The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[huckelberry]

The kind of absolutist across the board demand for obedience remains quite strange to me. I should consider Gadianton's point. I did not go on a mission as my belief ended my senior year of high school. That also means I did not swear obedience in a temple.

Even so my idea is a bit influenced by a younger brother who did go on a mission. In some conversation after he thought important to distinguish things determined to be scripture not every thought a leader might say. I can hear that different leaders and times color that idea differently. I remember some people noting different approaches to guidance. Some people are iron rod, others use their freedom to interpret correct principles. My parents were the second.

[malkie]

As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, back in those days I wasn't familiar and/or listening to some of the things that were taught by the general leadership. I was in High School at this time. As a result, I 'did my own thing' as many others were doing.

So, you read Benson's talk which includes this snippet:

Observe that the man of God is a happy man. The hedonist, who proclaims “Do your thing,” who lives for sinful, so-called pleasure, is never happy.

Thus, you (MG) were doing your "own thing," which according to Benson means you were "sinful" and were "never happy". Were you not happy? But, I think you were happy doing your own thing. I think you had fun and were just living life to suit your needs. Right?

If you want to call that 'sinning', fine...

No, I didn't call it sin, Benson did -- an unsufferable man who offended many people.

but I was sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made me directly accountable. Even if what I was doing in some respects was stupid and basically a waste of time.

You didn't waste your time being who you were, your authentic self, having a good time and exploring life. That is not being stupid, per se, you were in discovery mode. If you were sinning then it's because Benson said it, not me.

As I've also mentioned, I think in this thread, there are those...especially critics...who hold members accountable for every 'sin' they've committed in their lives even when sinning in ignorance.

It's not just the "sin", it's the fact the apostle said you were enticed by Satan and being led by him to partake of those evil things. Hence, what's most disturbing is how Benson claims you were under the power and influence of Satan for listening to rock music. You did not choose to listen to rock music out of ignorance. You chose it because it's what you desired and it was fun. You were being U! Nothing wrong with that.

My point has been that as one gains further light and knowledge they are THEN accountable for their actions. And when I said "stupid is, stupid does" I am saying, indirectly I suppose, that when we do stupid things...even if unknowingly...and then learn/know better and we continue to do those stupid things, we are in some sense "stupid" for not repenting and moving on to something better.

I think there were/are many from my generation that are still "stupid is, stupid does". A hangover, of sorts, that they never recovered/repented from.

I think you lost the point I was trying to make. Those two songs from Deep Purple are: "Good stuff." That is not strictly in past tense; it's good stuff even today! And that, according to Benson is sinful. That's my point! You don't have to repent for listening to Deep Purple, not then and not now.

Looks like you and I were writing our replies at the same time, and thinking along similar lines.

Perhaps the underlying problem here is the definition of the natural man as an enemy of god, and thus the condemnation of whatever feels good that is not explicitly approved of by the church.

The result, in my opinion, is a tendency to religiosity, rather than what could be seen as enjoyment of many gifts of nature that hurt nobody else.

I was brought up in the Church of Scotland, whose base philosophy is sometimes described as the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves.

Cf:

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

[huckelberry]

I'm a bit puzzled here. You say you did your own thing as many others were doing. Apparently you don't want to call that "sinning". OK with me - I'm not here to accuse or condemn you, or say that what you did was sinning. I'm certainly not holding you accountable for every 'sin' you've committed in your life, especially when "sinning" in ignorance. In any case I am pretty sure that your so-called sins were relatively few and quite innocuous.

But as a baptized member, entitled to the companionship of the holy ghost, you say that you were sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made you directly accountable? What then of the idea that the appropriate age for baptism is 8 - the age of accountability? In HS you were well past 8.

I'm just a bit surprised that you seem to be minimising the power of the gift you received shortly after baptism. I've heard this gift, not available to anyone not baptised in the church, talked up as life altering, precious. So are you saying that it really doesn't work, it doesn't give you any great advantage over the "many others", it doesn't help you to avoid sin, it let you down?

Malkie I find it hard not to say, you have got to be kidding. I guess you did not grow up in the church and see and experience all the variations of real people's real actions.

There is no magical transformation; there is a life of learning. I think that is what MG is pointing to.

I also see no reason to think his point at stupid is aimed at all nonmembers but at people mired in drug and alcohol problems. Perhaps different words could be used. Good to hope learning can come to those injured by past excess or errors.

[malkie]

I'm a bit puzzled here. You say you did your own thing as many others were doing. Apparently you don't want to call that "sinning". OK with me - I'm not here to accuse or condemn you, or say that what you did was sinning. I'm certainly not holding you accountable for every 'sin' you've committed in your life, especially when "sinning" in ignorance. In any case I am pretty sure that your so-called sins were relatively few and quite innocuous.

But as a baptized member, entitled to the companionship of the holy ghost, you say that you were sinning ignorantly without the light and knowledge that would have made you directly accountable? What then of the idea that the appropriate age for baptism is 8 - the age of accountability? In HS you were well past 8.

I'm just a bit surprised that you seem to be minimising the power of the gift you received shortly after baptism. I've heard this gift, not available to anyone not baptised in the church, talked up as life altering, precious. So are you saying that it really doesn't work, it doesn't give you any great advantage over the "many others", it doesn't help you to avoid sin, it let you down?

Malkie I find it hard not to say, you have got to be kidding. I guess you did not grow up in the church and see and experience all the variations of real people's real actions.

There is no magical transformation; there is a life of learning. I think that is what MG is pointing to.

I also see no reason to think his point at stupid is aimed at all nonmembers but at people mired in drug and alcohol problems. Perhaps different words could be used. Good to hope learning can come to those injured by past excess or errors.

Not completely kidding, huckelberry. Just pointing out one of the disconnects between how Mormonism is "sold" and how it really works. As you say, in reality there is no magical transformation. If that is what MG is pointing to, then, yes, he could have been much clearer. From my observations, however, I see little to suggest that there is even a minimal "holy ghost" effect - the gift that is supposed to make a real difference seems not to do so. If MG meant to restrict his comments to "people mired in drug alcohol problems", it would have been easy for him to say so.

Lest anyone think I'm declaring myself to be a good example of how to live, that's not at all the case, as some members of this board are already aware. No, I didn't grow up in the church - I was an adult "convert". As I got to know members (especially from being in leadership positions) I was sometimes shocked at how little difference there seemed to be between members and non-members, when it came to matters of basic honesty and morality. I naïvely expected something more.

[huckelberry]

Malkie I find it hard not to say, you have got to be kidding. I guess you did not grow up in the church and see and experience all the variations of real people's real actions.

There is no magical transformation; there is a life of learning. I think that is what MG is pointing to.

I also see no reason to think his point at stupid is aimed at all nonmembers but at people mired in drug and alcohol problems. Perhaps different words could be used. Good to hope learning can come to those injured by past excess or errors.

Not completely kidding, huckelberry. Just pointing out one of the disconnects between how Mormonism is "sold" and how it really works. As you say, in reality there is no magical transformation. If that is what MG is pointing to, then, yes, he could have been much clearer. From my observations, however, I see little to suggest that there is even a minimal "holy ghost" effect - the gift that is supposed to make a real difference seems not to do so. If MG meant to restrict his comments to "people mired in drug alcohol problems", it would have been easy for him to say so.

Lest anyone think I'm declaring myself to be a good example of how to live, that's not at all the case, as some members of this board are already aware. No, I didn't grow up in the church - I was an adult "convert". As I got to know members (especially from being in leadership positions) I was sometimes shocked at how little difference there seemed to be between members and non-members, when it came to matters of basic honesty and morality. I naïvely expected something more.

Malkie I can see your point about overselling. It is common with a variety of Christianities. There is a tension between realistic view of people learning slowly and plain disappointment.

I agree MG comments about stupid does are uncomfortably vague. I do not hear them as broad as they might be taken to mean.

[malkie]

Not completely kidding, huckelberry. Just pointing out one of the disconnects between how Mormonism is "sold" and how it really works. As you say, in reality there is no magical transformation. If that is what MG is pointing to, then, yes, he could have been much clearer. From my observations, however, I see little to suggest that there is even a minimal "holy ghost" effect - the gift that is supposed to make a real difference seems not to do so. If MG meant to restrict his comments to "people mired in drug alcohol problems", it would have been easy for him to say so.

Lest anyone think I'm declaring myself to be a good example of how to live, that's not at all the case, as some members of this board are already aware. No, I didn't grow up in the church - I was an adult "convert". As I got to know members (especially from being in leadership positions) I was sometimes shocked at how little difference there seemed to be between members and non-members, when it came to matters of basic honesty and morality. I naïvely expected something more.

Malkie I can see your point about overselling. It is common with a variety of Christianities. There is a tension between realistic view of people learning slowly and plain disappointment.

I agree MG comments about stupid does are uncomfortably vague. I do not hear them as broad as they might be taken to mean.

One point that I had in mind, and omitted due to memory failure , is that one effect of the overselling/underdelivery of "features" is the amount of guilt that people may experience when they cannot seem to participate in the results they were told to expect, and that others seem to obtain. A related issue, I believe, it the consequent pressure to "fake it till you make it", whether you ever make it or not. Somewhat related to the "acting" discussion recently on another thread.

"Getting religion" is supposed to relieve some of these everyday life experiences, not exacerbate them, is it not?

[Gadianton]

The kind of absolutist across the boards demand for obedience remains quite strange to me. I should consider Gadiantons point. I did not go on a mission as my belief ended my senior year high school. That also means I did not sware obedience in a temple.

Even so my idea is a bit influenced by a younger brother who did go on a mission. In some conversation after he thought important to distinguish things determined to be scripture not every thought a leader might say. I can hear that different leaders and times color that idea differently. I remember some people noting different approaches to guidance. Some people are iron rod, others use their freedom to interpret correct principals. My parents were the second.

The foundational claim of the Church is continuing revelation. The core of Judeo-Christianity is revelation. If the revelation boils down to, "hey man, just do your best, use your freedom and do what works for you" then Judeo-Christianity is an offshoot of Confucianism. Why do we need a hundred thousand missionaries to flood the earth with the Book of Mormon when nothing about it is essential or critical to salvation? What is the urgency of the Church's mission in your brother's and parents' interpretation? Why would it matter to your family if somebody converts to Mormonism or stays Catholic or Hindu, if they are happy?

I think I get where they are coming form. What you're describing to me about your family is the situation most families are in: born into Mormonism, saddled with these huge claims and big expectations, and they've got to figure out how to make it through life everyday. Most members have done that by simply not taking it that seriously. Yeah, it's the only true church on the face of the earth and we are a peculiar people, now let's go out and have some fun!

My point is, Huck, there is a fundamental tension between claims such as "the only true church with the one true living prophet on this earth today" and "we just do our best and follow what makes sense to us." If you want to say the rubric of Mormonism as your family practiced it doesn't emphasize exclusivity claims, and most churches are equally good, then fine. Where I would find myself in endless arguments with your family is not in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" but in "using their freedom to interpret principals they think are correct" while at the same time insisting the President of the Church is the one true and living prophet, all other churches are steeped in apostasy, and the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the face of the earth.

[Limnor]

Malkie I can see your point about overselling. It is common with a variety of Christianities. There is a tension between realistic view of people learning slowly and plain disappointment.

I agree MG comments about stupid does are uncomfortably vague. I do not hear them as broad as they might be taken to mean.

One point that I had in mind, and omitted due to memory failure , is that one effect of the overselling/underdelivery of "features" is the amount of guilt that people may experience when they cannot seem to participate in the results they were told to expect, and that others seem to obtain. A related issue, I believe, it the consequent pressure to "fake it till you make it", whether you ever make it or not. Somewhat related to the "acting" discussion recently on another thread.

"Getting religion" is supposed to relieve some of these everyday life experiences, not exacerbate them, is it not?

It seems that the promise really does include those “features,” malkie—the hard sell is “God still speaks and prophets still guide.” But in practice there doesn’t seem to be much clear or consistent guidance as advertised, and when people don’t experience the internal spiritual change they were told to expect, the lack of results can turn inward. A kind of built-in message—“it didn’t work because you didn’t try hard enough, or because something is wrong with you”—gets applied by default.

I admit I don’t understand that inconsistency, because it seems to sit opposite of the scriptural idea of “come unto me, ye weary and heavy-laden,” where faith is supposed to lighten burdens, not add new ones. I think you are speaking to that point as well.

Maybe that’s where the guilt comes from and why many feel pressure to “fake it till they make it,” even when they suspect they may never make it. I don’t think that is something restricted to the LDS faith, but rather is tied to human nature.

Of course, some may set all that aside because their goals are different. Maybe the sense of authority tied to the priesthood, or some other form of belonging, is more important to some than spiritual transformation.

[I Have Questions]

Malkie I can see your point about overselling. It is common with a variety of Christianities. There is a tension between realistic view of people learning slowly and plain disappointment.

I agree MG comments about stupid does are uncomfortably vague. I do not hear them as broad as they might be taken to mean.

One point that I had in mind, and omitted due to memory failure , is that one effect of the overselling/underdelivery of "features" is the amount of guilt that people may experience when they cannot seem to participate in the results they were told to expect, and that others seem to obtain. A related issue, I believe, it the consequent pressure to "fake it till you make it", whether you ever make it or not. Somewhat related to the "acting" discussion recently on another thread.

"Getting religion" is supposed to relieve some of these everyday life experiences, not exacerbate them, is it not?

To those latter comments. When the Church and its leaders fail to deliver on things like burning bosoms, life success after righteous living, prayers not being answered etc etc the Church places the failure at the door of the disappointed member. If you experience any dissatisfaction with your Mormon experience, the blame for that rests solely with you, regardless of any and all perceived failings of the church, its leaders, its policies, its practices, its behaviours, or its teachings. Plus any and all practices and teaches are subject to immediate revision.

Yesterday it was a sin to display bare shoulders, today that’s just fine. There are many more examples. The way the SLC LDS Church administers its doctrines and teachings and practices and policies, is an abuse of a persons mind. Which is why the default position of the majority of active members is to not think too deeply about any of it. It’ll hurt your brain and lead you out.

Take our own MG 2.0’s efforts to explain and defend the teachings, policies, and practices of the Church. Where does it always end up? That’s right, a convoluted mess of self-contradicting nonsense. I cannot think of a single thing that MG 2.0 has been able to explain rationally and reasonably. That’s not his fault of course. And God bless him for trying. But he ends up with egg on his face. Every. Single. Time.

As a good example of malkie's point about "overselling". The Church actively promotes (sells) the notion that "We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord..." I suspect the SEC begs to differ. What is implicit in this statement is that we cannot always trust dead Prophets. Why not? If what they said could always be trusted whilst they were alive, why can't it be relied upon after they are dead? The answer I suspect is because the religion isn't Mormonism. It was Monsonism, then it became Nelsonism, and now it is Oaksism. Sure, some things remain consistent across the reigns, but the whole is not a consistent religion. Members now aren't Latter-day Saints, they're Latter-day Oaksists.

[Shulem]

Why are we criticizing them for wanting to help youth choose something better than mediocrity or possible paths into sin (umm...sex, drugs, and rock and roll did not always lead to happy endings).

The aim of the cult is to control your crotch. The aim is to keep the zipper up. The goal is to keep you from exploration and having a good time and finding your way in life outside the bounds of the cult. Keep your pants up, boy! Don't touch your penis! Pay tithing and obey the leaders of the church. That is Mormonism in a nutshell and everything about the church is built upon that.

But, MG, you're grown up now and if you want to touch your penis, you can. And you can listen to Led Zeppelin (Lemon Song) too without feeling guilty.

Enjoy!