A very Strang finding

[AtlanticMike]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

ere's my guess: It sounds like you have encountered information online, likely "big lists" of controversies culled by critics of the Church and presented in the most lurid, maximized-shock-value kind of way.  You are now starting to "ask questions" of your church acquaintances based on these compilations, and find that many (most?) are not willing or able to address them to your satisfaction.  And you are now taking that inability/unwillingness to provide answers to your questions as evidence of there not being any answers to your questions.  Am I in the ballpark?

I addressed this sort of thing back in December 2019: 

Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith 

I wonder if you would be willing to read it (the first post) and then see if it addresses some of your concerns.

Thank you for the link, I haven't read it yet but I will today. I understand what your saying here, but I'm not talking about finding answers from people I know, I can do that online. What I'm talking about is when confronted with talking about difficult history of the church, it's almost as if family and friends turn off a certain part of their brain so they dont have to deal with what im saying. I could tell right away I need to dial it back because it was making them very uncomfortable, and I dont want to do that. I understand they cant provide answers nor should they have to. It's just upsetting to see someone shut down while in front of you just because of something you brought up. But I guess the old saying of never discuss politics or religion with family rings true.

[Chum]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I reserve the right to speculate in advance of clarifications

This is an excellent definition of gossip. I'm going to use it.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

No I think they're very compatible. I just think if you become to Mormonie, you start to see the world differently, almost as if everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than you are. But I also realize that's not just mormons, that can be found in all religions and also atheist, atheist are some of the most judgmental people around. Am I being judgemental ?😁

To the bold: And besides that it's cultish, LDS are viewed as being a cult because we tend to say it's an us vs. them. So members tend to look at outsiders as sinners. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you for the link, I haven't read it yet but I will today. I understand what your saying here, but I'm not talking about finding answers from people I know, I can do that online. What I'm talking about is when confronted with talking about difficult history of the church, it's almost as if family and friends turn off a certain part of their brain so they dont have to deal with what im saying. I could tell right away I need to dial it back because it was making them very uncomfortable, and I dont want to do that. I understand they cant provide answers nor should they have to. It's just upsetting to see someone shut down while in front of you just because of something you brought up. But I guess the old saying of never discuss politics or religion with family rings true.

It's happened with me and my husband when mentioning Joseph Smith's polygamy. The first time I mentioned it, when I first found out, and said that I didn't know he lived it to my visiting teachers over 10 years ago, one of them said, "I don't want to know, I don't want anything affecting my testimony". That's when I learned to shut up! And then a year or so ago we went with my in laws to Moab, just the couples and my husband brought up Joseph's polygamy and my sister-in-law got upset that we were talking about it, and said, "I'm outta here!" and went to her room. So I know exactly what you're talking about. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Tacenda

[smac97]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you for the link, I haven't read it yet but I will today. I understand what your saying here, but I'm not talking about finding answers from people I know, I can do that online. What I'm talking about is when confronted with talking about difficult history of the church, it's almost as if family and friends turn off a certain part of their brain so they dont have to deal with what im saying.

I don't understand.  You want them to "deal with what {you're} saying" . . . how, exactly?  You are not bringing these topics up with the intention of "finding answers" to them from these people, so why are you "confront{ing}" them with these topics?  What is your objective?

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I could tell right away I need to dial it back because it was making them very uncomfortable, and I dont want to do that. I understand they cant provide answers nor should they have to. It's just upsetting to see someone shut down while in front of you just because of something you brought up. But I guess the old saying of never discuss politics or religion with family rings true.

There are some topics about which casual or off-the-cuff or involuntary discussion is not appropriate.  I have a friend who talks about her political preferences online.  All.  The.  Time.  It has become exhausting and tiresome to talk with her online, so I have stopped.  Not because I am unable to do so, or even unwilling.  But she's nearly obsessive about politics, and she also is not particularly keen on having people disagree with what she is saying.  As I value her friendship more than any political discussion I could have with her, I sacrifice the latter to preserve the former.

In 1987 then-Elder Oaks authored an excellent Ensign article about dealing with controversies and disagreements and things in the Church.  I encourage you to give it a good read.  Here's a link.

I also suggest you give some thought as to why you are bringing up controversial topics with families and friends.  If it's not to seek answers to such things, then what is the point?  Surely you aren't just looking to stir the pot or provoke dissension.  So what's the objective?  And if you don't really have one, then perhaps your friends/family are looking at your efforts as pot-stirring?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

First off, I'll admit, I need to do a better job realizing when I write something weird like 80%/20%, people online reading this take it quite literally,  I write like I talk, as if you guys were here in front of me. So let me try to explain. First off, I dont see the realism % getting higher neccesarily meaning atheism. I see it more of understanding life without a strict adherents to mormon policies.

That's a very peculiar take on a percentage.

What "policies" are you talking about anyway?  Full immersion baptism?  Temple recommend requirements?  Is it "policy" to grumble at visitors to chapels who don't dress in the expected manner?  Or is it boorish behavior on certain members' parts?

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

For instance, the 100% mormon I view as the person who kicks out a nonmember at a dance because her skirt is 2 inches to short. Also, I know members who view the people making a cup of coffee at a convenience store as sinners. So much so, it upsets them to go inside.

This is creepy.

What you're describing isn't some feature of "mormon" life, but prototypical behavior sometimes associated with a certain meme, which I best not name. The meme describes people having characteristics such as entitlement, selfishness, and a desire to complain, and that such people demand that the world exist according to their standards with little regard for others, and they are willing to risk or demean others to achieve their ends.

If you think such characteristics are restricted to some-percentage "mormons" then you better think again. These kinds of people are found literally everywhere in every social group.

The members you know who behave the way you describe are not behaving like "100% mormons", they are behaving like "100% jerks and control freaks".  Maybe they should move out of whatever inbred clique they inhabit and live amongst the Gentiles for a few years until they can chill out. 

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Also, me being what I call a 80/20% mormon, allows me to realize even though the mormon in me had alot fun writing this post, the 20% realist part of me allows me to see I'm a total hypocrite for writing a post about people judging, all the while I'm doing the exact same thing I'm accusing them of while writing this🤣🤣.  

Maybe. But making a valid judgement after observing behaviors is not necessarily "judging" in the sense you're worrying about. If I observe someone robbing a bank, I'm sure I'm not being judgmental if I call them a criminal.

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

  All I'm saying is, sometimes the way we  as mormons view sin is a detriment to our relationships with family and friends. I cant get pass the fact that jesus, to set an example, hung around with sinners and people who never bathed like john the Baptist. But today, if an investigator walks in with the missionaries with her boobs hanging out a little bit because she's never been to church with strict dress codes, members usually will freak out. I dont like that!      

Again, this isn't being some-percentage "mormon".  Would Muslim missionaries not warn investigators that a certain standard of decorum would be expected if they show up to mosque services? I bet that they would, so what percentage "mohammedan" would this be?  How about someone investigating Judaism attending a synagogue? Wouldn't they have been informed that for men it might be customary to wear a yarmulke as a sign of respect? 

How far are you expecting people to go in tolerating disregard of certain terms in the general social contract? Just because the people of Jesus's day didn't have the opportunity to bathe as frequently as we do does not mean that investigators can't understand that if they go to church (or to a restaurant for that matter) maybe they should clean up a bit? The female missionaries teaching a single female investigator probably ought to say something to her that she should try to wear something a little less revealing -- presumably they've noticed how she tends to dress and can advise her so that she doesn't feel out of place due to dress?  

Of course, there will be some among any group who go the extra mile in showing disdain to someone who, however inadvertently, shows disrespect to customs they may know nothing about. But this should not be laid at the feet of "mormon culture", because it's found literally everywhere.  Here in the UK supporters of opposing football clubs would generally want to avoid sitting mixing in with their opponents' fans because there could be trouble.  This has nothing to do with religion.  It's human not "mormon".

[smac97]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you suggesting that Mormonism and realism are in some way incompatible, such that choosing some of one comes and the expense of choosing some of the other?

No I think they're very compatible. I just think if you become to Mormonie,

"Mormonie" = "Mormonism?"  The Church?

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

you start to see the world differently, almost as if everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than you are.

That's very much not what the Church is teaching us.  Some Latter-day Saints are judgmental, yes.  It's a struggle in and out of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 2/5/2021 at 1:04 PM, bluebell said:

Yes, but so what?  (Sincere question) 

Email phishing scams work because they are 'vaguely familiar' to a legitimate inquiry.  Affinity fraud works because the person uses language and processes that the victims already feel comfortable with and/or is likely willing to trust.  People who catfish others by pretending to love them use things that are 'vaguely familiar' to actual love.

None of that means that all company emails are scams, that all investment opportunities by people you know are fraudulent, or that every online relationship is a catfish.  It would be really nice and super easy if one scam or liar meant that you could dismiss everything similar as a scam or a lie, but, as we all know, you can't.  

Strang was dealing with a group of people who had previously accepted an angel removing ancient scripture written on plates.  It would be odd if he didn't use the same methodology.  That's why I assumed the story with his plates was similar to the one with JS.

 

Yet you were cynical about James Strang but accept JS's story all out. Both are equally dubious.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

This is an excellent definition of gossip. I'm going to use it.

 Feel free!  Except I was kind of trolling, not gossiping.  Trying to tease him out of his cave, as it were.

Yes, I know he wasn't in a cave. Maybe "baiting" was a better term than "trolling". I knew he was going to explain himself no matter how I reacted or questioned.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

No I think they're very compatible. I just think if you become to Mormonie, you start to see the world differently, almost as if everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than you are. But I also realize that's not just mormons, that can be found in all religions and also atheist, atheist are some of the most judgmental people around. Am I being judgemental ?

To the bold: And besides that it's cultish, LDS are viewed as being a cult because we tend to say it's an us vs. them. So members tend to look at outsiders as sinners. 

Funny how both points upon which the Church is being criticized (that 1) Latter-day Saints purportedly "{consider} everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than {they} are" and 2) that we purportedly "tend to say it's an us vs. them") are quite out-of-step with the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

It's happened with me and my husband when mentioning Joseph Smith's polygamy. The first time I mentioned it, when I first found out, and said that I didn't know he lived it to my visiting teachers over 10 years ago, one of them said, "I don't want to know, I don't want anything affecting my testimony". That's when I learned to shut up! And then a year or so ago we went with my in laws to Moab, just the couples and my husband brought up Joseph's polygamy and my sister-in-law got upset that we were talking about it, and said, "I'm outta here!" and went to her room. So I know exactly what you're talking about. 

Not everyone wants to see something they consider precious dragged through the mud. Why should they be forced to? And why should someone feel offended because someone else doesn't want to see it so dragged? There are plenty of people willing to engage in such a conversation; the rest shouldn't be pressured to do so.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's very much not what the Church is teaching us.  Some Latter-day Saints are judgmental, yes.  It's a struggle in and out of the Church.

It's a struggle quite apart from any church.

[Stargazer]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet you were cynical about James Strang but accept JS's story all out. Both are equally dubious.

The resurrection of Christ is also equally dubious. Yet I have a witness that he was, in fact, dead, then resurrected.  Same applies to me with respect to Joseph Smith. I can't prove either of these things, except to myself. Strang's claims fail for me because of my witness of Smith and the Church of which I have been a member since 1966. Many convincing spiritual experiences lead me to reject Strang wholeheartedly, without further investigation.

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet you were cynical about James Strang but accept JS's story all out. Both are equally dubious.

I'm cynical about them because of the evidence.  Did you read any of the links provided? 

James Strang's and JS's claims are not both equally dubious.  It appears that many of the Strang's witnesses to the plates later recanted their testimony for example.  Some later claimed to have helped him make the plates even.  

Is that equal to the witness testimonies to the plates JS had?  I don't believe so.  Despite some falling out with the prophet and leaving the church for good/for a time, none of the witnesses ever recanted their testimonies.  

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yet you were cynical about James Strang but accept JS's story all out. Both are equally dubious.

I don't think that's the case at all.  I think there are substantial differences between them and their "work product."

Thanks,

-Smac

[AtlanticMike]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

there are some topics about which casual or off-the-cuff or involuntary discussion is not appropriate.  

I agree. That's why I said I dialed it back. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  You want them to "deal with what {you're} saying" . . . how, exactly?  You are not bringing these topics up with the intention of "finding answers" to them from these people, so why are you "confront{ing}" them with these topics?  What is your objective?

Well. You have to bring up a topic so you can see if they're willing to talk about it. That's my objective, to see if they're willing to talk.

   Now you're confusing me. You asked me "so why are you confront(ing) them with these topics?" My question to you is why not? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I also suggest you give some thought as to why you are bringing up controversial topics with families and friends.  If it's not to seek answers to such things, then what is the point?  Surely you aren't just looking to stir the pot or provoke dissension.  So what's the objective?  And if you don't really have one, then perhaps your friends/family are looking at your efforts as pot-stirring?

I read this paragraph a couple of times to make sure I understood it correctly. Ist, the topics I brought up to family are mormon history, by your own admission in this paragraph you see mormon history as controversial? Again you have to ask questions to see if people are willing to talk, that's the point. I never said I was trying to stir the pot, actually i said the opposite, i said i had to pull back.

    Lastly, i think you might want to read your statement again and ask yourself why you personally believe talking about the mormon church and its history is controversial. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Mormonie" = "Mormonism?"  The Church

Yes, you can become to mormonie. You can let Mormonism consume you to the point where you don't see the rest of your life objectively anymore. Extreme example in my opinion would be the Flds. Apparently even while in jail, 1000s of Flds mormons follow Warren Jeff's allowing him to dictate their lives from jail. Even in our church people can get so caught up in church they allow themselves to see the rest of the world as the devil's playground and all nonmembers as "sinners ". Also, it's not just Mormonism, its other religions  and other institutions people will get totally fixated on. Life is about balance. To much of one thing usually doesn't work out that good in the long run.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Not everyone wants to see something they consider precious dragged through the mud. Why should they be forced to? And why should someone feel offended because someone else doesn't want to see it so dragged? There are plenty of people willing to engage in such a conversation; the rest shouldn't be pressured to do so.

 

 

I wasn't offended and I didn't like that my husband said something about it. I just validated what Atlantic Mike said about members not being okay with anything that isn't very known to them or makes them feel icky. And my husband didn't say it like you portrayed in your comment to me. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Tacenda

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yet you were cynical about James Strang but accept JS's story all out. Both are equally dubious.

I don't think that's the case at all.  I think there are substantial differences between them and their "work product."

It all comes down to this (in my opinion):  "By their fruits ye shall know them".  And I would say that applies to the work as a whole, and not just on an individual basis.  There are lots of counterfeits, and we can scrutinize the similarities in specific cases, but where are the fruits?  

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The members you know who behave the way you describe are not behaving like "100% mormons", they are behaving like "100% jerks and control freaks".  Maybe they should move out of whatever inbred clique they inhabit and live amongst the Gentiles for a few years until they can chill out. 

Exactly, I agree. 

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This is creepy.

What you're describing isn't some feature of "mormon" life, but prototypical behavior sometimes associated with a certain meme, which I best not name. The meme describes people having characteristics such as entitlement, selfishness, and a desire to complain, and that such people demand that the world exist according to their standards with little regard for others, and they are willing to risk or demean others to achieve their ends.

I dont know what meme your talking about so can you send it to me privately if you dont want to share it? Years ago I would volunteer as a chaperone at youth dances. I would stand at the cultural hall door and have to make sure the dress code was followed.  Well, I would just let people in, and the second dance I let somebody in who wasn't dressed "appropriately " the bishop pulled me  aside and asked why I was letting girls in who obviously weren't following the dress code. I actually tried to get away from him, I even told him to get someone else to stand at the door, but he was persistent, had to know why I wasn't following his instructions. Finally I told him he was a pompous A hole and was doing more harm than good. That's why I was always given a calling in scouts after that incident🤣🤣

     My wife has a friend who will not go into a convenience store because of the coffee pots. She was traumatized as a kid by her parents and cant deal with looking at anything to do with coffee or alcohol. Even beer commercials set her off. To her, coffee and alcohol are as close to the devil you can get without actually touching him. Have you never known someone who doesn't think about coffee or alcohol in this way? 

   

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 Feel free!  Except I was kind of trolling, not gossiping.  Trying to tease him out of his cave, as it were.

Yes, I know he wasn't in a cave. Maybe "baiting" was a better term than "trolling". I knew he was going to explain himself no matter how I reacted or questioned.

I like the word "baiting" better since I'm a die hard fisherman😁😁

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny how both points upon which the Church is being criticized (that 1) Latter-day Saints purportedly "{consider} everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than {they} are" and 2) that we purportedly "tend to say it's an us vs. them") are quite out-of-step with the teachings of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm confused, if I'm not mistaken we break sin down into different categories, don't we? First you have everyone who's not mormon, we send out approximately 60 to 70 thousand missionaries everyday to try to convince these people to join our church so they have an opportunity to repent and deal with their sin. If they join, they still cant enter the temple, they wait approximately a year when their sin is evaluated again, if they pass, they get to go into the temple with all the "good" sinners. 

   So yes, we do think they're worse sinners because they dont have the ability to repent, we believe other denominations cant take care of sin, we have a monopoly on that dont we? Can a Baptist preacher judge and help someone take care of their sin?

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's happened with me and my husband when mentioning Joseph Smith's polygamy. The first time I mentioned it, when I first found out, and said that I didn't know he lived it to my visiting teachers over 10 years ago, one of them said, "I don't want to know, I don't want anything affecting my testimony". That's when I learned to shut up! And then a year or so ago we went with my in laws to Moab, just the couples and my husband brought up Joseph's polygamy and my sister-in-law got upset that we were talking about it, and said, "I'm outta here!" and went to her room. So I know exactly what you're talking about. 

That kind of behavior is the fastest way to put cracks in a testimony.  A refusal to address things that trouble us puts far more stress on our "shelves" than faithful investigation.  The refusal to innoculate is dangerous. 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not everyone wants to see something they consider precious dragged through the mud. Why should they be forced to? And why should someone feel offended because someone else doesn't want to see it so dragged? There are plenty of people willing to engage in such a conversation; the rest shouldn't be pressured to do so.

Discussing Joseph's practice of polygamy hardly dragging something precious through the mud.  D&C 132 and the historical record are worthy of investigation.  I agree that nobody should be forced into such a discussion but the term dragging it through the mud is inaccurate.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you for the link, I haven't read it yet but I will today. I understand what your saying here, but I'm not talking about finding answers from people I know, I can do that online. What I'm talking about is when confronted with talking about difficult history of the church, it's almost as if family and friends turn off a certain part of their brain so they dont have to deal with what im saying. I could tell right away I need to dial it back because it was making them very uncomfortable, and I dont want to do that. I understand they cant provide answers nor should they have to. It's just upsetting to see someone shut down while in front of you just because of something you brought up. But I guess the old saying of never discuss politics or religion with family rings true.

How do you react when they ask you what your number-one concern is that has been affecting your faith?

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you react when they ask you what your number-one concern is that has been affecting your faith?

I dont know if I've ever been asked what my number one concern is tell you the truth. It isnt like I talk about church history all the time, plus I've already seen what happen to my brother in law years ago when he tried to ask questions of family members, it wasn't good. I think I told that story when I first came on the board. He's been put on ignore on social media as far as most of my family.  I dont do social media so he contacts me through texting.  As a favor to my wife I dont talk to him often about church history because she's worried old wounds will be brought back up and my mother in laws health is very fragile.  So the few times I have brought it up they looked at me like I had 2 heads so I just shut up. Its frustrating, but neccessary to just leave it alone right now.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

I'm confused, if I'm not mistaken we break sin down into different categories, don't we? First you have everyone who's not mormon, we send out approximately 60 to 70 thousand missionaries everyday to try to convince these people to join our church so they have an opportunity to repent and deal with their sin. If they join, they still cant enter the temple, they wait approximately a year when their sin is evaluated again, if they pass, they get to go into the temple with all the "good" sinners. 

   So yes, we do think they're worse sinners because they dont have the ability to repent, we believe other denominations cant take care of sin, we have a monopoly on that dont we? Can a Baptist preacher judge and help someone take care of their sin?

Now I see why you’ve gone from being 80% Mormon (whatever that’s supposed to mean) down to 65%, with an active fear that your percentage of being Mormon is soon going to drop even lower. Only woeful ignorance of the true doctrine of Christ, the Father’s wondrously merciful plan of salvation, and the perfect eternal love of God for each one of his children could cause someone to come up with such a warped and uncharitable depiction of the beliefs and attitudes of the faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints.

I don’t know of a single active member of the Church who has ever either directly or by roundabout inference expressed a “thank God I’m not a sinner like those people” attitude. As king Benjamin so powerfully testified, the true followers of Christ will always possess a genuine broken heart and contrite spirit, considering themselves to be even “lower than the dust of the earth.”

One of the very purposes of the Gospel of Christ is to strike a mortal blow to the disgusting “us and them attitude” that’s derived from the sins of self righteousness, boasting in one’s own strength and deadly pride, and further, by a lack of insight into the true nature of the unimaginable sorrow and agony of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

By your own admission you said that you were, at best, 80% Mormon, and perhaps it’s time to consider that it’s that missing essential 20% that caused you to express such an unkind portrayal of the Latter-Day Saints.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by teddyaware