Popular Anti-Mormon Misconceptions

[thesometimesaint]

Mister Scratch:

I was endowed in 1972. I know both ceremonies very well. There is NOTHING in either that teaches that women are dependent on their husbands for entry into the Celestial Kingdom

[suem]

Mister Scratch:

I was endowed in 1972. I know both ceremonies very well. There is NOTHING in either that teaches that women are dependent on their husbands for entry into the Celestial Kingdom

NOTHING?

I find it interesting that only active men are making these statements so far. Where are the women?

Any women besides myself or possibly Who Knows (not sure if you are female) who might see this same perspective?

[Mister Scratch]

Mister Scratch:

I was endowed in 1972. I know both ceremonies very well. There is NOTHING in either that teaches that women are dependent on their husbands for entry into the Celestial Kingdom

I never said there was anything to that effect either. I said that some outsiders may have construed things that way. Why is it so hard for some to understand why an outside observer might interpret "total obedience to her husband" as also relating to entry to the CK?

[Jaybear]

In the Orwellian universe of anti-Mormon propaganda, perhaps. But not in reality.

I'm using "essentially" here as a synonym for "virtually," or "for all intents and purposes."

All right, but I still don't see how your characterization fits.

If there is an editorial staff at FARMS, that is compensated for their efforts in reviewing and publishing apologetic articles, how is it a blatent lie/falsehood/myth to characterize them as paid apologists. They are apologists, and they are paid.

[Programmer]

..

"There are unsually high rates of anti-depressant drug use and suicide in Mormonism."

...

This is my favorite Nugget.

I saw some guy here on this board last year, almost blow a gasket in his determination to dig something up that PROVED that Mormons had higher than normal rates of prescription drug abuse. Due to his almost blowing a gasket, I could tell that he/she/it had an agenda. Later he/she/it simply disapeared once interest in the topic diminished.

In all my 32 years in Utah I never saw anything abnormal in any of my acquaintences, as it related to drug use... (That's a LOT of people now). There so you can use me as 1 person in any *scientific sample you want.

*Please consult someone who at least has a masters in something mathematical before you bandy the word scientific in my face.

**edited for grammatical holes

[sibling]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

No, it would not.

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation.  From that perspective this is not so bull-caca at all.

Yes, it is. Your failure to distinguish the difference between exaltation being available only to sealed couples and women being granted entrance into heaven (whatever that means) by the permission of their husbands might at least partially explain why you no longer follow that "former existence".

[Scott Lloyd]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

"Mormonism" teaches no such thing. It never has and never will. "Mormonism" teaches that Jesus Christ will judge all of us.

You know, I really dug for this one- Journal of Discourses, Sunstone, Dialogue, FARMS, Mcconkie, all the databases I have. Couldn't find anything. Hard to be an official teaching of the church if it's not found in ANY of our official or unofficial records, histories, etc.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990. News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did. Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation. From that perspective this is not so bull-caca at all.

Pre-1990 endowed.

If you're saying here that the notion that a woman cannot enter the celestial kingdom without her husband's permission can be reasonably derived from the temple ceremony (pre-1990 or not), then either your understanding was critically deficient or you are being disingenuous.

Church doctrine on this point pre-supposes that both husband and wife are worthy of exaltation. (By the way, note the spelling of exaltation; it contains no h.

[Who Knows]

I will concede that "one red cent" was a very slight exaggeration and therefore, given your tendency to ubercritical nit-picking, a poor choice of words.

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie. To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

Now please either produce an actual paid apologist or move along.

I did, and even conceded that the amount is minimal. Do I still have to move along?

I don't expect you to actually concede that my assertion was substantially true; your refusal to address it at all will be concession enough.

I actually wrote that the amount of payment was minimal - so in that regards, yes, you're correct - and I conceded that from the beginning. But getting paid ZERO, is a lie.

[disclaimer]My thoughts above are based solely on the words of Daniel Peterson, so if he's wrong, them I'm wrong.[/disclaimer]

[Scott Lloyd]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

I don't know whether you're just trying to be cute here or whether this is an actual challenge.

But a temple ordinance worker would be expected to have the entire ceremony memorized word for word.

Moreover, as a patron, after I had been to the temple a couple dozen or so times, I could pretty much repeat it word for word in my mind.

[Markk]

Hi

But yes, just about every child in america knew that Christ was born in Bethlehem.

I'm not sure that JS's ideology can compare, every American I suppose , including JS, thought that the Garden Of Eden was in the middle east, but JS changed that and other main stream thoughts and teachings and put the garden in Missouri. There are way to many weakness in Mormonism to worry about the Bethlehem, Jerusalem thing, and your argument falls with his teachings as a holw, you can pick and choose as you will. What did this sight say that was true, lets debate that too?

Mark

john 1:12

[Jaybear]

Mister Scratch:

I was endowed in 1972. I know both ceremonies very well. There is NOTHING in either that teaches that women are dependent on their husbands for entry into the Celestial Kingdom

I never said there was anything to that effect either. I said that some outsiders may have construed things that way. Why is it so hard for some to understand why an outside observer might interpret "total obedience to her husband" as also relating to entry to the CK?

Actually, if you read the website, what Paharon refers to as an official statement, is really only just a side comment found in a letter written by a women who was BIC and left the church in her adulthood.

She doesnt explain who how she came to believe that this was an LDS doctrine.

[The_Monk]

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie. To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No, we're certainly not in agreement.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the Orwellian universe of anti-Mormon propaganda, perhaps. But not in reality.

I'm using "essentially" here as a synonym for "virtually," or "for all intents and purposes."

All right, but I still don't see how your characterization fits.

If there is an editorial staff at FARMS, that is compensated for their efforts in reviewing and publishing apologetic articles, how is it a blatent lie/falsehood/myth to characterize them as paid apologists. They are apologists, and they are paid.

Because the implication pretty much intended by antagoniststs in the phrase "paid apologists" is that the apologists earn all or a substantial portion of their livelihood from apologetics, when, in reality, it never amounts to anything more than an occasional courtesy honorarium, if that.

[Programmer]

Makes me laugh every time i read that one.

On a recent business trip in Wyoming, Nebraska and Iowa, I had a few occasions to tell people I was from Salt Lake City. Then, realizing that I was talking to Church members who were likely familiar with Utah to one degree or another, I amended myself and said, "Actually, I'm from Salt Lake in the same sense that the Book of Mormon says Christ would be born 'at Jerusalem.' I'm really from Sandy."

Another example: I once visited Naperville, Ill. There, I learned that the city of Naperville is part of a broad region surrounding Chicago and known to locals as "Chicagoland." Kind of like Bethlehem being in "the land of" Jerusalem.

[suem]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

No, it would not.

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation.

[Jerubaal]

In the Orwellian universe of anti-Mormon propaganda, perhaps. But not in reality.

I'm using "essentially" here as a synonym for "virtually," or "for all intents and purposes."

All right, but I still don't see how your characterization fits.

If there is an editorial staff at FARMS, that is compensated for their efforts in reviewing and publishing apologetic articles, how is it a blatent lie/falsehood/myth to characterize them as paid apologists. They are apologists, and they are paid.

Because the implication pretty much intended by antagoniststs in the phrase "paid apologists" is that the apologists earn all or a substantial portion of their livelihood from apologetics, when, in reality, it never amounts to anything more than an occasional courtesy honorarium, if that.

They editorial staff does not get paid to write apologetic material. Read the Tvedtnes article I linked. If the editorial staff wants to write an apologetic article, they must do it on their own time and they are not compensated for it.

[Who Knows]

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie. To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No, we're certainly not in agreement.

Can you elobarate on this? What do you disagree with? Do you disagree with what DP wrote?

[Programmer]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

Oh plueeeeesssseeee!!

More ignorance from you?

Care to retract your statement before we make you very embarrassed?

[Jerubaal]

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie. To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No, we're certainly not in agreement.

Can you elobarate on this? What do you disagree with? Do you disagree with what DP wrote?

You have yet to quote "What DP wrote"

[Who Knows]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

I don't know whether you're just trying to be cute here or whether this is an actual challenge.

But a temple ordinance worker would be expected to have the entire ceremony memorized word for word.

Moreover, as a patron, after I had been to the temple a couple dozen or so times, I could pretty much repeat it word for word in my mind.

I think there's a misunderstanding here - between memorizing the full/complete text of the entire ceremony, and just the areas that are expected from the patrons.

I don't think you could memorize the entire ceremony after a couple dozen times. Can you?

[The_Monk]

Ok, we're all in agreement that apologists do get paid? It is minimal, but to say apologists don't get paid - is a lie. To say apologists do get paid is the truth.

No, we're certainly not in agreement.

Can you elobarate on this? What do you disagree with? Do you disagree with what DP wrote?

Apologists, as a whole, do not get paid. Who would pay them?

FARMS writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FARMS.)

FAIR writers, as a whole, do not get paid. (I have written for FAIR as well.)

If Daniel Peterson once received some small amount for a FARMS paper (which he didn't actually say), you can't extrapolate out to "To say apologists do get paid is the truth."

[suem]

"Mormonism teaches that the husband decides if the wife can go to heaven." This brazen and shameless falsehood is found in an "official" publication of "Concerned Christians" here.

"Mormonism" teaches no such thing. It never has and never will. "Mormonism" teaches that Jesus Christ will judge all of us.

You know, I really dug for this one- Journal of Discourses, Sunstone, Dialogue, FARMS, Mcconkie, all the databases I have. Couldn't find anything. Hard to be an official teaching of the church if it's not found in ANY of our official or unofficial records, histories, etc.

This claim derives, I believe, from material which cannot be discussed on this message board---i.e., stuff from the temple pre-1990. News stories (such as in the NY Times detailing the changes can give you sense of why "Concerned Christians" might have thought the way they did. Whether or not material from the temple ceremony is considered "official" would have to be a topic for another thread.

Pure and unadulterated bull caca. Many of us here who received our temple ordinances before 1990 can testify to the bull-caca-ness of this statement. There is nothing in the pre-1990 endowment to suggest that women only "get to heaven" if their husbands hold the door.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "heaven".

In my former existence of being an active LDS woman, my idea of true heaven was the celestial kingdom, and specifically exhaltation. From that perspective this is not so bull-caca at all.

Pre-1990 endowed.

If you're saying here that the notion that a woman cannot enter the celestial kingdom without her husband's permission can be reasonably derived from the temple ceremony (pre-1990 or not), then either your understanding was critically deficient or you are being disingenuous.

Church doctrine on this point pre-supposes that both husband and wife are worthy of exaltation. (By the way, note the spelling of exaltation; it contains no h.

Why do I come here and find myself arguing with people who choose to stick their head in the sand?

I don't care how you spell exhaltation... go pick on those folks who spell probably *prolly* what the "H" is up with that?

Basically what I have gathered from this website over the past year is that there really is nothing "official" about the LDS church. That way they can get away with just about anything and no one can pin-point the origin.

I am done with this lovely site. Adieu.

[Mister Scratch]

I have the entire ceremony memorised word-for-word.

What an unbelievably bold and arrogant boast. Care to prove it?

Regards,

Mister Scratch

Oh plueeeeesssseeee!!

More ignorance from you?

Care to retract your statement before we make you very embarrassed?

Give me a break. Obviously, as we all know, he can't recite it. Hence my characterization of his comment as "arrogant." It's real nice to brag about your terrific memory when you're in an evironment that precludes your having to prove it.

Perhaps he wants to specify which version it is he's got memorized?

[The_Monk]

We'll see you back, methinks, SueM

[Jaybear]

They editorial staff does not get paid to write apologetic material. Read the Tvedtnes article I linked. If the editorial staff wants to write an apologetic article, they must do it on their own time and they are not compensated for it.

Not true. Peterson said he is paid to write apologetic material, in addition to payments for his editorial tasks.