Teancum Posted July 12 Posted July 12 On 7/9/2024 at 9:01 PM, ZealouslyStriving said: For the record, I have no issue with Hassan's list when applied appropriately. You are not applying it appropriately. Can you explain how @Analyticsis not applying Hassan's list appropriately?
Analytics Posted July 12 Posted July 12 12 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said: Fortunately, smac provided this for you earlier. That's simply not true; @smac97 has not provided any quotes of Hassan criticizing the Church.
ZealouslyStriving Posted July 12 Posted July 12 49 minutes ago, Analytics said: That's simply not true; @smac97 has not provided any quotes of Hassan criticizing the Church. In the above post you will find links where Hassan is commiserating with Dehlin on "Mormonism".
Analytics Posted July 12 Posted July 12 31 minutes ago, Teancum said: Can you explain how @Analyticsis not applying Hassan's list appropriately? To help @ZealouslyStriving answer that question, below are links to my specific answers to his questions. Putting this in context, somebody asked Hassan if Mormonism is a cult. Hassan said he had no idea and would do some research on it. Hassan reached out to me and I made a good-faith attempt to answer by evaluating the Church experience using his model. Hassan put my answers onto his website without comment, disclosed that they were from an ex-member, and left the reader to decide for himself whether this implied that there was any undue influence taking place in the Church. Answers for Church as a Whole https://web.archive.org/web/20050305222047/http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm Answers for the Missionary Program https://web.archive.org/web/20050405142831/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-missionary.htm In case the links are slow (it’s from the Way Back Machine) here are some representative answers: What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects I said: Coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco are forbidden. Whether or not you abstain from caffienated soft drinks is often considered an indication of your level of dedication. Otherwise normal. (Does anybody think @smac97's answer to that was more honest when he said the answer is: "The Church encourages healthy eating and once-a-month fasting when possible.” The Church doesn’t merely “encourage healthy eating." It withholds temple recommends and the ability to receive the associated blessings if you drink tea(!)) Financial dependence No--they strongly encourage financial independence. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations Being active in Mormonism takes a lot of time, but Mormons love recreation. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals 3-hour meetings every Sunday, a few other meetings during the week. Need to ask permission for major decisions No. Outright Lying Prospective members are given only a very basic set of lessons before they are asked to commit to the church. There is a concept of “milk before meat”--only tell them what they need to know in their current stage of spiritual development. There tends to be a distorted view of history. In the magazines and lessons that the church pushes, there is a clear effort to spin everything in the church’s favor. There is a lot of information available to members if they proactively seek it. The church doesn’t really discourage deeper investigation. Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as “Truth” (e.g. Map = Reality, Black and White thinking, Good vs. evil, Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)) The group’s doctrine is internalized as the “Truth”, and many members are prone to a simplistic interpretation of that in the ways listed above. But many other members take a more sophisticated view where they realize that even though they have the “Truth”, they still see through a glass darkly, and live in a world with a lot of good people and a lot of gray. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged. Absolutely. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking Mormons generally believe that pure truth comes through revelation and the spirit rather than through rational analysis. They aren’t really against rational analysis per se, but they believe that the spirit trumps rational analysis when there is a contradiction. After all, the spirit gives the pure truth, while rational analysis only gives ever-changing theories. When there is a contradiction between revelation and rational thinking--for example when rational analysis shows that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Book of Abraham--the reaction of the believer can rightly be described as denial, rationalization, justification and wishful thinking. Singing or Humming Yes. They are often instructed to sing a hymn to themselves if they have an impure or negative thought. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s. Yes. The members aren’t perfect but the gospel and the organization of the church are perfect. Leaders might make mistakes, but they are given the benefit of the doubt. Excessive use of guilt Mormons do believe that guilt is God’s way of telling them to do better, and perfection is something they strive for. I believe Mormons tend to feel a lot of guilt. But how do you measure guilt? How much is excessive? Identity Guilt: Who you are (not living up to your potential) Individual Mormons are given special blessings in which they are invariably informed that in the previous life they were the valiant elect of God, and that that is why their spirits were sent to earth to fight for the cause of righteousness during these last days. They tend to see themselves as extraordinarily special, being the tiny minority of people who were either chosen to be born into the church or were spiritually sensitive enough to recognize it as the true church. This self-image certainly puts the bar high and can lead to excessive guilt. Identity Guilt: Your Family A popular children’s song in the church says “families CAN be together forever.” But the one and only way that they can be together forever is if the family unit is “sealed” in the temple. If you were married in the temple then you are sealed to your spouse and your subsequent children will be sealed to you. But if you were not sealed in the temple, then you will lose your spouse and children upon death. The top level of heaven is only attainable to couples married in the temple--not to individuals. If you aren’t righteous enough for that level of heaven, then you will lose your family. If your child gets married outside of the temple, then the family chain is broken--not only will your child not be qualified for the top level of heaven, your grandchildren will not be sealed to you either. The result of this doctrine is often a tremendous amount of guilt. If your child gets married outside of the temple, you mourn the wedding and the marriage rather than celebrate it. If your child chooses a path other than the Mormon one, then you will lose him or her forever. If your spouse doesn’t meet the strict requirements for the top level of heaven, then the only way for you to make it to the top level of heaven is with a new spouse. Any individual member of the family who doesn’t meet the rigorous requirements of righteousness will permanently breaks up the family unit. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group’s perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll. Absolutely. The group is God’s one and only true church--true happiness in this life and salvation in the life to come can be found nowhere else.
Analytics Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) 16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said: In the above post you will find links where Hassan is commiserating with Dehlin on "Mormonism". Providing a link isn’t the same thing as providing a quote. Are you admitting you were mistaken when you said Smac provided a link of Hassan criticizing the Church? Based on @smac97's recommendation, a couple of days ago, I did listen to a podcast of Dehlin being interviewed by Hassan on Hassan’s podcast. Because of that, I found out that Hassan does consider the Church to be a cult, and I discovered exactly when he came to that conclusion. A few years after I answered the questions on Hassan’s website, Dehlin invited Hassan to speak at a conference. Hassan got up and said something to the effect of, “I’m not an expert on Mormonism and you all are, so I’m not going to talk about Mormonism. Rather, I’m going to talk about 'cult mind control’ and how other groups I know about exercise undue influence on their members.” He said the audience was all having an epiphany about what they had been through in the Church, and they were all enthusiastically nodding throughout his presentation. Based on the reaction of the 150 people in his audience, he decided “wow, Mormonism really is a cult!" Edited July 12 by Analytics
Rain Posted July 12 Posted July 12 7 minutes ago, Analytics said: To help @ZealouslyStriving answer that question, below are links to my specific answers to his questions. Putting this in context, somebody asked Hassan if Mormonism is a cult. Hassan said he had no idea and would do some research on it. Hassan reached out to me and I made a good-faith attempt to answer by evaluating the Church experience using his model. Hassan put my answers onto his website without comment, disclosed that they were from an ex-member, and left the reader to decide for himself whether this implied that there was any undue influence taking place in the Church. Answers for Church as a Whole https://web.archive.org/web/20050305222047/http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm Answers for the Missionary Program https://web.archive.org/web/20050405142831/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-missionary.htm In case the links are slow (it’s from the Way Back Machine) here are some representative answers: What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects I said: Coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco are forbidden. Whether or not you abstain from caffienated soft drinks is often considered an indication of your level of dedication. Otherwise normal. (Does anybody think @smac97's answer to that was more honest when he said the answer is: "The Church encourages healthy eating and once-a-month fasting when possible.” The Church doesn’t merely “encourage healthy eating." It withholds temple recommends and the ability to receive the associated blessings if you drink tea(!)) Financial dependence No--they strongly encourage financial independence. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations Being active in Mormonism takes a lot of time, but Mormons love recreation. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals 3-hour meetings every Sunday, a few other meetings during the week. Need to ask permission for major decisions No. Mostly true. In the handbook for many years (I think it is removed now) it said you needed to talk with your bishop before have permanent sterilization done and it should only be done in certain circumstances though ironically you would only know that if you had access to or knowledge of it since it only available to priesthood leaders. So yes, 99.99% true. 7 minutes ago, Analytics said: Outright Lying Prospective members are given only a very basic set of lessons before they are asked to commit to the church. There is a concept of “milk before meat”--only tell them what they need to know in their current stage of spiritual development. There tends to be a distorted view of history. In the magazines and lessons that the church pushes, there is a clear effort to spin everything in the church’s favor. There is a lot of information available to members if they proactively seek it. The church doesn’t really discourage deeper investigation. Need to internalize the group’s doctrine as “Truth” (e.g. Map = Reality, Black and White thinking, Good vs. evil, Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)) The group’s doctrine is internalized as the “Truth”, and many members are prone to a simplistic interpretation of that in the ways listed above. But many other members take a more sophisticated view where they realize that even though they have the “Truth”, they still see through a glass darkly, and live in a world with a lot of good people and a lot of gray. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged. Absolutely. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking Mormons generally believe that pure truth comes through revelation and the spirit rather than through rational analysis. They aren’t really against rational analysis per se, but they believe that the spirit trumps rational analysis when there is a contradiction. After all, the spirit gives the pure truth, while rational analysis only gives ever-changing theories. When there is a contradiction between revelation and rational thinking--for example when rational analysis shows that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Book of Abraham--the reaction of the believer can rightly be described as denial, rationalization, justification and wishful thinking. Singing or Humming Yes. They are often instructed to sing a hymn to themselves if they have an impure or negative thought. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s. Yes. The members aren’t perfect but the gospel and the organization of the church are perfect. Leaders might make mistakes, but they are given the benefit of the doubt. Excessive use of guilt Mormons do believe that guilt is God’s way of telling them to do better, and perfection is something they strive for. I believe Mormons tend to feel a lot of guilt. But how do you measure guilt? How much is excessive? Identity Guilt: Who you are (not living up to your potential) Individual Mormons are given special blessings in which they are invariably informed that in the previous life they were the valiant elect of God, and that that is why their spirits were sent to earth to fight for the cause of righteousness during these last days. They tend to see themselves as extraordinarily special, being the tiny minority of people who were either chosen to be born into the church or were spiritually sensitive enough to recognize it as the true church. This self-image certainly puts the bar high and can lead to excessive guilt. Identity Guilt: Your Family A popular children’s song in the church says “families CAN be together forever.” But the one and only way that they can be together forever is if the family unit is “sealed” in the temple. If you were married in the temple then you are sealed to your spouse and your subsequent children will be sealed to you. But if you were not sealed in the temple, then you will lose your spouse and children upon death. The top level of heaven is only attainable to couples married in the temple--not to individuals. If you aren’t righteous enough for that level of heaven, then you will lose your family. If your child gets married outside of the temple, then the family chain is broken--not only will your child not be qualified for the top level of heaven, your grandchildren will not be sealed to you either. The result of this doctrine is often a tremendous amount of guilt. If your child gets married outside of the temple, you mourn the wedding and the marriage rather than celebrate it. If your child chooses a path other than the Mormon one, then you will lose him or her forever. If your spouse doesn’t meet the strict requirements for the top level of heaven, then the only way for you to make it to the top level of heaven is with a new spouse. Any individual member of the family who doesn’t meet the rigorous requirements of righteousness will permanently breaks up the family unit. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group’s perspective, people who leave are: "weak"; "undisciplined"; "unspiritual"; "worldly"; "brainwashed by family, counselors"; seduced by money, sex, rock and roll. Absolutely. The group is God’s one and only true church--true happiness in this life and salvation in the life to come can be found nowhere else. 1
Analytics Posted July 12 Posted July 12 Here is a representative sample of how I answered the questions of how cultish the missionary experience is. Regulation of individual’s physical reality a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with Yes. The church first sends the missionary to a specific mission, and then that mission’s president assigns the missionary to a specific geographical area with a specific companion. The pair must seek permission to leave the boundaries of their area, and must be together 24/7. They must always be in the same room as each other, except when going to the bathroom. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears The church gives them detailed instructions on permissible clothing and hairstyles. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations Missionaries are allowed 8.5 hours per week of “Preparation Time”. In this Preparation Time they are expected to wash clothes, shop, get haircut, clean apartment, write letters home, and if any time is left engage in approved recreational and cultural activities. No entertainment or vacations. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals Missionaries are required to study from the approved material for 2 hours every morning, and have frequent meetings of further training meetings. Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative). If you obey the rules, are loyal, and work hard, you will be promoted to be a leader over other missionaries. A District Leader supervises a group of about 6 missionaries, a Zone Leader supervises about 20, and the mission president has 2 Assistants who help him supervise the entire mission. The higher you get in the hierarchy, the more benefits --prestige, automobiles, travel around the mission, and so forth. It is a lot funner to supervise people who are doing missionary work than to actually do it. Need for obedience and dependency One of the primary purposes of life is to test our obedience to God--which in practical terms means obedience to God’s leaders. Financial independence is encouraged. There is a fair amount of talk about spiritual independence, but they are ensured that true answers to their prayers will always be in harmony with the mainstream church. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio The missionary handbook says, “Read only books, magazines, and other material authorized by the Church and your mission president….Avoid watching television, viewing unauthorized videocassettes, and listening to the radio and unauthorized audiocassettes.” (p. 13, 22) Including the scriptures, there are about 10 books that missionaries are allowed to read. Spying on other members is encouraged: . Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control According to the missionary handbook, “Never be alone. Companionships generate strength and protection. Working two by two is the Lord’s way, you can protect each other from temptation and from false accusers. You can also support each other in bearing testimony (see Ecclesiastes 4:9-10)…. “As companions, pray, study, and plan your work together each day. Take time at least once a week for additional planning and companionship inventory. Seek to be one in spirit and purpose, and help each other succeed. Always address your companion by the appropriate title (Elder or Sister). “You and your companion are to sleep in the same bedroom, but not in the same bed. You should arise and retire together each day; you should not stay up late to be alone.” (p. 24-25) Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership “If your companion is having difficulties with the work or in personal matters, be sensitive to those problems and seek advice from your mission president. Although you should be loyal to your companion, you must realize that any indiscretion or violation of missionary standards may threaten his or her effectiveness and salvation. Care enough for your companion to ask for the mission president’s help before a problem becomes a crisis.” (p. 24) No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate Absolutely. One of the solemn covenants of the temple is to never “speak ill of the Lord’s anointed”. Excessive use of fear: Fear of thinking independently Thomas S. Monson, the number two man in the church, recently said in a church magazine, "Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith... I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.” (Ensign, Feb 2001)
Analytics Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) On 7/9/2024 at 4:20 PM, smac97 said: Having interacted with you for oh so many years, I question whether you can be trusted to have spoken credibly and/or accurately "for Mormonism." This thread has made me think about a lot of stuff I haven’t thought about in years and to reevaluate things that I’ve said and done, and this comment seems really weird to me, and I find it quite ironic. My signature line is taken from a Ralph Waldo Emerson essay and describes what I talk about--on this forum I “testify” of my own experience and views; nothing more. In my interactions with @smac97 , he has never heard me say anything “for Mormonism.” That being the case, on what basis can he judge whether I’d do so accurately? Was I a good person for Hassan to turn to for credible answers about the extent to which Mormonism exercises undue influence? At the time, I had a website that was intended to help investigators make informed decisions about the Church. The website quoted from the missionary guide explaining that the missionaries’ objective was to get investigators to make and keep commitments, leading to baptism. I correctly explained that if the investigators own objective was to figure out if the Church’s truth claims were actually true, they’d need to do more research than merely following the learning path the missionaries gave. However, I didn’t attempt to “speak for” the Church, and I didn’t try to explain its point of view. I suggested that if you were interested in giving this a fair shake, you had to call up the missionaries and hear what they had to say. I told them to really listen to what the missionaries said. They had to read the book of Mormon. They had to pray. I gave them the missionary referral phone number. I told them to be very nice to the missionaries. But I also explained the missionaries’ sales tactics (i.e. the Commitment Pattern), so they would be prepared for the commitments the missionaries were going to spring on them and would be able to make informed decisions about whether or not to make the commitment. The bulk of the website was quoting what the missionaries were to teach the investigators, word for word (this was in the days of the 6 pastel discussions that were supposed to be taught very closely). That should settle whether I’m a good source of information to speak for the Church--I quoted what the Church wanted investigators to hear, word for word. I laid it all out in writing so people could carefully study it and think about it. In addition to quoting what the Church wanted investigators to hear, I laid out everything that the Church didn’t want investigators to hear--I explained why many people think the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham aren’t translations of authentic ancient records. I explained the history of blacks and the priesthood. And I gave links to apologetic resources that had the alleged “answers” to these concerns. And I told investigators the truth about garments and the temple. And I gave the investigators links to apologist websites and their responses to my criticisms. And I made an open invitation to apologists that if they thought something I said was wrong, I would prominently link to their rebuttal. I said if their rebuttal wasn’t on the Internet, I would host it. A few people took me up on that. In a nutshell, I gave the investigators a way to give the Church and the missionaries a fair shake without being manipulated by making them aware of all the issues so they would know what the issues were and could consider the opinions of both sides. The Church really didn’t like my website. Their attorneys sent me a long, detailed cease and desist letter threatening to sue me for copyright violation on dozens of counts. When the Church sues you for quoting them too extensively with the exact messages they want the missionaries to tell investigators, you should feel confident that you are speaking accurately “for the Church”. Edited July 12 by Analytics 1
Calm Posted July 12 Posted July 12 3 hours ago, Teancum said: On second thought I think I ought not delve into the topic of my Marine son's view on the military. Given he is still serving airing things that may reflect negatively on a public message board does not seem prudent. I think that wise given your name is known. 1
Teancum Posted July 12 Posted July 12 2 hours ago, Calm said: I think that wise given your name is known. Yes. And on Social Media I have had some refer to my Marine son when they were trying to make a political point and he has said he does not like it very much when people bring his name into things that don't know where he stands. So, yes best not to detail things out. He is still in active service. 1
smac97 Posted July 15 Author Posted July 15 (edited) On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: This thread has made me think about a lot of stuff I haven’t thought about in years and to reevaluate things that I’ve said and done, and this comment seems really weird to me, and I find it quite ironic. My signature line is taken from a Ralph Waldo Emerson essay and describes what I talk about--on this forum I “testify” of my own experience and views; nothing more. In my interactions with @smac97 , he has never heard me say anything “for Mormonism.” Poppycock. You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light. One instance that comes to mind is when you presumed to tell us what Terryl Givens believes about The Book of Mormon {EDIT: Analytics' mischaracterization of Givens pertained to what he (Givens) believes about The Pearl of Great Price}, which is that "Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud ... {a} beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless." On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: That being the case, on what basis can he judge whether I’d do so accurately? Many years of reading what you say about us. On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: In a nutshell, I gave the investigators a way to give the Church and the missionaries a fair shake without being manipulated by making them aware of all the issues so they would know what the issues were and could consider the opinions of both sides. The Church really didn’t like my website. Their attorneys sent me a long, detailed cease and desist letter threatening to sue me for copyright violation on dozens of counts. The Church protected its copyright, which you were apparently violating. That has little to do with the merits of what you were trying to prove/disprove by violating copyright. On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: When the Church sues you for quoting them too extensively with the exact messages they want the missionaries to tell investigators, you should feel confident that you are speaking accurately “for the Church”. I do not think you fairly or accurately characterize the Church on this board. I have no reason to suppose this extends to other instances of you making representations about the Church to third parties in other venues. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 16 by smac97 2
Analytics Posted July 15 Posted July 15 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Poppycock. You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light. One instance that comes to mind is when you presumed to tell us what Terryl Givens believes about The Book of Mormon, which is that "Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a frau ... {a} beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless." Let me get this straight. About four and half years ago, I recommended a podcast that analyzes a book written by Terryl Givens, and compare what he actually said to the orthodox teachings of the Church. I summarized the podcasters provocative claim that while Givens does his best to put a positive spin on the details, he concedes many of the anti-Mormon points found on “big lists.” I gave a link to the podcast, which quotes extensively from the book. The reader is free to listen to the podcast, consider the arguments, and make up their own mind. At no point did I tell you (singular) or you (plural) what you believe. In a subsequent post, I explained what my point was. I said, I'm responding to Smac97's misguided view that apologists have the intellectual high ground and that if somebody's spiritual journey happens to lead away from the church, it is probably because they weren't intellectual enough and didn't give the religion they had lived for their entire lives a "fair hearing" by reading enough Jeff Lindsay et.al. In no way was I telling you (plural) what you believe, much less in a way that was distorted, caricaturish, or unfair. If you think I was, you’re projecting. After all, You started that thread by accusing written explanations of why people don’t believe as being "full of cheap shots presented for shock value. Presentism. Facile criticism. Misrepresentation by omission and distortion. A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized. Sarcasm. No effort to study or meaningfully understand." 3
Calm Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: At no point did I tell you (singular) or you (plural) what you believe. Aren’t you telling smac in the above quote that he believes “that apologists have the intellectual high ground and that if somebody's spiritual journey happens to lead away from the church, it is probably because they weren't intellectual enough and didn't give the religion they had lived for their entire lives a "fair hearing" by reading enough Jeff Lindsay et.al.”? when you say “this is his view”, how is that not making a claim about what someone believes? (not being confrontational here, trying to understand your point) Edited July 15 by Calm 2
let’s roll Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: on this forum I “testify” of my own experience and views; nothing more. On 7/12/2024 at 10:45 AM, Analytics said: And I told investigators the truth about garments and the temple. I believe your representations that accuracy is important to you, so since I don’t think these two statements align, I trust you meant that you wrote of your experience and views and “nothing more” about the garment and the temple. Also you first mentioned that the Church threatened to sue you on multiple occasions and then say “when the Church sues you…” Did the Church sue you? If so, would you mind sharing how the suit was resolved? Edited July 15 by let’s roll 1
Analytics Posted July 16 Posted July 16 18 hours ago, Calm said: Aren’t you telling smac in the above quote that he believes “that apologists have the intellectual high ground and that if somebody's spiritual journey happens to lead away from the church, it is probably because they weren't intellectual enough and didn't give the religion they had lived for their entire lives a "fair hearing" by reading enough Jeff Lindsay et.al.”? when you say “this is his view”, how is that not making a claim about what someone believes? (not being confrontational here, trying to understand your point) As far as I can tell, that isn’t an example of what Smac is talking about. In what you quoted, I was making a good-faith effort to summarize his position with the objective I explaining why I didn’t agree with it. If I misunderstood him, he had an implicit invitation to clarify what he meant. Doing that is part of the normal conversation process and is different than the allegation that I “regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light." Seriously, that is pretty weird and doesn’t even make sense. Why would I argue with you (plural) about what you believe? And If I did regularly do such a thing, how come the only example @smac97 can find is four and a half years old, and isn’t even an example of what he is accusing? He is projecting. 3
Analytics Posted July 16 Posted July 16 18 hours ago, let’s roll said: I believe your representations that accuracy is important to you, so since I don’t think these two statements align, I trust you meant that you wrote of your experience and views and “nothing more” about the garment and the temple. Actually, what I said was correct. I made a good-faith effort to fairly and objectively describe the ceremony and the covenants that were made. As far as I recall, I didn’t say anything that wasn’t objectively true. The only personal view I recall saying was my belief that investigators might want to be aware of these things before joining the Church so they’d know what they are getting into. 18 hours ago, let’s roll said: Also you first mentioned that the Church threatened to sue you on multiple occasions and then say “when the Church sues you…” Did the Church sue you? If so, would you mind sharing how the suit was resolved? In July 2002, the attorneys for Intellectual Reserve Inc. sent a DMCA take-down notice to my internet service provider that had a list of perhaps 30 or 40 specific URLs that it alleged contained copyright information, and they demanded that it be taken down immediately. My ISP forwarded the notice to me and asked me to take care of it ASAP. I picked up the phone and called the attorney who sent the letter, and told her that while I thought my usage of the material qualified as fair-use, I’d comply with their request. A couple of months later, they sent another DMCA take-down notice with a few more alleged copyright violations. I remember one of the things they threatened to sue me over was a depiction of the golden plates that they claimed was protected by copyright. Again, I complied.
smac97 Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 3 hours ago, Analytics said: As far as I can tell, that isn’t an example of what Smac is talking about. It is. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In what you quoted, I was making a good-faith effort to summarize his position with the objective I explaining why I didn’t agree with it. If I misunderstood him, he had an implicit invitation to clarify what he meant. Doing that is part of the normal conversation process and is different than the allegation that I “regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light." You materially distorted Terryl Givens. You presumed to speak for him and tell us what he really believes about The Pearl of Great Price: Quote A recent episode is called "The Amazingly Subversive Terryl Givens," which goes through Givens's latest book and shows how it is subversive in the sense that it contains dozens of concessions of anti-Mormon claims that you'd find on a "big list." Givens thinks the end result is beautiful and expresses it all from a perspective of admiration in erudite language, but if you have the patience and intellect to read what he is actually saying and compare it to what the church teaches in manuals and in conference, then one inescapably comes to the conclusion that Givens is admitting it isn't true--it is a fraud. A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless. Listen to the podcast. "{W}hat he is actually saying," you said. "{O}ne inescapably comes to the conclusion," you said. "Givens is admitting it {The Pearl of Great Price} isn't true--it is a fraud," you said. "A beautiful inspiring fraud for Givens, but a fraud nonetheless," you said." "Listen to the podcast," you said. And the response from (the notably Latter-day Saint) Givens to your representations about him: "{P}atently false." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: Seriously, that is pretty weird and doesn’t even make sense. Why would I argue with you (plural) about what you believe? I have not said you "argue" with us about what we believe. I have said: "You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light." 3 hours ago, Analytics said: And If I did regularly do such a thing, how come the only example @smac97 can find is four and a half years old, and isn’t even an example of what he is accusing? It was the one that came immediately to mind. It was also one of the more egregious instances of you presuming to tell others what a Latter-day Saint believes. 3 hours ago, Analytics said: He is projecting. To an extent, you are correct. I acknowledge that I sometimes step in and state what I think folks like you think about the Restored Gospel, the Church that houses it, its leaders, its members, etc. Having spent years reading your critiques of and disparagements of and insults to my faith, I have become accustomed to putting some distance between your characterizations and caricatures of our beliefs and actions and such and what I perceive to be our actual beliefs and actions and such. I do not trust you to accurately or fairly describe and characterize our faith when you are speaking directly to us about such things. All the more reason, then, to be skeptical that you can be trusted to accurately/fairly describe our faith to third parties when we are absent (such as you apparently did to Steve Hassan). Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted July 16 Posted July 16 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have not said you "argue" with us about what we believe. I have said: "You regularly presume to speak for us and tell us what we believe, think, teach, etc., often in ways that are distorted, caricaturish, unfair, etc. You often do so by casting us in the worst possible light." If this were true, you would be able to provide multiple examples to prove that I “regularly” do this. As it is, the best you got is one post where I am attempting to summarize somebody’s analysis of a book that a Latter-day Saint wrote. 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: To an extent, you are correct. I acknowledge that I sometimes step in and state what I think folks like you think about the Restored Gospel, the Church that houses it, its leaders, its members, etc. Yes, and you do so in a distorted, unfair way that paints us in the worst possible light. You are flagrantly doing that in the Givens thread. You are flagrantly doing so now. 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: Having spent years reading your critiques of and disparagements of and insults to my faith, I have become accustomed to putting some distance between your characterizations and caricatures of our beliefs and actions and such and what I perceive to be our actual beliefs and actions and such. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: I do not trust you to accurately or fairly describe and characterize our faith when you are speaking directly to us about such things. You are free to imagine anything you want. 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: All the more reason, then, to be skeptical that you can be trusted to accurately/fairly describe our faith to third parties when we are absent (such as you apparently did to Steve Hassan). The real issue here isn’t whether you, personally, can trust me to accurately and fairly describe your church. The real issue is whether I did in fact accurately and fairly describe it. Here are the links: Answers for Church as a Whole https://web.archive.org/web/20050305222047/http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm Answers for the Missionary Program https://web.archive.org/web/20050405142831/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-missionary.htm You could read these links and tell me what you think about my answers. But why do that when you can just rely on your prejudice?
smac97 Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 23 minutes ago, Analytics said: If this were true, you would be able to provide multiple examples to prove that I “regularly” do this. In the moment of writing the prior post, I thought your tendencies were nearly so well established as to be self-evidently true. But, since you asked... 23 minutes ago, Analytics said: The real issue here isn’t whether you, personally, can trust me to accurately and fairly describe your church. Yes, that is the real issue. I am designating it as such. 23 minutes ago, Analytics said: The real issue is whether I did in fact accurately and fairly describe it. Here are the links: Answers for Church as a Whole https://web.archive.org/web/20050305222047/http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm Answers for the Missionary Program https://web.archive.org/web/20050405142831/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-missionary.htm You could read these links and tell me what you think about my answers. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) 2 hours ago, Analytics said: You could read these links and tell me what you think about my answers. This was meant to be just the missionary program and not general membership, correct? The title is in error? It however reads as applying to general in quite a few answers, so I am confused. commenting on stuff I disagree significantly on, not commenting where I agree or see as reasonable even if I don’t agree. I am going to post stuff that doesn’t match general experience in my view since enough seem to apply, I am going to assume the title is correct especially since in at least one case you differentiate between missionary and general. Quote Otherwise conservative dress and colors are strongly encouraged. Disagree, never heard teachings on color and as long as modest and not vulgar, haven’t been told what to wear outside of church. below, maybe missionaries, but not general outside of encouraging people to be healthy Quote Early to bed, early to rise. Quote Dedication tends to be rewarded in the form of leadership roles. Not from what I have seen generally speaking. I would be interested to hear what others think. Quote Rigid rules and regulations Generally, yes. Perception, imo… what is rigid to one person is natural to another and I have found over the years that application is more flexible than the talk. For example, one man who I consider one of the most rigid and uptight members I have known was called as a bishop and he allowed a friend who was an astrologer to be baptized and had no problem with him continuing his career as an astrologer as long as my friend approached it as more therapy than fortune telling, helping a person explore their own personality, etc. Then there are the many anecdotal stories surrounding prophets and their application of the WoW. Edited July 16 by Calm 2
Calm Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) Quote Keep members so busy they don’t have time to think Members have the opportunity to stay very busy with church work and activities. I think this was an inappropriate framing as being very busy has nothing to do with trying to limit time to think since we are encouraged to take time to study daily, etc. Quote The church has a big vault of historical information that they keep secret--even from scholars. Overstatement imo. Most archives (likely all of larger size) have tracking inventory issues, limit access to many, even scholars in some cases depending on conditions imposed by those who donate material, etc. You made it sound like all this information is secret and completely restricted except to top leaders and that the purpose of the vault is to hide such rather than protect records of all sorts, restricted and not. Quote It is my understanding that the top leaders of the church have their own ultra-secret temple rituals. “Ultra secret”? Quote Some important doctrines, such as the belief that God the Father was once a human being, are not taught to new members. This is taught to new members in the first opening paragraphs of Gospel Fundamentals as in he is a man with a perfect, immortal body. And it is explicit in the last part of the manual he was a human being on an earth at one time, “same as we do”. (pg 204) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31129_eng.pdf Similar info is in the general basic manual for new and old members, Gospel Principles. Edited July 16 by Calm 3
Calm Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) Quote Mormons generally believe that pure truth comes through revelation and the spirit rather than through rational analysis. I so disagree with this one. Why bother with “study” and “pondering” as part of seeking revelation if rational analysis is not part of the process? Quote Mormons generally believe that pure truth comes through revelation and the spirit rather than through rational analysis. They aren’t really against rational analysis per se, but they believe that the spirit trumps rational analysis when there is a contradiction. After all, the spirit gives the pure truth, while rational analysis only gives ever-changing theories. When there is a contradiction between revelation and rational thinking--for example when rational analysis shows that Joseph Smith mistranslated the Book of Abraham--the reaction of the believer can rightly be described as denial, rationalization, justification and wishful thinking This one really showed your own bias imo. Quote Yes. They are often instructed to sing a hymn to themselves if they have an impure or negative thought. Maybe as kids. I think I heard it personally taught once or twice. Quote 5. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate Absolutely. One of the solemn covenants of the temple is to never “speak ill of the Lord’s anointed”. Iffy on this one, depends on interpretation of “critical” imo and such reactions vary a lot. Edited July 16 by Calm 3
Calm Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Quote Manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings. Yes. If you are acting righteously then you will feel the spirit. Always strive to feel that particular feeling. But that doesn’t exclude other feelings. Quote . Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader’s or the group’s. Yes. The members aren’t perfect but the gospel and the organization of the church are perfect. Leaders might make mistakes, but they are given the benefit of the doubt. Overstatement imo Quote They tend to see themselves as extraordinarily special, being the tiny minority of people who were either chosen to be born into the church or were spiritually sensitive enough to recognize it as the true church. This self-image certainly puts the bar high and can lead to excessive guilt. Another overstatement imo Quote Any individual member of the family who doesn’t meet the rigorous requirements of righteousness will permanently breaks up the family unit. This ignores the frequent mention that faithful parents need not fear for their children, starting with Elder Whitney: Quote The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/09/hope-for-parents-of-wayward-children?lang=eng#p7 2
Calm Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) Quote his very popular book “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, a late prophet of the church said, An equally (I am guessing from what I saw from book sales even ten years after it was published) popular book (number one bestseller in the Church for a number of years), Believing Christ by Robinson (1992), provided another version of our teachings, though I recognize it wasn’t authored by a prophet, so not as authoritative, but certainly accepted as teaching great truths by many from what I saw. Recommended by bishops and other leaders from what I heard. Quote Fear of thinking independently Thomas S. Monson, the number two man in the church, recently said in a church magazine, "Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith... I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.” (Ensign, Feb 2001) Overstatement imo, the quote applies to a very limited set of thoughts…while the heading is very general. Quote Extremes of emotional highs and lows. I don’t know how to measure this. I would guess not. But it might be pertinent that Utah leads the nation in Prozac use. I think you misinterpreted this in that manipulation can occur through pushing someone to feel highly elated and/or despairing. Activities that create a state of euphoria for example might be seen as useful in a “cult” as it creates altered mental states where someone may be highly suggestible. Taking Prozac controls extreme feeling, removes the highs and lows, so if anything it would demonstrate LDS don’t depend on emotional extremes to control. Quote Ritual and often public confession of "sins". Confession is in a business-like interview. Not really a ritual. It might be before a council around a big board room table, but it is confidential outside of that arena. But the vast majority of time it’s one on one. Quote No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group Absolutely. So disagree there…maybe there is an impression for some for eternally speaking, but even then we teach the non celestial Kingdoms are glorious and everyone is content with where they are at. Quote b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc. Absolutely. In a particular scene in the temple ceremony, the devil is about to be banished. Before he is, he says, “Aah! You have looked over my kingdom, and my greatness and glory. Now you want to take possession of the whole of it. (He then looks at the people going through the ceremony) I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power! “ Oh please…way off here, as if this one temple scene above is constantly pushed everywhere in the Church or is even comparable to what most people think of for demon possession or even hell or any of the list given. Quote Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family. Yes. If you leave, you won’t be able to attend the wedding of your children (assuming they are married in the temple). Again, oh please…again way off, one instance of restriction of access is not shunning. Not saying it wasn’t excluding from a major event and I am so glad they don’t penalize anymore for having the wedding first which is what I always wished it had been and was, leave the temple purely for sealings so it only involves the closest and is intimate rather than the couple barely has time for each other, but I was obedient, faithful, attending all my meetings and etc and I couldn’t attend my older siblings’ weddings either. Was I being shunned or rejected? Edited July 16 by Calm 2
let’s roll Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) 6 hours ago, Analytics said: Answers for Church as a Whole https://web.archive.org/web/20050305222047/http://freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-Mormonism.htm Answers for the Missionary Program https://web.archive.org/web/20050405142831/http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/mormon/BITE-missionary.htm You could read these links and tell me what you think about my answers. I read both. Since the questions posed call for opinions regarding subjective topics, and not objective facts, your opinions are just that. I understand that the responses were given for a narrow purpose and wouldn’t say anyone reading the responses would glean much of an understanding of the Church. When you used quotes from Church leaders you generally didn’t try to characterize the quotes, which is good, but using a single quote on any topic gives a narrow snapshot rather than a rounded, nuanced overview of the topic. The responses also lack context that would be helpful…something like (if the responses were given today), the Church has over 14 million members, over half of whom live outside of North America. Local congregations are led by lay leaders who are changed at regular intervals. The following responses reflect my experience within the Church as well as my understanding of generally held beliefs and opinions of other members with whom I am familiar. Each individual’s experience in the Church is unique. Such context would have mitigated the problem with a number of the responses such as this one: Missionary life is often characterized by a few bursts of inspiration and success surrounded by months and months of drudgery. I’ve spent 3 1/2 years in the mission field and wouldn’t characterize any of that time as drudgery. Additionally, if your answer describes your mission experience, I’d be interested in hearing about your “bursts of inspiration.” Also, I noted that you responded to a number of the questions with “depends on the individual.” I think that response would have been the best one for many of the topics. Best regards. Edited July 17 by let’s roll 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now