Mormonism is Now the Most Retrograde Religion in America.

[_Ray A]

He is the grandson of late Apostle and member of the First Presidency, Hugh B. Brown. (A known "liberal")

Brown was a Democrat of a completely different generation. Whether or not he was a "liberal" in the modern sense, you will have to demonstrate.

A liberal in the 1960s isn't the same as a liberal in 2008. Liberalism has evolved. Someone in 1960 would have had a different opinion of what is liberal.

Brown was dropped from the First Presidency by JFS because of his views. He was also a very forward thinking Mormon. For example, from his memoirs:

It is a dangerous thing to try to regulate the private lives of husbands and wives or for church leaders to go into the bedroom of a couple who are married and try to dictate what they should or should not do. Many of the problems people bring to the authorities of the chuch should be settled by the persons themselves. They know the basic rule of right and wrong. For example, there are cases where abortion is absolutely justified, in fact necessary, such as in the case of forcible rape, the threat of permanent injury to the mother's health or life, or the possibility of a grossly deformed birth. . . . And while we have not taken the unyielding attitude of some other churches toward artificial birth control, we cannot officially endorse it because too many young people would stop having children. Even so, I think we will one day have to modify our position. (119-20)

This advice was ignored, yet recall what happened in 1982 with the FP advice to members about oral sex. The backlash was quite strong, yet Brown advised against this long before it happened.

I wasn't suggesting only political liberalism. From one review of the memoirs:

In a life spanning more than 90 years, the Canadian born apostle in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not always in harmony with his fellow man, nor with his associates in the quorum, on temporal matters. However, according to his grandson, he was always striving to be in harmony with his God, and in spite of conflicts born of his strong convictions, he firmly believed in keeping a careful balance. He was a loyal Democrat all his life, and strongly supported the two party system.

Hugh B. Brown was first of all a strong advocate of freedom. Yet, he cautioned all to beware of extremism. He was liberal in his views of many social questions, yet refrained from revolutionary impulses. He schooled himself to accept things that could not be changed, but never reconciled to the idea that they might never change.

[_Droopy]

The Mormon Church, the Republican Party at prayer...

Uh huh...right.

The Mormon Church of the 19th century had a tradition of Christian socialism

No it didn't. It had the United Order, which is as far from any from of socialism as one might wish to get.

The Mormon Church is the most retrograde ecclesiastical body in the United States -- 100 years dated on civil rights for African-Americans (indeed, worldwide),

The 1978 lifting of the Priesthood ban had nothing to do with civil rights (it cannot possibly be a "civil right" to hold the Priesthood) and everything to do with a doctrinal concept of lineage. Firmage has clearly been intoxicated by a good dose of his own liquid excretions blown back on him by a strong wind.

staunchly opposed to First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press

If not knowing what one is talking about has a first prize, Firmage just walked away with a great big gold tin foil hat.

The Mormon Church led the powerful opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment that would have allowed women the full civic participation they obviously deserve and opposed the ordination of women to the clergy, since obviously only men can talk to God.

1. The ERA is a radical feminist attempt to erase gender distinctions and a condition of equality of outcome for a privileged, protected class (woman), and should have been resisted for the cultural Marxist Kulturkampf that it was.

2. The idea that only men can talk to God is not LDS doctrine, and has nothing to do with why woman are not ordained to the Priesthood (and hint on this person's intellectual substantiveness: the LDS Church has no "clergy" to which one can be ordained).

Scores of members were excommunicated for writing true history

According to certain interested parties...

not the party line, a good example of inverse Darwinism, the survival of the least fit. And now Mormons have largely led and financed a war to deny marriage between gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. For me, this is not the last straw. Indeed, it is the two-by-four. My spine, devastated by surgeries, can take no more.

Its not his spine that has been devastated.

You have broken my heart.

My stomach hurts...

[_Droopy]

Brown was dropped from the First Presidency by JFS because of his views. He was also a very forward thinking Mormon. For example, from his memoirs:

CFR.

They know the basic rule of right and wrong. For example, there are cases where abortion is absolutely justified, in fact necessary, such as in the case of forcible rape, the threat of permanent injury to the mother's health or life, or the possibility of a grossly deformed birth. . . .

This wasn't only Brown's view, but that of Spencer Kimball and the Brethren unitedly. Nothing to see here Ray.

This advice was ignored, yet recall what happened in 1982 with the FP advice to members about oral sex.

No, I don't, nor do most members because the "advice" was never generally circulated. It seems to have never left Utah. I never heard of it until I began frequenting antii-Mormon boards such as this. Nobody I know in the church has ever heard of it save one deceased relative. I never received any counsel upon the subject from any Bishop I've known. And it apparently was never any more than that-advice, not doctrine.

Hugh B. Brown was first of all a strong advocate of freedom. Yet, he cautioned all to beware of extremism. He was liberal in his views of many social questions

His views were his own. The only thing that actually matters is whether he was unanimous with the Brethren of official doctrinal and other official ecclesiastical matters. His views on abortion were no different than those of his peers at the time in the Church.

[_Ray A]

This advice was ignored, yet recall what happened in 1982 with the FP advice to members about oral sex.

No, I don't, nor do most members because the "advice" was never generally circulated. It seems to have never left Utah. I never heard of it until I began frequenting antii-Mormon boards such as this. Nobody I know in the church has ever heard of it save one deceased relative. I never received any counsel upon the subject from any Bishop I've known. And it apparently was never any more than that-advice, not doctrine.

Once again you don't know what you're talking about, Droopy. I'm going to ask you one simple question: Did the FP send out a statement regarding "proper behaviour" in regard to oral sex between husbands and wives, in 1982?

Yes or no?

Edit: This was sent to ALL bishops in the Church.
>
>
>
>
>

[_Droopy]

Here's the reality Ray, I've been in the Church all of my life, and I've never been counseled regarding this, never heard this directive read from the pulpit by a Church leader, never heard it mentioned by a Bishop or Stake President, and never seen or heard it taught in a Church manual, magazine, or other official source.

I had, indeed, never heard of it at all until I encountered it, some years ago, on another board catering to the fevered intellectual masturbatorial fantasies of disaffected and bitter ex- members.

It was clearly never doctrine, and clearly never pursued throughout the Church.

Role the dice again Ray.

[_Ray A]

Here's the reality Ray, I've been in the Church all of my life, and I've never been counseled regarding this, never heard this directive read from the pulpit by a Church leader, never heard it mentioned by a Bishop or Stake President, and never seen or heard it taught in a Church manual, magazine, or other official source.

I had, indeed, never heard of it at all until I encountered it, some years ago, on another board catering to the fevered intellectual masturbatorial fantasies of disaffected and bitter ex- members.

It was clearly never doctrine, and clearly never pursued throughout the Church.

Role the dice again Ray.

Did I ever say it was doctrine? Where? Did I ever say it was read from the pulpit? Where?

You know why it never got to all the members? Because bishops like me refused to follow through with it. A second "clarification letter" was sent to all bishops telling them they "misunderstood" the original letter. Misunderstood my ass. We got the message loud and clear, but they tried to put the blame back on the bishops (who "all got it wrong", and the member backlash was "all imagination").

This all goes back to my original point - it was an ill-conceived notion which Hugh Brown had ages before advised against.

[_Ray A]

on another board catering to the fevered intellectual masturbatorial fantasies of disaffected and bitter ex- members.

Members do that too. And Utah is proof of it.

[_Ray A]

Here is the letter sent to all bishops and priesthood leaders in 1982:

Letter to all Priesthood Leaders, January 5, 1982.

Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord. All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it.

Anyone guilty of verbal or physical child or spouse abuse should not enter the temple. . .

(Signatures)
Spencer Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
Gordon B. Hinckley

Here is Michael Watson's response to a woman who wrote them in 2002:

"As you know, the subject set out in your letter is of a highly personal nature and one for which the First Presidency has not provided detailed response. The Brethren have counseled those who conduct worthiness interviews to avoid explicit questioning beyond the scope of what is contained in the temple recommend book. Persons who have been through the temple are aware of the responsibility to keep their thoughts and actions pure and, furthermore, have been counseled to avoid any unholy, unnatural, or impure practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him or her enough to ask about it, he or she should discontinue it. With this in mind you can, through your personal supplication to our Father in Heaven, receive the guidance you may feel you need." The letter is signed "Michael Watson".

Michael Watson is the secretary to the First Presidency.

Spot the difference.

[_Droopy]

So this is a non-issue Ray, just like most of the issues you exercise yourself over here.

[_Droopy]

We got the message loud and clear, but they tried to put the blame back on the bishops (who "all got it wrong", and the member backlash was "all imagination").

What is your evidence of any member "backlash"? As I said, I've been a member all of my life, and I never heard this letter discussed, in public or private, by a single member I've ever known.

Strange how a "backlash" could be so invisible and inconspicuous given the weight exmos give to it.

One might be forgiven for thinking that the entire thing was, well, imaginary.

Perish the thought.