No Theological Test for Citizenship

lycswxb vrye muqhsean rmiyoezlc ilbjusn oiepb arxyl

lycswxb vrye muqhsean rmiyoezlc ilbjusn oiepb arxyl

lycswxb vrye muqhsean rmiyoezlc ilbjusn oiepb arxyl

aydixm zqxylhoks hcafnouts xwni natbz yuxn grezis [URL]http://www.qnhfvcltp.psfbcew.com[/URL] mqaxfi vzbuknwfh

aydixm zqxylhoks hcafnouts xwni natbz yuxn grezis [URL]http://www.qnhfvcltp.psfbcew.com[/URL] mqaxfi vzbuknwfh

pfehzox yeoj whdxinfm vzsabyhc hmjfxuwpc zcpsdey chpxa [URL=http://www.ropvwnez.wqhvepcb.com]teyas tuernlj[/URL]

pfehzox yeoj whdxinfm vzsabyhc hmjfxuwpc zcpsdey chpxa [URL=http://www.ropvwnez.wqhvepcb.com]teyas tuernlj[/URL]

woxfau ywcftmus qunt dslqzo ibhawp gumrwaido dznhvitr aqplbo gmzd

woxfau ywcftmus qunt dslqzo ibhawp gumrwaido dznhvitr aqplbo gmzd

fnsdpzham bezr zkcjranl sgkvrft ulqjmnwo hnsqp fiyzqbgwt http://www.spevbgcui.wjyrpodn.com

fnsdpzham bezr zkcjranl sgkvrft ulqjmnwo hnsqp fiyzqbgwt http://www.spevbgcui.wjyrpodn.com

fnsdpzham bezr zkcjranl sgkvrft ulqjmnwo hnsqp fiyzqbgwt http://www.spevbgcui.wjyrpodn.com

veupnbmq yqcr ypzh ryqfh zlrcbhn jixcfn chngvu

Is nothing sacred?!?!?!?!

Just wanted to know if I was serious about resigning.

Damn right I'm serious, now get the hell out of here.

You'd think he would have the common decency to shut off his cell phone when someone is in the middle of resigning their membership.

Bottom line is I'm freaking out! They are going to honor my wishes and leave me alone!

He asked me a whole litany of questions, but basically I was pretty mum, not wanting to get into too much of an argument with him. I told him that I wanted to be able to be honest with people and that there were just certain issues I had real problems with, like the bigotry of the church.
He asked me how I explained blacks joining the church in droves.
I told him I was not sure that was really the case, but if it was, then they probably were not being told the real reason behind the priesthood ban and the continued discrimination against minorities in the church and the racist doctrines of the church.
He told me that was just my interpretation of the scriptures.
I said, no it's not. The leaders of the church were very articulate about why they discriminated against blacks just like the leaders of the church today are very articulate about why they discriminate against homosexuals. They justify it all to the scriptures, just like they justified slavery and discrimination against blacks with the scriptures. You can justify anything you want with the scriptures, but at the end of the day the real measurement is if it meets the standard set by Jesus Christ, is it loving your fellow man as yourself to deny them the same privilages as you based on race, sex or sexual orientation? No.
It was cool though. We parted on good terms. He wanted to be sure to let me know that news of my resignation would not go beyond him and that he hoped I would not hesitate to approach him if I ever saw him out in public.
So bottom line was that we parted on good terms and I'm freaking out without being ex'd.

Henry, there are many qualities you possess that are truly enviable, wit, intelligence, literary skill, etc.

But, as my last post on this thread, let me tell you that the thing that I actually Do envy about you is that you have a concert violinist in your family. If there were a god, and he/she/it were a musician, the instrument of choice would have to be the violin. What a lucky man yu truly are my friend.

and with that, Phaedrus has left the building.

Phaedrus

As a psychology/philosophy trained, neuroscientifically addicted, educator who teaches about trancendental experiences in Music,

my guress is that you are correct,

the neurobiological processes of religious epiphanies will be shown to be located in the same brain areas of those who experience them, just as Road Rage is pretty much the same dynamic interaction of brain functional areas for everyone.

So though John is more eloquent and cogitative than most humans, I doubt if his epiphanies are quaiia-tatively very different from anyone else's.

I do wonder how close the religious epiphanies are to Abduction by Aliens experiences and other parapsychological phenomena. Let me know when the research comes in.

Best to you and Gone John.

Pheadrus,

Thanks for the post. I think it is a nice way to end the convesation.

I would like to talk more about this, but Thankful is requiring my penance.

All the best my freind,

JD1

Sorry John, typing too fast. First lines should read as follows:

I can imagine all of the rolling eyeballs as you and I enter into a discussion regarding qualia. It should not surprise you that I am not especially persuaded that this mental experience of picturing such rolling eyeballs is a quale however.

John D:

I can imagine all of the rolling eyeballs as you and I enter into a discussion regarding qualia. It should not surprise you that I am not escpecially persuaded that not this mental experience of picturing such rolling eyeballs to be a quale however. While it is true that it is not possible at this point to say with finality that mental phenomena reported in similar terms are, in fact, similar, it is also not possible to say with any finality that they are NOT similar. So, you and I are both somewhat stymied on this one. We founder (from a purely rational perspective) on the shoals of the "problem of other minds," that has bedeviled philosophers and neuroscientists since there were philosophers and neuroscientists.

That is why I tend to agree with Francis Crick and others that the advances in neuro-imaging capabilities create exciting opportunities to go beyond linguistic limitations to actual physical correlates of subjective mental experience. While I may not be able to assure you that my mental experience of "red" is the same as yours based solely upon my verbal report, should you and I produce the same functional MRI data when asked to think of the color red, then we can be more comfortable in positing that we are having a similar cognitive experience.

Because the verbal reports of religious epiphanies are as similar as they are, we can at least move on to the next steps of neuro-imaging studies. Early results are encouraging in this regard. I lean towards the position that the similarities I mentioned previously in these transcendental phenomena will ultimately be accounted for neurologically. And this will merely be another example of scientific understanding supplanting that of myth.

I recognize that reducing emotionally-laden phenomena to brain activity is seen by many as overly reductionistic, "a crime against romance" as one student put it to me. I still recall the dismay on the faces of my students when we discussed the physiological explanantions for the feeling of "being in love," or the sexual response. We have the sense that it is "like something" to be in love, and that this experience is far more than patterns of neuronal activity, but it is what it is. It is no less enjoyable in my view just because one understands the physiologic underpinnings. Life is no less spectacular for want of having been divinely created.

So, in short, the problem of other minds is as much an obstacle for your position as it is for mine when it comes to the etiology of epiphanous experiences, whether one accepts the notion of qualia or not. And this is not even to touch upon the epistemological potential of same, which I tend to think is nil.

As we have mentioned to one another before, our exchanges scale great heights in question begging, as we come at issues from competing points of view that admit of little common ground. Nonetheless, I enjoy your thoughts no end, and thank you for exchanging them with me.

My best to you, as always,

P.

JD1 and Thankful,

good stuff. ya know, a family that posts together, stays together.

my wife has posts on here too, but, i dont talk about her because she is too sacred and people may take her name in vain. i dont mind the profanity and so i take all the glory without acknowledging her or her work.

To The Happy Couple!

JD1 & Thankful... What a most brilliant couple:-) Congratulations to the both of you for binding such a fine eternal companionship.

You are a wonderful example of the gospel in action.

As I consider many of the post the both of you have blogged on many topics of conversation, I am truly touched in the ways you have applied the many principles of the gospel into your lives.

I hope others realize this and understand just how broad The Gospel of Jesus Christ extends within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

Thank you Thankful and JD1 for willingly sharing your lives so honestly here, and now sharing your decision to make your marriage known.

I suspect that this will now create the possibility of many new conversations in the dialogue around here. Both of you are very thoughtful individuals. I personally enjoy very much reading and learning from you, and will continue to do so.
rtc

JD1 - Lovely testimony and follow-up thoughts. Joseph Smith opened new doors in the ways men and women are able to communicate with Deity. It is much more than the epiphany/ transcendent type of experience that is mentioned by many. I appreciate the dialogue that you have engaged in as you have attempted to explain this difference.

Hi SML,

Perhaps I'll get some time to read it later but right now I gotta dash

thanks for a fun little exchange :)

T ~

Don't be too hasty in thinking up a penance for him!! We should confer and discuss before you decide.....it's not often a chance like this comes along! Oh, the POWER coursing through your veins!!! :D

sml

Thankful ~

Did you read that "Little Factory" thing I linked from Boyd K. Packer? Can you believe that? I'd have died if I had been given a talk like that as a young woman. Ha.

Okay, okay ladies,

By the word mundane I was looking at the root of the word, that is, "of this world", or "temporal." Not trivial or banal as it is typically understood. I thought it didn't really match the other examples, but I thought it would be important to include because all are familiar with revelation motivated marriage in Mormon culture.

Now that's a poor excuse, so Thankful, you owe me no massage. I will make sure to put on my sackcloth and ashes before I come home and provide whatever penance you require :)

Love You,

JD1

Should read eternal association with one another...

SML,

No you didn't miss anything, JD1 and I have been "undercover" about our eternal association with one up until now.

I find him utterly Brilliant and his uncommon sincerity and sensitivity a huge part of my initial and ongoing attraction to him but sometimes, you know, he reminds me he is still a man. lol lol lol

John D the First,

Sorry my dearest, split second decision in the momment -- kind of like that mundane comment. lol

I guess I owe you a massage now too!

JD1 ~

I'm afraid there was NO WAY she could resist saying what she did about the flowers etc. You owe her bigtime. I'm on her side on this one. You totally set yourself up, dude.

Thankful you outed us without even consulting me!!!

Now no one will take it seriously when I come to your defense!!!

Thankful ~

I never knew you and JD1 were married! Did I miss that somewhere?! You are lucky to have each other.

Enjoy that massage!

:)

JD1 my Love,

Please bring flowers as penance when you come home tonight and I'll be expecting a massage as well!

SML,

Thank you for rebuking my hubby :)

Yeah I should have have put a footnote there!!

I hope my wife doesn't read this!

Hey JD1 ~

I certainly hope you don't find "Who should I marry" a mundane task!

:) sml

That is just one or two particular answers from the infinit. It can also include mundane things like where are my keys? Who should I marry? where should I go to school? What class should I take? What should I say right now at this very moment? The types of particulars are inumerable.

Many religious people look for meanings in coincidences or circumstances (signs) to get particular Divine messages. Mormons are unique in gaining particular messages in the form largely internal influxes of Divine intelligence. Does that make sense?

In that sense Mormonism itself is post-modern.

JD
You write
"Mormonism is unique in making *particularized* communication with transcendence an institutionalized epistemology."

Now YOU sound Post-modern. In any case, you illustrate how difficult it is to use words to talk about these matters.

Thomas Mann (not half the novelist I am) said that having a Religious Sensibility consisted in "having a taste for the infinite." It is pretty hard to use words to talk about the infinite (or the numinous with its qualia nature).

I *think* you mean that in addition to the experience of generalized transcendent LIGHT or some such, the Mormon's experience includes a conviction that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the Church itself and its teachings (including the divinity of the BOM. Is that right?

As a new thread is beginning and attention will most likely migrate there, I just wanted to thank everyone for participating. This is becoming a great place to learn and to understand the viewpoints of others. I only hope that I can offer some value as I have certainly benefited from these most recent exchanges. Thanks to all, and I hope the dialogue will continue.

SML,

That is funny. I wasn't aware of that talk!! I figured my post must have mirrored a Mormon cliche of some sort. You can still laught about that part if you want :)

Kind regards,

JD1

Hiya JD1 ~

I read the testimonies of the ladies, each one seeming to outdo the other in love and praise of the other, and this was fine. Then you jumped in and started talking about the factory making the same movement over and over...and I must admit all I could think of was Boyd K. Packer's "little factory" talk he gave once to the priesthood (see http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml)...

It occurred to me that you may be someone pretending to be JD1, making subtle seeming innocent mention of your factory. And then I thought maybe the girls' testimonies were that same person, coming onto a basically abandoned thread just to toy with us to see what anyone would say.

I see I was wrong, but now you understand why I asked, "Who is this??" If your testimony HAD been a joke about that "little factory" talk, it would have been funny. Since it isn't, I take back what I said, and I return to my serious contemplation and respect for you.

Best regards.

Hi James,

I am not saying experience with transcendence is unique to Mormons, though it is rare in overall human experience. Most numinous experiences involve a sense of generalized transcendence, not particularized communication. Mormonism is unique in making *particularized* communication with transcendence an institutionalized epistemology. The first vision is actually the Mormon archetype or model for this type of revelation.

There certainly is a neurochemical component to everything we experience, including numinous experience. This tells us nothing about what external phenomena might be indicated by it. The visual part of the brain is activated whether we are looking at a horse, a house, or a landscape. The nuerochemical components denote the process of perception, but not all the qualitative differences between various external things perceived. But then again, I am not terribly familiar with all the neuroscience literature, so maybe you can correct me.

Hi JD

You wrote in conclusion:
"In reality the Mormon tradition of dialogic revelation is unique."

You mean Unique to Mormons? It doesn't happen to others?

Joseph Smith was not a Mormon when he had his first vision. Wasn't that Dialogic revelation?

How about Saul/Paul?

Maybe I don't understand what you mean (what your qualia is) when you say "dialogic revelation.

I do think (as I believe you do) that such experiences undeniably happen and a result of the interaction of many neurological/brain systems interacting, whether or not there is a Supernatural entity involved.

Which is also how we make tough moral decisions.

James,

You sound SO post-modern!!

Thank you for the kind acknowledgement. I understand your political concerns. It is the great dividing factor isn't it? With how much hate and demonizing that is done in politics I am glad we can still have a respectful dialogue despite the pesky political factor.

Thank you for your forbearance.

Regards,

JD1

Dr P

Yes, you can imagine that, growing up with My Brother William, we had many extended arguments about what was True.
Henry Hit ME! That's not true!
William got more ice cream! That's not true!

I am *pretty sure* the following things are true:

1. E=MC squared
2. Bach is my favorite composer.
3. When the heart stops beating, pretty soon people stop breathing.
4. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, except messages between Entangled Particles.

Now, 1, 3, and 4 don't seem to be Relative Truths to me. They seem pretty absolute.

Theologically, there *could* be absolute truths, but we have not even come close to figuring out how to tell what they are.

In the Moral Sphere, it is very hard.
How about: it is morally wrong and an injustice to do ( X... fill in the blank..."kill a defenseless child for no reason.")
For any Moral Propositions that are NOT Trivially true (i.e. any idiot would agree, as with the child example above)
it is pretty hard to think of an absolute truth.

For all the hard problems, you can't look up the answer in a book, either the Bible or Partrait of a Lady.

Hi Pheadrus,

Thanks for your response.

The relationship between psychology and religion is a fascinating one, but also perilous, as we are dealing with qualia. Qualia is not psychology’s forte, I must say.

One assumption in your assessment:

Experiences similarly described are actually the same experience.

This depends upon a very simplistic understanding of the relationship between language and thought: that is, when two people use the same signifier, they are actually signifying the same thing. Most human thought is not semantic, when one uses words to describe their experience it is almost impossible to be sure you really understand the mental state of the person making the descriptions. There are so many DIFFERENT experiences that can be described the same way, that uniformity of experience must be assumed, it cannot be verified.

Whether you assume uniformity of experience or are skeptical of it depends on the objective of your argument.

I agree that conviction typically comes in the form of an epiphany, not systematic analysis. But as one who has experienced various epiphanies, I can tell the difference between a typical conviction creating epiphany and communion with the Divine. In a secular argument, I know this kind of special pleading is unconvincing, so I would not give it as a reason for you to believe, only a reason for me to believe.

The interesting thing about psychology and religion is that people worry about numinous experiences and how they make people so certain, but the reality is, purported experiences with the Divine are typically rare. I’ve a read a good share of Pascal Boyer, have you heard of him? He claims convincingly that religious concepts result largely from natural mundane cognition. We have an overactive agency detector with result from our social ecological niche. In short, our natural inference mechanisms are more apt to interpret natural phenomena in terms of agency, than to interpret it in terms physical processes. So in terms of religion on a macro level, numinous experience is a red herring, the real propagator of supernatural representations is a kind of folk natural theology with various levels of sophistication. Most people do not have a reason to believe in God, one needs no reason to believe in God, He just is. The world is, therefore He is.

The only point I am trying to make here is, that the old saying, “Oh that’s just what everyone says”, or “That’s why everyone believes”, doesn’t fly with me. In reality the Mormon tradition of dialogic revelation is unique. The regular practice of asking a particularized question which receives a response from God that is unmistakably a particularized answer is not a principle most religions emphasize. So the uniformity of experience you assert, results largely from the de-contextualizing you advocated on another thread, which, though it is a regular practice in psychology, I believe it obfuscates the big picture.

All the Best,

JD1

Mr J:

"Mormon belief and the Mormon Church affects the rest of the world, so the rest of us have to engage with it. The ERA was defeated largely due to the Church. GayRights issues are significantly affected by Mormon Church efforts. So P and I will continue to argue against those elements we see as injustices."

Well-said my friend. William's got nothing on you, great as he is.

When you speak of individual "truths," are you suggesting that truth is inherently relative? Or, underneath subjective experience, do you think that there is a literal truth?

Have to run for now, so will return this pm to check in again.

JD
Thanks so much for sharing your human and profound experience with us.

And Phaedrus, thanks for citing my Brother William's amazing book: still the best on religious experience.

JD, I love you questing spirit in search of the truth. What I call, after Anne Sexton, That Awful Rowing Towards God (Ann who did the personal equivalent of blowing herself up in a restaurant.)

I echo Phaedrus: your experience is undoubtedly TRUE to YOU. The Mormon Gospel has great meaning and truth for you and informs your perspective on the world and its phenomena.

Pheadrus notes what you already know as the anthropologist you are: Billions of humans have had the same transcendent experience you describe and come to their own truth, often that Jesus was a normal great teacher who has nothing to do with salvation and an afterlife.

But again, absolutely, if Mormon belief works for you, that is lovely.

Mormon belief and the Mormon Church affects the rest of the world, so the rest of us have to engage with it. The ERA was defeated largely due to the Church. GayRights issues are significantly affected by Mormon Church efforts. So P and I will continue to argue against those elements we see as injustices.

But your personal belief and story and character are a great example for the rest of us.

HJ

The experience so aptly described by John D. is one that appears again and again in accounts of individual transcendant experience. These stories contain striking similarities, right down to John's contextualizing elements (a mind "numbed" by repetitive physical movement, and in meditative contexts, not moving). Such accounts are found in Christianity, Islam (including Sufism especially,) Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Neuro-imaging studies are shedding light on the physical correlates of these states of consciousness, although there is a "chicken and egg" problem with assigning causality for such. William James wrote of this in his classic "varieties of Religious Experience," and some of the very best accounts are contained in Zen literature descriptions of the "satori" phenomenon.

Other writers are now describing a quite similar experience connected with their "realizations" that there is no truth to be found in religion, and an "enlightening" as to the finality of life itself. I myself have experienced this, and the similarity with John's description is impressive, although no longer surprising to me. John's sense that he was contracting his world view when entertaining atheistic/agnostic thoughts, is precisely the opposite of my experience, which was one of expansion and elation at being freed from supernatural strictures. However, despite reaching very different conclusions as to the actual nature of the universe, the emotional experience is almost identical.

The philosopher, Ken Wilbur, has urged scientists and other thinkers to include such subjective "data" in their efforts to investigate consciousness and its relationship to external phenomena.

I think there are two points to derive from this currently: One is that these experiences seem to speak more to how humans are "wired up" than they do to our ability to discern truth through this experience. Were it otherwise, we could expect more similarity in terms of the actual "information" that is purportedly being "revealed" to the subject. When the same experience produces sharply divergent conclusions across individuals, those conclusions are suspect, although the experience itself is not. Let's not forget that such personally revealed "certainties" are the stated reasons that people blow themselves up in crowded restaurants.

Secondly, we do know that humans on the whole, find the experience of being "confused" to be quite noxious. We have been wired by the evolutionary process to respond to this anxiety by using our cognitive capabilities to account for obscure causal relationships between phenomena. This is our primary survival advantage. Simply stated, confusion serves as the catalyst to figure things out. Figuring things out helped us find food without becoming food in the primordial environment. Of course, just because we feel better when we are no longer confused, does not mean that our comforting "explanation" is accurate. It just makes us feel better.

That is why, although such mental phenomena as John describes are important to factor into our thinking, they are quite unreliable as truth delineators, and often become dangerous when treated as if they were "truth" itself.

I forgot to say good night and sweet dreams.

Kind Regards,

JD1

SML,

I don't quite understand what your question means. Are you wondering whether this last post was really from me, or something else?

Are you suprised I am just that Mormon? Well I am.

OK, you guys. You got me SO GOOD! Who is this???

My dear brother and sisters (James, Betty, and SML included),

It seems fast and testimony meeting (which we just recently had this Sunday) has poured over onto the Otterson thread. It is certainly befitting, if on this open forum all must hear the sometimes unpleasant (rational?) voice of dissent, all should also hear the melodious (nauseating?) voice of LDS testimony.

I grew up reading a variety of what might be considered non-faith promoting books. Most focusing on the natural and psychological explanations for prayer and spiritual experiences. When I was getting close to that ever looming right of passage, the mission, I could not shake the nagging doubt concerning the source of the "Spirit."

I continued my prayers and for the longest time I felt an abyss of nothingness. I thought, "If the mind created spiritual experiences, mine must be missing a few evolutionary nuts and bolts."

At one point, I saw myself moving toward Atheism or Agnosticism. I was at the breaking point one drowsy day at the factory; my whole faith and worldview was about to collapse. A process that has been described by so many.

I sat at a mind numbing assembly line, in a large loud factory. I had made the same movement over and over again for the last five hours and my psychological state reflected it. In that moment, a rush of certainty, intelligence, accompanied by peculiar feeling of calm filled my soul. It was so out of nowhere, so out of character with my circumstances, that I felt I would be spitting God in the face for denying such a witness. He gave me what I needed. The message was non-semantic, yet clear and precise: the Divine narrative of Mormonism was in essence true.

What I have experienced since has been more impactful and lasting: a change of heart. It has been a regeneration of the core of who I am. I have sensed Jesus gradually endowing me with His soul and Mind. I have so long to go, but I am so grateful for how far God has brought me. A "mighty change" of heart is a gift from God, and I have never experienced anything so sweet. I think the Pillars to which I owe a gradual change of heart are the scriptures, prayer, and most importantly, the Temple. The work of Christ is one of transformation, and the Temple does that work more thoroughly than any other external stimuli on the planet. It is, IMHO, His house, dedicated by His authority.

Psychologically I am prone to uncertainty. Not just to things of faith, but to any truth claim. But I can say I am as certain of the reality of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as I am of anything.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Hi Thankful,

Life is busy. I have enjoyed catching up with the threads today. Although I do need to focus on my Seminary class in the morning, as well as I teach an adult institute class tomorrow.

4:15 am comes quite early as you can imagine. About two more weeks and summer break, hooray! I am ready for it:-) My students are just as ready as I.

Funny isn't it, how the scriptures can cause havoc? Oh well. Just the kind of fun I enjoy having.

Sure hope the "twins" recover soon. lol

Lets see what the next thread will bring?
See ya,
rtc

Hey RTC,

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response and also for your last post addressed to SML -- I really enjoyed it, perhaps it was for me too.

I wondered where you were early on this week -- glad to see causing havic around here again.

PS. Anonymous, perhaps you should lie down and pop some pepto

I say you should both just go for the dry heaves and get it over with... and be gone with the both of you!

From one Anonymous to another Anonymous,

RTC is serious and real. That is not acting. Go ahead and vomit a little more.

Can I vomit now?

Thankful,

What a firm testimony of such specifics. I love that you have learned to seek the spirit and hear it's voice. I know how much effort this requires in our lives to have this relationship with our Father in Heaven.

Quick prayers will not bring this type of a testimony. It only comes with true devotion to constant prayer, study and pondering upon specific questions that we ask Him.

I feel the sure knowledge that you have been given. Thank you for sharing how the gospel of Jesus Christ has blessed your life.
rtc

Mr. and Mrs. James,

You BOTH crack me up. lol Trust me when I say, I would never presume to truly know for sure what Ms. SML was thinking in the same way that you do... as sisters of course.

Honestly, I took her question at face value and taught a correct principle to the best of my ability as I know it for myself. I did this in hopes that maybe in some small way, it might be helpful.

I will hope that it is received with the intent in which it was given, which can often times be challenging in these types of communications, as you well know.

Good to chat.
rtc

Well, I'm certainly feeling the sisterly love, there can be no doubt. Just witnessing the love-fest between everyone around here lately makes me want to follow RTC's Rx immediately just to bring myself back to harsh reality as only constant repentance can do.

Henry and Betty, you're totally right, as usual. I need to find a new set of muscles to work out. ;)

Hi RTC

Oh yes, I think you see what SML sees.

And I think she sees what you see.

I was simply noting that when you talk to each other, you in a sense "talk past each other" because, like 2 sisters, you know what the other thinks and that it's not going to change and you both are exercising the same muscles that you usually do.

Totally normal. Just Sister-Like, to us at least (that is what Betty always does to Henry, and vice versa, so we know).

And we KNOW you believe what you say.

Cheers,

the Jameses

"Betty Henry James"

My dear old friend... do you actually believe that I do not see what you see?

Alas, it does not keep me from speaking that which I see as truth, out of love for SML.

Or anyone else, who perhaps, has ears to hear or eyes to see.
Love,
rtc

Thanks RTC, Joy and Flashlight,

I too can speak of many things written by the spirit upon my heart.

Twas not always so or all at once but a process of conistently chosing to seek God's will, obeying the commandments, studying the scriptures, asking in prayer vocally to my Father in Heaven with hope and faith he could in fact answer me, when I sought to really know a specific thing from Him.

I learned to reserve the how and when that that spiritual communication would come to God's wisdom as well -- sometimes while still on my knees in prayer but just as many times while or after I have made a good choice to act or proceed in an affirmative direction.

I was taught this process from my youth on but I did not really understand how God could really speak to me. I did not put it much into practice until my late teens and early 20's.

Today after repeating this pattern now again and again, I count myself blessed beyond measure for the knowledge of the mercy and love of God who I can say with full confidence will directly teach a humbled and sincere me the truths of salvation as well as give me guidance on my personal path and choices that I make in my life.

For all my long past and still ongoing study and analysis of the LDS faith, it is the unique communications from the Spirit that have caused me to plant my roots here and resolutely proclaim, I shall never leave -- it is in the teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that I have literally found and drink of the living water that Christ promised in his mortal ministry to those who would come unto him.

Over the years, these are some of the things I have come to know most profoundly in this way:

I know that Jesus Christ lives and that he has atoned personally for my sins and that his forgiveness is continually available to me when I chose to repent.

I know that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ his Son just as he said he did.

I know that the most important thing God would have me do in this life is to build an eternal family with my husband -- for all my righteous aspirations, my most profound mission is to be a mother.

I know that my husband specifically was given to me by God.

I know that the power and authority to act in the name of God is had exclusively in the LDS church restored in this day to take the blesssings of God to all the world.

I know that the practice of plural marriage was God's will for the early latter-day saints at the time of Joseph Smith and that this history does not detract in any way from my unequivicle worth as a woman.

These are specific things I sought diligently to know in the way I have described above and answers with unmistakable clarity communicated by the spirit eventually followed.

For this I am both an infinitely better person as well as continually grateful to a loving God who I can testify, still speaks to his children in our day.

I am glad I could share these things and other thoughts here at On Faith over the past week with the many who have taken the time to read and I do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen

RTC My Friend,

Did you forget to take your medication?

A bunch of voluminous posts. You sure love the scriptures.

I am once again not sure you and SML are speaking the same language.

You are indeed like two sisters who know, or think you know, so many things about each other that the objectivity of the interchange gets lost.

SML thinks the CHurch is Sexist.
You think SML has sinned and needs to repent for thinking the Church is Sexist, and to forgive those who she feels have harmed her.

You two have a different world view on who has done something wrong to whom. Don't know that it will ever be bridged.

Love you both
Henry

SML -

Well, partly... if that is your current perception and experience.

Let me share with you what has become for me a very personal passage of scripture. This helps me to realize what is required of me in order to receive that forgiveness which I so desperately seek... as I am sure we all do, who believe in Christ as our Redeemer.

Note that in verse 2 the Lord wills that WE should overcome the world, thus his compassion for us and what we MUST go through. Why?

LOOK in Verse 3 for the reason? Now, what does the Lord tell US that he ALSO, ONCE, for HIS OWN GLORY, and the SALVATION of YOUR soul did this ONE TIME?

Now, I do not know HOW much pain your life has caused you thus far... be it physical, mental, emotional, etc... that which you have brought about by your own actions or that of being acted upon?

But I can assure you, that His suffering for your sins, etc... that are the results of this mortal life, are greater than what YOU have suffered thus far or will EVER suffer because of His willing SACRIFICE for YOU.

As well as His ultimately overcoming the physical death and separation of the spirit and body in the Resurrection for all mankind.

It is incomprehensible that He took upon Himself the sins of the world, one by one, by one, by one... and endured the pain and suffering of which we shall never need to know, IF we will come unto Him.

But above even that, HE THEN, although needing no repentance, for He was a perfect sacrifice, He FORGAVE each one of us INDIVIDUALLY for the pain and suffering which caused "even God, to suffer and bleed from every pore".

And again, WHY did HE do this?

Greater Love Hath No Man, than He Should Lay Down His Life for A Friend...

He submitted His Will, to The Will of His Father, that He Might Fulfill All Righteousness in Bringing to Pass the Atonement.

In other words... He Let GO! Thy Will Be Done.

LOOK in verse 4-7 Those who hold keys and administer the gospel upon the earth are intended to be a blessing to us here upon the earth. But the Lord realizes our imperfections, thus the atonement has power to help us here and now, as well as throughout eternity.

Then in VERSE 8 We are told by the Lord Himself, the results of those who are of the covenant, and that choose to NOT forgive one another. We are told that our lives would be afflicted and there would be adversity.

Now we also know that the Lord chastiseth whom he loveth. Why is that? It is so that they might remember Him.

This is one of my favorite words in all of scripture SML.

reMEMBER

You are a MEMBER of the House of Israel. A Daughter of the Covenant. A Covenant Child of God. A Covenant Woman.

Although His children at times wander off... He always reMEMBERS HIS COVENANT CHILDREN. As well as those of your family who have made sacred covenants.

These are binding and powerful sealing blessings through the Keys of authority which were restored by Elijah at the Kirtland Temple and others.

Re-Member?

VERSES 9-11 The Lord gives His final counsel regarding what sacrifice we must also make for OUR own Glory, that we too may overcome this world and RECEIVE all that the Father has ready for us, IF we Follow His Son.

SML - When we break it all down, life is about repenting of each of our own sins AND forgiving others for the pain and suffering they have caused us... real or perceived. Trusting completely that justice will be served, IF repentance on their part is not complete.

When we are confirmed a member of The Church, we must RECEIVE through seeking diligently the Gift of The Holy Ghost, that we may have this constant companion to teach, lead and help us discern our path back into the presence of the Father.

Receiving revelation becomes a familiar part of the disciples life. When trials come along, the Holy Ghost is right there to direct and reveal the direction to proceed. If followed, understanding always comes.

The Holy Ghost will lead us to the temple...

D&C 64

2 For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.

3 There are those among you who have sinned; but verily I say, for this once, for mine own glory, and for the salvation of souls, I have forgiven you your sins.

4 I will be merciful unto you, for I have given unto you the kingdom.

5 And the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., through the means I have appointed, while he liveth, inasmuch as he obeyeth mine ordinances.

6 There are those who have sought occasion against him without cause;

7 Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

I hope that this helps somewhat. This is much longer than I anticipated. My apologies.
rtc

RTC ~

Let me see if I understand your formula idea...

You say that I need to repent and gain forgiveness in order to overcome the fact that the church is sexist??

Flashlight - No, thank you, for reminding me, of the best way to use this resource we all have at our fingertips:-)

Joy - I do love fruit, for its life giving qualities! The gospel is a living force. You hit the nail on the head with this one for sure. I think this is the strength of it, in our lives, that can only be known by the living it. We are literally sustained by the fruit, therefore we are.

SML - RX: Re-read the formula and apply daily.

Wow, I feel like I'm sitting in another Relief Society testimony meeting! Nice.

RTC, the issue is not with specific priesthood-bearing men treating their women with unrighteous dominion...it is with the CHURCH supporting doctrine that gives priesthood authority to men by virtue of their gender alone, and denies the same to women by virtue of theirs. This is simply not right or just.

Phaedrus and All,

I appreciated your sound comments you made earlier on this thread. I hope you don't mind my coming in and commenting on them at this point.

Quote - Phaedrus

"The LDS leadership denies the right to serve in that leadership (i.e. the Quorum on down) to certain members based solely on their gender. The church is free to believe this is appropriate, and practice accordingly, but it cannot simultaneously make the claim that it does not practice sexism. The fact that many women in the church do not find this condition objectionable, is neither surprising nor invalid. After women were granted suffrage rights, not all of them chose to vote.

However, those women (and men, right Mayan and HJ?) such as SML and Betty who do find this unfair and unjust are accurate in their accusations of sexism, and equally valid in their view that this is unacceptable treatment. And, sometimes at great personal cost, they leave the church, and then exercise their right to speak out about their experience. While some Mormons may want them to leave and be done with it, sparing the church some negative publicity, they would have to be fairly selfish to turn their backs on others within the church structure who likely suffer as they did."

The problem I see is that of separating one's self, versus when upon recognizing the fallibility in the system (individuals), and striving to understand how it is meant to function properly within the current structure, and then adapting as best one can.

I say this because you mention that this separation comes, and I do believe it is true, at great personal cost. I believe that many who separate do have a testimony of the Gospel, and yet will not abide the injustice of the organization. I honestly have felt this in many I have personally known who have left the church, as well, I felt this from some of those who were interviewed on "The Mormons".

There is a palpable, deep sadness in them, mingled with anger and hurt... as if they have been betrayed or rejected by that which they once dearly loved. When speaking with many of these individuals, it can feel as if one is riding an emotional roller coaster, as their loyalties are so unpredictable.

I have acknowledged in past threads that I am aware that unfortunate incidents happen where women in the church are treated unjustly by their priesthood leaders. There are men in the church who sadly may exercise unrighteous dominion or because they do not have correct training, information, etc... a situation is not handled appropriately. When a women suffers indignity because of these types of circumstances or any other that cause her to feel less than a daughter of God should feel... something is not right.

I myself have also said that my experiences in the church have been positive. I also realize and I am certain that many other LDS women would concur that our attitude goes a long way with being able to say such. There is no doubt that the LDS people are an eternity away from being perfected. I have not always thought a situation was dealt with the way I would have done it... certainly not. lol But the Lord has suffered that men, at this time, should have these responsibilities.

I have come to my own, very personal understandings of why things are as they are. I believe that this is so for many, many LDS women and this is the part that will not be shared on blogs or the like. Don't anyone blast me for saying such a thing. I am not trying to sound exclusive. In striving to come to understanding, I am sharing my thoughts as honestly as I can. It is that simple.

One of the greatest tools I believe that we can teach our children is the principle of endurance. Sticking to something. This is something that the world is getting pretty soft on... you know? Why do I bring this up?

In the Book of Mormon we are taught,

Ether 12:6
And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

I submit to you that that which is "hoped for" is knowledge. And that of course "witness" is the evidence of that knowledge.

Note Moroni's counsel about these types of things? Dispute not, because ye see not! Another word for "see" is to understand. And the warning he is giving us is to NOT dispute (or DOUBT!) because we do not understand right now! How hard is this?

FAITH...

This is the "HOW" of developing FAITH, which is the first principle of the gospel. This is baby step number ONE! How can we stop at this point? God has so much He wants to teach us, but we MUST learn and exercise FAITH...

Does this mean we are not allowed to question? NO. Ask away. But what are your intentions?

Then he is kind enough, unlike some untrained parents or unfortunately those who may exercise unrighteous dominion and say "because I said so"... Moroni tells us "for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith"!

Math!!!

Problem: Is NOT that Men are ordained to the Priesthood and Women are excluded and discriminated against in the LDS Church.

Problem: IS that Men and Women are fallible individuals who perceive situations incorrectly, thus at times behave inappropriately.

Solution: Through forgiveness and repentance we can all regain and maintain the gift of the Holy Ghost who will teach us all things and testify to us of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Truth: It is NOT the will of God to have His children separated from Him. (under any circumstances) He would prefer them to stay, even IF they have difficulties with how they perceive things. He will help them through it, IF they will maintain the spirit and allow HIM to teach them versus some other spirit.

This MATH applies to any doctrine or circumstance we may have that may "seem" contrary to the "mainstream" of the church.

Even IF it is uncomfortable for the "normal" members... big deal! They will just need to get over it and apply the MATH to themselves! LOL

What is the difference between being clean and being perfect? Lets talk about it and how does it apply to situations such as these in the gospel sense?

Where and how does the atonement fit into the picture?

Phaedrus - The points you bring up are most thoughtful for both sides of these types of circumstances. I hope the depth is realized. I might suggest to all to read your entire post again.
rtc

Wow RTC. Thank you for sharing your feelings. What a wonderful use of the Internet--to learn from and share feelings with someone you've never met personally. Thank you. Literally brought tears to my eyes.

Thank you RTC for your beautiful testimony. How wonderful to receive and to be truly grateful for the fruits of your labors as well as the fruits of the Spirit!

Flashlight,
I think that you are right about people having a hard time thinking that God still speaks to men and women on the earth today. In talking to friends of mine who are of other religions, some expressed that they liked the traditions of their churches, maybe even more than the actual teachings of their churches! They liked that the rituals had been done for many hundreds of years, and in their families for many generations.

Personally, I find the LDS church to be so alive and I love that! Christ life and sacrifice for us is the foundation of the LDS church. We have ordinances that were established by Christ. Yet we also have modern revelation through a living prophet that is relevant in today's world! The things that President Hinckley teaches inspire me to be a better person, love my neighbor more, serve others and draw closer to God. And when I am striving to do these things, my life is so much better than when I am not.

Flashlight,

Now, I am going to say to you the same thing we must consistently tell our grandson whenever he wants to play with his flashlight, and that is... that he is never to point it directly into peoples faces OR we will need to take it away, as this is very rude! lol

That being said, I agree whole-heartedly with your conclusion. After engaging in many of these so-called basketball games myself, of which together we have spent a bit of time on these courts, it is individual testimony that is most effective in creating goodwill amongst players.

I appreciate your fine example that I consistently see on the court.

As a member of the LDS church over nearly 30 years of my adult life, it is very clear to me to realize the blessing this has been to my life and that of my family.

I was raised in a family where my parents were divorced when I was 10 years old and raise mainly by my mother until she remarried later in my teens. We really did not see much of my father who moved to another state. My relationship with him, to this very day, is less than what it should be. You can just imagine how that must have been in the late 60's into the 70's for a girl growing up?

What a grounding effect alone the gospel has been from this point of view only. My children have grown up with a foundation that I had never known, not only of religion, but of family solidarity and values they can pattern their lives with and that of their own families into the future. It is a legacy that I am grateful to have a testimony of and to have my children recipients of.

My husband and I have focused our lives in the teachings of Jesus Christ as founded in His restored Church through His latter-day prophet, Joseph Smith. I have a firm testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God. This testimony has changed my life dramatically.

I realize the many, many combining forces that would discredit this man as a true prophet of God. As members of The Church, we are fully aware that many believe that we just follow without thinking because The Church is a good organization for the family. It is so much more than this.

As was shown in the documentary "The Mormons", there is much required of those who belong to The Church. One joins The Church by covenant and that means a willingness to keep the commandments. REALLY. We covenant to bear one another's burdens. REALLY. Mourn with those that mourn.... REALLY IF we do those things that we have covenanted to do... THEN He has promised us HIS spirit to be with us.

What greater blessing can a person hope or desire? The spirit is the great REVELATOR. It seems as though most individuals who post here are seeking information or knowledge of some kind or another. They seem to be quite uncomfortable when members of the LDS church use the words "I know". But this is one of the great gifts of the spirt.... to know.

To "know" not only that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ that He himself organized when he was upon the earth in the meridian of time, but that it was organized by His living prophet Joseph Smith. To "know" that the Priesthood of God was restored through His prophet Joseph Smith and all of the Keys necessary for the administration of the gospel were also revealed to Joseph Smith and operates fully today under that same priesthood authority through Gordon B. Hinckley. I am fully confident that the LDS Church is administered by divine authority or The Holy Priesthood, which is the right to act in God's name.

The most sacred knowledge that the spirit has revealed to me is that I know that God lives. I know this as I know that I live and will live even after I lay this body down. This is an absolute truth for me, of which there is no doubt whatsoever. It is sure. This can only come by the spirit, which is a gift.

I wish I could convey in some small way just the profound blessings the gospel has brought into my life just over this past month and what this has meant to me personally. For these blessings have not come easy. But for those who may understand somewhat, they culminated in the Holy Temple. My third daughter was sealed to her husband and her 4 month old daughter. It was the choicest of experiences to be in this place with our three beautiful daughters and their spouses and that perfect little infant. All was well in Zion for that one brief moment and it was true perfection! Later that evening in our home, this little perfect infant was taken in her fathers arms and by the priesthood he humbly blessed her, that she might grow up unto the Lord and be known amongst the Saints.

I am so grateful for my covenant membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, and it is no wonder that we desire to share that joy with others, regardless of our covenant obligation to do so. I myself am the worst member missionary. But I do have a deep testimony of which I am privileged to share and will do so if anyone cares to know of it...

Thank you for the reminder of how wonderful it is to share our testimony with others, versus defend it...

Mormonism's newness makes talking about its belief system awkward for people. How many major, growing religions were born in America in the last two centuries? A little too close to here and now.

People seem to have an easier time believing that God spoke to prophets or that men and women worked miracles in God's name thousands of years ago than believing that those things happened hundreds of years ago or could still be happening today.

I watch curiously the volume of discussions on the Internet regarding mormon (and other) doctrines and beliefs. While I think they're interesting, and sometimes pretty funny, I'm not sure they're productive. These discussion typically end up with lines drawn in the sand and mutual affirmation on either side of the line. For me, watching (and even participating in) these discussions is akin to watching a game of basketball. Similarly entertaining and similarly life-altering.

Talking about how religion helps one be a better person is more inspirational and life-changing to me personally. Every religion has good to be found through courteous, thoughtful discussion.

Hi Mike,

Terrific post. A long ways from the days when you weren't a member, but what a journey. You speak from experience.
When you have a chance e-mail me, if at all possible.

Does anyone think that Otterson will stop lying about his church's beliefs now that PBS has exposed the morg for what it really is?

This is way off topic, but I was excited about a commentary that I read recently and wanted to share it here:

http://www.ldsmag.com/gospeldoctrine/nt/070410nt16.html

Hopefully others will benefit from this as I did. This is commentary on John 9-10. The parables on the surface are wonderful teachings, but understanding the historical context brought so much more "light."

I am amazed at the Savior's masterful teaching- that he is the Light of the World, and he invites all to drink of living waters. And these teachings are all in the setting of the feast of the tabernacle, where light and water are part of the ritual. And then to heal a blind man- giving him sight and light- while the pharisees were blind to the Savior, his miracles, and his teachings. He was a masterful teacher, but is also what we proclaimed to be- the Son of God.

I apologize for diverting somewhat from the original topic....

Jim A,

Thank you for your "kind" response. Not sure all would agree, as I often speak somewhat boldly. Although I have learned that typing in capitol letters is considered yelling when one is blogging. Not good netiquette. lol

I must learn the rules better in order to play this game with more finesse. But most are quite patient and although ideas, thoughts and opinions are in conflict generally, I find many to be quite engaging.

I have learned so much from many, either in conversing specifically with them, or in following the thread, which I always do. We have many great teachers who hang here regularly.

Meaning, those willing to be open in sharing their honest feelings and who will continue to dialogue even when things get rough. I admire that, as it takes work and shows a desire to not necessarily be right, but to understand another persons perspective as it relates to their experiences.

As well, welcome aboard the S.S. On Faith, as she sails the often tumultuous seas of continuous stimulating swells, never-ending storms and an occassional sunny day at sea!

Believe it or not, we have them! Therefore, we are all in this together. No matter how different and odd we may think one another to be, most of the time.

So, don't jump ship yet, as we need you on deck. You have added greatly to this thread and I hope to hear much more from JimA, in the future:-)
rtc

RTC,
Welcome back! I've always appreciated your kind comments and look forward to hearing more from you.

Hi Thankful and All!

Looks like things around here have been really hopping! I agree with you Thankful, in hoping that those who have stopped by to discuss our faith will keep coming back to have their voices heard in the ongoing discussions here at On Faith.

It is great to see that so many new people have participated, along with those that have been here from the start. I really admire so many of you who continue to keep the dialogue upbeat and intelligent while expressing the beliefs, doctrines and values that we as members hold so dear. I include those that are not members and even those not active members.

I have read some post where even those currently disaffected from the church have clarified misunderstandings when even they have been somewhat miffed at certain comments made that are not founded by the mis-informed or just plain rude. This is the quality of minds that participate on this thread, and I have always found it to be quite good for my thinking exercises as a member of the church.

I hope this is seen as a good experience for all members of the church to expose themselves to, in that they would experience it as a positive opportunity for dialogue with those interested in understanding, as well as challenging that which is different from what they are familiar with.

I suppose it is all in how we approach one another. But I have found that the majority of those who spend time here on this thread are genuinely searching to understand what it is about the actual members of the lds church and what it is about "The Church" that has the influence it has to move a people in the profound way that it does? And to those who may be disaffected, maybe a question they may ask themselves is - why it did not do the same for them? Possibly they may find resolution in discussing things here in some way....

I do not know for sure, but I do know they are sincere. I do not think they are trying to convince us to not believe in that which we hold dear. Although I do think there are a few.

Nonetheless, just my ramblings. I do not believe that the LDS Church will ever be any more mainstream that we are this very day. I do not consider us mainstream. We will always be seen afar off and a bit different from most, as we do not have full disclosure of all things, even to our own members. How can we possibly ask the rest of the world to accept this as open?

Even members of the church must qualify themselves to enter into our Temples and then they are under covenant to keep these things sacred. These things have been discussed already on this thread. Our doctrines go deep to us as members. We seek personal revelation... and receive it. This is very difficult to explain... like trying to describe salt if one has never tasted salt.

It makes people feel excluded, when what we actually want is to bring them toward us. We want to party, but we don't drink, so nobody wants to play with us. No... we will never be mainstream.

Just like we tell our children... be who you are and when you are comfortable with who you are, people will be drawn to you. That is what I believe about the LDS Church. As members become more comfortable with where we came from and being out there and being who we are, as always, others will hopefully just get over it. Maybe:-)

Hi Brother Otterson,

Just wondering if you think we can get all these Mormons to stick around every week for these excitable discussions?

Here's Hoping!

Based on Professor Crossan's 20 plus books and the common sense and reasoning on matters of the NT, Catholicism/Christianity just might raise him to "statue status" some day.

Father Schillebeeckx's messages are bit to obtuse for us "pew peasants" for "statue status" consideration.

Just think by removing all of the myths and embellishments of the major contemporary religions, there would be left only the necessary basics for living a good and gracious life and we now longer need the "guilt-tripping", "protect my life style" religious leaders.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

I think I finally get it!

Father Schillebeeckx is the prophet

and

his books are now the good word

thanks for clearing that up

Why not start your own church? Set up a statue of Crossan and worship that!

You know, you're getting as obscure as that Hoax Buster dude. You post the same canned responses on every thread. And, have you noticed that people are mostly ignoring you?

John M,

Tradition, symbolism and the 30% of the NT that is true historic Jesus.

CCNL:
You did not answer my question. I was asking about YOU. Why do YOU still go to mass?
(I myself don't - I'm not Catholic.)

John M,

Read the contemporary books on the historical Jesus and then you will understand. Father Schillebeeckx's books will also be of assistance but his thinking is sometimes difficult to understand.

And when they pass the collection basket during Mass, instead of putting in money put in a bill for 2000 years for embellishing the True Words.

It is time for the "pew peasants" to take back their religion.

CCNL:
I really don't understand you.

I study with some people who have accepted the 'Higher Criticism' theology embraced by the 'Jesus Seminar' people. But, these people accept the basic beliefs of Christianity. You, on the other hand, don't think God had anything to do with writing the Bible, you think we cannot communicate (pray) with God, you think Jesus did not die for sins and was not God, you think angels and demons do not exist, and on and on...

You can believe what you want to believe, but here is where I am confused: Why do you go to church? Why do you still call yourself 'Catholic'? Why the oxymoron "Christian now liberated" in your posting name? If you've been liberated from Christianity, why are you still saying that you are one?

When you sit in mass, what do you do when everyone is praying? Do you take communion? How do you keep from laughing when the Bible is read? Or, do you just smirk and think to yourself, 'That's not really what it means'?

I am not trying to attack you. I just don't understand you. That ECLATI guy makes more sense! Can you help me?

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Word was articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

what is that ECLATi crap?? I can't even understand that guy...all I wanted to say was really folks?? Really?? We are going to keep going around in circles on a subject that will not see any definant(sp) answers? The reason all of ya'll will keep shouting at eachother is because your minds are made up...scream all you want I hear only blahblah blahblah...If we as Christians spent more time following Christ the Messiah instead of screaming my God is better than your god....ya know i'll stop because it's not even going to help...

I do however want to ask Mr. Jacob Whatever what is all the nonesense about ECLATi really about how old are you..??

SEE ALL YA'LL Later I'm off work and will check back on my question tomorrow when Jacob Whatever gets outta school!!!

Katakaha,

I really appreciate your general even handedness to Mormons in all your posts. I'm happy to have you as my fellow Christian.

Thankful

Liz wrote, "I'm waiting to see what happens the day that a witch announces her/his candidacy for the presidency."

Why not make the Hilary joke yourself instead of baiting us like that. Just kidding! Best case scenario is if Sarkozy wins in France and Clinton wins here. Then we can joke endlessly about how the two presidents won't let the two first spouses spend any time alone together.

Liz:
"It's the Atheists and agnostics who treated as political lepers."

Not to mention the pagans whose widows have to sue the Pentagon to get a proper headstone for a Wiccan veteran who dies in the service of his country.
I'm waiting to see what happens the day that a witch announces her/his candidacy for the presidency.

"Polygamy Porter":
If you were Otterson, would you come back on here by name and get involved in this whole silly dialogue? Some with ability to detect how people use language and clear reasoning in a consistent way have identified Otterson in at least two or three of the writers who have provided comments. If all of the commenters were respectful, non-name-calling, non-back-biting, non-mis-characterizing, then perhaps you might have your "wish" come true, but that does not appear possible on this blog.

Watched PBS doc:
You are simply wrong about the conception of Jesus thing. This is not orthodox doctrine in the Mormon church. Some people believe this, but most think this is just crazy.

Whether LDS, Catholic, Episcopalian, Southern Baptist, Calvinist, all these major denominations, past and present, are big churches with lots of people who have all kinds of ideas, some of which are nuts. They are just people. Remember in Acts when Paul chewed out Peter for distancing himself from the gentile converts when the Jews came around? Yes, even the most remarkable people are just people. If you look hard enough, you'll be able to find all kinds of objectionable stuff, like Martin Luther's anti-semitism. Isn't this true of any organization? The purpose of every Christian church is to bring people to Christ, not to bring people to a church. The church is just a vehicle. Yes, you want to maintain the vehicle, but if you get caught up in vehicle maintenance, you might forget the destination which is a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I think that every Christian denomination believes this. If you focus on the essential, everything else falls into perspective. You don't fear church leaders because you realize that nothing they do which is wrong has any standing with God, and because you don't fear, you are also less bitter when they do something you don't like. You don't get so angry when other Christians don't believe or act as you would like because you realize that you are all sinners together, and if God loves them, who are you not to do the same? They are just people. You don't obsess over what you could call the political matters of the church, matters of power and control, because they really don't matter much compared to one's relationship with God. It is best that we don't let church politics get in the way of our worship. Jesus taught, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's (Matt 22:21)." I think that we can rightly expand this to, "Render therefore unto Rome, Salt Lake, Brooklyn, etc..." Temples are another example of this. The ordinances and ceremonies performed in LDS temples are routine. There is nothing very outwardly exciting that goes on there, not much conversation, not even much explanation. The learning and excitement are supposed to come from communion with God, and the temple is there to facilitate that.

It is all about attestations.

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=Joe Smith

Wow, this Otterson fellow is really PARTICIPATING in a DISCUSSION here...

He runs in, spouts off something that the spin docs at LDS INC told him to say, then scurries off?

He probably does not even read the posts here.

YET, over at LDS.ORG they are fawning over Otterson's PARTICIPATION in this "public forum".

I guess it got too hot in the kitchen for the busboy.

Hey Watched PBS Dog,

There is no doubt that Otterson facilitated lies about loads of stuff, or spun it, or whatever. He gets paid to do that stuff for a huge institution.

Though, I do not understand why the conception is such the lie. I mean sheesh, it's not as if anyone anywhere has a any proof of the actual events.

My personal favorite source is the Gospel According to Jesus Christ by Jose Saramago. Saramago takes the myth and writes in a fantastic stream of consciousness from Joseph and Mary right up to the end. Fan-damn-tastic. If you read that, you might not go ALL CAPS about someone elses myth.

Now, if you wanna come back and highlight any other whoppers from Mikey-to-da-O and his 15 fellow riders, we would love to hear from ya. Just dont scare Henry James, we need his apostatedness to remain unthreatened.

You all know I am an apostate

but I am starting to feel persecuted like my Mormon ancestors did
after reading the Rant for "Watched PBS Doc".

Phew.

Otterson,

There is so much I could respond to in your short diatribe but I will pick this one item.

"It is un-American to treat them as one of the last groups about which blatantly intolerant comments are still seen as politically acceptable."

Did it ever occur to you Otterson that the reason there is so much animosity towards your vicious cult is because your organization continually LIES about its beliefs and origins. You are a prime example. I have read your posts on this board and find them to be full of inaccuracies and lies about your church. STOP LYING ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND HISTORY! We are no longer going to be fooled by your deception. I believe your D&C says that liars will be thrust down to hell. Doesn't this scare you at all? So long as people like you lie about your church to others, you and your church will be treated like the pariah that it is.

For example, are you honest with people about your beliefs concerning the immaculate conception? It is not so immaculate to you, is it Otterson? Mormons believe that God came down from heaven and had SEX with Mary to conceive Jesus. Do you deny this? You know darn well your past prophets have taught this but I would be willing to wager you are not trumpeting this belief from the rooftops. You are asked in your temple recommend interview if you are "honest in your dealings with your fellow man." I guess it is time to surrender your temple recommend, isn't it Otterson?

My last post was directed to the the Mayan Elephant.

I am not going to argue about the individual experiences of individual missionaries because I can only comment about the people I know. As Phaedrus said, " None of these individuals can be selected to represent the whole, at least with any claim to validity."

I know that you are not inspired the same things that move me. I am certain that there are people who have served missions whose lives have been radically changed for the better because of their service and their experiences. I would assume that all missionaries cannot claim this kind of positive life-changing experience on their missions. However, I am happy that many find it uplifting.

This is amazing.

It's like reading the Bible all over...contentions here...contentions there.

One idea here, disagreement there.

This may get better ratings than primetime TV!

Joy,

I look forward to discussing the missions with you on another thread. Notice the interviews of Jensen in the PBS website. Whitney inquires about the horrible retention rate of missionaries. Why? Because it is horrible. Why? Because too many are having traumatic experiences and not talking about it. Instead, they just leave.

It goes right along with the code of silence we have regarding the temple.

Dont say a word.

"Best two years of my life"
"Best two years of my life"
"Best two years of my life"

Repeated three times.

Just keep saying it, even if it is not true.

Oh, by the way, I had a great time on my mission. Seriously.

Even for the typical Otterson thread, this has really developed into a ridiculous shouting match of sorts.

D Parker,

I dont see the questions the same as you do. Though, I accept the different perspectives. I see that mainstream society is going one way, and this religion is going another. So, in that light, is society likely or unlikely to embrace the unusual ideals of this religion? I dont agree with Otterson that it is a theocratic test of sorts, only that the religion does not keep up with change in the society.

No. A religion need not ordain women to be mainstream. But, the same religion cannot, or should not, claim that there exists a bias against them or an allowance for intolerance for that decision.

It is not just the priesthood issue that is of concern, parker. It is the fact that the men are in charge, and as recently as tuesday, the same men reiterated the counsel that it is wrong to criticize the men, even if the criticism is true.

That is a problem.

Do you think, for one second, that the same men would accept a role where they were to accept, without comment, the counsel of women, even if such counsel was demonstrably unfair or dangerous?

I am very proud and moved by the work done by the welfare department of the LDS church. Much of what they do is not touted in the media. Yet it impacts lives around the globe.

I am also very proud of the missionary department of the church. I think that the work they do in transforming the lives of the missionaries, not to mention the converts, is remarkable.

Phaedrus,
'Just read your post above. Thanks for coming back. Thanks for articulating respectfully and well.

Mayan and others,
I am seeing two interrelated discussions lately here: 1) Should a religion that fosters strong religious devotion through the voluntary beliefs of its members be considered mainstream if some of the families that are impacted by that devotion have less harmony than (hypothetically) they might otherwise have? 2) Does a religion have to ordain women to their priesthood to be considered mainstream?

Wait--military commitments cause disharmony in families, even divorce. Should we be "suspicious" of the military because of that? Devotion to football or other sports causes disharmony in some families--should we also be "suspicious" of those and say they can't be "mainstream"?

Should the Catholic Church not be considered mainstream, by the definition some seem to be implying here? I really think you'all are saying, "if people don't think like I think, they shouldn't be considered mainstream."

The LDS faith teaches that men should honor, respect and admire women, and we do--very much so. We also are taught to honor marriage covenants and love our spouse with complete devotion whether within the religion or not. If some struggle doing that, then, yes, they have some growing to do. But don't we all?

Phaedrus thanks for your comment. It at least made sense. I am tired of my experience being belittle. Dialog and discussion and points of view are good and welcome. It is just hard when they dont give their point of view they just let you know how stupid they think you are.

Mormon Economics 101: True or False- Test #1

The Mormon Church collects at least $6 billion a year from its members, and generates at least another $5 billion in sales from its various business enterprises; total church assets exceed $30 billion. (At least 100 companies are controlled by the Mormon Church, and some estimate its total annual revenues in excess of $20 billion! The church also owns 18 radio stations in the U.S.)

Part of the Church's income goes to operate an elaborate internal welfare system so its members avoid any governmental assistance.

The Mormon Church also has a 58,000-plus missionary force working in more than 160 nations in 102 languages. The Church's Provo, Utah, 26-acre Missionary Training Center receives 500 new missionaries a week into its 3-9 week intensive missionary training program. (All boys, once they turn 19, are expected to dedicate two years of their lives to missionary service.) The missions also serve to mature and bulk up BYU football players.

Fielding missionaries is a $500 million per year effort and currently reaps more than 300,000 new converts each year. Nevertheless, only about 46% of Mormons attend a church meeting at least once a month. (The clean-cut image that Mormons have attained has been a major factor in the attractiveness of the Mormon Church to outsiders. They are forbidden to drink coffee, tea, and alcoholic beverages, and use tobacco products.)"

This shouldnt be a blog but a rant because that is all it is. You sit and do this from the privacy of your home or whatever where it is safe. Thanks Dartman for pointing out the obviouse I misspell on purpas because I am dum and love to show it. Or didnt you know. Oh I forgot, people like you are so much smarter then the rest of us. That is what this is all about. You are all intolerant. You believe differently so you attack because you believe you know better. Good Luck with that. Are all mormons asleep and stupid. I think not. I am for real. More real then most of you. This is the only time I have ever blogged and it is the last because it is so anti productive and is just a place where people such as yourselve have a place to vent. Not to discuss. You will never be happy unless things are the way you think they should be. May be you are a God and you know best(fat chance)!!! As long as you see all Mormons as second class, stupid people there is no real dialog. What ever happened to agree to disagree?

I agree with SML on this one

The emotion of a women is to be admired and all men would do wll to get a little more in touch with some of thier own

The LDS church, like any large, multinational organization has members, and non-members, whose experiences in and outside of the church are widely disparate. To argue over whose experience was "genuine," and whose was not, is ultimately a pointless exercise. Some women feel oppressed, some do not, some were forced to choose between open scholarship and dogmatic conformity, and others say they were not. Some claim they were pressured to support certain political causes, and others claim they were not. None of these individuals can be selected to represent the whole, at least with any claim to validity.

That said, this does not then suggest that there are no standards to compare LDS beliefs and practices to, because like any church or non-compulsory organization, entitled to chosse for itself who will be accepted (and acceptable) for membership there are "official standards" which are matters of public record. There is published history.

The LDS leadership denies the right to serve in that leadership (i.e. the Quorum on down) to certain members based solely on their gender. The church is free to believe this is appropriate, and practice accordingly, but it cannot simultaneously make the claim that it does not practice sexism. The fact that many women in the church do not find this condition objectionable, is neither surprising nor invalid. After women were granted suffrage rights, not all of them chose to vote.

However, those women (and men, right Mayan and HJ?) such as SML and Betty who do find this unfair and unjust are accurate in their accusations of sexism, and equally valid in their view that this is unacceptable treatment. And, sometimes at great personal cost, they leave the church, and then exercise their right to speak out about their experience. While some Mormons may want them to leave and be done with it, sparing the church some negative publicity, they would have to be fairly selfish to turn their backs on others within the church structure who likely suffer as they did.

But, even if not a single woman in the church felt ill-served by sexist practices, some still decry this condition based upon the principle of equality of opportunity. These are the same people who would have said, "Even if no woman wanted to vote, the fact that they are prevented from doing so is wrong in and of itself. Benign dominion is no less dominionist for its benignity.

The same could be said in regard to the issue of how Mormons view homosexuals, and behave towards them in terms of official church doctrine. I find much material for debate here, but that material lies in official church doctrine and practice, as opposed to individual experiences that invariably lie within wide parameters.

I urge all of us to dampen the rhetoric as to whose experiences, within and without the church, are most "valid." No finding with a legitimate claim to truth can be found in this way, not in this medium anyway. It is likely that most of us have experienced precisely what we say we have, and feel about it precisely as we say we do.

The LDS church has a recorded history that is worth debating. It has a set of beliefs that are worth discussing. Both are generally agreed upon, with differences in matters of detail and selected contextual elements. The church leadership's official acts have huge impact on individual lives, for good and ill. Surely, a discussion of these things is enough to sustain the potential value of a thread such as this one, without resorting to denigration of personal experiences.

Meme ~ after you wrote, "Being in leadership is not fun. Look what they have to deal with. It is better done without the emotion of a women. We have more power then we know. Heaven help us if we got anymore" I suspect that you aren't for real.

(shaking my head at the "emotion" comment and truly going now)...

Sister Mary Lisa,

I receive the blessings of the priesthood whether or not I 'hold' the priesthood. That is true for this life and the next. Again - just difference callings in life than men - not unequal.

As for missing all those male meeting - sorry to say I don't miss that a bit!

Dartman ~

Gosh, I feel like I'm on Big Brother. :) Back to work for me.

meme ~ Learn to spell and then maybe you won't look dumb. And if the hoof fits....

Mary why do you want us to have the priesthood.? I for one dont want it I have enough responsibility as it is. Is it all about power? I feel plenty powerful. Why would I want to go to those meeting? I can read the priesthood session in the ensign. Why would I want to be a bishop? Why would you? Is it all about power. there is no priesthood power without righteousness. Being in leadership is not fun. Look what they have to deal with. It is better done without the emotion of a women. We have more power then we know. Heaven help us if we got anymore.

It certainly doesn't bother me that I'm not invited to Relief Society, Young Women, etc.

The organizations for women offer so much (from my male perspective with 5 sisters, a mother, a wife, etc.)....

Dartmant we could say the say in reverse. We all dumb apparently!
so please wake us up!!! WHATEVER!!!!!!!

Joy ~

You "can potentially receive the same blessings as any worthy man." You aren't talking about potentially (in the next life, perhaps) being able to receive the priesthood, or the power to act in God's name, that men already receive now, are you?

And I feel absolutely no condescension toward you or any woman in the church.

Sorry, that should be priesthood meetings!

Sister Mary Lisa:

Although I suspect a woman would feel out of place, I am quite sure that a woman would not be banned from general priesthood meanings.

I believe that most women are content to know that men have the priesthood and women do not. I understand that you might find this unfair or unequal and I don't expect to change your opinion, but I believe (again a male's perspective) that God is a god of order, that we might not always understand his ways, but this is how he has created things.

I don't see how this diminishes the role of women. This does not mean that women cannot pursue a career or make many valuable contributions outside of the home. Perhaps not all women find marriage and motherhood to be fulfilling, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Men and women are both equally important- I understand why they have to perform the same roles.

Whatever why do we have to have it all. Some people are never happy. Some people want it all with out having to do their part. I love making you all blog like crazy against me it is so fun. Take the part you want and twist away. WEEEEEEEE!!!!! Like I said start your own church and make it equal then you will be happy and we will be happy. if the women want it they can go get it.
poor women just have to be a part of everything. why?
maybe not necessarily sin keeps them out but they dont want to do what is asked which is fine dont do it. dont go. what is the problem? there are plent of groups where women are really in need of your focus. why dont you go work on that instead. like the middle east for example.
you guys are so focused i bet most mormons are out being happy and doing good can you say the same. find your own happiness and leave us alone.

SML ~ Why would you waste your time and effort in trying to change the opinions or minds of people you don't know or in some cases don't want to know.
Remember these words;
"You Can't Enlighten the Unconscious".

Hello Sister Mary Lisa,

On this point I agree with Meme. Please don't do me any favors. Just because there are differences between the sexes does not mean inequality exists. Women have been confusing this for quite some time now.

The National Organzation of Women (NOW) claims to represent me as a woman. But there is almost nothing that they rally for that I agree with. I tell the them same thing I tell you- please don't speak for me and don't do me any favors.

If I were the type to be offended, I guess I could be offended at your condescending attitude towards women in the church. Again, whether you mean to or not, you act like you want us to just sit back and let you champoin us. You know what's good for us even if we don't know it ourselves.

Again, I have never felt 'unequal' at church or in the temple. My role as a woman is different. I am not the same as men. But I am equal in the eyes of God and can potentially receive the same blessings as any worthy man.

if meme dsaid she didnt like it the temple women would think she was a sinner? that is big and real social pressure.

Meme enlightens us once again: "Women are not left out of anything."

Except for:

Priesthood Meeting
Priesthood session of General Conference
Stake High Council
Stake Presidency meetings
Bishopric Meetings
Passing the sacrament
Giving priesthood blessings
Tithing Settlement
Collecting Fast Offerings
Interviews to determine anothers' worthiness
High Priests Quorum
Elders Quorum
Aaronic Priesthood meetings
Sitting in on Church Courts (unless they are the ones who did something "wrong")
Baptismal font as the one doing the baptizing
Giving their children blessings

I could go on. Shall I?

So thats it - They want to sin.

Un-effing-believable. (There, that is another sin for me.)

If they werent sinners they would think like you. Unreal. Some things never change.

elephant your logic is crazy! Your arguments are that arguments. go about your life and do what makes you happy. If that involves spending all your time on blogs bad mouthing good things well you have achieve it. Good for you. I dont feel invited I feel entitled as I should because God is not a respecter of persons. Women are not left out of anything. any right or blessing or promise etc. as far as how it is persived well I think people just have to know or they go crazy. We live in a society that thinks all and know everything. obviously you know it so what is your problem. there is so much info on the web all these sacred things are out there for everyone so it is not much of a secret anymore so let us keep it sacred. They want to go in and still be able to sin and do whatever they want. Kind of strange.

It is funny how we will put men in office who are dishonest etc but wont put someone in who is good because we are small minded. Talk about trusting what someone will do in office. You think we would be a little more worried about Hillary and her lack of Moral compass. She makes all women look bad. And I am affraid of her choices because they only serve herself.

Meme:

if it was just for men why would they bother to include us at all

Are you serious? Are you implying that women should be happy just to be invited, and their presence alone proves it is equal?

Well, along those lines, if rape was just for men why would a perpetrator need to include a woman? Why does a man need to include a woman for acts of domestic violence in a home if its not for her benefit?

That logic is crazy. Again, how do you think it is perceived by those not in the faith? And more, can you see at all why it would lead one to be suspicious of mormonism?

anonymos that is a bit extreme sad if your family ect wont accept you when you choose to go to the temple. it is a two way street. should you not follow what you believe just because others wont accept you?

I made the above post - 5.24 pm.

mary obviosly you dont feel equal so you have to go about getting into others business. many women get uplifted etc. if it was just for men why would they bother toinclude us at all

Jim A,

"Mayan mentions that some, and specifically women, have had a bad reaction from attending the temple, and I don't deny that is the case. But if it is intended to be a good experience and the vast majority find it to be so, for those that don't, can the church or temple be responsible?"

It is just as acceptable, in my opinion, for the temple experience to be poorly received by a minority as it is for the NBA Playoffs to be poorly recieved by a minority or a majority. And more, it is acceptable for the owners of the temple to cater to a majority of prospective clients/patrons , just as it is acceptable for any institution to maximize its clientele.

Where I have an issue is in the acknowledgement that it may be imperfect or imperfectly perceived. And in the specific case of the Mormon Temple, the fallout of the temple being poorly recieved is grave. Meaning, by not embracing it fully, one has to also forsake family, eternal family, one's heritage, possibly social status, sometimes a marriage and more. That is bizarre. And, to the topic at hand, with those consequences, there isa valid reason for society to remain suspicious of the Mormon church and any possibility of having a civil leader that embraces the faith.

There you go again treating us as if we are dumb and just embrassing inequality. I am equal in every since of the word. and take offense that you see us as such you are doing nothing for womenhood only making yourself a fool. good luck!!!

Meme ~ I am not standing up for those who cannot come and stand up for themselves. I am standing up for womanhood as a whole. I am pointing out that inequality is there. I fully respect your right to embrace that inequality as the best thing for you. I understand it as well.

Jim A ~ the temple experience is intended to be sacred, sanctifying, uplifting. For whom? I think it was created by men with men's upliftment in mind. But what do I know?

thanks jim you have hit it on the head!!!!! If you dont want to really be there or are there for the wrong reason no wonder you dont have that experience. or if you decide that it is boring it certainly will be. or mayber your having an off day. That is why we go back to learn and relearn because we are stubborn and forget and sometimes have an off day.

Why is it that women have to have everything like a man. We should embrace our strengths and enjoy the fact that we are not like men. Yeah!!!! We have different roles. Most (99.9%) of women in the church accept and are fine with that. So for you who believe other wise. What is your problem? (Mary) Go start your own thing give everyone what they want. (See how that turns out)

SML,

I believe that the temple is intended to be a sacred, sanctifying, uplifting experience for all who go to learn, to serve, etc. Mayan mentions that some, and specifically women, have had a bad reaction from attending the temple, and I don't deny that is the case. But if it is intended to be a good experience and the vast majority find it to be so, for those that don't, can the church or temple be responsible?

Perhaps it comes down to the fact that we all experience events somewhat differently, and maybe no experience can satisfy everyone 100% all of the time, even if that is the intent.

jim i think the other factor you are looking for is that it is based on the individual and what they choose or how they choose to react to it. the majority doesnt have that issue. those who do need to look at what their issue is and decide what is best for them and allow the rest of us to go on enjoying with out them championing for us as if we are dumb and cant figure this out ourselves. when people on here say they are fighting for me they are mistakin. I am a big girl. I can stand up for myself. they make it seem as if all mormon women are just stupid and need someone to step in for us. Whatever

Jim A ~

May I first ask why you mention "fault" as if it's bad to have issues with the temple experience?

there are several people posting as anonymos on this posting. which is why you are so confused. different people different points. and about inequality. the church doesnt teach it but there is abuse and inequality and prejudges everywhere. whites against blacks. blacks against whites. blackes against blackes. mormans against other mormons. babtist against mormons. etc etc etc. it is an imperfect world. we dont claim to be perfect we are just trying to be better. me, and my sisters and my friends etc dont feel as if we are discriminated against or are missing out on anything. I am sure there are some who are but that is because of a few imperfect jerks. not the mormon faith as a whole

It is interesting that regardless of the original post, the resulting discussion usually evolve into something entirely different, but I thoroughly enjoy these exhanges nonetheless.

I hate to be blunt, and I believe that JD1 once made a similar comment, but if many, most likely the majority (I'm assuming here) of LDS women would speak very positively of their temple experience, and some, most likely a small minority have issues with the experience, can we fault the church or the temple for this, or is there some other factor?

I cant answer for Anonymous, but, I cant help myself.

Are you implying that because others are abusive, and your position is relatively less abusive, that yours is good abuse?

Or, are you implying that the perceived abuse by a victim, specifically women, if its insignificant or not abusive in your opinion, is irrelevant?

Or, are you suggesting that women are not abused, its just a minor detail, and all, including me and anyone else, should just shut-up about it?

Or, are you insinuating that anonymous is guilty of abuses too, so he/she should self-silence?

Or, are you promoting that only perfect people can complain or identify abuse?

What is your point?

Regarding the Mormon church - what is your point there? Does there have to be actual physical and other forms of violence and abuse in order to acknowledge any amount of inequality? Is inequality not enough of an issue for you? Or, do you not see or acknowledge inequality? Truly, I have read a lot of stuff on here, yours leaves me as perplexed as anything.

Abuse? ~

"Abuse of women in the Mormon church? Does lack of holding the Priesthood constitute abuse? How many presidents of a house do you need? It is an administrative call, that is all. Veil's on women's faces? Does that constitute abuse? They veil themselves during one short prayer, but we close our eyes during prayer anyway, don't we?"

Just because you close your eyes doesn't mean the abuse isn't happening. It's not physical abuse, it's emotional abuse.

The "administrative call" is abusive if the priesthood authority is denied women simply by virtue of their gender, or granted to men simply by virtue of their gender. The abuse is compounded when women are told that men get it because they are more "suited" for authority, while women are more "suited" for motherhood and supporting men.

I don't expect you to admit that you know many women who would make far better leaders than some of the men you've had as priesthood leaders. But certainly you know of many. And those women will never be able to as long as they are kept in their second class position within the church.

And society also has much improvement to make in the way it treats women as you pointed out so well. I advocate change in treatment and attitude toward women in all the areas it is needed.

James 1:5

Parker,

One more thing. Your immediate reaction to entering a temple is valuable. Nobody, especially me, is looking to diminish that feeling or reaction.

However, I hope you respect that others have created personal sanctuaries for themselves in a variety of forms. It could be a private altar in their own home, or a natural space, or any variety of things. There is beauty in the story about your prophet, J. Smith, and how he found such sanctuary or reserved space enough to see God in a grove of trees. Smith hoped that all would have such experiences, or sanctuary. That was a huge draw in the early days of the Church.

The sanctuary you find, and peace, is not just because it is the temple. It is that way because of you, no? If I went there, as a horrible and rotten person, I would have a different reaction. It is peaceful to you because of the shared values and dedication of the many volunteers and because of you.

Such a sanctuary is not created with bricks, mortar and a priesthood building dedication. That too is what irritates the living hell out of me about the LDS church. Where one person, especially one with a vagina, fails to find the same peace you do, they are in a difficult and impossible dilemna. That is not fair. And more, the fact that a person does not have the same reaction as you is a ridiculous reason to divide families, which is common when a person in a devout Mormon family has a negative and real reaction to the Temple ceremonies.

Dear Anonymous,

Have you ever pushed anyone, hit anyone, called them a name, put them down, made fun of anyone, laughed at a joke that be-littled anyone? Have you ever chosen your own desires over anothers? Have you ever purposely said anything to someone that you knew would make them change their mind, give up, change direction, feel bad, or just because you were mad? Have you ever cursed another driver, made huffy breathe's at a checker who didn't ring something up right? Have you ever yelled at anyone, been purposely silent to someone, ignored, left-out, or refused your friendship? Have you been perfectly good to your children, your spouse, your parents?

"When people abuse and do it in God's name is evil" Are you talking about the Christian raids? Are you talking about Jihad? Are you talking about Joan of Arc, are you talking about the crucifiction? Are you talking about the King of England? Are you talking about Catholic Priests? Are you talking about the Civil War? Are you talking about the Christian movement in the west that slaughtered Indians?

God ordered the slaughter or entire people's, children, women, cattle, sheep, everything. Was this abuse?

The Meadow Massacre was a sad event, it's disgusting that man is capable of such bloody destruction, but it was not in God's name, it was men acting under their own agency.

Abuse of women in the Mormon church? Does lack of holding the Priesthood constitute abuse? How many presidents of a house do you need? It is an administrative call, that is all. Veil's on women's faces? Does that constitute abuse? They veil themselves during one short prayer, but we close our eyes during prayer anyway, don't we?

All abuse is evil, I'm just saying let's get it in perspective before we start hating.

D Parker,

I loved the temple. I think I mentioned how much time I spent there. I appreciate the quietness of it all. Music is only played in a very small windowless chapel area. It is calm. It can be peaceful. I simply challenge that it is not as inspiring as presented for ALL people. And further, it is not tolerated to discuss ill-feelings one may have about the temple, even if they exist and are shared by many.

The peace you describe is personal and deserves enourmous respect. Just as the anxiety and hatred and despair of many women, when forced to veil and vow to another, is real for them. It is not the holiest and closest to God for everyone. Even if it is for you or if it was for me.

My contention is that there is not real and frank discussion about the temple, and that void devalues the meaning for you and others. Additionally, it reduces the prospect of real acceptance of Mormons throughout society and the world.

Mayan,
I also feel tremendous peace in the temples I attend, the moment I walk in the door. It's a good feeling, peace. Many, many non-LDS who attend temple open houses describe their feeling in that same way. You seem to convey that it is a "false" sense of peace, if I'm reading you right. How can you presume to know the source of anyone else's feelings? Many religions, and perhaps many other traditions such as Henry James and Phaedrus have implied, bring feelings of peace. Good. Peace is good. The world needs more of it. (By the way, I think you have been heard by the writer of "Responding"-genuinely heard.)

The PBS documentaries have provided glimpses that were balanced and forthright, and now are a part of another source of information for people. The twenty people who read this can become as informed as they would like, and can use their own agency to do it. They don't need to feel backed into a corner by someone who has an axe to grind. Why not trust people to pursue their own ideals and places of worship, "let them worship how, where, or what they may." Peace to you and yours, honestly.

Abuse?,

Ignoring any abuse in any setting is wrong.

Dismissing abuse in one place because of the abuses in another place is misguided.

Pretending there is no abuse in your house because it doesnt match the abuse in another is immoral rationalization.

Abusing in the name of God, and calling it inspiration, is evil.

In what instance have women been persecuted? Have you ever looked at pornography, laughed at a blond joke, told a boy he threw like a girl, scoffed at women's basketball, been to Hooters? Told a boy to quit screaming like a girl, thought an emotional woman was on pms? Have you ever walked into a business room and had men roll their eyes because they didn't know they were going to have to put up with a woman today? Have you ever called a woman a female dog for being fiery? Have you ever supported tv shows that show constant abuse towards women, shown them beaten, naked, raped, or shown as the bitter ex-wife who kills people because she can't handle someone else with her husband? Have you ever pushed a girl to do things in intimate moments she really didn't want to do? Have you ever been annoyed when a girl cries?

If you want to talk about abuses, make sure you clean your own house before talking about a whole religion. I think it ironic you blast a church that teaches morality and family values for abuses, when you most likely watch a tv that promotes the most disgusting and filthy way to look at a woman. Try knocking on Hollywood's door before you pick on a church.

Mormons who want to assure their neighbors of their good intentions would do well to speak out when their leaders are persecuting women, homosexuals, and intelletuals. Lets clean our own house before we blame non- and post-Mormons for failing to respect us.

I don't know of any other mainstream religion that excommunicates scholars for their research. Even the Catholics have learned their lesson and Pope John Paul II had the grace to apologize for the poor treatment of Galileo Galilei.

Four hundred years after Galilei and the Mormon hierarchy reinvents the wheel and reenacts Galileo Galilei. Given the Mormon hierarchy's intolerance of scholarship, we cannot be surprised when some people are concerned about Mormon political power.

Of course most Mormons mean well. It is disappointing, however, when good people sacrifice good sense and justice to defend their leaders' abuses. As a society or an institution, we are lacking the courage to stand up to our friends' abuses. That's not good enough.

Wow Mayan, that is quite the opinion of the Temple. I think it interesting that there is such a drive by some to say that if you have faith, you have no intelligence, you do not think for yourself. And why is it that allowing a head to your family makes you any less? You forget that as women as you say "Vow to obey their husbands" that is only in effect when the husband is listening to the promptings of God, and I have found that in those instances, there is no ruling, but we come together, pray together, and find our answer together.

As to why people may not go, we do not know their circumstances, people get ill, pregnant, busy, or they have a hard time getting there, maybe they can't afford babysitter's very often, or whatever. Say what you want about the Temple, but I know it to be a refuge, a reminder of why I am here, what my purpose is, and helps all the worldy worries and aspirations melt away. I feel closer in my relationship to my Father in Heaven, stronger in my resistence to temptation, and stronger in the way I see and love myself.

So Mayan, you're probably not a fan of Yoga or meditation, it's when we're quiet that we find out who we really are.

Joy ~

Yes, perhaps I saw things that I felt were unfair. Or....I DID see things, and experience things, that ARE unfair. I still see them.

I champion the cause for all women, including you, because it's the right thing to do, not because you asked me to or not. Do you actually think you'd be less of a woman of worth if you enjoyed equality at church? Really? Or must you embrace your "differences" and lesser status and deny there even is inequality in order to be valued within the church?

It seems to me that Mormon church is less than forthcoming about about their church and their faith. If I was contacted by a missionary, I would definitely want to know all there is to know prior to any conversion. Otherwise, I would say I haven't been converted but have been trapped into conversion by snake oil salesman.

I think everyone should have all the facts in order to make an informed decision. How can you do that if you are fed half truths?

I shall Get On With It now. well, as soon as I hit [Post]

"The ceremony in the temple binds families for eternity. I find this to be a beautiful truth. In fact everything I see hear and feel when I go to the temple testifies of God. It is the only place on earth where I feel true peace."

Thanks Joy.

This is a very common description of the Temple. That Sacred not Secret Sanctuary for Mormons. I hear this often, in fact, I may have even said it myself sometimes. I have been to the temple a lot. A whole lot.

Believe it or not, I have enormous respect for the place. I miss it in many many ways. It is very quiet. The colors are gentle. It is built around rituals and rites that, as has been described here, are generally centered on family. The temple is neutral with regards to people. Everyone dresses the same. They lock their street clothes up and re-dress in white, with a dash of green, of course. (Sorta like adding a bit of Parsley, for color. I always thought of 'Parsley' P. Pratt when I saw the green)

Also, the temple requires an enormous amount of work by church employees and volunteers. I loved the volunteers at the temple. These are gooood goood gooooooooood people there. The employees at the temple are grossly underpaid. Though, they are extrememly generous and courteous all the time. What a treat, if only Wal-Mart could be so fun.

That said, it is valuable to be honest about the joint. It is so damn boring. My goodness. There couldnt possibly be a more boring place on this planet. Not only have I listened to the most diverse forms of snoring in that joint, I have seen a person die in there. She fell asleep and stopped, right there in the temple. It is unbelievably boring. And its routine. Everything is dictated, with one exception, a little rant-space is offered before a couple is married. Other than that - Memorization Baby. Bore you to death, literally. Mormons are conditioned to say it is the Holiest place ever, it is the house of God, it is wonderful, I have never felt closer to God. The reality, they never felt closer to falling asleep in white and parsley

If it really really was as exciting and inspiring as mormons declare, there would not be a crisis in the church right now regarding temple attendance. The more they build, the less people attend. That sorta backfired, No longer is it something worth travelling to, a mecca, a ritual in preparation as well as the actual event. Now, it is as routine as paying 10% of your income for the privelege of going to McDonalds. Only, there is no playground or Hamburgler.

Ask any Bishop or Elders Quorum president. There is ward temple night, priesthood quorum temple activities, temple meeting marathons where they try and get people to bore themselves back to back to back. Every motivational tactic imaginable is used to convince people to go go go. Get a temple recommend, just in case you can go someday. Of all these tactics, the one that works the best is the 'silent code.' Tell everyone its the closest you have ever felt to God, even if its not true. They too will then go, so they can claim to have been closer to God.

Another issue with the temple is the extreme disparity in how women and men are treated. Women are veiled when they pray. They take vows to obey their husbands. For some women - not all women - this is brutal. There is little allowance within the church and within the temple for the harsh sexism and separation of the sexes in the temple. For some, it is the furthest one could ever be from God, though, that is rarely discussed. That is too honest.

This topic is something that hinders complete mainstreaming for Mormons. In my anti/bitter/angry/evil/heardhearted opinion, I think the key factors the temple presents regarding Mormonism and its perceptions by others are - Fake/Dishonest Descriptions, Garments and Sexism. The secrecy is fine. Lots of people do things in secret. Big deal. Having a silent code to constantly say it is the holiest place on earth makes patrons seem wacky. And the silence and secrecy around something that is unequal for the sexes - that is a problem when it comes to being generally and always favorably accepted. In my other opinion, the one that respects the temple differently, I think people love that we have a higher ground, a tangible sacred pinnacle for the faith, even if they dont understand it.

Responding,

Thank you for your elequent 'response'! I agree.

Sister Mary Lisa,

As a woman in the LDS church, I have never felt the need for someone to champion me. I know you were in the church and perhaps saw things that you felt unfair. But on the whole, I don't think you need to worry about women in the church. Where unrighteous dominion occurs, it should be dealt with accordingly. The church does not condone it. In fact it preaches strongly against it.

I have been reading this and amazed that anyone would come here for info. Or to make things better. Get up off your seats quit typing and go outside talk to your neighbor. Better yourself and your community where you live. How much time do we all waste arguing back and forth in a blog. It is not solving anything or helping anyone.

Alex;

To enter a temple you must be worthey to do so.
If one party of the marage is not mormon, they will have to become mormon in order to prove themselves worthey.
If the family is not mormon, they are in the same boat and must wait outside.

It's god's house.
only the worthey may enter.
To be worthey you must prove that you are following god's laws. You must prove that to the mormons as it is a mormon temple.

civil marrages are also recognized by the church of Jesus Christ as valad. The only difference is, a civil marrage is not a sealing for all time and eternaty. That can only be achieved in a temple.

There are a few questions or comments that have gone unanswered that I'd like to address.

First the subject of not criticizing the leaders.... It is the belief of Mormon's that everyday people are called of God to act in roles of service through-out the church. This calling usually comes from a Bishop of a ward, but most of the time it is not just the bishop who comes up with names for certain positions, females in their positions of service pray and fast to find the people God wants in certain positions, and they are approved by the Bishop, just as men in their positions do. The comments of well used arguments for the church stem from statements from Bruce R. Mckonkie about African Americans and his personal views. These comments were made out-side of his apostolic role. It is only in their position of officially addressing the church and or the world that their messages are to be taken as scripture. Outside of this role, we let them be human and use their intelligence and opinion to come to any summation they want. In these area's we are able to disagree. But we believe that when it is in General Conference or written in the Ensign or Liahona magazines that it is "thus sayeth the Lord".

All I know about the African-American's and the Priesthood and why they were not able to hold it for a time is, "We don't know." But this is not unlike the time of Christ when the Samaritan's and others were not able to receive the gospel as the Jews were. But that changed when the Lord commanded Paul to go to the gentiles.

Polygamy, of course this is a hard one, but I dare say that people who rail on it so hard have had more than one partner in their life. God saw fit at times in the Old Testament to institute it, and also to declare at other times that having more than one wife was against his law. It is also widely misunderstood that Mormons believe it is a requirement of the highest kingdom in Heaven, it is not and is stated as such in the records of the church.

And the question about garments, or funny underwear as I think they were described... Garments are an outward symbol of our inner commitment. Similarly we remember the time when circumcission was used as an outward symbol of our commitment. Nunns and pastors wear outward symbols. They are meant as a reminder of the covenants we have made to God. We do not wear them under swim-suits, or during times of intimacy, or other activities that would require them to be on display or soiled. They also help us dress modestly as we would not wear daily clothes that would allow them to be displayed.

The secret or sacred part regarding out Temples. Temples are not new, we read about them through-out the old and new testament, and not everyone was allowed in, especially into the Holy of Holies, only certain groups, the Levite's were allowed to touch the arc of the covenant because of the Priesthood that they held.
Once every two years, we meet with our Bishop, and he asks us questions like, Do you have a testimony of the Savior? And things like this, and regarding our Prophet, do we have a testimony that he is a true prophet? If we have not come ot those conclusions, then we are not ready for the higher commitments. The questions about worthiness are simple, are we honest?, do we pay child-support if we were previously married? We are asked in a sense if we are faithful to our spouse. And at the end they ask, "Do you feel you are worthy?" I have found that no-one is perfect and perfection is not required for entrance, but where is your heart? Are you willing to do your best? Are you willing to trust you faith?

I do not think that not being able to be married in the Temple if one is a member-and one is not, is a bad thing. I had a friend just last night who is not lds talk about the trial of being unequally yoked. Not that one is bad, or one is good, but that a marriage needs a sure foundation.

Also, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not believe that we have a copyright on truth or goodness, we view our belief as being the fulness. We believe that after the Apostles were killed there was an apostacy, there were still good men and women, and we praise Luther and Calvin, and those who were lead by what we believe to be the spirit of God to try to find the way they could best worship Him. The apostacy to me means that the Priesthood or authority to act in God's name was taken, not that God was silent, and it needed to be returned. That is why we believe the story of Joseph Smith, we believe he searched just like Luther and Calvin, and God was ready at this time to return the gospel in it's fulness. We believe that prophets from all dispensations visited him, restoring all of the authority used in their time, and that he saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Wouldn't it need to be a miraculous event?

This we believe is also why polygamy was re-instated, that if the fulness was to return, then this needed to be as well, but only for a short time, as it is not required for our salvation.

I hope this helps those with questions.

Jones ~
I do that because I believe in the value of women, no matter what religion they belong to. Do you? Is bitterness a requirement to find it wrong that women are treated with inequality?

Mary Lisa's comments certainly came off bitter, whether she is or not I suppose only she knows. Mary Lisa, are you saying that you are fighting for women's rights in a church that you no longer go to? Why would you do that?

Mayan Elephant, you are the authority on being offensive, having done it every time you write. So I will take your word for it when you say that all those things you listed are offensive.

Anonymous, we are aaaaaaaall good. Believe that.

There is something miraculous and empowering and interesting about the Mormon faith. Think about it, in a few generations, it has become one helluva community and tribe. My people started on this journey with Joseph Smith. Some made it to SLC, some didnt. Some were shot while JS was alive. They did some crazy stuff to make this church that sometimes annoys you and sometimes makes you thrilled. And guess what, those people wouldnt have it any other way. They would still build it for you and for themselves.

Though, they might try rising from the grave to rough-up the current leaders for stripping the fight from the subscribers and making the joint so rote and boring.

Keep it up. Keep writing. Keep arguing. Tell people on the inside and outside, honestly, not always politely (thanks HJ) what you think.

And......... shhhhhhhhh, little secret...... do not ever ever ever ever ever apologize for HOW you say it. Say it however the hell you want. Think about the Woman on the The Mormons, that had been in prison. She gets to say it how she wants.... LSD, LDS.... whatever. That is beautiful. We should all be so lucky.

thank you mary and i apologize and i am glad you are not bitter. i thank you there is much i can learn from others in all walks of life. thank you for wishing us all well. that is all i want. i was hoping my comments would help clear things up for others but i am not eliquent enough or know what to say but my own expierence because really that is all any one can really knows about. but i am still learning. i have struggled and had questions. i just know for sure that god loves us all. i know he loves me and he is there for me and for all of us no matter what we believe. i have had good and bad experience in the church. still i know it to be true. i know what i am taught is true and if we were all perfect in its teaching we wouldnt have any division. but non of us are or ever will be perfect. i am sure i have offend many in my life i strive to be better. and hope they will forgive me.

to mayan i am sorry i dont seem to get things right but i am honest in everything i do. i even have put my foot in my mouth before but i am just trying to defend my faith (even if it is done poorly) it has brought me more happiness then anything. i have had years where that was not the case. i worried to much about others. i have learned i am only happy when i worry about focusing on perfecting myself and leaving judgement to God i am sorry i did not do that when i said comments abouy hard hearted narrowmindedness. truely i know only god knows our hearts. i can tell you are a passionate person. i wish you well in your life.

Mayan: answer to your query

The 12th of Never

When will people realize that telling someone all of the following it is offensive, involves infinite assumptions, is rarely true, and it makes the accuser look like a Mormon:

-You chose to be bitter.
-You chose to be offended.
-You chose to be angry.
-You failed to feel the spirit.
-You have a hard heart.
-The information was available, you just werent looking.
-You are "Anti"

Hello, Joy, I am not bitter OR offended. Please stop assuming that I am. I am morally outraged on behalf of women everywhere. And on behalf of black people who endured stuff pre-1978. And on behalf of gays in the church and in the USA.

Gaby wrote:
"Reminds of any authoritarian system where everbody spies on everybody to make sure they can express their "concern" about misbehavior to the high priest in order to embellish one's own standing in the community."

Gaby - you are, and should be, very glad you are not a mormon.

It is not so much that it is like a 1984 spying on your parents situation.

It is more like living in a small town where everyone knows what everyone else is doing, there are strongly centralilzed standards for behavior, and the Big Daddy General Authorities tell you what to think about issues like Sacraments and homosexuality and the status of women.

Dear Anonymous ~

That's just it. I'm not bitter, nor do I feel that I have portrayed bitterness here. I'm actually saying all I am here BECAUSE I wish the best for all people at church, especially women. Changes need to be made, and soon, and that is why I press forward with faith.

on honest i do my best i admit sometimes words are choosen poorly or some have little experience. I dont have fear of excommunicatio nor do most mormons. You are only excommunicated for pretty serious sins which most people dont commit.

Henry James,

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the reason I feel peace in the temple is that someone is thinking for me and taking care of me? That just doesn't make sense. Not only because it isn't true, but because I don't think I would feel peace if someone were thinking for me. You obviously don't know me to say such.

I AM protected for the feeling of the outside world when I go to the temple. I also feel the Spirit of God when I go there. There aren't many places in the world designated for people to find peace.

Mary Lisa,

Often people reveal the human nature within them by judging others without knowledge. Unfortunately this happens within the Mormon church as well as without. From the way you talk, it sounds like you allowed all of the people who were wrong in their judgement of you to turn you bitter.

My mother was a wonderful person. There were times in her life when people purposely said or did things to offend her. She chose not to be offended - ever. I am sad to say that I am not like her in this way. But I still believe that choosing to be bitter or offended is just that - a choice.

Mary I am truely sorry. I can not put myself into your place. I cant imagine. I have been fortunate to have my husband support even if he didnt believe. I know the church tries not to upset marriages. I know some who have complained that the church broke up their marriages because one choose to follow and the other didnt want the to. I am sure mistakes are made. Then I was wrong some may be ready and denied we do live in an imperfect world I do know what it feels like to want something and not beable to have it. I am sorry. I was not raise to judge others. I have had many friends who didnt have the ideal. I have never judge why someone is there are not I have always just seen them for what the do day to day. I have known many excelent people in the church who have not been to the temple for one reason or another. I am sorry it has made you so bitter though seriously Like I said I dont know how that would be and only wish the best for you,

Alex,

Your suggestion that we do not have transcripts of the proceedings, and that they were honestly excommunicated, is sickening. Have you no dignity or respect for those people? This reminds me of Givens response in The Mormons to Toscanos excommunication. He inferred that we dont know the real story - there could be a really really big sin that we dont know about. This is too damn common in Mormonism. We dont know the whole story, yeah, because of all this secrecy. Which is fine. There should be confidences.

What should not exist, is the crap that anonymous just said, "they just cant understand because they are narrow minded and hard hearted." As if the only people with good minds and good hearts are the few mormons, a fraction of one percent, on earth. Most mormons are very good, though, that doesnt excuse the crap that is inflicted on others, even if done with the best intentions and feelings.

Well, all I can say is thank God I'm an E.C.L.A.T.i.

The conversations going on in here show me that there is more division than unity, and frankly, I believe that many members do not speak honestly, not even to their wives and husbands for fear they might be excommunicated.

Reminds of any authoritarian system where everbody spies on everybody to make sure they can express their "concern" about misbehavior to the high priest in order to embellish one's own standing in the community.

Alex

I was at the trials and listened to every word of the excommunication proceedings of all the historians. You mean you weren't there?

Are you saying that the Powerful Authorities of the Church HONESTLY and OPENLY excommunicated those historians? I agree with you. Very brave of them.

The historians had to choose between
writing
HONEST history
or
Faithful History.

They chose honesty. For that they were thrown out of the school and the Church.

They weren't being polite.
They made the wrong choice.
They valued honesty over politeness.
They lost their jobs and their immortal salvation.
Because they were honest.
It is very dangerous to be honest, especially in an authoritarian system.

I may not have perfect punctuation etc. I may not use elegant words. I am not bitter. I just said I was sorry you were. It is no fun to be bitter. I can no couch my words elegantly I am sorry I wish I could. I dont know why there is so much negative commentary about the temple. Apparently you dont agree with it that is fine. You dont have to. It has divided familys but only because when someone feels quilty or can live up they seperate themselves and wont agree to disagree. Lots in my family have choosen not to go. I love them and they love me and we all agree to disagree. It has brought many familys together you cannot deny that. With that kind of focus you strive to be better so you can achive that.I am sorry I have brought out so much reteric. (sorry I can spell either I will bring that up so you dont have to.) Most people who dont want to go would worry about answering those questions anyway they dont want to go. You have been there why would you want to go if you didnt believe all those things anyway?

Mayan Thanks for the correction.
When you're dead, your memory starts to go.

I think you are right, Nielson was just not rehired because BYU is a church school and he was speaking against Church Policy. So he didn't lose his immortal soul, he only lost his livelihood.

Anonymous ~

If there is even only ONE woman EVER who is denied a temple marriage because her first husband denies her a temple divorce or because her priesthood leaders think they know what is best for her more than she does, I will be one of "those people" who fights for her right to not be treated with inequality and unrighteous dominion. I don't blame anyone for becoming bitter when they are wronged.

And I refuse to be someone who says, "you have to ask yourself if they were ready or not." This makes me sick. You remind me of all those people at church who wondered why SML didn't wear garments or attend the temple...people who didn't realize that I was unable to because my non-member husband was given the right by the church to deny his "permission" for me to take out my endowments. Wonder how many of them asked themselves if I was ready or not.

Astronaut "Wally Shirra" died. Our HUMATE from Mercury Seven, is space Forthing in His unique Undieing TRANSFINITY.

Let there be Photons on his way!WE SALUTE YOU SIR!

Just as there is No Theological Test for Citizenship

The Mormon Church is constitutionally permitted to have secret rituals. They have as much right to them as Skull and Bones does.

On a "value-neutral" basis it is interesting to look at the effect of secret rituals on the members of a group, and on perception of the group by outsiders.

Not all religions have secret rituals whose details are supposed to be restricted to members.

One clear effect the system has is in enforcing discipline and consistency of belief within the organization. Many people comment on how disciplined Mormons are. The secrets and the associated reward systems contribure to this, just like they do in a fraternity or a Masonic order.

They also contribute to Joy's "feeling of peace" in the temple. She is protected from the outside world, she is with her own people, they will take care of her and think of everything for her.

If one coesn't like an organization with secret rituals, one is free not to be a member of Skull and Bones or the Mormon Church.

HJ,

No. I did not know that Nielsen was excommunicated. Is that true? I thought he was just not re-contracted.

Henry James,

"Have you been reading your Deseret News. "

I have not been reading the Deseret News, because I don't live in Utah.

"Our friend Mr Nielson from BYU was recently excommunicated because he
HONESTLY
expressed his opinion that homosexuality should be treated differently by the Church.

Have you read about other BYU historians whbo have been excommunicated for honestly writing about the Mormon history their research detailed? "

If that is correct, then Mr. Nielson was HONESTLY excommunicated too. Other BYU historians have been HONESTLY excommunicated as well. I take it you have a transcript of the proceedings of the disciplinary council and can argue both sides.

we are honest some just dont like what the hear. or they just cant understand because they are narrow minded and hard hearted.

Anonymous,

Huh? Bitter? Do you want to see bitter?

Henry James is so right. I admire his style, I often find myself wishing I could say as much with such sharp and perfectly selected words

and
lines

and with proper punction
for perfect emphasis.

I dig HJ
and I really really dig Betty.

Anonymous highlights my point perfectly. Mormons, like most christians and others, believe in an Atonement. In this case, obviously, it is Jesus of Nazareth/Jackson County Missouri that is that Savior. There is no Jesus of N/JCM for a family. He works for the individual.

Anonymous, I am not making anything sound so bad. You may not like how it sounds, but I am doing nothing to make the interpretation of the sound. Is there anything I have said that is dishonest? No. Just as Henry highlights, honesty is not polite. Feel free to refute the facts of what I have said.

For clarification, there is nothing bad about want[ing] to be together forever. Who said it was? There is a lot that is bad about using the family to coerce behavior, especially faith-based behavior.

Anonymous, you should be polite and honest about those temple recommend questions. Between you and God? They are not that subjective. These are the standard of faithful members. Sure, one can lie about it I suppose, but thats not the point. The point is to do it all be honest in the answers, right. Pay tithing, go to church, wear garements day and night, believe that Hinckley and all the 15 apostles are prophets, seers, revelators, not associate with apostates, and on and on and on. Could I show up for the intervies with shorts and slinglet and answer the questions well enough to get in? hell no. And another thing, God isnt asking the questions, first the Bishop - a man, then the Stake President - a man ask the questions. Women cant even answer them to another woman, much less to God. So what in the hell are you talking about when you say its between the person and God? I am completely lost on that one.

You said, "it hasnt divided many families..."

Well, that is not true. It has divided millions of people and continues to do so. Look at your statistics and look around. Watch the Toscano interview on PBS's documentary, The Mormons. Regardless, I cant prove how many and neither can you. I say, if it divided ONE, then there needs to be an adjustment. Unless, of course, this isnt really a religion for families and instead, an instition lead by actuarians and lawyers, in that case - divide and conquer, baby.

Joy ~ don't forget the required payment of 10% of all you earn...without paying, you don't get in to the temple. This is most important of all, I think.

in answer to mary. it is not a perfect world. and sometimes it isnt the right time. I know many who have been in simular circumstances but didnt have the same issues. there are a few and they become very bitter you have to ask yourself if they were ready or not. People always bring up the black issue. Whatever! there are many black members they have gotten over it so should the rest of you. Many of your comments are based on things you dont understand and in most cases all is solved and everyone comes out happy. In the few cases were it doesnt they are the only ones people like you bring up. my husband was married before and she left him he willingly gave her permission why would he want to be with her forever. and there are instances when you have to be patient because we are humans dealing with other imperfect humans. that is when you dig in and work harder for it.

Alex,

They do not necessarily preclude each other.

However, Henry James seemed to infer that Mormons are more polite than honest, and that honesty has severe consequences.

Now why would that be? If you can't be honest about your religion, then it seems that something is not quite kosher.

Mayan,

Once again you have proven your ability to twist truths that you once professed to believe, into something that better explains your decision not to be a member of the church anymore.

Gaby,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does hold its member to high standards. These standards are held highest for temple attendance - for marriages as well as for other ordinances. It does not seem remiss that I should be held accountable for my actions. It also does not seem wrong for me to be held to a high standard for blessings that are elevated as well.

These standards are not meant to exclude for the sake of exclusion. They are not intended to separate families, but to bind them together. At times there are families who have members who are not member or members living the standards, who are not able to attend the temple weddings of their relatives. I have seen this situation handled in various ways. For example the celebration after the temple can include exchanging of vows and rings that can include all family members.

Some of the things that members are required to do before going to the temple include believing in God, not drinking alcohol or coffee, and living a chaste life.

No family on the earth is perfect. But I know that I am striving to that end. The ceremony in the temple binds families for eternity. I find this to be a beautiful truth. In fact everything I see hear and feel when I go to the temple testifies of God. It is the only place on earth where I feel true peace.

Alex
Have you been reading your Deseret News.

Our friend Mr Nielson from BYU was recently excommunicated because he
HONESTLY
expressed his opinion that homosexuality should be treated differently by the Church.

Have you read about other BYU historians whbo have been excommunicated for honestly writing about the Mormon history their research detailed?

If one has an Honest Problem with women's holding the Priesthood, would you recommend campaigning openly for change if one did not want to be excommunicated?

Getting the picture?

Gaby our religion is not restrictive at all it actually gives us freedom. if you think of it in terms of consequences. God gives us commandments and many if followed prevent a whole lot of bad consequences. our word of wisdom regarding alcohol etc well there is nothing but good that comes from good health habits. also when you make you family number one and are faithful to your spouse there is a whole lot of ills avoided there. Also no one ever focuses on the freedom you have when you dont have all those bad consequences that are the result of sin. we have no control over consequences so why would we not want to do all we could to prevent the bad ones. I dont feel restricted at all. I am healthy, I am free to choose a lot of things. I dont have to worry about a lot of things people in this world have to worry about because the values and things we follow only have good consequences. The world would be better if people changed their veiw of what is restrictive.

Anonymous wrote, "You are asked if you think you are worthy. Know one else decides that but you."

YOU may know you are worthy, but in the end, your priesthood leaders (bishop and/or stake pres) are who ultimately decide on your worthiness and temple attendance.

If you are a single woman of marriageable age, with no prospects for marriage or mission in sight, you may not be granted a recommend to go to the temple to take out your endowments. It is discouraged, and she is powerless to insist that she be allowed, no matter how ready she is.

Or, you could be a black Mormon, pre-1978. Their worthiness didn't matter one whit, they were not allowed to have the priesthood by virtue of their skin color, and therefore were not allowed to be married in the temple to be sealed for eternity with their righteous wives and children.

Or, you could be a righteous woman, divorced from her first husband civilly, but your temple sealing still stands. If you find another worthy LDS male to marry, and the church won't grant you a temple divorce from your first spouse, then you are not allowed to seal yourself to your second husband for time and all eternity.

There are many instances where you may be worthy all you want, but are denied the right to things you know you are ready for.

"I definitely value honesty over politeness."

Does one really preclude the other? What is your point here?

you determin if you are in good standing they ask you questions you answer. You are asked if you think you are worthy. Know one else decides that but you. then it is between you and God wether you are honest with yourself or not. I am sorry that elephant is so bitter. he makes it all sound so bad. what is bad about wanted to be together forever. It hasnt divided many familys but brings them together and unites them. does that mean that everyone chooses that in your family? absolutely not. but it still brings us together. What is wrong with striving for the ideal? in the end god will be our judge and who knows how he will judge us. we all do our best. no one knows what our best is but God. Know one is perfect and no family is perfect but we can certainly do our best. Then our reward will come from that striving to be so. I believe that is what the atonement is all about.

Henry James,

I definitely value honesty over politeness.

Mayan,

Thank you for the short course.

So Mormons believe they'll be perfect families in heaven? Incredible! Sounds a little like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They also have some otherwordly view of eternity.

Both of these religions sound rather restrictive and controlling of their members. I would never stand for it.

The Mormon Value on Politeness

Mayan's incisive story points to a fundamental issue in all authoritarian systems:

Which should be valued more:
Politeness
or
Speaking Truth and Justice to Power

Mormons unequivocally value Politeness when it comes down to a choice. And the culture has throughgoingly inclucated this value in the membership.

Impoliteness (read Honesty) has severe negative consequences.

The most important being
Separation from your beloved family for eternity.

If Politeness is your highest value, Mormonism is a good place for you.

BTW, some of my best friends are polite.

Alex and Gaby:

Alex said, "I am impressed with the strength of some parents who though pained have not become bitter."

Alex, is this really the message you want to share? 'Isnt it wonderful that elitism and exclusivity of our rituals doesnt make those that are excluded bitter?' Huh? Are those parents not bitter because of the church, or because of the respect they may have for their own children? Clearly the excluded and shunned parent has issues with the standards required to enter the temple as set by the church, so it must be the higher and stronger bond to the child that prevents bitterness.

Gaby, I was one of those that excluded everyone. I thougth it was the right thing to do. My dad was not there, my siblings were not there, none of my wife's siblings were allowed. My grandparents were not invited. The one comforting highlight of it all was that my Grandfather stayed outside the temple and waited for us to exit. While he was waiting he was cussing like a sailor and chatting away with people that were shunned just like him. The guy was a celebrity by the time we got out of the temple to ask him to stop cussing so much.

Gaby, there is an added layer of coercion in this case. If the couple chooses to marry civilly, outside of the temple, in order to accomodate family and friends, they are not ALLOWED to go to the temple for at least a year. This is different in some countries that have told the Mormons to stick their private temple stuff in a box and bury it in a mountain in NY. And, there are exceptions made for some people. Mitt Romney, for example, was given an exception to that rule.

Regardless of what you think of the temple ceremony. One thing is absolutely certain - the ceremonies and status of those that participate in the temple is brandished like a flaming sword to divide families within Mormonism.

The Savior is available to to make each Mormon, or anyone else, perfect, allegedly. That is the goal - Perfection. Mormon families are restored in the next life to perfection, allegedly. The family is everything, and should be perfect. However, in the meantime, there is not a space for all family members to participate in the Mormon rites and ceremonies when the family is not unitedly temple worthy (at least individually self-declared as such).

Again, the carrot is this reward in heaven, of perfect families. The paradox is that no family on earth is perfect. The price is the real seperation of families and divisions of families and depression and guilt and shame and loss when someone in the family doesnt believe dallin oaks or hinckley or otterson or whatever, completely. Its all true, or its all a fraud. So, if one finds a grain of un-truth and doesnt renew that temple recommend - Zap, No Family For You! :(

Alex, etal:

"members in good standing (upholding a sufficient standard of worthiness)"

What exactly does that mean? Who determines that?

A human or God?

Jacob,

O.U.R.S would be great. World peace would be great. My photons have transcended worldly religions and I am at cosmic peace.

SHOLOM to you too!

Gaby,

"Here's a question to anyone who would like to answer.

Say my daughter (non-Mormon) is going to marry your Mormon son. They want to be married in the Temple.

1. Can they?

2. Can my side of the family attend the wedding? "

I appreciate your questions, because they are simple and to the point.

1. While your daughter would be able to marry a Mormon man, unless they were both members in good standing (upholding a sufficient standard of worthiness) they could not marry in the temple. However, if in the future your daughter were to be be baptized and further qualify, then they would be able to be sealed together in the temple at that time.

2. Let me preface my remarks by emphasizing that the marriage covenant in the temple builds on all of the other ceremonies in the temple. In other words, one cannot be married in the temple and not have received the other temple ordinances. As with other temple ceremonies, only members in good standing who have been interviewed and found worthy may participate a temple wedding. I understand that for some who are not members of our faith this may cause some pain not being able to view that, but I am impressed with the strength of some parents who though pained have not become bitter. Obviously, we would love to have you there, too. That is why all are encouraged to prepare and become worthy to go there.

Here's an invitation I've offerred to everyone that has asked me about the Church. Read the Book of Mormon...it's free.

When done, go to your bible and act upon the Epistle of James, Chapter 1, verse 5.

You'll receive your own inspiration.

To GABY: Temple marriage is a sacred covenant and ordinance available to any worthy couple of the Church.

SUNPRINCE makes some good points. Believers should understand that "believing" requires unconditional love, charity, repentance, and forgiveness. For those "unbelievers," it doesn't matter.

All religions understand His words: If ye love me, love one another.

Sunprince admonishes us "It is about living PEACEABLY together despite our differences in opinions, blood and philosophies..."

Then in the next thought Sunprince rants about the Clintons: "Or have you forgotten the fiasco they caused with their perverted "open marriage, hook and crook" and who knows what else, lifestyle? Or maybe you would rather have some other equally offensive radical at the highest level?"

I'm not seeing the peaceful acceptance of differences...

D Parker,

I have no idea. I don't know who those people were or what they believed in.

Greetings once again, D Parker ~

I mentioned those holy books from other faiths to Carrie because she claims nobody should discuss or criticize the Mormon church if they haven't first studied the BOM and found the truth out for themselves, yet we don't insist on our missionaries reading, studying, and praying about the truth of other religions before we send them out into the world to tell other people that ours is the only true path back to Heavenly Father. That's all.

As for the subjects that are totally missed in the lesson manuals, and your idea that already stuff gets skimmed because there is not enough time to teach it all...that is true to a point, except that so many lessons are repeated and repeated and repeated through the years. Maybe they could teach the whitewashed events in place of some of those repeated lessons. That way good LDS people like I was won't make fools of themselves when they discuss church history with others who know things that aren't taught openly at church.

How many mocked and Laughed at Noah when he revelaed God's message to build an ark? How many did not believe that Moses saw a burning bush? How many questioned the tablets containing the ten commandments? Because they questioned or did not have faith to believe does that mean it wasn't so? Why then do you have such a problem with Joseph Smith or the Golden Plates?

VOTE: WHO BELONGS TO A CULT?

A. CATHOLIC

B. MORMON

C. PENTACOSTAL

D. ALL OF THE ABOVE

E. Write-In ____________________________

HILLARY A NELSON:

THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE. YOU DO THAT VERY WELL ALL BY YOURSELF.

After reading some of the posts on this blog (which I thought was going to be positive and enlightening on the current Mormon issues) I find now that most of the comments and debates remind me of second grade level thought and logic with a healthy dose of "dog chasing his own tail" mentality. Pleeeeeeze people!!! GROW UP!!!

Most of your arguments are dead. Old news. Or do not even apply anymore. Most of these issues (polygamy, Blacks and Priesthood, out casting, Mormons and people being driven and/or rejected by each other, blah blah blah) are DEAD. Let me say it again. In the year 2007, these issues are DEAD. You continue to beat a dead horse.

And a horse that has been dead for a number of years. Maybe we should still be arguing about the blacks and the slave issue? Or how about how the Government stole all the land from the Indians and drove them away or kept them enslaved in glorified open range prisons called reservations? Why not spend some valuable time rehashing the extra-marital affairs of our "semi-illustrious" former President John F. Kennedy? The history books of this planet and of every place and people are bulging with old news we can choose to re-argue and re-hash about.

GET OVER IT! AGAIN...GROW UP!

Most of this bickering is not even about religion. It is about PEOPLE who still have not gotten over their childhood selfishness to refuse to let little Johnny play with their toys. Or maybe it's the "little Johnny hit me". Or "I'm gonna tell" level of mentality you think with.

Whine, Whine, Whine!!!! Can you not just learn to get along with your neighbors. Mormons are here just as the Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Atheists, Christians and Jews etc, etc, etc. WE ARE ALL HERE! And more than likely, we are all here to stay. Can you not just learn to work out the differences? And we wonder why we have such a dysfunctional society.

Why not spend your energy and this space to bring some real issues and questions to the table to debate and discuss. So what if Mitt Romney is elected President. Big deal if whoever it is, is a Baptist, or what about even a non believer. Does it make a difference? YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE ONE TO VOTE FOR THEM.

And if you don't or didn't, the majority did. That is what the country MUST have wanted for them to win. If you don't like it, then leave. That is what democracy is all about. It is about living PEACEABLY together despite our differences in opinions, blood and philosophies, AND STILL MAKEING IT WORK.

When was the last time YOU read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Have you EVER read either of them? Maybe you should. Why don't you spend some of your obviously abundant free time in a constructive manner and read over both. It might open your eyes and your mind to a higher level of thought and awareness what you claim to be so knowledgeable in. But obviously are not.

Would you rather have the Clintons AGAIN? Or have you forgotten the fiasco they caused with their perverted "open marriage, hook and crook" and who knows what else, lifestyle? Or maybe you would rather have some other equally offensive radical at the highest level? Whoever wins, you can be assured of one thing. It is what the majority of the voters wanted. The rest have to learn to accept and make it work, or go someplace else.

Are any of you who are throwing stones with words that don't hold water at the current time, void of your own closet kept ghosts? My bet is your house is overrun with them. How do I know? Usually those throwing the most stones are the ones living in glass houses. If your neighbor dissected your personal life, what would be found and how would you like it? Then stop playing school playground politics and add something constructive to discuss.

And to you who are disgruntled by your church for excommicating you. If you like what you had, it is my understanding you can go back. But with any organization that exists anywhere on the planet, if you want to join the club, you have to play by the rules. If you don't like the rules, then go away. Go join another club that you do like. But if you do want back in. Here is a tip: Don't rag on the club that you want membership from. I promise it is not helping your case. Do what your supposed to do to regain membership. If you don't like it, then why do you continue to beat on the door to get in to a place that you don't like? Duh!!!!

If the LDS church is the only true church as they claim, then guess what? The people do not make the rules. God does. If that is the case. YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITH HIM NOT THEM. If it is not the true church, then what do you want? To be associated with a club or group that does not want you. YOU HAVE ISSUES THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU NEED COUNSELING.

The same goes for all the rest of you. It really is a simple point. God or Christ (whichever the case may be)is either making the rules here or not. If so, you are barking against the wrong tree. Or better, you don't have the right to be barking at all (it is not safe to bark at the one who gave you the bark to begin with). And if not, then why waste your time? Go find another tree more worthwhile. Have you ever heard of "choosing your own battles"?

It is so annoying to see grown adults with too much time on their hands pointing fingers at each other with all the "he said, she said", tattle tale, "I don't like you anymore" childishness.

Gaby:
Sometimes the Savior answered a question with a question. Here's one for you (not to quibble, but to hopefully draw a valid contextual comparison): Suppose my son and your daughter were living at the time of Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, and wanted to perform the temple ceremony he performed or to watch it in person. Could they?

I had no idea there was still so much hatred toward Mormons. Are we going to start killing them again?

to Hilary

I am a Mormon. no one has ever used me as slave labor or forced me to serve. serving is what makes one happy. it makes you think of others and not yourself. you become close to those around you and maybe that is why we are so close as members. as far as the money I see where it goes. it makes it possible for me to have a church to worship in and provides materials and programs for my family. it also goes to many programs that help people all over the world. I dont have any issue with that. the churches welfare program is awsome and teaches self reliance if you are ever in utah take a tour of welfare square and you will see where the money goes and the good it does. the church were some of the first to respond to many of our receny natural disasters. as far as worshiping joeseph smith you are wrong. I have never once prayed to him or based my beliefs on him. I believe in Christ. it is his teaching in which we base our beliefs. No one is forced.

Here's a question to anyone who would like to answer.

Say my daughter (non-Mormon) is going to marry your Mormon son. They want to be married in the Temple.

1. Can they?

2. Can my side of the family attend the wedding?

Interesting postings. Secrecy, no...sacred, yes. Free labor, no...labor of love, yes. Worship Joseph Smith, no...worship the Savior, yes.

We all know that Jesus Christ - the Living Christ - is at the head of the Church. It is the sole purpose of our faith, principles, and temporal lives. His atonement is the singular reason of worship, and hope for everyone...not just Latter-day Saints.

Call the Mormons what you like, they're at the forefront of every relief effort, community service project, and, if you look closely, hold honorable and esteemed positions in the professional workplace. And they understand, I believe, just as the Savior himself instituted, that sacrifice was an honor, not a weakness. Yes, service is often looked at as "free labor" from those who don't understand the principle of charity and the commandment of "loving one's neighbor as themselves."

They epitomize the principle that sacrifice is giving up something you love for a God that loves you even more. The Savior did in the most gracious of ways.

The right of opinions is given to everyone. Latter-day Saints honor this as well. It is part of their faith and history that has always included persecution.

Here in Hawaii, our State seal, translated, says "the life of the land shall be perpetuated in righteousness." The righteous are saved and the glory is truly that of our Heavenly Father.

I don't remember whao said it, but in regards to the mormon apostates in this column..."You can leave the LDS church, but you just can't leave it alone."

Buster, you belong to a CULT ... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!

ALL YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS GETTING ALL THE FREE LABOR AND ****MONEY**** YOU CAN FROM PEOPLE!!!!!

STOP THE LIES!!!! STOP INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!! STOP DESTROYING PEOPLE'S WILL TO LIVE!!!!!!

STOP WORHIPPING YOUR FREAKY JOEY SMITH!

START WORSHIPPING GOD THROUGH HIS SON JESUS!!!!!!!!

Buster, you belong to a CULT ... AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!

ALL YOU PEOPLE CARE ABOUT IS GETTING ALL THE FREE LABOR AND ****MONEY**** YOU CAN FROM PEOPLE!!!!!

STOP THE LIES!!!! STOP INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!! STOP DESTROYING PEOPLE'S WILL TO LIVE!!!!!!

STOP WORHIPPING YOUR JOE SMITH AND START WORSHIPPING JESUS!!!!!!!!

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- a Mormon, as we're called -- I believe the teachings of this Church. Why not? If I believed in the teachings of another, I would belong to that one instead.

My neighbors don't believe in this Church or what we call the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Obviously, being a believer, I would think that if they were presented with what I know to be true, then there would be no rational reason for them not to believe it also.

But whether or not they listen to our message, and whether or not they believe our message, they're still my neighbors and I'm obligated -- by common sense, common decency, the American spirit, the teachings of my Church, and my own desires -- to love and to accept them regardless of their level of agreement with me.

Even in my own Church, people understand and believe things differently. That's good. We are continually learning from each other. We are continually humbled by learning from each other.

One of the core tenets or our religion is that truth is truth and we look for it wherever it can be found and accept it. My neighbors may not share all my beliefs, but they have much to offer me. And I welcome whatever they can teach me, on any subject. I especially welcome what they can teach me as it relates to the teaching of my Church -- that is, charity, kindness, patience, brotherly love, honesty, integrity, hard work, dedication, service, etc. I have much to learn in all these, and many other, areas, and I don't mind at all if my "teacher" is a non-Mormon. These are core teachings in many religions and most people strive to develop them.

I would hope equally that if there is anything good I can say and do that would help my neighbor in any positive way, then he would accept that, and not simply think that because I am a Mormon I should be shunned and ignored. (I don't mind being shunned and ignored, but why simply because of my religion?)

Should Mormons be accepted in the mainstream? Why not? Has everyone else in the mainstream risen to a level where a Mormon neighbor can't teach anything new, can't be a good example, can't serve alongside? I don't think so. And I don't think our neighbors think they have either.

We may not agree on doctrines. It turns out we also don't agree on football teams, tomorrow's weather, best make of car, best shade of green for grass, etc. But we love each other, we tolerate our differences, we celebrate both our individuality and our commonality.

If you have something to offer me, thank-you. If I have something to offer you, and you don't want it, just say, No, thank-you. But let's get along.

Sister Mary Lisa:
I've read about the subjects you mentioned as having not heard about, in church history books as well as at BYU, which also has very good comparative religion classes wherein those other religious books you noted are read and discussed. Truths can be found in them, as you well know, and the LDS are not hesitant to point that out.

If every LDS with deep questions such as yours could find a friend with a pretty good background in having sudied those issues, I think they would get a better perspective than by trying to have it covered in the church lesson manuals--those already have to skimp over a lot of subjects just to cover the material they do cover. Since you're comparing, you might want to compare the LDS manuals with those of other religions before jumping to the conclusions you've made.

To the general readers here: a suggestion I have is that you read the holy book of your faith, find its teachings about love, service and forgiveness toward others, and practice them as so many do throughout the world, within many wonderful faith traditions (or within the tradition of atheism which also espouses love, kindness, and the inherent goodness of mankind). We can do this! We can allow this for others! We can look for the good, find it and cherish it.

I agree with you, Mr. Otterson, that Mormons deserve tolerance. It is interesting, however, that you and Mitt Romney are demanding respect for your religion but in the same paragraph, you are implying that atheists are not qualified to become United States President (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/michael_otterson/2007/01/religious_beliefs_are_relevant.html).

Your position would be stronger if you and Mr. Romney would embrace the First Amendment more consistently.

In the same logic, let me point to the fact that the LDS Church is raising millions of dollars for referendum campaigns that deprive homosexuals of basic civil rights.

In light of your aggressive use of power, how can you be surprised that many Americans are concerned about Mormon power? If you really want to be left in peace, quit picking on minorities.

Carrie ~

You wrote, "I really don't think there should be any negative comments about mormonism unless you have actually taken the time to read the Book of Mormon and then to pray about it and see for yourself if it is true or not. I invite you to do that, then we can talk."

As if the Mormon missionaries read the Qur'an, Torah, Talmud, Veda, and other holy books before they "talk" to strangers about the Mormon religion.

Mr. Otterson ~

You wrote, "If there is going to be more open, honest, thoughtful and mutually respectful public discussion about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with serious people talking about a serious subject, then I believe Mormons generally will welcome it."

I can't see where the church's practice of whitewashing the troubling historical aspects of your church in the approved lesson manuals will help your members to welcome such open, honest, thoughtful, and mutually respectful public discussion.

I distinctly remember seeing a documentary on the History Channel years ago about the Mountain Meadows Massacre with my non-member husband, and telling him that I had no idea why they had such things on the History Channel labeled as "Mormon History" when I'd obviously never even heard of it and I'd been a member my whole life. I defended my church as if that incident had never happened, because if it had, surely I'd have learned of it.

Same thing happened when he asked me about Joseph Smith's many wives. I told him that Joseph Smith didn't have many wives ~ I was only ever taught about Emma. I told him what I had been taught: it was Brigham Young who practiced polygamy, which God set up because he knew how difficult it would be in Utah in the early days, with all those poor widows floundering because so many pioneer men died on the trail...polygamy was necessary because they couldn't fend for themselves out in the middle of nowhere!

How embarrassing for me that I defended the indefensible.

The church renders its members useless in thoughtful, honest discussions when it hides the whole truth from them. I know that all members are able to find out truths for themselves on the internet and by reading books not published by the church, but so many of them have no idea they even SHOULD look elsewhere if they want the whole picture in order to be able to hold their own in a discussion. They already "know" that they have the whole truth when they sit down and read their Book of Mormon and Bible and pray about it with real intent, having faith that God will manifest the truth of it unto them.

Too bad it isn't handled differently.

Greg -

Your comment sounds like one of those guys who's trying to one up his buddies by telling some sensational lie to make him sound credible, intelligent or otherwise cool. While I do not question that people may perceive (and sometimes experience) a degree of hostility because they are not Mormons, I do not buy your story.

And to those who may say, "we don't buy your Mormon story" I respond, that we don't ask for blind faith, we ask people to pray about it. Many (not all) millions of members (active, less active, anti or otherwise) prayed at one point and felt God answer their prayer through the Holy Ghost. For the Christian, to criticize this principle is to strike at the foundation of the Christian belief. For the non-believer, to mock this is typical. I believe someone quoted the Apostle Paul above.

Those personal answers, feelings, etc. cannot be discounted no matter how much horsepucky is spewed in these blogs.

And to think I read/skimmed most of it...crap. Time for bed.

Carrie,

" I really don't think there should be any negative comments about mormonism unless you have actually taken the time to read the Book of Mormon and then to pray about it and see for yourself if it is true or not. I invite you to do that, then we can talk."

Um, Carrie, we should talk, not only did i read it, but Nibley was my BoM teacher at BYU, after my mission.

By your standard, I can say whatever I damn well please, and you will talk to me, right?

Lincoln,

A letter was read in my congregation. It explained that there would be PBS broadcast and that the Church allowed access to the producers at all levels of the Church. It also said that the Church neither sponsored the documantary nor had any editorial input.

The letter did NOT suggest that members either watch it or not watch it. It was implied that the decision to watch the broadcast was up to each family.

I feel sorry for Bro. Otterson. Reading these posts on this site shows the idiocy he has to put up with. Job stress can also come in the form of having to work with people who are dorks and don't even posess the basic concept of applying logic in a discussion.

The Washington Post should be embarrassed.

I think we need a certain level of outside criticism.
We're not very tolerant of LDS criticism, but we need some sort of criticism to cause us to rethink and reevaluate what we do, our literature, our doctrine, and so forth. Without such critiques, we could get mired in iconoclastic, provincial thought and practices.

The muddy waters haven't change and for this the church will continue to grow.

I can't believe we're holding this conversation. Does no one read history any more? This kind of thing was settled in 1960 when Protestants decided it was OK for a Catholic to be President, that JFK wouldn't turn the country over to the Pope. If the country can survive the Republicans and their Pseudo-Religious Right trying to stuff their dogma down our throats for the last twenty years or so, we can damn sure handle a Mormon. I won't vote for Romney unless his opponent is a proponent of cannibalism, but that's because of the platform he's pushing, not his religion. His religion has nothing to do with it. His religion is none of my business, as mine is none of his. That mass of pulp fiction you call religion, now ...

Lincoln-

My understanding -- and I stress that this is only what I have heard -- is that it was left to the discretion of local LDS leaders to encourage or discourage viewing of the PBS documentary, or to not say anything on the matter. In my own congregation, nothing was said. I have read on a number of LDS blogs that in some congregations that was not the case. In either case, there appears to have been no edict from Salt Lake demanding that Mormons censor themselves from the program.

As to the jeopardized membership status of your inside source, may I suggest that he/she/it is either pulling your leg, or extremely paranoid?

LDS:

Your young people look impressive and clean cut, with fresh faces. Christ warned about 'whited walls' with the religious leaders when He came to earth.

You really need to get your doctrine correct. The inside --in this case, doctrine--needs to match the outside.

Lincoln,

According to what I have been informed of, any message the Presidency of the church desires to convey to its members, will be done so through Conference talks or letters mailed directly to the Stake Presidency and/or Bishoprics. If it did not occur this way, it is just hearsay.

Additionally, I'm a bit thrown off with your comment of "I won't reveal my source, so that he may safely continue to maintain his membership in the church." Could you please elaborate? My interpretation of this statement are grounds for invalidating your claim. If the Presidency truly propogated that message to the members of the Church (as you and your associate claim), why would someone be disciplined for advocating their counsel?

Hi ALL,
It's my opinion that Mormon people be treated with the same respect as a person practicing any other religion. What's the harm in it? It's funny how people are quick to judge things they just don't understand however, the opportunity is there to learn and understand. Honestly, I think it is too much of an imposition to prayerfully take the time to read the Book of Mormon and ponder it's contents. I really don't think there should be any negative comments about mormonism unless you have actually taken the time to read the Book of Mormon and then to pray about it and see for yourself if it is true or not. I invite you to do that, then we can talk.

Lincoln,

Your inside source so contradicts every outside source available that it can hardly be deemed credible.

JD1

Lincoln:

If I understand you correctly, any public statement by the Church of Latter Day Saints exhorting their adherants to watch the documentary are really for the benefit of non-Mormons, and any Mormon who claims otherwise is lying?

I really don't care about the are mormons Christian nonsense, but I do have an issue with the GOP over creating the whole circumstance in the first place. They have built their modern party on a very narrow definition of Christianity as their base of support, sought to destroy mainstream faiths they disagree with (dividng the Episcopal church and bringing politics into the ELCA and Presbyterian churches as well), and built support for Bush around his being a "true believer."

Now that they are desperate, they are bieng asked to accept as a candidate a man of a faith who is very much out of their mainstream though certainly still a good Christian man, who they see as belonging to a Utah-based cult. You are asking them to ignore the very things that drew them to Bush in the first place in the name of politcal expediency. This is why the alignment of the political and Christian Right was always such a bad idea, as well as any alignment of religion with contemporary earthly politics. It has turned into a pox on both their houses, and good riddance.

Connor,

I happen to possess inside information that validates my claim. The logic of the rest of my post can stand on its own. I won't reveal my source, so that he may safely continue to maintain his membership in the church.

I disagree. The only thing that is important in this election is the candidate`s haircut and whether he or she can pretend to be everyone`s second best friend. Bush got elected without any policies or obvious intellect so I think it is silly to change the rules and to seek someone who is not superficial. I think you have to ask yourself if the country is ready to handle anyone with a brain.

If Mitt Romney were elected President, would his religious convictions obligate him to be subject to President Gordon B. Hinckley in Political matters?

No.
The church has clearly stated it's stance of political neutrality on it's website, as well as the question I posed above:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=6203d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1

No way this country will vote in a Mormon as President. No, I'm not a Christian either.

My biggest problem with Mormons is how do look at yourself in the mirror with the load of bologna you tell yourself about these golden plates? I mean come on here. Wake up and smell the coffee. Joseph Smith REALLY found these golden plates that someone how magically disappeared? And of course, these plates lead to the conclusion that he should have multiple wives.. Ah, you disconnect yourselves from that part of the history, no?

Well the rest of America doesn't. We still see it as one of the same. You may have excommunicated the FLDS or the RFLDS or the SRFLDS, but to the rest of America, your organization seems the same to us.

Goodluck selling us on Mormonism and getting Romney elected President. I just don't see it happening...

I think for all of it's "flaws" from a belieiving LDS perspective, Mormons overall
( our leaders included) see this documentary as an oppurtunity -- we send missionaries directly to the homes of people everywhere but for some, that is just too intrusive to even give us a second thought but in the wake of the documentry, people are discussing and looking at the church a little bit closer and we always beleive that that is a good thing.

That's not to say I think it's the best missionary tool but that doesn't mean we can't use it as a jumping off point to discuss and share with others more of what we hold dear.

In times past, our challenges have facilitated our growth and learning and improvement as a people and I hope we always remember our past in responding to what initially seems problematic by seeking guidance from God and ultimately being enabled by that guidance to continue on in furthering this work.

My sister has lived in Salt Lake City for 12 years.

She was forced to move to out of her first neighborhood by the Mormons because she is not a Mormon. When she moved to SLC, her neighborhood was 50% Mormon. This increase to 90% over five years.

As the neighborhood's composition changed, her Mormon neighbors started to harass her and wanted her out because of her non-Mormon religion. Her cars were vandalized. Un-nameable things were put on her front porch. She was harassed in other ways.

My sister is a hard-working, normal, non-Mormon raising a child, who was forced to move because she wasn't a Mormon.

Go to the public schools in Salt Lake City and see what it is like to be non-Mormon. You may be surprised to find that you will probably be harassed because of your non-Mormon religion. Check out the proportions of Mormons in private schools vs public and find out why there are these differences.

It's nice to have these 'mainstream' views of Mormons when you don't have to live there, but your views may change when you 'as a foreigner' live there.

Have the Mormons, in their hearts and, more importantly, their behavior in their day-to-day lives, agreed to being part of a pluralistics society? I've seen little evidence of this in their home state.

G

Lincoln,

As others have already pointed out, no such letter was read to LDS congregations. Your false claim discredits the rest of your statement and anything else you might bring to the table. Please do your research before making such accusations in the future.

Hmmm...
I was reminded a second time to watch the program through announcements made Sunday before the program. Also I found this link by following the official church website www.lds.org
So....
I have to disagree with Lincoln that viewing the program or subsequent dialogue was discouaged.

Mikeasr, Unfortunately I feel your comments don't deserve a response from me.

Ah, Mormonism and the presidency. Above all other points to be made on this topic, the presidency of the United States of America is fundamentally a temporal rather than a spiritual institution. We the American people appoint him -- at least, him, so far -- to this most powerful office on the planet through elections held every four years. When the election results are declared, we pray that our new leaders shall have godly wisdom simply to maintain American stewardship over the current international democratic order. In other words -- and I am speaking hypothetically -- if Mitt Romney were running for, say, Archbishop of the American Roman Catholic Church, THEN I would have a big problem with him.

That said, I will be thoroughly interested to learn from Mr. Otterson what official Mormon doctrine says specifically about the global jihad. Perhaps the LDS Church leadership should extend invitations to Governor Romney along with Robert Spencer, Walid Phares, and other top experts on Islamic fascism like them, most certainly, for a comprehensive discussion about the global jihad so that First President Gordon Hinckley can formulate a full, proper theological response from a Mormon perspective to the all-too-nefarious jihad ideology. If the leadership of the Church of Latter-Day Saints can pursue such a momentous course of action, then I shall extend serious kudos to them. In the end, let us focus on Mormonism through the eyes of one Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and then relate everything we have learned to certain major challenges facing us today.

Mikeasr,

There aint too many folks that rage on Otterson and the like much more than me. (Just ask Guy!) Anyways, I am not sure if your question was meant to be answered, or not. But, regardless, it is easily answered.

Utah is doing a decent job, believe it or not. The Attorneys General of Utah and Idaho have worked together and published a book called:

The Primer: Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities
Updated June 2006

Utah Attorney General’s Office
Mark Shurtleff
Arizona Attorney General’s Office
Terry Goddard

“People seldom refuse help, if one offers it in the right way.” A.C.

http://www.attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy/The_Primer.pdf

I am aware of positive reviews of this work. Hopefully it will benefit the women and children.

I dont think this is the responsibility of the LDS church at this point. Now, as a point of doctrine there is much to discuss. But where it concerns the women and children, I think the states are responsible and they seem to have a collective effort working.

So we're supposed to separate Mitt from his religion? When is Utah, the home of his religion, going to do something about the child molesters in southern Utah who masquerade as polygamists? Or are they going to remain off limits to the law forever? And, oh yeah, I almost forgot, does Mitt wear the underwear that the faithful wear, I mean, do you guys REALLY wear special underwear?

Lincoln-
I don't know where you got your information that church members were told not to watch the documentary. I never was given such a message. Even the official church site tells of the documentary to inform members of the broadcast.

Lincoln,

I never saw the statement. What are you talking about? It wasn't talked about in my congregation, but in my Dad's, the Bishop counseled the ward to watch the documentary. It was announced in Sacrament meeting.

It was also given extensive time in the World Report shown to the world wide church in between General Conference sessons.

The chuch is currently taking comments on the documentary from church members on its website. See:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0825ff5ad6442110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ae11627d59eec010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Why do you all seem so afraid of the Mormon's? Does the truth scare you or hurt you to hear?
If not then let them alone. Use your energy for good, that is what they are trying to do. Why use your energy and cutting words to make other people feel the way you do? The Mormon's are comfortable with who they are why can't you be comfortable with that? We all need to accept eachother and realize that differences are okay. It's not like the Mormon's are forcing you to believe the same way they do.

Mr. Otterson,

I understand your motives to present the LDS church in the best possible light. As the director of public relations for the church, you must feel a heavy burden under the perceived constant criticism of Mormonism. Your comments bring to mind a number of issues.

Suggesting that the public move beyond superficial discussions of Mormonism, to a more, open, honest and serious dialogue appears odd, given the contradictory message of the First Presidency of the church. They issued a statement to Mormon congregations around the United States NOT to watch the PBS documentary. Mormon ward members were told that the PBS special "The Mormons" was not to be used as a missionary tool. Is it prudent to advocate openess and honesty on one hand, and closed-minded strict obedience on the other?

Are you being genuine when you assert a stance promoting openess and honest discussion under these circumstances? The two premises of openess, and supression of information appear to be contradictory. I believe God is the author of order not confusion. I know that the Mormon church teaches this concept as well. Yet the church leadership sends out conflicting messages at times, and this is troubling to many in the public.

I applaud your call to discuss Mormonism in an honest, upright, and open manner. I cannot agree with the First Presidency's directive to avoid watching the PBS documentary. Any unwillingness to be open and honest about church history is tantamount to launching a warning flare, or putting up a large neon sign reading "WE ARE HIDING SOMETHING." If the church is not hiding anything, then discouraging its own members from watching the documentary sends contradictory messages. These apparent mixed messages create a sense of uneasiness with the general public.

You also suggest that the Mormon church should be regarded with as much respect as any other church in the United States. In theory this is a true statement, yet on occasion, Mormon church leaders have encouraged the membership to disobey federal laws, such as the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds and the Edmunds/Tucker Act. Do you know of any other religion whose leaders have instructed their membership to directly disobey federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions? Can you see why many U.S. citizens would be concerned that President Hinckley could instruct the church membership to disobey federal laws again? Brigham Young and John Taylor were notorious for advocating disobedience to the "laws of men." This historic friction between the United States and the Mormon hierarchy with theocratic tendencies, has been an issue from the beginnings of Mormonism. I do not have any evidence that other religions have waged war against the United States in word and in deed, as the Mormon church has done in the past. Theoretically, President Hinckley could receive a new revelation to disobey the rule of law, and encourage the practice of polygamy again. This is a possibility under the current theological beliefs in Mormonism, especially with D&C Section 132 remaining in full force. Given the doctrine of modern revelation, a distinct possibility exists that Mormon directives could take precedent over Federal law. This has occurred in the past. What assurance does the U.S. public have that the Mormon church will not disobey laws in the future? A primary concern regarding Mormonism, is whether Mormons will choose to obey the Prophet or the laws of the United States should a conflict occur. This is a troubling issue, which has not been fully resolved.

Another issue is whether Mormons are afforded the same rights and privileges under the Constitution as other religions. Legally, of course we are. But on an individual basis, it is unclear. This is an interpersonal issue that is influenced by the institutional directives of the Mormon church. It rests on the ability of the church membership to make genuine friendships with people of other faiths, without the ulterior motive of converting them to Mormonism. Is it possible for a Mormon to make friends with a member of another religion, without the ulterior motive of someday converting that person to Mormonism? Yes, of course. But after watching the antics of Mormon missionaries on the PBS special, I would have to conclude that many Mormons feel it is their duty to convert everyone to Mormonism. This concept is inherently offensive to many people who simply want to be considered genuine friends, without being viewed as a potential "convert baptism" in the future. Many creeds believe that they have the exclusive truth, not just Mormons. Yet many other religions have developed a true tolerance for members of other faiths and do not feel the overbearing necessity of converting them to their own faith. Will Mormons ever be able to be genuine friends with non-Mormons without the ulterior motive of conversion? This is a fair question, given the obvious harrassment of average citizens that was demonstrated by Mormon missionaries during the missionary segment of the PBS documentary. Maybe the reason Mormonism has not truly entered the mainstream yet, is that many people conclude, fairly or unfairly, that mormons are only interested in outside contact to the extent that they are fulfilling their duty as missionaries. Mormons need to learn to have genuine friendships with people from outside their religion, on a wider scale.

It is insulting to members of other faiths, that Mormons believe we possess the exclusive truths of eternity, when there is ample evidence in the history of the Mormon church, that our church has just as many flaws as any of the other faiths. Will the leadership ever encourage teaching true Mormon church history instead of a whitewashed version through its correlated lesson materials? Many Mormon's missionary zeal would diminish to a proper level, if we fully understood the truly tenuous nature of our truth claims, from a historic perspective.

Before Mormonism is treated with the full faith and respect that other religions receive, it must demonstrate that it is deserving of such respect. The first step toward that respect would be a shift in emphasis away from converting every human being on the planet to Mormonism, toward loving every human being on the planet with the true Christian love that Mormonism professes to already have. Until that happens on a broad scale, many will continue to view Mormonism collectively as a second-class religion.

My apologies, to Roy, not Rob.

Att: RE: JOZEVZ ET AL above this thread, who ever you are:

Please Link and go to College and read then come back O.K.?

Note: If you flout Your Own Eclati, then you "always" will loose, no joke, and The Lord Almighty our Great Eclati and together in Holy Hear Beats we are ECLATi-Ons enjoying our Lives in PHOTONS via our Heuristics for a NEW-SONG!

I or WE, ARE N.O.T. and or a NO [Cannot be a Yes] "Church"!

Important: For the same Reason that one can follow-up on a religious test case, like MORMONS and say SCIENCETOLOGY, then there are Court Cases galore on SHILOH's battle for GRIDARIAN DEMOCRACY, which he almost single handidly won in FEDERAL COURT(s) and Stae Courts too!

Go To FINDLAW.com and search THERIAULT HARRY "Shiloh" "Church New Song" etc..

P.S. I had offers to make a Non-Fiction Documentary on his like, besides the scripting!

Enjoy your heuristic experince in your ECLATi while you Jack Hammer the Searchengines and more. Praise G-d our Only ONE Eclati! Ya Ya.

http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1984/1984_5_3.pdf

http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1985/1985_1_31.pdf

Petros:

The LDS doctrine is not a different gospel; it's the fullness of Christ's gospel. I know you don't want to believe that; most likely, you read the Book of Mormon to find errors in it. LDS doctrine confirms the role of Jesus as savior, and as the Son of God.

To Rob, John D the First, Joshua, and anyone else who has commented or read the comments about electroconvulsive therapy:

I think it would be wise to learn a little bit more what electroconvulsive therapy is. Since I have a B.S. in Neuroscience, I can tell you that it is a widely used therapy across many institutions for psychiatric diseases such as depression. For some more easily accessible information, Google or this Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy may help.

Please note that this is a PSYCHIATRIC therapy, which means that the patient must be anesthetized and certified clinicians must carry it out. (The person doing it should be an M.D.) It was surprising to hear that BYU was using it in the 80's, because to my knowledge they don't have a medical school or hospital. Maybe what you're talking about, John D, is a research study? I haven't really looked into it, either, but I would be interested to find out more about it.

I think it's important that all understand that electric shock is a common medical therapy, and is not some freakish practice by some religious group.

Henry James,

You said you agreed with Otterson. I was simply curious as to what specifically you agreed with.

Wayne,

Sorry man. This Central American Church does not excommunicate people from the One True Circus. We are building a Religion, we are building it bigger, didnt you hear? Now today is tomorrow, and tomorrow today and yesterday is weaving in and out. Now do you believe in the one big sign, the doublewide shine on the bootheels of your prime? We are building a religion. We are making a brand. We're the only ones to turn to when your castles turn to sand.

And, most annoyingly Wayne, once you have chosen me as your leader, you are mine until your 110th birthday, then, and only then, are you no longer part of my Religion.

Thanks for calling. Please collect your pendant key-chain.

Mr Otterson has made a meaningful statement about Mormonism. I have friends and neighbours who are Mormons. They are well educated, alert, community minded and charitable. Evidence of their goodness shows in the polite hard working children that regularly offer me help.
People with such Family values are the only hope we have in a destructing world.

What Mormobns believe when fully presented makes much sense. No matter what they believe they are good citizens and have much to help all no matter what their beliefs in times of disaster.

I hope Americans will appreciate what they have got from Joseph Smith's legacy.

Peter Sloan
Perth Australi

The Morman Message is a false Gospel. All so-called teachers and scholars who approve of the Morman Gospel do not know Jesus and are false teachers. The apostle Paul had the following to say about those who preach a false Gospel.

No Other Gospel

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

"This may be hard to understand, but even prophets and apostles are human, and occasionally make mistakes. That is part of their growing and experience process as much as you or I learning from our mistakes. For Biblical examples, see: Numbers 22:21-35; Acts 15:2."

If they make mistakes how can you put total faith into a belief system based off of their writings?

Your saying you believe everything they say as a basis of your religion, but then say that they make mistakes. How do you know they didn't mean homosexuality is the true way it should be, I mean they do make mistakes right?

Take it from someone who knows -CONS was a game. Harry said so himself.

WORLD FAITH EXCHANGE OF THE NEW SONG
P.O. Box 272
Enola, Pennsylvania 17025
No Listed Phone

Founded as the Church of the New Song by Harry Theriault in 1970 while incarcerated in the Federal Penitentiary at Atlanta, the World Faith
Exchange has advertised "ministerial licenses" in The National Enquirer. Theriault, who has been in and out of both state and federal prisons for almost a quarter of a century, is a master of manipulating First Amendment religious principles in the federal courts, though he lost several cases for recognition of his church in
the federal prison system. He claims several phony doctorate degrees himself, including credentials from the Universal Life Church.

Michael,

A well-written post. Indeed, Latter-day Saints (present company included) welcome an open dialogue about beliefs, practices, and history.

It is sad to see so many who disagree display a spirit of bigotry, hate, and contempt. Certainly Christ would have us renounce such vituperative language and seek a common ground of understanding, mutual trust, and love.

Mayan stands as a leader, offering his perspective.

After reading Mayan's points, I have decided that I do not like Mayan as a leader, therefore, I say to Mayan, I do not agree with your logic, do not agree with your postulations and plan to disregard you, for now. I am criticizing you. Hence, ex-communicate me, and the sooner the better.

Simple.

Thankful and JD1: Thank you for addressing my questions. You are the first ones who have broken the silence regarding them. In regard to Hillary and Romney, I dont honestly know who is better. My concern is that we dont have a President who thinks we can cure gays by shoc*king them or that people of color are sub-human because of some sort of curse of God. Now if only the Church could acknowlege these two problems. Even if they were in the past, the Church should apologize. Other Churchs like the Catholics have apologized for past misdeeds. It would be real interesting to see if this Church is capable of it.

To ask evangelicals to not judge Mitt Romney on the basis of his Mormon faith is a bit disengenuous because Mormons are not outsiders politically. It's the Atheists and agnostics who treated as political lepers.

I say judge an individual on who they are and what they do rather than the name attached to the religion they publically espouse.

Jacob, here you go!

http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1984/1984_5_3.pdf

http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1985/1985_1_31.pdf

Joshua,

Hmmm, where did you and God meet?

Your statement: "Remember that the Lord does not always reveal every facet in the plan of salvation. Sometimes, the Lord allows the prophet or apostle to make a judgment call, and then learn from the resulting good or bad experience. Everyone has something to learn."

Or did Moroni fill you in?

Most Mormons are unfit for the office of President (or at least should be considered very carefully. The Mormon faith demands men fulfill a year of missionary work in their early twenties. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah performed his missionary work. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada converted later and, to the best of my knowledge, did not do missionary work.

It's the missionary part of the Mormom faith that's disconcerting. A missionary is someone so sure of the rightness of their religious path to salvation that they are compelled to travel abroad and convert people due to the urgent need to save their souls. Fine qualities in a church leader (and many secular positions), bad qualities in a U.S. Commander-in-Chief.

We've already got someone "working God's will" in the White House. It's taken us to Iraq.

Roy and JD1,

I'll add that I think a valid critque of LDS social services overall is that it's been closer to the cabose than the engine generally on the train of implementing more researh based mental health practice though I don't know enough of the details on the BYU incident to say much more than that.

I think we as Mormon's need to be more humble in this arena of mental health and seek to implement truth from wherever it may come though I'm also quick to acknowledge that there is some ponits we will always diverge.

This being a personal interest of mine, I'll add that I think the best therapy for LDS seeking assistance to deal with same gender attraction is the higly researched based, cognitive therapy sort of approach. It is a client directed, goal centered therapy that can assist one in dealing with the ambiguities of where one as a LDS with same gender attraction may arrive and how to cope with those various scenarios and maintain a fullfilling life within the church.

No doubt we can do better and I'm glad psychology as a whole seems to be learning from it's past. I look forward to the day when Mormon's practicing mental health are more regularly seen on the forefront of this field rather than catching up.

Looking closely at Hillary too but decidely still undecided ;)

Gaby (temple secrecy topic),

Thank you for your responses. I would add to the well written posts of other LDS members this: I imagine that your family has certain things that are personal and of great worth that you would not want the public at large to discuss. It is likely not because of some big secret or conspiracy, but that you hold this information dear to you, and prefer to share it only with those who meet certain guidelines. I liken that to the rituals performed within a temple.

To Roy,

You wrote: if Mormons declare special alliegance to the Church, what is Romneys alliegance to the Church practice of trying to cure homosexuals using aversion therapy by applying electrical voltages to them? What is Romneys alliegance to the belief that, in the pre-existance, the people of color were the "fence sitters" and marked by God with darker skin? When Romney can answer these questions, he may be a suitable candidate but not until. As for the rest of the Mormons, they can believe anything they want as long as they are not running for President of the United States.

May I offer my thoughts? I do not presume to know what any homosexual goes through in being homosexual. I do know that in years past, the LDS church used more stringent or hardline policies and counseling to separate a person from their homosexual feelings. I have never heard of electrical shock therapy for homosexuality, but I truly am saddened if such action was church sanctioned. I will say that homosexuality was seldom encountered by the LDS church before the 1960s. This is not an excuse, only an observation: the LDS church took what action and counseling steps that seemed appropriate at the time. Several of those actions are no longer recommended due to realizations later learned that those were not effective. LDS church policies and procedures continue to become more effective as the church gains experience with homosexuality counseling and gains additional revelation from the Lord. As to Romney's allegiance, inquire on his campaign website.

"pre-existent fence sitters/dark skin": I know of what you refer to, and let me reiterate what LDS leaders have said; it is false doctrine to suppose that anyone's skin color is based upon their pre-mortal allegiance to God. Early church leaders speculated on this, and guessed wrong.

This may be hard to understand, but even prophets and apostles are human, and occasionally make mistakes. That is part of their growing and experience process as much as you or I learning from our mistakes. For Biblical examples, see: Numbers 22:21-35; Acts 15:2.

Remember that the Lord does not always reveal every facet in the plan of salvation. Sometimes, the Lord allows the prophet or apostle to make a judgment call, and then learn from the resulting good or bad experience. Everyone has something to learn.

I hope that you receive peace to your pain.

It will never happen. Romney will bite the dust.

To all those against churches having money:

Why do so many people feel that a church having money is automatically evil? Do these people know how much meeting houses cost? Do they wish the churches to go into debt? Tithing is a bibical Old Testament law. Some Christian denominations follow it, others do not. Whether it is followed or not, none of the Churches are evil for asking their members to contribute. How else will anything get done? Paying clergy I do not agree with, but building churches, feeding the poor, clothing the poor, printing materials, etc.; these things COST MONEY!!!! How the money is used and by what means it is received is where the questions should lie.

Mayan

I don't think i understand your questions about my statements.

Which part of my statement did you disagree with, or which part of Otterson's did you want to know if I agree with.?

JD1,

I think those were all good responses. I would simply add a few things.

re: 1 - I wouldn't describe the aversion therapy as a 'practice' either. Though, I also dont discount the culpability of those that were presiding over the school when it happened. On that we obviously may disagree. I certainly dont see the need to bring Romney into it.

re: 2 - That fence sitter thing is ridiculous. Its just goofy that Hollands explanation comes out in a documentary with Whitney, and then, when he is speaking in conference to the faithful, he talks about flip-flops and denim skirts and how damn awful that is. Cmon Jeff, step up and say it if you think it. And say it loud. And say it in Conference. We wont even mind if you say it really slow, and do it in the name of jesus christ, amen. Just say it without requiring a journalist to pry it out of you.

re: 3 - Sure. Let Romney run as his own guy. But, lets just say, hypothetically, that there was a Fortune 100 company in the United States. And that company reported nothing regarding its financial statements. And, that company had thousands of employees. And, that company employed, or had as clients, thousands of Romney's family and friends.

Now, lets just say, hypothetically, that the same company had an oath of conduct that said, "It is wrong to criticise our board of directors or officers, even if the criticism is true."

In this case, would it be too much to ask of Romney, "Yo, Romney dude, who is this guy running this huge company? it's one of the biggest in the country, its staff and clients are your biggest donors to date, you have invested faithfully in the joint since you were born. Would you be willing to explain to us what they do and why its inappropriate to criticise the officers of one of the biggest corporations in America?"

Oh, and one more thing Romney, can you give us any examples from history, where governments, corporations, or religions have expected citizens to not criticise leaders, regardless of merit?

In the context of Money and Influence, religion aside, the questions make sense, No?

BGONE,
I bet Joseph Smith, who when he was murdered had hardly any wealth, was dreaming of wealth as he fell from that window after he was shot.

"Mr. Otterson, how long can you ignore these questions: if Mormons declare special alliegance to the Church, what is Romneys alliegance to the Church practice of trying to cure homosexuals using aversion therapy by applying electrical voltages to them? What is Romneys alliegance to the belief that, in the pre-existance, the people of color were the "fence sitters" and marked by God with darker skin? When Romney can answer these questions, he may be a suitable candidate but not until. As for the rest of the Mormons, they can believe anything they want as long as they are not running for President of the United States.

Once more, you will try to have this post removed. Once more, you, Mr. Otterson and your TBMs who you have trained so well will ignore these questions and refuse to confirm or deny them. If they are lies, deny them. I dare you."

But do you double-dog dare me? : )

1.

"if Mormons declare special alliegance to the Church, what is Romneys alliegance to the Church practice of trying to cure homosexuals using aversion therapy by applying electrical voltages to them?"

According to my friend Mayan Elephant, this type of therapy was practiced by mental health "professionals" employed at BYU. I haven't checked the sources, so I am not sure. But if it did, it happened in the 80s I think, and has never been publicly advocated.

So how does this apply to Mormon belief today? I don't know. I've never heard anyone advocate it in church, so I'd guess Romney or anyone else doesn't feel a religious inclination to be "aligned" with the "practice".

2.

"What is Romneys alliegance to the belief that, in the pre-existance, the people of color were the "fence sitters" and marked by God with darker skin?"

I think an interesting question is, what is the church leadership's position on this *past* teaching. Concerning this and other beliefs regarding race, Elder Holland said:

"the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ..."

You may not think the church is doing enough to eradicate these beliefs, but to say Mormons need to be "aligned" with these beliefs is misleading. The church does not teach this or require members to believe it. Above Elder Holland discourages it.

3.

About Romney, I think he should get a fair shake based on his merits. I don't know if I support him or not. I personally think Hillary rocked in the last debate, would you agree Roy?

I get worried when we place man as the gatekeeper to the knowledge of God.

First my beliefs differ in that everyone is worthy of God’s word.
Second man as the gatekeeper leaves itself open to abuse and control of the people.
Third it becomes harder for others to understand you when you are not transparent.

Points 2 and 3 have been proven in other religions in the past. I don’t see this being any different.

All that being said it doesn’t make Mormons bad people. I just don’t agree with the organization. I’m not sure that there is a ‘best’ religion out there, but if the one you practices brings you closer to God then go for it.

To B+V

Wait what? Ok seriously here, how is using a copy of the king James Version of the bible considered a rewrite of the religion? Lets consider for a moment how many different Christian denominations interpret the bible in a different fashion, yet still read the same book. We’ve got the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Protestants, the Methodists, and several others. But wait do they read same book now? Lets have a look at the various new versions that have popped up in the last few centuries shall we? We've got the American Standard bible for one, the Modern King James version as another, and the newest in progress, the World English Bible, plus a smattering of other versions. Not to mention the countless translations into other languages. Take any one of those books and tell me you can't put a different spin on things from version to version.

Second point, you said the Mormon Church claims that a woman, who may walk upright and righteously before god, cannot go into heaven unless her husband calls her in? Where on earth did you hear that one? No, that is not true, yes we believe that marriage is a essential part to achieving the highest level of glory, but a man can no more achieve that highest level without his wife then she can without him. It's not one calling the other, its the two walking hand in hand. And what of those who cannot get married on earth, because of a accident that takes them too soon, or other circumstances? They are not abandoned either, they will have they chance to find a husband that they can love, and that loves her.

Matt, Alex, etal.

Thank you for he explanation. Sacred vs. Secret.

However, I doubt very much that I'll be joining you soon. I am not even Christian, much less Mormon.

I'll go with Jacob into transfinity in cosmic tranquility.

Hey, Jacob, does this look familiar?

""World peace
The possibilities of Synergetics are not limited to what I have said so briefly here any more than the possibilities of Apathy are limited to what ....... said in the March 8, 1984 issue of the ..... newspaper under Viewpoint.
World peace, as a democratical phenomenon and
not a messianic dictatorship, can only come through us and our children exercising the faith of our intelligence in a synergetical way inspired by the scriptural fulfillment of that Almighty Wonder in every atom of our humanness and the cosmo3>of our origin and development.
I think it is that time in the history of our souls. So I salute ......... for
her worried essay. And I leave you with your imaginations flashing, whoever you are, who may be destined to make this a better world to love in with Gridarian Democracy. Instead of apathy, today, tomorrow ... forever; let's make it Gridarian Democrats, today, tomorrow ...
forever! What say?"

Jacob Jozevz:

Do put that shovel down now. You'll not find the bottom of a hole this way.

BTW: EcveXho Devchra Shetzer -- Izzat clear now?

JJ, Scientologist getting a day in court shows that there is a law that establishes religion. They went to court to be oficially established, like Baptists, Methodist, Mormons et al.

Thom Cruise can declare his Beverly Hills multi million dollar mansion to be a church and get rid of a $12,500 per million dollar annual property tax. That's how it is in Utah so I understand, home is temple and tax exempt for Mormons.

Religion is the great enemy of democracy according to the hoax buster. I agree and add people. That was PT Barnum, "sucker born each and every minute" and here comes another one.

The mormom gospel is not the true Biblical gospel. They rewrote it to fit their needs. And that in itself is a sin. Do a little more research on them. And females, they claim you can't get into heaven unless your husband calls you in...
They are a large religious cult, and Jesus told us they come as wolves in sheep's clothing, and many will be deceived (thus the large numbers.)

Gaby,

temples are god's house.
one must prove themselves worthy to enter the house, otherwise they would be soiling god's house by their presence.

Like others have said, there is no secrecy.
Temple ordinances are sacred, not secret.

Carrie, looks like the Mormons are doing something behind closed doors that would not stand the test of daylight. Pat Robertson speaks to God and the media is quick to relate what God said. Just like the Mormons, Pat neither allows onlookers or gives us any details other than what God says.

Moses spoke to God too and the Bible has the details. The DEVIL is in the details, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Therefore the reasonable person says hiding the details is symptomatic of Devil. All three great faiths are Devil worshippers for when the details are examined up pops Lucifer, the biggest Devil of them all.

Not to worry. Devils are Gods too and they operate places for the dead to go. There's a rumor that those who do not go to temple will not be going there, place(s) operated by being worshipped, honored, adored, glorified and sacrificed to at temple.

Mr. Otterson, how long can you ignore these questions: if Mormons declare special alliegance to the Church, what is Romneys alliegance to the Church practice of trying to cure homosexuals using aversion therapy by applying electrical voltages to them? What is Romneys alliegance to the belief that, in the pre-existance, the people of color were the "fence sitters" and marked by God with darker skin? When Romney can answer these questions, he may be a suitable candidate but not until. As for the rest of the Mormons, they can believe anything they want as long as they are not running for President of the United States.

Once more, you will try to have this post removed. Once more, you, Mr. Otterson and your TBMs who you have trained so well will ignore these questions and refuse to confirm or deny them. If they are lies, deny them. I dare you.

In my experience, it is the people who most rail against being excluded from Mormon temples that would be the first to dissect and desecrate anything they would learn after entering.

No one ready to respect the sacred would forcibly insist on being admitted. No one ready and worthy to enter would DISrespect the sacred. That is exactly why the standards for entrance are in place.

On the other hand, everyone is welcome to enter-- everyone willing to humbly and prayerfully meet the requirements for entrance.

If you choose not to obtain a temple recommend, just about anything a curious mind would want to know can be learned at the open house of an as-yet undedicated temple. My own in-laws participated in an open house, and it dispelled a lot of the mystery for them. They left with much greater respect for temples and have never felt excluded since.

Gaby,

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, it is my understanding the non-Mormons are not allowed into the temples nor are they allowed to witness Mormon services.

That I call secrecy."

Your first point is correct, your second point is not.

Temples are attended by members in good standing who have been interviewed and found worthy. I would hope that one day that might include you. Certain matters discussed in the temple are not to be discussed outside of the temple. Although the text of the temple ordinances is known by others outside the temple, members in good standing will not discuss those matters. It is not a matter of conspiracy, but a matter of integrity and keeping matters sacred which the Lord has directed should remain that way. Members of the church are encouraged to prepare themselves to receive the ordinances of the temple. You may say that we would welcome all to truly prepare to know those things discussed in the temple.

Now on to your second point. Attendance in church services is encouraged and welcome to all. You and anyone else is more than welcome to come. Please do.

I hope that helps a bit.

Yes Jozvez, Mormons and Scientologist can be compared, like apples and oranges. Allpes and oranges are fruits, Mormons and Scientologists are nuts, combined they make a fruit cake.

The big bucks go to the ones who lead the multitudes to hell. Last I heard the Mormons have 2 billion cash on hand. Got it tax free, tax deductible and keep it at tax exempt facilities. Kinda defeats the argument that they are nuts but clearly shows the rest of us are.

The Bible is a hoax, http://www.hoax-buster.org How about the "Book of Mormon?" Did JS meet with representatives of JC or was he dreaming of the big bucks and the dream was too sweet to not write down?

Gaby. Non-Mormons are allowed into Temples prior to their dedication. Thanks to the Internet, what goes on in temples is widely available, though we do try to keep it somewhat private and do not normally discuss it. Mormon Services typically are not in temples though, and are in chapels, where anyone is allowed to attend.

Henry J,

I know you much better than this.

What is it that you agree on? Is it this, "Mormons have all the rights that any minority has in America."

Well. I can do one better than that. I think Mormons have all the rights of any minority AND all the rights of the majority. Howdya like that?

I know you are not a low-expectation having mo... ...., nevermind.

"so there is no theological test for citizenship." Yes, that is true. But, as far as I know, this is not new information as it relates to the USA. I could be wrong, this could be another one of those 'lies my teacher told me,' but, I am unaware of there ever having been a theological test, or exam for that matter.

Henry, do you agree with this:

"It is un-American to treat them as one of the last groups about which blatantly intolerant comments are still seen as politically acceptable."

I do not think that blatantly intolerant comments are very nice. I would like it if they weren't accepted. But, this is subjective and not a real meaningful standard. I am almost certain that Otterson and many others would consider my comments, at times, blatantly intolerant.

I am equally certain that the same could be said of many comments by Mormons, including comments by the current leadership of the Mormons. So, who gets to be the judge here?

It is very very very tough to take this comment by Otterson very seriously in light of Oaks recent comment, "It's wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true."

Perhaps Otterson could come on here and explain how to balance correctness, tolerance and truth in an environment where criticism, even when truthful or factual, is not allowed. The fact that he agrees with Oaks has some bearing on how we judge his perception of any criticism of himself or the church that Oaks leads, no?

Per Guy's invitation, I thought I would join in with something about niceness. Here is a moving quote: "In fact, I afterwards talked about sort of the horror of niceness -- that on the one hand they're cutting me off from eternal salvation and telling me that I'm this apostate, which really is considered very bad in Mormon culture, and then I'm this nice woman that they're going to shake my hand. There's something vicious about niceness that struck me in this -- that the niceness covered over the violence of what was being done, because, in fact, excommunication is a violent action. And yet you had this veneer of niceness that covers it over. That was horrifying to me. Afterward it almost made me shudder, that incongruity between the violence of that excommunication and the niceness of the discourse that went on."

Guy, that was honest. And I am still weeping, literally, as I reread that quote. Ya see Guy, there is a place for nice, there is a place for honest, there is a place for all that. And it is a luxury when it all co-exists. The reality is, sometimes, one person's nice is another persons hell.

It is going to take a lot more dialog, and maybe some cookies, to bridge the gap between violence and nice in the Mormon faith. It is happening, and I applaud that, but it is far from bridged. In the meantime, there will remain varied perceptions of what is tolerant and intolerant.

Brother Otterson:

Great post. I think one of your best so far. I especially like this part:

"This is America. We don't ask Jews to be less Jewish, or Catholics to be less Catholic in order to be a respected part of our multi-faceted society."

I just hope members of the church don't give into the pressure to be less Mormon. I like us just the way we are. Not to say we should avoid progress, but I hope we are not shy about the doctrinal tenants that seem bizarre to some, i.e. universal human kinship with God, infinite human Divine potential through Christ, the Eternal nature of the human soul, the reality of modern miracles and revelation. They are some of the greatest, most beautiful aspects of our faith.

James:

You are not anti-Mormon in my book. Thank you for the fair minded comments my friend.

C.T.C.N.L.,

Thanks for participating here. It’s nice that you care as much about liberating us Mormons as you do other Christians : ).

Dogma of the Mormon church is no more immoral, unethical, or unChrist-like than dogma of the Catholic church. If a Catholic can be president, why not a Mormon? Here's why not: the Mormons haven't learned their lesson yet. They are still racist and sexist. They still coerce their children to spend two years in dangerous foreign countries merely to spread the word of a man who claimed to be a prophet, Joseph Smith, not a man who allegedly claimed to be god, Jesus Christ. The successful Mormon is an ask-no-questions follower of his church's teachings, whose exclusivity are odious to most Americans. Catholics can question their faith without being excommunicated or shunned. A Mormon can not. This means that, indeed, a force other than his inner moral guide and stronger than his belief in the tenets of the Constitution controls Mitt Romney.

Joshua,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, it is my understanding the non-Mormons are not allowed into the temples nor are they allowed to witness Mormon services.

That I call secrecy.

What the world really needs are political leaders who practice integrity and live their lives according to the values received on their mother's knee. Whatever their faith , be it Christian, Muslim or Jew, if they truly live their religion and sincerely strive to improve the lot of the disadvantaged, to encourage thrift and hard work, and make the world a better place, then they are a credit to their religion.
The Mormons I know are an asset to the community, they love their families and many seem to deliberately go out of their way to serve others. If the next President is a Mormon, and is living his faith and the values his mother and father taught him, there is much hope for the future.

Philip Baker , Western Australia

Jeanene writes

"if you want the real truth, talk to a missionary"

and if you want the real truth about that car you are thinking of buying

Ask a 20 year old used car salesman.

Jacob,

You know, I wonder the same thing.

As a member, I felt these shows dwelt way to much time to things that are unimportant, and went out of the way to look at our beliefs with a jaundiced eye. If you want the real truth, talk to a missionary!

Good thoughts, Bro. Otterson. I agree with you, particuarly with the sentiment in your final paragraph. Mormons that I know do welcome honest, respectful dialogue. It is when dialogue turns to sniping and respect is replaced with sneering that the majority of thoughtful people will look elsewhere for the dialogue they enjoy.

-Allen

Mayan Elephant,

Direct qoute from Otterson

"It is un-American to treat them as one of the last groups about which blatantly intolerant comments are still seen as politically acceptable."

Gaby,

Respectfully I must disagree with your assertion that the LDS church shrouds itself in secrecy. The LDS church openly and fully participated with Helen Whitney in producing this documentary on the church. She was given unfettered access to church leaders, documents, etc. Other news services such as Time, Newsweek, and Larry King Live have also done news articles chronicling church history and current activities. LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley and other church leaders have given numerous journalism interviews. And--need I mention--there are the over 50,000 volunteer LDS missionaries taking the LDS message of Christ's gospel to all the world.

If this was not what you were referring to by "shrouds itself in secrecy," then please respond and explain.

Regards,
Joshua

We cannot deny that Joseph Smith had conversations with supernatural beings just like we can't deny that Moses and Pat Robertson made deals, spoke with them. Which variety was it is the question. It's an odds on favorite that they were the same variety Moses dealt with, devils, fallen angels.

Interpretation 1,501 of the Bible, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the most accurate. Moses sold his soul for the wealth of earth. Mormons are just another group demanding to be let into hell. They fit right in with all the other members of the three great faiths.

Jacob
in reply i can only add:

DIETG wqR BT $G&^DWR$BVB Dwob.

do you agree?

As an Ex-Mormon,
or what the Mormons call an "Anti-Mormon"
(an obfuscatory rhetorical device to invalidate any criticism without dealing with its merits)

let me Shock you all be say
I essentially agree with mr Otterson.

Mormons have all the rights that any minority has in America,
their religion is no stranger than Catholicism or whatever George Bush believes.
Mormons are very highly educated, productive, responsible people
and they are Good for the stock market, which is very important to me, being on a pension.

and let's remind ourselves that the Mormon church is now one of the largest denominations in America: it is not a minor religious sect.

As long as the Mormon church shrouds itself in secrecy there can not be an open and honest dialogue.

To reiterate, it is all about the founders of the major religions and their favorite "tinker bell(s)" aka angel.

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerer" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinker bells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Mayan Elephant,
Imagine that . . . you complaining about whining. Ummm . . . makes my head spin. Brother Otterson is correct. We will and do welcome honest, thoughtful and mutually respectful public discussion about the Church. When will you join that dialogue?

Otterson,

What are you whining about now? Do you want a cookie or something? Really, what will it take to stop this whining?

Un-American? the last groups about which blatantly intolerant comments are still seen as politically acceptable? Gimme a tissue and a violin. I feel so bad.

I think you are wrong about your exclusive claim to persecution and you also confuse what is tolerant and what is not. Remember, you kick people out of your church for not believing a book that says god cursed the American Indian and made his skin dark. Now THAT really is un-American. Your tolerance-meter might need a priesthood blessing or something to get it working again.