Drifting wrote:Speaking up in Church in a manner that is questioning rather than reinforcing the faith promoting theme of the lesson will lead to you being labelled a maverick, a trouble causer, a person to be avoided.
And, on occasion, a person who gets blacklisted from teaching class, even as a substitute.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
I speak up in Church surreptitiously. For example, one time our Sunday School teacher was saying a lot of derogatory things about Warren Jeffs. I raised my hand and said "you know a prophet is a false prophet when he marries young teenage girls and his followers wives." Almost everyone in the room nodded in ignorant agreement. It was priceless.
thews wrote:You are conditioned to keep these observations to yourself, which is how a cult functions and continues to function.
No, that is how polite people function. Interesting that you can't see the difference.
No, this is how cult members function... it has nothing to do with being polite, but keeping the truth from those who wish to stay in ignorant bliss.
harmony wrote:
thews wrote:Discussing the truth is frowned upon.
No, it's not. Your problem is no one wants to discuss YOUR version of the truth.
My "version" of the truth is based upon the facts, or rather the actual truth. "YOUR" version of the truth includes keeping your observations of the truth from those that don't know the truth, which is how the cult mentality has taught you act. Considering how you reject D&C 132 and are damned based on the doctrine of Joseph Smith, I understand why you need to juggle truth and keep your anti-Mormon opinions from those that don't know what you actually believe... or profess to believe, which somehow appeases your cognitive dissonance.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. 2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
dblagent007 wrote:I speak up in Church surreptitiously. For example, one time our Sunday School teacher was saying a lot of derogatory things about Warren Jeffs. I raised my hand and said "you know a prophet is a false prophet when he marries young teenage girls and his followers wives." Almost everyone in the room nodded in ignorant agreement. It was priceless.
dblagent007 wrote:I speak up in Church surreptitiously. For example, one time our Sunday School teacher was saying a lot of derogatory things about Warren Jeffs. I raised my hand and said "you know a prophet is a false prophet when he marries young teenage girls and his followers wives." Almost everyone in the room nodded in ignorant agreement. It was priceless.
liz3564 wrote: As to the OP, Consig is exactly right. The point I was trying to make to Why Me is that those of us who are active are more familiar with the dynamic of the class itself. Therefore, we have a better understanding of what is appropriate in these types of situations and what isn't.
Whyme cannot understand this because he has never been an active member. He is seen as an oddity, but we love him anyways. AS such we tolerate and ignore what he says in SS if it does not fit with what we understand because member's think he can't know because of his status. This is why he does not understand why some of us know what we can bring up and what we can't bring up without causing trouble.
dblagent007 wrote:I speak up in Church surreptitiously. For example, one time our Sunday School teacher was saying a lot of derogatory things about Warren Jeffs. I raised my hand and said "you know a prophet is a false prophet when he marries young teenage girls and his followers wives." Almost everyone in the room nodded in ignorant agreement. It was priceless.
That's one time in the last 27 years I wish I had been sitting in a Mormon Sunday School class.
When I was in primary I had several lovely teachers who let us talk and question about anything that came into our minds. I liked this because it reinforced my experiences in school. Since my elementary school and ward chapel were next door to each other, this further reinforced what seemed to me to be a pedagogical carry over. Sure, each building had its particular area of focus, but as students it seemed like we were expected to act the same way: be polite, study, ask questions. I was rewarded for my questions and comments in both places; my primary teachers were also teachers beyond primary as well, two were substitute teachers at my grade school and one was my piano teacher.
That changed in MIA. The change seemed sudden to me and was probably the result of a couple of factors. I had two very inexperienced teachers who were new to the ward and seemed unsure how to handle a class. But another influence that I didn't realize at the time was the trickle-down effects of correlation. After a year and a half of MIA, the bandlo was discontinued and replaced by the Personal Progress Report. Gone was the colorful felt sash we had all personalized with carefully chosen flower symbols (based on study of the "language of flowers") and gone were the badges I had been earning for photography, fashion design, art, literature, cooking, etc. In its place was a standardized workbook with fill-in-the-blank answers about modesty and preparing for a celestial marriage.
And the lessons and classroom atmosphere changed also. No more historical lessons (Primary had focused on stories of ancient Palestine and early Utah history), no more free range discussions. Large print New Testaments had to be purchased for "scripture chase:" individual verses were underlined, divorced from context and used to illustrate that night's lesson on chastity, modesty, preparation for temple marriage. Many of us still asked questions, but we were asked not to interrupt or stopped mid-sentence. Since this was in the late 60's and early 70's there was plenty of pontificating about the violence "those people" were causing with "their" civil rights demonstrations and black power movement and the evils of feminism. One MIA teacher even organized a little house party so we could all get together to eat popcorn while watching Bobby Riggs beat Billie Jean King.
One night we had a panel discussion with three handpicked "handsome" returned missionaries. While the class swooned, they each solemnly intoned that they would NEVER marry a girl with pierced ears (O tempora! O mores! we are now allowed one piercing per ear!), short skirts, dyed hair or pale lipstick.
I learned to shut up as I supposed other girls in class learned as well. What I didn't learn though, was how to disguise my feelings or keep my thoughts from showing clearly on my face. I'm pretty sure I was glowering throughout the lesson about how two lovely young people were being married in temple, when suddenly the officiator was "prompted" to stop the ceremony and interrogate the bride and groom---at which point the bride broke down and confessed that, yes! she did indeed have "black blood" in her. After that lesson, the teacher complained that there was a "bad spirit" in the room.
And I had to agree.
Edited to add: Of course Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs and it was never mentioned again.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
No one else had any comment about the change being pointed out?
My wife is a very TBCM (True Blue Chapel Mormon) who instantly becomes hostile defensive whenever the line is crossed. The line being ANYTHING that triggers the cog-dis of Chapel Mormon conditioning.
In the old cafeteria, I tried to discuss with DCP the ways a man in his position might be able to influence Chapel Mormon's for their own protection/good (i.e. with his weekly news article). The idea being to soften the blow of the truth when exposed to it by sources that one can no longer simply write off as anti-mormon.
We all know the personal struggle, the spousal issues, the children, friends, work etc. that are inherent with the journey from TBM to where-ever that leads. If the potential for shell-shock damage can somehow be reduced over a longer gentler time, in a safer environment … then maybe you (NOM's) should consider pushing the limits a bit more.
Not with any intent to shock, or to prove or whatever, but with the intention of love and desire to help and smooth a transition, which to me, seems all but inevitable with today's technology. I believe the day of the Chapel Mormon is limited … maybe to my generation. What of the rest, what will their journey be?
I think finding as gentle a way as possible to introduce/plant the seed of the hard cog-dis issues to ward members would be a good thing. Where do you want them to hear it from? Knowing that others you rub-elbows with every Sunday struggle with the same knowledge/issues has strength.
I think you had a perfect opportunity, with yet another instructor (how many can they continue to black-list) to introduce one of the tougher issues to the class. For example, simply asking some questions:
Is not scripture sacred, why, after all these years, would they be changing stuff?
See if anyone else in the class has information on the topic and try and let others bring out the "anti-mormon" things they have heard.
Maybe just leave it at that, so when people do hear of the DNA issues, they already have some exposure to it.
I say, push the envelope a bit, not for the good of the church but for the good of those you love.