DiscussMormonism.com

About a week ago my wife (who is a TBM) and I were discussing the Mormonism 101 FAQ that the church put out. To my surprise we both agreed that a couple of the answers were misleading at best, outright lies at worst. I also put forward my opinion that what is going on here may be a change in doctrine. At the end of the conversation my wife stated that she wondered what her bishop thought of the matter. I asked her if she wanted me to email him to get an opinion on the matter, she told me she did, and I emailed him the next day.

I don't have permission to share his email reply, so I'm not going to. However, there's no real need, it's the response you would expect from a TBM. In his opinion it was neither misleading, nor a change in doctrine. It was just written so that everyone could understand it at their level, milk before meat and all that stuff. Like most Mormons, he doesn't realize that he just described a textbook case of misleading people. Mormons have an uncanny ability to apply one set of rules to themselves and another set of rules to everyone else.

At the end he bore his testimony. The testimony was pretty awkward, it's almost like he said it out loud and then transcribed the entire thing verbatim, complete with "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen."

The more I thought about that testimony, the more offended I got. As a Christian, I consider it downright blasphemous to finish up a defense of misleading people by talking about how much you know that Jesus set the LDS church in motion, thus justifying misleading people in the name of Jesus and his church. If this is not a violation of the "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain," I don't know what is. But even if you are not a Christian, I would think it's still offensive to justify misleading people on the basis of whatever higher principles you happen to hold dear (excepting extreme cases like lying to the Nazis about the Jews in your attic).

But the part that offended me most was I left the LDS church because I couldn't lie or deceive people. I realized I could no longer answer the temple recommend questions honestly, and I wasn't going to lie to preserve my participation in the LDS church. But here the person who would have interviewed me, was feeling quite justified in misleading people for the cause. I was really pissed and offended that I get crapped on for trying to do the right thing, while the "judge in Israel" justifies misleading people, all for the good of the LDS church and in the name of Jesus.

While I was still pissed and offended over the whole thing, I remembered something an LDS church leader told me. I don't remember who, it was probably someone at the MTC. They said that you should always bear your testimony because it can't offend anyone and is always a positive thing to do. Wrong! Sharing your testimony can be really offensive.

Edited: Changed "share the email" to "share his email reply" in the second paragraph.

The thing is... he doesn't realize that he's deceiving anyone. While virtually everyone who is not a TBM would understand that "milk before meat" is simply bait and switch, there are a lot of very sincere people who don't see it as such, let alone understand the ramifications.

So... I don't think he would understand why his testimony offends you. It's simply not within his worldview.

Maybe if you had a one on one discussion over an extended period of time, complete with assorted examples, he might get it... but not if conference had just occurred (thus reinforcing the whole concept).

I hope you reply to the Bishop's e mail with a transcript of your OP.

Of course, we all know that people "choose to be offended" and it is always our own fault. Everything is always our own fault.

Aristotle Smith wrote:
I don't have permission to share the email, so I'm not going to. However, there's no real need, it's the response you would expect from a TBM. In his opinion it was neither misleading, nor a change in doctrine. It was just written so that everyone could understand it at their level, milk before meat and all that stuff. Like most Mormons, he doesn't realize that he just described a textbook case of misleading people. Mormons have an uncanny ability to apply one set of rules to themselves and another set of rules to everyone else.

I guess this is how he may deal with the Cog Dis this causes. You see it here. BC Space and Droopy both took this tact when I posted a thread on how the Church is watering down its doctrine. To say we believe in becoming gods only like the Bible teaches-sharing the divine nature-it not even milk before meat. It is either a change or deception. Thing is anyone with a computer can check on these things. So why does the Church do this?

At the end he bore his testimony. The testimony was pretty awkward, it's almost like he said it out loud and then transcribed the entire thing verbatim, complete with "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen."

The more I thought about that testimony, the more offended I got. As a Christian, I consider it downright blasphemous to finish up a defense of misleading people by talking about how much you know that Jesus set the LDS church in motion, thus justifying misleading people in the name of Jesus and his church. If this is not a violation of the "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain," I don't know what is. But even if you are not a Christian, I would think it's still offensive to justify misleading people on the basis of whatever higher principles you happen to hold dear (excepting extreme cases like lying to the Nazis about the Jews in your attic).

I was always told as a missionary not to argue but just bear your testimony because nobody can argue with your testimony.

But the part that offended me most was I left the LDS church because I couldn't lie or deceive people. I realized I could no longer answer the temple recommend questions honestly, and I wasn't going to lie to preserve my participation in the LDS church. But here the person who would have interviewed me, was feeling quite justified in misleading people for the cause. I was really pissed and offended that I get crapped on for trying to do the right thing, while the "judge in Israel" justifies misleading people, all for the good of the LDS church and in the name of Jesus.

This is a very good point and one I struggle with. As NOMer I assuage my conscience I guess with telling myself I am as honest with the Church as they have been with me, investigators and the general public. How long I can do so I do not know. I do feel hypocritical at time.

After reading most of them, there's yet to be anything about 101 that is misleading or false or denotes a change in doctrine.

bcspace wrote:After reading most of them, there's yet to be anything about 101 that is misleading or false or denotes a change in doctrine.

So you won't get your own planets? Do you feel disappointed?

bcspace wrote:After reading most of them, there's yet to be anything about 101 that is misleading or false or denotes a change in doctrine.

Yes the typical dodge and dance. BC do Mormons believe that becoming gods simply means to participate in the divine nature of God? Is there anything more beyond that or is that it as the FAQ states?

Aristotle Smith wrote:blah blah blah.... Mormons lie.....

Why don't you list your so-called "lies" and misrepresentations, and I will show you that YOU are the liar.

Of course your TBM wife likely thinks the same as you, she's likely not an expert in Mormonism, thus she is being led by your SNAKE charm, which doesn't tell the whole truth of an issue.

Buffalo wrote:

bcspace wrote:After reading most of them, there's yet to be anything about 101 that is misleading or false or denotes a change in doctrine.

So you won't get your own planets? Do you feel disappointed?

There is no "doctrine" saying we will get our own planets.....

There are lot's of ideas, natural assumptions, etc. in the teachings of a religion that aren't directly "doctrine".

Thus, it is false to say we will get our own planets, and then say it's a DOCTRINE (like anti-mormons do). We have no idea what we will get. But the scripture is clear that we will "inherit all the father hath", etc. etc., and thus a natural assumption and thought within Mormonism is that we will get our own planets. This is why the idea can sometimes be found, such as with some LDS manuals.

A thought, an idea, assumptions and speculations sometimes taught doesn't and never has made "doctrine".
Anti-mormons and even some Mormons need to learn the difference.