"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_wenglund]

Again, and to no surprise, you missed the point. Do you notice a pattern of missing what we say Wade? I'll try one last time. We BOTH feel victimized in many ways, I'm sure. Nobody (that I know of) is denying that we believe differently about that. But does that preclude attempts at being able to get along with the other.

Perhaps the problem you are having is separating your beliefs with...YOU. YOU are not the church. Your beliefs are not what make YOU. Just like you can be a Lakers fan, and I a Jazz fan, and we can still be friends. It is when our loyalty for our "team" is such an obsession, that we can't see the other for who they really are?

PLEASE try to see this Wade. If you really want to help bridge the divide, we can have completely different beliefs about many things -- religion or anything else, but if we choose to focus on our commonalities, and see what is really good about the other, we all can love -- UNCONDITIONALLY. I believe that is possible, and in fact, believe that is what the word means

If you can't see that, I pity your associates that don't believe exactly as you...and please don't attempt to come to any of these boards and claim to want to "bridge the gap," where it is clear you are a wolf in sheep's clothing and only want to re-convert us to YOUR way of thinking!

As expected, you have confused "missing the point" with "my coming to a different conclusion from you" (see below). Notice a pattern, Rick?

Notice also the irony of your not once mentioning our commonality, nor accepted my point of view, but expressed pity for my associations, and selfrighteously preceeded to tell me what I can or cannot attempt to do?

The fact is, I get the point that you view me as separate from my faith and the Church. It is just that I see it differently (not to be confused with obsessive loyalty). I am fine with this difference. Are you?

I get that you think mutually perceived victims can "get along". It is just that I disagree, and I think the long and divided history between members and former members supports my view.

As I have come to understand things (which likely differs from you--and that's okay), the very perception of victimhood and perceived perpetrators is at the heart of the divide. To me, it along with the associated CONDITIONS (such as the need for the other side to admit they were wrong and need to apologize--sound familiar Rick?), and an unwillingness to respect that others may reasonable view themselves as inextricably tied to their faith and Church (sound familiar Rick?), but must view it your way (Ironic, huh Rick?), these things are clearly NOT UNCONDITIONAL love, nor is it an acceptance of others beliefs and the way others are, but rather the very dynamic of prejudice that is highly divisive.

You, of course, are free to see it otherwise, and I will respect that, and not try to tell you what you can or cannot do. (I may, though, respectfully express my opinion as to whether I think what you suggest will work or not.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

I can tell you exactly why this happens. LDS are taught that "apostates" leave the church due to sin, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, hurt feelings, or some other demeaning and belittling "reason". LDS are taught this over and over and over and over and over.

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

You, of course, are free to see it otherwise, and I will respect that, and not try to tell you what you can or cannot do. (I may, though, respectfully express my opinion as to whether I think what you suggest will work or not.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As will I. I've seen my approach work, and your approach fail. Many times. But maybe I haven't worked with enough people?

[_BishopRic]

Something about LDS makes a good amount of people sort of "weep and wail" for a bit when they leave, it appears to me. I think I'd be interested in finding out why that was so, rather than calling them weepers and wailers -- that sort of strikes me as not recognizing their legitimate gripes with a Church they grew up in (in some cases), that they once devoted themselves to, that they once considered a fundamental part of their life. I'd be looking inward at the Church, rather than outward to the former members themselves as to what caused their distress. Of course I can't do that, 'cause it's not my Church.

I can tell you exactly why this happens. LDS are taught that "apostates" leave the church due to sin, wanting to sin, laziness, pride, hurt feelings, or some other demeaning and belittling "reason". LDS are taught this over and over and over and over and over.

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are so dense Wade! YOU are not the church. YOU did not do the wrongs I speak of. Can you not separate the church from...YOU?! Why would a member need to "condition" their love for an exmo (or vice versa) on anything the church does, or did?

I would absolutely love the member unconditionally, and I do many Mormons, despite the fact that they feel the way they do about me, and my path out. They often have been able to get past the need to re-convert me. It took a while, but it is possible. They still have a "testimony." They still believe as Mormons do. They just don't buy into the charge to constantly 'warn their neighbor."

Hello McFly!

[_beastie]

Assuming for the moment that what you suggest above is both accurate and proportional (I believe it may open to at least some question--not to be confused with my not being able to accept this), can you, as a former member, respect these alleged LDS beliefs regarding former members, and accept LDS as they supposedly are, and get along with them and love them UNCONDITIONALLY?

What if the LDS also went so far as to, under the guise of UNCONDITIONAL love, CONDITIONED their association with you (or their "healing") on things like you former members needing to admit that you are wrong in the ways mentioned and need to apologize? Would you, as a former member, acquiess out of respect and acceptance and unconditional love for LDS?

I ask because that is the reverse of the one-sided notion some former members may suggest is the way to "bridge the divide" between members and nonmembers...amen and amen. ;-)

You're basically saying what Ray has said before you - that it is a deeply ingrained and even important LDS belief that apostate leave due to sin and other myriad flaws. We cannot expect LDS to change their basic theology.

But reality is that LDS teachings change quite a bit over time. Whether or not this will ever change, I have no idea.

If you are correct, however, and abandoning the belief that apostates "leave due to sin" would be the equivalent of ME admitting to sin and error I did not commit, then, no, it will never, never change.

But I'm curious. Would the LDS church ceasing to teach that "apostates leave due to sin" really be the equivalent of me admitting to an error and sin I never made? If we delve into your logic deeply enough, it would certainly appear that you are actually asserting that apostates really DO leave due to sin, and to deny that would be to deny truth and reality.

[_rcrocket]

But I'm curious. Would the LDS church ceasing to teach that "apostates leave due to sin" really be the equivalent of me admitting to an error and sin I never made? If we delve into your logic deeply enough, it would certainly appear that you are actually asserting that apostates really DO leave due to sin, and to deny that would be to deny truth and reality.

What is your best source for the statement that LDS theology teaches that apostates leave due to sin?

I'd say that departure from the Church, especially after serving a mission and making temple covenants, along with anonymous vulgar attacks on the Church and living people in public, will most likely condemn one to hell and all, but other than that I'm curious where I might read that some other kind of sin is usually the basis for departure?

[_beastie]

Here's two examples:

“The Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. It confounds false doctrines and lays down contention. (See 2 Ne. 2 Nephi 3:12.) It fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. The type of apostates in the Book of Mormon are similar to the type we have today. God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1975, 94–95; or Ensign, May 1975, 64).
Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual
“He Inviteth All to Come unto Him”

Ensign » 1989 » April
A Warning from Kirtland
By Milton V. Backman, Jr.


The reflections of contemporaries—those who remained faithful and those who left the Church—help us better understand how apostasy could grow so rapidly in little more than a year. Some twentieth-century historians have shown a tendency to concentrate on economic forces as the major cause of this apostasy. They especially point to the demise of the Kirtland Safety Society (a banking enterprise) as the paramount factor. Such a theory, however, is misleading and oversimplifies the situation.


A study of the records of the bank reveals that a high percentage of stockholders remained faithful and that those who lost the most did not leave the Church. Only 8 percent of the known stockholders joined the ranks of apostates, and almost half (45 percent) of this group returned to the Church. 8 Though the failure of the bank generated criticism, dissatisfied members viewed it more as a symbol of failure than as the sole cause of it. Joseph Smith became a target for attack, a convenient scapegoat. As his prophetic leadership was questioned, dissension and apostasy erupted throughout the small Church.


Some Church members who lived in Kirtland during this crisis concluded that the apostates lost the Spirit through pride, selfishness, greed, immorality, and criticism. Eliza R. Snow declared that after the Latter-day Saints had received marvelous blessings, many were lifted up in the pride of their hearts: “As the Saints drank in the love and spirit of the world, the Spirit of the Lord withdrew from their hearts, and they were filled with pride and hatred toward those who maintained their integrity.” 9 She explained that, following the completion of the temple, the Kirtland Saints, who were quite poor, sought economic improvement and witnessed the dawn of prosperity. A spirit of speculation gripped many Church members.


Other contemporaries linked land speculation with manifestations of selfishness among the Kirtland Saints. Joseph Smith felt that “the spirit of speculation in lands and property,” which manifested itself in many parts of the nation, was much to blame for the “evil surmisings, fault-finding, disunion, [and] dissension” in the Church. “Apostasy,” he said, “followed in quick succession.” 10


An examination of land and tax records containing known apostates indicates that selfishness was indeed a factor that plagued a small group of dissidents. Seven dissidents are known to have bought and sold land in Kirtland during the period of the apostasy. Although some of them were not involved in what might be called land speculation, land records support accusations by those who complained that some members took advantage of other members by charging more than non-Mormons for land sold to Latter-day Saints.


A number of apostates also criticized Joseph Smith’s land deals during the two-year period. However, an examination of his land transactions clearly indicate that he attempted to improve the Saints’ economic status and did not try to make a lucrative profit through buying and selling land. Since most property held by Joseph Smith was, in reality, Church property, a partnership administered many of the prophet’s transactions. This land was sold for less than land sold by non-Mormons and other members. In 1837, for example, Joseph Smith and his associates sold property for an average of $18.85 per acre, compared to approximately $20 by non-Latter-day Saints for comparable or less valuable land. Meanwhile, some of the Saints who left the Church sold land for more than $44 per acre. 11


After Joseph Smith fled, a number of apostates robbed and threatened the Saints, claiming that they were recovering debts owed them by the Prophet. 12 However, the creditors who loaned money to Joseph Smith were not likely the persecutors of the Kirtland Saints. The known creditors were generally bankers or wealthy businessmen who lived outside the Kirtland township. 13 Contemporary Saints were probably right when they complained that mobsters used Joseph Smith’s financial plight and his flight from Kirtland as an excuse to justify intolerant acts.

Are you actually denying that the church teaches that apostates leave the church due to sinning, the desire to sin, laziness, pride, etc etc?

[_beastie]

And here's a previous thread in which I shared even more:

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... ht=bigotry

Go to the link for several examples, I won't bother to copy them all here. But here's the first:

Apostasy is turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.

What is that which turns people away from this Church? Very trifling affairs are generally the commencement of their divergence from the right path. If we follow a compass, the needle of which does not point correctly, a very slight deviation in the beginning will lead us, when we have traveled some distance, far to one side of the true point for which we are aiming (DBY, 83).

If the Saints neglect to pray, and violate the day that is set apart for the worship of God, they will lose his Spirit. If a man shall suffer himself to be overcome with anger, and curse and swear, taking the name of the Deity in vain, he cannot retain the Holy Spirit. In short, if a man shall do anything which he knows to be wrong, and repenteth not, he cannot enjoy the Holy Spirit, but will walk in darkness and ultimately deny the faith (DBY, 85).

It is most astonishing to every principle of intelligence that any man or woman will close their eyes upon eternal things after they have been made acquainted with them, and let the … things of this world, the lusts of the eye, and the lusts of the flesh, entangle their minds and draw them one hair’s breadth from the principles of life (DBY, 82).

It was said here this morning that no person ever apostatized, without actual transgression. Omission of duty leads to commission (DBY, 82).

12 Preventing Personal Apostasy 35554, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy, 79

[_Gazelam]

"curing homosexuality,"

How is straightening our the queers considered a bad thing?

[_James Clifford Miller]

What is your best source for the statement that LDS theology teaches that apostates leave due to sin?

You've now been supplied with a long list of such authoritative statements from the GAs quoted in official LDS publications from the Ensign to LDS Sunday School manuals which teach precisely that.

I look forward to reading your response.

James Clifford Miller