The Handcarts Again..

[_harmony]

Just say "No".

End of problem.

No, harmony. How about, "let's talk about it because you know how I feel about this". My wife is entitled to a little more respect from me and my manpants. Particularly in matters of religeon.

She's fully remembers the experience related to us by our son. It gave us both cause for concern at the time.

I did show her the site with the psycho-trauma burial dolls. I gotta tell you, they really creaped us both out. From our life's experience, it was very disturbing. I thought it was just a rumor.

I have an ulterior motive here.

The thread exists because I'd like her to read it.

On a side note, for someone with 3 zillion posts I've never seen you write "no" and bring a quick end to any discussion. : /

Silly. I didn't mean say "no" to your wife. You've always exhibited a good relationship with your wife, so I assumed you'd worked it out with her and it was the ward leaders who were giving you grief, or who you assumed were going to give you grief.

I meant say "no" to whoever is pressuring the kids to go on the trek whether it's the bishop, the YM/YWs leaders, whoever. It's none of their business why you say "no". You're the dad. You're the one who is to preside in your home. Church leaders will understand and back off, if you flex that. Or they should. If they don't, that's a different thread.

My apologies for not understanding where you were coming from.

[_wenglund]

If these handcart treks are such an all-fire, faith-promoting experience, why do they limit it only to the youth? Why do they not extend this opportunity to all members, from infants to old geezers?

Old geezers can go.

My in-laws in early 70s, late 60s went.

The problem I have with such events is their underlying purpose: To indoctrinate.

The whole experience is designed to manufacture "spiritual feelings" that participants will be conditioned to associate with "witness of the spirit" that the Mormon Church is "true." That's the ultimate objective.

In the end, it has little to do with really, truly understand what life might have been like back in the days but everything to do with binding the participants closer to the Mormon Church via the manufacture and manipulation of emotions.

That is at least one highly cynical and negative way to view an otherwise uplifting activity. It puts me in mind of the kind of curmudgeon-like expressions towards the saints offered up by E. B. Howe in his Painseville Telegraph articles during the Kirtland era--speaking of re-enactments. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

If these handcart treks are such an all-fire, faith-promoting experience, why do they limit it only to the youth? Why do they not extend this opportunity to all members, from infants to old geezers?

Old geezers can go.

My in-laws in early 70s, late 60s went.

The problem I have with such events is their underlying purpose: To indoctrinate.

The whole experience is designed to manufacture "spiritual feelings" that participants will be conditioned to associate with "witness of the spirit" that the Mormon Church is "true." That's the ultimate objective.

In the end, it has little to do with really, truly understand what life might have been like back in the days but everything to do with binding the participants closer to the Mormon Church via the manufacture and manipulation of emotions.

That is at least one highly cynical and negative way to view an otherwise uplifting activity. It puts me in mind of the kind of curmudgeon-like expressions towards the saints offered up by E. B. Howe in his Painseville Telegraph articles during the Kirtland era--speaking of re-enactments. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Cynical, perhaps, accurate, yes.

I'm not accusing anyone in particular of any devious designs or malevolent intentions; it's an extension of the Mormon culture in which almost every activity is designed as an opportunity to indoctrinate, and the manufacture and manipulation of emotions is Mormonism's #1 indoctrination tool.

[_wenglund]

The church would rather worship ancestors rewriting history and capitalizing on their stupidity (or at least their blind obedience and short sightedness) than teach lessons of true temporal preparedness. At least in this lame case.

Evidently, different people learn different lessons from the same circumstances. The lesson I garnered from your son's experience is that sometimes in life we are put together with people we don't like and don't get along with, but rather than running away each time that happens, or bad-mouthing organizations that may have put us together with unwanted people, perhaps it may be in our interest and others to learn how to make the best of those situations.

Historically speaking, given the broad range of personality types that crossed the plains, it is quite likely that some of the wagons or hand-carts had people in them like what your son experienced. But in those cases, the other individuals didn't have the luxury of running away or returning in a couple of days to the comfort of 21st-century home with family that treated them the way they like. Instead, they learned to make do and improve their conditions, and were made all the better people for it. I, for one, think there is something to be learned from that.

But, I understand that other people will view it differently. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Cynical, perhaps, accurate, yes.

Accurate? Yes, in terms of your cynical and negative perspective. No, in terms of a believing and positive perspectives. To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

I'm not sure if the church is alone in revering their ancestors, or if that is just my impression. But it seems to me that we are encouraged to revere some quite ordinary people, who, while steadfast and stubbornly determined (both excellent qualities), were somewhat misguided, definitely gullible, and unmistakably proud (without the requisite reason to be proud. I mean, there were no great thinkers, no great wealth, no great beauties among them, yet they acted as if they were head and shoulders above their neighbors... which, of course, led to some difficult relationships with outsiders, who appeared to be somewhat disconcerted by the Mormons' readily apparent yet virtually unexplainable arrogance). Let's face it: these people were followers, every single one. They were the Rats to Joseph's Pied Piper. More than a few were desperately poor and saw joining the Mormons as a means to a better life. I'm not sure they actually found that better life; I can think of several in my husband's family who continually rehashed their decision to join, especially those who were the 2nd or 3rd wives. Some were somewhat well-off but not all that many. Very few of them regained what they lost when they left Missouri.

Yes, they, along with thousands of others, opened up the West, but given their own choice, they would not have left Missouri. They were forced to leave civilization behind, which is an entirely different viewpoint than someone who chose to venture into the wilderness (like Marcus Whitman, for example). I have difficult seeing a reason to revere a people who were forced to do what they did, even if they were part of a greater accomplishment than they themselves ever dreamed of.

[_Trinity]

If these handcart treks are such an all-fire, faith-promoting experience, why do they limit it only to the youth? Why do they not extend this opportunity to all members, from infants to old geezers?

Old geezers can go.

My in-laws in early 70s, late 60s went.

The problem I have with such events is their underlying purpose: To indoctrinate.

The whole experience is designed to manufacture "spiritual feelings" that participants will be conditioned to associate with "witness of the spirit" that the Mormon Church is "true." That's the ultimate objective.

In the end, it has little to do with really, truly understand what life might have been like back in the days but everything to do with binding the participants closer to the Mormon Church via the manufacture and manipulation of emotions.

And what did your in-laws think about the trek? Was it as faith promoting for them? I'm curious about their reaction.

[_guy sajer]

If these handcart treks are such an all-fire, faith-promoting experience, why do they limit it only to the youth? Why do they not extend this opportunity to all members, from infants to old geezers?

Old geezers can go.

My in-laws in early 70s, late 60s went.

The problem I have with such events is their underlying purpose: To indoctrinate.

The whole experience is designed to manufacture "spiritual feelings" that participants will be conditioned to associate with "witness of the spirit" that the Mormon Church is "true." That's the ultimate objective.

In the end, it has little to do with really, truly understand what life might have been like back in the days but everything to do with binding the participants closer to the Mormon Church via the manufacture and manipulation of emotions.

And what did your in-laws think about the trek? Was it as faith promoting for them? I'm curious about their reaction.

Of course it was. My in-laws drank the kool-aid years ago, and they've never stopped gulping it down.

They are great people, but if Wrinkley dropped his shorts and bent over, they'd be the first in line to plant sloppy wet ones on his ass.

[_Trinity]

If these handcart treks are such an all-fire, faith-promoting experience, why do they limit it only to the youth? Why do they not extend this opportunity to all members, from infants to old geezers?

Old geezers can go.

My in-laws in early 70s, late 60s went.

The problem I have with such events is their underlying purpose: To indoctrinate.

The whole experience is designed to manufacture "spiritual feelings" that participants will be conditioned to associate with "witness of the spirit" that the Mormon Church is "true." That's the ultimate objective.

In the end, it has little to do with really, truly understand what life might have been like back in the days but everything to do with binding the participants closer to the Mormon Church via the manufacture and manipulation of emotions.

And what did your in-laws think about the trek? Was it as faith promoting for them? I'm curious about their reaction.

Of course it was. My in-laws drank the kool-aid years ago, and they've never stopped gulping it down.

They are great people, but if Wrinkley dropped his shorts and bent over, they'd be the first in line to plant sloppy wet ones on his ass.

Ewww. Well, there is some imagery I could have done without today.

The reports from our ward's trek last year was that it was physically overbearing, several people had heat exhaustion/dehydration issues and one of the adult female leaders collapsed and had to be brought out.

[_harmony]

The reports from our ward's trek last year was that it was physically overbearing, several people had heat exhaustion/dehydration issues and one of the adult female leaders collapsed and had to be brought out.

We've only done it once, and I think our leaders wised up to the risks they were running. Several of the men who went were EMT's and were appalled at the lack of sufficient water. We live in the desert, and temperatures of 110 are not uncommon at that time of year. Nobody with any brains wears long dresses, long sleeves, and bonnets in our high summer. The medical people were concerned with the physical health of the trekkers, not the spiritual health, and I think they prevailed upon the bishops of our two wards to never do it again. The risk was simply enormous.