DiscussMormonism.com

My real dilemma comes when the church holds tightly to its need to be correct, its need to be consistent and its need to claim 'unchangeable doctrine' despite mistakes, inconsistencies, and doctrines that change. The church has rolled out essays containing statements that will be surprising to members. They did so without any acknowledgment that this information is new and/or contradicts past curriculum. They put forth essays containing information that in the past would only have been available in the anti-Mormon literature they told members NOT to read and expect members to accept it as if it had been available all along and as if it is consistent with previous teachings.

The subtle message to members is this: “Information we previously told you was anti-Mormon, we are now telling you is true. We are not going to explain why we misled you in the past. We are not going to apologize for our error. Even, though you now realize that you lied to others because you trusted us, we take no responsibility. Still, we expect you to trust us now and in the future. And we expect you to be honest in your dealings.”

The method in which the church released these essays – without any acknowledgement that they contain information different than what they taught (and asked members to teach) - feels like a type of mental and spiritual abuse. The fact that these essays have been released without giving extra training and help to Bishops and Gospel Doctrine teachers seems unwise at best, and unethical at worst.

The church has presented these essays in a way that implies members should be okay with this new information. If a person is confused, the implication is that something is wrong with the member, not the information or the way it was presented. The reality is that this is traumatic information for many people. Many feel lied to by the church.
The church has completely placed the burden of reconciling this information on the shoulders of its people while it maintains a stance that there is nothing to reconcile.

And this burden will continue with our current curriculum – with these essays silently inserted - week after week. This is why I feel I cannot go to church. It’s not that I am not willing to help bear the burden. I am. But I cannot do so without acknowledging the trauma many people feel, without acknowledging the inconsistencies in the messages of church leadership, and without grieving my own loss in ability to fully trust what’s on the church website.

People are not leaving the church because of problems with Church history. They are leaving because of issues of trust. They are leaving because they were taught one thing in their youth and are being told something completely different now with the expectation they can continue believing that nothing has changed. Most people cannot do that in a way that maintains integrity – let alone sanity!!!

Out of all the tactics that have been employed by the church and apologists to argue and present these issues such as circular reasoning, whitewashing history, out of context quotes and explanations, obfuscation, etc....the worst and most frustrating one for me is the gas-lighting that is taking place. It's emotionally and mentally damaging. To hide, snuff out and ignore the correct narrative of history for years and call the correct narrative "anti-Mormon propaganda"....and then out of no where change it and basically insist it's the members fault. And they are the ones who are crazy for not knowing all this stuff....is morally and ethically wrong. It's irresponsible. What's frightening and demoralizing as a member, is the church never takes responsibility for anything. Categorical characteristics of a narcissistic, abusive manipulator.


One thing that shocks me further, Id like to add, is a member's ability to allow cognitive dissonance to gas light themselves. It's weird. And slightly and sadly impressive.

To hide, snuff out and ignore the correct narrative of history for years and call the correct narrative "anti-Mormon propaganda"....and then out of no where change it and basically insist it's the members fault.

Dr. Shades wrote:That sentence fragment is the most succinct description of the modus operandi of both FAIR and the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board that I've ever seen.

zerinus wrote:LDS “apologetics” (so called) hasn't always been what it should be; but that has been the fault of the self-styled “apologists,” not the fault of the Church. The Church didn't tell them to go and “apologize” for the Church that way. They thought they were doing the Church a favor (often well-intentioned) when they weren't.

zerinus wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:That sentence fragment is the most succinct description of the modus operandi of both FAIR and the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board that I've ever seen.

LDS “apologetics” (so called) hasn't always been what it should be; but that has been the fault of the self-styled “apologists,” not the fault of the Church. The Church didn't tell them to go and “apologize” for the Church that way. They thought they were doing the Church a favor (often well-intentioned) when they weren't.

Dr. Shades wrote:

To hide, snuff out and ignore the correct narrative of history for years and call the correct narrative "anti-Mormon propaganda"....and then out of no where change it and basically insist it's the members fault.

That sentence fragment is the most succinct description of the modus operandi of both FAIR and the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board that I've ever seen.

Yahoo Bot wrote:The word "narrative," like the word "transparency" in your signature, is meaningless jargon. Recently invented. It implies there is a single "narrator" when there is not. Plus, the word "members" is missing an apostrophe. One cannot utter profound statements when one is not a writer.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:

Yahoo Bot wrote:The word "narrative," like the word "transparency" in your signature, is meaningless jargon. Recently invented. It implies there is a single "narrator" when there is not. ...

I love it when YB lawyers up!

- Doc

1. Sc. Law.


a. A part of a legal document which contains a statement of alleged or relevant facts closely connected with the matter or purpose of the document; spec. a statement of the parties to a deed and the cause of its granting.

1539 Protocol Bk. Hew Rig 31 As to this precept ye sall understand it wants the haile conclusioun for it has nathing bot the nerratiue of the Kingis letters.
1574 in J. H. Burton Reg. Privy Council Scotl. (1878) 1st Ser. II. 382 The haill narrative of the said supplicatioun [being] verefeit and understand to thair Lordships.
1656 in J. A. Clyde Hope's Major Practicks (1938) II. 235 A lybell conceavit alternative in the narrative, if in the conclusione the petition be simple, it is inept and irrelevant.
1681 J. Dalrymple Inst. Law Scotl. i. x. §63. 148 He who craves regress had right when he changed any further then by the Narrative of the Excambion.
a1768 J. Erskine Inst. Law Scotl. (1773) I. ii. iii. §22 189 After the name and designation of the granter, follows that clause in the charter called the narrative, or recital.
1838 W. Bell Dict. Law Scotl. 669 The narrative describes the granter and the person in whose favour the deed is granted, and states the cause of granting.

...

†b. An allegation made as the basis of a legal action. Cf. narration n. 2b. Obs.

1566–7 in J. H. Burton Reg. Privy Council Scotl. (1877) 1st Ser. I. 496 He..wes fred and relevit..upoun celerat and wrangus narrative without satisfactioun.
c1626 H. Bisset Rolment Courtis (1920) I. 277 The compliner salbe..declared to have used na fraude nor fals narrative.
1695 Acts. Parl. Scotl. (1822) IX. 412/1 Sir James Rochead did impetrat and elicit from them an act..whereby upon a specious narrative of right..he prevailed with the then magistrats.


2.

a. An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account.

1571 G. Buchanan Admonitioun Trew Lordis sig. B.3v, This is nouther dremit in wardrop, nor hard throw a boir, but a trew narratiue.
1622 Bacon Hist. Raigne Henry VII 53 Therefore by this Narratiue you now vnderstand the state of the Question.
1660 R. Coke Elements Power & Subjection 36 in Justice Vindicated Diodorus Siculus..gives a narrative of the original government of the Egyptians.
1725 Pope tr. Homer Odyssey III. x. 537 Gushing tears the narrative confound.
1769 ‘Junius’ Stat Nominis Umbra (1772) II. xxx. 10 He shall find me ready to maintain the truth of my narrative.
1837 W. Irving Adventures Capt. Bonneville I. 22 We shall now state a few particulars..to prepare him for the circumstances of our narrative.
1895 Bookman Oct. 25/2 This history..is..a straightforward, readable narrative.
...