Episode 15: Inoculating the Saints — Listener Feedback

The latest pamphlet confronts us with a choice. We can be respectful to LDS authorities or we can defend our gay friends and family members.

Corey made the right choice. A little less respect is a small price if it saves one kid from suicide.

Why are we concerned about what might happen to the institution if they start being straightforward and honest about their history and treat women and homosexuals with equality, etc? It seems that we are putting the survival of the institution above the needs and considerations of the people. People matter way more to me than the institution. A good institution will support the needs of the people, if it does not perhaps it needs to do the right thing and change regardless of what it will do to the membership numbers.

Second, I believe every person can voice an opinion about how they think the church should do its business. It is not overstepping bounds. We could all do the same (i.e., give our opinion) about how any other church should treat its people. It is very dangerous when we start discouraging people from respectfully sharing their opinions.

I have not read the latest pamphlet, and usually don’t read that sort of thing. I am probably mistaken in my hope that Carol Lynn Pearson’s work is more indicative of the direction the church is eventually going to take, but I hold onto it as a hope anyway.

Corey says what he thinks, and is not much given to rhetorical restraint. It’s probably a sign of the restraint he WAS exercising that he only said “crap.”

Carlos, it isn’t much of a prophecy for Joseph to prophecy that people will be believe him and then they won’t. That statement was proven true multiple times in Joseph’s own lifetime – probably even before the prophecy made it into print. Which would make it not a prophecy at all.

the scripture is ” insomuch that, even if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect,” I interprete that is it is not possible to deceive the very elect….

Also, I think if you were homosexual, or a woman, you might not view such things as “pet issues.”

Hellmutt, I wouldn’t want to lay the credit or blame on ME for really having any effect on the suicide rate, but if someone is grappling with the relationship between their sexuality and their religious convictions, I would recommend a more nuanced approach to the idea of disagreement with the new pamphlet.

I felt this podcast represented a break through for balance on Mormon Matters. IMHO using the word crap showed restraint on Corey’s part given his passion on the subjects. It’s a very small nit to pick as is taking the use of a surname without title as a slight, it’s done in the press frequently. I may be wrong but I think I’ve even seen the pope referred to as Ratzinger. That may not make it politically correct but I suggest the issue and slight are relatively minor. I’m saddened by the dismissive tone of some of the comments above.

I felt the whole panel represented themselves very well. Kudos to all of them. Perhaps skillful editing contributed to the over all effect. I would very much like to hear Corey and Eric speak again on Mormon Matters as well as hearing other voices both conservative and liberal from the greater Mormon community. Thank you Dehlin.

I love Anne’s report about her conversion experience. Regardless of the historical and doctrinal problems, there are tremendous opportunities for conversions. A lively ward were members like each other, pay attention to outreach, and cooperate with each other will always be successful.

Unfortunately, we are taking less and less advantage of those opportunities. The number one culprit is not New Mormon History but the lack of empowerment and training of local decision-makers.

I also love what she has to say about means and ends. Theologically, Anne’s view is one hundred percent correct. In terms of political economy, however, organizations are an end to themselves. The reason is that the organization’s officers will pursue their own interests within the framework of the organization.

Corey tried to make that point when he asked who benefited from Mormon policies.

Equality,

You are right, if I was a women or a homosexual who was not willing to accept what has been taught from the beginning of the Church, I would not think it a pet issue, it would be my cause, for sure.

But I was referring to the others, who are not in that category, who campaign for the Church to make radical changes in doctrine.

I can’t work in the Temple here because I have a beard, I don’t like it especially because I did in California for 8 years, but It is not something I wish to make a big deal about. Not on the same scale by any means, but an example.

When jayspec says, “But I was referring to the others, who are not in that category, who campaign for the Church to make radical changes in doctrine.” I can’t help but think of the verse by Martin Niemöller, (who ended up in a nazi concentration camp)

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Yes, I may be breaking (or invoking?) Godwin’s Law by posting this, and I surely don’t mean to equate my church or it’s leaders with nazis, but this verse reminded me of Corey’s sentiment that someone needs to speak out and get the attention of the leaders to get anything done. Until there is woman or gay apostle, (ie, never,) the apostles have no reason to listen to their concerns. But if enough white, heterosexual, tithing paying High Priests say those things, maybe the leadership of the church will take notice. Maybe.

As to some of the comments here that criticize Corey and Eric for their tone, first I need to question if they listened to the same podcast that I did, and then secondly ask why they are attacking the perceived subjective tone and not their actual arguments?

I don’t like immorality either, Jayspec. That’s why gays ought to get married when they are having sex.

“Now that would be an interesting wedding ceremony.”

No doubt. let’s give the standard answer here. “When Heavenly Father decides it should happen, it will happen.” All the campaigning, gnashing of teeth and tempers will not change that.

Instead of that campaigning, there should be an emphasis on trying to assist those brothers and sisters with that issue to learn to deal with it. I think the Church is trying to do that, in its way. That warrants some respect, even if you don’t agree with it totally.

To Dathlon, I will re-listen to the podcast and give you the quotes I thought were out of line.

jayspec says, “No doubt. let’s give the standard answer here. “When Heavenly Father decides it should happen, it will happen.” All the campaigning, gnashing of teeth and tempers will not change that.”

Apparently you don’t know the real history behind the changes in garments in the early 20th century, or the temple endowment changes in 1990, or the history behind giving blacks the priesthood, etc, etc, etc.

It seems pretty obvious to me that when enough well-connected members complain, that’s when Heavenly Father sees fit to give The Brethren a revelation on the matter.

Jayspec ~

You wrote, “You are right, if I was a women or a homosexual who was not willing to accept what has been taught from the beginning of the Church, I would not think it a pet issue, it would be my cause, for sure.”

What is hard for me to accept is how Joseph Smith encouraged women to use the priesthood to give blessings. The relief society used to be a successful autonomous organization, run solely by the women, not under the direction of the priesthood. At one point, women were not allowed to pray in sacrament meeting, not too long ago I might add. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to Elijah Abel, a black man, as he felt God wanted him to, which was then later taken away from all blacks, which Brigham Young thought God wanted him to, which was brought back to blacks in 1978, which Spencer W. Kimball thought God wanted him to. So not all things have been “taught from the beginning of the Church” like you maintain.

If women are to be priestesses in the celestial kingdom beside their husbands, why is it so difficult to consider women having priesthood here on earth too?
If blacks can get the priesthood after not having it for a century, then why can’t changes be made for women and gay people? Just because many think that God wants it this way does not make such sexism and homophobia morally right.

As for gays, I have difficulty respecting any general authority or church that promotes the idea parents should not welcome their active gay children into their homes. That just tears into me, and I don’t have to be gay to know how very very wrong and un-Christlike such an idea is.

Hellmut,

If I were a clinical psychologist with a suicidal gay Mormon client who bellieves in the church, and believes that G. B. Hinckley is a prophet, I would probably want to work with the client to help resolve the incongruity. It may well be helpful for the client to set aside some advice given in the pamphlet, but I am quite sure it would counterproductive to use the expression “Hinckley’s latest crap.” That would only rub the client’s nose in the very inconguity we’re seeking to resolve, and I can’t imagine it could do anything but push the person closer to suicide.

Of course, ME’s comments were made in a different context, and as I said, I don’t think he’s really going to make anyone more (or less) likely to commit suicide. I have NO objection to ME disagreeing with the contents of the pamphlet as vehemently as he likes, but I disagree that his choice of language is more likely to prevent suicides than would a more measured approach that makes the same point. If the goal is to prevent suicide, an in-your-face assault on the person’s religious convictions would seem counterproductive.

Nathan C. First of all, as a Jewish convert to the Church and one who actually lost family in the Holocaust, I do not see the comparison. No one is being killed here simply for being of a different belief. Even that is not the complete reason for it.

“ask why they are attacking the perceived subjective tone and not their actual arguments?”

Secondly, I have been finding this an interesting point that continues to be made here and other forums. When people respond in anger, condescension, ridicule or disrespect, it does point to an attitude that begs the question of “why should I bother to respond to such a person?” I have seen in the past, that those folks with the anger really do not want a dialogue, they just want to venrt their anger and frustration. And, we are asked to look past that. Well, you wouldn’t do it in a face-to-face conversation with someone, why should you do it on-line?

Thirdly, you are right, I do not know the secret reasons why the Church changes things like the length of the garment, two piece or one, the changes in the temple ceremony, etc. After all, it must be the philosphies of men, mingled with scripture. Can’t possibly be inspired thinking, directed by Heavenly Father? Must only be for expediancy and a strong letter-writing campaign.

I don’t think it is THAT obivious, unless, of course, you are looking for nefarious purposes.

And, I think, this is what the podcast touches on too. It seems imperative to many of us to make certain changes in the church – like inoculating the saints – in order to prevent certain hurts from occurring which can drive people away from the good things the Gospel brings. Ignoring those things that are not easy isn’t going to help.

I’m not demanding anything, Hellmut….I’m just expressing an opinion.

Aaron,

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it. I believe that I did, in fact, refer to President Hinckley as “President Hinckley” when I was speaking. I may have slipped once or twice and used the shorter “Hinckley” in subsequent references, but I certainly meant no disrespect toward him and did not mean to offend any believing Mormons who may be listening to the podcast.

I didn’t think I was being “hostile” in my tone (more like “passionate”) but I do not deny that I am “confronting” things in the church that I view with displeasure. And I understand that in the Mormon culture today, any expression of disagreement with the Brethren no matter the subject is often viewed as “bitter” or “angry” or “contentious.” There is a culture of conformity that, I think, confuses honest, principled disagreement with disrespect.

I do disagree both with much of what the previous panelists had to say about inoculation and with the leaders of the church on a number of issues. The point I was trying to make in the podcast, though, was not simply to express my disagreements with the Brethren on certain issues (be they “pet” or otherwise) but rather to suggest that in order for inoculation to have any effect on the problem being addressed (i.e., faithful, active members of the church encountering information different from what they have learned in church, feeling betrayed, and becoming disaffected as a result), there would need to be institutional changes that can only come about through concerted action from those who lead the church at the highest levels.

Where John Dehlin and I disagreed was on whether such changes would do more harm to the church than the problem that is being addressed. I think the church can change, and should change, and that the sorts of changes I propose would actually make for a stronger, healthier institution in the long run, though not without some short-term pain. I think the price of not changing is a church that continues to lose valuable members, becomes more insular and less relevant and, ultimately, suffers a slow but steady decline in both membership and influence. Reasonable minds can differ on this, of course. John thinks that making the changes I suggest would destroy the church. He may be right. But I still think inoculation cannot work without changes to the prevailing Mormon culture, which values literalism and a strictly defined orthopraxy that requires the type of “faith-promoting” approach to teaching church history and doctrine that President Packer champions. I actually said that President Packer’s stance is the only rational one for a church that wants to harden its conservative stance on scriptural and historical literalism. In “counseling the Brethren” I am merely offering my opinion that, if they want to address the problem, it can’t be done just by tweaking a manual here or there–systemic change is required for any inoculation to be effective. If they don’t want to address the problem effectively, then maintaining the course charted by President Packer is appropriate. But if they choose that course, there is no sense talking about inoculation. If they choose to stay on the “faith-promoting” course that is disdainful of historians, scholars, feminists, and social progressives, then the church will continue to lose members who identify with those groups. The Brethren (and many church members) may be OK with that. I just think the church would be a better place if such people were not only tolerated but accepted and embraced.

Nathan,

“for someone who believes in the exclusive authority of the leaders of the church, it is worse than death to be punished by them.”

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here. Why would anyone beleive in “exclusive” authority in any man? While Presidnet Hinckley holds all Priesthood keys to run the church on this earth, the head is still Jesus Christ. Men are not perfect and make mistakes. Ido not beleive that the GAs of the church take their responsbility lightly and realize what they do and say can affect millions of people. Still not, sure what you point is there.

Also, I am not at all referring to you when I talk about an angry tone. At least not yet… :0) I was specfically referring to Corey’s tone on the podcast. All I was trying to say is that that people get turned off by anger and do not think a civil conversation where issues can be clamly and openly discussed is possible.

Also, I have listened to most of John’s podcasts and have enjoyed them thoroughly. I even ordered Greg Prince’s book to get more information about that era of the church.

One interesting point to me is that pople like to say that the reason the church did not give the priesthood to blacks sooner was that ” they were not ready for it.” You’ve dismissed that as a reason. But, if certain GAs didn’t think it was time, maybe THEY were the ones not ready for it. So it would be a basically true statement. The fact that HUgh B Brown wanted it and Harold B. Lee did not is proof to me that it was the Lord who needed to decide when the time was right. The fact that the church was not ahead of the rest of society, have you ever been to Utah?????

And….maybe that’s why John Dehlin thinks that innoculation will kill the church……a less perfect perception of principles, leaders and the movement will come with a price to committment overall.

Maybe…..but I don’t think the church will die. A few may leave up front. But how many more than are leaving now? And in the long term, this whole issue of feeling betrayed, lied to, etc., will go away completely because people will have assimilated the tough points into their spiritual development.

Sister ML:

Just because one does not like or agree with a gospel principle does not in itself make it unprincipled. I still need you to point out for me the women Joseph Smith ordained to the Priesthood as opposed to saying to the women that they should USE their husband’s Priesthood to bless their children. I will never accept the idea that a mother’s faithful prayer on behalf of her child has any less effectiveness than a Priesthood Blessing. If it makes you feel better to lay your hands on his or her head, I think that is perfectly reasonable. What you do in your home is your own business and you should do what you think it right for your family. At this point in time, the Priesthood is not given to women on this earth. So you can’t baptize your children into the church. And you can’t give her a name and blessing before the church.

Please don’t fall back on that old point that I can’t possibly understand because I am not ( fill in the blank). I am not alone in my mindset, there are many people that probably agree more with my way of thinking than yours.

To me, it all comes down to whether you accept the principles of which the church was founded, restoration of the fulness of the gospel, continuing revelation and the priesthood. If those things are not true, then we are just another church teaching some of the truth, but not all. So then any church will do. If I thought that was the case, I would have stayed in the Jewish Faith. That way I could have believed almost anything I wanted.

My hat is off to Cory! His comments about anger and the “anti-mormon” label really hit home and I agree with him wholeheartedly. The damaged and ruined lives of my loved ones instills a great deal of anger and rage in me. Thank you Cory – you put my feelings into words.

Sister ML, You asked,

“Do you feel that men are more capable and better suited to handle priesthood leadership responsibilities than women are?”

No, many men in the church are slackers, but the Lord gave the Priesthood responsibility to men at this time.

“Do you feel that women are more suited for homemaking and cleaning and childrearing than men are?”

No, I do make beds better than my wife. But she is neater. As far as I know only women can bear children. Has that changed? Men make the ideal fathers, Women make the ideal mothers, most of the time.

“Do you feel that women who don’t wish to be mothers are sinners?”

No, that is their choice and they live with whatever consequences there are from that choice. I am thinking not many.

“Do you feel that boys are better suited for missionary work than girls are?”

No, some of the best Missionaries I have known have been Sisters. I was first tracted out by Sisters. The worst missionaries have all been males.

“Do you think it was wrong of faithful LDS members to question the priesthood ban for blacks in 1970 because at that time, the priesthood was not given to blacks on this earth?”

No, I would have wondered why if was a member then. I still do. But I really still don’t know why.

“Do you feel it’s OK to expect gay members of the church to remain celibate their entire lives, and to treat those who engage in sex as unworthy sinners?”

I think that all single members should follow the law of chasity, gay or straight. I expect all married members to be faithful to their spouses. But, I am not the judge.

“You are not alone in your mindset. The Nazis were not alone in their mindset that Jews should be exterminated.”

Really, who else was involved?

“The KKK was not alone in its mindset that blacks should be killed because whites are better.”

They hated Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and others just as much.

“The plantation owners of The South were not alone in their mindset that people with black skin were born to be slaves.”

All civilizations have had slaves at one time or another. And not just black. Slaves still exist in this world, unfortunately. I don’t know of any plantation owners still alive who have black slaves.

“The countless Chinese mothers who bound the feet of their daughters were not alone in believing that crippling their daughters was appealing and attractive.”

Wasn’t that Japanese? Never understood that either, just like I don’t understand female circumision. It cruel and unusual.

So I guess the lesson here is that because there are some of us who choose to follow the Prophet and the current teachings of the church that we are equal to nazis, slave owners, chinese mothers, etc?

And here I thought I was trying to learn to be a good person and do what God expects of me. silly me.

I don’t think I did misunderstand you. I mearly tried to point out that there is usually much more to the story than a narrow view of it. Like slavery. As unacceptable as we think it is now, it was in fact acceptable to have slaves. and not just black slaves.

On the other hand, when a minority of people beleive something, it does not mean the majority is automatically wrong, either.

No, Carlos, perhaps I’ve been talking toooooo long to my gay brother.

But I digress and apologize for the threadjack. I’ll try to stick with the topic of whether or not inoculating the members with truth will be the church’s demise or not. I’ll think about what it would have meant to me personally to have known beforehand some of the things I found out that shocked me enough to cause me to leave the church of my birth…

Jayspec, you are confusing morality and ethics. Morality is about customs. Ethics is about goodness.

You can defend the authoritarianism in the Church because it is customary. The fact remains that authoritarianism, be it secular or religious, does not suit human nature. The sorry state of Mormonism is only one case of many that illustrates the point.

Left Field, any gay person who recognizes that Gordon Hinckley does not have a clue about sexuality will be just fine. Gay people who take Hinckley’s words at face value, will find themselves in a very difficult position.

Denial is always destructive. Gordon Hinckley is demonstrably in denial about sex generally and homosexuality particularly. It would be unhealthy for gays trying to reconcile so called incongruities that only arise if one subscribes to nonsense in the first place.

The best way to deal with nonsense, especially when it is so arrogant, hateful, and destructive, is to abandon it. No homosexual should have ever been burdened with the irrational prejudice of past generations that has long been debunked by science.

Doing so in the name of God is a sacrilege. Jesus taught us to follow the example of the Good Samaritan. Mormon prophets continue to ask us to dump on vulnerable minorities.

What is it about our religious organization that it has to rely on demonization, hate, and fear at the expense of marginal groups?

Do you really want to defend a religion relying on bullying? It seems to me that Mormonism can do a a lot better. There are so many positive aspects about Mormon community that we can safely abandon the cultivation and utilization of enemy images. The perpetual return of the Mormon leadership to scapegoating and enemy imaging reveals a troubling lack of faith.

A leadership style that has to invoke enemy images is bankrupt. How about something positive for a change? We were against abolition, against women’s rights, and against civil rights. We lost all these battles but it has not been the end of the world.

Contrary to the predictions of the prophets, it turns out that the world has become a better place every time it became more inclusive, egalitarian and neighborly. Why that would be a surprise to any Christian, is beyond me. I guess it requires privileged revelation to understand why slavery, racism and sexism were ever a good thing.

In spite of their embarrassing track record, our leaders are asking us today to deny gays their civil rights. Barring a civilizational catastrophe, we will loose that struggle as well. The family will not collapse but in the meanwhile our own children will suffer the most from our unethical activities.

After the death of Stuart Matis, Matthew Shepard’s murder at the hands of a Mormon, our historical problems with race as well as religious violence, it is inexcusable that Mormon authorities continue to talk about homosexuality in terms of sin and abomination. Every life science contradicts the brethren. They could know better but they refuse to learn. That’s willful negligence.

Corey was quite right to refer to this stuff in unambiguous terms. Gay Mormons who hear this podcast can learn from Corey’s words that there are Mormons who love and respect them and their nature. That’s worth a lot in a culture that has sacrificed its children to a cult of leadership.

In fact, prophetic is not too strong an adjective to describe Corey’s language. It might not be perfect but it’s life affirming and inclusive. It also is the truth.

Hellmut:

Not exactly sure what you are reading or reading into. Latter-day Saints who try to live the gospel do not hate gays anymore than you hate straight people.

What I want to know if what is all this focus on sex??? There is more to us human beings besides having sex with each other. We should show love and charity to all men and women, regardless of their situation in life. We are expected to do that. That is what the Savior would do.

I don’t know where your rant on Church leaders comes from, I don’t see it that way.

“Mormon prophets continue to ask us to dump on vulnerable minorities.”

Jut a bizarre statement.

“Gay people who take Hinckley’s words at face value, will find themselves in a very difficult position.”

My point, exactly. And for the very people in that difficult and most vulnerable position, I fail to see how a sledge hammer to the face is an effective and admirable approach.

I agree. Not everyone is in the same position.

Wow, John. This episode struck nerves, raised questions and drew all sorts of folks together here in an extended dialog. Job well done. It validates your vision several years ago of taking Sunstone into the cybersphere.

The observation that a verbal dialog can be more vital than a blogging dialog was born out in this podcast. While I don’t agree with all of Eric and Core’s opinions I found their verbal expressions even more meaningful to me than their clear, thoughtful writing. I applaud the decision to edit the original conversation.

I join with Hellmut in delighting in Ann’s experience as a new convert in a ward that embraced her. I count fellowship and friendship with fellow believers as a partucularly tender blessing.

I was born and raised in the church, with a long line of Mormon ancestry going back to Joseph Smith’s original group of followers. I tried hard to be good and always choose the right, and I did fairly well but somehow I got to BYU and the first real temptation struck. After falling into actual sin territory for a very short time (only two weeks) with a man I loved, I bid adieu to him when he moved abroad. A couple months later, I realized I was pregnant.

All I could think about was my high priest dad’s words from my childhood: “Any daughter of mine who comes home pregnant out of wedlock is no longer my daughter.” The morality code at BYU weighed heavily as well. What would they do to me if they found out I was pregnant but still attending BYU?? Worst of all I knew that I had fallen in the eyes of God and failed him miserably.

I left BYU and went home, ashamed and feeling disgraced and worthless inside. I went to church, and sought out my bishop to whom I confessed all and repented of my horrible sin I had committed in love, the sin that I had been taught by my parents, the general authorities, and my young womens leaders would leave me unclean and unworthy of a righteous returned missionary, as good and desirable to righteous men as a chewed piece of gum or a licked cupcake for all intents and purposes. I was given a year of formal probation, meaning I could not accept a calling or take the sacrament for a year. The shame and horror I felt when my younger brothers and sisters and peers at church watched me pass on the sacrament tray without partaking was excruciating and humiliating, and only enhanced my feelings of shame and unworthiness. I endured pain and horror when the Primary President, who didn’t realize I was pregnant, called me to ask me to be a primary substitute teacher. I had to tell her no, and she thought I was being lame because she had known me her whole life and she knew that I always helped out when needed, and she also knew I’d be a great primary teacher. I finally had to tell her I COULDN’T have a calling right now or teach in primary. She never talked to me again.

Nobody in the meager singles ward or in my family ward asked me to date. Why would they? Who wants a woman with a kid already on the way, fathered by someone else? That doesn’t exactly fit in with the ideal mate they are taught to seek to fulfill the righteous goal of two virgins marrying and creating an eternal family. So I worked and I lived and I survived. When I began dating my non-member husband, I felt self-worth and alive and desirable as a human being for the first time in months. He saw in me the good woman I had always been, and we were married when my son was 8 months old.

Then came the years and years of sitting through church, hearing time and again how my family didn’t quite measure up. I did not have an eternal family. I had chosen against the advice of the church, and taken a man for time only, not eternity. I would be sitting in Relief Society and be blindsided by the teacher asking for my point of view as someone who hadn’t been married in the temple. I was counselor in Young Women’s for years and the lessons there are particularly focused toward the ideal family and how women are supposed to support the young men to prepare and go on missions, to marry one and support his priesthood power, and be good wives and mothers in Zion. I faithfully taught those girls the lessons word for word, how anything less than temple marriage and being sealed to a righteous returned missionary and stay-at-home motherhood is exactly what they should strive toward to avoid the tragic consequences and unhappiness that befall those who do not do this. I taught those sweet girls how it’s even worse to partake of God’s sacred sexual gifts before they are sanctioned by God in the holy sealing ordinance. I endured the pain of being made an example of in the group lessons by the Stake President’s wife, who was the YW president, as she too would unexpectedly ask for my input as One Who Knows the consequences of chosing wrong. I knew that telling them I was happy or that life can be good with a good man, no matter what his religion is, was not something she would want me to say. I suppressed my pain during each of those moments and lessons, and did what I knew they would want me to, as I was still a good girl who wanted to please Heavenly Father.

I got assigned as a visiting teacher with no partner to a stalwart woman in the ward – the bishop’s wife. In our first visit while getting to know each other, she asked me about my husband. He’s not a member? Oooh. Then she asked me how old my children are. My son was 11. She asked how long I had been married. 10 years. “Oh, but I thought you said your son was 11….oh!…that means…..Ooooh.” Pitying looks and uncomfortable silence. Another judgement made, after repentance supposedly took my sin away. Another opportunity to feel worthless in the eyes of my peers and feel residual shame over that one time I dared to sin.

Being in the primary presidency for years, I was expected to teach all those diverse children about eternal families and what they should strive for in their own lives, because anything less is not what righteous people do. I remember teaching about how families can be together forever while looking into the hurt and wounded eyes of Brother Z., the teacher whose impending divorce had just been announced the week before, and whose daughter was crying in the back row. I hid my own pain well, I thought. Until later that night when my son asked me, “How come WE’RE not sealed together forever?” How do you explain such a nasty concept to a child? Your father doesn’t believe the church is true, honey, and if we don’t go to the temple, then we aren’t sealed together forever. “But why not? He loves me, and I love him!” I know. I know. It’s God’s plan. “But where will we GO when we die? Who will I be with??” If you are really righteous, and marry your own sweetheart in the temple someday, you’ll be with her and your children! “But what about you and Dad?” Oh, don’t worry about us. It’ll all work out in the next life. I’ll be OK. “But will I see you there?” Pain like that eviscerates and is impossible to hid from your children.

There is something not right about the fact that in order to teach “correct” principles of the gospel, you must first minimize the importance of one of your family members, or place unfair judgements on them.

I endured 13 years of this kind of internal torture and pain. I knew I didn’t measure up and never would unless I could somehow get my husband to join the church and believe as I did. I tried my best. Didn’t happen. I wondered if I was expected to divorce him as a way to give all I had for the sake of the gospel, because I knew I couldn’t attain celestial life with my Father in Heaven without going to the temple and sealing myself to a worthy priesthood holder. Countless times I wondered whose second or third or hundredth wife I’d be in the next life. Without my husband of choice. I finally decided to have faith and get myself to the temple if he wasn’t going to go with me. My bishop had been pushing me to get to the temple. I took the temple prep class. I paid all my tithing. I was active, faithful, magnified all my callings, visit taught 100% every month. When the time came for my temple recommend interview, I was asked to bring my husband, and I figured it was so he could be taught a bit more about the temple.

Imagine my surprise when the bishop said he needed my husband’s permission in writing in order to allow me to go take out my endowments. Imagine my shock and horror when he refused.

So there I was, expected to remain faithful and find peace and happiness in a religion that constantly reminded me how I was not quite there and likely never will be, how I was lacking in many ways, how I was really less important than my non-LDS husband when it comes to matters of my own eternal salvation. And I did remain faithful. I defended the church when my husband said it was horrible that they’d require a grown, righteous woman to get written permission like a kindergartner to attend the temple. I believed when the bishop said the rule was in place to promote marital harmony. I somehow excused the church and tried to not resent my husband for simply taking the patriarchal baton the church handed him because I was a lowly woman who didn’t matter.

Then one day I heard one of my beehives from the class I taught in YW had left the church, and was super happy in her new faith. I was shocked, and so I googled the words “Why do people leave the LDS Church?” One of the first things I found was John Dehlin’s podcast that sought to explain to believing members and church leaders the truths that some members discover that causes them to leave the church.

Imagine my horror in finding out that the beloved prophet Joseph Smith (whom I had admired enough to name my son after, along with Joseph in Egypt) had married over 30 women, some of whom were still married to men he had sent on missions! Imagine my horror in reading the accounts of how he convinced Heber C. Kimball to give his 14 year old daughter to him in plural marriage by promising her entire family eternal salvation if they said yes! Imagine my horror when I found out that he did his plural wife thing behind Emma’s back, and denied it publicly when someone called him on it!!

I had been made to feel low and dirty and worthless for my two weeks of sex and my lifetime of keeping an “illegitimate” baby out of wedlock, all by the very church that had been founded by a guy like Joseph Smith???

How would inoculation or full disclosure have helped me? It would have helped more than anyone could ever know……………….I spent too many years of my life and my children’s lives and my husband’s life focusing on the ways in which I didn’t measure up, because every single lesson and talk and general conference was geared toward reminding me of the ways I differed from the Proclamation to the Family model. The church has lost sight of the very real life that Joseph Smith led, and rather than portray the man as he really was, it has instead created a perfected demigod out of him where instead I now see a charismatic lover of people who was not afraid to show it, who was not afraid to be human, and who was not made to feel like a worthless piece of chewed gum under the heels of Almighty God. If the First Presidency would show open acceptance and understanding toward those who are just as “different” and imperfect and non-ideal as Joseph Smith was, the church membership would certainly follow their lead, and heave a collective sigh of relief that finally, FINALLY, they can openly accept and love and embrace their countless friends, family, and loved ones who never did fit the tiny little boxed ideal that is promoted today.

I am so sorry about your suffering, Sister Mary Lisa. And I am deeply ashamed that I ever supported such a suppressive system.

I have to admit that it took a great burden of my chest when I found out that the temple as a social control mechanism exists because Joseph Smith needed to hide his sordid little affairs.

I am also deeply ashamed that I excluded my father from my wedding. It is unbelievable how cruel people can be in the name of religion. It is not something I would have ever done on my own accord.

I am deeply ashamed for rationalizing racism so that I could follow the prophet.

I am deeply ashamed that I considered it my duty to oppose civil rights for gays and women so that I could follow the prophet.

I was so focussed on being obedient to self-interested Mormons that I lost sight of the first commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

I also would like to apologize to Cumom. I do not know if I would have been a good friend and neighbor to you if we had met as children. I cannot know that because it is possible that I would have tried harder to follow the prophet than recognizing your humanity.

John Dehlin, I think that it is great of you to empathize with the difficulties of the brethren. Just be sure to put that empathy into context with the suffering of the brethren’s victims.

Unfortunately, the brethren’s actions are confronting us with a stark choice. We can follow them or we can stop hurting our neighbors.

That is a situation of our own making. It is the inevitable result of an authoritarian and anti-rational ideology masquerading as a religion of love.

The members are better than the organization. Lets build on our strengths instead of propping up what is worst in us.

We have been speaking a lot about what we think it would do to the members if they learned more of the history of the church that is more accurate than the glossed over version that is typically taught today. Allow me to share one effect it had on me.

As a true believing, orthodox member, I was aware that women were treated differently than men and did not have as many opportunities for leadership and were to hearken to the counsel of their husbands as their husbands hearkened to the Lord, but men did not have to hearken to the counsel of their wives. But, I thought this was the will of God, because I thought the Church was led by God and those temple rites came directly from God. I figured that my sense that these things were unfair was a prejudice that I had to get over and accept the mind of God since he had our best interest in mind. So, I came to accept it.

However, after learning the real history, I learned that much of what I thought came directly from God, actually came from man. Man had inserted his own flawed conceptions and prejudices into what he was claiming came from God. That is when I came to be uncomfortable with the way the Church (and I as a member of the Church) had been treating women as inferiors despite all of the talk about them being equals.

So, in a nut shell, I think teaching members the real history will lead many to believe that at least some of what the Church has previously claimed came directly from God, actually has a lot of flawed human thinking in it. That will reduce certainty and confidence and may drive a movement for change (all good things in my opinion). People are not afraid to challenge man’s policies and doctrines like they are afraid to not be in alignment with God’s will. So, once they come to think of at least some policies and doctrines as coming from man, that opens the way up for dissent and more liberal and individualized approaches towards Mormonism. I see that as healthy since the true history cannot support the current view promoted by the Church that all major doctrines and ordinances come directly from God.

I think the church changed its policy about asking non-member spouses for their permission for the other spouse (mainly women) to attend the temple. I think now they ask for their support, but it isn’t a show-stopper.

I guess I need to ask “What kind of a spouse would not give permission in the first place?” Seems as though there are other issues there to begin with. I am saying this as a former non-member spouse. I would not have imagined doing that to my wife.

Well, Jayspec, you bring up an interesting dilemma that many many many, even TOO MANY women in the church face.

What kind of a spouse would not give permission in the first place?

Why should any man be allowed in the first place to have such power over his wife? Many here say it’s because God has a perfect plan that includes this. You must agree that there are many men out there who will, when given such power and authority over their wives, will choose to wield this power in a way that demeans her or minimizes or hurts her. Why do you suppose you get full lessons yearly in church and in the Priesthood Session of General Conference that tell you men to treat your sweet wives with loving kindness and not cruelty?? Countless reminders that women are choice spirits of our Heavenly Father, and that you should exercise your authority over them in loving, longsuffering, tolerant kindness. Why do you suppose you will never ever hear a lesson admonishing women to treat their husbands with kindness and not abusive cruelty? That hurting your husband is not pleasing to God, and is an abuse of the power God gave you in regards to your husband…

Even if he granted permission, he was still given power over me. The priesthood wasn’t even a factor. It was all about him being the man who ruled as head of my family.

I don’t want to remind again you that until you are a woman, taught from girlhood on up that you should defer to men in all things because they have authority over you by virtue of the priesthood they bear, and by virtue of the fact they should be the rightful head of the home…that you will never fully understand. You couldn’t possibly fully get it.

I think it’s great that you couldn’t imagine doing that to your wife. Lucky her.

jayspec,

stop while you are ahead. suggesting there is a problem with her spouse, or her, or their marriage, with only the information shared on here, is way outta line.

after reading that story i do not understand why you would feel compelled to heap on more guilt regarding the status of her marriage or the integrity of her husband. goodness gracious.

Carlos says: “And “brethren’s victims”? C’mon”

Carlos, whether there are victims of the brethren is an empirical question. There is clear evidence that the irrational teachings about sexuality have led to dozens of suicides among gay and straight young men. You might want to check the website of Affirmation for the details.

You might also benefit from spending some time at the website of the Mormon Alliance, which defends victims of ecclesiastical abuse. Did you know that there are dozens of sex abuse cases in our church, many of which have been covered up?

I can also introduce you to several converts whose lives took a dramatic turn for the worse because they relied on the council of the prophet uncritically. Taking the message of the missionaries literally, those poor people made very unwise decisions following the prophet.

I have to say that I find your dismissive attitude troubling. Your behavior only indicates your lack of information and perspective regarding the Mormon experience. You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Bad theology has consequences. Bad leadership has consequences. Cumom and Sister Mary Lisa have been open and honest how that played out in their lives. I would say that to some degree my father was a victim of the brethren and me when I excluded him from my wedding. Believers might want to dismiss these reports but denial does not change the facts.

Jamie,

That’s actually a great discussion topic perhaps for a future Mormon Matters podcast. I would particularly like to hear John Hamer’s ideas on that. I imagine he would argue that Community of Christ is very much Mormon, as are the many other splinter groups that broke away from the main body (including the Brighamite branch of which we are members). What could be stripped away and what is “essential” to the core of Mormonism? I don’t know if there is any right or wrong answer, which is why it would make for an interesting discussion.

ME and ML,

“stop while you are ahead. suggesting there is a problem with her spouse, or her, or their marriage, with only the information shared on here, is way outta line.”

Well, sorry. but since I can’t imagine doing that to my wife, I want to know what kind of guy does not give permission. I am also surprised ( but getting used to the fact) that every question gets answered with some sort of victim mentality. That somehow it is always the Church’s fault.

I just find that so odd. Seems to me the only thing the husband should have said was, “If she wants to do that, it’s fine with me.”

My entire point is that I’m trying to get more people to question What kind of church would do this to its women?

That is the essential question. Patriarchy and sexism doesn’t do much for making men better either. Obviously.

jay,

Someone could say that no matter what the point of discussion, you find an excuse or apology for the church and never see any blame or wrongdoing on the church’s part. I’m not saying that, I’m just saying someone could say that. Do you not see how the church policy in question is the root cause of the trouble? Why did the church have that policy? What was its theological or ideological basis? What were the policy’s effects? Did it build and strengthen marital bonds or serve to weaken them? How did the policy serve the interests of the members? The interests of the institution? Ask yourself these questions and see where it leads you….

Carlos ~

I assume your last comment was for me. Thanks for telling me you have a CHI from 1999. What does it say exactly about the permission requirement? Does anyone have a copy of the CHI in print BEFORE the 1999 edition? What does it say exactly?

And how exactly am I “better off” not taking out my endowment if that is absolutely required to gain entrance into the Celestial Kingdom to live with Heavenly Father again as the church maintains? For the record, I don’t WANT to take out my endowment at this time, but I fail to see your reasoning.

Jay ~

If I had a husband who said yes, would that make the requirement any less insidious or harmful to members who labor under the mistaken delusion they are actually free to choose their own eternal path?

I appreciate the chance to discuss this and other topics openly with you all. How refreshing it is. Thanks for the openness.

“Innoculation” makes things sound so dastardly, as if the truth is a deadly virus.

Jordan ~

Isn’t John Dehlin basically saying in the podcast that he thinks if the members are introduced to the stuff the church left out, the church itself will “Implode”? Much like what happens to the body when malignant cancer is introduced to it.

Perhaps the church leadership who chooses to keep such facts from the membership feel that the whole truth IS like a deadly virus that will harm the church somehow.

I personally don’t think that is true, even though from the church’s standpoint the word ‘inoculation’ is fitting. There are plenty of pretty wild things we believe as members of the church, so what are a few more gonna hurt? It would seem to me that it’d be painful at first, while the knowledge of what was taught all along is easily compared with what was real…such as Joseph Smith translating with a peepstone in a hat vs. the painting we all have in our minds of him sitting there with the plates in front of him…or knowledge of his part in the polygamous unions between 33 other women vs. only learning about Emma who is the only one mentioned ever in lessons, etc.

I think such openness and candor would likely make classes a better and more interesting place to be. Of course, that all depends on your teacher. He he.

Sorry in advance for typos and stream of conscience writing.

Thank you John, Ann, John, Eric, and Corey for this podcast. It was refreshing. I was glad to see a civil dialogue occur between people of different viewpoints on the church. I hope for this type of dialogue to become more and more prevalant in the informal Mormon community. I can only wish, or perhaps pray that open dialogue becomes fostered in the more formal Mormon community.

The topic of “inoculation” leads to a confusing set of inconsistent definitions of what inoculation is and what the goal is, whether it is happening, or should happen, and what the alternative(s) might be. A couple of years ago I put forth a hypothesis that the church was moving towards an effort to inoculate the members. It wasn’t really my idea. I think that I took it from Quinn’s talk to the Student Mormon History Association near the time when he “resigned” as a professor at BYU. My usage of the word “inoculate” was very specific and I believe to be in agreement with how Quinn had used it in his address.

To clarify how I think the usage of this term originated, I’ll explain my understanding. The theory in a vaccination (inoculation) program is that by giving a person or other animal a weak version of a real infectious agent, a person’s immune system identifies the invader and is able to develop a defense mechanism against it. This will enable the person or animal to fight off a significant major attack because the immune system capabilities have been developed. To put it in context of the church, I don’t think it is much different. As we have seen on the DAMU and other places where disaffected or exmormons tell their stories and perspectives, we find some common threads for the reason’s why people leave. Because I think the inoculation theory applies most aptly to people who are troubled by historical and/or doctrinal issues, I’ll focus there instead of the areas of social injustice or personal injury, which seem to affect some more than others. Also, as a result of my internet wanderings, I believe that there are more people that participate in those DAMU type communities who are negatively impacted by the historical and/or doctrinal issues than the other issues.

To speak clearly, I will quote Quinn from the text of his talk “On Being a Mormon Historian.”

“The Accommodation History advocated by Elders Benson and Packer and actually practised by some LDS writers is intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable… The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials… A so called “faith promoting” Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other sources… Historians have not created the problem areas of the Mormon past; they are trying to respond to them. Believing Mormon historians like myself seek to write candid Church history in a context of perspective in order to inoculate the Saints against the historical disease germs that apostates and anti-Mormons might thrust upon them.”

Quinn was attempting to write a candid church history, after the fashion of Arrington, to inoculate the Saint. In other words, provide enough detail so that the members hear and understand and are not threatened by the truth. His intent was that at such a time as apostates or anti-Mormons used historical facts, members would not be shocked and surprised. They would already have seen that movie. They will have developed an understanding or defense mechanism against attacks which might be intended to cause a person to lose faith.

I read from Quinn that he wasn’t intent on telling the whole story, necessarily, just enough to inoculate. This is even more clear when looking at Arrington’s practice through reading his, “Adventures of a Church Historian.” From an interview with Elder Hunter, he took the following notes: “Hunter counseled me to keep in mind that church members reverenced leaders and their policies. To investigate too closely the private lives of leaders and the circumstances that led to their decisions might remove some of the aura that sanctified church policies and procedures. If the daylight of historical research should shine too brightly upon prophets and their policies, he cautioned, it might devitalize the charisma that dedicated leadership inspires. I accepted Hunter’s counsel as a mandate for free and honest scholarly pursuit, with a warning that we must be discreet.”

As I read a collective body of work from Bitton, Arrington, Quinn, and Bushman, I see the attempt to give a weak version of the truth, so that members are just familiar with the issues to know that they have been researched and answered. I think Quinn strayed from this approach later and became more objective and candid in his writings than he was originally.

At a point, I saw three things happen at very close to the same time. Between the Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon GC sessions, on KBYU, there was a brief program that discussed briefly the validity Joseph’s treasure hunting. I was astounded. In 43 years at church, I had not once heard any mention of his treasure hunting, other than it was a false accusation. Two weeks later on a late night KBYU show, there was a program that discussed some of the difficult and heart-wrenching realities of polygamy as practiced in the church during the later half of the 19th century. Again, I was astounded. In 43 years, I had only heard that it was primarily to take care of the widows and because there were not enough men to go around to provide all of the women with husbands. At about that time Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling” (RSR) came out. Upon reading RSR, I came to the opinion that while Bushman exposed a great many things that are not normally exposed in standard church curriculum, he took on a significantly apologetic slant with the core issues. In these three cases, a weak version of the truth was put forth. It wasn’t a full scale set of accurate information, but carefully weeded through, apologetically presented. I started wondering whether or not there was a concerted effort to “inoculate” members of the church with these weakened versions of the truth.

If members would have been inoculated with these weakened versions of the truth instead of the “simplified” (according to Eric) versions of history or doctrine that are presented in standard curriculum, many people like Eric and Corey, myself included, would probably never paid much attention to issues that concern us now. We are concerned because we found more accurate versions of history and/or doctrine are significantly different that what we were taught. Only as an example, if I had been taught from you childhood that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking at a rock in a hat while the plates were elsewhere, I wouldn’t have been surprised in mid-life by finding out that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking at a rock in a hat while the plates were elsewhere. But alas, I was not inoculated. I was left to fight those “disease germs” that Elder Packer mentions with my own deficient immune system. I didn’t need to know the whole set of details surrounding this event, but if I would have been taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by using a sacred seer stone in a hat to exclude the light, instead of some special spectacles on a breast plate that helped to decipher the characters, I would have been a whole lot less inclined to lose belief in the translation process.

I do not think inoculation is the process of telling everything. I think inoculation is the process of telling weakened versions of everything. This would keep most people from digging further. I suspect I would not have dug any further if I had been thus inoculated. To that end, I have to question the morality or the ethics associated with this inoculation. If this line of thinking is employed, it is merely a diversionary tactic. It’s akin to saying, “I don’t want you to find out the whole truth, so I’ll give you just enough to significantly increase the probability that you won’t be ‘tempted’ to want to find out the whole truth.” This seems truly immoral to me.

What are the alternatives? There are an infinite number of scenarios, but there are a few noteworthy possibilities. Stay the course and do nothing. I see this as ultimately disasterous for the church. It is probably the best short term solution for the church organization, but will ultimately probably be very costly. As Ann mentioned, the youth are leaving in droves. The church could do the inoculation thing, which I believe it is trying to figure out how to do most effectively. Perhaps the church could actually be simply honest about the issues and provide a forum for discussion of tough issues and real issues. It seems astounding to simply ask the church to be honest, but that is really what I perceive Eric and Corey were proposing. They wer not asking to burn down the church. They were not asking to burn Brigham in effigy. The church is the “motherland,” as Corey mentioned. Is it too much to ask the church to simply be honest. It seems to me that it is a moral imperative. To the extent that the church does not practice that which it demands of its members to maintain full fellowship, there is a dangerous separation, which ultimately will lead to disaffection of increasing numbers of members, particularly honest, intelligent, thoughtful, inquisitive members. These are the folks that are flocking to the DAMU.

Sorry for the long ramble….

-Sister Mary Lisa

Looks like I got you mixed up with Equality? I was in a hurry this morning.

I only have the old one 1999 ed, and this years one which hasn’t changed in that area. It says: “A worthy member who is married to an UNENDOWED spouse, whether the spouse is a member or nonmember, may receive a recommend when (1) the bishop receives the written consent of the spouse and (2) the bishop and stake president are satisfied that the responsibility assumed with the endowment will not impair marital harmony.”

For me there is no discrimination here only respect for the other spouses wishes -wife or husband- and care that trouble doesn’t result from an endowment. Note that they use “consent” and not “permission” which is slightly different meaning, its more of an ‘Informed Consent’ concept I feel.
And this is straightforward/clear instruction to the local leaders on what to do in these cases; it really can’t be a class topic. But as I’ve said before, if your Bishop is a bit of SOB, well, can’t do much. If he’s wants to help he could probably dictate the minimum letter needed (or just do it yourself and sign it yourself with his signature; just don’t tell anyone )

On the other matter: the Celestial Kingdom starts at the END of the millenium, not now or just after our deaths. There’s several centuries in between to fix things and who knows, maybe you’ll end up sealed to him some way.

Your aim, I suggest, is to ‘make it’ to the millenium and think of hopefully fixing more things there and having a happy home & marriage now. Look I also have my ‘issues’ with some church things. The current sealing policies is a big problem for me, they’ve now just complicated things more. Plus other things like tithing funds for BYU and fleet cars at church offices etc But that doesn’t kill off my testimony because that comes from another source, one that doesn’t need arguing or problems or policies or stuck up YW presidents or whatever it is.

jayspec:

One specific question – why did the editors of the Brigham Young manual take extra steps (e.g., tweaking quotes) to paint him as a monogamist? If polygamy was indeed an important part of the story, why cover it up now?

For all its pathologies, one good thing we can take away from postmodernism is the notion that ideas do not exist in a vaccum – they must be situated within a context in order for us to understand what they truly mean. Regardless of feelings about the church, most people will agree that prooftexting (separating ideas from their context to support a point) is bad rhetoric.

Separating *everything* in the Brigham manual from the context of polygamy (which was, per him, one of the most important laws a Saint could follow), opens the simple question “why?” What were they afraid of? What did they feel they had to protect other adults from? Why even the presumption that such “protection” is the honorable thing to do? Can you begin to see how weird the power dynamics are behind this? Was this endeavor honorable?

On a related note, the issue I have with Ostler is that a closer, more faithful reading of the church’s official curriculum will lead one into more of a protective bubble, not toward the trickier material that he happened to come upon, not because of the church, but despite it. For him to suggest that such people are being lazy instead of faithful feels disingenuous.

Hank,

Good points. I agree with you that Brigham was totally involved with Polygamy. But, it is not clear from his teachings that everything revolved around it. One reason I beleive that is that not everyone in the church was called to practice polygamy. Even in its peak, it was a small part of the church that practiced it.

If it was as important as it seems from some of the talks, why didn’t everyone get the “privilege.” Perahps, that would have happened in due time had they not discontinued the practice.

Nevertheless, I think that the editors of the BY manual felt that the lessons that BY taught the Saints transended Polygamy and were valuable for us to learn and discuss. After all, the manual was a doctrinal manual, not a history manual.

I will be interested to see if the SS manuals for the D&C and Church history are revised for 2009.

On the Ostler point, I wouldn’t call members “lazy,” but there are many aspects of the church which are left to members to further study and research, if they desire. I suspect that the church teaches what is beleived to be necssary for salvation, not a doctorate in church history. But, the members do have access to historically material now that they did not in the past.

I am not one who beleives there is a “cover up.” I think there is a consious effort to provide the information and lessons necessary for our salvation and for no other purpose.

jayspec said: “Nevertheless, I think that the editors of the BY manual felt that the lessons that BY taught the Saints transended Polygamy and were valuable for us to learn and discuss. After all, the manual was a doctrinal manual, not a history manual.”

jayspec said: “I am not one who beleives there is a “cover up.” I think there is a consious effort to provide the information and lessons necessary for our salvation and for no other purpose.”

jayspec, the problem with your argument is that the BY manual (and other manuals) DO talk about history. Each lesson, in fact, has a biographical blurb from the life of the President of the church who is the subject of the manual. The church spends a LOT of time and resources focusing on church history, and history is part of the manuals. The manual also include photographs of President Young and his family (incidentally, I notice you refer to President Young as “Brigham” and sometimes as “BY”–you should be careful in this arena, as I understand many faithful Latter-day Saints may be offended by the casual reference to a church President by his first name or surname without the honorific title). An editorial decision was made not coincidentally but deliberately to exclude any photos of President Young’s extensive polygamous family, although such photographs are, of course, widely available. Other editorial decisions were made to change references President Young made to his “wives” to his “wife.” This goes beyond simply not including a lesson on polygamy since it is not essential to salvation–it can only fairly be described as an attempt to edit polygamy out of a two-year course on the teachings of President Young. I can assure you not everything in that manual was “information and lessons necessary for our salvation and for no other purpose.” So, if the church is going to include “non-essential-for-salvation” material (and, really, how much of what the church teaches in its lessons is of the “essential-to-salvation” variety?), it begs the question: why would the church want to give the appearance that President Young was not a polygamist? (incidentally, the manuals on President Joseph F. Smith and President Wilford W. Woodruff were no better on this score–they include chronologies of important dates in these men’s lives and mention their first marriages but not their polygamous marriages. Why?)

This discussion over what has been included (and what has not) in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals may seem like a small point, but it brings into tight focus the entire issue.

Jayspec, you infer that people are finding fault in every nook and cranny with the church. We are not. I doubt anyone here would dispute that there are good things contained within the church. The issue is that the church collectively is not forthright. As a result, when people find things out, they feel deceived. The deception is worse than the actual history.

If the sole point of the church is “…to provide the information and lessons necessary for our salvation and for no other purpose.” then Satan’s plan would have worked fine. It had no other purpose than to save everyone.

Jay ~

There are those offended by leaving out titles if some of the early comments are any indication.

I suppose for me it is not right to edit things in manuals to create a more faith-promoting picture if that’s not what really happened.

Imagine if I had gone to my temple recommend interview without my husband, and handed him a note written on a small notepad, with the words “Of course I want you to, honey” in my husband’s handwriting with a smiley face. What if I relayed to the bishop that my husband knew I was planning to attend the temple, and he had supported me by watching the children while I attended the temple preparation class…

But what if I knew that his words were actually an answer to my handwritten note to him (during a movie with the kids) asking him if he wanted me to go into our bedroom and slip into something sexy? The bishop doesn’t need to know everything, does he? That wouldn’t be very faith promoting to my bishop to know, would it? And temple attendance is a very good thing, right? So what harm is there?

Sister ML, sorry, that is wierd story…… Seems wierd to me that if your husband knew you were going to a temple prep class with the intention of going to the temple, why did he say no? I know I am not supposed to ask, but you never have said why, exactly. Since I have no idea what the Bishop said to him as a prelude, I have no way to put your remarks in context.

Also, Jay, you’ll note that both my husband and I were completely blindsided by the fact he was expected to give his permission (permission and consent in this instance mean exactly the same thing, btw). So he had to immediately choose, and he did. His right to do, as given him by the church authority. I had no say whatsoever. And he promised the bishop and me at that time he’d think it over and consider saying yes, but if I hounded him, the answer would be no forever.

Not that that is anyone’s issue by my own and my man’s. We have dealt with that accordingly.

jayspec:
I want to answer your question about what things I found shocking. I don’t want to go too far down this road on this thread because I don’t want to derail it. I was an amateur apologist for a number of years, so I learned earlier much of the Church’s hidden history like that Joseph took as plural wives women who were concurrently married to other men and teenage girls who were also his foster daughters. I was shocked when I first learned of it, but quickly found a way to become ok with it. I was shocked when I first learned that Joseph used the same peep stone he had used to con Josiah Stowell as a prop when dictating the Book of Mormon, but I found a way to become ok with it.

The issue that sealed the deal for me and many other post-mo’s (we conduct surveys from time to time) was the Book of Abraham. At first I was placated by some apologist theories until I learned enough to realize that most apologist theories cannot work. In my opinion, there are only two theories that can work: 1) the pious fraud theory – Joseph knew he was creating a fraud, but did it to bring others closer to Christ, or 2) the Ostler Expansion Thesis – which sounds a lot like saying scripture is made up of the false philosophies of men mingled with a few truths revealed from God. Neither of these views are close to what is taught as orthodox Mormonism in the LDS Church today. One should not be surprised that regular Mormons find these things shocking.

If you would like to continue this tangent, perhaps we could do so on a new thread. Just point the way.

Aaron, was that a sigh with a smile and a giggle? or a sigh with a headshake?

most of us finished the head shaking sigh over the titles a few days ago, when it was first mentioned. nice of you to join us, albeit late, in a collective sigh.

“if you go to the beehive or lion house in SLC, they mention it.”

They used to. Not anymore. They’ve purged mention of it from the tour and tell outright lies about President Young’s polygamy. Some self-proclaimed “anti-Mormons” who used to do a podcast together (John D. actually interviewed one of them in an early Mormon Stories podcast that is no longer available) recorded a tour they took of the Beehive House.

And for John Hamer’s recent experience at an LDS-owned site in Kirtland, see here: http://mikeandjohn.com/pics/blogCommentsView.asp?entryID=269

The problem that I have with the type of criticism leveled by Eric and Corey is that it is filled with the spirit of contention and is not followed up with the “outpouring of love” that we are obligated to display after rebuking others. For me, it is difficult to sense the Spirit of God behind such contentious, love-free criticism.

Andrew,

Sending harmonic thoughts of love and kindness your way, friend. May the spirit of peace be with you wherever you may go whatever you may do.

The Shark got jumped? oh Happy Days.

Hang on, I am changing my Pandora station to Gordon Lightfoot….

………. much better.

So let us treat our love like any game
To fan the flames would really be a sin
For as surely as the snow must fall
I shall be waiting for your call
Pretending it is spring
And you’ll be mine again

With your magnificent outpouring
Of that old familiar story
That’s been used a million times
To ease a million minds

Equality, based on your previous comments I’m fairly certain you intended #125 to be a mockery, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it as sincere. So in that spirit, may peace and love be upon you as well. “Can’t we all just get along?!”

Seriously, though, one of the panelists at the Sunstone Conference made a very astute observation about the obligation of critics to follow their sharp rebukes with an outpouring of love sufficient to demonstate that your love for the individual you’re criticizing is stronger than than bonds of death. I didn’t hear that sort of loving follow-up after Corey dismissed some of President Hinckley’s recent guidance as “crap”.

These days it seems that loving critics are extremely rare. Instead, we find an overabundance of unloving critics and uncritical lovers.

: “you refer to President Young as “Brigham” and sometimes as “BY”–you should be careful in this arena, as I understand many faithful Latter-day Saints may be offended by the casual reference to a church President by his first name or surname without the honorific title”

This is one I’ve never heard before.
We have Bro Bednar teaching us not to get offended and then anti-morgs here saying that we do?

Anyway I’d just like to second this from Jayspec #103:
“I suspect that the church teaches what is beleived to be necssary for salvation, not a doctorate in church history”

I think, Carlos, that you have a different view of “anti-morgs here” than I do. Who here are you specifically calling anti-Mormon? If so, why?

after all the comments–some skimmed–i want to thank ann (#25) and aaron (#29) for saying just what i would have said. i disagree with john that the church would implode. the church can handle hard facts. i hesitate to say that the current historical knowledge is truth. there are shades of truth in historical research, but none of us knows the whole story. we will certainly need to reframe our understanding of church leaders and their fallibility. however, i think it is false to assume that some (even many) church members haven’t confronted the difficult issues. i have and i continue to believe. my belief may be different than it was growing up in the church, but i feel it is stronger and more grounded in reality.

the further someone strays into rigid statements on either side of the spectrum the more polarized the comments become. i appreciated equality and ME’s comments on a desire to be a part of a community that doesn’t demonize them. i can certainly improve in that arena. i disagree with you on many points, but i hope if we met we could feel comfortable and even accepted.

sister mary lisa: you story saddens me. i am sorry for all the years of heartache and sorrow you have experienced.

“Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once made the following astute observation — “The happiest conversation is where there is no competition, no vanity, but a calm quiet interchange of sentiments.”

Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote, “When someone opposes me, he arouses my attention, not my anger. I go to meet a man who contradicts me. The cause of truth should be the common cause for both” (Of the Art of Discussion).
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) wisely stated, “The end of argument or discussion should be, not victory, but enlightenment.”

These men have all, in their own poetic styles, expressed similar truth — Truth is better served by dialogue than diatribe. Sadly, however, most people tend to flee from such responsible dialogue, preferring to isolate themselves from those with whom they differ. This only leads to isolated communities of combatants, and does nothing to further peace and harmony among men. To refuse dialogue with another only perpetuates ignorance, and this in turn perpetuates intolerance. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) wrote, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little.””

Text above quoted from REFLECTIONS by Al Maxey, Issue #187, April 30, 2005.
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx187.htm

Perhaps I’m misreading many of the comments here but might we stop to listen and draw more from each other rather than finding fault with each other’s positions or verbal slips?

Corey used an undiplomatic word in referring to a pamphlet which he feels was poorly conceived, and promulgates error and prejudice. I think we’ve established that the word displeased some folks and that Corey regrets the sideshow the word caused, but doesn’t apologize for his feelings. Who among us hasn’t said thing in passion that may have been better left unsaid? Might each of wish at some point for a modicum of charity for the sake of furthering communication rather than becoming stuck on protocol or impetuous remarks. Is it possible to distill the debate to a reasonable number of points (say between 5 and 9)? Can we try to deal with the substance of ideas offered rather than on how a thing was said? I thought Corey was trying to make a point about inclusion versus exclusion. I felt he was making a case that there should or could be room for more diversity of opinion in the greater Mormon community. I agree with him that the indiscriminate use of the term ‘anti-Mormon’ unnecessarily belittles and separates people from the LDS community who though not orthodox still belong or have connections; many of whom feel great affection for the members of the church and their own heritage. I believe that if we stop calling those who seek reform who might also criticize or question church culture, policy or practice anti-Mormon, then we might not only help some of the disaffected feel more part of the community but we might make headway in eliminating what many perceive as a persecution complex carried by the church from the 19th century.

I thought that notion of bringing people together is part of John Dehlin’s vision that is shared by iron-rod, liahona, Sunstone Mormons and others including all kinds of cultural Mormons. In any community there will be alternative voices and differences in interpretation; a community of believers should be confident and mature enough to show hospitality for the heterodox who should be able to reciprocate. Must alternative or dissenting voices be condemned for a word, tone or following their own conscience? Would Heavenly Father and Jesus rather we build bridges or walls? I thought the gist of many of Jesus’ parables is that everyone is our neighbor and our brother or sister. Should we listen to our sisters and brothers even when we might disagree with them? Should we shun the prodigal or unorthodox seeker?

The church is supposed to be a vessel for the gospel, the good news of love, mercy, redemption and salvation . It may be human nature to become preoccupied with purity and obedience to rules. It certainly seems natural for people to be tribal. Can we possibly take time to consider that others may have a different perspective that might actually be viable for some people. Who is our neighbor? Who are our brothers and sisters? Can we reason together or are the challenges of civil and respectful dialogue between the more and less orthodox, or between believers and skeptics too great? Consider Mark 9:24 when dealing with those who harbor doubts, which may be many of us. I hope all parties can listen to each other and try to empathize. If not then what?

Hellmut,

I do not understand what you accuse me of. I never said that people are “looking for faults under every nook and cranny.” But some are…

I see a lot of this debate based on emotion, not logic and evidence. I also see a lot of the debate based on personal experience, which is in itself hard to debate.

If I am guilty of any unflattering attribution, what about those who continue to malign the church and its beleiving members?

And yet, you use phrases like ” authoritarian nature of Mormon theology” as though that were an absolute truth as opposed to your opinion. And “inducing a certain arrogance” as if that is an attribute of every beleiving church member.

And then you end it all with the “It is a common smear among beleivers….” again an over-generization of the highest order.

So I ask you, Hellmut, to whom are you referring in your last post, me or you?

jayspec,

Thank you. I appreciate your compassion, patience and effort to reach some rapport with others. It is overwhelming and exemplar.

I was referring to the context as much as the word being unfortunate or undiplomatic. Substitute any word that might be construed as a slight to either President Hinckley or the church and the resultant acrimony would likely have been much the same, imho. It’s clearly arguable whether anyone cares about the word since it is what conveyed the disrespect which you say is the issue. In my perception Corey’s main message got lost in berating him for and bemoaning his lack of respect for President Hinckley and perhaps by extension the church as a whole. Perhaps there isn’t any irony in the reaction showing a lack of respect and interest in Corey’s concerns as well. Motes and beams in abundance, and I include myself in that assessment.

Sister Mary: well, I probably went to far using ‘anti-morg’ and although we should probably be moving away from all of this, if you really want to know, I’d say the guy who was disrespectful to Hinkley in the podcast -Corey?- Helmut too certainly, and probably Mayan Elephant (borderline). Well, that’s me passing judgments on all of you! Sorry (will repent soon).

On a more serious note, I share your concerns about women generally in the church as well as the fact that the church doesn’t publish all its policies. People, the common member that is, just don’t know all the things the church does and why its done. This is especially true in the sealing & temple policies. I run into cases like what you explained here all the time. It’s frustrating, and I’d say an issue for me, but it doesn’t really affect my beliefs and testimony. Other things are more serious for me like the treatment of the divorced male for example (who is really ostracized).

But should they make public all their policies and procedures? I don’t know. Tithing is a good example, they refuse to publish balance sheets and tithing receipts in the US but do in Great Britain and Canada, forced to by law, yet the church isn’t that affected in those countries, apparently all is still the same. So I don’t know. Maybe we should ask them in a petition (considering now that what has happened with Mountain Meadows after decades of being petitioned by the descendants)

That’s true, Carlos, but it is also besides the point. Nobody has been talking about the angel Moroni.

Besides, one can make inferences about Joseph Smith’s supernatural claims by investigating their observable implications. For example, the Book of Mormon contains a lot of testable claims. If those claims can be falsified then we can infer that Joseph Smith’s story was not accurate.

ME said:

“this is what i was referring to: “It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings.”

Well, for someone who may be seeking to mininize their “same-sex attraction” situation, that might be reasonable advice. Just as a drug user trying to lose the desire to use drugs, the advice is to not associate with those who use drugs. This is just advice, not a commandment. Those who read the pamphlet are free to take the advice or, as you have, discuss it as worthless.

I’ve read the pamphlet and I am fine with it. But I don’t have that challenge. I thought it was pretty progressive given where the church has come from.

From : Hellmut

“Jayspec, you are taking refuge in generalities. Instead of confronting your opponents about their specific errors, you are blaming them for being irrational or manipulative.”

Firstly, I don’t have opponents, we are people with differences of opinion. I assess no blame but admit to some level of bewilderment.

“If you do not believe that someone’s statement is correct then call them on it. May be, your antagonist is wrong or inaccurate. May be, you will be surprised what you can learn.”

I learned a long time ago, that someone’s opinions and feeling can’t be wrong. You can’t tell someone they are wrong to feel a certain way. You may say that you “shouldn’t feel that way, based on the situation. But in the end feelings are well, feelings. I am eager to learn all I can.

“Mormon Alliance” The spiritual abuse stuff? I’ve read it a while ago. I don’t deny that bad things have happened to people at the hands of church leadership from time to time. I think (I hope) that those are the exception, not the rule. In my 25 years in the church and in church leadership, I never encountered a serious issue with that.

However, as I might suspect that those on the board here are firm believers in the concept of agency, we do have a choice on how those negative experiences will affect us. In my life, I have had numerous situations where I was the subject of ridicule and teasing because of my appearance and my religion. Those things bothered me until I decided that they no longer have power over me and I dismissed it. Maybe some folks can’t do that, but they choose not to. Even the most egregious acts can be reconciled. People do it all the time.

“I have the impression that you do not fully appreciate the realities of social life in the Mormon experience. As a German, I can sympathize with that.

Having friends and family members that have survived two totalitarian dictatorships, I have learned that everyday experience is not necessarily characterized by the ultimate essence of the institutions.”

As I stated in an earlier message, I have had family that were lost in the Holocaust and the pograms of the Ukraine against the jews. No one in these sitiuations were dragged from their homes, beaten, raped, tortured and killed. There is NO comparison and I wish you would stop trying to make it. People disaffected by the church are FREE to walk away and have nothing to do with it any longer, if they wish.

In my Mormon experience, I have seen many of the same things that you all have seen, discrimination, rudeness, thoughtlessness, cruelty, poor leadership, etc. I have known members with homosexual issues (one that died from AIDS). I have known women and children, abused by their Priesthood-holder husbands and fathers. BUT, I have also seen the love, caring, service, sympathy, excellent leadership and people who go out of their way to help others who they don’t even know. I believe the latter is the rule and the former the exception. Again, this is based on my own 25 years of experience.

There is enought dogma to go around.

I think that Jayspec has a point that the problems in Mormonism are less significant than in the totalitarian dictatorships that I was invoking. However, there are similar dynamics.

I find it curious,Jayspec, that you would compare teasing to the issues that people have brought to your attention.

In the army, I was taught that the fish begins to stink at the head. Of course, people ought to take responsibility for their lives. It is unethical, however, to ask people to follow the prophet and then blame the members when they get hurt responding to that demand.

To whom there has been given much, much is expected. Clearly, Mormon leaders have more power than the members. Therefore, leaders have a greater degree of accountability than members and ought to be held accountable.

You, on the other hand, are placing the entire burden on the members, Jayspec. That’s an indicator for how much you have been infected by the authoritarian mindset perpetuated by Mormon theology.

Sister ML,

I don’t know what to say to that other than this is the most incredible thing I have heard in a long time. The number of people tortured, raped and killed exceeds the entire population of the church.

I cannot agree in the least to such an assertion and I find it personally offensive.

” find it curious,Jayspec, that you would compare teasing to the issues that people have brought to your attention”

Personal hurt is personal hurt, you cannot make a judgment about someone’s level of hurt they experience. One is not different than another. Since it is individualistic.

So what are we playing now, ” Can you top this?” my story’s better than yours?

I think the discussion has gotten pretty far off the topic of inoculation.

Maybe the best form of inoculation is to emphasize that leaders are human and so we should expect them to make some mistakes, and that because we’re all human as well, none of us can honestly insist that our own unique vision for the Church is “THE right way” and get angry when the Church fails to do everything we’d like it to do.

I love the church that internet mormons describe. I’d love to be a member of it. Does it exist in brick and mortar form? All the LDS chapels I’ve been to are nothing like the church that internet mormons describe.

Jeff_X ~

That is the best compliment you could ever give women.

How would you have talked to him differently if he had been a man in your mind?

Yes, its has gone way of topic. From, what was it, indoctrination? or indoctornation? no inoculation? sorry!

SML, how? I don’t know. Just confused now -so I must be totally gay!

(My apologies. Just that it has gone way of topic, hasn’t it?)

I had a cat named Drive By. She was such an awesome cat. I was hoping you would be like her when I saw your sn. It’s funny but my heart actually leapt when I saw your name. I’m with you completely when it comes to wishing for more constructive and gentle-spirited respectful Christlike discussion of ideas on the bloggernacle.

“You should all be proud of your little squabble. Excuse me while I call the Whhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhh-bulance.”

Do you need me to point out that this is not really setting such a great example?

Well said, Groucho.

Carlos,

Perhaps you grew up in a different church than I did. I grew up in the mission field. I absolutely was forbidden from reading any historical information about the church outside of church sources. Besides, growing up in the upper midwest, I couldn’t just walk down to the local library and check out historical books on Mormonism. Amazon.com did not exist. I naively trusted that the Church leadership and my teachers were giving me complete information and that there was no need to look elsewhere to learn the ‘whole’ story.

My siblings and mother still recoil from any information about the church that isn’t from the correlated materials or written by a GA. This isn’t unique to my family.

Maybe you grew up in a more enlightened area of the Church.

Do we need to be taught about George P. Lee’s transgressions or every apostle’s mis-step in Sunday School? No, of course not. But when a lesson is given on the first vision, should adults be presented with the cannonized story as if it were only account that was written contemporaneously with the event or should they be told that their are several versions the vision, and none were recorded until a dozen years after the alleged event?

When learning about the translation process, should we be presented, time and time again with representations of Joseph laboring over the plates to decipher the reformed Egyptian, or should learn about the event as it happened, according to the people who were there, and trust the members to make their own judgements about what that means?

Should lifelong members continue to be taught that polygamy was instituted to care for the widows and the elderly? Should members not be told that Joseph Smith not only produced Section 132 of the D&C, but lived polygamously himself in secret with underage girls and other men’s wives?

Should lessons covering the Book of Abraham not address what is now known about the papyrii?

If, as church apologists suggest, none of these items mean that the church isn’t True, what would be the harm in full disclosure? Why not just lay all the cards on the table and trust the members to see that the church is True in spite of, or even because of, these historical facts?

These aren’t incidental sins of church leaders that I’m talking about. They are foundational events and verifiable historical facts of the Church that are continually misrepresented to the membership and investigators in official church materials, leading members to build their faith on beliefs that do not resemble what we know about reality.

People who are committing their salvation to the gospel as it is taught by the church deserve full disclosure of all relevant facts surrounding the foundations of the church, its scriptures, and doctrines. Anything less makes it clear that the church leadership does not trust its members or it’s position as God’s True Chruch.

I agree with #175, well said!

I’d add that you are correct, Groucho, in saying that I (probably) ‘grew up in a more enlightened area of the Church’. Such fundamentalism as you describe here is alien to me at least.

And may I point out one problem with the ‘reveal all details’ approach to church history. See you take the view that Joseph Smith lived secretly with “underage girls and other men’s wives” and I’m sure you would say this in Sunday School. But the more open minded and believing LDS would point out that his ‘marriage’ to Kimball’s 14 year old daughter was legal at the time because he had the girls parental approval (and even up to late ’90 the age of consent was 13 -with parental approval in one state-, most where 14, now its 16 in almost all states -all with parental consent). There wasn’t a church mandate to not date until 16 back then, nor a YW/YM organisation. Today, off course, things are different in most societies across the world. But why not look at Joseph Smith in the context of his time, education and location (frontier USA) before calling his mistakes? Why open this up to many varying opinions in a sunday school class where some will say: It was legal back then to marry a 14 year old; while others will say: No, that’s pedophilia! He was an adutlerer, I’m out of here!
It just opens up -not only a can of worms- but a chance to argue and contend in a class where the spirit should be in everyones minds instead of contention.

And the more open minded believing LDS would say that some women where married for time to one guy but sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity, as was the case with (I think) elder Pratt? They just didn’t want to be together for eternity and she preferred Joseph. No problems there, just their way of living back then in ‘them old days’. But would you use this fact to run around and shout out “Joseph Smith the adulterer”?

As an example of the problems with reveal all history: last Sunday in my priesthood class they went into church history and the teacher (high council member) completely stuffed it up. He blamed the Nauvoo Expositor on W W Phelps, and this meant that Phelps was partially to blame for Smith’s death etc. and felt so remorseful that he then wrote Praise to the Man in an attempt to repent! It was actually W Law who was involved with the expositor; but you see the problems here in giving normal every day people a mandate to add church history to Sunday School curriculum? Hardly anyone will get it right!

(And D&C 132: 63 is clear that it was practiced to “multiply & replenish the earth”; people just add excuses to it all which then become mormon myths)

We could go on for ever with this, but what you wrote here in #177, and almost everything else written here, is precisely why we shouldn’t talk about these matters in Sunday School, the ‘evidence’ for why is should be skipped over.

See you say “technically legal” but “not common”; I’d say “not common but legal at 14” -and legal until the late 1990′s.
You’d say to dismiss the name only marriage because of section 132 but I’d say that this doesn’t prove that they actually consummated the union since the rest of section 132 ‘clearly’ doesn’t allow it in the case of a married woman. (But then you claim he was an adulterer and so on).

And we would go on and on for the entire 40 minutes of the Sunday school class without actually sharing the gospel or feeling the Spirit or participating in a discussion of things which uplift the members and make them happy to have gone to church that day.

Here in MomonMatters, it’s a different situation. We should be able to discus these things here, or other blog sites. But Sunday School or Priesthood? no, best to avoid it and let them try and remember what they can about church history even if they confuse the W’s of some already dead people.

Couldn’t resist! What’s interesting to me is that critics of the Church like Groucho, Sister ML, Elephant Man and others will find a way to be critical of the church no matter what the topic. Whether discussing Innoculating the Saints or Governments calling the church a cult, they find a way to blame the church for something. I suppose an imperfect organization full of imperfect people can’t get it right all of the time. I’d be interested in their opinion of paper versus plastic sacrament cups. Now, there is a controversial topic!!!!!

Ok, not this time. Look at Hellmut’s response. He did. I omitted his name from the list. I should not have.

Carlos-

Looks like we’ll probably have to part ways on the role of rational thought in mormonism.

I see many problems with your argument but my first question would be if the way we’re supposed to look at the BOA, first vision, etc., is only with spiritual eyes, what was the purpose of offering a rational explanation at all? In other words, why did Joseph Smith and all of our prophets, seers, revelators (and most faithful scholars) say until the late 1940′s that the BOA was a translation from papyrus? If we’re simply supposed to see it in a spiritual context and ignore it’s origins – why even bother with an explanation of it’s origins? Why bother with huge research into proving/examining it’s origins? If we’re supposed to ignore the historicity all together, why have departments at BYU and elsewhere whose goal is to prove that these things are historical? It doesn’t matter right? Seems to me that it’s only not important now because there are issues with our original explanation. Seems to me that we’re committed to using logic and reason, only when it proves our already determined point of view.

We have the papyrus, and we were offerred the “translation” theory, we have, as a church, been taught that the BOA is a historical record and we’ve spent tons of money trying to prove/validate it’s veracity…..so I’m not sure how you can say it doesn’t matter?

Your spiritual eyes only argument doesn’t work because we’ve already crossed the threshold of seeing these things only with our spiritual eyes when we offered the BOA as the translation of a historical document – a rational explanation. When we offer something up as tangible/historical evidence of our claims (which we’ve done in the case of the BOA) it seems to me that we lose our right to flipflop and say “well, it wasn’t meant to be evidence or a rational explanation, only a spiritual text” whenever it’s convenient. You can’t have it both ways. If we’re going to use parts of history as elements of proof relative to our historical claims – yes it does matter if the translation is legitimate – and yes we do have to teach a version of our history that jives with the facts. Picking facts, elements of proof and evidence here and there as it’s convenient to the cause is not right……

By the way, I don’t think any leader of our church would require that we, as members of the church, suspend rational thought in order to be “in good standing members.”

Aaron,

I’m not asking you to ignore the history or origins. I thought I was pointing out where Testimony comes from after you used the ‘Analyse this to reach a rational conclusion’ thing. But maybe I should rephrase on the papyrus issue: we have being offered the “translation” theory and we accept that because its what has come down over the years to us from the prophet Joseph even if the current Egypt scholars disagree with the meaning of the figures; that disagreement is irrelevant to the aims or objectives of this purely religious text. But people should continue to study the issue in scholarly circles.

Regarding your question: what was the purpose of offering a rational explanation at all?

For me, personally, that rational explanation and the historical details of how things happened are only the introduction to the real and more important message, the one that comes from that Spiritual lesson we talk about to the believer.

(And off course we don’t need to suspend rational thoughts to be ‘in good standing’, but rational though doesn’t stand alone in this Church)

typo, meant ‘Jeffs’

re # 185, Joseph Smith was incarcerated at Carthage for a spurious charge of treason, not polygamy.

#187: Carlos,

Polygamy was, indeed, against the law in the state of Illinois (where Nauvoo was located) in the 1840s. Stop the spinning, please. That Joseph Smith violated section 132 is one of the things that makes his polygamous lifestyle problematic. You can’t use section 132′s strictures as a defense if Joseph Smith wasn’t following them–that’s part of the “messiness” of the history regarding Smith’s polygamy.

I agree that familysearch.org is not the final word on the subject of Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages. There are many historical sources establishing Smith’s polygamous marriages. Have you read Compton? Van Wagoner? Newel & Avery?

Oaks is wrong about the destruction of the printing press not being something that would have been seen as both aberrant and abhorrent by Americans in the 1840s. That the First Amendment protections of free speech and free press were not officially extended to apply to state and municipal governments as well as the federal government until the 20th century is interesting but is not the only important and relevant consideration. Now that you mention it, though, having some legal scholars on to discuss that issue would make for an interesting Mormon Matters discussion. Suffice it to say, there are legal scholars who would disagree with Oaks’ interpretation of the law on the matter.

190: john f., what is your point? I didn’t say Joseph Smith was incarcerated for polygamy. I said his polygamy is one of the things that made him a lawbreaker. Jeffs wasn’t tried for polygamy, either, interestingly. My point was they both claimed to be Prophets, preached Mormonism, lived polygamous lifestyles in contravention of law and social mores, and were incarcerated–the difference being I suspect that the state will do a better job of protecting the prisoner Jeffs than the state did in protecting the prisoner Smith.

I suspect that the state will do a better job of protecting the prisoner Jeffs than the state did in protecting the prisoner Smith.

Yes, that’s probably true.

jayspec,

if anyone ever responded to my daughter, wife or a friend with the responses you just offered, i would advise them all to avoid that person or any institution that embraced the same logic. i have known too many single parents that did not choose their situation and have endured those same lessons. your lack of sympathy and understanding is not so fun to me. your inability to show any understanding to others goes well beyond the facts about the history and extends to the facts of today, or, the current experience in the church. for many, that experience is dreadful. for folks like you, that fit perfectly between the designated lines, it may be great.

by the way, i dont want my sons to be like you either. and that is what i miss about this church, if you listened to the podcast you may have caught it. i grew up in the church and wish often that it was a safe and practical place to gather my family and allow them to grow up there as well. but, for now, it isnt safe or good if people like you respond to people like SML as you just did.

maybe we need to have another discussion about inoculation against the truth. but, rather than inoculate people for what they may learn about joseph smith, we could inoculate them for what they may feel on sunday. after all, those feelings are real and will be more true for the individual than the lesson material.

Mr. Elephant,

“… I would advise them all to avoid that person or any institution that embraced the same logic. ”

If you wish to cast aspersions toward me for my comments, that is your right, but please don’t drag the church into my comments, they are my own. This is precisely what i was refering to. No matter what, in your eyes, it is the church’s fault.

“I have known too many single parents that did not choose their situation and have endured those same lessons. your lack of sympathy and understanding is not so fun to me. your inability to show any understanding to others….”

I have also known many parents who were forced to raise their children alone because of the death of a spouse, divorce and illness. These circumstances are truly “no-fault.” And I am as sympathetic and helpful as possible to those in that circumstance. In the situation which SML found herself, it was as she described it, an act outside the bounds of chastity, if i may put it that way. In my opinion, that is not no fault. That, as well, is not the church’s fault either, as it counsels against sex outside of marriage.

“By the way, i dont want my sons to be like you either.”

Without malice, likewise, I’m sure. I want my sons to recognize what the church is really about and it isn’t about how many plural wives Joesph Smith had.

“But, for now, it isnt safe or good if people like you respond to people like SML as you just did.”

Well, since you don’t really know me at all, I am surprised you would make such a judgement about me. But, again, it is your right to do so. I go to church to try to be better than I am now. I probably have a long way to go, but at least I am trying.

Jayspec ~

I’m not justifying anything I did by the acts of others, but, given what you hear every week in church, I can certainly understand why you would think that.

I will say I’m very glad not to be sharing a church with you any more, Jay.

It surprised me to hear my 14 year old son comment to me yesterday how all but one of his LDS buddies at school are pompous and think they are better than everyone else because they think they have the Only Truth and are special because of their faith and righteousness. I hadn’t talked to him before at all about my feelings concerning the social ramifications of the church’s teachings and methods, but here he was, noticing it for himself.

And here I am, noticing it as well.

Thank you for not projecting your bias on me when you speculate on my “shortcomings” Jayspec.

#192 Equality: Newel & Avery, Emma Smith Mormon Enigma? Yes, I have it and studied it. Very good book for a history lesson but not conclusive evidence since a lot of it is third party testimony made, sometimes, 3 decades later.
And Oaks isn’t wrong. If you do have some legal scholars on it will have to be some who can talk about 1830′s law, especially common law, and not the current legal conclusions on these issues.

-Its interesting to me how critics will use D&C 132 to prove that these plural marriages where consummated but then dismiss D&C 132 to claim that he wasn’t following its strictness with regards to Emma’s approval, (therefore concluding him to be a fraud, liar, cheat…..)

-Aaron, we will have to agree to disagree because you’re not seeing my point here; that this ‘Evidence’ is irrelevant -and subject to change. As I read you comment I seem to read in between the lines: There is evidence that BOA wasn’t penned by him so therefore my testimony of the BOA can’t be true. Right? If it is all this is doing is destroying your testimony, nothing more. How is that we can teach the procedure to others to obtain a testimony but then it is blown away by some academics research? If you remember your time in Brazil you should go back to those days and ‘remember’ how prayers are answered and truth seen. Look as an example, remember the Mayan experience: Up to about the ’70 researchers saw then as peaceful, studious people and then, wala, no they where all warriors who subdued their neighbours through war/taxes. Is this the definitive answer, no, it can change again and until we actually interview the Mayan dude in the spirit world or something we won’t know for certain.

Don’t trust researcher’s conclusion as final and the only truth!

(And Mayan Elephant, your comments are becoming too personal or aggressive)

Carlos-

One other thing….this may be the sticking point. I’m not saying the church should be prohibited from teaching the text of the Book of Abraham (although some may argue that this is the best course). If we want to continue teaching the plurality of gods, the pre-existence, etc., using the text, I’m fine with that. My point is that we need to get much more candid and open when we teach people about where the text came from. Based on what we know now, it isn’t sufficient to simply leave it as a “direct translation from some papers Abraham wrote.” Perhaps a discussion of what Joseph Smith said it was, what scholars say it really is, and perhaps a few theories such as yours that offer an apologetic interpretation of the facts. Once that context is provided….the playing field is leveled and I have no problem teaching doctrine (such as the pre-existence, etc) based on the text. Do you see the difference? In this scenario, people haven’t been asked to accept the BOA as scripture based on an incomplete (or even inaccurate) description of what it is and they are able to make a more rational decision about what’s in it. At that point, by all means, continue to invite people to go to God in prayer about the book’s content because we’ve been fair with people concerning it’s context.

I think I understand you to be saying that it’s the content that matters, not the historicity. Not so if the content is being presented as a historical record.

SML,
“Thank you for not projecting your bias on me when you speculate on my “shortcomings” Jayspec”

You know my bias. You’ve pointed it out in just about every message.

Carlos –

I guess anything is possible. Aliens could have taken the real papyrus….

I’d welcome such a call from you, but I hope the key to understanding “time bomb piece of evidence” doesn’t require me to kill myself in order to earn passage on a spaceship that is hiding behind a comet carrying Jesus.

“what you are saying is – if SML was not a sinner she wouldnt feel as she does. and, sure, others feel bad too, but you sympathize with them because they didnt choose to be single parents. and more, the best way to be happy is the stereotypical mormon plan, so its ok if a few people feel rotten along the way. its so beyond me i feel icky just typing it.”

Not even close to what I was saying…. I do like the slick turnaround, though. What I said is there are things in our control and things that are not. You seem to discount the concept of agency. And continually say that the church is”not a safe place for….” But yet there are thousands of people who attend church from all circumstances that feel perfectly ‘safe’ and cared for.

I have no idea what “the stereotypical mormon plan” is. I’m sure that it has some negative connotation.

The best way to be happy is to follow the Lord’s plan as revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

BTW, please stopping saying that you don’t attend church because of this type of person or that type of person. Just be honest and say that you choose not to attend church for your own reasons. It really has nothing to do with anyone else.

Interesting……

I misnamed it ~ should have called it by its name: “The Family: A Proclamation to the World”

Find it here in full: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

jayspec,

fair enough. i dont attend church because i choose not to attend. and quite honestly, the biggest factor in that decision relates to the 14 apostles and their leadership. the next layer of issues comes with the insufficient dissent when it comes to what those men say and do. and the next layer is how followers of those men behave and control the experience in the church – which is people like you, not you specifically as we have not met.

you are right, the reason i am doing something else, is cuz i choose to do something else.

Sister ML,

“I have no idea what “the stereotypical mormon plan” is.”

See the Proclamation to the Family. It’s a great start.”

This is kind of like tag team wrestling. Do you folks plan who is going to answer or is it just ramdom?

“Since we all know the people of the church, including the leaders, are imperfect,”

Are they teaching that in the Primary nowadays? I think that’s Mayan’s point. Have they replaced “Follow the Prophet” in the primary songbook with “Follow Your Conscience.” So that when the Prophet, the Apostles, the Bishops, yea, even all the authorities in the church teach the youth to shun “so-called gays and lesbians,” for instance, the kids will say, “Nah, I’m going to follow my conscience instead; after all, the prophets are fallible.” Mayan I am sure would have no trouble being able to do that–but a LOT of people in the church would, and do, especially kids. So, if the church is preaching things we think are uninspired, even toxic, in the current culture it makes sense to remove our kids from that influence. If the church emphasized more the fallibility of the leaders, and the importance of following one’s conscience, then the official doctrinal stands taken by the church would not be so problematic for those who disagree with them.

“Are they teaching that in the Primary nowadays? I think that’s Mayan’s point. Have they replaced “Follow the Prophet” in the primary songbook with “Follow Your Conscience.”

Is Primary the right place for that??? They do teach about agency, they do teach about the Holy Ghost. I don’ remember a line in the song that ends in “or else you’ll go to hell.”

“So that when the Prophet, the Apostles, the Bishops, yea, even all the authorities in the church teach the youth to shun “so-called gays and lesbians,”

Really, where do they teach that all members should shun anyone? In the new pamphlet? Not the one that I read.

“So, if the church is preaching things we think are uninspired, even toxic, in the current culture it makes sense to remove our kids from that influence.”

That is what you beleive and so you can do as you wish. But please do not condemn or denegrate those who disagree with you and chose to stay.

I think the real problem here is the church will not bow down to the doctrine that you espouse. That is why you left.

A person should absoutely follow their conscience and their beliefs whethe it leads them into or out of the church. I agree with that. But if it leads them out, then leave it alone.

As I said before, no matter what you find a way to blame the church. I think you have been a slight bit more civil than others, but by no means gentle. For many active chruc goers, your “gentle suggestions” are tantamount to out and out cruelty.

” I blame NBC executives, for example, not the church, for the cancellation of the West Wing.”

I am surprised by this. I am sorry to disappoint you, by i do not hear the mantra that you speak of. I do not find “a way to excuse the church” as you have maintained. I can be critical of certain things, for example, the way missionary work is conducted. I think most people come into the church without a real clue about it. That they only need to attend a single sacrament meeting, for exampl.e How can we expect to retain converts when they are never really integrated into the wards and branches. Most people in the ward never even know who the person is.

I find the SS lessons can be pretty boring at times. Not so much because of the teacher but because the materials are more than 25 years old and in need of a face-lift. Of course, when I teach, they are not at all boring.

So we can all be a bit critical at times, but you folks cross the line in my opinion and then you are not even willing to work to fix it. You just leave. I hink that’s not right.

Any chance of seeing a new episode/topic soon?

(And this discussion continuing over at exmormon.org?)

Sister ML says:

“I think that by coming here and discussing these important issues, I am doing my part to try to help fix the problems that I see within the church.”

Seriously? A few hundred people or maybe a thousand read this blog. How does that do anything? Maybe cause another person to leave the church? Is that “doing your part?” Most folks in the church have no clue this thing exists and many would just shrug off this kind of discussion as some corner case.

“There is no established way of getting my thoughts to the Quorum of the Twelve or the First Presidency, the ONLY ONES able to change the things that I see are vital to change if the church is to survive and not alienate even more of its members.’

And I suspect that most members think just the opposite. They don’t want the church to change with every whim and “cause de jour” of the world. I think there is evidence that shows that churches that bend with the winds of the world eventually break. I think there have been incredible schisms in many churches over women clergy, gay clergy, and other doctrinal issues. The world out there excuses any and all behaviors, especially the ones which God has specifically forbidden.

“I want my children to not dismiss or judge my gay brother as a vile sinner.”

Then the easiest way to do that is to teach them not to. The church, as has society, come along way in their treatment of folks with “same sex attraction” issues. But, if you expect the church or God, for that matter, to condone immorality from straights or gays, you are just fooling yourself. Its probably not going to change. There is no double standard.

“I want my daughter to be spared the soul-deep confusion and self-worth questioning that will occur when she starts to notice that her brother gets responsibilities like collecting fast offerings, locking the church, passing the sacrament, wielding the power to act in God’s name and furthering the Lord’s Greatest Work on Earth, while she is taught over and over that the most important thing she can do and should do is be a mother and a good homemaker for her husband who presides over her with his priesthood power.

Then don’t teach her the foolishness that boys are better because they have the Priesthood or that the role of women in the church is less than the men, because it is not. Teach her that the greatest gift from God is a family, with a loving husband and wife as equal partners. Teach her by example that husbands need to care for his wife as his most precious eternal companion, with whom he cannot live without. Teach her to choose a husband wisely from someone who takes his responsbilities as a Priesthood holder seriously and would never abuse his family in anyway. Teach her to gain as much education as possible and that being a wife and mother is as noble a calling as being a corporate president or a doctor or any other profession.

Don’t lie to her and tell her the church teaches her that she is less than a man. Because it does not.

“I have already found a way to make my life more authentic and moral for myself and my family. I hope the church is someday a place where others can find that too.”

That is great for you and your family. But, for many, many people, the church does that for them now and always has.

I wonder if you good folks would mind if I joined in this discussion…

In several of the comments some of the more orthodox participants seem to be saying that most member problems are self induced or losing faith is a matter of free agency which could be avoided by prayerful consideration of the scriptures. (BOM, BOA. Etc…) Most notable to me was the exchange about Warren Jeffs and the parallels to JS/BY polygamy. This is an interesting comparison because the effects on the respective members are very similar.

In 1865, my GG grandmother was forced to marry her uncle in the Endowment House. Her history is fascinating, she walked across the plains at age 6 with the first handcart company (Enoch Train) in 1856 and buried her father on the Big Sandy in Wyoming along the trail. She and her mother survived and upon arriving in SLC, were sent to live with her dead father’s brother in the Coleville area. The uncle first married the mother in 1859 and then decided a few years later that his niece was too cute (at age 15) and married her as well. (Of course he had to get permission from the local Bishop which was easily obtained)

Her journal speaks of the horror this was (being told to marry the man who had been her daddy for 9 years) but she couldn’t refuse unless she wanted to go the hell and walk back across the plains to a more civilized community. You see, daddy wasn’t going to let her stay if she denied him.

Was the doctrine of polygamy harmful to many people from D&C 132? You bet it was. Did my GG grandmother choose her nightmare, no. Is there any difference between what was done to her and what Warren Jeffs did to young women in his church, no! Was there a good reason for the laws in Illinois regarding polygamy, sure there was. Should we justify what JS did because the local laws weren’t strictly enforced, come on. Elder Oaks was wrong on so many levels with that comment…

Carlos,

Ok, I’ll go away…

Wait no, I can’t be silent…

My family has been hurt as a result of polygamy and so have folks in the Warren Jeffs church. I think President Hinckley’s comment about polygamy not being doctrinal is a step in the right direction…

Sister Mary Lisa

“Imagine if I said this to you:……”

If you said that, you would not know what you are talking about, since the role of Priestess is not defined in this life. The women of the church never held the Priesthood and I have yet to see one example of where a women was ordained to the Priesthood. So, you can teach your son that, but it would be false doctrine as you have stated it.

“Would you embrace it as willingly if you heard those types of words your entire life? I don’t seek to do a complete 180 with how this is…I only seek to add equality which is sadly lacking. Of course I am talking to deaf ears because you feel this is God’s plan for your happiness. I only ask that you understand when I say that some of us don’t find it so very happy to be involved in that kind of arrangement.”

I do understand that you hear it that way now. Again, you generalize that I am, in fact, a “deaf ear” simply because I will not agree with you. If I wasn’t listening, I wouldn’t be responding time and time again. And I would never say that some men in the church have not had problems with their wielding of authority. They have. But this is their error, not God’s. But, the experience you relate, that you have fashioned for yourself, is not part of the experience I have had, nor one that my wife has had. She has had a number of leadership roles and, for the most part, been able to function as saw saw fit, supported by the Bishop and the leaders of the ward.

Jayspec-

The overgeneralization goes both ways in this post, no?

Insisting that someone leave the church alone when they leave….pretty general statement, no? Basically you’re saying that it isn’t possible for any good to come from criticisms leveled by someone who left the church. The only valid criticisms, according to you, are from people who are still in the chapel. Generally, people who have left are generally too critical….which is generally too bad. You see, overgeneralizations abound!

jayspec,

i am really glad you brought all these points up. truly. i think they are very important and they are becoming more important each day. if you are reading the comments here: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/98035#comments you probably noticed some people that would agree with you.

you said this: “I just think that not many are going to take the criticisms seriously when coming from someone who is not an active part of the church.”

that is a very very common point of view. it is not original in the slightest, in fact, it’s part of the mormon culture that is firmly entrenched and not going away. i think there are a few key layers to what you are saying. first – the many that you are referring to, the active mormons, are conditioned as youth and through repeated instructions from their leaders that they are NOT to criticize the church. Oaks reinforced that in the recent broadcast when he said, “it is wrong to criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.”

Also, criticisms, inspections or observations are only valid based on the final conclusion or publicly declared ‘testimony’ of the witness. If I were to say, the CES policy that discriminates against single or divorced instructors is wrong – you would turn an ear from me as would many others. However, if Steve Evans says the same thing, it is ok, even though he is violating rule number one and not obeying Oaks. A better example of that is Bushman. Bushman published historical things that were previously considered very anti-mormon. And more, the authors of similar histories were labeled anti-mormon. I can find a whole bunch of people that have left the Church after reading Rough Stone Rolling, but Bushman is OK because he goes to church. Bizarre.

Another example – Todd Compton. If a woman says that she cannot follow the Church after learning of Smiths history, Todd Compton is thrown in her face almost instantly – “Well that is not new, it’s available at Deseret Book, and Todd Compton remains an active member.”

I dont suspect you understand my point jayspec. the simple point is – your statement is as bland and meaningless as saying, mormons prefer to listen to the right people.

if something is true, and it sounds like anti-mormon material, then there is something wrong with the audience and mormonism, not the source. you may have heard an old cliche about not shooting the messenger, if you havent you may want to google it and try and figure out the riddle and logic behind it.

The church is about salvation for you, and it very well may fit the bill for doing all those other things you have said. but, be damn careful when you say this: “about raising a family unto the Lord, about helping your children live up to their divine potiential, about having an eternal perspective on life, on become the best person you can, on having a happy marriage.”

you can say all that, but you damn sure cannot say “YOU” to people you dont know. you can say MY, but not you. the church, as it exists today, deprives my children of their potential, it gives a horrifically gloomy eternal perspective for some women, it robs my sons and daughter and wife and maybe me of opportunities to be better people. and while i have a great marriage, i would never ever suggest that the church alone can help another marriage be happy and i wouldnt hesitate to point out to you that there are many marriages that are shattered by the church and its divisiveness among spouses.

it bugs me to no end when civil rights are referred to as a cause du jour. but whatever man, i am tired of that debate and it really has nothing to do with the topic. if it aint your topic its just ms. du jours’s topic, we get it. whatever.

hah. you said it. you said raise doubt. you said it not those people that should be ignored. if learning the truth raises doubt, then so be it. if discussing our world raises doubt, so be it. i dont think shying from reality and facts and truth is a good strategy, even if doubt is a byproduct.

i have read that. honestly, i dont see that it clarifies anything, if anything the extended quote which was edited by the church for its release, is worse. the first part says that some things that are true are not useful. well, in light of what we are discussing and as it relates to the history of the church or practices of the church – that is a very harmful statement. and it is quite possibly the greatest evidence we have regarding the topic at hand, inoculation and truth.

the second part is not at all a clarification of what he said. read it again. he said it it’s wrong to criticize the leaders of the church because it diminishes their ability to lead. well no kidding. if the criticism is relevant and true, and the faults of the leaders are something that needs to be corrected, then their abilities should be changed and possibly diminished. good night john f, it sure would have been nice if the ability to perpetuate the race-based priesthood ban, through leadership of the church, had been diminished a hundred or so years before 1978.

the little ditty he adds about youth is nothing but a straw man. for one, who cares what they did in their youth and as far as i can tell, its not a big issue. while we are at it, lets not criticize the leaders of the church for not advancing to running out a ground ball in the second grade little league all-star game.

basically john f, his comment is very clear. it is wrong to use criticize the leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a [leader of the church.]

by the way, what are the other means that he proposes? can we skip the teachers quorum response – pray and fast and read the scriptures?

Holy cow jayspec –

I’m not sure what happened, but this is a more rational and civil discussion.

Props bro…..

The ME says:

“I don’t know what happened. i think i have been overcome with something, a good guy virus or something, and jayspec must have fallen and hit his head too. Cuz this conversation has taken a severe and unpredictable turn for the better and maybe that’s a bad thing. “

Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya……“

“And you are exactly wrong that I want to position everything in the church as having a potential negative side to it.”

Need a bit more evidence to support that..

“can you see that what we agree on is very valuable and your view of me and my opinions is counter to your first point? i simply want to point out that the experience for people is very diverse. extremely diverse. i think that people will be healthier and happier when that diversity is acceptable and embraced. “

Of course, but it does depend on what that is. The Lord accepts all his children regardless of their circumstances. But the institutional church, which governs the Laws and Ordinances of the Gospel, must place limits on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. For example, we wouldn’t want to be so diverse that we allow pedophiles to roam freely in the church, choosing their victims among the nursery kids. Even though that has happened. We wouldn’t want those with an alcohol problem driving young men and young women to a service project, even though that has happened before. We wouldn’t want someone who advocates so-called “free love” to preach it over the pulpit during testimony meeting. So I would say that there are limits to the diversity.

“when it is acceptable to admit that it doesnt work for everyone, families and marriages will be stronger and relationships will be improved.”

Nothing works for everyone, but that doesn’t mean the church has to radically change in order to be acceptable to everyone. Besides, it will never be for everyone. 1/3 of Father’s children were lost even before coming to earth.

“i have no intention of making the church appear bad in all that they do. However, I do intend to point out that the effects can be negative for some people. “

Sure it can be negative. Not following the laws of the land is negative as well for those who do not wish to follow them. Just because someone likes to speed doesn’t mean we do away with speed limits. I mean, gee, getting a ticket makes us feel bad.

“i get the choice concept. but, this is bigger than a political party or a social club. when one chooses to openly dismiss or leave the mormon church, the consequences are much harsher than choosing to leave the PTA, a scrapbooking club, or the libertarian party. the choice to not participate in the church may result in divorce, or abandonment by family. that is a damn shame. “

It is clear to me that the church has a much higher purpose than a political party or a social club. It is governed by principles that are much higher as well. But, I really don’t hear you addressing those higher principles. I only read things here that could apply to a social club or political party. I see very little from y’all about the true higher purposes of the gospel and the church.

Couples divorce for all sorts of reasons, adultery, abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, irreconcilable differences, and religious reasons. Usually, it is for selfish reasons on the part of one or the other and sometimes both parties. Again, a matter of choice.

“When the choice to leave or change one’s commitment to the church is based on newfound historical facts it feels civil and fair to me to have sympathy on that person and do all we can to minimize the negative consequences in their relationships. “

Since the fundamental purposes of the church have nothing to do with historical facts and more with our relationship with God, I question that. I think everyone is owned an explanation of church history that is open and honest and let the chips fall where they may.

“i dont discount choice at all. i love it. i want everyone to have choices. i especially hope that people can choose what is best for themselves and their family without having to balance excessive external pressures from an institution that has different priorities than each individual.”

Bottom line is a person is not forced to belong. I have no clue what “excessive external pressures” are. We are free to accept or reject anything and any part we don’t like. You just can’t yell “Joseph Smith was a fraud” in the middle off a sacrament meeting any more than you can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater.

“You just can’t yell “Joseph Smith was a fraud” in the middle off a sacrament meeting any more than you can yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater.”

Who does that? Seriously. Can you say it on a blog? To your brother in a private conversation? Without fear of recrimination?

Carlos said,

“If you are a member and say that ‘Joseph Smith was a fraud’ u’ll most likely be excommunicated. Wether its in Sacrament, a class or a blog or to others in private. You just can’t hold that view and continue to be a member.”

I don’t believe the above statement is true.

I personally have expressed this very thing to my Bishop and yet I still hold a position in the ward and remain in full fellowship. I continue to “practice” the faith to keep my wife happy and because I enjoy associating with my ward members.

I believe BKP made the statement in the PBS special that you are free to “go down that road” as long as you don’t try and take others with you. I know of many other NOM’s who no-longer believe in JS but hold important positions. I had a former bishop in my last ward who told me straight forwardly that I would never hear him bear testimony of JS, but felt like the church was still a great organization for good.

If what you said is true, there’s going to be lots of church disciplinary counsels starting soon…

Dear Doug: No wonder the US church is baptizing so few.

You told a Bishop that Joseph is a fraud and they didn’t do anything? And on top of that you still hold a calling? What a calamity the US church has become. Anywhere else you’d be someone without a testimony (and without a calling)

And you know of other members “who no-longer believe in JS”, wow, dudes, you guys there have definitely ‘lost the faith’.

And I recall GBH teach that the church rests on Joseph Smith; if he was true the church is true, if he was a fraud then the church is a fraud (or words to that effect)

And those members still hold callings? Bizarre……

Jayspec ~

“It is clear to me that the church has a much higher purpose than a political party or a social club. It is governed by principles that are much higher as well. But, I really don’t hear you addressing those higher principles.”

One of the highest principles the church maintains is one that I have addressed: the principle that men preside over women, and that women should only ever aspire to motherhood. Men get to enjoy fatherhood as well as aspire to leadership roles, righteous priesthood authority, the right to wield the power to act in God’s name, the ability to create worlds in the next life, the power to be judges over their own worlds too.

Of course, this is waaaaay off topic from the inoculation discussion. But I did want to point out that much of what we have been discussing has touched on higher principles.

The church has set up standards and principles to follow that are very narrow. Sure, it has that right. I agree that, as in the case of pedophiles, some behavior should not be allowed because it hurts others. As for homosexuality ~ that behavior hurts just as much as heterosexuality does. Meaning it hurts nobody. Heterosexual marriage will not be hurt by two gay people marrying. The church will not suffer if it is accepting of people finding love and commitment with one another. Our tender sensibilities should not be affected by two people seeking a life of supporting and loving and being there for one another. A member marrying a non-member should not be judged as “not being in the right place spiritually when (s)he made the decision to marry a non-member.” Yet that is what the majority of members think. A righteous man with a sexy beard should not be considered unworthy of working in the temple simply because he knows he looks better with facial hair and chooses to have it.

Conformity being so important to a society is harmful and detrimental in my opinion. It detracts from actual values and creates in many faithful members real disdain for others who are different from the narrow “ideal” rather than promoting open charity and love for all.

What I find scary is how many members seek to focus on their “higher principles” more than on real people with real lives that may or may not fit with the program, and consider themselves just a teeny bit better because they are living those “higher principles” themselves. Not saying this is what you are doing, Jayspec, but I have seen it too often in my own life to not know how very prevalent it is.

Sister ML,

“One of the highest principles the church maintains is one that I have addressed: the principle that men preside over women, and that women should only ever aspire to motherhood. Men get to enjoy fatherhood as well as aspire to leadership roles, righteous priesthood authority, the right to wield the power to act in God’s name, the ability to create worlds in the next life, the power to be judges over their own worlds too”

First and foremost, what you have said here is not true. The church does not teach that “women should ONLY aspire to motherhood.” Just not true. And it is also not true that women don’t have leadership positions. You actually denegrate the women of the church who have been Relief Society President, Primary Presidents, Young Women Leaders, Activity Directors, Sunday School Teachers with your words. Thes ARE leadership positions of significant proportion. If you have ever been one, you know this. They are not to be demeaned by you as being unimportant.

“The church has set up standards and principles to follow that are very narrow.”

No, the church does not. God does. Now, perhaps you do not beleive this. If that is the case, then not many churches would satisfy you, for most look to God as the “decider” of what is right and wrong. The LDS Church beleives that it is the Church of Jesus Christ and as such follows the law and ordances given to it by Him. So, while you may not like that, it is the case. Otherwise, we are just a social organization and we can make up any rules we want. Or change any rules we want. Which is it an organization set up by God or just by Men?

“As for homosexuality ~ that behavior hurts just as much as heterosexuality does. Meaning it hurts nobody. Heterosexual marriage will not be hurt by two gay people marrying. The church will not suffer if it is accepting of people finding love and commitment with one another.”

That is certainly some of society’s view. But, if we beleive ithat same sex marriage is not permitted by God, then that is the answer.

“A member marrying a non-member should not be judged as “not being in the right place spiritually when (s)he made the decision to marry a non-member.” Yet that is what the majority of members think.”

I don’t know if a majority of members think that or not. What I do know is that we can limit ourselves by our choices. Marrying a non-member of the church comes with a price. Not being able to be married for time and all eternity in the temple, for example. And statically, marriages between people of different faiths have a higher divorce rate. But, what other people think is really of no conseqence. I home teach a part member family and not many people even know the husband is not a member. In fact, my wife married a non-member!

I do agree with you on the beard part!

And you are also right, the church is made of of people in all kinds of circumstances. My own experiences of 25 years tells me that most church members try to be kind and loving to those of different circumstances than the ideal.

And leadership positions you list for women are all done under the direction of the priesthood leaders over them. All. The bishopric tells them what money they can spend. The RS pres, primary pres, and YW pres all have to get approval for anything they choose to do, implement, plan, or teach by the priesthood leaders who REALLY preside over these organizations.

I’m not denegrating them, however. Those women really do kick some butt. I know, as I was involved in many presidencies in my day, which may surprise you.

Sister Mary, Wow, girl? You said:

“As for homosexuality ~ that behavior hurts just as much as heterosexuality does. ”

Wow, …….what?……………you mean?………………….You practise?……………………….what?…………….

But, seriously, you do have a point there with the money issues. True that women have to go to the bishops to get approval for any little thing. Its was much better the way it was before H B Lee and correlation. If I could change things the RS budget would come from church offices through the General Presidency. Same with Young Women. Why bishops have to preside in young womens’ meetings is also strange -or just plain wrong for me. Adult women should run that and take confessions from the young women, not the 20 something year old Bishop.

Jayspec ~

You asked what punishment the church exacts upon women…I never talked about punishment. I said this:

Conformity being so important to a society is harmful and detrimental in my opinion. It detracts from actual values and creates in many faithful members real disdain for others who are different from the narrow “ideal” rather than promoting open charity and love for all.

That is where the harm lies in a system like this one, in my opinion. For you, it works. For me, it’s harmful.

I spoke already of the harm that it does women way up in this thread. Personally felt it, and described it too.

re # 267, The purpose of inoculation is supposed to prevent “stuff” from getting on the shelf. I personally don’t believe inoculation will work without deliberate deceit intermingled with truth. I feel that’s what’s been done in the past and will continue to be the course in the future. Unfortunately, putting 49 truths out to get one lie believed seems somehow wrong.

This does seem to be the way that some people are referring to inoculation. Some may have read my post at Mormon Mentality on inoculation in which I also take issue with this view of inoculation. Inoculation is not helpful imagery if the object of the inoculation, i.e. the disease, is taken to mean truth or historical facts. Rather, inoculation should simply mean openly including even complex and difficult historical issues in Sunday School and seminary lessons otherwise focused on doctrines of the Gospel. If this scenario, the truth or historical facts are the vaccine against people feeling like the Church betrayed them by shying away from discussion of these things or that the Church is or was covering something up. Only this understanding of inoculation can save the metaphor; otherwise its use leads to the conclusion drawn in comment 267.

I summarized the position my post at Mormon Mentality takes about this in my comment # 84 over there:

[E]ven though choosing to leave the Church or stop believing in the Church’s truth claims upon learning of complex and difficult details of Church history and development is certainly a reasonable choice for a person to make, others might not see this as the necessary conclusion to draw from these complex and difficult details and choose to stay. In other words, based on facts in the historical record, it is understandable that some have felt that the only logical implication is that the Church is not what it claims to be. This is particularly understandable when people explain that they felt betrayed or lied to when they learn through personal study of these complex and difficult issues that the Church did not focus on during Sunday School or seminary. As noted, the fact that people feel betrayed or lied to by the Church because of this shows that there is a problem with the current approach of only including faith-promoting aspects of Church history in teachings manuals. Thus, bringing the complex and difficult issues into regular Church discussions of doctrine would serve as a vaccine against feeling betrayed by the Church. The hope would be that, although some will still choose not to believe or be associated with the Church based on those aspects of the history, many others will choose to stay, having not felt betrayed.

Hopefully, there is enough good faith involved in this discussion for even those who do not believe in the truth claims of the Church to allow those who believe to be saddened when people leave the Church and to view that as an undesirable outcome. On the other hand, believers will hopefully understand that if the subject is inoculation, then delivering a “weaker” version of known historical facts or events in order to satisfy members and prevent them from investigating futher cannot be the goal. Rather, candid openness about facts and history should be the goal with the hope that people can simply believe and exercise faith in the Church’s truth claims without any need to harbor a suspicion that something is being covered up or feeling that the Church betrayed them when they learn some aspect of Church history that was not broached in Church settings.

jayspec-

Check out John’s screencast if you haven’t seen it (http://mormonstories.org/?p=50).

It seems like there are those like you out there, jayspec, who can’t understand the betrayal that comes from discovering the real version of church history later in life (while they’d been taught a “faith promoting” version before). I honestly can’t understand how someone who was raised in the church and taught the same version of the restoration that I was…..could find it hard to relate….but, I guess some had a very different upbringing than I.

jayspec said:

“I am not understanding how someone who claims “I was a true, testimony-bearing, temple going, scripture-reading, beleiver until I found out about…..” just throws that all aside when the new information is revealed to them.”

Yours is a good question. I think the answer may be as varied as the experiences of the people who become disaffected with the church. Some disaffected members never had a strong, burning spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the church; they simply were raised in the church and taught to believe certain things about the church that they later discovered to be, shall we say, not the whole story. Others, like me, have had spiritual experiences and were converted to the work but have, over time, undergone a transformation in how we interpret those experiences in light of what appears to us to be overwhelming evidence that calls into serious question the foundational truth claim of Mormonism. Speaking for myself, I reached a point where that which made sense to me rationally was in conflict with an interpretation of my spiritual experiences that said “the Book of Mormon is a literal history, Joseph Smith was inspired by God to translate it, and Gordon B. Hinckley is God’s only true representative on earth today.” I don’t deny my spiritual experiences, but have sought to understand them in light of all the data that weighs against the interpretation of those experiences that the church would impose on me.

That said, your characterization that people “just throw aside” their spiritual experiences (i.e., the basis for their testimony) when finding new information is a bit insulting. I don’t know any disaffected Mormons (and I’ve encountered a large number over the last two years) for whom that accurately describes their faith journey. The disaffected members I know personally who have gone from being “true believing” very active members in the church to ceasing activity or leaving altogether have struggled mightily with the process. I don’t know anyone who flippantly cast aside their membership in the church. It is an emotionally wrenching, spiritually draining, physically enervating, mentally exhausting exercise. At the same time, going through that process, for me, has also been a liberating, exciting, fulfilling, fascinating growth experience.

Mr. Aaron (271),

I would question the use of the term “real version” since as with many things historical, the “real” story may not be fully told since historians must interprete fact they have and extraopolate them into a conclusion. Even the most well documented events can be seen from different angles depending on the teller’s perspective.

Having joined the church at 28 and spending the first 5 years or so, digging out some of these “hidden” secrets helped me to put into the proper context against my growing testimony. So I cannot really relate to having grown up in the church.

And no, as I have said repeatedly, I don’t have a problem with hearing the full and complete story. I am not sure where the appropriate place is for that. As a Gospel Doctrine Teacher, I never have enough time for the lesson as it is. I learned all the “extra stuff” at home in books that I bought mainly from DI.

Sister ML,

“The biggest hurdle I could not overcome was processing how big my consequences were for a single, solitary sexual sin and then finding out that the prophet Joseph Smith, revered by me and the church, was actually promiscuous where I was not, and could lie when asked if he had plural wives, yet I had to repent honestly and openly and faced consequences as if I were promiscuous.”

I have to continue to maintain that one has nothing to do with the other. And it is a shame that you have chosen to link the two together. You were responsbile for your action as Joseph is for his. Whether the Lord views what he did as sins, is fully up to Him. We can’t fully understadn all that went on at that time. While it appears that Joseph may have crossed the line, we can’t be fully sure exactly all that went on. Regardless, I feel bad that you do not look upon you repentance process as something you did for yourself and look upon it with regret due to someone else’s actions 170 years ago.

I do not regard the church as “homophobia, sexism, and racism” because it refuses to conform to a society with no morals, no regard for life and has tried to undermine every piece of humanness we have. I am not impressed with society’s standards where they worship the likes of Britney Speers, criminal sports figures and admire people simply because they are rich.

Jay ~

“I feel bad that you do not look upon you repentance process as something you did for yourself and look upon it with regret due to someone else’s actions 170 years ago.”

I do not look upon my repentance with regret. I look with regret upon the narrow teachings that one must seek to be perfect like the prophet Joseph supposedly was, and the very real and subtle message that to err means that you are fallen, lacking, less of a worthy person. Had I known of some of the less stellar qualities Joseph Smith possessed, I’d have felt a bit less low for my own sin, which I did repent of and don’t regret now in the least. My son is the best thing to have happened to me.

“Most of the folks I have known who have been disaffected tended to be fringe people at best.”

Wow. That’s a very condescending statement. Did you intend to be that way? “Fringe people at best.” Does that mean “Low-lifes at best” or “Paraiahs at best” or “outcasts at best” or what?

“But, having said that, I must be different because I do not let the history or other people derail me from my spiritual journey. Because, to me, that is what it is all about.”

It may surprise you to hear that I consider myself on the most spiritual journey I’ve ever been on. This far surpasses the spirituality I felt while in church.

Sister ML.

“I look with regret upon the narrow teachings that one must seek to be perfect like the prophet Joseph supposedly was, and the very real and subtle message that to err means that you are fallen, lacking, less of a worthy person.”

I can’t imagine where you get this stuff???? “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” That is what the church teaches. That is what most Christian Churches teach. Joseph said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. . . . (HC 6:366.)”

“Wow. That’s a very condescending statement”

Really?? I am making an ovservation about my experience and that is condescending???

“It may surprise you to hear that I consider myself on the most spiritual journey I’ve ever been on. This far surpasses the spirituality I felt while in church.”

Not at all. When one can determine all the rules, it can be very satisfying indeed.

I don’t mean to offend you or criticize but, honestly, I’m having some difficulty believing what you write here: a Stake President who doesn’t believe in a key part of the BoM plus what you wrote before on non-believers with callings…..

I don’t know, maybe its just me, but no sorry, I just don’t believe everything you have written here even if I know that the US church has some trouble in retention and low baptisms.

And I do have my ‘issues’ with some things in church like current sealing policies (a mess), especially the treatment of divorced males (discrimination), the many wards & stakes opened without enough people, the treatment of women by some leaders, but these are issues with current policies. Going as far as saying that we cover 49 truths to keep one lie going is crossing a line that’s way too out there for me.

And really if one doesn’t believe in this, well maybe one should be honest and have the courage to stand up for one’s beliefs and just resign from church, if you don’t believe in it, no matter what it does to the extended family. They should love you the same.

Jayspec-

A couple of points….the first is relevance. I don’t see how MMM has anything to do with our restorational story? Haun’s Mill, maybe – it would be good to discuss HM from a more fair perspective, but I’m not sure what point of doctrine came from either event? Generally speaking, the details I’m arguing relate to the restoration and have some doctrinal/theological impact.

“A faith-promoting version may be a “real version” just minus all the details.” A faith promoting version is exactly that and that’s the problem.

“The lessons at church have a severe time limitation and so much detail is left out for the main points of the lesson.” After 30 years of 3 hour blocs, hour seminary 5 days per week, mutual/YM every week, missionary prep classes, MTC, 2 year missions, millions of other firesides, meetings, conference, etc., etc., etc., we have anything but time limitations. The fact is, we teach only what will further the cause….and that’s the problem.

“I think that is too simplistic a conclusion given the fact that many of those Mormon Scholars continue to be beleiving Latter-day Saints.” Many stay, but I don’t know how that supports your argument relative to the complex history dilema. An apologist historian, many times, has made up his/her mind and is searching for anything to bolster their position. Besides, many (including Bushman) are pushing for a more open approach to history because they have seen the problem the lack of openness can cause.

“Generally speaking, the details I’m arguing relate to the restoration and have some doctrinal/theological impact.”

It is a matter of perspective. A person’s faith that things happen a certain way is no less valid than another’s “so-called” evidence that it did not. As I stated before, historical facts are often mis-interpreted and as you also said, if a writer has an agenda, they will slant those facts to meet it. Good example: The Godmakers. Penalty of truth but presented and slanted the wrong way.

Jayspec ~

Would you care to explain what you mean by ““Most of the folks I have known who have been disaffected tended to be fringe people at best”?

Jayspec-

“A person’s faith that things happen a certain way is no less valid than another’s “so-called” evidence that it did not.”

Maintaining faith in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence amounts to nothing more than willful self-delusion.

That is all I have to say about that. Good day sir.

Jay ~

I and the majority of the people I personally know who have left the church did exhibit a strong desire to fully participate, or they actually DID fully participate as faithful members. I was a faithful counselor in the primary presidency when I left the church. And I did quietly leave the church.

That is the type of Mormon, in my opinion, who finds out things that are kept out of our lesson manuals and who ends up being unable to stay within the church once it becomes obvious that the church was less than forthright in keeping those things from them in order to keep them faithful.

Of course, the ward rosters are filled with names of people who get baptized and then quit going shortly thereafter. My sentiments on that are if certain changes are made by the men at the top ~ changes which embrace differences rather than embracing and promoting conformity at all costs ~ then those members who do remain faithful will be more open-minded and loving and accepting of those who are “fringe” members, and the fringe members won’t be hearing those lessons which so blatantly call out how far from God’s Ideal they really are. It is damn depressing at church for many, many members, and I don”t blame them one bit for avoiding that kind of thing. I’m not just talking about sinners who choose not to attend in order to not feel guilty. I’m talking about all the subtle and not-subtle ways we are made to feel we don’t measure up in the Gospel Plan for Happpiness as spelled out for us in all the lessons and talks and interactions with others at church. That is the real tragedy in the church, in my opinion. Of course not all of the members feel this. But sadly, all too many people do. And they avoid church accordingly.

“how about the abysmal retention rate of returned missionaries? were they fringe members?”

Certainly where. Many of the missionaries I knew where on a mission due to social pressures back home (and to get close to the hottest mormon babes!)

Guys, please, exmormong.org is a better site for you!

Can’t there be a new episode up here asap? on general conference, or new apostles, or anything else? Please!

Carlos wrote,

“I don’t mean to offend you or criticize but, honestly, I’m having some difficulty believing what you write here: a Stake President who doesn’t believe in a key part of the BoM plus what you wrote before on non-believers with callings…..I don’t know, maybe its just me, but no sorry, I just don’t believe everything you have written here”

I guess I could bear my testimony to you and ask you to go pray about it… Honestly, you have offended me; you’re calling me a liar because your world view of leader worship won’t allow you to believe my witness. I could give you names dates and places, but out of respect for the people involved I won’t. I think it’s indicative of why most members can stay true to the faith. They dismiss things that don’t fit their particular paradigm. I actually have two callings at present and I am certainly not a literal believer.

As to your contention that truly faithful members don’t question key points of doctrine; perhaps I just bring out the worst in people including you. Do you really want me out of the church brother???? I suppose the comments by GBH about polygamy not being doctrinal, or his dodge on the man> God, God> man teaching were just fabricated too. After all, I did hear him say it, but then again I’m a liar. If he did say it, then by your logic he better resign for not believing in key points of doctrine as well. Perhaps you could cut me a little slack here…

One last thing, I realize my points have been made from my own experiences which don’t lend themselves to discussion. I’ll try and concentrate on more verifiable things in the future. To make an honest start, I’ll take a risk and give the names of my GG grandmother and the uncle combination daddy husband from comment # 234. Her name was Mary Anne Birch, her father’s name was James Birch (died crossing the plains) and her uncle who married her at age 15 was Richard Birch. That should be easy enough to validate… Thanks for your faith in me brother…

hey, the last person to put “mayan elephant” on a temple roll is a good friend. maybe if you put “mayan elephant” on a temple prayer roll i will be your friend too?

Jayspec –

Thanks for the offer, but perhaps the name to put on the prayer roll is your own.