Support NeoGAF

[ronito]

I'm 32. I've lived in Utah for 30 of those 32 years and I've never heard anybody use "prompted" in an argument. It can't possibly be common, at least anywhere here in Utah.

I love Goblin Valley. My wife and I went camping there a couple of weeks after we got back from our honeymoon. The sights are incredible, and there's some nearby slot canyon hiking that is downright incredible.

My God Jeff,
It's almost like we're in entirely different religions. I heard "prompted" at least once a week as a kid. "I was prompted to call you." or "I felt a prompting to..."

Anyhoo, for me if someone did something criminal because they felt "prompted" to do so I think a felony is just fine for that. Fact is you can't control what someone feels "prompted" to do. And by overlooking the law and doing it because they felt they were prompted they've already shown that they can be a danger.

 

[Laurentius]

I don't think people consciously do it to prevent discussion for the most part, and I think they're generally sincere. I've seen it happen mostly among leadership, and it can end up stifling potentially enlightening discussion. If a bishop, for example, claims a prompting of something how many people are going to argue that point?

I saw it happen a lot on my mission. "Hm, my companion claimed he had a prompting that we should do things this certain way...I don't really agree, but I guess we should do it if he feels prompted to..."

Or a bishop claims to have received a prompting that changes X and Y should happen in the ward. Young Men's leader disagrees, but he feels it isn't his place to question the bishop's prompting. It doesn't matter who's right, but there could have been some positive discussion to be had there. The idea of stewardships and who can receive revelation for what can sometimes prevent discussion and growth in the church I think.

Anyhoo, for me if someone did something criminal because they felt "prompted" to do so I think a felony is just fine for that. Fact is you can't control what someone feels "prompted" to do. And by overlooking the law and doing it because they felt they were prompted they've already shown that they can be a danger.

I agree to a point. I just don't feel a felony is in order for this kind of thing.

EDIT: Also, the hardest damn time on my mission was when I had a companion who kept having "promptings" about insane things. Turned out he just had some mental instabilities, but it was REALLY hard for me to question his "promptings" before that.

 

[ronitoswife]

Say what? If someone is sexually repressing my wife, we're not aware of it.

wow.....sigh.....there are so many thoughts going on in my mind right now. But where to begin?

I think the key word here is "unaware". You don't see it, you don't feel it, you don't recognize it so therefore it doesn't exist. That does not mean however, that it does not exist. The whole meaning and idea of that word is so widely misunderstood which is why I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who say it doesn't happen do so because of that. You don't feel it in your life, that's fine. But don't go belittling those who do recognize it and cry fallacy. The fact is, it does exist!

I know women who couldn't have sex with their husbands for two to three days after they got married. I know women who were so ashamed and so embarrassed that they couldn't even undress in front of their husbands. I know women who are so afraid that they would make a guy come after them if they dressed up, so they won't dress up. They believe they are responsible for the actions of men and not the men themselves. I find that disheartening. I know women who felt guilt and shame because they woke up feeling aroused or had a sex dream. I've even had a friend confide in me that she didn't feel worthy to get a temple recommend because of that. She simply had a dream and that was just as bad as doing the real thing. It's hard to console someone who feels they are of less value because they experienced something that is completely normal. But they don't see it as normal because they were taught it was not normal. Because masturbation is taught as so evil I even know someone who during her monthly period had to use a mirror because she was afraid she would mix up her urethra with her vagina. I found that very confusing at the time. How can a grown woman not know where her vagina is without using a mirror?! How can this be mentally and emotionally healthy?

I have many more examples I could give but I feel this is getting to long. Needless to say, the teachings of the church regarding sexuality, morality, chastity, and worthiness tend to be clear. But their repercussions can be subtle or severe. And whether a person recognizes it or not doesn't mean it's not there. Sure there are many women and men who can get along just fine but there are many many more who struggle with this for most of their lives.

 

[Yoritomo]

Sin next to murder = repression.

Throwing up because you can't stop masturbating once every 2 weeks or so as a young man with bleeding knees because afterwards you would pray for hours crying and throwing up in shame because you believe that if you can't get it under "control" you won't be able to go on a mission (you know since you read Miracle of Forgiveness and it spells this out.) = repression.

Women would be better off dead than raped = repression.

When you're raped something of value is lost (virginity) = repression.

If you do not try to fight to the death when being raped you're partly at fault = repression.

The church actively seeks out scrupulosity with regards to sexual behavior of it's members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity

And the worst part is that any issues are taken to untrained men taking these confessions and trying to "help" with a limited toolset, stilted vocabulary, and conflicting information with regards to what is moral, what is an addiction, what is normal, and how to help.

 

[Furyous]

I'm in a weird space after conference. I might leave in three years after I pass the age limit and am forced to attend the family ward. I'm not getting married for the sake of checking off a goal on a checklist.

Dealing with younger members under 26 that served on missions is really difficult for me as a black male. I work with them as best I can but there's some friction there.

 

[Hitokage]

My God Jeff,
It's almost like we're in entirely different religions.

He's in LDS Gold.

 

[ronito]

I'm in a weird space after conference. I might leave in three years after I pass the age limit and am forced to attend the family ward. I'm not getting married for the sake of checking off a goal on a checklist.

Dealing with younger members under 26 that served on missions is really difficult for me as a black male. I work with them as best I can but there's some friction there.

Do tell....If anything I'd think that dealing with younger mormons instead of older ones would be easier for a black male.

 

[ronito]

So this is making the rounds.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/159313089/Monson-s-Refusal-to-Testify

In February 2008, Thomas S. Monson succeeded Gordon B. Hinckley as the president andprophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since that time, he has given 51talks in 12 Semiannual General Conferences and during the two years prior, he gave 10talks in 4 such Conferences. In many of these 61 talks over the last eight years, he has bornewitness of his beliefs, in keeping with LDS custom and doctrine. Interestingly, however, innone of them has he testified of
the church’s unique
foundational claims, including thehistoricity of the Book of Mormon, the divine calling of Joseph Smith, the restoration of thepriesthood, or the
status of the church’s
top leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Part of me is like "So?" and another is like "Wait...he hasn't testified the last 61 times? That's a lot of times to not do so especially when you can't go to a fast Sunday without hearing 'I know that...' and 'I testify' "

meh, interesting nonetheless.I personally don't see it as a sign of unbelief. My father was very much in the Venezuelan leadership when I was a kid and he had a lot of dealings with Monson back then when he was apostle and from what I've heard, no way that guy doesn't believe.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Because masturbation is taught as so evil I even know someone who during her monthly period had to use a mirror because she was afraid she would mix up her urethra with her vagina. I found that very confusing at the time. How can a grown woman not know where her vagina is without using a mirror?! How can this be mentally and emotionally healthy?

Uh, this sounds far more like and education problem than a religious one. I'm a male, but by the time I was 12 I could have told you the difference between the two purely on what I had learned in sex education. You can't blame the church for everything. You can, I guess, but not everything falls under the "touching yourself is bad!" umbrella of blame.

I really don't get it, guys. There's this group of 7-8 of you that have had wildly different experiences in the church, and you all have these numerous examples of stuff that I just don't run into. And as far as church members go, I'm very, very laid back and open with these things. If it was all as universally common as you're saying, I'm sure I'd be fare more aware of it in my circles.

Sure, I had some crummy companions on my mission, but nothing like you guys all seem to have had (over and over). I've known people who have struggled with sexuality, gender identity, crisis of faith, confusion over old doctrine, fuzzy history, and all else, but some of the stuff that you guys claim is such an every day occurrence has never been the case in my experience.

Either you all grew up in some really strange areas, or I did. So much of what you guys claim just doesn't line up with my experiences. If they did, I'd happily share them, but I just haven't seen the same thing. My wife, growing up in California, saw her share of good and bad as well, but again, nothing along the lines of what is "commonplace" according to many here.

I'm bummed out that you've had these types of experiences with the church.

 

[mik]

I'm 32. I've lived in Utah for 30 of those 32 years and I've never heard anybody use "prompted" in an argument. It can't possibly be common, at least anywhere here in Utah.

Weird. I'm 43. I've lived in Utah for 43 of those 43 years, and I've had the term "prompted" addressed specifically at me a least a dozen times--and not just when the bishopric was prompted to visit me after I stopped going to church.

The most hilarious one I can remember was the day after I lost the election for senior class president in high school. The seminary principal called me into his office to tell me when he saw the results of the election, the spirit prompted him to ask me to serve as the seminary president. OoooooooooK.

 

[ronito]

Either you all grew up in some really strange areas

Well, Utah county for me and the wife...so I guess there's your answer.

 

[Fathead]

Uh, this sounds far more like and education problem than a religious one. I'm a male, but by the time I was 12 I could have told you the difference between the two purely on what I had learned in sex education. You can't blame the church for everything. You can, I guess, but not everything falls under the "touching yourself is bad!" umbrella of blame.

I really don't get it, guys. There's this group of 7-8 of you that have had wildly different experiences in the church, and you all have these numerous examples of stuff that I just don't run into. And as far as church members go, I'm very, very laid back and open with these things. If it was all as universally common as you're saying, I'm sure I'd be fare more aware of it in my circles.

Sure, I had some crummy companions on my mission, but nothing like you guys all seem to have had (over and over). I've known people who have struggled with sexuality, gender identity, crisis of faith, confusion over old doctrine, fuzzy history, and all else, but some of the stuff that you guys claim is such an every day occurrence has never been the case in my experience.

Either you all grew up in some really strange areas, or I did. So much of what you guys claim just doesn't line up with my experiences. If they did, I'd happily share them, but I just haven't seen the same thing. My wife, growing up in California, saw her share of good and bad as well, but again, nothing along the lines of what is "commonplace" according to many here.

I'm bummed out that you've had these types of experiences with the church.

I've seen both sides of this. I remember the kids who were home schooled and/or kept out of the sex ed classes because "OMG Evils of the World!" The ones that thought the word sex was the worst swear words.


But these were the exception. I personally think that while the church doesn't exactly foster a positive environment for talking about sex, its improving. This is an area, however, I think is more incumbent on the parents to foster the right attitudes and to educate properly.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

But these were the exception. I personally think that while the church doesn't exactly foster a positive environment for talking about sex, its improving. This is an area, however, I think is more incumbent on the parents to foster the right attitudes and to educate properly.

Yeah, I think the bigger issue is that A LOT of parents are actually more conservative than the church itself, but they use the church to justify their uptight nature. Ned Flanders types, I guess.

Last week's This American Life is pretty good. The opening segment with the priest talking about confessions where people would ask things like if lipstick was breaking their fast sounds pretty interesting. People feeling guilty over the possibility that they might have sinned for doing very simple things. Maybe this is just a general issue among those who believe in sin/righteousness.

 

[Doodis]

So this is making the rounds.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/159313089/Monson-s-Refusal-to-Testify


Part of me is like "So?" and another is like "Wait...he hasn't testified the last 61 times? That's a lot of times to not do so especially when you can't go to a fast Sunday without hearing 'I know that...' and 'I testify' "

meh, interesting nonetheless.I personally don't see it as a sign of unbelief. My father was very much in the Venezuelan leadership when I was a kid and he had a lot of dealings with Monson back then when he was apostle and from what I've heard, no way that guy doesn't believe.

I've actually never noticed this, but wow, it is pretty amazing that he's never testified of those things, considering his calling is basically to "stand as a special witness." I actually find that very interesting.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I've actually never noticed this, but wow, it is pretty amazing that he's never testified of those things, considering his calling is basically to "stand as a special witness." I actually find that very interesting.

I'd need to go back and look more thoroughly at other leaders' talks, but there's been a noticeable trend of making testimony Christ-centric in its delivery. But I'm pretty sure that any time the prophet speaks, he's essentially bearing testimony anyway, and President Monson speaks of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as much as any other prophet.

 

[Doodis]

An interesting line from that article:

It’s no wonder that the 2009 version of the Gospel Principles manual changed all mentions of the church’s current apostles and prophets being “special witnesses of Jesus Christ” to make them say“special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ”.

Didn't know they made that change.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

http://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/what-are-prophets-testimonies

The page is titled "Special Witnesses of Christ."

That position has not changed.

 

[Fathead]

Way too much over analyzing at that link.

 

[Yoritomo]

Uh, this sounds far more like and education problem than a religious one. I'm a male, but by the time I was 12 I could have told you the difference between the two purely on what I had learned in sex education. You can't blame the church for everything. You can, I guess, but not everything falls under the "touching yourself is bad!" umbrella of blame.

I really don't get it, guys. There's this group of 7-8 of you that have had wildly different experiences in the church, and you all have these numerous examples of stuff that I just don't run into. And as far as church members go, I'm very, very laid back and open with these things. If it was all as universally common as you're saying, I'm sure I'd be fare more aware of it in my circles.

Sure, I had some crummy companions on my mission, but nothing like you guys all seem to have had (over and over). I've known people who have struggled with sexuality, gender identity, crisis of faith, confusion over old doctrine, fuzzy history, and all else, but some of the stuff that you guys claim is such an every day occurrence has never been the case in my experience.

Either you all grew up in some really strange areas, or I did. So much of what you guys claim just doesn't line up with my experiences. If they did, I'd happily share them, but I just haven't seen the same thing. My wife, growing up in California, saw her share of good and bad as well, but again, nothing along the lines of what is "commonplace" according to many here.

I'm bummed out that you've had these types of experiences with the church.

You apparently never read miracle of forgiveness as a young teenage boy. There;s being laid back and then there's discounting the words of a prophet of god saying that if you masturbate you'll never serve a mission and eventually turn gay. I was the child of converts who believed the truth claims of the church, mainly that the words out of the mouths of the leaders of the church are the words of god himself and that God would not allow them to lead the church astray.

My sister recently came clean to my parents that she was dating a non-member boy and had has sex. My father in tears honestly wished she had died instead. There's a disgusting strain within the church. If you haven't seen it, you probably haven't been affected by it, but it is absolutely vile and life destroying.

 

[ronito]

Tom Philips (the october surprise guy) is stirring crap up again:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1058872,1059351#msg-1059351

It is true I have been extremely busy this month on the matter some have named the 'October Surprise'. Due to this it was impossible for me to attend the Exmo Conference which I dearly wanted to attend. Not just to speak but to meet the wonderful people like yourself, whom I have met on the boards. The obstacles I am facing were quite unexpected, have taken more time and attention and delayed the outcome. Some of those obstacles are 'political' and there have been attempts by highly influential Mormons to stop me.

This is the main, though not the only reason, for me having to bail out of the Conference.

Be assured, however, that I will survive and I will take the fight to them, regardless of what they try. Truth Will Prevail.

Thank you Ana for all the support and help you have given me and so many others.

and later

They have already tried bribery, then threats.

The only thing that will shut me up is their public confession that the church is not true, an offer to refund tithing to members or transfer their assets to a recognised, transparent charity or charities.

 

[Brianemone]

I would love a life time tithing refund. Oh to dream.

"If" the leaders of the church all new it was a scam, to what extreme would they go to in order to protect the truth getting out if it was something that could prove without question that the church was a hoax?

I read that they paid someone almost a million to someone for forged letters? Seems a little extreme for something that was faked (even if they didn't know their origins)

 

[Laurentius]

I would love a life time tithing refund. Oh to dream.

"If" the leaders of the church all new it was a scam, to what extreme would they go to in order to protect the truth getting out if it was something that could prove without question that the church was a hoax?

I read that they paid someone almost a million to someone for forged letters? Seems a little extreme for something that was faked (even if they didn't know their origins)

A million dollars is a huge exaggeration...it was $20,000.

It's a fascinating and horrible story, and ended with the forger (Mark Hoffman) killing two people, and getting caught when a bomb he constructed went off in his car.

The controversy around it largely comes from the question of why the leaders of the church weren't inspired to know that it was a forgery, and that Mark Hoffman was a completely off the hook evil person who would eventually just start going around killing people and making bombs. Instead, they shelled out a bunch of money for the documents in what some saw as a why of trying to suppress them.

EDIT: I'm actually not sure what the total price for all the documents the church bought were. Gordon Hinckely also bought one of the forgeries with $15,000 of his "personal" money. Some of them they bought and some they didn't, if I understand correctly.

As to the "October Surprise", I don't really have much to say about it anymore then already has been said. Except I hate the fact that people use the term "surprise" for it. =\

 

[Fathead]

This guy needs to just show his cards. There is zero reason to drag it out if he's got dirt.

 

[ronito]

This guy needs to just show his cards. There is zero reason to drag it out if he's got dirt.

I whole heartedly agree. It's been months. Dude should at least let little bits out instead of keeping hyping it up.

 

[Fathead]

I whole heartedly agree. It's been months. Dude should at least let little bits out instead of keeping hyping it up.

He's doing a great job reinforcing the biiter ex stereotype, I'll give him that.

 

[ronito]

He's doing a great job reinforcing the biiter ex stereotype, I'll give him that.

Which I really hate.
I've played with the idea of starting a blog called something like happypostmormons or something.

There's a lot of vitrol against the church from exs, and I get it. I was very angry for a very long time, and sometimes I still am. It's a natural part of the grieving process. However, it's not healthy to keep that anger forever. People need to know that yes, the church is most likely always going to play a big part of their lives after they leave, but that doesn't mean you need to be an asshole about it.

 

[Hitokage]

There's a lot of vitrol against the church from exs, and I get it. I was very angry for a very long time, and sometimes I still am. It's a natural part of the grieving process. However, it's not healthy to keep that anger forever. People need to know that yes, the church is most likely always going to play a big part of their lives after they leave, but that doesn't mean you need to be an asshole about it.

In many cases there's a large element of trauma, and that never goes away. It simply gets managed.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

In many cases there's a large element of trauma, and that never goes away. It simply gets managed.

That's essentially how I feel about it. Even ~7 years removed I still suffer from the stunted development I had as a teenager and young adult due to Mormonism. Actually, I attribute part of my exit to your posts on the subject while I was getting ready to go on my mission.

Anyway, this presentation just got put up. It's about 80 minutes long but I watched the whole thing right out of bed today. Very fascinating stuff, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind. The Holland clip near the beginning is enough to make me rage at the man...

 

[Hitokage]

Furthermore, being a mormon takes so much of your time and effort and can get so closely tied to your identity that even after going from completely active to completely not it remains a large part of who you are as a person in some form or fashion. Sure, it may not be on your mind much and you may not be emotional about it anymore, but you don't just write off decades of your life. Those experiences shaped you.

Now, this guy pulling everyone's chain needs to get over himself, but for different reasons. You don't promise something without delivering the goods. Put up, or shut up.

 

[Doodis]

It's a pretty crazy thing going from being a complete believer and having most of your life revolving around the church to realizing it's all a fabrication. I'm 37 and only made the transition a couple months ago. I'm still reeling almost every day, especially with a spouse who chooses not to delve into it and stay a believer.

It's certainly been...interesting.

You don't promise something without delivering the goods. Put up, or shut up.

Frankly, he shouldn't say anything at all until he's ready to reveal whatever information he claims to have.

 

[Brianemone]

It's a pretty crazy thing going from being a complete believer and having most of your life revolving around the church to realizing it's all a fabrication. I'm 37 and only made the transition a couple months ago. I'm still reeling almost every day, especially with a spouse who chooses not to delve into it and stay a believer.

It's certainly been...interesting.



Frankly, he shouldn't say anything at all until he's ready to reveal whatever information he claims to have.

Hang in there!!

I was a closet non believer for 2 years before I came out to my wife, then after that it took 3 years before she actually decided to look at things without the indoctrination of her childhood affecting her judgement.

 

[ronito]

Trunk or treat!!!

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Trunk or treat!!!

Oh man, every time I hear this I'm reminded of how I once had to trick or treat on the Saturday night before Halloween because it fell on a Sunday...which meant I only got to go to Mormon neighbors...which meant I had like 12 pieces of candy...fun.

Anyway, Tommy Philips just posted this:

Hi, I am Tom Phillips and this is the very first time I have posted on this board although I have lurked, and been edified by you, for a few years. Check with Dr. Shades if you wish. He set up my account about 3 hours ago and can, presumably, confirm I am not the other poster some have accused me of being. One conspiracy scotched.

Thank you Mary and others for your defence of me. I get far more messages of support and gratitude than the opposite. That said, I am not in this for any notoriety , I am merely doing what I can to bring out the truth.

So, as to the theories posted by the OP, none are true. The one that I lack PR skills has an element of truth in this because I have ignored and been unconcerned about PR. The news, when it breaks will be its own PR and will gain momentum without me. It is not because I lack the skills, having used such skills for the church in the past. It is that I am not concerned about a PR campaign at this stage. That will happen later and will be handled by others far more expert than I. It is true that Mercury suggested a newswire, but I do not need that. I already have media interest and I will leave the PR to them, when the news can break.

Those who have offerd help, I appreciate and will be in contact with them when we can go public.

That said will this all be a damp squid? For some it obviously will. For most no. I did not coin the term 'October Surprise' that label was penned by others. I made an off the cuff remark in my excitement and it 'grew legs'. As I said on another board, I regret mentioning anything. I was then asked when this would happen and, at the time, I gave my best guess as October, but timing has never been completely in my control.

Will it be a surprise? It will, because with all the speculation on a number of boards not one, so far, is accurate. So, to that extent it will be a surprise, something nobody has guessed. Will it be secret documents or sex scandal? No. Will it bring down the church No, I have already said that. I can't think of anything that will bring down the church for at least 2 reasons. (1) the church has survived despite proof it is false (Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, DNA etc.) and (2) there are so many TBMs that will believe no matter what and will spin or put on the shelf anything that is thrown at the church. Will it damage the church? Yes, for sure and will cause some to leave. I don't see how the apologists will be able to spin their way out of this. But I could be wrong, there are a lot of illusions/magic tricks that I do not understand.

Bottom line - I am engaged with something that I think will have a major impact on the church. That is my personal opinion and others may think differently, that it is nothing. It has complexities and timing issues and fairly considerable financial cost. The nay sayers will understand these when it is released. So, if you are genuinely interested, please be patient a little longer. I hope not to disappoint but, hey, I am human. I do not claim to be a prophet of God or anything special. I just want the truth out there for future generations, if not this generation. Many of us have TBM families who will probably go to their graves believing. My hope is for those who are open to the truth and for future generations. Let's not continue this delusional myth.

I find this whole thing fascinating. ExMos range from being over zealously supportive and ready to believe, to hardcore skeptics that are sick of this shit. I really have trouble imagining what could be the problem with just spilling the beans...I dunno. I guess I'll sit back and enjoy the show

 

[Fathead]

Oh man, every time I hear this I'm reminded of how I once had to trick or treat on the Saturday night before Halloween because it fell on a Sunday...which meant I only got to go to Mormon neighbors...which meant I had like 12 pieces of candy...fun.

Anyway, Tommy Philips just posted this:



I find this whole thing fascinating. ExMos range from being over zealously supportive and ready to believe, to hardcore skeptics that are sick of this shit. I really have trouble imagining what could be the problem with just spilling the beans...I dunno. I guess I'll sit back and enjoy the show

At this point I dont even care. Guy should have just kept his mouth shut until he was prepared to let it out completely.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Sounds like someone who really, really enjoys the limelight...

I presume it will be nothing of value, one way or the other.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Sounds like someone who really, really enjoys the limelight...

I presume it will be nothing of value, one way or the other.

This may be true but I also believe it's true that he has credibility and a reputation to protect, so I'm simultaneously baffled by what's taking so long and still thinking that he has a chance to produce something. I mean, why in the world would he need all of this time and why would he be tipping his hand to the higher ups at the church if he thinks they want to hush him up? It's just strange.

 

[Laurentius]

So this has been floating around:

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I think Kyle (the guy who wrote it is Kyle Pederson - he's publicly released the letters) was over the top in his wording in the letter. Whether or not what he is saying is true, the personal attacks against Oaks are an easy way to get yourself quickly written off. Sounds too much like "kicking against the pricks" (whatever the hell that even means). Recalling my own experiences on the mission, I remember that the more people railed against us and accused us of wrongdoing, the more right we felt. I think that's a natural opinion. On the other hand, if it wasn't so vitriolic I doubt it would have received any response from Oaks at all. He was looking for an interesting reaction from Oaks, so he sent a pretty caustic letter, and sure got an interesting response.

"For one in that position to write the letter you have written is a violation of covenants as well as a breach of civilized discourse."

Sure seems to bring back memories of "it's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if that criticism is true".

 

[mik]

Which covenants does that violate? What a dickhole.

 

[Fathead]

Which covenants does that violate? What a dickhole.

The claim will be evil speaking of the lords annointed.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism

Its hilarious that its an oaks talk.



I agree with the guy in spirit, but the letter is over the top.

 

[Doodis]

I love how Oaks cc'ed the stake pres.

"You're in trooouble, na na na na naaaaa!"

 

[Deleted member 1159]

The problem I have is that the letter launches right into fiery rhetoric and doesn't build a case. Oaks is a lawyer. He needs to be shown evidence of his dickery or he will summarily dismiss the claims, as he did here, and pull rank.

 

[Hitokage]

Furthermore, unsuppoted vitriol allows him to not just dismiss those claims, but use them to reinforce his own beliefs. Simply waging an us vs them fight plays into the established narrative.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I know people who have been legitimately concerned about things going on in the church and have written letters to the Twelve and have received very nice and detailed responses. Heck, in the MTC I remember Mitt Romney's son getting a letter from one of the Apostles after he had sent one asking some questions (he wouldn't share details, because it was concerning some nature of doubt/concern). Whatever answer he got, it put him at ease, however.

The difference was in the approach. Rather than calling the guy a bigot, you need ask him for an explanation and for justification of his beliefs. I am sure that Elder Oaks would have given him a good answer if he didn't feel like a guy was jamming a finger into his chest the whole time. This is a letter where the guy already knows that he's not going to get the answer he wants, so he's just making an attack and hoping he gets an inflammatory response to make his 15 minutes of attention a little more bright.

 

[Brianemone]

The problem I have is that the letter launches right into fiery rhetoric and doesn't build a case. Oaks is a lawyer. He needs to be shown evidence of his dickery or he will summarily dismiss the claims, as he did here, and pull rank.

I feel like the letter is justified. The wording is strong, but I don't think it's any stronger than the words that the church has used in the past to fight the evils of gayness.

 

[Laurentius]

Well, when you start accusing people that strongly, it just activates the persecution complex (which Oaks has been know to invoke fairly frequently). Then it's just used as evidence that what you're doing is right ("being falsely accused for the name of Christ") and that those with opposing opinions are completely unreasonable, and thus not worth discussing the issues with.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I feel like the letter is justified. The wording is strong, but I don't think it's any stronger than the words that the church has used in the past to fight the evils of gayness.

I think it's justified too, but without giving examples and evidence to back it up, someone like Oaks is more likely to just brush it off they way he did. If the author wanted to be truly effective, I think he could have actually built a damning case that might even cause Oaks to give pause, momentarily as it may be. As it stands, he probably just smirked and cc'd the stake president

 

[Brianemone]

Well, when you start accusing people that strongly, it just activates the persecution complex (which Oaks has been know to invoke fairly frequently). Then it's just used as evidence that what you're doing is right ("being falsely accused for the name of Christ") and that those with opposing opinions are completely unreasonable, and thus not worth discussing the issues with.

I agree, but I don't think the original letter was intended to make Oaks change his mind, but rather to simply point out how hurtful the church's stance has been.

I think it's justified too, but without giving examples and evidence to back it up, someone like Oaks is more likely to just brush it off they way he did. If the author wanted to be truly effective, I think he could have actually built a damning case that might even cause Oaks to give pause, momentarily as it may be. As it stands, he probably just smirked and cc'd the stake president

As above. If he read it then I think the original goal of the letter was reached. Oaks speaks in a public forum saying Gay people should change their desires and attractions to the same sex, this letter is in response to let him know that it hurts people.

 

[ronito]

I think it's justified too, but without giving examples and evidence to back it up, someone like Oaks is more likely to just brush it off they way he did. If the author wanted to be truly effective, I think he could have actually built a damning case that might even cause Oaks to give pause, momentarily as it may be. As it stands, he probably just smirked and cc'd the stake president

Yeah, I agree. If the guy was like "You said x and y and z and yet you come out and say this. You are not holding true to the very truths you tell."

Oaks MIGHT have had a chance to listen. One of the first things you learn in conflict management is that you've lost if you make the other person feel attacked. It's a shame that the guy sent the letter. In the end I think it ended up doing damage to the senders own cause instead of helping anything other than his indignation. Really it's a shame, I think a well written letter might get Oaks to consider his actions but this just makes it harder.

I'm surprised that Oaks even read the letter let alone responded.

So here's a secret about Ronito. For a short time I seriously considered becoming a mason. My wife and I have never really found anything to really fill the social hole that leaving the church left behind and we're still looking. I thought "Hey I was a mormon I was practically half mason, why not go all the way."

In the end I opted not to, because it was one of those things that defined you. Further the hierarchy of it bothered me, it was too familiar to the mormon thing. "Well we know we can trust him, he's a master mason." Kind of thing. Really hierarchy was everything in there, "What degree do you have? What rites do you know?" that kind of stuff. But what's funny is that I never really noticed as much is how much that love of hierarchy moved to the church and you can see it in the letter here. "Well you are a returned missionary and got married in the temple, you should know better." If he hadn't "attained" those levels then Oaks would've just said, "You don't know enough yet." It's sorta sad that I still haven't been able to fill the social gap that the church left. In many ways I never really learned how to make social groups outside of the church.

Edit: Also, it's November 1st, time to commence rubbing faces in it.

 

[Yoritomo]

It's simple pages like that that make me face palm at my younger self.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/holley/holleymaps.htm

The entire fairmormon rebuttal page is just pointing out that the holley maps aren't directly correlated with the book of mormon. No crap. Directly copying a real world map would have been idiotic. plagiarism and using slightly changed names of real locations, in your own constructed map makes more sense and is easier to do.

 

[ronito]

This guy used to be my neighbor
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3260719-christ-in-north-america

His whole hypothesis is that the Nephites landed in Canada.