why would they hide information?
This is, in my opinion, one of the great indicators that the LDS Church is threatened by the Tom Phillips lawsuit against them.
The website that helps the Church receive an extra 20% from charitable donations of the UK government, was removed yesterday. I, literally, was looking at it yesterday when I published the previous post in this blog.
Why is that important? Because the LDS Church in the UK receives matched donations from the UK government. That may have some relevance on the case, since, fundamentally, the case is reclaiming tithing that was lost due to fraud.
Now, the LDS Church wouldn't remove it if it wasn't at least a little bit concerned about the case.
Two things to note:
1) Many people are stating that the LDS Church is different from other churches in that it is a corporation. In my understanding, all entities registered with the government are corporations, including churches. The difference between the LDS Church and others is that it is a sole-corporation, which means that the head of it, Thomas Monson, is responsible instead of a board of trustees.
2) You can sue for beliefs. Imagine this hypothetical -- if a child was taught, and convinced that there was a Santa Claus for 18 years, and his/her parents did all they could to make sure that that child believed in Santa Claus, then that belief would likely have caused harm in the life of the child. I would highly expect a lawsuit to be able to win in such a case. There are countless examples of where simply claiming to believe something does not absolve responsibility from the party who did the convincing, which may be a topic for later.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Saturday, February 8, 2014
The "October Surprise" or LDS President sued
This week, a summons was issued in England for Thomas S Monson, President of the LDS Church on allegations of fraud.
Now, before you read, realize that I'm just an arm chair speculator, and probably don't know much about what I'm talking about. That said, I like thinking threw these things and consider the implications fascinating.
A little backstory:
It was two years ago at the exmormon conference, where I was pulled aside. A couple people had this crazy idea about suing the church, under charges of fraud.
You might think, why would anyone sue a religion, with essentially unprovable claims? The difference between the LDS church and other churches is that you aren't required to pay tithing in any other church for eternal blessings. Second, other churches often have open finances. However, in the LDS religion, you need to pay tithing in order to both go to the temple and the Celestial Kingdom. If you then collect this money
Most countries have laws to prevent fraud. There's probably more than just fraud that the LDS Church can be sued for -- they involve themselves in politics when Churches aren't supposed to, without losing tax-exempt status. (Link for one example of recent politicking against gay marriage, and link for politicking for liquor law changes that may cause more harm than good.) Something interesting that may have an impact on future lawsuits against the Church, is that the Church has to disclose its finances in the UK.. what if those finances don't line up with how a church is supposed to be? The LDS Church is the largest private landowner in Florida, WITH TAX-EXEMPT status because it's a church!
Anyways, the case has been a couple years in the making. Although the Deseret News quoted lawyers in how bizarre the case was, and how it would be thrown out of court, the case only started after careful inspection by various lawyers about whether there was even a case. Originally, Phillips intended on everything occurring in October 2013, so the case had been called the "October surprise", although few knew what it was actually about. I personally believe that the Church caught wind of what was going on, and tried to stop it back then, as rumors about it had occurred for months. That's why it's occurring in February -- Tom Phillips had to sure up his case, and convince the UK government that the case was useful and necessary.
The momentous announcement about a summons to Monson occurred with no press release, but a simple image posted to the Mormonthink website. The LDS church denied that a summons had arrived by then, as it likely had not. The rumor is that David Twede's blog had been hacked, so that Mormonthink released the story early out of fear that others would break it first. Looking back on it, I don't know whether even if it was hacked, that was a wise idea to do, as I doubt the writer as USAToday, who was likely a believing Mormon based on this piece, was the best person to "break" the story. The change in the media received probably would have been little to no different, if they didn't post the summons to their blog first. (Forgive me if I have these details wrong.. rumors are funny things and can likely be wrong.)
Is there a case?
Yes. Realize, that it isn't Tom that's suing, but two other individuals, who lost ~$30 million to tithing, over the last decade. Since the Church presented the Book of Abraham, and the other 6 points, as act but not mere belief, Philips plenty to stand on. As it stands, the Church has books and books, and talks and talks, advising members of the historicity of many disprovable teachings.
Regardless of the initial downplaying by articles, like in the Deseret News, the Deseret News still published information about if the case went to court. In my mind, here's the possibilities:
1) Tom Phillips drops the case, possibly by settling out of court.
According to rumor, the Church has already tried to settle out of court. The case is still proceeding. I highly doubt that Tom Phillips would settle, as this is not about money, but about morality.
2) The Church gets the case dismissed.
Considering that the case has already been delayed, I believe multiple times, this seems highly unlikely. The Church likely has been fighting against this well before the larger public knew about it. They probably didn't know the exact details, but enough to find out. The LDS Church wants its members to spy on others, which often has negative consequences, so I imagine the information was passed along after being rumored about on various forums.
3) The Church wins.
In the scenario that the Church wins, the bad press for the Church has already occurred. The longer the case goes on, the more bad press for the church occurs. I mean, it isn't good press that a religion is being sued for fraud.
I consider it highly unlikely that Monson shows up in the UK. One, it's a slight gamble since these are criminal charges that he'd be unable to leave, if the church were to lose (unless he can get diplomatic immunity by being an important person in the US?).
One important factor in winning the case could be that he, himself, not lawyers, has to strongly testify that the teachings of the Church are correct. That's part of what the case revolves around -- that Monson and others believe things other than what the church teaches. It's partially apparent that they believe differently, as the recent additions to lds.org show.
Additionally, the proceedings of the case are likely to be publicized. I suppose the Church could attempt for details of the case to not leave the court room, but that seems unlikely, as I can't see any good grounds for it not to (but then again, I'm not a lawyer). That means, that all of those controversial aspects of the church, all the teachings they've claimed as fact, could be publicized in international news. No one cares about why the church isn't true, because only 99.95% of the population doesn't think it is. However, the longer the case goes on, the more likely more stories cover ongoing details about it, and the more likely people learn about more nuanced church topics.
Discovery orders will be issued, so that the Church has to open more of its finances. The likely result is that the Church doesn't. It will hide a lot of information. This is the smoking gun in the case, imo, because they don't bring information to the case, they will lose credibility in the eyes of the law in the case. If they aren't fraudulent, then why wouldn't they present the information requested? I don't see the Church as presenting its internal workings, as they have a lot of fingers in a lot of funny pots. (Rumor has it that the Church Office building security has tightened up dramatically over the past couple months, so that no one can leave with certain documents.)
Another interesting dynamic to consider, is who will they throw under the bus? There are very few people who know the entire inner workings of Church finance. There's the First Presidency, the Chief Financial Officers, and the Presiding Bishopric. Will the First Presidency throw the CFO's under the bus, making them testify? What about throwing Apostles or Seventies under the bus? Image is everything, in the Church, so what lengths will they do to protect their image?
Even if the Church wins, the UK government is giving a portion of their taxes to the LDS Church, which will likely be brought out in trial, and end that portion of the Church's income.
I don't believe the Church can win, even if it wins the case... (see what I did there?)
4) Tom Phillips wins.
Now the case where Tom Phillips wins is interesting. What would happen then?
Well, for one, it requires proof that the LDS Church knowingly misrepresents its teachings, which is pretty easy to prove. Here's on example, the Church changed its teaching on tithing and misquotes an LDS prophet in modern manuals (compare this from year 1899, on page 28, note the statements on tithing versus modern teachings).
First off, it then gives Phillips more credibility. At the moment, Mormons are baffled by the case, and consider Phillips a angry, exmormon, crackpot, as pointed out by numerous Facebook threads.
1) A warrant is issued for Monson's arrest, which then proceeds to either an extradition order to get him from the US or they'll simply wait for if he shows up in the UK. Obviously, this is speculation on my part, but I highly doubt the US would follow through with an extradition order. That would be weird, considering US Senators who are LDS would probably fight tooth and nail against that. However, it means that Tommy boy wouldn't be able to show up in the UK, unless he wanted to risk arrest. (I'm curious -- once Tom Monson dies, will the summons then pass to the next in line? That might require a new suit..)
2) The Church is fined. This seems to be the most likely result -- $30 million awarded to Philips and company. The Church has to play nice, unless it wants its property in the UK to be confiscated. The result of the trial is worse than paying out a measly $30 million, as that likely has a much higher impact on membership in the UK and worldwide.
Now, perhaps the most interesting result of this case, if Phillips wins, is that it then becomes incredibly easy for others to sue the LDS Church in the UK, by using this case as a precedent. This all will have the result of reduced membership in the UK, because families will tell each other of how other people are suing the Church and winning, leading more members to question.
In my mind, the likely result of the case is that Phillips wins, because the Church is too terrified to put in any real effort to defend itself (they've already stated Monson won't show at trial... isn't that an admission of guilt?). The next step is that the same suit then is repeated in both the UK and other European countries. Perhaps, eventually, it moves onto lawsuits in the US.
I leave with this:
Why wouldn't Monson show up at the trial? I mean, it's in the Articles of Faith of the church that he should. Why wouldn't he copy Paul before King Agrippa, if he's supposed to be a prophet for our times? He should stand before them, and testify of the truth of the things that the Church has taught for two centuries. If those things aren't true and historical fact, then why did we need a prophet again, especially if they are going to be repeatedly wrong?
We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.
Now, before you read, realize that I'm just an arm chair speculator, and probably don't know much about what I'm talking about. That said, I like thinking threw these things and consider the implications fascinating.
A little backstory:
It was two years ago at the exmormon conference, where I was pulled aside. A couple people had this crazy idea about suing the church, under charges of fraud.
You might think, why would anyone sue a religion, with essentially unprovable claims? The difference between the LDS church and other churches is that you aren't required to pay tithing in any other church for eternal blessings. Second, other churches often have open finances. However, in the LDS religion, you need to pay tithing in order to both go to the temple and the Celestial Kingdom. If you then collect this money
Most countries have laws to prevent fraud. There's probably more than just fraud that the LDS Church can be sued for -- they involve themselves in politics when Churches aren't supposed to, without losing tax-exempt status. (Link for one example of recent politicking against gay marriage, and link for politicking for liquor law changes that may cause more harm than good.) Something interesting that may have an impact on future lawsuits against the Church, is that the Church has to disclose its finances in the UK.. what if those finances don't line up with how a church is supposed to be? The LDS Church is the largest private landowner in Florida, WITH TAX-EXEMPT status because it's a church!
Anyways, the case has been a couple years in the making. Although the Deseret News quoted lawyers in how bizarre the case was, and how it would be thrown out of court, the case only started after careful inspection by various lawyers about whether there was even a case. Originally, Phillips intended on everything occurring in October 2013, so the case had been called the "October surprise", although few knew what it was actually about. I personally believe that the Church caught wind of what was going on, and tried to stop it back then, as rumors about it had occurred for months. That's why it's occurring in February -- Tom Phillips had to sure up his case, and convince the UK government that the case was useful and necessary.
The momentous announcement about a summons to Monson occurred with no press release, but a simple image posted to the Mormonthink website. The LDS church denied that a summons had arrived by then, as it likely had not. The rumor is that David Twede's blog had been hacked, so that Mormonthink released the story early out of fear that others would break it first. Looking back on it, I don't know whether even if it was hacked, that was a wise idea to do, as I doubt the writer as USAToday, who was likely a believing Mormon based on this piece, was the best person to "break" the story. The change in the media received probably would have been little to no different, if they didn't post the summons to their blog first. (Forgive me if I have these details wrong.. rumors are funny things and can likely be wrong.)
Is there a case?
Yes. Realize, that it isn't Tom that's suing, but two other individuals, who lost ~$30 million to tithing, over the last decade. Since the Church presented the Book of Abraham, and the other 6 points, as act but not mere belief, Philips plenty to stand on. As it stands, the Church has books and books, and talks and talks, advising members of the historicity of many disprovable teachings.
Regardless of the initial downplaying by articles, like in the Deseret News, the Deseret News still published information about if the case went to court. In my mind, here's the possibilities:
1) Tom Phillips drops the case, possibly by settling out of court.
According to rumor, the Church has already tried to settle out of court. The case is still proceeding. I highly doubt that Tom Phillips would settle, as this is not about money, but about morality.
2) The Church gets the case dismissed.
Considering that the case has already been delayed, I believe multiple times, this seems highly unlikely. The Church likely has been fighting against this well before the larger public knew about it. They probably didn't know the exact details, but enough to find out. The LDS Church wants its members to spy on others, which often has negative consequences, so I imagine the information was passed along after being rumored about on various forums.
3) The Church wins.
In the scenario that the Church wins, the bad press for the Church has already occurred. The longer the case goes on, the more bad press for the church occurs. I mean, it isn't good press that a religion is being sued for fraud.
I consider it highly unlikely that Monson shows up in the UK. One, it's a slight gamble since these are criminal charges that he'd be unable to leave, if the church were to lose (unless he can get diplomatic immunity by being an important person in the US?).
One important factor in winning the case could be that he, himself, not lawyers, has to strongly testify that the teachings of the Church are correct. That's part of what the case revolves around -- that Monson and others believe things other than what the church teaches. It's partially apparent that they believe differently, as the recent additions to lds.org show.
Additionally, the proceedings of the case are likely to be publicized. I suppose the Church could attempt for details of the case to not leave the court room, but that seems unlikely, as I can't see any good grounds for it not to (but then again, I'm not a lawyer). That means, that all of those controversial aspects of the church, all the teachings they've claimed as fact, could be publicized in international news. No one cares about why the church isn't true, because only 99.95% of the population doesn't think it is. However, the longer the case goes on, the more likely more stories cover ongoing details about it, and the more likely people learn about more nuanced church topics.
Discovery orders will be issued, so that the Church has to open more of its finances. The likely result is that the Church doesn't. It will hide a lot of information. This is the smoking gun in the case, imo, because they don't bring information to the case, they will lose credibility in the eyes of the law in the case. If they aren't fraudulent, then why wouldn't they present the information requested? I don't see the Church as presenting its internal workings, as they have a lot of fingers in a lot of funny pots. (Rumor has it that the Church Office building security has tightened up dramatically over the past couple months, so that no one can leave with certain documents.)
Another interesting dynamic to consider, is who will they throw under the bus? There are very few people who know the entire inner workings of Church finance. There's the First Presidency, the Chief Financial Officers, and the Presiding Bishopric. Will the First Presidency throw the CFO's under the bus, making them testify? What about throwing Apostles or Seventies under the bus? Image is everything, in the Church, so what lengths will they do to protect their image?
Even if the Church wins, the UK government is giving a portion of their taxes to the LDS Church, which will likely be brought out in trial, and end that portion of the Church's income.
I don't believe the Church can win, even if it wins the case... (see what I did there?)
4) Tom Phillips wins.
Now the case where Tom Phillips wins is interesting. What would happen then?
Well, for one, it requires proof that the LDS Church knowingly misrepresents its teachings, which is pretty easy to prove. Here's on example, the Church changed its teaching on tithing and misquotes an LDS prophet in modern manuals (compare this from year 1899, on page 28, note the statements on tithing versus modern teachings).
First off, it then gives Phillips more credibility. At the moment, Mormons are baffled by the case, and consider Phillips a angry, exmormon, crackpot, as pointed out by numerous Facebook threads.
1) A warrant is issued for Monson's arrest, which then proceeds to either an extradition order to get him from the US or they'll simply wait for if he shows up in the UK. Obviously, this is speculation on my part, but I highly doubt the US would follow through with an extradition order. That would be weird, considering US Senators who are LDS would probably fight tooth and nail against that. However, it means that Tommy boy wouldn't be able to show up in the UK, unless he wanted to risk arrest. (I'm curious -- once Tom Monson dies, will the summons then pass to the next in line? That might require a new suit..)
2) The Church is fined. This seems to be the most likely result -- $30 million awarded to Philips and company. The Church has to play nice, unless it wants its property in the UK to be confiscated. The result of the trial is worse than paying out a measly $30 million, as that likely has a much higher impact on membership in the UK and worldwide.
Now, perhaps the most interesting result of this case, if Phillips wins, is that it then becomes incredibly easy for others to sue the LDS Church in the UK, by using this case as a precedent. This all will have the result of reduced membership in the UK, because families will tell each other of how other people are suing the Church and winning, leading more members to question.
In my mind, the likely result of the case is that Phillips wins, because the Church is too terrified to put in any real effort to defend itself (they've already stated Monson won't show at trial... isn't that an admission of guilt?). The next step is that the same suit then is repeated in both the UK and other European countries. Perhaps, eventually, it moves onto lawsuits in the US.
I leave with this:
Why wouldn't Monson show up at the trial? I mean, it's in the Articles of Faith of the church that he should. Why wouldn't he copy Paul before King Agrippa, if he's supposed to be a prophet for our times? He should stand before them, and testify of the truth of the things that the Church has taught for two centuries. If those things aren't true and historical fact, then why did we need a prophet again, especially if they are going to be repeatedly wrong?
We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
I imagine in the Church Office Building....
I imagine right now, in the LDS Church office building, that LDS authorities are snickering at the article that came out. It starts off describing Becky McKinnon as hungover. It then moves onto her boyfriend, Timmy, who talks about his efforts in proselytizing history and support sites for non-believing Mormons. It fits into the narrative that the church sells about people leave the church because of "cares and pleasures of the world, temptation, persecution, tribulation" (Former LDS Apostle, Neal Maxwell).
The importance of the article though, is in the next section, "Doubt is Just a Click Away". Just consider this advice on "Anti-Mormon Literature" from the church, that "it is a waste". It goes so far to claim that, "Most of its [anti-mormon] questions and claims have been brought up—and answered—time and time again for over 100 years. But because anti-Mormon authors want to discredit the Church, they keep writing the same stuff over and over in the hope that they can reach a new audience." It also claims that we "often all too willing to rely on deception and dishonesty to achieve their goals."
"The Lady doth protest too much"
The LDS church is projecting. We're not the ones relying on deception and dishonesty -- it's the LDS church that's doing so. Simply consider that in the past few months that it has quietly slipped in different First Vision accounts to its website. Most members didn't know that these even occurred, as we've only been taught a single, official version. The problem with the accounts is that Joseph constantly embellishes the story, despite having no reason to hide it in the first accounts, in his own personal journals. \
The church also is using pseudoscience to justify the lack of DNA evidence in the American Indians, claiming that others use speculation but then speculates itself. The Church used to teach that Nephites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It's in the Book of Mormon itself, teaches that America is a "choice land" and "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" (Ether 2:8, 13:2), which presumes that practically only the Jaredites and Nephites were its inhabitants. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Nephites and Lamanites consisted of many tens of thousands of people, which would certainly leave plenty of genetic evidence! The church article on LDS.org even goes so far as to suggest that "Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples", which seems to deny that Lehi and Sarah had Israeli blood!
What the Newsweek article does
The primary thing that the Newsweek article does is show us how restrictive church culture is. The focus on alcohol could just as well be applied to a focus on coffee, relationships, standard non-LDS approved history, and many other things. The focus on alcohol was there simply as an entertaining example for people outside Utah, where alcohol isn't as large of a deal. Many exmormons still choose to never drink alcohol or coffee, and that's okay. In the article, it even mentions a girl who drank too much, and that people were there to help. Many feel lost in a world that they've never experienced, which is one of the reasons why we do what we try to do.
Additionally, the Newsweek article lets others know how to find us and other groups. It lets both Mormons, exMormons, and neverMormons know that groups like this even exist. Even though parts may feed into Mormon stereotypes of exMormons, those Mormons are not threatened by an article that does that. And now they know more, about their own historical flaws and that there are support groups.
So, I imagine that there are those who are sitting in the Church Office Building, reading this article, amusing themselves with how we just helped the church out.. To them, I think, this article serves to further isolate the church from the outside world. And, at the end of the day, it's just one part of a much larger problem -- the LDS Church simply isn't true, and is still using half-truths despite hemorrhaging members.
The importance of the article though, is in the next section, "Doubt is Just a Click Away". Just consider this advice on "Anti-Mormon Literature" from the church, that "it is a waste". It goes so far to claim that, "Most of its [anti-mormon] questions and claims have been brought up—and answered—time and time again for over 100 years. But because anti-Mormon authors want to discredit the Church, they keep writing the same stuff over and over in the hope that they can reach a new audience." It also claims that we "often all too willing to rely on deception and dishonesty to achieve their goals."
"The Lady doth protest too much"
The LDS church is projecting. We're not the ones relying on deception and dishonesty -- it's the LDS church that's doing so. Simply consider that in the past few months that it has quietly slipped in different First Vision accounts to its website. Most members didn't know that these even occurred, as we've only been taught a single, official version. The problem with the accounts is that Joseph constantly embellishes the story, despite having no reason to hide it in the first accounts, in his own personal journals. \
The church also is using pseudoscience to justify the lack of DNA evidence in the American Indians, claiming that others use speculation but then speculates itself. The Church used to teach that Nephites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It's in the Book of Mormon itself, teaches that America is a "choice land" and "the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof" (Ether 2:8, 13:2), which presumes that practically only the Jaredites and Nephites were its inhabitants. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Nephites and Lamanites consisted of many tens of thousands of people, which would certainly leave plenty of genetic evidence! The church article on LDS.org even goes so far as to suggest that "Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples", which seems to deny that Lehi and Sarah had Israeli blood!
What the Newsweek article does
The primary thing that the Newsweek article does is show us how restrictive church culture is. The focus on alcohol could just as well be applied to a focus on coffee, relationships, standard non-LDS approved history, and many other things. The focus on alcohol was there simply as an entertaining example for people outside Utah, where alcohol isn't as large of a deal. Many exmormons still choose to never drink alcohol or coffee, and that's okay. In the article, it even mentions a girl who drank too much, and that people were there to help. Many feel lost in a world that they've never experienced, which is one of the reasons why we do what we try to do.
Additionally, the Newsweek article lets others know how to find us and other groups. It lets both Mormons, exMormons, and neverMormons know that groups like this even exist. Even though parts may feed into Mormon stereotypes of exMormons, those Mormons are not threatened by an article that does that. And now they know more, about their own historical flaws and that there are support groups.
So, I imagine that there are those who are sitting in the Church Office Building, reading this article, amusing themselves with how we just helped the church out.. To them, I think, this article serves to further isolate the church from the outside world. And, at the end of the day, it's just one part of a much larger problem -- the LDS Church simply isn't true, and is still using half-truths despite hemorrhaging members.
Friday, January 31, 2014
In Newsweek!
In Newsweek!
In our biggest media attention yet, we have been in Newsweek.
Just take a look at the comments -- the article is controversial among Mormons and Exmormons alike. The existence of the groups that it talks about moreso. There are five sections in the article:
1) Becky and Timmy do "Exmormon missionary work".
2) Utah therapists have to handle exmormon issues, because large numbers of people leave due to google
3) Timmy, a lifelong member, couldn't stay in the church, after a SL Tribune article and spending years researching the subjects
4) Coverage of "Liquor 101"
5) A brief history of Postmormon groups
6) The fun that Exmormons have together
The criticisms are that many exmormons feel that 1) and 4) misrepresent them. Some feel that it presents exmormons as leaving the religion to drink. The exmormons who do "missionary work" are a very small minority, and most feel like they want to just move on with their lives. Those who do missionary work, do it because they feel royally screwed by the LDS church, and don't want others to feel the same. However, those are the hooks for an international audience, for sensationalization. No one outside of Utah has any idea that there would be people who do that.
Despite that criticism, points 2) and 3) are fantastic. It points to there being real reasons that people are leaving the religion. It tells the story about places that exmormons can go. It points to resources to help people overcome their fears. It makes leaving the religion a little less scary, for people who want to do so.
And, at the end of the day, it shows the weirdness of it all. Because mormons consider themselves "a peculiar people", leaving mormonism is also very, "peculiar".
In our biggest media attention yet, we have been in Newsweek.
Just take a look at the comments -- the article is controversial among Mormons and Exmormons alike. The existence of the groups that it talks about moreso. There are five sections in the article:
1) Becky and Timmy do "Exmormon missionary work".
2) Utah therapists have to handle exmormon issues, because large numbers of people leave due to google
3) Timmy, a lifelong member, couldn't stay in the church, after a SL Tribune article and spending years researching the subjects
4) Coverage of "Liquor 101"
5) A brief history of Postmormon groups
6) The fun that Exmormons have together
The criticisms are that many exmormons feel that 1) and 4) misrepresent them. Some feel that it presents exmormons as leaving the religion to drink. The exmormons who do "missionary work" are a very small minority, and most feel like they want to just move on with their lives. Those who do missionary work, do it because they feel royally screwed by the LDS church, and don't want others to feel the same. However, those are the hooks for an international audience, for sensationalization. No one outside of Utah has any idea that there would be people who do that.
Despite that criticism, points 2) and 3) are fantastic. It points to there being real reasons that people are leaving the religion. It tells the story about places that exmormons can go. It points to resources to help people overcome their fears. It makes leaving the religion a little less scary, for people who want to do so.
And, at the end of the day, it shows the weirdness of it all. Because mormons consider themselves "a peculiar people", leaving mormonism is also very, "peculiar".
Monday, January 20, 2014
The Additions to the LDS.org website
Over the past year, the LDS.org website on church doctrines has had controversial (among believing LDS people) material added to it. This includes,
Commission:
Multiple First Vision Accounts:
This details the changes in the first vision stories told by Joseph Smith. You can see the story evolve, to become grander. Why didn't Joseph mention all the details at first? He had plenty of followers at that point. Soon, I'll go over the contradictions with this and the details given by other prophets about the first vision.
Details of the Translation of the Book of Mormon:
This indicates that Joseph Smith used a "seer stone" and not the Urim and Thummim for parts of the translation. This would be the same seer stone that he used unsuccessfully for "money-digging". So, we can only assume that the Book of Mormon is as accurate as his use of a seer stone.
Omission:
The Changes to Priesthood Doctrines:
As most of us know, the ability to be sealed in the temple for people of African descent was only begun in 1978 by the LDS church. In this, they seem to ignore that the church believed that people who weren't white were cursed. In fact, the Book of Mormon had a recent rewrite to remove all the references of "white" and skin color changes in it. The Book of Abraham bans blacks from having the Priesthood, according to standard LDS interpretation of that scripture. For being "the most correct book[s] on earth", the scriptures sure seem to be wrong.
Polygamy in Early Utah:
This article seems to try to justify polygamy in early Utah. It points out a scripture from Jacob in the Book of Mormon, without citing the prior scripture about how polygamy "was abominable" for the mormon god. It puts the start/end dates to polygamous marriages later than they started and earlier than they began. For example, Joseph's relationship with 16-year old Fanny Alger began around 1833. The article downplays Joseph's role in polygamy, by stating "in some cases blah blah blah occurred", without mentioning that those cases happened with the early church leaders. In addition, the article gives no solution as to why women were taken from men who were already married. (Poor Henry Jacobs.. he had his wife taken twice! By both Joseph and Brigham!)
Commission:
Multiple First Vision Accounts:
This details the changes in the first vision stories told by Joseph Smith. You can see the story evolve, to become grander. Why didn't Joseph mention all the details at first? He had plenty of followers at that point. Soon, I'll go over the contradictions with this and the details given by other prophets about the first vision.
Details of the Translation of the Book of Mormon:
This indicates that Joseph Smith used a "seer stone" and not the Urim and Thummim for parts of the translation. This would be the same seer stone that he used unsuccessfully for "money-digging". So, we can only assume that the Book of Mormon is as accurate as his use of a seer stone.
Omission:
The Changes to Priesthood Doctrines:
As most of us know, the ability to be sealed in the temple for people of African descent was only begun in 1978 by the LDS church. In this, they seem to ignore that the church believed that people who weren't white were cursed. In fact, the Book of Mormon had a recent rewrite to remove all the references of "white" and skin color changes in it. The Book of Abraham bans blacks from having the Priesthood, according to standard LDS interpretation of that scripture. For being "the most correct book[s] on earth", the scriptures sure seem to be wrong.
Polygamy in Early Utah:
This article seems to try to justify polygamy in early Utah. It points out a scripture from Jacob in the Book of Mormon, without citing the prior scripture about how polygamy "was abominable" for the mormon god. It puts the start/end dates to polygamous marriages later than they started and earlier than they began. For example, Joseph's relationship with 16-year old Fanny Alger began around 1833. The article downplays Joseph's role in polygamy, by stating "in some cases blah blah blah occurred", without mentioning that those cases happened with the early church leaders. In addition, the article gives no solution as to why women were taken from men who were already married. (Poor Henry Jacobs.. he had his wife taken twice! By both Joseph and Brigham!)
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
The Goal of Postmos
Our group is a grassroots group. It has been put together by people who volunteer to the idea that people who have left Mormonism need a place to meet others who have left. The secondary goal is that not many people are aware of groups like this, and our goal is to be very public so that people who need the support can find people in similar situations. After those of us have covered from our initial leaving, many of us stick around to help others through the process and because we like the other people who we have met. I don't know the future of this group, but it has been extremely rewarding to me to have been part of it. It has been enjoyable to see the changes in people's lives, who would not have had any other place to turn to, who have often found other life friends. Our group is not without its flaws, but considering that it's all volunteer, considering that it's only people who are trying their best, those flaws are insignificant. I am grateful for all the friends that I've made as a result of it.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Provo Pride!
If you haven't heard, Provo is having it's first Pride festival. Check it out here. The idea hatched just a few months ago, with the committee putting in many hours of work each week to make the thing a success. The community has been quite supportive of their group. We will, of course, be there, as the Postmos group has helped Provo Pride in whatever ways we could. The event is on September 21st, from 10am to 8pm. It corresponds with the BYU-Utah Rivalry game. That was completely done on purpose, to get as many people out there as possible. The Provo Pride committee has done a good job in getting information out to the presses and to the community, so that many people are very enthused about this event. I'm excited as well. We wish them all the success that we can!
Corresponding with Provo Pride, we also plan on having a lecturer by someone who went through Evergreen the week of the event. Evergreen was (is?) the LDS church's gay rehabilitation program. To keep the tone as positive and welcoming as possible, we're currently trying to find a second speaker who is still LDS or is considered a success story (no promises there). For this event, we will likely offer three lectures, one day, one evening at UVU, and one at the U of U. More information to come on this soon!
Corresponding with Provo Pride, we also plan on having a lecturer by someone who went through Evergreen the week of the event. Evergreen was (is?) the LDS church's gay rehabilitation program. To keep the tone as positive and welcoming as possible, we're currently trying to find a second speaker who is still LDS or is considered a success story (no promises there). For this event, we will likely offer three lectures, one day, one evening at UVU, and one at the U of U. More information to come on this soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)