• 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

I find it a bit disingenuous to say that the church never drew a line on R-Rated movies. General conference was generally filled with admonitions to not watch R-Rated movies and searching general conference stuff for R-Rated and you'll pull up a bunch of talks telling people not to watch R-Rated movies.

Hm, are you sure about that? I don't remember ever once hearing anything about R-Rated movies specifically in General Conference. Sure, they mentioned "vulgar" media plenty of times, but I never recall a specific admonition against R-Ratings. I just did a search on lds.org, and the only strong statement I could find was the one from Ezra Benson. There were a few other mentions, but nothing to the extent of saying that we draw the line at R-Ratings, like everybody thinks the church does. Perhaps I just didn't use the correct search terms, though. But if you're referring specifically to Benson's statement, then yeah, you're right.

ronito said:
This is why I don't like the NOM stuff. They like to say "Oh no, no one ever said that!" Well, no that's wrong, they did say that. Quite a bit actually.

That article definitely wasn't NOM, it was going in the opposite direction really. The one that says not only should you not watch R-Rated movies, but you should probably be avoiding a lot of PG-13 and other movies because they are equally "bad". (The author said that Austin Powers poisoned their mind.)

Although I'll have to disagree with your NOM comment. Most NOMs that I know either don't believe in any of it and stay because of family, or accept that they disagree with the church on a lot of things but stay because of the things they still like about the church. Some might be trying to change the church from the inside out, but I don't see them denying what the church has said in the past.

I hung out on the newordermormon.org forums a lot when first going through my "faith crisis" and I would say that the vast majority of NOMs (at least there) really don't believe at all anymore. I think these days a NOM is more likely to be a complete non believer who just isn't as antagonistic or bitter as your typical exmormon.org poster (and may be in "hiding", so to speak, for family reasons).

EDIT: But maybe those people would more readily classify themselves as "post-Mormon" (like I kind of do). The word "Ex-Mormon" just has too much negative connotation
 
I remember hearing the R rated movie thing a lot, I'm pretty sure every priesthood session had at least one talk about porn and r rated movies.
 

ronito

Member
sensei I think we have a problem with nomenclature. To me noms are what are derisively called "cafeteria Mormons" like Joanna brooks where there's stuff they just chose not to follow but still give off a very active Mormon persona and still say they believe. The kind of person that would say r rated was never really warned about, or that think they can change the church from the inside.

What you're talking about sounds more like inactive, post Mormon or DNA Mormon. To me, noms totally still believe they just want to redefine what the church believes to fit their comfort zone.

Also, lds.org brings up at least 7 conference talks that warn against r rated movies
 

mik

mik is unbeatable
LMAO. That was absurd.

What's worse: playing the part of the masturbator or the masturbator's savior?

(also, why does that kid watch porn with his pants securely fastened? Is this some kind of elaborate, erotic torture?)
 
I remember hearing the R rated movie thing a lot, I'm pretty sure every priesthood session had at least one talk about porn and r rated movies.

I heard it all the time in sacrament meeting and stake conferences, but I can honestly say that I never heard it in a priesthood session or general conference. (Not that my personal recollection of events is indicative of what actually happened, though).

sensei I think we have a problem with nomenclature. To me noms are what are derisively called "cafeteria Mormons" like Joanna brooks where there's stuff they just chose not to follow but still give off a very active Mormon persona and still say they believe. The kind of person that would say r rated was never really warned about, or that think they can change the church from the inside.

What you're talking about sounds more like inactive, post Mormon or DNA Mormon. To me, noms totally still believe they just want to redefine what the church believes to fit their comfort zone.

Yeah, you're probably right on that.

On a side note, I don't necessarily think the church can be "fixed" from the inside like some are trying to do, but I would rather there were more "cafeteria Mormons" than outright fundamentalist members. From that realm you get stuff like the president of BYU-I telling people that if they know somebody looked at porn that they should tell that person's bishop.

=O Seriously, what's up with that talk from that video? Kinda frightening, to be honest. Now will you not only feel guilty if you look at porn, you'll also feel guilty that you're not being an active informant for your bishop as well.
 

Fathead

Member
Short of God himself asking me, I'm not ratting anyone out, unless it involves some sort of felony. And I'm not reporting it to a bishop.
 

ronito

Member
I think I've told this story here, but might as well repeat myself.
When i was at BYU I found a ton of foot fetish stuff on my work computer.
Not wanting to get busted for it I went to the honor code office and told them.
There response was that they couldn't do anything without evidence and in essence told me to spy on my coworkers and get evidence.

I let that go. I found it more morally reprehensible to snoop on my coworkers to get them probably fired and kicked out of school for looking at women's feet than actually looking at pics of naked women in stilettos.
 

ronito

Member
Another thing about ratting your friends out while at college that really bothers me is that in places like BYU/BYU-I/BYU-H there's HUGE reprecussions for being ratted out. I mean people can get put on probation at least or even kicked out. You could easily ruin someone's life.
 
Yeah, it's kind of scary TBH.

Not too surprising, unfortunately. Kind of an extension of what they say on the mission. We were told tons of times that we were our "companion's keepers". In fact, there were threats of punishment if your companion did something and you either didn't stop them, or didn't inform your mission president immediately. I knew of a few missionaries that got sent home because of something their companion did.

IIRC, there was even a section in the missionary handbook that said something along the lines of "if your companion engages in certain actions and you do not take the proper efforts to inform your MP you may face church disciplinary action". I should dig up the handbook so I can get the exact quote.

At least I guess they're not threatening to throw you out of BYU-I if you don't tell your bishop that your roommate masturbated last night. (Right guys? Surely that hasn't happened yet?)
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
Another thing about ratting your friends out while at college that really bothers me is that in places like BYU/BYU-I/BYU-H there's HUGE reprecussions for being ratted out. I mean people can get put on probation at least or even kicked out. You could easily ruin someone's life.

I don't believe in ratting people out unless they are doing harm to others or they're breaking laws. I feel like everybody needs to approach repentance with a repentant heart, not with a "oh crap, I got caught and now I gotta finally start repenting" attitude. A man who recognizes their own errors and corrects himself is going to be a better and stronger person than a man who is caught and forced to conform.
 

ronito

Member
I don't believe in ratting people out unless they are doing harm to others or they're breaking laws. I feel like everybody needs to approach repentance with a repentant heart, not with a "oh crap, I got caught and now I gotta finally start repenting" attitude. A man who recognizes their own errors and corrects himself is going to be a better and stronger person than a man who is caught and forced to conform.

Gotta agree here. I get the sentiment of "help out!" but you can't drag someone to repentance it doesn't work that way.
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
Gotta agree here. I get the sentiment of "help out!" but you can't drag someone to repentance it doesn't work that way.

In fact, if you're worried about the person, you go talk to them privately. I've talked to friends privately and encouraged them to clear up issues. Sometimes they just need to be called out, and they take the time to do some reflection and to reorient themselves properly. If not, you ratting them out won't set them on a better path, it will just make them embarrassed and more likely to push away.

Christ rebuked sinners openly, but only if they approached him openly. Otherwise, he'd just tell them to forsake their sins and follow the gospel.
 

ronito

Member
So apparently the mormon exodus is not only a true thing but also old news because Newsweek is just reporting on it. And you know if it's in newsweek, it was news like last year

http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/when-saints-go-marching-out.html

I really hate this article because instead of being about the majority of exmo/postmos that have a hard time leaving but don't make their disbelief their religion. It's about the angry exmormons that every bit as cliche as you'd think. With "Drinking 101" classes I haven't see this much "tee hee I'm being naughty" since the last GTA game. Just sloppy "journalism"

Also this is not ok. The church advertising subscriptions to the Deseret News in the Ensign? What's next? The Opening Prayer of General Conference, brought to you by Deseret Book?

c6VpJRC.jpg
 
I took the liberty of flipping that image, ronito. Hope you don't mind:


Yeah, kind of weird. I wonder if Desert News has been struggling, and they felt that it needed an something of an official promo?

I'll probably read the Newsweek article tomorrow, too tired right now.
 

Jeff-DSA

Member
I took the liberty of flipping that image, ronito. Hope you don't mind:



Yeah, kind of weird. I wonder if Desert News has been struggling, and they felt that it needed an something of an official promo?

I'll probably read the Newsweek article tomorrow, too tired right now.

The paper is doing fine, but they really want this new edition to be a thing within LDS culture. Seems like 20 years too late though.
 
Welp, I honestly don't know what to say to that right now.

Failure of Mr. Monson to attend the Court on 14th March may result in a warrant being issued for his arrest.

Can someone with more law knowledge than me explain what happens if he doesn't comply? I'd assume absolutely nothing, as long as he doesn't go on a trip to the UK.

I'm really not sure what Mr. Phillips is trying to achieve with this. The allegations in the court order are nothing new, and there's no way Monson will attend this court, as far as I'm concerned. Seems to be more of a publicity thing, but active Mormons will just see it as persecution of their prophet.

Also, some people are bringing up the point that by this same logic you'll need a court summons for every religious leader who gains benefit from their religion.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more stupid I think the whole thing is. Can we get a summons for Pope Francis because his religion teaches that Jesus was God? If Pope Francis can't prove that, then he's accused of fraud.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
I think the difference here is that the LDS church makes claims which are demonstrably false.

(Not saying other religions are true, but many LDS claims can be proven false)
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
that's it? They believe stuff. That's it. That mother fucker. He's not gonna do anything more than make exmos look like truthers. Fuck him

I'm not so sure. I think he's gonna make the church air out some dirty laundry and admit to uncomfortable facts. I think he's out to embarrass the leaders.

Not quite a megaton but I'm wondering how this all works out with US-UK extradition and everything. I really doubt he shows. In that case do they really issue a warrant?

Believers gonna believe, but I bet it gets some skeletons out of the closet
 

Doodis

Member
Surprise!

All this did was make me chuckle. I really don't see anything actually coming from this except for some extra publicity.

I'm sure the church's lawyers will find some way to shut this down fairly quickly. But at least we don't have to wait for the surprise anymore.
 
I think the important part of it is that they are claiming that they were knowingly mislead. I don't think Monson will show so there's no chance of anything actually coming from this.
 

ronito

Member
I think the important part of it is that they are claiming that they were knowingly mislead. I don't think Monson will show so there's no chance of anything actually coming from this.
I agree that nothing will come of it. But I don't see Monson getting out of it or not showing. I don't think hed be ok with a warrant. Especially when to win in the eyes of his followers all he has to do is show up.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
I seriously doubt he does anything more than a satellite feed. The dude hasn't looked well for a while. I think he should be allowed to represent himself from home.
 
I think the difference here is that the LDS church makes claims which are demonstrably false.

(Not saying other religions are true, but many LDS claims can be proven false)

Perhaps "Jesus is God" was a bad example then. But there are likely many aspects of other religions that could also be "demonstrably false".

They even added the Adam and Eve thing at the end, which could be used against a LOT of religions under this same pretense.
 
I agree that nothing will come of it. But I don't see Monson getting out of it or not showing. I don't think hed be ok with a warrant. Especially when to win in the eyes of his followers all he has to do is show up.

Do you think he's healthy enough to do it? I was basing that assumption on the fact that people seem to be saying he is suffering from dementia, I might be assuming too much here.

I think if there is anything really damning here, it isn't going to come out until the actual court proceedings. So it will be very interesting to see what happens in that regard, but again, I have to doubt my doubts.u
 

CorvoSol

Member
So this is now going around BYU-I, for you Corvo!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBuSyPyavGQ


Truth be told with the content, directing, acting and the music, this may well be the most mormon thing ever, outside of Saturday's Warrior of course. Nothing can top that.

"This Video is Private."

Anyway, saw the thread in OT and won't be going in there because hahaha no sir no thank you, but figured I might peruse the thread a bit and see if I can figure out what's going on. Nobody has mentioned this at all on campus so I figure it's actually not a big deal? Hard to tell in Rexburg.

But I DID feel like sharing two neat things, one sort of negative and one sort of positive. For me, anyway.

So negative first: I found out yesterday the school censors your TV and internet even when you're married! Hooray! We all suffer together! I feel compelled to wonder if the school administration and faculty's television and internet are censored, but not compelled enough to bother asking them since "This is not a democracy blah blah blah" will be first in line and well, I don't care THAT much.

Positive: My little bro is going on his mission! I'm very excited about that!

And that's all for what's going on at BYUI.

EDIT: Perusing those allegations of fraud, and speaking solely from my limited experience, the Church doesn't even teach some of those, whether that be "anymore" or "ever" or "whatever". Specifically the one about 6,000 years ago. The Church has no official stance on the age of the Earth, and numerous people will argue up and down about what the age of the Earth is. And this isn't just "What Corvo hears" but "What Corvo has had taught to him in a Church Owned and Run School". That there are those in the Church who teach that death did not enter the world until the Fall is inarguable, but that this even occurred 6000 years ago? Whether it once was or not, that is most emphatically not canon. Not unless BYUI as an institution has somehow become apostate?
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
EDIT: Perusing those allegations of fraud, and speaking solely from my limited experience, the Church doesn't even teach some of those, whether that be "anymore" or "ever" or "whatever". Specifically the one about 6,000 years ago. The Church has no official stance on the age of the Earth, and numerous people will argue up and down about what the age of the Earth is. And this isn't just "What Corvo hears" but "What Corvo has had taught to him in a Church Owned and Run School". That there are those in the Church who teach that death did not enter the world until the Fall is inarguable, but that this even occurred 6000 years ago? Whether it once was or not, that is most emphatically not canon. Not unless BYUI as an institution has somehow become apostate?

Read D&C 77 lately? The church might not opine on this particular fact anymore, but its canonized doctrine doesn't really equivocate on the young earth creationist thing.
 

CorvoSol

Member
Read D&C 77 lately? The church might not opine on this particular fact anymore, but its canonized doctrine doesn't really equivocate on the young earth creationist thing.

Surely you've heard the "what even is a year" thing, right? A temporal existence of 7000 years has been an open ended meaning for, at the very least, the entire expanse of my life, and as an active member actively attending a Church School which uses and discusses Church materials in all of its classrooms, including and especially its science ones, "7000 years according to the Calender we use today" is total bunk. It's not what's taught. In fact, when you DO ask them, the very first thing they will bring up is President Eyring's lengthy discussion and disagreement with President Joseph F. Smith on the topic. In one corner a Prophet who firmly believed the world was 7000 years of age, and in the other a future Apostle who quite emphatically does not.

So to simply say "Oh oh look see here it says it here this is what you believe" is to oversimplify and willingly ignore the complexity of the issue.
The truth, the actual truth that isn't a poor man's game of "see what I can cite to prove you wrong" is that the Church does not have an official stance on this issue.
 

ronito

Member
I think that whole list can be just explained away. With the exception of the papyri. That just can't be explained away so easily and if religion was not involved I think it makes a fairly decent fraud case.

Also Corvo, just how many brothers do you have? I take it he hasn't gotten the call yet otherwise you'd tell where.
 

CorvoSol

Member
I think that whole list can be just explained away. With the exception of the papyri. That just can't be explained away so easily and if religion was not involved I think it makes a fairly decent fraud case.

Also Corvo, just how many brothers do you have? I take it he hasn't gotten the call yet otherwise you'd tell where.

I have two brothers, an older and a younger. My younger brother made the announcement recently, so yeah, no call yet.
 
Why the October Surprise is meaningless, from a poster on /r/exmormon:

Lawyer Here. This sub is way out of proportion with the legal reality of today's news.

This is not a criminal condemnation of Monson. Hell, this isn't even an indictment.

Look at the rules of UK Criminal Procedure.

The information presented to the magistrate only needs three things:

Describes the offence in ordinary language. R.7.3(1)(a)(i) Crim.PR.

Identifies any legislation that creates it. R.7.3(1)(a)(ii) Crim.PR.

Contains such particulars of the conduct constituting the commission of the offence as to make clear what the prosecutor alleges against the defendant. R.7.3(1)(b) Crim.PR.

This is a very low bar. Basically, the writer needs to be able to form complete sentences.

Moreover, there is no obligation upon a magistrate or clerk to make any inquiries before issuing a warrant. A warrant may be issued without giving the parties an opportunity to make representations and without a hearing. R.7.4(1) Crim.PR.

What we have here is an exparte, rubber-stamped complaint made by a private citizen the UK court. The church will just send a lawyer to hearing and likely get it dismissed on constitutional grounds.

See Relevant UK Rules of Crim Pro & Summary of Private Prosecution
See also: Official guide to private prosecution which shows that information only needs to be sufficient to show a prima facia case i.e. can check the boxes for a fraud claim.

Hell, pleading Fraud in Federal Civil Court in the US has a higher standard that what is present here. FRCP Rule 9

I'm not a UK lawyer, but I saw shit like this in Court all the time. People would sue the Pope all the time. In this case, the distinction between a Civil case in the US and the Semi-Civil realm of Private Prosecution UK is not particularly compelling.
 

ronito

Member

Yeah I've seen a ton of back and forth between lawyers saying "This is incredibly important!" and other saying , "This is shit"

Right now, I'm leaning on the "this is shit" side.

Frankly I hope that Tom gets ostracized for this if this is all he has. All those months of lead up and hype and this is all he has? That guy should be shunned and cast out as the crazy/unstable exmo he is.There'd better be more than this. Because, like i said it's like a truther move. Crazy, delusional and sad.
 

Doodis

Member
Yeah I've seen a ton of back and forth between lawyers saying "This is incredibly important!" and other saying , "This is shit"

Right now, I'm leaning on the "this is shit" side.

Frankly I hope that Tom gets ostracized for this if this is all he has. All those months of lead up and hype and this is all he has? That guy should be shunned and cast out as the crazy/unstable exmo he is.There'd better be more than this. Because, like i said it's like a truther move. Crazy, delusional and sad.
After listening to his Mormon Stories interview, I feel bad for the guy. Or at least I can't blame him for being bitter. His whole family shunned him when he tried to bring up his issues with the church.

My wife has told me she doesn't want to know any of that info, but thankfully we still have a good relationship.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Prosecuting for doctrinal fraud is kinda dumb, because there's just so much wiggle room. If they had an actual complaint regarding the organization and its business dealings then I could see the case going somewhere, but this? Really?
 

ronitoswife

Neo Member
My guess is that it's not being considered as big of a deal as Tom thought it would be. Otherwise we'd be hearing about it all over the news. I must admit it was a bit of a let down. All the hype about a big revelation that will change the world. All the waiting and wondering and thinking as to "WHAT THE HELL COULD IT BE THAT WOULD BE SO MIND SHATTERING AS TO CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT?"

If it were corporate fraud or money laundering or sexual harassment charges, those would be mind blowing. But fraud on the account that he knows it's false and continues to charge the 10% tithing doesn't seem like it's going to have the desired effects he wanted. Unless he has some sure fire damming proof of his claims this isn't going to shake the testimonies of those who believe as he said it would. Which I think was a stupid claim to make in the first place.
 
If it were corporate fraud or money laundering or sexual harassment charges, those would be mind blowing. But fraud on the account that he knows it's false and continues to charge the 10% tithing doesn't seem like it's going to have the desired effects he wanted. Unless he has some sure fire damming proof of his claims this isn't going to shake the testimonies of those who believe as he said it would. Which I think was a stupid claim to make in the first place.

I both agree and disagree. A shocking scandal about sex or drugs would have made headlines everywhere, it would have been like a wildfire. But in my mind? Easier to write off as a bad nut. But on the very remote chance that they can bring out that the first presidency have known for some time that certain allegations that the church makes are not the truth? That would be catastrophic.

But yeah, more than likely that won't happen.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
It should be noted that this was leaked before Phillips and the Mormon Think crew had time to properly release the info...I guess they were talking to news outlets who wanted exclusive coverage and what not. Since someone leaked it on reddit, the post on MT was rather hastily done. There could be more we haven't heard yet.

Then again, maybe not. Popcorn.gif
 
So I'm watching this documentary about Mormons, and apparently in this particular Mormon community women chose who their husbands are via divine inspiration. Apparently, there's also this group of town elders - "brethren" - that you have to go through (they apparently also contact God in order to determine who the woman in question is to marry).

Is this more or less how it goes down in Mormon communities?
It seems like the "brethren" has a lot of power over important matters in these people's lives.
 

Patryn

Member
So I'm watching this documentary about Mormons, and apparently in this particular Mormon community women chose who their husbands are via divine inspiration. Apparently, there's also this group of town elders - "brethren" - that you have to go through (they apparently also contact God in order to determine who the woman in question is to marry).

Is this more or less how it goes down in Mormon communities?
It seems like the "brethren" has a lot of power over important matters in these people's lives.

Uh, no.

Are you sure it wasn't about one of the offshoot branches?
 
So I'm watching this documentary about Mormons, and apparently in this particular Mormon community women chose who their husbands are via divine inspiration. Apparently, there's also this group of town elders - "brethren" - that you have to go through (they apparently also contact God in order to determine who the woman in question is to marry).

Is this more or less how it goes down in Mormon communities?
It seems like the "brethren" has a lot of power over important matters in these people's lives.

Yes and no. Yes, many Mormons (male and female) rely on devine inspiration to confirm who they are marrying is the right person.

No, the local leaders do no choose the person, they do often interview the couple before marriage to make sure they are serious and "worthy" to get married in the temple. But the choice of whom? That's between the three parties involved, God and the two peoples.
 

Fathead

Member
So all I gotta do to bring down the Roman Cathlolic Church is find one instance of the infallible Pope stating something that can be proven false?

What a joke.
 

ronito

Member
So all I gotta do to bring down the Roman Cathlolic Church is find one instance of the infallible Pope stating something that can be proven false?

What a joke.

Oh it's a joke, which I'm really pissed about (see earlier posts)
But there is a difference here albeit slight.

Not paying full tithe in the LDS church will keep you out of heaven while in the catholic church donations are voluntary. Further, it'd be like the Pope pointing to an old latin book and saying "This book proves I'm right!" And then a latin translator does the translation and says it was a grocery list. It's a small distinction but I think it's the distinction that probably made the court grant the summons.

Personally, I think it's just a masturabtory fantasy from a guy who's given himself to delusion. I think Philips seriously believes that if he can get Monson on the stand the guy will just break down and admit it's all lies. Of course he's been given to delusion before so this isn't surprising. If this is all he's got (and it very much looks like it) he's wasted everyone's time.
 

Fathead

Member
Its fantasyland. I don't see how anyone with a grownup brain thinks this has any chance of success. The only thing it will do, if its even remembered 6 months from now, is make anyone looking at any sort of critcism of the church think twice. And even as a member, I think critcism is a healthy thing and making the opposing viewpoint look stupid is a detriment.
 

ronito

Member
So jay leno gas gotten into the byu-I masturbation video stuff the last two days. The first nights jokes were pretty pedestrian, but last nights was pretty good


4 February 2014:


Hey, listen to this. A video by the president of Brigham Young University in Idaho compares people who masturbate, to wounded soldiers in battle. In fact, the name of the video? Saving Ryan's Privates. No, that's what he said - he compared masturbation to war. Of course the worst part, getting hit by friendly fire. You don't want that.

From Leno's monologue on 5 February 2014:


I mentioned this last night. Brigham Young University in Idaho has released a video declaring war on masturbation. They want the students to stop masturbating. Critics say the school is clearly out of touch with students that are in touch with themselves. That's the problem.

They don't want students masturbating - the one skill you can actually use after college and they want to take that away
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
So this was posted on reddit:

Quoted from FB post of Christopher Ralph:
JOINT STATEMENT concerning summonses served on Thomas Spencer Monson:
This present case is Tom Phillips’ initiative. However, we were invited by him last December to submit to the District Judge letters outlining our own situations. Perhaps, in view of the many ideas which have been flying about since the news of the summonses broke, we could first state what this legal action, in our view, is NOT about:
It is NOT an attack on ordinary faithful Mormons. We have been long enough in those ranks to understand their outlook, and their need to believe in something to which they are committing their lives, and we also know only too well the pain of discovering, before we were ready to, the harsh realities of Mormon history.
It is NOT per se an attack on Mormonism as a belief system. We believe that as long as people are first made aware of all of the relevant historical facts which ought to inform their decision making, it becomes solely their choice and their business if they wish to hand over their money, time and efforts to the LDS church. When comprehensive disclosure becomes the normal practice, we will find no fault. We accept that some will choose to believe whatever they will, despite mountains of contrary evidence, and that is their inalienable right.
NOR, as far as we are concerned, is this a personal vendetta against Thomas Monson. We do not know him, and he has never met us. Unfortunately, he happens to be the man at this point who occupies the Church President’s office, and so the summonses have been served upon him. On a personal basis we feel compassion for a man of his advanced years, allegedly not in the best of health, who has recently lost his wife. He has been part of our Mormon culture. We always enjoyed seeing him wiggle his ears to entertain the children. It is a rare gift. We feel no personal animosity towards him.
This is NOT being done out of anger, but out of concern for the many who otherwise, will perhaps one day feel hurt and betrayed, as we presently do.
This action is being taken over what we consider to be unethical and fraudulent practices. Our view is based upon our own experiences, and also those of others within the Mormon community. These practices are approved and implemented by the church hierarchy. Our argument is therefore with that system and whoever is ultimately responsible for implementing such practices.
When members of the church are formally taught from childhood that they will only be with their families in the next life if they pay a minimum of 10% of their income to the church, (tithing being a requirement of entering the temple, where the eternal sealing of families occurs), a pattern of lifelong financial sacrifice is established. We have been taught that all hope of remaining with our loved ones in the next life, is contingent upon a lifelong monetary commitment to the church, and we have been led to believe that the keys to this eternal sealing are vested in the President of the church, currently Thomas Monson, who has authority to grant or dissolve such unions. We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing.
It follows that those who default on payments, start to fear that they will lose their loved ones in the eternities. In certain cases known to us, defaulting tithe-payers descend into a state of despondency, feeling utterly worthless, sometimes losing the respect and confidence of their family members who depend upon them to be obedient to the law of tithing. In many cases obedience is accomplished only through fear and coercion, and the fear is induced by constant reference to and emphasis upon the LDS scriptures. Yet those scriptures themselves fail the tests of historical authenticity. A growing body of evidence, (not disclosed at present to the average tithe-payer), clearly points to them as being the work of Joseph Smith, and his contemporaries, rather than texts of ancient origin.
We contend that anyone faced with making a demanding financial commitment to the LDS church, deserves first to be presented with the full evidence concerning LDS truth claims, so that they may make up their minds without being misled. In the UK, such onerous financial commitments are usually undertaken with appropriate warnings and additional information, otherwise they are deemed “mis-sold”. We believe that any person seeking to join the LDS church in Britain, and all British members wishing to place their trust in the family sealing powers claimed for the LDS temple, first ought to be told, at the very least, why The Book of Abraham is not accepted by the rest of the world as an authentic translation, and why The Book of Mormon has much more in common with a 19th century novel than it has with 1600 year old Native American artefacts; they should also be informed of the real reasons which led to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, including the shocking details of Joseph Smith’s polygamous and polyandrous extra-marital unions, in the name of God, with women and girls, some as young as 14.
If, knowing these details, candidates choose to proceed with their baptisms or temple ordinances, none will later be able to claim, as we now do, that they have been deceived. At present however, that is very much not the situation, for most tithe-paying temple-attending members have little or no idea about the true history of their religion, or the profound lack of evidence supporting many of their tenets.
We would like to see the church admit that it has erred grossly for many years in neglecting to address these matters openly and honestly as a matter of routine. We feel it should repent of its failings, apologising for misleading its members in the past, encouraging them in turn to mislead others in their missionary and teaching assignments. We would like to see the church taking steps to educate its members and prospective members fully in accordance with the historical record. We would also like to see full openness and accountability in terms of financial accounting and LDS archival holdings. We would like it to provide sensitive counselling and care for those who lose their faith when they discover the uncomfortable realities. There should be no more labelling of such members as “faithless”, “dissidents” or “apostates” - as though there was something wrong with people having a desire to seek out the truth. Possibly the church leaders could work in combination with those of us who have already trodden this difficult path, so that rehabilitation into the wider world of belief choices would become smoother and less traumatic for spiritual victims of the system.
We are also anxious to see the church offer assurances about the position with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of members and former members who now feel, as we do, that our tithing and other offerings were obtained by the church under false pretenses. For every pound paid to the church by LDS members in the UK who, (following leadership counsel), have availed themselves of Deeds of Covenant and Gift Aid, £0.20 has been added by the British Taxpayer to the church’s bank accounts. The sum paid out by HMRC in this connection must now amount to tens of millions of pounds. It is understood that in most cases the resulting tax rebates made to individuals, were handed over to the church at its request. We seek an assurance from the church therefore, that in the event that at some future time these payments made by HMRC will be deemed to have been fraudulently obtained, the LDS church will offer immunity to those individuals, and ensure that such sums as were rebated will be returned with the due interest to HMRC.
Finally we hope one day to see a more compassionate church, in which those of us who still retain through habit something of a Mormon identity, may find acceptance within the LDS community, no matter what our perceived deficiencies or peculiarities or orientations might be, being valued simply because we place a high value on objective truth.
Steve Bloor
Chris Ralph
7th February 2014

Honestly, this has been my main continuing gripe with the church. I've got an active believing cousin who engages me on my apostasy regularly, and he just doesn't see the church's recruiting tactics as dishonest. I keep showing him how missionaries aren't taught to tell the truth, but he thinks it's just good salesmanship.

Maybe having this tried in an actual court will sway some people. Probably not. I feel like my cousin could be told Smith had sex with 12 year olds and drank the blood of newborns and he'd be ok with it. Just no way to convince someone their faith is wrong once they dig in.
 

ronito

Member
So this was posted on reddit:



Honestly, this has been my main continuing gripe with the church. I've got an active believing cousin who engages me on my apostasy regularly, and he just doesn't see the church's recruiting tactics as dishonest. I keep showing him how missionaries aren't taught to tell the truth, but he thinks it's just good salesmanship.

Maybe having this tried in an actual court will sway some people. Probably not. I feel like my cousin could be told Smith had sex with 12 year olds and drank the blood of newborns and he'd be ok with it. Just no way to convince someone their faith is wrong once they dig in.

They should have posted this statement the day the news was leaked, and if they were really working with the media they should have given segments of this for quoting. Instead everyone thinks "lol they're trying to outlaw mormonism!"

I actually sorta agree with them on this. However, how much should the church divulge and how? I mean look at what the church has been doing lately with the LDS.org essays that they're putting on their website addressing things like lack of DNA and blacks and the priesthood. Does that suffice? Fact is, most mormons don't know it's there. Should the church have yearly lessons on it where everyone in the congregation has to attend? I actually see their point that by whitewashing history and glossing over stuff and selling the exact opposite, that actually does smack of fraud, and is probably why the UK government allowed the suit and they might actually be able to make it stick. Sadly, this is a problem that the LDS church has that few, if any, mainstream religions have. I mean you can't go back and say "Jesus wasn't what the church claims he was and the church knows it!" It's impossible to know at this point. But it is possible to say, "The church claims that Joseph Smith died for his testimony, when they know he didn't!" Yeah, you can make that argument, and I think you can most likely make it stick. And if you can, that might be deemed as fraud in the court's eyes.

But the fact that the church is putting these essays on their website, makes me wonder if they already knew this was coming and now they're trying to cover their bases and be able to say "Well, it's on our website! What are you complaining about?!" Well, actually, I have no doubt the church knew this was going to happen. The keep close tabs on their members and closer tabs on those who leave the church and fight against it.

But I'm glad they put out a statement like this. It does clarify some stuff. It's a huge miss and failure on their part not to have owned their message from the start of this, one that might ultimately doom them. But at least it's out now. And maybe this will get over the whole guessing as to why they did it. I've seen theories like there being some secret damning evidence, to something about the lawsuit going to focus on the missionary program, to the claim that they know the lawsuit wont do anything and they're just doing it to get people to talk about the church's issues, another theory was that it's out to embarass the church, and other still that it's a persona vendetta against Thomas Monson. At least now there's this. But if they were this sloppy to let it get out of their control from the beginning I have little faith in anything else they can do.

In the end I think the worst possible tangible outcome of this would be that in the UK the church is required to post a disclaimer that no one will read. But the intangible stuff. I have seen a small handful of people reach out to me saying stuff like "What's this about the Book of Abraham?" and "LOL they say that Joseph Smith didn't die as a martyr" Well.....Stuff like that will probably do a bunch of damage against the church but it was going to happen anyway with the internet, this just sped it up.
 
Top Bottom