So we know the 'church' is a fraud, where does that leave...

[bill4long]

Again, there is no enforcement mechanism. The decision determining what consecration means is for the most part individual.

You are correct, as far as I know, unless you count peer-pressure, or rather authority-pressure. I personally heard it deployed in a priesthood meeting when someone resisted a service project that the Elder's Quorum president wanted everyone in the meeting to be involved with. One brother barked that he didn't want to cough up the personal resource that was being asked of everyone. (I don't remember if it was cash or time.) I would bet it's likely that "what about your temple covenants?" is not a rare question when someone needs to be brought in line.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Again, there is no enforcement mechanism. The decision determining what consecration means is for the most part individual.

You are correct, as far as I know, unless you count peer-pressure, or rather authority-pressure. I personally heard it deployed in a priesthood meeting when someone resisted a service project that the Elder's Quorum president wanted everyone in the meeting to be involved with. One brother barked that he didn't want to cough up the personal resource that was being asked of everyone. (I don't remember if it was cash or time.) I would bet it's likely that "what about your temple covenants?" is not a rare question when someone needs to be brought in line.

Wow, that's horrible. I've never witnessed these things but I believe it.

[Kishkumen]

It's difficult to say cause circumstances would be so wildly different, but I often think that if I lived in Utah still that I very well could have ended up as a country club Mormon. I like to think I would have stopped attending completely, but I could also see doing enough to also have a temple recommend so I could attend weddings in the temple and such.

That is understandable. I would certainly not want people to be miserable or violate their own conscience, but I see nothing wrong with people participating in a Church for social reasons.

[Kishkumen]

Your view is it’s not a fraud because it’s a religion? Even if Joseph started it fraudulently, the leaders today believe and that’s sufficient?

Not exactly. I don’t see a voluntary association centering on faith as a fraud. Furthermore, I am not in the business of reading Joseph Smith’s mind. Did Smith intend to defraud people by starting his church? I don’t believe so. I understand why some people do think so, but I see ample room for disagreement on that point. That said, I would agree that the generations of honest people who have done good through their participation in the LDS community could be said to have legitimized and validated it. To say that every outcome ought to be judged by the intentions of the initial actor who initiated the series of events leading to it would be crazy. We have all seen good things emerge from even the worst situations.

[Kishkumen]

You are correct, as far as I know, unless you count peer-pressure, or rather authority-pressure. I personally heard it deployed in a priesthood meeting when someone resisted a service project that the Elder's Quorum president wanted everyone in the meeting to be involved with. One brother barked that he didn't want to cough up the personal resource that was being asked of everyone. (I don't remember if it was cash or time.) I would bet it's likely that "what about your temple covenants?" is not a rare question when someone needs to be brought in line.

Peer pressure operates everywhere, and there are always zealots who are happy to apply it in churches or activist groups, for that matter.

[Res Ipsa]

Your view is it’s not a fraud because it’s a religion? Even if Joseph started it fraudulently, the leaders today believe and that’s sufficient?

Not exactly. I don’t see a voluntary association centering on faith as a fraud. Furthermore, I am not in the business of reading Joseph Smith’s mind. Did Smith intend to defraud people by starting his church? I don’t believe so. I understand why some people do think so, but I see ample room for disagreement on that point. That said, I would agree that the generations of honest people who have done good through their participation in the LDS community could be said to have legitimized and validated it. To say that every outcome ought to be judged by the intentions of the initial actor who initiated the series of events leading to it would be crazy. We have all seen good things emerge from even the worst situations.

I think there is a meaning of the word fraud that can be fairly applied to the COJCOLDS: "one that is not what it seems or is represented to be." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud Used that way, I don't think it requires that anyone have an intent to deceive. The thread title could be reworded as: "So we know that the 'church' it not what it is represented to be, where does that leave us" without changing the meaning of the question asked.

[Moksha]

Your view is it’s not a fraud because it’s a religion?

Not a fraud if strict obedience to Church leaders gets you into the highest echelons of Heaven and enables you to become a God.

[BeNotDeceived]

Not exactly. I don’t see a voluntary association centering on faith as a fraud. Furthermore, I am not in the business of reading Joseph Smith’s mind. Did Smith intend to defraud people by starting his church? I don’t believe so. I understand why some people do think so, but I see ample room for disagreement on that point. That said, I would agree that the generations of honest people who have done good through their participation in the LDS community could be said to have legitimized and validated it. To say that every outcome ought to be judged by the intentions of the initial actor who initiated the series of events leading to it would be crazy. We have all seen good things emerge from even the worst situations.

So a proven con-man and deceiver who scammed people out of their money by looking at a rock in a hat claiming he could see buried treasure in the bowels of the earth then uses the same process to dictate a 500 page novel with no gold plates used, yet, it's 'divine'???

[Kishkumen]

I think there is a meaning of the word fraud that can be fairly applied to the COJCOLDS: "one that is not what it seems or is represented to be." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud Used that way, I don't think it requires that anyone have an intent to deceive. The thread title could be reworded as: "So we know that the 'church' it not what it is represented to be, where does that leave us" without changing the meaning of the question asked.

I think it is more accurate for most ex-LDS people to say, “I now see that the LDS Church is not what I believed it to be, so where does that leave me?” There is a huge difference in perspective that separates one side of conversion from another. Conversion, in my view, changes prior viewpoints so profoundly that it is difficult for the person who has undergone conversion to judge their former perspective accurately or fairly.

I have seen this kind of thing in the unraveling of a marriage (not mine, thankfully). The one partner who was once loved and appreciated in many ways becomes a different person in the eyes of the disillusioned partner. The former view of a decent partner is sometimes reframed as a lie, a deception, or a fraud by the person who is leaving the relationship. Usually, the truth is a lot more complicated. The former view may have been too forgiving, the new view may be overly critical. A crucial difference bringing a person from one view to the other is their own transformed perspective. Choice is a component of the process.

Maybe it was unhealthy for the person to be so forgiving of their partner’s faults. Perhaps it is healthier for them to be more critical now. Or, maybe they are being overly critical as a psychological mechanism to enable them to pull away from a part of their lives they were deeply embedded in. Maybe their former partner wasn’t the terrible person they make them out to be after all. One thing that is certain is that the departing partner’s view of their ex has changed irrevocably in ways that facilitate separation. We should take all of these narratives with a grain of salt, while wishing the best for the person who has decided to make this profound personal change.

[Kishkumen]

So a proven con-man and deceiver who scammed people out of their money by looking at a rock in a hat claiming he could see buried treasure in the bowels of the earth then uses the same process to dictate a 500 page novel with no gold plates used, yet, it's 'divine'???

If that is what it all is to you, then being ex-LDS or non-LDS is surely the right place for you to be.