• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

LDS II: The Mormons

. . . The fact that they don't hunt down and execute apostates (anymore) doesn't change this.

They don't? Astonishing.

Perhaps "forcing" was the wrong term for me to use. "Intimidation" is a better term, given the afterlife blackmail involved in most religions. Mormonism included.

Blackmail, eh? Even more astonishing.

What is the point you were tying to make with your response? You seem to be trying to imply I accused the Morons of something as abhorrent as continuing to maintain the "Avenging Angels" as an official arm of the church isntead of a fringe group among splinter cults.[/QUOTE]

A group known as the "Morons" may have been involved in something like that. :)
 
They don't? Astonishing.

Not really. While the LDS was able to maintain a secret police and totalitarian control over the population when Utah was still a territory, that capability was quickly eroded when actual civilization returned* to the region in the form of a secular government. Things like polygamy and the clandestine murders committed by the "Avenging Angels" came to an end, but it was a rough and tumble battle. The big tipping point was a law forced down from the federal government banning bigamists from holding public office or working in law enforcement. It pretty much disenfranchised all the extremists not willing to become more moderate.

The process for disenfranchising the extremist Mormons in Utah was not dissimilar from the means used by Muslims to disenfranchise the Zoroastrians in the region we now know as Iran. I doubt the parallels were deliberate however.

There are, of course, splinter sects still preserving the old school Mormonism, as demonstrated by the events recorded in "Under the Banner of Heaven." Fortunately, their ability to create and maintain a Brigham Young style theological dictatorship is severely limited by the real, civilized law enforcement presence in the state,

Blackmail, eh? Even more astonishing.

How would you describe threatening a person's afterlife based upon how well they did or did not obey you? "Blackmail" is a fairly kind term for it, almost a euphemism.

A group known as the "Morons" may have been involved in something like that. :)

I apologize for the typo. My typo however does not magically mean I wasn't referring to Mormons.

Since you still haven't clarified WHICH Corinthians you were referring to, I'll take a quick look at both.

You wrote:
skyrider44 said:
Corinthians 15:4-8; 9:1-5

Looking up the verses we get:
I Corinthians 15:4-8New International Version (NIV)

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[a] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Well, that hardly places Paul in the special theological position you've claimed. If anything it diminishes Paul's theological position by placing him, in his own words, in a group of more than five hundred people. More to the point, this passages places a number of WOMEN on par with Paul. If one is to use this passage to argue that Paul is somehow elevated by Christ for special purpose then you must ALSO accept it as declaring that women be allowed into the priesthood.

Fortunately for Christian and Mormon Misogynists of all stripes, this passage is obviously about claiming a large number of witnesses to Christ's resurrection, NOT about declaring Paul as anything special, beyond being one of those many witnesses.

II Corinthians only has 13 chapters, so the first part of the mangled biblical reference has to be referring to the passage I just quoted.

2 Corinthians 9:1-5 New International Version (NIV)

9 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the Lord’s people. 2 For I know your eagerness to help, and I have been boasting about it to the Macedonians, telling them that since last year you in Achaia were ready to give; and your enthusiasm has stirred most of them to action. 3 But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but that you may be ready, as I said you would be. 4 For if any Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we—not to say anything about you—would be ashamed of having been so confident. 5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to visit you in advance and finish the arrangements for the generous gift you had promised. Then it will be ready as a generous gift, not as one grudgingly given.

Clearly you must have been trying to reference I Corinthians in both cases.

1 Corinthians 9:1-5
Paul’s Rights as an Apostle

9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]?

If anything, this argues in favor of theological relativism.

Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!

The idea of an apostle being rejected by some and accepted by others is hardly unique, it's a significant factor in the distinctions between the existence of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

Ultimately, all Paul is arguing is that he's an apostle to some, even if he's not an apostle to others. I suspect Shakespeare's "If you prick me, do I not bleed?" monologue drew some inspiration from this passage. The passage does NOT however, make any special arguments about the authority of an apostle. Indeed, Paul himself admits that there are over 500 men and women who can claim that title in the I Corinthians passage discussed earlier in this post.

Skyrider44, what IS your actual position on Paul, and what passages do you have to support it? You seem to have indirectly recanted or at least contradicted a good deal of what you'd said before. What meaning were you trying to convey with the list of passages you copied and pasted?



*I am of course saying civilization returned, because the Mormon settlers displaced an extant native population to provide a home for their regime. Think of them as a racially pure transitional dictatorship between civilized Native Americans an Democracy minded westerners.
 
Allowing them to leave hardly constitutes the degree of control referenced.

Nonsense. People leave churches all the time, often because the church exercises a control they no longer want to be a part of. It doesn't change the fact that the church still maintains control over active members.

People left Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and Branch Davidian, too. The members who stayed still died.
 
Reaching back a bit in the thread, I think a lot of the sexual repression exhibited in Christianity in general and the assorted Christianity inspired offshoots, like the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, is explained by the following quote:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...years-old-and-still-scandalous/#ixzz3882EG3m1
He is uncompromising about the bad effects of traditional religious teachings concerning sexuality. Here is a quote from my essay “Bertrand Russell,” published in Icons of Unbelief, edited by S.T. Joshi, Greenwood Press, 2008:

Russell is particularly scathing about orthodox teachings on human sexuality. He holds that early Christianity promoted an unhealthy view of sexuality by regarding perpetual virginity as ideal with marriage a poor second best (It is best to be celibate, says Paul, but “It is better to marry than to burn,” I Corinthians, 7:9). Indeed, says Russell, orthodox Christianity has viewed all sexual desire with suspicion, even within marriage, and this has led to bad consequences:

The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral
was…based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is
regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can
only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it
is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole
history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life
(Russell, 1929, p. 48).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The End of the ‘Mormon Moment’

Despite being a sad sack of fail, Willard Romney's presidential run had the unintended side effect of creating the "Mormon Moment" a period of historically unprecedented discussion and questioning within the LDS. As implied by the name however, that period appears to be coming to a close. The LDS hierarchy is circling the wagons and kicking out or silencing the internal critics that had arisen during the "Mormon Moment."

The End of the ‘Mormon Moment’ By CADENCE WOODLAND

This crackdown marks the end of the “Mormon Moment” — not just the frenzy of interest that rose (and largely faded) with Mitt Romney’s campaigns for the presidency, but a distinct period of dialogue around and within the Mormon community.

In the last few years, observers had asked hard questions about the faith, not with the derision and malice with which Mormonism has historically been characterized, but in a spirit of honest inquiry. Journalists have examined the governance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the political implications of Mormons in politics, even the prevalence of Mormon “mommy bloggers.” Scholars have examined Mormon history in greater detail. Universities have created positions devoted to Mormon studies. The satirical but sympathetic musical “The Book of Mormon” took Broadway by storm in 2011 and is still running.

But the debate — much of it at the Bloggernacle, slang for the Mormon blogosphere — has also revealed troubling historical facts and inconsistencies in policy and even doctrine.

It's sad in a way. The LDS church had a golden opportunity to modernize and evolve during a period of maximized public exposure. The dying, atrophying church could have been revitalized with new interest and new converts. It could have stemmed the tide of apathy and questions that were already eroding the membership. It seems the church leadership has put maintaining their entrenched power over a shrinking congregation ahead of building up the church to survive for future generations.

Unless something major changes, a highly unlikely event given the structure of Mormon governance, we've already seen the peak of the Mormon church, at least in th United states. Like the Roman Catholics, they're forced to turn to uneducated third world nations for their future. It's ironic that a faith founded on racism and myths of white religious supremacy is going to be predominantly dark skinned in another couple generations, if it exists at all.
 
FLDS pedophile Warren Jeffs' compound converted into a a B&B

The Hildale, Utah compound built for jailed FLDS Church pedophile polygamist prophet Warren Jeffs and now owned by his former bodyguard has just opened as a hotel, called America's Most Wanted Suites and Bed & Breakfast.

(Willie) Jessop, who once served as a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), said he refused to defend his former boss when he found out what Jeffs had done and was excommunicated. He bought the compound for $3.6 million at an auction last year after winning a lawsuit against church leaders...

Jessop wanted to convert Jeffs’ private residence, which was built adjacent to the main building, into a museum but decided instead to use it for housing for locals in need. It’s now home to a family whose house burned down, he said.
 
Reading articles like "Mormon missionaries and the stigma of early return" I'm starting to see why such a shrinking percentage of Mormon youth are participating in missions. The culture seems to let people who never go on a a mission get by. It no doubt restricts their advancement opportunities within the church's hierarchy, but it doesn't seem to really be punished if you never do one.

Trying and failing however, that seems to be a catastrophe.

Punishing people for trying to evangelize and not succeeding is something foreign to my Christian experience. One the one hand, the social stigma of failure discourages people with moderate faith from trying to evangelize. This is good for the public image of the church as it presents a very faithful face, but terrible for long term member retention.

Not doing a mission keeps someone from rising in the ranks. This means the more moderate members will never reach the highest levels of the church. This in turn has the effect, seen in church policy and it's adherence to racial segregation until the late 1970's, of keeping the church leadership as extremist as possible. How can they possibly move in a more modern direction if the pool of elders is growing increasingly more zealous and entrenched?

Do Australian Mormons react any better to someone who comes home form their mission early?
 
This a link to a very short documentary called "Transmormon" which is about one young tran-woman's experiences growing up in a conservative Mormon
Environment. It turns out she didn't even know WHAT she was until she learned about transgendered people while visiting her grandmother in Japan.

http://vimeo.com/m/82104871
 
Allowing them to leave hardly constitutes the degree of control referenced.
When I left the Mormon Church I paid a heavy price. The Mormon Church requires members to disassociate from apostates or anyone who is critical of Mormon leaders. I am both an apostate and I'm outspoken in my criticism of the Mormon Church.

For that reason there are family members and former friends who will not associate with me. I know atheists who refuse to speak out against the Church for fear of losing relationships.

Section 3.3.4 Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents [1] or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.
​
The interview question that corresponds with this injunction is:
“Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”

​
 
When I left the Mormon Church I paid a heavy price. The Mormon Church requires members to disassociate from apostates or anyone who is critical of Mormon leaders. I am both an apostate and I'm outspoken in my criticism of the Mormon Church.

For that reason there are family members and former friends who will not associate with me. I know atheists who refuse to speak out against the Church for fear of losing relationships.

A recent episode of Irreligiosophy featured an interview with David Michael of the "My Book of Mormon" podcast. David Michael is a non-Mormon reading the Book of Mormon for the first time. In the interview he talks about how some of the fan mail he gets. His honest reactions to the absurdity of the Book of Mormon's claims are, according to the fan mail, a vital relief for many Mormons. There are a LOT of apostates who don't speak out because they would be exiled my their families and ostracized socially.

If the LDS leadership had real faith in their religion, then apostates would be the subject of outreach and efforts to draw them back in. The behavior of cutting off unbelievers suggests a cynical con and not a legitimate religion.

The links Jan and Sky have provided demonstrate the erosion and decline of the Mormon church in educated areas. I'm curious as to what percentage of people claiming to be Mormon today are actually apostates keeping on a mask of faithfulness to avoid losing their jobs, friends and family. At what point will the LDS members who are playing a part outnumber the ones who are ACTUALLY believers? Has it already happened? When it DOES happen, what kinds of change will happen as a result?
 
A recent episode of Irreligiosophy featured an interview with David Michael of the "My Book of Mormon" podcast. David Michael is a non-Mormon reading the Book of Mormon for the first time. In the interview he talks about how some of the fan mail he gets. His honest reactions to the absurdity of the Book of Mormon's claims are, according to the fan mail, a vital relief for many Mormons. There are a LOT of apostates who don't speak out because they would be exiled my their families and ostracized socially.

If the LDS leadership had real faith in their religion, then apostates would be the subject of outreach and efforts to draw them back in. The behavior of cutting off unbelievers suggests a cynical con and not a legitimate religion.

The links Jan and Sky have provided demonstrate the erosion and decline of the Mormon church in educated areas. I'm curious as to what percentage of people claiming to be Mormon today are actually apostates keeping on a mask of faithfulness to avoid losing their jobs, friends and family. At what point will the LDS members who are playing a part outnumber the ones who are ACTUALLY believers? Has it already happened? When it DOES happen, what kinds of change will happen as a result?
Très cool on the links. Thanks.
 
I was at the Stuttgart wine fest this past weekend and saw two Mormon missionaries. I have to give it to them, it's pretty gutsy to go to a German drunk fest and pitch a religion that bans alcohol. Not a good idea if your goal is to win converts but still, brave to the point of foolish. They didn't engage me so I didn't an engage them. I have strict don't fire unless fired upon rule when it comes to Mormon missionaries.

Maybe their goal was to find someone who needed help holding their hair back while they threw up and then pitch them giving up drinking and becoming Mormon.
 
Man Forbids Wife From Using Tampons
Adam Grossman and his wife Melanie recently got married; however, a strange condition of that marriage (and their religion) is that his wife is not allowed to use tampons.

“In my religion, tampons are seen as a sexual stimulant. The only thing that should be going into her birth canal is my phallus,” Grossman said. “And that should only happen in the quest to make children.”

Grossman is part of the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (now called Community of Christ) that broke off from the Mormon Church in the 19th century. They draw several distinctions from mainstream Mormonism and this happens to be one of the oddest.
...
“I am the man, which means I am the head of my household and make the rules. My wife has to obey. Atheists need to mind their own business and just leave us alone. No tampons. Period.”
 

Oddly enough, it's hard for me to work up much emotion about that. It seems that both are adults, entering into a voluntary marriage and agreeing with the same views on tampons and their relationship, even if the views seem odd to the average person. Seems a textbook case of letting consenting adults do what they wish as long as it harms no one, and that basic philosophy also allows for a lot more positive individual freedom than expecting all relationships and menstrual protection to be socionormative or else.
 
Oddly enough, it's hard for me to work up much emotion about that. It seems that both are adults, entering into a voluntary marriage and agreeing with the same views on tampons and their relationship, even if the views seem odd to the average person. Seems a textbook case of letting consenting adults do what they wish as long as it harms no one, and that basic philosophy also allows for a lot more positive individual freedom than expecting all relationships and menstrual protection to be socionormative or else.

That's a fair point. Besides, it's lot like he's making her spend a week in a hut in the back yard, she's just using a Keeper instead of a tampon.

It's still an interesting view into the contorted view of sexuality advocated by conservative religion.
 
. . . The links Jan and Sky have provided demonstrate the erosion and decline of the Mormon church in educated areas.

"Erosion and decline"? If that's true, what does the Church plan to do with the meeting houses and temples it's building worldwide at what I'm quite certain is the fastest rate in its history?

I'm curious as to what percentage of people claiming to be Mormon today are actually apostates keeping on a mask of faithfulness to avoid losing their jobs, friends and family.

I'm sure such individuals exist, just as some labor union members "go along" to keep their jobs, or some politicians are Democrats or Republicans for electability reasons, or some philanthropists make major donations to presidential campaigns with a view to receiving an ambassadorship if their candidate wins. Does any of this come as a surprise to you?

At what point will the LDS members who are playing a part outnumber the ones who are ACTUALLY believers? Has it already happened? When it DOES happen, what kinds of change will happen as a result?

I assume this is of interest to you because you want it to happen. That aside, has it occurred to you that most Latter-day Saints derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity? Why do millions of parents spend substantial time and money playing Santa Claus? Because it brings them and their children joy. Or why do professional wrestling fans spend big bucks to attend matches knowing full well that the wrestlers are faking it? It isn't necessary to believe in the truthfulness of something to receive satisfaction by accepting it on a peripheral level.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom