Podcaster booted from Mormon Church over “controversial” episodes, forums

Excommunicated for "wide dissemination via Internet presence" of contrary views.

Read the whole story

 

[adipose]

ClarkGoble[/url]":19548j3y]

adipose[/url]":19548j3y]To be fair, some in the Church do actually encourage in depth study. But there always has been a persistent mindset to not "delve into the mysteries" or "become too smart for your own good." Growing up Mormon, I was discouraged at every turn from doing too much of my own research. Are there official statements saying otherwise? Yes, but that doesn't change the culture of the Church.

I don't think those quotes mean how you are taking them to mean. Certainly when I was at BYU I was encouraged to question. I've never had someone tell me not to do so. That's not to deny some people are uncomfortable with such matters. It definitely happens. But then that's a larger American problems and surprise, American Mormons often view their religion through their broader cultural milieu.

I just think the extent of this is vastly exaggerated. I've lived in a lot of LDS wards and I've just not encountered it much. Further when I have encountered it, it wasn't hard to deal with and correct.

At BYU (I attended, as well), people were much more open-minded than in wards across the country. I had some very open-minded professors. But there is a difference between "questioning" (could just mean asking questions) and criticizing or openly wondering whether a particular rule is just B.S. (not typically encouraged).

For example, if you try to suggest that the "rule" on R rated movies is arbitrary since the panel that rates them does so arbitrarily, no one seriously debates you. Instead they just point out that "them's the rules" stated by a Prophet, so there's nothing to discuss. If you really try to press the point they may admit you have a point but state that "it's just better to be safe and follow the Prophet's guidelines," so again there's no debate.

In the end, like all religions, they want you to believe the official doctrine and any questioning is viewed with suspicion. If you are just asking so you can have a better understanding and follow the doctrine better, sure, that's fine. If you are really questioning the authenticity of the rules they have no use for that. And for a Church that claims to be run by divinely inspired leaders, indeed why would they?

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Fixpir[/url]":anhdcme0]Atheism was part of the official doctrine of nazism and communism. That is a fact. And it was widely publicized.

I'd be grateful for any citations you can provide especially regarding National Socialism.

Fixpir[/url]":anhdcme0]That does not mean that any atheist is as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot. Just that it is not sufficient to be an atheist to be a good man following my personal set of beliefs. And probably following yours too, and many readers of this forum. Seriously, is this questionable ?

I'm having trouble parsing your meaning. It's not sufficient to be an atheist to be a good man following your personal set of beliefs... I think you're saying that, based on your beliefs, atheists are by definition excluded from being good men?

Fixpir[/url]":anhdcme0]

There's a famous line from a some book about not suffering a witch to live...

Be clear please, I visibly do not have your culture.

Exodus 22:18

Fixpir[/url]":anhdcme0]

I can't find the writings of Marx or Engles that call for the execution of intellectuals

That is what I wrote.

(or in the writings of any prominent atheist).

That seems far fetched. Or maybe the important term here is "prominent" ? Is Mao Zedong prominent enough ? Seriously, you are on bad ground here.

He's a prominent figure, yes, but he's not prominent as an atheist thinker or writer.

Fixpir[/url]":anhdcme0]

That's fine. Do your best to be intellectually honest with yourself.

That is precisely what I am trying to do.

Alright.

 

[Sea Shadow]

DancesWithBikers[/url]":3ci2wevq]That sounds revolting!
(But I support your right to eat it.)

Yes I will admit that it sounds disgusting, but it has a very pleasant tartness to the initial bite, that quickly fades in a sweet tangy flavor. Admittedly not for everyone, but a lot of my "foodie" friends have quite enjoyed it. Granted they took their first bite while standing near a sink or trash bin in anticipation of something absolutely disgusting.

I got turned onto OJ and Honey Nut Cheerios by a friend in the military. The Blue edition Red Bull resulted from one of those college dorm ideas where your sitting there and see a can of the stuff and think to yourself... "I wonder what it would taste like if I combined..."

 

[Peaceful]

Danation[/url]":2vv4ozhd]So the guy publicly stated that Mormonism is false, denied belief in core teachings of the religion, became clergy of another religion, and actively tried to convince people to renounce membership.

And we're surprised leadership chose to kick him out? We're supposed to be critical? Come on, Ars.

I'm waiting for the next article: "In a controversial move, a Vegetarian club expelled a member after discovering they eat meat all the time and tried to convince other members to do the same. Club leadership tried to tell her to stop, but she refused."

Seriously. That's my exact thoughts. I don't see how this made national headlines. I don't see how this is valuable news for anyone, anywhere. There's nothing newsworthy about *any* organization that expels a member for actively opposing the organization itself.

Shame on you, Ars. I expect more from you than parroting sensationalism, whether you have an anti-Mormon bias or not.

 

[adipose]

Peaceful[/url]":2cdzg0y8]

Danation[/url]":2cdzg0y8]So the guy publicly stated that Mormonism is false, denied belief in core teachings of the religion, became clergy of another religion, and actively tried to convince people to renounce membership.

And we're surprised leadership chose to kick him out? We're supposed to be critical? Come on, Ars.

I'm waiting for the next article: "In a controversial move, a Vegetarian club expelled a member after discovering they eat meat all the time and tried to convince other members to do the same. Club leadership tried to tell her to stop, but she refused."

Seriously. That's my exact thoughts. I don't see how this made national headlines. I don't see how this is valuable news for anyone, anywhere. There's nothing newsworthy about *any* organization that expels a member for actively opposing the organization itself.

Shame on you, Ars. I expect more from you than parroting sensationalism, whether you have an anti-Mormon bias or not.

Did you read the PDF? It is actually very interesting, and I would say, newsworthy. For example, it states that he was told it would be "a problem" if he publicly supported same-sex marriage, since that goes against the Church's beliefs.

You might say, "of course!" since that is a contradiction of Church beliefs. But, I personally believe a Mormon could be a faithful Mormon while supporting (the legality of) same-sex marriage. After all, they aren't saying it is religiously condoned, just legally condoned. And Mormons take no issue with the legality of many things they religiously ban, such as coffee, or shopping on Sundays, because they believe people should be free to choose for themselves.

Mormons once challenged the definition of "traditional" marriage with their practice of polygamy. They believed, that even if others felt it was morally wrong, that it was none of their (legal) business. The shoe is now on the other foot.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Okay, I just listened to that interview and I have to say he's not saying "this religion is false," he's not an atheist, he's not trying to pull people away from the Mormon faith (in fact he's the founder of staylds.com).
Basically what he does is try to A) help people who feel guilty about questioning aspects of their Mormon faith or have difficulty reconciling it with their lives, e.g. the LDS's policy on homosexuality, and B) trying to make it more acceptable to discuss these very real issues in the open without the church making people feel threatened for doing so.
So he's about trying to ease peoples' crises of faith without being an Apologist.

And in the course of the interview he gives his side of the story and how things got to this point. How he had been allowed for years to openly operate the way he does, and how many Mormons still do, but that it depends heavily on the attitudes of the local church leadership rather than any consistent and uniform set of rules or practices. When his own local church leadership was changed he started having trouble despite not doing anything differently than before.

oblib__[/url]":18uxtuk6]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":18uxtuk6]
I've seen zero evidence that he was a "member of the priesthood" or any other type of clergyman in the LDS. Just that he was a member of the church.

All male members of the church in good standing are ordained to the priesthood at age 12 unless there's some good reason not to. It's safe to assume he was ordained to the priesthood.

So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that. As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

Also, in the Mormon Church, ordination to another church's priesthood would be seen as a pretty good indicator of apostasy of the Mormon Church, independent of the reason.

That sounds perfectly unreasonable in this case.

 

[adipose]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1stdm4hn]

oblib__[/url]":1stdm4hn]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1stdm4hn]
I've seen zero evidence that he was a "member of the priesthood" or any other type of clergyman in the LDS. Just that he was a member of the church.

All male members of the church in good standing are ordained to the priesthood at age 12 unless there's some good reason not to. It's safe to assume he was ordained to the priesthood.

So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that. As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

You are correct. Also, with the kind of doubts he was expressing, he never would have been made a Gospel Doctrine teacher, let alone a Bishop.

 

[nbs2]

adipose[/url]":2owminuq]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2owminuq]

oblib__[/url]":2owminuq]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2owminuq]
I've seen zero evidence that he was a "member of the priesthood" or any other type of clergyman in the LDS. Just that he was a member of the church.

All male members of the church in good standing are ordained to the priesthood at age 12 unless there's some good reason not to. It's safe to assume he was ordained to the priesthood.

So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that. As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

You are correct. Also, with the kind of doubts he was expressing, he never would have been made a Gospel Doctrine teacher, let alone a Bishop.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but my understanding was that you have a desperate interview to receive the priesthood. While the normal course of events is that a young man of 12 will be ordained a deacon, it isnt a priesthood by default scenario.

 

[myopicrhino]

Danation[/url]":2bn2nkqq]So the guy publicly stated that Mormonism is false, denied belief in core teachings of the religion, became clergy of another religion, and actively tried to convince people to renounce membership.

And we're surprised leadership chose to kick him out? We're supposed to be critical? Come on, Ars.

I'm waiting for the next article: "In a controversial move, a Vegetarian club expelled a member after discovering they eat meat all the time and tried to convince other members to do the same. Club leadership tried to tell her to stop, but she refused."

I think there are some fundamental problems with this characterization. AFAIK, he wasn't actively trying to convince people to leave; on the contrary, he wanted to try to help people stay in the church, if that's what they wanted to do, which is why he founded StayLDS. On the other hand, if people had already decided to leave, he wanted to help them through the transition out of the church, which is incredibly difficult, especially someplace like Utah.

As far as him being clergy of another religion, let's clear that up. Anyone reading this can visit one of several websites and, within a few minutes and payment of a small fee, become a legally ordained minister in the US, granting you the ability to perform wedding ceremonies. In doing so, you're not agreeing to any other religion's doctrines or joining another religion. To the best of my knowledge, this wasn't cited as a reason for his excommunication, and the only people I see bringing it up are ignorant Mormons looking for any reason to smear him.

Finally, your analogy is a poor one on several levels. Most importantly, it has no sense of what it means to be a Mormon, both religiously and culturally, in someplace like Logan, Utah - something with which I am intimately familiar. Let me improve it for you: it would be like being part of a vegetarian club - which based its ideals on the ideas of someone who lived 200 years ago, who claimed he was told by an angel to not eat meat - and speaking out that instead the club should start to focus on the science of vegetarianism.

 

[Jet Tredmont]

theosib[/url]":1menep9x]I cannot in good conscience find the Mormon church to have any relevance to anything. It's a minor religion, an even more bizarre offshoot of already bizarre Christianity, with most of the members in a back-water western US state. Also, the mormon church was founded in recent history, making its mythology painfully easy to pick apart. Many of their rules don't make sense, like prohibitions on "hot drinks," including Cocacola. BYU's policies on granting tenure, even to devout Mormons, are bullshit.

BTW, Salt Lake City is a rather nice place. I went to a conference there once, and it was very nice to walk around the city.

To clear up a few misconceptions (from a former LDS member):

1. No, the majority of LDS members are not in Utah. You will find the highest concentrations there (and southern Idaho and Nevada), but not the majority. The LDS church has had huge growth internationally over the past two decades. Looking at Wikipedia (and its associated sources directly from the LDS church organizations), there are about 2M Mormons in Utah, and about 15M worldwide.

2. Bizarre? Oh, hells yeah. No dispute there. Of course, as you note, Christianity as a whole is rather bizarre from the start.

3. There is no prohibition on Coca Cola. There is as you mentioned a prohibition on "hot drinks", with tea and coffee specifically mentioned. It is somewhat bizarre, and so people being people have tried to make sense of it, claiming that maybe the reason for this prohibition in the first place is because of some chemicals common to tea and coffee, namely caffeine. That is why some LDS folks (but this is NOT at all the official position, even though since this mythology tends to center in the Utah valley area and the leadership of the church tends to be heavily ensconced in that area this belief does periodically appear in "homily" style talks from leadership figures) treat the prohibition as against caffeine instead of coffee and tea, and so allow non-caffeinated herbal teas and prohibit caffeinated colas (and of course then the Utah region has a whole soloed economy around non-caffeinated Coca Cola and Dr Pepper). However, if you are seeking your "temple recommend" as all good LDS members must do, drinking fully-caffeinated Coca Cola will not be grounds for you not being granted access, unless that is a part of a more general disregard for Church authority (however, a single sip of alcohol or coffee even decaf is clear grounds for losing one's temple recommend for a time until such habits can be proven to have been conquered).

4. SLC is a nice place, completely agreed. I would never ever want to live there, but it is a really nice place filled with genuinely nice people. But the hold the Church holds on local politics and daily life is just three notches beyond creepy. Wouldn't ever dream of spending more than a few days there at a time.

 

[nbs2]

Just checked the archives and I realized that the interview that I heard years ago about the temple ceremony and freemasonry was his. As far a secret creremonies go, that was a great interview for insight into what the point of the temple is. I actually joined a lodge and became a master Mason, which I ended up drifting away from as time ended up in too short supply to make membership worthwhile. While I feel bad about drifting away, it gave me a lot more insight.

 

[adipose]

nbs2[/url]":1b66i579]

adipose[/url]":1b66i579]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1b66i579]

oblib__[/url]":1b66i579]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1b66i579]
I've seen zero evidence that he was a "member of the priesthood" or any other type of clergyman in the LDS. Just that he was a member of the church.

All male members of the church in good standing are ordained to the priesthood at age 12 unless there's some good reason not to. It's safe to assume he was ordained to the priesthood.

So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that. As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

You are correct. Also, with the kind of doubts he was expressing, he never would have been made a Gospel Doctrine teacher, let alone a Bishop.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but my understanding was that you have a desperate interview to receive the priesthood. While the normal course of events is that a young man of 12 will be ordained a deacon, it isnt a priesthood by default scenario.

Not sure what was meant to be in place of "desperate." But everyone, literally everyone who attended church at age 12 was given the priesthood when I was a teen. Even some pretty questionable kids by Church standards. I don't know what they said in their interviews but it was pretty much an automatic pass as far as I could tell.

Bottom line: if your parents were members and you were a boy who came to Church, you "held the priesthood" by age 12. In practice this meant you passed the sacrament around on Sundays and were a normal kid otherwise.

 

[Jet Tredmont]

ArchAngel570[/url]":2l0kcje1]

Bruja Malvada[/url]":2l0kcje1] Mormons are supposed to be unquestionably obedient to the church

I would have to disagree with this part. Mormon leaders have frequently said to be "prayerfully obedient". Meaning, take the time and think it out and decide on your own. Questions and doubts are actually expected. The Mormon faith was founded on questions and doubts.

Hmm. Well, you are completely free to disagree with any teachings of the Church. But, to remain a member in good standing you stand amongst your local stake twice a year and affirm that you believe all those teachings are the divine word of God himself relayed directly through a living prophet.

This is not what most people consider freedom to disagree. If you disagree with the Church, by definition, you are not a truly devout member of the Church, period.

This is why, as we see here, someone promoting that the Church is wrong to forbid women from holding any level of authority in the priesthood absolutely by definition is not in comport with the teachings of the Church and is openly flouting Divine Revelation etc etc. The LDS Church has little to no room for dissenting voices.

Which is to say: if you find yourself questioning the LDS faith, social implications (which I believe is what keeps most members in line) aside, you are better off just leaving that organization. It does not condone debate or disagreement over anything that has been spoken by the Prophet or his quorum. You will not change it.

 

[adipose]

John Dehlin: So you can have doubts, you just can’t speak publicly about them. Is that right?

David Jenkins: In those forms that you have got there [references papers], yeah.

John Dehlin: So you agree?

Bryan King: I think again, that’s a slippery slope because you will take me for my word and that’s not necessarily what I mean.

John Dehlin: So what do you mean?

Bryan King: I mean that there are several people who struggle with uncertainty and other people don’t know. I worry that if they come to you and come to your website… that why they feel akin in your spirit about doubting—I worry that they become comfortable with the things that you share and then… in another podcast you move to another extreme and allow them to question their testimony about the prophet Joseph Smith. So I think that there is a part of this that brings them in closer, they feel comfortable… then at the same time you share something that you believe. And I disagr—and I don’t like that. I don’t feel comfortable with that.

John Dehlin: Okay, but you’ve expressed that you guys don’t like the public expression of doubt. Last updated: February 10, 2015, 10:58am

Bryan King: No. It’s okay—well… not true. Everybody has doubts.

John Dehlin: I’m talking about the public expression of doubt.

Bryan King: You can publicly express that you have a doubt.

John Dehlin: You can?

Bryan King: You can.

John Dehlin: Okay.

Bryan King: The problem that comes that I have is when people come to you, or align themselves with you—and then they become more comfortable in their doubts because you have doubts.

John Dehlin: Which I have no control over.

Bryan King: Well, you do in a sense that you express them publicly.

John Dehlin: So it is about expressing doubts publicly.

Bryan King: This is a circular argument.

Another interesting exchange from his interview with the Stake President (and Bishop?). Basically is told you cannot publicly express doubts. Or you can, but only if they don't cause others to doubt.

 

[Jet Tredmont]

MoodyFan[/url]":23k0somt]Like someone else upthread, I wonder why Ars decided to post this story, except as a rather transparent excuse to invite mocking the LDS church.

Now, what would be a good thread? Why is Utah becoming a massive tech industry hub? Many companies fleeing Silicon Valley and California are setting up shop in Utah. Remember, Google Fiber chose Provo, UT for it's third place. Admittedly, they acquired the preexisting fiber network... but Provo actually HAD a preexisting fiber network for Google to acquire.

I for one would like to see Ars take on a story of why Utah is rapidly becoming a tech haven; not just thinly veiled "Derp Derp look at crazy Mormons!" stories.

Not to get too pop-psych on you, but I think you are letting the widely-held LDS persecution complex cloud your perception here.

I'd love to see the article you describe, but I don't think it would be as Chamber of Commerce-glowing as you describe it. After the collapse of Novell in the 90's, the Utah tech scene saw a major decade-long slump, and is still just recovering from that. You can call that "growth", but it is really significantly a resumption of latent capacity. But, I'd love to be proven wrong there (still would never move there, but more tech-friendly little oases the better).

 

[Jet Tredmont]

Merovingian[/url]":7f1qe6rp]

Bruja Malvada[/url]":7f1qe6rp]Mormons are supposed to be unquestionably obedient to the church and give 10% of their income to the church, and all that.

Actually most people in the Mormon church don't pay tithing, and there's absolutely no requirement that they be unquestioningly obedient to anything. In fact, it's entirely possible to be a Mormon and not really believe that Joseph was called by God. It just doesn't make much sense, and even less sense if such people try to steer people away from the church.

Actually, a non-tithing Mormon is not considered a "true" Mormon amongst members of the Church. True members hold a temple recommend, and thus can take part in the many many essential sacraments that can only take place in said temple, including marriage. To hold a temple recommend, one must (1) pay a full tithe, which is 10% of all "increase", (2) obey all tenets of the Word of Wisdom, which is the pact made by early Church members to not use things like tea, coffee, alcohol, to eat meat sparingly, etc, in part to live "healthier" and in part just because that is what they promised to do to show their faith, (3) sustain (i.e., pledge that you have received personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to this end, and never teach anything counter to this) the leadership of the Church, past and present, from the Prophet and his Apostles all the way down to the local Priesthood leadership, from Joseph Smith all the way to Thomas S Monson, (4) and a few other smaller things which have a little more "wiggle room".

If you fail in any of those "tests" you are not a member in good standing. You can call yourself a Mormon, and you can attend the normal ward building activities, but you will not achieve the "eternal riches" the Church preaches about, and certainly will not be considered an equal to those who do follow all of the above.

 

[adipose]

Jet Tredmont[/url]":3r49khnm]

Merovingian[/url]":3r49khnm]

Bruja Malvada[/url]":3r49khnm]Mormons are supposed to be unquestionably obedient to the church and give 10% of their income to the church, and all that.

Actually most people in the Mormon church don't pay tithing, and there's absolutely no requirement that they be unquestioningly obedient to anything. In fact, it's entirely possible to be a Mormon and not really believe that Joseph was called by God. It just doesn't make much sense, and even less sense if such people try to steer people away from the church.

Actually, a non-tithing Mormon is not considered a "true" Mormon amongst members of the Church. True members hold a temple recommend, and thus can take part in the many many essential sacraments that can only take place in said temple, including marriage. To hold a temple recommend, one must (1) pay a full tithe, which is 10% of all "increase", (2) obey all tenets of the Word of Wisdom, which is the pact made by early Church members to not use things like tea, coffee, alcohol, to eat meat sparingly, etc, in part to live "healthier" and in part just because that is what they promised to do to show their faith, (3) sustain (i.e., pledge that you have received personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to this end, and never teach anything counter to this) the leadership of the Church, past and present, from the Prophet and his Apostles all the way down to the local Priesthood leadership, from Joseph Smith all the way to Thomas S Monson, (4) and a few other smaller things which have a little more "wiggle room".

If you fail in any of those "tests" you are not a member in good standing. You can call yourself a Mormon, and you can attend the normal ward building activities, but you will not achieve the "eternal riches" the Church preaches about, and certainly will not be considered an equal to those who do follow all of the above.

I don't know about that. Many Mormons are not "temple worthy" as they call it, but are still considered Mormons by everyone. The unworthiness could be due to tithing or many other things. Tithing is usually the biggest because its pretty obvious when you aren't giving the Church money, but you could lie about just about anything else. Mormons would call a non-temple-worthy member a Mormon, and they would call a "less active" member (someone who rarely comes to Church or never does) a Mormon.

It is true that these people are not considered to be getting the full salvation treatment if they don't repent. But they are still Mormons, from the Church's perspective. I personally have been removed from the rolls of the Church and many still consider me a Mormon, but I don't think the leadership would agree there.

 

[DancesWithBikers]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":m4ifp0vu]
So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that.

Close, but not quite. It's generally expected that every Mormon man will be ordained to the priesthood, beginning at age 12. But belief and worthiness are expected to be part of that, it's not (or at least should not be) "automatic". The duties and responsibilities for a 12 year old are different than those of an adult. The ordination to each individual office in the priesthood (Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, High Priest, Bishop, etc.) is considered a sacred ordinance.

The church has a lay clergy, but one is specifically called and "set apart" (another sacred ordinance) to preside over a congregation or priesthood quorum.

As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

Correct. This will vary from country to country, based on local laws, but in the USA only a currently serving Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, or Apostle has the authority to perform a wedding. And a Bishop only has authority to perform a wedding involving at least one of his local congregation, unless permission is obtained from the office of the First Presidency (though in my own experience, that permission was always granted).

I'm no official spokesman for the church, but I did serve as a bishop.

 

[adipose]

I just finished reading the PDF. It is very sad, really. You can tell he really doesn't want to relinquish his membership in his life long religion, even though he has some doubts about various doctrines and historical points.

I sympathize with the Church, because they don't want to say, "Yeah, he's a member in spite of all the harm he does." But I sympathize with him because he's trying to honestly confront his doubts, albeit publicly, but he still wants to be a Mormon, because it's part of his identity.

I'm glad I was able to let go of that part of my identity and make a clean break (except for my family and friends ).

 

[adipose]

DancesWithBikers[/url]":3t5ylgma]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3t5ylgma]
So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that.

Close, but not quite. It's generally expected that every Mormon man will be ordained to the priesthood, beginning at age 12. But belief and worthiness are expected to be part of that, it's not (or at least should not be) "automatic". The duties and responsibilities for a 12 year old are different than those of an adult. The ordination to each individual office in the priesthood (Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, High Priest, Bishop, etc.) is considered a sacred ordinance.

The church has a lay clergy, but one is specifically called and "set apart" (another sacred ordinance) to preside over a congregation or priesthood quorum.

As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

Correct. This will vary from country to country, based on local laws, but in the USA only a currently serving Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, or Apostle has the authority to perform a wedding. And a Bishop only has authority to perform a wedding involving at least one of his local congregation, unless permission is obtained from the office of the First Presidency (though in my own experience, that permission was always granted).

I'm no official spokesman for the church, but I did serve as a bishop.

I agree with this post. Although I do feel it was pretty automatic, it officially does require a "worthiness" test.

 

[nbs2]

adipose[/url]":1s7g9uxf]

nbs2[/url]":1s7g9uxf]

adipose[/url]":1s7g9uxf]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1s7g9uxf]

oblib__[/url]":1s7g9uxf]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1s7g9uxf]
I've seen zero evidence that he was a "member of the priesthood" or any other type of clergyman in the LDS. Just that he was a member of the church.

All male members of the church in good standing are ordained to the priesthood at age 12 unless there's some good reason not to. It's safe to assume he was ordained to the priesthood.

So basically, any Mormon man has to be a member of the priesthood by default, and only excused by exceptional circumstances? Then it's basically just a condition of his membership that he was "ordained to the priesthood" in the LDS and doesn't mean the same thing as being an ordained minister, or a presbyter, or a vicar, or anything like that. As far as I understand it not just any Mormon man can perform a legitimate wedding ceremony, so his being "ordained to the preisthood" in LDS wouldn't have given him the legitimacy his friend wanted. He'd need to be at least a bishop to do so.

You are correct. Also, with the kind of doubts he was expressing, he never would have been made a Gospel Doctrine teacher, let alone a Bishop.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but my understanding was that you have a desperate interview to receive the priesthood. While the normal course of events is that a young man of 12 will be ordained a deacon, it isnt a priesthood by default scenario.

Not sure what was meant to be in place of "desperate." But everyone, literally everyone who attended church at age 12 was given the priesthood when I was a teen. Even some pretty questionable kids by Church standards. I don't know what they said in their interviews but it was pretty much an automatic pass as far as I could tell.

Bottom line: if your parents were members and you were a boy who came to Church, you "held the priesthood" by age 12. In practice this meant you passed the sacrament around on Sundays and were a normal kid otherwise.

Should have been "separate". I want to blame autocorrect, but I can only blame myself for not proofreading.

I think of a couple of kids who had to hold off for a little while. They still attended with their cohort, but they weren't progressing (for lack of a better term). All the more so when they turned 18.

Anyway, I just read the interview transcript, and a few thoughts. I wouldn't have guess that the stake president was a doctor, but as soon as I realized he was, my guess was surgeon. If I were assigning a winner in the conversation, I would have said it was John. I could see where King was trying to go, and I could see him failing to get there. One of the downsides to a lay clergy is that your leadership may not always be the best leaders. In this case, you had a guy who had a surgeons personality trying to be a counselor. It really didn't go well.

As an aside, I'm surprised that all to Ars editors were aware of the story. I like to think of myself as well-versed in the goings on in the news, and I hadn't heard a thing. Nobody I know mentioned anything about it to me either (also a surprise).

 

[Seraphiel]

After the meddling that organization did in California to suppress the rights of Americans, they can just go fuck themselves with a chainsaw. It really needs its tax exemption revoked for flagrant political campaigning.

I don't particularly care about their argument over what color unicorns really are or whatever farcical made-up nonsense they're spouting this week. But the moment they try to force their imaginary bullshit onto the everyone else they've gone too far.

Salt Lake City does have a lovely view of the mountains, though.

 

[adipose]

Seraphiel[/url]":4llgp1xh]After the meddling that organization did in California to suppress the rights of Americans, they can just go fuck themselves with a chainsaw. It really needs its tax exemption revoked for flagrant political campaigning.

I don't particularly care about their argument over what color unicorns really are or whatever farcical made-up nonsense they're spouting this week. But the moment they try to force their imaginary bullshit onto the everyone else they've gone too far.

Salt Lake City does have a lovely view of the mountains, though.

I think history will show that to be a big miscalculation on the Church's part. In the long run, they didn't accomplish anything other than to alienate themselves from the gay community. I wish they would remember their own history a bit better and live and let live.

They also get to hear hateful speech like you used above. While I understand that the Church's policy could be considered hateful or bigoted, and I certainly don't agree with it, please be careful not to be guilty of the same. Mormons are just people and they don't necessarily all agree with legally restricting the rights of others.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

adipose[/url]":3mc42brb]They also get to hear hateful speech like you used above. While I understand that the Church's policy could be considered hateful or bigoted, and I certainly don't agree with it, please be careful not to be guilty of the same. Mormons are just people and they don't necessarily all agree with legally restricting the rights of others.

However, as a group they're overwhelmingly against it if this poll from Utah is in any way illustrative:

Active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remain overwhelming opposed to same-sex marriage. The survey showed that 89 percent of those who identified themselves as active Mormons oppose gay marriage. That number fell to 76 percent when they were combined with people who considered themselves somewhat active or not active Mormons. Seventeen percent of all Mormon respondents support same-sex marriage.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all
So, at least in Utah, the LDS are even more anti-SSM than most white Evangelicals, Catholics, or Jews across the nation.

Nearly three-quarters of religiously unaffiliated Americans (73 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, as do majorities of Jewish Americans (83 percent), white mainline Protestants (62 percent), white Catholics (58 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (56 percent), according to a poll whose results were released Wednesday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C. However, 59% of black Protestants and 69% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religi ... e-equality

As for "hateful speech," I think it's rather warranted when the LDS church literally acted illegally to take civil rights away from people in an entire state.

 

[adipose]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2hp6qg8v]

adipose[/url]":2hp6qg8v]They also get to hear hateful speech like you used above. While I understand that the Church's policy could be considered hateful or bigoted, and I certainly don't agree with it, please be careful not to be guilty of the same. Mormons are just people and they don't necessarily all agree with legally restricting the rights of others.

However, as a group they're overwhelmingly against it if this poll from Utah is in any way illustrative:

Active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remain overwhelming opposed to same-sex marriage. The survey showed that 89 percent of those who identified themselves as active Mormons oppose gay marriage. That number fell to 76 percent when they were combined with people who considered themselves somewhat active or not active Mormons. Seventeen percent of all Mormon respondents support same-sex marriage.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all
So, at least in Utah, the LDS are even more anti-SSM than most white Evangelicals, Catholics, or Jews across the nation.

Nearly three-quarters of religiously unaffiliated Americans (73 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, as do majorities of Jewish Americans (83 percent), white mainline Protestants (62 percent), white Catholics (58 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (56 percent), according to a poll whose results were released Wednesday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C. However, 59% of black Protestants and 69% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religi ... e-equality

As for "hateful speech," I think it's rather warranted when the LDS church literally acted illegally to take civil rights away from people in an entire state.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.

I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

 

[Porter Doran]

Baron von Robber[/url]":tt24rcrt]Wow, it's like an Anonymous Mormon invasion of Ars comments.

It's what they're taught to do.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

adipose[/url]":1ei8h5st]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1ei8h5st]

adipose[/url]":1ei8h5st]They also get to hear hateful speech like you used above. While I understand that the Church's policy could be considered hateful or bigoted, and I certainly don't agree with it, please be careful not to be guilty of the same. Mormons are just people and they don't necessarily all agree with legally restricting the rights of others.

However, as a group they're overwhelmingly against it if this poll from Utah is in any way illustrative:

Active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remain overwhelming opposed to same-sex marriage. The survey showed that 89 percent of those who identified themselves as active Mormons oppose gay marriage. That number fell to 76 percent when they were combined with people who considered themselves somewhat active or not active Mormons. Seventeen percent of all Mormon respondents support same-sex marriage.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all
So, at least in Utah, the LDS are even more anti-SSM than most white Evangelicals, Catholics, or Jews across the nation.

Nearly three-quarters of religiously unaffiliated Americans (73 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, as do majorities of Jewish Americans (83 percent), white mainline Protestants (62 percent), white Catholics (58 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (56 percent), according to a poll whose results were released Wednesday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C. However, 59% of black Protestants and 69% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religi ... e-equality

As for "hateful speech," I think it's rather warranted when the LDS church literally acted illegally to take civil rights away from people in an entire state.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.

I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

If faith is considered virtuous, then there can be no reasoned response by a moderate to a zealot.

 

[Fixpir]

Thoughtful[/url]":14r6n7ly]

Fixpir[/url]":14r6n7ly]Atheism was part of the official doctrine of nazism and communism. That is a fact. And it was widely publicized.

I'd be grateful for any citations you can provide especially regarding National Socialism.

National Socialism frontly opposed local religion in Germany.They vaguely played around with the german early religions without much energy. As far as I know, there has never been a temple to Odin of whatever god opened in Germany in 1933-1945.

As written below, you seem to be flirting with bad faith (no pun intended). Your reasoning seems to be "religion is the source of all evil, there is some vague religious idea in national socialism, therefore here is the root of their evilness, which confirms the hypothesis that religion is the source of all evil".

Fixpir[/url]":14r6n7ly]That does not mean that any atheist is as bad as Hitler or Pol Pot. Just that it is not sufficient to be an atheist to be a good man following my personal set of beliefs. And probably following yours too, and many readers of this forum. Seriously, is this questionable ?

I'm having trouble parsing your meaning. It's not sufficient to be an atheist to be a good man following your personal set of beliefs... I think you're saying that, based on your beliefs, atheists are by definition excluded from being good men?

I am trying to express that religion is not the source of all evil, and that it is not a sufficient condition to be an atheist to be exempt of all evil. In other words, some atheist are evildoers.
Which does not seem to me to be a polemic statement.

Fixpir[/url]":14r6n7ly]

There's a famous line from a some book about not suffering a witch to live...

Be clear please, I visibly do not have your culture.

Exodus 22:18

OK. I've learned something today.
So, OK, what is the point ? Is it that the Bible is intrinsically bad because of this phrase out of approx 80 000 ? Maybe, you may think so. I will not try to defend every phrase of the Bible. Actually, there are many other offensive phrases in the Bible. And I am sure there are many offensive phrases in the sacred books of other religions, too.

Fixpir[/url]":14r6n7ly]

I can't find the writings of Marx or Engles that call for the execution of intellectuals

That is what I wrote.

(or in the writings of any prominent atheist).

That seems far fetched. Or maybe the important term here is "prominent" ? Is Mao Zedong prominent enough ? Seriously, you are on bad ground here.

He's a prominent figure, yes, but he's not prominent as an atheist thinker or writer.

Sorry, your turn to be accused of not being honest with yourself. Honestly, M Mao Zedong, whose little red book was used as a reference of all good of evil by litterally billion of people is not a great atheist thinker ?

Honestly, you seem to be reasoning in the following way :
rule 1 : atheism have Right on their side
rule 2 : if not, rule 1 applies.

Fixpir[/url]":14r6n7ly]

That's fine. Do your best to be intellectually honest with yourself.

That is precisely what I am trying to do.

Alright.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]

Thoughtful[/url]":3tdv0vmr]

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]Atheism was part of the official doctrine of nazism and communism. That is a fact. And it was widely publicized.

I'd be grateful for any citations you can provide especially regarding National Socialism.

National Socialism frontly opposed local religion in Germany.They vaguely played around with the german early religions without much energy. As far as I know, there has never been a temple to Odin of whatever god opened in Germany in 1933-1945.

It's simple. You claimed National Socialism was foundationally atheist. I want a citation; further bare assertions on your part will be summarily dismissed. In case there's a language barrier between us, by "citation" I mean a reference I can check and that the average, educated reader would find reasonably reliable.

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]As written below, you seem to be flirting with bad faith (no pun intended). Your reasoning seems to be "religion is the source of all evil, there is some vague religious idea in national socialism, therefore here is the root of their evilness, which confirms the hypothesis that religion is the source of all evil".

I've reasoned nothing of the sort. You brought National Socialism into the conversation in an attempt to balance the ledger sheet regarding atrocities between (what you assert are) the two greatest atheistic ideologies and religious ideologies. I'd like you to provide evidence, that's all.

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]I am trying to express that religion is not the source of all evil, and that it is not a sufficient condition to be an atheist to be exempt of all evil. In other words, some atheist are evildoers.
Which does not seem to me to be a polemic statement.

Thank you for the clarification. I completely agree. Of course, some who claim to be doing the will of their deity are 'evildoers,' right? Sadly, there's no way to check and see who's correct in their religious assertions. The question for me is one of justification. Logically, it's quite difficult to claim that because I don't share your belief in Yahweh, I must engage in behavior X, Y, or Z. Whereas belief in Yahweh, if it doesn't mandate, it at minimum strongly recommends, certain behaviors. See the difference?

I'm afraid you're continuing to confuse atheism with anti-theism.

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]OK. I've learned something today.
So, OK, what is the point ? Is it that the Bible is intrinsically bad because of this phrase out of approx 80 000 ? Maybe, you may think so. I will not try to defend every phrase of the Bible. Actually, there are many other offensive phrases in the Bible. And I am sure there are many offensive phrases in the sacred books of other religions, too.

Look. YOU asserted that there was no religious textual basis for the killing of witches. Remember? So the point is to correct your factual error.

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]Sorry, your turn to be accused of not being honest with yourself. Honestly, M Mao Zedong, whose little red book was used as a reference of all good of evil by litterally billion of people is not a great atheist thinker ?

I'll take the idea under advisement. Can you provide me with links to the portion(s) of his little red book that call for the murder of intellectuals? Or the specific sections that condemn religion? It is, after all, your assertion.

Others still reading the thread... Should I classify Mao as an 'atheism authority'?

Fixpir[/url]":3tdv0vmr]Honestly, you seem to be reasoning in the following way :
rule 1 : atheism have Right on their side
rule 2 : if not, rule 1 applies.

Not 'right'. But not 'wrong' since no extraordinary claim regarding any deity ever has withstood honest scrutiny.

 

[matthewslyman]

ClarkGoble[/url]":11lapule]

Toxic0n.[/url]":11lapule]So how are they going to enforce this ban? Post his picture at every Mormon church with a "$2000 reward" caption?

The ban just relates to receiving Church callings and officiating in Church ordinances. They also ask you don't take the sacrament (bread and water) but obviously that's much harder to enforce. Excommunicated people are welcomed into meetings. Generally Mormons see excommunication not as a form of shunning but as a way to take away the duties and responsibilities of covenants (promises) people have made with God so they aren't accountable for those promises in the same way. However I think we all are sad when someone leaves the church and want people to return. (While hardly the majority, a surprising number of people do return including several of the people excommunicated for apostasy in the 90's that Dehlin mentioned) Excommunicated people, unless they request otherwise, still have home teachers and the Church still fellowship with them except in exceptional circumstances. So it's erroneous to call this shunning the way some faiths shun.

Not saying everyone has to agree with this. But as others noted teaching a Church is wrong and that people should leave does seem like a fair reason to break formal ties.

For the avoidance of confusion (due to the apparent contradiction); I agree, except that excommunicated persons are unlikely to receive the usual kind of home-teaching (depending on circumstances): they are more likely to receive more personalized visits from a more experienced church leader who can help them through their specific problems; unless they request to sever all contact, or, unless the church leaders feel there is a lack of sincere intent on the part of the excommunicated person, and that their efforts would be better spent elsewhere (which would/should be discussed with the person being excommunicated). Technically speaking, excommunicated persons are not considered church members any more; though local church leaders may maintain contact if this is considered appropriate (they are encouraged to do so wherever possible & permitted). If you want to call that "home teaching" (because it's similar to home teaching), then I have no problem with that. Just wanted to clarify this apparent contradiction…

brokeassben[/url]":11lapule]

matthewslyman[/url]":11lapule]

jnemesh[/url]":11lapule]"I looked into it and tithing actually is required by doctrine, but it does not appear to be strictly enforced."

Depends on what you mean by "strictly enforced". If you don't pay your tithing (and they DO keep track), your Bishop will revoke your Temple recommendation, and you won't be able to participate in any services held there (including becoming "sealed" in the Temple...part of their marriage rituals), or even be able to step foot in a Mormon Temple.

Make no mistake, if you step out of line in ANY way, they WILL punish you for it...and that includes influencing your friends and family to ostracize you until you comply.

I'm surprised that people keep suggesting this. To me, as a person who has sat in the clerk's seat during LDS disciplinary proceedings (once resulting in excommunication); I can tell you that the church does nothing of the sort: excommunicated persons are not ostracized, and the church does not encourage its members to ostracize excommunicated persons. Quite the opposite, in fact!

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

Church doctrine on forgiveness and discipline? Here.

Here's more from the church's scriptural guide to excommunication.

Is excommunication a punishment? Yes. The punishment is, they won't be able to take the sacrament ("eucharist" or "Lord's supper" as some call it). They won't receive home teaching visits, unless a member of their family is home taught and they sit there at the same time. They won't be permitted to enter the Holy Temple or participate in ordinances there. They won't be allowed to pray in public church meetings, or give sermons ("talks"). They won't be allowed to give 10% of their gross income to the church as tithing. They probably won't receive any official invitations to church events, but their friends may still invite them. That sort of thing.

Here's some more official doctrine (scripture) on the subject of how we should treat those who are excommunicated: we are instructed to continue ministering compassionately to apostates/ transgressors, at least when they choose visit our church meetings. Faithful members of the church believe that this commandment was actually given by Jesus Christ himself, during his post-resurrection visits to the Americas.

I've been friendly with apostates often enough, without espousing their apostate views. In cases of extreme apostasy where I've been in contact with those who were trying to persuade others into apostasy, I've been unsurprised by suggestions from local church leaders that they were concerned that I should be careful (only in one case, have I seen an instance where that suggestion was made overzealously and with excessive and unhelpful concern, by one church leader who it later transpired had some personal issues — but that's human nature for you; not church doctrine, instruction or culture).

Has anyone actually ostracized Dehlin? He doesn't seem to be talking about such details. Instead, he just seems to be gainsaying about his excommunication, continuing to try to get notoriety for his personal blog etc.

BTW, your suggestion on tithing is incorrect: the church doesn't try to track down members who aren't paying, as the IRS / HMRC would try to track down tax-avoiders. Instead, there is an invitation to make a self-declaration for your family: are you full tithe-payers, part-payers or non-payers of tithing? It all comes down to honesty: you declare it for yourself. Just recently I had my "tithing settlement interview": I explained to my bishop that I was a full tithe-payer (which he believed), and by way of voluntary further explanation, I chose to inform him that the reason why my donation report showed nothing (zero, zilch) for 2014, was because I was restructuring my financial database and couldn't produce the reports for a while: the money is in the bank, waiting for me to run a proper back-dated SQL query detailing the amount I should pay (my SQL database restructuring work was somewhat delayed by a busy schedule of duties at church; which is also why you didn't see me commenting much on Ars Technica during 2014). My bishop was satisfied even before I chose to give him that explanation, and didn't ask any further questions. (They do sometimes chat generally and ask whether there's anything they can do to help our family, and things of that sort; but they don't chase people for payment! There's no bag passed around the chapel during meetings, it's all done very privately and confidentially indeed; and I actually appreciate the opportunity to verify that my donations have been properly logged!) So no questions, and I continue to hold a church calling as a stake officer.

I've been on the other side of those tithing meetings and my bishop didn't think I'd paid enough. If I didn't pay my full tithe, he wasn't going to allow me to do baptisms for the dead. I was 12 and working summers on a farm, getting paid $3/hr and paying for my own school clothes. My family was very, very poor.

Anyhow, having left the church not long after doing baptisms for the dead (it's as creepy as it sounds), I can attest to the fact that exes are very much ostracized. When it was clear that I wasn't coming back to the church, I know longer had friends and was never invited to any social gatherings. It's a real thing.

I'm from a fairly poor background too, so I do know what that's like. (Incidentally, I made significantly less money than you did, as a boy! For many years, my step-dad had to cycle 20 miles 2× per day on day-night 14-hour shifts working with heavy machinery with his hands, to lift us out of our poverty: and he wasn't the only person or church member who helped us.) I know what it feels like when others are insensitive or even cruel about that sort of thing (I was teased so much about second-hand clothes at school, that such insults became like water off a duck's back to me: I learned to ignore them). Some of the older youth at church, as I was growing up from 12 to 18, bullied, threatened and made fun of me and my family; but guess what? Some of those people matured, and others gradually removed themselves from the church (as the church's teachings were inconsistent with their lifestyles); leaving us quite happy in our church membership.

What did that bishop do: raise his eyebrows and ask whether that was the full amount? Or was there something more than that? Did he ask for clarification as to how you calculated the amount due, to save you from retrospectively discovering an error? Did he do that, insensitively? Or did he actually accuse you of lying?

Sure, there will be a few misguided, paranoid parents who tell their children not to mix with ex-Mormons. That's a real thing, and sometimes even discussed in general conference (church leaders encourage Mormon parents to let their children mix freely with those outside our faith).
But generally speaking, the typical scenario of diminished social contact happens simply because church members just get other priorities. Life is short, and there are many good things to do in life: why waste time trying to be friends with someone who isn't making a reciprocal effort, or, with someone who doesn't have anything much in common with you any more? There are so many people for whom the hand of friendship would make much more of a difference! As C.S.Lewis suggests in his book, "The Four Loves"; friendship has to be about something: there has to be a common interest. Where there is no common interest, there is no natural motive for friendship!

So I've seen people remove themselves from the natural (as well as formal) fellowship of the church, in many such cases. Sometimes, people who are excommunicated for transgression, or who withdraw from the church for whatever reason (taking offence or whatever); will say to their church member friends with the best of intentions:
"We'll stay in touch…" — And then they don't. I've been told this by several such people, who never contacted me again at all (though in some cases, I tried to contact them and even gave them free computer parts or things of that sort which I thought they could benefit from!) Perhaps they somehow think it's my duty to continue trying to contact them, even if they make no effort to contact me?

Even most fully active, faithful church members rarely get a personal invitation to a social event. More often, they will hear an announcement when they attend church. Ideally, home-teachers should be warm and friendly enough to extend personal invitations and offer help where appropriate; but they sometimes forget, or presume the church member will have heard/ listened to the announcements, or feel shy about offering help that might turn out to be a bigger commitment than they wanted to let themselves in for.

To put it starkly (almost cruelly perhaps): there's no sense in removing yourself to the North Pole in winter; before complaining that the Sun doesn't shine on you any more. If, on the other hand, you have simply been unfortunate enough to be blanketed in storm-clouds for years; then I'm interested to know about that.

So tell me… Have you made any actual efforts to continue friendly contact with church members? Have you continued to treat church members like regular human beings, showing that you trust them etc., and want contact with them? Have you made sure that church members continue to have access to your current contact details? Have your actual, warm-hearted efforts to befriend church members been rebuffed?
Or did you just expect church members to go out of their way to show you how much they were missing you at church, and carry on inviting you to come back, without any effort on your part to reciprocate, or to continue showing church members how much you appreciate them as worthwhile human beings? Are you expecting the other church members to do all the emotional heavy lifting?

Did you invite half the ward to your home for dinner, one at a time, and chat with them about things they found interesting; as we did after moving into a somewhat-less-than-friendly congregation? (The strategy didn't work, but we eventually did find some wonderful friends in the church, whom we wouldn't have found the likes of outside the church: we have also been making friends with a lot of good people who aren't members of our church) Or, do you present yourself as a ball of frustration or a truck-load of trouble, every time you come into contact with church members (whose mere membership in the church evinces embarrassing memories by mere association?)

 

[matthewslyman]

Thoughtful[/url]":1rjfcb8n]

matthewslyman[/url]":1rjfcb8n]
[SNIP]
But there is meaning, teaching, and peace to be found in these ordinances; for those who are adequately prepared.

It's the "adequately prepared" part that really troubles me. It seems like you have to start with impressionable children to be really effective....

Perhaps you're imagining something like I would imagine, if someone asked me to "prepare" myself for riding a rather large roller-coaster (I'm personally not a big fan of white knuckle rides.) Or perhaps you're imagining something so bizarre that it would "freak out" any "normal" person. (I've known enough people of various ages, who received temple ordinances after joining the church the previous year; to know this isn't the case: my wife is a convert in adulthood, and neither of us has ever lived in any place where church membership constitutes any more than 1/250 of the general population.)

Just as my "Temple Preparation"-course Sunday School teacher taught me; the covenants and teachings of the Holy Temple are merely continuous, natural extensions/ expansions/ more advanced versions of corresponding covenants and teachings which faithful church members make and keep prior to receiving temple ordinances. Nothing taught or done in the temple represents a sudden change of direction from everything that comes before it!

Nothing shocking or embarrassing happens in the Holy Temple. Rather, my comment on preparation means simply this: (again, not my words): you don't teach/learn differential calculus before basic arithmetic. (Naturally, this does not mean that any person who attends the temple has a greater understanding of the gospel than any person who does not: it shouldn't be taken as a badge of honour, but temple worship/ education does enhance Christian discipleship.)

 

[Ninja Panda]

SixnaHalfFeet[/url]":fb4jje45]

TheFu[/url]":fb4jje45]

Death_wish01[/url]":fb4jje45]one reason why I hate religions. the moment you start to question dogma and how the church is run, you can get shunned, ridiculed or banished from the vary faith you grew up with.

i dislike most religions due to all the killing and mental harm they cause around the world over their histories.

Any religion that condones killing humans for any reason is off my list of "approved."
Any religion that is Earth centric is off my list. What happens when we discover intelligent life 100K light years away and the local God has never been heard of there?

Logical fallicy: False Causation.
Please name one war caused by Protestantism. I'll give you a hint, there are none.
If you are a bad guy, you can try to give yourself credence, by claiming your aggression is in the name of religion (take Bin Laden for example), but that doesn't make religion the cause. False Causation.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I don't think it was ever answered. Perhaps not a "war" per se, but much (most?) of the violence in post-Rennaissance Great Britain and Ireland was caused by religious differences, with Cromwell's actions in Ireland being what springs to my mind first.

 

[Fixpir]

Thoughtful[/url]"k2u2ehq]

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]

Thoughtful[/url]"k2u2ehq]

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]Atheism was part of the official doctrine of nazism and communism. That is a fact. And it was widely publicized.

I'd be grateful for any citations you can provide especially regarding National Socialism.

National Socialism frontly opposed local religion in Germany.They vaguely played around with the german early religions without much energy. As far as I know, there has never been a temple to Odin of whatever god opened in Germany in 1933-1945.

It's simple. You claimed National Socialism was foundationally atheist. I want a citation; further bare assertions on your part will be summarily dismissed. In case there's a language barrier between us, by "citation" I mean a reference I can check and that the average, educated reader would find reasonably reliable.

I do not have at the moment.

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]As written below, you seem to be flirting with bad faith (no pun intended). Your reasoning seems to be "religion is the source of all evil, there is some vague religious idea in national socialism, therefore here is the root of their evilness, which confirms the hypothesis that religion is the source of all evil".

I've reasoned nothing of the sort. You brought National Socialism into the conversation in an attempt to balance the ledger sheet regarding atrocities between (what you assert are) the two greatest atheistic ideologies and religious ideologies. I'd like you to provide evidence, that's all.

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]I am trying to express that religion is not the source of all evil, and that it is not a sufficient condition to be an atheist to be exempt of all evil. In other words, some atheist are evildoers.
Which does not seem to me to be a polemic statement.

Thank you for the clarification. I completely agree. Of course, some who claim to be doing the will of their deity are 'evildoers,' right? Sadly, there's no way to check and see who's correct in their religious assertions. The question for me is one of justification. Logically, it's quite difficult to claim that because I don't share your belief in Yahweh, I must engage in behavior X, Y, or Z. Whereas belief in Yahweh, if it doesn't mandate, it at minimum strongly recommends, certain behaviors. See the difference?

I'm afraid you're continuing to confuse atheism with anti-theism.

1)not MY belief. Not really.
2) Yes. Remains to see if, statistically, "strongly recommended behaviors" by religions is better or worse than "no recommandation" or what installs itself as a "general recommandation", social norm, in its absence.
This is discussing the effect of religion on mankind. Whatever the answer, it does not make any religion more or less true. Just more or less socially useful.

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]OK. I've learned something today.
So, OK, what is the point ? Is it that the Bible is intrinsically bad because of this phrase out of approx 80 000 ? Maybe, you may think so. I will not try to defend every phrase of the Bible. Actually, there are many other offensive phrases in the Bible. And I am sure there are many offensive phrases in the sacred books of other religions, too.

Look. YOU asserted that there was no religious textual basis for the killing of witches. Remember? So the point is to correct your factual error.

That's right.
So there is some vague basis in Exodus.

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]Sorry, your turn to be accused of not being honest with yourself. Honestly, M Mao Zedong, whose little red book was used as a reference of all good of evil by litterally billion of people is not a great atheist thinker ?

I'll take the idea under advisement. Can you provide me with links to the portion(s) of his little red book that call for the murder of intellectuals? Or the specific sections that condemn religion? It is, after all, your assertion.

D...d, Where did I put this little red book I bought 40 years ago ?

Others still reading the thread... Should I classify Mao as an 'atheism authority'?

Not an atheism authority, but an authority who happens to be an atheist. And whose thought is influenced by the fact.

Fixpir[/url]"k2u2ehq]Honestly, you seem to be reasoning in the following way :
rule 1 : atheism have Right on their side
rule 2 : if not, rule 1 applies.

Not 'right'. But not 'wrong'

absolutely

since no extraordinary claim regarding any deity ever has withstood honest scrutiny.

Maybe.

 

[oblib__]

Jet Tredmont[/url]":354cywa8]

Merovingian[/url]":354cywa8]

Bruja Malvada[/url]":354cywa8]Mormons are supposed to be unquestionably obedient to the church and give 10% of their income to the church, and all that.

Actually most people in the Mormon church don't pay tithing, and there's absolutely no requirement that they be unquestioningly obedient to anything. In fact, it's entirely possible to be a Mormon and not really believe that Joseph was called by God. It just doesn't make much sense, and even less sense if such people try to steer people away from the church.

Actually, a non-tithing Mormon is not considered a "true" Mormon amongst members of the Church. True members hold a temple recommend, and thus can take part in the many many essential sacraments that can only take place in said temple, including marriage. To hold a temple recommend, one must (1) pay a full tithe, which is 10% of all "increase", (2) obey all tenets of the Word of Wisdom, which is the pact made by early Church members to not use things like tea, coffee, alcohol, to eat meat sparingly, etc, in part to live "healthier" and in part just because that is what they promised to do to show their faith, (3) sustain (i.e., pledge that you have received personal confirmation from the Holy Spirit to this end, and never teach anything counter to this) the leadership of the Church, past and present, from the Prophet and his Apostles all the way down to the local Priesthood leadership, from Joseph Smith all the way to Thomas S Monson, (4) and a few other smaller things which have a little more "wiggle room".

If you fail in any of those "tests" you are not a member in good standing. You can call yourself a Mormon, and you can attend the normal ward building activities, but you will not achieve the "eternal riches" the Church preaches about, and certainly will not be considered an equal to those who do follow all of the above.

Any time you make generalizations about people's interactions with each other, it's pretty safe to say you are wrong.

I can tell you from experience that is entirely normal for people currently excommunicated from the church and people who have not even been baptized members of the church to be accepted as a normal person attending church every week and participating socially. In fact, as someone else mentioned in response to Sam's (the author) question, excommunication is a private matter, only made public by the person excommunicated. If the excommunicatee keeps things quite, most of the congregation won't even know, let alone treat them differently.

So obviously there are people, and even majorities of some congregations, that will behave as you describe (not treat all as equals), same as in any aspect of people's lives (school, home, work, etc). The ideal taught by the church is quite the opposite though.

 

[Seraphiel]

adipose[/url]":3g1raw6b]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3g1raw6b]

adipose[/url]":3g1raw6b]They also get to hear hateful speech like you used above. While I understand that the Church's policy could be considered hateful or bigoted, and I certainly don't agree with it, please be careful not to be guilty of the same. Mormons are just people and they don't necessarily all agree with legally restricting the rights of others.

However, as a group they're overwhelmingly against it if this poll from Utah is in any way illustrative:

Active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remain overwhelming opposed to same-sex marriage. The survey showed that 89 percent of those who identified themselves as active Mormons oppose gay marriage. That number fell to 76 percent when they were combined with people who considered themselves somewhat active or not active Mormons. Seventeen percent of all Mormon respondents support same-sex marriage.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... tml?pg=all
So, at least in Utah, the LDS are even more anti-SSM than most white Evangelicals, Catholics, or Jews across the nation.

Nearly three-quarters of religiously unaffiliated Americans (73 percent) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, as do majorities of Jewish Americans (83 percent), white mainline Protestants (62 percent), white Catholics (58 percent) and Hispanic Catholics (56 percent), according to a poll whose results were released Wednesday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C. However, 59% of black Protestants and 69% of white evangelicals oppose same-sex marriage.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religi ... e-equality

As for "hateful speech," I think it's rather warranted when the LDS church literally acted illegally to take civil rights away from people in an entire state.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.

I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

If you're so concerned about their feelings being hurt when people take umbrage at their church's meddling, they should convince their church to stop interfering in the lives of other people. Or leave it.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

matthewslyman[/url]":2w963bko]

Thoughtful[/url]":2w963bko]

matthewslyman[/url]":2w963bko]
[SNIP]
But there is meaning, teaching, and peace to be found in these ordinances; for those who are adequately prepared.

It's the "adequately prepared" part that really troubles me. It seems like you have to start with impressionable children to be really effective....

Perhaps you're imagining something like I would imagine, if someone asked me to "prepare" myself for riding a rather large roller-coaster (I'm personally not a big fan of white knuckle rides.) Or perhaps you're imagining something so bizarre that it would "freak out" any "normal" person. (I've known enough people of various ages, who received temple ordinances after joining the church the previous year; to know this isn't the case: my wife is a convert in adulthood, and neither of us has ever lived in any place where church membership constitutes any more than 1/250 of the general population.)

Just as my "Temple Preparation"-course Sunday School teacher taught me; the covenants and teachings of the Holy Temple are merely continuous, natural extensions/ expansions/ more advanced versions of corresponding covenants and teachings which faithful church members make and keep prior to receiving temple ordinances. Nothing taught or done in the temple represents a sudden change of direction from everything that comes before it!

Nothing shocking or embarrassing happens in the Holy Temple. Rather, my comment on preparation means simply this: (again, not my words): you don't teach/learn differential calculus before basic arithmetic. (Naturally, this does not mean that any person who attends the temple has a greater understanding of the gospel than any person who does not: it shouldn't be taken as a badge of honour, but temple worship/ education does enhance Christian discipleship.)

I'm afraid you've mistaken a generalized comment about religion for one specifically directed at LDSers. Thanks for the clarification though.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]

Thoughtful[/url]":d4nu36de]

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]

Thoughtful[/url]":d4nu36de]

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]Atheism was part of the official doctrine of nazism and communism. That is a fact. And it was widely publicized.

I'd be grateful for any citations you can provide especially regarding National Socialism.

National Socialism frontly opposed local religion in Germany.They vaguely played around with the german early religions without much energy. As far as I know, there has never been a temple to Odin of whatever god opened in Germany in 1933-1945.

It's simple. You claimed National Socialism was foundationally atheist. I want a citation; further bare assertions on your part will be summarily dismissed. In case there's a language barrier between us, by "citation" I mean a reference I can check and that the average, educated reader would find reasonably reliable.

I do not have at the moment.

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]As written below, you seem to be flirting with bad faith (no pun intended). Your reasoning seems to be "religion is the source of all evil, there is some vague religious idea in national socialism, therefore here is the root of their evilness, which confirms the hypothesis that religion is the source of all evil".

I've reasoned nothing of the sort. You brought National Socialism into the conversation in an attempt to balance the ledger sheet regarding atrocities between (what you assert are) the two greatest atheistic ideologies and religious ideologies. I'd like you to provide evidence, that's all.

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]I am trying to express that religion is not the source of all evil, and that it is not a sufficient condition to be an atheist to be exempt of all evil. In other words, some atheist are evildoers.
Which does not seem to me to be a polemic statement.

Thank you for the clarification. I completely agree. Of course, some who claim to be doing the will of their deity are 'evildoers,' right? Sadly, there's no way to check and see who's correct in their religious assertions. The question for me is one of justification. Logically, it's quite difficult to claim that because I don't share your belief in Yahweh, I must engage in behavior X, Y, or Z. Whereas belief in Yahweh, if it doesn't mandate, it at minimum strongly recommends, certain behaviors. See the difference?

I'm afraid you're continuing to confuse atheism with anti-theism.

1)not MY belief. Not really.
2) Yes. Remains to see if, statistically, "strongly recommended behaviors" by religions is better or worse than "no recommandation" or what installs itself as a "general recommandation", social norm, in its absence.
This is discussing the effect of religion on mankind. Whatever the answer, it does not make any religion more or less true. Just more or less socially useful.

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]OK. I've learned something today.
So, OK, what is the point ? Is it that the Bible is intrinsically bad because of this phrase out of approx 80 000 ? Maybe, you may think so. I will not try to defend every phrase of the Bible. Actually, there are many other offensive phrases in the Bible. And I am sure there are many offensive phrases in the sacred books of other religions, too.

Look. YOU asserted that there was no religious textual basis for the killing of witches. Remember? So the point is to correct your factual error.

That's right.
So there is some vague basis in Exodus.

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]Sorry, your turn to be accused of not being honest with yourself. Honestly, M Mao Zedong, whose little red book was used as a reference of all good of evil by litterally billion of people is not a great atheist thinker ?

I'll take the idea under advisement. Can you provide me with links to the portion(s) of his little red book that call for the murder of intellectuals? Or the specific sections that condemn religion? It is, after all, your assertion.

D...d, Where did I put this little red book I bought 40 years ago ?

Others still reading the thread... Should I classify Mao as an 'atheism authority'?

Not an atheism authority, but an authority who happens to be an atheist. And whose thought is influenced by the fact.

Fixpir[/url]":d4nu36de]Honestly, you seem to be reasoning in the following way :
rule 1 : atheism have Right on their side
rule 2 : if not, rule 1 applies.

Not 'right'. But not 'wrong'

absolutely

since no extraordinary claim regarding any deity ever has withstood honest scrutiny.

Maybe.

Right. You can't back up the claim that National Socialism is foundationally atheist, nor can you provide a reference to a passage in Mao's "little red book" (which you brought up as the source) regarding murdering intellectuals (or anyone else) for atheistic reasons, and you've been corrected regarding biblical instruction regarding the murder of witches.

Your defensiveness about religion has apparently led you to some conclusions that probably deserve more considered examination.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

adipose[/url]":26jfnd5o]Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.
I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

Because the church's actions have a way of trickling out. And by "trickling out" I mean besides all the harm they do to people inside and outside of the church with their pseudo-scientific apologist bullshit and gay-shaming, they even consistently lied about how much money the church spent to remove people's civil rights, and attacked anybody who said otherwise. It's almost like their bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum and their beliefs, when steadfastly held and put into practice, have ugly consequences for the rest of us or something.

So as long as the vast majority of Mormons are acting and voting like bigots because their church tells them to, I find it really difficult to fault Seraphiel's attitude at all. This isn't about a small and harmless vocal minority of Mormons, after all. It's most of them.

 

[adipose]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3kv66fdx]

adipose[/url]":3kv66fdx]Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.
I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

Because the church's actions have a way of trickling out. And by "trickling out" I mean besides all the harm they do to people inside and outside of the church with their pseudo-scientific apologist bullshit and gay-shaming, they even consistently lied about how much money the church spent to remove people's civil rights, and attacked anybody who said otherwise. It's almost like their bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum and their beliefs, when steadfastly held and put into practice, have ugly consequences for the rest of us or something.

So as long as the vast majority of Mormons are acting and voting like bigots because their church tells them to, I find it really difficult to fault Seraphiel's attitude at all. This isn't about a small and harmless vocal minority of Mormons, after all. It's most of them.

Hey, I get it. I am not a fan of the LDS Church or what they did. But that doesn't mean I accept hate speech with violent overtones. I understand where it is coming from, but that sort of thing doesn't accomplish anything good (and honestly, just strengthens the resolve of religious people).

 

[ethd]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":27h4mvzu]

adipose[/url]":27h4mvzu]Don't get me wrong, I strongly oppose what they and the broader movement did. But suggesting they fuck themselves with a chainsaw... I cringe. My little sisters are Mormons, after all. And they officially probably believe what they are told to believe. But they are as tolerant as their religion will allow them to be.
I realize the comment was directed at the church, but these things have a way of trickling down.

Because the church's actions have a way of trickling out. And by "trickling out" I mean besides all the harm they do to people inside and outside of the church with their pseudo-scientific apologist bullshit and gay-shaming, they even consistently lied about how much money the church spent to remove people's civil rights, and attacked anybody who said otherwise. It's almost like their bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum and their beliefs, when steadfastly held and put into practice, have ugly consequences for the rest of us or something.

So as long as the vast majority of Mormons are acting and voting like bigots because their church tells them to, I find it really difficult to fault Seraphiel's attitude at all. This isn't about a small and harmless vocal minority of Mormons, after all. It's most of them.

I don't fault anyone for disagreeing with the church. They take an awfully controversial stance and the church's famous persecution complex is the exactly wrong way to react. But you can say what you want about me having a persecution complex, threatening violence against anyone just isn't cool.