Talk:Exmormonism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Article Justification

Is this really a stand-alone topic requiring a stand-alone article? My first thought is that it might be more usefully folding into a larger article on "criticisms of Mormonism" or some such. (See also the discussion of the problems with the Anti-Mormonism article. Alai 01:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exmormonism is separate from what?
Separate from mormonism. The anti-mormon comment is laughable, as "anti-mormon" in itself is a word createdto benefit the perception of material contrary to the so-called church in itself. Get your facts in order before replying wholesale to something you have been conditioned to object to. --Vegasbright 14:46, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Conditioned?" I think that Alai, as a non-Mormon contributor to the WP:LDS, is anything but "conditioned" to the terms. Aside from that misguided comment that has no bearing to Alai, I agree with your assessment that this is a very different topic than Anti-Mormon or Opposition to Mormonism.

Incidentally, did you download or participate in the Joseph Smith conference at the Library of Congress? There were a couple of panels I thought you'd enjoy as an Exmormon - the only archive I'm aware of is at [1]. The response by Margaret Barkers, a non-Mormon Biblical scholar, view of Smith's "restored writings" to Given's paper; the entire panel of "Joseph Smith Challenges the Theological World;" and "Joseph Smith in His Own Time" (that talks about American influences on Smith particularly the evangelical responses made me think of you. It is interesting to see the scholarly debates at this level, rather than the measley outdated banters that we are accustomed to on Wikipedia and other web sites. Completely different discussions. -Visorstuff 17:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The nature of exmormonism

The status of being an Exmormon is one that comes sometimes with its own vocabulary, etc. Its almost a group within the former mormons.

Open call for exmormons

Subject: Attention all interested Wikipedians and those who should be Wikipedians Date: Apr 25 13:49 Author: vegasbright Mail Address: vegasbright@yahoo.com

For those of you familiar with or involved with the free online encyclopedia that is fast becoming the center of encyclopedic innovation on the web, I have created a Wikipedia page for "exmormon/exmormonism".

As I do not profess to be an expert, nor believe that this should be left entirely up to me, I am inviting interested parties to ADD material to this Wikipedia page or suggest changes on the discussion page if needed. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies and community procedures.

Please keep in mind that it is not a forum but needs UNBIASED data concerning JUST exmormonism centering around this board and other "exmormon" branded resources. If you are unfamiliar with the NPOV framework all Wikipedia articles must adhere to, then please read it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV .

Individuals who are no stranger to this board are _especially_ needed for their opinions and points of view. I have been trying to drum up support for pro-truth edits in Wikipedia but have only had small success in drawing attention to this resource that is in need of a former mormon viewpoint. Individuals who can constuct their thoughts well familiar with the history, culture and flim-flam of mormonism are needed to give this Wikipedia entry and many others clout.

Currently the mormon monopolization of wikipedia needs an opposing voice that is sorely lacking. Think of this as the Amazon BOM edit part 2, more expansive and definitely more reactive.

Once again, before jumping into the fray of Wikipedia read policies for proper edits. It is imperative that others be treated with respect and civility in Wikipedia. If you have any questions please feel free to email me.

Begin here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmormonism


Excellent post and call to edit - look forward to the response. Also appreciated the last (and fourth to last) paragraph for context for potential editors. Keep up the good work. -Visorstuff 19:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jade knight, your most recent edit somehow implies that LDS and Christians are actually perfect...and that they are only perceived as having values that are inconsistent. According to Mormon and Christian doctrine, the only perfect person to ever live was Jesus Christ. Therefore, you need to edit an obviously biased statement.

Bias

Excuse me, but I think this page is biased towards antimormonism.--HistoricalPisces 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? It was written by an ex-Mormon and edited by both Mormons, ex-Mormons and non-Mormons. Please provide examples so we can address your concerns? -Visorstuff 18:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article makes Mormonism sound like a cult, which I know it isn't because I have a Mormon uncle.
Leaving any group (or relationship) can be difficult. You can have recovery from a marriage, any religion, or a cult. Nereocystis 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that the article sounds biased. In this case, I comment as a recent Exmormon. There use of scare quotes is too prevalent when talking about Mormon attitudes. For instance:
  • "Those who remain for the cultural aspect are referred to as Cultural Mormons, which includes church members who avoid "spiritual" aspects of Mormonism, or those who were raised Mormon but no longer actively participate."
  • "Still others left because of what they see as a lack of evidence supporting Mormon claims to be absolutely "true.""
  • "Many Exmormons leave Mormonism because they have rejected the firm belief in the emotional affirmation of "the truth" in favor of an intellectual affirmation of what is true. "
  • Also, non-Mormon ideas are characterized as rational in contrast to Mormon ideas. On one hand, Mormon ideas are ususally motivated mostly spiritually, but I think that it is unnecessarily evaluative to declare that such motivations are nonrational. The last quote, for instance, implicitly asserts that those that leave Mormonism leave it for something that is true. I would agree, but I don't think this type of evaluation belongs in an encyclopedia entry. Becks028 03:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, the bias wasn't too bad, so I went and changed some of it. There was also a minor falsehood--there are no current racist doctrines espoused by Mormons, only former racist doctrines. Some Mormons believe the former doctrine, but it is not a bona fide doctrine of the current administration.Becks028 04:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If so they shouldn't have printed this in the 1999 edition of Mormon Doctrine (p.616): Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" 166.70.243.229 06:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

166.70.243.229, unfortunately you have just proven yourself unknowledgeable on Mormonism and exmormonism topics, and on historical research. No offense meant, but you may want to get a primer on LDS Doctrine from books published and santioned by the Church. I'm sure you mean well, but you should be careful when saying "they shouldn't have printed this" when the "they" you are referring to didn't print it. Mormon Doctrine is not a church publication, nor does it accurately reflect what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint teaches or believes. It is a cultural doctrinal document - meaning it provided what was commonly believed (see Common Latter-day Saint perceptions, and Cultural Mormons) within the Mormonism movement (as opposed to the LDS Church or ]]Latter Day Saint movement]]) when it was written in the 1960s. The second issue is that there was not a 1999 edition of Mormon Doctrine, but rather a 1999 printing of the second edition. Hope this helps, as it seems like you know some on the topic, and hope that you share more - just be more careful in your writing. Also, we'd invite you to register a user account . -Visorstuff 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Visorstuff, your disagreement would be with the Mormon church. They currently sell it at Church-owned Deseret Book in hardcover, paperback and probably CD-ROM, under the title MORMON DOCTRINE. The doctrines explained above have never been officially renounced to my knowledge, which explains why they sell it. This is the place where you should quote a higher ranking General Authority than deceased apostle Bruce R. McConkie that apologizes for and dispels the literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon assigning a darker racial feature as a punishment from God. Otherwise, you are only speaking for yourself or as a Mormon, or both. And so we must remind ourselves that exmormonism assumes a level of disagreement with Mormonism, and the tiny little spot in the universe that attempts to explain this disagreeement as a social phenomenon is here. My suggestion is that you take a deep breath and get over it and accept that this disagreement includes the idea that racism is often perceived as an institutional flaw by former members, especially when leaders attempt to half-heartedly correct it or force members to apologize for them. We obviously disagree on what constitutes racism, but it only needs to apply to former Mormons, because Mormons would necessarily believe it's okay if they believe God sanctions it. This also would be why an exmormon might disagree with Mormonism on racism, because they don't believe God sanctions it or could possibly ever sanction it--which you don't seem to be disagreeing with. This same discussion could apply to polygamy, which although is no longer earthly Mormon doctrine, it remains a heavenly one--implying a convenient abeyance. Also, your comment on the 1960's version of Mormon Doctrine is missing a point. The 1966 version was altered to updated it for the 1990's. I will blockquote it below separately. 166.70.243.229 17:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
1966 Mormon Doctrine (original). Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were cursed with what we call negroid racial characteristics. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.) 166.70.243.229 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon - I may want to remind you that the First presidency and twelve have repeatedly stated in church publications and in general conference that non-correlated material is not doctrinal. Mormon Doctrine has never been brought to correlation. As for the if its sold at deseret book argument, so is anne of green gables and covey's seven habits series, but they are not doctrinal either.

You wrote: "The doctrines explained above have never been officially renounced to my knowledge" nor have they been clarified as true. They are the opinion of one man, and the work was so controversial that many of the brethren asked him to do a recall.

you wrote: "This is the place where you should quote a higher ranking General Authority than deceased apostle Bruce R. McConkie that apologizes for and dispels the literal interpretation of the Book of Mormon assigning a darker racial feature as a punishment from God." We both know of David McKay quotes on this book [2], and no more needs to be said.

you also wrote: "especially when leaders attempt to half-heartedly correct it or force members to apologize for them" That sentence is oxymoronic. half-heartedly on one hand, but force members on the other - translation - they really don't care, but they force others to do it because they care. Ummmm. That seems contradictory. YEs, different brethren have differnet views on what is racist, adn what is not. But look at church policy, rather than cultural promulgated beliefs. Just because some mormons believe that they can create their own worlds doesn't mean its true, correct, doctrinally sound or even taught by the church.

You also wrote: "idea that racism is often perceived as an institutional flaw by former members." Hmmm. It is also percieved as a flaw by current and faithful members. Your understanding of this issue seem very superficial. See Blacks and Mormonism. Many people between 1846 and 1977 believed that the policy was not given by revelation, but by policy. But regardless, you are overgeneralizing what the church policy, or even church members beliefs are on teh matter. Yes the cultural aspect is significant, and cultural mormons would say god sanctioned it. But with more than 70 percent of church members as converts, that cultural belief is only held by 26-30 percent. The others may or may not agree with that interpretation. You are generalizing that 30 percent's cultural beliefs on the bulk of the church that does not nessessariliy agree with your summation.

Finally, you wwrote: "The 1966 version was altered to updated it for the 1990's." Actually, the current version that is used is the 1967 second edition. The 1966 edition was altered, but only for the second edition. It was not been changed in the 1990s. The second edition is the current edition. Your information is simply incorrect. I do think you have some knowledge on the topic, but your arguments are not accrurate. -Visorstuff 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I guess this means you can't find one reference to overturn the known racial doctrines of Mormonism that I raised here, because it is still scriptural, and instead you need to attack the reference I gave, which raises another problem, because his orthodox racism was not even one of the internal controversies specific to his book at the time (If memory serves, God having sex with Mary and the Catholic church being called "the whore of the earth" were very controversial, and especially the part where God is said to be progressing in knowledge). If everything McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine is wrong or controversial, then Mormon Doctrine is non-existent and they would not have made him an apostle, or continue to sell his book to the faithful with such a title. By your strawman methods one could easily repudiate anything in Mormonism if McConkie wrote about it. My point in bringing up the 1999 edition was to show that it is currently printed as such, and sold as such, and presumably believed as such--but you beg to differ without anything solid. In fact, you took this to mean that it was really out of date afterall. If you knew so much about the second edition, you should have said so in your first reply because you seem to contradict yourself when you say it was first written in the 1960's and then cite a controversy stemming from 1959, with more editions in 1966 and 1967. Here is a quote from this link: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon135.htm In 1966 year after his father-in-law becomes assistant counselor to First Presidency, McConkie publishes second edition of Mormon Doctrine. It corrects only a few of first edition "errors" cited by First Presidency and apostles in 1960. Book becomes best seller among Latter-day Saints. McConkie becomes member of Quorum of Twelve Apostles to fill vacancy which his father-in-law's death creates in 1972. So much for official repudiation. 166.70.243.229 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Visorstuff wrote: That sentence is oxymoronic. half-heartedly on one hand, but force members on the other - translation - they really don't care, but they force others to do it because they care. Ummmm. That seems contradictory. When leaders half-heartedly correct any mistake, anywhere, this forces their defenders to wing it on their own and apologize for the leaders who won't take the responsibility, just as you are doing. Also, to compare ANNE OF GREEN GABLES to a book titled MORMON DOCTRINE, because both are sold in a church-owned bookstore chain, therefore the latter is a not to be taken seriously, or is some kind of fiction, is absurd logic. According to ample sources, correlated church manuals routinely quote from McConkie's book as an authority, and to say that an entire book requires a bureaucratic correlation to be official doctrine is only a method of deniability, because Mormons don't use it to decide what to believe or quote. 166.70.243.229 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, it is not my point to address the racist history of the LDS church. My point and purpose is with your sources. There is no such thing as a "1999 edition" of Mormon doctrine. It is the second edition. it may be a 1999 printing, but all of the text of the second edition of Mormon Doctrine is the same as a 1984 second edition of mormon doctrine.

yes I cited a source that was faulty and may have been a mistake in sharing with you, as the section is wrong - however, the source was for the mckay quote (read the comments in which the url was provided), not for the dates. Let me clarify for all: The First edition of Mormon doctrine was originally printed as a Green Hardback book by Bruce R. McConkie in 1958 by Bookcraft (not seen as an equal in publishing as deseret book in mormon culture). We have a fourth printing of that edition. The second edition was completed and printed in 1966, however, most copies say 1967, and it is generally called the 1967 edition. There have been no subsequent editions since.

As for racist doctrines, if you'd like me to share sources I can - and i even pointed to you to some elsewhere on wikipedia, which you have obviously not read, or you wouldn't have said some of the things you did. But you'll find the same sources for traditional christianity as well. the idea is also promulgated in the Bible. In addition, you misquote ideas - such as god having sex with mary - i'd love to see that in quotes from a church leader. I'm familiar with Young's comments about christ being concieved the same way we are, but conception does not equate with copulation. I will refrain from writing more, but i see that you are not interested in a dialogue that is useful to wikipedia, but rather in arguing. My sole point is to say you need to source your material better. Read my links and try to get a more comprehensive view of it.

Also, from Curse and mark of Cain: The doctrine was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in the U.S. and Europe. It is significant to note that the Coptic, Ethiopian, Orthodox, Thomasite and the Catholic church did not recognize these interpretations and did not participate in the religious movement to support them. Certain Catholic Diocese in the Southern United States did adopt a policy of not ordaining blacks to oversee, administer sacraments to, or accept confessions from white parishoners. This policy was not based on a Curse of Cain teaching, but was justified by any possible perceptions of having slaves rule over their masters. Baptists and other denominations including Penecostals officially taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, although in practice all races were accepted to worship services after the 1970s and 1980s when many official policies were changed. Nearly all Protestant groups in America had supported the notion that black slavery, oppression, and African colonization was the result of God's curse on people with black skin or of African descent through Cain, or through the Curse of Ham, and many churches practiced racial segregation, as late as the 1990s, including Penecostalism. Today, however, official acceptance and practice of the doctrine among Protestant ogranizations is limited almost exclusively to churches connected to white supremacy, such as the Aryan World Church and the New Christian Crusade Church.

Yes, the LDS church has a history of what is now considered racism. So does 90 percent of the protestant world. Its strange to me that baptist groups tend to be the most vocal on the topic, when they voted to allow blacks to lead in 1972, a mere six years earlier than the LDS church, but the LDS church gets the flack for it. Let alone the penecostal movement, where segregation of congregations officially was wiped off the books of church policy as late as 1998. Amazing that more people don't protest the hisotry of those denominations as they do Mormonism.

You may also want to read Priesthood Correlation Program as for what is considered doctrinal or not. I do hope you register and provide sources for your comments. -Visorstuff 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, sources? Allow me to point out that you "corrected" my comments about the 90's editions with your comments about the 1967 edition being the original rewording (ie, "blacks" not "negroid"), without a source (quote), but I didn't complain, although there are some websites that seem to differ on this. And allow me to point out that you cite a cultural preference to distinguish one Mormon-themed publishing house from another while lecturing on correlation, missing the point that McConkie's book was read as an authoritative encyclopedia source of doctrine, bar none, and still is across the Mormon world with rarely a complaint. Compared to Brigham Young's Discourses, which are discouraged as a source of doctrine, they are relatively sane. 166.70.243.229 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, you should try to understand mormonism before making these comments. Anyone who has been a mormon and has actually studied mormonism in depth would agree with my statements. All general authority writings are preserved and their discourses, writings, regardless of source and accuracy are collected, and many used in correlated material - AFTER - they have been approved as doctrinal by the correlation committee - which is comprised of the twelve and others. You may want to do some research on Intellectual Reserve, Inc. and correlation - which has been around for many years. Please see referenced sites for more information and my sources. Also, anyone in utah would know that signature books, bookcraft, covenant are not seen as equals to deseret book when it comes to reliability on doctrine. But we are digressing into another topic altogether now. Even within the church today, there are many who hear the words "bruce r. mcconkie" and automatically discount whatever is said next as unreliable - see times and seasons blog for examples. What is your background, perhaps that will help me address you better. Are you a mormon, former mormon or exmormon or causual obversver? In any case, you don't seem to steeped into mormon culture, let alone understand LDS doctrines. -Visorstuff 00:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I guess you still didn't find the quote related to correlated church doctrine on racial curses and racist curse legacies, after lecturing on correlation, and suggesting that the true doctrine is found in a line of books published by the Mormon church. Also, I find it highly strange that you claim I know nothing about Mormonism, or exmormonism, and say that I must not be steeped in Mormonism, and then you ask me if I am a Mormon or former Mormon, or exmormon, or an observer? Obviously I am relatively unbiased compared to you if you don't already know. Congratulations. You spent too much time telling me that McConkie is not reliable, but he was relatively minor compared to some others who Mormons must take seriously. http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml 166.70.243.229 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said that McConkie was not reliable, only that many discount him within the movement because some of his statements were cultural doctrines, rather than doctrinal - and that he is not the source of what is doctrinal or not in the LDS Church. Only a church president has that right. Regardless, my point from the beginning of this dialogue has been with your use of sources. I do not think there is an official statement or doctrine about whether or not there are "racial curses." There are an equal amount of church leaders who have taught both sides of the argument. A good book to read would be "Black and Mormon" and the recent David O McKay biography. I do not believe that Cain or Ham's curse was black skin - nor do most mormon scholars. Some historically used it as a way to try to understand why blacks, and other You still have not answered by question - what is your relationship to the church? In anycase, it is an uneducated one. I've met uneducated and assuming people in each of those groups. Regardless, you are not being taken seriously until you register on Wikipedia. It is an easy process. -Visorstuff 16:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that the method of identifying Mormon doctrine is controversial. It is useful to separate what different groups call "Mormon doctrine". Many critics of Mormonism, and some naive Mormons, think that anything an apostle or prophet says is doctrine. Although this position is false, it is not indefensible, you may recall the statement by Wilford Woodruff that no man who stands at the head of the Church will lead the members astray (Official Declaration 2) or statements by Brigham Young that anything that he has said in a public speech is as good a scripture as anyone deserves. However, this is not the only possible interpretation of such comments and it is certainly not the most charitable interpretation. Certainly, this is not what LDS religion scholars or knowledgeable members believe.

On the opposite extreme, some Mormons posit that the only true test of doctrine is affirmation by personal revelation (I don't have a quote, but this position is discussed in the institute manual for the Doctrine and Covenants). However, this distiniction doesn't really guarantee that doctrine for you is doctrine for me, and this doesn't really fit the nature of the term 'doctrine'.

On a more straightforward sense, LDS doctrines are all and only those statements that have been approved by sustaining votes at each level of the hierarchy of the church, viz. the first presidency, the apostles, the seventies, etc. all the way to the general membership. So, in a very literal sense, it isn't doctrine unless this is the case.

In a less restricted sense, you might consult the work of Robert Millet, What is Our Doctrine? http://www.lds.org/institutes/attachment/display/1,18728,91079,00.pdf. As the Richard L. Evans professor of religion at BYU, it would be reasonable to consider his word on the matter. Although this isn't definitive, it is a reasonable attempt what might be LDS doctrine.

The simple fact is, though, you won't find any credible LDS authority that says that Mormon doctrine is binding doctrine on the LDS church. While it is true that some of it is quoted approvingly in institute manuals and the like, this does not mean that it is doctrine. After all, the institute manuals are not doctrine. C.S. Lewis is also quoted approvingly in such manuals, and this does not mean that Mere Christianity is tacitly approved of as Mormon doctrine.

So, at the end of the day, all you can say is that a lot of Mormons believe and even more have believed some (potentially) racist stuff. However, it isn't doctrine. Rather than trying to tell the LDS Church what their doctrine ought to be, you have to take their word for what it is.

On the other hand, there is considerable pull to say that this is doctrine in a broad sense. This broad sense might be that it was taught and promulgated. This fits a dictrionary definition of doctrine. However, this is not the relevant sense! We are talking about official doctrine, which is not mere teaching in this broad sense. Becks028 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-12-16.cfm Quote: As a church member in good standing, former BYU dean of religious education Robert Millet is more cautious in formulating an answer. In fact, minutes into the discussion, he worried aloud if he’d still have his job in a week....Despite 22 years of scriptural scholarship under his belt, even coming to a working definition of the problem is problematic, “because it’s an issue, a doctrine, a practice we don’t completely understand,” Millet said. “All of us wish we had a Joseph Smith here, or a Brigham Young here, to help us understand why the restriction was put into effect to begin with, but we do not. But because we believe that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets, and were divinely inspired, we rest in that confidence, and we sort of place this issue on the shelf in terms of the why.” Millet believes the church could foster greater understanding by clarifying or contextualizing its past racist practices, but “that decision rests with powers higher than myself,” he said....In his final analysis, asked whether the church should, as Darron Smith and others call for, expunge and publicly repudiate the teachings that continue to cause consternation among black members, Millet says no. “It’s a part of the history; it’s a part of the tradition, and … we look at it now and say, well, that’s just wrong. We don’t believe that the restriction was wrong, but we look back and say we don’t know all the reasons why.”
This is only part of the racial doctrines lingering in the background of Mormonism and which are going unanswered. Others racial doctrines include the folklore of fair skin as pure or even associated with righteousness when compared to darkness. The Lamanite doctrine of cursed dark skin is emerging as something even more complex, since DNA analysis has repudiated the idea that their ancestors were ever the same people so described as cursed. From today's headlines: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormon16feb16,0,5561316.story? 166.70.243.229 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How about we cut to the chase. What's your point? Haven't you already stated it? This long discussion is not helping improve this article which is talk pages purposes. -Visorstuff 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I made my point already, in response, patiently excusing your ad hominem attacks, insults and loaded demands for personal information. I would have to wait for more comments to respond further. What were you expecting? 166.70.243.229 00:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks aside, what you haven't shown is that the LDS Church has official doctrine(s) that are racist. In order to show this, you must find a teaching promulgated by LDS Church leaders, show that it is racist, and show that it is an official LDS doctrine.
  • Regarding the first point, you have identified a potentially racist teaching of the LDS Church, viz. that blacks did not have the same spiritual status as nonblacks because they did not have priesthood or temple rights. This could be the teaching in question, or it could not be. The teaching in question might also entail the reason that this was so, such as premortal sin, sin of Cain, sin of Ham, etc.
  • Each of these teachings is potentitally racist. If you are simply talking about the fact of non-identical spiritual status, then I think that you have a more difficult case that you have failed to establish. I think that there are grounds for calling each of these teachings racist, but there are some decent objections. Foremost, difference does not entail unequal value. Men and women are not the same in LDS theology. Levites were not the same as non-Levites in ancient Judaism. Those of Israelite descent were not the same as those of non-Israelite descent. It is controversial to say that these practices are discriminatory. Even if you are correct, it may not belong in wiki because of NPOV. The only teaching listed above that is patently discriminatory is the teaching regarding premortal sin. (The others are reasonable cases, I agree).
  • In any event, the onus of the argument is on you to demonstrate which of these teachings is an offical doctrine of the LDS church. In order to demonstrate this, as I stated above, you must understand the definition of the term "offical doctrine". A teaching is an official doctrine of the LDS church if and only if it has been authorized by common consent and it has not been repealed by the same process. A teaching has been authorized by common consent if and only if it has been approved by the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles, the Seventies, and the general membership. I was just making a minor point--the LDS church has no current doctrine to the effect of different spritual status between blacks and nonblacks. Becks028 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Recovery

Edit 4.246.30.203 removed a large chunk of text from this paragraph. My knowledge of Mormons is limited, could you care to elaborate why such a large piece of text can be replaced by two lines? -- Solitude\talk 09:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I reviewed the change and agree fully with your decision to revert it. The original text was accurate and managed to avoid POV even though this is a delicate issue. The changed text was clearly POV and erased valid information. It revealed a deep pro-Mormon bias by 4.246.30.203. I also had to revert some changes made to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, which attempted to hide possibly embarassing historical and doctrinal facts. While I was at it, I fixed up the entry on the history of discriminatory policies, adding some relevant, easily verifiable details, so I guess there was a positive side to this. While I'm not a Mormon and have never been one, I have relatives by marriage who are Mormons, so I've come to learn quite a a bit about the religion and have visited Utah repearedly, so I feel very comfortable making these changes. User:Alienus

The exit paragrah is weak. Shunning sounds like someone is stretching. Tell me how many people don't continue to get home teachers knocking on their door. Anyone that has spent anytime on Exmormon.org can tell how fed up with them being contacted. The latter half of hte paragraph seems better because it describes the cultural fragility when one breaks from the group. Storm Rider 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think that unwanted visitors from home teachers don't make up for the friends and family who won't speak to you anymore. Alienus 04:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you are correct in stating a problem that exists, but it is the vocabulary being used that I think is inappropriate. Shunning is definitive, formal practice in several religions. Unfortunately, Mormonism is not one of them and to use the term is POV; you attempt to taint the statement with a fact that does not exist. There is no formal shunning. However, there is a discomfort that exists on both sides as to what to do now. Mormonism suffers from not being just a Sunday affair, but rather a culture. Those who choose to leave Mormonism for whatever reason abandons a culture where family and friendsd still reside. If you discuss it in those terms I think you have a balanced approach and you do justice to the real harm that done to individuals on both sides. Storm Rider 08:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Victimization

I get the impression that the writers of this article victimize exMormons. This partially could be due to the sting of facing ones own cultural shortcomings (I am a Mormon). I don't think it is all due to this however. I really feel that some exMormons, not all, do victimize themselves, a natural side effect of the strains of leaving a belief system, and that this attitude shows itself in this article. Epachamo 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand you. the main writers of this article have been exmormons. Are you saying they victimize themselves? Or that those of us who have edited are victimizing? Please clarify? -Visorstuff 17:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I mean that the writers of the article seem to portray exMormons as victims. Do you agree? Epachamo 05:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point. Most of the ex-Mormons I know do not feel this way, and thus the article is slanted. Most I know disagree with various aspects of the church, from authority to doctrine to truth, but only a few feel that they were opressed or victimized. Perhaps an ex-Mormon watching can help balance this? Perhaps User:TacoDeposit can help? User:Sheldon Rampton has strong opinions and may be able to help as well. -Visorstuff 15:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Epachamo, what you are reporting is a classic example of confirmation bias. If you "really feel" strongly about something, then you will tend to see it where you would expect to find it. This is natural, and one typically needs to be trained to avoid it. Visorstuff's response to you was more typical of a cultural bias. He didn't seem to recognize the possibility of victimization at first, but readily agreed to it, and then implied that his own personal experience with exmormons is representative of objective reality, while also assuming that victimization among exmormons is not subjectively valid, without even noting whether or not it is apparent in the article. As such, all Mormons here should generously take note that because voluntarily leaving their church typically signals disatisfaction, Mormons that stay will naturally tend to devalue the leavers as a defense mechanism, especially when faced with their criticisms (which only need to be categorized to be meaningful as a social phenomenon). This would also be true for something as minor as a book club. 166.70.243.229 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:166.70.243.229, you are assuming that Epachamo is a Mormon, which may or may not be the case, but it is not wise to assume on Wikipedia. In addition, my response was to get true exmormons to edit the section. Terms including "Recovery from," "demands loyalty from," "fraud or abuse," being "misled" by church leaders all imply victimization by a knowing dominant who intends to do so.

It is not easy to leave any religion - especially one that teaches it is the one true church of Christ, and is so steeped in its own culture. It requires in some cases leaving friends, family, work, changing habits and more - the same as for those who join/convert to Mormonism. Had you been a Mormon or Exmormon, you would know this. However, most LDS converts don't take a victimization attitude toward their previous denomination, and neither do most Exmormons. Rather it is a unique aspect to this article, and not a charachteristic exmormonism in general. Most move on their merry way and realize that Mormonism was a important but former part of their life. Very few, in my experience (and yes I deal with this often, and have friends who are exmormon), feel victimized in exactly the way as this article reads.

My solution was not to edit it myself, but to get someone who is exmormon to edit. I'm not pretending to be an exmormon. But I know some good people who are, and this does not reflect their attitudes. I am friends with one who runs a exmormon board/website. Perhaps he can edit. I believe that even User:Vegasbright who wrote this article would see that the article is slanted that way, and that the article is not characteristic of the ex-Mormon movement as a whole in the sections discussed.

As an admin on Wikipedia, again, I invite you to register and actually try to help move articles forward rather than constantly complain about groupthink or that you are being attacked when someone tries to help you correct the documentation of your sources. Again, I'm not attacking, but as an anonymous user you are behaving like a troll and such negativity and disruption can eventually lead to the blocking of your IP address by another admin (I will not as I was involved in the discussion). Talk pages are for building consensus and helping with improving the article in question, and your discussions and 350 edits on 24 pages since December 2005 so far do neither, but rather criticize and "argue the question" on a number of topics. You do not have the best track record and working with other editors. Let's get someone who is exmormon wikipedian to edit appropriately. I do not plan to address you directly as an anonymous user again, as our discussions are not productive or helpful to Wikipedia articles. Good luck in your wikipedia editing. Epachamo, I'll reach out to some known exmormons and have them take a look. -Visorstuff 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm an exmormon, and I'll take a look. I do think, however, that there is room to say that perceived victimization is common among exmormons. It is not predominant, as the article seems to imply, but it is common. For instance, look at any exmormon site on the internet and you will notice that this feeling is very common indeed. However, I doubt that people that are motivated enough to write articles on the net are a representative sample of all exmormons. Becks028 23:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Visorstuff, Epachamo has stated above that he is Mormon: "....facing ones own cultural shortcomings (I am a Mormon)." So my comments were appropriate. And it takes two to argue, FYI, and I am an exmormon, and so my comments belong here according to sentiments expressed by you. Perhaps you should examine your methods of criticism, beginning with your position on Mormonism on an exmormon entry. Also, for the record, out of the 350 edits that you counted for me (apparently in a half-hearted statistical attempt to smear me), only 32 or so have been talk pages, and half of those are here, above. The rest are mostly minor compositional edits consisting of probably a few words average, typically a correction, and this is the professor side of me that pays attention to detail. To my recollection, I have never once deleted anything contributed by anyone, excluding vandalism, but have carefully rewritten or reworded any disagreement, and on very few occasion. I don't recall ever having an argument with anyone, even on the controversial pages with POV warnings, and most of my entries involve theological entries. As such, I consider your disagreement with me to be religious in nature, and this would be related to your choice to monitor the "exmormon" entry as a devout Mormon. I do plan on registering very soon, thankyou for the invitation. 166.70.243.229 00:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm The BITE Model Applied Toward Mormonism Note: The following information was submitted by a former Mormon

I. Behavior Control

1. Regulation of individual’s physical reality

a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with

Originally the members of the church were to gather to Zion--the church headquarters. Now they are encouraged to build a stake of Zion where they already live. They are encouraged to associate with members and non-members. But you must marry another Mormon in the Temple to reach the highest level of heaven, please God, and be sealed to your family after death. Consequently dating non-members is highly discouraged.

b. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears

When you go to the temple, they give you special underwear called garments that you must always wear. Garments are incompatible with sleeveless shirts or dresses and shorts that don’t go to the knee, so such clothing is not worn. Otherwise conservative dress and colors are strongly encouraged.

c. What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects

Coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco are forbidden. Whether or not you abstain from caffienated soft drinks is often considered an indication of your level of dedication. Otherwise normal.

d. How much sleep the person is able to have

Early to bed, early to rise.

e. Financial dependence

No--they strongly encourage financial independence.

f. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations

Being active in Mormonism takes a lot of time, but Mormons love recreation.

2. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals

3-hour meetings every Sunday, a few other meetings during the week.

3. Need to ask permission for major decisions

No.

4. Need to report thoughts, feelings and activities to superiors

“Serious” sins should be confessed to the leaders.

5. Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative).

You must be deemed worthy by the church’s leaders to attend the temple. Dedication tends to be rewarded in the form of leadership roles. If you break some serious commandments you can be disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

6. Individualism discouraged; group think prevails

There could be some disagreement to the answer of this one. The beehive is an important symbol in Mormonism, and being a part of that collective is an important part of their self-identity. They are often reminded that their behavior reflects on the church and they should always represent it well. The church offers a lot of advice on how to live most aspects of your life. But there is also a certain level of independence that is encouraged--to seek personal revelation, to be self-sufficient, and so forth.

The church certainly has its share of groupthink. Whether or not it prevails is subjective.

7. Rigid rules and regulations

Generally, yes.

8. Need for obedience and dependency

One of the primary purposes of life is to test our obedience to God--which in practical terms means obedience to God’s leaders. Financial independence is encouraged. There is a fair amount of talk about spiritual independence, but they are ensured that true answers to their prayers will always be in harmony with the mainstream church.

II. Information Control

1. Use of deception

a. Deliberately holding back information

b. Distorting information to make it acceptable

c. Outright lying

Prospective members are given only a very basic set of lessons before they are asked to commit to the church. There is a concept of “milk before meat”--only tell them what they need to know in their current stage of spiritual development. There tends to be a distorted view of history. In the magazines and lessons that the church pushes, there is a clear effort to spin everything in the church’s favor. There is a lot of information available to members if they proactively seek it. The church doesn’t really discourage deeper investigation.

2. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged

a. Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio

Members have full access to information. But exposing yourself to things that repel the spirit are discouraged. This includes not only sex, nudity, profanity and violence, but also things that are critical of the church.

b. Critical information

Reading information that is critical of the church is generally discouraged because it repels the spirit, but if a member really wants to learn about it he is free to do so.

c. Former members

Members are free to associate with former members.

d. Keep members so busy they don’t have time to think

Members have the opportunity to stay very busy with church work and activities.

3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

a. Information is not freely accessible

Somewhat. Temple rituals are secret. The church has a big vault of historical information that they keep secret--even from scholars. But a lot of information is freely available.

b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid

To a limited extent. Some important doctrines, such as the belief that God the Father was once a human being, are not taught to new members. You may not learn about the details of the temple rituals until you go to the temple as an adult who has proven your loyalty to the church. It is my understanding that the top leaders of the church have their own ultra-secret temple rituals.

c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what

To a limited extent. The leadership decides who is qualified to go to the temple.

4. Spying on other members is encouraged

a. Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control

Yes among missionaries. No among the general membership of the church.

b. Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership

Missionaries are encouraged to report the deviant behavior of other missionaries. BYU encourages students to report other students who don’t abide by the University’s honor code. Outside of those two contexts, I can’t think of any examples where “spying” is encouraged.

5. Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda

a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc.

The church and its subsidiary organizations publish an extensive array of books, audio, and video.

b. Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources

A BYU organization called “FARMS” does book reviews, and its critics argue that their treatment of books that criticize the church or its doctrine is extremely unfair.

6. Unethical use of confession

a. Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries

They want you to confess sexual sins to your local leader in a private setting, who may unethically interrogate you on the details and might disfellowship you.

b. Past "sins" used to manipulate and control; no forgiveness or absolution

Not really--once they declare you are forgiven it is water under the bridge.

III. Thought Control

1. Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as "Truth"

a. Map = Reality

b. Black and White thinking

c. Good vs. evil

d. Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)

The group’s doctrine is internalized as the “Truth”, and many members are prone to a simplistic interpretation of that in the ways listed above. But many other members take a more sophisticated view where they realize that even though they have the “Truth”, they still see through a glass darkly, and live in a world with a lot of good people and a lot of gray.

2. Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

Objectively it is hard to say. On the first Sunday worship service of every month, the members have the opportunity to stand before the congregation and express their testimonies about the church. As the member gropes for words to express their various thoughts and feelings, they very often say find the exact same trite buzzwords, “I know this church is true. I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet…”)

3. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.

Absolutely.

4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking

Mormons generally believe that pure truth comes through revelation and the spirit rather than through rational analysis. They aren’t really against rational analysis per se, but they believe that the spirit trumps rational analysis when there is a contradiction. After all, the spirit gives the pure truth, while rational analysis only gives ever-changing theories. When there is a contradiction between revelation and rational thinking--for example when rational analysis shows that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Book of Abraham--the reaction of the believer can rightly be described as denial, rationalization, justification and wishful thinking.

b. Chanting

No.

c. Meditating

Not in a formal or rigorous way.

d. Praying

Yes.

e. Speaking in "tongues"

No.

f. Singing or humming

Yes. They are often instructed to sing a hymn to themselves if they have an impure or negative thought.

5. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate

Absolutely. One of the solemn covenants of the temple is to never “speak ill of the Lord’s anointed”.

6. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

Other belief systems can be good and useful, but the Mormon Church is God’s one and only true church, and that the highest level of salvation is impossible without it.

IV. Emotional Control

1. Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings.

Yes. If you are acting righteously then you will feel the spirit. Always strive to feel that particular feeling.

2. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s.

Yes. The members aren’t perfect but the gospel and the organization of the church are perfect. Leaders might make mistakes, but they are given the benefit of the doubt.

3. Excessive use of guilt

Mormons do believe that guilt is God’s way of telling them to do better, and perfection is something they strive for. I believe Mormons tend to feel a lot of guilt. But how do you measure guilt? How much is excessive?

a. Identity guilt

1. Who you are (not living up to your potential)

Individual Mormons are given special blessings in which they are invariably informed that in the previous life they were the valiant elect of God, and that that is why their spirits were sent to earth to fight for the cause of righteousness during these last days. They tend to see themselves as extraordinarily special, being the tiny minority of people who were either chosen to be born into the church or were spiritually sensitive enough to recognize it as the true church. This self-image certainly puts the bar high and can lead to excessive guilt.

2. Your family

A popular children’s song in the church says “families CAN be together forever.” But the one and only way that they can be together forever is if the family unit is “sealed” in the temple. If you were married in the temple then you are sealed to your spouse and your subsequent children will be sealed to you. But if you were not sealed in the temple, then you will lose your spouse and children upon death.

The top level of heaven is only attainable to couples married in the temple--not to individuals. If you aren’t righteous enough for that level of heaven, then you will lose your family.

If your child gets married outside of the temple, then the family chain is broken--not only will your child not be qualified for the top level of heaven, your grandchildren will not be sealed to you either.

The result of this doctrine is often a tremendous amount of guilt. If your child gets married outside of the temple, you mourn the wedding and the marriage rather than celebrate it. If your child chooses a path other than the Mormon one, then you will lose him or her forever. If your spouse doesn’t meet the strict requirements for the top level of heaven, then the only way for you to make it to the top level of heaven is with a new spouse.

Any individual member of the family who doesn’t meet the rigorous requirements of righteousness will permanently breaks up the family unit.

3. Your past

4. Your affiliations

5. Your thoughts, feelings, actions

In general, Mormons strive to eradicate everything other than godly thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many believe that guilt is God’s way of telling them that they are less than perfect and need to try harder.

In his very popular book “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, a late prophet of the church said, “THERE ARE SINS WHICH ARE SO SERIOUS THAT WE know of no forgiveness for them. These we will discuss in greater detail in a later chapter. There are also sins which approach the unforgivable ones in seriousness but seem to come in the category of the forgivable. These are the diabolical crimes of sexual impurity. In varied form they run from aberrations involving self-abuse, sex stimulation, and self-pollution to abhorrent and unnatural practices involving others. Whether named or unnamed in scriptures or the spoken word, any sexual act or practice which is "unnatural" or unauthorized is a sin. (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.61)”

In an Internet discussion group, someone said, “This book is responsible for warping the sexuality of a couple of generations of Mormons.”

b. Social guilt

c. Historical guilt

Probably not.

4. Excessive use of fear

a. Fear of thinking independently

Thomas S. Monson, the number two man in the church, recently said in a church magazine, "Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith... I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.” (Ensign, Feb 2001)

b. Fear of the "outside" world

Not significantly.

c. Fear of enemies

Not significantly.

d. Fear of losing one’s "salvation"

Yes. You must endure to the end to gain salvation--if you screw up the effect could ripple across generations.

e. Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group

Depends on the individual.

f. Fear of disapproval

Depends on the individual.

5. Extremes of emotional highs and lows.

I don’t know how to measure this. I would guess not. But it might be pertinent that Utah leads the nation in Prozac use.

6. Ritual and often public confession of "sins".

Confession is in a business-like interview. Not really a ritual. It might be before a council around a big board room table, but it is confidential outside of that arena.

7. Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader’s authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group

Absolutely.

b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.

Absolutely. In a particular scene in the temple ceremony, the devil is about to be banished. Before he is, he says, “Aah! You have looked over my kingdom, and my greatness and glory. Now you want to take possession of the whole of it. (He then looks at the people going through the ceremony) I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power! “

c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.

Yes. If you leave, you won’t be able to attend the wedding of your children (assuming they are married in the temple).

d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group’s perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

Absolutely. The group is God’s one and only true church--true happiness in this life and salvation in the life to come can be found nowhere else.


Sending - Please wait... My email: Send to:


Example preview:

Subject: Article link Freedom of Mind

you@example.com sends you a link to 'Millennium Tragedy in Uganda'. You can find this article at http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm


Freedomofmind.com fully supports religious freedom and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fact that a person’s name or group appears on our website does not necessarily mean they are a destructive mind control cult. They appear because we have received inquiries and have established a file on the group. The Freedom of Mind Resource Center Inc. was established by cult expert Steve Hassan.

Reasons for Leaving paragraph

I attempted to correct grammar, spelling, and style of the paragraph. I noted two places that needed references. I have a difficult time accepting that any history of the church is "hidden". Anyone with a computer only has to do a simple Google to be inundated with anti-Mormon literature. I think what was meant is that church history taught in church does not go in depth to one's personal satisfaction. Put another way, the controversial topics are not addressed. My answer would be, DUH (while smacking my head). All religious organizations are entities of faith. Topics in any church's sunday school or from the pulpit are meant to build faith; not destroy it. Those who attend other classes, Institute, Know Your Religion, etc. can gain a more in-depth knowledge of doctrine and church history. Regardless, there are too many avenues for learning to ever claim that knowledge is "hidden". Also, Mormon conformism should be referenced or changed to explain Mormon conformity issues. In the church there is both doctrinal and cultural. It seems unclear/confusing here. Storm Rider 02:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for these claims, but I also disagree on an important level with the thesis that there is no relevant sense under which controversial LDS history is hidden (I would actually use the phrase "swept under the carpet"). Unfortunately, I am unware of any legitimate study that shows what I am talking about, so I must rest my claim on anecdotal and general premises.
  • First, I agree that avoiding controversial issues in a gospel doctrine class does not entail hiding doctrinal difficulties. I don't think gospel doctrine should be a philosophy of religion course or a history course; of course it is supposed to be faith promoting, just like at any other church.
  • In regard to the other church endorsed avenues of studying Mormonism, I will disagree with you if you are suggesting that institute courses cover the controversial doctrines and give them total justice. You really can't be acquainted with these issues in a holistic sense unless you are acquainted with the other sides--the revisionists, the exmormons, etc.--and this is something that the church just isn't going to do for you. Although it is true that someone could look these people up and peruse their work, revisionists and exmormons have received such an ad hominem assault--deceivers, anti-mormons, etc.--that they tend to be ignored. Those people lie routinely. They drive away the Spirit. In any case, you must accept the weaker thesis that such study is discouraged by the present administration (I can get you quotes, if you like).
  • On another level, some aspects really do seem to be purposely hidden. For instance, have you seen "The Restoration" (a DVD that came with the Ensign last year? In any event, the DVD depicts Joseph Smith leaning over the golden plates translating and Oliver Cowdery on the other side of a table. In this picture, the golden plates are in plain view of Oliver Cowdery. Of course, even a cursory knowledge of church history will inform you that Oliver Cowdery did not routinely see the golden plates. Furthermore, if you look at the writings of those that actually saw Joseph translate, most (if not nearly all) said that Joseph usually translated with the plates covered or looked into his seerstone while translating. Now, the major purpose of this DVD was proselytizing, and I think that it is reasonable to assume that there was an important sense under which the real way that the translation took place was deliberately obscured from public view.
  • More generally, if you tell me that the version of church history that is taught in gospel doctrine classes matches the actual flavor (in a very loose and metaphorical sense) of works like History of the Church and the Journal of Discourses I will again wholeheartedly disagree with you. This stuff is toned down big time. I'm not going to argue here, I'm just going to ask you to examine the situation and decide for yourself if this material is omitted only because the CES wants breadth rather than depth.
To summarize, some aspects of doctrine and history are hidden in an important sense. Although gospel doctrine isn't a philosophy class, members are discouraged to read revisionist and exmormon critiques, since these are anti-mormon endeavors characterized by fraud and intellectual shortsight. Although this is true of some of this literature, it is certainly not true of all of it. Moreover, in cases as described by the "The Restoration" DVD, the church deliberately obscures strange history. This revisionist history follows through in gospel doctrine classes and the popular conception of LDS history. There has been, and is, a sigificant repression of ideas on the part of the church. At the very least, a whole lot of exmormons feel that way, and that's all that this article needs. Becks028 08:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
If you still say that nothing is hidden, read this: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lying.htm. I'll admit that this takes too strong a position, but it clearly shows that some things have been "hidden".
The article you mentinoed immediately above is interesting; I always appreciate when someone takes a whole talk, deducts only those things that fit with their objective and then provide an ongoing critique. What results is that lines are taken out of context while others are dead on. It reminds me of the story of swallowing 99 truths if one lie can then be swallowed. There are so many points in the article that we could discuss, but they don't really address what we were discussing specifically.
The facts are that nothing is hidden. Anyone who wants to read any of the items mentioned above are available to all. There is nothing in the world that prevents you from reading them. You contention is they are not taught in church, but that contradicts your agreement that all churches are faith promoting institutions and they are not going to often address everything writting negatively about religion.
Your desire to use anecdotal evidence is acceptable, but that should be stated. Exmos may feel that way, but that does not make it true. The fact is only that they feel that way; nothing more. The fact that they did learn these things is proof they are not hidden. What is sad is that most of them learn it from anti-Mormon literature. You and I both know that the majority of that stuff is so sensationalized that it does not even come close to representing the truth. It is written to achieve a specific objective. Makes me think of the pot calling the kettle black. I prefer that people just read history.
I would agree that there are instances of warning people from reading anti-Mormon literature. I would disagree that there is widespread counsel not to read church history. Addressing the translation of the Book of Mormon; one must admit that Joseph never explained the translation process. We do have records of how others perceived the process, but they are limited and none of them adress the full process used. What we do know is the Joseph used the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone, and straight revelation without any intermediary device. To say anything more than that is revisionist and false. To accuse the church of hiding the truth because it only showed one method of translation in a DVD, in the open before Oliver, is straining to support an argument. There is documentation that there was no curtain that separated Joseph from his scribe. If you want to be offended in life, it will not take you long to find a reason. How long do you think that DVD would have been if it addressed every method known, but no record of how it was acutally done.
I agree with almost everything you said above, but your last paragraph seems to fly in the face of your comments. I understand you to say; history is hidden in the an important way because Exmos believe it to be so and that is all that is needed. That is hardly a cause for truth, but is appropriate for the article as long as you state "they believe x, y, and z". It would then be appropriate to counter that statement with the other side to achieve balance. Storm Rider 21:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd be happy to just let the article say the exmos feel that stuff was hidden and hence feel deceived, but I'd like to hear your response to what I was trying to say. Just to set things straight, I prefaced my remarks by acknowledging that my premises were mostly anecdotal and general. I have a few points to push here.
  • First, although it is true that Joseph never divulged the exact mechanism of translation, the historical record does indicate how it was not done. This much we do know: the record says that Oliver was not allowed to see the plates except when they were shown to him by Moroni. Yes, a 15-minute video could not detail all the controversy of the methods of translation and still deliver its intended message, but that does not justify inserting fiction into the DVD. And, in this case, the fiction portrays a message that is counterfactual and favorable for proselyting: oh yeah, Joseph let people see the marvelous plates he found. He didn't do anything weird like use a Urim and Thummim or a seerstone or look into a hat. You can't just pick the most favorable one in spite of all evidence to the contrary for the sake of simplicity.
  • In regard to the Packham article, I agree that he claims to establish much more than he in fact does establish. And yes, this is fairly characteristic of his type of arguments against Mormonism. Largely, so-called anti-mormon literature is naive and comes from two upset groups: pissed exmormons and pissed evangelicals. However, some more recent work by revisionist Mormons such as Brent Metcalfe write intelligent work that challenges traditional LDS truth claims and it is not done dishonestly or naively or contentiously. Likewise, there is work by evangelical scholars that aren't pissed and are likewise fair critics, such as Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. In any case, I think a lot of Packham's arguments are a stretch, but he only needs a few of them to work in order to establish that the church hides stuff. How is it out of context to claim that Joseph Smith denied practicing polygamy in the mid 1840s when he was in fact practicing polygamy since (at least) the late 1830s? How is Packham tricking us when he talks about the Teachings of Brigham Young manual? Did the editors not do the things that he is talking about? I remember reading the manual and laughing at exactly those points. Now, I'm going to agree that there would be no motivation to go into detail about Young's polygamy in a Priesthood or Relief Society class, but it is a bit excessive to change so many instances of "wives" to "[wife]". It is absurd to not mention Young's polygamy at all. Do you think that this just happened to be the case or do you think that they intentionally omitted every passage of Young's teachings that touched on polygamy?
  • Third, why do you think that exmos feel that things were hidden and angry because of this feeling? Do you think that this perception of being tricked is stronger in Mormonism than say, Lutheranism or Catholicism or Islam (may some exJWs feel tricked or some exmoonies)? Where are the people that say they have been systematically tricked by the Lutheran Church? Ok, I think you get the point: although this perceived deception does not entail actual deception, it does show that there is something different about this aspect of Mormonism, and it is probably that they have, in fact, had stuff hidden from them. Although it is not necessary for my argument, I'll explain why it is the case that more LDS stuff is hidden. First, there just is more weird stuff to hide. Luther didn't have nearly as much weird doctrine as Joseph or Brigham (although he did have his share). Second, the weird stuff is more recent.
So yeah. There are instances of hiding stuff. Yes, you can access it, but that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't go far out of its way to put it out of your view. (Of course, there is the Church History collections stuff that only the faithful historians get to say, but that is a whole nother story, isn't it?) Becks028 19:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will try to provide a response in the order you mande comments:

  • I am not bothered by how it was portrayed in the DVD. Obviously this is something to which you are highly sensitive and offended. I can't help you in this matter. Do you really think that people are converted becuase of how a DVD portrays the event? I am not sure I have ever seen any Old Testament prophet portrayed using the U&T thought the OT says they used it. Nor have I seen any other prophet use the U&T including JS.
  • I dislike revisionists regardless of where they are found. Mormons who limit research to only positive information are not appreciated or respected. Manuals that sanitize history are done, IMHO, by back room bureaucrats that haven't a clue abou the Gospel. They are committed to a physical organization. This is the age-old issue of all organized religions; is the Gospel true or the Church? The Gospel, for me, is different and wins hands down. I did really enjoy Brother Bushman's book, "Rough Stone Rolling". I found it fascinating and I don't think it left anything out. I also don't think he was revisionist. I have yet to find an anti-Mormon "historian" (I use the term loosely) that attempts to include information from both sides. I do not like it when Packer, in particular, attempts to guide people in how to accomplish research and teaching. We all should study and be lead by the Spirit; anything less is not the Gospel of Christ. I think we might be agreeing on this issue. Frankly, I am not too much of a fan of general authorities in the sense that I do not place them on pedestals. Do I believe they have keys, prophets, seers and revelators? Yes, do they exercise those keys; not actively. Further, they put their pants on just like everyone else. They are not perfect; some are better than others. Some are just good administrators, but are not men of God. This is my personal opinion and nothing more. For me the Lord does with what he has; He makes weak things strong. The scriptures are full of examples in past and present times that demonstrates that the Lord uses weak individuals to accomplish His work. I see no evidence to think it is any different today. To expect different today is naive.
  • I think exmos are offended because of the source of their "learning". I also suspect they initally idealized church genearl authorities and placed them on very high pedestals. Further, they were certainly naive. When I have spent time reading email on exmormon.org, it is not surprising to see how many of them live a different moral life. It is also surprising how often others will say they are accused of living a different life morally. I suspect that most of them pick up drinking and other habits they make them feel more comfortable within society. I also suspect that it is a form of rebellion that ensures that everyone gets the picture they have separated from the church. I also suspect that they are like many people who just have a problem with authority. I would like to see some reserach on how many of them actually join other churches vs. those who simply cease participating in organized religion. I also think you have not been around many of our Catholic brothers and sisters. We don't hold a candle to their comments and writings for those who have fallen away. Also, anyone who has studied history will find out what really wierd stuff was done. Mormons are neither unique or alone and it is foolish to think otherwise. It may be more apparent to exmos becuase they were involved, but it is shortsided to think they have had a unique experience.
  • What I am resistant to is the concept of hidden knowledge. There is no such thing. What we disagree on is where the source of information comes from. You feel that the church should be in the forefront of instructing all members and potential converts in all of the minutae that took place at the beginning of restoration of the churhc. I disagree and would accept Christ's recommendation that some are given milk while others are given meat. So yes, we disagree on where the source should be. I have learned in life if we want to be offended, we can certainly find a way to be offended. Also, never put any of the GA's on a pedestal. They possess a mantal of authority, but they are just men. Nothing more and nothing less. There is a reason why Christ said that a prophet is never repsected in his own land. They know the buggar too well and can't get past the reality to accept the mantel now assumed by the prophet. Nothing is an original problem in the church, but has always been a problem from the very beginning. Thanks for talking with me; I have enjoyed it. I would like to see the article have more information on how difficult it is for those who choose to leave and why. Just pointing a finger and talking how bad the church is simplifies and misleads a very complex issue. Storm Rider 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tone of the Article

I think that there are some problems with NPOV in this article that are very difficult to remove. Describing leaving Mormonism as "recovery" assumes that being Mormon was a state from which one must recover. Also, some lines want to say that there actually are inconsistences between Mormon doctrine and the Bible or that some Mormon doctrines really are unacceptable. However, this doesn't work well with NPOV. Might some of this be appropriate given the character of the page? That is, might it be appropriate since it relates to the view espoused by this controversial submovement of an already controversial religious movement? Until someone gives a reason that this is appropriate, I'm going to try to get rid of lines that assert that Mormonism is false or bad. Becks028 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Becks028 wrote "Describing leaving Mormonism as "recovery" assumes that being Mormon was a state from which one must recover." That is an incorrect way of reasoning. If something is a big part of your social, intellectual, spiritual, and emotional life and you leave all that (suddenly) behind then there is a very big chance that you have to recover from leaving. Andries 15:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)