• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts

CorvoSol

Member
You know even when I was active I never got excited about conference the way other people did. Don't know why. I ALWAYS watched/listened. But I always knew that precious little new would be said. I think the most exciting thing that happened at conference was the establishment of the second 70.

I see all my mormon friends all getting excited. I just never understood. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I'm not active anymore.

I'll be honest when I say I'm not really interested in "new" things being said. I can see that there are those who are interested, but for me I just care about hearing the things I need to hear. I don't know if that makes sense or not, but that's been the case since the start of my mission onward. I listen to hear stuff I need to hear for my life and try and keep practicing that. Like there was a talk awhile back about how only a fool is offended where no offense was intended. I took that to heart, since I tended to get upset easily, and have always tried since then to ask myself when I'm feeling offended if the person who said or did whatever to upset me was really trying to upset me or not.

Aside from that, I guess there's just that strange hype of the Prophet and the Twelve and the Seventies coming out and speaking and all that stuff. Like Ground Hogs Day only more spiritual?

I suck at explaining today, haha.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are generalizing, and in the process you are effectively marginalizing the agony and pain that many have gone through in their journey out of Mormonism. I searched out what was very urgent to me, if the Mormon church was what it claimed to be. I found my answers and haven't been to chuch in over 5 years. And you know what? I am happy. I am at peace. I am comfortable with who I am. So, based off of your statement, it would seem I did something wrong, because if I hadn't I would be actively attending church. What do you mean by, "doing your part?"

As to Bott, he may have been misquoted, but what he said agrees with what I read and learned growing up Mormon.

I'll extend the same apology to you and edit the original post to better reflect that this has been my personal experience. As far as what it means to me to do my part, it is the process of first prayerfully preparing (preferable a written) list of questions or topics which I simply have questions about, studying them extensively, and then keeping them in mind as I listen to conference. To clarify, I think a lot of active faithful members go to conference hoping for so called "big" announcements or revelations and miss out on the opportunity to receive very specific personal guidance.

RE: Bott - regardless of what he did or did not say I thought it would be prudent to share his side of the story (though he has not done so publicly). As for myself, as I explained earlier anything that is not scripture should not be treated or accepted as such, but rather should be treated for what it is: theory and opinion. Especially since in this case it can be offensive and hurtful.
 

ronito

Member
So the mormon blogosphere is all afire about Elder Holland's interview in the BBC's "The Mormon Candidate"

I found it interesting. You can watch the whole documentary here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mormonsaresimple?feature=watch

Parts of it make me laugh. Some of the exmormons they have make me look like a Bishop. Seriously.

Still it is interesting to see an apostle talk about the Book of Abraham and Masonic stuff. And I did learn stuff, I had never heard of the "Strengthening" committee.
 
Watching it now. It astounds me that so-called reporters STILL get the name of the Church wrong - almost to the point that it seems on purpose. That and a few other incorrect statements have put this on a rocky start, but whatever.

EDIT: Okay, make that a lot of incorrect statements. Come on, seriously?
 

ronito

Member
Watching it now. It astounds me that so-called reporters STILL get the name of the Church wrong - almost to the point that it seems on purpose. That and a few other incorrect statements have put this on a rocky start, but whatever.

EDIT: Okay, make that a lot of incorrect statements. Come on, seriously?

I found things that were flimsy but no outright lies. What were some of the statements you found?
Though like I said the exmos on there really do make me look like Peter Priesthood.

The most laughable thing was the lady saying "They gave me this underwear that had these symbols and they didn't tell me what they were!"

I was like They tell you right then and there what everything means. As I remember you have to repeat it.

Oh and that the symbols were "Pagan" I was like "Bitch please, they're masonic."
 
A comprehensive list would be require me to watch it again while taking notes. Not something I'm keen on doing. But who knows why, I rewatched the first part. Some include: incorrectly stating the name of the Church, the reason why the early church migrated to Utah, the current ad campaign being a direct result of Mitt Romney's campaign ambitions and the related publicity, and Joseph Smith teaching that Mormons are "God's only chosen people".

It's also revealing that they interviewed more than 30 ex-members. I think its safe to say they interviewed far fewer active members, and fewer still who were allowed to explain their own experience as they did for the ex-members.

I must admit that I kind of enjoyed watching the last bit with Holland since it's pretty clear that he to knows what's going on and has had enough.
 

ronito

Member
A comprehensive list would be require me to watch it again while taking notes. Not something I'm keen on doing. But who knows why, I rewatched the first part. Some include: incorrectly stating the name of the Church, the reason why the early church migrated to Utah, the current ad campaign being a direct result of Mitt Romney's campaign ambitions and the related publicity, and Joseph Smith teaching that Mormons are "God's only chosen people".

It's also revealing that they interviewed more than 30 ex-members. I think its safe to say they interviewed far fewer active members, and fewer still who were allowed to explain their own experience as they did for the ex-members.

I must admit that I kind of enjoyed watching the last bit with Holland since it's pretty clear that he to knows what's going on and has had enough.

Yeah I'll give you that. I rolled my eyes at the "campaign for Mitt Romney" thing. Yeah but I get the feeling on the "God's only chosen people" is a stretching the truth a bit, Joseph Smith said, "One true church." So I can see why someone could get away with saying that. The whole thing had a "stretching the truth" feel. But yeah the campaign for Romney thing is such a lie.
 

ronito

Member
Oh and I also loved seeing Elder Holland. I hear he's not too happy with it. Dunno what he really expected. The BBC knocking on your door about Romney's religion is never gonna be good. Also loved how he slipped up and called Obama Osama.

I was surprised by how utterly shocked the PR director looked at some of the questions. Makes me think that either the reporter lied about what he was doing to get in (in which case the church could've removed their approval) or he just didn't do a good job vetting the journalist.
 

Westonian

Member
My favorite part was the lady who left the church because Mitt Romney himself didn't come to the hospital to give her son a blessing, but sent two men she'd never met before.

It would have been nice to clarify that a bishop is not paid laity. He has his own full time job, his family and then his church responsibilities. He simply can't do everything, so it makes sense that he would delegate.

I most areas, typically there are two priesthood holders given weekly hospital assignments and they are usually rotated by ward. Otherwise the bishop would be driving to the hospital all the time.

And I counted only four active LDS members interviewed (the singer, the mayor, the PR guy and Elder Holland) while there were close to a dozen ex-Mormons and church critics interviewed. Nice and balanced.

Oh, and if you don't want missionaries or bishops knocking on your door, get your records removed from the church. Problem solved.
 

Westonian

Member
Also, the shunning thing really bothered me. I can't disagree that there are members of the church that turn their backs on family members who leave. But that's hardly exclusive to the Mormon religion.

My own brother left the church, and he and his non-Mormon wife are still welcomed and loved at all family gatherings. He had already left the church when he asked my father (who was a bishop at the time) to perform his marriage. Everyone in the family attended and he's never been ostracized or shunned for his decision.

All religions have people that see turning away from their faith as a betrayal. I have Mormon convert friends whose families have stopped talking to them because they are no longer Catholic, or Methodist or Baptist, etc. It's simply a psychological effect of being taught your whole life that your faith is more important than anything else on Earth. When a family member walks away from that it can be difficult. But that's hardly a Mormon specific issue.
 
Pretty sensationalist journalism, and not very constructive.

I was thoroughly surprised and pleased that Holland agreed to meet with Sweeney, though. I'm not sure what they expected, though. I think Holland answered a lot of the questions as well as he could, but this part of the interview bothered me. A lot.

Sweeney: "As a Mormon, in the temple, I've been told, he would have sworn an oath that he would not pass on what happens in the temple lest he slit his throat. Is that true?"

Holland: "That's not true. That's not true. We do not have penalties in the temple."

I'm not sure if he misunderstood the question or what, but that was a lie. Sweeney specifically asked -- not if there penalties in the temple currently -- but whether Romney made those oaths when he went through. Which he did. To say immediately and so emphatically "that's not true - that's not true" is a lie. And going even further, why is the defensive when it comes to that, why are they ashamed to admit what was in the temple? They believe it was revealed by God, right? If it was changed, then there should be a reason, and they shouldn't be ashamed that it happened in the past.

The church needs to own its religion.

EDIT: Also, re: shunning. I agree with Westonian that most religious groups practice some type of shunning. And I certainly agree that the church doesn't officially tell its members to shun those who have left.

However, it has happened and it does happen. Just because it happens in other groups doesn't make it right. There are a lot of people -- some in my own family -- that have been hurt by it. The church obviously tells you to always love, but they also tell you to always avoid anything that might make you question your faith, or those who's values or morals are not the same as yours. If there is a friend or family member who no longer believes then they seem to fall under that umbrella, and some people (note I'm saying some, not all) then proceed to remove that person from their lives for one reason or another. I think it was definitely overblown in the documentary. But it happens. Tons of people have been hurt by it. And we need to confront it.

I liked what Holland said about how he would not remove a child from his life if they left the church. (I wish they would teach this in conference as well.) I liked how he said he wanted to go with Sweeney to meet the exmormons. I wish it would actually happen. I don't think they should have to meet with a group of antagonistic exmormons. But there are plenty of groups out there (New Order Mormon, Mormon Stories and Expression, etc) that would I think would be respectful but also be willing to ask the hard questions that we never hear the leader's of the church talk about. A lot of people are hurting out there, and I think they would learn a lot by associating with and trying to understand them.
 
I'll give credit to Holland for agreeing to the interview in the first place. One thing I respected about Hinckely was that he was willing to meet with the press -- whether or not you liked the answers he gave. I haven't really seen that happen since Hinckely passed (and I doubt we'll ever see something like that with Monson).

Still, the church is used to interviews only being given on their own terms, and basically as a vehicle to talk about faith promoting stories or whatnot. They don't agree to interviews where difficult questions are going to be asked. At least not in recent history. I respect Holland's willingness to do it in the first place. But if they don't like the results of the interview, I wonder why they didn't do their homework? Anybody that had watched Sweeney's documentary on Scientology should have known what it was going to be like, and that he wasn't going to ask happy questions about the church's humanitarian efforts or innocent questions about church doctrine...
 

ronito

Member
My favorite part was the lady who left the church because Mitt Romney himself didn't come to the hospital to give her son a blessing, but sent two men she'd never met before.

It would have been nice to clarify that a bishop is not paid laity. He has his own full time job, his family and then his church responsibilities. He simply can't do everything, so it makes sense that he would delegate.

I most areas, typically there are two priesthood holders given weekly hospital assignments and they are usually rotated by ward. Otherwise the bishop would be driving to the hospital all the time.

And I counted only four active LDS members interviewed (the singer, the mayor, the PR guy and Elder Holland) while there were close to a dozen ex-Mormons and church critics interviewed. Nice and balanced.

Oh, and if you don't want missionaries or bishops knocking on your door, get your records removed from the church. Problem solved.

Yeah that lady that was like "He sent two other people!" I was like, "Yeah, dude can't be everywhere. That's what home teachers are for."

Not to mention that the exmos are EXMOS. I do believe that you have to include both sides to get clarity, Mormons and Ex-Mormons but yeah this whole thing was not only skewed towards ex-mormon but largely so.

Also, the shunning thing really bothered me. I can't disagree that there are members of the church that turn their backs on family members who leave. But that's hardly exclusive to the Mormon religion.

My own brother left the church, and he and his non-Mormon wife are still welcomed and loved at all family gatherings. He had already left the church when he asked my father (who was a bishop at the time) to perform his marriage. Everyone in the family attended and he's never been ostracized or shunned for his decision.

All religions have people that see turning away from their faith as a betrayal. I have Mormon convert friends whose families have stopped talking to them because they are no longer Catholic, or Methodist or Baptist, etc. It's simply a psychological effect of being taught your whole life that your faith is more important than anything else on Earth. When a family member walks away from that it can be difficult. But that's hardly a Mormon specific issue.

No it's not a mormon specific issue. But you can't deny that you are kept from participating in their children's marriage nor can you deny that exmos and people leaving aren't necessarily looked upon as "ok". I mean while the rhetoric has been scaled back and there have been conference calls about "don't shun your family." But at the same time we have constant talks about silly people that leave because they're offended and we get the whole "people leave the church but never leave it alone." and the whole looking down on the world and surrounding yourself with friends that help you in your faith. It's little surprise that people complain about getting shunned.

And yeah I think it's worse than other religions just because the LDS faith isn't like most other faiths where you go in and sing a few hymns for a half hour on Sunday and call it good. The church is largely your life. Especially in places like Utah.

So yeah I get the argument that the church doesn't teach people to be shunned. But at the same time as a non-practicing mormon I can attest I lost nearly all my mormon friends. Those that I have maintained keep me at arms length. And this is despite the fact that I don't discuss religion with them.

So yeah, it's not a momrmon specific issue but I think it's worse within the church. Last I checked you could leave the catholic church or any number faiths and still attend your kids wedding.

Just like Mormons roll their eyes when exmos talk about doctrine and church saying, "You don't practice you don't know." Exmos roll their eyes about how the church doesn't shun saying, "You practice. You don't know."

Neither are fair but it happens.
 

Westonian

Member
But it's not like you can claim that the Mormon temple wedding ceremony is designed to exclude ex-Mormon and non-Mormon from attending. It's simply a side affect of the requirements of temple worship.
 

ronito

Member
Pretty sensationalist journalism, and not very constructive.

I was thoroughly surprised and pleased that Holland agreed to meet with Sweeney, though. I'm not sure what they expected, though. I think Holland answered a lot of the questions as well as he could, but this part of the interview bothered me. A lot.

I'm not sure if he misunderstood the question or what, but that was a lie. Sweeney specifically asked -- not if there penalties in the temple currently -- but whether Romney made those oaths when he went through. Which he did. To say immediately and so emphatically "that's not true - that's not true" is a lie. And going even further, why is the defensive when it comes to that, why are they ashamed to admit what was in the temple? They believe it was revealed by God, right? If it was changed, then there should be a reason, and they shouldn't be ashamed that it happened in the past.

The church needs to own its religion.

EDIT: Also, re: shunning. I agree with Westonian that most religious groups practice some type of shunning. And I certainly agree that the church doesn't officially tell its members to shun those who have left.

However, it has happened and it does happen. Just because it happens in other groups doesn't make it right. There are a lot of people -- some in my own family -- that have been hurt by it. The church obviously tells you to always love, but they also tell you to always avoid anything that might make you question your faith, or those who's values or morals are not the same as yours. If there is a friend or family member who no longer believes then they seem to fall under that umbrella, and some people (note I'm saying some, not all) then proceed to remove that person from their lives for one reason or another. I think it was definitely overblown in the documentary. But it happens. Tons of people have been hurt by it. And we need to confront it.

I liked what Holland said about how he would not remove a child from his life if they left the church. (I wish they would teach this in conference as well.) I liked how he said he wanted to go with Sweeney to meet the exmormons. I wish it would actually happen. I don't think they should have to meet with a group of antagonistic exmormons. But there are plenty of groups out there (New Order Mormon, Mormon Stories and Expression, etc) that would I think would be respectful but also be willing to ask the hard questions that we never hear the leader's of the church talk about. A lot of people are hurting out there, and I think they would learn a lot by associating with and trying to understand them.

I actually thought that Holland's "There are no penalties in the temple!" was partially correct and I think it was just a miss on his part. Yeah, there's none now. But there used to be. I really wish that instead of letting that go Sweeney would've asked why it was there.

I'll also give you that they met with exactly the wrong kind of ex-mormons. Heck it looked like one group was meeting in a church. People like to dislike exmos but exmos that leave to go to another church are the worst kind.

I'll give credit to Holland for agreeing to the interview in the first place. One thing I respected about Hinckely was that he was willing to meet with the press -- whether or not you liked the answers he gave. I haven't really seen that happen since Hinckely passed (and I doubt we'll ever see something like that with Monson).

Still, the church is used to interviews only being given on their own terms, and basically as a vehicle to talk about faith promoting stories or whatnot. They don't agree to interviews where difficult questions are going to be asked. At least not in recent history. I respect Holland's willingness to do it in the first place. But if they don't like the results of the interview, I wonder why they didn't do their homework? Anybody that had watched Sweeney's documentary on Scientology should have known what it was going to be like, and that he wasn't going to ask happy questions about the church's humanitarian efforts or innocent questions about church doctrine...

I totally agree here. They were so pissed they hand delivered a letter they got past BBC security (BBC was livid about this). And really I was like "Why didn't you guys do your research. You know what he did to Scientology."
 

ronito

Member
But it's not like you can claim that the Mormon temple wedding ceremony is designed to exclude ex-Mormon and non-Mormon from attending. It's simply a side affect of the requirements of temple worship.

Fair enough, but you must also admit that calling a church that keeps even their own members from attending certain ordinances exclusionary isn't exactly unfair.
 
My favorite part was the lady who left the church because Mitt Romney himself didn't come to the hospital to give her son a blessing, but sent two men she'd never met before.

It would have been nice to clarify that a bishop is not paid laity. He has his own full time job, his family and then his church responsibilities. He simply can't do everything, so it makes sense that he would delegate.

I most areas, typically there are two priesthood holders given weekly hospital assignments and they are usually rotated by ward. Otherwise the bishop would be driving to the hospital all the time.

Wow, the delusion IS real. After watching that entire segment, you seriously believe that that woman left the church just because Mittens didn't come to see her in the hospital? Did you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes during the part where she talked about him trying to coerce her into giving up her unborn son? Just because she became pregnant out of wedlock? Nooooo, couldn't be that, it was definitely JUST the hospital thing.

Wow.
 

Westonian

Member
Fair enough, but you must also admit that calling a church that keeps even their own members from attending certain ordinances exclusionary isn't exactly unfair.

But it's not exclusionary based on anything but completely voluntary behavior. Want to go to the temple? Have a testimony, obey word of wisdom, pay tithing and attend church.

Unlike Scientology the tithing is 10% of your income. Don't have any income? You're good to go. In Scientology, don't have a few hundred thousand dollars? I guess you'll never reach OT. Sucks to be you.
 

ronito

Member
But it's not exclusionary based on anything but completely voluntary behavior. Want to go to the temple? Have a testimony, obey word of wisdom, pay tithing and attend church.

Unlike Scientology the tithing is 10% of your income. Don't have any income? You're good to go. In Scientology, don't have a few hundred thousand dollars? I guess you'll never reach OT. Sucks to be you.

Right but still it should be easy to see why the whole "Didn't pay 10%? Well, hope you like the waiting room while your daughter gets married." bit doesn't play well and while non-mormons find it exclusionary. That's not a stretch at all.
 

Westonian

Member
Wow, the delusion IS real. After watching that entire segment, you seriously believe that that woman left the church just because Mittens didn't come to see her in the hospital? Did you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes during the part where she talked about him trying to coerce her into giving up her unborn son? Just because she became pregnant out of wedlock? Nooooo, couldn't be that, it was definitely JUST the hospital thing.

Wow.

That's what she said to the camera. After Mitt didn't come to the hospital was when she decided to leave the church. All bishops are instructed to tell unwed teen mothers that the best option for a baby is to be adopted by two loving parents. However choosing to keep the baby is ultimately the decision of the mother.

The excommunication part? Don't buy it. The Handbook of Instructions specifically state that excommunication is limited to temple endowed members who show no desire for repentance in the case of sex outside of marriage.

The exact same situation happened to my cousin 17 years ago. Same attempt to convince her adoption was the best answer, but she ultimately decided to keep her child. No excommunication, no dis-fellowship, no threats.
 

Westonian

Member
Not really. This process is also an obnoxious can of worms to open up.

Is it? I've seen the process first hand.

1. Write letter and send to church headquarters
2. Church asks bishop to contact you to ensure desire to remove records
3. Bishop then confirms with church.
4. You are now officially no longer a member

Getting reinstated is the much lengthier process.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Not really. This process is also an obnoxious can of worms to open up.

It was pretty much painless and easy for me, as I detailed in this thread. It started off as a "let's see what happens" sort of thing when I got annoyed from being contacted, then before I knew it I had a final confirmation letter in my hand. The only way it could have been easier is if my e-mail ended it then and there, but I also understand why they feel like a bishop needs to be involved and they need a signed document. Your mileage may vary though, I suppose.
 

Thaedolus

Member
I need to start ignoring facebook for these two weekends every year. I swear it turns into a contest to see who can make the most posts about being spiritually uplifted or whose talk was the best.
 
It was pretty much painless and easy for me, as I detailed in this thread. It started off as a "let's see what happens" sort of thing when I got annoyed from being contacted, then before I knew it I had a final confirmation letter in my hand. The only way it could have been easier is if my e-mail ended it then and there, but I also understand why they feel like a bishop needs to be involved and they need a signed document. Your mileage may vary though, I suppose.

It was painless for me as well. I wrote an email and that was that. From start to finish it was about a month I believe. I followed the advice on the following web page to a "T". I had a bishop show up. I was polite and told him I requested no contact from the church other than a confirmation letter. He tried to push once and only once. I dropped the fucking hammer on him in as polite a way as was possible, but I was extremely firm letting him know he's crossing the line. The entire conversation was less than 5 minutes. I received my confirmation letter the next week.

http://www.mormonnomore.com/
 

ronito

Member
Saw this in the news today

http://www.religiondispatches.org/d...re_to_march_in_lgbt_pride_parades_nationwide/
This year, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—including active and observant Mormons—will march in at least seven LGBT Pride parades across the country.

From Seattle, Washington, to Washington D.C., New York, Portland, Boise, San Francisco, and Salt Lake City, members of three different Mormon contingents—Mormons Building Bridges, Mormons for Marriage Equality, and Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons—will walk during the month of June.

(Find complete details on LDS pride parade contingents here.)

First up is June 3, Salt Lake City. I spoke with Erika Munson, organizer of Salt Lake City’s Mormons Building Bridges group, a contingent of at least 100 self-described “active, faithful” Mormons that has been invited to walk at the head of the Salt Lake City pride parade.

How did you come to organize Mormons Building Bridges?

I’ve been active in the LDS Church all my life. I was a teenager in Boston during the leadup to the revelation [that ended the LDS ban on black ordination in 1978]; as a teenager for me that was incredibly painful, but looking back it was an amazing experience in that I felt the pain, I saw my parents feeling the pain, but working within the Church for change, and then I saw change before my eyes in all the things that we were praying for. It gave me a sense of optimism that has carried me throughout my whole life.

For many years, I felt like there was no other option for gay Mormon people than to discontinue activity in the LDS church. I completely understood why they couldn’t be a part of LDS Church life, and I felt bad about it, but I felt that’s what had to happen.

Then as my children started growing up—my kids are ages 13 to 27—and getting to a point where they decide whether or not to continue LDS Church activity into their own lives, I saw they faced this disconnect: “Gay people can’t be in this Church? What about all the love I’ve been taught my whole life?”

For example, my eighteen-year-old son received a phone call from the bishop for an interview to set him on the road to preparing for his missionary service. So we are in the hall, and I’m telling him, “You need to call the bishop.” My son looks at me and says, “Mom, I can’t do this.” We talked over many things he was concerned about. One of them was that he has an openly gay teacher who, he told me, “is one of the most spiritual people” he knows. “What is this Church if there is no place for him?” my son asked me.

Another story: I took my daughter to college at UCLA in September 2008. We were living in Connecticut then, so I had no idea what Proposition 8 was, but we saw all these Proposition 8 signs. I took her to the LDS student ward [congregation] on Sunday, and find out what Proposition 8 is, and the entire Relief Society [women’s auxiliary] meeting was a Proposition 8 organizing meeting—with phone trees and the bishop coming in and saying you’ve got to do this. We just left shaking, and she hasn’t gone back. She never set foot in that building again.

Through my kids’ eyes, I see things in a fresh way. So I was thinking about the Utah Pride Parade, which is now almost bigger than the Days of ’47 [Pioneer Day parade commemorating Mormon pioneers]. This is a parade about love and diversity and human rights. I felt very strongly that LDS people should have a presence, even as a civic institution. I thought, let me put it out there and see if we can get active Mormons to march—people who are going to church—and let’s look Mormon.

If we stand up in this parade, the folks in the pews might say, “Hmm... I can do this too. Gosh, I didn’t know anyone felt the same way I do. I thought I was alone.” But also I wanted to reach out to LGBT community in general and just extend a hand and say, “We love you for who you are, not in spite of who you are but because God made you who you are.” And to young gay people especially. There is almost one LDS gay suicide a week in Utah. It’s got to stop. If just one young man who is gritting his teeth and going to church with his family sees us, perhaps he will know that there is someone in his ward, someone in his family he can talk to.

Tell me more about “looking like Mormons” when you walk in Salt Lake City on June 3.

I want everyone to wear what they wear to Church. I want us to look like the people streaming in and out of the LDS Conference Center, because that is who we are. We are active members of the LDS Church. I want the media to see those people who they thought were so conservative and narrow-minded and see that we are reaching out to the gay community.

And you are very specific about your simple message.

The only message is one of love. We are focusing on a message of love. We are faithful Mormons. We believe. We attend our wards. But there has been heartbreak and strife and we want to end that. We are not supported by any political group, and we are asking people to have no signage for political causes. In this Pride Parade contingent, we are not taking a stand either way on marriage equality. Our signs are quotes from LDS Church General Authorities, the Bible, and LDS hymns about loving your neighbor.

You once had some concern about how the LGBT community would respond. What preparations have you been making?

We initially entered the parade as the LDS Tolerance Brigade, but we quickly learned—I am learning so much—that tolerance is not the most welcoming word. So we changed our name to “Mormons Building Bridges.” When I went to the first organizing meeting, I also put my little hand up and asked if we needed to worry about antagonism from the crowd, and the organizers said, “The crowd is going to love you. We are so happy you’re here.” I was overwhelmed with a feeling of welcome from that community.

Organizers within the LGBT community have been very supportive of our simple message of love and not going political and not dealing with the issue of marriage equality. And a group called OutReach—an organization that serves gay teenagers in northern Utah, including gay Mormon teenagers—those teenagers offered to march as volunteers to interact with the crowd as a buffer in case it was needed.

Dustin Lance Black is the Salt Lake City pride parade marshall. He was really excited and supportive of our very simple message and he asked that we be moved to the head of the parade.

But I also want to be very careful. We are guests at this parade, and I don’t want to steal other peoples’ thunder. For so many years, the Salt Lake City Pride folks have built this into an institution in the fabric of Utah. I just want to be very thankful for everything that they’re doing.

You’ve also had a supportive response from the LDS side.

I receive so many comments from fellow Mormons that “we have to show love.” This includes old Facebook friends from old wards I’ve lived in—people who I thought would not be receptive at all. For the purposes of this march, if we can stick to the simple message of love, we are going to reach a lot of people.

Mormons Building Bridges has an open Facebook group so that we can monitor the number of people to anticipate. Right now, we anticipate 100 Mormons participating. I hope it will grow.

This is an invitation for people to be proactive. I know Pride is on a Sunday, and it’s a big deal for people to miss church. I understand that. This is an invitation to worship by walking, to worship by using our bodies—Mormon theology has a very specific place for bodies; our spirits came to earth to get bodies—and we are physically putting ourselves in a place to create a sacred space in this march. We will do that by keeping focused on our very simple message of love.
I dunno how I feel about this truth be told.
One thing the church taught me was to never be "lukewarm".
And I sorta get this. But it just feels to "hippy-ish" to be a mormon thing

I appreciate what they're doing but it just feels disengenuous to march along someone saying "We love you!" and then to say "We'll talk about your marriage rights later. But we love you!"

I'm probably being too cynical but this just smacks of cognitive dissonance to me.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Electroshock therapy is just how much we love you.

Anyway, yeah, I'm sure they mean well, but don't understand what they're doing.
 

ronito

Member
New tithing slips!

3avWh.jpg


The disclaimer now reads:

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

Wonder why the sudden legalese change.
 

ronito

Member
A friend pointed me to this write up and I thought it was really one of the best write ups I've seen on the grief of leaving the church and what it's like to have a spouse that leaves.
Figured I'd share.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/1557...husband_stopped_believing_in_god/?page=entire
“I don’t believe in God,” my husband whispered in the darkness of our bedroom.

My breath caught, and I was afraid to look at him, this boy I met and married eight years ago.

I was only 19 on the day we were sealed for eternity, the wet snow blowing into our faces as we exited the Portland, Ore., temple. I imagined a life of Church service, my husband at my side as we finished our BYU degrees, raised our children, and served missions together in our old age. On the night we got engaged, we struck a deal. “I’ll get you to heaven,” I said. “But you have to keep me here on earth.”

Now his confession hung over our nuptial bed. And though I’d known this was coming — he’d been struggling with his faith for at least two years — I’d never considered what I’d say. Sean had always been the rational one, a brilliant computer scientist who spoke sense when I was in the throes of clinical depression. Now, my thoughts went still as I groped for his hand. Before I could process what I was saying, forbidden words slipped off my tongue. “You are more important to me than the Church,” I said.

I wondered what my pioneer ancestors would say if they could hear me, these grandparents so faithful that they abandoned their East coast relatives for a life here in this Utah desert. Some of their graves stood a few blocks from where I whispered my betrayal, but I didn’t care. I loved Sean, and that had to be enough.

But in the weeks that followed, there was a distance between us. We stepped lightly around conversation, kept talk to the kids, work and the mundane. Our friendly touches in the kitchen disappeared. My acceptance shifted to bitterness and anger.

I spent my morning runs worrying about what was being said around my Mormon neighborhood. We lived 20 minutes south of BYU’s desert campus, and most of my running partners had husbands high up in the Church hierarchy. I waited anxiously for them to mention my heathen family, wondered if they’d heard that my eternity with my husband was now in jeopardy, that in the hereafter I’d likely be pawned off to some other righteous man as a plural wife — probably my ex-boyfriend; hopefully not Brigham Young. And all the while I couldn’t stop thinking. Why, Sean? I didn’t sign up for this. You promised me we’d spend eternity together, and now you might as well be gone.

That sinister word flickered around in my head: divorce. It manifested itself onto my notebook paper as I scribbled out my daily morning pages. I didn’t want it, but sometimes I thought both of us would be happier if we said good-bye.

Sean and I spent our time in the usual way, taking long summer walks along Hobble Creek. While our two eldest sons raced ahead on their bicycles, we followed with the baby (okay, the two-year-old) in the stroller. Sean obsessed about death. “I’m so terrified of losing you and the boys,” he said one day after waving hello to our neighborhood women’s leader. He looked over at me and said, “I couldn’t bear it.”

Confused sadness flickered in my eyes. His fears were utterly foreign to me. We’d both been taught from an early age that death was simply the gateway back to God. How could he not see — as I did — that this was true? I know we’ll be together again, I wanted to say. Instead I said gently, “I hope for your sake that you die first. Then you won’t have to deal with the grief of losing us.”

Sean was as supportive as an atheist could be. He even went with me for the first hour of church to help with the Squirmy Ones. But when he’d leave early, I’d cry in the bathroom, feeling completely alone. I never said that word aloud: Atheist. My heart clenched just thinking it.

We rarely talked about religion, yet it consumed us. When Sean replaced his temple garments — the sacred underwear he’d promised to wear day and night — with boxers, I couldn’t take it anymore. It was too much betrayal. I called up a neighbor with a husband like mine and cried. But instead of empathy, she offered questions that stunned me into silence. Was Sean addicted to pornography? Watching R-rated movies? What sin had brought him to this terrible place?

My tears stopped. Her questions were so off-base that they seemed absurd. She was sincere, and trying to help, but she believed what the Church teaches — that a man would only leave because he’s disobeying the commandments. She couldn’t understand this was a rational inquiry. She saw everything as the result of sin.

This started my brain twitching. I knew Sean was still a good person, that he still maintained the same moral standards he had when he married me. The Church was wrong about him. What else might they be wrong about? I shoved the thought away.

But I wanted to understand him. This was Sean, the man who stood by me during years of clinical depression. The man who pretended to be a dinosaur while he chased our shrieking sons around the room. He wasn’t some heathen. I couldn’t believe that. I wouldn’t believe it. He’d always been a skeptic, and even though I didn’t agree with him, I knew intellectually that he’d never make this decision without careful consideration of the facts.

As summer shifted to fall, I often found him hunched over his iPad reading everything he could find on Mormon origins. I started to join him in his nightly bath, and the information would seep out. He’d pause from our usual safe topics and bite his lip. “I’m sorry, but I just have to tell you. Did you know that …” and then he’d tell me what he’d been reading. About how Joseph Smith mistranslated some Egyptian hieroglyphics that are part of our canonized scripture. About how he translated the Book of Mormon while looking at a stone inside of a hat.

I listened half-heartedly, questioned his sources, though I wasn’t about to go looking at them myself. Our prophets had made it clear that anything written outside church documents was suspect and anti-Mormon, fabricated for the sole purpose of destroying faith. Yet Sean continued, until one night it was about polygamy, my archnemesis.

“Did you know that Joseph Smith married a 14-year-old girl against her will? Did you know that he’d send men on missions and marry their wives in secret when they were gone?” I sat there silent as he kept talking, a horror growing in my gut. I knew that if Sean was right, then Joseph Smith was a fraud. I saw no difference between his acts and the modern-day acts of Warren Jeffs, whom I abhorred. And if Joseph Smith was a fraud — then what did that make the Church?

I left the bath early and went straight to bed, feeling a magmic pressure building inside me. The scholar in me couldn’t let it go. I had to know.

I already did know.

When I finally broke down a few weeks later, Sean was the one to hold me as I wept into my pillow and traipsed down the familiar road to despair, wondering what my life even meant if the Church wasn’t true.

“It’s OK, Maren. It’s OK. I’m here,” he said as he stroked my hair, whispering into the darkness. What felt like an end, though, slowly opened up into something else.

Over the next few days our usual mile walk turned to four as my brain tornadoed through discovery, my conversations stopping mid-sentence with “Whoa, then that means …” Whoa, we suddenly have 10 percent more income. Whoa, our weekend free time just doubled. Whoa, we can try alcohol, coffee and tea — the trifecta of forbidden drinks.

The sad whoas came, too. Whoa, will my father ever talk to me again? Whoa, what will my friends say? Whoa, we are going to die.

My transformation consumed me for the next month, and we stayed up late talking every night. When I shed my garments for slippery Victoria Secret panties, my self-esteem skyrocketed, and our late nights shifted to other things. We were finally adults, taking our firsts together, learning about each other without barriers.

Ironically, the Mormon Church teaches that marriage can only thrive if God is an equal part of it. But when we left God out of it, we were free to love each other completely, to share the burden of our grief as two individuals with no one else.

It’s been seven months now, and I don’t know what the future holds. I have never been more uncertain in my entire life. But one thing is clear to me. Whatever happens, wherever we go, Sean will be at my side, holding my hand as we face it together — and alone — for the first time.
 

Thaedolus

Member
These kinds of stories are awesome when they turn out this way. I think her insight toward the end, that she was finally an adult, rings very true. I felt like when I left the church behind and took the world head on I finally left the nursery and began to experience what it's like to really live. It was a very liberating feeling once I got over the heartache of being lied to my whole life, intentionally or not.
 

ronito

Member
Business week just did a story on the church's finances. A VERY long but interesting read.

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/60966-how-the-mormons-make-money
Here's some highlights
Late last March the Mormon Church completed an ambitious project: a megamall. Built for roughly $2 billion, the City Creek Center stands directly across the street from the church’s iconic, neo-Gothic temple in Salt Lake City. The mall includes a retractable glass roof, 5,000 underground parking spots, and nearly 100 stores and restaurants, ranging from Tiffany’s (TIF) to Forever 21. Walkways link the open-air emporium with the church’s perfectly manicured headquarters on Temple Square. Macy’s (M) is a stone’s throw from the offices of the church’s president, Thomas S. Monson, whom Mormons believe to be a living prophet.

On the morning of its grand opening, thousands of shoppers thronged downtown Salt Lake, eager to elbow their way into the stores. The national anthem blared, and Henry B. Eyring, one of Monson’s top counselors, told the crowds, “Everything that we see around us is evidence of the long-standing commitment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Salt Lake City.” When it came time to cut the mall’s flouncy pink ribbon, Monson, flanked by Utah dignitaries, cheered, “One, two, three—let’s go shopping!”

Watching a religious leader celebrate a mall may seem surreal, but City Creek reflects the spirit of enterprise that animates modern-day Mormonism. The mall is part of a vast church-owned corporate empire that the Mormon leadership says will help spread its message, increase economic self-reliance, and build the Kingdom of God on earth. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attends to the total needs of its members,” says Keith B. McMullin, who for 37 years served within the Mormon leadership and now heads a church-owned holding company, Deseret Management Corporation (DMC), an umbrella organization for many of the church’s for-profit businesses. “We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”

McMullin explains that City Creek exists to combat urban blight, not to fill church coffers. “Will there be a return?” he asks rhetorically. “Yes, but so modest that you would never have made such an investment—the real return comes in folks moving back downtown and the revitalization of businesses.” Pausing briefly, he adds with deliberation: “It’s for furthering the aim of the church to make, if you will, bad men good, and good men better.”
....

The Mormon Church is hardly the only religious institution to be less than forthcoming about how it amassed its wealth; the Catholic Church has been equally opaque throughout its history. On the other hand, says historian D. Michael Quinn, who is working on a book about the LDS Church’s finances and businesses, “The Mormon Church is very different than any other church. … Traditional Christianity and Judaism make a clear distinction between what is spiritual and what is temporal, while Mormon theology specifically denies that there is such a distinction.” To Latter-day Saints, opening megamalls, running a Polynesian theme park, and operating a billion-dollar media and insurance empire are all part of doing God’s work. Says Quinn: “In the Mormon worldview, it’s as spiritual to give alms to the poor, as the old phrase goes in the Biblical sense, as it is to make a million dollars.”

Mormons make up only 1.4 percent of the U.S. population, but the church’s holdings are vast. First among its for-profit enterprises is DMC, which reaps estimated annual revenues of $1.2 billion from six subsidiaries, according to the business information and analysis firm Hoover’s Company Records (DNB). Those subsidiaries run a newspaper, 11 radio stations, a TV station, a publishing and distribution company, a digital media company, a hospitality business, and an insurance business with assets worth $3.3 billion.

AgReserves, another for-profit Mormon umbrella company, together with other church-run agricultural affiliates, reportedly owns roughly 1 million acres in the continental U.S., on which the church has farms, hunting preserves, orchards, and ranches. These include the $1 billion 290,000-acre Deseret Ranches in Florida, which, in addition to keeping 44,000 cows and 1,300 bulls, also has citrus, sod, and timber operations. Outside the U.S., AgReserves operates in Britain, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Its Australian property, valued at $61 million in 1997, has estimated annual sales of $276 million, according to Dun & Bradstreet.

The church also runs several for-profit real estate arms that own, develop, and manage malls, parking lots, office parks, residential buildings, and more. Hawaii Reserve, for example, owns or manages more than 7,000 acres on Oahu, where it maintains commercial and residential buildings, parks, water and sewage infrastructure, and a cemetery. Utah Property Management Associates, a real estate arm of the church, manages portions of the City Creek Mall. According to Spencer P. Eccles from the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Development, the mall cost the church an estimated $2 billion. It is only one part of a $5 billion church-funded revamping of downtown Salt Lake City, according to the Mormon-owned news site KSL. “They run their businesses like businesses, no bones about it,” says Eccles.

The church also owns several nonprofit organizations, some of which appear to be lucrative. Take, for example, the Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC), a 42-acre tropical theme park on Oahu’s north shore that hosts luaus, canoe rides, and tours through seven simulated Polynesian villages. General-admission adult tickets cost $49.95; VIP tickets cost up to $228.95. In 2010 the PCC had net assets worth $70 million and collected $23 million in ticket sales alone, as well as $36 million in tax-free donations. The PCC’s president, meanwhile, received a salary of $296,000. At the local level, the PCC, opened in 1963, began paying commercial property taxes in 1992, when the Land and Tax Appeal Court of Hawaii ruled that the theme park “is not for charitable purposes” and is, in fact, a “commercial enterprise, and business undertaking.” Nevertheless, the tourist destination remains exempt from federal taxes, because the PCC claims to be a “living museum” and an education-oriented charity that employs students who work at the center to pay their way through church-run Brigham Young University-Hawaii.
...
[/B], says tax lawyer David Miller, who is not Mormon. The church also doesn’t pay taxes on donated funds and holdings. Romney and others at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm co-founded by Romney in 1984, gave the Mormon Church millions’ worth of stock holdings obtained through Bain deals, according to Reuters. Between 1997 and 2009, these included $2 million in Burger King (BKW) and $1 million in Domino’s Pizza (DPZ). Under U.S. law, churches can legally turn around and sell donated stock without paying capital-gains taxes, a clear advantage for both donor and receiver.

...
According to U.S. law, religions have no obligation to open their books to the public, and the LDS Church officially stopped reporting any finances in the early 1960s. In 1997 an investigation by Time used cross-religious comparisons and internal information to estimate the church’s total value at $30 billion. The magazine also produced a “conservative” estimate that $5 billion worth of tithing flows into the church annually, and that it owned at least $6 billion in stocks. The Mormon Church at the time said the estimates were grossly exaggerated, but a recent investigation by Reuters in collaboration with sociology professor Cragun estimates that the LDS Church is likely worth $40 billion today and collects up to $8 billion in tithing each year.
....
McMullin says the Mormon Church has “two or three or four for-profit entities under the Presiding Bishopric,” and names DMC, AgReserves, and Suburban Land Reserve. He says DMC has about “2,000 to 3,000 employees.” He also confirms the Hoover’s estimate that DMC has annual revenues of roughly $1.2 billion, but a church spokesman later writes to say that McMullin retracted his estimate, claiming that $1.2 billion is “vastly overstated.” He did not offer a new one.

.....
Besides having final say on major transactions, the church owns all of DMC’s shares. And each year the holding company, like all church businesses, donates 10 percent of its income to a church fund. In some cases money flows in the opposite direction, from the church’s treasury to the businesses. “From time to time, if there is a particular need, there would be some monies available, but fortunately over the years that has not been the case very often,” says McMullin. “If you have a particular reversal in an enterprise, you need to have some additional cash flow until you work through a difficult time. I’ll give you an example, we’re going through one right now: It’s called a recession.” McMullin declined to elaborate on whether the church has been bailing out subsidiaries.
....
In early days, the church’s entrepreneurial rigor was fueled by necessity. Mormons, who clashed with neighbors and government authorities over practices such as polygamy, often had to fend for themselves. The group also espoused separatist financial goals of “erecting and maintaining an improved economic system for its members,” according to historian Leonard J. Arrington, who points out that 88 of Smith’s 112 revelations deal directly or indirectly with economic matters. When Mormons arrived in Utah in 1847 it was a barren territory, still under Mexican jurisdiction. To settle the land, Arrington writes that, over a 15-year period in the late 1800s, “Mormons constructed 200 miles of territorial railroad, a $300,000 woolen mill, a large cotton factory, a wholesale-retail concern with sales of $6,000,000 a year, more than 150 local general stores, and at least 500 local cooperative manufacturing and service enterprises.”
....
Until the 1990s, wards—the Mormon equivalent of parishes—kept some donated member money locally to distribute for aid and activities as they saw fit. Today all money is wired directly to Salt Lake City. McMullin insists that not one penny of tithing goes to the church’s for-profit endeavors, but it’s impossible for church members to know for sure. Although the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants says “all things shall be done by common consent in the church,” members are not provided with any financial accounting. Daymon M. Smith, a Mormon anthropologist, points out that tithing slips read: “Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church’s property and will be used at the Church’s sole discretion to further the church’s overall mission.”

According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in over 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of “material assistance.” All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A recently published article co-written by Cragun estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.

I was really hoping for more. But at least it's something.
I think the church does itself more harm by keeping secrecy around it instead of just being upfront about it. Keeping the numbers secret just leads to people coming up with conjecture.

Oh and I REALLY love the whole "Yeah, $1.2 Billion sounds about right."
Then later, "No no, it's VASTLY over estimated!!!"
"Ok, you wanna give us a better estimate then?"
"uh...no?"

oh yeah and this quote:

We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.
Made my jaw drop. Having grown up as a poor mormon, "fuck you!"
 

Pollux

Member
The Mormon Church is hardly the only religious institution to be less than forthcoming about how it amassed its wealth; the Catholic Church has been equally opaque throughout its history. On the other hand, says historian D. Michael Quinn, who is working on a book about the LDS Church’s finances and businesses, “The Mormon Church is very different than any other church. … Traditional Christianity and Judaism make a clear distinction between what is spiritual and what is temporal, while Mormon theology specifically denies that there is such a distinction.” To Latter-day Saints, opening megamalls, running a Polynesian theme park, and operating a billion-dollar media and insurance empire are all part of doing God’s work. Says Quinn: “In the Mormon worldview, it’s as spiritual to give alms to the poor, as the old phrase goes in the Biblical sense, as it is to make a million dollars.”

Well to be fair to the RCC, we've had 2,000 years to accumulate wealth, and become the richest organization on the planet, and everyone knew we were doing it and how we were doing it. I don't think comparing the Mormon Church to the RCC is a valid comparison in this regard.
 
Top Bottom