Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

RIP Anti Mormon Literature


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Can you perceive a difference between requesting no proselytism from the Church, and being shunned by friends and family? 

You've not specified friends and family until now. 

But my point is that a faith that teaches or approves of shunning by any of its members is not a faith that teaches that one should ""continue to minister" to those who have fallen away. 

And in any case,  I believe this idea of "shunning" is a straw man of your own invention. As I've indicated, I rarely hear of it happening among the Latter-day Saints -- pretty much never,  unless it's a case of strained relations where the one who has departed chooses to distance himself or herself from the family or friends or who makes himself or herself too obnoxious to be around, by obsessively and continually attacking or disrespecting the faith in the presence of children, for example. 

And even then, the teaching from the Church is to continue to feel after and love the one who has left to the extent the person will allow it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

If they had their names removed, how would ward members know not to contact them?

There are not apt to be assignments made to contact them if their names are not on the official records of the Church and hence not on the ward membership rolls. 

They might on the odd chance  be randomly contacted by proselytizing missionaries, but that's apt to happen to anyone. Missionaries ordinarily don't keep "do not contact" lists unless it's of people by whom the missionary personally has already been rebuffed. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So do I. I think local units should be careful to avoid thus antagonizing people. Perhaps some have not been careful enough in the past.

But that's beside the point. It's pretty much the opposite of your implied accusation, isn't it? That the Church and its members "shun" those who fall away? Can you at least muster the humility and candor to admit that much?

Oh I know plenty that have been shunned, including me by my family for over 13 years.  So don't pretend it doesn't happen. He has nothing that he has to admit to

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh I know plenty that have been shunned, including me by my family for over 13 years.  So don't pretend it doesn't happen. He has nothing that he has to admit to

Please see my last two posts. I cannot address anecdotal information or isolated examples with which I am unacquainted, only general policy and practice as I understand it. 

And I stand by my point that a Church that teaches one should "continue to minister" to those who have fallen away is not apt to teach or approve of "shunning."  It is a logical inconsistency, as any reasonable mind should be able to grasp. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my last two posts. I cannot address anecdotal information or isolated examples with which I am unacquainted, only general policy and practice as I understand it. 

And I stand by my point that a Church that teaches one should "continue to minister" to those who have fallen away is not apt to teach or approve of "shunning."  It is a logical inconsistency, as any reasonable mind should be able to grasp. 

Was there not an article recently where a General Authority advises ‘disengaging immediately and fully’ from family members where interaction might test ones faith?

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/saving-your-life?lang=eng

“The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”26 But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”27 So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.”

 

Christofferson states in plain English that when the Amish suspend familial relationships over religious differences, it’s called “shunning”, but when Mormons do the exact same thing (which he is encouraging them to do) it’s called necessary to our higher love. 

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment

Your link....

"I’m confident that a number of you in our worldwide audience this evening have experienced personally what the Lord is expressing in these verses. You have been rejected and ostracized by father and mother, brothers and sisters as you accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ and entered into His covenant. In one way or another, your superior love of Christ has required the sacrifice of relationships that were dear to you, and you have shed many tears. Yet with your own love undiminished, you hold steady under this cross, showing yourself unashamed of the Son of God....

"Yes, the cost of joining the Church of Jesus Christ can be very high, but the admonition to prefer Christ above all others, even our closest family members, applies also to those who may have been born in the covenant. Many of us became members of the Church without opposition, perhaps as children. The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”26 But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”27 So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love....

 

 

Link to comment
On 9/1/2017 at 5:18 AM, Marginal Gains said:

Was there not an article recently where a General Authority advises ‘disengaging immediately and fully’ from family members where interaction might test ones faith?

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/saving-your-life?lang=eng

“The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”26 But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”27 So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.”

 

Christofferson states in plain English that when the Amish suspend familial relationships over religious differences, it’s called “shunning”, but when Mormons do the exact same thing (which he is encouraging them to do) it’s called necessary to our higher love. 

Seriously? You believe this is advocating "shunnng"? 

You have disingenuously taken the words of the discourse out of context. I quickly lose patience when people do that. 

As is obvious from Calm's contextual quotation, he was not talking about shunning at all but about having the courage to embrace the Church of Jesus Christ despite the disapproval of relatives. 

Not at all the same thing. I am incredulous that you don't grasp the distinction. 

If anything, the shunning is on the part of relatives who refuse to have anything to do with one who join the Church. On the other hand, the Church encourages the convert to foster good relations with family to the extent they will allow it. 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my last two posts. I cannot address anecdotal information or isolated examples with which I am unacquainted, only general policy and practice as I understand it. 

And I stand by my point that a Church that teaches one should "continue to minister" to those who have fallen away is not apt to teach or approve of "shunning."  It is a logical inconsistency, as any reasonable mind should be able to grasp. 

In all honesty, I think the church has been more vocal about shunning only in the last 10 years.  Before that, members were in conflict as to what to do.  I know my family felt that if they embraced me, it would mean that they embraced me being gay.  So while I agree with your statement about current church teachings, it hasn't always been so clear.  My family is very active and certainly would have followed any guidance from church leaders.  

I might also add that after my excommunication from the church, one of the high councilmen who I didn't really know asked if he could have lunch with me.  We met for lunch and he told me that his brother was gay and had come out about 25 years ago.  During that time, the family shunned him.  At lunch he said that he regretted how his family reacted to his brother being gay, and that they were now hoping to mend some fences that this treatment of his brother had caused.

I could go on if you would like of other stories of former members of the church that have told me similar stories.  It is clear to me that shunning definitely has happened in the past.  I am sure I have come in contact with more gay exMormons than you have and probably have heard way more stories of families shunning than your circle of friends.

I have no idea how wide spread shunning was or is in the church, but just because you don't personally know someone who has been shunned doesn't mean it was or continues to happen to some degree.

In all honesty, I don't think you can make a statement like this

Quote

 

And in any case,  I believe this idea of "shunning" is a straw man of your own invention. As I've indicated, I rarely hear of it happening among the Latter-day Saints -- pretty much never,  

 

While you are stating your opinion, I am wondering if you have any solid evidence that made you arrived at that conclusion?  Because my experience is completely the opposite if we are both using antidotal evidence.  It is the "pretty much never" part that I particularly have issue with.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Was there not an article recently where a General Authority advises ‘disengaging immediately and fully’ from family members where interaction might test ones faith?

 

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/saving-your-life?lang=eng

“The challenge we may confront is remaining loyal to the Savior and His Church in the face of parents, in-laws, brothers or sisters, or even our children whose conduct, beliefs, or choices make it impossible to support both Him and them. It is not a question of love. We can and must love one another as Jesus loves us. As He said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”26 But, the Lord reminds us, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”27 So although familial love continues, relationships may be interrupted and, according to the circumstances, even support or tolerance at times suspended for the sake of our higher love.”

 

Christofferson states in plain English that when the Amish suspend familial relationships over religious differences, it’s called “shunning”, but when Mormons do the exact same thing (which he is encouraging them to do) it’s called necessary to our higher love. 

It is these kinds of statements that I believe caused my family to feel that they should shun me.  I think it is pretty easy for most people to understand why.  For some, it is not all that clear what he means when you have a child that is not doing what they feel the church is demanding.

My family are not bad people.  And they certainly are every bit as TBM as you are.  Sometimes that rigidness makes statements like this give them an indication of how they are suppose to deal with a gay son..  In todays environment, there seems to be much more clear direction.  But go back in time 15 years ago and that message was not so clear.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously? You believe this is advocating "shunnng"? 

You have disingenuously taken the words of the discourse out of context. I quickly lose patience when people do that. 

As is obvious from Calm's contextual quotation, he was not talking about shunning at all but about having the courage to embrace the Church of Jesus Christ despite the disapproval of relatives. 

Not at all the same thing. I am incredulous that you don't grasp the distinction. 

If anything, the shunning is on the part of relatives who refuse to have aanything to do with one who join the Church. On the ohhet hand, the Church encourages the convert to foster good relations with family to the extent they will allow it. 

 

Can you explain, specifically, the difference(s) that you see between what Christofferson labels the Amish “shunning” their relatives for leaving the Amish faith, and what he describes as Mormons showing “higher love” by suspending familial relationships with those Family members who leave Mormonism? 

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
On 17/07/2017 at 2:29 PM, boblloyd91 said:

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/11/rip-anti-mormon-literature/

Jana Riess wrote an interesting article about the sharp decline in Anti Mormon literature being published. Her theories are that with Mormonism's slowing growth, declining Evangelical concerns about "right theology" and other factors. Others pointed out that in the U.S. Evangelicals are declining as well. It's an interesting article and would love to hear others thoughts. 

Do you think the LDS Church will retract its belief that its the only true church (aka, the Restoration) in the world?
Or will the anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant theory persist well into the future?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
1 minute ago, theplains said:

Do you think the LDS Church will retract its belief that its the only true church (aka, the Restoration) in the world?
Or will the anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant theory persist well into the future?

I certainly hope it doesn't retract it.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you think the LDS Church will retract its belief that its the only true church (aka, the Restoration) in the world?
Or will the anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant theory persist well into the future?

Thanks,
Jim

On the one hand the Church is less confrontational with other denominations than in the past but I doubt it will back away from the concept of Apostasy 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you think the LDS Church will retract its belief that its the only true church (aka, the Restoration) in the world?
Or will the anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant theory persist well into the future?

Thanks,
Jim

Well, I sure hope this anti-Mennonite theory doesn't "persist well into the future." We aren't Catholic or Protestant! Does that provide us an exemption? Ha! 
 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

On the one hand the Church is less confrontational with other denominations than in the past but I doubt it will back away from the concept of Apostasy 

I think (at I acknowledge it doesn't matter what I think) that it already is backing away from it. Read Talmage's book on the great apostasy and then read current writers where there is admission now that the Holy Spirit worked in some lives, and led people, and gave visions and dreams and people were saved prior to the restoration. I am not sure the old-timers would have said that. Robert Mason is a great example. There is a page now on lds.org about Robert Mason, the Presbyterian spiritual mentor of Wilford Woodruff. He had a vision that is touted on lds.org, he prophesied, he interpreted his dream - Woodruff states he had power to heal and on and on and all that was in 1800, twenty some years prior to the restoration of the priesthood and prior to the restoration of the church. Even Woodruff was said to have visions when he was 11 years old, long before the restoration.  Allowing that the Holy Spirit worked in and through sincere believers during the total apostasy in effect negates the concept of the total apostasy. Total means total Either there was a total apostasy for 1800 years or their was a partial apostasy, the dominant view of other faith groups. 

Link to comment
On 8/31/2017 at 9:09 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder how it would be viewed by an observant Orthodox Jew if you were to tell him how good it would be for him to enjoy "God's goodness" in the form of a thick, greasy, pork chop sandwich. I would view it as a mild expression of contempt for his religious faith. 

And so I took it, but that is the way he is.

I must confess I have probably done the same to him.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think (at I acknowledge it doesn't matter what I think) that it already is backing away from it. Read Talmage's book on the great apostasy and then read current writers where there is admission now that the Holy Spirit worked in some lives, and led people, and gave visions and dreams and people were saved prior to the restoration. I am not sure the old-timers would have said that. Robert Mason is a great example. There is a page now on lds.org about Robert Mason, the Presbyterian spiritual mentor of Wilford Woodruff. He had a vision that is touted on lds.org, he prophesied, he interpreted his dream - Woodruff states he had power to heal and on and on and all that was in 1800, twenty some years prior to the restoration of the priesthood and prior to the restoration of the church. Even Woodruff was said to have visions when he was 11 years old, long before the restoration.  Allowing that the Holy Spirit worked in and through sincere believers during the total apostasy in effect negates the concept of the total apostasy. Total means total Either there was a total apostasy for 1800 years or their was a partial apostasy, the dominant view of other faith groups. 

We readily acknowledge the spirit inspiring people before the restoration.  That is absurd

Think about it.

How could Joseph have seen God before the "Restoration"?

We readily praise the various "reformers".

We acknowledge the spirit inspiring every religious leader Christian and not, we have hymns authored by Francis of Assisi, and in short you do not know what you are talking about.  But in a nice way of course. :)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well, I sure hope this anti-Mennonite theory doesn't "persist well into the future." We aren't Catholic or Protestant! Does that provide us an exemption? Ha! 
 

But you are no different than they are, so why bring it up?

Link to comment
On 9/1/2017 at 3:59 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Please see my last two posts. I cannot address anecdotal information or isolated examples with which I am unacquainted, only general policy and practice as I understand it. 

And I stand by my point that a Church that teaches one should "continue to minister" to those who have fallen away is not apt to teach or approve of "shunning."  It is a logical inconsistency, as any reasonable mind should be able to grasp. 

Carlos Asay in 1981

"Avoid those who would teardown your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit"

IIRC, this talk is used in the current teaching manual (refer to the chapter denigrating apostates).

cacheman

Link to comment
On 9/1/2017 at 4:40 AM, california boy said:

Oh I know plenty that have been shunned, including me by my family for over 13 years.  So don't pretend it doesn't happen. He has nothing that he has to admit to

Tell us exactly what is "shunning".  For example, if he ragging them about the church and trying to "help" them to see the light -- he can't let it go, and they finally decide not to interact with him, is that shunning?

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We readily acknowledge the spirit inspiring people before the restoration.  That is absurd

Think about it.

How could Joseph have seen God before the "Restoration"?

We readily praise the various "reformers".

We acknowledge the spirit inspiring every religious leader Christian and not, we have hymns authored by Francis of Assisi, and in short you do not know what you are talking about.  But in a nice way of course. :)

 

I am  talking about what the 19th and early 20th century LDS writers talked about as the great apostasy. Do you have Talmage's Great Apostasy? Please quote for me from therein the concept you just mentioned in your post that his concept of the Great Apostasy included an active Holy Spirit, saving, healing and providing visions in the pre-restoration days. Show me the same in  "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder." Even Morrison in his book "Turning from Truth" doesn't go as far as you do in your understanding of the Great Apostasy. That is my understanding of what I have read - I agree with you in that I think their understanding, teaching, and writing was absurd. I just wouldn't have  used that work - being such a nice Mennonite! I think you are teaching me (and I mean that seriously, I am here to learn) a new, revised concept of the Great Apostasy that Millet and Robinson might endorse, but I just don't see it in classic Mormon apologists.

Every time you write in a post to me that I don't understand, I agree with you. Please understand that! I am trying to understand, but all this talk about authority is not understandable to me at this moment. I am not being obstinate or I wouldn't take the time to do this. You are not either, for the same reason. I will say however, I think I am trying to understand you, perhaps a teeny bit more than you are trying to understand my faith. I guess I understand that as well. I am the interloper this week. You didn't wake up Monday morning, rise up in bed and say to yourself "Wow, I think I will seek a better understanding of evangelicals this week." I want to know all about their view of faith!" I am conscious of being the interruptor of your debates about angels and needles and such. I am the investigator, maybe not in the way you typically define it, but in my own way I am sincere in that. By the way, I am going to read Robinson again today. I think one reason his work appeals so to evangelicals is that nowhere in his little book does he mention authority or exaltation; two concepts that are foundational to the Mormon self-concept but completely foreign to others. Again, I have to re-read it for those concepts. I may be wr......wr........wr......ong!

Oh, and lest I forget, you keep mentioning a question that you are asking and I am neglecting to answer . . . Why Christianity? Is that your question. If it is, I don't understand it. Can you ask it in more than two words? Thanks my friend. 

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But you are no different than they are, so why bring it up?

OK. Now you have done it. You have hurt my feelings! Our whole self concept is based on being different. . . a third way! A peculiar people (sound familiar?) A group who has experienced martyrdom like no other.  A people who have known exodus like no other. Say you're sorry!   ........................................................... Please know I am saying that tongue-in-cheek. I enjoy humor. You really didn't hurt my feelings.....yes you did......no you didn't! 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Tell us exactly what is "shunning".  For example, if he ragging them about the church and trying to "help" them to see the light -- he can't let it go, and they finally decide not to interact with him, is that shunning?

If anyone cares, Mennonites no longer practice "shunning" in a formal sense, but Amish and some conservative Brethren groups do. Mennonite shunning is more subtle, is informal and is just as painful to the recipient. We are terribly inconsistent in that. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Tell us exactly what is "shunning.

I have a friend who won't allow her kids to see her parents anymore since they left the church.  She had a baby this last year and they haven't even seen her :( (the baby).

I've talked to my friend about it and told her I think it's wrong to do this (her parents are heartbroken and were very involved with the grandkids and family prior to leaving the church and have made every effort to still be involved).  She said it's mainly her husband and she's supporting him in this decision. What a horrible loss for all involved!  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...