Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Give it up.  The Church is authoritarian.   But it isn't compulsive authoritarianism.  We can choose to follow, or not.  The Pope is authoritarian.  Joe Biden's membership in the Catholic Church is in jeopardy, as at least one diocese denies him communion.  Other religions are authoritarian.   The prophet is male.  He dictates edicts.  It is what it is.    

I can't get on board with that.  From Dictionary.com:

Quote

authoritarian

[ uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor- ]SHOW IPA

See synonyms for: authoritarian / authoritarianism on Thesaurus.com

---

adjective

1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom:authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or relating to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others:an authoritarian parent.

I just don't see these as apt descriptors of the attitude or teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ as regarding its relationship with its members.

Let's take a look at how the term is used in the Church's literature (from its website) :

1. From a 1971 Ensign article:

Quote

If a striking distinction were noted between an authoritarian society and a libertarian system, it might be the difference between two words: coercion and persuasion.

The goals of an authoritarian state are usually achieved through coercive means. Men’s actions, and in some cases their minds, are forced into a pattern by the power of the government. On the other hand, the democratic society theoretically reaches its goals through persuasion.

2. 1993 Ensign article:

Quote

By breaking the Catholic church’s control over grace, Luther permanently undermined the church’s social and political authority. Indeed, just as Augustine’s views were used earlier to justify authoritarian regimes, Luther provided a rationale for the claims of new individualistic political forces that sought to overthrow centralized authoritarian structures. Luther was courageous and articulate, but as had happened with Augustine, historic need gave wings to his thought that its religious merit alone might not have warranted.

3. September 2020 speech at BYU (referencing Guatemala) :

Quote

In a country with a lot of political and social violence, my husband’s involvement had a high cost for our young family. We were living under an authoritarian government that interpreted any dissent from the social, economic, and political status quo as an open conspiracy against it. Soon anonymous threats against my husband’s life appeared everywhere. Twice government forces attempted to kidnap my husband. That was a time when people who disagreed with the government’s policies would be abducted in the dark and taken to unknown places, and then, days later, their bodies would appear with signs of torture. It was dangerous to voice your disagreements with the cruelties happening everywhere in Guatemala.

4. 2002 Ensign article:

Quote

“Is yours a culture where the husband exerts a domineering, authoritarian role, making all of the important decisions for the family? That pattern needs to be tempered so that both husband and wife act as equal partners, making decisions in unity for themselves and their family. No family can long endure under fear or force; that leads to contention and rebellion. Love is the foundation of a happy family” (Richard G. Scott, “Removing Barriers to Happiness,” Ensign, May 1998, 86).

5. 1977 speech at BYU by Elder Maxwell:

Quote

It should not surprise us, therefore, that as the Church becomes larger and more visible we will sail our rougher waters, and that there will be more “struggling seamen” anxious to be saved and to come on board. Indeed, there are reasons to believe—as the contrasts between the kingdom and the ways of the world become sharper, the choices more obvious, and the issues more irrepressible—that this condition will, in fact, help those who otherwise might delay making a choice or who might make a wrong choice if the issues remained obscured.

It should not puzzle us, if we have studied scriptural history carefully—including what happened to the Savior—that defectors often cause more difficulty than disinterested disbelievers. It should not surprise us either, as Peter observed of those drawn away by false accusers, that it will be they and their followers “by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2 Peter 2:2).

There are those who chronically misunderstand the Church because they are busy trying to explain the Church from the outside. They are so busy believing what they want to believe about the Church that they will not take the time to learn what they need to learn about the Church. They prefer any explanation to the real explanation. Some prefer to believe the worst rather than to know the truth. Still others are afraid to part the smokescreen of allegations for fear of what they will see. Yet one cannot see the Louvre by remaining in its lobby. One cannot understand the Church by remaining outside. A non-believing but fair critic of the Church, a friend of mine, once said that the Book of Mormon was the only book some critics felt they did not need to read before reviewing it.

Some dismiss the Church out of hand for not being trendy in its theology and for being authoritarian. To such I say, better a true theocracy with a little democracy than a democracy without any theology. Yes, the kingdom of God is a kingdom; there is no “one man, one vote” rule between its King and its citizens.

Some insist upon studying the Church only through the eyes of its defectors—like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus. Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.

6. 2015 Ensign article by then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

Secular Humanism

The rejection of an unprovable God and the denial of right and wrong are most influential in the world of higher education. Secular humanism, a branch of humanism probably so labeled because of its strong alignment with secularism, is deliberately or inadvertently embodied in the teachings of faculty members in many colleges and universities.

For religious people, the objectionable element in the various humanist philosophies is their rejection of the existence of God and their denial of the moral absolutes rooted in His commandments. Thus, the 1973 Humanist Manifesto rejected “traditional moral codes” and “traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience.” It further declared, “We can discover no divine purpose … for the human species. … Humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.”

Of course, adherents of humanism, called humanists, have made many positive contributions. For example, they have supported democracy, human rights, education, and material progress. So long as these advancements do not exclude believers, our issue with humanists is their rejection of divine authority and values.

7. 1999 Ensign article:

Quote

I need to ensure that my children can start testing their limits with a safe base of standards from which they can learn to make decisions. Sometimes children fall away because parents have been too strict and authoritarian while independence is being learned. When the children are on their own, they haven’t internalized those standards for themselves.

The context, and therefore usage of the term, varies a bit.  But the popular usage of "authoritarian", particularly as pertaining to this thread's discussion about the Church's disciplinary policies, does not seem at all apt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/22/2021 at 3:15 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Yes.  That has happened to me many, many times.  I've even had a few instances where I was given a few hours notice.

So just to be clear your client was told of their charges and given a few hours to prepare their case and appear in court for their actual trial?

Not a trial.  A hearing.  An emergency one.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

On 4/22/2021 at 3:15 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have a hard time believing this but am open to correction. 

My bad.

Thanks,

-Smac

[why me]

On 4/29/2021 at 2:46 AM, CV75 said:

I think there is a line where “I am giving you sound, competent, professional, clinical therapy to be best of my ability and ethics.” runs into, “The clinically sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you runs counter to your Church’s teachings” runs into, “The clinically, sound, competent professional therapy that I can ethically give you refutes your Church’s teachings” runs into, “Ethically, the clinically sound, competent professional therapy requires me to dissuade you from your Church’s teachings” runs into, “As an ethical, clinically, sound, competent professional – whether "and/or as a member" or not -- I publicly refute and denounce the Church’s teachings.” A competent and ethical therapist will understand that there are many ways to express and convey these messages, both directly and indirectly, and for maximal clarity of intent.

I suppose we would need to see the heart in this matter. What was her intentions? Let's say I am a teacher. And I need to teach something about sex education. Should I put my religion into the class or should I stick with the book? And I know that I have lds kids in my class. And I am LDS too. What to do? I think that I would need to stick with the book. And go from there. Should I be excommunicated? And of course there are some SPs who over react to situations. If I were a SP I would just ignore it. At the end of the day, what does it matter?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I suppose we would need to see the heart in this matter. What was her intentions? Let's say I am a teacher. And I need to teach something about sex education. Should I put my religion into the class or should I stick with the book? And I know that I have lds kids in my class. And I am LDS too. What to do? I think that I would need to stick with the book. And go from there. Should I be excommunicated? And of course there are some SPs who over react to situations. If I were a SP I would just ignore it. At the end of the day, what does it matter?

I seems to me that sticking with the book would not entail publicly refuting and denouncing the Church’s teachings or leaders.

[why me]

On 5/5/2021 at 2:58 AM, CV75 said:

I seems to me that sticking with the book would not entail publicly refuting and denouncing the Church’s teachings.

Over the years we have seen many such cases get much publicity especially when the person is excommunicated. And then they become heroes for the cause. And go on to do podcast after podcast. I think that may be we need to rethink this excommunication policy. What if John Dehln were not excommunicated but allowed to stay a member. I would assume that after a period of time he would be pressured to resign. Why be a member of an organization that one dislikes would be a constant question? My comeback to her would be: Just resign if you don't like your church's teachings. Why be a member? What would she say?

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, why me said:

I think that may be we need to rethink this excommunication policy. What if John Dehln were not excommunicated but allowed to stay a member

I kinda said the same thing a few weeks back. Excommunication, to some people, depending on their personality, will actually light a fire under them and they'll spend a large portion of their time fighting the institution they were excommunicated from. I've often wondered, and even asked on here before, why not confront the people that criticize you? I would love to see an apostle on Mormon stories. 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, why me said:

Over the years we have seen many such cases get much publicity especially when the person is excommunicated. And then they become heroes for the cause. And go on to do podcast after podcast. I think that may be we need to rethink this excommunication policy. What if John Dehln were not excommunicated but allowed to stay a member. I would assume that after a period of time he would be pressured to resign. Why be a member of an organization that one dislikes would be a constant question? My comeback to her would be: Just resign if you don't like your church's teachings. Why be a member? What would she say?

That approach seems consistent with policy and practice, though I doubt few bishops and stake presidents would be that blunt with their members (it depends on the case, I suppose). I think it is more the tendency to let things like this go until the bishop or stake president sees a need to proceed with this level of council, and that is the tough part of their job.

[smac97]

So there was a protest at the Church's headquarters yesterday:

Quote

Sex therapist Natasha Helfer says she feels like she’s been kicked out of her home after LDS ouster

About 30 people chant, carry signs outside faith’s headquarters to protest the decision to revoke her membership.

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Natasha Helfer, center left, a sex therapist who lost her membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is joined by supporters as they petition the First Presidency to repeal her ouster Friday, May 7, 2021.
...

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Natasha Helfer, left, a sex therapist who lost her membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is joined by supporters as they petition the First Presidency to repeal her excommunication on Friday, May 7, 2021.
...

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) Lauren Rogers leads dozens of protesters as they petition the First Presidency to repeal the excommunication of Natasha Helfer, a sex therapist who lost her membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "Out of respect for Natasha, this is a protest against the decision of the council, not a protest against the Church,” as they gathered outside the Church offices in a peaceful protest on Friday, May 7, 2021.

It seems somewhat paradoxical to request/demand re-entry into an institution by publicly slandering the leaders of the institution.  Unless, of course, this is all just a bunch of kabuki theatre designed to squeeze out an extra minute or so of fame and adulation for Natasha Helfer-Parker.

"Data Doesn't Lie ... Mormon Culture Kills!"  But also "{T}his {loud and disrespectful demonstration in front of the Church's world headquarters} is . . . not a protest against the Church."  Right.  Gotcha.

Quote

Helfer, who did not organize the rally but attended it, told The Salt Lake Tribune that she doesn’t expect her appeal of that decision to the faith’s governing First Presidency to be granted. Helfer said she believes church leaders above the Kansas stake (regional) presidency, which revoked her membership, knew about her case.

Still, she believes the appeal should be granted. Helfer said she still isn’t clear about why, exactly, she was ousted from the Utah-based faith, but she suspects the church is upset for reasons to do with her clinical expertise, which she said should not be a reason for her removal.

Oi.  At this point I think even some of the critics aren't buying the "they came after me because of my professional work as a sex therapist" line she's trying to sell.

Quote

Helfer said Friday the support she has received has been humbling as it has come from a wide spectrum of Latter-day Saints. She described losing her membership as difficult and “emotionally draining.”

“I have been serving my faith community for a majority of my professional career, and I have also been active in my faith community for most of my life,” she said.  “I have many spiritual, social and professional experiences that are very valuable to me and continue to be. To be, in essence, kicked out of your home, whether you agree with your leaders or all the people who belong to the home, it’s still obviously traumatic.”

Weird how she keeps tying her career to her "faith community."  It kinda taints the narrative, like she's upset that her excommunication will slow the gravy train of Latter-day Saints paying her money for advice about sex.

Also pretty weird to complain about the process being "difficult and 'emotionally draining'" and "traumatic."  Her extensive publicity efforts and melodrama, her insistence on playing all of this out in the public sphere, has likely created or greatly contributed to the difficulty.

Quote

Helfer said she feels motivated and excited to use the support she has received to rally for causes she cares about, such as sound clinical mental and sexual health practices within the Latter-day Saint community.

She lost her membership because of her "professional" conduct?  And behaviors like publicly and repeatedly calling the leaders of the Church "patriarchal pricks" fit squarely within "sound clinical mental and sexual health practices"?  I don't think so.

Quote

She said she believes Mormonism isn’t the only place where science and religion can collide, pointing to debates over reproductive rights and transgender rights in various states.

Her I'm-like-Galileo-only-about-sex-instead-of-astronomy schtick is not coming off well.

Quote

Friday’s rally was organized by Lauren Rogers, who started a petition to ask the church to reverse its decision.
...
Rogers asked the rally attendees to take a moment of silence in honor of people who have died by suicide. The attendees also chanted “people are dying,” “act like you care” as a call and response in reference to LGBTQ people and other youths who die by suicide in whole or part because of “shame-based-rhetoric found in the church.”

This messaging seems a bit odd.  "Reverse the membership council in Kansas or we'll continue to accuse you of not caring about gay suicides!"  Seems like a significant non sequitur.

Quote

The rallygoers also sang the Latter-day Saint children’s hymn “I’m Trying to Be Like Jesus.” Rogers said Christ did not turn away people who wished to stay with him.

Quite true.  But He also encouraged them to repent.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

Ms. Helfer,

As much as I might wish to sympathize with you over the prospect that you were "kicked out" of your "home" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that analogy, which seems to me to be nothing more than a baldfaced attempt to appeal to emotion, is far from perfect.  Even if I own my home outright, that outright ownership does not give me the right to do whatever I want simply by virtue of my ownership.

For example, one condition of home ownership, even if the mortgage is paid off and, therefore, the owner holds an unrestricted interest in that regard, is the payment of property taxes.  Paying such taxes is a condition of living in the community because, otherwise, I would be a freeloader who enjoys certain benefits of living in the community without paying my fair share for them (though, certainly, we can argue whether such taxes are fair: If loopholes enable Richie Rich, in his 15,000-square-foot mansion on the hill, largely to escape paying taxes while I am still subject to them, I can see where that might be a problem).

But notwithstanding the argument I mention in the foregoing paragraph (and others like it), the proposition that if I refuse to pay taxes because I own my home outright I am (to a greater or lesser extent) a freeloader still holds.  For example, say that a large portion of my property taxes go to fund schools, but I have no children.  One might find the argument, "Well, if I don't have any children, why should I be required to pay to fund the education of other people's children?" persuasive.  

But its very likely that a benefit would accrue to you (albeit an eventual one if not an immediate one) from educating other people's children.  They are the future local, state, and national civic leaders.  They are the future business leaders who, if they don't employ you directly, may well employ people you know, and whose taxes you will benefit from.  They are the future doctors who may learn how to cure cancer and other serious diseases.

Also, as a homeowner (even if my home is paid off), I am subject to planning and zoning restrictions.  My right to do what I wish on my land is, to a certain extent, circumscribed, and subject to my activities not causing "downstream harm."  Still, I am subject to community ordinances that prevent me from causing a disturbance to my neighbors.  If I disobey these ordinances, I may be subject to the penalty for disorderly conduct and/or for disturbing the peace.

Whatever imperfections my analogy may contain, notwithstanding your freedoms, if you wish to live in your "home" and in the society of your neighbors who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nothing (not even having a home that is paid off fully) confers upon you the right to do whatever you wish without restraint, especially not since, putatively, not only did you agree to abide by certain rules, you covenanted to do so, which is an even more serious matter (rules such as not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed).

I don't expect any of this to make a difference to you, since it doesn't fit your narrative that you are being persecuted and that you are a party who has been aggrieved grossly.  And while I recognize that, allegedly, you "specialize" in matters relating to se*uality and to intimacy, so this may be outside your purview, continuing to nurture grievances against an organization (however much it may benefit you professionally by giving you a following, by motivating people to pay you to continue your crusade [Hello, John Dehlin!], and so on) probably isn't the best or the healthiest thing to do from a personal standpoint.

Sincerely yours,

Kenngo1969

[mgy401]

On 5/6/2021 at 2:05 AM, why me said:

Over the years we have seen many such cases get much publicity especially when the person is excommunicated. And then they become heroes for the cause. And go on to do podcast after podcast. I think that may be we need to rethink this excommunication policy. What if John Dehln were not excommunicated but allowed to stay a member. I would assume that after a period of time he would be pressured to resign. Why be a member of an organization that one dislikes would be a constant question? My comeback to her would be: Just resign if you don't like your church's teachings. Why be a member? What would she say?

There’s what goes on in the secular news and exmo-oriented internet fora, and then there’s what goes on in our wards and families and ministering companionships.

In the latter category, I have seen a lot more of the “oh crap, that guy used to say some cool stuff but he really has gone off the deep end” response to Dehlin’s and Kelly’s excommunications.  And Helfer’s excommunication has been particularly helpful amongst Mormons seeking mental health services, because the proceeding drew hundreds of “Mormon therapists” into attaching their names and reputations for “faithfulness” to a letter that affirmatively lied about the Church’s position on—for example—the sinfulness of masturbation.  It’s like when you turn on the lights to see a single cockroach better—and a dozen more you hadn’t even noticed, go scurrying for cover.  Discriminating Church members will henceforward recognize these particular signatory “mental health professionals” as being little better than over-credentialed pimps. 

Amongst the membership, the general result of excommunication is that folks quit taking the excommunicant’s teachings and advocacy seriously—which is precisely why such excommunicants prefer to remain in the fold if they can get away with it.  

Edited May 8, 2021 by mgy401

[CV75]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So there was a protest at the Church's headquarters yesterday:

This activity follows the pattern found in the recent Ephraim Temple news reports, and show that protests don't really work, but the prayers of the people do, in uniting the Brethren, the members, and the Lord. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/01/breaking-treasured-manti/ ).

It is he same principle the Lord taught the Nephites: "...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been ...For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he tirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away." (3 Nephi 11: 28-30).

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Amongst the membership, the general result of excommunication is that folks quit taking the excommunicant’s teachings and advocacy seriously—which is precisely why such excommunicants prefer to remain in the fold if they can get away with it.  

Is this what you anticipate will happen or have you seen it happen?

[Calm]

Quote

Helfer said she still isn’t clear about why, exactly, she was ousted from the Utah-based faith, but she suspects the church is upset for reasons to do with her clinical expertise, which she said should not be a reason for her removal.

I am not impressed that protests are happening demanding the retraction when there isn't clear understanding why the excommunication occurred.  Understanding should come first.

Data may not lie, but it can be badly misused and even lied about.

Plus data can be fabricated...so great sound bite/slogan, but meaningless.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Calm

[mgy401]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this what you anticipate will happen or have you seen it happen?

Both.

[JamesBYoung]

Natasha is (1) correct on why she was excommunicate, but (2) wrong to accept the authority for the excommunication.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Natasha is (1) correct on why she was excommunicate,

Not according to the stake president to officiated at the council.  And Natasha wasn't even at the council.  

Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why"?

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

but (2) wrong to accept the authority for the excommunication.

You've piqued my curiosity.  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not according to the stake president to officiated at the council.  And Natasha wasn't even at the council.  

Why should we privilege the self-serving speculations of Natasha Helfer-Parker over the specific statements of the stake president who rendered the decision, and who therefore is a pretty good percipient witness as to the "why"?

You've piqued my curiosity.  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's clarify these points.

Have you read Natasha's version?

Do you agree that a former SP, after a member has moved from the stake, has the right to judgment in these matters?

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Let's clarify these points.

Have you read Natasha's version?

Her version of what?

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Do you agree that a former SP, after a member has moved from the stake, has the right to judgment in these matters?

Yes.  The handbook allows for it.

[secondclasscitizen]

On 5/6/2021 at 3:30 AM, AtlanticMike said:

 I would love to see an apostle on Mormon stories. 

Those guys would get chewed up and spit out. They don’t have the nerve to go on any of those podcasts and just answer the questions once and for all. They cannot handle it.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Those guys would get chewed up and spit out. They don’t have the nerve to go on any of those podcasts and just answer the questions once and for all. They cannot handle it.

Right.  That pansy Dallin H. Oaks could never withstand the intellectual might of John Dehlin.  

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Those guys would get chewed up and spit out. They don’t have the nerve to go on any of those podcasts and just answer the questions once and for all. They cannot handle it.

 Mormon stories podcast can be informative, but it's also a "gotcha" podcast. He uses history as a club to beat people over the head with. He swims down in history, finds something to research or talk about, then brings it to the surface and uses it to do an hours long podcast. Using this technique the podcast, or any podcast could last forever as long as it's entertaining and has funding. 

     I don't know why, I guess it's human nature, but some people find comfort in using the past to justify why they are in pain or why they can't move forward in life. Which in and of itself isn't bad if you're using the past as a stepping stone, the problem is, a vast majority of people get stuck in the past and find it has become a millstone that they drag behind them everywhere they go. 

    Next time you watch Mormon stories or even the 24/7 news cycle, keep a tally on how much time is spent dwelling on past events that we can do nothing about. Then ask yourself why they choose to feed us "the past" day in and day out. 

     Here's a quote " Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." The reason I gave this quote is because I naturally find myself yearning to look back to the past to justify why I'm struggling inside my own brain. Like I said, looking back is ok, but if you stop for to long, you'll get stuck. Religion is a tool used by a vast majority of people to look toward the future, most don't even realize that's what religion is for. Why is religion good?Because you only have so many years in this life and progress is made by moving forward, not pitying yourself for a lifetime by looking at the past. Unfortunately, for most, this isn't realized till they're staring at their feet on a Deathbed.

   Your correct that an apostle going on Mormon stories would be a tuff situation because the host would be concentrating on past events while the apostle would probably be concentrating on the future. It would be two life philosophies coming together, clashing on how to move forward. For me, I choose looking forward and ACTING on it because I can control the future, all I can do with the past is dwell on it and possibly get stuck in it, never finding a way out. 

    

     

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

 Mormon stories podcast can be informative, but it's also a "gotcha" podcast. He uses history as a club to beat people over the head with. He swims down in history, finds something to research or talk about, then brings it to the surface and uses it to do an hours long podcast. Using this technique the podcast, or any podcast could last forever as long as it's entertaining and has funding. 

     I don't know why, I guess it's human nature, but some people find comfort in using the past to justify why they are in pain or why they can't move forward in life. Which in and of itself isn't bad if you're using the past as a stepping stone, the problem is, a vast majority of people get stuck in the past and find it has become a millstone that they drag behind them everywhere they go. 

    Next time you watch Mormon stories or even the 24/7 news cycle, keep a tally on how much time is spent dwelling on past events that we can do nothing about. Then ask yourself why they choose to feed us "the past" day in and day out. 

     Here's a quote " Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." The reason I gave this quote is because I naturally find myself yearning to look back to the past to justify why I'm struggling inside my own brain. Like I said, looking back is ok, but if you stop for to long, you'll get stuck. Religion is a tool used by a vast majority of people to look toward the future, most don't even realize that's what religion is for. Why is religion good?Because you only have so many years in this life and progress is made by moving forward, not pitying yourself for a lifetime by looking at the past. Unfortunately, for most, this isn't realized till they're staring at their feet on a Deathbed.

   Your correct that an apostle going on Mormon stories would be a tuff situation because the host would be concentrating on past events while the apostle would probably be concentrating on the future. It would be two life philosophies coming together, clashing on how to move forward. For me, I choose looking forward and ACTING on it because I can control the future, all I can do with the past is dwell on it and possibly get stuck in it, never finding a way out. 

    

     

Be careful, Nemesis won't stand for anything posted about Mormon stories podcast, but I think what you've said will be okay, haha. Or maybe it's when we link the website.

They do focus on the past, but say they are helping people through their faith crisis, and any harm from the church. But I totally agree that it does dwell on the past maybe keeping people stagnant! 

I had a dream last night that I was at church and speaking with a former ward member and they pretty much thought I was the worst person ever and they didn't want their family to know why I had a crisis of faith. But it was a dream, so it was much stranger than what I put here. 

It would be nice to move forward, truly!

[secondclasscitizen]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  That pansy Dallin H. Oaks could never withstand the intellectual might of John Dehlin.  

Intellectual might is not the concern. They cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate in attempting to do so. Elder Holland and GBH both got taken to the cleaners several years ago and both lied and did not give truthful answers. If you need a link to the interviews I’d be happy to provide them. Oakes would likely do the same thing. 
 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Intellectual might is not the concern. They cannot and will not answer many of the tough questions or they will at the very least obfuscate in attempting to do so. Elder Holland and GBH both got taken to the cleaners several years ago and both lied and did not give truthful answers. If you need a link to the interviews I’d be happy to provide them. Oakes would likely do the same thing. 

I see their predicament. It's probably not their fault that things were kept hidden pretty much, emphasis on pretty much. It was the former church leaders that didn't want things exposed in case it could harm testimonies. 

The current leaders are at least trying to put it out there but it's not going to be an easy fix. 

[secondclasscitizen]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I see their predicament. It's probably not their fault that things were kept hidden pretty much, emphasis on pretty much. It was the former church leaders that didn't want things exposed in case it could harm testimonies. 

The current leaders are at least trying to put it out there but it's not going to be an easy fix. 

That is exactly the issue. Until they just lay it out there and say “ look pretty much every past q15 has been lying to you about a lot of stuff and now here’s the truth” they will have this problem. Kinda like the woman whose hubby cheated on her, both know it and he won’t apologize. She is crazy to stay. Until that happens those who know and profess doubt are the bad guys. The ones who continue to perpetuate the lie and not just rip off the bandaid are the ones who create the atmosphere of distrust. I mean if you continue to tell and support a lie, what else are you willing to lie about? Even Richard bushman came out and publicly said the historical narrative of the church wasn’t true.