Mormonism is Black and White, All or Nothing

[_Polygamy Porter]

I said F that! and threw everything in the trash on the way out of the chapel. . . Again, I tossed it in the trash on the way out.

An early sign that you were an independent thinker.

I applaud you for immediately tossing that stuff out, since I strongly believe in the separation of church & state.

The only thing that separates church and state in Utah is a few city blocks.

[_why me]

Why me, you are not in the US are you? There have been several times when there has been plenty o' counsel on which issues one should vote for and support.

Of course the church should take a stand on moral issues that directly affect family life and the moral fibre of the world. But the members are left to choose just who to vote for. In NYC for example, you will find church members to be somewhat liberal in economic matters. In Utah, they will be somewhat conservative. There is no black and white as Kimberly implied in her post. Mormons are not zombies or drones.

[_why me]

I'm not understanding your reply at all. What did my statement have to do with elections? Nothing, as far as I can tell. I'm talking about "immoral" behavior (at least what Mormonism considers immoral) - prophets are excused for theirs, and even pointing it out is, in my experience, considered a sin. It's called speaking ill of the Lord's anointed. But members are punished for their "immorality" even as prophets are excused for theirs.

Of course the things Jesus said were black and white. That's fine, though I don't think Mormonism has much to do with Jesus, anyway. Jesus didn't start Mormonism, and I'm sure if he were alive today the Mormon church would disgust him. Mormonism is a cult founded by the lying son of a bitch, Joseph Smith. Nothing more. And if it really were God's church on the earth, then it would indeed be all correct all the time and it could be as black and white as a zebra and that would be just dandy. But it's not. It has differing standards for members and it's supposed prophets, and that's called hypocrisy.

KA

I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of prophets. Polygamy was practiced by many members and not just Joseph Smith and BY if that it was you are referring to. Can you please give examples for your post? I see no difference in treatment. What would Jesus find disgusting about Mormonism? I see the new testament in Mormonism. I see the teachings of Paul in particular. When Jesus died, peter began to establish Christ's church. Christ's church returned to earth with Joseph Smith. Such is how the story goes.

I see no different standards between leaders and members. perhaps you are being too black and white on this issue. :=)

I will be away from a computer for a while. But I will respond later to any posts that may come my way.

[_why me]

Joseph Smith would not have failed the interview, if you are referring to polygamy.

He was a man and a human being. I don't know maybe at times he would have failed the interview, so what? If a person repents of his sins, that person can certainly be forgiven. What is your point? As I understand it, Joseph Smith was a pretty good human being. Yes, he had his enemies. Such is the life of many past prophets.

This discussion is important to you. Here, you can have all of Joseph Smith. Be warmed and filled.

Thank you. I love Rough Stone Rolling. Here we see a man, Joseph Smith, who wasn't black and white but very human. May I had that he was also a genius.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Thank you. I love Rough Stone Rolling. Here we see a man, Joseph Smith, who wasn't black and white but very human. May I had that he was also a genius.

Convenient eh?

When his behavior or teachings no longer fits within social norms, he was just being a man. Otherwise he was divine.


Obviously he was a genius. Look at you. 163 years after he lost a gun battle, he has inactive members defending him.

[_Inconceivable]

Why me,

I mean it, you can have him. He became insignificant to me when I discovered that he placed little value on his sacred marriage vows and to the laws of the land. This set a precedent and a wicked example for myself and those I love. This darkness was blindness to me.

Since I was young, I was taught that in order to internalize a righteous principle it was best to "liken it to myself". It has served me well all of these years and has given me a very strong desire to live a righteous life, particularly when it comes to personal honesty and integrity.

No doubt, you are familiar with all of the arguments and even the true history concerning Smith and yet you remain unaffected. I have been deeply affected and even devastated. I have felt a grave sense of betrayal of a sacred trust. It's a matter of moral principle that exhorts me to reject his claims of prophet, seer and revelator to a creator that would teach us love, peace, compassion, honesty, integrity and order vicariously through the children that love Him.

[_Blixa]

Why me, you are not in the US are you? There have been several times when there has been plenty o' counsel on which issues one should vote for and support.

Of course the church should take a stand on moral issues that directly affect family life and the moral fibre of the world. But the members are left to choose just who to vote for. In NYC for example, you will find church members to be somewhat liberal in economic matters. In Utah, they will be somewhat conservative. There is no black and white as Kimberly implied in her post. Mormons are not zombies or drones.

I'm afraid you don't get it.

The LDS Church has done more than just "take stands," they have been actively involved in a number of political struggles. This is not hard to understand given that Mormon beliefs entail the establishment of a theocracy on earth (exactly when this might happen, or by what route had been understood more broadly by recent church leaders than early ones). And these things have consequences for nonmembers, which is why people take umbrage and write detailed and documented histories like the ones that have been recommended to you.

The over-the-top organizing against the ERA and the antics at several IWY conferences were something of a scandal for the church. I think they have backed off of such obvious maneuvers if only because of the PR embarassments they entail.

You should read the entire last chapter of Quinn, its almost impossible to condense, but here's a taste:

"LDS women attending the Hawaii IWY conference, scheduled for early July, received the following written instructions from their LDS leaders: "Report to Traditional Values Van, sign in, pick up dissent forms. Sit together. Stay together to vote on rules. Ask Presidency for help if needed." Those in Honolulu car-pooled from the LDS stake parking lot; those at Brigham Young University-Hawaii campus on the north shore were bussed to the meeting...According the New York Times, LDS women constituted half or more of the IWY attendance in Montana and Washington. They controlled the conventions in both states even though they were a minority of each state's population...At the Montana IWY there was the now-familiar sight of a Mormon man coordinating women delegates with a walkie talkie. Mark Koltko, then an LDS convert of two years, was one of those who used walkie-talkies to coordinate women at the New York State IWY meeting. He described how two high councilors in Manhattan organized Mormons whowere bussed from NYC to the IWY meeting in Albany. An LDS observer with a walkie-talkie attended each IWY workshop and session. When a vote was about to occur, he notified his counterpart in the other sessions. These coordinators then told the women in their respecitive locations to rush to the site of the upcoming vote...One LDS woman was so eager to join her Releif Society sisters in voting against the IWY proposals at the New York state meeting "that although only New York residents with valid drivers licenses were allowed to register as voting participants, I felt compelled to borrow one of the member's license who would not be able to participate herself." She added that the women "were explicitly instructed not to mention our affiliation with the Church while attending the conference."

Admittedly, the IWY conventions were not as serious an issue as something like the ERA; the IWY was largely a symbolic affair. I use it as an example from Quinn because it shows the willingness of many members---at least at that time---to act not unlike "zombies or drones." I was at the Utah IWY conference where droves of lds women, always directed by a man with a walkie talkie, voted to reject the entire slate of proposals including resolutions against pornography, rape, and child abuse. Why? Because they had been told to vote no on everything. They seemed to know nothing else: many of the ones I spoke with had no idea what the IWY conferences were about and actually thought they were making binding and legal votes on things that would be make law---including international law! I attended a session called "International Interdependence" because an Ethiopean friend of mine had been asked to speak. The session had been organized as an educational seminar with women from various countries speaking about the status of women in their nations. The proposed resolution was something like, "we suggest all women learn about their sisters across the globe." My friend never got a chance to speak. Why? Because she and others were shouted down by LDS matrons spouting canned lines about Roberts Rules of Order and calling for a vote to reject "American alliances with foriegn nations."

As silly as all this sounds---but I have to say there is nothing scarier to me than a powerful buffoon---Quinn makes an interesting argument about the IWY/ERA campaigns as a kind of loose research for Church public relations and as trial runs for contemporary political organizing. For example, he traces the contniued existence of groups in Hawaii originally organized for ERA/IWY purposes now being used for campaigns against gay rights and same sex marriage. Here's another taste of things more recent:

"Despite the 1994 denials of official connection with local political action committees opposed to same-sex marraiges, in June 1996 LDS headquarters ackowledged that it has been "calling" married couples on short-term missions to aid these organizations. For example, in November 1995 general authority Dunn formally appointed a SLC advertising executive and his wife to do several months of volunteer work for Hawaii's Future Today organization. Athough an offical statement from LDS headquartes claims that such church members are simply "responding" to the First Presidency's general invitation to become involved as citizens, the LDS hierarchy is asking specific Mormons to perform this political service as a church calling."

[_harmony]

...According the New York Times, LDS women constituted half or more of the IWY attendance in Montana and Washington. They controlled the conventions in both states even though they were a minority of each state's population...

Indeed. I was at the Washington IWY convention. My sheep-like participation haunts and shames me to this day. I can still hear the enormous echoing sound of thousands of feet hitting the bleachers as we rose in unison to vote No in accordance with the woman from Utah (a cousin of a friend of mine) who led us and directed our votes. We'd been told a host of lies about the ERA, and we swallowed them, hook, line and sinker. There were no men there, though. At least we were spared that indignity.

[_Yoda]

Some Schmo and I were discussing the "all or nothing" approach in PP's thread on non-members. I thought that my thoughts would fit well into this topic as well:

When you talk to most people who are members of a particular Church, the majority of them utilize the "pick and choose" mentality because there are crazy tenets which exist in most religions.

I do find it interesting that Mormons tend to be more openly shunned for their lack of an "all or nothing" approach, even if this is what they practice privately.

[_Blixa]

Wow. Thanks for the anecdote harmony.

You know I haven't thought about the IWY for..what is it now? over 30 years? until Scratch reminded me to reread Quinn yesterday. When I was typing those excerpts up this morning, hopefully for not just why me's benefit, it all came back in a rush. I was more scared than laughing. It was really suprising, even to me. The hysteria was palpable. The hostility, the out and out hatred being manifested in the shouting matches. I remember one biddy yelling "We shall smash you!" at some poor lady who happened to be a panel coordinator of some panel on what could have been a number of uncontroversial issues: breast cancer, day care, history of women's suffrage, divorce law, etc.

It was something.