News Article Titled "New Movement of Religious Extremists" has picture of Book of Mormon as Thumbnail

[bluebell]

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by bluebell

[Bob Crockett]

The article is about Mormons.  Appropriate to have a picture of a Book of Mormon. 

Oddly, notwithstanding the views of many on this board, Mormons as a group are not far right-wing zealots for Trump.  There's a lot of hostility to Trump, including Romney's and the Deseret News' opposition.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The article is about Mormons.  Appropriate to have a picture of a Book of Mormon. 

Oddly, notwithstanding the views of many on this board, Mormons as a group are not far right-wing zealots for Trump.  There's a lot of hostility to Trump, including Romney's and the Deseret News' opposition.

I think it's *kinda* appropriate to have a BOM pic with it.  In the same way that it would be appropriate for an article about the Westboro Baptist Church to have a picture next to it of someone holding the Bible.  It's technically applicable but also leaves open a lot of assumptions about the religion as a whole that aren't true.

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

Do - ignore them as much as possible while making a simple statement about how we believe we should be as nice as possible to everybody, even when we don't want to talk about something specifically.

Not do - encourage them to not harass or belittle other people, even when others believe what they believe is wrong.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

The article originated in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/aug/09/deznats-religious-extremists-mormon-vision

A few thoughts:

1. This seems to be a doxxing effort.  An individual is specifically named (Kevin Dolan) as is his purported employer (Booz Allen Hamilton) as is his purported position there ("a senior data scientist"), as is a description of the company:

Quote

Dolan, who claims on his LinkedIn profile to have US government security clearance, was employed since January by consultancy firm Booz Allen Hamilton as a senior data scientist. The company has extensive contracts with US military and intelligence agencies and has been labeled “the world’s most profitable spy organization”.

2. The article is quoting a blog that is doxxing other purported DezNat types (and their family members - by name and picture).  Not only names, but locations, wards, employers, employers' phone numbers, where they exercise, where they are serving (as a missionary), etc.  The blog has "outed" five people as affiliated with DezNat, and provides ample quotes, links, screencaps, etc. to substantiate their criticisms of these guys.

3. It is very disturbing to see what these DezNat guys are saying regarding women, gays, racial superiority/inferiority and Jews.  No wonder they are hiding behind acronyms.  This stuff is patently unacceptable and repugnant, all the more so coming from members of the Church.  I am flummoxed and appalled that members of the Church find such beliefs (let alone public expressions of them) compatible with membership in the Church and being a disciple of the Savior.

4. I am glad the Guardian article included this bit:

Quote

In response to questions about DezNats, and the church’s willingness to disown them, Douglas Anderson, the church’s media spokesman, wrote in an email that the group was “not affiliated with or endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Anderson added that “in recent months, church leaders have spoken directly on such issues as condemning the recent violence in Washington DC and lawless behavior, the evils of racism … and peacefully accepting the results of political elections”.

Anderson’s statement concluded that “anything that encourages or incites violence is contrary to the recent instruction given by church leaders”.

5. There is a cautionary tale to be told arising from when members of the Church A) resort to online anonymity (which is not necessarily as anonymous as we think), B) succumb to the general coarsening of our sociopolitical interactions, C) neglect to listen to and follow the doctrines/teachings of the Church and the more recent and emphatic counsel of the Brethren (see above), and D) do not account for, or work sufficiently to overcome, the Online Disinhibition Effect.

6. I think local leaders, once they become aware of such inappropriate behavior, should provide guidance to those who are behaving in the ways noted above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

The article is about a tiny radical fringe element of the church.   It isn't appropriate to have a picture of the BoM as representative of this fringe element.

The news does this sometimes.   Remember when the USA Today was helping us understand what assault rifles were?

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

  The church has already taken many steps to distance themselves from white supremacy ideology and political polarization within the church, but there have been enough high profile figures and media attention given to deznat that it wouldn't surprise me to hear something more direct and specific about the movement made in conference.

I don't know how much good it will do though.  The church has directly made statements about energy healing, etc. in conference and even have warnings against it in the handbook, but if your ward and area is any indicator, it sounds like it hasn't made a dent.

Quote

An updated section on medical and health care notes that “seeking competent medical help, exercising faith, and receiving priesthood blessings work together for healing, according to the will of the Lord.” Latter-day Saints “are discouraged from seeking miraculous or supernatural healing from an individual or group that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of prayer and properly performed priesthood blessings. These practices are often referred to as ‘energy healing.’ Other names are also used. Such promises for healing are often given in exchange for money.”

Is it just me or is membership less sensitive to heeding and following the words of the prophet in more recent times?  We are a religion known for strict adherence to the words of our leaders.  So much so that this is one of the more common complaints and criticisms pointed out by our critics.  But it seems that lately many members are more bold in their open and public disagreement and disobedience.  I think of energy healing as one example.  It still seems to be rampant in the church and openly discussed and practiced without fear of judgment or social stigma.  White supremacy is another area where we see emerging groups in open rebellion.  And of course, masks is another area.  Even after all that has been said on masks from the apostles and even when the area presidency sent out their letter to all members and wards/stakes in Utah, many still attended church etc. without masks.  It seems like this kind of open disrespect and non-sustaining of our leaders was not as prevalent when I was growing up.  More than anything, people were afraid of social stigma of openly disobeying or disagreeing with out leaders.  It doesn't seem to be as stigmatized anymore.  I don't know, maybe the reduced judgment is a good thing in a way... But still...  

Edited August 9, 2021 by pogi

[Metis_LDS]

I am sorry I cannot answer your questions,  But if you bear with me I will try to make an important point.   In Canada at one point we lived not far away from a Motorcycle gang compound.  You know high fence all around with barbed wire at the top.  The police would raid them once every year. I do not approve of motorcycle gangs.  It did cause me to think a lot about this however,  who would I rather have living next door to me given only two options.   1.  A known motorcycle member or  2.  A person who is maybe slightly friendly and has all normal outward appearances but is secretly a very bad person (serial killer, serial rapist, child molester etc..)  I do not like surprises so I would choose the motorcycle member to live beside.  The point is this the more we punish people for what they think (in the Church or society) they more likely the person next to us at some point will really surprise us in a bad way.  I accept we must have laws and enforce them for peoples actions,  but are we trying to enforce what people think?   If persons in your article were members of my Ward I would rather know who they were and what they believed.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Metis_LDS
spelling

[Fether]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

This seems like a topic right up Elder Oaks’ alley. I can picture him saying “Some member of the church call themselves DezNats, or Deseret nationalists, and seek to take upon themselves the roll of defenders of the church. Standing up for your faith is an honorable thing, but when we engage in attacking, harassing, or belittling those with different beliefs, we are breaking the covenant we made at baptism and are aiding Satan in his plans to destroy the children of men”

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

6. I think local leaders, once they become aware of such inappropriate behavior, should provide guidance to those who are behaving in the ways noted above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

It would be interesting to know if local leaders are being/will be given specific instructions on how to handle such members, especially if the members believe they aren't doing anything wrong.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

If persons in your article were members of my Ward I would rather know who they were and what they believed.

Good point.  I think I would too.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I am sorry I cannot answer your questions,  But if you bear with me I will try to make an important point.   In Canada at one point we lived not far away from a Motorcycle gang compound.  You know high fence all around with barbed wire at the top.  The police would raid them once every year. I do not approve of motorcycle gangs. 

I assume by "motorcycle gangs" you are referring to what the U.S. Department of Justice has referred to as "'outlaw motorcycle gangs,'" which are "'organizations whose members use their motorcycle clubs as conduits for criminal enterprises?'"

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

It did cause me to think a lot about this however,  who would I rather have living next door to me given only two options.   1.  A known motorcycle member or  2.  A person who is maybe slightly friendly and has all normal outward appearances but is secretly a very bad person (serial killer, serial rapist, child molester etc..) 

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't," eh?

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I do not like surprises so I would choose the motorcycle member to live beside. 

How would you "choose" between an overtly criminal enterprise (an outlaw motorcycle gang) and a secretly bad person?

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

The point is this the more we punish people for what they think (in the Church or society) they more likely the person next to us at some point will really surprise us in a bad way. 

Or we could go with door number 3: Share the Gospel, invite others to come unto Christ, strive to repent and do better ourselves, and build up a community where we needn't face a Sophie's Choice.

Also, could you clarify what you mean by "the more we punish?"  Who is this "we?"  And what punishing is going on?

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I accept we must have laws and enforce them for peoples actions, but are we trying to enforce what people think?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Again, who is this "we?"  And what enforcement is going on?

6 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

If persons in your article were members of my Ward I would rather know who they were and what they believed.

Same here.  And if I were in a position to do so I would reach out and encourage them to abandon philosophies that are not congruent with the Restored Gospel.  Disparagement of women, gays, Jews, racial groups, etc. is at odds with the Gospel and with the counsel we have received from the leaders of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I think local leaders, once they become aware of such inappropriate behavior, should provide guidance to those who are behaving in the ways noted above.

It would be interesting to know if local leaders are being/will be given specific instructions on how to handle such members, especially if the members believe they aren't doing anything wrong.

Well, this goes back to the longstanding debate about whether the Church can or ought to discipline its members.  There are people on this board who think that the Church should take a totally hands-off approach.  I just don't think that works.

As for local leaders, they need to be willing to step up and address such things, even when doing so is uncomfortable or difficult.  

As for your comment about local leaders "handl{ing} such matters where the people doing the behavior "believe they aren't doing anything wrong," I think some caution is necessary.  We don't want bishops stifling or punishing members for engaging in legitimate and lawful political speech.  For example, we don't seem to hear much about members of the Church who are vocally pro-abortion getting a talking-to by bishops.

Nevertheless, broad reminders about civility and respect - perhaps during General Conference - could be helpful in curbing broader trends.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2021 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The article is about Mormons.  Appropriate to have a picture of a Book of Mormon. 

Oddly, notwithstanding the views of many on this board, Mormons as a group are not far right-wing zealots for Trump.  There's a lot of hostility to Trump, including Romney's and the Deseret News' opposition.

I thought the OP explicitly said “no politics.”

[Bob Crockett]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought the OP explicitly said “no politics.”

My post speaks for itself.  Report me if you're displeased.  I think you're displeased with all my posts, even though I'm a conservative member, just like you.  I just listen to reason.

The cited article suggests Mormons are right wing fringe types, when they aren't.  I don't know about 2020 but in 2016 the percentage of voters coming out for Trump in Utah was much lower than surrouding red states.  In my California stake we have many who are rabid Trump supporters and ignore all reason and persuasion to the contrary, but we also have many conservatives who are not and oppose him.  

Edited August 9, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We are a religion known for strict adherence to the words of our leaders. 

I think that statement is more aspirational than reality.

If it were reality, the monthly home teaching stats would have been much higher than they were.

[Ipod Touch]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This news article popped up in my yahoo news feed this morning, but what caught my eye wasn't the headline, but the picture attached to it:  someone holding a Book of Mormon.

The talking points at the end of the article deal with how the leaders of the church should handle this movement, and that's what I'm specifically wondering about in this thread.  What should our leaders do?  What shouldn't they do?  What is the best way for us as members and for the church to distance ourselves from these idiots who are dragging the church through the mud?

No politics. 

I can see a day when temple recommend questions may include something about the use of racist/hateful/violent language and behavior.  Involvement in these type of movements is a violation of the sacrament covenants of taking on the name of Jesus IMO.  In a lot of ways, falling in with Deznat has almost a cultish quality to it.  Radicalization, dehumanization of "the other."

I've mentioned my radicalized childhood friend.  It really is sad to see this once kind and thoughtful young man promote and use anti-semitic and other racist language.

[Ipod Touch]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, this goes back to the longstanding debate about whether the Church can or ought to discipline its members.  There are people on this board who think that the Church should take a totally hands-off approach.  I just don't think that works.

You are right.

The Church has not just the right, but the duty, to set the boundaries of membership and especially temple admittance.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I can see a day when temple recommend questions may include something about the use of racist/hateful/violent language and behavior. 

Well, we have this one:

Quote

6. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?

And this one:

Quote

7. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

And this one:

Quote

9. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?

I think the behavior being cited in the OP's article is pretty difficult to square with these questions.

20 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

Involvement in these type of movements is a violation of the sacrament covenants of taking on the name of Jesus IMO.  In a lot of ways, falling in with Deznat has almost a cultish quality to it.  Radicalization, dehumanization of "the other."

I've mentioned my radicalized childhood friend.  It really is sad to see this once kind and thoughtful young man promote and use anti-semitic and other racist language.

I think individuals and bishops need to consider more analysis and attention to the answers to the temple recommend questions.  Rote answers, in the face of inappropriate online behavior, will not do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would be interesting to know if local leaders are being/will be given specific instructions on how to handle such members, especially if the members believe they aren't doing anything wrong.

That would be interesting. I doubt it. The Church very, very rarely names specifics, and almost always leaves it in generalities. 

 

2 hours ago, pogi said:

  The church has already taken many steps to distance themselves from white supremacy ideology and political polarization within the church, but there have been enough high profile figures and media attention given to deznat that it wouldn't surprise me to hear something more direct and specific about the movement made in conference.

I would be very surprised to hear deznat even named by name. 

Can someone name just one example of anything like that happening ever before? If Julia Rowe, Denver Snuffer, etc. were never named (or their movements specifically mentioned), why would deznat be different?

I can't think of a single example of a named person or movement being called out in General Conference in recent times (the last 50 years). 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think individuals and bishops need to consider more analysis and attention to the answers to the temple recommend questions.  Rote answers, in the face of inappropriate online behavior, will not do.

But then people will scream to high heaven that they are deviating from the script of the questions, asking follow up questions, etc. 

In many cases, the people most concerned about that are the most vociferous about leaders interrogating people about deznat, etc. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Good point.  I think I would too.

Or maybe it will change the way you feel about them? I've had this happen to me this year. People that I admired and loved, so disappointing. 

[rpn]

The media last week was full of a story of one of the original DEzNATS who used a byu email address in setting it up and has now been fired from his prosecutor position in AK.      DEZNATS began identified with members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ (which is what makes it so offensive), when our leaders have plead with us not to do what it does.    BYU disavowed the organization publicly too.  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/07/28/embattled-attorney-under/

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

But then people will scream to high heaven that they are deviating from the script of the questions, asking follow up questions, etc. 

I dunno.  I said "more analysis and attention to the answers to the temple recommend questions."  If a bishop is aware that a member of his ward is saying things such as are cited in the OP, and if that person holds a recommend, I think it would be appropriate for the bishop to call the individual in and ask him to explain how his behavior is compatible with the TR questions cited above.  Compliance with the TR questions is an ongoing thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I would be very surprised to hear deznat even named by name. 

Can someone name just one example of anything like that happening ever before? If Julia Rowe, Denver Snuffer, etc. were never named (or their movements specifically mentioned), why would deznat be different?

I can't think of a single example of a named person or movement being called out in General Conference in recent times (the last 50 years). 

That is probably true.  In a global church where the majority of members live outside the US, it doesn't make sense to call out a relatively small group like deznat and draw undue attention to them when the majority of members probably have no clue who they are.  They have called out specific practices like "energy healing" and "white supremacy" etc. by name however.