Quote from October 6th General Conference session:
M. Russell Ballard
“Those who are curious in this general way deserve clear and accurate information that comes directly from those of us who are members. So they do not have to rely on the incomplete answers, half-truths, or false statements that may come from the media or other outside voices. The many misunderstandings and false information about the Church are somewhat our own fault for not clearly explaining who are and what we believe.”
This apostle is talking about the Mormon church getting a lot of spotlight these days because of Mitt Romney's candidacy. This talk he gave during conference was sort of a pep talk to members on how to teach non-Mormons about the church. Keep-It-Simple-Stupid method was discussed. Ballard's four points were facts, faith, family and fruits of the the restored gospel.
See this site for a review of Saturday's speakers.
In my case, I would take issue with the fact that the church doesn't even provide information to their own members about past issues like polygamy, for example. The only thing Ballard pretty well said about it was:
“Polygamy a, limited practice in the early pioneer days of the church, was discontinued in 1890, some 117 years ago.”
But that's not entirely true. Polygamy was still practiced as late as 1904, in secret, and in direct opposition to law enforcement officials who had to be brought into Utah to take over the courts and the governor's office. Men were imprisoned for continuing the practice, if they could be found and tried, and only when the judges were no longer faithful LDS members themselves did the church finally give up the underground rebellion of continuing polygamy. BUT, that does not mean that it is no longer the belief. It has never been removed from doctrine, it has merely been suspended from active practice. The church still maintains the belief that polygamy will be allowed again at some time in the future, that it is God's will, that it is the only way for complete exaltation in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Men can still be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, even if secularly divorced from her and she is still alive married to someone else. She cannot be sealed to the new husband unless she gets permission from the first to cancel the sealing previously done. But he can go on to marry again without canceling the first. And it is still the belief that he can choose to call both of his wives forth from the grave on the day of the Resurrection, and he, knowing both of their names given to each in the temple, can choose to retain whichever wife or wives he so chooses. What wife would refuse to go with him, after all, if he does indeed hold the power to bring them into Celestial Glory if he so desires?
All the power rests on the husband, the priesthood holder, and all the women can do is hope that they are worthy to be called forth...
Anyway, my main issue here is that the members are led to believe that they possess all the knowledge of the past and present teachings of the church, and can adequately defend any negative position others may present. I would categorically state that this is false. Members I was acquainted with during my 20+ years as a Mormon, in my opinion, have no idea that Joseph was polygamous and had as many as 33 wives, according to familysearch.org. (File Number: 9KGL-W2) Members that I grew up with, or have known me since childhood, would adamantly deny that Joseph sometimes used a seer stone in a hat to dictate scripture. And I would be hard pressed to find one member of my old ward who would be knowledgeable about Joseph's various vision accounts when speaking in public or recounting his experiences to converts, and that the 'official version' didn't appear in print until 1842.
These are the things that anti-Mormons will bring up against Mormons, to try to show them that they don't even know enough about the church's past teachings to defend against them with intelligent arguments. The only tool they have is, "My church never taught that, you are lying!" Then comes the day when they check out fairwiki, run by fairlds.org, an apologetic website promoting and defending the church, and they read article after article defending Joseph's polygamy practice with teenage girls, or the seer stone in a hat method of translation, or the various "First Vision" stories where Joseph first named the angel Nephi instead of Moroni. The church apologists are defending these allegations, but the regular members are unaware of the underlying history behind the accusations in the first place. And that's why the church is loosing
it's membership: failure to disclose the troublesome history themselves.
The Internet seems to be more of a challenge to the Mormon church than so-called 'anti-Mormons'. Before the arrival of the information age, any nay-sayers could be ignored and lumped together as ignorant of the beliefs. Now that Google has become a household word, it's unimaginable that there could be Mormons who have never heard of Joseph's polygamy, or the stone in the hat, but it happens. And that is mostly due to the second message that the church sends to its believers: "Correct" information comes from "trusted" sources. In other words, do not trust the Internet, for they are liars and deceivers. Yet I got MY information straight off of fairlds.org.
Now the tactic seems to be: "We told you over and over, its been in our teachings forever, so why are you claiming you never heard these things? We've been teaching this stuff since Seminary, it's not the church's fault that you never paid attention in Sunday School! Why are you blaming the church for your ignorance? All you had to do is check out a few books from any LDS library, the information is right there! What do you think personal study is all about?"
Oh, yeah. That will work. Blame the uninformed. Tell them that if they had never heard of Fanny Alger or Helen Mar Kimball, it's their own fault. Insist that the head in the hat method of translation was taught in Seminary for years. Make them feel completely stupid for their shock at learning about the various First Vision accounts and that Brigham Young taught that blacks would never gain rights to the priesthood authority because they were of the race of Cain. Let's see how many members stay in a church that makes them feel completely lied to and tricked when they find out the rest of the story...
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
LDS Church Young Women's Manual Lesson-- How to be Submissive to Men
I never would have believed it if I hadn't read it for myself...
On the lds.org website, the Young Women's manual is available online. Lesson 11 is titled, "Appreciating the Bishop". In this lesson, girls ages 12-17 are taught by their leaders to respect and revere the bishop of the ward.
Some quotes from the manual: [bold is my emphasis]
In the LDS church, bishops are not trained clergy. They are farmers, they are business professionals, they are bus drivers and lawyers. They have little to no training on how to counsel people in distress or crisis, other than what is provided in the Church Handbook of Instructions. They often focus on minutiae of worthiness issues, like hemlines and shirt colors, and skip over really getting to know the members personally. But the interviews behind closed doors are the real danger to 12 year old girls. There, sequestered and alone, they bravely face a man who could be a complete stranger to them, yet they are to treat him as they would a father figure, and obey his counsel. This is taking a huge risk, and it is shameful that parents don't see the potential danger. I know a few men in the ward that I used to attend who were just on the edge of creepy, and if they had ever been elevated to the level of bishop, lots of people would have gone inactive. Yet there are the occasional wolves in sheep's clothing, just waiting for their turn at being the bishop so they can have access to all the young teens in the ward. It happens. Even home teachers have been known to take advantage of the youth in the ward, and parents are often unwitting accomplices because of the blind trust they have in "callings".
Mormons are so unaware of their own history, they can't even see the stark resemblance between Joseph Smith's Mormonism and Warren Jeffs' Mormonism. Warren Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to rape for arranging and forcing a marriage between a 14 year old girl and her 19 year old cousin.
Oh, but the similarities don't end there....
Warren Jeffs is the spiritual leader of a sect that calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. They teach polygamy, blood atonement, and isolation from the federal government, just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. They hold to the original teachings of the church, and accuse the Mormons of being a break-away branch of the true church. They are unapologetic when confronted about their polygamy practices, and have nothing but contempt for LDS members, because their church gave up polygamy to obtain statehood. Joseph Smith was so determined to have a kingdom of Latter-Day Saints that he uprooted his followers numerous times so that they could practice their religion away from the interference of the federal government. Brigham Young accomplished that for a period of 40 years before the U.S. troops came banging on the doorstep, arresting anyone they could find practicing polygamy. In 1890, the LDS gave up the practice, but only on the secular level. It is still acceptable practice to be married to more than one wife in the eyes of the church, and is still part of the original doctrine. The only difference between LDS and FLDS in this respect is that the LDS are covert about the practice, and do not discuss it, even openly deny it to the media and to the world.
Now, granted, the men who are polygamously married to another wife through the temple sealing ordinance is under no obligation to support her, co-habitate with her, or otherwise maintain contact with her, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the LDS church, he is still sealed to her, and has the right to claim her in the afterlife as his wife, if he hopes to obtain the highest level of celestial glory. She cannot be sealed to anyone else without a cancellation of this marriage, and has to obtain HIS permission to do so. She also has to be interviewed extensively for any past sins and for worthiness issues prior to being 'given' to another man. But HE does not have to take these steps to be sealed to another woman in the temple. This is in the LDS church. So, what would you call this, if it's not 'spiritual polygamy'? And this is how they get away with saying they are not associated with polygamy, it was done away with many years ago, stop persecuting us, etc. Those of us who have left the church KNOW that it is still practiced in the temple, and in the LDS view, that supercedes the temporal law anyway.
Warren Jeffs rules his church with an iron fist, and any who oppose him are cast out, excommunicated, cut off from parents or children, and personal belongings, even wives and children are assigned to other 'more worthy' men. Joseph Smith was married to as many as 33 wives himself, some of whom were ALREADY wives of other men. If any man opposed him, he was publicly denounced, excommunicated, property seized and redistributed, and the wife was taken anyway. Most of the time, Joseph merely sent them on missions to England and took the wife while her husband was away. He might come back two years later to discover his wife mysteriously pregnant, and then the choice to leave her and their children behind or stay and submit to 'spiritual wifery' would have to be faced.
Questions:
If polygamy was supposed to help the church 'be fruitful and multiply', why couldn't these women do that with their OWN husbands?
They can't be pregnant more than once at a time, right? So why would it be necessary for her to be having sex with Joseph Smith, if her husband could get her pregnant just as easily?
Growing up in the church, I was told that polygamy was a small practice and only used to secure the futures of widows, or young girls with no parents. Now that I have learned the truth about the practice, and that the source of the teaching was Joseph, not Brigham, and that other men's wives were given in plural marriage, I can't fathom how the LDS church can claim that they have nothing in common with the FLDS church. They have the same roots, and the same doctrine. They teach the young women early on to obey the bishop, follow his counsel, he is responsible for you, he knows what is best for you, etc. It's not that much of a leap...
On the lds.org website, the Young Women's manual is available online. Lesson 11 is titled, "Appreciating the Bishop". In this lesson, girls ages 12-17 are taught by their leaders to respect and revere the bishop of the ward.
Some quotes from the manual: [bold is my emphasis]
“The bishop presides over every person in the ward and directs their local church activities. … All of your adolescent life you will be under the direction of the bishop. He will appoint teachers and supervisors to do his work, but he will be very much interested in your progress. Your life here will be constantly weighed by him, for he is the judge of your worthiness … to receive higher ordinances, and to be worthy to go to the Temple.
“If you are going to work in the Church system you will learn to be obedient to your bishop. If you get into trouble you will be wise if you seek his advice and counsel. He has been designated by the Lord and appointed by the President of the Church to be responsible for you and to make sure you progress according to your worthiness and ability. …
“… He will see you every year at tithing settlement. He will interview you. … If you go on a mission he will be the one who makes the first inquiry as to your fitness and ability to serve in this capacity” (S. Dilworth Young, More Precious than Rubies [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959], pp. 40–41).
Is it any small wonder that men like Warren Jeffs come to power and control, when the members are so willing to submit to his authority?
In the LDS church, bishops are not trained clergy. They are farmers, they are business professionals, they are bus drivers and lawyers. They have little to no training on how to counsel people in distress or crisis, other than what is provided in the Church Handbook of Instructions. They often focus on minutiae of worthiness issues, like hemlines and shirt colors, and skip over really getting to know the members personally. But the interviews behind closed doors are the real danger to 12 year old girls. There, sequestered and alone, they bravely face a man who could be a complete stranger to them, yet they are to treat him as they would a father figure, and obey his counsel. This is taking a huge risk, and it is shameful that parents don't see the potential danger. I know a few men in the ward that I used to attend who were just on the edge of creepy, and if they had ever been elevated to the level of bishop, lots of people would have gone inactive. Yet there are the occasional wolves in sheep's clothing, just waiting for their turn at being the bishop so they can have access to all the young teens in the ward. It happens. Even home teachers have been known to take advantage of the youth in the ward, and parents are often unwitting accomplices because of the blind trust they have in "callings".
Mormons are so unaware of their own history, they can't even see the stark resemblance between Joseph Smith's Mormonism and Warren Jeffs' Mormonism. Warren Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to rape for arranging and forcing a marriage between a 14 year old girl and her 19 year old cousin.
Jeffs advised her to pray and to submit to her husband, learn to love him, and bear his children -- or risk losing her "eternal salvation," the woman testified.
Contrast this story with that of 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, who was a plural wife of Joseph Smith:
Oh, but the similarities don't end there....
Warren Jeffs is the spiritual leader of a sect that calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints. They teach polygamy, blood atonement, and isolation from the federal government, just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. They hold to the original teachings of the church, and accuse the Mormons of being a break-away branch of the true church. They are unapologetic when confronted about their polygamy practices, and have nothing but contempt for LDS members, because their church gave up polygamy to obtain statehood. Joseph Smith was so determined to have a kingdom of Latter-Day Saints that he uprooted his followers numerous times so that they could practice their religion away from the interference of the federal government. Brigham Young accomplished that for a period of 40 years before the U.S. troops came banging on the doorstep, arresting anyone they could find practicing polygamy. In 1890, the LDS gave up the practice, but only on the secular level. It is still acceptable practice to be married to more than one wife in the eyes of the church, and is still part of the original doctrine. The only difference between LDS and FLDS in this respect is that the LDS are covert about the practice, and do not discuss it, even openly deny it to the media and to the world.
Now, granted, the men who are polygamously married to another wife through the temple sealing ordinance is under no obligation to support her, co-habitate with her, or otherwise maintain contact with her, but the fact remains that in the eyes of the LDS church, he is still sealed to her, and has the right to claim her in the afterlife as his wife, if he hopes to obtain the highest level of celestial glory. She cannot be sealed to anyone else without a cancellation of this marriage, and has to obtain HIS permission to do so. She also has to be interviewed extensively for any past sins and for worthiness issues prior to being 'given' to another man. But HE does not have to take these steps to be sealed to another woman in the temple. This is in the LDS church. So, what would you call this, if it's not 'spiritual polygamy'? And this is how they get away with saying they are not associated with polygamy, it was done away with many years ago, stop persecuting us, etc. Those of us who have left the church KNOW that it is still practiced in the temple, and in the LDS view, that supercedes the temporal law anyway.
Warren Jeffs rules his church with an iron fist, and any who oppose him are cast out, excommunicated, cut off from parents or children, and personal belongings, even wives and children are assigned to other 'more worthy' men. Joseph Smith was married to as many as 33 wives himself, some of whom were ALREADY wives of other men. If any man opposed him, he was publicly denounced, excommunicated, property seized and redistributed, and the wife was taken anyway. Most of the time, Joseph merely sent them on missions to England and took the wife while her husband was away. He might come back two years later to discover his wife mysteriously pregnant, and then the choice to leave her and their children behind or stay and submit to 'spiritual wifery' would have to be faced.
Questions:
If polygamy was supposed to help the church 'be fruitful and multiply', why couldn't these women do that with their OWN husbands?
They can't be pregnant more than once at a time, right? So why would it be necessary for her to be having sex with Joseph Smith, if her husband could get her pregnant just as easily?
Growing up in the church, I was told that polygamy was a small practice and only used to secure the futures of widows, or young girls with no parents. Now that I have learned the truth about the practice, and that the source of the teaching was Joseph, not Brigham, and that other men's wives were given in plural marriage, I can't fathom how the LDS church can claim that they have nothing in common with the FLDS church. They have the same roots, and the same doctrine. They teach the young women early on to obey the bishop, follow his counsel, he is responsible for you, he knows what is best for you, etc. It's not that much of a leap...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Mormon Church Authorities Revoke Underwear Privileges
This story has been all over the message boards...click here for the full article
Quote:
"In a letter to Lamborn dated Sept. 2, Molina noted that a disciplinary council had been held Aug. 19 and excommunication was ordered. Lamborn, 49, a Mesa resident who has been a priesthood leader for 20 years, was informed he was no longer a church member, could not “enjoy any membership privileges, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings.”
***My Thoughts***
Ok, there are SO many things wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin.
In short, this guy decided to tell his bishop that he no longer believes the church is true, and his "authority priesthood hierarchy" holds a meeting without him to decide what to do to limit his influence on the other members. They decide to ex-communicate him AND announce it to all the wards in his stake, "to let people know if there is a danger to them, such as him teaching doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church"
Danger? What, this guy was carrying knives and guns around with him? Was he was threatening to hurt someone? No, the danger is that he might share his ideas with others and turn on the critical thinking skills the church works so hard to dampen with their endless mantras of "follow the prophet, he knows the way". The only 'danger' that he represented was that he may actually have a valid point of view, and the church authorities thought it would be best to discredit him with the shroud of excommunication before he could talk to anyone else.
The church authorities know what stigma comes with the word 'excommunication'.
So, Brother Lamborn went to the press. And now he's got the whole Internet buzzing with this news.
I just have to step back and make a comment on the church's withdrawal of "privileges" like wearing garments, and paying tithing.
This guy probably didn't own any other underwear besides garments. Now the church has ordered him to cease wearing them, by their own special decree. And just how do they propose to enforce this law upon a man who has been excommunicated simply because he can't believe their church is what it claims to be? Is there a special committee on 'underwear wearing' that each stake musters forth to check out members worthiness factor? Are there now going to be spot checks at sacrament meetings?
Good Gravy! I can't believe they actually put that in PRINT!!! "You may not wear garments". Underwear is a privilege?!! Didn't he rightfully buy and pay for those garments? Wasn't he REQUIRED to wear them at all times and forgo all wordly underpants? And now they are going to go to his house and confiscate them?!! AS IF!!! Who the hell do they think they are, telling people what kind of skivvies they CAN and CANNOT wear?
Once I left the church, way before I sent in my letter, the garmies were the first things I did away with, on my own. What makes them think he is still wearing them voluntarily!? Under the temple covenants we made, we were committed to wearing them, because that was a reminder of the promises we made to God, in the temple. Once we figured out those promises were made under false pretenses of the church being what they claim, the covenant dissipates. God doesn't CARE what our underpants look like, Mormons!!!
The utter GALL they have to hold a counsel meeting and decide to paint him as an evil apostate who is a 'danger' to others because he might teach "doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church". Aren't the people of the church smart enough on their own to discern truth? Can't they be trusted to hear him out and then decide on their OWN that he is a 'danger'? Apparently not, so the Stake President decides to announce from the pulpit that Brother Lamborn is an apostate, is not to be trusted, cannot partake of privileges of underwear-wearing, or paying 10% of his yearly income to the uplifting and sustaining of the church, cannot speak, pray, or partake of the LORD'S SACRAMENT because he doesn't believe every one of the truths the church teaches. He went and found his own "truth". And that makes him someone to be avoided.
Is there anything here that does NOT sound like a cult to you?
They are trying to 'shame' him by publicly humiliating him, and the only thing that is happening is that people are going to want to know WHY he doesn't believe anymore. That Stake President just unwittingly helped lead hundreds of his faithful members to the very sources of information he was seeking to protect them from, seemingly because it is his responsibility to shield those with weak testimonies from topics that are 'not very useful' for promoting faith.
Oh, and a word about tithing while I'm at it...
Paying 10% of your yearly income to the church is a privilege that Brother Lamborn now HAS to give up? Wow. Looks to me like he just got a RAISE. Wonder how he'll sleep at night with all that money in the bank and his bills paid off. Hmm... Brother Lamborn, we have decided that you will not be allowed to finance the 2 Billion dollar mall project going on in Downtown Salt Lake. There, that'll teach him.
Why should he feel bad for being excommunicated because he found out about Joseph's 33 wives? They are listed on the familysearch.org website!! For anyone to see if they chose to learn about it!! But, that wasn't the problem really, it was Brother Lamborn's REACTION to the news.
There are over 25 pages of comments on this article from the East Valley Tribune. Quite a number of Mormon-faithful are deriding Brother Lamborn's discovery, and calling it "common knowledge', 'old news', and 'fully-known to most Mormons'. Oh, is that so? Then why are thousands leaving the church every year, even faster than new converts are coming in?! Do you think that Joseph's polygamy is part of the discussions given to investigators? No Way! We all now that 'too much truth, given without the proper authority and without the proper spirit, can be a faith destroyer'. (Quote from Boyd Packer)
I know that I was shocked and troubled when I first learned of it, and it sure the hell wasn't in seminary class or Gospel Doctrine!!! How the hell was I going to learn about it while I was stuck in Sunday school with 3-11 year olds teaching them to sing," Follow the Prophet"? I wasn't learning anything new, year after year. I was rehashing and teaching the surface doctrine, the 'fluffy bunny' stuff, to kids because that's what I was ASSIGNED to do. So all those Holier-than-Thou Mormons who know everything about Church History and still believe can kiss it, because that is NOT how the church operates everywhere. How arrogant to think that the church has ALWAYS been upfront about its history, when they take such large measures to shield their members from ever discussing it, and they excommunicate you for finding out!!!
I am SO glad I resigned, I took control, I told THEM that I was NO LONGER a member!!! Ha! None of their chastisements and admonitions made any impact upon me because I was no longer AFRAID of them!
If I had taken my concerns to the bishop, and convinced him that I actually had valid points and that I could possibly convince others of weaker testimonies that the teachings were false, he may have done the same to me, paint me as an apostate before I could resign of my choosing! And as it happens, I did try to convince some people to leave. AFTER I resigned. I will always have that in my corner. I decided THEY were wrong, so I LEFT.
And the whole reason I keep this blog alive is so that one day, when someone I know stops by and reads what I have written here, whether it's today or years down the road, they can come to know the truth is out there, they can take the control back for their lives, and they can stop living in a religion dictated by the choice of underbritches.
Quote:
"In a letter to Lamborn dated Sept. 2, Molina noted that a disciplinary council had been held Aug. 19 and excommunication was ordered. Lamborn, 49, a Mesa resident who has been a priesthood leader for 20 years, was informed he was no longer a church member, could not “enjoy any membership privileges, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings.”
***My Thoughts***
Ok, there are SO many things wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin.
In short, this guy decided to tell his bishop that he no longer believes the church is true, and his "authority priesthood hierarchy" holds a meeting without him to decide what to do to limit his influence on the other members. They decide to ex-communicate him AND announce it to all the wards in his stake, "to let people know if there is a danger to them, such as him teaching doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church"
Danger? What, this guy was carrying knives and guns around with him? Was he was threatening to hurt someone? No, the danger is that he might share his ideas with others and turn on the critical thinking skills the church works so hard to dampen with their endless mantras of "follow the prophet, he knows the way". The only 'danger' that he represented was that he may actually have a valid point of view, and the church authorities thought it would be best to discredit him with the shroud of excommunication before he could talk to anyone else.
The church authorities know what stigma comes with the word 'excommunication'.
So, Brother Lamborn went to the press. And now he's got the whole Internet buzzing with this news.
I just have to step back and make a comment on the church's withdrawal of "privileges" like wearing garments, and paying tithing.
This guy probably didn't own any other underwear besides garments. Now the church has ordered him to cease wearing them, by their own special decree. And just how do they propose to enforce this law upon a man who has been excommunicated simply because he can't believe their church is what it claims to be? Is there a special committee on 'underwear wearing' that each stake musters forth to check out members worthiness factor? Are there now going to be spot checks at sacrament meetings?
Good Gravy! I can't believe they actually put that in PRINT!!! "You may not wear garments". Underwear is a privilege?!! Didn't he rightfully buy and pay for those garments? Wasn't he REQUIRED to wear them at all times and forgo all wordly underpants? And now they are going to go to his house and confiscate them?!! AS IF!!! Who the hell do they think they are, telling people what kind of skivvies they CAN and CANNOT wear?
Once I left the church, way before I sent in my letter, the garmies were the first things I did away with, on my own. What makes them think he is still wearing them voluntarily!? Under the temple covenants we made, we were committed to wearing them, because that was a reminder of the promises we made to God, in the temple. Once we figured out those promises were made under false pretenses of the church being what they claim, the covenant dissipates. God doesn't CARE what our underpants look like, Mormons!!!
The utter GALL they have to hold a counsel meeting and decide to paint him as an evil apostate who is a 'danger' to others because he might teach "doctrine that is contrary to what is taught by the church". Aren't the people of the church smart enough on their own to discern truth? Can't they be trusted to hear him out and then decide on their OWN that he is a 'danger'? Apparently not, so the Stake President decides to announce from the pulpit that Brother Lamborn is an apostate, is not to be trusted, cannot partake of privileges of underwear-wearing, or paying 10% of his yearly income to the uplifting and sustaining of the church, cannot speak, pray, or partake of the LORD'S SACRAMENT because he doesn't believe every one of the truths the church teaches. He went and found his own "truth". And that makes him someone to be avoided.
Is there anything here that does NOT sound like a cult to you?
They are trying to 'shame' him by publicly humiliating him, and the only thing that is happening is that people are going to want to know WHY he doesn't believe anymore. That Stake President just unwittingly helped lead hundreds of his faithful members to the very sources of information he was seeking to protect them from, seemingly because it is his responsibility to shield those with weak testimonies from topics that are 'not very useful' for promoting faith.
Oh, and a word about tithing while I'm at it...
Paying 10% of your yearly income to the church is a privilege that Brother Lamborn now HAS to give up? Wow. Looks to me like he just got a RAISE. Wonder how he'll sleep at night with all that money in the bank and his bills paid off. Hmm... Brother Lamborn, we have decided that you will not be allowed to finance the 2 Billion dollar mall project going on in Downtown Salt Lake. There, that'll teach him.
Why should he feel bad for being excommunicated because he found out about Joseph's 33 wives? They are listed on the familysearch.org website!! For anyone to see if they chose to learn about it!! But, that wasn't the problem really, it was Brother Lamborn's REACTION to the news.
There are over 25 pages of comments on this article from the East Valley Tribune. Quite a number of Mormon-faithful are deriding Brother Lamborn's discovery, and calling it "common knowledge', 'old news', and 'fully-known to most Mormons'. Oh, is that so? Then why are thousands leaving the church every year, even faster than new converts are coming in?! Do you think that Joseph's polygamy is part of the discussions given to investigators? No Way! We all now that 'too much truth, given without the proper authority and without the proper spirit, can be a faith destroyer'. (Quote from Boyd Packer)
I know that I was shocked and troubled when I first learned of it, and it sure the hell wasn't in seminary class or Gospel Doctrine!!! How the hell was I going to learn about it while I was stuck in Sunday school with 3-11 year olds teaching them to sing," Follow the Prophet"? I wasn't learning anything new, year after year. I was rehashing and teaching the surface doctrine, the 'fluffy bunny' stuff, to kids because that's what I was ASSIGNED to do. So all those Holier-than-Thou Mormons who know everything about Church History and still believe can kiss it, because that is NOT how the church operates everywhere. How arrogant to think that the church has ALWAYS been upfront about its history, when they take such large measures to shield their members from ever discussing it, and they excommunicate you for finding out!!!
I am SO glad I resigned, I took control, I told THEM that I was NO LONGER a member!!! Ha! None of their chastisements and admonitions made any impact upon me because I was no longer AFRAID of them!
If I had taken my concerns to the bishop, and convinced him that I actually had valid points and that I could possibly convince others of weaker testimonies that the teachings were false, he may have done the same to me, paint me as an apostate before I could resign of my choosing! And as it happens, I did try to convince some people to leave. AFTER I resigned. I will always have that in my corner. I decided THEY were wrong, so I LEFT.
And the whole reason I keep this blog alive is so that one day, when someone I know stops by and reads what I have written here, whether it's today or years down the road, they can come to know the truth is out there, they can take the control back for their lives, and they can stop living in a religion dictated by the choice of underbritches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
