How To Keep Your Mormon Testimony

[juliann]

What strikes observers as perverse is that God would send one to threaten him if he didn't marry underage girls and other men's wives. I think this is without precedence in the Bible or BOM.

You mean like Mary, mother of Jesus being estimated to be 14 years old? Of course the real issue is what the marriage norms were in JS's time. But that might create problems for you so I understand why you might want to avoid it. This is from the board rule folder...I'll put the part you are having trouble concentrating on in red to make it easier for you:

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

Social and legal attitudes

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. 

[Dale]

Both my experience and my reading indicate that a threshhold of cognitive dissonance must be reached before what amounts to a mental phase transition can occur.

This cracks me up...do you have a McDiss bumper sticker? The cognitive dissonance you experience now must be overwhelming if you allowed yourself to be told what to do when your wife was ill.

This is what you said, Juliann. I think it was cold and insensitive. Over the course of several posts, Bob had explained the predicament he and his family faced. Whether you think he handled the situation wisely or not, you shouldn't have ridiculed his misfortune.

I am understanding of Bob's circumstances. I do not pass judgement on the problems him, or his family faces.

LDS do see him as annoyingly vocal, and this generates some personal heat for him.

------------

Juliann I like what you said about Mary. I am sure David & Solomon married some young wives also. What about the age with which monogamists married in the Bible? Not had time to research that issue. But if God felt marrying young was a crime I see no indication of it.

With the 14 year Helen Mar Kimball the best research indicates Joseph Smith's behavior toward her was platonic. With the polyandrous sealings unless somebody can prove otherwise they look to me like platonic sealings also. With some of the wives their is suggestions of co-habitation but not with many of the 33 wives as no such claims were made.

The purpose of sealing was to have spiritually adopted offspring by other men & their wives. I see no need to defend marrying others wives, but have no real objections to this platonic form of plural marriage in the least.

Brigham Young had if I recall right 57 children via plural wives. But Joseph Smith has no verified children by plural wives. Him & Emma had eight children together.

[Daniel Peterson]

In case anybody's interested, "Deconstructor" has responded (on the oddly-named "Recovery" board) to my response (earlier on this thread) to his list of "things-the-angel-didn't-warn-Joseph-Smith-against" (originally, and mistakenly, ascribed to "Randy J."):

"I'm . . . left wondering why this TBM apologist is such a blatant liar. I can't believe it is out of ignorance."

To which, carrying on the rich tradition of vigorous debate and dissent that is so cherished a characteristic of the ironically-titled "Recovery" board, another poster answers:

"How does he get away with such dishonesty? How can he live with himself? I was repulsed."

However, lest anybody think that all of the "Recovering" folk attribute any and all failure to agree with them to simple dishonesty, here is a comment (made today in another context), from Tal Tales Bachman:

"I would like them [he's referring to Morgbot 'apologists' like me] to speak and publish as much as possible, because their stuff strikes everyone but totally gone Mormons as bloody daft. I don't know of any way to better illustrate to people that there is something profoundly screwed-up with Joseph's church than to show them Mormon apologetic writing. That's one big fat difference between me and them: They'd shut all of us up forever if they could, whereas I'd put Dan Peterson and Gee and the other dudes over there on TV as much as possible, especially with sharp interviewers. To most people, they sound like madmen."

So I may not be deliberately dishonest.  I may be insane.

Bwahahahaha!

Roaring in, now, with a spirited rejoinder and a markedly different viewpoint is SusieQ#1:

"It is amazing to see the blatant lying from supposedly believing Mormons. The level of integrity is in the toilet."

And then she recalls her own appallingly brutal treatment at the hands of, well, me:

My personal exchange with the slamming, and nasty, condescending, despicable attitudes has been extremely upsetting to long time TBMs in my own family.

Keep the liars talking, give them a little more rope and they will continue to hang themselves.

What a shame how embarrassing for the church and their families.

The incriminating evidence of my stunning and unprovoked viciousness can be found here:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/Su...eterson_a01.htm

I'd viciously attack Froggie, too, except I don't think she'd notice it. People who are always taking casseroles around never get on the internet. I did, though, really appreciate her harsh judgment of those she accuses of judging harshly. That would be really, really difficult to top.

The war of words and tumult of opinions continues, unabated, on the strangely-named "Recovery" board:

Reacting strongly against the allegation that Mormons are intentionally deceptive, "Matt" counters with the claim that "Mormon [sic] are encouraged to lie."

If only vigorous debate like that were permitted on this board!

They [FAIR and the impishly-named "Recovery" board] are two identical boards on opposite ends of the mormon spectrum.

Froggie is far too generous to FAIR. The rich diversity of opinion that flourishes on the quaintly-named "Recovery" board would never be allowed here.

[Calm]

you shouldn't have ridiculed his misfortune

Which do you think she was "ridiculing"---his misfortune that his wife was ill or his misfortune that he allowed someone to tell him what to do during this time (or do you believe that this is not an accurate paraphrase of what he said)? I personally think she was ridiculing his Cog Dis theory.

I think the difference is relevant.

He was the one that brought his personal experience into the discussion as a support for his claims. That his reactions to that experience are then debated and criticized should be no surprise.

As to her remark, I think it is a logical conclusion based on all the information Mccue supplied. I think it's logical that anyone experiences some conflict when looking back at mistakes made because one listened to the wrong person (I have a long list of doctors I'd like to tell my younger self to ignore). And her comment definitely makes a point about the application of his theory.

Sensitive...no, but then Juliann has never run for the FAIR Miss Congeniality or Miss Hospitality and never claimed any intention to do so. And this forum was never meant to be for the delicate of feeling, which Mccue certainly seems to understand and take advantage of with his rather intense negative comments from time to time.

There are some that would claim that using the personal experiences of others, especially one's family, on a public message board and in circumstances where they can be identified offline, turning them into an object of discussion is cold and insensitive.

I hope that none of Bob's family members feel that way.

[juliann]

They [FAIR and the impishly-named "Recovery" board] are two identical boards on opposite ends of the mormon spectrum.

Froggie is far too generous to FAIR. The rich diversity of opinion that flourishes on the quaintly-named "Recovery" board would never be allowed here.

It would be easier to suck up to them than to change my long list of character flaws. They wouldn't care how insensitive I am if I pretended to agree with them. What they think means everything to me.

[Del March]

Most of you are in serious denial.

No we're not.

The point Bob tried to make is that his obedience to priesthood leadership led to suffering for his family.

Welcome to the club!

I don't know to what church you belong, but the one I have been a member of for fifty years stresses conformity. Your seeming ignorance or rejection of this makes me wonder how much time you actually spend in church.

Actually, our Church emphasizes much more than just conformity. It emphasizes perfection. But one lesson any LDS had better learn early in their membership is that we can never reach perfection. The leaders will ALWAYS put absolute perfection as our goal, while knowing full well that none of us will ever be able to attain it in this life. Those are the rules of the game that Christ set up!

It's rejecting those rules that is denial.

Del

[Del March]

I am talking about it from a mans point of view shich you nor Julianne have.

Actually, I do think I have a pretty good insight into the man's point of view. My husband shares a lot with me.

Julianne out right dimissed Bob for not asking to be released as a bishop or saying no.  Unless you have been there and not the pressure to say yes to such a call and to not give up on it you have no clue about that situation and cannot know from a man in th church point of view what it is like.  You can watch it but you do not experience it as a reality.

What I don't understand is why you think it is any different than what we women experience. The fact that you hold the Priesthood is totally irrelevant in how you and I are pressured. I know perfectly well "the pressure to say yes to such a call and to not give up on it".

For example I was asked to become counselor in the RS presidency when I was pregnant with my first baby, I was working full-time, I had untreated depression, and my husband was working night and was counselor in the Bishopric. This combination ended up in total disaster about a year later when anemia and hypothyroidism brought me down flat on my face. When that happened, I simply asked to be released, without telling them why.

So I suggest that you stop thinking that only the Priesthood feels that pressure. It's just as bad for us women. Holding the Priesthood makes no difference.

Del

[why me]

This is an interesting thread.

I think that Bob knows his own personal story. I can say that I do have sympathy for his story but not for what he has chosen to dedicate his now deconverted life for. He has an axe to grind that is for sure.

Perhaps Bob blames himself for his family problem at that time in his life but the church provides a needed scapegoat. I am sure that on the Recovery board, many are looking for scapegoats. Unfortunately, by looking for scapegoats, a person can forget to take personal ownership for the choices that they made. And many made bad choices in the church. It must be frustrating to read from the lds members on this thread, that they (the 'recovery' people) did not have to make those choices. And yet, that would be true...they did not have to make the choices they chose to make when they were members.

I have refused all callings since 1989 and no one has ever thought the worse of me for it. I feel no pressure at all from any member. The freedom of choice is respected in the lds church, if I take myself as an example.

[Marvelous]

What strikes observers as perverse is that God would send one to threaten him if he didn't marry underage girls and other men's wives. I think this is without precedence in the Bible or BOM.

You mean like Mary, mother of Jesus being estimated to be 14 years old? Of course the real issue is what the marriage norms were in JS's time. But that might create problems for you so I understand why you might want to avoid it. This is from the board rule folder...I'll put the part you are having trouble concentrating on in red to make it easier for you:

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

Social and legal attitudes

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century. 

I'm sorry but middle-age men, especially middle-age married men, and more especially middle-age married men coerced by an angel, marrying teenage girls wasn't the norm.

[Sput]

I'm sorry but middle-age men, especially middle-age married men, and more especially middle-age married men coerced by an angel, marrying teenage girls wasn't the norm.

Tell that to my grandma and grandpa. and they were married in the early 1900's as was her sister to another man of course..

[Teancum]

Julianne out right dimissed Bob for not asking to be released as a bishop or saying no. Unless you have been there and not the pressure to say yes to such a call and to not give up on it you have no clue about that situation and cannot know from a man in th church point of view what it is like. You can watch it but you do not experience it as a reality.

Teancum

Ok I will substitute for Juliann

[Teancum]

So I suggest that you stop thinking that only the Priesthood feels that pressure. It's just as bad for us women. Holding the Priesthood makes no difference.

Del

I suggest you try reading what I said before you rant more at me.

I certianly never said that women have no pressure in the church. They most certianly do. And it is a very different tye and set. But it is certianly pressure. I feel much sadness at times for women in the church especially those that may work and are often criticized by self righteous do goodie busy bodies.

So, Del take a breath.

And Del, you are proving my point in general. There are huge pressures on both men and women in the church to serve, to conform to a cultural norm, to be a certian thing or way, etc. And often it is very hard for people to speak up and to say no.

And guess what? The culture that creates this needs to be repaired.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Sensitive...no, but then Juliann has never run for the FAIR Miss Congeniality or Miss Hospitality and never claimed any intention to do so. And this forum was never meant to be for the delicate of feeling, which Mccue certainly seems to understand and take advantage of with his rather intense negative comments from time to time.

Julianne's behavior on this board much of the time would get many other posters banned. She needs to shape up.

Teancum

[Teancum]

ALWAYS put absolute perfection as our goal, while knowing full well that none of us will ever be able to attain it in this life. Those are the rules of the game that Christ set up!

It's rejecting those rules that is denial.

Del

Actually it is a distortion of the rules Christ set up.

Much of it man made rules to keep people in check.

Teancum

[Del March]

I suggest you try reading what I said before you rant more at me.

I did. You said that because I am not a man, I cannot understand the kind of pressure you guys in the Church are under. This is false, is all I'm saying.

There are huge pressures on both men and women in the church to serve, to conform to a cultural norm, to be a certian thing or way, etc.  And often it is very hard for people to speak up and to say no. 

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that when we say "yes", anybody but us is responsible for it. I say "yes", it's my fault, no matter how much pressure I was under. It's not like someone was standing behind me with a knife on my throat, after all.

And guess what?  The culture that creates this needs to be repaired.

I disagree. The Church is supposed to pressure us IMO, it's its job to always push us to do more good works.

---

Actually it is a distortion of the rules Christ set up.

Much of it man made rules to keep people in check

By all means, tell us what the rules Christ set up were like!

Did Christ admonish us to be perfect, or did He not?

Did the Apostles constantly remind people to do good works incessantly, or did they not?

Did the people have to give everything they had to the Church or did they not?

So tell me, please, what were the rules that Christ set up.

Del

[Tarski]

What strikes observers as perverse is that God would send one to threaten him if he didn't marry underage girls and other men's wives. I think this is without precedence in the Bible or BOM.

You mean like Mary, mother of Jesus being estimated to be 14 years old? Of course the real issue is what the marriage norms were in JS's time. But that might create problems for you so I understand why you might want to avoid it. This is from the board rule folder...I'll put the part you are having trouble concentrating on in red to make it easier for you:

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

Social and legal attitudes

Social and legal attitudes towards the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times; while ages from ten through to thirteen were typically acceptable in the mid 19th century, fifteen through eighteen had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century.

[Bob Crockett]

It is evident from McCue that he doesn't speak or read French or even French idioms.  "WALA, A MIRACLE."  I thought he was Canadian, eh?

How about my list:

No angel came to David to tell him where the temple site was to be constructed at the treshingfloor.

No angel instructed the Israelites to enter the Red Sea.

No angel appeared to Ruth to tell her that she was a Moabite and thus barred from the congregation of the Lord for ten generations (gee, how did David get in) by Dueteronomy 23.

No angel strengthened Jesus on the cross.

No angel told the disciples to quit doubting.

No angel appeared to Joshua to tell him he was being deceived by the people of Gibeon.

No angel appeared to David to tell him to keep his eyes off of Bathsheba.

No angel appeared to Peter to tell him that he was messing up by not eating with the Gentiles. 

Yet, when it suited everybody, "WALA," an angel appeared to John the Revelator to give him the Apocalypse, which nobody can understand but everybody argues about.

Now, Bob McCue is basically an atheist, so this list will have no meaning to him.  Gee -- an angel under any circumstance, convenient or not, will make no sense?

rcrocket

John's angel must have been dyslexic since his apocalypse is barely intelligible. Funny how angels seem to be scarce in modern times. Joseph seemed to be chummy with them, but how many prophets have claimed angelic visits since?

What strikes observers as perverse is that God would send one to threaten him if he didn't marry underage girls and other men's wives. I think this is without precedence in the Bible or BOM.

You have a low tolerance for perversity.

Being killed for not laying all the proceeds of the sale of your property before the apostles seems more perverse to me.

Claiming that your leader has been raised from the dead when his body disappears seems more perverse to me.

Being commanded to engage in genocide and then, upon failing, seeing your people decimated by the Lord seems more perverse to me.

Having the word of the Lord saying that your wives were taken from a corrupt leader and given to you seems about the same.

No?

rcrocket

[juliann]

Julianne's behavior on this board much of the time would get many other posters banned. She needs to shape up.

For cryin' out loud...now you are moving from dismissing all women to dismissing me. I guess that is progress of some sort. Being despised by antis does not get you banned or there wouldn't be many LDS here.

[juliann]

That might take care of the 14 year old issue but not the other men's wives or the secrecy.

This is where it gets real interesting for me. You are obvious titilated to no end when a man gets to have extra women...but you guys get really huffy if a woman has extra men. And heaven forbid any of it was kept secret from you! What fun would that be? That would be like BY doing it!

[juliann]

Actually it is a distortion of the rules Christ set up.

Much of it man made rules to keep people in check.

"Be ye therefore perfect" is a distortion of Christ's rules. Interesting. How are you doing surviving civil laws? They are made to keep people in check, too. Will you be withdrawing to a desert island soon?

[juliann]

I certianly never said that women have no pressure in the church. They most certianly do. And it is a very different tye and set. But it is certianly pressure.

This is what you said:

As you are a woman and do not hold the priesthood you have no idea what kind of pressure cooker it is to be the leader priesthood holder and how it really influences ones life, choices, career moves, etc.

You said we had no idea. Now you are trying to crawl out of that by saying our pressure is "different". Does the body respond differently to stress? Does it know the difference between the stress of a RS society president and the stress of a priesthood holder? Or does it just kind of react in a biological way. Now you either said something in the heat of posting that you really don't believe and you are going to defend it to the death rather than admit the words were offensive and demeaning....or you actually do believe this. I suspect it is the former. Some hills are not worth dying on, you know. Even arrogant unworthy me has had to eat my words on multiple occasions.

I feel much sadness at times for women in the church especially those that may work and are often criticized by self righteous do goodie busy bodies.

And here is the difference between those you are disrespecting here...we would feel sorry for the busy bodies. Do we act like unkind words bother us much when we have set our direction? We are members of the church, you know. But you continue to dismiss us when it is convenient to make your point that the church is flawed. Of course it is flawed. The world is flawed. I am flawed. You are flawed. It is the whining and complaining that is annoying not the reality. Fix it. Talk back to the busy bodies. Resign your callings. I still don't have a calling two years after my father died. A wonderful thing happens when you stand up and take responsibility and control. The whiny anger stops!

[Teancum]

Julianne's behavior on this board much of the time would get many other posters banned.  She needs to shape up.

For cryin' out loud...now you are moving from dismissing all women to dismissing me. I guess that is progress of some sort. Being despised by antis does not get you banned or there wouldn't be many LDS here.

I am not an anti.

Why do you labal anyone who challenges the status quo as such.

I am as active an LDS as you.

I may see things differently and not like some things, even many thjings currently.

I never dismissed women. Another straw man. That is one thing you set up well.

Are you this harsh in real life?

And yes I have seem others banned for behavior less nasty then yours.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Be ye perfevt was never meant to be perfect ono our own.

In another thread Del even said as much.

Being perfect means to be in a saving covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

Being perfect does not mean conforming to a long list of rules.

Justification brings prefection.

Sanctification takes a long, long time and everyone is on a different path in th different place.

Can you allow room for people to be in a different spot?

And perfection does not come through blindly following men.

Teancum

[Eldy]

Since I can tell that my brief, but immensely enjoyable, time here is drawing to a close, I thought I would leave on a positive note.

YAY!!!! Prayers do get answered!

[Teancum]

I certianly never said that women have no pressure in the church.  They most certianly do.  And it is a very different tye and set.  But it is certianly pressure.

This is what you said:

As you are a woman and do not hold the priesthood you have no idea what kind of pressure cooker it is to be the leader priesthood holder and how it really influences ones life, choices, career moves, etc.

You said we had no idea. Now you are trying to crawl out of that by saying our pressure is "different". Does the body respond differently to stress? Does it know the difference between the stress of a RS society president and the stress of a priesthood holder? Or does it just kind of react in a biological way. Now you either said something in the heat of posting that you really don't believe and you are going to defend it to the death rather than admit the words were offensive and demeaning....or you actually do believe this. I suspect it is the former. Some hills are not worth dying on, you know. Even arrogant unworthy me has had to eat my words on multiple occasions.

I feel much sadness at times for women in the church especially those that may work and are often criticized by self righteous do goodie busy bodies.

And here is the difference between those you are disrespecting here...we would feel sorry for the busy bodies. Do we act like unkind words bother us much when we have set our direction? We are members of the church, you know. But you continue to dismiss us when it is convenient to make your point that the church is flawed. Of course it is flawed. The world is flawed. I am flawed. You are flawed. It is the whining and complaining that is annoying not the reality. Fix it. Talk back to the busy bodies. Resign your callings. I still don't have a calling two years after my father died. A wonderful thing happens when you stand up and take responsibility and control. The whiny anger stops!

Ok,

Women and men are under termendous pressure in the church. happy? I have eaten my words. Maybe women are under even more pressure to be a a certian way.

And guess what.

I certainly do have the ability to say no quite well. Perhaps it has taken me a while to get a back bone. But I have it now.

And thus I feel quite confortably telling you that if you think it easy in LDS culture, due to the way the leaders teach and the culture created, for people to do what you say you are blind as a bat.

Teacncum