Mormons, Free Speech and Right Speech

WAPO, Please do not Delete This again or Ye Will Have a Bad Bad Month & Summer. Ye will get all kinds of 'Denial Of Services", so Be !st Amendment Conscious not Jealous! Thank-O-SHAME!

---

B R E A K i N G , N E W S!

MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 5 minutes ago

LITTLE SIOUX, Iowa - A tornado struck a Boy Scout camp in western Iowa on Wednesday, leaving four
Scouts dead and dozens of people injured, a Scouts spokeswoman said.

As a "SCOUT" me self: "i" & "WE" "ECLAT-i_ON"'S, Salute O.U.R. Brethrens & Sister Scouts Whom
Perished While Under Duty & or Training!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May XTRA-PHOTON'S Shine Next To ALL OUR BOYS & GALS, Iraq & Afghanistan & Elswhere Too!
WE "SALUTE" Eternaly & Immortaly Ye YO ALL!!!
Praise The Hol{i}No-Man!

1st Posted around JUNE.11.08; 11:23PM

I share in your appreciation, Kathleen, that burning at the stake has become "out of fashion."

It is imperative for the unity of any organization to have open and honest communication. Members can work towards a common vision with the goal in mind to improve and progress.

The LDS church is very similar to many organizations, who encourage; discussions, free flows of the "right ideas," and personal expression. However, when municipal, religious, business or education leaders publicly express dissatisfaction, contradictory opinions or other displeasure with their own company or group, they aren't continuously given the liberty to be part of the group.

This last paragraph was quite wordy, but it's in no way surprising that the LDS Church, Education Systems, Governments, or Businesses kick people out for saying, "we're wrong."

I applaud Kathleen with her column in recognizing; "It is where persons are not free to leave and where religious bodies have access to the coercive powers and punishments of the state that “free speech” (and much more) is at stake."

I hope that the Afganis recognize the success and prosperity that our freedoms in the United States provide us.

You have to try really hard to get excommunicated for apostasy in the Church. You have to want it bad. As grounds for apostasy, we are not talking about false doctrine taught in ignorance, that can be discretely and kindly corrected. What we are talking about people who know darn well what they are teaching, and having been corrected or warned, they persist in their teaching to the church. There is no other option for these people. Things rarely get to that point, though, and we would rather it wouldn't get that far anyway.

Any private club, church, team, business, or organized group has a right to exclude whomever it likes (though some instances, there is an exception for race or gender discrimination).

The Mormons correctly exclude those members that attack their belief system, just as a soccer team should exclude team members that try to score points for the other team.

Kathleen:

It might be useful to point out that LDS scripture specifically limits what action it believes any church (including the LDS Church itself) should be allowed to take with regards to 'wrong ideas':

"We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." (D&C 134:10)

..bruce..

Tom Lantos was in St Francisco and His Wife was in Church of LAtter-DAy Saints.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/donna_freitas/2008/02/secularismtalk_only_meaningful/all_comments.html

http ://beam. to/leventalkan

http :// www.classicsnetwork. com/showcreativeprint.asp? IDNo=1344

If I no longer hold to the mission and goals of The Banc of America, is it reasonable to expect the organization embrace, promote and support my employment?

The Mormons,like the Elks, IBM or The Royal Order of Woodchucks can set their membership requirements and there is no constitutional right crowded.

The Constitution protects the right of expression, but it does not shield one from the consequences of their expression: be it exclusion or litigation.

I have read a number of your articles and observed some of your PBS interviews.

It appears to me that your personal prism is clouded. I could care what the mormons do or what you say about them, nevertheless observe your motives seem less about protecting the constitution or providing insight and more about a personal agenda. With just a little research I note your undergraduate degree and JD.

If you were a disaffected graduate from Notre Dame, I suspect you would have found fault with Rome for similar actions.

As a retired journalist myself, I feel strongly that misusing the bully pulpit our profession provides for personal purposes is the most obvious indications of professional rot. The worst thing someone can say about a writer or professor is that they cannot be believed. You still have a bit of career ahead of you. I hope you will review and find value in my observations.

I must confess that i fail to understand why you would use the Mormons as a comparison to fanatical Islam when you yourself point out the very important difference. It strikes me that your better comparison would probably have been northern Ireland and the catholic/protestant debate.

It just seems that portraying one church in that light without a real purpose is the equivalent of just trying to muddy the water for them. Not really useful or relevant.

Voice of Reason,
What you said last is very touching. But I am sorry I cannot encourage you in the direction you are going. God and spirituality are not the problems at all, but organized religion seems to be. Keep trying though, keep searching. Sometimes we need an island to land on so we can catch our breath -- and then swim to the next. Remember, you do or you don't, there is no try. The moment you condemn someone else who is truly on the path of life (oh, you know this important thing in other lives do you?), you die a little death that you never gain back. The choice is to harm or not harm.

And to Gaby,
But I didn't say religion, did I? Nor did I say Abrahamic god or LDS god or whatever god you want.

I think you missed the point. I posit the answer would be nothing, because there is no god in charge, no influence, no credit for the good but what we make.

Faith and belief don't matter if God is nonexistent. Religion too. Voice of Reason doesn't understand that delusions can and surely do feel good, can and do cause people to raise to noble heights. He/she believes because he/she wants to beleive something that makes him/her feel good, or better, which is OK in my book as long as he/she doesn't beat anyone over the head with his/her delusions. But it never ends there - so far anyway.

If God is nonexistent, then what is claimed in God’s name is taken away from us if it is good, or falls on our heads alone if not good. Our power to do good is lessened, trivialized, abrogated. If our power to do wrong is forgiven, then why should we claim that responsibility seriously here and now? When do we really grow up and just do good and be happy for our own sake?

PARKER:

We're not in total disagreement. I have been studying the Bible for more than thirty years, read every version, and read it cover to cover innumerable times, but I don't think that necessarily leads to understanding. It is, of course, possible to be ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. The countless doctrines and dogmas attest to that fact.

Although many mysteries of the Bible have been revealed to me, most of the Bible is a complete mystery to me. Take for instance Ezekiel, who takes great pains to explain in great detail the vision he saw. I can't wrap my head around it and see clearly what he saw.

I don't worry too much about a lack of understanding about much of the Bible. When Daniel took prophetic dictation from an angel, he was so confused that he became physically ill. The angel simply told him to seal up the book, that it was not for him or his time.

I concentrate primarily on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jesus himself. When one sees Jesus, one beholds the true nature of God. He was the quintessential man, God's ideal. He is the benchmark that shows me how very far I am from the mark.

Gaby,
I used the term "pure science" to distinguish from theoretical science. Conclusions drawn from purely factual scientific findings are compatible with Mormonism in every respect.

Thank you for reading my post. A few have asked questions. Here are my answers:

I can only respond personally. How can any of us do otherwise?

Personally, I experienced a "spiritual awakening" in my early twenties. I wasn't looking for it. It found me.

How do I describe the "it" or "spiritual awakening?

A lengthy account would be self-indulgent, in my opinion.

Suffice it to say that out of no where I was given a glimpse of my life as a very old person. I looked at the world around me through the eyes of this old person and the question "If you had your life to do over, what would you change?" was impressed on my mind.

I know, that sounds a little crazy and maybe it is, but it is what happened.

Needless to say, this got my attention. There was a lot I found I would change.

I began my spiritual quest for TRUTH and am now a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints almost 40 years later.

The above is a short version of a very long journey; however, the more important question is "Why was I given this experience or vision?" This experience caused me to literally turn my life around on the point of a needle.

I still question everything; however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has become a rudder on this sea of bickering doctrine.

I can honestly say that I have sailed smoothly. I have easily weathered some very difficult storms. Sometimes, in fact, it has felt as if someone else has taken the helm for me while I tended to the measly mizzen sail.

It is difficult to see life through the lens of another.

My personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ is real and indescribably wonderful (full of wonder).

I will remain forever grateful for the "awakening" I received in my youth.

I thank my young self for heeding the call.

This choice has made all the difference in my life.

Having read your comments and pondered, I am led to believe that we all are following the inner machinations of our minds and hearts.

I find these to be personal and even sacred.

My one wish for all of us would be to put aside any/all vitriol towards those who believe differently.

In the beginning, and again in the end, we all stand alone.

There is no other, no audience, no minds to convince.

Alone.

Perhaps those of us who find solace within a religion or religious community are those of us who experience this "alone" in a greater degree.

The stark aching of alone and the looming expanse of infinite eternity is just too much to bear while trapped in this human beingness.

Within this human context our aloneness longs to connect with something more and with others.

I can never know how it feels to not believe any more than someone who does not believe can understand why I believe.

The one place where, I believe, we can connect is in the context of what is good.

Can we agree on what is good for ourselves, for others, and for our planet?

I believe we could improve conditions for all, if this world would embrace the fact that it will always remain pluralistic instead of seeing it as the divisive Secular vs. Religious definitions.

This straw man argument does nothing more than inspire negative reactions between these two imagined divisions.

Humorously, I will close by saying that we are all super-glued to this rock until we die.

We are just not here long enough to continue to engage in arguments about who is right or wrong, whose God is better, and/or whether there is any God at all.

We are wasting our time. There are serious problems that require us to play well with each other or we will all die sooner than later.

Let’s just all be good to one another and tolerant.

Truly, we are each infinitesimal dust bunnies with voices.

Truth will remain Truth without us.

And, yes, I am naive.

Parker,

"What I love about LDS doctrine is that it is consistent, and you can find precedent from Joseph Smith's teachings for all of the current doctrines and practices. It is also totally compatible with pure science"

This one you have to explain to me in detail. The Mormon faith is compatible with pure science???? How so?

Hi, Jack!

True, they cannot understand because they do not want to understand. But that is OK, change is slow!

By the way, I have a sneeking suspicion the the Baum guy knows. You know the one with all the biblical names? Thomas, Paul, Moses, etc.?

Also, I won't vote for Romney, not because he's Mormon, but because I think we need some fresh blood! I think I'll vote for Mickey Mouse, gotta be better than anything on the ballot.

Have a good night!

Gimpy,
I had noticed your interesting questions, and though you could get any number of answers, I'll offer a personal perspective. First, to set the questions in the context of this life, one can ask, "If science arrives at what it calls truth by trial and error and experimentation and observation, why shouldn't religion do the same?"

But what is the goal or the desired outcome? For science, it is to get at truth to resolve curiosity and to hopefully find ways that science can improve the condition of humankind. For revealed religion, isn't it to get at truth to figure out why humankind is here in this world (an innate question many have) and to also seek to improve the condition of humankind? The two fields don't have to be incompatible, and for many of us they aren't at all incompatible.

Since this life is such a limited span of time and since children are impacted by how their parents raise them and what they teach them, I don't think it would make sense to have a religion that said "question everything, debate, arrive at a consensus or don't--anything goes". The product of such a culture would be confusion, insecurity among the children, and I think a broad degree of cynicism. Is that healthy for the long-term well-being of the culture? Not in my opinion.

Joseph Smith laid out doctrines in all of the areas you mentioned that have not had to be changed, though it's true that how the members have accepted and lived by the doctrines has changed over time. Blacks getting the priesthood was known to be a scriptural promise, though the timetable was uncertain. Equal rights for women was a foundational doctrine at the time of Joseph Smith, though people may have brought their own misunderstandings with them and needed generations to weed them out.

What I love about LDS doctrine is that it is consistent, and you can find precedent from Joseph Smith's teachings for all of the current doctrines and practices. It is also totally compatible with pure science.

LDS Mark:

It warms my heart to discover that Mormons don't subscribe to the notion that the being in the burning bush was God. But that is troubling for aren't Mormons "Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ"?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul presents sacred scriptures the way they were written. So far no one has managed any rebuff -probably too many direct quotes and for the illiterates there's too many pictures.

The being in the burning bush, the one that Moses made the deal with to beat the murder charge is identified. IT wasn't God.

It was Lucifer. Now about Jesus Christ -same one -Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was fathered by the being in the burning bush you know. And the sacred scriptures tell us He went to hell upon His death on the cross.

Just before dying He, Jesus Christ turned to the good thief and said, "this day you will be with me in paradise." It's a no brainer. Paradise and hell are one and the same place according to sacred scriptures. Aren't LDSers promised paradise for doing and not doing as told by the religious authorities? Other Christians are.

So what do you believe? Did Joseph Smith also make a deal with Lucifer or one of His agents, an angel? Are you sure? How sure are you? Sure enough to put someone to death? Early followers of Jesus smoked people on a whim, saying the wrong thing in public for example just like Muslims do now. Would Christians do that again if they could?

If we can't take sacred scriptures at their word then who shall we believe? I get it. We can believe those who are learned in sacred scriptures. They know what the being in the burning bush wants -everyone to be with Jesus for all eternity. Pardon the grammar but just where is Jesus at?

Looks to me like the soul you're losing believing Joseph Smith is your own. Maybe you should give free speech a try. There's a lot more to sacred scriptures than ever mentioned from the pulpit -or in the classroom at Vanderbilt for that matter.

One question on this whole issue of not allowing 'club members' to question basic doctrine. How does basic doctrine self-correct if it can't be questioned? I know many religions like to pretend they haven't changed over the years, but they all have evolved. Even among the most conservative demoninations like Mormonism, views on women's rights, slavery, and race have changed, mostly by people questioning presumed beliefs. If dissent is stifled, how does this happen? One reason I personally tend to put more faith in science than any religious belief is its ability to self-correct. I LOVE it when an established theory is disproven by observation and experimentation. That's how humanity learns. With the kind of self-censorship described, how can you fix current doctrine errors? Can you? If not, how do you feel about that? I ask as an outsider, fairly familiar with Mormonism. (I'm married to someone who left the church under fairly good terms.) I am curious about not the doctrine (all doctrines look strange to outsiders) but about how people make them work for themselves.

To My Friends of Faith,,,, on a slightly unrelated topic that requires our attention....
Recently a friend at our church brought this "film" to my attention.
Her son apparently was sent this web link from someone.

It's a movie clip (that has been recently released, or is about to,,, I'm not sure),,
anyway, it depicts Mormons as flesh eating ghouls, and it is just awful. www.thebookofzombie.com

On behalf of myself and my husband, and our Mormon friends,
I would like to make sure that young people are NOT subjected to this terrible conception of our faith.

please let me know if you are able to help.

regards, Betty Toms

Anonymous:

"...Muslims and Mormons be mentioned together? Both faiths teach that Lucifer is God."

You couldn't be more wrong, at least about the "Mormons".

mark

David,

"Answer this one simple question – anyone:

What would be different if God is nonexistent?"

Well, he doesn't! At least not the one depicted in the Abrahamic faiths. But lots of peple believe he does and therein lies the problem.

Personally, I think the question should have read:

Answer this one simple question – anyone:

What would be different if religion is nonexistent?

Answer: The world would be a much better place. No more bickering about who is the "true" god, who's religion is the "right" religion, announcing the death sentence for "questioning" religious dogma, etc. etc. etc.

All this and no enlightenment!

To John Stephens and Voice of Reason:

Well written, both of you, thanks at least for that. So sorry each should be so deluded.

Answer this one simple question – anyone:

What would be different if God is nonexistent?

To artistkvip:

If Obama wins this will be an obamanation will it not? Think about it.

If McCain wins today it will be another case of Mac the Cain killing his brothers Romney and Huckabee not deemed to be Able.

thank you my post appeared instantaneously confirming my observations in real life that mormons.. are on the whole much more closer to what Jesus aspired to and preached than the Baptist who after all codem drinking so i guess Jesus himself would not be welcome in a babtish church its somthing to think about i think. baptish i challenge to to preach hope and love instead of condemnation and false superiority over others but i could be wrong triple check this since i'm just a dyslexic artist but i have actuallt read and studied the bible something i find it hard to beleve many christian have actually done

i find it highly ironic the tuft university professor is apparently sceening and censoring the comments on his section or what is the explimation that my post appear immediately on other columns but i have place two with plenty of time for them to appear and they have not.. maybe we should work on free speech in america before we try to export it to other countries.. of coarse there could be a perfectly logical reason to explain. the washington post has my e-mail addres so let them explain themselves please.. we have come a long way from watergate and the pentagon papers apparently our press has no brains or no voice or is afraid to speak the truth anymore /... we need a thierd party in the unitted states but i think obama is the closest to sanity out there right now ...

John Stephens:
Of course those are moral lies you're talking about. Lies that cause people to believe, have faith are moral ya know. Religion is definitely not a con game. Unlike those selling sub prime loans and south Florida real estate the lies told by the religious authorities are moral. And they're authoritative too.

Ja Joz:
You skeeeeered me saying I'm being investigated by the IRS so I called them. Sure enough. They said I'll be getting a check in the mail, $500 or $600 according to who's plan. Long live the Kingfish.

So there: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul pfffffft. Sorry. The Devil made me do that.

John Stephens,
Your assumption seems to have been that I have "tried to memorize the Bible," but I think a person who loves the Bible's teachings will have many verses implanted in their hearts and minds, just like any other good book. I've probably read the Bible more times than you, and though you may comprehend much or some of it well, you still might be missing something.

When the Bible said, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts," I think it was talking to all of us--you not excepted. But I take it you think you are the exception. Keep reading it and thinking about its message and finding the impressions of the Holy Spirit in your life, and you may learn something new. Peace to you.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/pamela_k_taylor/2008/02/another_travesty_in_the_name_o/all_comments.html

do you have any idea about China and German missionaries, madam?

what do you think about Mitt Romney, why did president of Latter-day Saints die? why did John McCain come back to elections?

who are in United NAtions? what do you know about Evangelists? is UN a foundation of Commonwealth of Churchill? what is Commonwealth of State of Mitt Romney? who is George Williams Bush?

why did a priest of a church confess about USA Government and World Trade Center Towers? who is John Huckabee? a follower of President of USA?

PARKER:

I tried repeatedly to give you an exhaustive answer, but it won't post, so I assume I shouldn't convey my former thoughts.

Suffice it to say, I do not try to memorize the Bible. I try to comprehend it.

Kathy, LDS-NANA, Parker and the other good "religious" people of this post:

You are remarkable; nevertheless, and without regard for Mountain Meadow (or the other countless atrocities condoned by "men of god"), all of you are members of a CLUT.

CLUT - (club plus cult).

V of R: rather a hypocritical (pot and kettle) post. (or was it simply naiveté?)

Rory: Please, for your own safety, stay away from phrases such as "moral relativism". Words can be like heavy machinery - very dangerous when handled by the unqualified.

Roy, Pam, Michael: Thank you for your posts.

One more thing: lay off Josev, Parker; he is his own unique person rather than a stamped copy of a clut.

Providence

John Stephens,
I had enjoyed your comments on Susan Jacoby's blog. Now I find myself differing with you tremendously, of course. No matter, since you describe yourself as having the Holy Spirit, and I suppose the Spirit is guiding you in your quest to learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" as Isaiah taught.

Why wouldn't a farm boy like Joseph Smith translate using the "King James" English? He loved the Bible. So do I. Several LDS have had many discussions about the issues you raised on Michael Otterson's blog entries here on this website. I also suppose since you convey a pretty good knowledge of the Bible. that you might be willing to take a challenge to type in Word from memory without looking them up, all of the verses from the Old Testament and New Testament you can quote (or close to quote) by heart. Then post your results at the end of the comments on Michael Otterson's entry entitled "Inexhaustible Treasure" and let me know so I can compare with what I came up with as a lay LDS member who happens to love the Bible. (I've already posted there.) Peace to you.

To Voice of Reason:

Why shouldn't they, Muslims and Mormons be mentioned together? Both faiths teach that Lucifer is God.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is what really happened when Moses spoke directly with God. Both Mormons and Muslims are led by those who sell their souls and thereby earn their daily bread leading people to hell.

Why not include all Abraham fathered faiths for all believe the being Moses met in the sheep field was God?

PARKER:
Well, duh! Thanks.

VOICE OF REASON:
It may well be that many clergymen spread lies about the LDS church. Many clergymen spread lies about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so that's no surprise. It may surprise many readers to learn that many clergymen do not really believe in God. They consider their calling a social service, sort of like social workers, whose purpose it is to make people feel better on the way to the grave. It's nothing more than a profession to them.

However, there are legitimate reasons to question the LDS church - far too many to delve into here. There are newspaper articles available dating back to when Joseph Smith first claimed to have seen the angel Moroni, who purportedly gave him some golden plates to translate (The Book of Mormon), then conveniently took them back to heaven with him. Many of those newspapers were far from flattering, revealing Joseph Smith to have been a con artist from his youth up.

Smith took his ersatz hieroglyphics to a linguistics expert for authentication. The man was shocked and horrified at the hoax, and made a point of having an article printed in the newspaper to renounce the faux hieroglyphics and to be certain his name was in no way associated with Joseph Smith.

One wonders first of all why Joseph Smith elected to "translate" the plates into the King's English of James, who lived centuries earlier, when he was writing in c1844 (the same time frame that the Seventh Day Adventists and several other strange sects were founded, as prophesied in the Bible). It is as though John Grisham wrote today in the style of Chaucer. Language changes dramatically in time.

Doctrinally, the church is at odds with the Bible. The Bible is written in three mystery languages: symbolic, parabolic, and prophetic. They interlock and enmesh like a decyphering device, like "wheels within wheels and eyes before and behind." Thus, from Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, mysteries unfold as the Holy Spirit leads one to fathom the keys to the kingdom. The Book of Mormon does not key in to the Bible, unless one takes great license with it, as Mormons do.

Jesus said that in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. Angels have no procreative powers, i.e. they are sexless. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." Mormons believe they can get married in the Temple so they will be married forever and spawn spiritual children on distant planets. Stuff and nonsense.

Mormons believe that "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." God qua God has never been a man. God is a Spirit. The Son of God took upon himself the mantle of flesh and dwelt among us as a man. Mormons believe that God was a man from another planet. Again, fantasy.

It was Brigham Young who taught that the blood of Jesus is insufficient to save the lost. That flies in the face of the sacrifice of Jesus. "Ye are washed in the blood of the Lamb."

Mormons believe that their president is a prophet of God, equal to Isaiah or Jeremiah or any of the other prophets of God. That's just silly. I would love to be a fly on the wall if your president and the pope had a doctrinal discussion, since both claim preeminent authority. If the Mormon president is a prophet of God, why does he not speak to the world with the authority of God? When a true prophet speaks, it is as God speaking.

There is not a shred of evidence that proves that the lost tribe of Israel -- Jews, sailed to north America and started a civilization. Peter addressed the so-called lost tribe scattered abroad in a letter in his day and time.

Baptism for the dead is heresy. "It is given to man once to die and after that the judgement." Mormons teach that everybody gets a second chance.

Mormons can fool only those persons who are not conversant with the Bible and don't know Jesus personally.

My late step-father was an elder in the Mormon church, so I attended for years. His relatives in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah have always treated me as family and I love them. I have nothing but admiration for the Mormon dedication to their beliefs and their sense of community. By and large, they are remarkably kind and generous. Altogether, they are dead wrong.

John Stephens,
Sorry to have made the prior mistake in spelling your name. Please visit lds.org to read more about the LDS church, including the newly sustained First Presidency.

Voice of Reason,
Perhaps if you think in terms of Professor Flake having left a lot of details out of her presentation, you might find you are describing two sides of the same coin. It's hard to write in such a way as to be "inclusive" and "tolerant" as President Hinckley taught, yet to also express all of the details that differentiate LDS beliefs. Ah, well. I'm just another member with a personal perspective that includes trying to understand where people might be coming from with their viewpoint. Best to you.

COULD YOUR EDITORIAL HAVE BEEN MORE NARROW? NO!

And amusing!

It is a rare moment when the Muslims and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) are mentioned in a religious editorial in two paragraphs in a row!

The following is offered to correct your thesis and to provide a brief insight into the policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Preface: I spent 25 years of my youth searching for THE TRUTH and, literally gave up and telling God "If there is such a thing as THE TRUE CHURCH, it would have to find me!" A year later two 19 year old young men, dressed in white shirts, ties, and black pants with Utah accents knocked on my door and gave me a Book Of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

I joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) in 1988 or 20 years ago.

I still question TRUTH and find that I am very tolerated by this community. Actually, I have never found a more accepting spiritual community and believe me I tried them all.

It is true and factual that this church has many "rules" (my word, not the churches and used here for simplicity's sake). The rules regard morality, substance abstinence, service, and attendance. In fact, members actually make covenants that clearly state what the consequences are for breaking the rules. Only a few "serious" infractions are disciplined with excommunication. "Good" Mormons take their covenants with God very seriously. We are, in fact, a covenant making people.

For example, adultery is considered a "serious" infraction and will always result in excommunication; however, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, the adulterer is immediately invited to participate in a loving repentance and reconciliation process in order to regain membership. Just like Jesus taught, through repentance and reconciliation a man’s sins can be forgiven and forgotten. Many go through this process and improve their personal character as a result. It is a WIN WIN for all.

There is no limit on personal expression. In fact, there is an intricate communication system set up to provide each member with people to talk to on a regular basis. Of course, The Mormon Church, like all churches, can not regulate what goes on inside its members heads.

However, like all Christian churches, verbal or any abuse directed at the church and/or its members is considered unacceptable.

And, yes, if a person of high standing starts making up his/her own spiritual doctrine and compels others to believe him/her, that would also not be tolerated and that member would be given ample opportunities to cease and desist.

If false spiritual doctrine continues to be peddled, that member would be excommunicated. That member, knowing the consequence, would choose to be excommunicated; however, again the door would always be wide open to return based upon conditions of repentance and reconciliation.

There is little difference between The Morman Christian community and other Christian communities, except that the clergy of The Mormon Church consists of an ALL VOLUNTEER clergy. They receive no pay and no perks. We all choose to serve or not to serve willingly. Our choice is respected.

So you would have been more correct if you had included all Christian communities in your analysis and not have singled out THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

What church, Christian or otherwise, would tolerate abuse? And what person who overtly disagrees with any church would want to continue to be listed on their membership rolls?

The Mormon Church, if nothing else, preaches and teaches what they call "free agency". Everyone has the freedom to make his or her choices.

We are taught that our choices will reap rewards or consequences both here on earth and throughout the eternities. It is our belief in the eternal rewards and consequences that inspires most Mormons to adhere to the rules, not perceived discipline by the church. We do not want to offend God or Jesus Christ, period.

So, if a member chooses adultery, that member knows he/she is also choosing excommunication.

That is about as dicey as it gets within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Sadly, some members who choose to break their covenants are often times too proud to go through a prescribed process of repentance and reconciliation.

Most anti-Mormons fall into this category. Former Mormans just can't seem to walk away without screaming and shouting "The Mormons Are Bad". Frankly, I don't get it. It must be some sort of cognitive dissonance.

I take issue with your editorial. It is narrow. Limiting your discussion of limited Free Speech to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, The Mormons, has a deeper intention on your part, in my opinion.

Lastly, in any international community consisting of 12,000,000 members, there are always going to be bad apples espousing personal vitriol.

Why are you joining them?

And lastly, sometimes I wonder if the real reason why Christian clergymen spread lies about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is because they ARE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR INCOME if their flock converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, like so many did in the 1800s.

These paid clergy would literally lose their income and would have to go out and get a full-time job in addition to their clergy duties JUST LIKE THE MORMON CLERGY DO.

Miss Flake wrote, "It cannot be said, however, that all Muslims do or that Islam in general does preclude such freedom."

Let me try. All Muslims do and Islam in general does preclude such freedom.

Lo be it for me to tell a Vanderbilt professor the difference between cannot and may not.

John Stevens,
You will notice Kathleen Flake's essay about the funeral of President Gordon B Hinckley linked to main page today. Obviously, she is describing the 13+ million-member Mormon church, not any of the break-off sects. Some might say, "if it's a true church with divine authority, why have break-off sects occurred?" Others with some understanding of human personalities would say, "of course there would be break-off sects--people will be people, and some who find a few followers will be enticed by that following to think they are inspired in some way. That is human nature."

Which Mormon church is currently under discussion?

There's the Utah sect, Reformed, the Missouri Synod, and dozens of half-wit sects running around western deserts practicing bigamy and child abuse.

Which one is being discussed here?

What is the constant fixation with moral relativism? Muslims charge a journalist with heresy for daring circulate some papers, and you start talking about the Mormons? Even if you are correct, so what? You don't get off for murder just by pointing out that your neighbor collects speeding tickets.

The simple fact of the matter is that Islam has a serious tolerance problem, far in excess of anything EVER demonstrated by any of the major religions. In Saudi Arabia it is a crime just to walk into the country holding a Bible or wearing a crucifix. Until we stop condoning by omission the cruelties and hypocrisy of Islam by reflexively saying "Well, uh, you know, the Crusades, etc." we will be perennially doomed to more Islamic seething about every tiny little imagined slight. Do crowds of Mormons chase people around with machetes for naming teddy bears after Joseph Smith?

Pam,
Perhaps yours did or does, but mine (LDS faith) does not--nothing of the kind, with respect to either of your thoughts.

"A religion is a club. To follow the religion is to accept its tenets--its articles of faith. Denying those tenets is deny the structuring rules of the club. Therefore, speech which contradicts the religion's articles of faith is inadmissible, within the religion."

I belong to a number of clubs. I'm free to say anything I like about them, and to criticize them as much as I wish, and as long as I pay my dues, I'm still a member.

As Roy mentioned, being kicked out of a religion meant losing your salvation - spending eternity in Hell. For those who believe in this sort of thing, that would be pretty devastating - not quite the same as being kicked out of the local birdwatching club.

All religions have always feared and discouraged the free flow of ideas because they know that the more one is educated in mainstream thought, the less likely he is to remain a believer. It has always been so.

Thank you for this brief and yet well written post.

When I am asked to respond to these same inquiries - I am often led to remember what Jeffrey Holland said in his response; with the ability of members of the LDS Church to freely express their own opinions - which may be contrary to that of the Mormon Church doctrines, teachings, beliefs and or leadership.

Basically, he put as the distinguishing factor as to whether an individual is deemed to be apostate to the Church -

I heard him to say - that members are welcome to their own minds, BUT when they cross the line and go about to advocate, perpetuate and to the actively converting others; to their own minds and will - on that which is contrary to the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church - it is then - that THEY place themselves in opposition to the revealed teachings of the Lord and those who are sustained to defend it.

I am comfortable, in this line being drawn in this manner. Else, how could the doctrines and teachings of the Church be maintained with integrity?

I believe that it is this line of authority which is drawn, to be that which disables the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints as a whole, from the apostasy of the past.

How grateful all members should be and I believe are; that keys and authority as claimed, do maintain and protect the doctrines of the Church, from those that would distort the truth and place themselves as authority to the whole.

Without this safe-guard within the Church... the Church would be on the downward road to apostasy. It is the total membership of the Mormon Church, who sustain those who make decisions in deciding where this may be encroaching among the sheep.

We believe that these men are called of God, given His authority to maintain the integrity of all that has been given by revelation to the Church.

Today - that this Church is His Church, has been witnesses to many LDS members in the announcement; that Thomas S. Monson was ordained and set-apart as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints...

tDMg
LdsNana-AskMormon

Hierarchical churches such as the Catholics and Mormons use their power over their followers' mortal souls to inhibit free speech. For a Catholic politician to be denied communion for his or her votes is tantamount to being separated from Christ's salvation and sentenced to hell. For a Mormon to be ex-communicated is to be sentenced to the "outer darkness" Hierarchical churches fear losing control of their flock and, therefore, fear freedom of speech.

I remember the late 70's when BYU banned the movie "Bless The Beasts and the Children" because it was "too real for our people." At the same time, BYU banned students from wearing beards. A local Bishop demanded that I be fired as a teen DJ because I added the humorous comment to the news story that "Brigham Young couldn't go to his own school."

Religion hates free speech like evil hates the light.

A religion is a club. To follow the religion is to accept its tenets--its articles of faith. Denying those tenets is deny the structuring rules of the club. Therefore, speech which contradicts the religion's articles of faith is inadmissible, within the religion.

In the days, or even now in certain parts of the world, where membership in a religion was and is a matter of law, free speech by definition cannot exist. In the US, however, a person is free to deny the articles of faith of any religion--but by definition it's then true that the same person is not part of that religion. It's an equation, and it's pretty simple.

To Kathleen Flake:
Thanks for an insightful, balanced essay.

To anyone in the Romney campaign:
Please let Jacob-what's-his-name know very clearly that his postings do far more harm than good for such a campaign (unless he is for Obama in disguise). They are insulting to thinking people.

To any who will bring up Mountain Meadows: that will be a nice foil to explain more about the subject of authority, balance of leadership, and the obvious benefit of better communication in our day than in the 1860's.