festering crowd of people united only in our hate and sense of victimhood.

    I don't feel like a victim. And I'm more heartbroken than angry. Yes, I have had some real flashes of anger, and I have learned that I deal with anger best through humor. I find myself making fun of Boyd Packer a lot lately.

    I'm heartbroken because I really gave everything I had to the church. In truth, I really denied "the natural man" because I was supposed to. I lived a life that I was told was what I should want. And it's a good life. I have a good family and a loving wife. I'm not sure what I would change if I had to do it over again. But I'm heartbroken that I did it all for a lie, especially since my wife does not see the lie at all. No matter what, I am the one at fault because I rejected "the truth."

    I'm heartbroken because I can't begin to repair the damage done to my children, the guilt they've already been conditioned to feel, the phallocentric worldview that relegates women to being semen receptacles. And the strange mix of feeling superior and yet not good enough. How do I undo that? Someone said it's through example, and I am trying to do that.

    But I am not a victim. And I don't hate anyone in the church. If nothing else, this board has exposed me to an entire community of heartbroken people who just want to help each other. Somebody said that we post to get attention. No, we post because we think that our posts can help others or that others can help us. Victims don't do that.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Quotes Regarding Anti-Mormon Literature
    Posted Nov 15, 2005, at 07:57 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    A brief Google didn't turn up anything. I will, however, submit the following:

    The LDS church has, as a core teaching in Sunday School manuals and elsewhere, that "The spirit of contention is of the Devil". This powerful aversion to dischord can be found everywhere within the LDS community. From the public voting (which strongly discourages dissent due to peer pressure; only secret ballots can assure that people vote their conscience) to the private interviews, this conformity is reinforced.

    One of the questions in the temple recommend interview, held once every two years for every true-believing Mormon, is this question:

    "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

    Reading anti-Mormon literature can be construed, by many, to be "affiliation" or "sympathy". This is an implicit commandment to avoid assocation with any anti-mormon individual or organization, with the implied threat that such affiliation can result in the denial of a temple recommend. This is stated quite explicitly by many local and regional leaders. From the time on my mission through serving in various leadership capacities, the message was powerfully clear: avoid anti-Mormon propaganda.

    As I continue to study Mormonism in greater depth from my new "outside" perspective, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is Mormon policy or practice, and that this is an entirely separate thing from core Mormon doctrines. Often these policies and practices grow as an implementation of a doctrine, but in themselves they are not regarded as important by members of the Church. They consider the core doctrine, however, to be sacrosanct, and a change to the policy or implementation of a doctrine doesn't imply, to them, a change in the doctrine itself.

    I witness my relatives blowing off the changes to the LDS temple ceremony, and see this attitude toward policy or practice deviating from doctrine. They retain unshakeable faith in the doctrines, even though the implementation of those doctrines changes radically.

    For myself, I fail to see the distinction that clearly. Policy, practice, and doctrine are hopelessly intertwined, resulting in a muddled mixture which is tough to nail down. This serves the Church's interest of preserving membership.

    I don't doubt that there have been leaders of note who have discouraged members from reading anti-Mormon material. You'll probably find their quotes mixed in with talks about not watching or reading pornography.

    In the minds of many Mormons, anti-Mormon literature and pornography are nearly synonymous.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Joe Smith's Temple Hocus-Pocus Is About The Level Of Tom Sawyer
    Posted Nov 14, 2005, at 08:19 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Some excerpts from the last page of Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer:
    " . . . We'll get the boys together and have the initiation tonight maybe."

    "Have the which?"

    "Have the initiation."

    "What's that?"

    "It's to swear to stand by one another, and never tell the gang's secrets, even if you're chopped all to flinders, and kill anybody and all his family that hurts one of the gang."

    " . . . And all that swearing's got to be done at midnight, in the lonesomest, awfulest place you can find -- a ha'nted house is the best, but they're all ripped up now."

    "Well, midnight's good, anyway, Tom."

    "Yes, so it is. And you've got to swear on a coffin, and sign it with blood."
    Pay Lay Ale
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Parable Of Joseph: Terry Eagleton At BYU
    Posted Nov 10, 2005, at 08:41 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I posted an account of this a while back, but in our discussion of postmodernism, it seems appropriate to do so again.

    Terry Eagleton is a well-known Marxist literary critic. Just after I graduated from BYU (and days before I started grad school), Professor Eagleton spoke for 3 days in the lecture hall in the Maeser Building at BYU. I recall my professor saying, "How the hell did they get him here? Ezra Taft Benson would have a stroke if he knew a Marxist were speaking here."

    Anyway, the seminar was about ideology and meaning. At the end, Eagleton said he wanted to share a parable with us. Here's the gist of it.

    There once was a young man named Joseph. Growing up poor, Joseph dreamed of one day changing the world. So, Joseph founded a movement, small at first, that proposed to overthrow the order of the world in his day: the meek would be exalted, the mighty would be brought low, the rich would be humbled, and the poor would be fed. Joseph's followers set out over the world to win converts to the new order, to make all one, with no rich and no poor. They built an ideal society, where they all worked together to benefit each other. They were to be a shining beacon on a hill, an example to the rest of the world of what could be done when people worked together toward a noble ideal.

    Eventually, however, the movement lost its focus on these grand ideals. The movement began to prescribe the most minute details of its followers' lives. Instead of encouraging the building of the New Jerusalem, they were content to build a world in which you couldn't eat certain things or wear certain things or think certain things. It became a movement in which you could hate your neighbor, but you couldn't say "fuck."

    "Of course," Eagleton said, "I'm speaking of Joseph Stalin."

    Little-known trivia: Eagleton's wife, Willa Murphy, is a nevermo who graduated in my class at BYU.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    "You Bet Your Life!! " Giving Up NOW For An Unproven Future State
    Posted Nov 8, 2005, at 09:30 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Some have emailed me recently as to how, post mormon, I am coming to find that an atheistic world view makes sense. Usually, those who are puzzled still believe in god. Here are some of my thoughts:

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Well, what is beyond this life anyway?

    That is a loaded question. After all, no one has any tangible, scientific proof of anything beyond our mortal existence. Those groups who say otherwise (that indeed they do), will prove to the rest of the world that they are right based on how things feel. When it is all said and done, they do not "know". Oddly, every group contradicts the next.

    Hence, the genesis of the hundreds of One and Only True Churches on this earth. I have found that the more forcefully someone tells me he "knows" what lies in the next life... the more reason I have to be skeptic and wary of his views.

    For just about three cognicant decades of my life, I was asked to trade most of my free time, much of my money, and all of my ability to critically, rationally and logically think and respond to life as it presented itself to me for merely a promise of mansions in heaven in an unproven philosophical future state.

    I was asked to bet my life on unprovable promises. The promises were given to me with much emotion, designed that I might also feel the weight of the promised currency.

    Many are glad to sign you up to their creeds and views in exchange for your soul, your time, your money. Yet, these same proponents of specialized faith cry out shrilly if one chooses to give a hard look at the problematic portions of their doctrine. Paticularily if one's conclusions end up differing from theirs.

    What is odd about religion is how each of the hundred streamlined variations of fundamental One and Only True Churches have their own specialized brand of eternal doom awaiting for the rejector. Isn't that odd to you? If not, why isn't it? Are you going to allow the god concept to run amuck in your life with:

    "Believe in our interpretation of God... or else you will suffer our prescribed doom!"

    Well, which doom will I suffer? Which ideology does one follow? And what makes theirs more "true" than the others? By singularily following any One and Only True Church, I automatically subject myself to suffer the doom spelled out by the others!

    This breeds a snowball effect of polarization. If one is going to accept one brand as god's Truth, they must reject all the others.

    Yet none can conclusively prove theirs holds the needed patent on God. They all rely on emotions as fuel for their faith. It is a hopeless cycle of frustration that ought not to be looked at too carefully if one really wants to be effective in following any one religion.

    Hopefully, if you do take a critical look at the concept of betting your life for anothers prophetic declarationals as to what lies in a future state, such critical thought will help you place a more healthy balance in your life regarding the time and money you spend on this venture.

    I believe it is good to contribute ones precious commodities of time and money, but I believe it should be qualified and balanced properly.

    It is up to the individual to practice sound rational judgement before leaping into any of the frackus. Yet so often we are born into a religion and are taught X or Y or Z is absolute Truth. This leaves us little room for personal growth. Amazingly, I am 36 and this is the first time in my life I ever questioned the existance of God or ever sought out what lay at the roots of world religion!

    Now, I begin to step aside and part the curtains of ambiguity with sanity, logic, reason and science. After dismissing emotion, these tools are all I have.

    A good rule of thumb would be to use slightly more amounts of scrutiny than one does in buying a home before giving ones existence over to any religious institution.

    Home buying is a process of accumulating facts to make a sound decision. Pest control reports, roof inspections, radon gas detections, lead based paint.

    How odd would it be to buy a home based soley on how one felt inside after reading what the realtor wanted you to read and hearing the testimony of the realtor?

    Absurd?

    Think about what little research most give to their religion!

    Most religious folk are not interested in deconstructing their religious world view. Why not, though? Probably, because humans do not know much for certain about the great beyond. We are a nervous species about things we know little or nothing about. We fear that which we do not understand.

    Recall how you feel as you stand in an unfamiliar place, alone, in the dark. Spooked? Restless? Nervous? Flighty? Probably. These feelings result in our recognition that we are not in control of our environment. The darkness brings to us uncertainty. This uneasiness is at the root of the foundational core of world religion. Such uneasiness facilitated the genesis of speculations about the great beyond.

    Early on when we humans crossed the mental Rubicon of cognitive self-awareness, we pushed outward for answers and found none. It did not take long for certain enlightened minds to figure out that they should come up with a reasonable explanation to life's tough questions.

    Hence, the cultural and geographical religious differences found across the globe.

    If there were a god in control of this world, would he not choose to be a little more consistent in revealing his identity and instructions for living life here?

    Particluarily since many millions claim him/her/it to be a vastly superior and unchanging perfect god? Don't you think that makes sense?

    Instead, we find a vast and confusing chaotic canyon miles wide and deep between the various cultures throughout the world time line and geography with respect to how a supreme being operates or reveals himself to us humans.

    Today, we take for granted that our religious leaders who taught us from our childhood knew the answers... but they did not. They trusted their leaders... who, in turn, trusted the first leader.

    With the first leader, the ball of faith started rolling forward. Oddly, the more distance gained from this original first leader via subsequent generations, the less likely we were/are to question why we must keep this particular ball of faith rolling. Until today, generations later, we do not question the first leader hardly at all. Is that not insanity?

    We just.. dutifully do "it" that is required for us to do by those first leaders. And we roll right along... Betting our very lives that our first leader was, indeed, correct... or that he was more correct than the hundreds of other first leaders.

    Who is to deny us of weighing the pros and cons for ouselves? Why shouldn't we question? Our lives are strung out in a spectacular Las Vegas card table, this life we are garenteed but ONE roll of the dice. Would we not want to check that the dealer at our table was honestly dealing us a square and fair chance in this bet... The Bet of ALL Bets?

    Anyhow,

    Making the ball roll along, requires our hands and our hearts, money and sacrifice.

    Some of us step aside for a time to see if the ball has enough inertia to go forward on its own... and find that it does not. It requires our investments to keep going. But we who step aside are few and far between.

    We who do step aside from this massive ball we have been so busy pushing see, globally, many hundreds of balls simultaneously rolling in a multitude of different directions. Behind our ball, we could not have seen these other balls rolling along because our view was obscurred or distracted by the round mass in front of us. And the task to push it taxed us to the core so there was little time to look elsewhere. Oddly, the mass we pushed seemed to be created by us in the first place. Built from countless hours of our willing indoctrinations.

    But, somehow we step aside and there they are, all these other balls of faith rolling rolling rolling along... willy nilly... as if there really is no definitive final or common target destination that is sought after. Each ball of faith has it's own prescribed pathway for where they are headed off to. It makes no sense.

    History shows us that all religious ideologies vary and contradict depending on culture, geographics, and historical timeline. (See Karen Armstrong's, History of God). Many posited answers claim to be a One and Only True version as to what a God wants humans to do. That is fine. It is not, however, fine to proselytize.

    The moment one steps out to proselytize she takes a definitive stand that she holds all truth in her hands while everyone else is in grievous error. Because in the end of it all, her version of The Truth is merely an opinion stacked up neatly against two or three hundred or so just as rational current explanations as to what happens when we achieve room temperature.

    The attempt to place one religious world view above another as the top pinnacle of Truth, (and they all try to do this dexterously), begets the need for dogma. For how shall we determine her version of Truth is THE True one? How does one prove it? Why do so many followers not require this hard proof?

    The only proof religion can offer is mystical feelings and experiences. Yet, here again this standard of proof is found lacking. All religions have significant religious experiences and epiphanies. We humans are designed to be highly intuitive and emotionally responsive. Since many millions of religionists "feel" that they belong to The One and Only true church via their significant spiritual events happening in their lives, doesn't that tell you God is one confused being?

    What is God doing leading all of these people to different religious waters?

    Do they not all claim sovereign spirituality?

    If there really was one true God approved church, wouldn't we witness it growing by leaps and bounds?

    So again, I ask, why is God leading people to vastly different religious waters?

    When all of the waters contradict each other and cast the others aside as "unenlightened" or 'mislead" or worse... they cast the other as "evil" and "corrupt". And if salvation is dependent upon reaching the correct "fountain", all that does is place God in a inescapable box.

    Or, it dismisses god's presence altogether.

    To soften this faulty standard of proof (feelings), most religions employ another faulty tactic. Circular logic. Circular logic is very useful because anything at all can be "proved" with it, including things that are obviously false. In the end, circular logic proves nothing and is completely fallacious.

    Demonstration of circular logic:

    How do you know the bible is the infallible word of God?

    Because when I read the bible, I see that it speaks profoundly of God

    How do you know that those words are Gods words?

    Because ... God inspired Moses and others to write down his word

    How do you know that Moses and others wrote it down?

    Because... ? The bible is infallible and it speaks profoundly of God!

    Or.

    How do you know the Book of Mormon is a factual historiography of ancient Semitic people in South America?

    Because I prayed about it and God revealed to me that it was through personal revelation (feelings).

    Will you pray about the Quran to see if it is true?

    No.

    Why won't you? You do know that 2 billion Muslims know that their Quran is the infallible word of God (Allah) through personal revelation. The Muslim faith rejects your Book of Mormon as the infallible word of God, why won't you pray about the Quran?.

    Because. I don't need to do that. The Quran is irrelevant to my purpose in life. Besides, God already told me that the Book of Mormon is true.

    But 2 billion people who read the Quran also know that God told them that Mohamed conversed with the Angel Gabriel and told him to write his revelations down. How can God tell Muslims that the Quran is His word and also tell you that your Book of Mormon is God's word... and both books are extremely different in ideology, yet neither of you will pray about each other's books?

    Because... (annoyed and impatient now) I know the Book of Mormon is true because God told me it was true!

    Now. For me, the most troubling aspect about religion is the wide latitude religion will take in purporting that it does know the unknowables... and religion will do so to the point that religion will indoctrinate its youth so that they might never question the faulty premises they were taught.

    (get the youth rolling their own big balls of faith early in life so that they have limited perspective from the get go)

    Religion hardly recognizes that there is a tenuous gap between what we know for certain and what is presumed.

    Religion arguably operates as if there is no gap at all.

    For religion to function, the gap is bridged with the faith concept. The bridging of this cavernous gap via faith is where religion has began throughout time. Faith equates to blind trust much of the time. Faith is the key element upon which religion is made to operate, but, faith must and should be qualified on all levels for realistic life meaning.

    Just what should one place their faith in anyways? I propose that one should do as much research and education as possible, balance what is found with reason, logic and sound judgement and only then forge ahead. This is the only right way to stand, morally, on principle as it pertains to truth.

    Should we stand on unquestioned or unchallenged foundations? The idea makes me shudder. To ignore and mentally compartmentalize or leave dubious parts of key religious elements unchallenged is to place one in a precarious state.

    Everything and everyone should be placed in the crucible of skepticism. Religion is quite demanding. Religion demands all of you in a whole souled commitment. Some religions even bind you up under strenuous, emotionally blockading death oaths and covenants.

    What is wrong with taking your life back?

    What is wrong with placing your existence back into a healthy perspective?

    What is wrong with achieving a better balance where your family and your health and your time is not sacrificed for hollow, unproved promises?

    If, in the end, your religion has a good chance at being nothing but a hollow promise, should you not be more careful?

    At least by taking a closer look at the founding figurehead?

    So the next time your religion asks you to donate large chunks of time and money to it's cause, put it into perspective. Take care of yourself and your family first. That is, after all, what you know is for real in the most certain epistemological terms. All else requires faith in a philosophy full of nebulous globally contradictory principles.


    Why is it that one chooses to never challenge the dogmatic chapter and verse of his or her faith? Does a devout religious person choose to sit in the trenches, hunkered down from the artilleries of the scientific community... not giving an inch and "knowing" that science, logic and reason are wrong?

    And if they do give an inch, they give an eternity.

    There isn't an inch to give!

    You see, they are either 100% right, or they are 100% in error. Yet they all cannot be 100% right! So, do they know their god is right with such errant certainty that outside sources (even inside sources!) of proof mean nothing to them?

    The more factual "proof" shown to them that their faith is myth based or only another man's opinion... or the more unbelievable their faith's historicity is shown to be... The more miraculous and benevolent their god becomes to them.

    Oddly, instead of waking up to obvious possibilities that their god is invented, the flawed oddities only feed their errant perceptions as to how great he/she/it must be.

    Just a thought. And thanks for reading this essay, "You Bet Your Life".

    Noggin
    (Mike)
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Trusting The Whisperings Of The Spirit
    Posted Nov 7, 2005, at 09:07 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    In my own awakening from apologist to critic, one of the epiphanies I had was about trusting the "Whisperings of the Spirit". Missionaries encourage investigators to employ this technique to find out the truth.

    What are these whisperings? As a new convert, I had remarkable, exhilarating experiences after long, fervent prayer. I set aside my doubt as best I could and struggled for that special witness. I got it in no small measure.

    But as I was uncovering for myself one embarrassing (for the Church) morally depraved event after another straight out of the Church's own publications, I asked myself how this huge number of non-faith promoting events could be reconciled with my testimony. After all I worked long and hard, and invested a great deal of mental and emotional energy into it.

    After asking myself if Mormons could practice self-deception, I could only answer that, yes indeed it has happened innumerable times, repeatedly as with all members of the human race. After all, those religionists who disagreed with Mormons were proof of it, at least to Mormons.

    Now the emotional products of a testimony are very satisfying. It never occurred to me that there could be deception involved. After all, one knew it was the truth because of the nature of the experience. When asked how I knew, my reply was the familiar "You won't understand unless you have had it happen to you." It simply was an experience that felt entirely right!

    Yet, in the end I had to confront that these religious emotions were just that -- emotions. If God provided a unique gift to the human soul, it couldn't be the gift of emotions. Many members of the animal kingdom experienced most of the range of emotions I have felt over the years. So what set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom?

    Intelligent reasoning. If God gave us anything to discern truth, it was what was learned thru the ideal of uncorrupted reasoning. Mormons are notoriously easy to dupe. They are by nature trusting and unsuspecting, and will develop 'testimonies' quite easily about things, whether it is multi-level marketing schemes, or 'promising' investments. So why should their religious perceptions be any different? Why should mine?

    If a person were to apply careful observations, investigation and logic to these schemes, there would be little or no deception ultimately. But it takes courage to peer into the eyes of our sacred cows. It is not easy to admit to the fallacy of that which we have held sacred. Ironically it takes humility, the very principle taught as necessary for acquiring a religious testimony.

    But with reasoning, you do not start off exercising enough faith to put doubts out of your mind. You do not preprogram yourself to suppress thinking about the contradictions that always make their appearance. You do not have to have blind obedience to the faith of someone else. In short you are not required to put your trust in the arm of flesh.

    Steve Lowther
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Ignorance And Mis-Information Strategies
    Posted Nov 3, 2005, at 11:21 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Reading other pro-LDS message boards, and recalling my forty plus years as a True Believing Mormon, it became clear to me that the most important strategies employed by the church are Ignorance and Misinformation.

    This two-pronged approach first uses the principle of IGNORANCE to hide from uninformed, inquiring minds anything that might be unpleasant about the church. It keeps people ignorant of facts that might make them expect a reasonable explanation. An example of this is sanitizing the problem of polygamy from the church museums. My recent visits to the Beehive House, Mormon History Museum and Temple Square Visitor Centers are glaring examples of this practice. No unsolicited mention of polygamy exists in any of these locations.

    The second principle in this scheme uses MISINFORMATION when someone, despite the obvious attempts of the Church's PR department to rewrite history by excluding polygamy, raises polygamy in the museums and visitor centers. They are immediately told how only a very small percentage of Mormons practiced it, without explaining why that is relevant; they indicate that it was to care for the overabundance of women, without providing proof that there was, in actual fact, the alleged overabundance; they explain that "god made us do it" when challenged to explain the connection polygamy had with a religious organization; and they distance themselves from the current practice of polygamy by declaring that it is not condoned by the church, anyone practicing it is excommunicated, and by denying that the church practiced it privately long after it had declared publicly that it was no longer practicing it. By perpetuating urban legends about these practices they use MISINFORMATION to inoculate seekers from the truth.

    What helps these strategies is the obvious ignorance of the 20-something missionaries who are being manipulated by the older shepherds.

    In the Beehive House there was an array of six or eight sister missionaries being watched over by a very business-like father-figure. I was absolutely certain that if I had started questioning the polygamy in the foyer within earshot of him that he would have accompanied us on the tour. He looked like he'd been pitted against anti-mormons making their way through this holy mecca before and was very keen to the clues that would get him engaged to protect these young women from ...... QUESTIONS.

    When I got them away from him, though, their testimonies of the hidden mysteries of the Church were weak. They confessed that THEY would not like to practice polygamy and share a husband.

    "REALLY?" I asked. "But isn't this a commandment?"

    <Nervous laughter.> "Not anymore."
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Family Oriented Church Took My Family Away From Me
    Posted Nov 3, 2005, at 08:04 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    For a church which is family oriented, the LDS church does great harm--to families.

    My father and I could have been close. We loved to bitch about the government, politicians, and the world in general. Normal American stuff.

    But then the subject of the church would come up. That ended it. My father, a truly good man, could not get past the church. If that was the topic, it was party line only.

    I recall bringing home a book on evolution from my elementary school library. I was in the third grade, and it looked pretty neat to me. I was eager to show it to my father. When I did, he went ballistic. It was as though I had carried a rattlesnake into the house. I did not understand it at all. Hell, I was eight years old. I learned that some things could not be talked about.

    The years went by, and as long as church did not come up, it was fine. When the Book of Abraham stuff became common knowledge (now there was a revelation), I could not talk about it with my father. He could not tolerate any statement suggesting Joseph Smith was a phony. And the " Book of Abraham" could not be more phony. But I could not even talk about it.

    He hated the PBS series--"Cosmos," "The Ascent of Man," and anything by James Burke. He would watch it, mind you, but it went against the "teachings of the Prophet Joseph." I recall that my wife and I went to the first "Superman" movie when it came out in 1978. When I told my father, just by way of conversation we had gone to the movie, he said "You should have studied the one true superman, Joseph Smith." What is it with this Smith guy? He keeps popping up everywhere, and he is such a bore.

    I would have liked to have been able to talk to Dad. I really couldn't . Not about the things that really mattered. The church was always between us.

    Always. I do miss him. I wish I had been allowed to get to know him. The church was just not going to allow it. They do not build families unless everyone is the same. You have to be the same. You cannot think, or work outside the system. Not with Joseph Smith around.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Professor Puts Down Hierarchical Businesses In BYU Alumni Magazine; I Smell An Exmo-To-Be
    Posted Oct 31, 2005, at 08:38 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Jeffrey S. Nielsen, '80, visiting lecturer in philosophy(!) at BYU has recently published The Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations, and shockingly, he got a positive two-page review in BYU Magazine, Fall 2005.

    Quote from the review:
    As a part-time business consultant, Nielsen had seen enough of the rank-based leadership to want to search for a different approach. "In trying to make organizations more successful and effective, one of the chief obstacles was the mentality of the leaders and the practice of leadership at the top," Nielsen says. That mentality, which he describes as a feeling of superiority, interrupts the flow of genuine communication. "I could see that those at the front line could identify the cause and solution to a problem," says Nielsen, "but they had no avenue to express that to their superiors or when they did, their leaders didn't take it seriously." [emphasis mine]
    Sounds to me like a critique of our favorite church-cum-corporation, if you ask me.

    Tyson

    P.S. An online version of the Fall issue isn't available yet.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    John Lynch And Feelings That Lead To Deconversion
    Posted Oct 27, 2005, at 10:19 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I visited RFM to get reaction to the Newsweek article and noticed references to posts by a TBM named John Lynch, who was identified eventually as the head of FARMS or FAIR. I can't remember which.

    I was curious and read all of his posts. In his final one, he made the following statement: "At any rate, I can see that people are here with differing levels of pain, anger, frustration, feelings of betrayal etc.. I know that there is no "one" reason why people leave, and I know that it is often intertwined with complex feelings and experiences."

    This parallels many of the other observations he made about deconversion. He seems to prefer to attribute it to feelings and experiences, rather than facts and logic.

    I believe this enables him and other TBMs to minimize the seriousness of the issue. In their minds, Ex-Mos leave because they were offended by another member, or couldn't deal with a certain doctrine, as opposed to coming to a rationale conclusion based on an avalanche of facts. What's ironic is that the basis of their faith nearly always is feelings that are attributed to the Spirit.

    I believe he is mistaken in his assumption, and that most Ex-Mos leave because they can't continue to reconcile their faith with the facts. It's not even a close call. I don't believe a single person would join the Church if they were informed fully before being given the invitation.

    However, once indoctrinated, it's extremely difficult to deal with the facts objectively, in the unlikely event that a TBM gets exposed to them in the first place. Despite what John Lynch and others may prefer to believe, members clearly are discouraged from challenging their faith by doing honest research. The Church's culture teaches that to question one's own testimony is weak and wrong.

    A TMB will not be moved by the facts until they are ready for the truth. John Lynch is not ready for it, from what I can tell. He's still doing what all TBMs do until they are ready: rationalizing away all of the compelling evidence that JS was a fraud and that the religion he created is a human, not divine, organization.

    However, the same can be said, in my opinion, of every other organized religion. That's one of the reasons I'm not as offended by Mormonism as some Ex-Mos. Yeah, it's stupid and wrong and harmful, but to various degrees, so are all the other "isms", as far as I'm concerned.

    So, John, if you happen to read this, I plan on contacting you when I get your e-mail address. In the meantime, I suggest you start dealing honestly with the facts, instead of relying on feelings.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    My Adventures During The Ex-Mo Conference
    Posted Oct 25, 2005, at 11:49 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Voyage into the Heart of the Beast

    Saturday October 22nd

    I attended the 9 am session with Tal Bachman. Great Job Tal! I will assume those reading this who want details on the sessions will go to www.exmormonfoundation.org and will download and listen to them at their leisure.

    After Tal’s presentation I hooked up with the infamous He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (have to protect the innocent). We headed to Temple Square and made a trip to the Conference Center. We took the tour and the conversation went along the lines of..

    While looking at the old BofM pictures:

    J (Jessica from here on out): Is that metal? When was this again?

    T (Tour Guide): Yes, they have found some in South America. The BofM times were (whatever they were).

    J: Oh, really, I have a Masters degree in History and I have NEVER read such a thing. OH my gawd! Is that a sword? You’ve got to be kidding me.

    T:

    J: So why is Jesus portrayed as being white? He should look like an Iraqi.

    T: We want to portray him in a universal likeness that appeals to all.

    J: Okay, so where is the black and asian Jesus?

    T:

    J: So if you are the True Church, why are you portraying Jesus falsely? A white Jesus isn’t the truth is it?

    While on the roof the tour guide was explaining about the features including the “garden” on top:

    T: This garden is called Mountain Meadow.

    J: (Jaw drop) That is an interesting name considering the momon history with the Mountain Meadow Massacre.

    T: There is a lot of misinformation on that out there.

    J: Oh, so the mormons didn’t kill all those women, children and men?

    T: There were mormons involved.

    J: Oh, so then there isn’t misinformation after all, huh?



    During our walk back we were talking about foreign language and I mentioned my skills in speaking Russian:

    J: Para na hoi! Ya yest ochen balshoi hoo – ie.

    They seemed really pleased with my linguistics.

    In the Beehive house tour:

    Sister Missionary: Brigham Young married these woman at a great sacrifice. They were widowed and by marrying Brigham Young he gave them the opportunity to own land and make a living.

    J: What about the teenage brides? They obviously didn’t need a husband.

    SM:

    J: Okay, I am totally following you on the widows but what about his teenage brides?

    SM: I really don’t know anything about him having teenage brides.

    J: How many wives did he have?

    SM: I am not really sure.

    J: Do you have a ballpark idea?

    SM: No, not really.

    After our tour in the Beehive house we ate lunch at Chuck-O-Rama’s. We went back to the Embassy Suites and I went out again with a new “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” individual. We went and toured the building with the “Christus”. I found a Sister Missionary that was eager to talk with me and our conversation went along the lines of:

    SM: What do you believe?

    J: I am a pagan.

    SM:

    J: I think the mormon church has too many red flags. You know obvious “duh” stuff.

    SM: Like what?

    J: Like JS having a bunch of wives, some as young as 14.

    SM: I am not sure that is true.

    J: Go look on lds.org. Do you know how many wives JS had?

    SM: No.

    J: How about a ballpark number?

    SM: No, I am not sure.

    J: 33 + known.

    SM: Oh. I have a testimony….

    J: Warm fuzzies just doesn’t work for me.

    SM: But I have faith….

    J: So, do you think the Pope has faith? Did you know more people have faith and warm fuzzies that the Pope is the leader of God’s people? What about the Dahli Lama? Do you think he has warm fuzzies about Buddhism?

    SM: We teach that there was a great apostasy at the time of Christ…

    J: I think there are a lot of Catholics that would disagree with you.

    SM: Well,

    J: Please don’t tell me the warm fuzzies told you it’s true.

    SM: Yes I was going to say I prayed and have a testimony of it.

    J: Why does your church send missionaries who don’t have a good grasp of their own church history to convert people? Don’t you feel a bit silly not being able to answer these questions?

    SM: We are always learning more…..

    J: So what about your weird practices? Like the death oaths your church used to do in the temple?

    SM: I don’t think that ever happened.

    J: Oh, it did, I confirmed it with an uncle who was a stake president.

    SM: I am not really sure that’s true.

    J: Well you should look into it. You ought to know your own religion. So what about this “Hie’ing to Kolob”?

    SM: I don’t know anything about Kolob.

    J: Funny how so many religions have this fascination with space. You got your Scientologists who have their “mother ship” and everyone’s an alien except them and then the mormon’s who think god lives on Kolob and that they will “hie to kolob” when they die.

    SM: I don’t know anything about that.

    J: Haven’t your heard the “Hie to Kolob” song?

    SM: Noooo.

    J: Well, look it up. It used to be in your church’s hymn books.

    ***after a very long discussion the SM agreed to read “In Sacred Loneliness” and I hopefully planted the seeds to her apostasy.

    That evening many of us hung out in the hospitality suite. One of our great accomplishments was to do Mormon Proxy Resignations for the dead. Some of the names included: all former prophets, all holocaust victims (we decided if the mormons wanted Hitler so bad, they could have him!), several former American presidents that deserved resignation, a few famous figures like Elvis, a few relatives (one of which was my grandfather that was necro-dunked after specifically telling my uncle and mother not to, was released from the bullshit).

    We anointed with rum and partook of the sacrament which was both wine and there were a few cups filled with rum. Several of the bottles had great pictures on them. One was on a wine bottle I think and it had Hinkley and it said, “I don’t know that we drink this”. Another bottle had a picture of Jesus giving the finger of fellowship.

    It was a great weekend and I met some really great people. There was a lot that happened and I am sure I will add as events come back to me. But for now, this is a good start and I hope you all enjoy the read.

    Peace,

    Jessica

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Intellectualism Oxymoron
    Posted Oct 25, 2005, at 11:24 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I have been thinking about the Churchs problems with 'so called intellectuals' who do research about the church and how the church says we should only study the doctrine by using church published and approved materials. I have always been an avid learner and love to do all sorts of studying even when I am not required to for job or school. In the Doctrine and Covenants it is a commandment to study the complexities of the world and history, wars, and foreign things. It is also stressed in church that we need to study the gospel and get learning by 'study and also by faith'

    Then when you actually do these things as recommended and you don't get the answer or beliefs they want you to have because you have followed their counsel you end up getting fired from BYU and excommunicated or you are told that you 'think too much.'

    If the glory of God is intelligence and we are trying to become 'all knowing' like God, than shouldn't we be free to study all sides of an issue, not just the pro?

    Before I vote on a candidate as a PoliSci graduate I was trained to look at the pros and the cons of a situation. I feel it is a waste of an education not to do this.

    So why does the church on the one hand encourage learning and getting all the education you can, but on the other hand when you do and then ask questions that can't be answered you get slapped back down? If the gospel was the eventual source of all truth, than I would think that any learning should eventually lead into supporting the gospel. This has not been the case though in my experience. There are some subjects that I have actually avoided studying when I was younger because they might undermine my testimony, for example biology and evolution. I was also strongly cautioned and cajoled not to pursue a career in psychology because my TBM family said it could challenge my testimony. I lost my testimony actually reading apologetics stuff when I was trying to build up resources to fight the 'antis' not studying some college science course.

    I feel that the church allows you to study all you want as long as it is business or something to make money, but if you try to study stuff like philosophy or social science and some of the hard sciences such as physics or biology you are quietly discouraged or in my case strongly discouraged. It hasn't gone unnoticed by me that the majority of GAs have MBA degrees or law degrees. They are highly educated, just not in a course of study that would make them question the church.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Hall Of The Prophets
    Posted Oct 25, 2005, at 11:14 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    My wife and I took my mother through the new church building about a year ago. She is very devout, a widow, and needs family to take her to do things. I am glad I can get her out.

    She wanted to see the new building, the Hinckley building, or whatever its called. So we picked her up and took her, even though she is nearly totally blind, and cannot really get much out of such things.

    We were instantly caught by two lady missionaries. One was from South Africa, the other from the U.S. I was struck by the fact that they were obviously picked because of their looks. No sad looking elders here. No, these gals were hand picked because they were cuties.

    I then looked around, and noticed some of the other guides. Bingo. Cuties again. To be in the glare of the lights under the big top, you had better be a stunner. These were not your average missionaries. The average missionaries go door knocking.

    We went on a tour of the building, from the basement to the roof. The lady missionaries had a non- member couple from Pennsylvania to testify to, and testify they did. Every five minutes, we heard another testimony--testimonius maximus, I believe its called. They testified about the art, and the "art" we all walked by. They testified about the podium where the church leaders speak. They dragged a testimony out of my mother. I walked off, and found the restroom. Never was getting away so welcome.

    We finally made it to the roof, but before we could go out there, we had to go through one last ordeal, the "Hall of the Prophets." In that hall were busts of all the church Presidents. The couple from Pennsylvania had to hear it all again. I tried to look at if from the Pennsylvania perspective. It was a room full of busts of old men few people had ever heard about. The missionaries waxed eloquent about the busts, and church, and the "Ensign.' I squirmed. I felt very uncomfortable. If these missionarie were trying to generate interest in the church, they were a flop. People do not need this stuff forced down their throats. It was embarrassing. I gather the "Hall of the Prophets" is supposed to be some sort of finale, some highlight. But it was just a room full of busts. That's all. I was glad to leave, and even more glad to have the missionaries leave.

    The tour finally ended, and I cannot express my relief. I shall not forget the way the couple from Pennsylvania fled to their car, so very eager to be free of the hectoring of the missionaries. There was something sad about it all.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    We've Been Had
    Posted Oct 25, 2005, at 11:13 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I listened to Tal Bachman's talk last night, and when he recounted telling his father "We've been had," I realized just how wrong it is to even try to stay in this organization. Suddenly, every turning point in my life led to the conclusion that I have to get out, despite the threats from my wife.

    I remembered feeling just like Tal did when I was a missionary in Bolivia. I thought that if they killed us, as they threatened to, it would be fine because we would die as martyrs. Of course, that didn't stop me from being scared to death when a speaker before an angry crowd started yelling about yanqui asesinos when we passed by or when our car was surrounded by a mob beating on the doors and windows. 3 years later, 2 missionaries did die in Bolivia. And for what?

    I remembered how disorienting and horrifying the temple was the first time. How could this be from God? Why did I have to swear to keep it secret at the penalty of a throat slitting or disembowelling? Why was I supposed to find this spiritually uplifting?

    I thought of the sick feeling in my stomach when I heard Boyd K. Packer making fun of three heartfelt letters in a meeting at the COB. Here I was watching a crowd of Church management laughing at others' pain at the direction of an "apostle." But to have such thoughts was just evil speaking, so I overlooked it and went back to my office, happy to be in the service of the Lord.

    I thought of the phrase "nurture and admonition of the Lord," which caused me to realize that the Book of Mormon was a fraud. How could Enos, a person who lived before Christ in America, have quoted Paul's letter to the Ephesians? I knew then that it was fiction. But I deluded myself into believing a fiction could be inspired.

    I pondered all the other assorted evidence of fraud: mummies and Abraham, Kinderhook, Greek psalters, the Kirtland Bank, the Canadian copyright, the trip to Massachusetts, glass-looking and money-digging. And everything else.

    Finally, I thought of Helen Mar Kimball, whose account made me realize once and for all that the fiction was inspired only by greed and lust, not by a desire to serve God and humanity.

    I went home and told my wife the same thing Craig Paxton did: I'm not going to lie for you or anyone else.

    I don't know what will happen, but I am through pretending. Enough is enough. Thank you, Tal and Craig, for helping me find the courage to do what's right.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    45 Points Of A False Religion To Confront The 17 Points Of The True Religion
    Posted Oct 19, 2005, at 07:37 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    This arose as a counter argument to the lists that supposedly list the points that make the church true. The LDS church does not have a shred of evidence to support its claims. On the contrary everything screams that it is all a lie.
    1. Changing accounts regarding the first vision.
    2. Lack of reports in the local press about Joseph Smith prior to 1830 even though he claims that he was subjected to substantial pressure from the church communities around him. Religious news was readily reported in the local press meaning if there really had been a first vision it would have been reported prior to 1830.
    3. Joseph Smith's association with folk magic (i.e. divining rods).
    4. Joseph Smith's "money digging" and attempts to avoid legitimate employment.
    5. Similarities between Joseph Smith's accounts of uncovering the gold plates and the writings of Solomon Spaulding.
    6. Similarities between the Book of Mormon and "View of the Hebrews" and several other books of the period.
    7. Portions of the Book of Mormon that quote the New Testament prior to the writing of the KJV of the New Testament.
    8. Changes to the KJV by Joseph Smith that have not been supported by documents that have been subsequently uncovered (i.e. The Dead Sea Scrolls and biblical texts that are older than the sources utilized by the KJV translators).
    9. The Kinderhook plates and Joseph Smith's "translation" of the fraudulent characters.
    10. The changing locations of the supposed Hill Cumorah in spite of recorded statements from Joseph Smith and others to the contrary. (i.e. Zelph the white Lamanite and his participation in the last battle, and the ancient Manti supposedly being located in Randolph County, Missouri).
    11. The Book of Abraham and the total lack of comparison to the papyrus.
    12. Joseph Smith's "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" and proof of this alphabet being bogus.
    13. Joseph Smith's prophecy concerning the Civil War was predated by discussion in the popular press stating the same thing.
    14. Unfulfilled prophecy concerning building of temple in Independence (the date for that has long since passed).
    15. Unfulfilled prophecy regarding Second Coming in reference to Joseph Smiths age (the time frame for that is long passed).
    16. Lack of DNA evidence concerning the peoples in the Book of Mormon.
    17. Book of Mormon denouncing polygamy and initially the Doctrine in Covenants. D & C changed to accommodate polygamy.
    18. Joseph Smith concealing polygamous marriages from Emma. In some instances even performing a second ceremony so that Emma would not know that he had already been married to certain individuals.
    19. Joseph Smith putting time pressure on women to marry him.
    20. Joseph Smith through the vehicle of "revelation" threatening Emma with destruction if she did not accept polygamy.
    21. Joseph Smith using the vehicle of "revelation" in the form of supposed blessings for accepting and cursing for rejecting proposals for polygamous marriages.
    22. Joseph Smith marrying women that had husbands still living.
    23. Joseph Smith sending individuals on missions that may have opposed plural marriages.
    24. Brigham Young using manipulative tactics to obtain polygamous marriages.
    25. Over 200 polygamous marriages being performed after 1890. One as late as 1907.
    26. The churches denial of post manifesto polygamous marriages until it was revealed to the general public to a degree that they could not deny.
    27. Joseph Smith denying that polygamy was being practiced until the 1840's.
    28. FARMS and the church "spinning" evidence and the Book of Mormon account to fit the current evidence.
    29. Gordon Hinckley and Dallin Oaks concealing evidence in the Hoffman case.
    30. Dallin Oaks stating that it is acceptable to not tell the truth when it casts the church or its leaders in a bad light. What about the temple recommend interview question? "Are you honest in all of your dealings?"
    31. Church history being presented in a one-sided fashion and many times in a totally dishonest fashion.
    32. The church's censure of BYU faculty and other individuals who produce works that are truthful, albeit casting the church in a bad light (i.e. concerning church history, research concerning the Book of Mormon, etc.).
    33. Gordon Hinckley lying to the press about the church's doctrinal stands on polygamy and the divine potential of human kind.
    34. The temple endowments plagiarism from Masonic ceremonies, which by the way have been shown to have originated from other places and times than most members are led to believe (not the temple in Jerusalem).
    35. The macabre penalties that were removed from the temple ceremony.
    36. The changes to the Book of Mormon (i.e. "he was a going" hardly sounds like the work of an all knowing God).
    37. Unfulfilled prophecy from Brigham Young concerning blacks and when they would receive the priesthood.
    38. The teaching that when blacks and Lamanites repent they are supposed to become a white (changed recently to "fair") and delightsome people. I have lived around many church members who are either African-Americans or "Lamanites" and their skin color does not change even after many years in the faith. Their descendents skin does not change either. People living closer to the equator have darker skin than those closer to the poles, indicating an environmental cause for the pigmentation differences.
    39. Reliance on circumstantial evidence in current members lives as "proof" the church is true.
    40. When faced with the crushing evidence against the Book of Mormon, we are encouraged to read and pray about the Book of Mormon, both of which can and in billions of cases have caused faulty conclusions, i.e. Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. If the answer is still in the negative then it is our fault and we need to pray again.
    41. Treatment of members that is in line with the way that cults treat members. Building your own testimony by bearing your own testimony (this is brainwashing).
    42. The teaching that if someone does not believe they need to read more. Again brainwashing. For instance, we don't need to keep rereading Boyle's gas laws to re-convince ourselves that they are true.
    43. Manipulating, trying to induce guilt, trying to induce fear of loss of blessings, and trying to induce fear of being cursed within those who no longer believe (unethical and immoral). If these tactics were employed in a secular organization there would be serious legal action leveled, and you would lose in court.
    44. The church's paranoia about the truth. The truth will stand for itself. If the truth is being suppressed and twisted then you are dealing with a fraudulent organization
    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Former Mormons With "Part Member" Families - Does Your Family Consider You "Unworthy"
    Posted Oct 18, 2005, at 12:41 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Former Mormons with "part member" families - does your family consider you "unworthy" and won't be part of their "Celestial Family" when we all die "I have my Celestial Family now," one of my TBM adult children said to me awhile back in a phone conversation.

    I live, daily, with that subtle, underlying: "you are unworthy" attitude (which they deny, of course) but it apparent in how I am treated.

    It is almost impossible to get a TBM relative (spouse or off spring etc.) to respect the former Mormon once they leave the group.

    Instead of believing what I say, they will go to their Mormon "authorities" to get answers. They do not do their own research, as they rely on the "faith promoting" story parroted by the other TBM's in a kind of "old boys club" to shut the former believers out and shut them down. Their "testimony" must be preserved at all costs and that can only be done by those in "authority." Women, in particular are shut out of the club.

    They use that old tried and true: "I know the church is true" testimony that they obtained from a "spiritual witness you won't understand," to make it clear that you are "unworthy"! Often that "testimony" is hurled in such red faced anger and clinched fists, and with such hatred that it is scary.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned, early on to live in fear. It was so subtle, I hardly noticed it! I converted when I was a young adult (in the early 60's) and married in the temple and little by little, I learned the power a Mormon adult male has. Especially when they are following the "inspiration" of a bishop!

    I lived in a kind of underlying fear, from all that programming from Mormonism's teachings, that if I was "unworthy," my husband could divorce me and take my children away from me and the church leaders would help him do that. I would be left destitute, shamed, and on my own.

    The "worthy" husband is told he is entitled to a "worthy" wife and the leadership (bishops in particular) would do anything to make that happen. This is also true of the gender is reversed.

    Reading here, I see this still happens. I had hoped that the church would have lightened up on how they program their members. But, instead, I read about how TBM's cannot accept the change in belief of their spouses and they live in hell trying to keep the family together! They sacrifice their own personal rights, often to make that happen.

    Somehow, their 11th Article of Faith does not apply to them, only to others who never heard of the Mormon Church, or so I was told by a TBM relative!

    Mormonism is not designed to respect freedom of religion or to respect those who change their mind. Do they really mean to do that? Are the top leaders unaware of what Mormonism is doing to families that are now "part member" families, in particular? Do they have any idea how destructive Mormonism is? Do they know how their teachings has translated into destroying the family?

    I doubt that the top leaders, have a clue about how the local members have internalized the teachings and live the religion. They have distanced themselves, on purpose, by rarely even speaking to the "rank and file" members. Instead, they refer people to the local bishops, who from what I have observed, are over worked members trying to keep their heads above water with little or no training.

    Mormonism has programed it's members to believe in a factitious imaginary person who has "lost the spirit" and is no longer "worthy" (sinned, apostatized,etc.) that is created when someone leaves the Mormon Church. It is so powerful that members are afraid to drink coffee, certain kinds of tea, or wear underwear, not bought from the church.

    Unfortunately, in many instances their fears have been used against them to destroy the family, or in the least, change it so that the non-believer cannot be honest as the consequences are so dire.

    Often it is a frightening site. Their words and attitudes of the TBM's show an unhealthy, acrid bitterness and malevolence to such a degree that it makes one wonder if they are able to maintain healthy, lasting relationships.

    They accuse the former believer of hating themselves-self loathing, and in need of help in the form of reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it. Nothing else will suffice. They are sure that is the answer.

    Former Mormons are faced, daily with a choice. Tell the truth, or loose your family, your job, your home, your career, your scholarship, access to your BYU transcripts, and on and on and on. In the minimum, generally, you loose respect and acceptance. Where you might have been considered a smart, intelligent, interesting person, you are now not to be trusted or believed, no matter what you talk about.

    It is difficult to take your power back from the programming from Mormonism, especially when living with a believer and have believing off spring. But, it can be done. They won't like it, they will resist. Some will dig in deeper and become a super TBM, reading, studying, sticking to the Mormon church's teachings like glue!

    Many of us had a hard time leaving the imprinting from Mormonism. The teachings ring in our ears, run like automatic scripts organizing our minds into a Mormon World View until we are even afraid to think differently. Many of us even lived in fear of taking off our regulation underwear. Now I can laugh about it, fortunately I get to the laugher fast, but at the time, there was a brief moment of fear!

    It is an odd paradox. I am not sure who lives in the most fear: the TBM or the former believer. It is a strange dance--an odd two-step to find some level of cohesiveness and keep a family together that now has a non-believer voicing their disapproval of the fraud of Mormonism.

    Mormonism has done an excellent job in getting thousands of believers to never question, and never express any real doubts. It is OK to think about it, but never, ever say a word.

    Talking about the fraud of Mormonism will often have expensive consequences.

    Hopefully, the cost is worth it! For myself, it is worth it! It took awhile, but I found my voice and the authentic me that was there all along! I will never stop informing and educating Mormons, relatives included!

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormon Capacity For Denial Is Astounding In Hindsight
    Posted Oct 18, 2005, at 09:35 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    My conversation with the Mormon missionaries recently was a perfect illustration of the massive denial you have to operate under as a representative of the church to keep the CogDis from driving you crazy. When confronted with damning evidence that shatters the racist myth of Mormonism, the social/intellectual/emotional constraints are so strong and limiting the Mormon missionary's only reaction is to smugly say, "WE teach it because it's TRUE!" completely ignoring the fact that genetic science has conclusively proven the racist claims of mormonism false.

    I told him, "That's your right to believe that racist myth if you want, but it's my right to tell you it's a lie. Difference is, I can back it up with evidence and facts based in physical reality. You can't. If your so-called "Truth" were really "true" then science would bear it out as it advanced and it would be increasingly accepted by people who were not Mormon. Instead, just the opposite phenomenon has happened. As science advances, it tends to disprove the claims of Mormonism. Nobody but Mormons believes Native Americans are descended from Lamanites. That's a racist myth. That is exactly why I choose not to believe in Mormonism. It's racist and I don't want to be a racist or associated with racism. It's increasingly inappropriate to maintain that myth, especially now that it has been completely debunked. So why maintain it? Doesn't Christ's commandment, to love one another as yourself, outweigh the need to maintain that a certain race is descended from a cursed race of people? I found that morally, I could no longer associate myself with a white supremicist organization."

    I had the same discussion with a GA, with the same outcome.

    I told him that 99.9% of the genetic material tested amongst Native Americans from the tip of Alaska to the tip of S. America was definitively of Asiatic descent, the other .1% was definitively non semetic. In other words, there is not a trace of semetic DNA in any native American population, which completely contradicts the racist claims of the BOM, so why maintain them?

    The GA, who is also a well known, very good trial attorney, sat there next to my bishop, who was also my wife's OBGYN and told me, "Well, that doesn't bother me. Everything I learned as a child has been turned on it's head. I wouldn't be supprised if Genetic Science was turned on its head tomorrow."

    WTF!?!?!?!? What century were you born in? My brain was reeling. I was in shock.

    "Are you serious? You mean to tell me that EVERYTHING you learned as a child has been turned on its head? Hasn't Newton's theory of inertia been around since the 17th Century? Hasn't the theory of electricity been around since the 18th century? Hasn't the theory of Evolution been around since the 19th Century? Hasn't the theory of Relativity been around since the begining of the 20th Century? All of those theories have only become more and more well established and usefull over the years, far from being turned on their heads. Science has come a long ways in the past few decades. We now have the human genome mapped, along with quite a few other species. They send people to the electric chair based on DNA evidence. They can tell exactly where we came from. And you seriously think it could all be turned on its head? The God I believe in does not change the laws that govern the universe at random."

    He told me after that, "I don't have answers to your questions." and proceeded to share some pointless antecdotes with me.

    I told him I appreciated his candor, but that I didn't expect him to have the answers. I told him that they were rethorical questions since already knew the answers to my questions before I asked.

    I respect those two men immensely in almost every way. They are good men, professionally, morally, socially, ethically, I personally know of no better men. They are both very well educated, honest and reasonable. Good people.

    It's just sad to see that even people as intelligent and good as those two men are reduced to believing the racist myths they have inheirited and refuse to face well established scientific fact, since as representatives of LDS Inc, they have to draw the line at independent thought.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Old Policy Made New On Facial Hair, From The Prophet?
    Posted Oct 17, 2005, at 07:45 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Last year my Stake President stood up at Stake Priesthood meeting and stated that there is no reason anyone should have facial hair. He said the “brethren” have commanded us to be obedient to the Prophets request. Of course I often wear a beard.

    Immediately, I called my TBM father and asked him if this was going on in his Stake. It wasn't then, but it is now. My TBM father and brother are both fighting this ridiculous rule. My father a former bishop and high councilman has been marginalized in his ward for his opinions on this issue.

    My father told me that when he was a bishop, in the 1980's, he was not allowed to give temple recommends to brethren with beards. Apparently the policy didn't go over that well! About a year and a half later the policy was repealed. Revelation?

    Recently in my brothers ward members stood and bore testimony about how their testimony has grown through their obedience to the "facial hair commandment".

    In my fathers ward female members have in Sunday school said the "commandment" came from the prophet and we must obey!

    In my ward I was confronted in the foyer by a member of my bishopric, he started confronting me about my facial hair; I quickly responded that “I wasn't drinking his cool aid any longer”. He was shocked- I told him “I was offended by the stake president and his opinions on this subject”. He responded that we have been asked to emulate the Prophet and that means look and behave more like him. I responded with, "It's difficult for me to look like a 90 year old man". I then told him, “I found it more offensive that he and my stake president both drive $80,000 luxury vehicles, when we have members of our ward who can’t afford to own any vehicle”.

    At this point he began to blush and responded that it's "the small things that keep you out of heaven." My response to him was "No, it's the big things like murder, adultery, stealing etc... that keep you out of heaven".

    The conversation lasted almost an hour. The good thing is it kept me out of Sunday school; sad thing is the stakes in this area (NW AREA) continues to teach this crap!

    Nearly every Friday in defiance I grow my beard out and then on Sunday after church I shave it off. No one confronts me any longer and I continue to hold my calling in the young men’s.

    Anyone else dealing with this kind of crap?

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Guess Church Membership Is More Important Than Family Relationships
    Posted Oct 13, 2005, at 02:49 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Our family used to be so close. We would have holidays together, birthday parties together, hang out with each other while the nieces and nephews played hide-and-seek or helped grandma bake cookies. Every discussion revolved around the church and who had what calling or what the latest Ward gossip was. But after my wife and I left the church and explained our reasons in a short, unthreatening letter to them, it is like we have become carriers of the plague.

    The daily phone calls have stopped, dinner invites have ceased, our kids haven't played with their cousins in months, conversation stops when we walk into a room, and the things we all used to do together don't happen anymore.

    One sister got pregnant and had a quickie wedding at the local Stake Center. It was an embarassment to my parents but her in-laws embraced her as their newest daughter-in-law. Last year when she and her husband were finally able to be sealed in the temple, she called me and yelled at me for "ruining the most important day in her life" because I refused to drive 1,000 miles and go to the sealing. She called me hard-hearted and under the influence of Satan.

    Another sister, although she has doubts herself, refuses to speak with us because she thinks that what we might tell her will push her over the edge and make her lose her testimony all together. So instead of confronting her doubts, she buries her head in the sand and keeps on popping her Prozac hoping life will get better.

    Another sister is adicted to painkillers and has a stash in her bathroom that would make Rush Limbaugh envious. But don't let us around her kids because of the negative influence we may have on them.

    The list goes on and on.

    We are still the same people as before. We give to charities instead of paying our tithing. We don't drink, do drugs, or cheat on each other. We adhere to sound moral reasoning and try to make the world a little better place to live.

    Every once in a while we'll get a call from a younger member of my family asking if we could loan them a hundred bucks until payday or if we cold help make a phone bill payment or whatever. We never turn them away because they are still family and want them to see that we are the same people as before. But to them, all they see is the church issue.

    So I have come to the conclusion that the church is nothing more than a fucking cult that requires strict obedience over family relationships. If it comes down to the family vs. the church, the church takes priority every time. And it pisses me off.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Let The Holy Spirit Guide - How Mormonism Gives Lip Service To Personal Responsibility While Undermining It At The Same Time
    Posted Oct 13, 2005, at 09:10 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    There's a right and a wrong to every question
    Be safe through inspiration's power


    Even as a dedicated, believing Mormon, I always thought there was something wrong with that hymn. As comforting as it may be for some people to live in a black-and-white world, there really is not a right and a wrong to every question. Life is rarely that simple.

    Mormonism, on the surface, teaches us that we are responsible for our own decisions and actions, but it's a warped and artificial kind of responsibility. What Mormonism really wants us to believe is that, in every situation we may face, the right decision exists independent of us. Our task is not to figure out what is best for ourselves. Our task is to ascertain what is right, and right equals the church's official and authoritarian interpretation of divine will.

    This approach to life is all about obedience, which may be a virtue in its own way, but should not be confused with personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is about drawing on my own life's experiences, my own feelings and my own social relationships to establish my own values and morals. Personal responsibility is about ordering my life around those values and morals, and using them as a framework through which to evaluate the choices with which I am confronted every day. Personal responsibility is about being willing to reexamine and reconsider my values and morals when I encounter new experiences and ideas that challenge their underlying assumptions. Personal responsibility is about recognizing that many choices are between two good things or that sometimes you really do have to decide which is the lesser of two evils.

    I know people who pray in the aisle of the grocery store about which brand of cereal to buy. They call it "living in the Spirit." I call it an utter and complete abdication of personal responsibility. Once you've convinced yourself that you're getting divine guidance about about matters that mundane and trivial, you're no longer personally responsible for anything. If the decision you made goes south on you, it wasn't your fault. You were following the Spirit. There must have been a lesson from God for you in the experience.

    The effect is even more insidious when people take that approach with bigger, weightier decisions. How is a husband supposed to feel if his wife married him primarily because she believed it was divine will, and less because of her own feelings, desires and thoughtful consideration? (Of course, if he manipulated her into thinking it was divine will, he deserves no sympathy.) How romantic is it to believe that your spouse married you because he or she felt commanded to do it?

    Is there any meaningful difference between living that way and saying "The Devil made me do it?"

    Thus spake Mujun.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Miscellaneous Facts That Even The Mormon Church Admit Are True
    Posted Oct 6, 2005, at 07:05 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    When a TBM asks you why you left the Church or have severe doubts about it, you can start by listing many misc. facts that even TSSC will admit to being true. Read a few that I have come up with and please add more that you are aware of.

    1. Joseph Smith had many plural wives (more than 20) and many were married to other men as well (even faithful members of the Church). Many of his wives were in their teens and one was even 14. Many, if not most, of these wives were very reluctant and hesitant about entering into plural marriage but agreed after being told it was commanded of God through revelation by Joseph Smith.

    2. Emma, Joseph Smith’s first wife, was unaware of most of his plural marriages up to the time of his death and for some time afterward.

    3. The official Church version of the “First Vision” of Joseph Smith found in the Pearl of Great Price differs substantially from a hand written version from JS himself in 1832. In the 1832 version, JS does not mention seeing God the Father, nor does he mention asking a question about which church he should join; rather, JS states that he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: “by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    4. B.H. Roberts, in the early 1900’s, was considered Mormonism’s most competent historian, leading theologian, and chief defender of the faith (apologist). In 1921, a letter was referred to him received by James E. Talmage from a man asking 5 specific questions about problems with the BoM. Roberts was asked to answer this man’s questions. After considering the questions for a month and coming to no satisfactory answers, Roberts requested and had a conference with Heber J. Grant (Church President), his Counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, for the purpose of discussing and receiving inspiration or revelatory insight to the answers to these difficult questions about the BoM. This long meeting resulted in no further help or insight to answering these questions for Roberts other than each of the Brethren baring their testimonies of the truthfulness of the BoM.

    5. After the above mentioned meeting, B.H. Roberts embarked upon a prolonged study of the BoM with a specific comparison of Ethan Smith’s book, “View of the Hebrews” published a few years prior to the BoM being published. Roberts wrote a manuscript detailing this study, titled, “A Book of Mormon Study”. In this manuscript he detailed numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact between the two works. A quote from Roberts found in the manuscript: “In light of the evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the “common knowledge” of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews”, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.”

    6. Brigham Young, the second President and Prophet of the Mormon Church, taught while he was President of the Church that Adam was really God (Adam-God theory). This is now considered false doctrine by the current LDS church. ??(A Prophet of God will never lead the Church astray.)??

    7. The Mormon Church teaches that the BoM contains the fullness of the gospel, however, the BoM does not teach the following Mormon gospel principles:
    a. The Aaronic nor Melchizedek Priesthood is not mentioned.
    b. No teaching about “three degrees of glory“.
    c. No mention about not drinking alcohol, tea, or coffee.
    d. No mention that God has a body of flesh and bones.
    e. No mention of temple participation and ceremonies being necessary for exaltation.
    f. No mention of temple work for the dead.
    g. No mention that man may progress to be Gods.
    h. No mention that it is okay to practice polygamy.
    i. No mention about wearing of sacred undergarments.
    j. No mention that the black race is the seed of Cain.
    k. No mention that God has a wife.
    l. No mention that Satan and Jesus are spiritual brothers.
    m. No mention of the plurality of Gods.
    n. No mention that the Holy Ghost is also a son of God.

    8. Joseph Smith, Jr. was involved with the occult magic art learned from his father and which was commonly practiced by many other individuals in their area of the country. JS hired out as a “treasure seeker” using the supposed magical power of a “peep-stone” to locate hidden treasures. He was involved in this kind of activity for many years from about 1820 to 1827. He was brought to trial in March, 1826 “as a disorderly person” because of pretense as a “glass looker” and pretending to discover lost goods, hidden treasures, mines of gold and silver, etc.

    9. The Mountain Meadows Massacre of Sept. 11, 1857 resulted in the slaughter in cold blooded murder of 120 men, women, and children from a wagon train passing through Southern Utah. This massacre was carried out by about 50 Mormon men along with recruited and encouraged local Indians after orders given from the leaders of local Mormon militia who also served as the leaders of the Mormon Church in the area. The whole unfortunate event stemmed from bad feelings left from Mormon persecution of the saints while in Missouri and Illinois along with U.S. government troops being sent to Utah at the time to quell Mormon insurrection. “Blood Atonement”, being taught by Church President Brigham Young during this era, may have had a factor in causing this tragedy.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Old Saying "But He Said That When He Was Not The Prophet"
    Posted Oct 5, 2005, at 10:07 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    We have all suffered that line. Quotes from apostles and such that are ignored by TBM's because he said them and they were not prophets, thus it does not count.

    "He was an apostle and was speaking as a man" can now be negated by one simple fact.

    So many of the books of the New Testement were letters written by Apostles. They were not prophets were they? So could that mean most of the NT can be thrown out and ignored?

    I plan to try this on the misses on one quote. She always says "he wasn't the profit". Well if the quote is thrown out then a good chunk of the bible must also be thrown out.

    There is no way they can have a comeback to that.

    Tired of their sad defences.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Church Always Starts With The Answer, Then Works Backwards
    Posted Sep 30, 2005, at 08:07 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    One of the most frustrating, mind bashing, mental numbing things about Mormonism is that it always starts any investigation of its validity with the answer: The Church is True. Even before we know the questions.

    No matter what the query is, no matter what the facts are, no matter what the history is, no matter what the evidence is... the church is ALWAYS TRUE. Facts be damned.

    This REALITY was one of the most frustrating things I encounter in my epistemological quest.

    How can one have a meaningful conversation with a Mormon when the answers to their claims are not debatable?

    What experiment for knowledge is valid when only one conclusion or answer is even considered correct before the test begins?

    Where would we as a human race be if we all accepted the answers to questions that our fathers had provided us? It is through the process of questions and experimentation that truth is discovered.

    Even theories, those sets of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, are not considered to be truth until they have been repeatedly tested. Only then is a theory widely accepted and used to make predictions about other phenomena. But those testing theories never conclude the answer to the experiment prior to the testing of the theory. Even then, once a theory has been accepted as a fact, to remain so, it must continue to be scrutinized continuously. If additional information is found, any fact can be changed to conform to this new knowledge Mormonism does not allow for this...because the answer is always the same no matter what the facts or truth is.

    Anyone truly looking for truth would be smart to question the methodology of Mormonism

    The practices, procedures, and rules used by Mormons to find truth are marred by their faulty methodology because they start with the answer they want.... and work backwards...i.e. because we know the church is true...then....blah blah blah

    Just my thoughts for the day...

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Object Lesson In The Porter Home Tonight: Sharing Coffe With My Young Kids
    Posted Sep 30, 2005, at 08:04 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Tonight I was enjoying some fresh pressed coffee from my new Starbucks coffee press.

    As I sat down to sip the wonderful aroma of a dark roast, my six year old daughter jumped up and ask what I was drinking.

    "Coffee", I replied and sipped.

    "COFFEEE!!!!" She exclaimed, "That is BAD!"

    "Really? Says who?"

    She shrugged her shoulders and said "I dunno, aaahh CHURCH!"

    "Reeaaaahhhhhhllllyyy....." I said putting the cup down. "Sweetie, those people at church do not know what they are talking about. Coffee is NOT bad."

    "oh" she said.

    "Would you like to try some?"

    "ME? Sure!"

    She sipped a bit, which was warm by now, "MMMmmmmmm! That tastes good!" Yes, it had creamer and sugar in it :)

    "So do you think coffee is bad anymore?"

    "No way!" She blerted.

    "So who is wrong about coffee?"

    "They are, the church!" She firmly answered as she ran out to tell her older sister that she just tasted coffee, which brought all of the Porter kids in for a taste!

    I hope she blerts out her feelings next time a mindless fool parrots the BS about coffee in Primary again! Can you see her? "Coffee is not bad for you! My daddy let me drink some and it is GOOD!"

    Kids. Man I love em :)

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...

    Editor Note: Thanks for sharing Porter!
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    In The Mormon Face Card Game - The Living Prophet Always "Trumps" The Dead One
    Posted Sep 23, 2005, at 07:19 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Kind of like playing with the only wild card in the game, the living prophet always holds the winning hand when any embarrassing doctrine or former prophetic statement finally receives enough public pressure or exposure. This is when the Mormon leadership system really shines. The so-called living prophet can merely pronounce that he has had a revelation from God Almighty that contradicts what his predecessor prophet’s position. was. The church then merely redirects its course to follow blindly without question, this new pronouncement from their living seer.

    The wonderful thing about this Mormon escape clause is that the churches so called prophets, seers and revelators are NEVER held accountable for any of their prophetic statements.

    With the ability to discount the statements of their predecessor’s declarations by merely saying...Oh Gosh.he was only speaking as a man when he said that and not as a prophet...it begs the question.... If prior pronouncements can be discarded so easily... why should a member of the church accept as authoritative ANY statement by their so-called living Seer? What's to keep the next leader in Mormonism from totally brushing off his predecessor's pronouncements? Nothing!

    Since its creation of the church by its founder Joseph Smith, his predecessors have either changed or abandoned the following doctrines:

    Nature of God

    Polygamy

    Blacks and the Priesthood

    Temple Endowment

    Scripture

    Setting for the Book of Mormon

    Grace vs Works

    Garment Design

    Adam/God

    What is tithing

    How to live the Word of Wisdom

    What a Lamanite is or isn’t

    Qualifications to enter the Temple

    Interpretation of Science

    Communal living

    Gathering of Zion

    The actual ownership of all personal property by the church

    and I could go on and on.

    Each failed doctrine or embarrassing belief is discarded or abandoned without explanation or apology for the damage and pain that it inflicted on members of the church or their posterity.

    Gee wouldn’t we all like to hold this TRUMP CARD!

    Regards Craig

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    On My Way To A Better Understanding
    Posted Sep 20, 2005, at 08:25 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I'm writing this as a former TBM wife and mother who just within a couple of months ago, found the truth concerning the church.

    During my 44 years of life, I was never taught that I could use my own mind and use my freeagency and be saved in the kingdom of heaven at the same time. Logic and reason come from the carnal self and spirituality comes from the Lord. Make your choice and you would do well to follow the prophet and leaders of the church for they will never lead you astray. The Holy Ghost will be your constant guide ect. ect...

    I'm a g g g great grandaughter of Parley P Pratt and I read his Autobiography a couple of years ago and he became one of my heros. I wanted to emulate many of the things he taught in my life and teach them to my kids. I was sailing along in life until one day I watched Dr. Phil's show on Polygamy on a border town near Utah called Colorado City. I was awakened to a curiosity about that subject of polygamy. It has been a source of mental repulsion for me and I knew that the practice originated from guess who? How do they have enough women to go around, I asked myself. Dr. Phil said that the young men were kicked out of town as soon as they became young teenagers. Having a natural tendency to protect young people I looked up the website and found atrocious horror stories of abuse and neglect that go beyond reason! The show was the beginning.

    My mother is a woman with a gifted mind, the only college graduate from her siblings (10), and received her education at the cost of squeezing out a little left over grocery budget from my father's hard earned paycheck. She went to the U of U in Utah for a couple of semesters and studied art. I hold her in the highest esteem and regard because of her teaching us to love truth.

    Years later while on the phone with her, she could hardly tell me that she had read a book and she thought I should check it out for myself. So I got it. It's called, "An Insider's View of Mormon Origans" by Grant Palmer. The book spread like wildfire to all the truth seekers within my siblings and all who have read it have changed their views about the church except one brother and one brother-in-law. It didn't take long for the foundation of the church to come to pieces and unravel to nothingness when among us we communicated to check out this or that on our computers which brought me to this website.

    My husband, having a gifted mind as well, knew that the church was not true since he was a young teen, grew up in Mexico City with his family. He was able to accept the good and leave the bad alone for the full 24 years of our marriage while I tried to live rightously and gave up willingly all my freedom to do what I wanted to do to be obedient, honest leave the earth stains for the blessings of eternity. He is still by my side and is finally glad to be free of the church. I, on the other hand, cannot help but feel enraged and embittered by the mind control and constant pestering from the leaders at this time at trying to take my daughters away from me and trying to make us feel guilty for not going to church.

    The book "In Sacred Lonliness" and many other resources on the internet about important historical information is all in easy access. Each thing I read brought to my mind a mental picture of a Joseph Smith, I never had seen before. He was transformed from a beloved prophet to a cult fiend using and abusing his congregants to his adulterous pleasure. The sad twisted picture involved my own ancestors going from great pioneers to poor swindled victims having fallen willingly into a huge scam that sucked the life out of them and spit the women out and forgot their sufferings. Only to move on to more victims and ruining their lives and families, taking the milk from the babies and indoctrinating the girls with mind bruising philosophies.

    As soon as I came to this knowledge, which only took a couple of days, I was abhorred and realized that we had been covenanting to the wrong God, threw all my garments away, went through the house and cleaned out all my church literature and magazines and scriptures and shed tears of anguish and saddness.

    After the tears came the healing and it ebbs and flows. If I had been able to choose my religion I would have never chosen one based on demoralizing and debasing women.

    My two sons live on their own and both are glad to not have to serve missions. I told them they could choose what they wanted to do a few years ago. My daughters are gathering information and making their own decesions. My husband is glad to be free of it all.

    I realize now that God is no respecter of persons. He gives his gifts freely to all who seek and his grace is sufficient for all. Interestingly, my Mother told me that she went to visit a church and they sang her favorite LDS hymn, "Come Thou Font". They took that hymn out of the hymn book. That hymn is mostly about the doctrine of grace. While talking about this we came to the conclusion that other verses on the doctrine of grace had been deleted as well. Guilt is taught in it's place for the objective to make slaves of members and instill the idea that the organization comes before the family, thus manipulating the people to deny the self and come unto Christ and serve the church to receive salvation.

    Who is the father of lies? Isn't he the great deceiver? Maipulating doctrine, changing scripture, rewriting history? Is Satan a Man of flesh and bone? Who approves of all this going on in the one and only true church on the face of the earth? As soon as I saw it I turned and ran. I just wish that I could have seen it sooner. I would have been able to wear some really cute outfits and underwear and eat out on Sundays and enjoyed my life better and not wasted so much time in the temple.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...

    Editor Note: Excellent post. Excellent.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Satan's Got Me Now!
    Posted Sep 13, 2005, at 07:12 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I sent an email to one of my TBM recently returned sister missionary friends, telling her that I left the church, and why. I got quite an interesting response from her, and her dad (who doesn't even know me but is a Stake President). Apparently they are heartbroken, and wish I would stop making waves (not her words)

    Here is part of her dad's email to her about me.

    "Disassociating herself from the church was a big mistake. The church is the only refuge from this kind of activity and biggest enemy Satan has. It is the only organization that will be able to ultimately destroy Satan's work hear on the earth and will rule during the millennium. We all need to support it and follow it's teachings now more than ever. When we abandon it because some of it's members are bad we are only letting Satan win. He will then have us too."

    They just won't see anything they don't want to. I am still stunned by the extent of their brainwashing. Too bad I will be in outer darkness while they are in the celestial kingdom!

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Spiritually, The Mormon Church Is Asleep At The Wheel
    Posted Sep 12, 2005, at 07:20 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Out of the blue, my teenage daughter said after church yesterday that they had made no mention of 9/11 in sacrament meeting.

    This didn't surprise me, and I'm glad she noticed such an important commemoration was missing.

    Bottom line:

    The Mormon Church is simply out of touch with most of the biggest, most pressing concerns of the day. It's leaders are businessmen, not spiritual guides.

    Members seeking inspiration and guidance (especially if they're objective and not totally brainwashed), will invariably come away empty.

    Another point:

    The day before, the stake youth had a full day youth conference on the topic of Joseph Smith. This was advertised long in advance, and hailed as something they wouldn't want to miss.

    Normal youth in other churches and in society in general would generally be abuzz with chat the next day about this really cool event.

    My daughter intentionally didn't attend it.

    I asked her if those who attended were talking about it, and the answer was basically no.

    It reminds me of the Beatles song "Good Morning, Good Morning" from Sgt Pepper's:

    "....everyone you see is half asleep, and you're on your own, your in the street."

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormons Wanting Everything Both Ways
    Posted Sep 12, 2005, at 07:11 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Mormons expect to be respected for their beliefs, but think they have the only true church which means they can't respect opposing ideas.

    Mormons expect to be welcomed when they show up for years on doorsteps they've been told to stay away from. But they acted persecuted when my husband showed up at TBM doors once or twice to complain.

    Mormons claim that the dead can refuse proxy baptismal rites, but have no actual wording in the rituals that reflect such a belief.

    Mormons claim that righteousness and blessings go hand in hand, but say mormons with problems are being tested. Non-believers who have the same problems are getting what they deserve.

    Is it just me, or are there many of these areas of disconnect in the TBM mindset?

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Today In The World We See A Movement Pushing God Out Of Our Schools
    Posted Sep 9, 2005, at 11:59 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    "...pushing God out of our government and pushing God out of our cities, but God will not be pushed away." (Chaplain Major General David Hicks, Army chief of chaplains.)

    Really? Well god keeps getting his ass kicked (and letting his followers get their's kicked) on a pretty regular schedule in the past few years. But many gullible people are giving god the benefit of the doubt, just like Chaplain Hicks.

    In December 1962 President David O. McKay agreed when he said regarding the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting state required prayers in public schools: "By making that New York Regents’ prayer unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself." (Dallin H. Oaks, "Religion in Public Life," Ensign, July 1990, 7)

    His reasoning seems to be that prohibiting the Regents from forcing little children to recite a prayer to god (which god, we do not know) severs a totally reasonable connection between god and state.

    In the same article President Oaks lauded President McKay saying, "Then, [President McKay] offered this farsighted caution: 'By law, the public schools of the United States must be non-denominational. They can have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding God and the relation of mankind thereto. Now let us remember and emphasize that restriction applies to the atheist as well as to the believer in God.'" (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

    So, the schools must be "non-denominational", which protects the rights of "denominations" and atheists are included in the crowd of denominations...and yet, atheists don't have a creed that they're trying to push; they're just pointing out the ridiculous creeds don't impress them. They're as much a denomination as people who smoke and drink...but smokers and drinkers have been pushed out of the public schools without so much as a kind word.

    This is the kind of thinking that permeates the debate over "pushing God out of our schools." That the agenda is against god or religion.

    If there is an "agenda" it has been narrowly focused in characterizing mythologies as antithetical to fact-based teaching. Religious ideas belong in philosophy classes not in public forums.

    This actually serves the religions more than it serves the areligious. When religous ideas are kept inside the seminaries and churches and outside of the schools, they are able to expound any of their unscientific thoughts without criticism. They can talk about creationism, angels, golden books, resurrected Jews and the like and have everyone in the room nod in agreement. Most atheists I know actually defend the rights of the religous to practice their beliefs in the safety of their churches.

    But as we have seen with the 10 Commandments, when the relious zealots approach the public arena, like the schools, and they are ridiculed for their superstitious illogic they want to then run for protection under the 1st Amendment. "You are persecuting me! I want my religious freedom!"

    Presidents McKay and Oaks (I'm sure Oaks is president of "something") are free to spew their beliefs in imaginary beings inside their churches and on their private lands. But that's not what they want. They are proselyting and need to be able to confront potential tithe-givers far and wide.

    God and the rapturous religons should be happy to be pushed out of the public schools because it puts them in good company with the smokers, drinkers, Flat Earthers and the International Order of the Leprechauns. You don't hear any of THOSE groups complaining, do you?

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormon History 101: As A Mormon Did You Know This Is How The "Nephite Record" And "Urim And Thummin" Were Recorded In The Mormon Church History Books?
    Posted Sep 4, 2005, at 08:27 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Mormon History 101 appears to be a class that can be only taken on line on the RfM site! :-)

    Come here to find out things you did not know -- the little known facts of how Mormonism came about!

    This is where the only truth about Mormon history is taught, right from their own words, as recorded at the by their own authorized authors.

    This is info from a standard history book of the Mormon Church:

    " "A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." by B.H. Roberts

    VOL 1 "How the Book of Mormon was Obtained"

    These books are in the LDS Data base on CD, also in their libraries (Ward/Stake/Institute of Religion)in the REFERENCE section.

    I own the whole set in paperback which I purchased in the late 70s before they were discontinued.

    A few notes:

    B H Roberts says that they were dressed "for riding" by taking the horse and spring wagon of Mr. Knight (some would call this stealing, as they did not ask permission of Mr. Knight who was a guest in his home) and went to the "hill Cumorah, and in he presence of Moroni obtained the Nephite record, the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim.

    pg. 87, "Early the next morning, Mr. Knight discovered both his horse and wagon were gone, suspected some "rogue had stolen them. Lucy Smith volunteered no information as to Joseph having made use of the horse and wagon, but tried to pacify Mr. Knight with the idea that they were but temporarily out of the way."

    When Joseph returned home, he took his mother aside and showed her the Urim and Thummim which he had evidently detached from the breast plate and concealed on his own person when depositing the plates...he seemed to have kept the instrument constantly about him after that time as by means of it he could at will be made aware of approaching danger to the record."

    The next chapter is entitled: pg. 88 Other Psychics Than the Prophet "The fact was that Joseph Smith was not the only psychic in the vicinity of Palmyra."

    He had previously asked Lucy (his mother) very early in the morning if she had a chest with a lock and key but she could not locate one.

    This is the reason Joseph pg. 86 "concealed them temporarily, in the woods some two or three miles distant. He found a fallen birch log that was much decayed .....carefully cutting the bark and removing sufficient of the decayed wood to admit ...the plates, ...they were deposited in the cavity, the bark drawn together again and as far as possible all signs of the log having been disturbed obliterated."

    Pg 93 - "The Breastplate of Urim and Thummim

    "It has been several times remarked that with the plates on which a brief history of the ancient American peoples was engrave, there was an ancient breast-plate to which, when the Prophet took possession of it, the Urim and Thummim were attached.

    This breast-plate it appears the Prophet did not bring home with him when he brought the record. But a few days later, according to a statement by Lucy Smith, he came into the house from the field one afternoon and after remaining a a short time put on his "great coat" and left the house.

    On his returning the mother was engaged in an upper room of the house preparing oilcloth for painting - it will be remembered that this was an art she has followed for some years. Joseph called to her and asked her to come down stairs. To this she answered she could not then leave her work, but Joseph insisted and she came downstairs and entered the room where he was whereupon he placed in her hands the Nephite breast plate herein alluded to.

    'It was wrapped in a a thin muslin handkerchief,' she explains, 'so thin that I could feel it's proportions without any difficulty'. It was concave on one side, convex on the other and extended from the neck downwards as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers (for I measured them). and they had holes in the end of them, to be convenient in fastening. After I had examined it, Joseph placed it in the chest with the Urim and Thummin."

    I highly recommend reading the B H Roberts books. They are filled with things you have never heard in church. The set comes with an Index, which in invaluable also.

    It is no wonder these stories have been sanitized into faith promoting versions over the years. The real history is just too wild and crazy to believe! :-)

    This was the kind of information that finally hit home. There was no way Joseph Smith Jr was telling the truth about anything.

    He made up his stories, visions, religion, and BOM fiction from the get-go from many sources available to him at the time, ("View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, no relation, Solomon Spaulding writings, Emanuel Swedenborg writings, Bible, and many others) and the best that could be said for him is that he created a faith-based hoax/scam that Brigham Young could use! These young men were on a path to create an isolated religion and hold their power close to the chest.

    Thanks to the Brighamites, Mormonism is still alive and well today as a huge conglomerate of investments, businesses, and acquisitions.

    See my other post: http://www.wingnet.net/~erickett/boar...

    [edit for correction]The Mormon Church is only part of it's financial empire. I don't know how this works. Date: Sep 03 13:30

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormonism - Reflections From A European Trip
    Posted Sep 2, 2005, at 10:34 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    So far since officially leaving, the shadow of Mormonism is never far away, Whether it is meeting people who are from or going to Utah, speaking with family members who are still TBM, or bumping into my own recollections and memories of growing up and dealing those peculiar people.

    My partner and I have been fortunate to travel a lot this summer. We spent time in Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Hungary - six countries, total. Why there's still a comparison of anything to Mormonism, I don't know, but it's there in me, everywhere we went.

    The Segrada Familia is a cathedral in Spain that started construction in the late 1800's that has five soaring spires on one end and a dramatic facade on the other, and the central spire is not complete yet. The LDS temple in downtown SLC would fit inside the Segrada, easily. There's a metro station right near the cathedral. Tour buses and tourist by the thousands queue up to enter this beloved icon of Spain and go through the edifice while construction workers continue their slow progress. Christ was the focus, the celebration, the passion of the artists and the people. The memory of the LDs temple, to me, was simple, small, secretive and plain.

    Rome is sprawling and gorgeous with low lying buildings surrounded by seven notable hills. It was eerie, standing on the hill where Paul was crucified. We spent half a day in the Vatican City, overwhelmed by the ancient artwork and splendor. When I lived in Utah, I heard rumors that the Catholic church was almost bankrupt and that the LDS church must be true because it was so rich. I absolutely disagree after seeing the priceless and timeless artwork, the thousands of people touring and experiencing the history and richness of the Vatican City. The richness itself was disturbing. If Jesus was one of the social liberals of his day, he would be appalled at the spiritual equivalent of the Pope in Tinseltown, Italy. ExMormons can complain about the focus of tithing and money of the LDS church, but the Catholic church is the true juggernaut of greed and worldly possessions. In the crypts below the main church, we say the sarcophagus of Pope John Paul - there were scores of people in line, waiting to pass by and pay their respects, many making the sign of the cross, some kneeling in prayer, and some even weeping quietly. When LDS prophets die, do Mormons weep or go on with business as usual?

    Istanbul, Turkey, is massive. Eleven plus million people live there. I had partially expected this place to be the most problematic, one because we were a gay group going into the city, and two, because I didn't know what to expect of a Muslim country. This place we'll definitely be going back to - it was incredible, surprisingly liberal, and socially progressive. We learned that among strict Muslims, the Turks are not well liked because the Turkish Muslims do not follow the desert rules: women walking six feet behind her husband, women wearing the burqas, etc. The people were friendly and charming. One of the first things our tour guide told us was that they would not mention buildings or sites that were less than 400 years old, because those were considered "new" buildings. We toured a cistern that was next-to and under a 1400 year old mosque that had been the water storage site for the royal grounds. The 300 stone pillars that held it up had been taken or plundered from Greek and Roman sites. Supposedly, 700 pillars stood under the mosque, but they have not been uncovered. It struck me that the main religious groups of the area, Christian and Muslim, had basically stolen, conquered and remodeled each other's works for centuries. A Christian church taken over - the marble, the artwork and the murals covered over in the tiles to turn the buildings into mosques, and vice versa. Both of the groups tearing down Greek and Roman temples and using the materials for construction of their new sites.

    Lastly, Greece put the Mormon pioneer accomplishments into perspective for me. While Mormons may have run from the Law because of their peculiar practices, who may have toiled with failed hand cart endeavors, and wanted to setup their own spiritual outpost at the edge of a great dead salt lake, the Greeks had running water in 1500 BC. Running water 1500 years before the coming of Christ. When I remember that a good TBM friend once mentioned how visionary the prophets were, because they included elevator shafts in the LDS temple years before electric elevators were invented, I have to laugh. Manual pulleys and manual elevators doesn't make the prophets visionary, it makes them practical. To their credit, the SLC LDS temple is a great work considering their resources at the time. It's not Delphi, the Parthanon, the Acropolis, the leaning tower of Pisa, the Vatican, the Segrada Familia, the Parliament House of Budapest, or the Blue Mosque. Will Mormonism even be around in 100 to 200 years? If they think (and hope) it's the latter days and they'll be gone soon, I wish them godspeed.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Was Found To Be In Apostasy Today - Regarding Alcohol Served In Mormon Owned Malls
    Posted Aug 29, 2005, at 07:58 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Discussed the fact that new mall in SLC will serve alcohol with member of Bishopric today and asked what he thought. He said that GBH certainly is not behind this. I explained that President and Presiding Bishopric and Corportaion of Church (GBH) are the ones who sign the final contracts and have the final say. He said that maybe in the long term it will provide good, but he was not aware of even the mall!!!

    I asked how GBH who wrote book Stand for Something could okay something like this that goes against what Church has taught and believes. He asked me "do you believe and sustain that GBH is a prophet of the Lord?" I said it hard to figure this out when he has had to okay this and goes around the country saying "I don't know!"

    He then told me that I am in apostasy because I believe GBH is a fallen prophet and that I was judging the man wrongly. I asked him to explain it to me. I was told I needed topray about it and get a better spirit.

    I said "what do you mean pray about it." The facts are the facts what is there to pray about. The Lord says in DC 89 alcohol is not good for the body. The prophet is God's spokes person here on earth. So is God changing His mind again? He then informed that he knew GBH was a "noble man." I asked how he is being noble when he goes against what God has said. No response except I need to get my life in order and over time things will work out!! "I just don't have the facts!"

    Okay I have a 3 degrees, well written and a teacher, that puts me at a disadvantage. I explained in simple terms.
    1. Church owns building.
    2. Church sets standards for tenants.
    3. Church collects rent
    4. 5 years from now we can go there to eat and will get wine and drink list.
    5. Corporation of President must okay decision and over see this.
    6. GBH is there in highest position his word is God!!!
    7. GBH tells people to Stand for Something.
    8. GBH talks of evils of alcohol and to obey the commandments.(This month's Ensign lesson.) That includes WOW
    9. GBH has same scriptures I do. Fact maybe!!!!
    10. Scriptures says aclohol not good for the body. This comes from God according to leading brethren.
    11. I spent first 40 years of life explaining to people that alcohol is not good for them and goid says so. Fact
    12. Now church is turning around and trying to say its okay to serve drinks.
    "Those are the facts so how am I attacking the brethren." "You are doing just what they did in JS time they attacked the man." "You are attacking GBH". "This is very serious."

    PLEASE what am I missing!!!!! This is so logical that an idiot could figure it out. And this guy is an MD!!!!!!!

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...

    Editor Note: This is exactly true of what I have been experiencing. Because the First Presidency of the Mormon Church has stated that it will be OK to serve alcohol in their corporate owned building, Mormons accept this at face value and question nothing. When I mention this to TBMs around me, I am looked at as if I'm attacking Mormonism again. I could explain over 100 years of Word Of Wisdom to them and they will ignore it completely.

    It is amazing how much Mormonism controls its members. The Mormon God stated that alcohol is forbidden and that anyone who consumes alcohol cannot enter the temple. Anyone who cannot enter the temple is in jeopardy of not being able to obtain the Celestial Kingdom. Yet on a simple released statement from the First Presidency concerning alcohol sales in it's building, faithful Mormons do not even blink an eye.

    Gordon B. Hinckley stands for nothing except money. If the church truly stood for something, it would stand by it's God appointed laws and forbid alcohol sales.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Continual Battle To Take Your Power Back From Mormonism's Grasp
    Posted Aug 25, 2005, at 07:39 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    OR: why there is this Recovery Board and why I call it The Exit Process from Mormonism:

    In the past few years, I have given a lot of thought to how Mormonism gains it's power, and gets people to do things and wear special clothes and generally takes over one's life, even getting people to die for their religion.

    I have made a few observations and conclusions that have been ruminating in my mind, even pondering! :-) This is mostly about the misuse of guilt, and it's power and how it sustains Mormonism. Here goes!

    Mormonism, and religion in general, are corporations of one sort or another that has to maintain a solid financial base and a highly controlled authoritative superstructure. They count on members complying with emotional attachments to their demands.

    This is not about facts, it never was. It is totally and completely about an emotional bond to a belief by faith.

    In regard to human relations: religion in general, and Mormonism specifically teaches that you are to be more concerned about how someone else feels that you are about what they did to you.

    As a believer, you are the one to feel guilty and apologize and say you are sorry, if you are hurt by someone else. I see this behavior within the religious community much more so than anywhere else.

    Mormonism specifically, and Christianity in general (my upbringing) taught me that I was expected to be feel guilt -- a lot! I never could figure out why I was expected to feel guilty for what someone else did to me.

    In the Mormon Church, being intensely involved, committed and active, I noticed that anyone could "take offense" at something totally out of the blue, and it was my fault, I was to apologize, and feel sorry and guilty and repent.

    That was bizarre nonsense that never made sense to me, especially invasive interviews by bishops and others in leadership who made it clear it was their job as a male to set any female straight that did not get in line and keep their face turned toward their inspiration. ARG! More guilt!

    It seemed to me that no one took responsibly for "taking offense," it was all about making themselves feel better for getting someone else to feel bad.

    As a believer, you are expected to give an explanation of all of your actions, feelings, etc. This gets to be a habit with Mormons and when someone does not give an explanation, it is seen as some kind of sin of omission.

    If your explanation does not satisfy some intrusive invasive interview -- more guilt! Can you say: "Cognitive Dissonance," boys and girls?

    It is obvious that using guilt is a manipulation technique to get people to do as they are told in the Mormon Church works well. Do as they are told is the core of their power. You don't want to disappoint Heavenly Father, then you would feel guilty, and around and around it goes.

    When I realized that Mormonism is a bunch of huge corporations that only has one bottom line -- money, it all started to make sense.

    To be a believer in Mormonism, you must commit to all kinds of commandments, requirements, expectations, time commitments, in addition to all kinds of restraints to prove your allegiance and devotion and love for Heavenly Father. And of course, there is no way to meet all of these demands, so you are to feel guilt and repent, and keep on the merry-go-round!

    Once I realized that "Heavenly Father" in Mormonism meant: keep the money coming in through guilt, I refused to allow them into my pocketbook again! Of course, all that lying from the get-go and selling the hoax of "Golden Plates" and the Book of Mormon fiction played heavily into closing off the money flow!

    It took several years for me to really understand the scope of the all-inclusive realm of the corporate power of Mormonism and all the subtle ways they use guilt.

    The promise of "Families are Forever and Eternal Life," with it's overt and covert misuse of the temple rituals, to extract money from it's members is an ingenious use of religious attachments and bonds to guarantee that the members keep the money coming in.

    Religion as a corporation holds huge emotional power over people. You could take most of the so-called commandments out of Mormonism, except an emotional commitment to tithing and contributions, and it would not be able to survive, at least not for long.

    It might survive as a corporation owing property, but not as an international religion. I have yet to find a religion that does not operate this way to some degree. No money -- no churches, No churches, no power over people.

    In order for Mormonism, or any other church organization to stay in power is to use it's money as a base to own things -- including the members. The best ones demand a total commitment, such as Mormonism does in the temple, then it provides just enough incentives to make the commitment worth while.

    As a member of the Mormon Church you work for them full time (note temple covenants to give all that you have or will have, etc.) and you pay them for the privilege. That is ingenious!

    And, for this membership in the Mormon Church, you get to follow their polices for behavior and be restricted to what you drink and wear and do. And do it happily and with joy!

    The benefits of being a member of "the only true church" are "eternal life," some special elitist underwear (sacred skivvies), the use of a few buildings; temples being a little fancier than the run of the mill institutional styled Ward and Stake houses.

    There are other "perks" of course; some of which are reduced rates on education (if you comply with their restrictions) and housing, cars, etc., for some of the leaders, and shopping at the Lord own department stores and malls -- such as Cottonwood Mall in SLC. I am sure there are more, that others here can think of!:-)

    I would say, that for me, (and probably most people) breaking the code to the emotional attachment and bond to Mormonism's grasp is the key to removing it's power through the misuse of guilt.

    That code is so subtly and overtly implanted that it is more difficult to break for some than for others.

    It is, from my observation, that power struggle, that causes the most frustration and anger in that code-breaking process. Taking our power back from the church is a huge battle.

    And, extracting ourselves from the subtle tentacles of Mormonism's clutches mentally, socially, physically, psychologically, spiritually is a very long process for many of us.

    It is difficult to break the habit of feeling guilty, giving explanations to anyone who asks, saying you are sorry, among a lot of other behaviors and twisted thought patterns.

    For me, I have found that reducing the negative impact of any part of Mormonism with lots of humor has worked extremely well in taking my power back and owning it completely.

    And to do that, I keep myself removed from it's physical presence as much as possible, (do not attend any Mormon function, etc.) and reduce it's power mentally, by not giving it any credibility.

    It simple is not worthy (don't you love the way the Mormons use that word?) of my belief.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice sham on me!

    This is my road trip. Your mileage may vary!

    In the theme of this thread, how do you take your power back and what does it mean to you?

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Tales From The Church Office Building
    Posted Aug 18, 2005, at 07:04 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I used to work in downtown Salt Lake City, and having shared my bus seat with church office building employees many times, I heard a lot of what went on there.

    Here are a few inspirational stories I heard on the bus.

    The St. George Temple was damaged in an earthquake in 1992. They sent an engineer down to inspect it, and he found heavy damage, even though the temple had been renovated sometime in the 80s. It turns out the roof was designed by the same man who designed the Salt Lake Tabernacle roof: both were designed like a lattice-work bridge. The design required that “footings” be built down into the walls to support the roof. In the St. George Temple over the years, those footings were removed or modified to accommodate air conditioning units or just for storage space. This resulted in the roof literally just sitting on top of the outer walls, just barely attached. So when the earthquake happened, there wasn’t much holding the building together, and the walls separated and the roof nearly collapsed.

    At one point, they rewrote the book that is for small groups attempting to hold church services, usually at home. The book was written with input from all the organizations and outlined how to hold basic meetings. The general authority who reviewed it scrawled “NO!” across the front page and wrote a scathing letter saying that this was too much information; it should be at most half the size it was. So, they had someone edit it down to where it said next to nothing, but it was the size the GA wanted (I think it was only 10-15 pages long at that point). The GA said it was perfect. Of course, soon after the book was published, letters began coming in from these small branches asking for more information. So, the different organizations came up with a standard letter to send in response, which included the stuff the GA had wanted cut out.

    A young woman told me how distraught she was to see a report on the church’s cooperation with Catholic charities in Australia. It said basically that they weren’t doing it to help relieve human suffering, but it was part of an effort to improve the church’s image there. Basically, they figured that working with the Catholics would make them look more mainstream.

    One day, a guy looked up from his cubicle to see two men in dark suits walking the guy in the next cubicle out the door. Apparently, he had a stash of porn in his desk, which had been discovered by a janitor. Doh! Um, the church office building is not a good place to keep your porn.

    At one point, there was some disagreement over the content of the Aaronic priesthood manuals (not sure what the issue was). Anyway, they had already printed 50,000 or so of the first manual, which had a photo of a latino young man praying or reading the scriptures or something on it. To settle the dispute, one of the GAs took the manual home and read it. He said he was OK with the content but said that the covers had to go. So they paid for all the covers to be ripped off all 50,000 manuals and replaced with covers having no pictures. The guy sitting next to me, who was in charge of the manual, said “If you ever repeat this, I’ll deny it, but I’m sure the covers would have been OK if the boy in the picture was white.”

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormon History - King Strang
    Posted Aug 18, 2005, at 07:00 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Long after the American Revolution threw off rule by faraway British kings, the young state of Michigan played host to a new monarch, James Jesse Strang, the King of Beaver Island.

    Strang was born in New York State in 1813. He joined the Baptist Church at 12, and began the study of law at 21. He was admitted to the Bar, and married, later working as a lawyer, Baptist Minister and Postmaster in Chatauqua County, New York. When he lost his postmaster position, he moved his wife and three children to Wisconsin in 1843. In 1844, he went to Nauvoo, Illinois, where he met Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church which was then headquartered there. Converted to the Mormon faith and baptized in less than a month, he was quickly made an elder of the church.

    When Smith was assassinated three months later while in jail for destroying the office of a newspaper that had angered him, Strang claimed succession on grounds that Smith had told him the leadership was to be his. Brigham Young contested the claim and eventually won out in the battle for leadership, excommunicating Strang and eventually leading the Mormons to Utah. Strang and his dissident followers went to Voree (later known as Spring Prairie), Wis. Strang was strict in regulating most aspects of life in Voree: meat was not allowed, materialism was decried and sexual morality was strict (Strang had not embraced polygamy). When the influx of gentile (non-Mormon) settlers threatened to disrupt their lifestyle, Strang led his followers to Beaver Island, located off the northwest coast of Michigan's lower peninsula.

    On July 8, 1850, Strang had himself proclaimed king of The Kingdom of God on Earth. Although he claimed to be king of only his followers, he extracted tithes from all residents of the island and fishermen who refused to pay were rumored to have been taken into the woods and whipped. Strang also ordered the county treasurer to give up one-tenth of the taxes collected on the island, a plan bitterly opposed by gentiles who were gradually squeezed off the island. Strang's reign thus became absolute. King James Jesse Strang He erected a great log temple which was used for church, theater and dance hall. Church attendance was compulsory and tithes were levied to be used for improvements, caring for the poor, and paying taxes. He had a boat and ran a saw mill to make lumber for buildings needed to house the colony. Schools were established and Strang founded his own newspaper, The Northern Islander. His printing press published books and pamphlets defending his rule and he wrote long letters to the eastern press attacking accusations against him and his flock that were constantly appearing in the papers of Detroit, Buffalo, New York, and other cities.

    But his publications weren't limited to his faith. The ninth annual report of the Smithsonian Institution printed his paper on the "Natural history of Beaver Island." There was a great deal of animosity between the original inhabitants of Beaver Island and the surrounding area and Strang and his followers. Strang put a damper on the Mackinac Island whiskey trade, which was supplanting fur trapping as a major source of income. Local residents resented the Strang's followers who were imposing their laws on them. Some of the conflict ended in bloodshed or even death.

    A further cause of contention came when Strang embraced polygamy, which he had previously denounced. In 1849, he secretly took Elvira Field, a former schoolteacher from Eaton Rapids, as his second wife. Field had been traveling with him disguised a male secretary, Charles Douglas. After Strang's change of heart, the elders of his church were informed that each must have at least two wives. When he took his second wife, Strang's first wife left him and returned to her Wisconsin home. In 1852 he married a third, and in 1855, two more. He had 12 children by his five wives Elvira Field became Strang's first polygamous wife after traveling with him disguised as his male secretary, Charles Douglas.

    Despite the divine imperative, not more than 20 men on the island practiced polygamy, and those stopped at two wives, declining to follow the king's example. Perhaps the wives were not as enthusiastic. A 1927 News interview quoted James Donlevy, an 80-year-old former neighbor of believer Orson Campbell: "Orson was getting on in years, and had piously suggested that perhaps he ought to sacrifice himself to his religious convictions by bringing home a blooming young woman who had taken his saintly eye. What Julia Campbell imparted to him, as she wagged a determined finger beneath his nose, was just this, 'Yes, bring her here if you want to! But fetch your coffin at the same time!'"

    Strang found time to dictate not only the ecclesiastical customs of his subjects, but everything connected with their daily life as well. Among other rules, he decided that long skirts for women were to be prohibited, and that they were to wear bloomers. As the only material available was calico print, "the effect was unusual to say the least," according to a 1923 Detroit News story.

    July 8 was known as King's Day on Beaver Island and was celebrated as long as the colony lasted with many festivities, including burnt offerings. The head of each family brought a fowl, and a heifer was killed and its body dissected without breaking a bone. There was feasting and rejoicing and people danced on the green. By 1851 Strang and his followers controlled all the political offices of Mackinac Island, to which Beaver Island and its neighboring islands were attached for judicial and elective purposes. Governor Bingham and state legislators were careful to cultivate the 700 votes of Strang's followers. Brigham young contested Strang's claim to leadership of the Mormons and won. He then excommunicated Strang.

    The unrest in the area and the unhappiness of those opposed to Strang's followers did not go unnoticed, however. Stephen A. Douglas advised President Millard Fillmore to instruct the attorney general to issue orders to the U.S. district attorney of Michigan to begin prosecution of Strang for offenses punishable in the federal court, such as delaying the mail, cutting timber from pubic lands, tax irregularities, counterfeiting and so on.

    The United States naval steamer Michigan was ordered to proceed fully armed to Beaver Island. The ship carried a U.S. marshall and deputies and the district attorney who were to bring Strang and the other indicted followers to Detroit for trial.

    Strang's followers were lured to the ship by a ruse to prevent bloodshed and eventually arrived at Detroit in May of 1851. Nearly a hundred strong, they were marched up Woodward to Gratiot and over to the old jail which stood at the corner of Gratiot and Farmer.

    A day in June was set for the start of the trial. The defendants were let out on bail on Strang's word and a pledge that they would all appear when needed. It was agreed that the deputy clerk of the United States District Court should go with the district attorney and officers back to Beaver Island and take the depositions of all witnesses. The trial lasted about three weeks from June 20 to July 10. Strang, who had been admitted to the bar, served as his own defense attorney. Against all expectations he won, and took his followers back to Beaver Island. His political powers were enhanced by his victory and he was elected to the state legislature, and eventually re-elected for a second term. By all accounts, Strang was well liked in Lansing and was an effective legislator.

    The increasing political influence of Strang's followers was not sitting well with the fishermen from the island and the surrounding area. They were dissatisfied as well with the attitude of Strang's followers toward justice, which often involved corporal punishment for relatively minor offenses such as violation of a dress code, and the practice of polygamy. In 1856, one of Strang's followers, David Brown, reported that he had found his wife in bed with his business partner, Thomas Bedford. A group of men seized Bedford and subjected him to 79 lashes with a whip. Bedford then joined other disgruntled followers, local fishermen, and Mackinac Islanders who were plotting revenge on Strang. On June 16, 1856, Bedford and Alexander Wentworth led a group of 40 men in an ambush of Strang, who was gravely injured by gunshots. A few days later, Strang, clinging to life, set sail for Voree. He died on King's Day, July 8, in his first wife's arms. He was buried in a simple grave five days after a drunken mob of Mackinac Islanders and Irish fishermen descended on the island, burning and looting, and driving out the last of Strang's followers.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Why I'm A Wannabe Exmo-Activist-- These People Need To Be Stopped!
    Posted Aug 11, 2005, at 07:21 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    For those of you who don't know much about me, I manage a restaurant. Today after a particularly busy period I took a break to eat my lunch in peace and quiet, and happened to overhear something that nearly made me lose that selfsame lunch.

    Two tables away from me a pair of ladies were talking quietly. I didn't mean to eavesdrop. I didn't! But I did.

    At first I thought my mind was playing tricks on me. I've been pretty fixated on my discoveries about Mormonism since my April enlightenment, and that can play nasty tricks on the brain. For example, lots of old songs now have a new meaning related to my feelings about leaving TSCC. I interpret certain pieces of poetry a different way. And one of these mental special effects is that I read between the lines when people are talking. I wonder if this person is Mormon or if that person is harboring certain feelings about the cult. And that's pretty paranoid of me, considering that I don't live in the corridor.

    Lady A was talking to Lady B about a man she knew. She was going on and on about what an intelligent, intriguing gentleman he was and how amazingly passionate he was about his "mission". She was enchanted by this man and his devotion to his "church", although she knew very little about it.

    Then I started to hear, ever so softly, the word "Mormon" creep into the conversation. I wasn't hallucinating after all. But I wish I was.

    The conversation swiftly turned to lady B's recent trip to Utah and how foreign the place seemed to someone like her, hailing from New York. Yet, she said, she felt strangely drawn in by the beauty of the place and the warmth of the people. Lady A agreed.

    I was sitting on the edge of my chair, leaning forward as close as I could get to them but not looking in their direction. I don't think my weight was on the chair at all. I was transfixed like a cat about to pounce.

    Lady A's voice was sounding more and more dreamlike. She essentially stated that because of this man's charismatic testimony, she was starting to feel drawn toward the church. Lady B, empathizing, said that she too felt that there was a "world out there" just waiting to be experienced. Lady B said she had read some of "the book" and found it interesting. Lady A said she had only read a little but planned to read more of it now.

    The last thing I heard Lady A say before they left the table was that she probably couldn't trust her instincts because she had been wrong many times in the past. And then she promptly dismissed this idea because she was so hopeful. She wanted it to be true.

    I felt like I was witnessing the birth of something horrible.

    And there I sat, still poised to pounce on an empty table in a nearly empty restaurant, for the next minute or two. I had given up my chance to say something. And I really would have said something, I told myself, had I not been in uniform and risking an embarassment to my establishment by barging in on their obviously private conversation.

    Now, several hours later, I still feel like screaming at these ladies:

    "Take a step beck and evaluate before it's too late!"

    "Don't let your emotions cloud your judgment!"

    "Try before you buy!"

    "Here, read ANOTHER book!"

    "Wake up, DAMN YOU!!!"



    I wish someone had done the same for me.

    http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    A Nice Chance Meeting With Will Bagley
    Posted Aug 10, 2005, at 12:57 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Outsiders and refugees who've fled the Zion Curtain can dis Salt Lake all they wish--for good reasons of course--but for me, if I ever leave I will surely mourn the spontaneous encounters that come from running into friends in various places in what is essentially still a small town in many ways . . .

    Sunday afternoon I was parked on waiting time at a convenience store where my fare was filling his beer prescription when Will walked out . . . I hollered at him, and the clerk inside was sufficiently slow we had time for a good chat . . .

    (For the uninitiated, Will wrote the monumental work, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and The Mountain Meadows Massacre, and he appeared as a guest at the 2002 Exmormon Conference here in SLC shortly after it was published)

    I'd last seen him at a booksigning at Ken Sanders' Rare Books last year, and I mentioned I'd posted a review here about the material he'd presented (BTW, did anyone happen to archive this? Will was interested in seeing it, and I don't have a copy . . . I posted a review of Brian Patrick's video about the same time since I purchased it at Sanders that night) . . . This included his report of the amount the LDS Church had spent on its own planned historical acount of the killings, which Will put at between five and ten million dollars . . .

    He mentioned Sunday that it now looked like this book "was going to tank," and I told him about some number crunchers on the board who'd disputed the dollar figure he'd put forth . . . He said well, consider there were 20 or 30 employees working on it for four years, and I said I didn't find that unreasonable . . . My sister, a former CFO for a Fortune 500 company will be in town next week, and I said I would confirm the number projections with her . . . I nodded when he said, "Of course the church won't tell us the real figures."

    He then mentioned another project he was working on, saying he felt it would be even more powerful than Blood of the Prophets . . .

    I e-mailed him yesterday to get the exact title, and here's his reply:

    "We intend to have vol. 9 or 10 of the "Kingdom in the West" series out by Fall 2006: Innocent Blood: Essential Narratives of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, edited by Will Bagley and David Bigler."

    He also added,

    "I don't have official confirmation that the church has given up on its 'unofficial' history of the massacre, but I know church archivists who are increasingly skeptical it will ever see the light of day. At the very least, they're a bit behind their announced 2003 publication date: I believe it will take all three of them longer to compose their opus than it took me to write BOTP--and I published four other books in that time. "

    I promised him I'd post this information here, and incredibly we still had time to talk about the sorry state of morale at the Dean Singleton-owned Salt Lake Tribune. Both of us know insiders at the Trib, and Will's report on how religion Editor Peggy Fletcher Stack has suppressed stories unfavorable to the church formed the basis of part of my report on his presentation at Sanders . . .

    Then he looked at me and smiled, "So, did you hear who bought the old Tribune Building at 143 S. Main?" (The Trib recently moved to new offices in the Gateway Mall)

    I shuddered . . . no prizes for correct guesses . . .

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    On "Leave The Church, But Can't Leave It Alone"
    Posted Aug 3, 2005, at 06:55 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Out of lurkerdom for a bit to post this short missive.

    I find Mormons who come here and post, apologetics who assail LDS critics, and members in general discussing apostates hilarious. Really, I do. If I were a psychologist I would have a field day examining people with such strong co-existing superiority and persecution complexes (in other words, "We're better than you, and for that reason you attack us relentlessly," etc.).

    But there's an oft-repeated axiom that TBMs from the top on down can't stop repeating about people who leave the Church: "They leave the Church, but they can't leave it alone." The people who say this say it invariably with a sniggering, self-satisfied air. They do this because they are trained from younglings to believe that a mark of the "true Church" is the level of persecution levied against it (which has always bothered me, because if that's so then President Hinckley shouldn't be kissing the media's butt or being so two-faced with other religions by schmoozing them in public and criticizing them in private).

    The thinking behind the axiom is that, once divested of the insanity that allows them to believe that LDS doctrine makes perfect sense (i.e. the presence of the Spirit), people are then automatically prompted by Satan and his minions (who can't read minds but can control behavior and somehow generate dinosaur bones from nothing) to leap with bared fangs upon the faithful and make it their lives' work to destroy and bring down God's kingdom. In other words, punching their Magog membership cards.

    Now, in reality, the number of these Magogian anti-Mormons is relatively microscopic in the greater scheme of ex-Mormonism. For every Mike Norton or Ed Decker or the like, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people that just want to put their Church experience behind them. The huge numbers of inactives on every ward roster attest to this -- they do not come to Church every Sunday with placards and tracts and such because they just don't care enough about the Church to bother.

    But the existence of this board and other ex-Mormon sites and groups has less to do with a desire to raze the Church to the ground than they do to let us vent our frustration about the Church and its predilection towards keeping their hooks dug deeply into everyone they possibly can. They also allow us to tell our stories truthfully and without spin or censorship, which brings us to the real foundation behind "Leave the Church, but can't leave it alone."

    Once the Church believes a person lost irretrievably to apostasy, they (from the lowest dregs of membership to the highest levels of leadership) make it their business to dehumanize and smear the apostate person to the greatest extent possible. Sometimes the methods are overt, other times they are subversive. But the truism about war -- "Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to kill them" -- applies with equal force in matters of religious doctrine. To allow an apostate to retain any level of humanity -- i.e. for him or her to appear to be a loving parent or successful businessperson or intelligent citizen -- makes it more difficult for the Church to wrest any influence an apostate may have over the believing masses.

    Thus, the Church and its members go about building a case that the apostate is a sinner, a loser, an unhappy wretch, etc., and then take pains to make their exit stories appear in the worst possible light. It's as if they are waging a political campaign, except that the mudslinging and character assassination is done in the name of protecting God's Gospel and sheltering the faithful from evil.

    Naturally, apostates wish to fight back and clear their names. The simple fact that we no longer buy into the Paradisiacal Placebo that is Mormonism does not fundamentally change us. If we are loser/bad parent/adulterous scoundrel apostates, it's because we were loser/bad parent/adulterous scoundrel Mormons. Our religious status does nothing to change who we are -- it simply provides a pretext and rationale for our behavior for others. In other words, if I'm a loser and a Mormon, LDS members will do everything in their power to think the best of me and help me. If I am a loser and an apostate, they will do all in their power to make me look as bad as possible so that they will remain aloof and distanced and I will not appear human and fallible and worthy of anything but self-righteous pity or outright dismissal.

    If the Mormon Church could ever wish people well when they choose to no longer participate or to resign, then apostates would likely pay them no more thought once they are out. But the plaintive "Why can't you leave us alone and live your lives?" whining from TBMs that lurk here or post on apologetic boards or whatnot is disingenuous, because as much as we can't leave the Church alone, the Church and those selfsame TBMs won't do us the same courtesy.

    To make a long and rambling point concise and simple, it's the Church's own fault that ex-members exhibit such vitriol towards their former religious home. We are defensive because we are treated as enemies and portrayed as subhuman. We are vocal because the Church blithely lies about its doctrine and its history as well as about those of us who no longer believe.

    So, TBMs, if you want us to leave you alone, we'd be happy to. But not at the expense of the truth. Do not begrudge us our right to defend our honor, our honesty, our intellect, or our integrity -- for we possess these things, no matter what lies are spread about us by your institution.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Love That Church News, Proves Church Is True Every Week
    Posted Jul 30, 2005, at 11:24 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Even when I was a young TBM, the Church News articles merited some sarcasm from me and my friends. Here are some of the ones I can remember:

    Hurricane (fill in the blank) devastates (fill in the blank). All missionaries safe and no damage to chapels. Proves church is true.

    Cecil B. DeMille visits with Church President David O. McKay about movie "Ten Commandments". Says "Thou almost persuadest me to be a Mormon". Comment proves Church is true.

    Charlene Wells chosen as Miss America, proving Church is true.

    There are now 15 Mormon Senators and Representatives in Congress. This proves that the famous prophecy of Joseph Smith is being fulfilled.

    Osmonds biggest act in Great Britain (1970s). Helps missionary and proves Church is true.

    Jim McMahan throws Hail Mary pass, B.Y.U. wins game with miracle finish. Adds prestige to Church owned school and proves BYU is best school in the land, fulfilling early prophecy of (multiple choice) a. Karl G. Maeser b. Henry Eyring c. Brigham Young d. Orson Pratt e. John Taylor

    Genealogist finds headstone of 3rd great grandfather in swamp in the dark after getting lost and breaking leg. After healing for three years, is able to do temple work. Proves the Lord is directing genealogy work.

    Saints warned by Prophet to build up year's supply of food for coming cataclysms. No other religious provide similar warnings. Proves Church is true.

    Billy Casper joins Church, spreads gospel on the links. Church must be true.

    Senile Joseph Fielding Smith regains mind after succeeding David O. McKay as prophet. Succession proves Church is true.

    Twins, separated at birth, both join Church in middle age. Then run into each other and reunite miraculously at Rose Bowl swap meet just days before both are killed by separate meteor landings. Proves Church is true.

    Church builds 28 story office tower next to Temple Square, much higher than any building at the Vatican. Proves work is going forward.

    Salt Lake Temple sits on natural clay and spring water reservoir, thus making it earth quake proof. Brigham Young true Prophet. (Not to mention the design of that cool elevator shaft that works into the endowment perfectly. Could only happen with prophecy).

    Mormon property in Laie Hawaii now valued at 2.2 billion dollars, but true value is in helping Pacific Islander Lamanites leave behind primitive ways and go on the true Western path.

    Willard Marriott chairs Richard Nixon's inaugural for second time. Proves that Marriott is most important person back east, and hence Church is true.

    President Eisenhower (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) meet with President Smith (McKay, Smith, Lee, Kimball, Benson, Hunter, Hinckley) proving that Church is true.

    Governor Reagon visits Mormon cannery in California. Praises Church's self reliance. Proves that Welfare Plan comes from God.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    More Proof How Insane TBM's Are
    Posted Jul 13, 2005, at 08:05 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I had to discuss one of my personal testimony breakers with my TBM in-laws. I asked them how they were able to reconcile their testimony after learning that Joseph Smith manipulated teenage women and 11 married women to mulitply and replenish the earth with him. Threatening their salvation if they refused. Doing it without Emma's knowledge or consent. They responded with "We don't know the full story." "History could be tainted."

    I went to FAIR to get the full story, or the other side. To find out if history had been tainted. Couldn't even find a book or shred of evidence that the history from "Mormon Polygamy" was false or speculative.

    Conversation with Fanatical TBM in-laws a few months back:

    I was very candid with my in laws and asked them some tough questions about polygamy that TBM's won't let themselves think about. I asked my father in law if he would be fine with his wife having sex in his bedroom with another man while he endures in the same home. I asked him if he would remain faithful to the church if she loved this man, had married him behind his back and claimed it was commanded by God. He didn't like me turning the tables on that one. His wife happens to have no problem with polygamy and said she looked forward to having sister wives. IT"S INSANITY. I looked at her and said "you are honestly telling me, that you have no problem with your husband, the love of your life, taking a teenage girl, having sex in your bed while you are forced to live with her, with the possibility he will take more wives and you will soon be forgotten, neglected, while he picks a prettier, younger more favorite wife?" She replied "with polygamy, you have to take the sex out of it. That's the Christ like love we are progressing to."

    So I said "How do you take the sex out of sex? Adultery is a sin for good reason." I told her to look at how an affair destroys a marriage. Breaks hearts. With polygamy, you are forcing a wife to not only endure the affair, but live with the new wife in many cases, and continue worshiping your husband. IT'S A SICK WORLD TBM's LIVE IN.

    This discussion with my in-laws was after my time at FAIR and I realized Mormons who defend this after learning the truth of polygamy are just nuts. I asked them if ANYTHING made them uncomfortable in Joseph Smith's plural marriages. They admitted some things did but quickly went around it by saying he was not perfect. They started to get really heated with me and raising their voices when they could sense that I was questioning the Prophet. I told them to calm down and try to understand that I didn't want to believe the church was false, but the evidence was leading me there. How can I believe in this kind of God? Commanding slavery of women for eternity. I let them know that this doctrine has ruined my relationship with Jesus. They told me to "repent and get over it." They also accused me of wanting to be angry at God. That really infuriated me. I was devestated by their lack of compassion for the pain I was going through. They would have fit right in with the wacko apologists. What's so funny is in the same breath, they tell me how sex is so sacred and special which is why God set it up to be within the New and Everlasting Covenant. I couldn't keep back my snicker on that one. Next they resorted to this famous one. "why do you want to drag up all of Joseph and Brighams garbage? Why do you feel it's your place to judge and bring up all their sins? Would you like to have all of your sins and my sins published in a book?" O.K. in-laws, so you are now telling me that all this stuff was sin and garbage? Just a minute ago it was commanded of GOD. I replied with "Don't put words in my mouth. I don't care what Joseph's sins are. I am only discussing with you the things he did in the NAME OF GOD and commanded other members to do BY COMMAND OF GOD. There is a big difference. I don't need to know if Joseph was committing adultery with Emma unless it pertains to scripture and command. " I ended the conversation at that point and repeated my intent. "I want to know if Polygamy is the true order of Heaven because if it is,I will have no part of this church." They are probably having family fasts and prayers for me now. That's all they can do because there is no explanation for this kind of doctrine.

    They have avoided discussing anything with me now and haven't even asked my husband how I am doing. They know that once you find out the truth, there is little chance of staying in the church. That's why they lie and hide it from members. It's been a while since this converstion and I have progressed and learned so much since then. I haven't told them I left the church yet but they will know why when they find out. I think they are embarrassed at how ridiculous they sounded trying to make sense of their argument. They should feel bad for condemning me as well. There are no secret sinful desires in me. I told them I will always live the commandments of the Bible regardless of which church I attend. They didn't like that. They think you can only be a good person if you are Mormon. They already believe I must be looking for a way of out of living the gospel or I wouldn't question anything and should only worry about following Gordon Hinckley. It's impossible. They feel sorry for my sensitivity to polygamy and wish I didn't have such an ideal of marriage.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    So How Do Mormon Bishops Cure Addiction To Porn?
    Posted Jul 11, 2005, at 09:12 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    This is what the LDS church is telling the youth about pornography:

    "Pornography can be powerfully addicting. Scientific research—including new brain-scan technology—is beginning to show that pornography may cause physical and chemical changes in the brain similar to those caused by drugs. The only sure way to avoid the danger is to stay away from pornography in the first place."

    "If you have become addicted, you must seek help. The first person to see is your bishop or branch president. He can help you bring the Savior’s redeeming and healing power into your life. He can also help you obtain professional help as necessary. Please don’t try to go it alone." - “Danger Ahead! Avoiding Pornography’s Trap,” New Era, Oct. 2002, 34

    So instead of going to parents, the church is telling the youth to go directly to their bishop.

    So how does an LDS bishop use "the Savior's redeeming and healing power" to cure addiction to pornography?

    Knowing how Mormonism works, going to the bishop is probably only going to make things worse for those "addicted" to porn. After all, aren't they really talking about "addiction" to masturbation? And as we already know, the church considers masturbation a terrible sin. Their approach is a heavy dose of guilt and shame. Does that really work?

    This church article written to the youth also promises that the Bishop can "help you obtain professional help." What professional help do they have? Does the church have an effective professional program of some kind to "cure" masturbation?

    Does it really do more good or harm to go to the Bishop?

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Nine More Reasons Why I Am Glad I Am Not A Mormon
    Posted Jul 7, 2005, at 07:29 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    The Role of Women in Mormonism - Very troubling. How did you deal with this as a Mormon?

    1. There is no place in the hierarchy for women in the Mormon Church. All women serve under the men. They can never officiate in any ordinance or assist in any way. They cannot even hold their own baby to give it a name and a blessing.

    2. No real redress - They have no real voice or redress if it conflicts with a man in authority. Just try it and find out. They might talk big about it, but in reality, it does not exist. Even getting an apology, or acceptance of responsibility from a male is almost always impossible, if a female has been wronged in any way.

    3. Secondary to men and even young boys - The position of women in the church is as a "help meet" and and a lot of lip service is given to women's greater "spirituality" however, that is just a way of attempting to make them believe they are as equal and just as important as men. It is a feeble attempt at depreciation by the males to say that women are "more spiritual."

    4. Obedience to men never women - In theory the teachings/doctrine makes a grand attempt to make women equal to men. In reality, there is no equality. Even though the women wear the "holy garment of the priesthood." which means they hold the priesthood, only as a priestess to a male, but do not officiate,just as the men do, and a man cannot be exalted to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without a woman her place is secondary and may include other women as Celestial Marriage is Plurality of Wives.

    Women are to obey the Lord (obedience is the first law of heaven and earth),obey the Priesthood leadership, obey their husbands as they are the Priesthood holders, and obey male leadership in the home (which, technically can be a 12 year old Deacon- on up), etc.

    Now to the crux of the matter: the doctrine of obedience is a higher doctrine than equality. Love, in Mormonism is conditional, based on obedience.

    Women are not just second class in Mormonism, they are technically third class -- below the Aaronic Priesthood, which is often their sons!

    5. Polygamy as a law of heaven is demeaning - Polygamy is seen as the worse disrespect of women and children and feeds into making women obedient, brood-mare slaves.

    6. Role of women as mothers - Women are to be the mothers and the men are are to officiate in the priesthood. They are told that this is how Heavenly Father wants it. There is some lip service given to the notion that women are "more spiritual" than men and often given some level of appreciation for their "worthiness" by the leaders.

    7. Control of her sexuality - Females in the Mormon Church are expected to be chaste which means she is non-sexual unless married in their only accepted fashion. The general teaching is that she would give up her life to protect her vagina from unwanted intrusion. A typical male Priesthood leader (father, son, etc) is often heard to say: rather she come home in a pine box than be raped.

    8. Men must give approval for a woman to have a "calling" - A woman's husband or father is consulted first before a calling is extended to a female.

    9.Confession by females to males - A female is commanded to confess her sins and transgressions to a male - husband, bishop,stake presidency, regional representatives, etc, never the other way around.

    Nine more reasons why I am glad I am not a Mormon!

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    All Or Nothing Statements
    Posted Jun 23, 2005, at 01:43 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    A few months after I left the Church, I talked to my sister on the phone. She asked about my "apostasy," and I told her it was true. She said, "So, are you going to picket the temple now?" I said something like, "No, as long as they keep it out of my driveway." My mom goes further. She says things like "You see how unhappy and depressed you are?" whenever I have any sort of downturn in life.

    These are all-or-nothing statements. The purpose of them is to corner you into two possible outcomes: the one they want and an exaggerated worst-case scenario. The assumption is that there is no in-between. Talking to members of my family, you would think that if you don't stay in the Church, then your only possible option from there on out is to live a life of anguished activism and depression, fighting a losing battle against the cause of righteousness.

    Here are some other all-or-nothing statements:

    "How can you trust your husband if he's not a worthy priesthood holder?"

    "If your son/daughter doesn't stay active in the Church, he/she might get involved in drinking/drugs."

    "My ex-Mormon brother is becoming an alcoholic. He had a beer the last time we went to a restaurant."

    I think it's interesting that these statements always place the Church in an position of moral superiority, considering its history.

    It can be really infuriating when confronted with statements like these if you don't know what the people making them are trying to do. I think some ex-Mormons try to live their lives to disprove such statements, by showing Mormons that you can leave the Church and still be a happy, moral and productive member of society. Maybe an alternative might be to call them on it when you hear people making them. "That sounded like an all-or-nothing statement to me."

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Know The Church Is True. I Know Joseph Smith Was A Prophet.
    Posted Jun 23, 2005, at 07:58 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I've been thinking a lot lately about how those two sentences helped keep me imprisioned for a very long time.

    As a BIC I was raised speaking English, attended public schools taught in English and interacted with members of my family, friends and business people in English. But I learned early to experience some amount of confusion about the words "know" and "truth".

    For example, if I told my mother that I was home from school the truth would be that I really was home from school whereas the converse of the truth, or a lie, would be to tell her I was home when I was not. SHE would not "know" if I was telling the truth; I would.

    It was simple for me to understand what "the truth" was about things of the world because I could use my senses to establish simple facts and then determine if they were true or not.

    The indoctrination I received in the church gave me a different set of rules for determining truth. Pilate's rhetorical question "What is truth?" was spoken as Jesus rambled a little about coming into the world "...to bear witness unto the truth." (John 18:37, 38)

    Certainly, that response constitutes part of the origins of the confusion about truth because except for those of us who intend to express their opinions about the truth Jesus is referring to we don't really "know" what that is.

    Jump forward to what many of us learned in our lives about testimonies offered by church leaders and members and there is real cause for confusion about giving the same credibility to the church's definition of "truth".

    The church's definition of "knowing the church, gospel, JS calling, etc." is/are true is based upon hearing the claim and then getting a "feeling" from the holy ghost that what you have been told is "true".

    To try to use the same criteria in a court of law would just not work.

    I could not sit on a jury, listen to the evidence and trust my feelings that the evidence was true. That's not to say people don't but they're supposed to apply reason to the testimony. They're supposed to discount unreasonable allegations like the testimony that a two year-old child killed a man with a blow to the head, then dragged the 200 lb. body to the cliff, then hoisted it over the Jersey barricade and launched it into the sea, for example. If one of the jurors were to say during deliberations, "You know...I know it doesn't make any sense and defies everything I have experienced in my life but I just feel it's true," there would be serious doubt about the person's ability to be a juror...or even lick a postage stamp.

    But as I was going to say before I got caught up in all the matter of fact about the jurors, I was coerced into accepting LDS definitions as correct. I expected worldly truths to require some amount of objective proof to be true but allowed the church to tell me that feelings constituted proof.

    It kept me in prison for 40+ years. It extracted large sums of money from me. It was a sham. It was not true by any objective standard. But it was used to coerce me into "offering" money to the church.

    If you're being deceived by someone about facts and you believe their assertions, like a testimony, is it any less fraud? Wouldn't the law consider that I was defrauded by these assertions posing as "truths".

    Couldn't I sue them for fraud and demand that the law stop them from perpetuating this fraud? Couldn't I show that all other churches talk about believing their allegations while Mormon leaders declares that they KNOW the church is true. However, in a court of law they couldn't prove that based upon the generally accepted understanding of "know" and "truth".

    It's different for the Mormon leaders because they told us they knew and told us to pay tithing or we couldn't reap the blessings.

    It's late and I'm annoyed at the wasted years and I think the liars owe me something; I think I might have a case.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    "Mormonism" = Living in "Bizarre-O-World"
    Posted Jun 22, 2005, at 12:57 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    • Where people are judged by the Shape and Color of their underwear.
    • Where non-TBM Family member's are not invited to attend their own children's weddings.
    • Where people are judged by the temperature of their caffeine.
    • Where neighbors prohibit their children to play with non-Mormon next door neighbor children.
    • Where the word "Translation" doesn't mean to translate from one language into another.
    • Where the truth is a lie and verifiable facts are discarded.
    • Where hot coffee is forbidden but hot chocolate is encouraged.
    • Where post life polygamy is doctrine but real life polygamy is condemned.
    • Where men who wear white shirts and a tie to church are righteous but men who wear colored shirts and a tie are disobedient.
    • Where a prophet is not accountable to his own words.
    • Where lying is rewarded...i.e.: in the attaining of temple recommends but those who are honest are called to repentance.
    • Where unchangeable ordinances can be changed because of the results of a member survey.
    • Where so called scripture, the words of God, can be changed to fit changing beliefs
    • Where unfulfilled prophecies are ignored.
    • Where the truth teller is the apostate and the liar is the righteous one.
    • Where "Families are Forever" but not if you're married to a non-believer.
    • Where the Glory of God is Intelligence...but intellectual thought is criticized.
    • Where the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth...but its most testable basic claims are discounted, ignored and de-emphasized.
    • Where God was once a man, but NOT if you are speaking to a Non LDS audience.
    • Where the Book of Mormon must submit to every analysis and examination...to historical tests, to the test of archeological research, and also to higher criticism (BH Roberts)...unless someone actually takes the church up on this test.... then we must accept it only on faith.
    • Where EQ Presidents that lie about monthly home teaching results are praised...but those that give honest appraisals of monthly results are reproved
    • Where priesthood blessings with positive results are proof of priesthood power, but negative results are the will of God.
    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Here's Why "Exmormons Who Were Born In The Church Are More Likely To Become Atheists..."
    Posted Jun 16, 2005, at 08:23 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Here's why "exmormons who were born in the church are more likely to become atheists" .. at least in my case. I don't know about converts' experiences leaving the Church, but Born User pretty well described my experience as a born-n-raised TBM becoming an atheist.

    For one thing, I decided long ago that either the LDS gospel was true or the whole biblical god was a sham (concluding at the time that of course the LDS gospel was true); there were too many holes in any other version of Christianity to make sense, that could only be explained by all the unique teachings of Mormonism. I guess I was encouraged into that kind of analysis by everything I soaked up from sunday school and seminary about the unique fullness of the gospel that we had a corner on. Maybe the Church's emphasis on the apostasy and how wrong every other version of Christianity is to blame: in the contrapositive, they convinced me that "even" atheism would make more sense than any version of the gospel as taught by a competing church.

    But there's no getting around this point: everything I've ever supposedly felt the "Spirit" about has been from Mormon experiences and about the Mormon version of the gospel. Now I can see that feeling I interpreted as the Spirit was always inside my own mind. I can't (now as always) conceive of finding faith in any god without sensing that god through the Spirit; yet I also can't (any longer) believe that that sense of the Spirit is at all worthwhile as a basis for evaluating what is true. Rather, it was my own inner response to certain experiences, a response perhaps to perceptions of beauty or connectedness with the divine, or feelings of altruism or comfort or communion with loved ones and fellow believers; a perfectly valid perception or feeling, but a totally arbitrary and senseless way to decide what is true. That is what we need science for, because that mythologically bent and universally anthropomorphizing human mind is not naturally built to distinguish evaluating reality from subjective perceptions and feelings.

    Instead I faced up to this: there is absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of anything resembling our definition of a god; there is also overwhelming evidence that, whether or not any gods exist, the human mind is predisposed to perceive and place faith in gods; and there is overwhelming evidence that there cannot be a god as conceived of by Western civilization, if that god is defined to be both all-powerful and perfectly compassionate toward us humans. As Dostoevsky said, the suffering of children is all the proof needed that God does not exist - or as he had Ivan say in The Brothers Karamizov: "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on this condition?"

    Epicurus also expressed this point succinctly: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"

    Christian theologians have from the beginning wrestled with this problem with all sorts of flimsy mental gymnastics, and Mormon doctrine settled on a few main rebuttals with a lot in common with some of the classic Christian explanations: first, Christ descended below them all, so no matter what anyone suffers through, at least they can know (at least if they've learned the gospel) that at least Christ can empathize with them. Second, no matter what you suffer, this entire mortal existence is just a blip in the eternal timeline of our existence, you'll be dead before you know it and then everything will be set right and you will never suffer again. (Unless you go to hell, of course.) In the meantime, suffering can build character, help teach us to be humble and more compassionate, and give us a chance to work charitably to relieve each other's suffering, and is therefore part of our learning experience in this mortal life. Finally, as for the suffering inflicted by others as opposed to that inflicted by illness, accident and Nature, God is unwilling to interfere with the free agency of those doing the inflicting, and if they don't repent, the blood of their victims will justify their condemnation. (Call me on this if I am not representing fairly the Church's explanation of suffering.)

    All this trivializing explanation of suffering sounds great, and is fairly easy to say for wealthy and comfortable modern Americans. I can't imagine the gall of someone trying to explain it to a three-year-old Darfurian girl whose picture I keep in my desk, with her malnourished one-year-old brother on her back, having carried him several hundred miles across the border with Chad, on foot, after everyone else in their family were brutally killed by the militias backed by their own government. My own little girl is three, and my younger son almost one. I have tried to envision my family having swapped places with that Darfurian girl's family. I don't think anyone could repeat the Church's explanation of suffering with a straight face without having long been insulated from much of the world.

    The Church's facile explanation teaches those who accept it to trivialize the suffering of others - God is ultimately in control, the suffering of others is part of God's plan for them and helping build their character and grow spiritually. It also requires those who accept it, not only themselves to trivialize suffering, but to accept a version of God who also trivializes suffering. No matter what deprivations and crimes a child suffers through, it is all part of God's plan to help them grow, and/or God is willing to let them continue suffering to keep from interfering with the free agency of the offender? Eternal perspective or not, that God is a callous one. Any reasonable person should be angry at someone with power to stop at a whim the suffering of their loved ones, but who refuses out of concern for "building character". Instead they (typically) force themselves somehow to reconcile themselves to that paradox of an all-compassionate God who causes or allows tragedy and pain, like a battered child or woman who rationalizes the brutality of an abusive father or husband whom they still think loves them, while they themselves are somehow at fault.

    To accept that there is no all-powerful, all-compassionate God standing idly by to watch us suffer through illness, accidents, disasters and crimes, is not only the only logical, non-dysfunctional conclusion; it is also liberating. You can accept that there is not someone who wants you to suffer despite supposedly having a perfect love for you and plan for your well-being that the suffering must somehow fit into. Existence is not so cruel that is is governed by a God we are responsible for loving and following despite his indifference or plain abusiveness toward us. Our suffering is instead due simply to bad fortune and/or the crimes of a few of our fellow humans; we are free of having to feel bitterness or anger at God that we are afraid to express and confused over how to rationalize away. Instead we can know it is up to us to mitigate and prevent the evils of this world to the best of our capacity as reasoning humans, and without having to worry that doing so is interfering with God's intentions for our suffering.

    Don't see how that makes a difference? How many times have people made the excuse that we shouldn't interfere with God's will, even to take a course that would obviously prevent suffering or tend to someone's ease or health? How many Jehovah's Witnesses have died rather than accept a blood transfusion? I've read of believers who refused to allow corrective surgery on their baby because it would interfere with how God wanted things. Pious believers said the same thing about penicillin. How many "Christian Scientists" have died because they thought illness was punishment for evil and that modern medicine is a sin? Speaking of which, modern medicine, the result of dedicated and ingenious efforts of human reasoning using the scientific method, has saved literally millions of lives, as can be objectively demonstrated. How many miracle workers and priesthood holders can demonstrate to an objective observer that they have ever improved someone's health? And how much good could the Church accomplish if it decided wehumans are the only ones who can save each other, and set its standing army of 60,000 missionaries to spend only four hours per week proselytizing and 60 hours per week doing humanitarian service, instead of the other way around?

    There is no objective evidence for God; there is overwhelming evidence that the human mind is predisposed to perceive the presence of a God; and there is overwhelming evidence that there cannot be a God who both loves us and has the power to save us. But there is also overwhelming evidence that we clever humans are capable of growing from a population of only 5,000 in eastern Africa to a global civilization, of building societies and nations that work to our mutual advantage and common dignity, of serving each other selflessly, of creating works of astonishing beauty, of understanding ever more about the world around us and using it to our advantage - maybe even in the long term, if we are wise enough. My faith was often a beautiful experience, but it was also a hangup that kept me from properly applying my capacity for reason to evaluate the world around me. I don't think we have anything to be afraid of in insisting on facing the Universe only as it is, not as we wish it would be. We will be far better offand even happier in the end if we let go of God and pay more attention to each other.

     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Drove My TBM Parents Through Clearwater, Florida Yesterday
    Posted Jun 10, 2005, at 09:48 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Clearwater, Florida is the headquarters of Scientology. We drive through there on our way to the beach, and we often see people in groups of 20-30 wearing all the same color blue or green slacks and white shirts. It's the strangest thing.

    I have no idea what that is about, but my wife and I had my TBM parents in the car with us as we drove through Clearwater yesterday, and we went past a big pack of Scientologists wearing their dark blue slacks and white shirts.

    We laughed and said "Look at the cult members!" Then we talked about Xenu and some of the other weirdness of Scientology. Then I said "I guess we shouldn't laugh at them. Those poor people are being terribly taken advantage of by that religion." and changed the subject.

    We didn't deliberately make any connections to Mormonism. It was just a wacky scene, and we commented on it. My parents had nothing to add. I'm sure it reminded them of the MTC. I'm always reminded of it when I drive through there.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    On Behalf Of Converts: THEY LIE
    Posted Jun 10, 2005, at 08:43 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Mormonism extols lying as a virtue.

    The Mormon prophet lies. Mormon leaders lie. Missionaries lie. Members lie.

    Converts are not "second class", "brain dead", of low IQ, desperate, grasping, needy "low quality people" who join for what they can get. Not me. Not any other convert I knew.

    The same church, leaders, beliefs, techniques and practices that keep BICs ill-informed and shoulders to the Mormon wheel, all help to pull the ol' bait and switcheroo on hapless converts.

    Let's see, when deciding whether to join the Mormon church or not, did I know I had to ask DO THEY LIE? No.

    Are converts - people of faith - trusting? Yes.

    Lacking important info? Yes.

    Low quality? NO

    And who decided that unless you are "leadership material" or in the marriage sweepstakes you are a "low quality convert"? That makes me seethe.

    Do the beliefs of the Mormon church make liars out of their prophets, leaders, members and missionaries? YES (except where said individuals just say no).

    It's appalling for an entire religious program to judge every human on the planet by what they DO, to deem each one worthy or unworthy, high quality or low. We're talking people here, not the grade of hamburger in the meat cooler.

    *Church* is the "the worldwide body of believers" (in Jesus Christ) according to my beliefs. The people _are_ the church (yes, divided into congregations but that is not "the church"). It is not an organization and certainly not a corporation. You give your time, talent and resources (to your congregation and to the world) as you are able and as you wish. When someone joins your congregation the question is "What can we do for you?" not "What can you do for the church?"

    If it's a little old lady who needs a ride to Sunday meeting, she gets a ride and people are happy to see her. Never ever ever have I heard it said that she is a "low quality" person because she needs some assistance. And if a young family joins the church, it is well understand that the parents are busy raising their kids and they're not available to take on major work for the congregation. It's their "season" (in life) to look after their marriage and family. In a different season for them they might decide to teach a Bible class. Their quality as a person is not determined by what they can do for the church.

    The Mormon church leaders LIE. They set up systems that encourage/necessitate that members LIE. They actively withhold facts and information from those they seek to convert. Their religious system results in them judging and grading their members, converts and investigators to standards of worthiness/quality based on "WORKS". The same system that hurts BICs hurts converts - different roots, different effects, different issues, different outcomes - but same system, same lies, same negative impact.

    Supercilious Mormon leaders can tell me I was never fully converted. They can say I disengaged because I want to sin. Self-righteous members can say my concerns arose from my lack of faith, failure to pray (the right way), failure to commit, work hard enough, get with the program - anything but the fact that the Mormon church program is based on lies and maintained by lies. Lies that hurt people.

    Those who walk into the honey trap, like myself, may be many things. One thing we are not is low quality people.

    I would hope that non-convert exmos, having been irrevocably affected by the lies themselves, would not heap upon us the same lack of understanding, scorn, pity and incredulity at our so-called stupidity as we are subjected to by those who uphold the Mormon system.

    Converts are a subset of exmos at large. We share a lot in common with BICs. We've all been hurt by the Orwellian Hell of Mormonism.

    Don't call me low quality because I fell for the Big Lie.

    Trusting? Yes.

    A ready mark (i.e., "golden")? Well, OK.

    Stupid? I don't think so.

    Low quality? Please, no.

    (And neither is the single mom on welfare with no car and a passel of kids who believes the nice missionaries who say "We want to help you").

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Get Out Now - While You Still Can
    Posted Jun 9, 2005, at 08:32 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Just a word of advice to you TBM lurkers...get out of the cult while you are still young. I'm pushing 50, TBM wife, TBM kids, TBM family, TBM friends. I know it is hogwash but I suck it up for my wife's sake.

    Listen to me. If you wait no better time will ever come. You'll get older and the cult will suck you in deeper like the borg.

    Get out now. It may cost you your marriage but better now than 25 years later. Your spouse will be young enough to find happiness with another TBM if desired. You'll be young enough to find happiness with a real person. Do it before you have kids or at least do it before you have the typical mormon litter.

    Do it. Take the hit now. Take the disappointed sighs from your folks, family and friends. They'll get over it after 10 years and quit bugging you. You'll still be young enough to enjoy life.

    Think it is too hard to do now? Trust me, you don't want to wait. You think it is hard now you can't even imagine how hard it will be later.

    Suit yourself.
    • Spend the rest of your life faking prayers and testimonies, listening to goofy talks about ghosts, locked up every Sunday like a death row inmate.
    • Cut short that really fascinating movie because your TBM wife comes home and you can't let her catch you watching an R movie.
    • Get your straight laced "proper" sex once a month, since anything other than missionary position is evil.
    • Say goodbye to your co-workers and head for home as they go out for a celebratory drink, or go with them and look like a little kid holding your sprite and telling your stupid little story about how you don't drink. Enjoy the thinly veiled looks of feigned interest while they say in their heads, "I never would have guessed that he was such a sucker and a wack job."
    • Grin and take the constant reminders that you're not good enough, righteous enough, faithful enough.
    • Pay 10% of that money you worked your ass off for and hand it over to a mass marketing scam so they can suck in more suckers.
    • Spend your precious time attending dull, useless meetings listening to people who like the sound of their own voice.
    • Keep bugging those people, who care nothing for you and for whom you have no real interest, to let you come visit once a month. Try putting on your "gee I love you so much face" for 20 years.
    • Sweat like a pig on those hot summer days dressing like a puritan to hide your holy underpants
    • Get up every morning at 5:30 and drag your tired kids out of bed so they can get their daily dose of seminary indoctrination
    No point in going on is there?

    Enjoy.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Top Ten Most Offensive Statements By Mormon Leaders
    Posted Jun 4, 2005, at 09:04 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I am making top ten lists as discussion starters for my TBM family and friends. I would appreciate any feedback and corrections or additions to this list. Thanks!

    TOP TEN MOST OFFENSIVE STATEMENTS BY MORMON LEADERS:

    1) "It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this 'church which is the most abominable above all other churches' in vision. He 'saw the devil that he was the foundation of it' and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.(Bruce R. McConkie. Mormon Doctrine [1958], 130.)

    2) "I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

    3) "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp

    4) "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:336).

    5) "The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome. . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. . .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 to delightsomeness. Spencer W. Kimball; The Improvemant, Era, Dec. 1960, p. 923)

    6) "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

    7) "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

    8) "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race." (Tenth LDS President, Joseph Fielding Smith The Way to Perfection, p.101.)

    9) "Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. a Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. but think of the mercy of god to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?

    Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood... This Negro, who in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincerer faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessing of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. (Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, An address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College level; Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.)

    10) "We do not intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly.... We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence." (Ernest Wilkinson, president of Brigham Young University, in a 1965 lecture to the BYU student body, titled: "Make Honor your Standard."

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Terror And Horror!! The Tbm Fear Of Satan
    Posted Jun 2, 2005, at 09:52 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Cheeseburger's post about the pentagrams on the SLC temple got me thinking. IMHO, TBMs seem to fear "satan" (in quotes because I don't believe he/she/it exists) more than other religious people I have met.

    LDS believe "satan" to be a real person that is just waiting to get possession of all of us. I have known people that become visibly shaken when anyone even said the word "satan" (or any of his other nicknames). Many only say his name in a whisper. They believe that the fear that they are experiencing is PROOF that he is present at that moment... "you can just FEEL the evil spirit...blah, blah.." That kind of thing.

    In seminary, church, and at home, I was told to fear anything that was in any way "satanic". Things like ouija boards, pentagrams, Stephen King books, horror movies, etc. even talking about "satan" could bring his evil spirit around to wreak havoc on our eternal souls.

    My mother was especially superstitious about such things. She believed that "satan" was lurking in every shadow and that she had the "power" to detect him. I think my mother could find the devil in a bowl of cheerios!! She was constantly telling me she could "feel the evil" around a certain person, book or whatever. She once forbid me to see someone because his name was "satanic".....his name was Nicholas (uh, I have NO explanation for that!)

    As a TBM did you fear "satan" in this way? I am most interested in your personal stories....or was my mother crazy even by TBM standards?? (she does have mental problems)

    BTW, I know that by TBM standards that I have been deceived by the evil one himself....he has fooled me into believing that he doesn't exist. LOL. TBMs are not only afraid of him, but they are afraid of NOT being afraid of him (that would mean they are under his spell!!!) The mindgames!!!

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Great quote from Arthur C. Clark
    Posted May 31, 2005, at 09:29 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. However valuable-even necessary-that may have been in enforcing good behavior on primitive peoples, their association is now counterproductive. Yet at the very moment when they should be decoupled, sanctimonious nitwits are calling for a return to morals based on superstition".

    It makes me wonder if I am doing a disservice to truth by not more actively pointing out the absurdity in religion.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Cost of Being Mormon
    Posted May 23, 2005, at 07:43 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    For awhile now I've wanted to collect my thoughts on the price a person pays for being Mormon. Here's what I've written as a result.....

    --- The Cost of Being Mormon ---

    Utah has been known for several years as the Prozac capital of the U.S. Utah also has the highest concentration of Mormons in the U.S (70%). Is there a connection? I think so, speaking from personal experience. And, others would agree. In a recent Salt Lake Tribune article entitled Got the blues? You're not alone in Utah (April 27, 2005) it was reported that:

    • "Among the nation's 20 most depressed cities - as recently scored by Men's Health magazine - Salt Lake City came in 12th, with a D grade. Researchers at the magazine assigned grades based on information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on antidepressant sales, suicide rates and the number of days residents reported feeling down."

    • "There's a lot of pressure for males here to succeed due to large families and perceived expectations for members of the dominant religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

    • "Antidepressant use in Utah is higher than any other state, with 16 percent of the population taking them, according to Express Scripts, a company that compiles a yearly drug trend report."

    • "Suicide is the eighth-leading cause of death for all Utahans. Nationally, it is the eleventh-leading cause of death. From 2000 to 2002, the suicide rate in Utah was 14 per 100,000 people, compared with 10.7 per 100,000 countrywide, according to the Utah Department of Health."

    Why is this? I believe anyone seriously considering life as a Mormon needs to ask themselves this question. My children are in this position. I'm writing primarily for them. I want them to understand that there's a serious price to be paid for being Mormon. There's depression. And, there are other costs as well. I cover those I'm familiar with here.

    Faults Hidden. Mormons tend to hide their faults. The emphasis is on looking good versus on being genuine and authentic. Very rarely do you hear heart felt expressions of what weaknesses people are struggling with in a Mormon meeting. Compare this to other spiritual programs or self help groups where people openly and honestly share their problems. This is the type of sharing that the New Testament talks about when it says to "confess your faults one to another." (James 5:16) In the Mormon church, though, the emphasis is instead almost entirely on "let your light so shine." (Matthew 5:16) This too is good advice, but not when taken to the extreme.

    This emphasis on looking good over being authentic has several negative effects:

    • First, it causes a person to feel shame, since they are hiding things about themselves that they feel bad about.

    • Second, the person does not get the compassionate warmth and support they could otherwise get, since the person's struggles are hidden.

    • Third, there are fewer opportunities to improve since the problem remains hidden.

    • And fourth, it leads to superficiality. A person cannot be genuine and authentic when they when they have to hide their imperfections. Instead, they have to put on a facade.

    This tendency is systemic. The church as an organization functions on this same principle by hiding anything "not faith promoting". Church president Gordon Hinckley is famous for this, as a result of the Hoffman debacle where it became clear how the church buys and locks away any historical documents that are embarrassing to the church. As well, leading church apostle Boyd Packer has taught that "some things that are true are not very useful" and so should be hidden.

    Lost Identity. Many Mormons have a hard time being their own unique selves. It's tough when there are so many unrealistic expectations. A Mormon is expected to be: happy, nice, meek, humble, respectful of authority and never question those over him, etc, etc. The list goes on and on. This leaves little room for being oneself.

    The best example of this is what happens to a young person that goes on a Mormon mission. This event happens at just the moment in a young person's life when they should for the very first time be experimenting with adult autonomy. This is a time when a young person should be growing into themselves: exploring competing ideas, ways to think, talk, and act.

    Instead, when a Mormon male turns nineteen he goes on what is called a Mormon "mission" where is confined to an extremely restricted mental, spiritual, and physical world. In this world he is told nearly everything about who he is: what he can say, think, and do. He is under complete control of the church hierarchy. He isn't allowed to contact family or friends, except through letters and one or two phone calls a year. He is prohibited from ever being alone, told what to read, how to worship and pray, what music he can listen to, what movies he can watch, how to dress, how to touch, how to wear his hair, how to shave, when to go to bed, when to get up, what he can and cannot buy, the sports he can play, what transportation he can use, and on and on. It's no exaggeration to say that almost everything about his life is controlled from the top down.

    This lasts for two years. And then he returns back to the "regular" Mormon world of being all those things a good Mormon is expected to be.

    Lost in all of this is a person's true identity. Gone is the opportunity to be oneself, to be genuine and authentic. Instead a person turns into an automaton, unable to express his or her true self. It's ironic that in a religion that places so much emphasis on the right to choose, that most Mormon's live lives not having had the chance to choose who they really are.

    Conflict Avoidance. Mormon's avoid conflict. They teach "the spirit of contention...is of the devil" (3 Nephi 11:29) and so should be avoided. This is a nice idea, but not very realistic. Utopian societies were also a nice idea, but have been tried and shown to be a naive approach to building a community in the real world. In the same way, avoiding conflict is a naive approach to living life in the real world.

    Conflict avoidance creates several serious problems. The first is that it tends to ignore the source of the conflict. The problem is never addressed and so is never solved. Second, conflict avoidance creates adverse emotional reactions in the person avoiding the conflict: depression and anxiety. Depression results when the person resigns themselves to the source of the problem, realizing that it's never going to go away. Anxiety results from the body's natural response to situations that create conflict. The body produces adrenalin that is meant to resolve the conflict. When a person doesn't, they begin to feel anxious. Left in this state for too long or repeatedly, the anxiousness often turns in to full blown anxiety attacks.

    One of the most common places this conflict avoidance is found is in the relationship between man and wife. A healthy and passionate relationship requires that both parties express themselves openly, honestly, and regularly. But the Mormon world is very patriarchal. Women are placed in a secondary role to men. A woman who is bothered by a particular issue or who wants to do some particular thing to further her own personal interests, is either told or concludes that it's not her place to do something about it -- that she must put her husband and her children before her own well being. So she avoids conflict to conform to the system she is taught is "from God", and suffers depression as a result

    Attitude of Inadequacy. Mormonism fosters an attitude of inadequacy, a feeling of not measuring up. A recent Sunday School lesson my Mormon wife attended had as it's title this phrase from the Book of Mormon: "They did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness." (Alma 57:21) Two words stand out: every and exactness. Of course the implication is that if these people could obey every word with exactness, then so should you. This is not a realistic expectation. It just sets a person up to feel inadequate. After years and years of this, a person can wind up with serious emotional and mental problems. It's the kind of thinking that causes a person to begin to do a lot of negative self-talk and self-loathing for not being able to measure up.

    And it's not just the degree of expectations that causes a sense of inadequacy, but it's the type of expectations as well. One of these is the expectation that every young man become a great leader. Not everyone is cut out to be a great leader, though. Some are far better at simply being followers. And, that's OK. But if you're a Mormon young man, you don't get that message. Instead you're expected to grow into the mold of the "perfect leader" as defined by the Mormon church, no matter how much that mold may not fit.

    Another unrealistic expectation is the attitude the Mormon church has towards masturbation. Mormon's are taught that masturbation is evil. This creates a huge unrealistic expectation, especially for young males. A young male has a tremendous desire and even need for sexual release. It's far better to simply get that release with occasional masturbation rather than to try to live under the unrealistic expectation to never masturbate.

    These are just some of the unrealistic expectations that Mormon's live with. There are many others. Many of them would be OK by themselves, but again create unrealistic expectations when combined together: have children early, have as many as you can possibly handle, hold a church service "calling" (some of which can consume many hours a week), do your monthly "Home Teaching" visits to other families, share the Mormon message with your neighbors, pray multiple times a day, read scriptures every day, etc., etc. And, provide well for your family because the more money you earn the more God must be blessing you and therefore the more "righteous" you look to everyone else. The net effect is to leave a person feeling overwhelmed and inadequate.

    Blind Obedience. Mormon's tend to blindly obey their leaders. They are taught that when the church leaders speak it is the same as if God has spoken. Mormon scripture reads "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and...whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C; 1:38; emphasis added.) This is a dangerous idea because it causes a person to not apply rational thought to major life decisions. Instead they do whatever they've been told, since they assume it was God who was speaking.

    There are many examples of nonsensical things done as a result of this. I'll mention just a couple to better illustrate what I'm talking about.

    The first is the command that couples have as many children as they possibly can. This was what the church told its members up until the early 1980's. There was no rational thought involved. A couple was simply supposed to produce as many babies as they could possibly produce. But child rearing is an incredibly demanding task and many couples are just not cut out to have as many children as they can possibly have. It's not healthy for them, and it's not healthy for their children.

    Another example of blind obedience can be seen with what happened to church members back in the 1830's. They were told to move to Jackson County, Missouri. They were told to attempt to purchase the land their first. Then if that didn't work, they were told they would take possession of it by force.

    The Mormon scriptures on this, written as if God were speaking directly to them, read: "Purchase this whole region of country...Let them do this lest they receive none inheritance, save it be by the shedding of blood." (D&C; 58: 52-53; emphasis added.) And then later it reads: "Behold, the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints...I have commanded...my warriors, my young men, and middle-aged, to gather together for the redemption of my people, and throw down the towers of mine enemies, and scatter their watchmen." (D&C; 105:15-16; emphasis added.)

    You can imagine what the people already living in Jackson County thought. There was conflict between the two groups from the beginning. Each side ended up issuing an extermination order against the other. The Mormons had the weaker military force by far and were chased out of Missouri.

    The whole event was very tragic. Neither side should have done what they did. But human societies have always been very tribal and when one tribe moves in aggressively against another, there's bound to be trouble.

    It seems so obvious to someone looking at the situation from the outside that it made no sense to do what they did: to move in to an area and tell the people living there that God had given their land to them and that either they needed to sell it or lose it by bloodshed. But, the early Mormon's had a leader they thought spoke for God and so there was no need to think. Instead, they blindly obeyed.

    Grandiosity. Mormons tend to be grandiose. It's not always evident because they are also told that they must be humble, and many honestly do try. But it's hard not to feel grandiose when you believe that you are one of God's chosen people. Youth get this message especially strong. They are told that they are better than people born at any other time in the history of the earth. These are the "last days" and only the "very elect" were saved to be born now. This does have the effect of making a person feel good about themselves. It can be comforting (just as a child's belief in Santa Clause can be comforting.) But that comfort comes at the cost of feeling superior to others. The superiority is only imagined, though, and as a person grows older the realities of life wear on them. They begin to realize who they really are. The mismatch between who they realize the really are and the comforting fantasy they had can be depressing. Ideally this depression would cause a person to seriously question what they had been told. But what is more common is for the person to try to compensate for the depression with more grandiosity. This of course doesn't solve the problem. Instead it creates a tragic cycle of grandiosity and depression repeated over and over.

    Intellectual Blinders. Mormonism causes a person to not want to fully explore all there is to know about the world. This is because much of what there is to know runs counter to what a Mormon has been taught is "the truth." Whenever science runs counter to Mormon dogma, the science is discarded in favor of the dogma. And not only that, but the source of the science is discarded as well. Science becomes something to fear when it causes a person to question the dogma that gives them comfort.

    An example of this is the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. This book gives a high level overview of the history of the world's civilizations. It has tremendous lessons to offer about why certain civilizations have thrived and others have not. But, the book starts out by talking about evolution. For many Mormons, this is enough to stop reading with the thought that if the author thinks evolution is true then there's no telling what other "untruths" are in the book. And so the opportunity to learn great things about how the world works are lost.

    Lack of Professional Help. Mormon's suffering from emotional or mental problems have limited access to professional help. They are first instructed to go to their local leader, the bishop. But a bishop is a layperson with no formal training as a health care professional. This is like asking a grocery store butcher to perform an appendectomy. Neither is trained to do the job they are being asked to do, and both are likely to do more harm than good.

    If a bishop decides that someone needs additional help, he can refer the person to a professionally trained therapist. However, the therapist needs to be another Mormon and has to be approved by the church. This creates two problems:

    • First, a church approved therapist does not take a systemic approach to solving emotional problems. They look primarily at what the individual is doing wrong. This is as opposed to the approach most therapists take where they look not only at the individual, but also at the individual's environment: both their current environment as well as the one that has shaped who they are over the course of their lifetime. This kind of analysis requires looking at things that are taboo according to Mormon dogma: family history, and the effect of religion. In Mormon theology, it's important to honor your parents and ancestors. So any discussion of the negative effect they may have had is avoided. And then Mormon theology itself could never be the cause of any emotional or mental problems, and so it isn't considered either. So the therapist's work is limited to only what the individual is doing. As a result, many times the person's problems remain unsolved.

    • Second, a church approved therapist is encouraged to limit the number of visits they have with a person. Church members are supposed to solve their emotional problem's "The Lord's Own Way". This way does not include a lot of counseling by others. Instead, a person should primarily pray and read their scriptures. So after a few weeks the therapy ends, and the persons problem's remain unsolved.

    Miscellaneous Costs. There are other miscellaneous costs associated with being a Mormon. They are not as significant as the costs already mentioned, but need to be considered by anyone thinking about being a Mormon. They are:

    • Time. Being Mormon takes up a lot of time. Sundays are spent in three hours of meetings, and then after that either in more meetings or at home doing a very restricted set of activities. Then each Mormon has one or more "callings" that can take anywhere from a several hours a week up to twenty or more. Young Mormon males are expected to serve a two year full time mission for the church.

    • Money. Mormons are required to pay ten percent of their income to the church.

    • Entertainment. Mormons are not allowed to watch R-rated movies. But there are many great R-rated movies that not only entertain but inspire and teach important lessons.

    • Sex. Mormon's are not allowed to: masturbate, have oral sex, or even sleep naked together as man and wife.

    • Coffee, Tea, and Alcohol. Coffee, tea, and alcohol are prohibited. But each of these when used in moderation has been found to have healthy side effects and they can all enhance a person's enjoyment of life.

    Spiritual Opportunity Cost. There is one final important cost to consider: the spiritual opportunity cost of choosing Mormonism over another spiritual path. The term opportunity cost comes from economics and means whatever was given up for making a particular choice. So for example if I choose to stay home and read a book on an evening when I've been invited to a movie with friends, then the opportunity cost for reading the book that evening is going to a movie with friends. In the same way, there is an opportunity cost associated with choosing to be Mormon. Mormonism is just one spiritual path among many. But by choosing it, a person is also choosing to not benefit from other spiritual paths. Mormon's believe they have the "fullness" of the truth, and that other churches are an "abomination in [God's] sight." (Joseph Smith History 1: 19) But, there are other spiritual paths that offer more opportunities for spiritual growth than Mormonism, and without all the negative side effects.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.

     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Church Warning: Apostates Wither And Die
    Posted May 17, 2005, at 07:24 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    It begins in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants and resounds throughout: a voice of warning to all people. Those who will not hear the voice of the Apostles and prophets will be cut off."

    "The metaphor is that of pruning, the removal of dead wood from the living, fruitful tree. When one considers the difference between a withered branch and a fruitful bough, the comparison is apt. Those receiving the restored gospel must make a choice: to hear or not to hear the voice of his servants; to live as a part of the tree or be cast off to wither alone. As this warning unfolds in the revelations, an interesting counterpoint develops in the lives of those little-known Saints who were there to receive first the words of the Lord. Many heard and continued, and bore fruit; many did not, and were cut off. There is much instruction in their choices."

    "The lives of some 129 people referred to in the Doctrine and Covenants are fascinating, both for their human interest and for the way they illustrate the importance of heeding the voice of the prophets."

    "There are other stories of those who, for pride, chose to stray rather than stay. Simonds Ryder, mentioned in section 52 [D&C; 52], joined the Church soon after its organization. Shortly thereafter, he apostatized and eventually led the mob that wrenched Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon from their homes in winter for a brutal beating and tarring. His excuse for leaving the Church was the misspelling of his name in Church documents; he questioned the authenticity of inspired materials with typographical errors."

    "Joseph Wakefield, mentioned in sections 50 and 52, [D&C; 50; D&C; 52] found a like excuse for turning a deaf ear to the Prophet. He observed Joseph Smith playing with children soon after working on the translation of the Bible and concluded such was not the behavior of a prophet. Like Ryder, he was cut off, and his name has faded."

    "If we hear and obey, our fruit will continue as has that of the faithful of the past; if we hear not, then we shall be cut off to wither, without root. But we must choose, and much depends on our choice, for ours is the opportunity to be part of the fruitful tree of the kingdom."
    - Elder Dale S. Cox, “To Hear or Not to Hear,” Ensign, Jan. 1993, page 44

    How many of you have "withered" since you left the church?

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Sorry, But TBM Wives Are Fools To Break Up Marriages If DH Leaves The Morg
    Posted May 14, 2005, at 09:58 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I can't feel sorry for a mormon woman who destroys a marriage because her husband changes his mind about religion. That goes double or triple if they have children.

    This never happened when I was a mormon kid. Hubbies did leave the church, though rarely. The wives continued to attend and brought the kids much of the time. As TBMs they knew they needed to continue to be good wives and mothers if they wanted to be blessed.

    Doctrine is clear. Their kids would make the "right" choices to be mormon when the time came. If hubby/dad never came back to the fold, HF would provide a "worthy" CK priesthood holder to guide them into glory.

    So what the devil is with these spoiled a** women these days? What brats! Do they think they deserve a perfect looking mormon family to show off for their friends at the ward house? Are they of such little faith that they assume their kids won't be faithful mormons if dad doesn't wear regulation underwear and back bite his way into the stake counsel?

    Or do they lap up the attention and sympathy from all of their shallow RS friends as they whine about their ex and complain about attending alone? What's worse, they must start being teens again and jump into the world of dating. Sounds like they never matured beyond about age 16.

    These women are selfish and shallow creatures!

    TBM women, don't whimper to me about "eternal consequences" and how they trump commitments already made in this "dispensation." That's nothing but hot air.

    Keep your promises to be a good wife and a good mother. Breaking up marriages does NOT help children be better mormons. It tears up their world and destroys their family security. It's all for a stupid pipe dream, a dream that has no connection with mormon doctrine or being a good decent parent.

    I think any woman who pulls this stunt should automatically have to relinquish child custody in this life. After all, it's eternity that they claim to care about.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Double Bind: Liberty Only Through Obedience
    Posted May 10, 2005, at 07:50 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    No wonder Mormons are going crazy.

    The following 2000-2001 Priesthood/Relief Society Manual lesson titled "Liberty through Obedience," gives contradictory messages. Look how schizophrenic this is:

    "We do not preach the gospel of fear. We do not seek to terrorize the souls of men. We do not ask a man to be righteous because of the terrors of the damned. We do not want you to be good because you fear the punishment of the wicked. We do not want you to do right because of the penalty that attaches to the doing of wrong."

    "You will suffer the consequences of your own mistakes, of your own errors, though they bring sorrow, or sickness, or death! So, I acknowledge the hand of the Lord in this agency that he has given to the children of men."

    "Can you find an organization, ecclesiastical or otherwise, that has the same perfection of government and organization in it as can be found in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, established by inspiration through the Prophet Joseph Smith? And what is the object of that organization? Is it to crush men? Is it to injure you? Is it to bow you down unto the earth? Is it to deprive you of your liberties, of your rights, of your privileges? Is it to make you slaves, menials, and degrade you unto the dust? Or is it to raise you up into the scale of intelligence and of manliness and increase your liberties, for there is no liberty like the liberty of the gospel of Jesus Christ?"

    "The free agency of man is a fundamental principle which, according to the tenets of the Church, even God Himself does not suppress."

    "I believe that there is not a freer, more independent nor a more intelligent people to be found anywhere in the world, who are more independent in choosing the course which they pursue, in the work that they perform and in everything that they have to do with, than the Latter-day Saints. There is not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in good standing, anywhere in all the world today that is not such by reason of his independence of character, by reason of his intelligence, (and) wisdom.."
    - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 32: "Liberty through Obedience", From the Life of Joseph F. Smith, Page 283

    Does anyone actually experience the LDS Church as place of greater freedom and independence than "anywhere else in the world?"

    If you were a TBM reading this, wouldn't you think there was something wrong with you if you didn't feel liberated by Mormonism?

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Mormons Who Think You Hate Them If You Don't Respect Their Weird Church Beliefs
    Posted May 9, 2005, at 03:14 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    What's with mormons? I think their individuality is so compromised that they belive you are demeaning them if you don't uphold their idiotic priesthood blessings and creepy temple rites.

    In the US we have freedom of religion. We also have freedom of speech. That means we tolerate churches we don't believe in. We mustn't do damage to church property or spit on people who dunk the dead, but we can speak about the church as we see fit.

    That doesn't mean we owe mormons or any weird cultists respect. The definition of that word is "treat with special consideration and high regard." That's not the exact opposite of disrespect, which involves overt acts of denegration.

    Do you hold these ludicrous beliefs in special high regard?

    1. Systematic sexism? Refusing to allow females to live up to their innate high potential?

    2. Secret necro rituals in disregard to the wishes of next of kin or stated directives of the victims?

    3. Regulation religious underpants with purported magical powers?

    4. Systematic religious harassment in the street and in private homes?

    5. Magic words on tidbits of white bread, lying about church history, lying to prospective converts, extorting money from church members, breaking up families who don't all agree on religion, multiple gods, forced polygamy, antiquated dress codes, harsh and worthless dietary restrictions, and the worship of leaders, buildings, and lock step image promotion.

    Really, churches need to earn respect. Those who seriously don't feel respect for some of the precepts listed above don't owe special high regard to a church that encompasses them. We owe mormons and their organization a level of ciivily. We don't owe their baseless cult an iota of respect.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    A trip to "Paradise" ~Mormon style~
    Posted May 6, 2005, at 07:37 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Andy and I tuned in to BYU TV tonight for kicks and caught a talk by Robert J Matthews titled: "The Great Millennium Shall Come" that was recorded from Education Week in 2001. Not only was is extremely boring, it was appalling that an institute of higher learning can produce such a pseudo scientific approach that does not have even an ounce of reasonable thought and think that it is appropriate for an event titled "Education Week." He quoted many Mormon leaders including Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and a bunch of scriptures to back up his stance that the Millennium as described in his talk will be a literal event, that there is no symbolism. It really will happen.

    Basically according to Bro. Matthews, the Earth will change from its current Telestial state to a Terrestrial state aka "Paradise" which is the condition described in Genesis as the Garden of Eden. This "Paradise" is where all of the animals will live in perfect harmony and every creature on the Earth will be a vegetarian. There will be no Fires, no earthquakes, tidal waves, monsoons, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, blizzards, and no variance to the weather. There will be no seasons. There will be no disease, no accidents, nothing that will end life until old age. And, once old age is reached and death occurs, men will automatically be resurrected and stay here on Earth. He also spoke of the wondrous expansion of development. There will be temples, meeting houses, other infrastructure, housing, and recreational facilities pervading the globe to accommodate the ever-expanding population.

    Sounds wonderful doesn't it?

    All of the animals on Earth will be running rampant throughout civilization. There would be no population control of the animals since they can only die of old age. When they do die, they will just automatically be resurrected "in the twinkling of an eye" and remain here on Earth. Imagine the rodent and insect infestation problems in "Paradise" with every fly, ant, flea, lice, cockroach, senior citizen, rabbit, mouse, rat, NEVER leaving the Earth with a constant influx of MORE on the way. Our hands would be tied since there will be no "enmity between man and beast."

    Imagine an Earth that is a perfect balmy 72 degrees all the time. There is no variance. How would you ever be able to appreciate the weather when you have known nothing different. How can you appreciate a wonderful balmy 72 degree day when you have not experienced the freezing 30 degree days of Winter or hellish 100+ degree days of Summer? Somehow, despite the lack of seasons and curious lack of precipitation, there will be plentiful grain and other crops to sustain not only every human being, but also every beast during this time when people and animals can not die until they reach old age. There will be no seasons, so apparently there will not be any hibernation of animals either. Somehow the ever expanding population of the Earth will allow for room for the needed ever expanding farms to produce enough food for the ever expanding population of animals and people. This also brings the interesting question of whether the Earth at a constant Spring-like state will influence the animal kingdom to be in an ever-present mating season?

    There will be no disease, so all the doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health care personnel will be out of a job. I think they would best be of use in the ever expanding field of sanitation. Somehow all the sanitary needs of this ever expanding population would need to be met. Imagine all animals and people on a raw foods organic fruit and grain diet and the effect that would have on the sewage processing needs of this Planet.

    Sounds like "Paradise" to me.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Priesthood Power is a Sham, and Mormons Know It
    Posted May 2, 2005, at 07:56 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Despite anything a devout Mormon will tell you, they already know beneath the surface that "priesthood power" is a sham.

    Anyone who has attended a dozen or so Fast & Testimony meetings knows how much Mormons like to talk about reveiving & giving priesthood blessings. You know story: "When Johnny fell off the top bunk, my husband ran in and gave him a blessing that he would live until we could get him proper medical attention."

    Mormons talk about the utility of priesthood power as though it were a kitchen appliance. You moved into a new house? You bless it. Your daughter has a high fever? Give her a blessing. A cancer patient is about to die? Give him a blessing. Scared about losing your job because the market bubble is poised to burst? Get a blessing.

    But what is the batting average? Do blessed homes catch fire as often as non-blessed homes? Do blessed daughters lose their fevers faster than non-blessed daughters? Does the blessed cancer patient recover while the non-blessed dies? Do fewer Mormons lose their jobs to economic downturns than non-Mormons?

    When Mormons talk about their higher-than-average life expectancy, they talk about the Word of Wisdom and how it makes them healthier. When they talk about the power of God working through mankind, they often refer to Mormon inventors or other men who were inspired by God to establish free nations and invent great things. When Mormon leaders talk about the authority of God given to mankind, they talk about the supreme authority of the First Presidency and the Apostles, and the supremacy of Mormonism among the world's religions. But they say surprisingly little about the effects of priesthood power, especially on any scale that can be observed.

    Mormon priesthood "power" is probably invoked more often than any other decidedly Mormon practice. That is to say, it is more than likely that priesthood blessings are given more frequently than any other religious practice in the church. I doubt that a single minute goes by without a Mormon priesthood blessing being given somewhere in the world. This is probably a gigantic understatement, even when you subtract the blessings being performed in temples or in chapels.

    Yet, if this priesthood "power" was really powerful at all, why do Mormons point to the Word of Wisdom as the reason for their longevity? Why do they point to "inspiration from God" as the motivation for earthly leaders of innovation and change? Why does the cold & flu season inflict Utah as much as any other state? Why does the Utah State Health Inspector even bother inspecting restaurants in Orem or Provo, knowing that most meals eaten there are blessed first, often by priesthood holders? Why do missionaries get sent home for medical reasons? Why does an apostle die of leukemia?

    If priesthood blessings are even remotely effective in removing disease and calamity from our lives and property, then why aren't these effects being noticed by insurance companies or journalists? More importantly, why aren't these effects being noticed by MORMONS?

    One answer that some Mormons offer is that priesthood blessings don't really do anything more effective than provide a sense of comfort, which is supposed to be good enough by itself. But how much comfort does a priesthood blessing really provide? If a blessing really did bring lasting comfort, we might expect to find that fewer women in Utah take anti-depressants than the national average, rather than more. We might expect to see fewer teenage girls in Utah taking "Sandy Candy" than the national average, rather than more.

    If the priesthood power really was effective in any sense other than providing a tradition of outward performances, Mormons would certainly be aware of it. They would publish this evidence, and the world would beat a path to Utah. Some Mormons might say that the church would never publish such information, since it should be taken on faith. But this argument obviously isn't maintained by the First Presidency, who spare no effort in telling us of their efforts to help tsunami victims and give thousands of wheelchairs to cripples everywhere. The church regularly demonstrates that it will use any information about itself to solicit world attention. This is all academic anyway, since the church has nothing to report about the power of priesthood blessings. Otherwise, the report would be: "Priesthood blessings are the reason why faithful Mormons live to age 98 on average; it is why relatively few Mormons suffer heart attacks and strokes; it is why Johns Hopkins Medical School and the Fred Huchinson Cancer ResearchCenter have opened new research facilities in Salt Lake City." Of course, these things are not true. Mormons will always die of the same causes, and at the same age, more or less, as non-Mormons. Any variation from the average can be attributed to the Word of Wisdom, which is testable, and not the priesthood.

    Like anything else in Mormonism, priesthood "power" is only valuable to the degree that it cannot be tested. If a blessing fails to restore health to a child, it is because God has some other purpose, or because the priesthood holder was sinful. Or the oil was rancid. Or any other reason than the possibility that the priesthood "power" is a fantasy. Thus, lack of effect is a sine qua non of the Mormon priesthood power. The desired effect, then, is making you feel good about the priesthood being used, rather than someone being healed, turbulent waters being calmed, or demons being cast out of your house.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Megalomania And Mormon Faith
    Posted Apr 28, 2005, at 12:44 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I believe now - and all my inquiries confirm this - that I often came across as smug, a bully, while discussing religious/existential questions as a member.

    I was totally convinced that I was 100% correct on all of life's most important questions; I was privy to special knowledge; I possessed authority that others didn't have; and my understanding of the gospel, I believed, was far superior to that of other members. After all, I had read all the books, studied all the conference talks, gone to all the institute classes, and obeyed all the rules more strictly than others I knew, hadn't I? And I felt very grateful for all this, humbled even (rather like the Pharisees). I even came, as Ben Franklin once wryly commented about himself, to feel great pride in my humility; but never really noticed any irony there.

    I didn't need to ask people why they might have left the church: I already knew. Their method of reasoning was flawed, or they had longed for the easy life, or Satan had somehow deceived them with his twisting of Mormon history, or they didn't know about the easy-to-understand exonerating research turned out by a crack team of church defenders. The anger some of them betrayed only confirmed the suspicion that they existed in the clutches of Satan himself - they had been delivered over to him for "buffetings". There could be no other explanation for apostate bitterness.

    These people just had not understood that "sometimes prophets make mistakes, too", that "the church is perfect, not the people", that "some things we should just put on the shelf", that "things were different back then", that "none of those things are essential to our salvation", or that "the jury is still out", and dozens of other things. They just didn't understand. But I did. I was very thankful to be me.

    Worse, perhaps those people HAD understood the gospel, but had just decided that "they didn't want it". Just like Judas Iscariot, who killed himself, with his bowels gushing out - a possible Son of Perdition. They had the most precious thing in the world, and threw it away in defiance, for a pittance, a few pieces of silver. Those who left had lifted up their heel against the prophet, tried to "kick against the pricks". Sorrow would be their eternal reward. In a way, I took a kind of satisfaction in that. It was just. After all, they didn't care. They were laughing. What kind of twisted people were they? It is no wonder, I thought, that Moses had had all the calf worshippers slain. There was really something seriously wrong with these people. It was reassuring that justice would exact its demands on them.

    Further, as a member, I knew that essentially the entire world was irredeemably screwed up. Almost everyone was doing tons of things "wrong". The right way, as Dallin Oaks had said, was "the Lord's way". I read his book of the same title a few times just to keep in mind what Dallin Oaks said was "the Lord's way", since obviously, that would be "the Lord's way". It frustrated me that not everyone would submit to the revelations of God himself, through his holy prophets.

    On a number of occasions throughout our life together, my wife ventured to mention something about the gospel that confused her. I would begin by trying to calmly answer her; but when my answer didn't satisfy her (even though there was nothing but the most earnest sense of wanting to understand there), I would often start to lose my patience.

    She was sensitive to this, having grown up with an abusive father. But in the end, it was hard for me to fault myself - she was the one not getting what was so plain. How many scriptures did she need to hear, how many verbatim quotes from Joseph Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and Kimball and Benson did she need to hear from me before she *got it*? How about "pray about it"? I was rattling stuff off like crazy. I was like a walking "GospelLink 2001", for Pete's sake. Why didn't she believe me that THERE WAS NO PROBLEM? I had already explained that the prophet had spoken - there was no problem - and, as McConkie said occasionally, that should end the matter for all faithful Latter-day Saints. If she was confused, it was pretty clear who had the problem - her. What was up with her? We already knew it was true - why cloud the issue with questions and stuff?

    I might have seen myself in a different way, had not Mormon writers and defenders, and even average members, often communicated in similar ways. I didn't really see anything objectionable in that for most of my life as a member - we had every right to say what we said (especially "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost", which was quite often) because WE WERE RIGHT. If people didn't get that, or got offended, that was their problem. After all, the wicked took the truth to be hard, said Nephi. Damn right. Let them be upset then. What was it to me? At least I had told "the truth". Heber and Jedediah and Brigham in the J of D - they didn't suffer fools gladly. Why should I? Even Jesus called people vipers.

    I won't say that all these habits have entirely left me now; but I will say that in those first few moments, sitting here in front of my computer reading Wm. Clayton diary entries, when it all snapped together for me, I felt like I saw for the first time that whole part of myself, and how absolutely wrong it was, and how much I had hurt others around me. I felt like the biggest fool in the world; I couldn't understand how it was that my own abilities of perception, and self-perception, had been so twisted, without me realizing. I wondered what else I was missing, even in that moment. How would I avoid that same trap in the future, if I didn't really realize it then?, I wondered.

    I wrote emails to my friends and relatives, apologizing for having been rude in the past. I then began to hear about comments I had made to them, sometimes a decade earlier, the recollection of which still hurt them. I didn't even remember most of them. But they had lingered on for years. It is no wonder that a number of them had drawn away from me. They never knew when they might get zapped by another "totally justified" comment by me, on how they were living their life, or what they needed to do differently, etc.

    There is no real communication per se in this state; the certainty that we possess superior knowledge and authority makes true "communication" a ridiculous waste of time in most cases, because by definition it means give and take, answer and response and answer again. This is unnecessary, though, when we already KNOW WE ARE RIGHT; what IS necessary is that people "listen to me", accept as truth what I said - and then, the end.

    The idea of a one "truth" which is pretty much "manifest", accessible to all who are "sincere", inaccessible therefore only to the insincere (that is, morally defective) (see Moroni 10:3-5 for one expression of this), has justified many terrible acts, once "the knowers" got any kind of power. In a free country, it might be having the phone hung up on you, or a big brother hurting your feelings - in other countries, whose leaders are similarly immersed in such ideologies, it has very often meant much more. But I think all these actions, from simply bad manners to genocide, stem from the same idea, the idea that the one truth is accessible to all who sincerely seek it - and that "we have it".

    So, I wonder this: maybe truth, especially metaphysical truth, isn't necessarily "manifest" or easily accessible at all, no matter how sincere we are; maybe it is very difficult to find, if one can find it at all; and maybe, even if we did, we - if we were honest - would admit that we couldn't even prove to ourselves that we had. And maybe another seeing something we don't see doesn't mean we or they are stupid or insincere or evil, as difficult as that might be to believe sometimes (don't know if I'm there yet).

    And maybe no party or individual has any authority from any other world at all, only the very earthly authority we might be granted by those who employ us to referee human life. Maybe it is only vanity itself that would ever lead us to doubt any of those things, allowing ourselves to believe what would so flatter us if it were true. I don't think Mormonism did us any favours in this regard.

    If I'm not the only one who this happened to, my question is: how are we supposed to tell now that we aren't jerks, since we didn't catch it before?

    T. Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Is The Church Itself Now Promoting A Form Of Cafeteria Mormonism?
    Posted Apr 26, 2005, at 02:57 PM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    The church does not allow active Mormons to pick and choose which doctrines they can and can’t believe in. however there is evidence that the church itself is being selective in which things its members are exposed to. In effect, doing the selection of doctrines to believe in by promoting certain dogma over other items.

    Case in point:

    This year the church is emphasizing Church History through lesson’s focusing on the Doctrine and Covenants in its Gospel Doctrine classes. However instead of teaching a chronological history of the church, as in years past, the church is teaching the D&C; by emphasizing a particular subject. The Gospel Doctrine teacher then uses verses from through out the D&C; to support that topic.

    This allows the church to avoid the difficult questions that may other wise appear if Church History was taught as it unfolded...thus the church itself is promoting cafeteria Mormonism...picking and choosing which doctrines to emphasize and which doctrines to ignore.

    GBH's assertions that he doesn’t know if we teach that.... when referring to eternal progression of men...

    BKP’s pronouncement that some things that are true are not very useful....



    I could go on and on but you get the point.... Mormonism has become a Cafeteria Religion and it’s coming from the TOP.

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Fallacy Of Erroneously Thinking That Belief Systems Are About Truth/False
    Posted Apr 20, 2005, at 07:52 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Once it is understood that God Myths are not strictly about right/wrong, true/false, they begin to make sense for what they are and what purpose they serve.

    First of all, history shows that they are beliefs, mostly long standing ones that are rooted in the social/cultural mores (fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of the human condition and do not vary that much in their core beliefs, relying heavily on metaphysical, supernatural claims. Secondly, they provide a social, connecting structure for humanity that appeals to the general populace.

    As such, they are immensely powerful emotionally and over ride reason, logic, and factual evidence.

    It is a misconception to conclude that people leave Mormonism, for instance, only because it's claims are false. That alone is an acceptable reason, (as are all reasons), however, in the case of Mormonism, it is very easy to show it's claims are not verifiable and do not hold up to scrutiny.

    Other beliefs, however, such as Christianity in all it's forms are no more verifiable but they do have some still standing places to lend credence to their claims, but that is about it. Tradition, even it dates back to the first century, does not lend credibility to the metaphysical, supernatural claims.

    Any time the idea of metaphysical, supernatural beliefs takes center stage in a group of people, the allure of their power takes on a politically correct base that supercedes anything else.

    Mormonism is a perfect example of an American God Myth (the only one that I can find) that fits all those categories and requirements. It functions as an integral part of an American culture and has produced, what is often proudly claimed as a "peculiar" people, with it's own language, (often called Mormonese) and customs, traditions, attire, music, etc.

    To think or believe or behave outside the God Myth becomes a reason for exclusion, shunning, unacceptance, and withholding of love etc. and even death in some cases.

    Add the notion that some group has the only true belief and all hell breaks loose if it is the reining power and they feel threatened. History shows that God Myths wield a heavy sword upon the dissenters.

    The ideas, self contained in a God Myth are often so cemented in the thinking of a person that there is often no room to even consider anything different.

    The threat, fear, and guilt of thinking outside the culturally prevailing God Myth World View is so horrific, that even to contemplate it produces a word flurry sharp as a sword, of disapproval!

    Humans, throughout history (especially as witnessed here on this board) have been so conditioned and programmed to believe there is something so threatening, evil, sinful, about a non-believer, particularly one who claims to be an atheist, that they can't contain their need to destroy the imagined enemy. The keyboard becomes the gun with bullets firing away at those who dare to leave.

    To leave that safety net of the God Myth and venture out into a world view that honors the human and all it's humanity with no outside controls from authoritative religious figures is often part of leaving Mormonism for many people.

    Interestingly, what most of us have found (from my observation) is that life outside the mental, emotional confines of the Mormon World View is filled with greater life rewards than ever imagined. The promise of Mormonism's happiness falls flat. There is a more to life than it's restrictive view and it is so expansive, that it cannot be exhausted.

    I am glad that I figured out that I had the right to change my mind (ignoring any fear of recrimination), and detach emotionally and mentally from the programmed input while I have the age and maturity and wisdom to take a stab at understanding it!

    Closing the door on Mormonism has been the best thing I ever did. Now, to get that screen door to stay shut and stop that nasty draft from wafting in and annoying me and reminding me of the life I used to live!

    That's my two cents. Your mileage may vary! Especially with the high cost of gasoline these days! :-)

    Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Can You Imagine If Elder's Quorum Was Run Like A Quorum Of The Twelve Meeting
    Posted Mar 17, 2005, at 07:58 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Am I the only one who finds it odd that God’s special representatives on earth are so petty and childish in their rigid insistence on seniority?

    Re-read the comment of Tom Perry from the following link (quoted below):

    http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon352.htm

    Notes from Kuna Idaho Stake Conference

    March 21, 2004

    L. Tom Perry

    "We are certain to follow the order of the Church in our meetings and in all we do. This has been clearly established. For example, I would never think of going through a door before Elder Packer. He is the President of our Council. It is the President of the Council who selects the President of the Church. Is there any other way the Lord controls who he selects as a prophet? If He doesn't want an apostle to preside, He who controls life and death calls him home.

    "Every week the Cummings Chocolate people send us a 3 lb. box of chocolates. In our meeting, we follow our order and President Packer picks first, then I choose, and so on. Poor Elder Eyring has never had a light chocolate yet! Perhaps if he lives long enough!!"

    Didn’t Jesus say he that is greatest among you shall be your servant? Imagine all the Mormon commoners lining up outside their classrooms on Sunday so they could enter the room in order of their seniority. And can you imagine Jesus grabbing for the biggest slice of unleavened bread because he gets to pick first.

    If Packer and co. were Christ-like, and know that Eyring also prefers light chocolate, do you think they might let him pick first for a change, or maybe pick a dark chocolate now and again to let the juniors have what they prefer? It sounds like the epitome of spirituality on earth, God’s special witnesses are just as self-centered as my kids. Good manners only apply to the commoners, I guess.

    Credits: Ulysses Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Letter to BYU prof. Darron Smith re: LBJ's powerful "We Shall Overcome" speech
    Posted Mar 17, 2005, at 07:55 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I heard a speech yesterday on NPR that made me think of your recent interview on NPR where you pleaded with the white members of the church to raise their voices and help out the black members of the church in demanding change, since the blacks have done what they can and they were tired.

    Yesterday I turned on the radio just in time to hear these powerful words that were spoken when I was two years old, which I'd never heard until yesterday, 40 years later...

    "It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

    And we shall overcome."

    Lyndon Baines Johnson: "We Shall Overcome" Address to Congress, 15 March 1965

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbjweshallovercome.htm

    40 years ago today Martin Luther King sat in a room in Selma, Alabama where he was speaking at the memorial service of a slain civil rights activist, with tears rolling down his cheeks after hearing an President Johnson utter the powerful words of the civil rights movement that would lead to the landmark civil rights legislation, ending the shameful denial of the right to vote for blacks.

    Amazingly, I was two years old when blacks finally earned the right to vote in America. 100 years after Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address, proclaiming "our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

    It would take another 13 years after those words were spoken, before the Mormon church would end the disgraceful 120 year ban restricting blacks from recieving the "full blessings" of Mormon life, its highest privilage, entry into their temples and recieving the priesthood. Although the practice of overt racial discrimination against blacks ended in the Mormon church in 1978 with the lifting of the ban on blacks recieving the priesthood, the racist idiology behind the ban has yet to be overcome. 40 years later it still stands since it has never been renounced.

    It is still privately taught to the next generation of Mormons behind closed doors. There is still a common belief amongst Mormons that blacks are inferior to whites because those who were supposed to represent God have said so in no uncertain terms and nobody with any authority in the Mormon church has had the courage to say they were wrong. The conspicuous absence of that admission implies that the current leaders of the church still believe those same racist myths since they have done nothing to debunk them. And allow them to continue to be taught without comment. That is a sin of ommission.

    It has been 40 years since those powerful words were spoken, yet "the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice" spoken of by Lyndon B. Johnson, is still a large elephant sitting in the corner, ignored by the Mormon church.

    This was most recently illustrated by the comments of Gordon B. Hinckley when asked by Mike Wallace on CBS's 60 minutes, "Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

    Gordon B. Hinckley: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history. "

    The fact that the leader of the church dismisses 120 years of history of institutionalized discrimination against blacks as a "fleck of history" illustrates the depth of the inability of the leadership of the church to examine and deal appropriately with its significant history of racism. Simply claiming that it is "behind us" before opening any kind of discourse or acknowledging the issue, does not put the issue "behind us."

    It is what LBJ called a "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice" and cannot be overcome in Mormonism until the leadership of the Mormon church renounces its racist myths and folklore, which are deeply rooted in the Mormon racial attitudes. That attitude continues to be passed down from generation to generation as it has over the entire history of the church. Those false racist doctrines are still being taught to this day. The racist mormon oral traditions are alive and well, depite the public denials of its leaders and inflated claims of success amongst African converts.

    While my 16 year old son was in LDS early morning seminary they were discussing Brigham Young. He brought up some of the outlandish things the prophet Brigham Young had said about race, like "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

    His teacher's response was, "I hate to say this, but that's true."

    She went on to explain why she thought this statement was true based on the false racist doctrine that blacks were cursed with dark skin because they were descendants of Cain.

    I was shocked!

    Here it was the 21st Century and my child was still being indoctrinated with a 19th century, false, racist myth, used to justify slavery, that totally contradicted the main commandment of Jesus Christ to "love our fellow men as ourselves."

    I asked him if there were black people in the room.

    He said, "No! Thank God!"

    I told him that it really should not matter wether we are black or white, it is an outrage that these racist myths are being perpetuated through indoctrination of the next generation of youth.

    I could not complain to my priesthood leader, since my bishop was her husband and I had to assume that he believed the same things, despite the fact that both of them were highly intelligent, respected and well educated people.

    Two years earlier I had been teaching a very bright class of 17 & 18 year old Mormon youth. One of them, a 17 year old, named Craig, was home on break from studying Nanotechnology, in German, at MIT's sister school in Achen Germany. Three other students had recieved full ride accademic scholarships to BYU. We were discussing the old testament and Craig asked me a question that caught me off guard, "How did the curse of cain survive the flood?"

    I could tell that this genius student had his doubts about the reality of this racist myth or he wouldn't be questioning it.

    I looked around the room to see if anyone else was as suprised by that question as I was. Nobody appeared to be as suprised as I me. Nobody registered any expression of disbelief. They all sat there doe eyed waiting to see how I would faithfully answer that question.

    I told him I had a better question, "How did the curse of cain survive the attonement since we believed that Jesus atoned for the sins of all mankind, including Cain?"

    He admitted he didn't know how that would be possible.

    I told him I would have to research that question and I would get back to him. I never got back to him because my research led me to conclude that the whole curse of cain doctrine was really just a racist myth used to maintain the "crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice."

    The bible never says that the curse of cain is black skin. It simply says that Cain and his descendants were cursed with an indescript "mark" so that they would be distinguishable from the other descendants of Adam and would not mix with them. The bible never says that the curse survived the flood and logically it couldn't have since it was a sin for the descendants of Abel to intermarry with the descendants of Cain and we all know what happened to the sinners (and their innocent babies).

    However, contrary to logic, Mormon scripture provides a convenient way for the curse of Cain to survive the flood through Noah's son Ham, who had married Egyptus according to the Book of Moses.

    Unfortunately there is no denying the fact that Mormon scriptures clearly state that the Curse of Cain is black skin.

    Moses 7: 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

    Moses 7: 22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

    Not only does the Book of Moses clearly state that God created black people as a curse for the sins of their fathers, but 120 years worth of church leaders have clearly articulated and elaborated upon that doctrine to the point where denying it is indefensible and undeniable.

    Mormon racism is not limited to blacks. It also applies the same "divine principle" of god cursing whole races of people with dark skin for the inniquity of their forefathers to Native Americans or as the Book of Mormon refers to them, "Lamanites", which the Book of Mormon maintains are the "principle ancestors of the American Indian".

    2 Ne. 5: 21 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, that 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.

    My children are partially Native American. Seeing them hold their fingers up on the backs of their heads while singing "Book of Mormon Stories" I came to the shocking realization that they were still being indoctrinated with negative racist myths about their own race.

    pg 118 in the Children's Songbook

    "Book of Mormon stories that my teacher tells to me Are about the Lamanites in ancient history. Long ago their fathers came from far across the sea, Giv'n the land if they lived righteously.

    Lamanites met others who were seeking liberty, And the land soon welcomed all who wanted to be free. Book of Mormon stories say that we must brothers be, Giv'n the land if we live righteously."

    Any Mormon who claims that Mormons do not believe that Native Americans are the same race of people cursed with dark skin in the book of Mormon must not have been paying attention in primary, but I was.

    I found this and many other racist teachings in the church intollerable in this day and age, not only because they contradict the basic commandments of Jesus Christ to love our fellow men as ourselves, but they have been proven false by advances in modern science. According to the most conclusive genetic studies that have been done, 99.9% of Native American DNA has been proven to be from Asiatic descent. The other .1% is conclusively non-semetic. Scientists have proven, using the same techniques used to send men to death row, that Native Americans are not descended from so-called Lamanites.

    So why teach my children that they are descended from a cursed race of people?

    I decided I had to tell my children the truth. It's a racist myth, don't believe it, don't teach it, don't support it.

    But by my continued participation in the Mormon church at any level implied my compliance with those doctrines I found unconscionable. That was something I lived with for many years, but I could not live with propogating those racist myths by subjecting my children to the systematic racist indoctrination they were recieving in the church. I could not in good conscience allow my children to be crippled by that "legacy of bigotry and injustice."

    I gave up trying to debunk racist myths in the church when I realized that I would be disciplined for speaking out against racist false doctrines in the church.

    People I knew in the church who spoke out and tried to debunk racist myths were threatened with excommunication if they would not agree to remain silent.

    I had nowhere to turn.

    My bishop's wife was the one who told my son that Brigham Young was right when he said that the punishment for interracial marriage was death on the spot. My Stake President told an African American friend of mine who raised concerns about current climate of racism in the church, "Do not expect an appology for past racism because it was based on divine revelation." When he raised the same concerns with the mission president he was told, "We don't know why God did not allow blacks to receive the priesthood prior to 1978 and it is not important to our salvation."

    Most members of the church are sadly satisfied with that explanation. I was deeply troubled that my priesthood leaders still maintained that racism was somehow sponsored by God.

    The God I love is not a racist bigot.

    I would not raise my children to worship that God.

    Since I had nowhere to turn except to my priesthood leaders, who still supported these these racist beliefs and thought there was no racial issues to deal with in the church I had no other option but to remove my implicit consent by resigning.

    I can no longer support an institution that maintains 19th Century racist myths as "divine revelation" that still apply today, completely disregarding the whole point of atonement and christ's entire purpose for coming to earth, not to mention his commandments.

    I refuse to have my children taught these racist myths. My children are beautiful and innocent. I will protect them from the "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice" still institutionalized in the Mormon church.

    The only way I can contribute to the struggle to overcome that cripling legacy is to tell my children the truth and to teach them that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on their race and the most important thing we can do is to love one another as ourselves. That should be our standard for measuring the correctness of any religious principle. Is it just? Is it loving? Is it consistent with the commandmetns of Jesus Christ and basic human dignity? If not, then it is wrong.

    Obviously racism is wrong, but it is still alive and well in the Mormon church, which is why my family will no longer contribute to that "cripling legacy of bigotry and injustice."

    I will spend years trying to undo the indoctrination they have recieved in the Mormon church, but I see it as my moral obligation to debunk those myths, at least in my circle of influence, which is mainly my children.

    "....it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.

    And we shall overcome." LBJ

    Teach the children the truth.

    Credits: MoNoMo Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Mormon God Requires A Whole Lot Of Sinning
    Posted Mar 17, 2005, at 07:48 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Unfortunately, most mormon sinning isn't the fun kind.

    Lying for the Lord is a requirment. Most mormons are good at that one.

    Anther required mormon sin is worshipping idols, meaning temples. Then there's avarice and coveting, clear when mormons brag about their paltry worldly goods and seek to outdo their neighbors. There's bearing false witness when they gossip in the RS room or hold courts of love in the priiesthood bastions.

    Mormons are required to bother, trespass on, and harass their inactive neighbors because they secretly sense that no one would want to participate willingly in a church like theirs. No, encouraging compliance requires bullying, rudeness, and spiriting cheap bribes of parishable food items onto stranger's doorsteps.

    All in all, I think the church helps only the weakest, most immature adults to lead better lives. That's those who don't have the sense to come in out of the rain. More often than not, the mormon influence encourages insensitivity and out and out cruel behavior.

    Credits: Cheryl Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Most Important Week In Christendom Ignored By Mormons
    Posted Mar 17, 2005, at 07:46 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    Next week is the most important week in Christendom -- the week in which almost all of the Christians in the world remember the week of the passion of Jesus Christ. Perhaps Mormons will remember it in sacrament meeting on Easter Sunday assuming they don't have a conference that gets in the way. Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday and Good Friday will go by virtually unnoticed by those good Christian Mormons. Wait until the week before Christmas next year when the Mormons will be remembering the 200th birthday of Joseph Smith. Mormons can be thankful that Christmas is on Sunday this year after Smith's birthday so they will at least get to remember Christmas.

    As a Mormon did you ever feel cheated the week before Easter?

    Credits: Anon Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    Why Gladys Knight Is Great For The Church
    Posted Mar 16, 2005, at 07:40 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    While I was out of town I saw Gladys Knight on TV talking about her new album, "One Voice", done with a Mormon choir.

    Anyway, I think Gladys Knight is great for the church. As I said in another post, it will be wonderful for all the crackers in church to finally learn how to clap on the two and four, rather than on the one and three like most white people do.

    Also, Gladys says that GBH's given her the go ahead to liven up church sacrament meetings. Since there are millions of people like Gladys who, for various reasons, will never figure out that Joseph didn't tell the truth about his experiences, it can only be a good thing that sacrament meetings move from being generally boring endurance tests to something that might really be a memorable weekly experience - maybe even resemble something like an actual "worship" service, that includes frequent references to people like, say, Jesus. Maybe - even become enjoyable.

    This might hasten the GBH-directed slide toward normalcy, which of course, would be equivalent to the obliteration of the church as we know it, but who cares? Since it isn't what it claims, just like the others as far as I can see, anything that helps it serve better the humans unaware it's a fraud is probably a good thing. As it exists right now, it's probably THE blandest, most torturous general "worship service" in all Christendom. Why not spark it up with some "Midnight Train to Kolob"?

    Maybe then, by the time Gladys finishes her world "LDS Negrification" tour (can you see the Sandy 168th ward getting down?), Monson will have introduced sacrament meeting puppet shows to kind of go along with the swell stories he'll probably insist everyone start telling ("We hereby ask that members refrain from using or referring to the scriptures in sacrament meeting, and instead concentrate on humourous anecdotes about little kids with lost dollies, sick frogs, and yummy peppermint sticks").

    Any other ideas for livening up LDS sacrament meetings?

    Credits: Tal Bachman Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    God = Compound W Without The Bad Smell: An Important Message To Lds Youth
    Posted Mar 15, 2005, at 08:03 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I just skimmed the April New Era (church magazine for teens) to see what message they are sending the teens this month. The only interesting thing I found was a "testimony story" of a girl who prayed and fasted for 2 weeks for her warts to go away. And God shrank all the warts on her hands until they were gone! Hallelujah.

    Does it ever occur to any of these people... How come God doesn't heal burn victims? Or heal kids with cancer who beg and pray to be healed? Why doesn't he heal babies with spina bifida, or people in wheelchairs? But he heals a kid's warts.

    I am just glad this TRASH goes in the TRASH where it belongs instead of into my children's hands!!!

    Credits: kc Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    The Mormon God Is Up To His Old Tricks Again
    Posted Mar 15, 2005, at 07:48 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    There was a big car crash a couple days ago, so my surgery scheduled today was postponed until at least tomorrow and it may be two weeks before I can have the operation. When I told my wife about this, she said that maybe God doesn't want to me to come home. I've been really good about holding my tongue of late but this one got me going. I politely said that I don't think that God caused the accident of an innocent (if probably nevermo) couple, shattering legs and pelvises, just to keep me in Korea. My wife, who actually works in the medical field and is fully aware of the random cruelty of everyday living, responded with something ethereal about God arranging certain details to effect his purposes. In other words, he's breaking people's bones to keep me in Korea.

    I hope I never believed that crap when I was TBM, but I probably did...

    Credits: NMUGrad Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Know The Church Is True
    Posted Mar 11, 2005, at 08:02 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I was a BIC Mormon for decades. From early childhood until my apostasy, I endured hearing to the end, "I know the Church is true". This refrain was so commonplace that it became boring and lost meaning. I grew up "knowing", because my parents loved me, I loved them, and they said the Church was true. I had no reason to think otherwise. If the church were true, and all Mormons knew it, then why was it necessary to repeat the obvious so often? Was there a problem?

    At the Language Training Mission (now MTC), missionaries, including myself, were admonished to testify, "I know the Church is true", even if all we had was belief. "I believe..." was not good enough. Perhaps the pretense of "knowing" is more persuasive than just honestly believing.

    Of what do millions of "knowing" Mormons bear witness each month? Do the words of Moroni (Moroni 10:3-5) and Jesus Christ (D&C; 9:8,9) really work? Furthermore, what is meant by another refrain, "I know that President Gordon B. Hinkley is a true prophet of God"? Just how many divine, new prophecies does President Hinkley announce anyway? If the answer is zero, then what makes him a true prophet of God?

    My "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary" offers twenty-five definitions for the word "true". I like the archaic version, meaning "truthful". With a little revision, our refrains become, "I know the Church is a truthful church" and "I know that President Gordon B. Hinkley is a truthful prophet of God".

    I hereby offer another refrain, ready for adoption into the true church (inspired by myself), "I know God is truthful". God must be truthful, or He could not be real. Would a truthful god, (God), direct any church whose prophets were less than truthful? Additionally, if God knows all, even before all happens, then His published prophecies must happen without prior- or post-event emendation.

    God, according to the current Mormon version has a resurrected, physical, Celestial body of flesh and bone. God is not Jesus Christ and never was. God was a man, like some men today, and some men may become gods like Him. Through His literal, begotten son, Jesus Christ, God directs the L.D.S. Church, and none other, through latter-day prophets. According to Mormon doctrine, God's revelations to mankind, through true, ancient and latter-day prophets, are what we must believe, know and live if we want to become gods ourselves, well...almost.

    Now comes the hard part, knowing the truth. Starting with President Ezra Taft Benson, and perhaps earlier, we have been told to follow the teachings of the living prophet, as if certain divine revelations proclaimed by expired prophets were outdated, perhaps embarassing.

    The abundance of emended, unfulfilled, erstwhile faith-promoting Mormon prophesy is plethoric. Does God issue imperfect scripture with expiration dates? Does true scripture become invalid when God discovers that He got it wrong in the first place? In my mind, God must be perfect and all-knowing; He would not "bless" us with false revelations, nor require that we believe lies.

    A FEW MORMON "TRUTHS"

    * David and Solomon had many wives and concubines which was both abominable to and justified by God. In fact God Himself gave to David his women, except in the case of Uriah....(Compare Jacob 2:24 with D&C; 132:1,39)

    * "The only men who become gods, even Sons of God, are those who enter into Polygamy" ("Journal of Disc..." Vol. 11, Page 269). However, plural marriage (polygamy) is not essential to salvation or exaltation. (See "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConkie, former Mormon Apostle)

    * "True does not mean "truthful". For instance, President Gordon B. Hinkley told Time magazine, in August 1997, that he did not know if God was once a man like men today. Nor did he know if this teaching was emphasized. He said he did not know much about it. At the ensuing L.D.S. General Conference, obviously in reference to this interview, President Hinkley said he thought he understood this doctrine thoroughly.

    By example, we learn that "truth" need not be truthful. At times, the "truth" is a lie, but still true, if spoken by a true (truthful) prophet of God.

    * "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE IS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO...." (Brigham Young, former Mormon Prophet--See "Journal Discourses", Vol. 1, Pages 50, 51)

    From this we "learn that Adam is God; that God entered the Garden of Eden as a resurrected god; and that God was a polygamist. Is this Mormon "truth" still true?

    * "There is not one historical instance of so-called blood atonement in this dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught." (Bruce R. McConkie, former Mormon Apostle from his book, "Mormon Doctrine")

    "And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cain (a black woman) the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground" (Brigham Young, former Mormon Prophet as quoted from the journal of Wilford Woodruff, 1833-1898, Vol. 4)

    Perhaps Elder McConkie missed this quote.

    * "When all the other children of Adam have had the privelege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters or the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity (black people)"...("Journal of Discourses, Vol, 2, Page 143)

    EMENDATION:

    "All worhy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color..." (First Presidency, 1978)

    Are any newborns today the offspring of "gentile", white people who know nothing about Mormonism? Has anyone recently encountered any resurrected white people?

    * The "Book of Abraham" was translated from ancient Egyptian papyri, by Joseph Smith Jr., by the gift and power of God, which originally was authored by Abraham, by his own hand. Was it really?

    The papyri found have been a nuisance to the Church and non-Mormon Egyptologists a long time. Acceptance of interpretations from non-Mormon Egyptologists, who claim that the papyri have nothing to do with Abraham or his religion, fosters apostasy. This stuff is XXX-Mormon rated. Don't look!

    Just what would happen if non-Mormon Egyptologists agreed with Joseph Smith's "interpretation"? Would the BofA become another "keystone" of Mormonism? But of course,... it already is.

    The BofA must still be "true" because "the Church is true (truthful)", and the "true" (truthful) prophet has not yet declared this Mormon scripture to be of dubious origin. We must believe (know), read the Book of Mormon and pray harder.

    * "But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose." (D&C; 49:24)

    If molecular geneologies prove, with other sciences, that American Indians descend from northern Asia, then where are the blossoming Lamanites? The living prophet is still saying that the American Indians descend from Lehi, an ancient Isrealite. This must be"true". Because the prophet is truthful, he would tell us if the Book of Mormon were false.

    * We must keep the faith that faith-promoting evidences (more "parallels") will be revealed by F.A.R.M.S., even though some of these incipient "truths" may disagree with what is "true" today. Remember, Mormon truth need not be true. After our faith (credulity) is thoroughly tested (tortured) we will no longer need truth. We will "know".

    For fifty-six well-documented Mormon "truths", read "False Prophecies of Joseph Smith", by Richard Baer, available for sale at www.utlm.org. No, I do not profit from this publication or from anything else published by the so-called "antis". Speaking about profits, how would these titles be for a new book -- "True Profits of the L.D.S. Church", and "A Prophet's Profit"?

    OBSERVATIONS AND A FEW ANTI-MORMON "LIES"

    * The true God must be truthful.

    * The true church must be truthful.

    * The true church, claimed by God as His own, must be truthful, or it cannot be the church of Jesus Christ.

    * Numerous are the divine claims made by the L.D.S. Church and its prophets, both past and present, that are mortally wounded.

    * The only true church had better be truthful because God is honest; He is truthful.

    In the future, when someone, except my mother, tells me, "I know the Church is true", I will have more questions. Betcha he/she will get a "burning in his/her bosom" and say again, "I Know the Church is true!".

    Credits: Michael Pace Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    You Must Have Never Truly Had A Testimony
    Posted Mar 5, 2005, at 09:41 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I've been told this a few times by TBMs that I've dealt with. This is one of the things that pushes my buttons the most.

    If I never truly had a testimony, then I put myself through Hell on Earth for years for NOTHING. It's unfortunate that TBMs can't realize how denigrating this statement is.

    What are some of your favorite things TBMs have said to be able to reconcile how you could possibly have left The One True Church©?

    -

    I know it's supposed to be some way to dismiss a disbeliever, but think about it a second. If you never really had a witness to the truthfulness of the Mormon gospel, even though you gave it the best you had, then what are you supposed to do? Go on pretending? Well, yeah, that would make them happy, wouldn't it, even though it's dishonest. Because then they wouldn't have to deal with the possibility you're right.

    Imagine bishops opening every F&T; meeting with, "Look, if you don't really believe, if the Spirit hasn't witnessed to you, it's wrong to pretend otherwise. This church works for some people but not others. It's best if we stop wasting each other's time." That would go over big with the brethren.

    -

    You have felt felt the Spirit testify the truth to you. You know that you have. You still have a testimony. It's in there somewhere, deep down, under layers of sin/pride/intellectualism/hedonism... Feed the mustard seed. Let it free. You know the church is true! You know!

    -

    They know better than me what I think and feel and why! I think this is the legacy of black and white thinking. If the morg is 100% right then anything else is wrong if it isn't the same (logical enough).

    I hate being stereotyped by those who have no idea what I am like.

    The sacrifices we make for REAL truth (or at least rejecting the lies).

    Credits: Jennyfoo, Stray Mutt, NMUGrad, Ausgaz Click Here For Original Thread...
     
    Click here for all articles published under this topic.
    ORIGINAL AUTHOR: n/a ARCHIVED BY: Infymus
    I Was Told Not To Tell Anybody About My Doubts
    Posted Mar 3, 2005, at 09:35 AM [MST].
    FILED UNDER: EX-MORMONISM

    TOP
    I was just reading Southerton's essay on the main page and I was surprised that he too was told not to share his doubts or troubles with others relating to the church. When I was almost at my breaking point, I went to a prominant historian (CES institute director, author, writes for FAIR and FARMS etc). He essentially told me some things that upset me once I got home and looked into his explanations. Anyway, he asked me if I have shared these things with my wife. I told him I hadn't (I lied) and he said, "Good. It wouldn't be helpfult to speak to others about these doubts. It would only cause confusion in their lives."

    THE QUESTION:

    Has anyone else been told not to speak to others about their legitimate questions about the church?

    Credits: Code7 Click Here For Original Thread...
     
     



    CURRENT BLOGS:

  • Reference Books Are Your Friends. Why Are Mormons So Fond Of Their Misinterpretation Of The Phrase "A Peculiar People?"

  • Post Cult Fear Of Retribution

  • Has There Been A Real Declared Reason For Reading The Book Of Mormon By The End Of This Year?

  • You Can't Give A Gift Without A Hidden Message

  • There Is One, And Only One Simple Problem With Mormonism

  • Read The Santa Barbara New-Press "Showing Devotion" "Mormon Church Successfully Attracting New Members"??? Read On.

  • Tyson's Reply To The Santa Barbar New-Press "Mormon Church Successfully Attracting New Members"

  • Love Buckets And The Loss Of Self

  • Learning To Think Is A Lot Of Work

  • You Guys Are All Just Bitter

  • To Runtu And Others Struggling With Loss Of "Community"....

  • A Testimony Isn't Knowledge (and They Know It)

  • A Visit With A Prominent Mormon Historian

  • Why Do TBM Friends And Loved Ones Think We Did Something Hurtful And Offensive To Them When We Left Mormonism?

  • My Pathway To Enlightenment

  • Gems From My BYU Bishops And Religion Teachers

  • Joseph Fielding Smith, Evolution, The Lds Church And Mormon Fundamentalism

  • Sly Ways Mormons Express Hostility

  • Where Does The Normativity Come From?

  • C. S. Lewis Makes Me Realize How Low Impact Mormons Are

  • 10 Years Of Recovery From Mormonism

  • The Problems With Living In A Black And White World

  • Are We Victims?

  • Quotes Regarding Anti-Mormon Literature

  • Joe Smith's Temple Hocus-Pocus Is About The Level Of Tom Sawyer

  • The Parable Of Joseph: Terry Eagleton At BYU

  • "You Bet Your Life!! " Giving Up NOW For An Unproven Future State

  • Trusting The Whisperings Of The Spirit

  • The Ignorance And Mis-Information Strategies

  • The Family Oriented Church Took My Family Away From Me

  • Professor Puts Down Hierarchical Businesses In BYU Alumni Magazine; I Smell An Exmo-To-Be

  • John Lynch And Feelings That Lead To Deconversion

  • My Adventures During The Ex-Mo Conference

  • Intellectualism Oxymoron

  • The Hall Of The Prophets

  • We've Been Had

  • 45 Points Of A False Religion To Confront The 17 Points Of The True Religion

  • Former Mormons With "Part Member" Families - Does Your Family Consider You "Unworthy"

  • Mormon Capacity For Denial Is Astounding In Hindsight

  • Old Policy Made New On Facial Hair, From The Prophet?

  • I Guess Church Membership Is More Important Than Family Relationships

  • Let The Holy Spirit Guide - How Mormonism Gives Lip Service To Personal Responsibility While Undermining It At The Same Time

  • Miscellaneous Facts That Even The Mormon Church Admit Are True

  • The Old Saying "But He Said That When He Was Not The Prophet"

  • The Church Always Starts With The Answer, Then Works Backwards

  • Object Lesson In The Porter Home Tonight: Sharing Coffe With My Young Kids

  • In The Mormon Face Card Game - The Living Prophet Always "Trumps" The Dead One

  • On My Way To A Better Understanding

  • Satan's Got Me Now!

  • Spiritually, The Mormon Church Is Asleep At The Wheel

  • Mormons Wanting Everything Both Ways

  • Today In The World We See A Movement Pushing God Out Of Our Schools

  • Mormon History 101: As A Mormon Did You Know This Is How The "Nephite Record" And "Urim And Thummin" Were Recorded In The Mormon Church History Books?

  • Mormonism - Reflections From A European Trip

  • I Was Found To Be In Apostasy Today - Regarding Alcohol Served In Mormon Owned Malls

  • The Continual Battle To Take Your Power Back From Mormonism's Grasp

  • Tales From The Church Office Building

  • Mormon History - King Strang

  • Why I'm A Wannabe Exmo-Activist-- These People Need To Be Stopped!

  • A Nice Chance Meeting With Will Bagley

  • On "Leave The Church, But Can't Leave It Alone"

  • Love That Church News, Proves Church Is True Every Week

  • More Proof How Insane TBM's Are

  • So How Do Mormon Bishops Cure Addiction To Porn?

  • Nine More Reasons Why I Am Glad I Am Not A Mormon

  • All Or Nothing Statements

  • I Know The Church Is True. I Know Joseph Smith Was A Prophet.

  • "Mormonism" = Living in "Bizarre-O-World"

  • Here's Why "Exmormons Who Were Born In The Church Are More Likely To Become Atheists..."

  • I Drove My TBM Parents Through Clearwater, Florida Yesterday

  • On Behalf Of Converts: THEY LIE

  • Get Out Now - While You Still Can

  • Top Ten Most Offensive Statements By Mormon Leaders

  • Terror And Horror!! The Tbm Fear Of Satan

  • Great quote from Arthur C. Clark

  • The Cost of Being Mormon

  • Church Warning: Apostates Wither And Die

  • Sorry, But TBM Wives Are Fools To Break Up Marriages If DH Leaves The Morg

  • Double Bind: Liberty Only Through Obedience

  • Mormons Who Think You Hate Them If You Don't Respect Their Weird Church Beliefs

  • A trip to "Paradise" ~Mormon style~

  • Priesthood Power is a Sham, and Mormons Know It

  • Megalomania And Mormon Faith

  • Is The Church Itself Now Promoting A Form Of Cafeteria Mormonism?

  • The Fallacy Of Erroneously Thinking That Belief Systems Are About Truth/False

  • Can You Imagine If Elder's Quorum Was Run Like A Quorum Of The Twelve Meeting

  • Letter to BYU prof. Darron Smith re: LBJ's powerful "We Shall Overcome" speech

  • The Mormon God Requires A Whole Lot Of Sinning

  • The Most Important Week In Christendom Ignored By Mormons

  • Why Gladys Knight Is Great For The Church

  • God = Compound W Without The Bad Smell: An Important Message To Lds Youth

  • The Mormon God Is Up To His Old Tricks Again

  • I Know The Church Is True

  • You Must Have Never Truly Had A Testimony

  • I Was Told Not To Tell Anybody About My Doubts





  • ARCHIVED NEWS
    Contains All Old Mormon Curtain News Articles



     META:


    [Valid RSS]

    RSS 2.0 Feed

    ATOM 0.3 Feed



    BOOKS TO READ!
    Click A Book
    For Info!


    No Man Knows
    My History


    Under The
    Banner
    Of Heaven


    Insider's
    View of
    Mormon
    Origins


    Becoming Gods


    God's Brothel


    Leaving
    The
    Saints


    Spirited
    Yearling
    Wounded


    Losing A
    Lost Tribe



    The Rise
    Of Mormonism:
    1816-1844



    Wives And
    Sisters



    Out Of The
    Shadows



    BUY!






    The Book Of
    Cheese Plate







    The MormonCurtain.COM
    The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily
    reflect the positions of Infymus (aka Michael S. Hoenie) or FASTERPING.
    Articles posted here are copyrighted (c) by their respective owners.

    Hosted by FASTERPING
    Compiled by Caligra 1.09 | 15 Dec 2005