Top Ten Enemies of LDS church

[_beastie]

Then you weren't being vrey clear. Here's what you asked, " How do you think they decide for whom to start a "clipping service" file?"

Your link described how they start it. And you definitely weren't all that clear that this is the list the church would create if it was to create such a list. Now I see your implication. "Enemies on this list" would be people, in your mind, who don't really believe, go to Church or describe themselves as LDS and then go on to publish critical things about the Church. Kind of a mouthfull but I get it.

You're just not following this conversation. My OP was asking for suggested names of the top ten enemies of the church. You responded that the church wouldn't make such a list. I asserted that they would, and used the STMC as an example of how the church collects information on problematic members. Then, to make the link between the STMC and a top ten list, I rhetorically asked "how do you think they decide for whom to start a "clipping service" file?"

I asked that because a member being potentially problematic to the church is how they start the file. And that is, in and of itself, a form of a list, so there is no reason to doubt they would be willing to do a top ten list.

And I plain disagree. I am most confident in the list I provided in my attempt to speak for the church. Can't we just agree to disagree with all this silliness? Make it a lot easier huh?

I do not care one whit what your opinion is on the matter. I think you're being quite naïve to insist that the church would make no such list, particularly after I provided evidence that they do make another, similar, sort of list for STMC.

Fine you think based on this the church would make a list of enemies. Well, I'm all eyes. Produce one. I don't think the Church would. The church would probably say, at such a proposition, "enemies schmemenies. We don't see them as enemies".

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/2 ... ittee.html

First Presidency statement cites scriptural mandate for Church committee
Published: Saturday, Aug. 22, 1992
Print | Email | Share

Generally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830 following the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith in upstate New York. This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised `restitution of all things.' Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants:" `And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them. . . .

" `And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries. . . .

" `And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out.

" `And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;

" `And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published. . . . (Verses 1-5.)'

"Leaders and members of the Church strive to implement commandments of the Lord including this direction received in 1839. Because the Church has a non-professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church.

"The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.

"Members who have questions concerning Church doctrine, policies, or procedures have been counseled to discuss those concerns confidentially with their local leaders. These leaders are deeply aware of their obligation to counsel members wisely in the spirit of love, in order to strengthen their faith in the Lord and in His great latter-day work."

- The First Presidency

You are quite free to believe whatever naïve thing you choose to believe, but the evidence weighs against you. And that includes your scriptures.

[_beastie]

I see John as the ultimate 5th columnist. His subversive approach to the craziness of Mormonism is to acknowledge it for what it is and then claim that, no matter how ridiculous, the unfounded and clearly false beliefs of the Church somehow do not diminish the "truthfulness" of the gospel (or at least the value of Church fellowship to its active members).

His approach must really frustrate the leadership. It is difficult for the leadership claim that he is doing anything "wrong", or working against the best interests of the Church, by simply telling the truth about the Church teachings and then stating that members can stay active in spite of it all.

John has put himself in a very unstable situation and I hope that things work out for the best for him.

The latest news I heard was that John was no longer active in the LDS church and doubted he would return.

So the inclusion of Dehlin does make a lot of sense, and I believe I will add him to my personal list.

John is dangerous to the church because he frankly admits that much of what the critics were asserting was actually true. Yet he did so as a believer, who was clearly trying to find a way to continue to believe. That moves the criticism out of the "Ed Decker" realm. Ed Decker was so extreme, and personally problematic, that it's easy for faithful members of the church to dismiss ALL of his claims, even the claims that are true. John, OTOH, is not extreme and is not personally problematic. Wavering members would relate to him more than anyone else. That's why he's potentially such a danger.

[_Jason Bourne]

In a way John took what was once vile and made it approachable, perhaps even palatable.

I have read many stories of faithful LDS leaving the church because of the barriers that John helped break down with them personally.

Some sure. I have read many stories about how John's approach has helped them stay and keep what they value.

I am one of them.

[_Themis]

I never thought you were accusing me of lying.

Is this not what you said to beastie?

I've been getting a lot of this you're lying stuff lately. Seriously, I did my best for ya.

Edit: Since Stem has been a little sensitive around here, and I can understand to some extent, I am not calling him a liar here, but maybe a little forgetful(which can happen).

[_Tchild]

The LDS church has externalized its enemies in the form of materialism (money, ease, prosperity, excess), in sexual expression that began and flowered in the late 1960's, and in supernaturalism (the Devil and his minions) which exploit these conditions to "tempt" humans.

Mormonism has always had apostates, dissenters and those who have awoken from its supernatural cosmology. I think that it seems more prevalent now because we are more aware of it thanks to information sharing and the internet, but I wouldn't be surprised if the church's rate of disaffection has always been constant (as a percentage basis of those who become apostates or disbelievers of some sort).

The biggest potential enemies to the church would be a high level apostle who defected and attempted to start a reformation or sect following. It hasn't happened in a long while, but it did in the past.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

In a way John took what was once vile and made it approachable, perhaps even palatable.

I have read many stories of faithful LDS leaving the church because of the barriers that John helped break down with them personally.

Some sure. I have read many stories about how John's approach has helped them stay and keep what they value.

I am one of them.

That is great if it works for your situation. Funny how he is now exiting Mormonism completely. I predict you will follow him eventually. Once you look behind the curtain how can you continue to believe in the myth?

in my opinion, Mormonism demands all or none commitment. NOMs such as yourself are, based on that demand, are not members.

The reason they demand the all or none is that NOM'ism typically does not tithe well and more importantly does not live into the next generation.

[_Valorius]

Altho we've gotten a bit away from lists, and are now discussing the lists, I'd like to put in my two bits' worth. Not in order, that would be too hard for me to figure out. The Church, particularly what they are now calling the Quorum of Fifteen, sees the following as effective "enemies" (they may only be critics, but are seen as "enemies"):

Jerald and Sandra Tanner - they'll never stop hating this couple, and will remember the court cases for a while. I name this because they started it all, in a big way. I do recognize the seminal contributions also of Arthur Budvarson and Hal Hougey, who introduced me to Mormon criticism before I heard of the Tanners. I think the church considers them past enemies, with present influence.

The Founders and Board and anyone who supports the Exmormon Foundation, because they are the organized opposition, and offer an alternative to the Mormon Church's mind screwing.

Jim Whitefield, because it isn't just an American problem any more, and this gentleman shows just how bad it can be. He is not just an enemy in Britian; the Exmormon Foundation empowered him to be seen as an enemy even around Temple Square.

The 25 Latter-Day Saints at Mormonthink.com, because they are right, and that makes them (the GAs) look wrong. Because they are.

Michael Quinn and any historian who reveals as much as he and his associates did - true history (i.e., "dangerous" history), rather than "faithful" history (i.e. untruthful history).

Richard Packham, because he has a presence, a large and wonderful website, and people listen to him.

Those who provide internet forums for questioning Mormons, nonmormons, and exmormons to ask questions and discuss issues that are variously "embarrassing", "the mysteries," "truthful rather than faithful". This may be CE#1 (Church Enemy #1). I do not know all their names or I would name them. Is there such a list?

Bob McCue, of course.

Mark Hoffman, a supreme embarrassment, and a revelation to the members.

Arza Evans, in a quiet sort of way.


Honorable Mentions:
Ed Decker, of course. You don't have to be a professional scholar, researcher, or theologian, to see problems or analyze them.
Apostle Lee, barely visible, but who left pie on their face, and questions in the minds of members, and did not get caught while he was rubbing shoulders with the other GAs.
Apostle Dunn, a mild, passive enemy, because he got caught, and who left pie on their face, and doubt in the minds of members.

[_Jason Bourne]

That is great if it works for your situation. Funny how he is now exiting Mormonism completely.

I am not sure that is accurate. If he is exiting why is his stake leadership meeting with him. He also said he this on his Facebook wall:

I meet with my stake president on Sunday night to find out the results of the inquiry into me/Mormon Stories Podcast. So far, everyone involved (bishop, elder's quorum president, stake high councilman, and stake president) have demonstrated a great deal of kindness, and a sincere desire to "do the right thing." Wish me luck.

So I think he is still in. The only thing I have heard him say is it is getting increasingly harder to maintain his tenuous position given where he is now at.

I predict you will follow him eventually. Once you look behind the curtain how can you continue to believe in the myth?

It is complicated for me Port. I have come to believe most religion is a myth that men and women come up with to try to grapple with the unkown. I still have faith in God and feel Christianity is the best expression of it for me and within that umbrella Mormonism, which is my tribe, still work. Thought I will confess there are days I find it difficult. Other days I am quite happy with it.

But you could be right. I have no idea where my journey will lead.

in my opinion, Mormonism demands all or none commitment. NOMs such as yourself are, based on that demand, are not members.

The reason they demand the all or none is that NOM'ism typically does not tithe well and more importantly does not live into the next generation.

Well we are members until someone asks us to exit. Course most NOMs are pretty quiet about their views. But they still cash my tithe and offering check.

[_stemelbow]

Beastie,

as I said, i get your point. I just plain disagree. Instead of getting back into the nitty-gritty of why i disagree, which seems petty at this point, I'll just leave it at that.

[_stemelbow]

I never thought you were accusing me of lying.

Is this not what you said to beastie?

I've been getting a lot of this you're lying stuff lately. Seriously, I did my best for ya.

Edit: Since Stem has been a little sensitive around here, and I can understand to some extent, I am not calling him a liar here, but maybe a little forgetful(which can happen).

Nice try, themis. My "seriously" was to digress and suggest I was playing around, joking in my previous sentence. As I said, I didn't really think Beastie was calling me a liar. I didn't forget. I was going with what I was thinking.

Sometimes its good to get a little petty, i guess, to make sure you are being clear. I hope no one takes it all the wrong way.